Wednesday, July 31, 2024

BRING IT ON

MARK ALMOND: The world stands on the brink of a major war... and terrifyingly there's no one to de-escalate it

 

Israel has assassinated Ismail ­Haniyeh, the political head of Hamas , in a precision attack on a Tehran ­apartment building

 

Today, the world stands on the brink of major war. First, an Israeli rocket attack killed a senior ­military commander from ­Hezbollah, Fuad Shukr, in Beirut.

Then, in the small hours of yesterday morning, Israel assassinated Ismail ­Haniyeh, the political head of Hamas, in a precision air strike on a Tehran ­apartment building.

These two surgical killings mark a major escalation of Israel’s twin conflicts with its neighbours — Lebanon to the north and the Palestinians to the south. They ­effectively end any chance of a negotiated ceasefire in Gaza.

Now Iran, which backs both armed groups, has hoisted the symbolic blood-red flag of revenge above the main mosque in the holy city of Qom.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will regard Israel’s elimination of Haniyeh — on Iranian soil — as a deep humiliation that can be salved only with the spilling of Israeli blood.

 

A man walks over rubble in the aftermath of an airstrike on Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday

A man walks over rubble in the aftermath of an airstrike on Beirut, Lebanon that killed Hezbollah's chief of staff on Tuesday

Fuad Shakar, Hezbollah's chief of staff

 

Khamenei, who had met the Hamas leader only a few hours earlier, described the terrorist butcher as ‘a dear guest in our home’ before adding: ‘We consider his revenge as our duty.’

Haniyeh had flown to Tehran for the inauguration of Iran’s new president. In a region where ‘face’ and ­reputation are valued so highly, the Iranian state knows it has little choice but to respond in kind.

The grim likelihood of war spreading across the Middle East and beyond has also increased thanks to the United States’ apparent lack of interest.

The White House seems disinclined to enforce the ‘pax Americana’ that has ­protected the West and its interests for decades, while Joe Biden is widely viewed as a doddering lame duck dozing through the final months of his presidency.

Yesterday’s air strike — ­presumably masterminded by Israel’s intelligence service Mossad from Jerusalem — took place at 2am in Tehran.

But it was still the middle of the evening in Washington DC and there should have been plenty of time for the White House to react.

The fact that neither President Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris deigned to speak suggests that Washington is either asleep, on summer holiday, on autopilot or unwilling to act in an election year, all of which are equally dangerous.

Even Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared unsure what to say when he was interviewed a few hours later on a visit to Singapore.

‘This is something we were not aware of or involved in. It’s very hard to speculate,’ he spluttered.

What next? After the nine-month siege of Gaza, Hamas — surely — is no longer capable of inflicting much more pain on Israel.

 


Israel has been at war with Hamas for nine months, and there is concern the country could be dragged into a wider conflict
 
Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant visits Majdal Shams, where 12 children died in a strike on a football pitch

Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant visits Majdal Shams, where 12 children died in a strike on a football pitch

 

But, based in Lebanon to ­Israel’s north, Hezbollah was able to fight Israel to a ­stalemate as recently as 2006.

The group still has a large arsenal of Iranian-supplied rockets and drones.

It appears likely that Iran, too, could launch cruise and ­ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones at Israel in a repeat of April’s Operation True Promise, a co-ordinated attack of more than 300 missiles (itself a retaliation for Israel’s bombing of the ­Iranian embassy in Damascus).

But it is Iran’s proxy forces throughout the rest of the Middle East that make international conflict so terrifyingly plausible.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are stretching the West’s ­military resources in the Red Sea by launching drone attacks on commercial shipping and directly attacking vessels from the U.S. and Royal Navies.

The Houthis have also sworn to launch air strikes against Israel itself, a response to Jerusalem’s attacks on Houthi-held territory in Yemen.

Then there are Iran’s Shi’ite allies in Iraq and Syria, who have a recent history of attacking Washington’s few remaining air bases in the region.

Perhaps Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ­concluded that Israel can cope with any escalation of the ­conflicts now threatening to engulf his nation.

In attempting to decapitate Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is repeating the tactic that saw America successfully neutralise al-Qaeda as a global threat — by hunting down and ­destroying its leaders.

But Israel, of all countries, should know that wars of ­attrition are not won by ­assassinations alone.

Israel killed Hamas’s founder, Sheikh Yassin, as long ago as 2004, yet the Hamas threat grew ever stronger.

The danger for Netanyahu and Israel is that the country could be dragged into a bigger, wider war on many fronts. And if that happens, the ramifications become very hard to predict.

 

Palestinians attend a protest after the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran

Palestinians attend a protest after the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran

 

In terms of military resources, Israel — with American backing — seems well placed to survive that conflict.

While U.S. Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, has previously said America wants to cool the temperature in the Middle East, Washington has been resolute in its insistence that the U.S. military would come to Israel’s aid if it was attacked by Iran — as it did when Tehran launched its huge drone and missile strike in April.

But it remains to be seen how many civilian deaths, and how much economic damage, the Israel public is prepared to endure before ousting Netanyahu and suing for peace.

A widening conflict would leave Britain in an invidious position.

Former prime minister Rishi Sunak ordered British jets based in Cyprus to shoot down Iranian drones heading for Israel in a show of support for America and Israel. Sir Keir Starmer is likely to do the same.

But would Britain put boots on the ground if America and Israel called for military help? Surely that would make Britain, and British ­interests overseas, a target for Iran’s allies?

Where would our involvement leave British relations with our European neighbours — some of whom have been ­vociferous in their support for Palestinian civilians caught up in the Gaza conflict?

And how would it affect our relationship with Nato ally ­Turkey, which has been ­increasingly strident in its ­support for Hamas, with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan even threatening to send troops to Palestine to support Hamas.

Russia’s involvement in the conflict should be considered, too.

