Pakistan says India is likely to launch strikes against them...

 

The India/Pakistan Border. Reuters. 

Pakistan has said that India is likely to launch strikes against them. Reuters. Tensions have skyrocketed after a major terror attack in Kashmir left 26 people dead. Pakistan said they had intelligence that India was likely to strike in a day or two. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on both sides to reduce tensions but it is unclear if a conflict will be avoided. Despite the tensions, a weekly de-escalation call between the two nuclear powers went on as planned. Small arms fire has been exchanged for the past six days, though nobody has been injured or killed. 

My Comment:

As of this writing no strikes have been launched. I think it's still possible that cooler heads will prevail but that seems pretty unlikely, even with the diplomatic pressure on both India and Pakistan to not have a fight. But I also think that a full scale war is also unlikely. 

I do think that India will have to respond in some way. They lost a lot of face in this terror attack and they are under extreme pressure from their own people to make some kind of response. Folks are extremely upset that one of the nicer places in India was attacked like this. To not offer any kind of military response would probably cause more disruption than any skirmish would cause. 

I am not expecting a major war. Neither side really wants that and obviously nobody wants to take a risk of being nuked. Both sides have mobilized a ton of troops but I haven't seen much in the way of preparation for a major strike. 

I also don't think the diplomatic channels that are open right now would be if a major war was actually going to happen. The fact that the de-escalation line is not only still open, but is being used routinely tells me that there isn't going to be some kind of massive invasion of Pakistan by India. 

That doesn't mean that there won't be some kind of reaction though. It just won't be a huge war. My guess is that India will launch some kind of strike package against Pakistan, specifically at the bases of the terrorists. It's unclear what this attack would look like though. 

Normally I would think it would be airstrikes but that didn't work out well for India during the last time the two powers fought. India lost one of their antiquated (and now retired) MIG-21's in the skirmish and I think that's a possibility this time around too. Pakistan does have a good Air Force with modern planes and I think they could give India major problems if they tried to launch air strikes. 

Instead, I think this will probably be an artillery duel. India will hit the bases they can with their artillery and Pakistan will shell them in return. A few people will die and that will be the end of it. At most there will be an air battle, which is again unlikely. Maybe a border skirmish or two. But no full scale war. 

If a major war were to happen though, my main fear would be the refugee crisis it would cause. Being forced to accept millions of Indian and Pakistani refugees would not... be good. It's the best argument for peace I can think of and I do think it's a major reason why folks are trying to end this conflict diplomatically before an actual war happens. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends judge who assisted an illegal immigrant in fleeing.

 

Judge Hannah Dugan at a pro-Ukraine rally. AP.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Judge Hannah Dugan who was arrested by the FBI after attempting to assist an illegal immigrant in fleeing from a warrant. AP. The court said that the move was to protect public confidence in the courts as Dugan's criminal case works its way through the justice system and said there was no outside influence in the decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is split 4-3 with liberals in control. Judge Dugan attempted to assist an illegal immigrant charged with domestic violence who was appearing in her court. When ICE arrived to arrest him, Dugan became upset and tried to sneak the illegal immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, out through the jury exit, but was caught. The FBI arrested her for this on Friday and the case became a cause celebre for the Democrats. Dugan was charged with one felony for obstructing an US agency and one misdemeanor for concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. 

My Comment:

I was going to comment on this case before but I was busy this weekend and didn't have the time. But since it's back in the news again and this is a pretty big development, I thought I would write about it now. Despite what the Democrats and media have said, this suspension seems to vindicate the opinion that she should absolutely not be on the bench after what she did. 

 Is that really the case though? Not really. From what I understand it's pretty typical to suspend a judge after they have been arrested and it isn't really the Supreme Court saying that she's guilty or anything. It's pretty much what they have to do. It's a procedural thing, not a vindication. 

But I do think that it is notable that the Supreme Court stuck with the order even though they knew that the Democrats would not be happy with it. The fact that they did their jobs correctly should be seen as a blow to those that would prefer them to not do their jobs and just support Judge Dugan regardless of the circumstances. 

I absolutely think that Judge Dugan should have been arrested and charged and I do hope that she is convicted as well. It's absurd behavior to allow a man to flee from an arrest. Indeed, I kind of think that the illegal immigrant in this case, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz is a bit of a victim as well, as I doubt he had any idea that the judge was trying to help him evade arrest. Given that she was in a position of authority over him, this behavior was even more egregious. 

Not that I have a lot of respect for Mr. Flores-Ruiz. Not only was he here illegally, he was charged with domestic abuse. He hasn't been convicted of anything yet but he's absolutely not a respectable member of the community, especially since his immigration status is not in doubt. He absolutely should be deported. 

That's another reason why Judge Dugan's behavior is so beyond the pale. This was not a man that had any real right to be here and it not at all sympathetic. I'm more forgiving that most by saying that he's only been charged of a crime, not convicted, but most people won't make that distinction. The fact that the judge tried to let him run from the feds is just crazy. 

I can't see this reaction for basically any other crime. If a right wing judge were to do the same thing with ATF agents and suspect charged with federal gun crimes, the media and Democrats would be baying for blood. But because immigration is the hot button issue and the media wants to portray the Trump Administration as being bad, they tried to make this into a huge issue. 

I don't think it will work, like much of their hysteria against Trump hasn't worked. Folks know that the Judge absolutely exceeded her mandate here and there isn't going to be any sympathy for Flores-Ruiz either. It's not "fascism" to arrest a judge that very clearly committed a crime. Nobody outside of folks with serious Trump derangement syndrome are going to be upset by this case.  

Vladimir Putin declares a three day cease fire in May...

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fox News/AP.

Vladimir Putin has declared a three day cease fire in the fighting between Russia and Ukraine this May. Fox News. The cease fire would be between May 8th and May 10th, in celebration of the end of World War II. He invited Ukraine to observe the cease fire as well but said the Russian Armed Forces would respond to any attacks. Victory Day is the largest secular holiday and Russia and is a celebration of the victory against Nazi Germany. Russia has linked the war to the current conflict in Ukraine due to fascist supporters in Ukraine. It is unclear how much this will affect peace talks and Ukraine has said that they want more than a three day cease fire. 

My Comment:

The cynical out there say that this is just an effort to protect the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow. I would say to that, who would attack a military parade celebrating the end of Nazi Germany other than Nazis? If Ukraine is even thinking about attacking the Victory Day Parade it would be an act of insanity. If you want to unite even people opposed to the war against Ukraine, attacking a Victory Day Parade would be the way to do it. 

Regardless, I do think that this is mostly about Donald Trump. Putin has been under pressure to give something to Trump for his peace effort and this is probably it. A 3 day cease fire is better than nothing and it's probably all Russia is willing to give at this point given how fast their offensive is going right now. 

Ukraine has, predictably, rejected this and said that they want more and they want it now. As always, they are making perfect the enemy of good. Instead of getting any of what they want, they are going for a 30 day cease fire that they know Russia won't agree with. This is playing right into Putin's hands as he wants to appear to be the reasonable one. While Zelensky? He's clearly not. 

