Published by an old curmudgeon who came to America in 1936 as a refugee from Nazi Germany and proudly served in the U.S. Army during World War II. He is a former law enforcement officer and a retired professor of criminal justice who, in 1970, founded the Texas Narcotic Officers Association. BarkGrowlBite refuses to be politically correct.
(Copyrighted articles are reproduced in accordance with the copyright laws of the U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107.)
US Secretary of War says it
is refreshing to work with a “capable” and “determined” partner that
understands the proper application of force.
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
Mar 5, 2026
U.S.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (C) receives Israel Defense Minister
Katz (L) at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., July 18, 2025
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth hailed the results of the unprecedented cooperation between their two nations in Operation Roaring Lion/Epic Fury.
In less than a week, the combined US-Israeli aerial assault has
eliminated most of the Iranian regime’s top leadership, fully destroyed
the Iranian Navy, decimated the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile
forces and manufacturing capabilities, and severely weakened the forces
used to suppress the Iranian population.
All of this was made possible by the rapid achievement of air
superiority in the two allies’ areas of responsibility–Israel in western
Iran and over Tehran, and the US military along the southern Iranian
coast and up into central Iran.
“Changing history”
In an overnight call with Hegseth, Katz said that the US-Israel
cooperation in confronting the Islamic Republic was “changing history.”
Katz expressed Israel’s deepest condolences over the deaths of six US
troops during the first week of the campaign, and said Israeli forces
would continue to do everything possible to defend their allies.
Hegseth in turn expressed America’s gratitude to Israel, and urged the Israelis to “keep going to the end–we are with you.”
High praise for Israeli forces
Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that the US deeply appreciates working with such a capable ally.
“To our steadfast partner, Israel, your mission is being executed
with unmatched skill and iron determination,” he stated, adding:
“Fighting shoulder to shoulder with such a capable ally is a true force
multiplier and a breath of fresh air. We salute your courage and your
contribution.”
A day earlier, Hegseth effectively called out America’s other Western allies, and suggested they take notes on Israel’s conduct.
The US, he said, had “clear missions” in Operation Epic Fury aimed at
protecting American and Western interests. And Israel is doing its part
to bolster those missions while protecting its own interests.
“Israel has clear missions as well, for which we are grateful,”
Hegseth said. “As we’ve said since the beginning, capable partners are
good partners. Unlike so many of our traditional allies, who wring their
hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of
force.”
Advanced timetable
Israel has originally planned to assault the Iranian regime in mid-2026, Katz revealed on Wednesday.
But the events that transpired in Iran in January, including the
massacre of over 30,000 demonstrators by regime forces, and the
opportunity to work with US forces to fulfill the promises of both
President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to send help, necessitated advancing the timetable.
“Developments and circumstances—especially what happened inside Iran,
the position of the US president and the possibility of creating a
combined operation—created the need to move everything up,” Katz told
troops during a visit to the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.
Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder, head of the Military
Intelligence Directorate, joined Katz in applauding his troops, whose
work in gathering deep intelligence on the Iranian regime had made
possible the stunning success of the opening wave of US-Israeli
airstrikes last Shabbat.
“Anyone who chooses to engage in such [hostile] actions against the
State of Israel, against the residents of the State of Israel, against
our future here, we will find them, and we will eliminate them,” warned
Binder.
Don’t blame Israel for America defending itself against Iran
The Islamist terror regime, now allied to China and Russia, has
been waging war against the United States for 47 years. But to
Israel-bashers, it’s simply another Jewish plot.
U.S. President Donald Trump oversees “Operation Epic Fury” at Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Fla., March 1, 2026.
When it comes to the reason why Washington
has taken action against Iran’s terrorist regime, who are you going to
believe? President Donald Trump—the man who ordered the strikes—or
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the writers at The New York Times, and media personalities Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly?
Liberal and leftist publications, pundits
and politicians have joined with far-right podcasters to oppose Trump on
military strikes on Iran, which the president hopes will lead to the
collapse of the regime’s Islamist government. In fact, they disagree on a
lot. What they do seem to agree on is that the effort to put an end to
Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and its sponsorship of
international terrorism, is a bad idea. More than that, they agree that
the primary culprit for these actions is the State of Israel, which they
say dragged Trump into starting a war for its own interests and not
those of the United States.
Trump declares his
motivation
Trump is having none of it. He’s been explicit
in declaring that it wasn’t the Israelis who pushed him into making his
decision. At the White House, the president explained this week that
the attempt to portray him as the catspaw of the Israelis was simply
wrong.
“We were having negotiations with these
lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,”
Trump said. “They were going to attack if we didn’t do it. They were
going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. If anything, I might
have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth agree. The Islamic government and its
mullahs have been quite explicit about the fact that they are waging a
religious war against both the “great Satan” of the United States and
the “little Satan” of Israel for 47 years.
Nevertheless, opponents of various stripes
insist that Trump is being pushed around by Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.
By accusing Israel of strong-arming Trump
into doing something that costs American lives and doesn’t make the
United States safer, critics of Washington and Jerusalem have initiated
charges going far beyond those of ordinary debate about foreign policy.
Of course, like any decision a president
makes, the current military action is fair game for debate. So, too, are
Israeli policy choices.
Scapegoating Israel
But scapegoating Israel, and by extension,
its Jewish supporters, in this particular way is redolent of
traditional antisemitic tropes about Jews of dual loyalty, buying
political power in the halls of Washington, D.C., and exercising other
nefarious behind-the-scenes influence. Indeed, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to separate such wild distortions about the truth of the
U.S.-Israel alliance and threat to both countries from Iran, and the
equally inflammatory blood libels hurled at the Jewish state since Oct.
7, 2023. Those include accusations that Israel is committing “genocide”
against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip or is an “apartheid” state, which
have fueled a surge of antisemitism around the globe.
The particular motivations of those
beating the drum for blaming Israel may differ, though all seem
motivated by a mix of ideology and personal ambition.
The base of the Democratic Party has
embraced toxic left-wing ideas like critical race theory,
intersectionality and settler-colonialism that label Israel and Jews as
“white” oppressors over people of color, who are the oppressed. They
want to use opposition to the war to defeat Republicans in the midterm
elections this November. Newsom, who understands that he is viewed as
too centrist by many of his party’s primary voters, is aiming for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 by tilting to the left and
smearing Israel with the “apartheid” libel.
On the right, Carlson
wants to seize control of the GOP from Trump as part of an isolationist
and antisemitic paleo-conservative movement that may not have very much
support among party activists and officeholders, but has a broad
audience on social media and the internet.
By framing the debate about Trump’s
decision as one of Jerusalem pushing Washington into fighting a war
adverse to America’s interests, liberal politicians like Newsom and
far-right hatemongers such as Carlson aren’t just critiquing Trump. By
choosing this particular angle to oppose administration policy, they are
seeking to exploit the surge of anti-Zionism and openly antisemitic
invective spreading throughout U.S. public discourse since the Hamas-led
Palestinian Arab terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7.
It is entirely true that Netanyahu has
long advocated for the West to take action against Tehran, repeatedly
warning of the threat that its nuclear ambitions pose to the world.
