In international relations, and in politics more widely, perception is often more significant than reality. In many overseas countries, Donald Trump was widely seen as an unsuitable, even dangerous, President – unpredictable and narcissistic, acting on instinct and unnerving friend and foe alike. Yet nearly half of Americans continued to vote for Donald Trump. Foreigners don’t vote and for all the harm Donald Trump was seen to have done to the US image abroad, clearly many Americans had a different view, or at least didn’t like the alternative. The fact is, he shook up the international system, caused rethink of the Iran nuclear agreement, and pressured western allies into spending more on defence. His unblocking of the situation in the Middle East, dangerously frozen for decades, opened the potential for massive and benign change with far-reaching consequences – a succession of Arab states have now recognised the state of Israel. Clearly, these are substantive gains that have to be separated from the rhetoric and built on by the new administration.

We know something of President Biden’s personal attitude to foreign policy issues from his eight years as Vice President from 2009, from his chairmanship before that of the Senate foreign relations committee, and keynote policy statements that he has made over the years. There is a moral thrust to his approach, underpinned by a belief in consensus, in multilateralism and working closely in partnership with allies. He also has a sentimental emphasis on his Irish roots which now add to his enthusiasm for what many Americans imagine the European Union to be. He would err on the side of caution before committing the military to robust action. But he must take care that any efforts to cast himself as the polar opposite of Donald Trump do not compromise his calls for American bipartisanship and unity or indeed, the advances made by his predecessor.

Within 3 weeks of taking office in 2009, Vice President Biden spoke at the Munich Security Conference where he deployed the phrase “the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example”, repeated in his Presidential address 12 years later. He made it clear that Obama and Biden were determined to “reset” America’s relations with a number of hostile or difficult countries.

The consequences of this approach were at best, disappointing. A power vacuum was created which was rapidly filled by others who were less judgemental. And new challenges exist to add to the threats identified in 2009, most of which persist in a worsened state. Iran’s nuclear weapons programme may have been delayed but it remains in being and can rapidly be upgraded. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya are unstable and significantly controlled by forces not aligned with the Western democracies.

Russia continues to be dangerous. She has a declining economy and population but has invested disproportionately in upgrading her military capabilities and does not shrink from using them. She seeks control of European gas supply and has intervened to weaken potential rival sources of supply. Germany in particular is dangerously reliant on Russian energy. Russia’s submarine presence in the North Atlantic has returned to Cold War levels, she has a formidable Arctic capability unmatched by any other country and is extending her reach with bases not just in Syria but also in Sudan. In both Eastern Ukraine and in Libya she has used proxy forces against those aligned with the West. She maintains an intense cyber assault on Western economic, security and political institutions and actively sows disinformation among our citizens through social media – all to create instability and weaken attachment to Western governments.

China has extended her reach and relative power massively over the past ten years. Ironically, as the source of the Covid-19 pandemic, China almost alone has experienced continued GDP growth while western economies have taken a massive hit. China’s defence spending has almost doubled in a decade. It now has the world’s largest navy, passed a carrier strike group for the first time through the Taiwan Strait, has developed effective anti-ship missiles and is putting massive resources into AI and into offensive capabilities in space. There is now a Chinese military base in Djibouti in addition to port facilities in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. Previously the West, led by the United States, has framed the economic and legal institutions accepted internationally. China is now challenging this system through parallel institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It has become a massive, often primary, trading and investment partner in much of Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as making inroads into Europe. These developments create real dilemmas for many friends and allies who may understand the dangers but cannot resist a desire for involvement – a classic poisoned apple.

There has been no halt to the development of weapons of mass destruction and the Covid pandemic can only have excited the dark imaginations of those bent on apocalypse for the West. In spite of setbacks, hydra-headed Islamist fundamentalists such as ISIS and AQ remain a potent threat with tacit support from rogue states. They occupy ungoverned spaces, are not short of volunteers from the angry and hopeless, and can draw on the sympathy of radicalised citizens, often dormant, in our own countries.

While we do not see queues of migrants trying to get into China or Russia, their power is respected. The western model of freedom, liberal democracy and free-market capitalism has lost its automatic appeal in many parts of the world. Outsiders see our countries divided and racked with self-doubt. Our economies have stalled. We no longer monopolise innovation. It is not just Covid that has led to restrictions on freedom and loss of self-confidence but self-inflicted ‘wokeism’, brewing over decades. And the nature of many foreign interventions undermined the West’s moral high-standing as well as its record of inevitable success. The vectors of subversion have been extremist groups and conspiracy theorists in our own societies, feeding fake news from internal and external sources, their influence hugely amplified by social media.

It is not just the potential aggressor states that will present difficulties for the new American administration but troublesome allies as well, bruised over trade and tariff issues and with their public opinion no longer well-disposed towards America. Confidence even in NATO was shaken by doubts raised by President Trump over the automaticity of Article 5 – the vital underpinning of deterrence – and the continued commitment of the US to the defence of Europe. This was in spite of subsequent assurances from President Trump, an enhanced forward presence of US forces and increased investment in the European Deterrence Initiative.

Both the American and British foreign policy establishments have long cherished a romanticised view of the European Union based on its founding motives. Many mistakenly compare the development of the EU with the American national story. The welcome enlargement to the east following the fall of communism also fits the dream of a “Europe whole and free”. But the motives of the past are no longer relevant to the world today. The EU has changed. That’s why Britain left. It will no longer be an automatic partner to US-led endeavours and has already revealed its vindictive and protectionist features through its handling of Brexit and the Covid vaccination issue.

President Biden will have to shake off the habit of equating “Europe” with the EU – great European nations such as Britain, Norway, Switzerland and for that matter Turkey, are not EU members and Poland is treated by the EU as a pariah because its government does not wholly toe the EU line on ‘ever closer union’. He should remember Madeleine Albright’s insistence that EU defence ambitions “must avoid preempting Alliance decision by de-linking from NATO; avoid duplicating existing efforts; and avoid discriminating against non-EU members”, as 20 years later this is exactly where it is heading.

For a long time Britain was a restraining hand on French ambitions to absorb continental European countries into an integrated, protectionist state as a “strategically autonomous” global actor. Britain’s departure from the EU has enabled these ambitions to be fuelled.

In the Far East, the Trump overtures to Kim Jong Un had little impact on North Korea’s nuclear and missile programme but unnerved regional allies. This at least had the effect of encouraging stronger defence commitment by those allies and a readiness for more effective alliances in the Indo-Pacific region but it sowed mistrust.

The most negative overall consequence of American foreign policy during the previous Obama/Biden years was the erosion of American leadership which created a vacuum soon filled by others. Russia re-emerged as a force in the Middle East. China’s economic statecraft has given her a strong foothold, not just across east Asia but in Africa, in south Asia and even in parts of Europe and she now has military capabilities able to challenge automatic American dominance.

What is to be done?

President Biden will have to reassure key allies such as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE, and continue to broker reconciliation between them. He should acknowledge the advances made by the previous administration in advancing Israel’s security and regional cooperation. His moves to reassure the Palestinians must be conditional on their cooperation in ending and suppressing terrorism and on return to the conference table in a positive spirit. There is great scope then for initiatives such as a ‘Middle East NATO’ and regional “Marshall plan” to include Lebanon and the Palestine Authority areas, to which Arab countries and others would also contribute.

In the Indo-Pacific region there are already moves to expand regional alliances such as the Quad which should be given more substance. Britain, with regional bases, a newly deployable carrier group and long-standing connections in the region can be a key ally in this and also in enhancing the relationship with India, an emerging superpower. We need to do far more to support India’s economic development and demonstrate that a Western alliance is both reliable and consistent so that she does not continue to feel the need to rely on Russian support.

