Venezuela arrests two Americans in plot to kidnap President Maduro

(May 7) Luke Denman the US citizen who was arrested in Venezuela after a failed incursion described a plot to kidnap President Nicolas Maduro and fly him to the United States.

The alleged plot

Denman outlined the plot on Venezuelan state media. Denman said that he and others who work for the Florida-based Silvercorp Corporation were to seize control of Caracas international airport and then capture President Maduro take him to the airport and fly him to the United States. Benham claimed that there were about 50 people trained for the operation.

Silvercorp for its part has claimed that their operation was paid for by Juan Guaido the US-supported coup leader who declared himself and it recognized as the legitimate president by the US and many of its allies. If this is true than no doubt funds for the operation came from the US. Venezuelan authorities on Monday arrested Denman, together with fellow U.S. citizen Airan Berry and 11 others. Maduro called the operation a failed plot coordinated with Washington designed to oust him.

Denman explained on TV the operation's relation to Silvercorp: "Denman said he and Berry were contracted by Jordan Goudreau, a U.S. military veteran who leads Silvercorp, to train 50 to 60 Venezuelans in Colombia in January for the operation. Goudreau supplied the group with equipment."

Guaido and US deny involvement

The US has denied any direct role in the operation. This leaves open a possible indirect role. Guaido has denied any ties to Silvercorp. Even though the US has denied any involvement in the operation the US State Dept. has vowed to do everything possible to release Americans involved in the attack. With Denman admitting the group intended to kidnap President Maduro there is little likelihood that Americans involved would be released.

Venezuelan authorities authorities claim they arrested the group by the isolated coastal town of Chuao, about 60 kilometers (40 miles) west of Caracas’ airport, after locals raised suspicions. Venezuelan authorities published photos that they claimed was the group's boat. It was loaded with ammunition, weapons, and communications equipment. Eight people involved in the same operation were reported killed on Monday in La Guaira state near the capital Caracas the government said.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump vetoes Congress resolution to limit his power to wage war on Iran

(May 6) The Iran War Powers resolution was passed in the US Senate in February and then In the House of Representatives in March. On Wednesday it was vetoed by President Trump who claimed it was insulting and dangerous as it limited his ability to attack Iran.

Purpose of the bill

The resolution was intended to serve as a preemptive War Powers Act challenge to a war with Iran. The act noted that the US Congress has not in any way authorized a US war against Iran. It ordered that any military operations related to a war with Iran be stopped. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he has the right to unilaterally decide who the US can attack. He constantly claims that it is insulting to suggest otherwise and also dangerous to limit in any way the possibility of the US carrying out preemptive attacks wherever it wants.The War Powers Act gives the US Congress the power to limit the president's power to initiate conflicts.

The Iran War Powers measure passed the House of Representatives 227 to 186. It was expected that Trump would veto the resolution. There are not enough pro-votes in Congress to overcome the Trump veto. This will end this particular legal challenge against Trump for now.

The lawmakers have been increasing their attempt to limit Trump's powers after he had key Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani assassinated near the Baghdad airport in Iraq. This sparked an Iranian response in which Iran attacked US bases in Iraq. The US Congress worried that the attack on Soleimani was without any US Congress input.

House Republicans defend Trump

Republican in the House maintained that Trump had actually been restrained in his actions against Iran. They complained that the bill was just a partisan exercise. Representative Michael McCaul of Texas the top Foreign Affairs Republican said: "In my judgment, we are wasting precious legislative days and setting a terrible precedent of abusing war powers procedures."

Groups that want to restrain executive war powers and limit US future overseas wars supported the resolution. Nate Anderson of Concerned Veterans of America supported the resolution saying: “The United States should always retain the capability to protect itself from threats, and it is important to note this measure does not prohibit the president from defending our country and our fellow Americans should they be threatened. Rather, this is a positive step toward a better foreign policy that will better position America to prioritize American safety, engage productively in the world, and prevent endless wars with no clear mission or end goal.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Information about Taliban attacks in Afghanistan lack hard data

(May 3) Attempting to find proper figures to measure the effects of the civil war in Afghanistan has been challenging for some time now. Analysts need to make do with publicly available information.

