The Senate passed the Russia sanctions bill 98-2 last week The House hasn't decided whether it will take up the Senate-passed version or make changes to it The House has not decided yet what it plans to do with the Senate’s Russia sanctions bill, and Democrats are warning that House Republicans may be trying to stall the bill on behalf of the White House. The Senate passed the Russia sanctions bill 98-2 last week, but the House hasn’t decided whether it will take up the Senate-passed version or make changes to it, a GOP aide told CNN. No action is expected on the bill until after the July 4 recess, according to the aide. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-TX, told reporters Tuesday that when the Senate sent the bill to the House, the parliamentarian determined that language added in the final version violated the “origination clause” of the Constitution. Under that clause, any legislation that deals with new revenue has to begin in the House. Any bill that comes over from Senate with this rules violation is labeled with what Congress calls a “blue slip” – meaning that it cannot be picked up by the House. The Texas Republican stressed that he supports sanctions against Russia, but procedurally his hands are tied. “I think the policies look very strong and very positive, but we are going to follow the Constitution,” he said. Related article Ukrainian leader, a Russian adversary, gets low-key welcome But Democrats accused House Republican leaders of trying to stall – or kill – the bill using procedural tactics. In addition to the revenue issue, Democratic aides said the bill could be referred to four different committees, which would lead to a lengthy legislative process and potentially significant changes to the measure. The Democratic aides said bills that pass with an overwhelming vote are rarely held up in committee and are typically fast-tracked to the floor. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Tuesday accusing House Republicans of “covering for a President who has been far too soft on Russia.” “Responding to Russia’s assault on our democracy should be a bipartisan issue that unites both Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate,” Schumer said in a statement. “The House Republicans need to pass this bill as quickly as possible.” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the revenue issue could be easily resolved by passing an identical House version. Related article Putin offers Comey 'political asylum' during annual call-in show “This is nothing but a delay tactic and the public shouldn’t be fooled by complex-sounding parliamentary procedure,” Engel said in a statement. “I predict this isn’t the last excuse we’ll hear for trying to slow this bill’s momentum, but make no mistake, anything short of an up-or-down vote on this tough sanctions package is an attempt to let Russia off the hook.” Brady made it clear that the language that caused the problem was not coordinated on with his panel or others, and he preferred that the Senate take the measure back, remove the language that ran afoul of the Rules and send a new version back to the House. If they don’t act, Brady said that he is working with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce to move the legislation. Brady pushed back at Democrats accusing them of stalling action on a policy matter that the Trump Administration did not favor, saying, “the Constitution is pretty clear. Revenue measures have to start in the House.” Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, who played a key role in crafting the Russia sanctions agreement in the Senate, said he has spoken about the measure with Royce and Engel. Both were interested in taking up the measure, he said. Related article Conflicting stories about Kushner's meeting with Russian banker “I think from their individual standpoints, there’s a desire to cause what we passed or something like it to become law,” Corker said. “Obviously, referring it to four different committees could create some challenges, as we all know, but we’ll see.” The Russia sanctions measure was added as an amendment to an Iran sanctions bill last week, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed concerns that it could impede efforts to improve relations with Russia. Corker said he’s spoken to Tillerson about the bill and he said he hasn’t had resistance from the Trump administration, beyond wanting to ensure they “preserve their executive authorities.”


The History channel recently aired “America’s War on Drugs,” an eight-hour documentary examining the decades-long futility of the drug war. Yet at virtually every turn, that case has already been presented in scripted dramas. Drug dealers remain go-to bad guys in TV and movies. Dating back to David Simon’s landmark HBO drama “The Wire” and miniseries “The Corner,” though, television has drilled into the hopelessness of law enforcement’s efforts – depicting what amounts to a giant game of Whac-a-Mole, where cutting off from one spigot simply opens another. The condemnation of the policy, moreover, is often conveyed more poignantly through dramas like “The Wire,” which can personalize character arcs and put faces – even if they’re fictional – on the statistics. A bleak new FX drama premiering this week, “Snowfall,” seeks to join this tradition. The show hearkens back to the “Just Say No” era, chronicling the rise of crack cocaine in the 1980s. Another series set in that period, Netflix’s “Narcos,” spent two seasons tracking down Pablo Escobar, only to see new players fill the void once Colombian authorities gunned down the drug kingpin in 1993. “Breaking Bad” and its prequel “Better Call Saul” have also shown the ruthlessness associated with the drug war. Unlike most shows, they deal less with the glamor and fast money of drugs than its banality – treating it, as an Esquire piece observed, like “just another business,” with evading the law as just one of the particular operating costs of the enterprise. Skepticism about the drug war’s efficacy reflects as much of a shift in the playing field for TV drama as politics. Most of the programs cited air on networks that pride themselves on offering more ambitious and nuanced storytelling than, say, standard network crime shows that slap handcuffs on a perpetrator by the hour’s end. Still, this lacerating critique is noteworthy when stemming the flow of drugs is among the promised benefits of the Trump administration’s proposed border wall, while Attorney General Jeff Sessions has advocated harsher drug sentencing policies. “The Wire” creator Simon, who witnessed the drug war as a reporter in Baltimore, has stated that increasing enforcement and incarceration is “draconian, and it doesn’t work,” as he said during a 2015 conversation with President Obama, a fan of the show. “What drugs don’t destroy, the war against them is ripping apart.” A recurring message from such dramas is that as long as demand persists – and with it, big money peddling contraband – someone will always be tempted to feed it. “Narcos” executive producer Eric Newman said during an interview last year that the show takes a critical view of drug policies that seek to “kill the supplies and do nothing about the demand.” As for continuing without Escobar in the third season, he added, “We plan on stopping when cocaine stops.” The drug war, of course, goes back further than the Reagan era’s “Just say No” campaign. “America’s War on Drugs” features President Nixon declaring drug abuse “public enemy No. 1” in the early 1970s. As DEA agent Celerino Castillo explains in the documentary, purging drugs remains an uphill battle because “America is more addicted to drug money than they are addicted to drugs.” Television remains pretty addicted to drug dealing’s dramatic possibilities, creating an enticing backdrop for stories filled with money, violence and power. This month brings another in Netflix’s “Ozark,” starring Jason Bateman as a money manager drawn into laundering cash for a cartel. Viewed collectively, though, these bold, nuanced dramas have reinforced questions about whether a “drug war” can ever really be won, especially when each new skirmish and declaration feels, in TV terms, like a rerun.


Senators are split on whether they'll be able to make public information from a meeting The classified briefing is being hosted by the deputy Attorney General and is classified Senate Republicans and Democrats are split over whether they can tell the press and public what they learn from deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at a highly-anticipated briefing Thursday afternoon on how and why former FBI Director James Comey and was fired. Republicans insist the briefing, which will be held in a secure room known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIFF, will be classified and therefore anything senators learn in it must be kept secret. That is upsetting Democrats, who demanded the briefing after Comey’s surprise firing by President Donald Trump last week, and who say they want – and intend – to inform the public about the non-classified parts of what they hear. “Frankly, in terms of it being a briefing that can restore public confidence in the process that led to the firing of the FBI director, if we are literally unable to make any comment about anything, it won’t be a very useful briefing,” Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told CNN Wednesday. RELATED: Inside an embattled Trump’s most consequential evening of turmoil yet Senators are generally highly aware of what they are allowed to say when leaving a sensitive briefing like this. Disclosure of classified information is against the law and many senators are wary to talk to reporters when for fear they will accidentally reveal secrets. Other senators, especially those who deal regularly with classified national security information, are more comfortable and will discuss non-classified information with the press, something that helps them shape the narrative of a given issue. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut wants to press Rosenstein about memos Comey wrote detailing his private conversations with Trump, including Comey’s damaging assertion that Trump asked him not to pursue a criminal investigation of his just-fired national security adviser, retired Gen. Michael Flynn. RELATED: How Michael Flynn lost his job in 23 days Blumenthal huddled in a strategy session with other Democrats Wednesday to get ready for Rosenstein’s briefing. As he was leaving, he dismissed the insistence by Republicans he wouldn’t be able to talk to reporters or his constituents about what he learned in the session. “The briefing is classified only to the extent that specific information is classified,” Blumenthal said. “You can’t classify all the answers just by having it in the SCIFF.” The senators spoke before Rosenstein announced he had appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged interference in the US election. The decision resolves a key issue for Democrats who have pushed for an independent investigation and will likely ease tensions in the briefing, although senators still say they have a lot they want to learn from Rosenstein. Dozens of reporters, network camera crews and photographers, will gather outside the entrance to the SCIFF in the basement of the Capitol ahead of the 2:30 p.m. briefing and will press senators for any bits of information when they depart. “I think anytime we have a discussion in the SCIFF it’s normally classified,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the third-ranking Senate Republican, explaining the GOP’s position. “That’s the reason it’s down there. So we can get a presentation form the appropriate personnel in the administration about information that’s highly sensitive and classified.” The Democratic senators said they expect Rosenstein to slip back and forth between material that is classified and will tell the senators what is off-limits for the public and what is okay to reveal. But Thune said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, who will run the briefing, would have to reach an agreement about what can be talked about publicly. “That determination needs to be made by our two leaders and, obviously, by the Justice Department,” Thune said. “I assume Mr. Rosenstein would have a lot of input as to what exactly is subject to classification rules and what is not. I would be surprised if there were a lot coming out of that discussion tomorrow that Democrats would feel comfortable coming out and talking about. But we’ll see.” The SCIFF is expected to be set up like an auditorium with a table up front for Rosenstein and then rows and rows of chairs for the senators. There will be a microphone for senators to ask questions. The order of questions will be based on the order of senators’ arrival, which will be noted by a staff member. “I think we have to make it clear up front how much of the deputy Attorney General’s testimony to the all-senators briefing tomorrow is genuinely classified and sensitive and how much of it is routine business of the Department of Justice that can be talked about afterwards,” Coons said. “I’m fairly certain that a broad range of the things we will be asking tomorrow can be answered and those answers can be shared publicly. But we have to be sensitive that there is an ongoing FBI counter-intelligence investigation and there are classified aspects that could be asked about.” “If there is a discussion of sources and methods of collecting intelligence, that sort of things, those are things we don’t want to disclose and that’s one of the issues we’re talking about,” Thune said. “What the President said when the Russians were here.”


