About 55,000 people have fled since ISIS seized Ramadi, a United Nations agency said Forces loyal to the Iraqi military are awaiting orders to attack the city, two officials from a nearby town say Ramadi, capital of the Anbar province, fell to ISIS last week Close to 55,000 people have fled Ramadi since ISIS captured the city, a United Nations agency said, with most of the displaced persons heading to Baghdad. Meanwhile, forces loyal to the Iraqi government are awaiting orders to attack Ramadi, two officials from Khalidiyah, a city 25 kilometers (16 miles) to the east of Ramadi, told CNN. ISIS fighters swept into Ramadi on May 17, tightening control of the Anbar province and gaining a base of operations 70 miles away from Baghdad. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter publicly criticized the Iraqi army, saying it lacked the will to fight. As always happens when ISIS takes a city, thousands of civilians fled. The United Nations Population Fund said close to 55,000 left Ramadi after the ISIS takeover and headed east to Baghdad. An estimated 4,000 families, comprising 24,000 individuals, arrived from Khalidiyah on Saturday and another 3,000-5,000 families are expected to arrive in coming days, UNFPA said. UNFPA is helping women and girls among the displaced persons by distributing 2,173 dignity kits in the Baghdad area through local partners. The UNFPA website says dignity kits contain hygiene supplies such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, shampoo, soap, sanitary pads and underclothes. UNFPA said 150 dignity kits were sent to the Qurato Camp in the Sulimaniyah Governorate and 2,800 kits will be sent to to the city of Habbaniyeh in Anbar. UNFPA says it has distributed 66,000 dignity kits since June 2014. Forces loyal to Iraqi government are on the eastern outskirts of Ramadi waiting for orders to advance on the city now under control of ISIS, said two officials from the Khalidiyah council. The order to attack will come from Anbar’s Operation Commander, Major Gen. Qassim al-Mahamadi, the officials said. The officials said the forces consist of a brigade from the Iraqi federal police and a brigade from the quick reaction force backed by Sunni tribal fighters and al-Hashd al-Shaabi, a predominantly Shiite paramilitary force. Meanwhile, one of Iran’s senior military leaders said Obama and the United States have been ineffective in the fight against ISIS, according to Iran’s state news agency IRNA. The head of the elite Quds Force, Soleimani said the United States ”has no will to fight ISIS,” adding America is ”doing nothing” when Ramadi has fallen to ISIS and ”war crimes are taking place.” ”Today, nobody in confronting ISIS properly except Iran, even the countries that Iran is supporting,” he said, apparently a reference to Iraq. CNN’s Hamdi Alkhshali reported from Baghdad. CNN’s Amir Daftari in Abu Dhabi and Mohammed Tawfeeq in Atlanta contributed to this report, which was written by Ralph Ellis in Atlanta.


The anger apparent after sentencing two years ago is not to be seen outside courthouse Indian law allows a maximum of three years in reform homes for juvenile convicts "Crime has won," rape victim's mother says Outside the Delhi High Court on Friday, there were few clues that a momentous decision was underway in India’s watershed gang rape case. Besides a small band of lawyers and journalists, few were present when the court ruled that come Sunday, the youngest of six men who tortured and raped a physiotherapy student on a moving Delhi bus would be a free man. He had participated in the most heinous of acts but because he was just shy of his 18th birthday on the night of the rape, he served only three years in custody, a sentence that many felt amounted to a severe miscarriage of justice. And yet, there were not the thousands of protesters who gathered on the streets of the Indian capital after horrific details of the rape came to light. Nor was there the anger expressed outside this very court in September 2013 at the sentencing of the other convicted rapists. On that hot day, Indians had demanded “fansi,” death by hanging. But in the cool breeze of this December day, the outrage that sprouted from this case seemed a memory. The only expression of disappointment came from the victim’s parents and the lawyers who had fought to defer release. The girl whose rape changed a country The victim’s mother, Asha Singh, had promised her daughter she would fight for her but on Friday, she said she had failed. “Crime has won. We have lost,” Singh said. “Our efforts for three years have failed.” India’s juvenile justice laws were drafted with the best of intentions and aimed at reform for minors. A minor’s maximum punishment is three years in custody. In the aftermath of the gang rape, a bill introduced in parliament sought to amend the law to make exceptions for heinous crimes. But that bill was tabled in the upper house. Indian law enforcement and lawmakers had asked for continued custody of the minor, who has been held at an institution for juvenile reform. But the high court could not find legal ground on which to issue a stay. “The court is no doubt concerned by what has happened and the seriousness of the offense, but the court is also helpless because they have to stay within the confines of the act and the rules and the law,” said Anil Soni, a government lawyer. Three years was a sentence that seemed vastly disproportionate given the heinous nature of the rape. Of the other five rapists, one died in prison and the other four received death sentences. Related video 'Nirbhaya' parents share their memories Their crime was unimaginably brutal. On the night of December 16, 2012,  the victim and a male friend boarded a bus to make their way home from a south Delhi movie theater, not far from the high court complex. They were attacked by the six men and left on the side of the road to die. The woman was found with her intestines pulled out of her body. She was dubbed “Nirbhaya,” one without fear, as she struggled for survival, first in Delhi and then in a hospital in Singapore. She died of her injuries 13 days later. On Wednesday, people gathered at a third anniversary commemoration in Delhi and listened to Singh name her daughter publicly for the first time – Jyoti Singh. By law, rape victims are not ever named publicly in India. “Why should I hide her name? Why should I be ashamed of it?” Asha Singh said. “Those who committed that heinous crime on her should feel ashamed. The makers of this administrative system should feel ashamed.” The law states that Jyoti Singh’s under-18 rapist also cannot be named. He came to be known in the Indian media simply as “the juvenile.” The crime galvanized Indians to take to the streets. They demanded an end to violence against women and as well as legal and societal changes. And though the Nirbhaya case is still widely discussed, the fervor has calmed and few changes have materialized. “Public memory is fickle,” said Meenakshi Bhanja, 35, a Delhi-based journalist who was outside the Delhi court Friday. “Has anything changed in India? I am sorry to say, ‘no,’” she said. “Outrage over an incident doesn’t change the DNA of the society. That was also the sentiment of three young women, all law students who are interning at the high court. “Our legal system should be strong enough to make us all feel safe,” said Dolly Kaushik, 22. “Nothing has changed in India.” Related video 'Nirbhaya' opens dialogue on rape Her friend Kritika Dua, 22, said India has the laws in the books, but she blamed the police and the judiciary for failing to implement them. Kaushik blamed all of Indian society. “Even we are at fault,” she said. “The mindset has to change. How can anyone say that the answer to the problem is that girls should not go out.” She was referring to Indian politicians who, in the aftermath of Jyoti Singh’s rape, suggested that she had perhaps asked for it by going out at night. “In our country, fathers rape their daughters,” Kaushik said. “Most rape cases happen in the house.” Monika Khatri, another 22-year-old law student who wants to become a judge, said a young man who rapes a woman so violently that she dies from her injuries should serve many years behind bars, no matter his age. Justice, she said, had eluded Nirbhaya.


