Editor’s Note: Michael D’Antonio is the author of the book, “Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success” (St. Martin’s Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. With every revelation in the Trump-Russia controversy it’s becoming clear that the most important moment in Donald Trump’s transition involved the man he seems to detest the most. Two days after the election, Barack Obama delivered a face-to-face warning to Trump about the risk of keeping retired Gen. Michael Flynn around. Trump ignored the advice and instead invested maximum trust in Flynn as he made him national security adviser. Related article GOP's next goal: Shred the social safety net Obama’s effort to save Trump and the nation from Flynn is full of painful irony. Remember, Trump is the man who spent years promoting racist conspiracy theories suggesting Obama was foreign-born and thus not legally qualified to be president. Flynn, whom Obama dismissed because of concerns about his leadership, then mocked Obama’s ally, Hillary Clinton, with chants of “lock her up” during the campaign. Obama could have stayed mum. A lesser man would have savored the knowledge that Trump and Flynn were headed for crisis. Obama did his duty by trying to help his successor. The judgment Obama showed was typical for a president who, prior to politics, was an expert in constitutional law and understood his responsibilities to fulfill the oath he took to “preserve, protect and defend” it. In counseling Trump, Obama also acted in the best tradition of commanders in chief who must defend the nation against enemies foreign and domestic. Flynn was a potential threat to US security interests, and after eight years of defending the country Obama wasn’t going to leave this threat unnamed. Related article Can President Trump's dual-track presidency survive? Why didn’t Trump heed Obama? To understand, it helps to understand his vain and dark perspective on life. Long ago Trump copped to being somewhat paranoid, explaining that “being a little bit paranoid isn’t bad.” He advised applying this fearful and delusional thinking “to people who are even close to you” because in the end, everyone acts out of self-interest. This point of view explains why Trump values loyalty above other traits and, even then, tests those he supposedly trusts. It also explains why Trump couldn’t take Obama’s advice. He couldn’t imagine Obama would set aside party, and the chance to see an opponent suffer, for the good of the country. Trump’s vanity is also a part of the problem. Certain of his own superiority, Trump believes in natural ability and values it above experience and character. He considers himself a great judge of talent. According to this logic, if he drew Flynn close to himself during the campaign – and Flynn surely was one of his very top advisers/surrogates – then he must be good. Likewise, failing to reward him would suggest Trump had made a mistake. Trump hates to admit a mistake and he wasn’t going to do it on the basis of advice from Obama. Then there’s Donald Trump’s superficiality. The President considers himself to be a very good-looking man and he likes to surround himself with good-looking men and women. When he was putting together his government, aides spoke of how he wanted people who” looked the part” and thus, approached appointments like he was casting a movie. Rex Tillerson, silver-haired and mature, looks like a Hollywood secretary of state. James Mattis, secretary of defense, is a trim and muscular man who looks like a commander. Trump also crowed about how he liked his nickname, Mad Dog. In Flynn’s case, Trump, stuck with the craggy-faced Army officer whose appearance suggests steadfast strength. It must be noted that Trump has a strange attachment to military men – he calls them “my generals” – and Flynn was likely the one he favored most despite all of the signs that he was not fit for a crucial and sensitive assignment. Indeed, the mere fact that Flynn relished his role as a full-throated and caustic political campaigner showed he lacked the temperament to handle a top national security post. No serious spymaster would ever give the kind of soapbox performances Flynn gave in 2016. But Trump, whose formative years were spent at a military academy, was determined to keep him close. Since Flynn was likely under surveillance, there’s a good chance Trump was recorded in conversation with him during and after the campaign. Trump is a conspiratorial sort who loves to gossip and scheme. In the past, when his goals involved self-promotion and the accumulation of wealth, the risks in this behavior were limited and if he got into trouble his lawyers got him out of it. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Now, special counsel Robert Mueller, with the sort of firepower Trump has never faced before, is moving methodically in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and related issues. He has charged four Trump associates with serious crimes. Two, including Flynn, have pleaded guilty. Trump is responding as he always has, attempting to bully and denigrate and deny the truth. Much of Trump’s troubles could have been avoided if he had been able to heed the advice of a predecessor, Obama, whose experience and training as a lawyer would have enabled him to predict the miserable future Trump now inhabits. Blinded by his vanities, Trump couldn’t see the gift Obama offered. Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Michael Flynn is an ex-Marine; he is a retired Army officer.