Even people such as the US Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) struggle to gather reliable data as Afghan officials prefer that SIGAR not be too well informed about what is happening.

Situation becoming even less transparent

SIGAR's latest quarterly report shows that even less data is forthcoming. One of the few remaining sources of data NATO statistics on Taliban attacks are now being withheld both from the public and from SIGAR as well. The NATO report says only that the Taliban had increased attacks against Afghan forces and were above seasonal norms in March. However, there is no hard data to confirm this or to what extent the increase is,. There is no exact hard data at all.

It is not even certain that the report is correct. Earlier reports indicated that Taliban violence was higher than they had hoped after the Taliban US peace deal but was still down considerably from the situation before the peace deal. However, it is not clear why both descriptions could not be true without more exact numbers.

Afghan government failed to carry out terms US Taliban peace agreement

At the end of February, the US and Taliban signed a peace agreement. Among its provisions was a prisoner swap of 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the Taliban for 1,000 Afghan forces imprisoned by the Taliban. The Afghan government was not part of the agreement and refused to carry out the swap which was to be a confidence building measure to be followed by government talks with the Taliban. The Taliban reacted by renewing attacks on the Afghan government but not foreign troops. When the US defended the Afghan government the US again started to fight the Taliban.

John Sopko, SIGAR, wrote in his quarterly report: "The signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement followed a successful week-long 'reduction in violence.' Without the background reported above one cannot understand why it is that the Taliban reacted the way they did. It was not due to the Taliban rejecting their treaty with the US it was due to the Afghan government rejecting that agreement and refusing to carry out its provisions. The US did nothing to force the government to carry the provisions out and talks with the Taliban have yet to result in a satisfactory resolution of the situation.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US in effect approves of Israeli annexation without a Palestinian state

May 2) Officials from the US Jerusalem Embassy issued a statement last Friday that reiterated that the US was wholly comfortable with the Israeli plan to annex much of the occupied West Bank in line with the Trump administration's deal of the century.

	1 of 2

Announcement in effect approves annexation without a Palestinian state

The Trump plan did involve creation of a nominal Palestinian state. However, the Palestinians rejected the plan as favoring Israel with Reuters reporting: "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan the “slap of the century” on Tuesday as thousands of Palestinians held protests in Gaza and the West Bank. " Palestinians were not involved with or even consulted on the plan.

The US statement indicates that US is comfortable with annexation going ahead even though the Trump plan has not been accepted by the Palestinians and will not go ahead. The Israelis is as the US stated previously free to decide whether to annex or not. It is up to them as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said near the end of April.

.

Annexation of West Bank without Palestinian state ends any track to statehood

Effectively there would be no track to statehood. There is no pressure on Israel to move forward to provide the Palestinians with a state. They have already achieved their main goal. The Israeli far-right will be fine with this. The Trump administration may see annexation as a punishment of the Palestinians for not embracing Trump's deal of the century.

A spokesperson for the US embassy told reporters: “Our position has not changed. As we have made consistently clear, we are prepared to recognize Israeli actions to extend Israeli sovereignty and the application of Israeli law to areas of the West Bank that the [Trump peace plan] foresees as being part of the State of Israel.”

In return for the US recognizing the annexation, Israel is to agree to freezing all further settlement activity for four years in areas the Trump plan sees as part of a Palestinian state. Israel would also negotiate with Palestinians on the basis of the US plan. However, the Palestinians have rejected that plan so there are unlikely to be any such negotiations. The US has offered assistance to negotiations should they take place. As noted on the appended video most nations believe that without Palestinian agreement the Israeli annexation of the occupied territories would violate international law.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Two claimants to Afghan presidency reach tentative deal

(May 2) The two claimants to the presidency of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah have finally come to a "tentative deal" according to Abdullah Abdullah. Details are set to be released soon.

