Authored by Eva Fu and Cara Ding via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Chinese agent who tried to bribe the IRS and manipulate the agency into advancing Beijing’s transnational repression of a U.S. nonprofit has received a 20-month prison sentence.

U.S. citizen John Chen, 72, was a principal actor in a $50,000 bribery scheme under the direction of a Chinese intelligence official to revoke the nonprofit status of New York-based Shen Yun Performing Arts.

Shen Yun has long been on the Chinese regime’s target list. Founded in 2006, the company tours around the world to display the ancient Chinese culture that prevailed before the communist takeover of China, while highlighting the human rights abuses under the regime’s rule. It has often drawn attention to the ongoing persecution of the meditation group Falun Gong.

Chen pleaded guilty in July after reaching a plea deal with prosecutors. He has spent the 16 months since his arrest in May 2023 in detention, and he will spend another four months in federal custody.

He will also forfeit $50,000 and face three years of supervised release after serving the full prison term.

For several months in 2023, Chen had been trying to move a fraudulent whistleblower complaint to help the Chinese Communist Party “topple” Falun Gong, according to court documents. Prosecutors said the whistleblower complaint was “facially deficient” and invoked propaganda rhetoric typical of Chinese authorities.

During those conversations, Chen emphasized that Chinese leadership was “very generous” in financial support for the plan, according to the court filing.

“After this-this-this thing is done,” the court document quoted Chen as saying, “reward for work will surely be given at that time.”

Chen and another co-conspirator, Lin Feng, who served 16 months of detention, paid $5,000 cash bribes to an undercover agent posing as an IRS agent. They promised an additional $50,000 for opening an investigation along with 60 percent of any awards from the complaint if it went through.

It was “a significant bribe,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Lockard said at the sentencing hearing. He noted that the undercover officer didn’t specify an amount.

“The defendant chose the amount,” he said.

Both Chen and Lin had traveled to Orange County in upstate New York, where Shen Yun is based, to surveil Falun Gong practitioners there, according to a court filing.

Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the sentencing was a reminder that “the U.S. justice system will hold accountable those who attempt to engage in malicious transnational repression on American soil.”

“John Chen aligned himself with the PRC government and its goals to harass and intimidate the Falun Gong, a long-standing target of PRC repression. In doing so, Chen boldly attempted to bribe an individual he believed to be an IRS agent to corrupt the administration of the U.S. tax code and pervert the IRS whistleblower program,” he said in a statement on Nov. 19. “This Office will not tolerate efforts like this to repress free speech by targeting critics of the PRC in the United States.”

Both Chen’s son and his lawyer declined to comment after walking out of the courtroom.

While Chen’s son, three China-based siblings, two ex-wives, and fiancée have all written letters asking for leniency and describing him as a man who loves the United States, the prosecutors disagreed.

In a Nov. 5 memo, they argued that a 30-month prison sentence—the longest under the sentencing guideline—would be appropriate because of the seriousness of the case and the need to deter criminal conduct, “particularly in cases of a foreign power’s repression of a disfavored group within the borders of the United States.”

“The defendant has no mitigating motives or external factors justifying his offense,” the prosecutors wrote, noting that Chen was “not motivated by poverty” and that there was no evidence of Chinese officials’ pressure.

Prosecutors noted that Chen had repeatedly referred to Chinese officials as his “friends” and that during the bribery scheme, he “called them ‘blood brothers,’ and described how ‘we’—Chen and his PRC Government friends—‘started this fight’ against the founder of the Falun Gong ‘twenty, thirty years ago.’”

The memo displayed photos obtained from Chen’s electronic devices and online accounts showing him at a major military parade in Beijing celebrating the 70th anniversary of Chinese communist rule in 2019. Another photo showed Chen shaking hands with communist leader Xi Jinping.

“Chen was extraordinarily proud of his history with the PRC Government and, in particular, his meeting with Xi,” the memo states, citing a recorded call in which he bragged that he had “climbed, climbed, climbed to this position,” and that “Uncle Xi” met him “three times in 10 years.”

Chen had also featured those three meetings, along with a photo, in a 2020 digital résumé, according to the memo.

Chen was aligned with the Chinese authorities in suppressing Falun Gong and “acted as a full-fledged and enthusiastic participant in the crimes,” the prosecutors said.

“It was his fight,” Lockard said at the sentencing hearing, adding that Chen had tried to use the freedoms he enjoyed in the United States to undermine the country.

Threats to safety in the U.S. range from health crises and natural disasters to financial challenges like unaffordable mortgages, lack of health insurance, and inflation.

While no place is risk-free, the level of danger we face often depends on where we live.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the 50 safest cities in America according to WalletHub, which analyzed 182 cities across 41 key metrics to assess overall safety.

The three main categories of metrics analyzed are:

• Home and community safety: Law enforcement per capita, prevalence of terrorist attacks, mass shootings, murders,

• Natural disaster risk: Earthquake risk, flood risk, hurricane storm surge risk, wildfire risk

• Financial safety: Unemployment rate, uninsured population, foreclosure rate

The data is updated as of August 27, 2024 and was collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, TransUnion, and other sources.

Which Cities are the Safest in America?

Below, we show the 50 safest cities in America based on WalletHub’s analysis.

Many of the top safest cities are concentrated in the Northeastern United States, including South Burlington, Burlington, Portland (Maine), Nashua, Warwick, and Yonkers.

This region generally has lower natural disaster risks compared to other areas, contributing to higher safety scores.

South Burlington, the second largest city in Vermont, ranked first overall as the safest city in America. It has one of the lowest pedestrian fatality rates in the nation and one of the highest number of EMTs and paramedics per capita, according to WalletHub.

