We are living in a sick,news world, not a “fake news” world.  Two of the largest pillars of the American established news media, the New York Times and the Cable News Network (CNN) just happened to omit the central point of US Secretary of Defense James Mattis’,explicit comments during his trip to Afghanistan.

He said that Russia and Iran were arming the Taliban in Afghanistan.  The Wall Street Journal ]reported Mattis’ comments accurately, publicizing the declaration referring to Iran and Russia arming the Taliban in Afghanistan, “Those two countries [Russia and Iran] have suffered losses to terrorism, so I think it would be extremely unwise if they think they can somehow support terrorism in another country and not have it come back to haunt them.”

We are living in a truly ‘sick news’ world in which the NYT and CNN, due to some bizarre-world political slant, fail to report that the US Defense Secretary has openly accused Russia and Iran of actively helping murder our troops in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a new Iranian ‘malign’ development.  In fact,as Yogi Berra would say: With the US in Afghanistan, it’s the US Iraqi Military Catastrophe Groundhog Day all over again.  In Iraq from 2004-2010, Iran, the ultimate terror-state, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad (the same genocidal-psychopath that’s still there), armed the Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq to murder thousands of US soldiers and all the while Presidents Bush, and Obama, and the US military did absolutely nothing to stop them.

After the US spent 3 trillion dollars in Iraq, and lost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands wounded and disfigured, Iran has taken over Iraq, and treats it like the Iranian vassal it is.  Now Iran is doing in Afghanistan what it did to the US in Iraq, and no one is doing anything to stop them.

One may well ask, “Langfan, where’s your proof?”

On April 24, 2014, over three years ago, I wrote an essay entitled “Assad’s al Qaeda Murdered 1,770 US Soldiers in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad’s hands are indelibly coated with the blood of precious US soldiers.”

In the essay, I wrote, “the one person in the world who most directly knows that Bashar al-Assad knowingly funneled al Qaeda terrorist murderers into Iraq through Syria, was none other than the Syrian Ambassador to Iraq after and during the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, Nawaf Fares.  And, Nawaf Fares, who defected in July 2012, stated in a Telegraph interview that, ‘after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the regime in Syria [Assad] began to feel danger, and began planning to disrupt the US forces inside Iraq, so it [Assad] formed an alliance with al-Qaeda.. All Arabs and other foreigners were encouraged to go to Iraq via Syria, and their movements were facilitated by the Syrian government.  As a governor at the time, I [Fares] was given verbal commandments that any civil servant that wanted to go would have his trip facilitated, and his absence would not be noted.  I believe the Syrian regime [Assad] has blood on its hands, it should bear responsibility for the many deaths in Iraq.’”

And as if that isn’t proof enough, only two years ago in 2015, the current Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, then the then-nominated-Joint Chiefs-Chairman, testified in front of Congress that Iran was directly responsible for 500 murders of our precious US troops in Iraq.  On July 14, 2015, Military Times reported that “the startling number emerged last week as Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Army veteran who served as an infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressed the issue at a confirmation hearing for Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, who is Obama’s nominee to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

“Senator,” Dunford responded, “I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently quoted as about 500. We weren’t always able to attribute the casualties we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity even though we didn’t necessarily have the forensics to support that.”

The Defense Department does not specifically track casualties linked to Iran. The 500 estimate is a ballpark figure based on intelligence assessments, according to a Pentagon official familiar with Dunford’s remarks.”How were our soldiers in Iraq ‘killed by Iranian activities’”?  Through Syria with Bashar al-Assad’s full participation.

But again, we are sitting, watching, and doing nothing while Iran, and, now Russia, help murder our precious US soldiers in Afghanistan; and the New York Times and CNN  aid and abet the forces of evil to commit wanton murder because they don’t want to report Iran’s murderous and terrorist activities.  They’re even willing to omit their favorite bête-noire du jour, the “evil-empire Russia,” from their reporting if it protects their beloved Iranian terror state and the nuclear deal Obama made with it.