Former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit says he's disappointed in the dismissal Ingmar Guandique had been charged in the murder of Levy, a Washington intern A judge on Thursday dismissed murder charges against a man accused in the death of Chandra Levy, a Washington intern whose 2001 disappearance created national headlines. Federal prosecutors said they can no longer prove a case against Ingmar Guandique, Bill Miller, public information officer for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, said in a news release. “Today, in the interests of justice and based on recent unforeseen developments that were investigated over the past week, the office moved to dismiss the case charging Ingmar Guandique with the May 2001 murder of Chandra Levy,”  he said. Miller did not specify what the developments were. The public defender’s office said the dismissal vindicates Guandique, who had always maintained his innocence, passed a lie detector test and was the victim of “the most unreliable evidence: a jailhouse informant.” Levy, a 24-year-old California native, was in Washington working as an intern for the Bureau of Prisons when she was last seen on May 1, 2001. Her skull was found more than a year later, on May 22, 2002, in Rock Creek Park. Levy’s disappearance gained national attention after her parents discovered a connection between her and Gary Condit, who was then a congressman for Levy’s California district. Condit was never a suspect in the case, but he and Levy were romantically linked and Condit was questioned intensively about Levy’s whereabouts. Levy’s mother, Susan Levy, said she was “totally in a state of shock.” “I am sick to my stomach and am having trauma and grief all over again,” she said. Levy had no comment when asked what the government told her about dropping the charges, but said she hopes prosecutors will “put the information out there.” “We all want our truth,” she said. “I want to make sure we find out the truth. My husband and I hope that justice is found for our family.” Condit issued a statement Thursday through his lawyer, saying he was disappointed in the dismissal. “The failure of authorities to bring formal closure to this tragedy after 15 years is very disappointing but in no way alters the fact that Mr. Condit was long ago completely exonerated by authorities in connection with Ms. Levy’s death,” according to the statement. Related video Man convicted of killing Chandra Levy granted new trial Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was sentenced to 60 years in prison after being convicted in 2010 of killing and robbing Levy. His lawyers appealed the conviction and questioned the credibility of prosecution witness Armando Morales, a convicted felon and former gang member who testified that Guandique confessed to him that he killed Levy. A judge granted a new trial in May 2015 and the hearing was scheduled for October. Miller said prosecutors will not pursue the retrial. Beyond Miller’s brief statement, prosecutors didn’t comment on the case. Laura E. Hankins of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia said, “This dismissal vindicates Mr. Guandique.  Finally, the government has had to concede the flaws in its ill-gotten conviction.” Morales, she said, was “a perjurer who too easily manipulated the prosecutors.” “Because the government hid the identity of the jailhouse informant from the defense until just before trial and failed to provide critical documents to the defense, it took years of post-conviction investigation and litigation by the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia to uncover the extent of the flaws in Mr. Guandique’s trial and to force the government to search and re-examine its own records,” she said. In a motion to dismiss filed last December, defense lawyers said Morales told District of Columbia prosecutors he’d never cooperated with authorities before the Guandique case because he adhered to a “don’t snitch” philosophy. But Morales had cooperated with different prosecutors over the years in exchange for favorable accommodations in prison, the documents said. The motion also said prosecutors hid information from the defense, including the first page of Morales’ original three-page statement about Guandique’s supposed confession and other documents. Police arrested Guandique in February 2009. He was then serving a 10-year sentence for attacking two other women in the park. Judge Robert Morin of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia signed an order dismissing the charges. Guandique was released to the custody of immigration officials on Saturday and now faces deportation proceedings. ICE issued this statement: “Based on today’s court action, Ingmar Guandique will enter the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and be issued a notice to appear in immigration court. Due to his previous criminal convictions, he is considered a threat to public safety, and ICE intends to maintain him in custody.”


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has refocused his campaign on issues of terrorism and national security The pugnacious former prosecutor has been swinging away at President Barack Obama ad Democrats New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie talked up his national security credentials while keeping up his hits on President Barack Obama’s foreign policy in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday. Christie has refocused his campaign in the wake of the Paris attacks as the 2016 race has lately centered on terrorism and national security, all of which have played to Christie’s background as a prosecutor in the New York area. To make his point, he retold his intensely personal tale of trying to find his wife, who was at work in lower Manhattan when the planes hit on September 11, 2001. He wrapped up by arguing Obama and others have forgotten the lessons of 9/11. “I fear that this administration and many parts of this country have forgotten. I can’t forget because terrorism is not theoretical to me,” Christie said. The New Jersey governor has long highlighted his background – and personal connection to 9/11 – on the campaign trail. In September, Christie recounted how he received the call from then-President George W. Bush that he would be tapped to be New Jersey’s federal prosecutor just a day before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Talking on “Fox and Friends,” Christie recounted looking for his wife, who was working in lower Manhattan when the planes hit. “When she got off that ferry, she was walking down the street and she was wrapped in a blanket and soaking wet – anybody who had been in lower Manhattan, they were hosed off by firehoses. They were covered with dust,” Christie said. “That’s the first sight of my wife after having left her that morning. I just grabbed her, hugged her, got her in the car and got her home.” And Christie’s speech Tuesday is the latest in a series of statements he’s made about the Paris terror attacks. The former federal prosecutor’s comment that he wouldn’t even accept 5-year-old Syrian orphans drew an attack from Obama last week, saying Republicans are afraid of women and children. But Christie quickly struck back. “The President’s the person who created this entire situation,” Christie told CNN’s Jake Tapper last week on “The Lead.” “He didn’t keep his word when he drew a red line in Syria. He allowed the situation in Syria to happen. He hasn’t set up a no-fly zone that could create a safe haven for these refugees to live safely in their own country, rather than having to scatter all across the world. And he’s the one who’s casting aspersions? It’s a joke. And he’s a joke on this issue.” The same day Christie, in blunt New Jersey style, jammed Kerry for saying there was a “rationale” for terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo. “He needs to get some sleep and shut up,” Christie said. Christie also weighed in Monday on Donald Trump’s claims that there were “thousands” of Muslims cheering in New Jersey on 9/11. Christie was noncommittal on whether it happened, but said he didn’t recall anything of the sort. “I do not remember that, and so it’s not something that was part of my recollection. I think if it had happened, I would remember it, but, you know, there could be things I forget, too,” Christie told NJ.com. Democratic Party spokeswoman Kaylie Hanson said Christie has “plenty of bluster” but no “serious idea” for how to handle foreign policy. She then tied Christie to Trump for not shooting down Trump’s 9/11 comments. “Even more damning is the refusal of Christie and his cohorts to stand up to outrageous comments from the likes of Donald Trump. Christie and his fellow Republicans have sat idly by as Trump’s offensive rhetoric have defined their candidacies and the Republican brand itself,” Hanson said in a statement circulated shortly before Christie’s talk Tuesday. Despite the attention Christie has garnered from national media and Democrats, it has yet to translate into support in the polls. The most recent Fox News poll, conducted last week, found Christie at 3% support nationwide, and a Boston Globe/Suffolk University survey of New Hampshire Republicans conducted Nov. 17-19 found him still trailing the field with 4%.