The city also ranks highly for financial stability, boasting the lowest unemployment rate in the U.S. at 1.9%, the second-lowest share of seriously underwater mortgages, and the third-lowest rate of non-business bankruptcy filings per capita over the past year.

These indicators suggest that residents are financially secure, with a lower risk of facing unpaid bills, property loss, or homelessness.

To learn more about the environment of different U.S. cities, check out this graphic that visualizes the dirtiest cities in the U.S.

Authored by Jonathan Draeger via RealClearPolitics,

Over 30 lawsuits, modeled after the tobacco cases of the 1990s, have been filed by state, county, and city attorneys against energy companies seeking damages for the alleged effects of greenhouse gas emissions. An important factor in these lawsuits is the role of third-party funding and nonprofit activists working behind the scenes to shape the litigation and influence the courts.

One such organization that has taken center stage is the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which claims to educate judges on climate science and related legal issues. According to the ELI website, the project’s goal is to “provide neutral, objective information to the judiciary about the science of climate change as understood by experts.” Since 1990, the CJP says it has trained more than 3,000 judges across 28 countries.

But judges are supposed to be disinterested arbiters of the facts and the law – and critics point out that on climate issues, the CJP is anything but neutral. In a 12-page report, the American Energy Institute accuses the CJP of “teaching judges about debatable climate science” and compares it to “working over the referees before the game even starts.” AEI contends that the so-called “objective” materials used by the CJP are crafted by activists who either advise the plaintiffs in these cases or support their claims through legal briefs.

AEI also claims that the CJP has ties to many of the plaintiffs suing energy companies. The CJP denies these allegations, telling RealClearPolitics that it “does not participate in litigation, provide support for or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case.”

Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Energy Alliance, also criticized the CJP’s efforts to influence judges before they rule on climate-related cases. She told RealClearPolitics that the connection between nonprofit groups, judges, and attorneys involved in these cases forms a “tangled web” of “foundation activist groups, law professors, and judges attempting to use lawsuits to enact climate change policy.”

“The Environmental Law Institute, through its Climate Judiciary Project, is trying to control the entire process – from who’s suing, what they’re suing for, to what judges think about it,” she continued.

In some cases, there are close connections between CJP and the judges handling these lawsuits. One of the judges presiding over the City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP case, Hawaii State Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, disclosed that he presented at a CJP course in April 2023. Shortly afterward, Recktenwald authored an opinion that ruled against the oil and gas companies’ motion to dismiss the case in Hawaii. Before he authored the opinion, Sgamma said that Recktenwald “clearly has a conflict of interest and needs to recuse himself from the case.”

Several philanthropists funding the CJP have also poured money into Sher Edling LLP, the law firm representing Honolulu and many other cities and states in lawsuits against energy companies. Sher Edling openly states that its mission is to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for “decades-long deception” about climate change. The law firm’s cases, like the one in Honolulu, argue that these companies misled the public and contributed to climate-related damage.

Both Sher Edling and the CJP receive funding from major philanthropic organizations such as the MacArthur Foundation, which supports efforts to address climate change. Other shared backers include the Collective Action Fund and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Another player in this arena is the Climate Accountability Institute, which has played a major coordinating role in climate litigation efforts. In 2012, it hosted a workshop in La Jolla, California, titled “Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control,” which was instrumental in planning climate-related lawsuits.

Strategies promoted at the CAI La Jolla workshop were later applied in lawsuits against energy companies. Chris Horner, a former senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told RCP that a key approach outlined in the La Jolla Workshop summary involved liberal private attorneys and nonprofits encouraging state attorneys general to probe for internal documents. These documents, they claimed, could potentially show that energy companies were aware of the risks of COâ?? emissions but either misrepresented or concealed this information.

Horner noted that this bore fruit in 2015 when parties representing the Rockefeller Family Fund successfully urged the New York Attorney General to leverage the Martin Act, which grants broad powers to investigate possible “misrepresentation of information” to investors, to “subpoena documents from ExxonMobil.” 

Later, the House Oversight Committee also subpoenaed energy company records, which, although never publicly released, appeared in an amicus brief filed by a Rockefeller Family Fund-funded group called the Center for Climate Integrity in one of these state lawsuits alleging that energy companies knew of the risks of fossil fuels but chose not to disclose them publicly.

Since then, the CAI has focused on researching the potential damages of climate change and the accountability of energy companies. One of its largest projects is the Carbon Majors Database, which tracks the 100 largest fossil fuel producers since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. CAI claims that these top 100 organizations are responsible for 52% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

This work was not merely an intellectual exercise; CAI argues that staggeringly high “reparations” are warranted. In 2022 and 2023, they spent $55,000 on a paper, later published in the academic journal One Earth, titled “Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages.” The paper argues that “companies engaged in the exploration, production, refining, and distribution of oil, gas, and coal” bear the primary responsibility for the costs associated with addressing climate harm.

The estimated “damages” are substantial. CAI’s analysis indicates that cumulative reparations from the top 20 climate-producing companies would total $5.4 trillion for the period of 1988–2022, payable over 25 years from 2025 to 2050. However, CAI states that even if this $5.4 trillion were paid, it would not cover all damages being sought in “climate-related litigation filed in numerous jurisdictions based on varying legal theories against major oil, gas, and coal companies.”

Not covered in the paper? Where the money to pay such judgments would ultimately come from.

“In gas and oil, if they have to pay an enormous settlement, that gets passed on to the customers,” Peggy Little, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, told RCP. “The settlements are so enormous that they have to have a bearing on the cost of gasoline and fossil fuels, which will hurt the oil and gas companies’ bottom lines, but also the price of filling up a tank of gas and everyday goods.”