Moscow is a long-term ally of Iran, which has provided drones and missiles for its war in Ukraine and it has a major ­military presence in Syria, ­providing Russia’s only military base on the Mediterranean.

The Kremlin also remains a master of destabilising tactics, using social media rumours and ‘useful idiots’ in rival states to foment social unrest and division.

It’s not yet time for sandbags in Britain and the West. But the temperature in the Middle East is rising higher day by day — and the usual mechanisms for de-escalation and negotiation seem dangerously absent.

Who knows how, or where, it will end?

This is a very, very bad time to find a power vacuum in Washington.

TWO TO GO

Dead or alive? What has happened to Hamas targets on Benjamin Netanyahu's hit list as terrorist group's leader Ismail Haniyeh is assassinated in 'Israeli' airstrike

 

Iran's supreme leader has vowed to inflict ‘severe punishment’ on Israel after the political head of Hamas was assassinated in Tehran early yesterday.

Ismail Haniyeh, 62, was killed with a guided missile ‘launched from within Iran’ in a 2am attack that risks sparking an all-out regional war.

Experts say he was the fourth hit on an Israeli ‘kill list’ of Hamas leaders drawn up after October 7, with only two still alive.

Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif, 58, was targeted in a strike on Khan Yunis last month, although his death has not yet been confirmed.

The terror group’s deputy chairman Saleh Al-Arouri, 57, was killed by a drone in Beirut in January, while deputy military commander Marwan Issa, 59, died in an air strike in Gaza last March.

 

 

68-year-old Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas’s overseas political bureau, is alive in Doha, Qatar.

The leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, 61, is hiding in the territory¿s vast tunnel network

The leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, 61, is hiding in the territory’s vast tunnel network

 

Meanwhile, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, 61, is hiding in the territory’s vast tunnel network, while 68-year-old Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas’s overseas political bureau, is alive in Doha, Qatar.

Yesterday’s strike, for which Israel has not claimed responsibility, is embarrassing for Tehran, coming straight after the inauguration of its new president.

Only 12 hours earlier, Israel assassinated Fuad Shukr, the military leader of Hezbollah and another Iranian proxy, after 12 Israeli Druze children were killed in a rocket attack last weekend.

The Middle East is already dangerously unstable due to the war in Gaza – where nearly 40,000 have died – but now it risks spreading into a regional conflagration.

Israel was last night bracing for a multi-front response from Iran, which has proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pledged to avenge the death of Haniyeh, saying it was ‘Tehran’s duty’.

 

A presumed image of Mohammed Deif released by Israel last year
Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif, 58, was targeted in a strike on Khan Yunis last month, although his death has not yet been confirmed. Pictured: Deif in 2001
Hours from death: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with Ismail Haniyeh (L) before Israel's lethal strike on the Hamas leader in Tehran, Iran July 30, 2024

Hours from death: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with Ismail Haniyeh (L) before Israel's lethal strike on the Hamas leader in Tehran, Iran July 30, 2024

Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh claps as newly-elected Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks while deputy leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Kassem, left, sits during the swearing-in ceremony of Pezeshkian at the Iranian parliament, in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, July 30, 2024. (Vahid Salemi / AP)

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh attends the inauguration of the country’s new president, Iran and the militant group said early Wednesday

Palestinian group Hamas' top leader Ismail Haniyeh attends Iran's new President, Masoud Pezeshkian's swearing-in ceremony at the parliament in Tehran

Palestinian group Hamas' top leader Ismail Haniyeh attends Iran's new President, Masoud Pezeshkian's swearing-in ceremony at the parliament in Tehran

Israel's Defence Forces seized the chance to hit Haniyeh and conducted a daring missile strike on his residence in Tehran just hours after the event, killing the Hamas leader and a security guard

Israel's Defence Forces seized the chance to hit Haniyeh and conducted a daring missile strike on his residence in Tehran just hours after the event, killing the Hamas leader and a security guard

The assassination on Haniyeh in Tehran came hours after Israel also targeted a senior Hezbollah official in Beirut

The assassination on Haniyeh in Tehran came hours after Israel also targeted a senior Hezbollah official in Beirut

 

‘With this action, the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime has paved the way for its own severe punishment,’ the supreme leader said.

Haniyeh had been visiting Tehran for the inauguration of president Masoud Pezeshkian on the day before his death and joined in chants of: ‘Death to Israel, death to America.’

Mr Pezeshkian warned Israel it would ‘regret this cowardly killing’.

It was initially reported that the Hamas political chief was killed by a drone or aerial strike. But last night local media claimed his bedroom was targeted by a short-range Israeli-made Spike missile launched from a building nearby .

Haniyeh was killed with his bodyguard in the official guest house of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the Shahran neighbourhood in the north of the capital.

Iranian media reported that the terror leader’s close protection team leaked information leading to his assassination.

The Iranian regime is reportedly in shock over the strike in the heart of its own territory. Ismail Khatib, Tehran’s minister of intelligence, recently claimed to have ‘dismantled [the Israeli secret service] Mossad’s infiltration network’, calling it a ‘turning point’ for the ministry.

There are fears that Iran could use proxies to hit Israeli embassies abroad. In Britain, the Community Security Trust urged members of the Jewish community to ‘keep gates and doors closed at all times’ and avoid ‘congregating outside communal buildings and events’.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not confirmed the strike, with the Israel Defence Forces saying it is conducting a ‘situation assessment’, but vowed his country was ‘prepared for all scenarios’.

Israelis were yesterday celebrating the death of one of their biggest enemies.

Amos Yadlin, ex-IDF intelligence chief, said there were now only two key Hamas leaders left to kill after Haniyeh’s death.

‘Israel is basically implementing here the Munich Olympics revenge that took about a decade to assassinate all those who were involved in Munich 72 massacre,’ he added.