Russia despises weakness and seeks great power recognition. Her strategic aim of separating Europe from America has not changed but it is not in our interests to stoke endless hostility. Any efforts at an accommodation with Russia will have to be carried out from a position of strength and Western unity. The worst development would be separate EU overtures which would only play into Russia’s hands.

Unlike the old Soviet Union, China is becoming an economic as well as a military superpower. Its huge, increasingly prosperous and aspiring, population represents the world’s largest potential market. And it is the world’s largest single contributor to carbon emissions. These three facts mean that policy towards China should be marked by engagement from a position of strength, rather than hostility or indeed, neediness. The West will have to push back against Chinese influence in Africa, which contrary to EU views, is clearly not some uniquely European preserve. It is in the interests of the democracies to assist the security and development of the major African countries and to help them overcome the many obstacles on their path to economic prosperity and stability.

President Biden looks out of the windows of the Oval Office facing enormous challenges beginning with the pandemic and the need for rapid economic recovery. He knows that America’s relative position in the world has weakened but that the intrinsic strengths of individual and national freedom, of free market economies, and the rule of law will continue to give the democracies and their allies overwhelming advantage, provided they work together. Previous remedies haven’t worked particularly well and there is some urgent repair work to be done.

While a “Democracy Summit” may seem a marvellous idea, taking the moral high ground, care needs to be taken. There will be an immediate problem in deciding who among America’s friends and allies qualify for attendance and how to avoid undue influence of NGOs with their own political agendas.

The Biden administration should inject fresh pragmatism into its international relations. In mending fences with the EU it should continue to insist on NATO’s role as the primary Western defence alliance and forum of crisis management. It should discourage initiatives which distract from this core commitment. It should actively develop a global network of other regional alliances. It must encourage and support and listen to its reliable allies, and first amongst these is the United Kingdom – not only the preeminent military power in Europe but with global reach. Significantly, this year the UK will chair both the G7+ and the UN climate change conferences.

The new US administration faces great challenges but enormous opportunity as the world seeks recovery from the disruption of the pandemic. The democracies and their allies are fundamentally strong. Our hopeful expectation is that the US will not just engage, but lead – not by unilateral initiatives but in consultation with those it can most trust.

In a Newsweek essay published Thursday, Matthew Brodsky, former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team, blasted the left, claiming it seeks to banish all dissent, and specifically criticized recent calls for the canceling of Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

The essay, titled “When Everything is Racist There’s No Room for Reason,” begins by describing today’s progressives as demanding a “profound remaking of the country.”
TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

By: Matthew R.J. Brodsky, Senior Fellow

Progressives today demand a profound remaking of the country. In their regressive Orwellian worldview, anti-Americanism is the new patriotism. In their version of American democracy, big tech thought police substitute for the real police now being defunded in communities across America. A free corporate media, presenting multiple sides of an issue and allowing for an open exchange of ideas on opinion pages, has given way to mob- and media-approved narratives and calls to silence and banish all dissent to the outer rim.

One result of these patterns is the Left’s distortion of any discussion about the relationship between the issues of border security, immigration and voter integrity.

“Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party‘s political ambitions,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson observed during his show on Monday, April 12. “In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country.”

The crux of Carlson’s argument, backed up by evidence he cited, is that Democrats want open borders, no caps on immigrations and blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, thereby “importing a brand-new electorate” that they count on to vote Democratic. In the process, these policies dilute the vote of American citizens.

Democrats’ own words have made Carlson’s point obvious for some time. The commentator pointed to articles in The New York Times and quoted Democratic politicians, including Julian Castro and then-candidate Kamala Harris, who managed to say the typically quiet part out loud.

There are other clear examples of Democrats demanding policies that benefit them electorally. Last year in the height of the presidential campaign, many Democrats called for D.C. and Puerto Rico to be recognized as states. Apparently, when they dug a little deeper, they discovered that Puerto Rico might be too competitive as a state in elections, unlike D.C. which would be a solid blue state. While the House recently passed legislation for D.C. statehood, Democratic talk of Puerto Rican statehood has all but vanished.

Nevertheless, Carlson’s comments set off the precise firestorm the Fox News host had anticipated, along with another round of hysterical calls to cancel his show. As is the new norm, the force of these calls can only gain purchase if they cast the issue as one of racism, rather than “a voting rights question,” as Carlson explained.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson discusses ‘Populism and the Right’ during the National Review Institute’s Ideas Summit at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel March 29, 2019 in Washington, DC.CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES

This is the unfortunate place our country is in today. For the Left, the connective tissue that runs through every issue is the noxious claim of “systemic racism.” It takes on many forms, such as critical race theory, intersectionality and the accusation that everything is a relic of the Jim Crow era. There is no debate or defense because the accusation is designed to skip the trial and move straight to sentencing. If it’s a symbol it is torn down. If it’s a person they are deplatformed, silenced, fired and doxed by the Twitterati. If it’s a business or corporation it will be listed in The New York Times.

It’s no surprise that calls for Carlson’s firing came from the usual woke mob. But even the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that should have a solid handle on what racism is, decided to insert itself in the middle of a legitimate debate about immigration. It forcefully came down in favor of cancel culture by sending a letter of condemnation to Fox News demanding Carlson’s termination.

The letter referred to Carlson’s monologue as a “full-on embrace” and “open-ended endorsement of white supremacist ideology.” Despite writing, “we believe in dialogue and giving people a chance to redeem themselves,” the ADL concluded that “this is not legitimate political discourse.” This letter marks the ADL’s unfortunate transformation into just another arm of the ever-expanding progressive Left. After all, the ADL and the progressive wing it parrots aren’t merely trying to cancel Tucker Carlson. Their goal is to quash the debate on immigration entirely.

Despite these efforts, the relationship between the issues of border security, immigration and voting integrity is plain for all to see. There is nothing anti-Semitic or racist about pointing out how Democrats have focused on welcoming legal or illegal immigrants from countries that they believe will be ideological allies, and not from countries that tend to be more conservative. And despite the progressive attempt to label all points of disagreement as racist, a much stronger example of racism comes from those who refuse to see people as individuals and instead only as members of racial, ethnic and religious voting blocs.

Anti-Semitism is a real and growing threat. But the elected officials who most consistently attempt to brandish their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism through legislation and as a part of their political platform are Democrats, who are being led by their progressive wing. At the same time, dramatic changes being forced on the American people today by Democratic policies touch all parts of everyday life. Paranoia, instability and fear is the well from which racism springs. In this context, we need more dialogue, not less.

The harnessing of individual grievances and woke ideologies for the Left’s perpetual expansion of political power constitutes a poison pill for the American political body. A real debate over immigration and voting rights is necessary. Panning everything as racist and silencing dissenting voices, at a time when too few politicians demonstrate courage, seems about as far away as one can get from what America’s Founders intended.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, former adviser to the Trump administration’s Middle East peace team, and former Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC.