Authored by Rachel Ann T. Melegrito via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The shirt on your back, the carpet beneath your feet, and the takeout container from last night’s dinner share a troubling secret: They’re slowly breaking down into invisible particles that are turning up everywhere from Mount Everest’s peak to your bloodstream.

These microscopic plastic fragments, ranging in size from invisible to no larger than the width of a pencil eraser, have silently invaded human bodies in ways scientists are only beginning to understand—and the implications are unsettling, according to a September scientific review.

“Microplastics pose a significant health risk, as they can persist in the environment and carry harmful chemicals,” Dr. Paul Savage, a toxin expert and founder and CEO of MDLifespan, told The Epoch Times.

“A person might consume the equivalent of a credit card in plastic each week through food alone,” he said. “Once ingested, these particles can degrade into nanoplastics small enough to interfere with cellular DNA, potentially leading to genetic damage and chronic health issues.”

Each year, between 10 and 40 million tonnes of microplastics are released into the environment. If current trends persist, this amount is projected to double by 2040.

Even if all new emissions are stopped today, existing microplastic levels would continue to rise as older plastic debris breaks down into smaller particles.

A review published in Science summarizes the current understanding of microplastic pollution two decades after the term “microplastic” was first introduced.

How Microplastics Enter Our Bodies

Microplastics are solid plastic particles measuring less than 5 millimeters (smaller than a pencil-top eraser). They permeate ecosystems, seeping into our food and water, and have found their way into our bodies.

Microplastics mainly come from larger plastics breaking down but can also be released by plastic recycling, textiles, tires, paint, clothing, and soft furnishing.

Many people do not realize that clothes are made of plastics, Aidan Charron, associate director of Global Earth Day, an organization dedicated to diversifying, educating, and activating the environmental movement worldwide, told The Epoch Times.

“Fast fashion is all made with polyester, nylon, spandex, etc.,” Charron said. “Fast fashion” is the mass production and sale of low-cost clothing. “Another ’secret’ product often made of plastic textiles are carpets, curtains, and bedding,” he added, noting that these materials shed microplastics and toxic chemicals into the air we inhale.

“They tend to be some of the most harmful because of the shedding of fibers they do into our air and waterways once washed,” he said. One study found that over 90 percent of microplastics indoors consist of polyester and manmade fiber, both derived from plastic.

Microplastics can enter our bodies through various means:

• Inhalation: Microplastics are in the air we breathe.
• Skin Absorption: We can absorb them through contact.
• Oral Ingestion: Consuming food or beverages contaminated with microplastics, such as milk, soft drinks, canned goods, sugar, and salt, or via organisms like shrimp and fish, is another way they enter our bodies. Infants are also exposed through breast and formula milk.

Microplastics in the Human Body

Research indicates that microplastics have infiltrated various parts of the human body, including:

• Blood Vessels: Microplastics have been detected in carotid artery plaques and leg vein tissue samples.
• Brain: Studies show that microplastics may reach the brain through the nasal passage, bypassing the blood-brain barrier. A 2024 study also found that the brain has a higher concentration of microplastics than kidney and liver samples.
• Blood: One study identified four types of plastics in a plastic-particle concentration of 6 micrograms per milliliter in 22 healthy volunteers, with polyethylene being the most abundant. Polyethylene is a widely used plastic due to its versatility and is used in apparel, furniture, and consumer goods. There is still no established threshold or reference level for microplastics in human blood. However, for context, lead, commonly from sources like old paint and contaminated water, is considered concerning in children’s blood at levels above 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (1 deciliter is 100 milliliters).
• Saliva: One study found 21 types of microplastics in saliva samples from patients with respiratory diseases.
• Lungs: Microplastics were present in all regions of the lungs in 11 out of 13 study participants, with polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate fibers being the most abundant. Higher concentrations of microplastics were found among smokers.
• Feces: In one study, 10 common types of plastics were found in stool samples. Children appear to be at greater risk, with findings showing that infants have 10 times more plastic in their feces than adults. This difference may stem from infants’ higher exposure to plastics through activities like crawling, chewing on textiles, and mouthing objects. Studies also found microplastics in meconium—the first stool passed by newborns.
• Placenta: Microplastics were detected in the part of the placenta, suggesting they can cross the placental barrier and potentially affect fetal development.
• Liver: Microplastics were seen in liver tissues of people with cirrhosis, with concentrations notably higher than in samples from those without liver disease.
• Colon: Microplastics were also detected in colon sections removed during surgeries, indicating they may remain in the digestive tract.

While evidence that microplastics accumulate in the body exists, research on their health effects is still limited.

Health Implications of Microplastics

Because microplastics are foreign bodies, they trigger an immune system response. However, unlike viruses and bacteria, the body cannot effectively eliminate them. This chronic presence may lead to oxidative stress and inflammation, potentially resulting in a range of health issues, including DNA damage, allergic reactions, cell death, and cancer.

Microplastics also contain chemicals that can disrupt normal hormone functions and metabolic processes. These harmful substances may leach from the microplastics and enter the body through skin absorption or ingestion.

“Microplastics act as vectors that also carry viruses and bacteria, which then travel into our bodies if we inhale or ingest the microplastics,” Charron said.

Research has linked microplastic exposure to an increased risk of diseases. For instance, according to the study on saliva samples, exposure may put people at higher risk of pulmonary diseases characterized by coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing, and a more severe inflammatory bowel disease. Additionally, the presence of plastic in arteriosclerotic plaques, fatty deposits that build up in the arteries, increases the likelihood of heart attack, stroke, or death.

Despite growing evidence of health risks, there is still no way to assess microplastic risks or measure human exposure.