 

A man watches the news on a tv after Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an Israeli airstrike targeting his residence in the Iranian capital Tehran, Iran on July 31, 2024

A man watches the news on a tv after Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh was killed in an Israeli airstrike targeting his residence in the Iranian capital Tehran, Iran on July 31, 2024

 

‘We are now four out of six of the top leaders that have already been punished for what they have done for October 7.’

It is feared the latest killing could derail hostage negotiations that appeared to be edging towards a compromise. 

Haniyeh, based in Doha, Qatar, was one of the key players in the November ceasefire and was heavily involved in talks.

Qatari prime minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said: ‘How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on other side?’

Major General Yadlin said the attack might ‘freeze the negotiations’ but would make Hamas leaders realise Israel could come for them next, which ‘will improve the chances’.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said America was ‘not aware of or involved in’ the attack and that ‘nothing takes away from the importance of getting to the ceasefire’.

WILL THE US REALLY HELP DEFEND ISRAEL?

In wake of Haniyeh killing, Austin says US will ‘help defend Israel’ if it’s attacked

‘Hard to speculate’ how hostage talks will be affected, Blinken says; Germany cautions all parties to ‘prevent regional conflagration,’ Russia warns of ‘dangerous consequences’

 

The Times of Israel

Jul 31, 2024

 

 

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during a joint news conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo and National Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro after a foreign and defense ministerial meeting at Camp Aguinaldo in Manila, Philippines, July 30, 2024. (AP Photo/Basilio Sepe) 

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during a joint news conference with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo and National Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro after a foreign and defense ministerial meeting at Camp Aguinaldo in Manila, Philippines, July 30, 2024.

 

United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reiterated his “unwavering commitment” to Israel’s security on Wednesday and said Washington would come to its defense if needed, hours after Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Iran early Wednesday, in a targeted assassination attributed to Israel.

Haniyeh was assassinated in the early hours of the morning after having traveled from his home in Qatar to Tehran to attend the swearing-in ceremony for the country’s new president Masoud Pezeshkian.

Israel has not commented on his killing. The US has said it had no part in the assassination and did not know of it ahead of time.

Asked what assistance the US would provide if a wider conflict should break out in the Middle East as a result of Haniyeh’s death and the previous night’s killing of a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut, Austin said Washington would continue to defend Israel if it were attacked, but that the priority was de-escalating tensions.

“We certainly will help defend Israel. You saw us do that April [when the US led a coalition of forces that, together with Israel, almost completely thwarted an Iranian attack on Israel with hundreds of drones and missiles]. You can expect to see us do that again,” he said, referring to the attack Iran launched against Israel in response to the bombing of Revolutionary Guards commanders in a building in its Syrian consulate.

“We don’t want to see any of that happen,” Austin added, however. “We’re going to work hard to make sure that we’re doing things to help take the temperature down and address issues through diplomatic gatherings.”

Speaking at a press conference in the Philippines, Austin said he didn’t believe a wider war in the Middle East to be “inevitable.”

“I think there’s always room and opportunities for diplomacy,” the defense official said, adding that “what we have seen along the border, northern border, with Israel over time — that’s been a concern of ours.”

“Again, We are going to give everything we can to make sure that we keep things from turning into a broader conflict throughout the region,” he added.

 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, standing right, and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, standing left, listen to the playing of the Israeli National Anthem during an arrival ceremony at the Pentagon in Washington, June 25, 2024. 
 

Later on Wednesday, in a phone call with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant regarding Hezbollah and Lebanon, Austin reiterated the US’s belief in Israel’s right to self defense.

A readout from Austin’s office said the two spoke about Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s July 27 attack which killed 12 children in a soccer field in northern Israel, and discussed the threats to Israel posed by a range of Iranian-backed terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hezbollah.

Israel’s Defense Ministry said in turn that the US official had been given an update on the “precise operation” that killed Hezbollah top commander Fuad Shukr.

Gallant “referred to the operation as a direct response to Hezbollah’s attack and the murder of 12 children in the northern Israeli town of Majdal Shams,” the readout stated. “Minister Gallant emphasized that Israel does not seek war; however, the IDF remains prepared to defend its citizens and to respond to any attack by Hezbollah.”

Neither the readout from the Pentagon nor from the Defense Ministry mentioned Haniyeh, as the US has said it was “not aware or involved in” the targeted assassination, and the Israeli government said it would not be commenting on the matter.

The Pentagon said, however, that the two defense officials “discussed the threats to Israel posed by a range of Iranian-backed terrorist groups,” and Austin “reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and right to self-defense.”

The two were also said by the Pentagon to have “discussed ongoing efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution that enables citizens on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border to safely return to their homes.”

Finally, Gallant stressed to Austin that “especially during these times, the State of Israel is working to achieve a framework for the release of the hostages.”

To that end, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated his call for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, despite the killing of Haniyeh and amid concerns that it could prompt the Hamas terror group to withdraw from negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage release deal in the 10-month-old war in Gaza.

Speaking to Channel News Asia, Blinken said he would not speculate about the impact on ceasefire efforts, but that “the imperative of getting a ceasefire, the importance that that has for everyone, remains.”

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks during a conversation on Advancing Security and Prosperity in the Indo-Pacific Region with Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Chan Heng Chee at the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, Wednesday, July 31, 2024.  
 

Washington is Israel’s key military backer, and has been pushing for the Gaza ceasefire, which Blinken said remains “manifestly in the interests” of the Israeli hostages, and of the Gazan civilians who have been “caught in this crossfire of Hamas’s making.”

The US State Department later said that Blinken had spoken with Qatari Prime Minister Muhammad al-Thani, who has been a key mediator in the negotiations, and “emphasized the importance of continuing to work to reach a ceasefire.”

It added that the US “would continue to work to ensure an agreement is reached.”

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, meets with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani at a hotel during a day of meetings, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Amman, Jordan, November 4, 2023. 
 