Trump's campaign is highlighting Clinton's State Department work related to Russia The Trump campaign points to several links between Clinton or her associates and Russia Donald Trump is pushing back against reports about his campaign chairman’s links to a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine by claiming Hillary Clinton also has ties to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. Trump’s campaign is highlighting a series of connections between Russia and Clinton’s State Department activities, her top campaign allies and her family’s foundation. “Clinton’s close ties to Putin deserve scrutiny,” the campaign said in the headline of a news release this week. What Trump’s campaign omitted: Many of its allegations were incomplete – inaccurately citing government reports and comments and ignoring that many of Clinton’s efforts came as part of the Obama administration’s broader efforts to improve ties with Russia. More recently, she and the Obama administration have been extremely critical of Putin. And Russian hackers are suspected of leaking internal Democratic National Committee emails. There’s also the reality that Trump himself has repeatedly insisted on the campaign trail that Clinton does not, in fact, have close ties to Putin. “You know she hates Putin and Putin hates her. Right? That’s what I hear,” he said in Green Bay, Wisconsin, this month. “She has terrible relationships with Putin,” Trump said three days earlier, in Ashburn, Virginia. The move to accuse Clinton of being too cozy with Russia came after Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was named in an investigation by Ukrainian authorities looking at whether he and others received millions in illegal payments from Ukraine’s former pro-Russian ruling party, according to the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau. On Wednesday, Trump layered over Manafort, adding a new campaign manager as well as Steve Bannon – the far-right Breitbart News executive who co-wrote the “Clinton Cash” documentary based on Peter Schweizer’s book of the same name – in a campaign shake-up. The Trump campaign points to several links between Clinton or her associates and Russia, though it offers no proof that the actions she took were motivated by donations made to the Clinton Foundation. “Donald Trump continues to push pro-Putin policies and is trying to deflect from the bombshell news about troubling connections between his team and pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine by hurling false attacks from the author of the widely-debunked book ‘Clinton Cash,’” Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said in an email. “We have called on Trump to disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort’s and all other campaign employees’ and advisers’ ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump’s employees or advisers are currently representing and or being paid by them,” he said. “That call still stands.” Here’s a look at the claims Trump’s campaign made: The claim: “Clinton sold out American military technology to Putin as secretary of state in exchange for Russian money for her foundation.” What we know: In an op-ed published in July by The Wall Street Journal, Schweizer scrutinized Clinton’s efforts to aide a Silicon Valley-style tech city in Russia called Skolkovo. He argued that Skolkovo was a thinly-veiled effort to help Russia obtain American companies’ secrets – but appears to have incorrectly characterized an Army report and an FBI op-ed in drawing that conclusion. As part of the Obama administration’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia, Clinton attracted major US companies to Skolkovo. But defense- and weapons-related activities have been among those tech initiatives, Schweizer wrote, citing research that he attributed to the US Army Foreign Military Studies Program – even though the article he cited specifically stated its conclusions were the view of the author and not the US military. The FBI’s Boston office in 2014 issued a warning to the area’s businesses through an op-ed in the Boston Business Journal written by Lucia Ziobro, assistant special agent at the FBI’s Boston’s office. “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies,” the op-ed said. However, Ziobro later told The Boston Globe there was no evidence this had occurred – pointing to concern that had resulted from Chinese firms’ theft of US companies’ intellectual property. It wasn’t just Clinton who supported the Skolkovo effort. Condoleezza Rice, who was secretary of state under President George W. Bush, took her Stanford University students there in 2011. Many high-ranking figures in companies tied to Skolkovo have also donated to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer cited Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of Skolkovo’s nuclear research arm, who donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the foundation. The claim: “Clinton’s campaign chairman sat on the board of a Skolkovo-based company that received millions from a Putin-connected investment fund.” What we know: Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, was a member of the board of Skolkovo-based energy company Joule Unlimited – which got an investment of $35 million from Rusnano, an investment firm founded by Putin, just two months after Podesta joined the board. Podesta’s brother, Tony Podesta, a bundler for Clinton’s presidential campaign, has lobbied for Russia’s Sberbank, which has ties to Putin and his associates, according to the Organized Crime and Reporting Project. Also worth noting: Sberbank was a sponsor of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Trump met with one of the bank’s officials during his trip to Russia for the pageant, the Daily Mail reported. The claim: “Clinton helped push through an agreement giving Russia a controlling stake in a uranium company in exchange for money for the Clinton Foundation.” What we know: Trump’s campaign was highlighting The New York Times’ 2015 reporting on the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company to Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom. The deal underscored the limits of restrictions put in place by the Obama administration to avoid appearances of conflict between the United States and the Clinton Foundation. The sale gave Russians control of one-fifth of the uranium production capacity of the United States. Because of that, the deal needed – and received – the approval of a 14-agency panel called The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes Clinton’s State Department. The State Department and other US agencies accepted a subsequent sale of Uranium One after Clinton left the State Department. But what Trump’s campaign focused on was money that flowed from businessmen involved in the deal to the Clintons and their foundation. As the deal was completed in three transactions from 2009 to 2013, the Canadian chairman of what became Uranium One used his family foundation to pump $2.35 million in donations into the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, was paid $500,000 to deliver a speech to a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, and was connected to the Kremlin.


A petition to pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden got more than 150,000 signatures A top Obama adviser responded to the petition that Snowden should return to the U.S. to face justice The White House rejected a petition to pardon whistleblower Edward Snowden and a top Obama adviser said Snowden should return to the U.S. to face the consequences of his decision to disclose classified information about American intelligence gathering. The statement from the White House was released Tuesday in response to a petition with more than 167,000 signatures asking President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden, who in 2013 leaked documents about the government’s mass surveillance programs to journalists. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers – not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime,” said Lisa Monaco, the President’s adviser on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. “Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.” The White House said if Snowden’s main concern was the nation’s security, there’s a process he should follow. “If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and – importantly – accept the consequences of his actions,” Monaco said. The president has worked with Congress to balance the protection of civil liberties to keep Americans safe, Monaco said. “Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it,” she said.


NEW: OSCE mission chief in Ukraine cites reduction in combat, signs of heavy weapons withdrawal Under a peace deal, both sides must draw back heavy weapons to create a buffer zone A dispute over natural gas supply has flared between Russia and Ukraine A dispute over natural gas supply flared Friday between Russia and Ukraine, even as a ceasefire between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine appeared to be taking hold. Both sides in the conflict have begun withdrawing their heavy weaponry from the front line of the conflict, in line with a peace deal agreed to in Minsk, Belarus, two weeks ago. There has also been a reduction in the fighting between the two sides, although some artillery fire can still be heard. But the ceasefire remains fragile. A spokesman for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko cited him as saying on Twitter: “We starting withdrawing only some of the heavy weaponry. Ukrainian military are ready to return the equipment to the front line any time.” Related video Is Mariupol next target for separatists? The leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, Alexander Zacharchenko, said separatist forces there had withdrawn 90% of their heavy weapons. But he also warned that they reserved the right to return the weapons to the front line if authorities in Kiev did not keep their end of the bargain. A CNN team on the ground saw a small convoy of artillery, flying the yellow-and-blue flag of Ukraine, heading south out of the conflict zone Thursday. The separatists began the withdrawal of heavy weapons a couple of days earlier. Under the terms of the Minsk agreement, the two sides have until Monday to complete the withdrawal and create a buffer zone of at least 50 kilometers (31 miles) for heavy weapons. The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe is tasked with monitoring the ceasefire and the withdrawal. Ukraine’s National Defense and Security Council said Friday that three Ukrainian troops had been killed and seven injured in the past 24 hours in continued clashes. Meanwhile, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak warned that Russian energy giant Gazprom could cut the supply of natural gas to its neighbor in the coming days if payment is not received. Russia’s Tass state news agency said that Gazprom confirmed receiving $15 million Friday in prepayment from Ukraine. But that is enough to pay for only a day’s supply of natural gas, the news agency said. Related video Kremlin critic: Not all Russians support Putin A meeting between the European Union, Russia and Ukraine is due to take place in Brussels, Belgium, on Monday to discuss gas supply to Ukraine. Russia has used gas as a weapon before, cutting off supplies to Ukraine three times in the past decade. A new dispute could affect the rest of Europe. About a third of the European Union’s natural gas comes from Russia, and 15% flows through Ukraine. However, now that the worst of winter is over, the threat of a halt in the supply of gas is less alarming than it was for Ukraine and for the rest of Europe. In any case, Kiev has reserve gas supplies that could be used if the supply from Russia were stopped. Europe also has the option of reverse supply – sending gas back through pipelines into Ukraine. The latest disagreement comes against the backdrop of an EU investigation into Gazprom, which is due to report soon. Europe has accused Gazprom of using its dominant position to manipulate prices and hinder the free flow of gas across the continent. The developing situation in eastern Ukraine was the focus of an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting in New York on Friday. The chief monitor for the OSCE mission to Ukraine, Ertugrul Apakan, reported some progress in implementing the Minsk agreement as he briefed the council, but said much remained to be done. “For the past days, combat operations have been significantly reduced across the conflict zone, although some violence has still occurred around Donetsk airport, as well as close to the town of Mariupol,” he said. “As to the withdrawal of heavy weapons, yesterday our monitors began observing the movement of heavy weapons away from the line of contact on several instances.” However, the OSCE needs more information in order to monitor their withdrawal effectively, he said, including what heavy weapons each side has, where they are now and where they will be taken. There are currently 451 civilian monitors in Ukraine, he said, of whom more than 300 are in the contested Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The mission will need more technological resources, such as drones, in order to cover a huge area of operations extending about 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles), including large stretches of the Russia-Ukraine border, he said. More hubs may also have to be set up for OSCE patrols. Ertugrul also highlighted the plight of more than 1 million people forced from their homes within Ukraine, “some of them living in desperate circumstances.” Related video 'Night Wolves' motorcycle gang: We will die for Putin Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking Friday at his ministry’s Diplomatic Academy, said: “Impartial observers, including the Organization for Co-operation and Security in Europe, have registered a significant reduction in the exchange of fire, so the ceasefire is nonetheless yielding a result.” But he stressed that although some progress has been seen in the withdrawal of heavy weapons, “it is important to consolidate it.” He also warned that Ukraine must keep its nonaligned status “in order to keep the stability in Europe.” Russia is unhappy about what it sees as NATO’s expansion toward its western border. Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Baltic nations bordering Russia belong to the alliance and Georgia also hopes to join. Ukraine and the West accuse Russia of arming and training the separatists, as well as sending Russian troops over the border to fight with them. Russia denies the claims. CNN’s Diana Magnay reported from Donetsk, and Laura Smith-Spark wrote and reported from London. CNN’s Frederik Pleitgen and journalist Victoria Butenko contributed from Kiev. CNN’s Radina Gigova, Nana Karikari-apau and Ivana Kottasova also contributed.