The ultimate fake news is the New York Times’ motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print;” and CNN’s motto,“Go There – This is CNN – The Most Trusted Name in News.”

On Friday August 11, 2017, President Trump, having apparently been incorrectly advised by the vaunted US intelligence community that North Korea was cowering in the face his “fire and fury” comment, crowed, “‘Let me hear Kim Jong Un say it – he hasn’t been saying much’.”

Surprise, surprise. On September 3, 2017, Kim set off a test thermonuclear bomb originally pegged at a 100 kilotons blast, but later estimated by US intelligence as much larger than 100 kilotons. For the record, even a 100-kiloton nuclear blast is about 7 times the power of the Hiroshima’s gun-type uranium-235 15 kiloton Little Boy nuclear bomb, and 5 times more powerful of the Nagasaki implosion-type plutonium 21-kiloton Fat Man nuclear bomb.

To top things off, around September 11, 2017, the Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, which is North Korea’s official propaganda arm stated, “The four islands of the [Japanese] archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us.”

The word “Juche” translates from the Korean to mean “self-reliance,” and it is North Korea’s ruling ideology that is a blend of Marxism and hyper-nationalism.  Think of North Korea a transnational genetic ideological cross between Stalinist-Communism and Hitleresque-Nazism.  This “Japan should disappear by nuke” threat was then followed by an actual North Korean statement that “Let’s reduce the U.S. mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilization of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now.”

Apparently, Kim heard President Trump’s 11 August request for a personal and direct North Korean threat, and Kim delivered not one, but many explicit nuclear threats to the US homeland and US allies. Then, to add some comedy, a rather unimposing, meek bespoke-dressed US National Security Advisor McMaster then firmly stated “There is a military option.”  McMasters’ feckless statement weakened America’s already existing stance because wasn’t there already supposed to be “all options on the table,” that supposedly includes the “military option”?

Net-net, the real questions are two-fold:

1) Militarily, what “military option” actually exists?;

and

2) Politically, what “military option” actually exists that a) will not expose US troops to extensive casualties that will doom a Trump 2020 re-election bid, and b) will also make President Trump look like a immediate clean “winner.”

There really is only one answer: a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea.  And the simple rationale for such a pre-emptive nuclear attack is that 2017 North Korea presents a greater “clear and present danger” to the United States mainland than 1945 Japan presented.  And, since President Truman’s dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 was perfectly legitimate, certainly President Trump’s pre-emptive dropping of nuclear bombs on 2017 North Korea would be perfectly 100% legitimate.

Firstly, would a President Trump pre-emptive nuclear attack on North Korea be legal under the US Constitution, and additionally under international law?  Historically, from 1950 through 1953, President Truman dubbed the Korean conflict a “police action” under United Nations’ aegis and never sought a declaration of war from the US Congress.  And, while an “armistice” was signed, the armistice by its very terms was not a peace agreement, nor was “The United States of America” actually even an actual “Party” signatory to Korean Armistice. The Armistice Preamble, in fact, explicitly limited the Armistice agreement where “said conditions and terms are intended to be purely military in character.”  If the Armistice’s “conditions and terms” are “purely military,” then the Armistice is not a final political settlement binding the parties to peace.

Further, one could easily argue that North Korea has already violated article 6 of the Armistice that states: “6. Neither side shall execute any hostile act within, from, or against the demilitarized zone.”  North Korea’s nuclear tests on the Peninsula itself, its missile launches in all directions, and its bellicose statements clearly constitute grave “hostile acts” “against the demilitarized zone” and the entire region.

Critically, for over 65 years, without a US Congressional “Declaration of War,” successive US Congresses have unlimitedly allocated billions of dollars to the original and continued deployment of US troops to South Korea.  So, in effect, the US Congress has repeatedly sanctioned, by way of the purse, the full panoply of US war powers in Korea to the all the successive US Presidents as Commander-in-Chief including President Trump.