In Jordan, a key US ally, Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi discussed “the dangerous escalation taking place in the region and the steps required to stop it,” in a phone call with Blinken.

Safadi stressed that stopping Israel’s war in Gaza “must be the main immediate priority,” and also repeated his earlier condemnation of the assassination of Haniyeh, calling it “a heinous crime, a violation of international law, and a dangerous escalation.”

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called on Wednesday afternoon for all parties to show restraint and avoid further escalation of the conflict in the Middle East after both Iran and its proxies — including Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen — vowed that Israel would be dealt a “harsh and painful response” following Haniyeh’s death.

“Hamas is a terrorist organization that has carried out countless cruel and deadly attacks on Israel. The central issue now is to prevent a regional conflagration and not plunge the entire region into chaos,” Baerbock said in a news conference.

‘On the brink of global conflict’

She said any decision made now could either ease the situation or inflame it further, and called on all parties in the conflict to “exercise maximum restraint and deescalate in the interest of the people in the region.”

The German government had also called for restraint earlier in the day, with foreign ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer telling reporters that “the logic of tit-for-tat reprisals is the wrong path.”

 

People hold up the Palestinian flag and a portrait of assassinated Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh Hamas during a rally at Tehran University, in the Iranian capital Tehran on July 31, 2024, as Iran declares three days of mourning. 
 

In Russia, a spokesman for the foreign ministry condemned the killing of Haniyeh, saying that “the organizers of this political assassination were aware of the dangerous consequences this action is fraught with for the entire region.”

The spokesman warned that the region was “balancing on the brink of global conflict,” and lambasted all sides for continuing “to raise the stakes.”

He charged that the “manic desire” of the United States to monopolize the process of political settlement in the Middle East had led to this situation.

China, too, said it firmly opposed and condemned the assassination, and warned that the incident could lead to further regional instability.

WILL IRAN STRIKE ISRAEL AGAIN?

Khamenei has ordered a direct attack on Israel

The New York Times reports that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ordered a direct attack on Israel, in retaliation for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, attributed to Israel.

 

By Shachar Kleiman  

 

Israel Hayom

Jul 31, 2024

 

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (left) meets with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran, Iran, June 22, 2023. (Salampix/ ABACAPRESS.COM, via Reuters)
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (left) meets with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran, Iran, June 22, 2023
 

According to a report by the New York Times, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ordered a direct attack on Israel, in retaliation for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, attributed to Israel.

Three Iranian officials who were briefed on the matter further added that the attack would involve drones and missiles targeting military sites near Tel Aviv and Haifa. According to these officials, Iran will be careful to avoid hitting civilian targets in any attack on Israel. Khamenei gave the order at an emergency meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council this morning, shortly after Iran announced Haniyeh's death.

The Iranian officials indicated that one option being considered is a coordinated attack from Iran and other fronts where it has allied forces, including Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, to achieve maximum impact.

Khamenei, who has the final say in all state matters and is also the supreme commander of the Iranian armed forces, ordered military commanders from the Revolutionary Guards and the army to prepare both offensive and defensive plans in case Israel or the United States attacks Iran, and the war escalates, the officials said.

 

 

Israel neither confirmed nor denied the killing of Haniyeh, who was in Tehran for the inauguration ceremony of Iran's new president. The killing stunned Iranian officials, who described it as a red line being crossed. It was an embarrassing security breach for a country eager to project power, but long frustrated by its inability to prevent Israel from conducting covert operations on its soil.

 

  

Haniyeh and the assassination scene

 

The embarrassment was compounded by the prominence of Haniyeh, the presence of other allies, and the fact that he was attacked in a highly secured guesthouse of the Revolutionary Guards on a day of heightened security in the capital. Analysts said that Iran sees retaliation as necessary both to avenge Haniyeh's killing and to deter Israel from targeting other powerful enemies like Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah or General Ismail Qaani, commander of the Quds Force overseeing military groups outside Iran.

"Iran probably believes it has no choice but to respond to deter further Israeli attacks, protect its sovereignty, and maintain its credibility with its regional partners," said Ali Vaez, Iran director at the International Crisis Group.

As a reminder, the last time Iran directly attacked Israel was on the 190th day of the war, in April, in what was called "Drone Night," when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards launched dozens of drones and missiles toward certain areas in Israel.

'IF TRUMP GETS IN, IF I WERE THE AYATOLLAH, I'D BE WATCHING'

At CUFI summit, Lindsey Graham slams Iran policy of Biden, Obama

“An attack by Hezbollah against the State of Israel should be considered an attack by Iran against the State of Israel,” the South Carolina senator said. 

 

THE OUTBREAK OF A DIRECT NUCLEAR BILLIGERENCY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND NORTH KOREA COULD INVOLVE THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA AND CHINA

The North Korean threat to Israel

A non-nuclear Iran could use Pyongyang as a nuclear state proxy. 

 

By Louis Rene Beres

 

JNS

Jul 31, 2024

 

The daughter, Kim Ju Ae (left), whose age has not been confirmed, has been seen with her father at a variety of events, fuelling speculation that Kim Jong Un has chosen her as heir apparent to lead a fourth generation of hereditary rule by his family

Kim Jong Un's daughter, Kim Ju Ae (left), has been seen with her father at a variety of events, fueling speculation that he has chosen her as heir apparent to lead a fourth generation of hereditary rule by his family

 

North Korea represents the world’s most time-urgent nuclear threat, especially for the United States and some of its Asian allies. Assorted dangers of a North Korea-related nuclear war also lie latent in the Middle East. These perils are generally ignored or overlooked and pertain most ominously to Israel.

What are the relevant scenarios and specific issues? Though Israel has no direct adversarial connections to North Korea, this already-nuclear Asian state does have variously tangible ties to Syria and remains a close ally of not-yet-nuclear Iran. 