Less than a month before last year’s presidential election, I wrote in href=”https://spectator.org/mob-revolution-riots/” >an American Spectator article about a “Collapsing Building Rule”:

Moments before a building pancakes due to internal structural failure, it looks to the observer as solid as the day it was completed. And when it starts to pancake, there are but seconds before the falling mass accelerates to unstoppable velocity.
In the summer of 1984 I visited Berlin, then still divided. What had been barbed wire in August 1961 had become, 23 years later, mile upon mile of massive wall. Guard towers were everywhere. But there was no sense of danger; my visit was uneventful. Yet a year later, the East German Volkspolizei— “people’s police” — shot and killed Col. Arthur Nicholson, firing across the dividing line. The Wall looked as if it could stand for a thousand years. It divided the immensely prosperous West Berlin from the shuttered, ramshackle East Berlin. But outwardly, East Germany seemed rock stable.
Then came the summer of annus mirabilus 1989, when a fresh exodus from Eastern Europe began, the largest since 1961. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided not to do what all his predecessors would have done: use force to keep the Evil Empire together. One Soviet spokesman, asked by a Western journalist what has going on, said that the Soviets had adopted the “Frank Sinatra ‘My Way’ doctrine.” Even a change to a harder line German leader, in October, proved to no avail. And on Nov. 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was toppled. Then came three days in August 1991, when the Soviet Old Guard made its last stand, with a coup against Gorbachev. But Boris Yeltsin led citizens to Red Square and successfully got Army units to back his move. The plotters were arrested, Gorbachev retired, and for a decade Russia was a democracy. In two blinks of the eye, 75 years of Soviet tyranny were tossed away. But now Vladimir Putin has ended democracy in favor of kleptocratic oligarchy. Vlad the Bad rules like a 19th-century Tsar, complete with a cult of quasi-royal personality.
The frightening reality is that modern societies, for all their massive wealth, immense infrastructures, and global reach, are endemically fragile to myriad sources of great disruption. A pandemic unleashed by China that shut down Western economies for months; our police getting embroiled in racially charged shootings that sparked massive urban riots; the all-out revolution pushed by hard-left radicals have collectively brought America to its knees. Seemingly solid and secure as a newly erected structure as 2020 began, only eight months later America’s foundation cracks. One decisive shock can initiate the building pancake sequence. And one likely is on the way.
The upcoming presidential vote, unless one ticket decisively wins, could cause our rickety election machinery to collapse, with no final verdict for weeks, perhaps months, and with whoever wins discredited in the eyes of half of America’s voters. Two polls taken last week show that voters are keenly aware of post-vote perils: one poll found 56 percent fearing mass violence; the other found 61 percent fearing a civil war. The republic itself then might rapidly descend into multiple sanctuary regions, de facto secession, or even full-bore civil war.

A scant eight months later, it seems that the societal edifice of America is in pancake-style free fall. Recall, per Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, et al., that the weight of such a mass increases arithmetically, but the descending velocity of a gravitationally falling mass increases exponentially — a square factor.

Driving this wave is a tectonic policy consequence of the 2020 election result: a massive influx of illegal aliens crossing America’s southwestern border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). In effect, they collectively represent a veritable mega-tsunami of demographic change, which, if unchecked, will irrevocably transform America into a socialist republic. It has created what now even President Joe Biden calls a “crisis” at America’s southwestern border.

Crisis indeed: March alone saw 172,000 migrants apprehended at the border, a number the president of the National Border Patrol Council called “the biggest surge that we’ve ever seen in the history of the Border Patrol.” A recent Pew poll shows that respondents considering illegal immigration inflow to be “a very big problem” jumped from 28 percent in June 2020 to 48 percent in April 2021. Republicans agreeing with this view rose during this 10-month period from 43 to 72 percent; Democrats agreeing nearly doubled, from 15 to 29 percent.

You’ve Never Found Glasses This Way BeforeAd By EyeBuyDirect See More

Yet Biden caved instantly to his radical-left base on the number of annual refugee admissions. Having promised to raise the Trump administration’s 15,000 ceiling to 125,000, Biden then decided to accept the Trump number. When radicals screamed, he retreated to a midway goal of 62,500, a figure his own press secretary termed optimistic. His reason for caving is clear.

A recent Tucker Carlson segment detailed the 35-year history of alien influx and its impact on American voting. The story began after passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act — known as Simpson-Mazzoli after its co-sponsors, Wyoming GOP Sen. Alan Simpson and Kentucky Democrat Rep. Romano Mazzoli. That law, signed by then-President Ronald Reagan, received widespread bipartisan support; it provided illegal migrants with amnesty and a path to legal citizenship and enabled sanctions on employers who hired illegal migrants. Three million migrants, mostly Hispanic, got to stay; the employers were never hit with meaningful sanctions, even as the floodgates opened. A 2016 Yale study concluded that the real illegal immigration population number is 16 to 30 million, versus the 11 million number generally cited.

The electoral impact of this change was felt almost immediately. California had been a Republican mainstay in elections, but in 1988 George H. W. Bush narrowly carried the state. Since 1988, no Republican presidential candidate has carried California. The Golden State had 47 electoral votes that year. After the 1990, 2000, and 2010 decennial reapportionments, its electoral vote total had risen to 55 — just over 10 percent of the Electoral College. Further, the counties that remain bastions of GOP votes are those with the fewest southwest border immigrants; conversely, those with heavy representation vote Democratic.

National Review’s Rich Lowry recently explained at length how the Trump administration finally got control over the southwestern border. In summary, unable to pass legislation, and often stymied by left-wing judges, Trump officials combed the statutes passed and regulations adopted in the 1990s and early 2000s, often with large bipartisan support. They implemented a series of reforms that by early 2020 had reduced migrant flow from 5,000 per day to 1,000.

Fox Nation host Lara Logan, who has conducted extensive field reporting on the cartels and their operations on both sides of the border, said U.S. taxpayer dollars are funding cartel operations inside the U.S., including sex trafficking. Logan said children brought into the U.S. by traffickers are “trained to say ‘I am coming to go to school’ or ‘for a better life.’ ” Then they are shuttled around the country working for the cartels. A shocking video shows a smuggler dropping a two-year old over an 18-foot barrier at the California–Mexico border.

Former Trump adviser Stephen Miller detailed how Biden–Harris administration policies in the “vast majority of cases” are contrary to those adopted by its four immediate predecessors — Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. Lawsuits aimed at halting the Biden policy of Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) releasing detainees with criminal records will cost thousands of American lives if not restrained by the courts or changed by legislation. Miller added that the new administration seeks not to use democratic debate to win support for policies but rather exploits a temporary razor-thin majority to seek fundamental structural change that will lock in Democratic political — and, hence, future policy — dominance.

Charlie Kirk told Judge Jeanine Pirro that Democrats are moving the “Overton window” — the concept that small moves on the political spectrum can result in large shifts in policy outcomes. Here, the administration is subsidizing illegal migrants with benefits of up to $15,000.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis explained how his state is suing the administration over its refusal to continue ICE detention and deportation policies embraced by prior administrations. Until now, ICE detained illegal migrants and turned them over to law enforcement for prosecution. Upon conviction and sentence completion, ICE deported them back to their home countries. DeSantis added that illegal migrants are getting on airlines sans ID or COVID testing, while blue states support “vaccine passports” for lawful residents — even to enter business premises. Aliens released into the country often gravitate towards “sanctuary cities” that will offer protection and policy favoritism.

Carlson carefully explained the significance of this incoming wave: as foreign migrants swell state voter rolls, the votes of those already there are diluted by the influx. Ironically, not only white voters have seen their votes diluted by the Hispanic wave; black voters have also seen their influence decline. When a state is one-party, those on the short end have zero ability to choose leaders who reflect their views and aspirations.

Foreign migrants being brought in to border states mostly by Democrats substitute for the task of persuading voters on the issues. Simply import millions to change border-state demographics, and soon states are flipped from red to purple, then to blue. California now is reliably Democrat for the foreseeable future.

The consequences for the state considered a veritable paradise during the first 40 or so years after the end of World War II — economically prosperous, culturally rich, and blessed with fabulous weather — have been catastrophic. In 1986, California was the richest state in America and one of the most prosperous garden spots on the planet. By 2020, the Golden State’s fortunes had sunk to the point that it had the highest poverty rate in the country.