Editor’s Note: Michael D’Antonio is the author of the new book, “The Truth About Trump.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Michael D'Antonio: An election defeat should end Trump's assault on the GOP, but it will not mean the end of Trumpism From the start of his presidential campaign, Trump has been more demagogue than statesman When Donald Trump was a boy growing up in Cold War America, his mentor Roy Cohn played chief henchman in Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt, ruining lives by accusing people of ties to the menacing autocrats in the Kremlin. The Cold War ended in 1991, but the paranoia persists. Trump evokes it every time he speaks of America in decline and voices admiration for the Moscow’s strongman Vladimir Putin. Trump did it again at the final presidential debate with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, declaring that Putin has “outsmarted her and Obama at every single step of the way.” He then hyped Russia’s power in the world, noting “they’ve taken over the Middle East,” and he doubled down on his pledge to reduce America’s role in the military alliances that block Russian aggression. The GOP presidential nominee’s argument – Putin is strong, Russia is taking over, and America must retreat – seems inconsistent if you believe he’s a regular American politician seeking to serve our democracy. However there has never been anything regular about Trump’s candidacy. He is not so much a Republican running for president as a demagogue seeking to build a movement based on fear, scapegoating (of immigrants, Muslims, women, etc.) and his own personality. The presidency may be out of reach, but Trump could create a reactionary splinter party organized by the expansion of Brietbart.com into a full-blown media empire delivering conspiracy theories and rage. From the start of his presidential campaign, Trump has been more demagogue than statesman, signaling in his admiration for Putin that he is the first modern major-party candidate to prefer a strongman approach to governing. His policy for America is not to confront Putin, but to cooperate with him in foreign affairs and emulate him at home. He wants not to be the president, but to be America’s czar. Understanding why Trump would admire a man whose critics wind up dead and whose neighbors wind up invaded requires focusing on Trump’s lifelong passions and constant campaign themes. From the time he was schooled in the politics of power at a military school until now, Trump’s purpose has been to dominate – this is what he means by “winning” – in every arena, from business to politics to even personal encounters.  (For examples of this, consult the infamous audio of Trump bragging about sexual assault and the multiple accusations that followed.) Related video Donald Trump: The master of 'disaster' At the first presidential debate, Trump bent toward his microphone and said, “It’s called business” to explain why he rooted for the 2007 collapse in the housing market, which drove millions of Americans into foreclosure and began the Great Recession. Only the so-called vultures of capitalism consider a housing crisis and a recession mere “business” and few of them would admit hoping for such an event so that they could take advantage. Trump obviously sees nothing wrong with taking any advantage, including the use of the tax code, to evade contributing something back to the country that has done so much for him. On the global stage, the only leader to match Trump’s predator profile is the Russian leader. Like Trump, who has always gamed whatever system he confronts, Putin seized Crimea, invaded Ukraine and used his air force to kill Syrian civilians at the behest of Bashar al-Assad simply because he could. Bullies always pick on the weak and fight dirty in order to delay a response by the strong. The world’s response to Putin has included crippling sanctions, which are slowly bankrupting the Kremlin. Unable to trade and deprived of oil revenues, Russians face a declining standard of living. The average Russian income is down to $450 per month and the government’s cash reserves, depleted by the high cost of war, are expected to be gone by the end of next year. Nevertheless, Putin has remained popular with people who recall the former Soviet Empire and believe he is avenging the humiliation experienced when it collapsed. Related video Clinton: I can't deal with all Trump's conspiracies This dynamic of humiliation-defeat-resurrection-revenge appeals to something primal in many people, especially when they feel aggrieved. In the United States, the most aggrieved may be white, working-class men who feel left behind. Rising racial and ethnic diversity, global economic competition and women’s equality have undermined the security once enjoyed by those who worked in manufacturing, mining, and other old-economy industries. The resentment some feel is not unlike the resentment experienced by Russians, who miss the days when Soviet leaders controlled all of eastern Europe, beat the Americans into space and all-but colonized the island of Cuba, just 90 miles from Key West. Russians are not unique in their authoritarian impulse. Something in the human soul is drawn to promises of safety and, ultimately glory, in moments of crisis. Of course America wasn’t in crisis, or any real sense of danger, when Trump began his campaign. Instead it was recovering from the Great Recession, it was popular abroad, and could boast low rates of crime and violence. Needing to create fear to justify the repressive leadership he proposed, Trump began his campaign with a book titled Crippled America and a speech that suggested murderous hordes were rampaging across the country’s southern border. Although more people were leaving the US than were coming in, he proposed an extreme anti-immigrant policy that included a huge, multibillion-dollar border wall and a massive deportation force to round up 11 million undocumented immigrants and deport them. From the false immigration scare, Trump moved on to a terrorism threat he deemed so severe that he suggested all Muslims be banned from entering the country. Insisting that only he, personally, could deal with these and other problems, Trump made his imitation of Putin complete by encouraging a cult of personality as the solution to all of America’s problems. Related video Trump Jr. says campaign is a 'step down' for father It must have been a pleasure for Trump to do all this with other people’s money, as political donors and the Republican Party funded his grand tour of rallies, his political advertising campaign and his development of a national network of operatives who will remain loyal to his causes well into the future. Always interested in personal power and essentially devoid of any commitment to democratic ideals, Trump is naturally inclined to be a strongman. But as a far more stable and far richer country, the United States is not as vulnerable to demagoguery style as Russia seems to be. Centuries-old democratic institutions and the politicians who value them do seem to be holding against Trump. And the polls indicate he will be defeated comfortably at the ballot box. An election defeat should end Trump’s assault on the GOP and return it to the control of Republican leaders, who value the system of democracy and the rules that constrain presidents who would be dictators. But it will not mean the end of Trumpism. When he made Breitbart executive Steve Bannon head of his presidential campaign, the campaign itself took a turn toward the extreme that reveals Trump’s true intentions. We should expect these two men to use their skills to amplify and exploit the paranoia and resentment of this campaign and create a permanent empire of rage. The only question that remains is whether its end goal will be profit or a new political party that might one day gain real power.