A large portion of the debate will now certainly focus on combatting terrorism, on each candidate's foreign policy and on their national security credentials President Barack Obama has already authorized the use of up to 50 Special Operations forces in Syria to combat ISIS, in addition to mor than 3,500 in Iraq The attacks in Paris that have rocked the world brought U.S. presidential politics into stark focus ahead of Saturday night’s Democratic debate here in Iowa and undoubtedly changed the tenor of the contest. Going into the debate, it appeared that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley would focus largely on domestic issues, a reflection of the topics that dominate their campaigning across the country. The tone of the debate also appeared likely to be combative, with both O’Malley and Sanders preparing to go after Clinton if needed. That all changed on Friday night when the attack, for which ISIS has claimed responsibility, left at least 129 people dead and hundreds of others wounded in the streets of France’s capital city. A large portion of the debate will now certainly focus on combatting terrorism, on each candidate’s foreign policy and on their national security credentials, comfortable ground for Clinton, who once served as America’s top diplomat. Sanders and O’Malley will now have to show they can be commander in chief and handle challenges on the international stage, too. Here are six lines of questioning that could come up on Saturday night and how the candidates would likely deal with them: For Clinton: You were secretary of state for four years during a time that saw a rise of instability in the Arab world that paved the way to extremism like ISIS. How can voters trust that you, as president, can effectively combat terrorism? Because of her four years as secretary, Clinton is by far the most prepared candidate on the stage to discuss foreign policy issues. That is likely to be a key point she stresses to make the case that she is best positioned to become commander in chief on day one. But her experience cuts both ways. She has a record of dealing with terrorism, one that can be questioned and critiqued. And her positions on national security put her to the right of her former boss, both men on the stage Saturday night and many of the most animated Democratic primary voters. Clinton was asked this week in New Hampshire about the lessons she learned from her vote to authorize force in Iraq in 2002 as a senator. As she does regularly, Clinton said that vote was a “mistake.” But this time she went further, arguing that her vote makes her more skeptical of using force again. “I believe that we are now having to take a very hard look at making sure that force is always used only as a last resort, not a first choice,” Clinton said. READ: Why did Obama declare ISIS ‘contained’ the day before Paris attack? For Sanders and O’Malley: Neither of you have ever operated on the international stage and much of your presidential platforms focus on domestic issues. How can voters trust that you are prepared, as president, to effectively combat terrorism? A debate on foreign policy and terrorism is not comfortable ground for Sanders – whose stump speech is chock-full of domestic policy. Sanders voted against the Iraq War in 2002 and has said on the campaign trail that he would defend the nation “responsibly.” But Saturday’s debate will force the candidate to expand on those ideas. O’Malley, on the other hand, will likely fall back on his executive experience as the reason he could handle terrorism. At a speech in June on foreign policy – his first and possibly last of the campaign specifically on the topic – O’Malley highlighted the need for “human intelligence” to combat ISIS and cautioned against a “mindless rush to war,” like he said happened with Iraq in 2002. Doug Wilson, a top O’Malley policy adviser, defended O’Malley’s chops on foreign policy after the speech, noting that “the governor has traveled” and “met with foreign leaders.” Now that ISIS has claimed it struck Western soil, are you willing to commit a serious amount of U.S. military boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq as part of an international effort to destroy the group? President Barack Obama has already authorized the use of up to 50 Special Operations forces in Syria to combat ISIS, in addition to mor than 3,500 in Iraq. But as French President Francois Hollande promises a “very determined” response, there are certain to be renewed calls to use U.S. military force more broadly and directly against ISIS – particularly if France ups its presence in the Middle East. In a statement after the Paris attacks, Clinton suggested she wouldn’t break from France. “We must stand side-by-side every step of the way with France and our allies around the world to wage and win the struggle against terrorism and violent extremism,” she said. Related gallery Multiple attacks in Paris Clinton has been more hawkish than her Democratic primary rivals. As secretary of state, she pushed for a larger U.S. role in Syria, whose civil war has allowed ISIS to seize swaths of territory. But during the campaign so far, she has opposed a larger U.S. role in a ground war in the region. Sanders, meanwhile, strongly opposed putting U.S. boots on the ground in the first Democratic debate. “I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country,” he said then, in a veiled shot at Clinton, who voted to go to war there. “We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort,” Sanders said. “We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.” Opinion: The real enemy we are facing With years of hindsight, our strategy in Syria is not producing the results anyone would have wanted. The moderate opposition that the U.S. backs has not broken President Bashar al-Assad’s grip on power, and the refugee crisis has continued to spiral out of control. Would you get more involved as president? Despite the candidates’ shared opposition to putting American troops on the ground, that doesn’t mean involvement in the conflict can’t be escalated: Ground troops are just one aspect of a Syria strategy. Clinton, for example, backed providing more assistance to the Syrian rebels as secretary of state and advocated a no-fly zone to help protect Syrian refugees and end the carnage. Both Sanders and O’Malley have opposed a no-fly zone, using it, at times, to knock Clinton as hawkish. Sanders said he would oppose the U.S. getting “more deeply involved in that horrible civil war,” worrying that a no-fly zone would “lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region.” O’Malley has cast the possible tactic as more difficult because of Russian activity in the country. “You have to enforce no-fly zones, and I believe, especially with the Russian air force in the air, it could lead to an escalation because of an accident that we would deeply regret,” he said at the previous debate. As president, would you be willing to work with Russia and President Vladimir Putin to combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq? Russia is conducting military strikes in Syria and any sizable U.S. operation in the country would force the United States to, at some point, coordinate with the country. But many see Putin’s presence there as largely aimed at supporting the Assad regime – which the U.S. opposes – and to challenge American power in the region. Not to mention that he has a habit of belittling U.S. leadership. At the first debate in Las Vegas, Clinton said the United States needed to “stand up to (Putin’s) bullying, and specifically in Syria, it is important.” But she has also expressed openness to working with Russia when touting a no-fly zone, saying in Iowa in October that “the Russians would have to be part of (a no-fly zone) or it wouldn’t work.” READ: Paris terror attacks: 2016 hopefuls express shock, condolences How far does that extend, though? Would Clinton, as president, agree to work with the Russians in operations to defeat ISIS? Or would she be inclined, as Obama has said, to hold back and let Russia sink in the “quagmire” that he predicted awaited Putin in his involvement in the war-torn region. Sanders and O’Malley haven’t been clear about whether they would work with Russia more directly as president. At the debate, Sanders said that, “Mr. Putin is going to regret what he is doing” in Syria, but did not address why and how he would deal with him. Sanders backed sanctioning Russia during its incursion into Ukraine, but his reticence to get more deeply involved in Syria makes it unlikely that he would ever work with Putin on combating ISIS. O’Malley, on the other hand, does not regularly address Putin or Russia. During his July speech on foreign policy, for example, the presidential candidate didn’t mention the Russian leader. In light of the terrorist attacks in Paris, which some are already labeling a major intelligence failure, does the United States need to bolster its domestic surveillance programs? Clinton and Sanders clashed during the first debate on National Security Agency spying – a topic that’s likely to return with new weight, given French intelligence agencies’ inability to prevent Friday’s attacks. Like Iraq, their differences on the issue date back more than a decade – to Clinton’s vote soon after September 11 for the Patriot Act, which broadened the U.S. government’s abilities to gather intelligence on suspicious individuals on American soil. In the first debate, Sanders said he would halt the NSA’s surveillance efforts. “I’d shut down what exists right now, (which) is that virtually every telephone call in this country ends up in a file at the NSA,” he said. “That is unacceptable to me.” Clinton, for her part, accused George W. Bush’s administration of stretching its surveillance powers too far but said it was “necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that was needed.” The two also disagreed at the debate over Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker. Both said he broke the law, but Sanders said the benefit of his leaks in making Americans aware of what the government was doing should be taken into consideration. Were you wrong to call for the United States to admit more Syrian refugees? Republican presidential candidates hammered this point in the hours before the debate. They’ve criticized the Obama administration’s plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country in 2016 – and have tied that criticism to the Democratic presidential field, which has called for even larger numbers. And their arguments were strengthened by France’s decision to close its borders following the attacks. “President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s idea that we should bring tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees to America, it is nothing less than lunacy,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said on Fox News, in one example of the criticism. Sanders has resisted pinning a specific number on the Syrian refugees accepted by the United States. But O’Malley led the charge for the U.S. to admit more Syrian refugees, calling months ago for the United States to accept 65,000 next year. Clinton agreed, matching O’Malley’s figure of 65,000 in an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000, to 65,000, and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in, looking to really emphasize some of those who are most vulnerable,” Clinton said in that appearance. The three Democrats are likely to be pressed on whether they stand by those calls to aid refugees of Syria’s civil war and welcome them into the United States. Complete coverage of terror in Paris