Jihadist Iran is the primary patron of anti-Israel terrorism, both Sunni (Hamas) and Shi’ite (Hezbollah, the Houthis). This means, inter alia, that Israel’s ongoing struggles against Iran-supported terrorism could soon bring the Jewish state into a direct and protracted conflict with the Islamic Republic.

If that should happen, both Israel and Iran would strive for “escalation dominance,” an unstable and unpredictable competition in which a still pre-nuclear Iran would struggle for supremacy at an evident strategic disadvantage. Ironically, such an Iranian disadvantage could worsen Israel’s security situation.

There are multiple and bewildering details. Depending on Iran’s intra-war willingness to accept existential risks, Jerusalem could at some point find itself in “active belligerent status” with Pyongyang. In turn, that unprecedented and worrisome status (a sui generis status in the rarefied language of logic) could take the form of direct military engagement with (1) Iran’s designated nuclear proxy, or (2) North Korea’s nuclear and/or non-nuclear assets previously placed in the decision–making ambit of Tehran.

Whatever North Korea’s policy disposition on nuclear surrogacy for Iran, the prospects for a widening conflict would be “high.” To be sure, because all pertinent scenarios would lack historical precedent, there could exist no science-based method of assigning numerical or statistical probabilities. At the same time, in axiomatic principles of logic and mathematics, there would still remain certain reliable ways of conflict estimation. Here, prima facie(3) the outbreak of a direct nuclear belligerency between Israel and North Korea could involve the United States, Russia and/or China, and (4) the precise forms of any such superpower involvement would be indeterminable.

For Israel, the threats from Iran/North Korea are existential and palpable. What should Israel do now? Not much could be gained via direct diplomacy with Iran or North Korea, but there could still be more-or-less calculable benefits in gaining supportive policy guarantees from Washington.

In the final analysis, even such seemingly persuasive guarantees could fail altogether; Jerusalem would then have to plan urgently for a uniquely complex set of decisional options. In these scenarios, even (5) decipherable success in keeping Iran non-nuclear could provide Israel no assurances of national safety, and (6) presumptively complete Israeli success would be sorely problematic.

Further clarifications will be needed. By definition, an accidental nuclear war between Israel and North Korea would be unintentional, but an unintentional nuclear war need not be the result of an accident. To wit, an unintentional nuclear war between Jerusalem and Pyongyang could represent the outcome of decision-making miscalculation or irrationality by one or both adversaries. Such a distressing understanding is realistic and potentially probable.

What is being done about all this in Israel? Though unverifiable, neither Jerusalem nor Pyongyang is likely paying sufficient attention to the intersecting risks of an unintentional nuclear war. In theory, at least, each side would expectedly assume the other side’s decision-making rationality. After all, if there were no such mutual assumption, it could make no sense for one or the other competitor to seek “escalation dominance” during an actual crisis or war.   

There is more. At some point, Israel’s survival could come to depend on viable combinations of ballistic missile defense and defensive first strikes. However, settling upon such untested combinations would necessarily lack critical input from any material or quantifiable historical evidence and would present the highest imaginable levels of existential risk. In a worst-case scenario, the offensive military threat to Israel would warrant some form of situational preemption. At that late stage, however, there would remain no “ordinary” circumstances wherein a defensive strike against a nuclear North Korea could still be presumed rational.

There are additional nuances. For the moment, it seems likely that Kim Jong Un would value his own life and the lives of his family above any other conceivable preference or combination of preferences. In all corresponding scenarios, Kim could be presumed rational and would remain subject to Israel/U.S. nuclear deterrence.

Still, it could be important for a negotiating Israeli leadership team to distinguish between authentic instances of enemy irrationality and ones of feigned or pretended enemy irrationality. Also worth noting is that (7) actual negotiations or bargaining with North Korea would likely be led by the United States, and/or (8) actual diplomacy would be conducted with Iran.

There is more to assess concerning an inadvertent nuclear war between Jerusalem and Pyongyang. Such a dizzying conflict could take place not only as the result of misunderstandings or miscalculations between fully rational national leaders (Israeli, North Korean, Iranian and/or American), but as the unintended consequence (singly or synergistic) of mechanical, electrical, computer malfunctions or hackings. These last interventions could include substantially perplexing intrusions of “cyber-mercenaries.”

Always, regarding Iranian nuclear surrogate North Korea, Israel’s strategic policies should emphasize the maintenance of stable intra-war nuclear thresholds. Among other things, this would mean a refined focus on (9) the expected rationality or irrationality of key decision-makers in North Korea; (10) the cumulative requirements of escalation dominance; (11) the always-important distinctions between intentional, unintentional and accidental nuclear war; and (12) Israel’s animating or core conflict with Iran.

This last focus should serve as a reminder that Israel’s actual war would be against Iran and that North Korea would be operating against Israel solely as an Iranian nuclear surrogate. Accordingly, Israel’s best path to nuclear war avoidance/nuclear war limitation with North Korea should always involve prior strategic understandings with (or military actions against) Iran.

Although the above-examined connections may first seem implausible or “absurd” (What could possibly cause rational Israeli decision-makers to make war against an already-nuclear North Korea?), these connections are plausibly credible. Recalling the ancient Roman Tertullian, Jerusalem ought to take immediate note of the classical philosopher’s ironic but still-galvanizing declaration: “I believe because it is absurd.” In this context, the declaration “fits” perfectly.

For Israel, to argue against certain existential security threats because they first appear illogical or preposterous would reveal a lethal error in strategic reasoning. In its rapidly escalating struggle against Iran and terrorist proxies, Israel could ultimately face a nuclear North Korea as Iran’s state proxy. While the outcome of such a confrontation might be “absurd,” it could still prove injurious beyond any historical measure.

INTERNATIONAL COURT ORDERS WEST BANK AND EASTERN JERUSALEM TO BE JUDENREIN

The International Court of Justice demands ethnic cleansing

The biased Court falsely claims that Israel's presence in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is illegal. 

