Got a tip about these cases? Contact the U.S. Marshals Service at usms.wanted@usdoj.gov or 1-800-336-0102. The other party-goers at Mario’s garage on the night of November 23, 2002, didn’t know the man, but everyone called him “Vampire.” Two of his front teeth were missing, so it wasn’t hard to guess why. Vampire left the party with a friend of Mario’s, Lori Mejia, age 29. About an hour later, he returned alone, with blood on his clothes. “I killed her,” he told Mario, and then left the scene. Mario called the police. When the authorities arrived, he led them out behind the garage to a grisly scene. “It was a horrific murder,” Lieutenant Larry Kish of the Denton County, Texas, Sheriff’s Office told CNN’s “The Hunt with John Walsh.” Mejia “was violently traumatized prior to her death … and even after her death.” Who was “Vampire,” why had Mejia left the party with him, and how did she meet such a violent end? Mario admitted to authorities that Mejia came to the party to make money as a prostitute. He had even negotiated her fee in advance, $100 per client. Former Texas Ranger Tracee Murphree believes Mejia and Vampire left “with the intent of him paying her for sex and something went horribly wrong.” “Lori deserves the same justice as anybody else,” Kish told “The Hunt,” “as a homicide victim would deserve. We did not focus on her being a prostitute. We focused on finding this Hispanic male named Vampire, with no teeth, that had just brutally killed a lady.” No one at the party knew Vampire’s real name, but Mario connected the authorities with a friend who did. “Vampire” was a man in his early 30s, Herbert (Herberto) Maldonado, who lived in the area with his 84-year-old girlfriend. “To have an 84-year-old girlfriend was shocking in and of itself,” said Murphree. “She talked to us about how Maldonado had beat her, and in the same breath she would tell us that she loved him.” “She didn’t want anything to happen to him, but she did provide us with our next best piece of information, which was some photographs,” said Murphree. Armed with photos of Maldonado, investigators got a break: A girlfriend of someone at the party recognized the suspect. She didn’t feel comfortable around him so wrote down the license plate number of his vehicle. They entered the details in their system and got a match. “We get a hit immediately that says this vehicle has been in contact with the Plano police, and they had actually arrested a Hispanic male for DWI,” recalled Kish. And that’s where their luck ran out. By the time they were on the phone with Plano police, the DWI suspect had bonded out. “We get the identifiers on the person that was arrested and we quickly learn that is Maldonado, the same person that we’re looking for,” said Kish. “And we just missed him, like, within the hour.” According to Murphree, Maldonado’s brother and other relatives were able to post bond. He was taken to Dallas, to be put on a bus to Mexico. “We had him,” said Kish. “He slipped through our fingers. He disappeared.” “Twelve years later, it still bothers me, said Murphree, “having been that close and not been able to bring justice to this family.” Friends and family of Lori Mejia hope that the added exposure from CNN’s “The Hunt” will at long last lead to Herbert Maldonado’s arrest. “People make mistakes, but what happened to her, that’s just uncalled for,” Mejia’s friend and former roommate Elizabeth Burt told “The Hunt.” “Nobody deserves to leave this world that way.” “I want to get this guy off the streets before he hurts someone else, and someone else has to deal with the pain we’re living,” said Burt. Herbert Maldonado has a large mole on the left side of his face near his nose. His front teeth are missing and other teeth protrude. He has tattoos on both his left and right upper arm. He has worked on a sod farm in the past and might be working a similar job somewhere in the U.S.


It's the second time President Buhari has taken medical leave in 2017. President Buhari has been battling an undisclosed illness. New pictures have emerged of Nigeria’s ailing President Muhammadu Buhari for the first time since he left the country on medical leave 80 days ago. President Buhari has been battling an undisclosed illness since the start of the year and has spent long periods out of the country receiving treatment in the UK. On Sunday, his aides released a photo of the President having lunch with senior member of his ruling party, All Progressives Congress (APC) in London. Related article Africa is young. Why are its leaders so old? “The President sends his best wishes to all Nigerians. He will be back to Nigeria as soon as his doctors give the go-ahead,” his office tweeted along with the picture of him at the lunch table. There has been intense speculation in the country about the president’s health with many false reports that he had died emerging online. By releasing the pictures, his inner circle hope to reassure Nigerians that the president is on the mend and very much alive. “By our visit to London… the merchants of lies have been put out of business and Nigerians will not buy the garbage they have been selling. All those who look up to fake news can find better use for their time,” said Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha who was part of the delegation. Related article Zimbabwe's Mugabe turns 93; lauds Trump's nationalist stance President Buhari has not made any public appearances during this period or addressed the country directly apart from a short voice message recorded in the Hausa language to wish Muslims a happy Ramadan. This is the second time President Buhari has taken medical leave in 2017. On January 19 this year he left for the UK on a 10-day medical leave, which was extended until March but did not resume work immediately. He then left again on May 7 and has been away since. Nigeria’s vice president Yemi Osinbajo has been the acting president since Buhari left the country. Osman Mohammed contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Lauren Wolfe is an award-winning journalist and the director of Women Under Siege, a Women’s Media Center initiative on sexualized violence in conflict. She is also a columnist at Foreign Policy magazine. Follow her on Twitter @Wolfe321. Lauren Wolfe: Story of Indian woman allegedly raped by men who'd done so 3 years before She says violence against women not just an "over there" issue; with cultural norms we accept the debasement of women Wolfe: To defang misogyny that leads to violence against women, we must insist men make women humans, not objects Sexual assault is a cheap and effective weapon. But in a new case in which this weapon has so horrifyingly been wielded, in the northern state of Haryana, India, the perpetrators may actually have defeated its own usefulness. If that is to be true, it is up to us. A 21-year-old woman is accusing five men of raping her inside a car on Wednesday in Rohtak, where she goes to college. Some of the men were the same ones who raped her twice over the course of four days in October 2013, she told police. “They tried to strangulate me,” the woman has told the press. “They said they would kill my father and brother.” Her family says they have been pressured by the accused men to settle the first case and that they believe the new rape was meant to scare the family once and for all into backing off of legal proceedings. “The accused were constantly threatening us to compromise outside the court,” the victim’s brother told the Hindustan Times. “They even offered us a hefty amount for settlement. But we didn’t agree.” With Indian police yet to make an arrest in the new attack, nerves are raw as social media and pundits voice the mounting international outcry. It’s yet another moment in which we are shocked, shocked, by the brutality of men. But to be clear, mainly we are shocked by the brutality of men “over there.” We separate ourselves from what happens to women in far off places in order to protect ourselves: This couldn’t happen here! But happen here it does. Again and again. When Gloria Steinem and I wrote about a concept called the “cult of masculinity” a few years ago, we talked about a kind of false idea of manhood that makes some men act violently and risk their lives against their own self-interest as human beings. With male violence plaguing the planet, it is time to stop distancing ourselves from the “over there” and recognize that we are not doing as well as we’d like to think in this country and in most places around the world. Whether it is in a newsroom in New York or a house in Iowa, there are many things we can do to push back at the mindset and the behaviors – large and small – that lead to abuse of women.  It’s not hard to draw a straight line between language that casually degrades women, pop culture that objectifies them, political and cultural norms that render them “less than,” and the impulse of some men to feel free to harm them. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. We can call for stronger laws and faster arrests in the countries where we hear about these attacks, including our own. We can call out media for violating basic rules for writing about rape, such as holding them to account for blaming the victim or for describing a victim’s physical attributes in a lascivious way, as The Washington Post did in a story on July 14. As citizens or as media producers, we can hold governments to account for not taking action in rape cases, as recently happened in a case I reported on in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was for mysterious reasons not arresting a man suspected of committing approximately 50 rapes of girls aged 18 months to 11 years old over the course of three years. He and his confederates were arrested after authorities’ inaction was called out in the press. International pressure works. Closer to home, we can also, as a country, recognize that we have a candidate for President who attributed a respected female journalist’s aggressive questioning to her menstrual cycle, and who has called women at various times a “dog” and a “disgusting pig,” debasing women to the level of animals — that is, less than human.  And we can say that this is unacceptable. We can stop excusing a kind of manhood that belittles women, bringing us down to the level of objects — objects that can be treated with not only scorn, but with actual violence. On the reverse pole of treating women in this degraded way is a societal overemphasis on a woman’s “purity.” This is why sexualized violence is also such an effective means of embarrassing male members of a family who worry immensely about their relatives’ “honor,” such as happens in Syria or Afghanistan or other “honor cultures” around the world. Rape, whether it is meant to take a woman’s “purity” or to demean her already “animal-like” self, is not about sex. Power and control are the drivers. So let’s teach our boys that women, too, are not only able to hold power, they are worth more than the sum of their body parts. They, too, are able to reach the highest levels of government; they, too, are able to be strong and hold control. Allegedly gang-raping a young woman in India to persuade her family to drop court charges is only effective if the family gives in, which it has said it won’t, and if the government acts to punish the perpetrators, which we are still waiting to see. We can support the family’s brave decision. And we can go further than that by challenging a global status quo in which men remain in charge and can debase women with vile language without consequence. Right now, we can begin to defang the misogyny that allows violence against women to be such an effective weapon. Learning to speak about women as humans is really just the most basic — and surprisingly necessary — first step.