“One major barrier is the lack of standardized testing for microplastic release in drinking water and other consumables,” Savage said. Creating such testing requires more comprehensive studies and standardized protocols to evaluate exposure levels and health impacts, he added. The challenge of measuring these particles in biological samples is due to their wide variation in size and composition.

“Improved detection methods will help researchers better understand the extent and impact of microplastics on human health, allowing for more comprehensive studies and effective intervention strategies,” he added.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Adam Ellwanger via RealClearEducation,

Imagine these words as the first speech delivered by the incoming Secretary of Education.

Today, I am here to deliver bitter medicine: American education has failed. Teachers and parents, administrators and government—and even students—all bear some responsibility.

The most common explanations for our educational crisis are inadequate funding, overuse of standardized testing, and systemic prejudice. They are false.

• Our schools do not lack funding—no country spends more on public education.
• The poor results of standardized tests indicate our failures; they are not the cause.
• Our schools are not prejudiced—the most aggressive education reforms since 1955 directly aimed to eliminate systemic discrimination.

For decades, we ignored signs of trouble, but the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the depth of our challenges. The problems are so pervasive and complex that there is no quick fix. We cannot merely repair; we must rebuild.

Since 2020, American families have struggled mightily. The declining quality of education prompted affluent families to opt out of public schools, leaving middle- and working-class families with diminished resources and influence to push for reform. States’ refusal to enact school choice reforms widened the wealth gap and limited generational mobility.

But lower- and middle-class families bear some responsibility, too. The rise of single-parent households, less common among affluent families, has been catastrophic. When the only adult in the home works up to 60 hours a week to make ends meet, there is little time for homework help, PTA meetings, or engaging with school officials. Even in households with two working parents, time and energy are often in short supply.

Teachers, for their part, have good reason to despair. Despite the monumental importance of their work, many are underpaid. They face administrators who value standardized test scores above all else. Meanwhile, declining standards for decorum and discipline, often justified in the name of “social justice,” have made schools unsafe for both teachers and students. Violence and insubordination create an environment unfit for serious learning. Some parents treat schools as daycare centers or demand good grades for minimal effort. Worse, parents of disruptive students often refuse to ensure their children do not rob others of the opportunity to learn.

Yet teachers, too, have failed. They inflate grades to keep their jobs but do no favors for students unprepared for future challenges. This, in turn, lowers the quality of education for students ready for more advanced work, driving gifted students out of public schools.

Another harsh truth is that many teachers are unprepared for the job. The education system has failed for so long that many teachers have never mastered the material they are supposed to teach. Colleges steer future educators toward “education” majors, where coursework focuses more on leftist “social justice” ideology than on subject mastery. Some graduates believe their mission is to “dismantle” an “unjust” society by creating anti-American activists.

When these activist-teachers enter classrooms, they often abandon their duty to transmit America’s culture, knowledge, and values. Instead, they teach students to disdain their nation, its people, its past, and its way of life. This undermines social cohesion and deprives disadvantaged students of the tools they need to succeed.

Outdated curricula exacerbate these issues. Most schools still use models from the late 20th century, failing to address how computing, the internet, and artificial intelligence have transformed how we read, write, and learn. Even in innovative schools, teachers often struggle to balance the needs of non-native English speakers with those of native speakers, diluting the educational experience for the latter.

Our colleges and universities are also broken. Admitting underprepared students has lowered academic standards nationwide. General education curricula often assume a need for remediation, leaving motivated students without the challenge or preparation they deserve.

Government-run financial aid has inflated tuition costs while diminishing the value of college degrees. Proposals to cancel student debt signal to universities that they can continue raising prices without consequence, encouraging predatory admission policies that saddle students with unmanageable debt.

How do we revitalize American education?

Nothing short of an academic Sputnik will suffice. Just as Sputnik spurred the urgency that sent Americans to the moon, we need a bold initiative to revolutionize education:

• We will create K-12 curricula prioritizing history, civics, and an understanding of our government.
• We will eliminate curricula that divide Americans by race, class, religion, sex, or sexual identity.
• We will implement school choice nationwide.
• We will end federal student loan programs, allowing private lenders to evaluate borrowers’ ability to repay. Conditional lending will force colleges to lower tuition and revise admissions and program offerings.
• We will expand vocational training and enhance opportunities for gifted students.
• We will raise teacher credentialing standards to ensure advanced subject knowledge.
• We will enforce decorum and discipline in schools. Uniforms will unify student bodies, and measures like suspension and expulsion will ensure classrooms are conducive to learning.
• We will revise college accreditation standards to reflect post-graduation success and employment metrics.
• We will penalize public colleges and universities that engage in discriminatory admissions practices.

And that is just the beginning.

The destiny of our nation depends on education. The effort to revitalize our schools must be as bold as our aspirations. Together, we will bring American education into the 21st century. Together, we will make American education great again.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Apple has released urgent security updates for its iOS and other operating systems to patch against vulnerabilities that both the tech giant and U.S. cybersecurity officials warned could be actively exploited by hackers.

Apple’s security updates patch gaps in operating systems for the iPhone, iPad, and Mac products, as well as its Safari web browser, according to a series of security-related announcements on Nov. 19.

Specifically, the software updates target iOS 17.7.2 and iPadOS 17.7.2, iOS 18.1.1 and iPadOS 18.1.1, visionOS 2.1.1, macOS Sequoia 15.1.1, Safari 18.1, and Safari 18.1.1.

Apple noted that in all the above-listed cases, the patches fix two significant vulnerabilities in WebKit and JavaScriptCore. These vulnerabilities, which could lead to arbitrary code-execution attacks through malicious web content, may have been exploited by hackers.

“Apple is aware of a report that this issue may have been actively exploited on Intel-based Macs,” the company wrote in several of the security alerts.