Editor’s Note: Gayle Tzemach Lemmon is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the New York Times best-seller, “Ashley’s War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. Lemmon: Syria is the war that has run out of adjectives. It has finally became too grotesque to ignore The UN Security Council's unanimity breakthrough is months, if not years, too late for the more than a quarter-million dead How do you monitor a skeleton of a city bereft of its citizens, who have been bused out after seeing their homes bombed to pieces by barrel bombs from the Syrian regime and bunker busters from their Russian supporters? And what will be left to watch when – and if – the monitors ever arrive? In the best-case scenario, the United Nations observers in Aleppo may find out. In a rather realistic one, the world will never know. At long last, the United Nations Security Council has been able to agree on something. That something is the monitoring of the evacuation of the children and parents, men and women left alive in Aleppo, after the siege of their city – starved on the ground, bombed from the sky and sealed in without any refuge or non-lethal path to escape – grew inhuman enough to prick the world’s conscience and puncture its longstanding indifference to Syria’s carnage. The YouTube war finally became too grotesque to ignore. An overnight crisis, years in the making, finally grew impossible to overlook. The UN resolution called for “adequate, neutral monitoring and direct observation on evacuations” and demanded that all sides provide the monitors “with safe, immediate and unimpeded access.” Related article Help Syrians survive the conflict But in reality, the French-backed resolution that finally won Russian and Chinese support says that those observers can only enter after they consult with “interested parties,” a verbal umbrella which is likely to include a bevy of forces backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, from Iran to Russia. By the time these neutral observers do make it in, eastern Aleppo likely will be cleared of the parents who called the city home and found themselves forced to flee when they could no longer send their children to play on their own streets or attend the city’s schools. Starved into submission, stripped of medical supplies in hospitals left without power, anesthesia and, increasingly, doctors, who could survive the bombardment of the Syrian regime and its Russian air supporters? They could bear no more. Who could? An over night crisis, years in the making, finally grew impossible to overlook. Gayle Tzemach Lemmon Even the remains of the fractured international community couldn’t take its impotence being called so painfully and embarrassingly to account by the images coming out of Aleppo. How many pictures of grieving parents reaching toward the sky and dust-covered babies bombed to the ground could the world stomach? Words long ago failed to describe its depravity – or to rouse the international community to do anything other than look away and wait for it to end. Related article What is Aleppo? Now we know UN officials themselves have called out their institution’s ineffectiveness in the face of Aleppo’s brutality. “Since September, the Security Council has failed to adopt three resolutions that could have enabled a humanitarian truce, evacuation of civilians and the entry of lifesaving aid,” said Ban Ki-moon, who just stepped down from the UN helm. A UN release noted that on “8 October, Russia vetoed a resolution that would have called for an end to military flights over Aleppo; and on 5 December, a measure calling for a seven-day ceasefire in the beleaguered city failed to pass after negative votes by both China and Russia. In all, Russia has vetoed six texts on the Syrian conflict, while China has vetoed five of those six.” As he took leave of UN leadership last week, Ban said that “Aleppo is now a synonym for hell.” We have collectively failed the people of Syria Mr Ban Ki-Moon He also noted: “We have collectively failed the people of Syria.” He is right on both counts. The question is whether his successor, Antonio Guterres, can do any better, given that the Syrian regime, along with Russia and Iran, have now shifted facts on the ground dramatically in their favor. Related article UN approves Portugal's Antonio Guterres as next secretary-general And now, with Aleppo’s fall, they have successfully implemented their starve-versus-surrender strategy in Syria’s major cities. Years ago, as the head of the UN’s Refugee Agency, Guterres said he had run out of descriptors for Syria’s civil war. Today he is the head of the United Nations, facing the task of implementing this latest resolution. The UN Security Council’s unanimity breakthrough is months, if not years, too late for this resolution to make a difference for the 4 million made refugees, the more than a quarter-million dead and the millions displaced inside the country, who have absolutely no place safe to turn and no place outside the nation’s borders eager to offer them safety. Syrian activists and those inside the Obama administration who favored greater intervention in the conflict both tell me they fear the fate of those fleeing Aleppo to the town of Idlib, which is likely to be next in Assad’s crosshairs. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook And they wonder how it took this much death to finally see Syria seize the global stage? “I never thought we would be forced to leave our homes,” Khokoud Helmi, a founder of the Syrian underground newspaper Enab Baladi, told me. “Shall we have lost all these lives to finally have people standing with us? It is too late, dear, but late is better than never.”


Here’s what you might have missed on CNN today: – FBI Director James Comey testified before a House committee, where he confirmed the agency is probing a possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, and said there is no evidence of the President’s wiretap claims. – But when Press Secretary Sean Spicer took the podium today, he said the White House won’t back off on the wiretap claims. In regards to Russia ties, watch Spicer say that Paul Manafort had a “very limited” role in Trump’s campaign. (FYI: Manafort was at one point the campaign chairman.) – The official POTUS account tweeted another theory. – Judge Neil Gorsuch faced the Senate for his Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearing. If confirmed, Gorsuch will break precedent. – You can read CNN’s analysis from Comey’s testimony and Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing here. – While Trump’s position may not have changed on the wiretap claim, it has changed in one place: The Forbes Billionaires List. – In non-politics news, we can finally call off the search for Tom Brady’s Super Bowl jerseys. The jerseys were recovered in Mexico. – And here’s how the 1% are preparing for the apocalypse.


For President Donald Trump’s ever-evolving communications staff, the fickle force that drives their days often appears in a tweet. The subject matter might be difficult to predict, but the means by which it arrives can feel as certain as the very early rising sun. On Thursday, the President rose to criticize Congress, tout the stock market, deny he called the White House “a dump,” complain about Russia relations and promise a surprise in West Virginia. It was, in context, a calm morning. Confronted with more roiling declarations during past briefings, former press secretary Sean Spicer offered, over and again, his now famous dodge: “The president’s tweet speaks for itself.” The phrasing might have varied, but the structure never wavered. Confronted with Trump’s March 4 claim that President Barack Obama “tapped” Trump Tower before the 2016 election, Spicer effectively forfeited the point, saying, “I’m just going to let the tweet speak for itself.” When Trump doubled down, Spicer, in his own way, followed suit. “I think the president’s tweets stand for themselves,” he said. The most consequential and instructive phrases in political life are rarely the product of focus groups or high-level strategic skull sessions. Many are forged in the moment, products of necessity – to drive home a crucial message or beat back an existential threat. The Trump administration is still young. We don’t yet know which words will define it because we don’t know how these stories end. What’s clear so far, though, is that this White House, for all the bluster, can be as interesting for what it does say as what it holds back. “People use bureaucratic language to hide what is going on and sort of downplay things,” said Dr. Jennifer Mercieca, an expert on political discourse at Texas A&M University. “It’s representative of what happened and so something like ‘the tweet speaks for itself’ is synecdochal. It’s the part that stands for the whole, meaning in this case that the White House communications staff doesn’t speak for the White House – Twitter speaks for the White House. Trump’s Twitter speaks for Trump.” The Nixon administration knew a thing or two about a president whose words needed parsing. Soon after five men, including one with ties to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, were arrested inside Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex in June 1972, White House press secretary Ron Ziegler dismissed their actions, and the story, as a “third-rate burglary.” A little more than two years later, the full breadth of the plot revealed, Nixon resigned. Ziegler’s comments to the press, as he sought to parry damaging revelations along the way, are now part of the canon of political dissembling. As the walls closed in on Nixon, language did the same to the President’s chief spokesman. A year before Nixon left office, and just after he first suggested that White House officials might have played a role, Ziegler offered his most tortured pivot. ”The President refers to the fact that there is new material,” he said of Nixon’s reversal, “therefore, this is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.” Asked in 1973, following the resignations of top White House officials, if he owed the Washington Post an apology for denying, and often smearing, their reports and reporters, Ziegler strained and waffled. “I think we would all have to say, and I would be, I think, remiss if I did not say, that mistakes were made during this period in terms of comments that were made,” he replied. “Perhaps.” Ziegler was duly honored for this contortion, in 1974, by The Committee on Public Doublespeak at its first “Doublespeak Awards.” Now, more than four decades on, Ziegler’s prolific catalog of lies, half-truths and deflections remain a seemingly unconquerable standard. (At least among political communications professionals.) He was, in a sense, the perfect press secretary for Richard Nixon. Sloganeering is a fundamental political practice. Many candidates and parties drill down on their priorities, hoping to mine a deliverable message to the voting public. This can be a trying and expensive process, often costing millions in consultants’ fees. But not always. Some, like Trump, give their message a whirl on Twitter, slap it on a hat and ride the wave. And then there are cases like former President Jimmy Carter’s. “Sometimes phrases are created inadvertently,” said Tim Naftali, a CNN presidential historian who teaches at NYU. “For example, I don’t believe that Jimmy Carter really thought to have a speech known as the “malaise speech.” Indeed, Carter never used the word, even as he lamented “a crisis of confidence … that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” “Now, to people of a certain generation, if you use the word malaise, they’ll start talking about Jimmy Carter and his ugly sweater,” Naftali said. “So you have these successful efforts to create a catch phrase and these unintended and therefore unsuccessful efforts.” Carter might have misplayed his politics, but he was acting under immense pressure. In his case, it was an energy crisis. The most enduring flubs are typically spoken under the klieg lights, when a politician (or spokesperson) gets caught between the facts and their past statements. Few have blundered more jarringly than President Bill Clinton, as he gave testimony to a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal. Asked whether his lawyer had lied on his behalf in denying outright any sexual relationship between the president and the intern, Clinton jumped down a legalistic rabbit hole. “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” he replied, attempting to confuse a blunt truth with eye-rolling pedantry. The sentence stuck because, as Mercieca explained, it became “the part that stands for the whole.” On this issue, Clinton simply could not be trusted. “The phrases that persist or survive … are emblematic of the administration, that gives you a sense of the spirit of the place, of the White House and the President,” Naftali said. “That’s why ‘The Buck Stops Here’ is remembered. Yes, it was the phrase on Truman’s desk, but if Truman wasn’t known for being decisive then no one would have remembered it.” Of all the catchphrases, “mistakes were made” remains the most pervasive. Ziegler, former President Ronald Reagan, and assorted members the George W. Bush administration all either fell back on it, or put its passive powers to active use. Ironically, the theory behind it transcends culture and nationalism. “The Soviet Russian used the passive voice all the time,” Naftali said. “It was a way of protecting yourself. If you use the passive voice, it’s never who’s the actor in the phrase. And more than occasionally, politicians are not profiles in courage. The passive voice is a wonderful refuge for them.” When Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, came under pressure to explain why eight US attorneys had been fired for political reasons, as new documentation then suggested, he reached back for the old chestnut. “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here,” he said. “I accept that responsibility.” (He resigned six months later.) A decade earlier, Reagan too reached for the phrase when he was grappling with the Iran-Contra affair. After first conceding, if hazily, his role in the arms-for-hostages scandal, Reagan in his 1987 “State of the Union” speech offered that “serious mistakes were made.” He then quickly pushed on to a riff about the danger of becoming “so obsessed with failure that we refused to take risks that could further the cause of peace and freedom.” Reagan’s rhetorical efforts in service of winding down the Cold War were more successful. He frequently used a translation of the Russian proverb, “Doveryai no proveryai,” commonly known (and used now by politicians of all stripes) as, “Trust, but verify,” as a means of selling his decisions. The phrase, though old, was resonant because it neatly registered the unique challenges of the moment. “In the context of détente and the end of the Cold War,” Mercieca said, “the question then was how do you learn to trust your enemy, when they’ve been your enemy for 50 years and we know, specifically, we are not supposed to trust them.”


