(This article was written by Maria Maalouf and appeared in Arab News. US struggling to calm Israeli-Hezbollah tensions)

This week’s exchange of rocket fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, coupled with escalating clashes that have included the assassination of a prominent Hezbollah leader and the targeting of military and civilian targets in northern Israel, has caused American officials to worry that this escalation could push the war-torn region into a broader conflict.

Since Oct. 7, the Biden administration has been working diligently behind the scenes to reduce the chances of a war between Hezbollah and Israel, which could escalate into a regional war involving the US or expose American troops in Syria, Iraq and Jordan to greater risks.

The most notable US efforts to calm the ongoing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah included the visit of envoy Amos Hochstein to the region on June 18. In Israel, he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. In Beirut, he met with Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, acting Prime Minister Najib Mikati, the Lebanese army commander and other officials. He clarified that the US does not want an escalation and called for an end to the ongoing Israeli aggression on Lebanon, as well as the restoration of calm and stability at the latter’s southern border. He pointed out that continuous Israeli threats to Lebanon would not prevent the US from seeking calm, which is a priority for it and all friends of Lebanon.

During his visit, Hochstein emphasized to both parties that the Biden administration wants to avoid further escalation into a larger war, pointing to the urgent need to restore security at the Lebanese-Israeli border and for residents to return to their homes. He added that the conflict along the border has lasted long enough and ending this conflict now would be in everyone’s interest. He said this would be achievable through a diplomatic path if both parties agreed.

Simultaneously, the US affirmed its provision of security support to Israel, which could serve as a deterrent to Hezbollah. American officials, including National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and White House Middle East Coordinator Brett McGurk, reassured a delegation of senior Israeli officials who visited Washington recently that, if a full-scale war broke out between Israel and Hezbollah, the Biden administration was fully prepared to support its ally, although it would not deploy American troops on the ground in such a scenario. These personal assurances came as cross-border attacks between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah increased, raising fears of another full-blown conflict in the Middle East.

Since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza on Oct. 7, Hezbollah’s provocations against Israel have continued, escalating in recent weeks. The Biden administration has repeatedly stated that it does not want another war on Israel’s northern front and has urged de-escalation.

On June 24, the US administration presented a proposal that included a diplomatic solution to reduce tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, establishing a buffer zone on the border. The US is striving to reach an agreement between the two sides that includes Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the border area and repositioning north of the Litani River, about 30 km away from the border with Israel. Hezbollah has rejected this option, insisting that its fight against Israel will continue until a ceasefire is implemented in Gaza. Israeli and American officials are trying to find an alternative that does not amount to a ceasefire in Gaza, which does not seem imminent.

American officials have expressed concern about several scenarios, believing that Israel’s recent strikes inside Lebanese territory might be paving the way for a major offensive by the Israeli army and that Hezbollah might respond with larger rocket attacks on Israel. These officials are increasingly worried that Israel could initiate a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon — a war Israel cannot end without American support.

Some officials are also concerned about the scale of Hezbollah’s attacks, which could lead to unintended consequences, forcing Israel to respond and potentially triggering all-out war. An American official mentioned that Israeli forces in the northern command are training in brigade-sized units but are not yet in a position to start an offensive.

If a full-scale war breaks out between Israel and Hezbollah, the latter, as an Iran-backed armed group, could potentially overwhelm Israel’s air defenses in the north, including the Iron Dome missile defense system. This would make full US support for Israel even more crucial. Furthermore, American officials are worried that, without a ceasefire in Gaza, the likelihood of war between Israel and Hezbollah will increase, significantly worsening the regional crisis and drawing the US deeper into the conflict.

The threat posed by Hezbollah to Israel, which is the most important US ally in the region, has become a significant political issue, with many Israelis who were evacuated from their homes in the north still displaced. The increasing cross-border attacks between Israel and Hezbollah make it difficult for the US to ease tensions in the region, especially if the Biden administration’s efforts to mediate a hostage deal and a ceasefire in Gaza continue to falter. The White House sees the ceasefire talks and the tensions between Israel and Hezbollah as highly complex, given that both sides have miscalculated with their escalation of rhetoric and the intensity of their attacks, while believing they can still avoid a full-scale war.

Assessing the chances of success for the aforementioned American efforts involves considering several factors, including disagreements between the American and Israeli sides on some issues. American officials have revealed that the disagreement between Netanyahu and President Joe Biden’s administration over withholding weapons from Israel will hinder US-Israeli diplomatic efforts to calm tensions at the Lebanese border and avoid war with Hezbollah.

There is no doubt that Netanyahu’s actions could create a crisis between the allies, leading to a further erosion of Israel’s deterrent power in the region, especially in the eyes of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. In an address to the Knesset, Netanyahu promised to bring back all the hostages and emphasized that the war would not end until this goal was achieved, along with the elimination of Hamas and the safe return of southern and northern residents to their homes.

Some observers believe that any agreement with Hezbollah will be temporary and Hezbollah and Iran’s long-term strategy will remain unchanged. Therefore, the success of any diplomatic path, even temporarily, requires offering incentives to Hezbollah, such as agreeing on a defined border line. Both the US and Israel face a significant challenge, given that Hezbollah’s primary goal, since its inception, has been the removal of Israel. Recent developments suggest that American diplomatic efforts might encounter significant obstacles as long as the military operations and assassinations continue.

In conclusion, the situation seems to be heading toward a full-scale armed conflict if a settlement is not reached between the parties involved, particularly with Hezbollah linking its offensive operations against northern Israel to events in Gaza. This means that escalating the conflict into a full-scale war would undermine US mediation efforts, potentially diminishing Washington’s influence, as has happened in recent weeks when Netanyahu insisted on continuing with Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

Maria Maalouf is a Senior Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in Warrior Maven. There is a Massive Nuclear Arms Race Started by China & Russia)

The Washington Post recently noted that the world has a lot of arms but not much control. And surprisingly, the Post then went on to explain while the US has exercised restraint in its nuclear modernization—staying within the New START limits—not so Russia and China, with the result that an arms race is underway.

As retired Admiral Charles Richard noted in 2022 China is adding to its nuclear arsenal at a breathtaking speed. Russia has a significant upload capability in the multiple thousands of warheads, especially concerning given there have been no New START inspections for many years, on top of thousands of theater nuclear forces under no arms limits.

North Korea and Iran, one an expanding nuclear armed rogue state and the other on the nuclear doorstep, are allied with Russia and China, adding to nuclear dangers. Combined with its proxy terror groups such as the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran has shut down western allied freight traffic in the Red Sea and Suez, attacked US forces some 170 time in the region, and launched thousands of rockets and missiles at Israel and other allies of the US in the region. On top of which, Putin makes serial nuclear threats to Ukraine, while China says if Japan comes to the defense of Taiwan, it will suffer the same fate as the country did in WWII.

The Post was right to characterize the 2010 nuclear program of record as consistent with the New START treaty. But absent a new agreement by China and Russia to restrict arms, the US is indeed projected to face two nuclear armed peer adversaries for the first time, each with unrestrained nuclear arsenals.

What then are we meant to do? There are two approaches.