Hence, if President Truman had the legal constitutional authority without a Congressional Declaration of War to send 36,574 US troops to their death with an additional 103,284 wounded with 7,926 missing in action, and with 4,714 taken as prisoners fighting in Korea between 1950-1953, President Trump has full legal authority to send several decapitating nuclear bombs against North Korea to protect both the 30,000 US soldiers now deployed in South Korea as well as the threat to the United States homeland.

Secondly, as a “clear and present danger” to the United States homeland in 2017, North Korea is many orders of magnitude a “clearer” and infinitely more “present” danger than Japan ever was to the US mainland during the entire World War Two, let alone in 1945 when the Japanese military had already been militarily and economically decimated.  I will enumerate just an abridged short list of the catastrophic threats North Korea immediately presents to the United States security.

North Korea has clearly miniaturized a nuclear bomb with an over 100 kiloton warhead and has the missile delivery capability to deliver such a bomb certainly against the South Korea and Japan, if not to American territory itself.

As Major Miller USAF posited in 2005, and I related in a 2013 article, such a North Korean nuclear tipped missile can be used as a tactical EMP “leveling the playing field weapon” against the South where the North could effect a EMP blitzkrieg and capture 30,000 living US Prisoners of war checkmating any US President from responding at all, let alone with nuclear weapons.  Therefore, North Korea has a highly reliable and effective rational military trump card against the nuclear deterrence theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.  MAD theory never countenanced the possibility of a “rational actor’s” rational use of tactical nuclear EMP to capture 30,000 living US soldiers as hostages so as to pre-empt any nuclear retaliation by the US.

North Korea presents an immediate threat against the US homeland with such weapons.  And, in North Korea, China and Russia have a perfect useful idiot nuclear “proxy” that they can claim they have no control over.  Again, this “nuclear-proxy” variant scenario renders MAD a useless prophylactic against a North Korean attack because is the United States going to consider a nuclear attack by North Korea as an attack by Russia and/or by China so as to obliterate both Russia and China if North Korea fires a nuke?  Of course not!

Then, what exactly would an American annihilation attack against just North Korea destroy anyway?  There’s practically nothing there now.  Mutually Assured Destruction theory only works if there is not only “mutual destruction” but also, comparatively equal destruction between all the involved parties.  So, the United States trading nuclear destruction missiles with North Korea isn’t true mutually assured destruction, it’s only the “Act One” destruction of the United States and destruction of the nothing country of North Korea, leaving Russia and China completely unscathed for an “Act Two.”
In fact, an Act One nuclear exchange between the United States and North Korea might even put the United States into such a weakened strategic position in Act Two that fully-nuclear-armed and untouched Russia or China could then effectively threaten secondary follow-on Act Three nuclear attacks on an already severely crippled United States.
Of course, then, there’s the certainty that Iran has already bought the nuclear technology and bomb from North Korea.  Perversely, former President Obama gave Iran 150 billion dollars and a huge slice went to North Korea to fund its breakout testing of nuclear bombs and missiles.  Be sure, whatever North Korea has, Iran already has, or will soon have.

Every minute the North is allowed to continue to exist exponentially increases the probability that the North Korea has already transferred the nuclear bomb to Iran.  Obama’s billions to Iran and his dropping of the sanctions rendered all the sanctions against North Korea a nullity.  Iran can fund North Korea from a fraction of the 150 billions, and its newly-de-sanctioned oil exports.

In short, if President Truman found 1945 Japan to be of such “clear and present danger” to the United States so as to enable and necessitate the use of nuclear weapons against 1945 Japan, President Trump clearly can find 2017 North Korea to be an even greater danger enabling and necessitating the use of nuclear weapons against 2017 North Korea.  And, the sooner President Trump acts, the better.

The self-hating American Jewish organization J Street, and its director Jeremy Ben-Ami, have attacked President Trump as being “an obstacle to peace.” President Trump isn’t an obstacle to peace, he’s the only thing standing between Israel and the US governmental Deep State which would not mind seeing Israel wiped off the face of the planet. Ben-Ami further attacked the State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert asserting she “displayed dangerous ignorance about the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what it will take to end it.”