Will the cease fire even happen? I am guessing not. The last one was mostly for show, both sides violated it pretty frequently. It's possible that Ukraine will not launch any attacks on Russia during the cease fire, but I am not holding my breath. It's very possible that they will attack Russia during this time and forget about the fighting in Ukraine proper. I just don't think Zelensky is a rational actor. And I don't think Russia will let any attacks by Ukraine slide. 

I generally don't have high hopes of the peace process working and I think Donald Trump should just walk away and let Russia and Ukraine deal with it themselves. I have said for awhile that as long as Zelensky is at risk from being killed by his own people (or European intel services) if he cuts a deal with Putin, no deal with Putin is going to happen. 

And Putin? Again, why would he end the war when it's so very clear that he's winning it? About the only reason I can see is to please Trump, which would probably lead to the ending of sanctions and a trade deal with the United States. But that's only until Trump leaves office, and there is zero indication who is going to win in 2028, and it's very possible that a Democrat or pro-war Republican could win then and then it's right back to the status quo. Much better for him to just conquer enough of Ukraine to the point it's not a threat anymore. 

Massive immigration raid ends with the arrest of 114 illegal immigrants in Colorado Springs.

 

Various federal agents at the club. Fox News/Government Photo. 

A massive immigration raid has ended with the arrest of 114 illegal immigrants in Colorado Springs. Fox news. The raid occurred at an underground nightclub that was reportedly frequented by members of the Tren De Argua and MS13 gangs. The raid was conducted by the DEA and involved other agencies, including ICE, the FBI, the ATF, and even officials from the Postal Service and the IRS. The raid is another example of a whole government approach to illegal immigration and deportation. Drugs were found during the raid as well. Several active US military members were present during the raid as well, either as patrons of the club or moonlighting as security. The military members will be dealt with by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. 

My Comment:

Good to see some actual action being taken on immigration. This raid wasn't the biggest but it was targeting the right people. If the government is right and these folks were members of TDA or MS13 then they were bad people and I am glad they are likely to be deported. 

This was primarily a drug raid and it's not surprising that there was a lot of drugs found. Cocaine, Meth and "Pink Cocaine" (a mixture of multiple drugs, most commonly Ketamine and MDMA). Those are pretty obviously club drugs and I am guessing that is why this underground club had so many people at 3:00 in the morning. 

The majority of those taken in the raid will be deported. Assuming some activist judge doesn't prevent it from happening, that is to say. Either way, these folks are pretty bad people and I hope that they are returned to their home countries as soon as possible. There is no reason for these guys to be slinging drugs and partying it up at 3:00 in the morning. 

It's also pretty clear that this was a pretty huge operation. It almost seems like every government law enforcement agency was involved in this raid. It does show that the federal government isn't messing around when it comes to illegal immigration and foreign gangs. They are absolutely going to go after folks like TDA and MS13 if they decide to gather in large groups like this. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more raids in the State of Colorado, it has been a hotbed of illegal immigration and activity from those gangs. 

The presence of military members is pretty significant. Those folks are in serious trouble. I am guessing the folks that were just there will probably get an Article 15 for showing such bad judgement as to go to an illegal nightclub frequented by drug dealers and gang members. 

But the ones that will be in serious trouble will be the ones that were moonlighting as security guards or got arrested for drugs during the raid. Both of them would be court martial offenses and they might end up both going to prison and getting Court Martialed. 

The security guards are going to be in the most trouble. Some of them may have been carrying firearms, which is a violation as well. But the real problem is that by providing security for a club rife with criminality, they were actively participating in the crimes. Those folks are, in simple language, screwed, perhaps even more than the illegal immigrant gang members that were active in the club. I am not expecting a good outcome for any of the military members working as security guards. 

Regardless, I am glad that this raid happened. More should happen in the wake of it. These kinds of raids will have a chilling effect on illegal immigration and will encourage a lot of people to self deport. And it will also be a major message to anyone in our military, don't hang out with criminal gang members... 

India-Pakistan relations crater in wake of Kashmir terror attack.

 

An Indian man screams at a protest against Pakistan in Delhi. BBC/Reuters.

India and Pakistan are in the depths of a diplomatic crisis in the wake of the Kashmir terror attack that left 26 people dead. BBC. The attack involved four gunmen, three of which have been identified and two who are Pakistani citizens. India has blamed Pakistan for the attack and vowed to hunt down those responsible for it wherever they are. The men are members of the the Lashkar-e-Taiba, LeT, terror group. In response to the attack India and Pakistan have conducted tit for tat diplomatic moves, including closing borders, canceling visas, closing airspace and a suspension of trade. Most notably, India has withdrawn from the Indus Water Treaty, a water sharing treaty. Pakistan has said that any effort to divert or stop the flow of water would be considered an act of war... 

My Comment:

Things have developed quickly in the wake of the terror attack in Kashmir. Indeed, tensions are extremely high right now, almost as bad as the border skirmishes that involved artillery and jet battles between 2019 and 2021. War was avoided back then, but will it be again? 

I don't really have a horse in this race. I am not a fan of either country. How I think of it will depend on if India is right and Pakistan had a role in this attack. That would obviously be an act of war and would probably justify a conflict, given how there was a terrorist attack on Indian soil that targeted civilians. 

But did Pakistan help LeT do this attack? I have no idea. Pakistan has done some very shady things in the past, but I am also not prepared to take India's word for it. It certainly is possible, but I don't know if they did or not. Pakistan absolutely has ties to LeT, but did they direct this attack? It's pretty impossible for folks without state level intelligence services to know. 

Regardless, the real problem is that two nuclear armed countries are heading to a possible conflict. It seems likely that there will be some kind of military response to this terror attack and it doesn't help that there are a lot of people, like the man in the picture I used for this post, that are extremely upset by the attack and are braying for war. To be fair, if there was involvement of the Pakistani government, I would be angry too. And at the very least, Pakistan does allow LeT to operate in their borders. 

A full scale war is unlikely and a nuclear exchange is even less likely than that, for what should be obvious reasons. Neither side wants a real war and I don't think either side is prepared for what they would need to do to win such a conflict. 

What is likely is some kind of strike against the camps that house these terror groups. That's how it played out in 2019. Folks were pretty worried about a war back then, but in the end it was a few skirmishes and not much happened other than an antiquated MIG-21 Bison getting shot down. That's what I am assuming will happen now. India will probably launch an air raid, with possible artillery strikes as well, and Pakistan will respond. 

But after that happens I expect both sides will see honor satisfied and will end it there. Like I said, nobody wants to see a major war between nuclear powers, and that includes India and Pakistan. I think there will be a response but I am not expecting a full scale war. And once that response is over, things will go back to status quo ante. 

The one thing that does give me pause is the suspension of the water treaty. If India were to restrict or redirect flow of their rivers towards Pakistan, it would be a major escalation and one that actually could lead to a major war. Pakistan correctly said it would be an act of war and there absolutely would be a response to that. I personally think it's just an empty threat, but it is something to keep an eye on... 