As the Posture Commission noted, the program of record is necessary, even critical, but not sufficient. The Senate Armed Service Committee calls for four new initiatives: (1) make all 76 B52s nuclear capable; (2) deploy Sentinel in all 450 silos; (3) establish a SLCM-N program office; and (4) create a high-level DoD official to oversee all nuclear programs. One could also reasonably add three additional Columbia submarines post 2042 as well as add warheads to the SLBM and ICBM legs of the Triad.

Now critics note that we should just improve our conventional capability. But as General Anthony Cotton has told Congress, if nuclear weapons are introduced into a conventional conflict, “nothing holds,” thus requiring for the USA to have both a conventional and nuclear deterrent second to none.

This is where Putin and Xi are making the world dangerous—as they are threatening the use of nuclear force as an adjunct to their conventional capability, using nuclear weapons not to deter conflict but to make it serve their purposes—getting the US and her allies to stand down in a conflict, what the Posture Commission described as nukes for bullying and coercion.

Chris Yeaw told us earlier Russia and China combined may have within the decade some 10,000 deployed nuclear weapons. Annie Jacobson says we need more negotiations and diplomacy—not more weapons. But she does not say what we are negotiating and where diplomacy will take us. She and others say make the US nuclear arsenal smaller—kill the ICBMs and make the US force with 70% fewer SNDVs and 25% fewer warheads, while eliminating any hedge to build beyond the current New Start warhead level.

This idea of killing our ICBM needs some examination. Some six arguments are common.

First, if we just removed the silo targets, the Russians wouldn’t be tempted to attack them. ICBM silos first, New York city next?

Second, ICBM s are apparently on a hair trigger although no President has ever called for their launch in the past 3.2 million minutes since the MMIII went on alert in Montana in October 1962. That is some “launch control.”

Third, for some reason the Russians are suicidal, and will launch nearly all their ICBM warheads—over 900—to take out 400 Minuteman ICBM silos and associated warheads and 45 launch control centers spread over 32,000 square miles over 5 states. While ignoring 350-400 sub warheads that could be deployed from Kings Bay and Bangor and 60 bombers from 3 bomber bases with anywhere between 600-1000 cruise missiles and gravity bombs available for retaliation. To say nothing, of the estimated 800 warheads at sea also available for retaliation.

Fourth, another charge is if the Russians launch their submarines at the ICBM silo, they secure a shorter flight time making it even more difficult for a President to launch our ICBMs back at Russia. But Moscow has around 500 submarine-based warheads in their entire fleet, not all of which are on alert. The force simply cannot hold at risk the entire US ICBM force.

Fifth, given the Russian missiles would have to either be launched at different times or would reach US soil at different times—either scenario would allow the US to launch after being attacked which would place Russia in nuclear jeopardy.

Sixth, critics often say the nuclear modernization effort is simply too expensive. But if you examine the defense budget, all modernization efforts within DOD—subs, sub missiles, ICBMs, bombes and NC3—come to $18 billion annually, which is 2% of the defense budget, and one third of all DOD-NNSA nuclear expenditures, including all sustainment and all modernization.

Another way to measure the cost is that over the 50 years of the ICBM force being deployed, it comes to an annual investment of $2.6 billion annually, compared to $128 billion annually for food stamps and the $76 billion annual Federal cost of caring for illegal aliens. As General Mattis has said, “the US can afford survival.”

To restore deterrence and prevent the world from spinning out of control, continuing the program of record and the newly recommended additional capabilities is the only choice we have unless again as Admiral Charles Richard explained, we wish to disarm and get out of the nuclear deterrent business. We can rust to obsolescence or modernize to deter. Those are our only two choices.

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

As I wrote in my last TAS article:

The importance of settling remaining issues pertaining to presidential succession can hardly be overstated. Of 45 prior presidents, nine failed to complete their term: four were assassinated; four died of natural causes; and one resigned. Of 48 prior vice-presidents, 18 did not complete their term: 9 died of natural causes, 2 resigned; 9 ascended to the presidency. In the 179 years prior to the 1967 ratification of the 25th Amendment, the republic was without a vice-president for 37-3/4 years — 21 percent of the time.

A Debate Inflection Point

After Thursday’s presidential debate, one thing is clear: Joe Biden will NOT be nominated at the Democratic Convention. He will be persuaded to announce that he will not run for re-election — a reversion to his 2020 campaign pledge, made to assuage voter concerns about his age, that he would serve as a one-term president.

Longtime passionate Biden supporter Van Jones gave his evaluation (1:00): “It was painful.” He called for replacing Biden on the ticket. CNN’s chief national correspondent, John King stated (1:27) that the Democrats, after a “game changing” debate, are in “a deep, a wide and a very aggressive panic” over Biden’s disastrous performance. He added that among the options party insiders are considering is to visit the president at the White House and ask him to step down, or to have “prominent” Democrats call publicly for his resignation.

Early in the debate Biden had an episode of slurred speech, and then a brain freeze (4:20, at 0:28-0:42). Finally, there was the spectacle of First Lady Jill Biden escorting (4:37, 0:1 to 0:18) her clearly physically frail husband off the debate stage. (READ MORE from John Wohlstetter: The Summer 2024 Presidential Succession Crisis)

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, a longtime critic of the former president, in her Friday column, called the debate “as consequential as any presidential debate in history, and the worst night for an incumbent in history … an unmitigated disaster for Mr. Biden … a rout for Mr. Trump.” She added that were the election held the next day, Trump would win in a landslide.

Friday saw the New York Times editorial board — literally the Bible for many influential Democrats — call upon the president to step down:

There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden…. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.

There is yet a further complication: The text of section 4, the involuntary disability provision of the 25th Amendment, does not specifically contemplate permanent removal of the president — only that a president’s involuntary inability makes the vice-president an Acting President — exercising the “powers and duties” of the Office, without holding the Office of the Presidency. It provides, in pertinent part:

If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Thus, in a worst-case scenario, the president can renew, seriatum, requests for restoration of presidential powers, leading to an endless cycle of presidential application and Congressional rejection.

A further problem is now to deal with Kamala Harris, who is viewed even more unfavorably by voters. One way is to select California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has made himself publicly recognized as a presidential nominee; per clause 3 of Article II, section 1, which provides:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for Two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “inhabitant’ as residing permanently in, having established domicile in, or being a citizen of, a State. Both Newsom and Harris were born in, and are permanent residents of California. (Between 1966 and 1986, Harris resided elsewhere much of the time, but has resided continually in California since 1986.)

Thus, California Electors who vote for Newsom as president cannot also vote for Kamala. To be sure, California’s Democrat Electors would choose another Democrat. But if the November presidential election result yields a margin of less than 52 electoral votes for the victor — widely considered a virtual certitude — were Newsom elected president, he would be saddled with a Republican vice-president. This could prove consequential in event of 50-50 tie votes on legislation or federal judicial nominations; a GOP vice-president could cast the tie-breaking vote against Newsom’s nominees.

Bottom Line. Few believe that a manifestly weakened president can handle the immense daily workload of the presidency. Those making decisions behind the scene resemble the clandestine regency that arose for the last 17 months of Woodrow Wilson’s second presidential term, triggered by the president’s massive stroke. (READ MORE: Can America Survive Israel’s Nuclear Destruction?)