Democrats have openly championed this strategy of importing change. Vice President Kamala Harris, when sitting in the Senate, attacked President Trump for deporting illegal migrants. Back in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton had no problem ordering a no-knock pre-dawn raid to snatch Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint. This was done despite the boy’s mother having sacrificed her life crossing the Caribbean in a tiny craft in search of freedom. Elian, then 6 years old, was returned to Cuba at Fidel Castro’s behest. (To cover his tracks, Castro directed the boy’s absentee father to publicly call for Elian’s repatriation.)

This all differs from domestic interstate migration, a constant flow that alters the balance of votes in states. Domestic migration shifts votes from one state to another; freedom of travel is protected by the Constitution.

Thus, on the right coast, Vermont was reliably GOP until 1992; then migration of Democrats from New York to Vermont made it a solid Democratic state. New Hampshire, once rock-ribbed Republican, was shifted to the Democratic column by Democrats migrating from Massachusetts. These, as noted above, are cases of legitimate internal interstate migration. As Carlson noted, were strongly Republican Polish immigrants flooding from Mexico into blue states, the administration instantly would have resumed southwestern border wall construction.

Private groups have joined in the attack on critics of the Biden–Harris illegal migrant policies. Among them, hard to credit, is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization founded to fight discrimination against Jews. The ADL jumped in with both feet. In a letter to Fox News, the ADL accused Carlson of being a “white supremacist” — one of the standard tropes today’s leftists use to attack statements by white conservatives.

The ADL has been not-so-strangely silent when leftist Democrats have discriminated against Jews (such as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s use of COVID lockdown orders to close down gatherings of Orthodox Jews, while ignoring similar religious and secular group gatherings), accused Jews of disloyalty (Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s “It’s all about the ‘Benjamins,’ baby”), and cavorted with known Jew-haters (California Rep. Maxine Waters meeting with Louis Farrakhan, who notoriously has called Judaism a “gutter religion” and praised Adolf Hitler).

Another charge in the ADL letter was that Carlson had attacked billionaire financier George Soros. What makes the ADL’s defense disturbing is that Soros, a Hungarian Jew, admitted in a 1998 CBS 60 Minutes interview that at age 14 he had informed on Jews hiding property from the Nazis. Incredibly, Soros defended his actions on the air, without apology.

The mess at the southwest border has attracted wide public notice, much of it strongly unfavorable. It’s not hard to see why Americans are appalled by the spectacle: children dropped over fences onto the desert; others wandering round alone, hungry, and scared; others drowning in the Rio Grande after their “coyote” shepherds shoved them off rafts so that the smugglers need not set foot on American soil and risk arrest; others crowded like sardines into unsanitary facilities. In one case, 4,100 children were crammed into a facility designed to hold 250. Children — and adults — entered without being screened for COVID or other diseases. And then migrants, after promising to appear for an immigration status hearing, disappeared en masse into the vast American interior.

Some governors, such as Kristi Noem of South Dakota, have pledged that their states will not accept illegal migrants sent into their state in this clandestine fashion. Rising Democratic star Rep. Joaquin Castro, formerly mayor of San Antonio, calls for reinstating such pre-Trump “catch-and-release” policies. These would swamp his home state with illegal migrants, who as noted earlier can be counted on to lean heavily Democratic. In such event, Texas could turn purple and, eventually, blue.

On top of all this, some three weeks after being put in charge, Vice President Harris has yet to visit the border and has no plans to do so.

Whether or not the Democrats will succeed with this latest strategy depends critically on the outcome of the 2022 and 2024 elections. If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022 and also the White House in 2024, they will rue the day they opened the border. If Democrats win in 2022 and 2024, the American societal edifice will pancake, implode, and release destructive forces that will erase America as we have known it.

John Wohlstetter is author of Sleepwalking With the Bomb (Discovery Institute Press, second edition 2014).

The UK’s recent integrated review claims that Russia is expected to be “more active around the wider European neighbourhood”, seeking strategic advantage through exploiting and undermining democratic systems and open economies. The UK sees Russia as “the most acute threat” to its security. NATO sees Russia’s aggressive actions as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security. The US has now gone public about Russian interference in its elections. The EU isn’t sure what it should be doing and sees the EU and Russia as “closely interdependent”.

While Western democracies squabble among themselves over institutional ambitions, and vaccine distribution, Russia fuels confusion and discontent. Its aim has always been to shake the foundations of our democratic systems, but now it seeks to entice and cajole countries, particularly those formerly absorbed into the Soviet Union, out of the western camp and into a form of benign neutrality. The Black Sea and Caspian countries are high on Moscow’s list and Georgia is of pivotal importance in this.

While Russia is single-minded in its objectives, the West is torn. Russia is focused on being treated as a great power and restoring the post-Soviet space, while the democracies seek a world of stability and security to maintain the freedom and prosperity of their citizens.

This year, both Russia and Georgia have been on the EU agenda. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell’s trip to Moscow on 6 February was widely seen as a humiliation. While he was engaged in high-level discussions, Russia was expelling diplomats from EU countries and parading opposition leader Alexi Navalny in a glass cage in a Moscow courtroom.

“While Western democracies squabble among themselves over institutional ambitions, and vaccine distribution, Russia fuels confusion and discontent”

Since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014, the EU, along with other Western countries, imposed sanctions on Russia, now further extended to high-ranking Russian officials for their role in poisoning and detaining Navalny. But the EU, anxious to promote itself as an autonomous strategic actor, also pursues its own twin-track approach, seeking to be tough on the one hand while applying ‘selective engagement’ on the other.

On 1 March, EU Council President Charles Michel was in Georgia to emphasise the EU’s “fundamental interest” in the region and its commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia while avoiding direct reference to Russia’s aggressive role. The EU-Georgia Association Council met on 16 March, with Prime Minister Garibashvili leading the Georgian delegation, against the backdrop of the political crisis in Georgia. It lamely reiterated the obligation for Russia “to fulfil its international obligations” while noting Georgia’s strategic role in energy, transport, and connectivity and as a logistics hub in the region.

With its commodity-dependent economy, nominally smaller than Italy’s, Russia is highly sensitive to outside commercial intervention in its region. Using all the tools in its hybrid warfare box – political subversion, disinformation and beyond – it will go to great lengths to try and prevent foreign influence over countries which it sees within its economic and security sphere.

But South Caucasus connectivity is vitally important in guaranteeing links to Europe and enabling economic and political choices for the region. This needs to be properly followed through. But strange things are happening. The Georgian government’s expropriation of the Georgian internet provider, Caucasus Online, seems curiously out of step with ambitions for western engagement and economic freedom. Its action will effectively prevent the introduction of a new fibre optic pipeline for the region, which would have reduced reliance on Russian infrastructure.

Just last month, the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe’s Director General for Human Rights and Rule of Law condemned the move, arguing that Georgia’s actions against the provider were an attack on property rights, freedom of the press, and the right to a fair trial, calling on the government to carry out a full re-examination of the move. The Georgian government has seemingly disregarded the opinion, refusing to engage with its recommendations, and just this week the ‘special manager’ was reappointed to the company by a Tbilisi court.

“The South Caucasus countries are in a bind. They need investment and outside support which the West has given. But the Russian bear is a close and powerful reality”

The South Caucasus countries are in a bind. They need investment and outside support which the West has given. But the Russian bear is a close and powerful reality. Many leading figures, including in Georgia, have deep connections with Moscow. But, based on fear, this is not an appealing model, particularly for a younger generation, attracted by the West and its freedoms and prosperity.

We need to be sensitive to the concerns and interests of friends such as Georgia and Azerbaijan and indeed Turkey. At the same time, they have to be open and straightforward with us. Above all, we need to get serious about Russia. We can do business with Russia, but not while she is engaged in constant sub-critical attacks and underhand manoeuvring, seeking to keep on leash countries that want to make their own way.

The Western democracies – the US, UK, EU Member States and their allies and friends – need to get their act together and become more coherent, consistent, active, and reliable in their approach.