Indeed, there is a cross-party consensus on the issue within the State
of Israel, as the overwhelming majority of its citizens understand that
the Islamist regime is bent on the destruction of their country as a
first step toward the imposition of Islam on the West. A poll conducted
by the left-leaning Israel Democracy Institute published this week showed that fully 93% of Jewish Israelis support the airstrikes taking place right now.
Yet the notion that the United States had
to be manipulated by its small ally into taking this step is a
pernicious myth. While Americans may debate the timing of the military
campaign—with polls
showing that Republicans support the president’s decision, and most
Democrats and independents opposing it—the need to stop Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon and opposing its exporting of violence has been
a position held by every American president in the 21st century.
Taking Rubio out of
context
Trump’s opponents jumped on a statement lifted out of remarks
uttered by Rubio that made it seem as if joining the attacks happened
because the Israelis had decided to go in anyway, and Washington feared
Iranian retaliation and chose not to wait to be hit.
Taken out of context, that bolstered the
claim that the joint effort was primarily Israel’s doing. In the same
statement, however, Rubio had made it clear that the primary reason for
the initiation of the strikes on Iran was that its nuclear program and
missile production is a threat to “the safety and security of the
world,” and not only to Israel. What’s more, the timing of the decision
was as much a sober evaluation of the futility of trying to expect a
rational self-interested policy from a clerical regime that refuses to
“make geopolitical decisions; they make decisions on the basis of
theology—their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one.”
What those harping on Israel’s role in
this drama also forget is that Iran has become a key ally of America’s
chief geostrategic foe: China. Beijing has kept the Iranian regime
afloat when Western sanctions threatened to bring Tehran to its knees by
cutting it off from the global economy. China buys up to 90% of Iran’s oil,
which consists of as much as 13% of its oil imports, playing a crucial
role in its ability to compete with the West while also undermining
efforts to force the Islamist regime to give up its nuclear ambitions
and terrorism.
The Iranians are also a strategic partner of Russia, another ally of China. The drones they supply to
Moscow have been a key factor in allowing it to continue its war
against Ukraine, which Trump has tried in vain to end via negotiations.
Still, nothing Trump or Rubio can say is
stopping the groundswell of incitement coming from the left and the
right that pins the responsibility for the conflict on the Jewish state.
Antisemitic
conspiracy-mongering
The Times constructed a narrative
in an article published two days after the latest chapter in the long
struggle between the United States and Iran’s government, in which
Netanyahu plays the featured role of instigator of the conflict. That
dovetails with the claims aired by former Fox News personalities
Carlson and Kelly on their popular programs, not to mention what was
being said by even more extreme figures like podcaster Candace Owens and
neo-Nazi groyper Nick Fuentes.
In an effort to make the current fighting
sound like a rerun of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq ordered by
President George W. Bush, Carlson said the decision to strike Iran was
based on “lies,” and that “this happened because Israel wanted it to
happen. This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war.” Going
further—and doubling down on antisemitic tropes about Jewish
manipulation of America—he falsely claimed that the Islamic Republic’s
attacks on Arab countries in the region were actually the nefarious work
of Mossad agents.
Kelly, who has abandoned her stance as a
mainstream figure to appeal to a more extreme audience that clicks on
content related to attacks on Jews and Israel, agreed. She said that any
U.S. servicemen who were killed in the conflict were “dying for
Israel,” not America.
They were, of course, outdone by the
increasingly unhinged Owens, who said the war was enabled by a mythical
Israeli assassination of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk last
September. Fuentes said Trump’s decision was further evidence that
“organized Jewry” runs the country. “The United States is Israel’s
bitch,” he said. “We all know that Israel is the boss, that Israel
controls our country. Now you know it for a fact.” He concluded his rant
by advising his audience to vote for the Democrats in the midterm
elections.
While most Democrats weren’t echoing their
antisemitic talking points, they, too, were declaring that the war was
not merely illegal or wrong, but also linked to Israel. Newsom wasn’t
the only one blaming it on Netanyahu. And it isn’t an accident that this
comes at a time when growing numbers of members of the Democratic
congressional caucus are refusing to accept donations from pro-Israel
sources and attacking the AIPAC lobby. Indeed, Sen. Chris Van Hollen
(D-Md.) denounced AIPAC this week at the left-wing J Street conference
as “anti-American” for advocating for the U.S.-Israel alliance and
pushing for action on Iran.
American national
interests
All of the incitement against Israel and
its supporters ignores the basic fact that every American president,
including both Democrats and Republicans, for the past quarter-century
has made it clear that preventing a nuclear Iran was a key national
security goal. The only differences between them have been about how to
stop them. Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden thought appeasement
would work. But rather than preventing Iran from getting a weapon, with
its sunset clauses, the 2015 nuclear pact would have guaranteed that they would eventually get one.
Trump has tried negotiating with Tehran,
but rather than seeing an agreement, however weak and ineffectual, as a
goal in and of itself, he believed that if a deal didn’t end its nuclear
program (the objective that Obama promised in his 2012 foreign-policy
debate with presidential opponent Mitt Romney), it was worthless. And
instead of allowing the mullahs to prevaricate and delay until they got
their way, he was prepared to act to stop them before it was too late.
Though his decision to strike now brings
risks, the cost of continuing to wait would be far higher. Stripping the
regime of its ability to inflict mayhem in the region via its own
military might and its terrorist auxiliaries isn’t just in America’s
interests. Doing so now to prevent the mullahs and their minions from
using more time to build up their missile program and/or potentially
race to a nuclear weapon with whatever material was left after last
summer’s 12-day Israeli-American bombing campaign was an imperative.
That doing so helps Israel is not in
question. Iran’s leaders have explicitly said they consider a genocidal
effort to destroy the Jewish state—calling it a “one-bomb country”—would
be worth it, even if it meant catastrophic retaliation from Jerusalem
or other parts of the world.
Preventing such a catastrophe (and
understanding that Israel is far from the only intended target of
Iranian nuclear weapons and missiles) isn’t solely in the interest of
the Jewish state. If Iran can achieve its objective of mass murder in
Israel, it can do the same with allied Arab countries and those in the
West.
At best, that would mean nuclear blackmail
being conducted by religious fanatics, furthering the efforts of China
and Russia to undermine the West.
At worst, it would present the possibility of nuclear war involving the entire world.
This goes beyond the fact that the
alliance with Israel is not merely consonant with American societal
norms rooted in the Western tradition, faith and common democratic
values. It is also a function of American national interests. The United
States never treated Israel as a strategic ally until after its victory
in the Six Day-War in June 1967, when it proved it could be an asset to
the West rather than a liability. And it wouldn’t be acting in close
cooperation with the Israeli military against a common foe unless doing
so was in defense of shared strategic interests.
It doesn’t require pressure from Israel or some sort of nefarious plot straight out of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
to convince Americans to take the Iranian threat seriously. Only an
American leader who cared nothing about defending his nation’s security
interests or preventing a jihadist regime from dominating the Middle
East and threatening Europe and Asia would ignore such a threat.
But for leftists and right-wing
antisemites who hate Israel, as well as those like Carlson, who clearly
seem to be under the influence of the Islamist regime in Qatar, the fact
that Iran seeks the elimination of the one Jewish state on the planet
seems to be an argument in favor of either appeasing or actively aiding
them.