No information was available as to the possible identity of any cyber-threat actors who may have exploited these vulnerabilities. In general, if hackers are able to execute arbitrary code through maliciously crafted web content, this could put sensitive user data at risk, potentially leading to unauthorized access, stolen credentials, or even device control.

In addition, the security patches to Apple’s Safari 18.1 address multiple vulnerabilities that could be exploited for malicious purposes, including allowing hackers to misuse a trust relationship to download malicious content, to leak private browsing history, and to allow the processing of maliciously crafted web content that could prevent security protocols from being enforced or that could cause unexpected process crashes.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also took note of the security gaps in the listed Apple products.

“A cyber-threat actor could exploit one of these vulnerabilities to take control of an affected system,” the CISA said in a Nov. 20 alert, noting that the security updates released by Apple address these vulnerabilities.

According to Apple’s security alerts, the scope of affected devices is extensive. The updates for iOS 18.1.1 and iPadOS 18.1.1 address vulnerabilities for devices such as the iPhone XS and later, iPad Pro models (from the 3rd generation onward), and iPad Air and mini models released since the 3rd and 5th generations, respectively.

Similarly, iOS 17.7.2 and iPadOS 17.7.2 extend coverage to slightly older devices like the iPad Pro 10.5-inch and the iPad 6th generation.

Mac users running macOS Sequoia 15.1.1 or Safari on macOS Ventura and macOS Sonoma are also affected, as are early adopters of visionOS 2.1.1 on the Apple Vision Pro.

Submitted by James Durso,

Donald Trump is back and so is the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran to “drastically throttle” Iran’s oil sales to kill Tehran’s nuclear program and its ability to fund regional proxies.

But Trump aide Brian Hook who ran the anti-Iran campaign in Trump’s first term claimed Trump has “no interest in regime change.”

That may be true but Iran, and everyone else, probably doesn’t believe it.

The Trump 47 officials may soon learn that 2025 is not 2018 and, while Iran was on the ropes as Trump’s first term ended, things are different now.

To start, open-handed American support for Israel’s campaigns against the Palestinian and Lebanese people has eroded support for U.S. moves by Middle East governments that might normally favor limits on Iran’s behavior.

Saudi Arab’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), declared Israel was committing “genocide” in Gaza. By using the G-word, MbS has made it hard for his government to walk back his remarks or reverse course absent a cease fire and implementation of something like the Arab Peace Initiative (which has been gathering dust since 2002 and may need a reboot).

MbS also warned Israel against attacking Iran.

Arab-Sunni Saudi Arabia and Persian-Shia Iran have been drawing closer since 2023 they agreed to resume ties after seven years of tensions. That the deal was brokered by China is a sign the regional powers had little confidence in a U.S. role, possibly suspecting it is in Washington’s (and Jerusalem’s) interest to keep the countries of the region divided.

The countries’ military chiefs recently held defense talks, and planned a joint military exercise in the Red Sea (that probably won’t be interrupted by Yemen’s Houthi rebels.) In the civil realm, the countries are moving toward increased economic ties.

The presidents of the United Arab Emirates and Iran held their first face-to-face talks in October, and UAE – Iran trade is on the upswing, and the Saudi crown prince (and de facto ruler) recently spoke to Iran’s new president.

Qatar (which shares a natural gas field with Iran) and Iran are trying to broaden their economic ties that are largely based on hydrocarbons, and Iran supported Qatar during the Saudi-led 2017-2021 attempt to isolate Doha for allegedly supporting terrorism, though criticism of Riyadh by Doha-based Al Jazeera and friendship with Iran are the likely reasons.

After a recent exchange of fire by Israel and Iran, Iran warned its neighbors not to attack Iran or to help the Israelis, and the Gulf Cooperation Council promptly declared, “Our focus has been on de-escalation.” The Gulf states are dubious about “maximum pressure” and are concerned it will upend warming relations with Iran and increase regional tensions.

Middle Eastern governments are sensitive to public anger over American support for Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, so will avoid any display of support for a U.S. campaign that may target Arab or Muslim peoples. The countries that signed up for the Abraham Accords may soon look pretty foolish, so when MbS accused Israel of “genocide” in Gaza he was demonstrating Saudi Arabia’s distaste for the U.S. line, unlike the UAE which has increased daily airline flights to Israel.

Also wary of a renewed U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran and the Central Asian republics. The republics are growing their trade ties to Iran, a market of 90 million people, and the host of seaports at Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, essential for Central Asia trade with Asia and Africa. Iran also hosts the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-kilometer multi-modal transport corridor that connects India to Europe, and is Plan B if a transport route through Afghanistan and Pakistan is not reliable.

Iran has been actively working to strengthen its relations with Central Asian countries as part of its Look East strategy which has seen increased relations with China, Russia, and to offset the effect of Western sanctions. Iran’s Foreign Minister has engaged in discussions with his counterparts in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the other republics and the newly-elected president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, has met the presidents of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.  

In Central Asia. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan have all increased trade links with Iran, in Tajikistan’s case to include a defense pact. The republics don’t want to sacrifice the opportunity in Iran, a country with a consumer market projected to grow 11% by 2030.

Iran’s focus on Central Asia includes improving trade ties, developing infrastructure projects, and increasing connectivity through transportation networks. For example, Iran has proposed linking the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway project to its own network, which would provide Central Asian countries with access to the Persian Gulf and beyond.

And the oil market has changed since 2018.

According to Argus Media, Iran’s oil exports, which were below 500,000 b/d through the second half of 2019 and 2020 due to Trump-era sanctions, began increasing in 2021 and have increased every year since: “Exports averaged around 1.6mn b/d in January-October [in 2024].”