But that clandestine regency succeeded in considerable measure due to the pre-modern state of national and global communications. There was no television, with its compelling visual images; only newsreels aired in theaters days later; let alone were there 24/7 videos online, trillions circulated by social media. Broadcast radio was in its infancy: The first commercial radio broadcast, from KDKA Pittsburgh, was aired November 2, 1920 — exactly 13 months after Wilson’s October 2, 1919 disabling stroke.

It seems clear that, one way or another, Democrats will find a way to get Biden to drop out of the race and — though this is fraught with risk of losing support among several core Democratic constituencies — manage to replace Kamala Harris as well. With Trump viewed as Evil Incarnate, the Democrats will wager that most voters will come home this fall. It is a better wager than betting Biden’s inability to vigorously campaign won’t worsen.

John C. Wohlstetter is author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security(Gold Institute Press, 2024).

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. La gran cita del narcocomunismo en Honduras)

The great display of contempt for the popular will that the sinister operation of the European Union’s oligarchy is proving to be in Brussels — to impose Ursula von der Leyen as president of the European Commission and a coalition for a left-wing policy — is not the only anti-democratic event being held in the world these days.

True, the media have focused, most of them with applause, on the European People’s Party’s betrayal of the massive conservative turn of the vote in the EU’s 27 nations by once again forging a coalition with the entire left, the losers of the elections, in order to continue the policy of the past five years of disastrous results. Which, let us hope, will bring a massive reaction from the national, sovereigntist and truly conservative forces, including those that still remain in the European People’s Party.

With little attention in the media, far from Brussels, in Honduras a sinister but monumental summit concludes today — of dictators, narco-communist governments, governments still disguised as «progressive», aspiring tyrants, terrorists, subversive groups, chiefs of cocaine cartels in ideological disguise, and assorted fixers of the vast networks of NGOs that this symbiosis of the communist movement and organized crime has set up all over America and also in Europe. Gathering there are the São Paulo Forum (FSP), the Puebla Group, the Progressive International — which amounts to the North American branch of the São Paulo Forum — and CELAC, another invention of the FSP to impose ideological criteria on the alliance of Ibero-American states outside the OAS.

There are the criminals Nicolás Maduro and Daniel Ortega and, of course, their good friend José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the adviser of the murderers of the Venezuelan regime and also adviser to the head of the government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez. There will be López Obrador, an expert in governing with drug cartels, and Gustavo Petro, who is learning from him and from Maduro. Neither Evo Morales nor Ernesto Samper nor Rafael Correa is missing. There are members of all the franchises of these narco-communist multinationals that move through Ibero-American and European politics.

The Madrid Forum has denounced this meeting, which is, besides, a great act of coordination of forces against the forces of freedom unleashed by the triumph of Javier Milei in Argentina and by the fears of losing that great ally which the administration of Joe Biden has in fact been for the totalitarian and narco-communist Ibero-American forces. The victory of a Donald Trump with a matured agenda against Russian, Chinese and Iranian penetration in the American continent produces terror in the capitals of the São Paulo Forum, with Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil at the head.

The official objective of the meeting is to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the removal of former president Manuel Zelaya — husband of the current president — who in 2009, on the orders of Hugo Chávez, tried to perpetrate a coup d’état through the illegal modification of the Honduran Constitution in order to perpetuate himself in power. The aim is to impose a false narrative, according to which Zelaya was the victim of a coup d’état, when in reality he was removed for assaulting the constitutional order.

In Tegucigalpa there are many hundreds of socialist and communist participants from both sides of the Atlantic, many linked to — and also convicted of — an endless number of crimes: from corruption, through sexual abuse, of course drug trafficking, and even kidnappings and murders.

Marked presence of the so-called «Progressive International» controlled by Bernie Sanders, whose mission is to legitimize the tyrannies of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua and to open the way for new regimes hostile to freedom, fundamental rights and the sovereignty of nations. The radicalization of the North American left has been of great help to the narco-communist regimes, and thus also to the ease of penetration by China, Russia and Iran, which pose a massive strategic threat against the U.S. A considerable part of the Democratic Party has thus in fact become a fifth column of the fundamental enemies of the U.S.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Maria Maalouf and appeared in Arab News. Disagreements likely when NATO allies meet in Washington)

The upcoming NATO Summit, which is scheduled to take place in Washington from July 9 to July 11, will be an important step to enhance and upgrade the US’ relations with its European allies over global and regional security issues and to bolster the doctrine of collective security. It will be the highest level of Western alliance solidarity. However, the summit could be a big failure, especially if little agreement is found among America and its allies over the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

The Europeans may not be enthused because, earlier this year, the US Congress delayed the passage of a supplemental spending package to replace the shrinking Ukrainian arsenal of artillery shells, air defense missiles and other critical military supplies and resources. These shortages allowed Russia to consolidate its territorial gains in Ukraine and hit the country’s critical infrastructure, especially its power-generating stations. Subsequent Ukrainian counterattacks have failed to dislodge the Russian troops from their positions.

In addition, Germany has refused to hand long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine and this German rejection could continue during and after the Washington summit.

Another potential point of disagreement could be France’s plan to establish a European coalition of military instructors on Ukrainian land. US President Joe Biden has not yet endorsed such a proposal. However, it is possible that a few European countries could support President Emmanuel Macron’s idea if sending military instructors meant that no European troops would be deployed on Ukrainian soil.

The summit will also discuss the Biden administration’s decision to permit Ukraine to target positions inside Russian territory with American weapons. Many European countries fear an increased Russian reprisal against Ukraine because of this new policy.

Most likely, Ukraine’s admission to NATO will not be decided upon in Washington and may not even be discussed at all. The Europeans and the US do not want to be directly involved in the defense of Ukraine and NATO’s collective security mandate demands an alliance-wide policy of military engagement and responsibility against any country that attacks a nation state that is a NATO member.

The US is still against France, Poland and the Baltic countries, which have been lobbying for a formal accession invitation to be given to Kyiv during the summit. Perhaps the deal signed by Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during the G7 Summit in Italy early in June — implementing a 10-year bilateral security agreement to strengthen Ukraine’s military — will be the reason the US president and most of the other NATO leaders will reject Ukraine’s full membership.

It is also expected that the summit will support the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, an alliance of more than 50 countries that channels military aid to Ukraine. Nevertheless, the number of its military assistance programs has been small and will not increase due to the Washington summit.

As far as Israel’s war on Gaza is concerned, NATO has consistently called for a “humanitarian pause” to allow the delivery of much-needed aid to the Palestinians. Several European countries feel the need to not look the other way over the suffering of the Palestinians. Despite this, the Biden administration may not favor such a ceasefire plan because it is supportive of Israel and it does not know for how long such a ceasefire will last.

It is noteworthy to refer to the statements made by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who said: “The war in Gaza must not turn into a major regional conflict. Iran and Hezbollah must stay out of this fight.” While many members of the US Congress want Israel to start a war on its northern front against Hezbollah, Europe does not want Lebanon to become the arena for a proxy war between Israel and Iran.