Trump slams Zelensky for rejecting peace deal over Crimea.

 

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff (left) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. NBC News/AFP. 

President Donald Trump has slammed President Zelensky of Ukraine over rejecting peace deal over recognition of Crimea. NBC News. Trump said a deal was "very close" but efforts were derailed by Zelensky's refusal to recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Russia took over Crimea in 2014 and their ownership of the area has not been seriously contested since then. Zelensky refused to recognize that and has said that giving up Ukraine's claim to Crimea is against their constitution. Trump has shown considerable frustration with Zelensky and said it was harder to deal with him than President Putin of Russia. High end talks ended without an agreement as Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio pulled out of talks in response to Zelensky. 

My Comment:

Once again, it seems that certain people are too stubborn to actually end a war. Zelensky should take the deal he is being offered here, it's not a bad one and one that is better than he deserves. If I understand correctly, Zelensky would only lose the parts of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia, and would even get some territory back in the Kharkov region. It's not a great deal, but considering the reality of the battlefield, it's better than they should get. 

It's also insane that they sticking point is Crimea, of all things. Ukraine's claim on Crimea is laughable, it only held onto it because of the Soviets giving it to them and a good relationship with post-Soviet Russia. They lost it in 2014 and there has been no real possibility of them getting it back. Though nothing is impossible, I can't see how Ukraine has any chance of taking the territory back. And the people of Crimea? They are Russians and certainly don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. It's been 11 years already, recognizing Russia owns Crimea is just a recognition of reality. 

But Zelensky won't do it. He's using the same excuse for not doing so as not having elections. The constitution. That seems like a trivial thing if it means ending a huge war that they are currently losing. I think Zelensky is just using it as an excuse. 

Why? Because I have said for a long time that Zelensky doesn't want the war to end. He knows he is losing but he is trapped. If he ends the war, he has to hold an election, an election he will use. And he is at threat from the other factions in the war. 

Like I have said for awhile now, Zelensky is torn between what Trump wants, what Russia wants, what Europe wants and what the hard core Banderites in his won government want. A peace deal would please Trump and maybe Russia, but both Europe and the Banderites would be willing and able to kill him if he goes along with it. 

Russia is the obvious winner here as it absolutely looks like Trump is going to wash his hands of the war entirely. It's possible they will still get a peace deal that will be acceptable, nothing I saw in the deal seemed like a deal breaker, but it's more likely that Russia will be able to achieve all of their goals if Zelensky won't deal. And, outside of the people that hate Russia no matter what, Russia looks like the more reasonable party. At least they are willing to talk. 

So is Trump willing to wash his hands of Ukraine? I think he is. Trump's main concerns are domestic issues and I know the man hates stupid wars. He thinks, correctly, that Ukraine was Joe Biden's mistake and though it would stoke his ego to make a grand peace deal, he also knows when to walk away. And I think that time is probably now. 

I would also say that if Ukraine doesn't make a deal, they will be in serious trouble soon. Every sign is that Russia is getting ready for a major offensive. Ukraine might be as well, but they don't have anywhere near the troops and equipment left to fight the war. Russia is slowly but steadily advancing and Ukraine isn't really able to stop them... 

Two dozen people killed in a terrorist attack in Kashmir, in India.

 

Soldiers stand guard at a hospital in the region. BBC/EPA

At least 24 people have been killed in a terrorist attack in the Kashmir region of India. BBC. The attack happened in Pahalgam, a popular tourist spot. The attackers looked for non-Muslims to kill. The area has been cordoned off and police and soldiers are looking for suspected militants. Kashmir was divided after the United Kingdom left the region and it has been a hotbed of violence since. Prime Minster Modi has said violence has decreased but this attack is one of the larger more recent ones. It's also one of the few to target tourists in the region. 500,000 Indian troops are constantly deployed to the region, both due to the terror threat and tensions with Pakistan. 

My Comment:

Another terror attack by Muslim radicals, this time targeting India. It's unclear, at least from this article, if these attackers were local insurgents or part of a wider terror network but what is clear that this was an effective terror attack. It seems that they were able to kill a large number of people and also managed to get away. As of this writing the suspect(s) are not in custody and there could be follow up attacks. 

It's also clear that the attackers were targeting non-Muslims. It's unclear if the victims were Hindus or Sikhs, the report only says that non-Muslims were singled out for death. It's also probably significant that the targets were tourists. The region depends on tourists, or at least Pahalgam does. It's a popular tourism spot and I am guessing that folks will stay away now.  

I don't really have a whole lot of respect for the response from India of this attack, at least in terms of counter terror operations. India has strict gun laws so no civilians could defend themselves. But the thousands of troops and police didn't seem to be able to do much to stop this attack. From the information I have it seems likely that they arrived after the attack was done. 

Is this part of a pattern of a larger return to Islamic terrorism? I don't know. I don't think India really translates to the rest of the world. Their situation is unique and the main terror groups that are active in the country aren't really active anywhere else. And the terror groups that do target the west, like ISIS, are not really present in India in large numbers. 

That isn't to say that there isn't a return to a large number of Islamic terror attacks. There have been quite a few in Europe at least and I would not be surprised if more happen soon. With much of the world distracted by the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, it's possible that resources that had been used to fight these terror groups are being used elsewhere. 

As for India, I think this attack will probably embolden the Hindus. They have been fairly harsh against religious minorities for awhile now and Modi is a big reason why. It's not really surprising if that happens though, it's a fairly understandable response to a terror attack like this. 

Yet another cease fire proposal in the Israel-Hamas war...

 

A bomb blast in Gaza. BBC/Reuters. 

A new cease fire plan has been proposed to end the war between Israel and Hamas. BBC. The plan was proposed by Qatari and Egyptian mediators and would propose an actual formal end to the war. A five or seven year truce would be included and Israel would withdraw and release prisoners while Hamas released all remaining hostages and bodies held. The proposal comes after Israel's last proposal, that required disarmament, was rejected. It is unclear if the proposal will be accepted by both sides of the conflict, though Hamas has supposedly shown "flexibility" when it comes to ending the war. 

My Comment:

Another slow news day, which means I have to talk about the Israel-Hamas conflict yet again. I could have wrote about the Pope's death, but I didn't have much to say about that. And this story could be important. 

Could is the key word there. I am doubtful that either side will accept this deal. Israel probably wants Hamas to disarm, which is impossible. That was the sticking point in the last peace proposal and Hamas rejected it. 

Hamas could reject it because if they release their remaining hostages they no longer have any leverage over Israel whatsoever. Getting their prisoners back would be a good thing for them, but they have been extremely reluctant to give up those hostages. 

But I also think that both sides should really consider ending the war. Obviously Hamas has largely been defeated militarily and continuing the fighting doesn't accomplish anything but get more of their people killed. And there have been signs that the people of Gaza are getting sick and tired of the conflict continuing and are blaming Hamas for it, not Israel. 