NEW: United States calls for UN Security Council meeting Test comes days after Trump phoned leaders of China and Japan about threat North Korea claims to have conducted its first successful test of a long-range missile that it says can “reach anywhere in the world.” Tuesday morning’s missile test reached a height of 2,802 kilometers (1,741 miles), according to state broadcaster Korea Central Television, which would be the highest altitude a North Korean missile had ever reached. The country claimed it was an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which would put the United States on notice that Pyongyang could potentially hit the US mainland. US military analysts believe it probably was a two-stage ICBM, said a US official with knowledge of the Americans’ analysis. North Korea appears to have timed the launch for maximum political effect, giving the order to fire on the eve of the July Fourth holiday, just days after President Donald Trump spoke with Japanese and Chinese leaders about the North Korean threat and before this week’s G20 meeting. The fear is that North Korea may one day develop the technology to mount a miniature nuclear warhead on a long-range missile, something analysts say it may have already achieved. Trump’s reaction to the launch was scathing. “North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?” Trump asked on Twitter, referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!” North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? Hard to believe that South Korea..... ....and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all! US national security, military and diplomatic officials were holding an unplanned meeting Tuesday to discuss US options if it determines North Korea did test an ICBM, several administration officials said. If it was an ICBM, Trump could approve a “measured response,” one official told CNN. Nothing has been decided, but such a response could include sending additional US military assets to the region and diplomatic efforts such as more sanctions, the official said. What does Trump do now? US military analysts initially thought North Korea launched an intermediate, single-stage missile, the source familiar with the American analysis said. But further examination revealed a second-stage booster may have ignited, producing 30 seconds of additional flight, the source said. President Vladimir Putin said Russia would work with China to resolve the crisis. At a joint news conference Tuesday in Moscow with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Putin said: “It is very important to push forward our joint initiative on settling the Korean problem with a view of immediately freezing the ballistic missile strikes and also dealing with the US deployment of weapons in South Korea.” Russia and China are irked by the deployment of a controversial missile defense system, which they said fuels an arms buildup on the Korean Peninsula. Analysts believe Moscow and Beijing also are motivated by concerns the system’s powerful radar could be used to monitor activity in both Russia and China. Russia threw its support behind a Chinese proposal to de-escalate tensions, which the United States has previously rejected. China, North Korea’s closest ally, urged restraint. “The situation on the Korean Peninsula is sensitive and complex,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Geng Shuang said. “We hope all relevant parties will exercise restraint and avoid taking actions that may escalate tensions.” South Korean President Moon Jae-in warned North Korea not to cross the “bridge of no return” and called on China to play a stronger role in resolving the situation. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told Chinese Ambassador Liu Jieyi, president of the UN Security Council, that she wants an emergency session on North Korea, according to a tweet from Haley spokesman Jonathan Wachtel. The emergency session will convene Wednesday afternoon, Wachtel wrote. UN Secretary-General António Guterres strongly condemned the missile test. “This action is yet another brazen violation of Security Council resolutions and constitutes a dangerous escalation of the situation,” Guterres said through his spokesman Stephane Dujarric. “The DPRK leadership must cease further provocative actions and comply fully with its international obligations.” The launch was North Korea’s 11th missile test this year and comes amid increasing frustration from Trump about the lack of progress in curbing Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. A Japanese defense official said North Korea’s missile, referred to as Hwasong-14 on state TV, flew into waters east of the Korean Peninsula and may have landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline. Related video Why does North Korea hate the US? The US Pacific Command said it tracked the missile for 37 minutes and described it as a “land-based, intermediate range ballistic missile.” Japan reported that its flight time was 40 minutes. It was launched from Panghyon, in North Pyongan province, and traveled more than 930 kilometers (578 miles), according to South Korea’s military – further than a May 14 missile launch that analysts described as North Korea’s most successful test ever.  That launch reached a then-record altitude of around 2,100 kilometers (1,300 miles). South Korea said the missile had an “improved range” compared with the May launch. But one apparently successful test doesn’t necessarily mean that North Korea has the global capability it claimed, said Euan Graham, director of the international security program at Sydney’s Lowy Institute for International Policy. “If the North Koreans are claiming they can launch an ICBM (to) anywhere in the world, that needs to be looked at through a technical lens,” he said. “One successful test doesn’t get them over the bar; they’re claiming more than they can deliver at the moment.” Bruce Bennett, senior international/defense researcher at RAND Corp., said North Korea had aimed high to limit the distance traveled and avoid a major international incident. “You can’t hardly fire a missile from North Korea that’s got a thousand-kilometer range without it going into somebody’s exclusive economic zone. The bottom line is, they’ve flown it very high so that they can test the range of the missile,” Bennett said. “If they were to shoot it on a normal trajectory, it’s probably going to go out 6,000 or so kilometers. By definition, anything over 5,500 kilometers is an ICBM.” Related video How much damage can North Korea's weapons do? Russia, which shares a small border with North Korea, cast doubt on Pyongyang’s assertion that an ICBM was fired. The Russian Defense Ministry said it believed the missile reached an altitude of 535 kilometers (332 miles) and traveled 510 kilometers (317 miles), according to the state-run news agency Sputnik. “The parametric data of the ballistic target’s trajectory matches the performance characteristics of a medium-range ballistic missile,” the ministry said. Melissa Hanham, a senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said an ICBM test would put the United States in a difficult negotiating position. “I think there’s room for negotiation, but it’s not the kind of negotiations we want,” Hanham said. The United States can now only work toward limiting, not eliminating, the North Korean missile threat to the US mainland, she said. CNN’s Paula Hancocks in Seoul, Joshua Berlinger in Hong Kong, Yoko Wakatsuki in Tokyo, Ryan Browne and Barbara Starr in Washington and K.J. Kwon in Atlanta, and journalist Yoonjung Seo in Seoul contributed to this report.


Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is vowing he will “never turn” on his former boss. But that doesn’t mean Bannon, who has returned to his role as Breitbart’s executive chairman, will go easy on President Donald Trump. “We will never turn on him,” Bannon promised in an interview with The Economist published Friday. “But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him.” Bannon rejoined Breitbart the same day he left the White House, having been forced out by the President and his new chief of staff, retired Gen. John Kelly. Bannon has vowed to use the site – which he has termed a “killing machine” – to target his rivals at the White House and continue to keep up pressure on Trump and the White House to make good on Trump’s campaign promises. But Bannon has already made clear that his vow to “never turn” on Trump does not extend to criticism of his policies and decisions. Breitbart has bared its teeth since Bannon returned to the helm, terming the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan a “flip-flop.” It also has run pieces critical of top White House aides, including the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, whom Bannon feuded with. “I am an ideologue, that’s why I am out,” Bannon told The Economist. “I can rally the base, have his back. The harder he pushes, the more we will be there for him.” Some of Bannon’s ideological allies still remain at the White House, including his deputy, Julia Hahn, and the President’s senior policy adviser and top speechwriter, Stephen Miller. Both share much of Bannon’s nationalist ideology and hardline views on trade and immigration. Still, Bannon’s departure from the White House has left an ideological void among the President’s top advisers, giving Kushner and his allies an advantage in influencing the President on policy.