 

By James Sinkinson

 

FLAME

Jul 31, 2024

 

Members of the diplomatic corps react as they attend a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on July 19, 2024. Credit: Nick Gammon / AFP via Getty Images.
Members of the diplomatic corps react as they attend a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on July 19, 2024
 

Astonishingly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is demanding that Israel immediately give up sovereignty over the eastern part of its capital Jerusalem and remove more than half a million Israelis who live in the disputed territory of Judea and Samaria, which Israel controls by virtue of international law and treaties.

The ICJ opinion, though non-binding, follows on the heels of trumped-up arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court earlier in July. Both actions are part of efforts to isolate Israel using condemnations with a false veneer of legitimacy through “international law.” 

ndeed, the ICJ itself is a travesty. It is not an actual judicial body but a kangaroo court whose members are accountable not to international law but to the political dictates of their respective countries, many of which flagrantly embrace anti-Israel policies.

The ICJ, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and “Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

In fact, the ICJ’s opinion contravenes international law. Judea and Samaria were never legally part of another country, nor were they ever under Palestinian sovereignty—therefore no occupation exists. The settlement of Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria is also perfectly legal since it constitutes the ancient and continuous Jewish homeland, and Israel legally controls the territory.

Finally, by calling for an end to Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria, the ICJ is trying to nullify international agreements and U.N. resolutions that call for a negotiated settlement to the status of the territory. This includes the Oslo Accords, by which Israel and the Palestinians agreed to settle all issues pertaining to Judea and Samaria through negotiations. 

All nations that truly respect international law—especially the United States and other Western countries—should automatically reject the ICJ’s bogus ruling. They should oppose using the opinion to delegitimize the Jewish state and ethnically cleanse the disputed territory.

The ICJ is a political forum masquerading as a court of international law. The Court consists of 15 judges appointed by U.N. member states. They are not impartial jurists accountable to international law. Rather, they follow the directives of the governments that appoint them and their own proclivities. The current Court includes judges from countries that have traditionally sided with the Palestinians against Israel, such as China, Somalia, South Africa and Lebanon.

Nawaf Salam, the current president of the ICJ, once served as Lebanon’s ambassador to the U.N. During his term, he voted 210 times to condemn Israel. He has accused Israel of crimes against humanity and apartheid, and functions as a pawn of Iran’s Islamist dictatorship. In fact, he opposed all 11 General Assembly resolutions condemning Iran’s violations of the rights of its own citizens.

The ICJ’s opinion that Israel “occupies” Judea and Samaria is baseless. Under international law, an occupation exists when one country seizes control of another country’s territory. Judea and Samaria were never legally part of another country. Jordan seized control of the territory in the 1948 war. Rather than give the Palestinians a state in the territory, the Jordanians illegally annexed it. Yet the ICJ never demanded an end to Jordan’s unlawful occupation.

Israel expelled Jordan after the Six-Day War in 1967 and Jordan later signed a treaty with Israel relinquishing all control of the territory. Since Judea and Samaria were never legally part of Jordan, nor part of a Palestinian state or any other country, Israel’s control of the territory is 100% legal.

Furthermore, international law mandates that a country inherits the borders of a former entity. Thus, Israel would have inherited the borders of the preceding entity—the British Mandate for Palestine, which included Judea and Samaria.

Finally, Israel, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, has an inherent right to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria because it is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. This is supported by endless evidence, including archeological findings and historical records stretching back thousands of years.

Nothing in international law prevents Israelis from settling Judea and Samaria. International law stipulates that a country cannot “transfer” its citizens to occupied territory. Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria, which is not occupied territory, do so willingly. Israel does not forcibly transfer them there. In addition, Israelis only settle on land under full Israeli control per the Oslo Accords, otherwise known as Area C.

The ICJ’s opinion ignores Israel and the Palestinians’ commitment to resolve the status of Judea and Samaria through negotiations. This commitment has been endorsed by dozens of U.N. resolutions and agreements between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Furthermore, the ICJ opinion violates the principle established by the U.N. Security Council and the Oslo Accords that any Israeli withdrawal from territories seized in the 1967 war be conducted only in exchange for peace.

The ICJ opinion has the potential to seriously damage Israel. In theory, Israel could be expelled from the U.N. and severely sanctioned by the Security Council, though this is highly unlikely to happen, providing the U.S. vetoes such measures. More likely, however, is that Israel becomes subject to other penalties, such as suspension of U.N. voting privileges, expulsion from cultural and sporting associations, and arms embargoes—all of which would be given the legitimacy of international law per the ICJ’s opinion.

The ICJ opinion completely contradicts the existing international law that it is supposed to uphold. Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria is completely legal, as is the residence of Israeli citizens in the territory. No ICJ “opinion” changes this reality.

Nevertheless, Israel’s enemies will surely use the ICJ’s opinion as an excuse to further isolate Israel and make it a pariah state—a status more befitting tyrannical dictatorships like Iran and North Korea, not the sole outpost of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

All nations that respect international law—especially the U.S. and Israel’s other Western allies—should reject the ICJ’s opinion and oppose all such illegitimate measures to further isolate the Jewish state.

AT LEAST HE WASN'T TAKEN ALIVE

Venezuelan illegal immigrant shoots and wounds Texas police officer, dies in shootout

 

by  
 
Jul 30, 2024
 
Jorge Chacon-Gutierrez, 25, has been identified by San Antonio TV station WOAI as the illegal immigrant who opened fire on three police officers Sunday morning

Jorge Chacon-Gutierrez, 25, has been identified by San Antonio TV station WOAI as the illegal immigrant from Venezuela who shot a San Antonio female police officer

 

SAN ANTONIO, TX - Jorge Chacon-Gutierrez, 25, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, shot and wounded a San Antonio police officer in a Sunday morning shootout before dying from a gunshot wound. According to multiple law enforcement sources, it was unknown whether the assailant was struck by return fire from police or took his own life.