And Israel? They have way too much on their plate and Hamas has become a public relations nightmare for them. Israel has issues in Syria, issues with the Houthis in Yemen, issues with Turkey and are threatening war with Iran. And all of that is while they are still in heavy combat in Gaza. At some point enough is enough and they have to make some kind of peace. And if they do they could also probably end the war with the Houthis as well. 

Of course the public relations nightmare is a mess for them as well. Making a peace deal would probably restore a bit of their public image. How anyone has any sympathy for Hamas and the people of Gaza that put them into power after October 7th is beyond me, but it's absolutely true that Israel has had a massive public relations nightmare because of this war. 

Still, this war has made a bit of a cynic out of me, along with the Russia-Ukraine war. Both Israel and Hamas would benefit from a cease fire, but will they listen to reason? I have no idea. Doing so would be a huge boon for everyone but I just don't see it happening as of yet. Hopefully I am wrong.  

Trump stopped an Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear program and will attempt diplomacy instead.

 

President Donald Trump and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. Newsweek/AP.

President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear program and chose to attempt diplomacy instead. Newsweek. Israel was planning a joint raid on Iran to be launched as soon as this May. After months of internal debate, Trump decided that diplomacy was the better option, and has opened up talks with Iran. Without US support it is unlikely that Israel will be able to strike Iran as the attack would require US assets. Israel had wanted to set back Iran's nuclear programs. It is unclear if diplomacy will work or not, as there is a wide gulf between Iran and the United States, but talks have been described as positive. However, nuclear enrichment appears to be a sticking point. 

The report originally came from the New York Times (archive).

My Comment:

The New York Times report is dramatically longer and more detailed than the one in Newsweek, but because it is usually paywalled I used Newsweek instead. If you want more details though, I provided an archive link to the article as well. 

As for the story, it does show how Trump is a very different President than he is accused of. There were many during his original campaign that said that Trump was going to be a warmonger for reasons I never understood. Instead, Trump has always appeared to support diplomacy over war. 

It also shows that certain critics are legitimately wrong about Trump. I'm not talking about the lefties that hate Trump no matter what, but the far right that have long accused Trump of being a slave to Israel. These folks call him "Zion Don" and today they have quite a bit of egg on their face. Indeed, Trump essentially vetoed Israel on these strikes. 

It does sound like there was a pretty fierce debate about this in the Trump White House. JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Susie Wiles were all on the oppose side while Mike Walz was more in favor of the strikes. It appears that the dove faction won over the hawk faction, and it helps that Trump himself is a lot more reluctant to launch strikes. 

But even Watlz was pretty skeptical that Israel could actually accomplish their goals, even with US help, with the weapons they have. Getting rid of Israel's nuclear program would be a hard ask in the first place and there was real fear that any attack could lead to major reprisals across the Middle East. Though Iran is in a weakened state and they have lost a lot of their strongest allies, they are still a modern country with a powerful military and proxy groups across the Middle East. 

Of course, diplomacy is going to be pretty difficult. Iran is unlikely to give up their nuclear weapons program. I think they feel they need the weapons because Israel has them, unofficially. If they were to stop developing these weapons they would still be at a major disadvantage in any serious war against Israel. 

But I don't think it's a coincidence that this story came out right as negotiations are starting. Like the deployment of those B-2 Bombers to Diego Garcia, this is a message to Iran. The Trump administration is telling them in no uncertain terms that they could have faced a major conflict and this is probably their last, best, chance for peace. 

Will Iran listen? If they are rational actors, then sure. Nobody wants a major war in the Middle East, outside of the most deranged warmongers. But the leadership of countries are often not rational actors. It's the only reason I can understand why Hamas is still fighting in Gaza and why Ukraine didn't stick with the cease fire proposal they were offered early in the war. Will Iran be smarter than that? Only time will tell... 

Hamas again rejects a cease fire proposal in Gaza.

 

Hamas during a prisoner exchange. Fox News/Getty.

Hamas has again rejected a cease fire proposal in Gaza. Fox News. The deal would have had Israel allow humanitarian aid and 45 day cease fire in exchange for 11 hostages and Hamas disarming their weapons. However, Hamas said that disarmament was a red line for them and would not agree to any deal with it as a condition. 24 living hostages are thought to remain alive in Gaza, though there are unconfirmed reports than one of them is now missing. Several bodies remain in the control of Hamas as well. Israel has stepped up attacks in Gaza after a previous cease fire deal fell apart. 

My Comment:

I'm of two minds of this. I think the situation in Gaza is bad enough that Hamas should take basically any deal that the Israelis are willing to offer them. They have lost the war, for sure, and all their continued fighting is accomplishing is more death and destruction. 

On the other hand, I don't think this was a serious offer. It would make little sense for Hamas to lay down their arms without a full peace deal for reasons that should be obvious. I have ideological objections to people giving up arms in the first place, but I can't see Hamas actually giving up weapons under any circumstances, short of a total peace deal, which isn't likely to happen. 

It does make me wonder why Israel put that into their deal. I am guessing they wanted this particular offer to be rejected, probably because they are under pressure, from both President Trump and the international community, to actually end the war. If they put up a deal that looks reasonable on it's face, and this one was, it's on Hamas when they reject it. 

I do think that this will increase the pressure on Hamas to actually make a deal though. They can't just keep rejecting everything the Israelis do, at some point they either have to face destruction or capitulation. 

Keep in mind that Israel has effectively blockaded the Gaza Strip, to the point where very little aid is getting in. Hamas is running out of supplies and food, an may already be out of fuel. There are signs that the folks in Gaza are also getting sick of Hamas and their failure to come to a deal. There had been some public protests and if folks can't feed themselves anymore then they will start to put pressure on Hamas to quit the war. 

I still have zero sympathy for Hamas. They started a brutal war they couldn't win and they have continued it well beyond the point where any sane person would have ended it. They are also radical Muslims and I consider them to be enemies of far more than just Israel. The only way they could even attempt to redeem themselves is to end the war... 

Will that happen anytime soon? I guess it's possible. Supposedly Hamas is readying a counter offer which has a possibility of working. But my guess is much like how NATO views Ukraine, Hamas is willing to "defend" Gaza to the last man there, no matter what the folks in Gaza think. My hope is that the people of Gaza will finally say enough is enough and get rid of Hamas themselves...  

Suspect in murder of Austin Metcalf, Karmelo Anthony, released on bail..

 

Prosecutor Greg Willis speaks about the case. Dallas Morning News

The suspect in the murder of Austin Metcalf, Karmelo Anthony, has been released on bail after a judge reduced the amount. Dallas Morning News. Anthony was arrested for the murder of Austin Metcalf at a track event. Metcalf was White while Anthony was Black. Metcalf had asked Anthony to leave and Anthony talked back, saying “Touch me and see what happens”. Metcalf reportedly put his hands on Anthony and in response Metcalf stabbed him and he died in his twin brothers arms. Anthony was held under $1 million bail but his defense team argued that it was too high. When asked why they couldn't pay the defense attorney said that Anthony's family needed the more than $415,000 raised for his defense to survive as Anthony's father was on leave from work. The bond was released to $250,000 and Anthony was released on house arrest and had an ankle monitor attached. Both men involved in this case were 17. 