Editor’s Note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Two events this week reflect stunning and unprecedented trend lines in US Middle East policy. First, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley blasted the remarks that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made against the United States last week. And President Donald Trump in Davos praised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and threatened the Palestinians with aid cutoffs – shortly before his formal meeting with Netanyahu. Never has any US administration so purposely or willfully aligned itself with the interests and politics of the Israeli government nor orchestrated a campaign of pressure against an already dysfunctional and directionless Palestine. These policies are largely seen as good politics in “Trumpland” and reflect the President’s preternatural tendency to think about his base and how to preserve it. But they are likely to have significant foreign policy implications. Without some significant course correction, Trump’s pursuit of his ultimate deal is almost certain to turn into the ultimate failure. Still, how much he cares about this issue is arguable, and as long as the politics turn out right – Palestinians taking the hit instead of Israel, particularly in an election year – the Trump administration may not care all that much. Related article Trump has to live with the consequences of his Israel decision Hand in glove: My own prediction at the start of this administration was that it was only a matter of time before Netanyahu and Trump – both with large and brittle egos – would eventually annoy the hell out of one another, most likely on some issue related to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Not only has that not happened, but on most every issue, from Iran to the peace process to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to defending Israel at the United Nations, the Trump administration has sided with Israel. All US administrations argue with Israel about something. At the very least, the Trump administration has managed to keep whatever disagreements exist – and they don’t appear to be major – out of the public space. When Trump remarked on Thursday at Davos that relations have never been stronger, it wasn’t just a throwaway. Trump is the first US President to visit Israel so early in his term; the first sitting President to pray at the Western Wall; the first to declare Jerusalem the  capital of Israel and likely next year the first to open a US embassy in Jerusalem. Blasting Palestinians: I remember former Secretary of State James Baker hammering Palestinians on the way to Madrid in an effort to get them to accept an invitation to come as a non-Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) delegation; and George W. Bush’s refusal to deal with Yasser Arafat unless the Palestinian Authority was reformed and ceased its support for terror and violence. But those paled in comparison with the triple-down pressure campaign the Trump administration has waged against Palestinians. Related video UN refugee agency facing finanical crisis Haley’s speech in New York on Thursday reflects a fundamental deal-breaking bias. Although she appropriately called Abbas out on his intemperate anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitic remarks last week, Haley failed to even mention the fact that Israeli actions and policies had anything to do with the current impasse. The administration is demonstrating an acute sensibility to Israeli interests – and rarely to Palestinian requirements – with threats to close the PLO office in Washington, restricting US assistance to UNRWA, a UN relief fund for Palestinian refugees, unless the PA returns to the negotiating table, and failing to acknowledge Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. These all reflect a campaign of pressure to bring them to heel and impose consequences unless they accept the US view on any number of issues. Trump’s threat at Davos that US money to the Palestinians is “now on the table” and “that money’s not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace,” is virtually unprecedented even in the toughest of previous administrations. Domestic politics as the driver: Pro-Israeli and Anti-Palestinian positions clearly play well with the President’s base. Foreign policy considerations have taken a back seat. The recent visit of Vice President Mike Pence to the Middle East reflected these priorities. The visit achieved almost no concrete foreign policy agenda in Israel, but clearly reflected Pence’s deep Christian faith and pro-Israeli sensibilities, which were bound to play well with millions of Evangelicals. When Palestinians refused to see Pence, Trump had more material to blast them. Indeed, Thursday in Davos, the President criticized Palestinians for disrespecting “our great Vice-President.” All of this plays into one of the key domestic motivators of the President’s foreign policy: the desire to demonstrate, certainly on the Israel issue, that he is the “un-Obama” and that his administration is light-years away from the quarrels and tensions of the Obama-Netanyahu years. Thursday, Trump praised his personal friendship with Netanyahu, something that, had Obama said it, nobody would have believed. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Where is all this going? Given tensions with the Palestinians, one would have to conclude that any hope of a breakthrough in future talks between Israel and the Palestinians would be virtually impossible. The only conceivable logic, apart from domestic politics – and there’s no evidence to support it – is that the Trump administration is showering the Israelis with honey to make it virtually impossible for Netanyahu to say no to the tough decisions the Trump administration will ask him to make when its peace plan is presented. Together, with pressure on the Palestinians from the Saudis – on which the administration is counting but Palestinian officials are denying – Trump may believe that Netanyahu may be persuaded to give something significant. He said as much in Davos, opining that “Israel is going to do something that’s going to be a very good thing.” Maybe. But what is more likely to happen, given what’s been set into motion, is that the Palestinians will reject what Trump puts on the table; Israel will say yes, but no amount of pressure will bring the Palestinians around. Related article For many evangelicals, Jerusalem is about prophecy, not politics To quote my former boss, James Baker, the “dead cat” will be left on the Palestinians’ doorstep, which should play well politically at home, particularly among Republicans. As for the peace process, it will likely remain in limbo – trapped between a two-state solution that’s still too important to abandon on the one hand, but still too difficult to implement on the other.


Corker said Tuesday his committee would hold both open hearings and classified sessions "We are going to systematically walk through the entire Russia issue," he said The influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to launch a new review about Russia’s hacking of the elections, the latest push by a top Republican to explore allegations of improper meddling by the Kremlin – despite President-elect Donald Trump’s own skepticism of the issue. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who heads the panel, told CNN Tuesday his committee would hold open hearings and classified sessions to get to the bottom of Russian involvement. “We are going to systematically walk through the entire Russia issue and fully understand what has transpired,” Corker said Tuesday. Related article Dick Cheney, James Baker back Tillerson's selection It will be the third Senate committee planning to dig into the issue next year, joining the Armed Services Committee led by Arizona Sen. John McCain and the Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr. But these three reviews stop short of a separate standing committee whose sole task is to investigate the matter – similar to the way House Republicans established a panel to review the 2012 Benghazi attacks. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan back the inquiries in the existing committees in Congress, they have resisted calls to establish a new stand-alone panel, something that could grow unwieldy and amount to a political threat to Trump. Corker said there’s no question that Russia meddled into domestic affairs, but said he didn’t know if the hackers intended to sway the election to Trump. “Putin remarkably and disappointingly has ended up being front and center on the world stage,” Corker said. “It’s hard to believe for a country that has so little going for it.” He later reiterated to CNN that he feels it’s an important issue to look into. “Any time we have a country that is trying to discredit our democracy, it’s an important issue for us to pursue,” Corker told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead” later Tuesday. “How deep it goes and whether they actually tried to tip it toward a candidate or not it’s hard for me to discern at present.” Corker’s committee will have a busy January, starting with confirmation hearings for Trump’s choice of secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, the head of oil giant ExxonMobil. Corker, who was a finalist for the secretary of state job and spoke to Trump Monday night, heaped praise on Tillerson, calling him the “very best choice” for Trump because of his “background and experience” in running a major international corporation. “He has an incredible working knowledge of the world,” Corker said. “If you look at these CEOs of these global enterprises, in many ways they are secretaries of state for these companies. He brings a tremendous amount to the table.” Yet Corker also conceded that he had little knowledge of Tillerson’s personal views on Russia, something that has caused concern among several key Republicans who are uneasy about the nominee’s friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I have no idea what his feelings are on Russia,” Corker said, referring specifically to the country’s presence in Ukraine and the Baltics. He also said he had “zero idea” about Tillerson’s views of NATO, an organization that Trump has criticized on the campaign trail. “I’ve never had a single conversation with him on any of those things,” Corker said. Tillerson has come under criticism from Democrats and some Republicans for opposing sanctions on Russia. Corker said that in 2014 as Congress was moving on the issue, he had a conversation with Tillerson about the matter. But he said it “wasn’t a controversial” call and the two mainly discussed how the sanctions would be implemented. “I got to believe that his approach to Russia is not going to be a great variance of what US foreign policy has been for some time,” Corker said. “He is going to be carrying out Trump’s foreign policy. What people will want to know is what direction he will influence” Trump. Corker added: “I gotta believe again when you are putting the secretary of state hat on, it’s different than the CEO of Exxon hat.”