Turkiye may be more vocal in its support for the Palestinians during the summit. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has even described Hamas as a national liberation group. He has initiated many policies to grant Hamas legitimacy and has been in touch with its leaders during the war on Gaza. He may call on NATO leaders to accept a political role for Hamas in post-conflict Gaza. There could even be the suggestion that NATO should have a security mission in the Strip. In a joint effort, Spain and Norway formally recognized a Palestinian state on May 28. They will defend that policy in Washington.

Furthermore, Greek Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis has urged Europe to accept refugees from Gaza. He said: “We need to face this tragedy very clearly. Europe should be open to injured people from (Gaza) but also to children who are now facing famine or other sorts of dangers.”

The final challenge is whether the European voices calling on the Biden administration to impose a ceasefire in Gaza will prevail or be rejected. If they are accepted, this will signal a major strategic shift in how NATO deals with the security of the Middle East. If they are rejected, it will indicate that Europe will never be equal in its political and military relations with Washington, since many American administrations have declined many European appeals for a balanced US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Maria Maalouf is a Senior Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article originally appeared in the American Spectator: https://spectator.org/the-summer-2024-presidential-succession-crisis/)

NRO Senior editor Charles C.W. Cooke informs us that according to polls taken in 1996, 2008, and 2024 there has been a striking increase in voters concerned about elderly presidential candidates. In 1996, 27 percent thought that Bob Dole at 73 was too old to run. In 2008, 20 percent thought John McCain at 71 was too old to run. Now, within five months of the November 5 election, 86 percent think President Biden is too old to run for re-election. Worse, 62 percent think that if re-elected, President Biden will die before his second term ends. Cooke calls this a “decoy presidential candidacy.”

During G7 summit, citing diplomatic sources (who obviously would not go public and thereby create an international diplomatic incident), international press outlets reported that Biden looked distracted and lacked focus during meetings. (READ MORE from John Wohlstetter: Can America Survive Israel’s Nuclear Destruction?)

The importance of settling remaining issues pertaining to presidential success can hardly be overstated. Of 45 prior presidents, nine failed to complete their term: four were assassinated; four died of natural causes; and one resigned. Of 54 prior vice-presidents, 18 did not complete their term: 17 died of natural causes, and one resigned. In the 179 years prior to the 1967 ratification of the 25th Amendment, the republic was without a vice-president for 37-3/4 years — 21 percent of the time.

In my new book, Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security, I trace the history of presidential succession from the founding of the republic to the present. At the 1787 Grand Convention in Philadelphia, delegate John Dickinson framed the issue: “What is the extent of the term ‘disability’ and who is to be the judge of it?” Nothing was done in 1787, despite some discussion, because the Framers were focused on deciding what powers the new federal government was to have, and how they should be distributed. The First Congress failed to address the issue.

The first presidential succession law was passed in 1792, placing the Senate president pro tem first in line, followed by the Speaker of the House. If they both defaulted, a special election would be held. After the hotly disputed election of 1800, when 36 ballots were needed to select a president, the 12th Amendment was adopted in 1804. It provided for direct vice-presidential succession “in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president.”

Thus, when in 1841 President William Henry Harrison died one month into his term, Vice-President John Tyler took the helm. Such was the unsettled nature of things that there was a debate over what title the new occupant of the Oval Office would use: remain vice-president, or become acting president, new president or simply president. Fortunately for posterity, the simpler, most logical title was chosen, and Tyler was sworn in as president. When after Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson ascended, he, too, took the oath as president, making it standard practice.

This confusion prevailed for 150 years, from 1787 until superseded by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, ratified January 23, 1933, but not effective until January 1937, when the new Congress assembled January 3, and the new president was inaugurated January 20. Section 3 provides:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become president. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither the President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. (Emphasis added.)

In 1886 Congress passed the second presidential succession law, at the urging of President Grover Cleveland. The president pro tem and Speaker were removed from the line of succession. They were replaced by the seven members of the president’s Cabinet then extant, in order of creation. In 1947 Congress made a final revision, which still stands. The Speaker and president pro tem were re-inserted in front of the Cabinet heads, but with their order in the line of succession reversed.

The presidency of Dwight Eisenhower brought into sharp relief the risks of presidential vacancy in the modern era. Ike suffered a major heart attack in 1955, a blockage in his intestine in 1956 and, later that year, a mini-stroke that left him temporarily unable to speak. Vice-president Nixon and Ike’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams, ran the administration — in contrast to the Wilson regency, openly in public view. At one point, Adams called Nixon and told him to prepare to assume the presidency in the next 24 hours. But Ike rapidly recovered.

To remove uncertainty to the degree possible, in the absence of any adopted proposals for reform, Ike wrote a 1958 memorandum to his vice-president, attorney-general and secretary of state, setting forth procedures to follow in event of his inability to continue. The Eisenhower procedures carried over to the Kennedy and early Johnson years. The election of a young, apparently healthy president in 1960 had frozen reform efforts; JFK’s assassination put reform back on the table, but with 1964 an election year, Congress could only hold preliminary hearings.

President Johnson went 14 months without a sitting vice-president, until Hubert Humphrey was sworn in at LBJ’s 1965 Inauguration. LBJ having made presidential succession reform a top priority, during the 1965-66 Congressional session the 25th Amendment was passed by large bipartisan majorities, and sent to the States for ratification. In February 1967, the Amendment was formally ratified.

Since ratification, all succession crises to date have been successfully resolved by the 25th Amendment. Section 1 provides that if a president cannot continue for the remainder of a term, the vice-president shall become president. Section 2 provides that the new president shall nominate a vice-president, who then must be confirmed by a majority vote in the House and in the Senate. These provisions were implemented after the October 1973 resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, and after the August 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon. After Agnew’s departure, Nixon appointed Gerald Ford; after Nixon departed, Ford appointed former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. During the periods between their nominations and their confirmations — two months for Ford; four months for Rockefeller — had the president permanently left the office, House Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK) would have become Acting President. When asked about this, Albert, neither his own nor anyone else’s idea of a president, replied: “Lord, help me. I pray every night it doesn’t happen.”

Section 3, covering voluntary disability, took longer to become accepted practice. President Reagan did not formally invoke the 25th Amendment after being shot, as his advisers feared that a sidelined president might tempt adversaries to take advantage. It wasn’t until 2003, when George Bush 43 had a colonoscopy, that the 25h Amendment was publicly invoked. On that and in 2007 when again Bush 43 underwent that procedure, Vice-President Cheney was Acting President for a couple hours each time.

As Acting President, Cheney assumed the “powers and duties” of the president, but did not hold the office of the presidency. Only after a president permanently leaves office, can the vice-president hold the office of the presidency. No other official can hold the office upon succession, a situation which arises in event of a double vacancy of president and vice-president. Congressional officials (Speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate) and Cabinet officials can only act as president.

Which brings us to the current crisis, one that for the first time ever, involves the possible application of Section 4, covering involuntary presidential disability. In simplified form, whenever the vice-president and a majority of the Cabinet notifies Congress that the president is unable to govern as president, yet is unwilling to step aside, a battle royal begins. If the president transmits to the Congress his intention to return to the presidency, it takes a two-thirds vote in both Houses to prevent the president’s return.