Editor’s Note: Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration. She is vice president of communications and strategy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Follow her at @jrpsaki. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. Jen Psaki: Tom Price's resignation is not just about his use of taxpayer money to pay for chartered flights It is about the growth of the swamp at the expense of the American people, writes Psaki While the failure of the Obamacare repeal, the mishandling of the hurricane in Puerto Rico and the dangerous threats made toward North Korea are making national headlines, there is another story that could be more damaging to Trump in 2020. Behind the scenes, Donald Trump is not draining the swamp. He is the lead swamp monster. And he has created a cabinet that is ready and willing to take advantage of the taxpayer dollar. Take his former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price as an example. His resignation is cause for celebration for members of both political parties, opponents and advocates for Obamacare. When given the opportunity to work with Democrats on fixing Obamacare, even with some openness expressed by President Trump, he did not pursue it. And twice he went along with Senate leadership as they tried and failed to repeal Obamacare. For a former orthopedic surgeon and long serving members of Congress, his short record of service at the head of the health care agency will be marked by his complete inability to improve the quality or cost of healthcare for Americans. But his reason for departing is not about his failure as a leader or a policy maker. It is about his shocking use of private jets on the taxpayer dime. He reportedly took multiple chartered flights for official business with a combined cost of over $1 million. Price has said he will reimburse the government for the cost of his seat on those flights, but that only amounts to $51,887.31. Related article The wrong scandal cost Tom Price his job No, this is not normal. I can only speak for Obama Administration officials in the exact same position. But Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary Sylvia Burwell only took commercial flights. Why? We worked for the American people and did not want to waste their money on unnecessary extravagances. In response, Mike Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued new guidelines for cabinet travel. Moving forward, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly must pre-approve all “travel on government-owned, rented, leased, or chartered aircraft.” But Price’s flights are just the tip of the iceberg. Price is not the only member of Trump’s cabinet who has used private charter flights paid for by the American taxpayer. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reportedly asked the White House about using a government jet for his honeymoon, which he claims was just one of many options “to ensure he had access to secure communications … as he traveled.” Meanwhile, Mnuchin’s flight to Fort Knox, where he, his wife Louise Linton and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell watched the solar eclipse, is currently under review by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General. Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has used private planes for trips to his hometown and the Caribbean. He told CNN he only used private planes when several Interior professionals advised him no other options were available. But the Department of the Interior’s inspector general’s office has now opened a full investigation. And Trump himself may have been padding his own pockets – or, to be more exact, the pockets of his family businesses – with American taxpayer money for months. Related article Trump's rich Cabinet needs private jets. Don't we all? He kicked off his 2020 campaign with a re-election fundraiser hosted at none other than the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. While there have not been specific numbers released on how much the property made off of the event, the publicity was no doubt a benefit and the Trump team was projected to pocket $10 million in the process for the campaign fund. Members of his White House staff have repeatedly used their platform to promote family businesses. The director of the Office of Government Ethics even called for White House Senior Advisor Kelllyanne Conway to be disciplined after encouraging viewers to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff” during an interview with Fox News earlier this year. But the most egregious is Trump’s use of travel as a means of promoting his properties and providing a reason to make entry more exclusive and expensive. Mar-a-Lago, one of the most infamous of the Trump properties, has upped its member fee to $200,000 since the election. That is twice the previous fee. And the club’s profits in the first quarter have more than doubled from just over $15 million in 2014-2015 to more than $35 million from January 2016 to spring 2017. He has also not drawn a line when it comes to profiting from foreign governments enjoying the glitz and glamour of his hotels. Saudi government lobbyists spent more than $200,000 at the Washington, DC property this year alone. Related article My Instagram beef with Linton: #Deplorable Before resigning in protest, the head of the Government Ethics office, Walter Schaub, stated, “I can’t know what their intention is. I know that the effect is that there is an appearance that the businesses are profiting from his occupying the presidency. And appearance matters as much as reality.” This is all learning on the job, right? No. Instead of apologizing and paying back taxpayer money, Zinke has called the accusations “a little BS.”  Mnuchin, for his part, has refused to commit to taking only commercial flights during his time in office. Shorthand: Taxpayers, your money is my money, and I will use it as I see fit. I am old enough to remember when then-candidate John McCain couldn’t remember how many houses he owned and then-candidate Mitt Romney stated that “47% of the Americans pay no income tax.” These moments didn’t end their presidential campaigns, but they showed how these two nominees were completely disconnected from the struggles of working Americans. How could Mitt Romney or John McCain fight to make life better for Americans who needed help the most? They didn’t get it. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook But as with almost any recent debate between prominent members of both parties, today we are in an entirely unprecedented situation. The rampant abuse of taxpayer money, combined with the arrogant responses from Trump and his cabinet members, should send a chill down the spine of the Republican party. But it should especially unnerve those who elected him to drain the swamp. After all, this isn’t just about Tom Price. This is about the growth of the swamp at the expense of the American people.