You don’t have to be an antisemite to
embrace the notion that presidents ought to wait for congressional
approval for the use of military force. But no president—and that
includes Democrats like Bill Clinton, Obama or Biden—has hesitated to
act without a Declaration of War or a direct authorization from Capitol
Hill when they believed it to be in America’s best interest, as Trump
has done now. Advocates for appeasement of Iran can also cling to the
belief in that approach even though doing so has only enriched and
empowered a dangerous regime to launch wars, spread terror and move
closer to its nuclear goal.
But those who embrace a narrative that
efforts to stop Iran can only be the result of an underhanded Israeli
plot or Jewish efforts to bribe Congress and the executive branch to
ignore American interests and fight an unnecessary “war of choice” are
doing something else. They aren’t just distorting the truth about the
alliance between the two countries, which is both close and mutually
beneficial. They are crossing the line between a rational debate about a
crucial policy choice and one that is inextricably linked to
traditional tropes of Jew-hatred.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has now blown up Britain’s “special relationship” with America and has turned Israel into a pariah.
The war against Iran, in which America and
Israel are rapidly degrading Tehran’s powers, doesn’t merely offer the
hope of relief for the whole world by eradicating one of its most evil,
murderous and far-reaching regimes.
We are also witnessing an even more
momentous development—the likely birth of a new world order pivoted
around that alliance between America and Israel.
Like a drowning man clutching at a boat he
doesn’t even realize is holed and sinking, Britain’s prime minister,
Sir Keir Starmer, is clinging to the “rules-based international order.”
As a result, he refused to support the bombing of Iran because he said
it was illegal under international law. According to those rules, war is
only permitted as a response to an attack that’s imminent or already
underway.
Defense is fine; attack is not. The fact
that a pre-emptive attack might be the only effective form of defense is
dismissed as against the rules.
This means that even if the creation of an
Iranian nuclear bomb was a mere 10 days away, as was reportedly the
case, Israel would have to sit on its hands until almost the point of
detonation before it became legal for it to attack.
Law thus becomes a formula for national suicide.
When the war started on Feb. 28, Starmer
refused to allow the Americans to use British-run air bases, including
the crucial base on Diego Garcia, on the grounds that the war was
illegal. He granted permission only after Iran started firing missiles
at allies in the Gulf and at British forces stationed in Cyprus.
Starmer then hedged this belated gesture
about by saying that British forces would be used to defend its allies
but not to attack Iran. And it wouldn’t defend its American and Israeli
allies because they had started an “illegal” war.
This was a wholly incoherent and morally
unconscionable position. Such legalistic casuistry derives from the fact
that liberal universalists like Starmer have made international law
into a religion because they believe it replaces war by rules ordaining
negotiation and compromise.
Far from producing an end to tyranny,
persecution and oppression, however, this international order has
created a world in which the United Nations, which administers the
rulebook, is in bed with Hamas. And the world body has long empowered
states that pose an acute threat to freedom, such as Russia, China,
North Korea and Iran, to hold the whole world hostage to their predatory
and murderous agendas.
Moreover, the entire international human
rights and humanitarian establishment has been turned into a weapon
against Israel. Far from promoting peace and justice, it facilitates and
sanitizes terrorism, genocidal mass murder and gross injustice.
The result is that Starmer has brought
shame and humiliation on his country. This is a nation that once led the
world in warfare—an island nation whose storied navy dominated the seas
and which in 1940 stood alone against the Nazis. Today, it has failed
to defend its own people—some 240,000 Brits live in Dubai and Abu
Dhabi—and won’t even get its warship out of mothballs to send to Cyprus
before next week.
Starmer has provoked the undiluted fury of
the Emiratis and Kuwaitis, who say they no longer see Britain as an
ally because it refuses to join the battle against Iran.
U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters
that he was “disappointed with Keir,” who is “not Winston Churchill.”
And for once, that was a Trumpian understatement. Churchill must be
turning over in his grave.
Starmer has now blown up Britain’s
“special relationship” with America. He has turned Israel into a
pariah—principally because it stands against the liberal universalist
faith in negotiated compromise that it rightly believes would bring
about its own destruction.
The resulting toxification of Israel has
given rocket fuel to Islamists in an alliance with other anti-Zionists
and antisemites that’s poisoning British politics and society and
hanging British Jews out to dry.
What few have properly understood is the
enormous change in the world order that may result from this war. Few
have realized the extent to which Iran has propped up the axes of evil
that have taken the world to hell in a handbasket.
The triumph of the Islamic revolution that
brought the Tehran regime to power in 1979 galvanized, incentivized and
provided material support for other Islamists to wage jihadi holy war
against the West through strategies of infiltration, subversion and
terror. Destroying the Tehran regime would deal a blow to the Islamist
goal of destroying Western civilization.
It would also transform geopolitics by
dealing a blow to China and Russia. Iran was indispensable to China in
supplying it with oil. It was also crucial to China’s Belt and Road
Initiative—its plan to create overland and maritime economic corridors
to promote Chinese domination in global affairs.
For Russia, Iran has been vital as a major
supplier of drones in its war against Ukraine and as the indispensable
gateway for the International North-South Transport Corridor linking the
Moscow region to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. With Russian
influence much diminished in the Caucasus and in Syria, Iran was one of
Moscow’s last bastions against the West in Eurasia.
Iran had recently finalized a 20-year
comprehensive strategic partnership treaty with Russia and accelerated
its 25-year co-operation program with China. If the Iranian regime is
destroyed, the baleful grip on the world by this axis of evil would be
replaced by a new alliance promoting freedom and prosperity.
At its heart is the military, intelligence
and security alliance between America, which has recovered its position
as leader of the free world rather than presiding over its surrender,
and Israel, which has rediscovered its biblical warrior identity and has
become the regional superpower in the Middle East.
Israel is poised to be the fulcrum of the
developing India-Middle East-European economic corridor. This stands to
push the Belt and Road Initiative into the shadows.
It will enable goods to move from
Southeast Asia via India across the Middle East through Saudi Arabia and
Jordan, and on to Israel. From there, goods will be shipped to multiple
points in Europe and on to the United States.
India is key, and the visit to Israel by
its prime minister, Narendra Modi, on the eve of this war was deeply
significant. As he told the Knesset, India has been the fastest-growing
major economy in the world and will soon be among the top three. And
under Modi, India is a staunch ally of Israel in their common struggle
against Islamic holy war.
In addition, further normalization
agreements between Israel and moderate Arab states, not to mention a
West-facing Iran itself, could usher in years of regional stability and
economic prosperity.
In other words, the destruction of the
Iranian regime may unlock a really brave new world. So this is a war in
which there is everything to play for in the otherwise Sisyphean attempt
to defend civilization against barbarism.
And Keir Starmer has placed Britain on the wrong side of this seismic struggle.
The “rules-based international order” to
which he so slavishly adheres and was supposed to usher in the
brotherhood of man has merely ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood, which
is now well advanced in subverting and conquering Britain and other
Western countries for Islam.
This war against Iran may end in chaos or
the survival in some form of the Tehran regime, which would be a tragedy
for the oppressed Iranian people, and a setback for peace and justice
everywhere.