By: Neil W. McCabe, Media Fellow

The founder and president of the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies told the Star News Network that President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s foreign policy is doomed to fail, because unlike President Donald J. Trump, Biden treats the world as an extension of Washington’s Swamp.

“What President Trump realized is that Washington and the way Washington works is really only acceptable – I didn’t say good – I said it is acceptable – is on domestic matters,” said Eli Gold, who worked for worked in Washington’s think tank world for more than 10 years, before launching the Gold Institute May 2019.

“Trump realized that when you leave our shores and our borders, the rest of the world does not work in the same way Washington works,” Gold said. “By the way, Washington is broken domestically, too, but we can try to figure that out on our own because it doesn’t involve other people. We can decide if we can have Medicare-for-All or private insurance, that doesn’t impact, say Israel, but what Trump realized is that when it comes to foreign policy, you can’t work in a Washingtonian fashion.”

Biden’s foreign policy and methods are a throwback to failure

In this way, Biden differs from Trump in terms of both style and substance, he said.

“President Biden is reverting back to that Washingtonian method,” Gold said.

Before Trump, U.S. foreign policy objectives were stalled and failing because the American foreign policy establishment treats other countries like they are politicians negotiating legislation on Capitol Hill, he said.

“In addition, Biden is bringing back the leftwing policies, such as the ones that established or normalized relations with Iran, rather than holding people accountable and government accountable – a government who calls for ‘Death to America,’ – he would rather normalizing relations with them.”

It is a cliché to say that Biden’s foreign policy is Obama redux, but there is a similar dynamic at play in regards of Biden’s reconnecting with Iran – while paying for it by weakening America’s connection with Saudi Arabia and Israel, the Baltimore native said.

“Biden understands that he cannot normalize relations with Iran and hold Saudi Arabia and Israel in equally high esteem – it would negatively impact his ability to negotiate with Iran,” he said.

“Joe Biden’s policies in regard to the Israelis and the Saudis are going to be interesting at best, strained at worst,” he said.

Trump’s succeeded at foreign policy with a personal approach

Gold said Trump evolved into his own very personal way of working with people and institutions as a New York City developer outside of politics. “He, therefore, had a one-on-one foreign policy, which really offended and ticked off what we will call the establishment.”

The other reason Trump upset the establishment is he reclaimed presidential authority to run foreign policy, he said.

“What people fail to realize is the role of the president, and the role of the president is to run the country,” he said.

“He is our senior foreign policy guy and in my opinion in 2021, you do not even need a U.S. Secretary of State,” he said. “Why do we have a U.S. Secretary of State? Because when we founded this country, it would take you two months to have a conversation with the French.”

Trump spoke to his secretaries of defense and state, but he took personal responsibility for his policy, Gold said.

“This was the key to his running a one-on-one foreign policy,” he said. “Somehow between 1789 and 2016, the lines got blurred and it became the norm that the president must work by committee, run the country by committee, well, Iran doesn’t run its country by a committee – and this is what Washington fails to realize.”

Trump knew he had to engage other leaders, but there were lines he could not cross, he said.

“For example, he began negotiating and potentially normalizing with North Korea,” he said. “That all ended, when it was understood those lines that could not be crossed would have had to be crossed in order to pursue it – and it was the same thing with China, as well, in particular in the last year of his presidency because of COVID.”

It was fortunate that Trump got personally involved in the process and that led to the Abraham Accords, he said.

The Abraham Accords is a collection of agreements between Israel and Islamic countries, brokered by the United States, that plays on the fact that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all trace their beginnings to the Bible’s Abraham. Before the end of Trump’s first term, he facilitated a normalization of relations between Israel and Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Bahrain.

Of the four, Bahrain is the most significant geopolitically, because the archipelago kingdom is a client-state of Saudi Arabia, which led to speculation that the Saudis would be next up if Trump remained in office for a second consecutive term.

“I don’t know if it was as easy as just signing a paper for the Saudis to join the Abraham Accords,” he said. “Saudi is the ultimate prize. In my estimation, in order for the Saudis to formally normalize relations with Israel, there would have to be certain goals and certain metrics met. It would also depend on what happens with Qatar and what happens with the Houthis in Yemen.”

The Saudis back the Yemeni government against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

Gold Institute fellows discuss ‘Iran and Their Proxies: The Current Situation’

Gold Institute senior fellows held a February 28 online seminar “Iran and Its Allies” that dealt with how following Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, Iran and its proxies have taken an aggressive approach within the region and U.S. interests, Gold said.

“Most recently setting a hard line with their commitment to restart or continue their unfettered nuclear program, and missile attacks against U.S. interests in Erbil, Kurdistan and in Baghdad,” he said.

Joining Gold, who moderated the seminar, were retired Army Brig. Gen. Ernie Audino, who is now a senior advisor to the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, and Matthew R.J. Brodsky, who is a Middle East expert, geopolitical analyst.

Gold Institute fellows are practitioners

Gold said he started his institute to bridge what he saw as a gap between policy and action that he witnessed in the meandering that took place before Trump intervened in the discussions that led to the Abraham Accords.

“What I noticed was that Washington think tanks often create policy, but lacked the ability to put forward a blueprint to implement that said policy,” he said.

Gold said a typical example of how Washington handles foreign affairs is the way the State Department tried to line up Middle East countries into an American-led alliance.

“I was talking to an ambassador from a Middle Eastern country – it was actually at a Washington hotel – and we talking about MESA, what President Trump was trying to set up as an Arab NATO,” Gold said.

“It started out at the Riyadh Summit and MESA, which is the Middle East Strategic Alliance, later became the Abraham Accords, but at the time I asked the ambassador to tell me: ‘Where does this stand?’ it was about two years ago, and he said they had yet to give him a blueprint for the proposed MESA.”

The ambassador told him that as a meeting at the State Department, he was pressured to sign up his country for MESA and the State official said: “Afterwards, we’ll sit down and figure it out,” he said. “It was just like Nancy Pelosi saying we have to pass Obamacare in order to find out what is in Obamacare – and the ambassador and his government said: ‘No, we are out, unless you can tell us what you want from us and what our role is, we’re done.’”

MESA was a great idea, but until Trump got hands-on and recognized the opportunity was achieve what became the Abraham Accords, nobody knew how to make it a reality, he said.

Gold said he sought the advice of colleagues and other thought-leaders, such as retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, and these conversations convinced him that there was no pro-Western think tank in Washington that had the practical know-how to convert concepts into action.

“We have 25 fellows and each one represents a different area of expertise,” he said.

“The institute is not an ‘American’ think tank,” Gold said. “It is a Western think tank – I am not a globalist by any stretch of the imagination or any definition of the word – we focus on Western civilization and Western values, so three of our distinguished fellows are sitting members of the European Parliament and a former British member of the European Parliament, who is a Commander of the British Empire.”

Other fellows live in Israel, the Kurdish region of Iraq, he said. “We have former members of Congress and former members of the National Security Council.”