Hillary Clinton has split with President Barack Obama on deportations, Syria, Obamacare's 'Cadillac tax,' the Keystone pipeline and trade Clinton's differences have become increasingly apparent in recent weeks Hillary Clinton insists on the campaign trail that she’s her own woman – and in recent weeks, she’s really tried to prove it. In a huge blow to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, the Democratic front-runner now says she opposes the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive trade deal she once helped negotiate as secretary of state. But that’s not all. Clinton has broken from her vocal support of several of Obama’s policies on several high-profile issues in recent weeks – including immigration, Syria and the Keystone pipeline. Here’s a look at five major issues on which the two Democratic leaders have differences: Clinton has a long history with free trade. After all, it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who signed the first regional mega-deal: the North American Free Trade Agreement. And Clinton herself as secretary of state helped get the ball rolling in negotiations over the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership – once calling it the “gold standard” of trade pacts. Related video What is TPP? The massive trade deal, explained. But she delivered a major blow to the deal on Wednesday, announcing her opposition to it just two days after Obama’s top trade negotiator announced that the United States has, after years of negotiations, reached an agreement. “As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” Clinton told PBS on Wednesday. “I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.” RELATED: 45 times Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes As a presidential candidate, she had previously criticized two of its elements. She’s called for more of a focus on currency manipulation, which is being addressed on the sidelines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And she has joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, in criticizing the deal’s inclusion of a mechanism that allows companies to challenge whether countries’ laws and regulations live up to their international trade commitments. But that, too, was the subject of last-minute changes designed to appease liberal critics. Obama’s administration has aggressively enforced immigration laws, ramping up deportations in an effort to immunize the White House from being accused of lax security efforts as it worked with Congress to pass immigration reform (an effort which failed). Deportations reached an all-time high of 438,421 in 2013. Clinton has previously said Obama has little choice but to enforce the laws on the books. But in an interview with Telemundo on Monday, she said it’s time for a different approach. Asked if she thinks Obama has done everything within his executive power to improve the current immigration system, Clinton cited the President’s increased enforcement of deportation laws as a mistake. RELATED: Clinton faults Obama for strict deportation “The deportation laws were interpreted and enforced very aggressively during the last six and a half years, which I think his administration did in part to try to get Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform,” Clinton said. “It was part of a strategy. I think that strategy is no longer workable.” She added: “I’m not going to be breaking up families. And I think that is one of the differences. I totally understand why the Obama administration felt as though they did what they did under the circumstances. But I think we’ve learned that the Republicans, at least the current crop, are just not acting in good faith.” Clinton has supported Obama’s executive actions to forestall deportations for so-called “Dreamers” – undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children – as well as the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens. She’s promised to expand on those actions. Clinton has also cast herself as an independent voice from Obama in Syria. In her book “Hard Choices,” she wrote that as secretary of state, she urged the President to arm Syrian rebels – much earlier than he ultimately did. RELATED: Obama subtly pushes back against Clinton, Panetta on Syria Clinton has prodded the administration to allow more Syrian refugees into the United States, too, pinning her goal at 65,000 – many more than the 10,000 the White House is currently making plans to accommodate. And most recently, Clinton has called for a no-fly zone in Syria – which Obama opposes. It’s a split not just with Obama, but with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has complained that a no-fly zone could lead to the United States becoming further enmeshed in the conflict there. Obama dinged Clinton for her position in a news conference last week. “Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” he said. “But I also think that there’s a difference between running for president and being president.” RELATED: In contrast to Clinton, Sanders opposes no-fly zone in Syria Clinton has broadly promised to protect and even expand on Obama’s signature health care law. But there’s at least one element she wants to roll back: the so-called “Cadillac tax” on premium insurance plans. The tax was designed to hit those who can best afford it, helping pay for the law’s expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for lower-income insurance buyers. Obama’s White House has consistently supported it, saying that it’s necessary to keep down the cost of the law. But labor unions have blasted it, calling it a thorn in the side as they attempt to negotiate more favorable health insurance plans for workers at school districts, governments and companies. RELATED: Hillary Clinton: End Obamacare tax on top health plans “I have proposed new reforms to build on the progress we’ve made and lower out-of-pocket costs for families,” said Clinton in a statement issued September 29. “That’s why, among other steps, I encourage Congress to repeal the so-called Cadillac tax, which applies to some employer-based health plans, and to fully pay for the cost of repeal.” Another issue to watch: Whether Clinton will break with Obama on the law’s medical device tax. Clinton was at the helm of the State Department when it began a years-long environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. That review still isn’t finished – and for months, she deflected questions about her position on whether the pipeline should move forward or not, saying she wants her old agency to finish its work first. It’s the same posture the White House has taken – Obama has yet to rule on the 1,179-mile Canada-to-Texas pipeline. But in September, Clinton finally ran out of patience – with the process, and with the political hits she was taking for ducking the issue. Liberals have long opposed the pipeline, blocking attempts by congressional Republicans to override the State Department and green-light the project. Sanders and O’Malley were highlighting Clinton’s refusal to take a position as evidence that they better suited the party’s base. Last month, she announced her opposition to the pipeline. RELATED: Hillary Clinton opposes Keystone XL pipeline “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is – a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change,” Clinton told a community forum in Des Moines, Iowa. “And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues. Therefore, I oppose it.” It wasn’t just a change of rhetoric for a presidential candidate. Her opposition was also a reversal for Clinton herself, who had said in 2010 as secretary of state that she was “inclined” to approve the pipeline.


When White House aides arrived at work Thursday, they were prepared for a market-shaking event that would prompt jitters among US allies and cause heartburn among establishment thinkers, even Republicans. They weren’t prepared for two such events. President Donald Trump sent shock waves across the globe when he accepted an invitation from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un for talks. No sitting US president has ever met with a leader from North Korea. The move represents the largest gamble to date for two truculent leaders who have engaged in a harrowing nuclear stare-down. It also caught presidential advisers – who had been hurriedly finalizing details on steel tariffs while also attempting to stave off unsavory questions about a porn actress – off-guard. Trump hadn’t initially been scheduled to meet with a delegation of South Korea officials in Washington to brief his administration on recent talks with Pyongyang. The group arrived midafternoon as the President was convening sessions with representatives of the video game industry and announcing his new tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. Trump accepts offer to meet Kim Jong Un But after speaking with the US national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, the group, led by McMaster’s South Korean counterpart, Chung Eui-yong, convened in the Oval Office with Trump. The gathering included three US generals – McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House chief of staff John Kelly. It was there, sitting on the gold brocade sofas, that Trump fielded the striking offer from North Korea and readily agreed. For Trump, the offer and his unprecedented plans to meet the North Korean leader were too great to keep quiet. Trump left the Oval Office intending to return to his private residence. But he made a detour, navigating the corridors of the West Wing toward the press briefing room, a venue he’d yet to speak from during his year-and-a-month as President. Peeking around a half-opened pocket door, Trump caught the eye of a small handful of reporters and drew them closer to him. First, he asked to speak off the record, but with an ounce of prodding agreed to go on the record, as long as his remarks remained off camera. “South Korea’s going to be making a major statement at about 7 o’clock,” Trump said ceremoniously. Vice President Mike Pence stood silently behind him. “About what?” a puzzled reporter asked. Related article With State Dept. depleted, Trump admin considers outside help on North Korea “The big subject,” Trump replied, his scowl turning into a grin. Thursday, in fact, contained two big subjects at the White House for the government in Seoul: the developments on North Korea and the tariffs on steel, which South Korea exports by millions of tons per year. Trump clarified. “North Korea,” he said, before ducking back into West Wing. The brief appearance, which lasted 29 seconds, came amid a sordid swirl of reports about his alleged affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels and a thunderstorm of criticism over his beloved steel tariffs. It sent reporters and White House officials scrambling. McMaster huddled with press secretary Sarah Sanders in her office to sort out the unusual logistics of a foreign government delivering an announcement from the White House. It was determined that having Chung deliver his news from the briefing room podium would break protocol and prove confusing. Instead, they sent him outdoors to the set of microphones on permanent standby in the White House driveway. “President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong Un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization,” Chung said. Related article Kim Jong Un wants to 'write new history' on South Korea reunification The decision, which aides said came about quickly in the Oval Office, represents a massive challenge for the President. His aides insist he is up for it. “President Trump has made his reputation on making deals,” one official said. “President Trump was elected in part because he is willing to do – take approaches very, very different from past approaches and past presidents. That couldn’t be better exemplified in his North Korea policy.” Sanders later wrote in a statement that the “place and time” of the meeting were still to be determined. The security and advance work would prove daunting for an experienced White House, let alone an administration still working to find its footing amid persistent chaos and low morale. The North Korea decision wasn’t immune from the appearance of disarray. Speaking in Ethiopia hours before Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said direct talks between the US and North Korea were still in the distant future. Related article US sanctions North Korea after blaming country for Kim Jong Nam's killing “We’re a long way from negotiations. We just need to be very clear-eyed and realistic about it,” Tillerson said. “I don’t know yet, until we are able to meet ourselves face to face with representatives of North Korea, whether the conditions are right to even begin thinking about negotiations.” Trump spoke with his top diplomat before his announcement, a senior State Department official said. Both men spoke with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, who has expressed deep misgivings about opening talks with North Korea. Ultimately, the President himself may have been the least surprised at Thursday’s developments. He has long remained open to talks with Kim, despite the view of top national security officials that too much is unknown about North Korea’s intentions in proposing them. Trump himself offered the best preview of his move during last Saturday’s Gridiron dinner in Washington, a white tie affair for journalists, where few in attendance expected they’d be covering news of an upcoming US-North Korea summit in a matter of days. “I won’t rule out direct talks with Kim Jong Un. I just won’t,” the President said. “As far as the risk of dealing with a madman is concerned, that’s his problem, not mine.” CNN’s Jeremy Diamond, Jeff Zeleny, Kaitlan Collins and Jim Acosta contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump's decision to meet Kim Jong Un