My Comment:

This case has made the news on social media but not much has been said in the actual media. Normally a case like this would not be that important, but it is one of those criminal cases that both hits on race and the ideas of self defense. Had these two 17 year olds been the same race or any other combination of races I doubt it would have gone further than a local news story. 

We don't live in that world though and the response to this case has been fairly predictable. The Black community has largely rallied for Karmelo Anthony, despite the facts of the case, and they have gotten support from a lot of White leftists. Everyone else seems rather puzzled that anyone would support Antony's claims of self defense. 

My understanding of Texas law is not complete but from what I do understand this wouldn't be self-defense at all. First of all you need to have a genuine fear for your life. There is zero reason for Anthony to think that Metcalf was going to injure, kill or rape him, so by the reasonable person standard it's not self defense. Had Metcalf made a threat to kill him or was brandishing a weapon or perhaps even punched Anthony in the head, then he might have a case, but I haven't heard anything like that happening. If something like that comes out at trial, like it did in the Ahmaud Arbey case, then I might revise my opinion, but that seems extremely unlikely. 

Second, you can't be the aggressor. Not only was Anthony in a place he had no right to be, he also escalated to threats when asked to leave. His words could be seen as either a threat of violence or an invitation to fight. Though Texas has a stand your ground law, it would not apply in a situation that was at best, a mutual combat, or at worst, where Karmelo was the aggressor. Carrying a knife might be an issue as well, as I am assuming you can't bring one to a school event like the track meet where this happened at. 

Finally, any response to a threat has to be proportional. You can't escalate from someone putting their hands on you to stabbing them. Had he grabbed Metcalf's arms to move them off of him, or even pushed back, that would have been proportionate. Punching him might have been an escalation, but you could at least make a case. But instead, he stabbed him in the chest, which is hugely disproportional to what he actually did. 

Should Metcalf put his hands on Anthony? Probably not. Doing so was unwise as at the very least it could have ended in a fight. Getting help to remove a potentially violent man would have been the right move. But with that being said, he absolutely did not deserve to get stabbed. 

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that either don't know or don't care how self defense works. And let's be clear, much of this is due to race. There are a lot of racists out there that don't care what the facts of the case are, they just want their "side" to win. That's the only explanation to how Anthony was able to raise almost half a million dollars through donations. I'd like to think that many of these people either don't know the facts of the case or the self-defense laws and are simply making a mistake, but I am guessing there are more than a few that are just happy that a White teen got murdered. And though many of these racists are Black, more then a few of them are White themselves... Like I said before, I don't think this case would even be notable if the two 17 year olds were of the same race.

I also think it's absurd that bail was even offered in this case. It was a homicide and I think that folks charged with homicide shouldn't get bail period. But if there is bail it should be extraordinarily high for the fact that homicide usually comes with severe consequences if convicted. Anthony is both a huge flight risk and an obvious threat to the community. There is zero reason he should be out of custody. 

Will Antony be convicted of murder? Like I said, I can't see how he can make the claim of self defense with the scenario that we know right now. The scenario presented right now is in now way self defense by the laws of Texas. The only way that he doesn't get convicted is if some kind of mitigating circumstances arrive on trial (which is possible, but very unlikely) or the jury decides to go for nullification. That 2nd scenario is depressingly possible... 

Suspect arrested for arson attack targeting Pennsylvania Governor's mansion.

 

Damage done to the Pennsylvania Governor's Mansion. Fox News/Commonwealth Media Service. 

A suspect has been arrested for an arson attack targeting the Pennsylvania Governor's Mansion. Fox News. A 38 year old man named Cody Balmer has been arrested and charged with arson, attempted murder, terrorism and aggravated assault. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and his family were present during the attack but were evacuated. The mansion suffered major damage from the blaze, which was set through "incendiary devices". The motive for the incident has not been released. The attack has been universally condemned by both Republicans and Democrats, and Josh Shapiro has released his own statement. 

Last night at about 2AM, my family and I woke up to bangs on the door from the Pennsylvania State Police after an arsonist set fire to the Governor’s Residence in Harrisburg.

The Harrisburg Bureau of Fire was on the scene and while they worked to put out the fire, we were…

— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) April 13, 2025

My Comment:

A very serious incident in Pennsylvania and one that shows a disturbing trend of terrorism in the United States. It is very lucky that nobody was killed or injured in this attack and it's clear that it did a major amount of damage to the mansion. As bad as it was though, it could have been a lot worse. 

There are conflicting reports of the suspect, Cody Balmer, and his political beliefs. The usual suspects are trying to blame the other side and right now I am not sure if either side is right. Nobody wants to claim this guy as their own though, for obvious reasons. As always, early reports are suspect and I wouldn't be surprised if the attack has some motive that only makes sense to the attacker. 

What does interest me is if this attack was motivated by Governor Shapiro's Jewish faith. Shapiro is a practicing Jew and there has a major increase in antisemitism on the left as well as on the far right, since the outbreak of the Gaza war. Indeed, the one thing the extreme far right agrees with the far left is that Israel is the bad guy. Though no motive has been released I would be surprised if the attack wasn't at least partially motivated by antisemitism. Attacking the home of a Jewish family on the first day of Passover certainly implies something.

Whatever the motive though, it is clear that politically motivated violence is on the rise. We saw it during the 2020 summer of love and the 2017 congressional shooting. We saw it with the two attempts on Donald Trump's life in the lead up to the 2024 election (and a third plot just exposed this week involving a Order of the Nine Angles supporter, a satanist terror group). And we have seen it with the burning of a GOP headquarters in New Mexico and the attacks against Tesla dealerships and the people that drive the cars. 

And, perhaps the most influence of them all, the assassination of Brian Thompson. Folks made a folk hero out of the man who murdered a healthcare CEO for no reason. Indeed, I saw a man wearing a Luigi hat right after the murder happened and it was all I could do to not confront him directly for supporting a murderer. To this day there are large number of people, even some on the right, who defend his cold blooded murder of an unarmed man. 

It's clear that there is now an idea in this country that you can use violence to get what you want. The motive is still unclear but what is clear is that the attacker had some kind of beef with the government and decided that it was just fine if he tried to murder the Governor and his father with an arson attack. 

I was surprised that the attacker was able to get on the property in the first place. The mansion doesn't look that defendable from Google Maps but it was surprising that the attacker was able to get on site, set several fires and then escape for a time. Had his motivation been to attack the Governor directly, I think he would have had a decent chance to succeed. 

I don't think things are going to get much better. Like I said, there is a cultural shit into political violence and I think it's only a matter of time before some major politician, Democrat or Republican, gets murdered by someone who thinks violence is the way to get what they want. Given the fact that the media is both dismissing or even justifying a lot of the violence against the right, I think it's very possible we could see tit-for-tat terror attacks if things don't change and change quickly.  