By: John Milton Peterson, Contributing Analyst

WHAT IS KNOWN:

A large explosion occurred at approximately 6:30am CST on Christmas morning, Friday, December 25th, 2020 outside of 166 2nd Avenue North and across from the AT&T facility at 185 2nd Avenue North in downtown Nashville, Tennessee. It was preceded by a verbal warning via some type of public address system, purportedly coming from a recreational vehicle (RV) which had arrived at the scene at 1:22am Police initially came to the scene when there were reports of gunshots at this location at 5:30am, hearing the warning, and subsequently evacuating citizens from the area. Then a very large explosion occurred. This damaged approximately 40 businesses and affected infrastructure which included a portion of the AT&T mobile phone and internet service both locally and regionally as well as interruptions of flights at the nearby international airport. As of this writing, there are no confirmed or named fatalities or persons missing. But, three persons were injured in the blast. The law enforcement agencies handling the crime scene state that this was an intentional act and linked to the suspicious and now destroyed RV. The FBI says that they are conducting investigations against at least one person of interest, to include conducting a search warrant on a residence possibly belonging to that person in the Nashville neighborhood of Antioch. A section of this portion of Nashville has been blocked off and a curfew implemented. A massive recovery effort is underway in downtown Nashville as attempts to restore power, search for bodies, and get the damaged infrastructure back online continue. The Governor of Tennessee has asked for federal assistance for the damaged economic district directly from President Trump. At the time of this writing, no arrests have been made and no fatalities have been reported. The FBI, ATF, and Metropolitan Nashville Police Department are seeking information about the suspicious RV and anyone who may know something about the explosion.

ANALYSIS

What was this event? – Was this a terrorist attack?

Many of us with background in this professional realm believe that this was a domestic terrorist attack that successfully detonated a massive VBIED – Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device. It meets all or most of the criteria for a terrorist attack, although the specific motive and target have not yet been confirmed nor the perpetrators identified. The time and place clearly point to it being intentional and a terrorist attack. (more on that below). Contrary to amateur speculation on the internet, this was not a missile attack or some other type of explosive event, such as a gas leak or accident. Initial bomb damage assessments (BDA) and crater analysis all point to this being a VBIED. Whether the method of initiation of the bomb was command detonated, victim operated (booby-trapped), or detonated using a timer or time delay fuse all remain to be seen. Judging by the effects on the nearby buildings, and a series of very obvious “intel indicators,” this very much so was an intentional, pre-planned event and had a very specific motive. The timing, location, and type of blast all point to this being a terrorist attack. More of this is discussed below.

How we will eventually know all of this, and more definitive results pertaining to what is included in this analysis presented here, will come from the now two day old yet rapidly expanding investigation by the FBI, ATF, and Metropolitan Nashville Police Department. The FBI and DOJ have a formidable capability for getting to the bottom of exactly this type of explosion. They have an enormous laboratory at the Quantico Marine Corps base near Washington, D.C. and other capabilities that would astound most. I got an inside look at all of this serving firstly as a Special Forces soldier and then contractor in this war that we are in now, at one point deeply involved in predicting the terrorist’s next moves and targeting them for capture or elimination.

This particular Christmas Day bombing bears some similarities to the bombings on February 26th, 1993 of the World Trade Center in New York City, and on April 19th, 1995 of the federal Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The DOJ got convictions in both cases.

In many other situations, the FBI has conducted sting operations or other proactive measures to thwart attempts to develop IEDs or acquire more sophisticated weapons and conduct domestic terrorist attacks. Federal law enforcement learned a lot from these and other cases involving IEDs. The very expensive and prolonged searches for the domestic terrorist “Unabomber” Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski (nearly 18 years) and Eric Rudolph (nearly 7 years) delivered many lessons learned and caused major changes in how they investigated these cases. Since these, and 9/11, they have gotten very, very good at this. Terrorists tend to copy and improve upon the work of other terrorists, and creatures of habit. The FBI and U.S. Intelligence Community know this, employ massive databases that catalogue and track every bit of it, thereby now being able to connect the dots. They can conduct rapid, granular searches, determining both the forensic grade details of the method of attack as well as the perpetrator in less and less time than ever before.

Bolstering this, and in the most exponential of ways, has been the experience of our military in the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT). On multiple contingents and involving the deployment of over a million troops, one of the three most common methods of attack, and most casualty producing, against our troops has been that of the IED. This advancement in countering IEDs led to the military’s establishment of a massive, highly funded organization to focus on this threat, the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO. Billions of dollars of contracts were awarded via JIEDDO as well as DIA and other entities focused on the defensive and offensive measures against IEDs and those that fund, build, and employ them against us. This has caused one of the most dramatic series of changes ever seen in how our military equips and operates, to include its vehicles, protective items, intelligence processes, and so much more.

Nearly every type of completed and planned terrorist attack on American soil, especially involving explosives, has been terrorist techniques, tactics, & procedures (TTPs) pioneered by and/or that are in widespread use by foreign terrorists. This is especially the case with IEDs. Even the co-conspirators of the Oklahoma City Bombing had the advice of a foreign terrorist organization, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG, a designated FTO very active in the Philippines at the time). The 1993 WTC bombing was the work of foreign and foreign connected terrorists. And, was only partially successful as it did not work as intended. Nearly every element of the set of bombings on April 15th, 2013 at the finish line area of the Boston Marathon was an IED type and method of initiation developed and perfected overseas. In fact, these were among the exact same type that myself and other troops faced in Afghanistan in the first two years of the war. Although much of the Weapons Technical Information (WTI) and “how-to” of IED making originated in the USA, most of it is perfect overseas by our adversaries, to include the Islamic Republic of Iran. And to a rare art form at that. These foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) and malign actors spread these IED WTI and TTPs far and wide. This gets into the hands of persons based in the USA. This is why we are seeing highly successful bombings. The question is who did it and why did they do it.

Who did it and Why?

This bombing most probably was a terrorist attack based upon its method of attack and specific time and place chosen.

However, there are some very peculiar aspects to this event which are not the type modus operandi (M.O.) of international terrorists. At first glance, the choice of the morning of one of the two most significant Christian holidays would lead some to believe that this was the work of foreign, non-Christian terrorists, in particular, islamists / jihadists. And yes, they have for decades very often chosen dates and holidays either of significant to them or to their intended victims. However, I do not believe that this was the work of foreign terrorists. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. Primarily because their M.O. is to seek mass terror, most often by producing the most number of casualties possible in the target population and/or destroying a high value target. Although investigators stated that they have found human tissue remains at the crime scene, there has been no official determination of casualties at the scene yet, to include the perpetrators themselves.

2. The perpetrators issued a warning and picked a time and place that would be completely absent of human activity, in what is becoming obvious was an effort to avoid human casualties. Foreign terrorists almost never do that. In particular, islamists / jihadists. The perpetrators focused their efforts on a time, place, method, and target that was very specific and not at all what an FTO sponsored or foreign inspired, remotely radicalized terrorist would seek to do. Americans almost never specifically set out to target and kill large number of Americans. There have been a few attempts over the years, some successful. But, mass casualty events are almost always the work of foreign national or foreign inspired terrorists, or at least with their assistance. Of course, there are exceptions. In some of those cases, it served the purposes of foreign terrorists to aid domestic terrorists who had a separate agenda.

3. The perpetrators may have chosen a target that is not considered of high value to foreign terrorists. If they had intended to bomb this important cultural hub for live music, eateries, and bars, they would have done so when it was lively and packed with people. If they had intended to bomb the infrastructure present at the site, they would have both picked a more high value target and done a better job emplacing the explosives.

This and other clues all lead me to believe that the nature and motive of this attack was at least partially symbolic, perhaps to send a message. One of those clues lies in the location of the VBIED and its positioning.

Therefore, the intent and target of the attack could have been any of the following:

1. A disgruntled former employee at one of the local establishments, or person affected by the economic losses in the pandemic, seeking to inflict damage to an important cultural and economic district in Nashville. I believe that this has a low probability.