How did Ms. Nauert display “ignorance” according to Ben-Ami? Ben Ami attacked Ms. Nauert because she wouldn’t officially “endorse” the Two-State solution, J Street’s central policy. The American Jewish Left is now attacking the Trump Administration because it appears not to be actively forcing Israel into the 1967 Auschwitz borders.. J Street’s attack on Trump only proves two things: 1) J Street ‘s agenda is the destruction of Israel, and 2) that President Trump may be on the right track of protecting Israel from a Two-State annihilation.

First, Ben Ami’s declaration that President Trump is “an obstacle to peace” is not a badge of dishonor, but a crown of holiness. Why? Because, up to now, the Israeli and American Leftists two-staters have called Israel’s ‘settlers,’ Israel’s greatest heroes, “obstacles to peace.” Israel’s settlers are Israel’s greatest heroes because they have put their bodies and their family’s lives on the line to protect Israel from a ‘West Bank’ Palestinian State that would rain katyusha rockets into the highly and densely populated Tel Aviv-Hadera Sharon Coastal Plain.

Israel’s ‘settlers’ have endured Israeli Leftist attacks and Palestinian terrorist murders to protect the Nation of Israel. The fact that many Israelis don’t understand the ‘West Bank’s vital military value to Tel Aviv doesn’t mean Israel’s ‘settlers’ aren’t heroes. It only proves the Jews living in Judea and Samaria are modern-day super-heroes for enduring the vile attacks from their fellow Jews while they sacrifice everything for the greater good. Hence, for President Trump to be called an “obstacle to peace” by the Jewish Left is medal of supreme greatness.

As for Ms. Nauert being “ignorant” of the Middle East, it is the Israeli generals who oversaw the idiotic retreat from Gaza who are ignorant, along with the coterie of left-wing Israeli politicians who authorized that so-called “Disengagement from Gaza.”  Even Gen. Gershon Hacohen, the Israeli general who oversaw that 2005 Gaza retreat, now admits that  “The disengagement was a strategic laboratory experiment, one which worsened the security situation.”   Arutz Sheva further reported, that “Hacohen called for lessons to be drawn from the failed plan and noted that a similar withdrawal from Judea and Samaria was as dangerous as the withdrawal from Gush Katif.”

A “failed” “strategic experiment”?  Between 2001 and 2005, there were hundreds of rocket and mortar attacks on pre-1967 Israel from the Gaza Strip.  Any moron, let alone rational military general, could have figured out that when Israel unilaterally retreated from Gaza without any agreement in 2005, there would an escalation of the rocket attacks into Israel.  Instead of the Israeli Left-wing understanding the reality and danger of the Gaza rockets, they deluded themselves into the group-think that everything would be just fine.  Israeli left-wing politicians should be put on trial for their 2005 Gaza Disengagement lunacy.  Instead, they are voted in as Knesset members, and allowed to continue to ply their national-suicidal plans.

It’s only because the land around the Gaza Strip is sparsely populated and the Jews in the south relatively poor that the Palestinians are allowed to rocket them.  If those same rockets hit the wealthy areas of Tel Aviv, the “West Bank” Palestinians would be destroyed, and the whole world would accuse Israel of war crimes at the Hague.  That is until the United Nations fielded a “peace-keeping” force to protect the “West Bank” Palestinians while the Palestinians lobbed the Katyushas over their heads into Tel Aviv.

Ben Ami is either totally ignorant of the reality of Palestinian Gaza rockets hitting Israel, and the obvious analogous danger to Tel Aviv, or Ben Ami wants the same Gaza type rockets to be smuggled into the ‘West Bank’ and fired into Tel Aviv.  Let’s agree, for the sake of this discussion, that Ben Ami isn’t ignorant of the Gaza rockets.  That means Ben Ami, a leftist American Jew, sitting all protected and safe in America, wants the Palestinians to be able to fire rockets from the ‘West Bank’ Palestinian state into Tel Aviv.  In such case, J Street and Ben Ami are self-hating Jewish enemies of the Israel and the Jewish people.