The House passes SAVE act that would require proof of citizenship to vote. Can it pass the Senate?

 

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. ABC News/AP.

The House has passed the SAVE act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. ABC News. Four Democrats joined all the Republicans to pass the bill, 220 to 208. The bill had passed in the last legislative session but was not voted for in the Senate. It faces an uphill battle in the Senate as it is unlikely to pass the 60 vote threshold to beat any possible filibuster. 7 Democrats would have to support the bill in the Senate. The law would require people to prove citizenship with documents, like the Real ID law required for plane travel. Critics say the law would make it difficult for some people to vote, but Republicans say that it would prevent non-citizens from voting. The law would also require states to clean up voter rolls. Currently, the only thing preventing non-citizens from voting is a checkbox on the voter registration form that is a crime to lie about. 

My Comment:

This legislation should have been passed a week ago, but the Luna-Johnson feud delayed it until today. This law is long overdue and seems like absolute common sense to me. If you have to prove your citizenship to fly in the United States, then obviously you should have to do so vote. Our current system is basically unenforceable and there isn't any real data how many illegal votes are out there, despite whining from the Democrats. 

Unfortunately, this law is likely dead on arrival in the Senate. Though I would think that his law would be popular among basically everyone, an 80-20 issue to be sure, the Democrats are opposed to it. It's possible we could see a couple of defections from the Democrats, we did in the House of course, but I can't see that being past the 60 vote threshold this would need to pass. And I don't think it's worth it to nuke the filibuster for this one law. 

I absolutely don't buy the arguments that this would meaningfully disenfranchise anyone. We already have the Real ID requirement and that was rolled out fairly smoothly. Folks can fairly easily verify their identify and only folks that are completely incompetent are not capable of getting a birth certificate or passport. And I have no doubt that if this law were to become a law, those folks would be helped by NGO's who would be made for that exact purpose. 

The only folks that would be disenfranchised would be non-citizens that want to vote. I don't buy that non-citizens only rarely vote in federal elections. The truth is that there is no mechanism to actually find out and no real effort to determine if they have in the states where it would be a problem. Democrats have a vested interest in allowing non-citizens to vote so you really can't trust anything they say on the issue. 

But with the bill being DOA in the senate, what purpose is there in passing the bill? Well, there is always a chance that some Democrats could switch sides on the issue. The real reason though? I am guessing this is a very popular issue and it is one that Republicans can campaign on in 2026. Like I said, this seems like an 80/20 issue and one only die hard Democrats would oppose. 

President Donald Trump increases tariffs on China to 125% but suspends most other tariffs for 90 days.

 

President Donald Trump. ABC News/AFP/Getty.

President Donald Trump has increased tariffs on China to 125% but has suspended most other retaliatory tariffs for 90 days, causing a major market rally. ABC News. Trump said that people were getting "yippy" and that was a motivation for pulling the retaliatory tariffs. some tariffs still remain, most notably the ones on China, but a baseline 10% tariff rate on other countries has remained in effect. The market had not reacted well to the tariff announcements, but much of the losses were offset by gains after Trump's announcement. Negotiations with many of the nations affected by the tariffs will likely begin, though it is very unclear what will happen with China, who imposed their own tariffs on the United States in a tit for tat fashion. 

My Comment:

I didn't really comment on the tariffs before today because I knew there wasn't much of a point. There was a lot of hysteria and gnashing of teeth about the tariffs and I knew there wasn't really too much I could do to convince people that this was the most likely outcome of these tariffs. But I figured something like this would happen. 

Why? It absolutely stuns me that people simply don't know Trump's negotiation style by now. I mean, he wrote a book about it in 1987 and you can figure out that Trump's still following those negotiation tactics. Trump shot for the moon with tariffs so he could negotiate with the countries he believes are screwing us over. He did the same thing during his first term so it baffles me that there are so many people on both sides that fundamentally didn't understand what Trump was doing. 

He's also very obviously using the carrot and stick approach. China, which responded to tariffs with tariffs of their own, is getting punished. The rest of the world that didn't do so? They are getting their rates reduced to 10% and they will be able to further negotiate with Trump, to perhaps get that rate reduced or removed entirely. Countries like Japan, Taiwan (deal with it China, Taiwan is a country) and South Korea will likely get a very good deal from Trump, while China is going to continue to feel the pain. 

I'd also say that the way Trump did this was pretty smart. If he had just slapped a 10% tariff across the board and the extreme tariffs on China, we would have seen the same market disruption we saw over the past week, but Trump would have had no way to back down to recover the markets after they got spooked. By going even further than that though, he was able to rally the market today and make up for the losses incurred during the announcement. My guess is that was always the plan, though the market overreaction probably advanced the timelines. 

I do have to say that I appreciate that Trump told people to invest today. I am guessing a lot of people got rich because Trump said that on social media, and though Democrats are whining about it for nonsensical reasons (announcing something publicly on social media is not "insider trading" no matter how much they whine), it was a chance for both market kingpins and regular joes to make a quick buck. I only wish I had been able to take advantage of it myself. 

Of course the real question is what happens next. I am guessing that 90 days is more than enough time for the smart countries to make some kind of deal with Trump and if it isn't, Trump can always extend it. I think those deals will be made quickly, with non-China Asian countries being first in line. I am guessing they will be mutually beneficial and good news for everyone. 

China is an open question. They seem determined to try and save face and be seen as not making a deal with Trump. I think they will be in serious trouble though. They aren't able to deal with these levels of tariffs and don't really have any new customers that will give them any slack either. They are likely to break at some point and cut a deal with Trump, though it may take them awhile to do so. 

Finally, I'm not expecting all that much in terms of economic impact of these tariffs, over all. Tariffs will raise prices for Chinese goods, of course, so it will hurt purveyors of Chinese slop, but the rest of the economy will largely be unaffected. Folks will simply buy products from America or other non-China countries. 

Trump administration considering using drone strikes to target drug cartels in Mexico.

 

A shipment of confiscated Methamphetamine and Fentanyl. NBC News/Washington Post/Getty. 

The Trump administration is considering using drone strikes to target drug cartels in Mexico. NBC News. No decision has been made, though the main goal appears to be getting Mexico on board with the strikes. Unilateral strikes are seen as a measure of last resort. The United States and Mexico have worked together to deal with the cartels before and are now using surveillance flights to track the dealers. However, it is unclear if Mexico would go along with any strikes, with Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum saying that strikes would not happen. However, the United States has long held that they could strike at targets in countries that threaten their national security and the drug cartels have been declared a terrorist threat. Still, securing support from President Sheinbaum is seen as desirable due to the fact that she is cooperating on immigration and other issues. The justification for the strikes would be the tens of thousands of American citizens that die from Fentanyl overdoses every year, the majority of which came from Mexico. 

My Comment:

If this sounds like the plot from Clear and Present Danger, the Tom Clancy book and Harrison Ford movie, you would be correct. The main difference would be that these strikes would be in the open and not a covert operation and the motivation is the thousands of Americans killed indirectly by the Cartels. 