If the U.S. again sanctions Iran, it may find it hard going as the remaining buyers may be “those who do not necessarily fear sanctions.” Iran has built out its network to bypass sanctions, and has expanded its tanker fleet, though the clandestine effort is not without substantial costs, such as Chinese customers demanding a substantial discount, and the cost of rebranding the oil to disguise its origin. 

Iran has an oil export terminal on the Gulf of Oman, which was inaugurated in July 2021, and can export 1 million barrels per day of oil. The facility cannot replace Iran’s main export terminal at Kharg, which can handle 8 million barrels per day, but it allows Iran to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint and will require the Americans to try to cover two terminals instead of just the main facility at Kharg if Washington decides to attack Iran

The U.S. may try to interdict Iran’s oil exports to China, but what will China’s response be if it considers the interdiction an act of piracy? Beijing may decide to provide a naval escort for the oil shipments or may reflag the vessels as Chinese, upping the ante for the Americans.

If the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy, the world’s largest navy with newer vessels than the U.S. Navy, deploys to escort the tankers it will refine its “blue water” operating skills. The increased operating tempo will also stress the U.S. fleet which for the second time in a year has no aircraft carrier in the Middle East.

A recent U.S. Navy report noted on the material readiness of Navy ships: “several functional areas and subsystems remained degraded or showed declining trends” since 2017, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office noted in 2021 the Navy needed to improve its limited capacity for battle damage repair, in the event the U.S. and any foe come to blows.

And if the U.S. seizes a China-bound cargo, then what? The ship will have to be anchored somewhere, the cargo will possibly be offloaded and stored, the crew will need to be housed and fed, consular support will need to be provided, and someone will have to guard the vessel. China is the biggest trading partner for every country between the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea, so the U.S. may be unable to find volunteers for these low-return chores.

The U.S. ignored the warning of former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who said the U.S. should avoid actions that would create “a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition.” The U.S. has masterfully created that coalition by expanding NATO, ignoring the One China Policy, and sponsoring the 1953 coup in Iran that has freighted the Iranian people with more and more authoritarian rulers.

But the ascension of new presidents in Tehran and Washington may be an opportunity to start rebuilding relations.

After his election in July 2024, President Masoud Pezeshkian announced his program in “My Message to the New World” and declared his intent to strengthen relations with Iran’s neighbors, specifically mentioning Iraq, Türkiye, and the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. He emphasized the need for a “strong region,” said he hoped for “constructive dialogue” with Europe, criticized the U.S. for exiting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and urged Washington “come to terms with reality.”

In October, President-elect Trump declared,  “I would like to see Iran be very successful. The only thing is, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” In 2023, then-Senator JD Vance said that Republican senators who wanted at attack Iran were “living in the past.” In 2024, Republican Vice-President candidate JD Vance said, “And our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran. It would be a huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country,”

Those are hopeful signs of a desire to reach a negotiated solution,  but can the U.S. abide by any deal once the ink is dry?

Neither Russia, China, nor Iran believe the U.S. will abide by the spirit and letter of any agreement as it has a record of bailing out of any commitments when it is convenient, to wit,

• Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
• NATO expansion (“not one inch eastward”)
• Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
• Paris Agreement (Paris Climate Accord)
• Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
• Minsk agreements
• Open Skies Treaty
• Algiers Accord
• One China Policy

U.S. intervention in Iran started with the 1953 coup. The U.S. then supported Iraq during 1980-1988 war after the U.S. and Iran agreed on the Algiers Accords (January 1981) where the U.S. pledged, “it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs,” but this did not stop the U.S. from backing Iraq when the war starting to go in Iran’s favor in 1982.

The U.S. killed General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq when he was carrying a message to Saudi Arabia in an effort to defuse tensions between Tehran and Riyadh. Many Iranians and Saudis probably think Soleimani was killed because he was working to reduce tensions in the region, which they think only benefits the U.S. and Israel. Then there is the killing of civilian Iranian scientists involved in nuclear power research. No one has taken the credit, but the Iranians no doubt believe it was the Americans or the Israelis with American connivance.

Last is the STUXNET virus, a joint U.S.-Israel effort to attack break Iranian nuclear centrifuge equipment which “leaked” and infected computers worldwide.

The Chair of the NATO Military Committee recently admitted the only reason NATO troops are not is Ukraine fighting Russian troops is because Russia has nuclear weapons, which no doubt confirmed the views of Iranians who think the country should have nuclear weapons. Then there is the cautionary tale of Libya’s surrender of its nuclear program, and the mystery of why North Korea, one of the poorest and most isolated countries in the world, has not been attacked by the U.S.

Iran’s relations with Russia and China have strengthened which adds to the country’s resilience.  

China and Iran signed a 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement in March 2021. This agreement aims to enhance bilateral relations and includes significant investments from China in Iran’s economy.

China plans to invest $400 billion in Iran’s oil, gas, petrochemicals, transportation, and manufacturing sectors. In return, China will receive a steady and heavily-discounted supply of Iranian oil. The agreement allows China to deploy security personnel to protect its projects in Iran.

The investments will also go towards upgrading Iran’s infrastructure, and the agreement supports China’s One Belt One Road Initiative, by enhancing connectivity and trade routes.

Russia has supplied Iran with Su-35 fighter jets, Mi-28 attack helicopters, Yak-130 pilot training aircraft; Iran has sent Russia drones, and ballistic missiles.

Non-military trade is also increasing. The Moscow Times reports, “Russian exports to Iran rose 27% last year, and Russian imports from Iran increased 10%. Both sides have agreed to scale up trade in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, while Russia has pledged to invest an unprecedented $40 billion in Iran’s oil and gas sector.”