But it may be seen with
hindsight as the pivotal moment when the old international order gave up the
ghost of its own decadence and was replaced by a new global framework in which
Israel, the light unto nations, was finally able to see that radiance begin to
illuminate the world.
What seems to be missing in the indignant, self-absorbed
statements by certain Congress members is a severe absence of
self-respect for their country and for the “values” they say they hold.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell made the incredulous comment on Iran that“they showed nothing to the American people as to any threat posed to
the United States or any imminent threat posed to our allies who are in
the region.”
Congressional critics of the war with Iran
are not in short supply. Their statements and social-media posts read
as if they come from the same song sheet. No surprise there.
These
voices are marching in lockstep on the applicability of the War Powers
Act, breaches of “international law” and “illegal regime change.” And
there is no question that party politics play a role in all of this.
Rep.
Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) decried the attack on Iran that occurred during
Ramadan, saying, “I am convinced it isn’t what these countries [Iran now
and Iraq in 2003] have done to violate international law, but about who
they worship.” Not a mention of Iran and its nearly 50-year history of
sponsoring terror globally, or about its race to produce nuclear
weapons.
Rep. Joaquin
Castro (D-Texas) stated, “Make no mistake, this war may be in the interest of
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel, but it is not in ours.”
Then there
was Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who lamented “wasting American tax dollars”
on the war. Again, no mention of Iran as the puppet master of proxy, terrorist
armies or the regime’s gunning down of tens of thousands of Iranian protesters
only a month ago.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)
weighed in with charges that American military operations were nothing
more than “aggression.” Nothing at all about the decades the Tehran
regime has spent as the world’s most frequent abuser of juvenile and
LGBTQIA rights. Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia
Republican, proclaimed that the president’s assertions about Iran’s
nuclear program are “always lies.”
And then there was the incredulous comment
on Iran that came from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), saying “they
showed nothing to the American people as to any threat posed to the
United States or any imminent threat posed to our allies who are in the
region.”
What is striking about all this is the generational
ties that bind these most vehement of critics. Many were not born when
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned in 1979 from exile in France to
lead the Iranian Revolution
and begin a 47-year reign of terror carried out by him and his
successor, Ali Khamenei. There seems to be no recollection of the
takeover of the U.S. embassy in Iran and the 444-day ordeal for the 66
American hostages grabbed by regime-backed street toughs in November of
that year.
A few were
toddlers when Iran’s Hezbollah henchmen blew up the Marine Corps barracks in
Beirut in 1983, resulting in the death of 241 American servicemen. And 35 years
ago, when some of these congress members were pre-teens, a truck bombing of the
Khobar Towers near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, carried out by Hezbollah, killed 19 U.S.
Air Force personnel and injured a total of 498 persons.
Many of these examples may be ancient history to these lawmakers, though certainly not the assassination attempt
on Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States by Iranian agents at
Cafe Milano in Washington, D.C., in 2011. Or the killing of an estimated
2,000 American servicemen and the wounding of countless others from
Iranian-supplied IEDs (roadside bombs) in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Not to
mention what many believe were Iranian-directed attempts last year on
the life of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Of course, many were not born when Nazi
Germany invaded Poland in 1939, and Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan
in 1941. Still, we fully understand the rationale behind the need to
defeat those tyrannical regimes. In the case of Germany, it, too, had
proxies: those collaborators in lands under its control who carried out
crimes against humanity just like their masters in Berlin.
What
seems to be missing in the indignant, self-absorbed statements by these
members of Congress and others in the media, academia and elsewhere is a
severe absence of self-respect for their country and for the “values”
they say they hold. Iran paid no serious price for any of the above
crimes committed against the United States and its citizens, save for
periodic economic sanctions which it worked furiously to evade.
The self-negating isolationism and “don’t
confuse me with the facts” attitude of those who are outraged by the
campaign against the Iranian regime suggests a shallow understanding of
history and a frightening disregard for American national interests.
The prospect of a nuclear Iran and what
that could mean not only for Israel and the Middle East and the United
States, but for an international order of global stability, seems to
draw yawns from those in Congress who would give the tyrants in Tehran a
pass for crimes committed and those yet to be carried out.
A
worldview that is in denial about the threats posed by Iran does not
augur well for the kind of national resolve so necessary for the United
States, as it is buffeted by threats—terror, cyber, nuclear—both near
and far. In the meantime, the clear-eyed campaign to bring an end to
Iran’s despotic regime moves forward. Its success is in everybody’s
interest.
Quantifying Ukraine’s Strikes on Russian Energy Infrastructure
By Gabriel Collins
Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy
Mar 2, 2026
A Russian oil refinery struck by a Ukrainian drone
Paper Sanctions Versus Kinetic Sanctions
What
options are available to a country facing attacks from a larger, more
powerful neighboring state whose economy heavily relies on natural
resource exports?
This question is currently being
tested in Ukraine. After years of paper sanctions that saw major volumes
of Russian oil and refined products still enter the market and
subsequently provide Russia with revenue, Ukraine undertook a different
approach in 2025: physical or “kinetic” sanctions. This approach demonstrates how dynamic actions can slice through the maneuvers that Russia utilizes to continue its oil shipments.
From 2022 through 2025, Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet”
— comprised of opaquely owned and marked ships that trade and transport
the country’s oil — could generally circumvent sanction lists and
enforcement actions. However, when the response moves from European and
American courts and compliance bureaucracies to Ukrainian drone and
missile teams, decision speed and effects invert. While creating new shell companies and reflagging oil tankers is fast and relatively cheap, replacing energy assets struck by steel and explosives is much slower and far more expensive.
Numerical Tally of Ukraine’s Strikes
Figure
1 offers a holistic view of the number of confirmed and suspected
Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, since near the
beginning of the war to the present. This data set currently counts 272
discrete strike events.
Figure 1 — Confirmed and Suspected Ukrainian Strikes on Russian Energy Infrastructure by Asset Type, April 2022–February 2026
Source: Reuters; Bloomberg; NPR; Al
Jazeera; Politico Europe; Euronews; France 24; ABC News; The Guardian;
The Kyiv Independent; Ukrainska Pravda; RBC (Russia and Ukraine);
Kommersant; TASS; The Moscow Times; RFE/RL (Radio Svoboda); Meduza;
Novaya Gazeta Europe; ISW; Defence Express; Militarnyi; United24;
regional Russian outlets; official regional governor Telegram channels;
company releases (e.g., Rosneft, NOVATEK); Wikipedia; and Google Earth
(specifically for facility background and coordinates). Note:
To create this dataset, the author reviewed a range of English,
Russian, and Ukrainian media outlets and other sources using both manual
inspections and AI-enabled deep searching that drew upon the
deep-research functionalities of ChatGPT 5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, and Claude
Opus 4.6. Searches focused on drone and missile strikes and sabotage
operations against oil, gas, and electricity infrastructure within
Russia’s internationally recognized borders. This dataset is available
upon request.
How Ukraine’s Campaign on Russia’s Energy Has Evolved
In
the earlier parts of the Russia-Ukraine war, at least three key factors
restrained Ukrainian targeting of Russian energy assets.