Russia's airstrikes from Iran raised US eyebrows, triggering spat over UN resolution Russia's defense ministry suggests its warplanes might return in the future For now, Russia is done using an Iranian air base to launch airstrikes against targets in Syria, Russia’s defense ministry and Iran’s official state news agency reported Monday. On Monday, Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi, who called Moscow’s use of the bases a “temporary mission, that ended.”“Russia has no base in Iran nor has it deployed (its fighter jets) in our country,” Qassemi said, according to IRNA. In Moscow, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov confirmed in an email statement that Russian military units that were using Iran’s Hamadan Air Base have “successfully completed all the tasks.” However, Konashevkov suggested Russian warplanes might return in the future “on the basis of mutual agreements on combating terrorism,” the statement said. Moscow’s announcement of the new arrangement last week is being described by Iran’s Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan as showing off and a “betrayal of trust,” Reuters reported, citing Iran’s Fars news agency. The arrangement had raised eyebrows in Washington, triggering a spat with Moscow over a UN resolution, because it was the first such operation by a major power since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979. Though Russia insists its pilots have been targeting ISIS forces, Washington says the majority of its airstrikes have been against US-backed rebels battling forces loyal to Syrian President Bashir Assad. The airstrikes have helped Assad retake territory lost to ISIS and other rebel groups. Iran allowing Russia to house its bombers represents “a major strategic shift in the Middle East” that’s likely to frustrate US efforts to contain Iran’s influence in the region, said analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman predicted that Washington would consider pushing back by taking the issue to the UN. In fact, US State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s use of the Iranian airfield “could very well be a violation of [UN] Resolution 2231,” which prohibits the transfer of combat aircraft to Iran. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected that suggestion. “There are no reasons to suspect Russia of violating resolution 2231,” Lavrov said during a news conference Wednesday. “Neither supply nor transfer or sale of military aircraft to Iran took place.” As Iran’s Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani put it Tuesday in an interview with IRNA: Tehran and Moscow “enjoy strategic cooperation in the fight against terrorism in Syria and share their facilities and capacities to this end.” The spat raised questions about the prospect of proposed US-Russia cooperation on fighting ISIS and Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, formerly known al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, the Nusra front. The US expects the deal will include a grounding of Assad’s air force in exchange for providing more information to the Russians about US missions. Toner said Tuesday that Russia’s actions did “not preclude the fact that we will reach some kind of cooperative arrangement with Russia. We continue to pursue that.” Moscow had deployed Tu-22M3 long-range bombers and Su-34 tactical bombers to Hamedan, which is located in western Iran. Airstrikes launched from there hit targets belonging to ISIS and the Jabhat al-Nusra militant group in the Syrian provinces of Aleppo, Deir Ezzor and Idlib, Russia’s defense ministry said. Related video Red Cross: Syria is "urban warfare at its worst" A “significant number of militants” were also thought to be killed, the ministry said. Russia’s military in Syria: Bigger than you think All Russian aircraft returned to their home airfields safely after a successful “combat mission,” the statement added. Russia flexes its military might in Syria Related video Syria, Russia announce humanitarian corridors US Secretary of State John Kerry recently threatened a “Plan B” to increase arms to Syrian rebels if Russia and Assad did not change tactics and stop targeting moderate opposition groups supported by the US and its European and Arab partners. And airstrikes have been taking the toll on war-torn cities like Aleppo – creating what CNN’s Clarissa Ward described as an “apocalyptic wasteland.” Hundreds of thousands of civilians were recently caught up in a siege of parts of Aleppo, preventing vital aid supplies from getting through. In response, Moscow announced the creation of a “humanitarian corridor” in the city for three hours a day. Meanwhile, the new commander of US forces in Iraq and Syria, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, warned Russia and Syria that he will defend US special operations forces in northern Syria if the Assad regime strikes areas where his troops are located. Related story: Top US commander warns Russia, Syria “We’ve informed the Russians where we’re at … (they) tell us they’ve informed the Syrians, and I’d just say that we will defend ourselves if we feel threatened,” Townsend told CNN’s Barbara Starr in a telephone interview Saturday from his Baghdad headquarters.