In conclusion, J Street and Ben Ami’s attacks against President Trump are badges of highest honor for President Trump.  For, there can be no higher honor for anyone than to be placed in the same class as the brave and heroic Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria who are, at this very moment, protecting the Jewish people with their own bodies and their own families.  In fact, it’s fair to say they we all are praying that President Trump becomes as great a hero to Israel as the ‘settlers’ are heroes to Israel.

Make no mistake.  This isn’t a local American-Israeli Jewish dispute over a section of the Western Wall or conversion rights.  This is an all-out assault on the security of the nation of Israel by Israeli and American leftists who want to destroy the Netanyahu right-of-center government and impose a two-state solution on the Jews of Israel.

Over 3 years ago, on April 13, 2014, the social media response to my article, “MEATO: The Trans-Riyadh-Jerusalem-Athens Alliance” was disparaging, to say the least.  The Arutz Sheva article predicted not only a middle east NATO-type mutual defense pact among the Arab Sunni Muslim states against Iran, but also a military pact with Israel, Greece and even with NATO itself.  The MEATO concept was really just a re-hash of a 2006 article I wrote, “Iran: The 4th Reichastan” which described the basic theory and threats facing the Middle East from Iran, and the strategic requirement of collective Israeli-Sunni defense in the face of the waxing Iran threat.

But in a speech Sunday night, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster stated, there was a  “reassessment of regional relationships, most notably between Israel and a number of our Arab partners — all friends of America, but too often adversaries of each other. Today their interests are converging. This is an opportunity.”  McMaster’s added, using the Six Day War as a historic example, that to Israel what can appear to be an unprecedented challenge can present opportunities. And as a current example, he stated that in the face of threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic State and Iran, Israel “has adapted and performed amazingly well” because it “consistently recognized and acted on opportunities when others may have seen only difficulties.”

The issue here is two-fold:

1. Will Israel rise to the challenge and form a military alliance with the Sunnis without militarily crippling itself by agreeing to the  1967 borders thereby neutering the only reason the Sunnis straegically need Israel in the first place.

2.Whether President Trump can capitalize on the Israel-Sunni détente and form a Trans-Europe-NATO-Middle East alliance to protect everyone against Iran and ISIS.

With McMaster’s enunciation of the blooming alliance between Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and the greater twin goals of creating an Israel/Sunni alliance without a truncated Israel, and the creation of a Trans-Med NATO-Israel-Sunni Alliance, it is appropriate to review the article I wrote over 3 years ago:

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Physics states “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

It often seems that the Third Law applies not only to the world of physical objects, but also to the world of foreign affairs.  Evidence of Newton’s Third Law application can be found in Obama’s “withdrawal” from the Middle East, and his concomitant anointing of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the new Muslim Hegemonic Imanate.

For, it is now clear that tectonic shifts in alliances are taking place that could place Israel’s military might as the cornerstone to a new Middle East-Mediterranean alliance from Riyadh to Athens that will transform history.  The Pan-Greek-Israel-Saudi alliance will be called MEATO, Middle East Alliance Treaty Organization.

In what is a ground-breaking event, the New York Times reported:

“Emerging from meetings with his Israeli counterparts on Monday, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that discussions included ‘an outreach to other partners who may not have been willing to be partners in the past’.”

“He added, ‘What I mean is the Gulf states in particular, who heretofore may not have been as open-minded to the potential for cooperation with Israel, in any way.’ While General Dempsey did not go into specifics, other American military officials said that possibilities include intelligence-sharing, joint counterterrorism exercises and perhaps looking for how Israeli and Saudi troops could jointly work on the training of Syrian opposition fighters.”

For the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to openly state that “what I mean is the Gulf states in particular” – that these are the countries with which the “outreach to other partners” will occur is a 10 on the geo-political Richter scale.  Either he was trying to sabotage the budding Israeli-Saudi alliance, and failed, or, he was incapable of escaping the reality and robustness of the alliance. Either way, in the wake of Obama’s abandonment of America’s historical allies, things are dramatically in flux.