As reported by Fox News, officers from the San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) responded to a domestic disturbance at approximately 3:00 a.m. and found Chacon-Gutierrez lying in his bed armed with a rifle. The suspect reportedly opened fire on the officers, striking a female officer multiple times.

SAPD Chief William McManus told News4 San Antonio that officers were answering a 911 call from a woman who said Chacon-Gutierrez assaulted her.

The suspect's identity was revealed by San Antonio-based conservative talk show host Joe "Pags" Pagliarulo in a post to X. The document he shared noted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) previously detained him in November 2023 in Eagle Pass, TX, and referenced an SAPD case number matching the case involving Sunday's shootout.

Reports from WOAI/KABB confirmed that Chacon-Gutierrez was given a notice to appear at a later date and was released from CBP custody without any conditions of bond or release citing ICE records. Fox News Bill Melugin reported that the suspect's immigration court date was set for April 2026.

Pagliarulo heavily criticized "easy-on-crime Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar Continued supporting the lawless open border."

The San Antonio Express revealed that three officers were involved in the shootout and retreated while returning fire, leaving the suspect barricaded inside for several hours. A SWAT team responding to the scene later entered the home and found Chacon-Gutierrez dead.

Congressman Tony Gonzale (R-TX), who represents San Antonio, commented on the shooting. “These are the consequences of failed catch & release policies,” he posted to X. “I am thankful the injured SAPD officer is stable & I pray she makes a full recovery soon.”

The officer injured underwent surgery Sunday morning and is expected to recover.

GOOD QUESTION

Does a crime victim have the right to own the name and future money of the person who attacked them?

 

by  
 
Jul 30, 2024 

 

PHOTO: Nikolas Cruz speaks with Assistant Public Defender Melisa McNeill prior to the start of the day's jury pre-selection in the penalty phase of his trial at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,  April 27, 2022. 

Nikolas Cruz 

 

What are the rights of a crime victim as to owning the name and future income of the offender who victimized them?

The story below from the Associated Press gives a person shot multiple times by Nikolas Cruz during the school shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida protection from future publicity and enables the victim to collect future financial gains associated with the offender.

Does the court ruling have implications for other crime victims?

Court rulings of restitution rarely compensate crime victims. Criminal offenders seldom comply with parole and probation efforts to collect. But what if the offender inherits money? What happens if the media comes for an interview?

This was a major issue when I was the director of public information for the Maryland Department of Public Safety; the Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center (who I currently supply data to for legislative efforts) came to us complaining that publicity surrounding inmates participating in media interviews adds further distress to the people they victimized.  They wanted us to “clear” the option of interviews with crime victims, which we agreed to do.

Crime victims can and do lead lives of considerable emotional and financial distress. Their lives have been altered forever, something that most quickly dismiss, yet entire families live with the impact.

New York Post: “The woman who existed before November 3rd is gone,” said Phanor’s third victim, who was out for a morning run when she wanted a “few extra steps” and turned down Pier 45 before being raped Nov. 3, 2022.”

 

The New York Post's front page from Nov. 4, 2022.

Carl Phanor

 

“This attack has stolen my sense of safety, my marriage and the close bond shared amongst my children,” she wrote in her statement read aloud in court, adding that her 20-year marriage “crumbled” after the attack and led to a divorce.”

Will courts be willing to consider additional requests for compensation by allowing victims to  “own” the name of the person who victimized them and give them access to future financial gains? Does that give victims a sense of peace? It’s more than likely that overloaded courts would rebel at the prospect unless the crime were heinous.   

Associated Press

Associated Press: “The most severely wounded survivor of the 2018 massacre at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School now owns shooter Nikolas Cruz’s name, and Cruz cannot give any interviews without his permission, under a settlement reached in a lawsuit.”

“Under his recent settlement with Anthony Borges, Cruz must also turn over any money he might receive as a beneficiary of a relative’s life insurance policy, participate in any scientific studies of mass shooters and donate his body to science after his death.”

“The agreement means that Cruz, 25, cannot benefit from or cooperate with any movies, TV shows, books or other media productions without Borges’ permission. Cruz is serving consecutive life sentences at an undisclosed prison for each of the 17 murders and 17 attempted murders he committed inside a three-story classroom building on Feb. 14, 2018.”

“We just wanted to shut him down so we never have to hear about him again,” Borges’ attorney, Alex Arreaza, said Thursday.

“Borges, now 21, was shot five times in the back and legs and collapsed in the middle of the third-floor hallway.”

Conclusions

The vast majority of what’s written about criminal offenders focuses on additional chances and leniency which makes a certain amount of sense because our prisons are overcrowded.

But a huge percentage of criminal cases are routinely dropped by prosecutors and well over 90 percent are plea-bargained resulting in charges being modified for a reduced sentence.  All of this depends on arrests and successful criminal investigations which seem to be dropping like a rock. Even when restitution is ordered by a judge, victims will rarely see a dime of the money.

But anything that stops the perception that the financial and emotional plights of crime victims are not important has merit. We correctly demand that the rights of our fellow citizens who are members of marginalized groups be protected and we’re willing to do just about anything to assist the vulnerable.

But that does not apply to crime victims. Few seem to care. Maybe it’s time for crime victims to appeal to the courts for redress and financial compensation to force their victimizers to pay a price commiserate with their crimes.

TWO WOMEN SERIOUSLY INJURED IN DOG PACK ATTACK

By Bob Walsh


Undated picture of Mytoka Petry. July 24, 2024 (courtesy Julana Torres). 

Mytoka Petry has lost an arm and nearly lost her eye in the dog attack

 


Mytoka Petry was in North Portland 15 days ago just taking a walk when she was attacked by eight dogs.  The attack occurred near a homeless camp though it is not known if the animals were connected to the camp.