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 on Twitter @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Four Israelis were killed and several wounded in a shooting at a Tel Aviv market on Wednesday Aaron Miller: Israelis and Palestinians will be left to cope with this new normal by themselves The deadly attack in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, which claimed the lives of four Israelis and wounded several others, presages what could be a long hot summer between Israelis and Palestinians. But the challenge goes deeper than just the immediate threat of summer violence. Indeed, a number of factors are emerging to create what could be the new Israeli-Palestinian normal – one in which a highly functional Israeli state interacts with two separate, highly dysfunctional and weak Palestinian polities in the West Bank and Gaza. This new status quo will be marked at times by competition and violence and at others by cooperation and coordination. Sadly, it is a road that at least for now promises not a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to a series of pretty unhappy outcomes. Several new factors define the new normal. First, the attack in Tel Aviv appears to have been intended as a mass casualty assault with firearms, and could signal the beginning of a new trend in Palestinian terror. Of the attacks since September 2015, more than half – 151 – were knifings, according to the Israeli government. There were also 92 attacks using firearms, and 43 using vehicles. Although Hamas praised the attack, it did not claim responsibility. But it many respects that may not matter. The bloodiest terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – the killings in San Bernardino – was inspired but not directed by ISIS. In the Tel Aviv attack, two people identified as Palestinians in their 20s from a village in the southern West Bank opened fire in the Sarona Market. Both Israeli Defense Forces and Shin Bet sources say they are concerned that new terror cells along these lines may be forming in the West Bank to carry out similar attacks. Related article The next war in the Middle East? Second, the recent addition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of Avigdor Liberman as defense minister will create additional pressures on what is now arguably the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. Netanyahu will still make the final decisions, but the motivation to get tougher – particularly in the face of new terror attacks – will inevitably rise. The Israeli response so far has already been tough, but could easily become much harsher. The West Bank has been sealed off for the next several days; 83,000 Ramadan and family visit travel permits have been suspended; and the West Bank city of Yatta has been blocked off. Liberman, meanwhile, will have to balance his own need to be tough (he was a bitter critic of what he believed was the weak response to the Gaza conflict in 2014) with his desire not to overact and make the situation on the ground worse by undermining Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation. Third, the Palestinian Authority has no good options and is drifting. Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has an interest in maintaining security cooperation. But not at the expense being perceived as Israel’s policeman on the West Bank. The harsher Israel’s security measures become the more tenuous his position will become. The truth is, though, his condemnation of the Tel Aviv attack – quite detached and general – will satisfy nobody, particularly compared with Hamas’ praise for the operation. Meanwhile, Abbas’ international campaign to gain recognition for Palestinian statehood has stalled and he is reportedly suspicious about new contacts between Israel and the Arabs states. So reports that he will be meeting with Hamas political leader Khalid Meshaal in Qatar soon do not come as any surprise. Real unity between Fatah and Hamas is magical thinking. But it plays well for Abbas domestically. Related article Clinton-Sanders Israel exchange a real surprise at debate Fourth, the other potential flashpoint, of course, is the possibility of another serious escalation between Israel and Hamas over Gaza. Three such confrontations in the past eight years – 2008/09; 2012; 2014 – do not inspire confidence regarding the various sides’ ability to avoid another. Indeed, Hamas’s dedication to resistance against Israel; a deteriorating economic situation in Gaza; Israel’s blockade of the strip; more Hamas tunneling along the border into Israel; and no prospect of Hamas buying into diplomacy – all make another confrontation seemingly inevitable. Defense Minister Liberman has, for his part, talked tough about destroying Hamas. Yet for now, it’s unclear what benefits a confrontation would have for Israel or Hamas at the moment. Ultimately, the latest incident has taken place against the backdrop of this stark reality – rarely, has there been a period in the past decade or more where the prospects of a credible peace process, let alone a solution, have seemed so gloomy. The Americans are caught up in their election; the French initiative has fizzled in Paris; the Arabs are preoccupied with their own internal problems and with Iran and Sunni jihadis. And while Egypt has flirted with some sort of regional meeting involving Netanyahu and Abbas, it’s hard to see where such a meeting would lead, given the enormous gaps on the big issues between Israelis and Palestinians. With no possibility of a political solution, and with a distracted international community, Israelis and Palestinians will be left to cope with the new normal by themselves. And if history is any guide, the outcome is certain to be an unhappy one. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine. 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 on Twitter @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.


The former president and the billionaire spoke about the 2016 race in May Hillary Clinton was already running for president at the time Bill Clinton called Donald Trump in late May, an aide to the former president confirmed to CNN on Wednesday. The call, the aide said, came after Trump reached out to Clinton “a few times” before the businessman decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton’s wife, was already running for president at the time. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the President’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed,” the aide said, adding that the duo had not talked since the late May conversation. The Washington Post first reported the call, noting – according to Trump allies – that the conversation came while the reality TV star was making his final decisions about a presidential run. Trump’s team declined to comment to CNN. RELATED: Jeb Bush stumbles into debate night The call is the latest chapter in the intriguing relationship between the Clintons and Trump. The Clintons attended Trump’s third wedding in 2005 and the businessman is a donor to the Clinton Foundation. “You know, he has been, believe it or not, uncommonly nice to Hillary and me – he thought Hillary was a good senator for New York after 9/11, and he is actually one of the many Republicans who supported our foundation before they got the memo,” Bill Clinton told Jon Stewart during an interview earlier this year. But now that Trump has decided to run for president, and is leading most recent polls, Hillary Clinton has continually made the boisterous and blunt Republican a target. “It’s shameful,” Clinton said last month of Trump’s criticism of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona over his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. “And so is the fact that it took so long for his fellow Republican candidates to start standing up to him. The sad truth is if you look at many of their policies, it can be hard to tell the difference.” Not one to shy from a flight, Trump has returned fire. “What she did is criminal,” Trump told CNN in July about Clinton’s use of a private email server.


Senate Foreign Relations panel holding Tuesday hearing on Trump's nuclear authority Administration is trying to soothe concerns A decades-old presidential authority to use nuclear weapons is suddenly coming into question as US allies and some lawmakers from both parties want the Trump administration to assure them that President Donald Trump cannot rashly launch a nuclear strike, according to multiple sources. The potential that Trump could use existing law to authorize the deployment of a nuclear weapon on his own is becoming the subject of frequent conversation – and bipartisan anxiety – on Capitol Hill. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker will hold a hearing Tuesday on the authority of the President to maintain sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. It’s a big day on Capitol Hill: Follow along live A NATO partner country raised concerns about the President’s command of the US launch system. A diplomatic source from that country said they were more comfortable following a briefing on the subject. “The more people think about this, the more they realize Donald Trump can start a nuclear war,” Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who sits on the Foreign Relations panel, said in an interview. The administration is trying to soothe concerns by arguing the existing launch process that presidents have operated under for decades has sufficient checks in place that would discourage Trump from taking imprudent action. Trump himself has had multiple briefings on the nuclear launch cycle and more conventional, non-nuclear alternatives. The requests for assurance come as Trump has rattled Washington and other world capitals with heated rhetoric toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Tuesday will mark the first time the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held a hearing on a president’s authority to use nuclear weapons since 1976, according to the panel. Why Trump’s Korean war talk should be taken seriously Corker, who has announced he won’t seek re-election next year and has become a frequent Trump critic, has said he would use his committee chairmanship to keep the President in check. “The committee is going to be very active,” he said in October. “I think it will be very informative to the American people and the rest of the Senate about what powers the President has – should, shouldn’t have, whatever. It’s going to be a very robust period of time.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment on Corker’s decision to hold a hearing on the President’s nuclear authority. The administration’s attempts to assuage the growing concerns underscore the fact that, like his predecessors, Trump has sole authority to decide when and how to use nuclear weapons. If there is a sense that Trump rashly ordered a nuclear launch, multiple sources tell CNN that senior generals would explain the risk of such a move. But that’s not specific to Trump – top military officials would offer advice to any president facing the extraordinary decision of whether to launch a nuclear weapon. What would the military do if Trump gave illegal orders? A central question surrounding the potential of a nuclear launch is whether it would cause undue widespread human suffering when there are other, less dramatic military options. Under US military law, troops are obligated to not obey an unlawful order. If they received such an order, they could resign or force Trump to fire them. The military continues to argue that with the advent of precision weapons such as cruise missiles and heavy bombers, there is less reason to use nuclear weapons. In developing options for North Korea, the Pentagon has a package of what it calls flexible response options, which includes ensuring US aircraft and missile launching ships are always in place if needed. There’s no secret alternative chain of command in place. The military would treat Trump as they would any other president ordering a nuclear strike. To do otherwise would be considered treasonous. During an Oct. 30 Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing, Defense Secretary James Mattis said the launch process is “extremely rigorous.” But he resisted calls for changes. Markey is sponsoring legislation that would require a congressional declaration of war before a president could authorize a first-use nuclear strike. During the Oct. 30 hearing, he pressed Mattis on whether he could contemplate a scenario in which Trump authorized a nuclear strike on a country that didn’t first launch a nuclear attack on the United States. “If we saw they were preparing to do so and it was imminent, I could imagine it,” Mattis said. “It’s not the only tool in the tool kit to try to address something like that. But I believe congressional oversight does not equate to operational control. I think we have to keep trust, keep faith in the system that we have, that’s proven effective now for decades.”

Trump administration's presidential nuclear launch authority


A balding and bearded Jamaican man trains his eyes on the table in front of him, nervously shaking his leg. He’s miles from home in a lonely courtroom. And in the eyes of immigration authorities, he’s worn out his welcome. “My job,” the judge says, “is to decide whether you will be allowed to stay.” The odds are slim. This is the toughest immigration court in the continental United States. Hundreds of miles north in the nation’s capital, bands are about to march in the Inauguration Day parade. Donald Trump is getting ready to kick off his presidency with a pledge to put America first. Cheering crowds are lining up to watch. But there’s no fanfare Friday at this 1,900-bed immigrant detention center in rural Stewart County, Georgia, about 120 miles southwest of Atlanta. In Courtroom #3, behind two barbed wire gates and three locked doors, Judge Saundra Arrington is getting ready to ask the man before her a methodical list of questions. Rows of benches are empty. The air conditioning hums. The guard’s jacket rustles as she paces the room. The judge says it’s time to begin. “Why do you want to stay in the United States, briefly?” the judge asks. The 51-year-old Jamaican, who immigrated when he was 8 years old, pauses for a moment. “It’s the only place I know.” An appeals court has ordered the judge to evaluate whether the man is mentally competent. If not, a court-appointed attorney could help him make his case. CNN is not identifying the man because of the nature of the court proceeding. In court the judge peppers him with queries about his employment history, his family and his two felony drug convictions. “Do you know what date it is?” Arrington asks. “January 20, 2017,” the man replies. “Is there anything special about today in America?” the judge continues. The man looks back at her blankly. “Is it a holiday?” Trump has vowed that deporting criminals will be a top priority of his presidency. But as he pushes to make his campaign promises a reality, the immigration court system could be a significant stumbling block. The country’s 58 immigration courts are already dealing with a growing crush of cases. The backlog grew to more than half a million last year. For years, the leader of the immigration judges union has warned that the overburdened system doesn’t give them enough time or resources to sort out complex cases – noting that the consequences of a wrong decision can be dire. It’s like handling death penalty cases, she says, in traffic court settings. So far this fiscal year, more than 90% of the cases decided in the Stewart Immigration Court have ended with a deportation order. Only a small immigration court in Guam has sent back a higher percentage of people, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which tracks and analyzes immigration court decisions. On this day in the Stewart Immigration Court, the judge’s questioning lasts for nearly an hour. “Tell me about your mental condition,” she says. “I hear voices,” the man tells her, “and sometimes, I might be in a conversation, and I hear something else. I answer. I see things – spirits, demons, dead people.” Medication and psychological treatment have helped, he says. The judge looks concerned. She asks him if there’s anything else she needs to know. “I just messed up. I need a second chance,” he says. “They say America is a second chance.” The judge says she’s heard that, too. She tells him she’ll begin the process to get him a lawyer to help with his case. It could be lengthy, she says, and could mean he’ll have to spend more time in detention. It’s worth it, he tells her, for a chance to stay. Outside the courtroom, a guard and an interpreter are getting ready for the next case to start. They glance up at the waiting room wall. Framed pictures of President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch hang just a few feet above the day’s court docket. Next week, the interpreter says, they’ll be looking at a portrait of President Trump.