Open warfare with the Cartels would be an escalation. There are pros and cons to the strategy but I feel the cooperation of Mexico is absolutely critical. Without their help and approval launching strikes on their territory would be an act of war. Not that Mexico itself is a military threat, but they could absolutely punish the United States in other ways, including sanctions, tariffs, immigration and an end to cooperation on fighting the very Cartels, which is the whole point. And the second a civilian, innocent or otherwise, was killed in the strikes, they would have a major diplomatic victory against us. 

I do think securing support is possible. I don't see Claudia Sheinbaum as being a strong president and she has already knuckled under on other issues. She has helped a lot with drug smuggling already and her response to tariffs has largely flown under the radar. I think she would help if we gave her something major in return, and Trump absolutely likes to make deals. 

Would strikes even work? It depends. I don't think killing the leadership will do much long term. We have tried that in the past and all it led to is the cartels fighting each other in a major succession crisis. That resulted in a lot of deaths but not much change in day to day activity, as the mid level people and logistical supply chains were not disrupted. 

Targeting those supply chains though, that could work. Targeting drug labs and convoys would absolutely help in disrupting the flow of drugs into the United States. It's hard to smuggle drugs when the drugs are blown up and the smugglers are dead. Finding the targets would require fairly extensive military intelligence operations, which is another reason why we need the cooperation with Mexico. 

There are downsides of course. One of the major problems is that the Cartels have diversified in the past few years and now commit all kinds of different crimes to fund their organization. Human smuggling, stealing oil, kidnapping and just general "protection" schemes are all major sources of income for the Cartels, though human smuggling has taken a major hit under President Trump. Killing their leadership and targeting their drug labs wouldn't stop any of those. 

There is also the possibility that the Cartels would retaliate. Right now the Cartels usually leave Americans alone, both in Mexico and in the United States itself. If we declare war against them, they might do the same against us, and launch kidnapping schemes, murder plots and even out and out terrorism against military and civilian targets throughout the United States. The Cartels have a lot of battle hardened and ruthless men in their ranks and they could absolutely cause chaos in the United States, should they try to do so. 

Still, something absolutely needs to be done about the Cartels. Not only do the drugs they smuggle into the United States kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, they represent a major security threat to the United States and could even lead to Mexico becoming even more of a lawless disaster than it already is. Are strikes the way to do it? I am not sure, but at least we would be trying something different. The status quo isn't working for sure. 

SCOTUS rules that Trump can continue to deport illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act, though they must get judicial review first.

 

Deported Venezuelans at CECOT prison in El Salvador. USA Today/Reuters

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration can continue to deport illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act but also said that the deportees must have a hearing before a judge. USA Today. The Justices said in a 5-4 ruling that the case was brought in the wrong district since the deportees were in Texas but the case was filed in Washington DC. This will allow the Trump administration to continue to deport members of the Tren De Aragua unless a new order is filed in a Texas court. However, the Justices said that the deportees would need to be able to contest claims that they were members of the gang. 

My Comment:

This is a partial win for the Trump administration. At the very least, deportations under the Alien Enemies Act will be able to continue, albeit at a much slower pace. I would have preferred that the Justices simply ruled that the President obviously has the authority to deport gang members under the law, but instead they just kicked the can down the road. I am guessing there will be another case filed soon, but hopefully with a more unbiased judge. 

The restrictions placed on the Administration is a double edged sword. Though I have been extremely skeptical of claims that non-gang members were deported, having a judge decide the evidence in a case by case basis would prevent that from happening. That wouldn't be much of an injustice, in any case it's not citizens being deported, but it might be less contested if these deportations were done by the book. 

The problem is that it will slow things down. Hearings and rulings take an absurd amount of time and I have a real fear that the whole process will be slowed down to the point where deportations will only continue at a trickle, instead of the flood we need to actually change things. The Trump administration will have to move fast to get these cases through the court, before they run out of time, either due to the end of Trump's term, or another biased judge rules against them. 

The good news is that this case will likely permanently be removed from Judge Boasberg. Boasberg obviously showed quite a bit of bias against the administration and I don't believe he was ruling in good faith. His only goal appeared to be throwing a wrench in the Trump administration and it's a good thing he won't be ruling on anything related to this case. Hopefully a friendlier judge will be put into place. 

I was surprised at the makeup of the 5-4 decision. Obviously, it's not surprising that the three most conservative members of the court ruled in favor of the Trump administration while the three liberal justices dissented. But it is surprising that Chief Justice Roberts ruled with the majority while Justice Barrett joined the dissent. Given how much tension there is between Roberts and Trump, it was good to see him ruling the right way here. Barrett though has been a huge disappointment, it's crazy that she would join the dissent. 

I am hoping that more rulings are going to come out from the Supreme Court. The Democrat's only strategy has been lawfare and at this point they should be considered vexatious litigants. Most of these cases are on shaky legal ground at best and it's frustrating that the Court isn't putting an end to more of these cases. 

Finally, I have to say that Trump should be talking about illegal immigration more than he is now. It's a winning issue for him and one that he's not getting enough credit for. Folks consider it a "solved" issue now and a problem that is basically fixed. Nobody is really crossing the border and illegal immigrants are slowly but surely being deported. But instead of touting his victory, the issue has taken a back burner to other things lately. Given that I'm convinced that was the main mistake Trump made in the 2020 election, I think he should be constantly talking about his successes in immigration. 

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna reach a deal on remote voting, ending week long paralysis in the House.

 

File photo of Mike Johnson and Anna Paulina Luna. ABC News/Getty.

The Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna have reached a deal on remote voting for new parents, ending a week long paralysis of the House. ABC News. Representative Luna (R-Florida) had created a bipartisan discharge petition that would allow remote voting for up to 12 weeks for new parents. She will no longer attempt to use the petition to force the vote after a deal was made with Johnson. Instead of remote voting, a process that allows the person who isn't able to vote to "pair" with a member of the house that is voting the other way on the bill. The person paired with the one on leave would simply not vote, which would in effect cancel out the votes. Vote pairing has been used in the past and though it isn't the equivalent of remote voting it would end an impasse in Congress. It is unclear how vote pairing would be enforced and if it would survive a vote that was very close. 

My Comment:

And with that, one of the most embarrassing inter-Republican feuds is at an end. I wrote last week how angry I was at both sides for making this an issue at an absolutely critical time for the party. And for something that the average voter has absolutely no interest in! Does it matter at all for you if a member of congress votes remotely after having a baby or if they vote in person? Absolutely not! 

I was critical of both sides of the argument here. I have almost zero sympathy for Luna as I think new parents should show up at Congress. It's a low intensity job and they have free child care. Hell, they could bring their babies in with them to vote! And there is very good reason to not allow remote voting under any circumstances. Folks would use it to their own advantage to campaign when they are supposed to be working. 

Johnson, on the other hand, was a fool to let it get this bad. This kind of deal could have been made before and the fact that he faced a rebellion from members of his own party show that he did not do a good job at whipping his party. He let things get out of control and it embarrassed himself and his party. 