About a year after al Qaeda took Warren Weinstein hostage, his family paid a ransom, a Pakistani source says The captors demanded that other prisoners be released, the source says Weinstein, an American aid worker, was killed in a drone strike in January, the U.S. says In 2011, al Qaeda took Warren Weinstein hostage. Then, about a year later, his family paid money to his captors, said a Pakistani source who was in regular contact with the kidnappers. It did not lead to the American aid worker’s release, and he was inadvertently killed in an anti-terror strike in January, the White House announced Thursday. After the transfer of funds in 2012, the captors, who never referred to themselves as “al Qaeda,” but instead as “Afghans,” began demanding prisoners be released in exchange for Weinstein, most prominently Dr. Aafia Siddiqui of Pakistan, the source said. She has been described as the “poster girl” for Islamic jihad and is serving an 86-year sentence in the United States. The militants also wanted the release of local militants who hailed from the Pakistani province of Waziristan, along the Afghan border, the source said. The men on the other end of the phone spoke Pashto with an accent typical for the border region. And they were professional in their dealings, said the source, who noticed a marked change after the money was paid. The people who had originally talked to the source about Weinstein vanished and were replaced by new voices on the phone. The militants also connected themselves with other terror events. After ISIS beheaded American James Foley, Weinstein’s Afghan captors told the source that “the Iraqis” were asking for the American and that they were preparing an “orange suit” for him – a reference to the suits that victims have worn when ISIS militants murdered them. When the Taliban released U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a militant on the phone bragged to the source that he had been one of Bergdahl’s kidnappers. They had said, at one point, that if they did kill Weinstein, they’d announce it in a big way, because he was too big a catch not to publicly celebrate. The captors had called the source daily since sometime in 2012, and the last time the source spoke with them, in early April, they said that Weinstein was still alive. In spite of a request for proof of life, the militants didn’t give one. After that, the calls stopped. The source never had a number for the militants; they had always been the ones who called. The source declined to comment on the amount of money transferred to the captors, leaving the disclosure to Weinstein’s family. Could Weinstein have been saved? Weinstein’s family in Maryland was initially reluctant to take their case to Congress. Weinstein’s wife, Elaine, and his two daughters worried that drawing attention to their loved one’s plight – especially media attention – would make Weinstein, a government contractor working with USAID in Pakistan, a more valuable hostage to his al Qaeda captors. But the family switched course and went to their representatives in Congress in late 2013 after a video of Weinstein – frail and apparently in declining health – surfaced in which he said he felt “totally abandoned and forgotten” by his country. Related video W.H.: Hundreds of hours of surveillance preceded strike Will the drone debate return? More than a year later, that reluctance evolved into a close bond between the Weinsteins and the Maryland delegation of lawmakers and staff who pressed Weinstein’s case with the Obama administration as well as Pakistan. The congressional offices helped the family navigate the maze of government agencies working to free their loved one, according to one of those lawmakers and a Senate aide. “We don’t get choked up too often at work,” Algene Sajery said as she held back tears. “But this is really hard.” Sajery is a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, who worked closely on the case. After the White House announced that Weinstein had been accidentally killed in a January U.S. drone strike, the aide’s first call was to Weinstein’s daughters. “Myself and my colleague worked really closely with them, talked to them all the time … they’re just such good people,” Sajery said of the family. “There’s a personal connection there.” Cardin and his staff had tracked the Weinstein case since news of his abduction surfaced in August 2011, but when the family reached out to get help pressing their case, Cardin’s staff joined forces with Rep. John Delaney, the Weinsteins’ congressman, and began setting up meetings for the family. Cardin’s staff set up meetings for the senator and Weinstein’s family with everyone from the U.S. special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington. Cardin and Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, wrote to President Barack Obama, calling on the U.S. to beef up efforts to secure Weinstein’s release and dedicate more resources to the cause. And the staff and lawmakers helped the Weinsteins weave through the network of agencies – from the FBI to the State Department and the White House – working to bring Weinstein home. “We focused on making sure that the capabilities of the government was well coordinated,” Delaney told CNN on Thursday. “The government is a bureaucracy, and you have to make sure that it’s working.” Related video 2014: Family says Weinstein dedicated to helping others But for the Weinsteins and the families of other American hostages held by terror groups abroad, the government hasn’t always worked well enough – a frustration that was palpable to the staffers on Capitol Hill who worked to help them. Al Qaeda hostage Warren Weinstein killed “Unfortunately, the assistance we received from other elements of the U.S. Government was inconsistent and disappointing over the course of three and a half years,” Elaine Weinstein said in a statement Thursday. “We hope that my husband’s death and the others who have faced similar tragedies in recent months will finally prompt the U.S. Government to take its responsibilities seriously and establish a coordinated and consistent approach to supporting hostages and their families.” It’s a criticism that has resurfaced as the families of American hostages were killed abroad spoke up and voiced their frustrations with what they characterized as insufficient U.S. government efforts to bring their loved ones home. Delaney was “saddened, disappointed and outraged that our government was not able to bring Warren home,” he said in a statement Thursday. And in an interview with CNN later in the day, he strayed away from blaming the Obama administration or people in various U.S. agencies, instead pointing the finger at a disjointed system. The Weinstein family’s frustration with that system boiled over last summer when Bergdahl, the U.S. Army sergeant, was released by a Taliban-affiliated group in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists appeared to have an exception. “It’s one of those things where it’s both there’s some hope, but at the same time it caused them some great frustration,” Delaney recalled, saying the family asked: “Why not Warren?” But as the State Department called the Bergdahl exchange a “unique situation,” the Weinsteins’ hopes were dashed. “That’s when they asked us to really step up our efforts,” Sajery said. “That’s when they decided to really go public.” Delaney introduced a resolution calling on the Obama administration to use all tools necessary to bring Weinstein home and make his return – and that of other U.S. hostages abroad – a top priority. Mikulski, Cardin and Sens. Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk of Illinois pushed a similar resolution in the Senate. And the Weinsteins took to the airwaves, with Alisa Weinstein appearing on CNN’s “AC360” to make a public appeal for her father’s release – and for the U.S. government to do more to secure his freedom. “My father is just as deserving of freedom as Sgt. Bergdahl, as are all of the Americans who are being held abroad,” she said on CNN last June. “You cannot distinguish between these hostages. … They can’t just pick and choose, decide that it works to get one person out and then leave everybody else there.” White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday said that “significant resources” were dedicated to try to free Weinstein and that “as painful as it is,” the U.S policy of not negotiating with terrorists would remain in place, arguing that removing that policy could promote kidnappings abroad and put more Americans at risk. And State Department acting spokeswoman Marie Harf said many officials at the department were in touch with the Weinsteins throughout the process. While the U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists would remain in place, the State Department is reviewing how it works to secure the release of American hostages held by terrorists abroad, she said. The White House announced the review last fall, which Obama ordered last summer after terrorists killed or kidnapped Americans abroad. Speaking at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Friday, Obama reiterated that the White House will review what happened. “We all bleed when we lose an American life,” he said. “We all grieve when any innocent life is taken. We don’t take this work lightly.” Obama made to sure to praise the intelligence community overall, noting that much of their accomplishments remain classified, while only their failures become public. “The world doesn’t always see your successes – the threats you prevent, or the terrorist attacks you thwart, or the lives that you save,” Obama said. “It can be frustrating sometimes, but that’s part of the function of our democracy. But I know what you do.” But Delaney, the Weinsteins’ congressman, is revving up to push for more reforms that will make government agencies more effective at finding and freeing American hostages held abroad. Delaney on Thursday called on the government to streamline the efforts of various agencies and countries in the region that help the U.S. find American hostages – an effort he’s been pushing in recent months. The tragedy of Weinstein’s death could be just the momentum needed to spur those reforms. “I think that every single American wants any American held hostage returned,” Delaney said. “There’s tremendous support to do more.” On Friday, Elaine Weinstein said in a statement that the family has “been moved by the tremendous outpouring of support from around the world.” “We appreciate the sympathy and condolences we have received from those who knew the Warren we loved so much as well as those who did not,” the statement said. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of others who have been taken hostage around the world as they endure these terrible ordeals.” CNN’s Sophia Saifi reported from Islamabad, Pakistan; Jeremy Diamond reported and wrote from Washington; Saima Mohsin reported from Bangkok. CNN’s Ben Brumfield contributed to this report.