2. Someone intending to attack the critical infrastructure present in the very large, multistory building located directly in front of the VBIED, belonging to AT&T and home to a major center for internet and server based digital communications in the region, to include a consideration portion of the phone network. This explosion disrupted or knocked out ATT internet and mobile service both in Nashville and extending outwards to several other states. The president of technology at T-Mobile, stated on Saturday “We continue to see service interruptions in these areas following yesterday’s explosion. Restoration efforts continue around the clock & we will keep you updated on progress,” naming service disruptions affecting Louisville, Nashville, Knoxville, Birmingham and Atlanta. It also affected flights in the area, temporarily grounding flights at nearby Nashville International Airport. In my monitoring the twitter accounts and websites of these various emergency services agencies in and around Nashville, they continue to have problems getting their services back in proper operation. Portable cell sites had to be brought in to temporarily restore coverage. Therefore, the fact that such an important piece of local and regional infrastructure as the AT&T building cannot be ruled out as being the target of the attack. So, if the AT&T building was the target, any of these motives could have existed:

a. An attempt to damage our critical infrastructure, either for some yet to be known purpose, or to send a message of sorts, as a “sample” of further and continued attacks. Federal law enforcement must always assume that there will be follow-on attacks and a nexus of continued terrorism by an active cell or network until that is ruled out.

b. An ideological motivation that involves the AT&T building, to include possibly the conspiracies involving the developing 5G network. There are some absolutely preposterous theories going on regarding this 5G network, their connection to the pandemic, and more. Much of it is the mind-numbing, mindless “tin foil hat” conspiracy theory nonsense that spreads among intellectually lazy and amateur night folks on the internet. Many of these persons are either mentally ill or driven to the point of delusion and militancy by the fiction spread online. Periodically, the influence of these result in mass shootings, workplace violence, and other terroristic events. Additionally, there is increasing ire and animus towards the various “Big Tech” companies by millions of Americans, to include for their role in election interference, censorship, deplatforming, and a massive destabilization campaign against the President for the past four years. All of this flows through the primary internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile & internet service companies such as AT&T.

c. Something connected to our strife over the 2020 General Election. In less than ten days from the explosion is to be the final counting of the Electoral College votes by our legislature. It may be the most contentious in history. Some of the rhetoric online is concerning. Anyone seeing the contentious and volatile rhetoric on social media and in chat rooms would easily conclude that there is a dramatic uptick the strife and banter over this. To include talk of a “civil war.” After a few hours of this, I have observed very concerning discussions by left wing, libertarian and anarchist, and right-wing account holders. This is not isolated to any one political party or faction. Luckily, our federal counterterrorism capabilities monitor and investigate articulated threats and any nexus to conduct such. They are constantly on the watch both domestically and overseas. Yet there is cause concern, especially when it comes to entities which have clearly demonstrated in the recent past their propensity to act on their threats.

In particular, we have suffered a portion of this year seeing billions of dollars of damage and some casualties caused by left wing militant groups who conducted criminal rioting, domestic terrorism, and insurrection. These were highly funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and coordinated nationwide. Some of this funding was from foreign sources. Some of the methods used showed telltale signs of the same TTPs of foreign militant and terrorist groups who conduct insurrection and insurgencies. These organized rioters and looters were originally preparing for an undesirable result in the General Election later in the year, but activated and launched much earlier due to the events concerning police use of force and purported racial injustice. This bombing was in the middle of a historic legal challenge to the General Election, and days away from both the final certification of the election and court cases to be filed by the President and his campaign. Could this bombing have been some kind of warning? The possibility that the explosion was somehow connected to this cannot be ruled out yet.

3. An elaborate suicide – the clear attempt to cause an evacuation of the area of bystanders, the choice of time of day and a holiday where few if any people would be around, the report of human remains at the scene, and the probability that the explosion could have been initiated by that person or persons, would lead me to not rule out the possibility of suicide. Particularly because the AT&T building was unoccupied and the time & place were to be a ghost town. This could have been combined with any of the motives and targets above. No pun intended, but this could have been a suicide by someone “going out with a bang.” We may learn more about this possible motive from what the investigation unearths. Those committing suicide and those conducting ideologically based terrorist often leave a statement or message somewhere to be found.

Therefore, I believe that there is a likelihood that the motive of this terrorist attack was to send a message. If someone was trying to send a message regarding this is one way that it manifests. Twenty-five years ago someone named Timothy McVeigh did exactly that thing. And, using nearly the exact same method of attack. We may soon know what, if any message or warning there was.

What was different about this terrorist attack from others?

Whether this was an infrastructure attack, attack on a famous cultural district, a more general attack on our heartland, or any of the aforementioned ideological justifications, we cannot rule out either the symbolism or pinpoint nature of this location, date, and method. What is different about this domestic terrorist attack is that it:

1. Appears to have sought to avoid loss of life.

2. Despite having the hallmarks of a VBIED attack, there were some flaws in the conduct of the attack for which is did not achieve the full potential or effects intended.

3. It did not choose a particularly high value target or inflict mass terror. Unless this was a “sample” to send some type of message and warning of possible future attacks, then this attack falls short as compared to the majority of VBIEDs on record.

Judging by the considerable and plainly visible rooftop air conditioning systems and power that goes into the AT&T building, this mostly windowless building houses many servers, cabling, and electronics. Complete destruction of this facility could cause even more serious disruption in a wide area and over several states, far more than what occurred. I observed that this particular building did not have any barriers or other physical security enhancements other than very simple key locked doors and security cameras.

Although there was damage and interruption of service, this building is still standing. Crews are attempting to reestablish power and function to this facility. With the right type of explosive and knowledge of how and where to emplace it, such a building can be taken out. This particular VBIED did not produce the maximum potential yield that it could have. Despite what appears to be serious damage to the buildings in close proximity to the blast, most of the explosion vented up and down the street and straight up in the air. Explosions go the path of least resistance. Unless they are directed in such a way to yield maximum physical destruction. If this VBIED had been in that location during a typical, pre-pandemic night in that district, the casualty count would have been immense. I examined photos from right before the blast and then a variety of older street view imagery, and determined that this RV could have either gotten onto the sidewalk in front of the AT&T building. Better yet, behind the AT&T building is a large, open, and empty parking lot directly behind which almost any sized vehicle could drive directly up to the side of unhindered. Either the perpetrator did not intend to get the maximum effect of their explosives or did not know how to. This is part of what makes me suspect that suicide by the perpetrator was one of the objectives of this terrorist attack. That would make this what we call an SVBIED – Suicide Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device.

In previous bombings, larger trucks were used. Some were rental and delivery trucks. Since these have been used in many bombings as well as by terrorists to run over pedestrians, law enforcement knows to look for them. An American made recreational vehicle (RV) is certainly less suspicious. More of these are becoming commonplace, particularly as more Americans are homeless due to the economic situation, with RVs being sighted in increasing manner in our cities. A self-propelled RV might have the capacity for the weight of a large IED. If the interior were stripped out, even more so. In many cases, bomb makers had to reinforce the suspensions of their trucks or cars as the weight of the explosives cause the vehicle to look abnormally overloaded. Law enforcement are taught to look for this as an indicator. We may soon know if this RV was modified to hold the additional weight of a large main charge of explosives. We will also know the material used in the main charge and its explosive yield. They will also know how the bomb was built, with what, and how it was initiated. The FBI and other agencies have this type of forensics down to a science.

Whether any of what has been posited here comes to be true, here is something that should be of concern – this bomb worked on the first try. Why this is a concern – They usually don’t. In the world of IED-making there are a large number of misfires and mishaps. Many bombs that our troops faced in the war either failed to detonate (misfire), or “low-ordered” (partially detonated or did not detonate to its maximum explosive yield). Since improvised/homemade explosives have such a high failure rate and certainly not the reliability of military or commercial grade explosives, the IED maker who wants to succeed will often conduct “test shots,” building and improving their IED design by testing it to ensure that it will go off when intended. Therefore, the maker of this particular bomb, a VBIED, most likely conducted tests to ensure that. They must do so in an undetected manner. They had to have used a remote location somewhere to conduct their tests. This also means that there could be additional explosive components yet to be found by law enforcement. This also could mean that there might be others who either were directly involved, or in some manner facilitated or at least knew that something was afoot. This brings me to the next portion of this analysis.