Turkish Foreign Minister says every weapon sent is 'a threat to Turkey' The Obama administration had long supported Kurdish fighters in Syria Turkey has lashed out at Washington’s plan to send arms to Kurdish rebels fighting ISIS in Syria, calling for an end to the US strategy that has long rattled Ankara. The Pentagon announced Tuesday that President Donald Trump had authorized arming the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), green-lighting a US policy that had sat on the backburner for years to avoid confrontation with Turkey, a key NATO ally. It said that the provision of supplies and weapons was aimed at aiding the only group it sees fit enough to retake the Syrian city of Raqqa, the ISIS group’s de facto capital, in the near future. Related article The free-for-all in Syria will make your head spin The YPG is part of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of rebel fighters that Washington considers its main ally in the country. But Ankara sees the YPG as a terrorist organization threatening Turkish sovereignty. A US official said that small arms, machine guns, construction equipment and armored vehicles were among the provisions. “Every weapon that they deliver is a threat to Turkey,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told reporters, according to state-run media Anadolu. He repeated government claims that the YPG was simply a Syrian extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which both Turkey and the US consider a terrorist organization. The PKK has waged an insurgency in southern Turkey since the 1980s. The timing of this announcement, a week before Turkish President Erdogan travels to the US, has raised eyebrows. Government officials had hoped the Trump administration would pull the support that Obama gave the Kurds, so of course, they are expressing outrage. Turkish officials want reassurances from the US that the Kurds will not remain and occupy Raqqa, and that the Arabs within the SDF will lead the actual fight within the city. Some have even called for the Kurds and Arabs in the SDF to be separated.From Erdogan down, there have been numerous statements that the US needs to effectively choose between Turkey and the YPG. It has created tensions between the NATO allies, but underlying everything are political and power deals.One must also bear in mind that both Trump and Erdogan have volatile and unpredictable personalities, and when pushed into a corner or feeling offended, their rhetoric can quickly turn into devastating action.  That will mean more civilians invariably caught in the crossfire and the region even more destabilized. “Weapons given to the YPG end up in the hands of the PKK. The American administration knows well what we think about this,” he said. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said the decision was unacceptable and asked the US to reverse its decision. “If the opposite decision is made, the consequences will bring negative outcomes, not only for Turkey but also for America,” Anadolu quoted him as saying. Ankara has repeatedly warned it will do whatever is necessary to prevent an official Kurdish region developing near its border with Syria, pointing to Iraqi Kurdistan, the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana White tried to allay Turkey’s concerns, saying that the the United States fully supported returning Raqqa to Syrian Arabs, not the Kurds. “We do not envision (that) a long-term YPG presence and governance in the city is acceptable or consistent with the wishes of the local population,” she said. “We want to reassure the people and government of Turkey that the US is committed to preventing additional security risks and protecting our NATO ally.” She added that equipment provided to the SDF would be “limited, mission-specific, and metered out incrementally as objectives are reached.” Defense Secretary James Mattis also tried to calm the storm, saying that the US and Turkey have had open discussions about the issue. “I’m not concerned at all about the NATO alliance and the relations between our nations. It’s not always tidy, but we work out the issues.” A YPG spokesman welcomed what he called a “historical decision” and said it was a symbol of confidence in the rebel group’s abilities. “YPG proved to the whole world, especially to the international coalition forces, that it is the main force fighting against terrorism. Before this decision of the United States, our forces have had deficiencies for a long time.” The Pentagon’s announcement comes just a week before Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s May 16 meeting with Trump at the White House. Erdogan will no doubt push for the US to drop its support for the YPG. Related video US troops patrol Syria's border with Turkey. It also comes as the Trump administration mulls sending up to 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan, continuing a 15-year war that has frustrated some Americans tiring of US involvement in Middle Eastern and South Asian conflicts. Washington’s support for the YPG began under the Obama administration and has driven a wedge between the US and Turkey, which often coordinate their military actions in Syria. The US sees the 50,000-strong SDF as the most effective force fighting ISIS in Syria and has armed the non-Kurdish Arab elements of that group for some time. Syrian Kurds make up slightly more than half of the SDF, according to the US military. But arming the Kurds’ Arab allies was widely seen as a way for the Obama administration to indirectly, or quietly, arm Kurdish elements as well without upsetting Turkey. Related article Putin: Russia, Turkey support Syria 'de-escalation zones' Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Nurettin Canikli earlier criticized the US announcement to arm the YPG as a mere continuation of Obama’s strategy. “We believe, we hope, that the American administration will say no to this wrongdoing and give up this policy. This policy will not bring any benefit to anybody,” Canikli told Turkey’s A Haber news channel. “You can not be in the same sack with terror organizations.” Tensions between the two countries over Kurdish forces have flared several times over the years, most recently in April, when Turkish airstrikes killed at least 25 members of the YPG and the Kurdish Peshmerga. The US responded to this strikes by carrying out joint patrols with the YPG, at the strike area on the Syria-Turkey border. Turkish officials said they were “upset” seeing US flags flying with the YPG’s at its doorstep.


Clinton was pictured with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning The Army said the training slide was not approved by the unit's leaders The US Army said Wednesday it was a mistake for a local unit to identify Hillary Clinton as a potential threat during a training presentation and has halted the practice. A slide from the presentation, which was widely circulated online this week after it was posted on a Facebook group page, showed the former secretary of state beneath photos of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Gen. David Petraeus and Nidal Hassan under the headline: “Who is the threat? Insiders.” “We have confirmed that the slide was developed 18 months ago and used locally as a part of a training presentation on best practices for handling classified material and maintaining operational security,” the US Army Training and Doctrine Command said in a statement. “As is common with Army training requirements, the local unit was given latitude to develop their own training products to accomplish the overall training objective.” “This particular presentation had not been reviewed or approved by the unit’s leadership, and does not reflect the position of the Army,” the statement continued. “The training presentation has since been removed.” The slide was used at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, according to reports. Clinton’s inclusion would appear to be inspired by her use of a private email server during her four years at the State Department. While FBI Director James Comey said in July that Clinton’s actions were “extremely careless,” he recommended that no criminal charges be brought against her and none were. The slide identified a handful of “careless or disgruntled employees” as examples of an insider “threat.” Manning, a former Army private, is serving a 35-year prison sentence for providing classified documents to Wikileaks, while Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, fled to Russia after leaking top secret documents in 2013. Hassan, a US Army major, was responsible for the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 people dead. Petraeus, the former Army general and CIA director, pleaded guilty last year to mishandling classified information. He was sentenced to two years probation and fined $100,000. The slide also included a photo of Aaron Alexis, the gunman behind the 2013 Washington Navy Yard shooting that killed 12 people. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Americans face surprise attack Five Al-Shabaab militants killed U.S. Special Operations called in an airstrike on Al-Shabaab militants in Somalia Thursday when a mission to help Ugandan forces the American troops were accompanying turned into an unexpected battle. The incident occurred west of Mogadishu, according to U.S. military officials familiar with reports from the scene. No U.S. troops were wounded in what quickly turned into a firefight between Ugandan forces and Al-Shabaab militants. Initial reports from the field, details of which were shared with CNN, suggested the U.S. special forces were involved in the firefight. But military officials said later Thursday that further information made clear the U.S. troops weren’t involved in the firefight. Ugandan troops, who are in the country as part of African forces backing the Somali government, had been called in to clear an illegal checkpoint being run by Al-Shabaab, the al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia. The Ugandans came under fire from an estimated 20 militants, the officials said. When the Ugandans were unable to completely suppress the Al-Shabaab fire, the U.S. “advise and assist” team, which was in a concealed position nearby, called in an airstrike on the checkpoint. The U.S. forces stayed in concealed positions and didn’t fire their weapons. The Ugandans engaged the militants in a firefight. Five militants were believed killed by the U.S. airstrike, the officials said. The U.S. maintains a force of about 50 troops in Somalia to advise and assist both Somali and other African forces operating in Somalia. They are not expected to be in combat but are prepared if they come under fire, one of the officials said. Helicopters, drones and manned aircraft are available for quick reaction airstrikes, the official noted. Correction: This story and headline have been updated to reflect that U.S. forces did not come under fire or fire on the militants, based on more recent information provided by military sources.