Ukrainian
leaders prioritized immediate survival and battlefield action, as many
likely believed the current war would be relatively short in duration
rather than longer than the span of the Germany and the Soviet Union
conflict during World War II. This initial expectation matters because
targeting the adversary’s economic center of gravity typically yields
effects in a prolonged war. The war’s extended length did not become
clear until 2024.
Until 2024 and 2025, Ukraine lacked the drone and missile capabilities for sustained, long-range strikes deep into Russia.
Ukrainian Strikes on Russian Energy Infrastructure
The
Ukrainian military are applying an effects-based approach to an entire
energy value chain by targeting Russia’s upstream production assets,
including oil platforms in the Caspian Sea; key pipeline pumping stations on export systems, such as the Druzhba Pipeline; power plants and substations; oil storage sites; oil loading ports, such as Novorossiysk; and most of all, oil refineries.
Multiple
strategic factors underpin Ukraine’s specific attention to Russia’s oil
supply chain. First, crude oil and refined products sales are Russia’s main source of externally generated income
and largely fund its war efforts. Second, interdicting oil storage and
refining capacity can also impede Russian battlefield logistics. This is
reflected in the large number of strikes on oil storage assets located
in western Russia as well as the fuel facilities supporting the Engels Bomber Base.
Third,
Ukraine appears to be prioritizing economic and military effects over
direct impacts on civilians in Russia. Put differently, Russian
consumers may experience higher gasoline prices or increased reliance on
public transportation, but electrical services have typically remained
interrupted. Ukraine’s demonstrated energy strike capabilities at this
point — including successful but limited strikes in late 2025
on key high-voltage power substations in central Russia — suggest that
leaving Russia’s electricity infrastructure intact is thus far a
conscious choice by Kyiv.
Impact of Ukraine’s Strike Campaign
A
strike campaign on oil systems as large, complex, and resilient as
Russia’s requires a long, sustained effort to have substantial impacts.
Toward the end of 2025, Russia’s crude oil export volumes remained
steady, but oil product exports began to decline at levels not
previously observed during the war, notwithstanding the sanctions
environment (Figures 2–3).
Figure 2 — Russian Oil Product Exports by Port, April 2022–October 2025Source: Kyiv School of Economics and author’s analysis.
Figure 3 — Russian Crude Oil Exports By Port, April 2022–October 2025Source: Kyiv School of Economics and author’s analysis.
Since 2024, Russian crude oil exports were steady, but refined product exports fell. That divergence indicates a significant shift.
Among other responses, the Russian government temporarily restricted oil product exports.
The steadiness of crude oil exports and the decline in products exports
are likely related, due to Ukraine’s campaign against Russia energy
infrastructure. More specifically, Ukrainian strikes have clearly
damaged a meaningful portion of Russia’s refining capacity, which both
reduces plants’ abilities to process crude oil and produce refined
products.
The result is that more crude oil is
shifted from domestic refineries to export markets; this maintains the
appearance of operational continuity, while product exports decline. If
Ukraine intensifies its strike campaign against crude oil pipelines and
ports, it is likely that the volumetric data of Russia’s crude oil and
exports, expected to be released in the coming months, will both show
noticeable declines.
This is where material
disruptions — or kinetic sanctions — markedly diverge from legal paper
sanctions. Legal risk tends to create price discounts. Then, profit
opportunities can attract bad actors willing to sidestep laws. In
Russia’s case, this scenario has reportedly culminated into an arbitrage
ecosystem of shell companies run by Russia-linked middlemen and its “shadow fleet” that move oil to market.
Additionally,
enforcement tends to be limited. If one refinery’s compliance
department rejects an oil cargo, another will likely accept it at a
discount. Likewise, a ship can avoid ports where it might be detained
and then transfer oil to another vessel offshore or blend it to obscure
its origins. Under these circumstances, risk is tightly bounded and
relatively easy to avoid. Ultimately, once the oil enters the refinery
and becomes diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel, the product can be sold
anywhere in the world. Since the war’s start, the pricing of Russia’s
Urals oil relative to Brent — a global pricing benchmark — reflects this
adaptation cycle (Figure 4).
Figure 4 — Average Export Price of Urals Crude Oil Versus Brent Crude Oil, 2012–25
Source: Argus Media, Cbonds, Energy
Information Agency, International Energy Agency, Interfax, Rigzone,
Russian Ministry of Finance, and author’s analysis.
Kinetic risk is very different. It removes physical
volumes of the product. If barrels cannot enter the market, the
arbitrage window for practical purposes expires, at least from Russia’s
perspective. Another seller of heavy, higher-sulfur crude would likely
gain access to a new market opportunity — such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Venezuela, etc. — but those countries’ exchequers, rather than Russia,
would receive the new revenues.
Kinetic sanctions
through Ukrainian strikes at large scale can effectively disconnect
Russia from the market and therein lies the key strategic impact. Strike
impacts are not currently at this level, but if Ukrainian forces were
to significantly damage the Primorsk and Novorossiysk oil ports and
reattack on a weekly basis, physical disconnection would become a real
possibility. Even if Russia lost 50% of its export capacity and global
oil prices rose by 25% in response, Russia’s financial position — and
ability to fund and fight a war — would decline rapidly.
Strategic Lessons From Ukraine’s Approach
Throughout
late 2025 and onward, Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of
low-cost, scalable indigenous strike capabilities. Strikes on targets
1,000 or more kilometers into the territory of an adversary with capable
air defense was considered, prior to Russia’s invasion, a domain in
which perhaps only the U.S., Israel, China, and Russia possessed the
requisite capabilities.
The barriers to entry into long-range precision strike capabilities are considerably lower now. Ukraine’s national GDP before the war amounted to approximately one-fourth that of the Greater Houston area.
Yet its combination of survival motivation, a talented and educated
population, industrial base, and access to key imported components is
culminating into a drone and missile complex — one that is highly
capable and can credibly threaten key infrastructure assets up to 2,000
km from its borders.
Indeed, as recently as Feb. 21, Ukrainian forces significantly damaged a key missile factory
located more than 1,300 km into Russia — roughly the distance from
Houston to Jacksonville, Florida. That strike used the Flamingo, a
Ukrainian-made cruise missile that can carry a 2,500 lb. warhead. In
other words, it is a considerable weapon that would substantially impair
refineries, oil ports, power plants, or any other energy infrastructure
that Ukraine may choose to target.
In a world where
middle-ranking powers may increasingly aim for independent deterrence
capabilities, Ukraine offers an example of how a smaller country without
nuclear weapon capacities can strike strategic level targets in a
powerful adversary’s territory. Taiwan, Poland, Pakistan, and many other
countries are likely paying close attention to Ukraine. Japan plans to upgrade its indigenous strike capabilities, and South Korea possesses a formidable domestic strike arsenal.
Many analysts’ attention has focused on the rising risks
of nuclear proliferation. Yet long-range conventional strikes also
deserve close examination, particularly since for every country with the
technical base for pursuing a nuclear weapons program, there are likely
five or more with the wherewithal to build indigenous long-range
domestic strike weapons, as demonstrated by South Korea, Iran, and
Ukraine. Nuclear weapons are designed to intimidate whereas conventional
long-range strike systems are largely made with the potential of use.