Was attack the work of a terrorist cell or a solo “lone wolf” terrorist?

Almost no terrorist attacks of any major scale are solo in nature. For most successful terrorist attacks, there is a cell of several operatives and a network of many more facilitators and enablers. A ratio of 5 to 20 such support personnel for a single terrorist would not be uncommon. We found in Afghanistan that a single suicide bomber might have a few dozen other terrorists and facilitators involved in the entire operation to get them recruited, trained, equipped, and emplaced at their target. For bombs they themselves, this requires a sophisticated capability for the WTI and logistical support that goes into it. And cost. So, a terrorist must be funded, hidden, given a place to sleep, eat, meet, plan, train, build explosives or prepare weapons, and be able to communicate. Some are assigned to conduct pre-attack surveillance of the target. This often occurs for a period of 4 to 12 weeks before an attack, to narrow down the target, learn the patterns of life of people and vehicles in the area, and a list of other considerations.
The terrorist must be infiltrated to the attack site. In this case, if the RV and VBIED did in fact come from the local neighborhood that the FBI just raided in connection with the person of interest, then this ten-mile route would need to be covered without impediment or detection.
It is very, very likely that this particular attacker had visited the target site in advance. There are some unconfirmed reports of the RV having been seen in that area in the recent past.

Whatever the case, it is possible for a very determined individual to plan such an attack from beginning to end, and without any assistance of any kind. We have in fact seen lone sniper and lone active shooter attacks in this country on multiple occasions since the 1960s. In doing so alone, many of the indicators and chatter picked up by government surveillance would have not existed and thusly avoided detection. The FBI and DOJ have admitted of years, to include in Congressional testimony, that lone wolf and small cell terrorists are the most elusive and often difficult or impossible to detect and stop before they act.

However, if this was an ideologically motivated attack by some type of extremist, it is highly likely that this perpetrator was connected to other extremists, as many of them do. They rely on each other for information, assistance with logistics, and even encouragement. They cannot help themselves but confide in others.
Nearly every planned domestic terrorist attack that has been thwarted by the FBI was against a small cell operating domestically. In most all cases, they had vulnerabilities in their operational security (OPSEC) and communications, flaws in their planning and approach, for which federal authorities were able to exploit and act upon. No matter how hard they try or how cunning that they think that they are, many of these extremists sew the seeds of their own disaster, leaving clues and forensic evidence that are easily found by counterterrorism personnel. That capability, as I have seen firsthand, is quite formidable in the post 9/11 era.
Thusly, the FBI will be looking for a network, any facilitators, and to determine or rule out the possibility that there could be follow-on attacks.

What could be coming next?

When such an investigation is underway, some impressive and complex resources are leveraged. The mentioned FBI lab at Quantico, fusion centers, and other assets are hard at work in a worldwide dragnet both to drill down on the localized aspects of this bombing while trying to either confirm or deny an international nexus of terrorism and the possibility of follow-on attacks by the same cell of terrorists, if they do exist. They are very likely in a race at this moment to run this down.

This also includes the large, well-funded National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). It is the focal point of all intelligence and early warning for terrorist related intelligence and knowledge, a veritable nerve center on the watch twenty-four hours a day. This is where they “connect the dots” and issue warnings throughout government and law enforcement. On the ground, the FBI has specially trained & equipped teams that conduct these investigations. Others will conduct a series of raids and warrants, following up on the combination of evidence from the blast crater, the RV, and other mentioned digital & forensic evidence. This is the real-world version of CSI, but much much better. While this is going on, the intelligence centers will be analyzing and feeding back to them information. In some cases, leading them to their next location to conduct a warrant service on. In some cases, leading them to conduct surveillance or interviews. At this moment, all of the above are either going on or being planned. Warrants are being drawn up and approval being sought for them. Special Operations (SWAT) teams and task forces are deployed to assist in some of these warrants, especially for a higher risk suspect or location.

Included in their search will be still and video footage from all available CCTV, security cameras, ATM machines, traffic cameras, and other systems in the vicinity of the explosion and working outwards. Connected to other investigative tools, they will look for evidence of the suspects conducting pre-attack surveillance and other activities (such as “casing” and “drive-bys” and “dry runs”), anyone that they may have come into contact with, and much more. They will compare physical and even biometric evidence from the crime scene, to include from the bomb and any bodies, to the same in other vehicles, workplaces, and residences that they may have been recently. These can become veritable jackpots for investigators, as even an explosion of that magnitude does not destroy everything. Our personnel were able to lift fingerprints of insurgents off of fired and abandoned rocket launchers, the tape used to make a bomb, or residue of explosives on the fly of their pants and shoelaces. We once traced the origin of where the bombers got their materials based upon some unique yet carelessly discarded packaging for string that one of the components came from in a nearby country.

For example, a locker at a gym regularly used, bicycle, dishes in a sink, bottoms of shoes, and contents of a garage can yield significant evidence to connect the dots.

When it comes to investigating bombings, our federal law enforcement has this down to a science.

What I believe will surface will be some type of death note, message, or other communication by the perpetrator(s) about their motive. This will possibly be uncovered via exploitation and computer & digital forensics examinations of their personal electronics and accounts connected to them. This includes possibly internet search history to prepare for blast and acquisitions of materials to learn how to develop the type of IED used. Or, the perpetrator could have timed a release of such information.

Initial Assessment – In consideration of the above, and breaking information from the crime scene, my initial assessment is that this was certainly a domestic terrorist attack, though very possibly not the work of a terrorist network nor is there a nexus seeking to conduct similar attacks and not the work of foreign nationals. This looks to be the work of either a lone actor or a small cell, a single target that was attacked, and for a very specific ideological rationale. This was planned far in advance and implemented some of the TTPs used in other terrorist attacks of this kind.

However, in connection with political events and increasing strike, the possibility of a network and follow-on attacks cannot yet be ruled out. Particularly because of the current political environment and timing of events, the vulnerability of our country considering an election in question and upcoming inauguration, and a list of other considerations which our federal counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and law enforcement officials are toiling over as we speak.

For Reference:

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/memphis/news/press-releases/seeking-information-concerning-operator-or-owner-of-rv-linked-to-explosion

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/nctc-home

(an impressive website for research and those interested on all manner of terrorism information)

John Milton Peterson is a contributing author/analyst at the Gold Institute for International Strategy.

Mr. Peterson is a combat veteran of the U.S. Army Special Forces (a.k.a. the “Green Berets”) with multiple deployments to the Middle East and Asia. His post 9/11 experience includes a series of government positions and contracts in support of national security and the Global War On Terrorism. These include being recruited to a position at the new U.S. Department of Homeland Security after 9/11, followed by contracts for the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community focused on counterterrorism, intelligence, special operations, and training of personnel in these professions.

During this period, he worked on more than one assignment where he was deployed overseas assigned to collect and analyze intelligence on terrorists, including specialized training and assignments focused on targeting IED networks. In another, he taught special operations troops intelligence techniques & tactics for targeting of terrorist networks. He has also taken part in as a role player and been a developer of elaborate counterterrorism training scenarios for the military, to include involving IEDs and WMD.

For the past 23 years, he has been serving on the Advisory Board of the International Association of Counterterrorism & Security Professionals (IACSP), serving as their Special Projects Director, contributing to their long running journal many times, and representing the organization in presenting about terrorism at national level conferences as well as instructional invites to government.

His professional memberships include such natsec related organizations as the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, AFCEA, National Tactical Officers Association, OSS Society, Global SOF Foundation, Nine Lives Associates, National Press Club, and is a life member of the IACSP, AFCEA, and five veterans service organizations.