As many as 50,000 ISIS fighters have been killed since the war against the terror group began, a senior US military official told CNN. The official called that figure a conservative estimate. ISIS recruitment also has fallen off. It recruited only several hundred foreign fighters this year, compared with a couple thousand a month last year, CNN has learned. In addition, the official also revealed Thursday that in May 2015, US special operations forces came “tantalizingly close” to capturing or killing ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in Raqqa, but failed to do so because classified information was leaked to the news media. The official briefed reporters at the Pentagon on the condition his name not be used due to the sensitivity of the information. The official noted that after the May 2015 raid in Syria that killed ISIS operative Abu Sayyaf and led to the capture of his wife, the US got valuable information on Baghdadi from the wife after two days of interrogation. At the time, she told them “last week we were with Al Baghdadi in Raqqa,” the official said. “We had been tracking them in Raqqa, so we went back frantically to try to figure out where he (Baghdadi) was in Raqqa.” But the official said communications that were being monitored dried up which the official blamed news stories that were published about intelligence learned from the raid. The senior military official also disclosed that earlier this week when President Barack Obama visited the US military in Florida he privately spoke about the incoming Trump administration to General Joseph Votel, head of US Central Command, and General Tony Thomas, head of US Special Operations Command. “He asked specifically are there things we could be doing as an administration” to assist a smooth transition on military issues such as fighting ISIS and counterterrorism, the official said. The official would not discuss Votel’s answer but broadly noted that Thomas spoke about some changes to how special operations interact with the rest of the government. The bulk of the meeting with reporters dealt with the issue of special operations taking a leading role in coordinating across the entire US government efforts to counter extremist threats against the US and coalition partners originating from overseas. The matter has caused bureaucratic headaches inside the Pentagon and Congress over the question of whether special operations forces like Delta Force and Navy Seals will operate overseas more than they already do. The official insisted special operations have no new authorities to operate. But special operations forces will set up a new center to coordinate their operations with coalition forces and other government agencies at an “undisclosed location,” the official said. The official revealed for the last 18 months there has been a US military policy that airstrikes are only allowed against targets where 10 or less civilians might be killed. In a related matter, special operations is also set to become the leading part of the military for “countering weapons of mass destruction,” taking that role over from the US Strategic Command. There is growing concern that North Korea is edging closer to being able to deploy a nuclear weapon. The official said the US believes it has the capability to mate a nuclear warhead, missile and delivery system. “It’s the threat that keeps me awake at night,” the official said. The only issue holding the North Koreans off at this point appears to be they have not mastered the technology to make a weapon re-enter the earth’s atmosphere to reach its target. All of this is leading to stepped up “contingency planning,” to deal with North Korea’s nuclear capability if it came to that, the official said. CNN’s Jim Sciutto contributed to this report.


Thousands flee to Turkish border from Russian airstrikes pounding Aleppo and government forces moving in Aleppo is split in two with 320,000 civilians thought to be in the rebel-held area in the east of the city Aleppo’s fall to rebels – back in 2012 a much more moderate bunch than the often al-Nusra-infected alliances we see now – was a symbolic moment: the commercial heart of Syria turning on the country’s own government. Now, as thousands flee to the Turkish border from Russian airstrikes pounding the city and government forces moving in, the battle for Aleppo is again gaining significance. The towns of Nubul and Zahraa were reached by government forces late Wednesday and their seizure could mark a turning point in the war in northern Syria. Not because they are significant in themselves, but because to reach the towns, the regime had to cross through towns that mark the main supply route into the rebel-held area of Aleppo. Related gallery Syria's civil war in pictures Nearly five years into the civil war that has killed more than 250,000 people, according to the United Nations, Aleppo remains split in two with 320,000 civilians thought to be in the rebel-held area in the east of the city. Last year, the regime tried to cut off its main supply route, but failed. This time it looks like they have succeeded, and if Russian air power persists, it will be tough for rebels to open the road again. Since then it has been bombarded, seen al-Nusra Front (al Qaeda in Syria) sweep in, have moderates resist them as well as ISIS, and now faces what might be a prolonged siege. It is too early to tell whether the move to take Nubul and Zahraa really has cut off rebel supplies into the city. Both sides exaggerate – the rebels to urge outsiders to assist, and the government to show their prowess. But something is changing, and the march of thousands of refugees north, towards Turkey, where an uncertain welcome awaits, is evidence enough of that. This change comes at a time of other changes to the status quo in the north. To the east of Aleppo, Kurdish forces are, with American support, eyeing the remaining ISIS strongholds along the Turkish border – Jarablus and Manbij. The U.S. wants ISIS out, to remove its access to resupply of materiel and fighters from Turkey. Meanwhile, Turkey, America’s NATO ally that is engaged in a brutal but often unseen war with the Kurds’ allies in Turkey’s southeast, doesn’t want the Kurds to advance, and may stop at nothing to prevent that. Slightly southeast of there, the regime was advancing on ISIS in the town of Al Bab. North of Aleppo, the moderate rebels in the tiny gap below the Turkish border crossing of Bab Al Salama, are under Russian fire, and pressure from the regime forces that moved against Nubul and Zahraa. Slightly to their west, the Kurds who have long been in an enclave to Aleppo’s north, known as Afrin, have moved slightly east, moving in to new villages, according to the SOHR. All sides are on the move. And one problem looms for the rebels’ backers in the West and Gulf: one of the main forces moving in to try and fight for rebel-held areas of Aleppo, is the al-Nusra Front. They have issued a call for fighters to defend the city, and published video of their huge column of fighters moving towards the city. What comes next may take months to play out. A siege is a complex and ghastly prospect that will take weeks to come into effect, on a population already struggling, but long aware this could happen. Related video Glimpse of life inside Syrian war zone A humanitarian disaster will build, likely meters away from Turkey’s military. And Russia, whose decisive and often brutal intervention has given the regime a momentum it has not seen in years, will continue to see its military might reshape the landscape of this war, and effectively scupper the negotiations it has, on paper, bought into in Geneva. But it won’t end there – whatever the outcome. ISIS still exists, mere miles away, and could step into any void. Those killed in the government advance have relatives who will seek vengeance. Turkey won’t accept Kurdish fighters controlling much of its southern border. Iran and Russia will not accept the Damascus government falling. The political track for negotiations has stuttered, perhaps for its final time. It may change fast, but Syria’s war refuses to see even the beginning of its end.