The term "tentative deal" is in quotes because according to a tweet by Abdullah Abdullah the two are still working on details though they have agreed upon principles: " We have made progress in negotiations & reached tentative agreement on a range of principles. Work on details is underway to finalize the agreement."

Ghani had earlier suggested a compromise

Polls showed that Ghani had eked out a narrow victory but this was contested by Abdullah Abdullah. Under the Ghani agreement Abdullah Abdullah would have become vice-president and would have been in charge of peace talks with the Taliban. It is not clear whether the new tentative agreement would have similar terms.

The new agreement

While the precise details are not known it is thought to be focused on preparing for talks with the Taliban. Although there has been an agreement between the Taliban and the US since the end of February, the Afghan government was not involved. The Ghani government refused to carry out the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of that agreement. As a result the Taliban resumed attacks on the government. Negotiations have so failed to produce a solution so talks are necessary to resolve the issue and hopefully result in a ceasefire and peace.

The agreement should unify political power blocs and help Afghanistan to prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pompeo's failure

Earlier in the year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had attempted to mediate a solution to the presidential crisis but without success. In response the US punished the two by removing $1 billion in aid to Afghanistan. The lack of a compromise US officials claimed was against US interests. Pompeo also said that the US would start a review of all its projects in Afghanistan to identify additional reductions.

However, Pompeo insisted that the US was not abandoning their partnership with Afghanistan or its commitment to support US security forces. The US is providing $15 million to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless the US is already withdrawing troops from Afghanistan as part of the deal with the Taliban.

Trump appears anxious to withdraw troops from Afghanistan as the withdrawal is already ahead of schedule.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Israel may request double its present military aid from the US

(April 30) With the COVID-19 pandemic causing a potential economic crisis in the US, Israeli officials are anxious to get as much military aid from the US as quickly as they are able.

Their requests seek the aid delivered ahead of schedule and potentially double the agreed amount. Last year Israel asked for $3.8 billion but this year it could ask for as much as $7.6 billion.

Israeli rationale

Israel is expected to argue that the military aid will help the US recover from its own slump due to the COVID-19 pandemic since the aid tends to be spent heavily on US weapons, produced in US factories. Some Israelis argue that the aid could be in effect presented as domestic spending to help their own arms manufacturers rather than foreign aid.

Some Israeli officials oppose asking for more aid now

Many Israeli officials think that this will work so that Israeli aid is not in any serious threat in spite of present US economic woes. However others suggest that this is not a good time to try to ask for more. They think this could make the aid a political issue during a time when many people are asking for aid themselves as the US experiences an economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lior Weintraub, a former chief of staff of the Israeli Embassy to the US said: "Whenever Israel had a crisis, we could get help from the US.n This is a crisis where it will be very hard to ask America for things it may not be able to afford to give, and we don’t know how long it’ll continue.”

Current aid

The current aid results from a 2016 agreement by the Obama administration that gives Israel a total of $38 billion over ten years. Israel receives more US aid than any other country. This is over $10 million dollars per day going to Israel in aid.

If the Israeli aid were doubled this would work out to almost $21 million a day paid the US taxpayer. At the same time US debt is approaching a humongous $4 trillion. The US is also consider cutting foreign aid as a means to dealing with the spiraling deficit. Israel is not likely to be exempted.

Washington could agree to Israel annexing much of the West Bank

The US is prepared to recognize Israeli annexation of much of the occupied West Bank, including the Jordan Valley as part of the implementation of Trump's "deal of the century" a deal that did not involve the Palestinians in any way. A US State Department spokesperson said: "As we have made consistently clear, we are prepared to recognise Israeli actions to extend Israeli sovereignty and the application of Israeli law to areas of the West Bank that the vision foresees as being part of the State of Israel.The annexation would be in the context of an offer to the Palestinians to achieve statehood based upon specific terms, conditions, territorial dimensions and generous economic support."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Amid worries about the COVID-19 pandemic Trump wants all US troops withdrawn from Afghanistan

(April 28) With a peace deal signed in February between the Taliban and the 12,00 US, troops are already being withdrawn from Afghanistan. However, as concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic rise Trump would like to remove all US troops sooner rather than later.