During the 25th Amendment debates on the Senate floor in 1965, several senators cautioned that cabals might exploit the situation for political advantage. Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), the Amendment’s sponsor, replied:

I have more faith in the Congress acting in an emergency in the white heat of publicity, with the American people looking on. The last thing Congress would dare to do would be to become involved in a purely political move.

For his part, Senator Sam Ervin (D-SC), noted for his scholarly knowledge of the Constitution, said:

God help this nation if we ever get a House of Representatives, or a Senate, which will wait for a President to die so someone whom they love more than their country will succeed to the Presidency.

Senator Ervin’s comment applies equally in cases of attempted removal of a president, either via impeachment and conviction, or by the sidelining of a president whom a majority of the public concludes was pushed aside for political gain, rather than for genuinely evident presidential inability.

Comes now, 2024. A hyper-partisan legacy and social media conduct “lawfare” to prevent Donald Trump from even being able to continue his campaign; and former president Trump, for his part, inflames his opponents by making 2020’s election irregularities a central part of his campaign. Voters are deeply divided — and in large measure unhappy with the apparent choice they face this fall.

Few believe that a manifestly weakened president can handle the immense daily workload of the presidency; those behind the scene resemble the clandestine regency that arose for the last 17 months of Woodrow Wilson’s second presidential term, triggered by the massive stroke Wilson suffered. Then, Wilson’s second wife, Edith Bolling Galt, along with Wilson’s personal physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, and his private secretary, Joseph Tumulty, effectively ran the government. But many things were left undone, things only a president could do: veto bills — 28 bills became law because the president was unable to cast a veto; and appoint executive branch officials and judges. Vice-President Alfred Marshall, petrified of the First Lady, stayed on the sidelines. Secretary of State Robert Lansing tried to get Wilson to step aside, and for his pains was fired by the president. In 1919 there were neither prescribed procedures in place, nor standards for implementing them, even given Wilson’s manifest presidential inability.

Today, Jill Biden clearly wields the main power behind the throne. Various advisers, most of whom held senior posts under former president Obama, represent a cabal that is running the country. The president refuses to take any test for mental acuity, or for possible use of amphetamines (“uppers”) before public appearances; his schedule is notably lighter than that of his modern predecessors. The medical reports his physician has released are veritable studies in information opacity, far less extensive and detailed than those of preceding presidents. By contrast, Donald Trump, succumbing to pressure from Beltway journalists and commentators, took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, and aced it.

Bottom Line

The bald fact of the matter is that given the infinite gradation of mental states and physical frailty, and the extreme political risks of a challenge, no formulation for involuntary removal can satisfy. Myriad alternative schemes were carefully considered in depth during the 1956-1966 period, to no avail. Section 4 was a serious attempt to resolve what has proven during Biden’s presidential term to be an unresolvable problem.

With activists on the warpath in both parties, a president whose inability is on public display and clearly getting worse, and a cackling cipher of a vice-president widely regarded as shockingly unfit to ascend to the Oval Office, the succession crisis of Summer 2024 is deepening. As our allies fret over our struggles, our adversaries seek to exploit a consequently weakened America.

Put simply, absent civic virtue, a commodity increasingly rare, no provision for involuntary removal can work smoothly. One can only repair to Senator Ervin’s 1965 warning: “God help this nation.”

John C. Wohlstetter is author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security(Gold Institute Press, 2024).

(This article was written by Maria Maalouf and appeared in Arab News. Peace a must as Sudan crisis threatens regional stability)

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month held a hearing titled “Conflict and Humanitarian Emergency in Sudan: A Call to Action,” attended by US Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello. He began his testimony by expressing regret over the catastrophic situation in Sudan, warning of famine, ongoing ethnic and regional fighting and the potential collapse of a state with a population of 50 million.

The Sudanese people have endured death, crimes against humanity, sexual violence, famine and ethnic cleansing, with 8 million people displaced and 3 million children fleeing the country since the outbreak of war in mid-April last year. Twenty-five million people need food and medicine, with 4.9 million on the brink of famine. Women and girls face continuous violations from both warring factions.

The escalating humanitarian crisis stems from conflict and the obstruction of humanitarian aid. Eighteen million people face severe food insecurity, with 5 million on the verge of famine. Three million children are severely malnourished and the crisis is expected to worsen during the summer.

Sudan faces famine due to blatant violations of international humanitarian law by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The prevention of access to and disruption of humanitarian aid have exacerbated the crisis. In refugee camps in Chad, food resources have dwindled, prompting the US Congress to approve additional humanitarian funding. The US has provided more than $1 billion in aid since the beginning of the war but still faces challenges in pressuring the Sudanese forces to allow aid access.

The only solution to the crisis is to end the war, which is not a civil war, but a conflict waged by two generals and their followers against the Sudanese people. In December, Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the actions of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Office of Foreign Assets Control has imposed sanctions on individuals and entities linked to both sides.

This is how the divided political scene looks like in Sudan today. The Rapid Support Forces militia controls most of Khartoum, the nation’s capital, and has done so since April last year. It has also been able to capture Darfur. This is where the leaders of that movement come from.

In December, the Rapid Support Forces also seized Wad Madani, the capital of Al-Jazirah state. However, things have not gone well for the group since. In February, the Sudanese army took back the center of Omdurman, which is the second-largest urban area in the country. Then the army consolidated its gains in most of western and northern Sudan, especially in Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast.

It is relevant to mention Darfur, as the peace calls have been renewed to stop the vicious and devastating rivalry between the two contending Sudanese armed factions. Had there been more government responsibility toward the Darfur crisis, the fighting in Khartoum and other Sudanese cities would not have happened.

Worse, atrocities are still unfolding in Darfur, the western region that has been plagued by a war that started early in the new millennium. The Darfur crisis now runs parallel to the fighting that has been taking place around the country since April 2023.

The fighting in Sudan is also burdening neighboring countries. Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese have fled to Chad, the Central African Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Sudan and many other countries. It is estimated that as many as 300,000 people have been killed in Darfur alone. There is a military campaign about to take place around the besieged city of Al-Fashir. The horrible scenes of the killings in Darfur have been seen by millions of people around the world. Paramilitaries are opening fire on the village. The civilian population are the victims and many children are counted among the dead. Darfur used to be the breadbasket of Sudan. Not anymore, for sure.

The war could escalate into a regional conflict if the situation is not addressed. The Biden administration must elevate its leadership and focus on Sudan. The US Treasury Department could play a crucial role by expanding sanctions on the perpetrators of atrocities. The US Agency for International Development and the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration also support calls for humanitarian access and aid to civil society groups.

International efforts are needed to enforce a peace agreement that meets the aspirations of the Sudanese people, as this crisis poses a threat to regional stability. All actors, even those who have played a negative role, must be invited to become partners in a peace agreement to prioritize stability.

The resilience and unity of the Sudanese people reflect their desire to end the war, achieve full humanitarian access and have a professional, unified army under a unified government authority. Sudan faces two different paths: famine and state failure or peace and a democratic future. The international community must strive to impose peace by any means necessary.