Russia's use of Iranian air base for airstrikes in Syria


Canadian Kevin Garratt was charged with spying and stealing state secrets He was arrested in northeastern China in August 2014 A Canadian man charged with spying in China has been released after over two years in prison. Kevin Garratt returned to Canada on Thursday, Ottawa confirmed in a statement. “We are delighted that Kevin Garratt has returned safely to Canada and is with his family once more,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a statement. “We remain deeply impressed by the grace and resilience of the Garratt family.” Trudeau said Canadian officials “at the highest levels” were involved in securing Garratt’s release. In a statement, the Garratt family thanked everyone “for their thoughts and prayers, and also thanks the many individuals who worked to secure Kevin’s release.” “Please respect the family’s privacy in this time of transition. We will be releasing more information in the coming weeks.” Garratt ran a cafe with his wife Julia in Dandong, a Chinese city near the border with North Korea, when he was arrested in August 2014 on suspicion of stealing information about “military and national defense research.” The couple had lived in China since 1984 and running the coffee shop for almost six years at the time of their arrest. Deeply religious, the pair were involved in sending food aid to North Korea. Their son Simeon dismissed claims that they conducted any sort of espionage as “wildly absurd.” We remain deeply impressed by the grace and resilience of the Garratt family, especially Kevin and Julia. Statement: https://t.co/OwQa4bZRUe Garratt was charged with spying and stealing state secrets in January, with state news agency Xinhua saying at the time that prosecutors had “found evidence which implicates Garratt in accepting tasks from Canadian espionage agencies to gather intelligence in China.” Julia Garratt was released on bail in February 2015. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang was asked about the Garratt case during a press conference with Trudeau last month. Li said the Canadian would be treated humanely and his case would be handled in accordance with Chinese law. Garratt’s release comes amid an ongoing charm offensive by Ottawa since Trudeau’s election in late 2015. Trudeau, whose father Pierre reopened ties with China in 1970, has called for a “reset” in Canada-China relations. “Canada is working to renew ties with China to help grow the economy, strengthen the middle class, and develop long lasting ties between the peoples of both countries,” he said in a statement this month following a visit to Beijing and Shanghai. Related article China's Foreign Minister berates Canadian reporter over human rights During that visit, Trudeau signed $912 million in trade deals, opened new visa centers, and began steps to possibly join China’s AIIB investment bank. Not everything has been rosy however. In a press conference in Ottawa in June, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi angrily berated a journalist who asked about China’s record on human rights. “Other people don’t know better than the Chinese people about the human rights condition in China and it is the Chinese people who are in the best situation, in the best position to have a say about China’s human rights situation,” he said.