Two people tried to help her.  One of them was also hospitalized with significant injuries.

Petry lost an arm, an ear and possibly an eye in the attack.  It takes the nurses about four hours just to change her dressings.  

The dogs were seized and are now impounded.  No arrests have been made in the attack.

It is anticipated by the medical staff that Petry may be in the hospital for months and is still considered to be in critical condition.

GLOCK VS. POINTED STICK AND ROCK

By Bob Walsh

 

Oceanside Police Cruiser. Photo by Chris Stone

 

This little morality play ran it's course in Oceanside, CA last night.  It seems that the bad guy, age 22, tried to enter at least five different homes in the area before picking on one on Diamond Circle.  He in fact entered a home and confronted the resident, who is 54-years old.  The young bad guy was carrying a rock and a sharp stick.  He threw the rock, striking the resident in the face.  The resident concluded that he was in danger and put three rounds from the Glock into the assailant.  Bad guy fled the house.  The responding cops found him in the yard, deader than dog shit.  Neither name was released, nor was the name of the woman who was present at the home at about 0700 in the morning.  

CA law creates the presumption that a person who forcibly enters your home is there to do you harm and that deadly force is an appropriate response.  It is a rebuttable presumption but it is there.  Also the force required to forcibly enter a home is minimal.  Damaging something is not needed.  The force needed to turn a doorknob and open a closed door is considered a forcible entry.

LOOKS LIKE THE U.K. NEEDS MORE KNIFE CONTROL

By Bob Walsh


Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar. 

Bebe King, 6; Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7; and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, died in the mass stabbing


There was a "mass stabbing" event at a Taylor Swift-themed gathering at a dance school in Southport, Merseyside in the U.K.  There were a total of 13 injured, almost all young girls.  Three are dead and four are critical.  

An unnamed 17-year old male is in custody for the attack.  The cops are convinced that the bad guy was acting alone and are not calling this an act of terrorism, though they are unsure of the motive.  

Two of the seriously injured adults were attempting to protect the children.

It's a good thing that nobody there had a gun.  Somebody might have gotten hurt otherwise.

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS, WHICH AMERICANS CREATED WITH THEIR INSATIABLE HUNGER FOR DRUGS, WILL CONTINUE TO THRIVE DESPITE THE ARREST OF THEIR LEADERS

By Howie Katz

 

ismael mayo zambada detenido arrested

Sinaloa cartel co-founder and current leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, along with El Chapo's son Joaquín Guzmán López, was tricked into believing his plane was landing in northern Mexico when in fact it landed in El Paso where he and El Chapo's son were captured by the FBI on July 25, 2024

 

Make no mistake about it, we created the Mexican drug cartels. We did it with our insatiable hunger for drugs and our refusal to crack down on the users of illegal drugs. 

The Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation (CJNG) are the two most powerful of the Mexican cartels. The have their own armies and control large areas of Mexico.

 


Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, commonly referred to as El Mencho, is the founder and leader of the Jalisco New Generation (Pictured with two of his children)

Armored pickup trucks are emblazoned with the initials of the Jalisco drug cartel
Soldiers of the Jalisco New Generation army

 
How did Mexico's cartels arise to become so powerful? It all goes back to the counter culture that popped up during the Vietnam War. Prior to that time, America's users of illegal drugs were sent to prison if caught and no one gave a damn. Why? Because then most of the illicit users were were mostly blacks and Mexicans.
 
The counter culture that arose out of the anti-Vietnam War protests changed everything. Young people, referred to as hippies, drifted to the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco where marijuana and heroin were plentiful. Suddenly it wasn't just blacks and Mexicans that were into using illegal drugs.
 
 
 
The Haight-Ashbury scene during the late 1960s
 
 
With the white sons and daughters of middle and upper class Americans being into drugs we, of course, did not want them to be imprisoned. Thus we changed our hard on drugs to a soft on drugs policy and were on the way to becoming the leading nation in the use of illegal drugs.

Compare that to the harsh drug policies of other nations. In Japan, drug users, if convicted, are confined in either a drug rehabilitation program or imprisoned. In Indonesia and Malasia, drug users are imprisoned and drug dealers are executed. 

In the Philippines, Former President Rodrigo Duterte's drug policies were so harsh that they were publicly condemned by President Barack Obama. In return, Dutertr called Obama a son of a bitch, causing the American president to cancel a schduled visit to the Philippines.
 
 
Rodrigo Duterte   
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte called Barack Obama a son of a bitch after the American president had condemned his harsh drug policies
  
 
That is not to say that Japan, Indonesia, Malasia and the Philippines do not have a drug problem, but the problem in those countries is negligible compared to America's problem.
 
Since most of the illegal drugs in the U.S. prior to the 1960s originated in Mexico, it follows that the increased demand for drugs resulting from the counter culture would be met by suppliers in Mexico. That led to the rise of drug cartels, of which the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation (CJNG) are the two most powerful today.
 

Various drug cartels vie for power in Mexico with port cities and the borders with the US considered ideal turf for drug trafficking
Areas controlled by Mexico's drug cartels in 2022
 
 
Sinaloa cartel co-founder and current leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, along with El Chapo's son Joaquín Guzmán López, was tricked into believing his plane was landing in northern Mexico when in fact it landed in El Paso where he and El Chapo's son were captured by the FBI on July 25, 2024

The imprisonment of El Chapo did not bring about an end to the Sinaloa Cartel and the capture of El Mayo will not bring about its downfall either. There may be a bloody contention for the cartel's leadership, but a new leader will emerge and the cartel will continue to flourish.

The insatiable hunger for drugs by Americans gave rise to the Mexican drug cartels and continues to keep them in a profitable business.  We cannot blame Mexico for the drug mess in both our countries. We ourselves created the cartels with our failure to crack down on illicit drug users and the dramatic increase in the demand for drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine and meth that resulted therefrom.