Editor’s Note: Felix Sanchez is the chairman and co-founder of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Felix Sanchez: Trump's tough immigration speech odd after seemingly conciliatory meeting with Mexico's Pena Nieto He says meeting optics put Mexico on equal footing with US, but later speech for American audience was xenophobic The red-meat speech on immigration would come soon enough. But first…Donald Trump flew earlier in the day Wednesday into Mexico, bringing his own version of magical realism. He landed at Los Pinos–the Mexican White House. Trump, the surreal aggressor, voluntarily helicoptered into enemy territory to face an unknown outcome. Two embattled men facing abysmal approval ratings looked to each other for salvation.  The Mexican President, who had nothing to lose, suddenly found himself as the unexpected power broker/mediator to the world’s most unruly potential head of state. They were meeting about two months before the US presidential elections: a scene out of a Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel.  Trump –abandoned in the polls by educated whites, blacks and Latinos – was reaching for a lifeline. And indeed the trip brought a surprising result.  With his command of the timing and optics of the event – and his canny positioning to ensure that his comments were the last word – this may well represent the event at which Trump became a politician. Like him or not, Trump scored a home run with this strategic surprise trip to Mexico, a nation presently in mourning over the death of its world musical icon, Juan Gabriel.  Trump, standing at the matching podiums with an American ally, elevated his presidential stature. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook The visual parity between a world leader and a world leader contender emphasized Mexican and US equality—a new world order, even, with Mexico, in this instance, taking center stage. Only a few hours later, of course, it was Trump’s 10-point xenophobic tirade, presented with Latino antagonists, like Sheriff Arpaio, in tow that took center stage, as the candidate reverted to his old self in a speech on immigration, completely unbraiding the potentially progressive message he began in Mexico City. He had had his Los Pinos photo op and now it was back to reassuring his base.  A shame. But let’s not let that completely tarnish his foray to visit with Peña Nieto, who deserves praise. Despite the fantastical nature of the encounter, the Mexican President confronted head-on Trump’s disinformation campaign against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.  Trump’s reliance on extreme images of marauding Mexicans pillaging and looting the US has created the new American bogeyman, the new Willy Horton. For the courage to face off with Trump, President Enrique Peña Nieto should get kudos for defending the honor of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.  It’s not like Barbra Streisand, Ben Affleck or Oprah Winfrey had come to our defense. But what was remarkable was that it was not the Mexican President who was arriving at Trump Tower for a benediction, but the United States Republican presidential candidate who appeared to come to seek the Mexican President’s counsel. It was not a visit to the capitals of Britain and Germany, but it is a true North American summit:  a unique moment where Mexico flexed and exercised power over the possible next US President. Mexico was the only place Trump could come and attempt to achieve a crucial validation he lacks. Mexicans, after all, still hold the key to a locked US voting demographic. Trump did well in his Mexico trip, though he was not spiritually cleansed of his sinful, vitriolic rhetoric and immigrant fear-mongering.  But he aimed his pitch at Mexican-American voters and nervous Republicans worried that he had taken his message too alt-right. How might this have helped his candidacy? The Democratic Latino coalition has always had an Achilles heel that includes three critical Latino segments:  Cuban-Americans, who don’t have an immigration issue thanks to the US dry foot, wet foot policy; Puerto Ricans, who similarly do not have an immigration issue, because all Puerto Ricans are born US citizens; and finally multigenerational Mexican-Americans, who for the most part do not have immigration concerns. Not that these US Latinos don’t have empathy or support for Latino immigrants and their struggle, but it is not their top priority.  Jeb Bush understood the Latino sweet spot and how these voters were ripe to support him, which is why the Clinton campaign worried more about Jeb Bush than any other GOP candidate. But it’s hard to see how this will work for Trump, particularly if they got an earful of his call to arms against immigrants later in the evening on national television. These Latino swing voters appear to have coalesced behind Secretary Clinton, who has a long and authentic history with the Latino communities from Texas to Puerto Rico. What the Mexican President did today was to reframe the US –Mexico relationship, by emphasizing how the border economy affects far more than just US Latinos, it floats the economies of major states from California to Texas.   In their joint appearance, the debate shifted away, however briefly, from finger pointing to bi-national, shared governance.  The exclusive focus on undocumented immigration expanded to include discussion of the illegal flow between both countries of cash, drugs and guns and how they contribute to perpetuating gangs and drug cartels. What the Trump meeting also showed is how little we actually understand how the major cogs of the US economy work: our reliance on trading partners like Mexico, the benefits that have redounded to both nations under free trade agreements, and the importance of perfecting, but not discarding bilateral commercial agreements. Trump may have won the optics of the day (the first part, at least) and he may have somewhat resuscitated his campaign, deemed by many to be on life support, but the issue is whether this moment will propel Trump all the way to the White House.


Prosecutor: A delivery employee drove a van into the factory and set off a blast A decapitated body is found in the van and a severed head is found hanging on a fence French authorities call the attack near Lyon a terrorist act French authorities detained the lone suspect in an attack on a factory Friday in which a large explosion was followed by the discovery of a severed head hanging from a fence. Two people were hurt in the blast at the U.S.-owned factory near Lyon in southeastern France, the French President said. On a day when terrorist attacks also took place on two other continents, French authorities were particularly alarmed – especially after finding two banners or flags, inscribed with Islamic writing, hanging with the victim’s head. A decapitated body was found in the suspect’s van. In Tunisia, three gunmen opened fire on beachgoers at an oceanfront hote in Sousse, leaving 37 dead and 36 wounded, many of them foreign nationals, the country’s health ministry said, according to the state-run TAP news agency. In Kuwait, ISIS claimed responsibility for a blast that killed 25 people at a Shiite-affiliated mosque, state media reported. The attack at the factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, about 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) outside of Lyon, began in the morning when a delivery van entered the gates, said Paris Prosecutor François Molins, whose office handles anti-terrorism cases throughout France. The van had been used to make deliveries there, and the driver was recognized as a delivery employee, so it was allowed through. Security cameras lost sight of the van until seven minutes later, when the van is seen accelerating toward a warehouse containing canisters of acetone, liquid air and gas, Molins said. A minute later came an explosion so huge that it was heard two miles away, residents told CNN. “There is no doubt that the intention was to provoke an attack, an explosion,” French President François Hollande said. Firefighters arrived five minutes later and soon found the suspect in the warehouse trying to open canisters of acetone, Molins said. They took him into custody. The warehouse was damaged and the roof and back of the van were destroyed by the blast, he said. Inside the van, firefighters found a knife and decapitated body, which Molins said was that of a 54-year-old man who was in charge of the transport company where the suspect worked. Authorities then discovered the victim’s head hanging on the factory’s fence with the flags. Raymond Feyssaguet, the mayor of the nearby town of Villefontaine, identified the suspect as Yassin Salhi. The suspect has three children and has been married for 10 years, Molins said. He does not have a police record, but in 2006 he was put on the terrorist watch list and “he continued to attract the attention of the intelligence services, particularly with regard to the Lyon region,” he said. Related gallery France terror attack The suspect’s wife and sister and another person were also taken into custody. They are being investigated for involvement in a terrorist conspiracy, Molins said. The prosecutor said investigators are still trying to piece together other details of the attack such as where the victim was killed, the suspect’s route, and what the motive was. Though Molins said the flags were inscribed with the profession of faith of Islam, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said the writing on the flags had not yet been translated. He also did not specify what language it was in. Cazeneuve also said the suspect, from a Lyon suburb, was in touch with Muslim fundamentalist Salafists. Hollande expressed his condolences and solidarity with the victims, including two injured at the scene, and urged the French people to remain united and “not to give in to fear.” France raised security across the Rhone-Alpes region to its maximum level for the next three days, Hollande told reporters, CNN’s French affiliate BFMTV reported. The attack came the same week that France’s Parliament passed a law giving expanded powers to security services. Such efforts have been hastened by several recent attacks, including the Islamist terror attacks in January on the offices of satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket in Paris. The U.S. firm that owns the factory, Air Products & Chemicals, said it is working closely with all relevant authorities following Friday’s attack. The company, which supplies gases for industrial use, said it had stepped up security at its other locations worldwide as a precaution. U.S. President Barack Obama was briefed on the attack, a senior administration official said. Bergen: This is what we can expect going forward CNN’s Pierre Meilhan, Melissa Gray, Marilia Brocchetto, Hala Gorani, Sandrine Amiel, Sarah Oulahna, Alanna Petroff, Julia Talanova and Sunlen Serfaty contributed to this report.