Maria Maalouf is a Senior Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Mejor sin Von der Leyen)

Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, does not want to talk about the coup d’état being perpetrated in Spain by the man who is her greatest protégé among the 27 rulers of the European Union member countries, Pedro Sánchez. So concerned about supposed threats to the rule of law in other countries with conservative governments, she is quite calm while Sánchez violates the Spanish Constitution and every law that gets in his way.

Mrs. Von der Leyen has had nothing but praise for the greatest liar and betrayer of his word and of the law that Spain can remember, the man who has assembled a government on a majority of coup-plotting criminals and terrorists, who threatens and harasses the judges, the opposition and the journalists.

Mrs. Von der Leyen is a member of the People’s Party but has been, for five years, the greatest and most implacable representative of the leftist, interventionist, socialist and authoritarian drift of the European Union. Despite all this, the People’s Party of Spain has supported a new Von der Leyen candidacy for the presidency of the Commission, and Mr. Núñez Feijóo has paraded her around Spain as if she were a great defender of Spain, when she has been the concealer of all of Sánchez’s outrages and his financier.

Mrs. Von der Leyen has abused the power she has held, so much so during the pandemic, not only with vaccine purchases without oversight or scrutiny that various prosecutors’ offices are investigating. She had troubles as a minister in Germany, but the suspicions of corruption have soared even further since then.

Mrs. Von der Leyen has used the European Commission as if it were a central government that, from Brussels, governs the 27 countries of the European Union, when it has no competence to act that way and is a mere administrator at the service of the nations, and not an authoritarian head of government above the nations who punishes and rewards with absolute arbitrariness, as she has done.

Mrs. Von der Leyen is a notorious political swindler who in 2019 managed to deceive the government of Poland of the conservative Law and Justice party into voting for her as president of the European Commission. The Polish government ordered its parliamentarians to vote for her. It was 26 votes that gave her a presidency she won by only 9 votes. Afterward she spent four years harassing the Polish government and blocking its funds until she managed, with the help of the German government and media, to bring down the conservative government in Warsaw.

She also asked for the vote of the other members of the Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR) of the European Parliament. The others, among them VOX, said no, because we saw her coming.

Mrs. Von der Leyen knows that in the secret ballot for her election there will be many, even from her own party, who will not vote for her because they know her. The Slovenes of the PP do not even hide their NO. It is already announced. That is why, in exchange for their votes, she is promising some things to Giorgia Meloni of the ECR and the opposite things to the socialists and the greens so that they vote for her. And so that she may then once again break her word with the conservatives and set about imposing the Green Deal, Agenda 2030 and the whole totalitarian program of the most arrogant globalism, the one that most despises the interests of European societies.

Mrs. Von der Leyen — her remaining in the presidency of the European Commission — would in reality be a political gift for all of us who consider that the sovereign nations must become much angrier still with this globalist and totalitarian-social-engineering drift of the European Union. Her arrogance and classism guarantee that the sovereigntist forces that do not want a centralized mega-state in Europe are going to keep winning elections in these coming years and sharpening the internal contradictions in the People’s Party so that it decides which side it is on.

But the truth is that the People’s Party has half a dozen figures who could be balanced, honest presidents of the European Commission with the intention of respecting the will shown by Europeans at the ballot box to put a brake on the legislative and regulatory follies and to stop the frenzy of ecological socialism with its gratuitous and often useless impositions that do immense harm to the primary sector and to societies in general. That is why, for the sake of steering the European Union back toward its salvation — which lies in very deep amendments to the follies perpetrated — the People’s Party would do very well to get rid of Mrs. Von der Leyen and choose a candidate who is not known for abuse, imposition and deception.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in Warrior Maven. Nuclear Weapons Essay: Rust to Obsolescence or Modernize to Credibility?)

Dr. Tara Drozdenko, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, writes June 7, 2024 in [https://thehill.com/opinion/4710618-cancel-land-based-nuclear-missiles-to-make-americans-safer-and-save-money/] the Hill that all ICBMs should be eliminated from the US nuclear deterrent, referencing an upcoming meeting hosted by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representative John Garamendi (D-CA) who apparently seek to cut out Sentinel ICBM spending in the pending defense bill.

The essay cites many of the assumed defects of land-based missiles, and also invents a new problem that only disarmament advocates could embrace. Apparently, ICBMs are at fault for being possible Russian targets. Drozdenko is concerned that an attack on the US 400 Minuteman silos would cause a lot of fallout and nuclear radiation and kill millions of people.

However, she chooses not to apportion any accountability to the Russians that might launch nearly 1,000 warheads against the Minuteman silos, rather, it is the mere existence of the Minuteman silos that is accountable for drawing Russian missile fire. Consequently, if you remove the targets there would be no need for Russia to attack our ICBMs.

It is true that some of the 400 Minuteman missiles and their associated launch control centers are within hundreds of miles of major urban areas with 1.3 million people, including Denver and Omaha. But four other nuclear targets—the two submarine bases in Kings Bay, Georgia and Bangor, Washington and our bomber bases at Whiteman, Missouri, Minot, North Dakota and Barksdale, Louisiana, are near major population centers with 3.5 million people, all of whom also would be at risk if these five bases were destroyed with Russian nuclear warheads.

More perplexing is why not blame the people of New York and Los Angeles for also drawing nuclear strikes as their populations in the greater urban areas of these two cities are 38 million, a very attractive target. While the US deterrent policy is not to strike cities, major disarmament groups including the UCS have often advocated minimal deterrence that targets population centers (not military assets) to deter nuclear war, and the Russians and Chinese have no qualms about destroying cities as a means of deterrence.

An assessment done for the Sasakawa Foundation on the effect of just one 30 kiloton nuclear warhead denotating over Manhattan determined that 750,000 people would be killed instantly and 3 million over time. The point of the assessment with John Diamond was to call for stronger deterrence, not blame the people of the city of New York for getting attacked! But the US could move the folks of New York out of the city and not tempt Moscow.

However true that many Americans would be seriously harmed and killed if the Russians attacked the United States, it is not an argument for unilaterally cutting nearly 60% of the US allowed SNDVs (strategic nuclear delivery vehicles) from the US arsenal, leaving the US with 12 nuclear targets which if eliminated would take the US out of the nuclear business. Cutting out ICBMs would make it easier to disarm the US and make nuclear war more likely, not exactly the most innovative way to improve deterrence.

Dr. Drozdenko’s argument against ICBMs also suffers from at least 12 other major flaws, arguments that reflect an ongoing lack of understanding of reality and actually have no factual basis.

ICBMs are accused of being part of a US led arms race of planned nuclear modernization. Fact: is the total number of warheads under the nuclear modernization program of record fit within the 2010 New START ceilings. Unless the New START arms control treaty was actually a nuclear arms race treaty, such a charge that the US is starting an arms race is ridiculous.