Editor’s Note: John Everard is a former British ambassador to North Korea. The opinions in this article belong solely to the author. Despite Donald Trump’s tweet back in January, it has happened. The missile that North Korea test-launched on Independence Day was an intercontinental ballistic missile, according to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. It could very probably reach Alaska. North Korea has probably not yet mastered two key technologies – how to miniaturize a warhead (small bombs are more difficult than big ones) and how to get a missile back through the atmosphere without it spinning out of control or burning up. But with a missile of this range, North Korea is dangerously close to being able to credibly threaten a nuclear strike on an American city. How can this be stopped? Related article China won't bail out Trump on North Korea The North Korean leadership seems to believe that its nuclear and missile programs are vital to its survival. It is convinced (is it wrong?) that when it can credibly threaten to obliterate an American city, Washington will no longer dare to seek its overthrow, nor will the US attempt to reinforce its South Korean ally, should North Korea attempt to reunify the peninsula by force. It has stated clearly and repeatedly that its nuclear and missile programs are not bargaining chips to be negotiated away. And it has ridden out sanctions, even tough ones, rather than give up the programs The logic is clear but chilling. If the regime believes that nuclear weapons – and the missiles to carry them – are vital to its survival, only a threat to its survival greater than that posed by the absence of nuclear weapons would persuade leader Kim Jong Un to abandon his drive for a nuclear deterrent. Broadly, there are two such possible threats. Firstly, the international community could pile on sufficient economic pressure to convince the regime that unless it abandons these programs, its economy will collapse and it will face a dangerous domestic revolt. As more than 90% of North Korea’s trade is with China, this approach would only work with the active support of that country – and President Trump would doubtless try to convince Chinese President Xi Jinping of this when they meet Thursday in Hamburg. Related video New video shows N. Korea launch ICMB missile But China has many very good reasons for not wanting to push North Korea to the brink of collapse and is unlikely to turn the screws that hard. Secondly, the US could credibly threaten serious military action against North Korea unless it gives up its programs. But a war in North Korea would be unspeakably horrible. Although it might be possible quickly to seize North Korea’s major cities, the country’s military might well fight to the bitter end. North Korea would be likely to use its stocks of the nerve gas – with which it killed the unfortunate Kim Jong Nam – and, of course, it has nuclear weapons. So neither option is good and, although either might work, neither is sure to do so. North Korea survived the famine of the 1990s without collapsing, and the regime might calculate that it could survive the same again. Related article US must not overlook North Korea threat Since North Korea knows that the US knows just how unattractive the military option is, it would be very difficult for Washington to convince Pyongyang that it was serious about it. Pyongyang might simply ignore these threats and continue on its current path, regardless. This is looking bad. The world long ago ran out of good options for dealing with North Korea. We are now stuck with two that are both dangerous and uncertain to succeed. And with every launch and every nuclear test, the chances rise that North Korea will get its deliverable bomb.


Editor’s Note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden – From 9/11 to Abbottabad.” After criticism, Obama administration is implementing a new hostage policy Bergen: Key test will be whether it works in practice to free U.S. couple captured by Taliban The past year has been a dismal one for American hostages held overseas. Consider the Americans who have died in captivity. Journalists James Foley and Steve Sotloff were murdered by ISIS, as were the aid workers Peter Kassig and Kayla Mueller (ISIS claimed she was killed in a Jordanian airstrike while she was imprisoned). Journalist Luke Somers, who was being held by al Qaeda in Yemen, died at the hands of his captors during an attempted rescue mission by U.S. Navy SEALs. Aid worker Warren Weinstein, who was being held by al Qaeda in Pakistan, was inadvertently killed by a CIA drone strike in January. The families whose loved ones had been taken by ISIS, al Qaeda and the Taliban have been vocal about their criticisms of Obama administration policies. And now the administration is taking action to try to improve the situation. Related video W.H.: Hostage policy change will benefit families The key problems these families have pointed to are a lack of communication by the U.S. government about the fate of their loved ones and a lack of coordination within the multiple agencies in the government about how best to free them. Responding to these criticisms and following a seven-month review of hostage policies, on Wednesday the Obama administration reconfigured in significant ways how it will respond to U.S. hostages and their families: –A Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell will coordinate all of the U.S. government’s response. Located at the FBI, it will be directed by a senior FBI official, but will have representatives from other key US agencies such as the State Department and the Pentagon. This will be a 24/7 operation and is modeled on Joint Terrorism Task Forces where officials from many agencies come together to work on a common set of problems. –A “family engagement coordinator” will be the single point of contact for the families of hostages. –A senior U.S. diplomat will be appointed to be the presidential envoy for hostage affairs at the State Department and will be responsible for the diplomatic component of any hostage negotiation. –An intelligence official will be appointed who will be able to declassify information about the hostages so that it can be given to the hostage’s family. A big problem in the past has been the fact that the families were not “cleared” to receive the intelligence, often classified, about what was happening to their family members who had been taken hostage. –Hostage families had in the past been threatened with prosecution if they paid ransom to terrorist organizations. They will no longer need to fear this outcome, as the U.S. government will not prosecute them if they communicate directly with the hostage takers and offer ransom payments. –As per longstanding policy, the U.S. government won’t pay any ransom itself, nor will it alter its “no concessions” policy. (This is predicated on the seemingly reasonable view that the U.S. government should not pay ransoms, as they will encourage hostages-taking. In fact, there is no empirical evidence for the claim that