Donald Trump presidency immigration policy


Our perceptions of luxury are today defined by brands like Louis Vuitton, Lexus and Louboutin. But archaeological evidence shows that humankind’s obsession with luxury objects stretches right back to the earliest civilizations, predating the invention of money itself. A new exhibition at the Getty Center in Los Angeles, “Golden Kingdoms: Luxury and Legacy in the Ancient Americas,” is dedicated to opulence in ancient cultures, in particular the pre-Columbian societies of the Aztecs and Mayans. CNN spoke to the director of the Getty, Timothy Potts, about the exhibition that he co-curated. CNN: What was it that inspired you to put on this exhibition? 'Incredible' ancient Roman neighborhood unearthed in France Timothy Potts: The concept was developed by Joanne Pilsbury, who was then at the Getty Research Institute and is now a curator at the Metropolitan in New York. She’s an expert in pre-Columbian archaeology. We developed the idea that, while there’s been so much attention on goldwork going right back to the Spanish conquest (of the Americas), there has never been a series, study or exhibition on the other materials which these cultures valued – in many cases – much more than gold. This includes works made from shell, textiles, featherwork and semi-precious stones like jade. What kind of themes and motifs do these items depict? We know much more about the iconography of some cultures than others. Often we don’t have any written documents, like we do with Greek and Roman artifacts. So, to some extent,  it’s guesswork. But from the context, we can presume that many of (the depictions are) to do with the gods. In the case of the Mayan culture, we do have written texts showing that these are usually representations of deities or underworld forces – beings that relate to the control of the world. Were they just ornamental, or did they serve a deeper purpose? I think “ornamental” is the wrong term. A lot of these items would really be classified as regalia, which would have been literally worn by royal and religious figures. Not only was this regalia there to be seen, but the metal it was made from would rattle. The sounds they made were apparently an important part of the effect they had. They were definitely calculated to impress and to resonate, but not just aesthetically. These were deeply meaningful acts that the king and others were performing. Did any of these luxuries trickle down to the common people? Rare delights: Where to see the world's most beautiful jewels By and large, we’re talking about a very elite level of society. Most of these objects were found in royal burial grounds and the pyramids of the Mayan realm. Materials like the (feathers) of macaw birds, which were imported across the Andes from Brazil, and shells, which could only be found by diving deep along the coast, were considered very precious and were essentially part of a royal prerogative. What do we know about the people who made them? Virtually nothing. We have one (attributable) Mayan work: a jade mask which is signed with the name of an artist. But that’s the only work in the exhibition where we know anything about the maker. And frankly, a name doesn’t tell you anything. It’s almost certain that these were (created in) royal workshops. The materials were controlled by the elite, and (the artifacts) were made by craftsmen who had passed these skills down for generations. But there wasn’t a practice of naming these works, or the artist being a significant part of the creation. What for you are the standout pieces in the show? Gosh, there are so many of them. There’s the Mayan jade mask, the great objects from the Aztec capital (and) a whole wall of blue and yellow featherwork which survived for many, many centuries because it was buried in jars. (We also have) a royal tunic with multiple motifs woven incredibly finely into it, which is extraordinarily beautiful and technical. The whole exhibition is really quite a feat. Visitors will be bowled over. “Golden Kingdoms: Luxury and Legacy in the Ancient Americas” is on at the Getty Center in Los Angeles from Sept. 16, 2017 to Jan. 28, 2018.

Golden Kingdoms: Luxury and Legacy in the Ancient Americas exhibition


Max Foster: Meeting with Trump is riddled with pitfalls for May and she knows it She needs good ties with EU, given she's about to start negotiating with it, he says Theresa May will be making history Friday as she becomes the first foreign leader to be welcomed at the White House by President Donald Trump. It’s Trump’s first test on the world stage, and we will all be tuning in to see how he does, but for the British leader, the visit is much more than a photo opportunity. She’s likely to get the nod on a trade deal, which she needs to offset the cost of Britain leaving the European Union. It will also help her show opponents, both domestically and internationally, that she has a credible post-Brexit plan. The White House meeting has been heralded in London as a diplomatic coup, and comparisons are already being made to the special relationship enjoyed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. But they were natural bedfellows; getting too close to Trump carries a number of risks for May. Related article British leader Theresa May urged to push Trump on controversial policies For a start, the UK isn’t allowed to negotiate its own trade deals as long as it is still part of the EU, and there is a genuine fear in Brussels that Trump is out to destroy the bloc. He hasn’t made any secret of his support for Brexit and recently told The Times of London: “I think people want … their own identity, so if you ask me … I believe others will leave.” He is even expected to confirm a Brexiteer Ted Malloch as the next US ambassador to the EU. Malloch told the BBC last week: “Mr. Trump has clearly said that any trade deals with anyone frankly in the future will be done on a bilateral basis.” Pressed on whether other EU countries could be offered a similar deal as the UK’s, Malloch said: “I think the idea of offering such a deal – again negotiated on a bilateral basis – to other European countries is an ingenious one, and it circumvents a certain bureaucratic organization called the European Union.” While May does need a good relationship with Trump, she also needs a good relationship with the EU, given that she’s about to start negotiating with it about the terms of Britain’s exit from the bloc. A US trade deal that is meant to strengthen her position could ultimately have the opposite affect if she is seen to be siding with someone set to bring the whole system down. Trump’s “early embrace” of the British will inevitably be seen as an attempt to divide Europe, according to Jonathan Eyal at the Royal United Services Institute, an independent defense and security think tank in London. “The last thing that the UK needs is to be regarded as a battering ram for a US administration which wishes to promote the break-up of the EU,” Eyal wrote this week. Trump started his first week in office with an attack on free trade agreements, pulling out of one in Asia and suggesting he will do the same in North America. If he plans to finish it by taking aim at the EU during his meeting with May, it will put her in a very awkward position. Only last week, she said: “We do not want to undermine the single market, and we do not want to undermine the European Union. We want the EU to be a success and we want its remaining member states to prosper.” Related video Trump on using waterboarding If Europe weren’t enough of an issue, there are a couple of other issues that the two leaders seem to disagree on. Earlier this week in Parliament, May was asked by a member of her own Conservative Party to make it clear to Trump that in no circumstances will she permit Britain to be dragged into facilitating torture. She clarified: “We do not sanction torture and do not get involved in it.” Hours later, Trump, in an interview to ABC News, suggested he could be open to bringing back torture because he “absolutely” believes it works. May’s meeting with Trump is a landmark moment, but it’s riddled with pitfalls for her and she knows it. Her plan is to “renew the special relationship for a new age,” and she insists she isn’t afraid to talk “frankly” with the US leader. We’ll see how Trump copes with that as he shares the cameras for the first time with another world leader.