The essay then argues the US actually has a policy of launch on warning of a missile attack. Again, untrue. The US deterrent strategy is assured retaliation with second-strike capabilities. A launch if detected requires a launch conference to be held to determine the source of the launch. Additionally, a second conference would be convened to determine the correct response, and then only executed after the confirmation of a strike with nuclear weapons on American soil. However, the ambiguous nature of the US response capability is what sows doubt in the mind of the aggressor and thus strengthens deterrence even though it is not US policy to launch under attack.

The Russians may be reckless but they are not suicidal. There is no reason Moscow would strike 400 Minuteman missiles in the central USA. And if they were intent on attacking the US they would also take out the submarines at Kings Bay and Bangor, the three bomber bases in North Dakota, Louisiana and Missouri, and relevant NC3 nodes. Russia would still know that nearly 1,000 warheads could be coming back at Russia from submarines at sea, bombers on alert and airborne, and surviving ICBMs.

So, the question is, why would Russia attack 400 ICBMs with nearly 1,000 warheads but leave intact some roughly 350-400 submarine warheads in port that could be destroyed with the use of a handful of warheads, especially in that the subs in port could put to sea to strike back at Russia?”

Similarly, the US could have strategic bombers available as the UCS essay admits—especially if generated to alert status with required refueling support. The three bomber bases with upwards of 60 airplanes would have at least 600 gravity bombs and cruise missiles to launch back at Russia. This retaliatory force is available 24/7. What evidence is there that Russia doesn’t understand this?

The essay next claims the USAF has determined the US can keep Minuteman around through 2036 and that somehow, they are pretending otherwise. Actually, the Minuteman III force is required by law to be sustained and maintained “through 2030” as an NDAA amendment by former Senator Kent Conrad required. The planned deployment of Sentinel has always been from roughly 2031-36, although there now may be a delay in that deployment of an estimated 2 years.

Credibly maintaining a working MM III is not planned beyond those years and that has been the basis for the schedule of the Sentinel acquisition program. The cost of the Sentinel missile itself has remained at the original estimated cost. The increase projected costs have been in the ground equipment, launch control centers, silos and cabling that operates the system as it is now some 55 years old. New projections simply now estimate it will be more expensive to redo the infrastructure, although when completed the operating costs are estimated to be significantly lower and save the country some tens of billions. No one is using any fuzzy calendar math.

However, if defense opponents, including the disarmament cheerleaders, had not kicked the modernization can down the road for nearly 40 years, the US could have modernized in sequence rather than simultaneously recapitalizing all three legs of the Triad, and consequently significantly reduced the annual cost of the nuclear enterprise.

In the current planned budget for FY2024, Sentinel costs $4.8 billion in RDT&E and Acquisition including all re-entry/warhead work. The missile will be deployed through 2080 and even with the $132 billion price tag, will require an investment — very reasonable — of $2.9 billion annually.

The critics of ICBMs continue to find clever ways to apply creative accounting to cook the books, now in this new essay raising the estimated price to $313 billion over 50 years which implies nearly $200 billion for the annual maintenance and the current planned warhead enhancements but for 50 years.

Given the current cost of MMIII 0&M of $1 billion annually, projecting the new costs to $4 billion annually is absurd. Why not stretch out the costs for 100 years and get an even bigger number?

CBO specializes in this trick, adding $98 billion to one of their recent cost estimates for “potential projected” growth. Their July 2023 assessment headline was that all nuclear activity for the next ten years would cost $756 billion, but the actual modernized element would cost $247 billion, or one-third of the total cost, with operations and maintenance of the existing force and nuclear command and control through 2032 at over $400 billion, a cost that would be incurred if the United States simply kept the legacy force and indeed risked “rusting to obsolescence.”

Usually, Congress looks at 5- year budgets but let’s try this expanded horizon. By comparison, the food stamp program for the next 50 years assuming no annual cost increase would be $5.6 trillion. Have the previous decades of poverty programs worked well, which food stamps were designed to alleviate? Mercatus Center data indicates the war on poverty, since 1965 or for the past 58 years has cost the United States some $24 trillion in today’s dollars. The current annual cost is $2 trillion in means tested poverty programs estimates Mercatus, while the number of people living below the poverty line has grown from 30 to 38 million since 1965 although the rate has declined from around 15% to 11.5%.

The entirety of the nuclear modernization effort over the next 20 years will be roughly $500 billion, as the bulk of the remaining costs will be sustaining the legacy systems, refurbishing our DOE infrastructure and command and control systems.

Looked at realistically, the ICBM program will be fully deployed through 2080. For 45 years (2035-800) the annual costs work out to a $2.9 billion annual investment. Or about 0.00045% of the current annual Federal budget of $6.3 trillion (FY2022) and $6.5 trillion in FY2024, and 0.001% of the current defense budget.

Ironically, Mr. Garamendi previously supported keeping MMIII, in lieu of Sentinel, even though the identified expanded costs, up to $132 billion, are largely related to the new infrastructure that must be recapitalized irrespective of whether the missile is a legacy MMIII or a new Sentinel.

As for warhead costs, if warheads don’t work, which is a risk if we do not follow through on the NNSA plans, and we forgo all National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) warhead SLEP work, well the United States rapidly goes out of the nuclear business. But if we are going to maintain the New START level of 400 ICBM and 1090 SLBM warheads, the cost for NNSA remains roughly the same whether the warheads allowed by New START are aboard ICBMs and SLBMS or just SLBMs.

Since ICBM warheads don’t necessarily fit on submarine missiles, the Navy, to keep just at the New START numbers would see their warhead costs expand dramatically. And if we decide not to keep the allowable 400 Minuteman warheads on any substitute force, our deterrent force will remain at nearly one-third below the New START allowed force at a time when both Russia and China are markedly expanding their nuclear forces.

This appears highly inconsistent with the new administration pledge—a good development– to seriously look at adopting a bold, new, aggressive nuclear doctrine which might very well include deploying more nuclear warheads above the New START levels. Which would be highly problematic should ICBMs be terminated.

You can’t cut if you are thinking of expanding.

Even attempting to keep MMIII and eliminating Sentinel would not work. Soon after the termination of the Sentinel, Minuteman would atrophy out of the nuclear force, as one cannot keep MMIII around much beyond this coming decade. So, after having to spend tens of billions on redoing the infrastructure and the associated warheads associated with Minuteman III, that provides only the current MMIII capability which gives us a shortfall to required capabilities to keep pace with Russia and China. Cancelling Sentinel means relying on a legacy ICBM force that while heroically providing deterrence for 54 years would in all likelihood have to be retired before the end of the next decade.

Since the essay’s author doesn’t want ICBMs to be part of the US nuclear deterrent, we are eventually left with “fast flyers” on only 12 Columbia submarines with 16 missiles each or 192 total missiles. Add in the 60 bombers and the US would have a grand total of 252 nuclear platforms (missiles and bombers) although both the Russians and the United States under New START can have 700. No doubt to disarmers that is a sure basis for strategic stability! And while building more Columbia class submarines is being seriously considered by Congress, those new submarines would only come into the force post 2042 after the current 12 Columbia submarines would be acquired.