Over the past two weeks, President Barack Obama made a full-court press to persuade lawmakers to back his Iran diplomacy and abandon a bill giving Congress a say in any final deal. Ultimately, though, the White House was forced to bow to the reality: Enough Democrats supported the principle of allowing Congress to weigh in on the nuclear deal that even a veto threat couldn’t stop it. READ: Iran bill passes committee as White House withdraws veto threat Shortly before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously voted Tuesday to send the bill to the Senate floor, the White House indicated that the veto threat had been withdrawn. Republicans and some Democrats chalked up the about-face to a calculation by the administration that the numbers simply weren’t on its side. “I don’t think they had a choice. The votes were there,” said Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, a committee member. “I think they certainly didn’t want to flirt with the situation where there would be enough votes to override a veto. That’s where we were headed.” Related video Senator: Congress should sign off on Iran deal As California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, put it: “I think it was a recognition of the lay of the ground, so to speak.” But the White House is pushing back on the suggestion that it caved on the bill. “Despite the things about it that we don’t like, enough substantial changes have been made that the President would be willing to sign it,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday, “because it would reflect the kind of compromise that he’d be willing to sign.” According to the administration, those changes include shortening a 60-day review period to a maximum of 52 days, dropping the requirement that Iran declare it will not sponsor terrorism and other similar poison-pill language, and wiping out “other extraneous elements” from the measure. “They did not cave. They did not cave,” said Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “We looked at the language and got the language to where they were comfortable.” Despite the White House’s massive outreach across Capitol Hill – the administration placed more than 130 calls, many from President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, while several Cabinet secretaries held briefings for lawmakers – it was the close discussions with Cardin that resolved many of the White House’s concerns. READ: What’s in that Iran bill and why all the fuss about it? Cardin was the key point person in hammering out the compromise version with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and lead bill sponsor Bob Corker of Tennessee. While Cardin said the administration got most if not all of what it was looking for, the Republican senator maintained that the legislation remained substantially the same as what he had originally drafted. “The bill is slightly different but we’re talking about a gnat’s hair difference,” Corker said. “It gave them (the White House) a chance to say changes had been made even though the essence is what it’s always been.” Related video Thornberry: Kerry was in 'strong advocacy mode' That essence includes requiring the details of any Iran deal – due by the end of June – be sent to Congress and paving the way for a vote on a joint resolution that could express approval or disapproval of the deal. During Congress’s review, the President wouldn’t have the ability to waive congressionally mandated sanctions on Iran. While originally the review period was set to last 60 days, the compromise dials that down to 30 days, with 12 more days added automatically if Congress passes a bill and sends it to the President, and an additional 10 days of congressional review if Obama vetoes that legislation. If the deal is submitted late, after July 9, the review period reverts to 60 days. Either way, Obama is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the terms of the deal. The bill also requires the President to make a series of detailed reports to Congress on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear program to its ballistic missile work and its support for terrorism globally, particularly against the U.S. and its allies. When it came to getting the White House to drop its veto threat, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin acknowledged that the math also aided Obama: He only needs 34 senators to agree with him to sustain a veto of the bill, which would be read as “basically tacit approval of the deal.” “That’s a pretty low threshold,” he said. “He probably came to the conclusion that no matter what the deal is, he can hurdle that bar.” Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, another committee Democrat, also thought that number helped sway the administration. Still, he said, “I’m sure they were not thrilled with ultimately having to cede this.” Markey said the changes to the bill that Cardin was able to work out with Corker also helped many Democrats who shared the administration’s concerns stay on board. READ: Christie: Iran and White House nuclear proposal threaten American security “All of the concerns that members had been raising on the Democratic side were now gone, and so as a result the argument came down to whether there would be a congressional role at all,” he explained. “It made it a lot easier for those Democrats who had been raising objections on terrorism certification and other issues to then feel more comfortable voting yes.” That in turn gave the bill too much Democratic support for the president to be secure in a veto. Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who has been pressing to give Congress the chance to vote on a deal, said it became increasingly clear in his recent discussions with the administration that the main issue wasn’t whether Congress would be involved, but how to structure a process both sides felt was workable. “It’s really a choice between congressional involvement under a prompt and reasonable set of rules or a free-for-all involvement,” he said. “I think the events of the last couple of months convinced them – yep, it might not have been our original choice, but we’d rather have it circumscribed and appropriate.” CNN’s Laura Koran and Alexandra Jaffe contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him @aarondmiller2.  The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. As if the broken, angry, dysfunctional Middle East needed another conflict, along came an unprecedented escalation between Israel, Iran and Syria to make the region even more volatile and dangerous. In the predawn hours of Saturday, an Iranian drone penetrated Israeli airspace and was shot down. Israel retaliated by attacking Iranian facilities in Syria, from where the drone had launched, which prompted an Israeli F-16 fighter jet to come under Syrian fire and crash.  This is believed to be the first time in decades that an Israeli jet has been taken down in such a manner. Much about these incidents, particularly why Iran sent a drone into Israeli airspace, isn’t yet certain. And where these events will lead is equally hard to predict.  But here are the key takeaways to consider. A perfect storm of factors with the potential to prompt an attack like Saturday’s have been brewing for some time. Capitalizing on Iran’s support of the regime of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Teheran has moved to expand its influence in Syria as a hedge against US and Saudi designs. And with Iran’s help, Hezbollah has probed areas close to the Syrian Golan Heights to possibly create another front against the Israelis. They planned to establish weapons factories and land routes that might facilitate supply to Hezbollah. Motivated partly by the ideological struggle against Israel and by a practical need to build up a stronger capability in the event of an Iranian-Israeli conflict, Iran apparently plans to expand the Israeli-Lebanese front to include Syria. Related article How to restore US credibility in the Middle East For its part, Israel has drawn clear red lines that it warned Iran not to cross and has long complained about Iran’s ambitions in Syria. These include Iran’s desire to create a land bridge connecting Iran and Lebanon through Iraq and Syria, deploy 10,000 Shia militia in southern Syria, create maritime and air bases and weapons factories, and even to create a presence adjacent to the Golan Heights. On this last goal, steps have already been taken. In 2015, Israel killed an Iranian general and senior Hezbollah operatives near the Golan Heights. Over the last several years, Israel has conducted at least a hundred  attacks in Syria, aimed at preventing weapons shipments to Hezbollah, blowing up weapons depots and eliminating  regime or jihadi activity too close to its borders.   But Saturday’s violation of Israeli airspace and sovereignty by an Iranian drone was considered a provocation that needed a clear answer on the tactical level and a strategic response. The other reality, which could result in external powers clashing in Syria, is the shifting focus of the conflict. As US-led coalition forces have whittled away ISIS control of its “Caliphate,” the struggle for influence, oil and territory has intensified. Turkey is fighting Syrian Kurds while the United States supports the Kurds in their effort to hold territory liberated from ISIS. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran are supporting Assad’s efforts to take territory back from jihadis in the Idlib province. All this further complicates Washington’s relations with Turkey. But as the commitment of these foreign external powers to the Syrian arena has grown, so have the costs. Within the past two weeks, a Syrian jihadi group shot down a Russian fighter jet, a Kurdish militia downed a Turkish helicopter, and Syrian air defenses disabled an Israeli F-16. And as Iran and the Russians have helped the Assad regime take back territory, Assad’s confidence and his willingness to challenge Israel have also grown. The downing of the Israeli fighter will hand Assad a propaganda victory and buck him up more. Despite the serious escalation, a sustained and massive confrontation is not necessarily around the corner. None of the major players is looking for a regional war. Russia has no desire to undermine three years of investment in saving the Assad regime, only to see Israel become involved militarily in  Syria, which could weaken the Syrian regime and strengthen the United States’ hand against Iran. Iran isn’t looking for war with Israel either, as it could jeopardize its own gains in Syria. Related article Israeli PM: Airstrikes dealt 'severe blows' to Iran, Syria And Israel has no interest in getting bogged down in Syria or triggering a conflict with Hezbollah, Iran’s loyal ally. A war with Hezbollah would rain thousands of rockets and missiles down on Israel’s cities, produce heavy civilian casualties, and force Israel to wage a costly war against Lebanon. More than likely, this coincidence of interests in avoiding war will succeed in deferring a major escalation to some later date. Could this dangerous moment produce a moderating effect forcing all sides to consider more stable arrangements? It’s doubtful given Iran’s commitment to Assad and Russia’s inability and unwillingness to constrain Teheran. Quite predictably, Moscow has adopted a position supporting both Syria and Iran and urged Israel to respect Syria’s territorial integrity. Moreover, given the history of Israeli-Lebanese conflicts –from 1978 to 2006 – it seems only a matter of time until the next round. Faced with an unprecedented escalation between Israel, Iran and Syria, which contain any number of dangerous, historic and unpredictable firsts, the Trump administration seems to have adopted a hands-off, low-key approach to the current crisis. It’s clearly very early in this crisis, but Washington seems content for now in issuing strong statements defending Israel’s actions and condemning Iran’s provocations. It may well turn out  that in a battle of wills between the Trump administration’s staunchest Middle East ally and its greatest adversary, the President wants to use Israel to hammer Iran in Syria. He may have no interest in getting involved in any diplomatic effort that might force him to put brakes on Israel or push his friend Putin to restrain Iran. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook As for the role of the secretary of state, it’s more than a little awkward if not outright embarrassing that Rex Tillerson, who’s traveling in the region, talked to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday, yet seems to have no plans to stop in Israel. He should add Israel to his itinerary, if only to receive a personal briefing on Israeli thinking and coordinate with Jerusalem. The fact that he’s not going speaks volumes about Tillerson’s own marginalized role and the administration’s lack of a strategy in thinking through how to pre-empt further escalation in a dangerous crisis.   And rest assured the Israeli-Iranian tangle in Syria isn’t going away. Sooner or later it will return with a vengeance.