The withdrawal according to the Taliban US agreement

According to the agreement signed the end of February over the following 135 days troop levels would be cut from 12,000 to 8,600 and five US bases would be closed. If both sides keep their commitments then all US forces could leave Afghanistan by spring of 2021. However, it is thought that the US wants to keep intelligence operatives on the ground. It is doubtful that the Taliban would allow this.

The prisoner swap

The US Taliban deal also promises work on a prisoner exchange ahead of Afghan talks due to start on 10 March, with the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners in return for the insurgents freeing 1,000 government soldiers. However, the Afghan government was not part of the deal and refused to release the prisoners. There have been attempts to negotiate the release prisoners along with talks but so far these have not resulted in a deal. The Taliban reacted to the government refusal to carry out the swap deal by resuming attacks against it. The US came to defense of the Afghan government exacerbating the conflict and negating any cease fire for now. The situation is exacerbated by conflict within the Afghan government as the presidency of Ashraf Ghani is being challenged by Abdullah Abdullah who held his own inauguration ceremony.

Trump complains continually that US troops should be withdrawn now

The present withdrawal of US troops is apparently going ahead at a rate that will see the deadline down to 8,600 by 135 days or mid-July being met according to Lt. Col. Thomas Campbell a Pentagon spokesperson. However, Trump wants to get all US troops out before the COVID-19 pandemic has time to spread too much in the country.

US officials worried about COVID-19 in Afghanistan

Afghanistan lacks health care and testing facilities. It also shares borders with Iran which has been hard hit by the pandemic, As a result US officials have serious concerns about its possible spread in Afghanistan and among US troops. One former senior US official said that Afghanistan would have a significant coronavirus issue even though it is not manifested itself yet. It will.

As of Monday, the Afghan Ministry of Public Health reported 1,703 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 57 deaths in a country with an estimated population of 35 million.

Trump advisers however, constantly try to talk him out of withdrawing all troops. They argue that if COVID-19 is such a danger to troops they ought to withdraw US troops from Italy which is far worse hurt by the pandemic than Afghanistan. Advisers want to try to fix Trump's attention on something other than his concern about drawdowns from what he had in his presidential campaign called useless wars.

Conclusion

Trump is often inconsistent in his statements and sometimes acts differently than he has stated he would. It remains to be seen if Trump will be convinced by the attempts of his advisers and officials to slow down any withdrawal. If Trump were to withdraw all the US troops now, the US would have little leverage to force the Taliban to keep its side of the peace agreement and would also leave Afghan government at risk of facing a concerted Taliban attack against it. The hawks in the Trump administration will muster all the forces they can to force Trump to slow down if not to stop withdrawal altogether.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US and Russia indicate they could work together to fight the COVID-19 pandemic

(April 27) In what appears to be a very sensible and innocuous statement the US and Russia issued a joint commemoration this weekend of the meeting in 1945 of US and Russian troops on the Elbe River.

The statement pointed out that the meeting showed the two countries "overcoming their differences in pursuit of a greater cause". The intention of the statement was liken the then common enemy Nazi Germany in 1945 to the current common foe the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the two countries could again work together to defeat the virus.

In a joint statement, US President Trump and Russia President Putin said on April 25: "The 'Spirit of the Elbe' is an example of how our countries can put aside differences, build trust, and cooperate in pursuit of a greater cause."

Earlier this month the Russian ambassador to the US said that ceremonies between Russian and US officials to commemorate the Elbe meeting had been cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Statement immediately drew criticism in the US

Former US intelligence analyst Angela Stent said: “I am sure this was a Russian initiative. Putin wants validation from the United States that today’s Russia like the Soviet Union is a great power.”

Representative Eliot Engel, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee tweeted that everyone knew that Trump constantly played into Putin's hands. However, it is in the interests of both countries to cooperate on fighting the virus. It is not clear why cooperating with Putin against a common enemy is playing into Putin's hands. While this may make relations less hostile between the two big powers it is hard to see why this should be regarded as a bad thing. However, that appears the view of some critics.