The Times also notes, “Perhaps the most important changes, however, have been in transport networks. As a result of the fighting in Ukraine, and in a bid to bypass Western sanctions, Russia has begun shifting trade routes southward. This is why Iran and Russia have ramped up work to develop the much-touted and ambitious International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which will stretch from the Persian Gulf to the Baltic Sea.”

Despite its economic problems, Iran has increased its military budget, no doubt anticipating attacks by America or Israel. At the same time Iran has signaled it is willing to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but not “under pressure.” Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi clarified that when he told state television, “”There is still an opportunity for diplomacy, although this opportunity is not much. It is a limited opportunity.”

A recent IAEA report notes Iran has begun implementing measures “aimed at stopping the increase of its stockpile [of near bomb-grade uranium]” though the IAEA also noted that Iran increased its inventory of 60% enriched uranium by 60% since the last report in August 2024.

Iran’s President Pezeshkian has indicated he is open to U.S. engagement: “”Whether we like it or not, we will face the United States in regional and international arenas, and it’s better that we manage this arena ourselves.” And opinion leaders in Iran are saying their government should engage with Trump, with Shargh, the reformist daily newspaper editorializing that President Pezeshkian, must “avoid past mistakes and assume a pragmatic and multidimensional policy,” though others are skeptical anything will change under Trump.

Even the Quds Force commander, General Qassem Soleimani, once mused: “maybe it’s time to rethink our relationship with the Americans,” though in the end it didn’t do him much good.

All that said, “maximum pressure” is a slogan, not a strategy. If Iran says “Yes,” will Washington finally produce a coherent, executable strategy for its future dealings with Iran?  Up to now its only strategy has been “more sanctions,” hoping some liberals will miraculously appear and (democratically) seize power when in fact the Revolutionary Guard may take over and finally dispense with Vilayat-e Faqih.

Whatever strategy Washington produces will be overshadowed by the disastrous retreat from Afghanistan in 2021, so the U.S. should favor a policy that increases regional connectivity and economic growth rather than carrying water for Israel or satisfying its desire to avenge the humiliation of 1979.

Iran won’t surrender its hard-won nuclear expertise and has increased cooperation with the IAEA, but will it ever dash to the bomb? Israel claims it destroyed key Iranian nuclear fabrication facilities but the head of the IAEA said of the attack, “as far as the IAEA is concerned, we do not see this as a nuclear facility.”  Trump will not want to start a war with Iran over its nuclear program  as he will be sensitive to  the impact on the U.S. economy,  so sanctions (and the occasional Israeli attack) will be all he has left. If that is the case, and Iran’s economy and oil export scheme is resilient enough, and Russia and China remain constant, we may be looking at years of low-level “endless wars” to the joy of the Iran hawks in Washington.

And there is a deadline of sorts for negotiations with Iran: 18 October 2025 sees the end of the JCPOA snapback mechanism, the last opportunity for world powers to initiate the snapback mechanism, returning all the sanctions that were lifted in the JCPOA agreement…”

If the U.S. rejoins any sort of nuclear deal, it will have to be a new deal as Iran blew past the JCPOA 1.0 conditions after the U.S. abandoned the agreement. If the Americans want to expand a 2.0 deal to include ballistic missiles or Iran’s foreign policy, Iran may suggest similar limits on other countries in the region, and then demand that 2.0 be a treaty to bound future U.S. action, and to exploit differences in the U.S. on what is a “good deal” that will be all too evident once the Senate takes up the treaty for ratification.

So far, each side has demonstrated a lack of empathy for the other, the result of years of successful propagandizing, leaving each feeling more sinned against than sinning.  And the hard-liners in each capital believe in the other’s perfidy, see conflict as key to their continued influence, and reap economic rewards from the status quo.

On the U.S. side, Washington has never explained to American citizens its role in the 1953 coup that stifled Iran’s economic and political development, though Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted the U.S. role in overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and called the coup “a setback for Iran’s political development.” To many Americans, the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis appeared out of thin air.

The U.S. needs to think long-term. Iran’s mullahs won’t rule forever and Americas association with economic hardship and violence won’t benefit it in the future. The U.S. should adopt a parallel effort to President Pezeshkian’s “strong region” plan to emphasize trade and connectivity which will help the region make up the gains sacrificed in the “lost decades” of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.

Despite all the talk about what Trump might do, Biden is still the U.S. president until 11:59 on 20 January 2025.

If both sides stick to what is feasible, keep their emotions and hard-liners in check, and Iran offers Trump a deal that he feels only he could have made, we may see stability and more economic opportunity for the region’s youth and the start of the banishment of the legacies of 1953 and 1979

Authored by Samantha Flom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President-elect Donald Trump has wasted no time in appointing his Cabinet members since his victory in the Nov. 5 presidential election.

In keeping with his promise to shake up Washington, some of his selections have raised eyebrows and questions about their chances to survive a potential confirmation battle in the Senate. But should his nominees stall, Trump has already identified a tool for sidestepping any delays: recess appointments.

Before the election of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) as the next majority leader, Trump said on social media that the next leader “must agree to Recess Appointments.”

He noted that confirmation votes can take “two years, or more,” because of the polarization in Congress.

“This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again,” he said in the Nov. 10 post. “We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY!”

Upon Trump’s inauguration, some 4,000 administration positions will need filling, including more than 1,200 that require Senate confirmation, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit that assists with presidential transitions.

Thune told Fox News on Nov. 14 that “all options are on the table” for ensuring Trump’s Cabinet appointments are confirmed.

The president’s Cabinet consists of the top advisers and agency and department heads who are appointed to help lead the executive branch.

Many of those roles require Senate confirmation, although others, such as the vice president or White House chief of staff, do not.