This distinction is increasingly significant in a world where prior
restraints on striking another country’s soil have eroded in recent
cases, such as Israel-Iran, India-Pakistan, Thailand-Cambodia, U.S.-Iran, and Russia-Ukraine.
In
addition to the military strike dimensions, the Ukrainian energy
campaign also highlights the importance of maximizing infrastructure
connectivity. Kazakhstan, and to a lesser extent, Hungary and Slovakia
have each experienced collateral impacts because of Ukraine’s strikes
on Russian oil and gas processing and transportation assets.
For Kazakhstan in particular, diversification of oil export routes now holds a new strategic urgency. Ukraine’s fall 2025 sea drone strikes
shut down the Caspian Pipeline Consortium Terminal at Novorossiysk,
Russia, causing significant reductions in Kazakh oil output. Around this
same time, Ukrainian air drone strikes on Russia’s Orenburg gas
processing facility also negatively impacted Kazakh gas production at the Karachaganak Field just across the border.
Building
alternative oil and gas export routes that are not directly tied to
geopolitical risks associated with Russia and China is an expensive and
complex challenge that Astana had previously been able to overlook. Now,
however, export diversification is likely back on the table with an
intensity, perhaps not seen since the 1990s. U.S. and partner company
investments could look to address this issue, a topic the center aims to
examine in coming months.
Future Considerations for Ukraine’s Energy Campaign
As
Ukraine significantly reduced its strikes on Russian energy
infrastructure in January 2026 and the first half of February, a few
questions remain:
What happens to
Russian refineries, product supplies, and export potential if Ukraine’s
long-range strikes resume a sustained attack pace similar to that of
late 2025? Russia has been able to lean on a combination of
redundancy conferred by infrastructure built for higher Soviet-era
demand levels, along with patchwork repairs. If Ukraine increases
strikes again and begins to incorporate heavier weapons — a likely
evolution in 2026 — Russia’s reconstitution potential will likely erode.
Export volumes would fall accordingly.
What
happens as Ukraine becomes more able to integrate heavy missiles, such
as the FP-5 Flamingo, Long Neptune, and indigenous ballistic missiles,
into its energy strike campaigns? These munitions appear to be currently prioritized toward targets of immediate military relevance, such as the Votkinsk Missile Plant recently struck with Flamingo missiles.
If Ukraine continues to increase production and heavy strike missiles
become more numerous, these missiles could be used more frequently in
energy strikes given that their 500 lb. to 2,500 lb. warheads are
exponentially more damaging than the 100 lb.-range warheads currently
used on Ukraine’s longest-ranged drones.
If oil and product exports are significantly impeded, how would Russia and its war effort evolve?
Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are largely motivated by different
factors shaped by their respective national circumstances: national
defense considerations in Ukraine’s case and economic incentives in
Russia’s case. Russia’s ability to recruit men — particularly from
rural, impoverished areas — heavily depends on financial incentives,
which is revenue derived from its crude oil and product exports. This
system is primarily driven by a stark but rational set of calculations: a
soldier receives regular compensation, and in the event of death, the
soldier’s family collects a substantial payment, likely worth more than
an income earned for decades of work.
As noted
in this commentary, Ukraine has considerable incentives to diminish
Russia’s income by reducing and destroying its oil and gas production
and export systems. Simultaneously, Ukrainian arms manufacturers
continue incrementally advancing indigenous heavy long-range strike
capabilities. This intersection of Ukrainian survival imperatives plus
Kyiv’s increasing strike capabilities suggests potential challenges
ahead for Russian oil, refined product, and gas exports.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently expressed frustration at what appeared to be Russia’s attempt to stall the latest peace talks; noting that time is of the essence, he stated, “So we have to decide, and have to finish the war.”
If sanctions are economic pressure and battlefield operations are
tactical pressure, Ukraine’s energy strike campaign is strategic
pressure, representing an initial step in a potentially broader effort.
What is the 'Shield of the Americas,' Trump's new security initiative in the Western Hemisphere?
Associated Press
Mar 5, 2026
WASHINGTON — President
Donald Trump said he is appointing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi
Noem to serve as his "Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas" as
he announced her ouster from the Department of Homeland Security Thursday.
Trump
will gather with the leaders of 11 Latin American countries for a
"Shield" summit on Saturday at his golf club in Doral, Florida.
The name of the gathering is supposed to reflect Trump’s vision for
U.S. national security strategy to put a greater emphasis on the Western
Hemisphere, as he looks to leverage U.S. military and intelligence
assets unseen in the region since the end of the Cold War.
The
leaders of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad
and Tobago have confirmed they will attend, according to the White
House.
Noem, speaking in Nashville, confirmed she will be at the
summit and that Trump will announce "a big agreement" that will detail
"how we’re going to go after cartels and drug trafficking in the entire
Western Hemisphere."
Trump announced he would nominate Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace Noem as homeland security secretary.
Trump fires Homeland Security Secretary Noem after mounting criticism over her leadership
By Michelle L. Price and Rebecca Santana
Associated Press
Mar 5, 2026
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday fired his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem,
after mounting criticism over her leadership of the department,
including the handling of the administration’s immigration crackdown and
disaster response.
Trump, who said he would nominate Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin in her place, made the announcement on social media after Noem faced a two-day grilling on Capitol Hill this week from GOP members as well as Democrats.
Noem’s
departure marks a stunning turnaround for a close ally to the president
who was tasked with steering his centerpiece policy of mass deportations.
But she appeared to increasingly become a liability for Trump, with
questions arising over her spending at her department and over her
conduct in the aftermath of the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis earlier this year.
Trump said he’ll make Noem a “Special Envoy for The Shield of the
Americas,” a new security initiative that he said would focus on the
Western Hemisphere.
Noem, who appeared at a law enforcement event
in Nashville, Tennessee, moments after Trump’s announcement, did not
address her ouster there. She read from prepared remarks and was not
asked by attendees about the development.
Later, in a social media post, she thanked Trump for the new appointment and touted her accomplishments as secretary.
“We have made historic accomplishments at the Department of Homeland Security to make America safe again,” she wrote.
The administration’s immigration crackdown faced criticism, especially in Minnesota
Noem
is the first Cabinet secretary to leave during Trump’s second term. Her
tenure looked increasingly short-lived after hearings in Congress this
week where she faced rare but blistering criticism from Republican
lawmakers. One particular point of scrutiny was a $220 million ad
campaign featuring Noem that encouraged people in the country illegally
to leave voluntarily.
Noem told lawmakers that Trump was aware of
the campaign in advance, but Trump disputed that in an interview
Thursday with Reuters, saying he did not sign off on the ad campaign.
Noem has faced waves of criticism as she’s overseen Trump’s immigration crackdown, especially since the shooting deaths of the two protesters
in Minneapolis at the hands of immigration enforcement officers. The
former South Dakota governor was also criticized over the way her
department has spent billions of dollars allocated to it by Congress.
Her department, DHS, has been at the center of a funding battle in
Congress over immigration enforcement tactics and has been shut down for
20 days, although many of the employees are continuing to work, often
without pay.