The UN announcement

The UN has even called for a global ceasefire so that all nations can concentrate of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The UN and Russia have been the two major countries that have shown some resistance to the call for a global ceasefire. It is a hopeful sign that they both have common ground in a desire to fight the COVID-19 pandemic together. It is a sign that both countries at least recognize the benefit of unity on the issue.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

In Libya, Haftar is enlisting more Sudanese mercenaries to help fight against Libyan government

(April 26) In Libya this week the tables have been turning as the internationally-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) has taken back key western coastal areas from the Libyan National Army (LNA) of rebel Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

Haftar had made big advanced by failed to capture Tripoli

Haftar has captured eastern Libya and in the west has been contesting the capital Tripoli for a year now. Although with the support of the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and mercenary troops from the Sudan Haftar has often seemed close to victory, he now may be facing defeat with the help of Turkey.

Although the GNA is the internationally recognized government of Libya most western countries only give verbal support to the country but provide no military backup with the exception of Turkey. The GNA claims France supports Haftar although France denies this. Russia also supports Haftar. Haftar is a citizen of the US and was once a CIA asset.

Reports claim Haftar asking for more Sudanese mercenaries

Reports are that the UAE has contacted Sudanese General Dagalo also known as Hemetti, and offered him substantial financial rewards if he will send mercenaries to Libya to help out Haftar as he loses ground especially around the capital. It is not clear if any of those countries that support the GNA verbally such as the US will aid the GNA in resisting any counter-attack.

One report claims that Dagalo has agreed to send two armed factions to Libya and in return the UAE promised to send both financial and military support for the general. Sudan denies that any of its troops are serving as mercenaries for Haftar in Libya.

There are already many Sudanese mercenaries fighting in Libya. They have been sharing photos and videos on Facebook. Many claim they are fighting to free Libya from terrorism. Haftar consistently describes those opposed to him as being Islamic terrorists. However, some radical Islamists, the Madkhalists support him.

The appended video gives some background and analysis by several different commentators of the present situation.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Nearly three quarters of US veterans favor fulll US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

(April  23) Nearly 75 percent of US veterans and almost 70 percent of their family members support a full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, a new poll released Wednesday by a conservative activist group shows.

The US has about 13,600 troops in Afghanistan. It has already started withdrawing some under an agreement with the Taliban. Within 135 days they are to withdraw down to 8,600. However, the agreement signed the end of February involved a prisoner swap that the Afghan government has so far refused to honor as it was not a party to the agreement.

The poll was by Concerned Veterans for America

The group has close ties to the conservative Koch network ad the also the Trump administration. The results show an increase in those who want withdraw from the results of an identical survey last year. The group has been leading public efforts to convince lawmakers and the Trump administration to severely cut back military operations.

Nate Anderson executive director of the group said: “I think this shows the fatigue of almost two decades of war. And I think there is increased awareness among the American public about how long we have been fighting.”

The poll

The survey was across the nation and was conducted April 7 to 10. Those polled were about 700 military veterans and about 800 of veterans' family members. All were chosen at random.

About 57 percent of the veterans polled thought that the US should be less involved in military conflicts overseas. This is an increase of about 9 percent from last year's survey. Just 7 percent thought the US should be more involved.

As mentioned for Afghan specifically 73 percent favored a full US withdrawal, with 69 percent of family members having the same opinion. In contrast, the 2019 poll was about 60 percent in favor for each group. Over half of veterans favored full withdrawal very strongly.

Withdrawal from Iraq also favored

71 percent of veterans and 69 percent of military family members supported a full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The Iraqi parliament earlier this year passed a resolution that all foreign troops should leave Iraq. However, the US has refused to discussed the matter. Trump even threatened Iraq with severe sanctions if Iraq forces US troops to leave. Although US troops are supposedly there to fight the Islamic State or ISIS the group has been mostly defeated and is in survival mode control of any territory. The US wants to remain to counter Iranian influence.