Here’s a rundown of the Cabinet confirmation process, how it has historically evolved, and the obstacles that Trump could face in getting his team confirmed.

What Is the Senate’s Role?

As outlined under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the Senate’s “advice and consent” power gives it the authority to confirm or reject presidential appointments for Cabinet positions, ambassadorships, Supreme Court judges, and other officers of the United States.

That process starts when the Senate’s executive clerk refers a nominee to relevant committees for consideration. Those committees will delve into the appointee’s background and hold hearings to assess his or her qualifications. Members will then vote on how to report the nomination to the full chamber: favorably, unfavorably, no action, or without recommendation.

The full Senate will hold additional confirmation hearings and then vote on the nominee’s fitness for office, with a simple majority required for approval.

How Often Are Nominees Rejected?

Historically, only nine Cabinet nominations have been rejected by the Senate.

President John Tyler holds the record for most rejected nominations, at four. But the most recent occurrence was in 1989, when President George H.W. Bush’s appointment of John Tower, a senator from Texas, as his defense secretary was derailed by allegations of excessive drinking and sexual misconduct.

A handful of other nominations or near nominations were withdrawn either by the president or the appointees themselves as it became clear that they faced an uphill battle for confirmation.

That happened several times under Trump’s previous administration. In February 2017, his secretary of labor nominee, Andrew Puzder, withdrew his own name from consideration amid allegations of wage theft and sexual harassment leveled against restaurants franchised by his company.

Another notable example was Trump’s nomination of Dr. Ronny Jackson, the White House physician, for secretary of veterans affairs in 2018. Jackson denied allegations of workplace misconduct but eventually withdrew his name.

While rejections and withdrawals are rare, it is not uncommon for senators to use various legislative tactics to slow the confirmation process. In fact, in recent years, it has become an expected part of the process amid the increasing polarization of Congress.

One recent example was Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) use of legislative “holds” to block the chamber’s expeditious consideration of President Joe Biden’s Defense Department nominees.

For months, Tuberville blocked hundreds of military promotions in protest of the department’s decision to cover the travel expenses of service members seeking abortions. He ultimately dropped most of his holds when Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) indicated that he was preparing to bypass them and confirm hundreds of appointments at once.

What Are Recess Appointments?

Article II of the Constitution also empowers the president to fill vacancies while the chamber is in recess.

The drawback, however, is that recess appointees can serve only until the end of the Senate’s next session. That means that a recess appointee could serve for, at most, close to two years.

Monthslong recesses were not uncommon in Congress’s early years. Recess appointments allowed the president to ensure that important roles were filled if any vacancies arose during those extended absences.

In recent years, however, increasing gridlock in Washington has prompted presidents to use recess appointments—typically mid-term—to bypass delays in the Senate confirmation process.

Lawmakers, in turn, have limited opportunities for such appointments through creative scheduling and by holding “pro forma” sessions where no legislative work is conducted.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that practice in 2014. The court also ruled that the Senate must be in recess for at least 10 days before the president can make unilateral appointments.

As neither chamber can recess for more than three days without the other’s consent, the House also has some power over when recess appointments can be made.

Recent Uses

President Barack Obama was the last president to use the tool of recess appointments. He filled 32 positions in that fashion before he was sued over three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

The appointments in question were made during one of the Senate’s pro forma sessions and were invalidated by the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling on recess appointments.

President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments and President George W. Bush made 171, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Read the rest here…

Update: Donald Trump said he is nominating former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and his personal trial lawyer, to run the US Department of Justice, after his first pick, former Representative Matt Gaetz, withdrew his name from consideration.

“Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again. I have known Pam for many years — She is smart and tough, and is an AMERICA FIRST Fighter, who will do a terrific job as Attorney General!,” Trump said in a statement on his Truth Social platform on Thursday evening.

Bondi, age 59, is an American attorney, lobbyist, and politician. A Republican, she served as the 37th Florida attorney general from 2011 to 2019. She is the first woman elected to the office. In 2020, Bondi was one of longtime ally President Donald Trump’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. By 2024 she led the legal arm of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute.

Trump initially picked Gaetz, as his AG but the former US representative from Florida said he would no longer seek the post after intense scrutiny over a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct, including having sex with a minor.

“It is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition,” Gaetz said Thursday.

Trump has vowed to overhaul the Justice Department, an agency he has criticized over two federal indictments secured by Special Counsel Jack Smith over the president-elect allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election and illegally retaining classified documents.

If confirmed, Bondi would be heading a department at the center of many of Trump’s key policy initiatives, including plans to ramp up immigration enforcement and border security.

Here’s why I like Trump’s new AG pick Pam Bondi

Not only is she experienced, but I look at where someone stands during times of difficulty

When Trump was being impeached for the perfect Ukraine phone call, Pam was brought in to defend him as legal counsel

Not only was that a… pic.twitter.com/fZT4ebX6vl

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) November 21, 2024

JUST IN: MSNBC guest melts down over Trump picking Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General, says they should “fear” her because she’s competent.

Liberal political scientist Jason Johnson said Bondi is an “effective pick” who is “worse” than Matt Gaetz.

“We should all fear [her]… pic.twitter.com/PUaGWVqEeR

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 21, 2024

Earlier:

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has withdrawn his name for consideration for attorney general amid growing controversy over sexual misconduct allegations.

“While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition,” Gaetz wrote on X.

“There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General.  Trump’s DOJ must be in place and ready on Day 1.”

I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback – and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance…

— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) November 21, 2024

President-Elect Trump acknowledged Gaetz’ efforts in a statement on Truth Social:

I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General.

He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect.

Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!

It’s unclear what’s next for Gaetz, as he resigned from Congress after Trump picked him for consideration. Rubio’s Senate seat?