Even before Noem’s appearance before key
congressional committees this week, Republican lawmakers had been
anticipating the secretary’s eventual ouster, particularly after her
handling of the immigration enforcement crackdown in Minneapolis.
As
they tried to end the ongoing Homeland Security shutdown, Senate
Republicans had noted privately to Democratic senators that Noem was
likely on her way out and that that should prompt Democrats to move
forward with agreeing to fund the department again, according to two
people familiar with the discussions.
Democrats did not see that
as an actual concession by Republicans, considering Noem was becoming a
political liability for the GOP, said the people, who spoke on condition
of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.
DHS leadership changes come at a pivotal time
Aside from
immigration, Noem also faced criticism — including from Republicans —
over the pace of emergency funding approved through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and for the Trump administration’s response
to disasters.
Mullin would need to be confirmed by the Senate, but
under a federal law governing executive branch vacancies, he would be
allowed to serve as an acting Homeland Security secretary as long as his
nomination is formally pending.
Voting in the Senate just after Trump’s announcement, Mullin said he has “no idea” how quickly his nomination will move.
“The
president and I are good friends. So we look forward to working closer
with the White House, and obviously I’m gonna be over there a lot more,”
he said.
Mullin would need to be confirmed by the Senate, but under a federal
law governing executive branch vacancies, he would be allowed to serve
as an acting DHS secretary as long as his nomination is formally
pending.
Mullin would take over the third-largest department in
government that has responsibility for carrying out Trump’s hardline
immigration agenda. And he would assume the role at a pivotal time for
that agenda.
Immigration enforcement during the first year of
Trump’s administration was largely defined by high-profile,
made-for-social-media operations with flashy names, often led by Border
Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, who reported directly to Noem. Noem
herself often went out on those operations, riding along with officers
when they went out to make arrests.
But those high-profile operations in places like Los Angeles, Chicago
and Minneapolis often led to clashes with activists and protesters that
were captured on video and drove opposition to the president’s
immigration agenda.
That
culminated with the shooting deaths in Minneapolis after which Trump
shuffled leadership of the operation. The number of officers there was
drawn down shortly after.
Six Arrested in $2.8 Million Elder Gold Scam; Police Recover $766,000 for Victim
KGTX 7
Mar 4, 2026
FRIENDSWOOD – Police have
arrested six people in connection with an alleged elder fraud scheme
that investigators say stole nearly $2.8 million from at least six
victims across Texas, including two in Friendswood. Authorities
recovered $766,000 for one local victim.
The investigation began in December 2025
after an 81-year-old Friendswood resident was convinced by someone
posing as a federal employee to convert $766,000 into 177 one-ounce
Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coins. Detectives later determined a similar
scheme had targeted a 76-year-old Friendswood resident for $134,000 in
September.
Police say suspects traveled to victims’
homes to collect the gold. Through search warrants executed in Richmond,
Houston, Missouri City and Kingwood, investigators recovered all 177
coins and seized additional evidence tied to the operation.
Those arrested include Smitaben Thakor,
43, of Sugar Land; Samirali Ghabrani, 48, of Missouri City; Mudassir
Iqbal Lakhani, 35, and Iqbal Ibrahim Lakhani, 60, both of Richmond;
Zohaib Muhammad, 39, of Kingwood; and Samir Ali, 36, of Atascocita. All
six are charged with first-degree felony theft with an enhancement for
engaging in organized criminal activity. Bonds range from $1 million to
$5 million.
Investigators identified four additional
victims in Humble, Cypress, Cleburne and New Braunfels who collectively
lost about $1.9 million. Those cases remain under investigation.
Police said the scam involved callers
impersonating federal agents or financial officials and instructing
victims to convert funds into gold for pickup by couriers. Authorities
are coordinating with multiple district attorney’s offices and pursuing
asset forfeiture proceedings tied to the case.
Friendswood Police urge residents to report suspected fraud to law enforcement.
U.S.
Southern Command - PHOTO: The United States and Ecuador conducted joint
military operations against “designated terrorist organizations in
Ecuador,” U.S. Southern Command announced, Mar. 3, 2026.
The United
States and Ecuador carried out a joint military operation against
“designated terrorist organizations in Ecuador,” though the U.S. role
was limited to advising Ecuadorian troops, and they did not participate
in the actual ground operation, a source familiar with the operation
told ABC News.
The joint operation was announced by the U.S. Southern Command on Tuesday.
"The
operations are a powerful example of the commitment of partners in
Latin America and the Caribbean to combat the scourge of
narco-terrorism," U.S. Southern Command wrote in a post on X.
This marks the
first time that the U.S. military has worked in a land operation as part
of the Trump administration’s fight against Latin American drug
cartels.
Until
now, the U.S. military had only carried out airstrikes targeting drug
smuggling boats in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean.
The U.S.
military's role in the joint mission was the presence of military
advisors in Ecuador who provided planning, intelligence, and operational
support in preparation for the mission, a source familiar with the
operation told ABC News.
They
advised Ecuadorian forces, but they did not participate in the actual
ground and airlift operation, which was carried out by Ecuadorian
forces, the source said.
No details were provided by SOUTHCOM about the operation.
In announcing the joint operation, U.S. Southern Command also released a
video, which appears to show the Ecuadorian forces and aircraft, though
no context was provided.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s
recent reactions to law enforcement, which some have interpreted as
pushing back against the New York Police Department, likely won’t hurt
him as much as previous mayors, a local crime expert told Fox News
Digital, and could end up working to his overall political advantage.
"It may not hurt Mamdani in the way that it might hurt another mayor," said Manhattan Institute fellow Rafael Mangual.
"I
do think that Zohran Mamdani is OK with being an opponent and a critic
of the NYPD. I think he comes from a sort of ideological perspective
that does not believe that the NYPD actually reduces crime. So, if the
NYPD pulls back and crime goes up, I think he will see that as an
opportunity to further criticize the NYPD and point to reasons why it
should be defunded in favor of this Department of Community Safety and
some of these other proposals that he would much rather invest in."
Two significant events in the city indicate that the mayor will not
defend the police department, according to Mangual, and could result in
cops pulling back due to lack of support. They include an incident last
month in Washington Square Park, dubbed "Snowballgate," where a mob of
roughly 100 people pelted NYPD officers with snowballs, leaving two
officers injured.
Rather than condemning the assault, Mamdani appeared to downplay the
violence, referring to the perpetrators as "kids" taking part in a
snowball fight.
"Mamdani did not come out in support of the NYPD
in that incident. Instead, he seemed to kind of brush it off and even
refused to call for the prosecution of the perpetrators," Mangual said,
adding that the actions of the mob clearly qualified as an assault
against police officers.
"Unfortunately, I think the mayor’s
response was found wanting. He seemed unwilling to condemn it as an
assault. He seemed unwilling to even say that it was something that
shouldn't be done in the future, and I think that is going to create a
sense in the NYPD that this administration does not have their back."
Perhaps
more concerning, according to Mangual, was Mamdani’s reaction to a
recent officer-involved shooting in Queens where, despite bodycam
footage showing an officer being immediately attacked with a deadly
weapon after entering a home at the owner's invitation, Mamdani called on the district attorney to not prosecute the knife wielding suspect who was reportedly having a mental health episode.
Additionally, Mamdani visited the attacker and his family after the incident.