About two thirds of veterans polled also wanted to see US foreign aid spending reduced. 17 percent even favored an overall decrease in US spending. However twice as many, 34 percent wanted to see an increase.

Group director Anderson said he hoped the poll would dispel some presumptions made about the military community's support for overseas operations and help sway policy makers to move away from more open-ended combat operations.

Trump supports peace deal with the Taliban

Trump has supported the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan as outlined in the February peace deal. However, the deal has been more or less sabotaged by the refusal of the Afghan government to agree to a prisoner swap as outlined in the agreement. Efforts to negotiate the swap with the Afghan government and Taliban have faltered and the Taliban have renewed attacks against the government. As the US defends the government this has involved conflict with the US as well. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the president Afram Ghani faces a challenger Abdullah Abdullah who also claims the presidency..

Since the conflict began in 2001, 2,300 US military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US asks South Korea more of the cost of keeping US troops in the country

(April 22) US has for months been demanding that South Korea pay a huge percentage of the cost of keeping US troops in the country. However, the issue still remains unresolved.

Trump rejects South Korean offer

Trump reported that South Korea had offered a certain amount of money but he rejected it. Trump did not specify how much South Korea had offered nor did he say how many billions the US was asking for at this point.South Korea was already paying one of the largest percentages in cost-sharing of any country but the US has kept raising its demands with the result that South Korea has so far been unwilling to agree to US terms. It seems to some that the US is going out of its way not to make a deal.

US officials are reported to have said to Reuters earlier this month that South Korea had offered a 13 percent increase from the present arrangements but that the offer was rejected.

Trump said: "We're defending a wonderful nation. We're asking them to pay for a big percentage of what we're doing. It's not fair. ... It's a question of will they contribute toward the defence of their own nation. We're doing a tremendous service. We have a wonderful feeling and a wonderful relationship with each other, but we have to be treated equitably and fairly."

Trump said that Seoul was at present paying about a billion dollars per year towards the cost of keeping between 28,000 and 32,000 US troops in the country.

US may be considering troop cuts in South Korea

South Korean press reports claim that the US is considering various proposals to reduce troop numbers in South Korea. This would be due to the COVID-19 pandemic but also because the US is not going to get the payments they want to keep troops there.

A spokesperson for US Forces Korea told a representative of the Voice of America that they are not aware of any discussions of a US troop drawdown in South Korea.

There are regular rumors of US plans to withdraw troops from Korea. Last year when Trump was asked about withdrawing troops from Korea he said: “No, no, and we haven’t been asked to. Now, I have to tell you, at some point in the future, I would like to save the money. You know, we have 32,000 troops there.”

The US has numerous bases spread throughout the world. Upkeep costs US taxpayers $156 billion per year. As election fever heats up Trump could be considering the merits of saving the US taxpayer some money and forcing countries where the US has troops to pay more of upkeep costs. The US is apparently planning to ask Germany and Japan for more money as well but these plans may be put on hold as US demands are not going over at all well in South Korea.

If the US is too demanding the US may be forced to withdraw troops with the result that countries may demand that they pay even less. The US troop costs will loom large in South Korean elections and it may be that South Koreans will demand that at least some troops be withdrawn so that there is less of a burden on the South Korean taxpayer.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon seeks billions for US arms makers from funds meant to save economy from negative effects of COVID-19 pandemic

(April21)As debate is picking up for the US to pass another emergency stimulus package to counter the economic damage produced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Pentagon is lining up well-connected US arms makers, some already the most heavily subsidized companies.

US official's statement

Ellen Lord US Undersecretary of Defense claims the pandemic is negatively effecting ship-building, aviation, and space launch companies. She said that the Pentagon is planning a major pay-day for companies in these arieas, billions and billions.

Lord said that out of 10,509 Defense Department contractors, 106 are closed with 68 companies having closed and reopened. Of 11,413 subcontractors, 427 are closed with 147 having closed and reopened

Big winners are big companies

While there is some talk of some small space launch companies as having to shut their doors because of the pandemic this covers up the fact that the big winners will be the handful of large US companies that are constantly receiving large subsidies from the US government. Many of the smaller companies that will receive funds are suppliers to these large companies.