That was the first half of the article. What’s even more amazing, and puzzling, was the second half of the article that went on to report:

“Another thing potentially bringing Israel and Gulf states together is their intensifying criticism of American foreign policy. When President Obama met in Riyadh with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, for example, he heard the same disquiet over the continuing talks on Iran’s nuclear program that General Dempsey heard on Monday in Jerusalem.

“A Defense Department official, who like others agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, noted that ‘there’s a convergence of agreement between them, and in opposition to what we’re doing’.”

In light of the above, why is the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff assisting a non-American alliance where a US Defense Department official goes on record telling the New York Times that “there’s a convergence of agreement between them [between Israel and Saudi Arabia], and in opposition to what we’re [i.e. Obama is] doing”?

Could Chairman Dempsey be trying to work in opposition to what Obama is doing?  After all, Obama is attempting to destroy every last vestige of America’s strategic hold in the Middle East. More likely, when Obama visited Riyadh, he realized the US didn’t know how far the Israelis and Saudis had connected, so Obama sent the only person in the world he thinks the Israelis trust (Dempsey) to pry out of the Israelis the actual state of Israeli-Saudi rapprochement.

What is the latest Obama-Israel-Saudi scorecard?

In Egypt, Israel and the Saudis support the secular General Sisi, and Obama wants to actively overthrow General Sisi.  Obama is grotesquely withholding from Egypt the urgently needed IMF loans to stabilize his country, and the Apache helicopters necessary to rout the terrorists in the Sinai.  Strike one against Obama.

Israel and the Saudis want Iran’s nuclear program destroyed, Obama is doing anything, and everything to, de facto, protect and enhance Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program.  Strike two against Obama.

Israel and Saudi Arabia see the destruction of Syria’s Assad as a prime element in the destruction of Iran’s waxing hegemonic enterprise from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. And, Obama has starved the Syrian rebels of the weapons it needs to destroy Iran’s puppet, and its house of terrorist cards.  Strike three.  Obama is out.

Still, why is Saudi Arabia forced to ally itself with Israel?

First, Saudi Arabia eliminated the other Muslim heavyweights.  The only other two possibilities for Saudi Arabia are two 80 million plus populations of either Turkey or Egypt.

Anyway, by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and due to Erdogan’s delusions of Ottoman Caliphate grandeur, Turkey and Qatar are working in the opposite direction than is Saudi Arabia.

Next, Egypt can barely support itself, let alone militarily help the Saudis.

Unlike everybody, the Israelis don’t covet Saudi oil, or have designs on Mecca.  They just want to tan themselves on Tel Aviv beaches, pray to the G-d of Abraham, and invent internet billion-dollar companies.   The only way for the Saudis to cost-effectively keep their northern front of Jordan stable is to have Israel, de facto, protecting Jordan’s western and northern borders, and to supply Jordan with gas from the Med.

Without Israel stabilizing the strategic Med Sea seamline, Saudi Arabia would be crushed from the north.

Only through Israel can the Eastern-Theater-Saudis also graft into Israel’s Western-Theater-Mediterranean Sea alliance with Greece.  A joint Middle East alliance between the Saudis, Israel, Egypt, and Mediterranean Greece would be a watershed event.  Such a topologic-geographic connective east-west span through the Levant could open a gas-oil-pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Europe that would change history.

In fact, in the 1936-39 “First” Arab-Israel War, Britain trained and armed the Jewish “Special Night Squads” (SNS)  (Hebrew: Plugot Ha’Layla Ha’Meyukhadot ) that protected the critical British east-to-west-to-Med-Sea oil pipeline from Iraq through to Haifa.  The Mandate Jewish SNS saved Britain’s oil pipeline and refinery at Haifa that fueled Britain’s WW2 fight against Hitler’s Rommel Panzers in North Africa, and the Queen’s navy and air force in the Mediterranean Sea.