I am guessing that President Trump had a lot to do with this situation being resolved. Trump came out over the weekend supporting Luna and I think that was a clear message to both sides to come to deal as fast as possible. I don't think it was just Johnson getting pressured, Luna probably was as well, just behind the scenes. Trump wants his legislative agenda passed and this stunt wasted most of a week, so I am guessing that him commenting publicly was essentially an order to come to an agreement. 

Vote pairing seems like a pretty good solution. Having someone from the opposite side of a vote sit out means that nothing really changes and folks can stay home with their kids if they need to. It's sort of an elegant solution to a problem that didn't seem likely to be solved otherwise. 

The real question happens if the vote is close enough that it will pass or fail if someone goes back on the vote pair deal. Given how close congress is right now, such a situation could happen soon, if not in this term, than in the next. How do you enforce that, no, you have to do this? It's a real question that should be answered. 

Either way, with this roadblock out of the way, we should see some actual votes again from Congress. The Senate has been busy passing their part of Trump's agenda and now the House should do the same thing. Critical legislation, like the No Rogue Rulings Act and the Safeguarding Voter Eligibility Act, along with making the Trump tax cuts permanent, should happen now and should be some good news to offset the tariff hysteria. I am glad that this drama is at its end.

Israel launches major air strikes and raids into Syria as fears about Turkey's actions in the state.

 

An Israeli tank in the Golan Heights. BBC/EPA.

Israel has launched major air strikes and ground raids in Syria as fears increase about Turkey's actions in the state. BBC. The attacks targeted the T4 and Hama air bases along with targets in Damascus. The strikes were destroy any capabilities those bases had after hundreds of airstrikes have occurred against Syria since the former al-Qaeda affiliate, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took over the country. There was also a land operation in the Deraa region that killed around nine gunmen conducted by the Israelis. Though the operations were targeting HTS, the real issue appears to be Turkey. Israel considers Turkey to be hostile and the country just signed a mutual defense pact with Syria's government and will deploy troops and weapons in the country. 

My Comment:

I'm starting to wonder if Israel is biting off more than it can chew. They are already bogged down in Gaza and that's hardly the only threat. They are also rumors, possibly baseless, that a new war with Iran may break out too, due to their nuclear weapons program. If that's the case Israel could face a war on four fronts, Gaza, Yemen, Iran and Syria. That's going to stretch their resources to the breaking limit. 

Even if the war is limited to just Gaza, the Houthis and Syria, it would be difficult for Israel to continue all three wars at once. They would come under pressure to end at least one of the wars. Trump bombing Syria would help them, but still, they just don't have the population and weapons to fight three wars at once. 

But I also totally understand why they are doing it too. HTS is a former al-Qaeda affiliate and are terrorists. If it wasn't for ISIS, al-Nusra would have been the bogyman we all feared in the last decade. They are more moderate than ISIS but that's not saying much of anything. Having a former terror organization in power in Syria is a direct threat to Israel's interests and perhaps even their existence. 

Turkey is the real threat though. Under Erdogan the country is transforming itself in a more radical direction and there is an argument that they are a bigger threat than Iran at this point when it comes to Israel. They are trying to usurp the position of leader of the Arab/Muslim world from Saudi Arabia and Iran and are being fairly successful. They were instrumental in allowing HTS to take over in the first place and have a strong presence in the country even when Assad was still there. 

I have written about this threat before and I do wonder if a war between Israel and Turkey is possible. Such a conflict would be deeply uncomfortable for the United States as both countries are allies. Indeed, a war between Israel and Turkey could be the final straw for the NATO alliance as I can't see the United States being allied with Turkey if they are fighting a war with Israel. 

And I do think that at the very least, there is already a proxy war going on already. Israel has taken quite a bit of territory in Golan Heights area and are calling for the demilitarization of much of southern Syria. And these attacks are going to cripple the more advanced capabilities of the Syrian government. The real question now is if HTS is going to do anything in response, along with Turkey...  

More B-2 bombers have been deployed to Diego Garcia, a sign that the war against the Houthis in Yemen is escalating.

 

Satellite photo of Diego Garcia showing six B-2- bombers. Times of Israel/AP.

At least six B-2 stealth bombers have been deployed to Diego Garcia, a sign that the war against the Houthis in Yemen is escalating. Times of Israel. The deployment is highly unusual and comes at a time when a 2nd Carrier Strike Group is heading to the region, headed by the USS Carl Vinson, joining the USS Harry Truman. Attacks against the Houthis have increased as a cease fire fell apart between Hamas and Israel. The Houthis have attacked shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in response to the war in Gaza. The US Navy has been in heavy combat since then, with some describing the battles as the most intense the Navy has fought since World War II. Over 100 civilian ships have been attacked since the start of the conflict. The Trump administration has been more aggressive in targeting Houthi leadership in addition to missile launch sites.

My Comment:

There are some concerns that these B-2 bombes are not in Diego Garcia for the Yemen War but for a potential war between the United States and Iran. I concede this is possible but I generally think it's unlikely. Tensions with Iran are reasonably high but I don't really see a reason why a war would break out unless something happens, like a first strike against Diego Garcia, which is something I have seen suggested. Is Iran even capable of that? I am not sure, but regardless, I think an actual war with Iran is unlikely. 

So why are these B-2's there? Part of it might because our other heavy bombers are vulnerable to Yemen's fairly formidable anti-air defenses. Remember, the Houthis have shot down at least some drones since strikes have begun, mostly MQ-9 Reapers. It's unclear how many drones have been shot down, the Houthis claim 20, with the most recent being this week, but without confirmation from the United States those numbers are likely inaccurate. But they have had some successes. 

Our non-B-2 bombers, like the B-52 and B-1 are not really designed to go into that kind of combat environment. Should they try to directly engage it's possible that they could be shot down. They could still be used with standoff weapons and large amount of escorts (which may be why the 2nd Carrier Strike Group has been deployed) but I don't think it's worth it. Fighter bombers are better suited for that role and drones can supplement them. 

The real reason is probably due to the fact that Yemen has quite a few fortified bunkers and the B-2 Sprit is the only plane that can use the biggest and most powerful "bunker buster" bombs, the GBU-57a/B MOP.  These bombs can only really be used by the B-2 (with the B-21 not being deployed yet) and they are necessary to destroy some of the heavy bunkers. 

Though I don't think that a war with Iran is likely, it could be that this is some saber rattling as well. Deploying these bombers and using these bunker busters could be a message for them. It's the stick to any carrot that Trump could be offering up for a potential nuclear deal. I don't think President Trump really wants a war, and saber rattling and then cutting a deal has been a very common tactic for him. But the deployment could be about sending a message. 

Finally, it's fairly crazy to me how little coverage the war with the Houthis have gotten. Like the article said, the US Navy is in extremely heavy combat and only got a short break when the cease fire deal in Gaza fell apart. You would think the war would get more coverage but the US media, as always, is out to lunch when it comes to things that are actually important.