the United States’ policy of not paying for the release of its hostages–unlike certain Europe governments–makes Americans any safer in hostile areas overseas.) It’s one thing to develop new procedures and appoint officials to new positions. But it’s another to successfully lead parts of the federal bureaucracy to achieve desired goals, such as the release of hostages. It will, of course, be crucial for those heading the new structures to focus intently on finding ways to free those being held overseas. There is a good test for how well the new hostage policies and measures are performing. Caitlin Coleman of Pennsylvania and her husband, Canadian Joshua Boyle, were captured by the Taliban in 2012 when they were traveling on a trip through Afghanistan. Coleman was pregnant when she was kidnapped and is believed to have had a child in captivity. A senior American official told me the Haqqani Network is holding them. While ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult with no ties to any of the world’s governments, the Haqqanis are more of a criminal enterprise, which maintains links to elements of Pakistan’s military intelligence service, ISI. This is potentially good news for negotiators because a serious negotiation for Coleman and Boyle’s release is at least conceivably feasible through ISI and the Pakistani government has both the stick (the threat of intensified military action in Haqqani-held territory) and the carrot (the release of Haqqani prisoners) that it might be able to deploy to seek their release. If Coleman and Boyle remain in captivity a year or so from now, that would likely indicate that the new hostage policies are mostly old wine in a new bottle. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


General also concerned about external actors Russia, Pakistan and Iran Currently there are 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, said Thursday that the coalition faced “a shortfall of a few thousand” troops to break the “stalemate” it faces there. He said troops were needed for the NATO-led train, advise and assist mission in Afghanistan. He said that the resources for the counterterrorism mission there, in contrast, are “adequate.” Nicholson, testifying before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Afghanistan, said the shortfall could be made up by US or coalition troops. He added that Secretary of Defense James Mattis would address the issue during this month’s meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels. Currently there are a total of 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan. There are also 6,000 troops from NATO and other allied countries. President Barack Obama oversaw the withdrawal of some 1,400 US troops during his last months in office. Nicholson said he hoped the additional reinforcements would allow the coalition to advise Afghan troops at the brigade level, bringing them closer to the intense fight between the government and Taliban insurgency. The general also said additional resources were needed to develop the Afghan air force and grow Afghan special forces. Nicholson said the US was seeking to establish an “enduring counterterrorism platform” in Afghanistan, noting that of the 98 US-designated terrorist groups globally, 20 operate in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. “This is the highest concentration of terrorist groups anywhere in the world,” he told the Senate. The general also said that he remains “concerned about the influence of certain external actors – particularly Pakistan, Russia, and Iran – who continue to legitimize and support the Taliban and undermine the Afghan governments’ efforts to create a stable Afghanistan.” “Iran is directly supporting the Taliban in Western Afghanistan,” Nicholson said, adding that Russia was offering political support to the Taliban in order “to undermine the United States and NATO.” A recent report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found that the Afghan government controlled just under 60% of territory, with the remainder either being contested by the Taliban or under the control of the insurgency. Asked by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, whether the US was winning or losing in Afghanistan, Nicholson said, “I believe we are in a stalemate.” President Donald Trump, who spoke to President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan Thursday, told reporters: “Afghanistan – I would say that that’s a tough situation, but we’ll do something about it.” “We’ll be giving you some pretty good information soon,” he told reporters during a brief spray at the White House.

United States military presence in Afghanistan


McMaster is Trump's national security adviser He twice declined to say whether the Western Wall is in Israel H.R. McMaster, national security adviser to President Donald Trump, declined to say Tuesday whether the Western Wall is in Israel, furthering a controversy over the site ahead of Trump’s visit to the country next week. McMaster, speaking to reporters to preview Trump’s first foreign swing, said questions about the location of the Western Wall – one of the holiest sites in Judaism – “sounds like a policy decision.” His remarks came a day after a diplomatic spat opened between US and Israeli officials over Trump’s planned stop at the site next week. The White House was forced to disavow comments by a US official planning Trump’s stop who claimed the Western Wall was in the West Bank, and not a part of Israeli territory. Related article Who is H.R. McMaster, Trump's national security adviser? The White House said those comments weren’t reflective of Trump’s views. But speaking to reporters Tuesday, McMaster twice declined to say definitively whether the Western Wall is in Israel. The Western Wall sits in Old Jerusalem, which the Israelis captured in 1967. However, Palestinians are seeking East Jerusalem as the capital of an eventual state. Briefing reporters after McMaster Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the Western Wall was “clearly in Jerusalem” but declined to say whether it was a part of Israel. He said the topic would be discussed between Trump and his counterparts during next week’s trip. Longstanding US policy has stated that the status of Jerusalem will be determined in peace talks between the two parties, and has taken steps to avoid declaring Jerusalem as belonging to either side. Trump, however, has vowed to break with that policy by moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump is due to arrive in Israel Monday for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s also due to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem. McMaster said Tuesday that Trump would not be accompanied by any Israeli leaders when he visits the Western Wall next week. He’ll be the first sitting US president to make a stop at the site. “He’s going to the Western Wall mainly in connection with the theme to connect with three of the world’s great religions and to pay homage to each of these religious sites that he’s visiting,” McMaster said.