The crystal of the pre-1948 Jewish SNS special operations force soon morphed into the post-1948 present-day Israel IDF.

Today, the IDF would serve a modern-day SNS protecting Europe’s oil and gas supply from the Sunni Gulf.  Such an energy pipeline would render Israel as a strategic-lifeline of Europe’s energy existence.

Apart from the United States, the Saudis know that only Israel has the order-of-battle necessary to damage Iran’s nuclear program.  Since, Obama has made it abundantly clear that the United States is reaching an entente with Iran, Obama has left the Saudis no choice but to seek out Israel.  It’s the Saudi’s ally of last resort, but an ally nevertheless.  It’s a classic case of: “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with.”

It’s also clear that Iran will attempt to go nuclear under Obama’s tenure.  So, a move against Iran will have to be made inside of the next 2+ years.

Even outside the Obama’s remaining two-plus years, Israel, and only Israel, can deliver the cost-efficiency stability and trustworthiness the Sunnis and the Saudis need to remain the Sunni’s and the Saudi’s cornerstone ally.

So, we may be witnessing a revolution in alliances that could determine the fates of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Sunnis, Greece, Cyprus, and Europe for a century.”

Prophecy, anyone?

Last Tuesday, the 13th of June, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked if there was no legal authorization from Congress to target Syrian President Bashar Assad or Iranian proxies, Tillerson answerd, “I would agree with that.”

Secretary of State Tillerson is mistaken.  There is plenary and continuing congressional authorization under the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the President to attack any country, organization, or person at all responsible for the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.  And, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence that Iran aided and abetted some of the 9/11 attackers before and after September 11, 2001.

Therefore, there is full current authorization for President Trump to attack any Iranian-backed militias anywhere in the world, including but not limited to, those in Syria.

Exactly what was passed by the Congress 7 days after the United States was attacked by the Islamic barbarians in 2001?

On Sep 18, 2001, the Congress of the United States of America passed S.J. Res. 23 an Authorization of War under the United States Constitution authorizing the President, from then-President Bush, through Obama, to President Trump to engage in any military action against those who fall under the following conditions::

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

•   This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

•   (a) IN GENERAL– That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not that there are two sets of critical language, the first is the “aided the terrorists” language, and secondly there is the “harbored such organizations or persons.”

Wikipedia sketches out the elemental facts:

The U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in 1998 stated that al-Qaeda “forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies.”

On May 31, 2001, Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Officials of the Iranian government helped arrange advanced weapons and explosives training for Al-Qaeda personnel in Lebanon where they learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.”

The 9/11 Commission Report stated that 8 to 10 of the hijackers had previously passed through Iran and their travel was facilitated by Iranian border guards. The report also found “circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000.”[137]

Judge George B. Daniels ruled in a federal district court in Manhattan that Iran bears legal responsibility for providing “material support” to the 9/11 plotters and hijackers in Havlish, et al. v. Osama bin Laden, Iran, et al. Included in Judge Daniels’ findings were claims that Iran “used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757-767-777 flight simulator for training the terrorists”.

Ramzi bin al-Shibh traveled to Iran in January 2001, and an Iranian government memorandum from May 14, 2001 demonstrates Iranian culpability in planning the attacks. Defectors from Iran’s intelligence service testified that Iranian officials had “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.”

Therefore, there is sufficient open-source information to invoke the 2001 AUMF to include Iran and any force assisted by Iran.

Regarding Iranian post-9/11 activities harboring al Qaeda there is extensive evidence regarding Iranian guilt.  For example there was January 16, 2009 US Treasury Memorandum entitled  Treasury Targets Al Qaida Operatives in Iran which goes into extensive detail of Iran’s active involvement in harboring and protecting al Qaeda and its operatives.

There is a more than sufficient factual predicate to invoke the 2001 AUMF against Iran, and its affiliates.

President trump has full and plenary US Constitutional authority to wipe out Iran, and its affiliates in Syria or anywhere else for that matter, if he chooses to do so.