Even worse if the US wanted to keep the 1,490 SLBM and ICBM warheads allowed under New START, (to say nothing of increasing the US deterrent force), the D-5 would have to be loaded with 8 warheads each, its maximum capability, reaching a total of 1536 warheads, just marginally above the New START allowable limits, but with ZERO further growth possible.

The more warheads the D-5 missiles carry the heavier the missile, with less range and to some degree with wasted or superfluous warheads. Heavier missiles have less range and may be required to patrol closer to Russia and China and thus occupy a smaller deployment or patrol area for the submarines, weakening survivability.

This also means the US would be without a “hedge” buildup capability, above New START levels, which the US has always had as an insurance policy in the event of a Russian breakout, and now a Chinese build as well. What kind of leverage would that give the US in any further arms talks? The US would have all of 46 warheads above the New START limits, compared to what Dr. Chris Yeaw projects as a total of 10,000 Russian and Chinese strategic and tactical warheads by 2035.

And what a gift to Russia and China to be able to engage in a nuclear arms race which would be decidedly one-sided as the US could not participate. The bad guys build, the good guys stay at New START levels even when the treaty expires in 2026 as the US would have zero other options. [Except admittedly 200 theater gravity bombs in Europe.]

Finally, to destroy all 400 MMIII silos and associated 45 launch control centers, the Russians would according to some estimates have to use some 900 warheads, but they would be launched from an inventory of silo and rail mobile ICBMs in different locations and thus not simultaneously. The US early warning systems would see the initial launches within minutes, giving the command authorities opportunity to act rationally.

And these incoming missiles would not necessarily arrive on US soil together, as US missile silos are spread over 45,000 square miles, thus allowing an assured retaliation and second-strike response from major elements of the US Triad, thus not placing strategic stability at risk.

Eliminating ICBMs also would put all our missile nuclear eggs in one submarine technology basket, a risk the US must ponder as China announced it is working to develop technology that can seek out America’s submarines by air.

This wrong-headed essay’s recommendations would make the Chinese aim to disarm the US easier and incentivize the PRC to go all out in anti-submarine detection and warfare technology.

In conclusion, as one analyst said recently, an individual ICBM silo may be vulnerable, but as a system and as a Triad of forces, the US deterrent both legacy and modernized systems is sound, solid, credible and guarantees a second-strike assured response capability. It defends our allies, and deters if correctly done the use of conventional, nuclear, cyber, space, bio-chem weapons against the United States and its allies.

As retired Admirals Richard Mies and Charles Richard both previously explained, there are only two choices: replace and modernize our nuclear forces or go out of the nuclear business. Clark Murdock outlined the clear danger, we can “rust to obsolescence” or as recommended here, modernize to credibility.

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

Nearly three years ago, in July 2021, Tunisian President Kais Saied suspended parliament, dismissed the prime minister, and began ruling by presidential decree in what many observers called a “self-coup.” Since then, President Saied has consolidated power, rewritten the constitution to grant himself vast new authority, and delayed elections with no clear timeline for restoring democratic rule. This concerning authoritarian backslide in Tunisia, the lone success story to emerge from the Arab Spring, threatens the hard-won gains of Tunisia’s 2011 Jasmine Revolution.

Critically, President Saied has until July 25, 2024 to schedule the next presidential election, the constitutional deadline. It is imperative that he upholds the rule of law and respects the international order that expects Tunisia to hold this election by this legally mandated date. Tunisians have had two fair and transparent presidential elections in the past decade – this upcoming vote will be the third and must proceed as required.

President Saied claims his power grab was necessary to root out corruption and solve Tunisia’s many challenges. In reality, his increasingly oppressive rule has only exacerbated the country’s problems. The economy is on the brink of collapse with soaring inflation and unemployment. Foreign currency reserves are critically low, and the government is seeking an urgent IMF bailout. Meanwhile, crackdowns on political opponents, anti-corruption activists, journalists, judges, and business leaders have stifled dissent and spooked investors. Far from resolving Tunisia’s crises, President Saied’s authoritarianism only worsens them.

Even more alarming are President Saied’s recent moves toward communist ideology and alliances with China, Russia, and Iran. He has officially sided with China on Taiwan, lifted visa requirements for Iranians, and visited Iran to strengthen ties. By cozying up to these authoritarian regimes, President Saied is not only threatening Tunisia’s relationships with Western partners but also risking disruption on NATO’s southern flank. His actions could allow Tunisia to be weaponized against the West and undermine the region’s delicate agenda of peace and security.

This is a far cry from the Saied that Tunisians thought they were electing. While he came to power transparently through the ballot box, he has since pulled a “bait and switch” by morphing from a regular guy into a communist hardliner. His erratic behavior raises risks of expropriating international assets, unhooking Tunisia from its commitments to the rule of law and international norms, and setting the country on a collision course with the West and its own democratic principles.

Saied’s authoritarian pivot is a betrayal of the 2011 Jasmine Revolution that ended 23 years of dictatorship and ushered in a new era of democracy and hope. Tunisians fought hard for the right to choose their president freely, criticize their government without fear, and build an open society. While imperfect, its progressive constitution enshrined democratic freedoms and gave Tunisians a real voice in their country’s future for the first time.

Now, all that progress hangs in the balance. The 2022 constitution rammed through by President Saied guts checks and balances, erodes judicial independence, and makes him virtually impossible to remove from office. By ruling unilaterally and delaying elections, he deprives Tunisians of their fundamental right to choose their leaders democratically. 

To salvage Tunisia’s democracy, President Saied must reverse course immediately. He must urgently schedule the presidential election by the constitutional deadline of July 25, 2024. He should lift the state of emergency, restore judicial independence, free political prisoners, and allow civil society, activists, and opposition parties to operate without persecution.

Some may argue that democracy is too risky if it could result in a worse leader than President Saied. But this fear is misplaced. Tunisians have consistently rejected radicalism before and will do so again. The low turnout in Saied’s constitutional referendum, his plummeting approval ratings, and public dissatisfaction all show he lacks a true mandate. As an incumbent, he is in the minority and would struggle to win a free and fair election.

Tunisia’s vibrant political scene also offers hope, with several major parties led by trailblazing women. A democratic transition could elevate Tunisia’s first female president – an inspiring milestone for women’s leadership in the region. This potential for groundbreaking progress is yet another reason the presidential election must proceed as constitutionally required.

Only by relinquishing his exceptional powers and returning Tunisia to democratic rule can President Saied put the country back on track. Continued dictatorship will only exacerbate Tunisia’s challenges and make them harder to resolve. The only path forward is letting the Tunisian people freely choose their president again.

For the sake of democracy, the rule of law, and Tunisia’s future, President Saied must adhere to the election deadline of July 25, 2024. He should step back from his authoritarian overreach, recommit to Tunisia’s pro-Western orientation, and uphold the democratic principles at the heart of the Arab Spring’s most promising success story. Backsliding is not an option. The world is watching, and Tunisia’s courageous fight for freedom is too precious to abandon now when it matters most. President Saied must do the right thing and give Tunisians back their hard-won right to choose their own destiny.

Eli M. Gold is the President of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think tank focusing on foreign policy and defense matters. To learn more about the Gold Institute, visit www.Goldiis.org.

Support Eli Gold’s Work