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 on Twitter @aarondmiller2. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Aaron Miller: Next U.S. president won't risk crisis by scrapping Iran nuclear deal Iranian moderation was never the goal of deal, but opposite seems to be occurring, he says The problem with dancing with a bear, the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once quipped, is that you can never let go. That uncomfortable reality is one the United States will be fully familiar with right now. On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei honored an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps admiral and four others for detaining 10 U.S. sailors last month. The sailors were, of course, quickly released. But Sunday’s move underscores just how strained (and strange) U.S.-Iran ties are right now. In some Republican presidential candidates’ eyes, such provocations are cause enough to tear up the nuclear agreement. Indeed, in Thursday’s debate, two candidates pledged to do exactly that if elected. But while frustration is understandable, such pledges are basically empty threats. Why? Because when the next president is inaugurated, implementation will have been underway for more than a year. Already, Iran is doing deals with Russia, Italy, France and China, among others, and nobody is looking for an international crisis right now.  The natural inclination once a thing this large has settled is to accept it. And the mentality based on my own diplomatic experience will be to keep it going, not try to sink it. But while a case can certainly be made that the accord was better than the alternatives – war or an Iran with a nuke – implementation day was also no cause for unrestrained celebration, either. It’s not just that the deal between the six world powers and Iran damaged relations with traditional U.S. allies, most prominently Saudi Arabia and Israel (both are in their different ways, to say the least, imperfect partners). The problem is that a fundamental shift in the balance of power is taking place in the region in Iran’s favor. For a start, Iran gains access to frozen assets without having to end its support to the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, stop backing the Shiite rebels in Yemen who are fighting a proxy war with the Saudis or back off from its support to Lebanese Hezbollah. Related article Who lost the Middle East? More broadly, Iran is rising as Arab states face increasing challenges to state authority; restive populations and worsening economies; and, in some cases, fragmentation. Moreover, after nearly four decades of tension, America’s dependence on Iran is actually increasing. Washington, having gone all-in on the nuclear deal, needs Iran to uphold its commitments, something critical to the Obama administration’s legacy. In addition, it also needs Iranian assistance in resolving the civil war in Syria and stabilizing Iraq – complex issues that may require formal U.S. recognition of growing Iranian influence. Of course, the flip side of this, as supporters of the deal point out, is that Iran and the United States have another channel for communication. They point, for example, to the speedy resolution of the incident with the captured U.S. Navy personnel, as well as the prisoner exchange that saw several American-Iranians released. Yet the U.S. Navy personnel were still used for propaganda purposes by the Iranian military unit holding them – and now by the Supreme Leader on Sunday. Meanwhile, Siamak Namazi, another U.S.-Iranian dual national, has not been released. And no information has been given about the fate of Robert Levinson. So moving forward, Iran’s leadership is likely to exploit this channel with the United States whenever doing so suits its own interests. True, Iranian moderation was never the goal of the nuclear deal. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be occurring. In fact, the strengthening of hard-line elements can be seen in a variety of recent actions, including the increase in the number of Iranian military advisers sent to Syria; the disqualification of thousands of centrists as candidates in the February elections for Parliament and the Assembly of Experts; the execution of large numbers of minors; and continued Holocaust denial. All this suggests that Iran’s hard-line leadership never really saw the nuclear agreement as a threat to the regime’s authoritarian and ideological character, but rather as a way to consolidate its power. Getting international sanctions lifted allowed it to improve Iran’s economic conditions and defuse public discontent. If social and political change comes at all in Iran, it will likely be painstakingly slow and controlled adroitly by the regime. Ultimately, though, none of this means that the next U.S. president – whatever he or she has said during the campaign – is going to create a crisis in the first year by unilaterally abrogating or undermining an international agreement signed by all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. It won’t happen. Still, there is some good news. The agreement has not created a permanent fix for Iran’s search for a nuke, but it did buy time while heading off an immediate crisis. And finally, there is this point, too: The nuclear agreement is so advantageous to Iran that it just wouldn’t be in Tehran’s interest to violate the terms anyway. For better or perhaps worse, we’re now dancing with a bear and we won’t be stopping anytime soon. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


Several Russians who had been hired as paramilitary contractors were among more than 100 men killed in US airstrikes in northern Syria last week, according to their friends and families. The men were working for a private Russian company called Wagner, which has sent hundreds of private contractors to Syria to help both the Russian military and pro-regime forces, according to people who knew them. One of the dead was 51-year-old Vladimir Loginov. Like many contractors who have gone to Syria, he was a member of a Cossack group of ultranationalists who have also fought in eastern Ukraine. The Baltic Cossack District said in a statement that Loginov was a Russian citizen who was killed in an “unequal battle” while “heroically defending our Fatherland in its far reaches from crazy barbarians” when he died on February 7. “Vladimir died for the Fatherland, the Cossacks and the Orthodox faith!” the group said. Related article Rare US airstrikes on pro-regime forces bring latest turn in Syrian war CNN has been able to confirm the names of at least three other Russians who were killed supporting pro-regime militia in a large-scale attack that day. According to US officials, a force of some 500 crossed the Euphrates River near Deir Ezzor, along with tanks, missile launchers and artillery. Their target was a base of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which came under artillery fire. A US detachment was at the base. The US responded with airstrikes that killed about 100 of the attackers, according to the coalition, with the rest retreating. One of the Russians killed was Kirill Ananyev, according to his friend Aleksandr Averin. He said Ananyev had been in Syria “a little over a year” and that he had been killed when “American artillery smashed the Wagner unit.” Averin said he believed that casualties among the Russians present amounted to more than “the typical Wagner loss of just a couple of people.” Most of the casualties, according to local sources, appear to have been members of a pro-regime Christian militia from the town of al Suqaylabiyah. Earlier this week, there was a mass funeral for about 30 members of the militia – which often describes itself as the “ISIS hunters” – in the town. Two sons of a prominent tribal leader were also killed, according to social-media posts from Syria. Wagner, which is under US sanctions for supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine, has several hundred contractors in Syria, according to analysts. In December, Nikolay Tikhonivch from Tomsk was killed “in the area of the Hama-Idlib highway,” according to a social-media post from the “Rus” patriotic group to which he belonged. Two Wagner contractors who were captured by ISIS in November have not been heard from since appearing in a video soon after being seized. They are believed to be dead, according to Russian officials. Wagner is registered in Hong Kong and has no public offices in Russia and no contact details. Efforts by CNN to reach the company were unsuccessful. US Defense Secretary General James Mattis has said that the US was puzzled by the attack near Deir Ezzor last week. “The Russians told us they had no forces there initially. I think that’s still the case but we don’t have full clarity on what the regime forces are doing there,” Mattis said over the weekend. The US and Russian militaries have de-confliction channels to prevent accidental clashes in Syria and alert each other to movements. “The Russians professed that they were not aware when we called them about that force that had crossed [the Euphrates]. As it came closer they were notified when the firing began,” Mattis said. Related article Deadly battle with Syrian regime forces complicates Trump's Syria strategy Neither the Kremlin nor the Russian Ministry of Defense talks about private military contractors in Syria. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Tuesday:  “We have no information regarding other Russians who may be in Syria.” It is very difficult to estimate the number of Russians working as military contractors in Syria and the number who are killed. For days, rumors have swept through Russian social media that far more than a handful of Wagner contractors were killed in last week’s engagement. On Monday liberal presidential candidate Grigory Yavlinsky said: “If massive Russian casualties took place, then relevant officials … must announce this to the country and find out who is responsible.” Kremlin spokesman Peskov rejected Yavlinsky’s assertion, saying: “I don’t think Yavlinsky has more reliable sources than this.” There were many Russian citizens overseas, Peskov said, “and it’s very hard to have detailed information.”


Trump signaled he is working with Russia to establish a second regional ceasefire in Syria "We are working on a second ceasefire in a very rough part of Syria," he said President Donald Trump signaled Thursday that he is working with Russia to establish a second regional ceasefire in Syria, nearly a week after the US, Russia and Jordan brokered a first ceasefire in southwestern Syria. Trump said the next ceasefire agreement would cover a “very rough part of Syria,” but offered no additional details on the potential agreement or which countries were involved in the negotiations. “By having some commutations and dialogue, we are able to have a ceasefire and it is going to go on for a while and frankly, we are working on a second ceasefire in a very rough part of Syria,” Trump said Thursday during a news conference in Paris after fielding a question on the US’ dialogue with Russia. Related article Trump: 'Most people would have taken that meeting' “And if we get that and a few more, all of the sudden you are going to have no bullets being fired in Syria. And that would be a wonderful thing,” Trump added. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment seeking more details on the potential ceasefire agreement. Trump’s comments came as the US-Russia brokered ceasefire in southwestern Syria entered its fifth day, a hopeful development in a country where numerous ceasefires have been brokered and quickly fallen apart. Trump expressed optimism that the ceasefire would continue to hold, noting that the days-old ceasefire had already last a “very long period of time” relative to past ceasefires. The ceasefire was touted as the first tangible sign of agreement between the US and Russia in Syria, where the two countries support opposing factions. The US has backed moderate anti-government rebels in the country while Russia continues to support the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump’s comments came amid his meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, talks that were set to focus in large part on the conflict in Syria, with the longtime allies aiming to partner to develop a road map for the country’s future. “We agreed to continue to work together, in particular in order to be able to launch together some diplomatic initiatives in order to put in place a road map for what will come after the war,” Macron said, adding the US and France hope to help establish a “political road map in particular for Syria after the war.” Macron also touted the need to maintain an open dialogue with Russia to advance peace in Syria. CNN’s Dan Merica contributed to this report.