Democratic lawmakers fervently renewed their calls for congressional approval of military force following President Donald Trump’s Friday night announcement of US precision strikes against Syria. “The President must come to Congress and secure an Authorization for Use of Military Force by proposing a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives that keep our military safe and avoid collateral damage to innocent civilians,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a statement Friday night. The US’ joint military action with France and the UK came as a response to a chemical weapons attack against civilians by Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. As questions swirled this week around how Trump would respond to the attack, so did continued uncertainty about updates to Congress’ Authorizations for Use of Military Force. The 1973 War Powers Act requires the President to receive congressional approval for any hostilities lasting longer than 60 days. Every administration since, however, has argued that portions of the law are unconstitutional. Vice President Mike Pence spoke with Pelosi, as well as House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, to notify them of the President’s announcement of Syria strikes in the half-hour before Trump’s speech, according to the vice president’s spokesman Jarrod Agen. Several other members of Congress echoed Pelosi’s statement calling out Trump for not going to Congress to seek approval. Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said: “These offensive strikes against Syria are unconstitutional, illegal, and reckless. The next speaker of the House must reclaim congressional war powers as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. @SpeakerRyan has completely abdicated one of his most important responsibilities.” These offensive strikes against Syria are unconstitutional, illegal, and reckless. The next speaker of the House must reclaim congressional war powers as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. @SpeakerRyan has completely abdicated one of his most important responsibilities. Earlier this week, Ryan had downplayed the need for Trump to seek additional congressional approval, arguing that the President had the authority to approve an attack under the current Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in 2002 and used as a basis for military action in the broader US fight against terrorism in the years since. “Well, he has the authority under the existing AUMF,” Ryan said Thursday, adding later, “With respect to the authorities, the existing AUMF … gives him the authority to do what he needs to do, what he may or may not do.” Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, referred to Trump as “unhinged” in a tweet, while also directing him to go to Congress. “We cannot allow #Syria’s use of chemical weapons. We also cannot allow an unhinged (or hinged) President to unilaterally take America to war. We can stop both. Go to Congress, @realDonaldTrump. Tell us length of time, # of troops, and terrain covered. Americans deserve a voice,” Swalwell said. Other members of Congress have argued that military action against the Assad regime should not be covered by the 2002 authorization. “The Administration should seek an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) by Congress if it wants to continue to military actions against Syrian forces - the same way President Obama sought authorization in 2013 in a similar circumstance involving Syria,” Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, tweeted. The Administration should seek an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) by Congress if it wants to continue to military actions against Syrian forces - the same way President Obama sought authorization in 2013 in a similar circumstance involving Syria. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, went as far as to say Trump’s actions were “illegal.” Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Syria without Congress’s approval is illegal. We need to stop giving presidents a blank check to wage war. Today it’s Syria, but what’s going to stop him from bombing Iran or North Korea next? “Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Syria without Congress’s approval is illegal. We need to stop giving presidents a blank check to wage war. Today it’s Syria, but what’s going to stop him from bombing Iran or North Korea next?” Kaine said in a tweet. CNN’s Daniella Diaz, Jeremy Diamond, Jeremy Herb, David Wright and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump's military strikes against Syria


Mattis met with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and Defense Minister Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah Trump said earlier this month he was willing to act as a mediator to resolve the months-long dispute between Qatar and its gulf neighbors Secretary of Defense James Mattis made an unannounced visit to Qatar on Thursday and met with the nation’s Emir and Defense minister. Mattis sat down with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and Defense Minister Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah at the Al Udeid Air Base. Mattis and Al Attiyah were seated next to each other and exchanged pleasantries before reporters were ushered out of the room. Mattis’ visit comes after President Donald Trump said earlier this month he was willing to act as a mediator to resolve the months-long dispute between Qatar and its gulf neighbors. The dispute is still ongoing three months after Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain cut off diplomatic ties with Qatar and initiated an economic boycott, citing Qatari funding of terrorist groups and, later, its increasingly close relationship with Iran. Related article Trump willing to play mediator in ongoing Gulf dispute The spat has simmered even amid the efforts of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has tried to bridge the divide between the Gulf nations and expressed frustrations about the lack of movement. In the speech earlier this month, Trump opted instead for a thinly veiled warning that did not mention Qatar by name, but made clear the US will not tolerate ongoing financing of terrorist groups by Doha. In June, Trump called on Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to ostracize their neighbor, even as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. “We had a decision to make,” Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. “Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism.”


Hug your computer tight, because it survived a huge cyerbattack over the weekend. Here are the 5 things you need to know to Get Up to Speed and Out the Door. You can also get “5 Things You Need to Know Today” delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up here. A massive cyberattack has hit more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, spreading a virus that has crippled the systems of banks, hospitals and other institutions around the world. Yes, it’s that serious, and experts expect more damage when people fire up their computers for the work week. In plain terms, a group of unknown hackers launched a ransomware virus known as “WannaCry.” The virus locks a computer’s information until the victim pays a certain amount of money (hence the “ransom” in ransomware). The virus exploits a weakness in computers with Microsoft Windows and is primarily targeted at businesses, where a network of connected computers can all be taken down in one fell swoop. Still, if you’re a Windows user, it’s probably best to make sure your version of Windows is updated and, as always, avoid clicking on any suspicious links. The aftershocks of FBI director James Comey’s firing continues to rattle the Beltway crowd. Yesterday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told CNN the country’s institutions ”are under assault both externally… and internally.” That’s a fairly serious rebuke from on high. Meanwhile, there are still some big, FBI director-sized shoes to fill. At least eight candidates filed into the Justice Department hoping to replace James Comey. President Trump has said he wants a new director in place as soon as possible. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says the Senate should refuse to confirm anyone until a special counsel is appointed to look into the Russia-Trump campaign allegations. Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: North Korea has tested another missile. This one, state media said, is capable of carrying a large nuclear warhead and could reach the “US mainland and Pacific operations.” While the test yesterday was an obvious provocation for the US, it also embarrassed China, a North Korean ally, at a delicate diplomatic time. At the time of the test, China was opening the Belt and Road Forum, a major international trade conference. Also in attendance? Russian President Vladimir Putin, who surely was not pleased with a North Korean missile being tested so close to his country. The party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel got a boost during a local election over the weekend. Her Christian Democratic Union won the vote in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The victory was an upset, because the region is the home of the Social Democratic Party’s leader. Why do we care? The election is one of several precursors to the national federal election in September. That’s when Germans will elect members of the Bundestag, which is kind of like the US House of Representatives. Last year, Merkel announced she would be running for a fourth term as Chancellor. Three people have died from an Ebola outbreak in a remote northern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. If you’ll recall, an outbreak of the virus ravaged West Africa in 2014, claiming more than 11,000 lives. So far, officials don’t know the scope of this new outbreak, so it’s too early to issue travel restrictions or other warnings. People are talking about these. Read up. Join in. Emmy Award-winning actor Powers Boothe has died The “Deadwood” and “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D” star was 68. A study says cotton swabs send dozens of kids to the ER every day Oh, hello health anxiety! ‘Emma’ and ‘Noah’ top the list of 2016’s most popular baby names Say a prayer for their preschool teachers in a few years. Vladimir Putin performs an unexpected piano recital in China What a Renaissance man. Big candy companies are pledging to cut portions and calories Frankly, it’s easier to stress eat the small ones. Challenge accepted. Do you ever feel like an extremely tiny horse chasing an extremely big ball? It’s equal parts frustrating and cute. (Click to view)