"For
Mayor Mamdani to come out and not just meet with the family as if this
individual is some sort of crime victim, but to also make an open call
to the Queens DA not to prosecute the individual for the obvious and
clear assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, I think is just
completely irresponsible," Mangual said.
"But it also will
reinforce that sense in the NYPD that I think is already existing: that
this administration is an opponent, not a partner. And if that dynamic
continues, and it reaches further down into the rank and file, I do
think that the city is going to see a more reluctant police force at a
time in which it needs it to be proactive."
As a candidate,
Mamdani attempted to distance himself from previous support of police
defunding but faced backlash last month when he announcedthat part of his plan to balance the budget involves cutting the NYPD’s budget and canceling 5,000 new officer hires.
"I think what we've seen in the early days of this administration is
that Mamdani is not yet willing to position himself as an open partner
of the NYPD," Mangual said. "He is still trying to make a decision about
whether he is going to lean into his more natural identity of an
opponent of the NYPD."
The NYPD is "between a rock and a hard
place" under Mamdani, Mangual said, adding that officers will be "less
likely to put their lives on the line for a city that they do not feel
has their back."
"He’d be perfectly happy with a world in which he can say, 'Look, the
NYPD is a failure, it’s not keeping crime down, it’s time to try other
approaches,'" Mangual said.
Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani's office for comment.
The LAPD’s union openly criticised the deployment of city officers for Harris’ personal protection
It was revealed yesterday that CA taxpayers are providing
a security contingent of "dozens" of CHP officers for Kamal's book
tour. Neither she nor the state are saying how much this is costing.
Neither are saying if she is reimbursing the state for any of these
costs as her "book tour" is a personal, commercial enterprise and not a
political undertaking.
Don't
forget that the travel and per diem expenses for these people can cost
significantly more than their salary, which is not small. Since nobody
is saying ANYTHING about this I expect the cost is large and maybe
massive.
This is being
justified by her prior service in CA state government and documented
threats to her safety, which I have no doubt are real.
Father accused of murdering his 14-year-old daughter's rapist WINS primary race to become county sheriff
By Alexa Cimino
Daily Mail
Mar 4, 2026
Aaron Spencer is now the top Republican pick for his county's sheriff position - despite being on trial for murder
A father accused of killing the man who
allegedly raped and abducted his teenage daughter has won the Republican
primary for county sheriff in Arkansas - despite him still awaiting trial for murder.
Aaron
Spencer, 37, secured 53.5 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s Republican
primary for Lonoke County sheriff, defeating longtime incumbent John
Staley, who received 26.5 percent, according to the Arkansas Secretary
of State. A third candidate, David Bufford, received nearly 20 percent.
The
result puts Spencer in the unusual position of potentially becoming the
top law enforcement officer in the same county that charged him with
murder.
But his criminal case remains unresolved.
Spencer
has been accused of fatally shooting Michael Fosler, 67, in October
2024 after discovering the man with his teenage daughter.
Fosler
had been out on $50,000 bail while facing 43 criminal charges involving
the girl, including internet stalking of a child, sexual assault,
sexual indecency with a child and possession of child pornography.
Spencer has admitted to shooting Fosler but pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.
The
case began shortly after midnight on October 8, 2024, when Spencer and
his wife, Heather Spencer, 38, discovered their daughter missing from
her bedroom at the family’s farm in Cabot, Arkansas.
Aaron Spencer, 37, pictured with
his wife, Heather, secured 53.5 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s
Republican primary for Lonoke County sheriff while still awaiting trial
for murder
Michael
Fosler (pictured) was charged and booked with rape and internet stalking
of a child on July 11, 2024 but was released quickly on a $50,000 bond
and then kidnapped Spencer's daughter
The parents called 911 but soon began
searching the area themselves after realizing their daughter may have
been with Fosler - a man police say had previously groomed and raped the
girl and was the boyfriend of a family friend.
Fosler
had been arrested months earlier in July 2024 on charges including rape
and internet stalking of a child but was later released on bond despite
a no-contact order barring him from contacting the teenager.
Heather said she had feared the worst.
'I tell 911 that this man may be involved and as I’m speaking, I’m realizing that if he does have her, I’ll probably never see her again,' she said.
After
driving roughly 10 miles, Spencer spotted Fosler’s vehicle with their
daughter in the passenger seat, according to court documents.
The father made a U-turn and pursued the vehicle, eventually rear-ending it and forcing it off the road.
Spencer later told police he saw his daughter attempting to escape before Fosler grabbed her.
He
ordered the man to get out of the car, but Fosler allegedly lunged
toward him while shouting 'f**k you,' though authorities have not
confirmed whether Fosler was armed.
Moments later, Spencer opened fire until he ran out of bullets, then jumped on the man and pistol-whipped him, according to police.
Spencer has admitted shooting Fosler but pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder
He
then called 911 and reported that his daughter's kidnapper was 'dead on
the side of the road,' saying he had 'no choice' but to shoot him.
Prosecutors initially charged Spencer with first-degree murder, but the charge was later reduced to second-degree murder.
His
trial was originally scheduled for January, but it has been postponed
after the Arkansas Supreme Court recused the original judge, with a
retired judge now overseeing the case. A new trial date has not yet been set.
Spencer
has framed his campaign around the case, saying the experience exposed
failures in the justice system when it comes to protecting children.
'I did what any good father would do,' Spencer told CNN in a recent interview.
He said hearing similar stories from other families convinced him to run for sheriff.
'I
saw all the things that were happening - not just with my own case but
with other people that reached out and shared their stories,' he said.
'I felt called to do it.'
His wife has strongly defended his actions.
'What parent is going to say,
"Hey, 911. We called you a minute ago, but it turns out I found her
with the guy who's been assaulting her for months. And they took a left
on the highway. I hope you can find him?"' she said.
Fosler kidnapped their daughter on October 8. Aaron (pictured) got into his truck to find the 14-year-old after calling 911
'You kind of assume the risk that somebody is going to shoot you when you rape children.'
Heather also described her husband as a devoted father and former Army soldier who acted to save their child.
'You
really couldn't ask for a better husband or father,' she said. 'His
support and love for his family is strong and unwavering.'
The
case has drawn national attention, with supporters hailing Spencer as a
hero who protected his child and critics warning that the shooting
raises troubling questions about vigilante justice.
Online
petitions demanding the charges against him be dropped have gathered
more than 350,000 signatures, and a state gun rights group has taken up
his cause.
The controversy has also divided voters in Lonoke County.
Some residents say they sympathize with Spencer as a father who believed the legal system had failed his family.
Others have expressed concern about electing a sheriff who is currently facing a murder charge.
Heather said her daughters' life
was in danger when she was abducted, and that her husband, a former
Army soldier, did what any parent would have done to save their child
Incumbent sheriff John Staley, who has served in law enforcement for more than two decades, conceded the race early Wednesday.
'Serving
as your sheriff for the past 13 years has been one of the greatest
privileges of my life,' he wrote on Facebook. 'Tonight, the voters made
their decision, and I respect the decision.'
If Spencer were to be convicted before the general election, county Republicans would need to select a new nominee for sheriff.
Source: 
Source: 