The Trump administration is stopping short of publicly confronting the Chinese government The three charged in the Pittsburgh case are presumed to live in China The Justice Department on Monday unsealed an indictment against three Chinese nationals in connection with cyberhacks and the alleged theft of intellectual property of three companies, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. But the Trump administration is stopping short of publicly confronting the Chinese government about its role in the breach. The hacks occurred during both the Obama and Trump administrations. The charges being brought in Pittsburgh allege that the hackers stole intellectual property from several companies, including Trimble, a maker of navigation systems; Siemens, a German technology company with major operations in the US; and Moody’s Analytics. The three charged in the Pittsburgh case are presumed to live in China and are either employed or associated with Guangzhou Bo Yu Information Technology Co., known as Boyusec, court documents say. US intelligence and private cybersecurity experts say Boyusec works as a contractor for the Chinese ministry of state security, that nation’s version of the National Security Agency. The court documents unsealed Monday don’t mention the Chinese state links. US investigators have concluded that the three charged by the US attorney in Pittsburgh were working for a Chinese intelligence contractor, the sources briefed on the investigation say. But missing from court documents filed in the case is any explicit mention that the thefts were state-sponsored. A 2015 deal between then-President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping prohibits the US and China from stealing intellectual property for the purpose of giving advantage to domestic companies. In recent months some US intelligence agencies have concluded that China is breaking the agreement, sources briefed on the matter say. But there’s debate among intelligence officials about whether there’s sufficient evidence to publicly reveal the Chinese government’s role in the infractions, these people say. Obama administration officials had touted the Obama-Xi agreement, as well as 2014 Justice Department charges against members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army for commercial espionage, for reducing some of the Chinese cyberactivity against companies in the US. But the 2015 Obama-Xi deal was met with skepticism inside the US agencies whose job it is to guard against Chinese cyberactivity targeting US companies. Some now say there was only a brief drop in the number of cyberspying incidents, if at all. In the waning months of the Obama administration, intelligence officials briefed senior White House officials on information showing that the Chinese cyberattacks were back to levels previously seen, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Early in the Trump administration, US intelligence officials briefed senior officials, including the President and vice president, as well as advisers Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon. At the same time, some Trump administration officials have raised concerns about whether to confront China over the cyber intrusions at a time when the administration is trying to get cooperation from the Chinese government on North Korea and other issues.


Flake said North Korea seems "intent" on continuing its nuclear development He also said it would be wrong for Trump to end DACA Following North Korea’s latest nuclear weapons test, one of President Donald Trump’s most outspoken Republican critics expressed confidence in Trump’s team, but not the commander in chief himself. Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake told Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday that Trump, like most new presidents, was inexperienced in foreign policy, adding that he would like a “measured” response from the Oval Office. “Obviously, you’d like a leader that is measured and sober and consistent,” Flake said, adding, “We’ve got a good team around the President.” Flake echoed the administration’s previous statements on the North Korean nuclear threat, saying all options needed to be on the table – including military ones – and said there is no clear path forward to resolving Pyongyang’s continued nuclear development. “It becomes cliche to say there are no good options here, but there really aren’t,” Flake said. Flake said China has “considerably more leverage” than the US over North Korea, and he hoped Beijing would use that leverage to help alleviate the crisis, but he also acknowledged international sanctions on Pyongyang had not slowed the rogue state’s nuclear program. “They seem intent on moving forward,” Flake said. Flake criticized Trump during the campaign, and since he took office, the senator has said he is willing to part with Trump on key items of the President’s agenda. Mattis warns of ‘massive military response’ What is a hydrogen bomb?What happens when NK tests a nukeWhat’s left to sanction?Pressure on Washington to find right response Mattis warns of ‘massive military response’ What is a hydrogen bomb?What happens when NK tests a nukeWhat’s left to sanction?Pressure on Washington to find right response Flake has supported Trump’s nominees and voted with him on a number of issues that have come before the Senate, including GOP proposals to repeal and replace Obamacare. But the Arizona senator has also staked out positions opposing Trump on immigration and the proposed border wall. Trump promised during the campaign to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation. Flake said Sunday that “it would be the right thing” for Trump to go back on that promise. “To remove them from the country, to split up families like this, is just not the way we ought to go,” Flake said. On Trump’s proposed border wall, Flake said it was still unclear to him what Trump was actually proposing. “We still really haven’t seen what he means by the wall,” Flake said. “If that’s a metaphor for border security, we can certainly support that. But if he’s talking about a solitary, brick-and-mortar, 2,000-mile edifice on the border, then no, nobody ought to support that.” Flake’s criticisms of Trump have earned the ire of the President, who most recently criticized him – but not by name – during a rally in Flake’s state of Arizona. But in the interview Sunday, Flake said he was not worried about Trump hurting his reelection chances. “The people in Arizona tend to elect independent-minded, principled senators,” Flake said. He added, “I’m quite comfortable being where I am.”


President Donald Trump is facing criticism over claims he released classified info Republicans House members in competitive districts responded in different ways Several vulnerable House Republicans representing districts Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 have publicly distanced themselves from President Donald Trump since Monday night. Their moves – which include calls for a special prosecutor in the probe into his campaign’s ties to Russia and criticism of his reported sharing of classified information in an Oval Office meeting with top Russian emissaries – are the latest evidence that Trump is becoming politically toxic for the Republican Party headed into the 2018 midterm elections. In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Steve Knight, R-California, became the latest GOP lawmaker to call for a special prosecutor in the Russia probe. “There is too much at stake at home and abroad to not take this step,” he said. “There is so much conflicting information from many sources; Americans deserve the opportunity to learn the truth.” His comments came after Rep. Barbara Comstock, who represents northern Virginia’s moderate suburbs, issued a statement strongly criticizing Trump over The Washington Post’s report that Trump shared highly sensitive information with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a meeting last week – one that took place the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the Russia investigation. “Once again we are faced with inexplicable stories coming from the White House that are highly troubling,” Comstock said. “We need to have immediate classified briefings on what occurred at this meeting so that Congress can at least know as much as Russian leaders and know the impact on our national security, our allies, and our men and women protecting our country.” Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, whose Miami-area district went for Hillary Clinton in 2016, compared Trump’s actions to Clinton – whom Republicans lambasted during the campaign for keeping classified information on her personal email server. “The importance of carefully handling classified information was one of the big lessons of 2016,” Curbelo tweeted. “All leaders should be held to same standard.” Another Republican who has largely backed Trump – Rep. John Katko of New York – attempted to defend the President in a town hall Monday night by citing Clinton’s actions, but ultimately conceded that Trump erred as well. “The bottom line, it is a persistent problem,” Katko said. His efforts to distance himself from the Trump administration were even more clear when the topic of the town hall shifted to health care. “You want to talk about the pressure that was brought to people on that vote, it was incredible,” he said. “And I didn’t buckle.”


Actor Richard Hong was found dead in a home in LA after an attempted burglary George Stroumboulopoulos had rented the home, but was in New York at the time Canadian actor Richard Hong was found dead in a Los Angeles home being rented by George Stroumboulopoulos, a Canadian TV and radio personality, according to Los Angeles Police. Hong, 41, was the apparent victim of a burglary attempt, police said. “The victIm was a dear friend of mine, who was staying at my place while I was away. I am heartbroken. ” Stroumboulopoulos wrote on Facebook. He said he was in New York at the time and is returning to Los Angeles. Police found Hong’s body after they responded to a 911 call around 2 a.m. Friday. Witnesses saw a man dressed in a black jacket fleeing from the scene, according to LAPD Officer Jenny Houser. “There’s so much to say but I’m at a loss for words so just love your people and I will have more to say when we know more about what happened,” Stroumboulopoulos said in his Facebook statement. In 2013, Stroumboulopoulos hosted a one-hour talk show on CNN.