Obama hopes the left-leaning Renzi will continue his legacy on the global stage But Renzi himself isn't secure in his job President Barack Obama chose to bestow his final state dinner upon a young, progressive leader who he hopes can help secure his agenda in Europe long after leaving the Oval Office. But even Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, whom Obama feted Tuesday with the highest form of Washington flattery, isn’t a certain bearer of the Obama legacy on a continent gripped with uncertainty and populist fervor. Both Obama and Renzi warned Tuesday that an isolated Europe would be harmful for economic growth. And while Obama insisted Renzi remain in office even if his proposed constitutional reforms are voted down in December, neither leader expressed much certainty about Europe in the months and years ahead. “I believe that we find ourselves in a season of our political lives,” Renzi said through a translator at a midday press conference in the White House Rose Garden. “Maybe some people choose hatred, the culture of intolerance. We have to bet on liberty. We have to bet on our identity, the values that make this country extraordinary. And Europe – Europe has a desperate need to find its own soul.” Obama, meanwhile, warned that nationalist voices in the United States and Europe would only be amplified if governments fail to address the valid concerns of citizens. “There’s probably been no group of people who’ve enjoyed more prosperity and more peace over the last several decades than a united Europe,” Obama said. “If it begins now splintering because their sense is the global capitals and elites are not attentive to the ordinary concerns of people, that would be a tragedy. And my hope is that that discussion, led by Matteo and others, will continue.” The visit came as Obama’s closest European allies have either been ousted from office, face uncertain futures or are nearing the end of their tenures. In rolling out the red carpet for Renzi, Obama hoped to buttress – through a lavish display of friendship – one of Europe’s most outspoken pro-US voices, one he hopes can provide a bulwark against isolationism on the continent in the months and years ahead. “The president does see in Renzi an up-and-coming politician that’s likely to be around for a while and who shares his progressive agenda, who shares a similar outlook on lots of different issues. In that respect, he’s bringing him to a very important event in part to give him visibility and give him a boost,” said Charles Kupchan, Obama’s senior director for European Affairs, who called Renzi, 41, one of “the most promising young politicians in Europe.” RELATED: White House state dinner: Batali’s pasta, 2016 politics to chew on Like his Canadian counterpart Justin Trudeau, Renzi represents the type of left-leaning politician Obama hopes will continue his liberal legacy on the global stage once he leaves office. Once accused of failing to develop close ties with foreign leaders, Obama has worked during his final year in office to foster more personal bonds with the leaders he’s leaving behind in January. The effort has ramped up due in part to a new generation of foreign counterparts entering office, including Trudeau, whom Obama hosted for a state dinner earlier this year. It’s also come as Obama’s closest European allies were either forced from office, like Prime Minister David Cameron, have seen their political star dim, like French President Francois Hollande, or are nearing the end of their terms, like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. That’s left an uncertainty in Europe as Obama prepares to hand off US foreign policy to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The same nationalist and anti-trade forces that have propelled Trump to the top of the Republican ticket are at work in Europe, too. Obama has issued a full-throated pushback against those sentiments in Europe to decidedly mixed results. Related gallery The Obamas 8 years of state dinners In Renzi, Obama has found a like-minded liberal who has emerged as Europe’s top advocate for strong transatlantic ties. The pair have worked jointly to address migration issues and European stability; they’ve also spent time jogging together during global summits. Renzi has voiced eager support for Obama’s stalled TTIP trade plan with the EU and has been a strong voice in Europe against austerity fiscal policy. But Renzi himself isn’t secure in his job. Italians vote in a December 4 referendum of a slate of constitutional reforms he says are necessary for effective governing. Meanwhile, nationalist parties are gaining ground in capitals across the continent. Like Cameron, Renzi could find himself politically wounded after the referendum vote in December, when Italians will decide on a set of constitutional reforms the Prime Minister has pushed to streamline the governing process. Obama said Tuesday he supports those reforms, believing they will help jolt a paralyzed legislative process. But he was careful not to wade too deeply into yet another sticky referendum vote could prove tricky for a president whose stance on the last two closely-watched foreign votes – on Britain’s exit from the EU and Colombia’s adoption of a peace deal with the FARC rebels – ended up being opposed by the people. “I won’t weigh in on the referendum, but the reforms Matteo is initiating, certainly on the economic side, are the right ones,” Obama said. “And in a global, Internet-driven world, governments have to be able to move fast and quickly and transparently.” Related video Italian PM: This is a time for new hope On Tuesday, Obama and Renzi made a push toward the trade deal with Europe, even as other European leaders, including in Germany and the UK, have backed away from the notion amid anti-trade sentiments. They also discussed the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean, where migrants fleeing turmoil in Northern Africa and the Middle East have faced peril and death reaching Europe on overstuffed boats. Despite their similarities, Renzi hasn’t been an entirely consistent ally for Obama, hesitating to enact tougher sanctions on Russia for its incursion into Ukraine as his country remains dependent on Moscow for oil. And he’s vowed to resign his post if the constitutional reforms fail to pass, though as polls have showed support stalling in recent weeks he’s avoided repeating his promise. On Tuesday, Obama said his partner should remain in place, even if he finds himself wounded in December. “I am rooting for success, but I think you should hang around for a while no matter what,” Obama said. For his part, Renzi – who openly backs Clinton in the upcoming election – acknowledged that attention in the US and abroad wasn’t on his own political troubles. “I have a feeling, and I think that rightly so, our American friends are a little bit more interested in November 8 than in the Italian vote on constitutional reform,” he said. “And so are we, might I add.”


The President took another crack at giving a pep talk to the American people over the cresting fear of terrorism For all his speech-making skills, Obama has admitted several times publicly that his communication strategy as president has sometimes been lacking Back on U.S. soil, President Barack Obama was looking for a do-over. The President took another crack at giving a pep talk to the American people over the cresting fear of terrorism and anti-refugee sentiment during a press conference Tuesday with French President Francois Hollande. The event was designed to display solidarity between the two countries following the recent terror attacks in Paris – which both presidents made sure it did. But Obama also used it to salve his own political vulnerabilities, exacerbated by sparring matches with reporters during his trip abroad last week that were poorly received at home. The President’s comments were his most expansive yet on how Americans should view the aftermath of the ISIS-claimed killing spree. But while they might stabilize him politically, they also underscore his deeper struggle to produce a long-term strategy to eliminate the threat from ISIS, which now appears to be turning its sights to terror attacks outside of its self-declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq. And though Obama and Hollande both vowed to intensify air strikes on the extremist group, he offered little new in the way of strategic thinking. The President began by delivering a moving tribute to the “joie de vivre” and cultural and historical greatness of France and later warned Russia to stop targeting moderate Syrian rebels in some of his more pointed comments of the event. But he also delivered a personal, distinctly political – if still unifying – message to Americans, providing the kind of reassurance, national rallying call and quiet resolution critics deemed missing from his appearances while he was in Turkey and Asia last week. Indeed, Obama seized the podium at the White House Tuesday and spoke directly to the American as well as French people. “Francois, with your understanding, my statement today will be a little longer than usual. I have been traveling and this is an important moment for our nations and for the world,” Obama said, in an apparent admission his earlier remarks following the Paris terror attacks 10 days ago had been lacking. “What happened in Paris is truly horrific. I understand that people worry that something similar could happen here. I want you to know that we will continue to do everything in our power to defend our nation,” Obama said. For all his speech-making skills, Obama has admitted several times publicly that his communication strategy as president has sometimes been lacking. On occasion, he has either seemed to underestimate the political impact of an event or required several attempts to craft an appropriate message. For example, over Christmas 2009, he struggled to keep up with rapidly evolving news coverage after an al Qaeda operative attempted to bring down a U.S. airliner over Detroit, possibly because he was thousands of miles away from the political tumult enjoying his annual vacation in his native Hawaii. Nearly six years on, Obama, who often seems to disdain the more theatrical tasks of the presidency, appears to still have some work to do on presentation. A CBS News poll published on Monday found that 66% of Americans believe that he does not yet have a clear plan for defeating ISIS. And a new Washington Post poll on Tuesday found that the President’s approval rating on handling terrorism had toppled to a new low of 40%, down seven points from January. And his overall approval rating has dipped back to 45%, down from 51% in October. READ: Obama: We are all French now Obama might have been criticized back home for his initial response to the Paris attacks, but there was no complaint from Hollande, who warmly praised the President’s swift vows of support for France in the immediate hours after the assaults. “He was the  first one to call me,” Hollande noted. “It was very late in France, 2.00 a.m. when Barack called – the President of the United States,” Hollande went on, praising Obama for his “emotion, his compassion against the horror.” On Tuesday, the commander in chief sought to reassure Americans wary that the Paris attacks, which killed more than 120 people, could presage an attempt by ISIS to strike U.S. soil. He detailed what he said were “extraordinary measures” taken to strengthen homeland security since the September 11 attacks in 2001 and praised the “tireless” work of security and law enforcement officials dedicated to stopping terror attacks. Then, seeking to stiffen national resolve, Obama argued that every American had a role to play in defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups and that they could make a contribution simply in the way they respond to threats. “Even as we