Those receiving the most money are to be Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Boeing is already expected to seek funds from the airliner bailout. Money will also go to some of their suppliers so that their chain of supplies is not cut off. Lord did not single out any particular programs that could be negatively impacted by the pandemic but claimed that not approving the bailout could cause inefficiencies and other negative effects.

Not clear what view legislators will take of Pentagon demands

While Lord , as mentioned, had not picked out particular programs that the COVID-19 pandemic would hurt she said it could negatively impact on major programs: “We are just now looking at key milestones that might be impacted,. We believe there will be a three-month impact that we can see right now. So we’re looking at schedule delays and inefficiencies and so forth.”

Even though the COVID-19 relief bill is not a military funding bill, legislators seem usually to approve funds spent for military purposes. Weeks ago President Trump signed a $2 trillion COVID-19 bill as shown on the appended video.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iran calls US Gulf naval operation dangerous and provocative

(April 19)The first official Iranian response to US allegations that Iranian speed boats have been dangerous and provocative in approaching close to US vessels came Friday from the Iranian Defense Ministry.

Iranian response to US accusations

The Ministry claimed that the US charges were baseless and that it was the US "illegal and provocative" US presence in the area that it causing insecurity.

Defense Minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami told reporters in the capital Tehran: “What leads to insecurity in the Persian Gulf region is actually the illegal and aggressive presence of the Americans who have come from the other end of the world to our borders and make such baseless claims."

The US military claimed that 11 vessels from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) came dangerously close to US Navy and Coast Guard ships in the Gulf calling their moves "dangerous and provocative" A US military statement said:"The IRGCN's dangerous and provocative actions increased the risk of miscalculation and collision, [and] were not in accordance with the internationally recognised Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea."

The US said that it was carrying out integration operations with six military vessels and helicopters in international waters. The Iranian ships stayed in the area about an hour. They were warned to stay away by the US ships.

US actions are provocative

These actions may be in international waters but they are just off the coast of Iran. Surely if the Iranian military carried out similar operations just off the US coast there would at the very least be a similar attempt to monitor and even harass the Iranian ships.

The US would surely be aware that if they were to carry out such exercises near the Iranian coast that the Iranians would send out ships or planes to investigate the actions. Fortunately so far nothing further has happened to exacerbate the situation. However, it is clear that continuing US presence close to the Iranian coast is bound to create a situation where there can be more instances of this sort. The US thinks it can defect any responsibility by noting that it is vessels are in international waters. This may make their operation legal but it hardly makes it not provocative.

I have not seen any explanation of why the Iranians think the US action is illegal but it remains provocative.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Un Security Council backs call for all sides in Yemen to call an immediate ceasefire to help stop the COVID-19 pandemic

(April 18)The United Nations Security Council has supported a call by Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres asking for all sides in Yemen to agree to an immediate ceasefire in order to concentrate on fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yemen lacks medical infrastructure to fight the virus

The first verified cases of the virus have just reached Yemen but in the absence of testing there could already be many cases present but not confirmed. Yemen simply lacks the medical capacity to deal with any large outbreak of COVID-19.

Saudis have unilaterally launched a two-week ceasefire

The Houthi rebels have rejected joining the ceasefire complaining that the Saudis have not ended a naval blockade of a key port through which aid and supplies reach Houthi-controlled areas. In many areas there is a shortage of food as well as medical supplies and some areas have suffered from cholera outbreaks. The Houthis have continued their offensive in the north much of which they control including the capital Sanaa.

The Houthi military command also accused the Saudi-led coalition of violating the cease fire 82 times over 24 hours with airstrikes in Marib province and artillery attacks on the port of Hodeida a key gateway for humanitarian aid.

On Friday, the Houthis' military command accused the coalition of violating the cease-fire 82 times over the past 24 hours, with airstrikes on the central province of Marib and artillery attacks in the port city of Hodeida, the country’s main gateway for humanitarian aid.