Merkel and Trump spoke more than a week after their meeting Trump called to congratulate Merkel A little more than a week after their frosty White House meeting, President Donald Trump and his German counterpart, Angela Merkel, spoke by phone Monday, ostensibly for the US leader to congratulate the chancellor on her party’s victory in a tiny German province over the weekend. But the call, according to US officials, was also designed to smooth over any lingering unpleasantness from the March 17 meeting, during which Trump focused intently on Germany’s defense spending, even when Merkel sought to move on to other topics. The technique of using a political victory in a local election to flatter an important foreign leader is new for Trump, but not an entire surprise for a president still basking in his own political victory. Trump still recounts his election night win in public remarks, and foreign leaders hoping to foster close ties to the US President have made a point of praising his unlikely campaign during joint appearances. Related article Trump stands by wiretapping claim during Merkel visit Trump adopted that approach for himself Monday, phoning both Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to congratulate them on their parties’ state-level wins. One German government official suggested the call with Merkel amounted to Trump “making an effort to be nice” after their first face-to-face meeting a week and a half ago. In their conversation, Trump and Merkel discussed the contentious sit-down, though US officials said Trump did not apologize during the phone call for his aggressive stance on NATO, which rankled some German officials. But he did seek to strike a more conciliatory tone with Merkel, with whom he hopes to work together on a range of subjects – from trade to Syria and Ukraine. Last week’s meeting commenced on an awkward note when Trump appeared to refuse to shake Merkel’s hand during an Oval Office photo-op. The body language came to symbolize the vast gulf between the two leaders, which was exacerbated by memories of Trump’s campaign trail criticism of Merkel’s stance on refugees. In their meeting, Trump returned repeatedly to the defense spending issue, according to people familiar with the two leaders’ conversation. He did not, as a British newspaper reported over the weekend, present a physical invoice to Merkel for unpaid funds. But he did maintain, in what one official described as an aggressive tone, that Germany owed vast sums to NATO and the US. Merkel told Trump during their talks that Germany had committed to ramping up military spending but avoided engaging him on the issue of back payments. But even with those assurances, Trump was intent on driving his point home, even when the German chancellor attempted to redirect their conversation toward other topics. A person who spoke with Merkel afterward said the German chancellor – who isn’t known for outward displays of emotion – did not appear fazed by the session. A separate German government official described the face-to-face meeting as “fine” and “productive,” without the level of awkwardness that some read into the leaders’ body language. The Germans “heard the right messages” on US commitment to NATO and insistence on territorial integrity in Ukraine, the official said, which were the topics Merkel was most intent to discuss. But some members of the German delegation did privately wonder what level of cooperation could exist between the two leaders given Trump’s single-minded focus on the NATO matter. After Merkel departed the White House, Trump attempted to downplay any suggestions the meeting went poorly. But even then, he inserted a jab at Germany’s defense budget. “Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel,” Trump wrote on Twitter while he was at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago. “Nevertheless, Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!” Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nevertheless, Germany owes..... ...vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany! That message added to the anxiety of some German officials, who were unnerved by the combative public stance toward an important US ally. Some US officials also expressed private concern that Trump risked alienating Merkel, who is Europe’s longest-serving, most politically assured leader and has expressed a desire to maintain a close working relationship with Washington. Ivanka Trump, the President’s daughter, has herself sought to foster a connection with Merkel in a bid to maintain Berlin-Washington ties. At Merkel’s request, the first daughter arranged a meeting between US and German CEOs as part of the Chancellor’s visit; the session was a highlight of the day, according to German officials. Ivanka Trump will visit Berlin for a women’s empowerment summit in April. Monday’s phone call was added to Trump’s schedule after Merkel’s Christian Democrats won a regional election in a tiny western state over the weekend. In an official readout of the phone conversation, the White House said Trump spoke with Merkel “to congratulate her on the outcome of the Saarland state election on March 26.” But the statement also added that the two leaders “used the occasion to reflect on the Chancellor’s March 17 visit to the White House.” Trump employed a less aggressive tone and did not repeat his claim that Germany owed the US money, said US officials familiar with the call. He instead used the local elections as a way to flatter Merkel. Sunday’s vote in Saarland state – Germany’s smallest – isn’t expected to have a major impact on the balance of power in Germany, and the Christian Democrats have held power in the area for the better part of two decades. But the election was seen as a bellwether for a series of upcoming votes in Germany, ending in the federal elections on September 24. Merkel’s party performed better than expected. The center-right Christian Democrats won 40.7% of Sunday’s vote, a solid 5.5% increase over four years ago and a convincing win over the center-left Social Democrat Party, which only took 29.6%, according to CNN affiliate ARD. The Saarland elections were widely viewed as a test for the SPD’s new leader, former EU Parliament President Martin Schulz, whose criticism of Trump’s policies appeared to be playing well with voters. It’s rare for a US president to call foreign leaders to congratulate them on their parties’ political successes, particularly in local elections when the leader is not herself on the ballot. Indeed, the White House typically take pains to avoid seeming to interfere in foreign political contests. On Tuesday, however, the White House also said Trump had phoned India’s prime minister to “congratulate him on the outcome of India’s recent state-level elections.” Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party won a landslide victory earlier this month in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. That election was regarded as a direct win for Modi himself, who campaigned in the district for his party and will come up for a second term in 2019. CNN’s Juliet Perry and Susanna Capelouto contributed to this report.


Members of Congress are concerned about civilian casualties in Yemen Doctors Without Borders is pulling out of several hospitals because of the danger More than 60 lawmakers in the House are fighting to delay the Obama administration’s planned sale of $1.15 billion in arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia, citing the growing number of civilian casualties in Yemen caused by the Saudi-led military coalition. In a longshot bid to stall the sale, the bipartisan group of 64 House members, led by California Rep. Ted Lieu, has called on the White House to withdraw the request for congressional approval for the sale until Congress can fully debate American military support for the Saudis. Among the lawmakers who signed the letter, which was sent to President Barack Obama, are several members of the House Armed Services Committee and House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “This military campaign has had a deeply troubling impact on civilians,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Foreign Policy. “According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 3,704 civilians, including 1,121 children have been killed during the conflict. 2.8 million Yemenis have been internally displaced by the fighting, with 83 percent of the population now dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival.” The United States has backed a Saudi-led coalition of Arab countries in an 18-month campaign against Shiite Houthi rebels and their allies in Yemen. UN-led peace talks to end the conflict broke down last month, and airstrikes resumed. The Doctors Without Borders group is pulling out of a half-dozen medical facilities in northern Yemen due to what the humanitarian organization described as “indiscriminate bombings and unreliable reassurances” from the Saudi-led coalition, after an attack last month hit one of its hospitals, killing 19 and wounding 24. Saudi Arabia was the top recipient of American-made arms from 2011 to 2015, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Congress has 30 days to consider the sale, which was approved by the State Department on August 9, and the deadline is soon to pass, meaning lawmakers would not be able to delay the sale. The letter indicated that the lawmakers were frustrated that the clock began ticking in the middle of the seven-week summer recess, which just ended Tuesday. “Any decision to sell more arms to Saudi Arabia should be given adequate time for full deliberation by Congress,” the letter said. “We are concerned, however, that the timing of this notification during the August congressional recess could be interpreted to mean that Congress has little time to consider the arms deal when it returns from recess within the 30 day window established by law.” The most recent congressional effort to thwart the sale of armaments to Saudi Arabia came from Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who unsuccessfully pushed a resolution earlier this year that would make air-to-ground weapons and ammunition sales to Saudi Arabia subject to a certification process. “There’s an American imprint on every civilian life lost in Yemen,” Murphy told CNN’s Jake Tapper last month. “Why? It’s because, though the Saudis are actually dropping the bombs from their planes, they couldn’t do it without the United States.” State Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN that the US shares some of the lawmakers’ concerns. “We have had some concerns with the conduct of some coalition operations in Yemen, and we’ve not been bashful about expressing those privately or publicly,” Kirby said Friday. “I can assure you that (Secretary of State John Kerry) raised those concerns with Saudi leaders when we were in Jeddah.” Kerry traveled to Saudi Arabia last month and met with Saudi King Salman. Kerry recently announced nearly $189 million in additional humanitarian aid for Yemen, bringing the total to more than $327 million since October 2015.


US, Japan have jointly developed new missile interceptor Pacific allies fear North Korean missile program The US and Japan have passed a crucial test for missile defense, shooting down a medium-range ballistic missile with a new interceptor launched from a guided-missile destroyer. The US Missile Defense Agency announced that the USS John Paul Jones detected, tracked and took out the target ballistic missile using its onboard Aegis Missile Defense System and a Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor. The test took place Friday night off the Hawaiian island of Kauai. “Today’s test demonstrates a critical milestone in the cooperative development of the SM-3 Block IIA missile,” the director of the Missile Defense Agency, Vice Adm. Jim Syring, said in a statement. “The missile, developed jointly by a Japanese and US government and industry team, is vitally important to both our nations and will ultimately improve our ability to defend against increasing ballistic missile threats around the world.” Related article Mattis: US will defend Japanese islands claimed by China The test came while new US Defense Secretary James Mattis was on his first overseas trip to South Korea and Japan. Ballistic missile defense was at the top of the agenda after North Korea’s prolific testing of short- and intermediate-range missiles last year. And the US is worried that North Korea may be developing a long-range missile that could carry a nuclear warhead to reach as far as the US West Coast. A focus of Mattis’ trip was the THAAD – Terminal High Altitude Area Defense – anti-missile system, which the US plans to deploy in South Korea this year. The THAAD system has drawn sharp criticism from China, which sees it as part of a broader US strategy to extend its military alliance network from Japan all the way down to the South China Sea. But during his trip to South Korea, Mattis said North Korea’s “provocative behavior” was the only reason THAAD would be deployed. “There is no other nation that needs to be concerned about THAAD other than North Korea,” he said. Though THAAD and Aegis operate on a similar concept, it’s THAAD that has drawn vocal Chinese opposition. Asked Monday about the Aegis system missile test, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said all such systems raised trust issues among the major military powers. “Countries should not only consider their own security interests but also respect other countries’ security concerns” when it comes to missile defense, Lu said. “We should follow the principles of preserving global strategic stability and doing no harm to other countries’ security.” Related video US displays its military power in the Pacific The Aegis system is designed to intercept ballistic missile around the middle of their flight, when the missile is at its highest point above the Earth. The system is based on the powerful AN/SPY-1 radar, which can track 100 missiles simultaneously. The US Navy has 22 guided-missile cruisers and 62 guided-missile destroyers equipped with the Aegis system. Japan has six Aegis destroyers with plans for more. South Korea also operates Aegis-equipped destroyers. CNN’s Steven Jiang in Beijing contributed to this report.