are vigilant, we cannot and we will not succumb to fear, nor can we allow fear to divide us, for that’s how terrorists win,” he said. “We cannot give them the victory of changing how we go about living our lives.” The President did not name Republican presidential candidates, but his comments were a clear denunciation of the warnings issued by Republican candidates about a rising threat from terrorism that have rocked the 2016 presidential race since the Paris attacks. Even as Obama spoke, one GOP candidate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, was accusing the President of forgetting the lessons of 9/11 and faulted him for referring to ISIS at a press conference in Asia on Sunday as “a group of killers who are good at social media.” “I would be fascinated to see the President go to Paris and speak to the families who lost their loved ones … days ago and tell them that ISIS is just a group of killers who are good at social media,” Christie told the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Another Republican presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, also argued that American leadership in the world was lacking under Obama, saying that the shooting down of a Russian warplane by Turkey along its border with Syria was a symptom of a “world rife with insecurity.” But Obama avoided the harsh partisan tone he adopted while abroad, subtly parrying opposing positions rather than directly engaging them. He kept his tone elevated and did not explicitly call out the GOP, in contrast to the lashing he gave Republicans last week for being scared of three-year-old Syrian orphans destined to enter the country as refugees and accusing them of being a “potent recruitment tool” for ISIS. On Tuesday, he still implied that the party’s position on barring refugees from the United States, based on fears that ISIS extremists could try to hide among those seeking entrance, ran counter to the values that underpinned both the United States and France. READ: Obama: Turkey has the right to defend itself and its airspace But instead of stigmatizing critics, the President appeared to be appealing to the better angles of his nation’s nature, and a wider humanitarian impulse to help people fleeing tyranny or war in their homelands. “Each of us, all of us, must show that America is strengthened by people of every faith and every background,” Obama said, apparently referring to calls by Republican front-runner Donald Trump to consider monitoring Muslim Americans and closing some mosques. Obama also noted that France was still planning to admit 30,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years – three times the U.S. amount. “On the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the people of France, there are words we know so well: ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,’ Obama said. “That’s the spirit that makes us Americans. That’s the spirit that binds us to France. That’s the spirit we need today.” Obama was also criticized last week for failing to offer a sharper definition of certain victory over ISIS, in the way that previous presidents have predicted the demise of American foes to rally public opinion. Back on U.S. soil, in a high-stakes press conference, he didn’t make that error again. “President Hollande, my fellow Americans, let’s remember we face greater threats to our way of life before. Fascism, communism, a First World War, a Second, a long Cold War, each and every time, we prevailed,” Obama said. “Make no mistake: We will win and groups like ISIL will lose.”


Trump and his allies in Washington are seizing on a pair of revelations about Hillary Clinton The offensive is an attempt to regain control of the narrative President Donald Trump and his allies in Washington are seizing on a pair of revelations about his former rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party aiming to flip the months-long narrative about potential Russian collusion. Republicans this week launched a multi-pronged attack – from the White House, Capitol Hill and politicos around town – on Democrats and their former nominee after reports revealed that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee helped fund an opposition research effort that produced a controversial dossier that made allegations (including many salacious and unverified ones) about Trump and his Russian ties; and as new questions surfaced about the circumstances surrounding the sale of a Canadian-based uranium mining company during Clinton’s time leading the State Department. Court documents connected with the case reviewed do not reference donations to the Clinton Foundation, nor attempts by US or Russian interests to influence the Uranium One deal decision. Since these allegations have resurfaced in the wake of recent reporting, Clinton and members of her staff have disputed accusations that anything improper occurred surrounding the approval of the Uranium One deal. Related article Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions, new accusations and new investigation Clinton said in an interview with C-SPAN this week that any accusations that she was bribed to approve the deal were “baloney” and that they had been “debunked repeatedly.” The reaction from Trump and his Republican allies was swift and synchronized, serving to muddy the waters and draw attention away from the investigations and allegations the President and his allies still face. “It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion with HC!” Trump tweeted, referring to Clinton. On Capitol Hill, congressional Republicans opened two fresh Clinton-related investigations into the uranium sale and the decision by the FBI not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton over her private email use. And throughout the week, Republican political operations from the RNC to Trump-aligned surrogates flooded the airwaves and reporters’ inboxes with allegations that the real tale of collusion was on the other side of the aisle. Republicans, who have spent months on defense amid allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, jumped back into an attack posture. “This is a major development and one of the first openings we’ve had on this issue in months,” said an RNC official, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss the Republican strategy. The RNC official and a senior White House official said the revelations gave Republicans and the White House an opportunity to go on the offensive and divert attention from the investigations facing the President. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders did just that on Friday as she took to the White House podium and claimed: “All the things that the Democrats have accused the President of doing, they are actually guilty of themselves.” “If any collusion took place, it would be between the DNC and the Clintons,” Sanders said. A White House official said Sanders was referring to the Democratic-funded dossier compiled by a former British intelligence official, which leveled allegations about Trump and his associates’ ties to Russia as well as to months-old allegations that a DNC contractor met with Ukrainian officials offering information that could be damaging to Trump’s campaign. The DNC has vehemently denied any collusion with the Ukrainian government. The White House and its allies’ argument: that the dossier – initially funded by still-undisclosed Republicans during the 2016 primary campaign – amounts to collusion because it included information sourced to Russian intelligence sources. The allegation is hardly as hard-hitting as those Trump and his allies have faced, particularly given that the federal investigation and the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russian meddling and allegations of collusion were not triggered by the dossier. Trump, meanwhile, still faces the scrutiny of public investigators for his firing of FBI director James Comey – which Trump has said was because of “this Russia thing” – his campaign associates’ meetings with Russian officials, including most notably his eldest son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer he believed would furnish the Trump campaign with incriminating information on Clinton from the Russian government. The Daily Beast revealed earlier this week, and CNN confirmed, that the head of a data firm employed by the Trump campaign emailed WikiLeaks head Julian Assange hoping to gain access to 33,000 emails that had been on Clinton’s server. US intelligence officials believe many of the hacked emails Assange released were obtained as part of a Russian hacking campaign. News of the email exchange comes amid federal investigations into whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign’s digital director, was interviewed Tuesday by the House intelligence committee as part of that inquiry. But the allegations Trump and his allies are now lobbing at Democrats don’t have to pan out to be effective. A senior White House official said the allegations would at a minimum “demonstrate that this is a far more complicated matter than people lead on.” The allegations and attacks against Clinton mark a return to the tried-and-true GOP attack playbook of raising suspicion about Clinton’s actions. “The news about Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for the research behind the Russia dossier raises a lot of questions that I think are fair to ask from the RNC and from other groups,” an RNC official said. “There’s at least a perception that Democrats and the Clinton campaign lied about this – that this is very Clinton-esque.”


Kaine questioned Trump's potential conflicts of interest if elected president Kaine has increasingly stepped into the role of vice presidential attack dog in recent days Sen. Tim Kaine again criticized Donald Trump Wednesday over his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, continuing his attacks on the Republican nominee in recent days. “We are entitled to get the information to get to the bottom of this cozy bromance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee said at a community center gym here. “Would Trump, as president, help our allies block Russia from annexing more territory and destabilizing Europe where hundreds of thousands of Americans live and about 70,000 of our troops are deployed? And what if Russia engaged in some kind of cyberattack or other effort to destabilize an election in this country? Would Trump stand up against them?” Citing Trump’s declaration at a March debate that he had “almost 120 deals” outside of the United States, Kaine questioned Trump’s potential conflicts of interest if elected president and what he said was the mogul’s lack of transparency regarding his business abroad. “That’s 120 deals where there are at least potential conflicts of interest. We ought to be able to find out whether they are conflicts. One-hundred-and-twenty opportunities for those in other countries to influence him because they have influence on his financial condition,” Kaine said. The Virginia senator referenced former acting CIA director Michael Morell’s assessment that Trump has been recruited as “an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,” pointing to his foreign business dealings, including one with an associate of Putin to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow. Morell made the statement earlier this month in a New York Times op-ed endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Kaine has increasingly stepped into the role of vice presidential attack dog for Clinton in recent days. Last week, he said Trump was “pushing” the values of the Ku Klux Klan. He backed away from the comments a day later, telling reporters that Trump has some supporters “connected” with the KKK who are “claiming him.” And Tuesday, he suggested Trump wouldn’t stand up to a Russian cyberattack of the American election.