Editor’s Note: Leslie Vinjamuri is an associate fellow at Chatham House, where she serves on the US and the Americas Programme and on the council of Chatham House. She is also Associate Professor in International Relations at SOAS, University of London The opinions in this article are those of the author. Vinjamuri: The consequences of such an obvious failure so early in Trump's presidency are likely to be considerable The recent botched raid on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen is emblematic of Trump’s governance style: bold, impulsive, and with a very certain disregard for consequences. Nobody is yet sure whether this is by design or not. For some, Trump’s policies are best explained by a version of chaos theory, largely attributed to the work of chief political strategist, Stephen Bannon. The first weeks’ policies seek to create as much chaos as possible, provoke a liberal backlash that discredits its participants and (so the theory goes) fully consolidate the support of Trump’s base. For others, the first two weeks have been trial by fire, reflecting an untamed narcissistic desire to generate attention and affirmation, and made possible by creating an inner circle that has seemingly removed apolitical expert oversight. Related article Yemen requests no US ground missions without approval after raid Regardless which of these explanations hold, the raid surely will reignite an alarm bell about America’s commitment to protecting civilian lives, incite allegations of hypocrisy (since America regularly criticizes the nearby regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for its attacks on civilians) and contribute to a new wave of anti-American sentiment. Some of this could create a direct threat to America’s security by fueling terrorist recruitment. It is also likely to hinder the ability of the US to achieve its strategic objectives in the region. Within days of taking office, Trump had agreed to the Yemen raid. Even after a very thorough vetting, Obama had deferred a similar raid. Trump’s decision on the raid came the day before he announced an executive order banning immigrants and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries and just days before his dramatic reorganization of the National Security Council, which saw Stephen Bannon appointed to the Principals Committee and both the Director of National Intelligence and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman removed as regular participants. Taken together, the travel ban – which indiscriminately blocked Yemen’s Muslims access to America – and the death of numerous civilians caught in the crossfire of the January 29 raid, have created the perception that America cares little about the impact of its policies on Muslims in the region. Related article SEAL Team 6 raid in Yemen raises questions But at a time when the US has made eradicating radical Islamic terrorism its No. 1 priority, the consequences of such an obvious failure so early in Trump’s presidency are likely to be considerable, raising fundamental questions about America’s role in the Middle East. This will be compounded by a growing sense that President Trump’s perceived plans for the region – he seeks to close America’s borders to Muslims, turn a blind eye to Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, partner with Russia (and Assad) to end the war in Syria, and walk away from the Iran deal – mean that those with the strongest incentive to work with him are driven by a desire to evade scrutiny. Neither of America’s battles in Yemen appear to have increased its popularity with Yemenis. US support of the Saudi-led effort to support and secure the government against Iran-backed Houthi rebels has meant that, for many, the US is associated with large numbers of civilian deaths. America’s involvement in Yemen taken together with Trump’s travel ban and his tough stance on the Iran deal threaten to make a difficult geopolitical situation even worse. Iran’s ambitions could be stoked rather than tamed by Trump’s rhetoric. At the same time, Yemen is necessarily recalibrating its position and may further restrict America’s access. And the light that has been shed on the civilian casualties associated with the raid could spill over to America’s broader engagement in Yemen. In this case, Trump’s impulsive decision to raid Yemen may leave him more alienated from both Iran and Saudi Arabia by default rather than as the result of a carefully crafted political strategy. Absent a rapid recalculation, the utility of engaging with America may quickly come to be seen as overvalued by many in the region. Worse, the United States may see a series of steps taken that will impede progress on a range of policy goals. Already, reports suggest that Yemen has withdrawn its permission for US anti-terror ground missions. Both Iran and Iraq announced they would respond in kind by banning American citizens so long as Trump’s ban was in place. And Iran has said it will stop using the American dollar. Related article Al Qaeda leader mocks Trump after Yemen raid These may seem like minor steps now, but if not skillfully managed, Trump’s follies could lead to a serious backlash against American power. More worrying, is the prospect that a haphazard approach to the region revitalizes anti-American sentiment and America, once again, becomes mired in the region’s politics. Already, a report by Crisis Group suggests that the botched raid has aided al Qaeda in its recruitment of new members. This will mean that the bandwidth for thinking carefully about the most important strategic relationship of the century – China, and more broadly with Asia – is once again relegated to the back of the queue, leaving plenty of space for impulsive and reactive policies to dominate.


The United States has a list of 59 designated terror groups The five making headlines this month are based in Africa and the Middle East The terror groups are getting more ruthless, their attacks more brazen. Every few weeks, right when one extremist group is dominating the news with threats of attacks, along resurfaces another with a different, more harrowing claim. Over the weekend, Al- Shabaab released a video urging its sympathizers to attack malls in the United States, UK and Canada. The same day,  ISIS had  one showing its members parading caged captives down the streets of Iraq, the latest in its string of atrocious videos. Then there’s the ever-present threat of al Qaeda, the brutality of the Boko Haram and the looming Taliban. The United States has a list of 59 designated terror groups, but here are the five that have been making news this month. What is it?: A Somali-based terror group with links to al Qaeda. Related video Terror group threatens malls What does it want?: It started off with a goal of turning Somalia into a fundamentalist Islamic state governed under Sharia law. It has since expanded  into attacks not just at home, but  in neighboring Kenya and Uganda. What’s being done?: African Union forces comprising Kenyan, Somali and Ugandan troops are battling the militants in their home country.  While the forces have pushed them out of the capital of Mogadishu, the terror group still controls some parts of Somalia and continues its bloody campaign of terror in Kenya and Uganda. Is it a global threat?:  While its attacks have mostly been limited to East Africa, it is getting more ambitious. On Saturday, it posted a video calling on its sympathizers in the West to mimic its attack of a mall in Kenya, a siege that lasted four days and left more than 60 people dead. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said there’s “no credible or specific evidence” suggesting a U.S. mall attack, but he warned Americans to watch out. What is it?:  An extremist group with branches in the Middle East and Africa. What does it want?:  While it has not vocalized its endgame as much, its focus has been targets it considers enemies of Islam or “infidels.” It has attacked Western nations, military facilities, even other Muslim sects it considers too liberal. It was behind the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. that killed nearly 3,000 people and struck fear in the hearts of leaders worldwide. What’s being done about it?: Shortly after the attacks, the U.S. teamed up with other nations to launch a war on terror,  which led to the death of al Qaeda leader  Osama bin Laden. Other nations have been on a campaign to root out any groups with ties to al Qaeda. Is it a global threat?:  Very much so. It has lone-wolf operators worldwide who subscribe to its ideology, but may not have access to a group or command. Most Johnny-come-lately terror groups are also based off of it, and it has carried out suicide attacks in farflung nations such as  Indonesia, the U.S., Kenya  and Iraq.  Its attacks have evolved with security changes, and there’s no telling how or where it will strike next.  Its growing list of admirers include the Al-Shabaab. What is it?: A terror group based in Nigeria. Related video Special forces train Africans to fight Boko Haram What does it want?:  Its aim is to impose a stricter enforcement of Sharia law across Africa’s most populous nation, which is split between a majority Muslim north and a mostly Christian south. In recent years, its attacks have intensified in defiance of the nation’s military onslaught. Its ambitions appear to have expanded to the destruction of the Nigerian government. It has been on a campaign of kidnappings and mass killings in the nation’s north. What’s being done about it?:  Nigerian forces are battling the group with the help of neighboring nations such as Cameroon and Chad.  While the U.S. has provided technical and financial support, there has been a reluctance to put boots on the ground unless there’s a direct national security threat to the West. Is it a global threat?:   Boko Haram’s attacks have been limited to West Africa. But the terror group has targeted western facilities such as the U.N. offices in Nigeria. What is it?: A terror group that operates in Syria and Iraq. Related video ISIS: Picking up where al Qaeda left off What does it want?: Its ambitions are lofty, its means of achieving them ruthless.  It started in 2004 as al Qaeda in Iraq, before rebranding as ISIS two years later. It had similarities with al Qaeda: both were radical anti-Western militant groups devoted to establishing an independent Islamic state in the region. But ISIS has proven to be more brutal and more effective at controlling territory it has seized. It declared a “caliphate” spanning Iraq and Syria and asserted that the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is Caliph, the successor to the Prophet Mohammed. It has demanded that all Muslims must offer allegiance to al-Baghdadi. What’s being done about it?: Airstrikes, airstrikes and more airstrikes. Jordan, Egypt and the U.S. are among nations battling the terror group after it released videos showing their citizens’ gruesome killings. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is also fighting back, though his government’s ability to topple ISIS  is questionable. Syria’s economy has been drained by years of civil war and international isolation.  Iraq, on the other hand, is more stable, has more powerful international allies and an effective regional fighting force in the semi-autonomous Kurds. Is it a global threat?:  Yes. Not only does it abduct and behead westerners in the two nations, its popularity is growing and attackers who subscribe to its ideologies have killed people in France and Australia. It’s also luring westerners, creating a potential risk for homegrown terrorists. What is it?: A terror group with branches in the Middle East, and that works closely with al Qaeda. Related video Afghanistan 'ready to cooperate' in Taliban fight What does it want?:  The group ruled Afghanistan until 2001, where it imposed a strict form of Islam law, or sharia. After the 2001 terror attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban.  But they remain a violent, conservative force in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The latter nation’s branch goes by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Analysts say  while it’s closely linked with its namesake in Afghanistan as well as with al Qaeda, its primary target is to overthrow the Pakistani state and the military. Its most notable attack was the shooting of Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai in 2012 as she rode to school in a van. What’s being done about it?:  The Pakistani government has tried to hold peace talks with the Taliban, but they have collapsed. Western officials have accused  the Pakistani intelligence agency of colluding with militant groups, making distrust a major hurdle to effective collaboration. In Afghanistan, the U.S. and NATO have thousands of troops training Afghan security forces on counterterrorism operations. Is it a global threat? Yes. It has attacked a series of western facilities, including a U.S.  military base in Afghanistan and a consulate in Peshawar. CNN’s Greg Botelho and Richard Allen Greene contributed to this report.