The two sides still engaging in indirect talks

In spite of the continuing conflict, the two opponents are engaging in UN-supported talks. The UN Special Envoy Martin Griffith has claimed that the talks have been making very good progress. Both sides realized the importance of fighting COVID-19. Griffith said that due to COVID-19 the talks were making very good progress.

Griffith optimistic about a ceasefire and direct talks

Griffith actually predicted there would in the near future be a nationwide ceasefire along with direct talks. However, the Houthis are continuing to insist that the Saudi naval blockade be lifted first. This would allow humanitarian aid into Yemen which would be a big step forward in the fight against COVID-19. Up to now though the Saudis have wanted to maintain a stranglehold on aid. No doubt the Saudis want to ensure that no arms and other supplies for the Houthi rebels arrive by sea through Hodeida.

Published previously in the Digital Journal

Some members of US-supported militia group in Syria defect.

(April 17) US-supported rebel militia group Maghawir al_Thawra appears to be losing some members along with their families who are fleeing into Assad government territory. There have been two recent group defections.

	1 of 3

Those fleeing may be associated with smuggling drugs

The group was centered around the US base al-Tanf in a desert eastern area near the border with Iraq and near Jordan. The area had become a haven for the group who did little but hang out with US arms at the border. However, at least one report suggests that those fleeing to Assad territory had been smuggling drugs.

Some rebel sources said that Samir al-Khidr along with several members of the militia and their families fled to the Assad-held city of Palmyra from the US al-Tanf base. Even though the US has concentrated upon keeping most of its troops remaining in Syria in oil producing regions they have remained at al-Tanf.

The Maghawir al Thawra narrative

There are still members of the militia at al Tanf who had their own interpretation of what had happened. They said in a tweet about al-Khidr: “He left because he could not smuggle drugs in this area due to the efforts of Maghaweir al-Thowra in interdicted drugs. We allowed him to leave with his family, as we did not want to get in a conflict with him because all the women and children with him.” The militia fled with US weapons and vehicles. This is not the first defection but follows on an earlier one this month. However, there are still a number of the approximately one hundred fighters in the militia around the al-Tanf base.

One report claims the US is attempting to brand the group as drug smugglers, and claims that those fleeing are doing so because the US would not let them get away with smuggling on Jordan's border.

The appended video purports to show the convoy of defectors defecting into Assad-controlled territory. If the video is correct then quite a number of US vehicles were taken as well as armaments. This must have been the earlier defection judging by the date.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Israeli drones attack a vehicle near Syria Lebanon border

(April 16) Israeli drones fired two missiles at a vehicle in southern Syria on Wednesday near the border between Syria and Lebanon. Israel said the attack target Hezbollah member. Early reports claim there were no Hezbollah casualties.

Israel claims that Hezbollah is increasingly present in south Syria

Hezbollah, a Shi'ite political party and militant group based in Lebanon, is a target of Israeli attacks along with other Shi'ite groups in Syria. Israel argues that the entrenchment of Hezbollah and other Shi'ite group inside areas controlled by the Assad government poses a threat to Israel's long term military interests in the region. There are likely to be more attacks after these.

Hezbollah has claimed that its members managed to escape the attack. An anonymous source told AFP: "An Israeli drone first struck near a car transporting Hezbollah members The passengers got out before it was then directly hit in a second strike." The source added that there were no casualties.

Syrian state media report

Syrian state media confirmed that there was a drone attack by Israel on the vehicle but did not mention that there were Hezbollah members in it. Their report said that the attack damaged the vehicle but everyone inside survived.

Israel claims Hezbollah working with Assad

The drone attack came only a week after Israel's military released video it claims shows Syrian officers and Hezbollah members working together on the edge of the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. Israel has warned for some time about what It calls Iran and Hezbollah's "entrenchment" in southern Syria close to Israeli army positions. Israel has carried out several drone attacks near the Golan heights targeting Hezbollah fighters and Syrians working with them.

Previously published in the Digital Journal