United States policy on Jerusalem and the Western Wall


Christopher Wray is set for a grilling before the Senate judiciary committee next week The questionnaire is largely biographical and short on controversy, and was filed last month Answers to a questionnaire posted online by the Senate judiciary committee highlight the experience of the nominee to be the next FBI director, Christopher Wray, and the areas of his resume that he might emphasize at his confirmation hearing before the congressional panel next week. The comprehensive, 68-page document is one of the hurdles Wray faces as he seeks to fill the role at the top of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, after the abrupt firing of James Comey in May by President Donald Trump. Posted late last month, the questionnaire is largely biographical and short on controversy. Wray walks committee members through his years in the legal world, from white-collar criminal matters in the private sector, to issues of national security as a Justice Department leader. “As the head of the nation’s largest federal prosecutor’s office, I led and managed over 400 prosecutors and over 900 total employees in nearly all areas of federal criminal law,” Wray wrote, about his years as an assistant attorney general, heading the DOJ’s criminal division. “Our highest priority was protecting America from the threat of terrorism and strengthening our national security. Leadership of the counterterrorism and counterespionage sections consumed the greatest portion of my time and attention during that period.” If confirmed, Wray will take over an FBI under intense scrutiny for some of its high-profile past investigations, like the probe into Russian meddling in the election that Trump said factored into his decision to fire Comey. Asked to describe the “most significant legal activities you have pursued,” Wray highlights terror cases from his time at Justice, including the conviction of al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui, widely referenced as the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 terror attacks. He also lists among the “most significant litigated matters which you personally handled” several cases tried as an assistant US attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, including a trial he led alongside embattled former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, then also an assistant US attorney. After leaving the DOJ in 2005, Wray returned to private practice at his old law firm, King & Spalding, in Atlanta, where he led “investigation matters on behalf of companies, boards and individuals,” he wrote in the questionnaire. It was there that he counseled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie throughout the Bridgegate scandal, and banking giant Credit Suisse to a half-billion-dollar settlement after charges that it was conducting business with clients from Iran and other US-sanctioned countries. Despite accusations from the White House of a bureau in disarray, the current head of the FBI said last month that its thousands of agents continue at full speed without disorder, and are preparing for the arrival of a new leader. “As you know, the FBI is in a time of transition and it has not been easy on any of us. … It is not my opinion that the FBI was in a state of disarray,” Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a House committee. “It’s been my challenge to keep folks focused on the mission during this time of transition and to prepare the ground for the new director whenever he or she gets there.” In the lead-up to his nomination hearing Wednesday morning, Wray will have spoken with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to underscore his C.V. and temper any concerns. He does have reason to rest a little easy before the public grilling session: according to the questionnaire, Wray has once argued before the Supreme Court and testified in front of the same Senate judiciary committee four times previously. After a meeting with Wray late last month in his Senate office, committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said he hoped to have the confirmation complete before an August recess.


Angola's ruling MPLA took 73% of the vote, the National Electoral Commission reported Jose Eduardo dos Santos will hold the presidency he's now held for three decades Friday's vote was only the third election since Angola's independence The opposition UNITA party voiced concerns about irregularities but accepted the result Angola’s ruling party was declared the winner of weekend elections Sunday after taking nearly three-quarters of the vote. With about 85% of the boxes counted, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) had 73% of the nearly 4.9 valid votes cast, according to figures from the country’s National Electoral Commission. The MPLA’s nearest rival, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), trailed far behind with 18%. Seven other parties split up the rest of the vote. The win means a new term for President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, who has held power since 1979, the state-run Angola News Agency reported. Under the terms of a constitution approved in 2010, the leader of the party that won Friday’s parliamentary vote automatically becomes Angola’s president. Friday’s election was only Angola’s third since it gained independence from Portugal in 1975. The country was wracked by civil war for the next 27 years, and the vote was widely viewed as an indicator of the country’s progress after a decade of peace. Elections in 1992 were abandoned midway and led to an outbreak of further violence. The MPLA won a 2008 parliamentary vote with a landslide 82%, with UNITA, its former civil war enemy, the leading opposition in the 220-seat National Assembly. UNITA saw its share of the vote nearly double from the 10% share it won in 2008. The movement has alleged fraud in previous elections and voiced concerns about apparent irregularities in election campaigning this time around. But on Saturday, UNITA spokesman Alcides Sakala said his party would recognize the election results, the ANA reported. They include the scheduling of the vote only three days after a public holiday for the president’s birthday, questions about voter rolls, and “what seems like a concerted effort by certain security forces to tell people in rural areas that if they do not vote for the ruling party, the country will be back to war,” said Domingos Jardo Muekalia, UNITA’s deputy secretary for external relations, speaking at the Chatham House think tank in London. In 1992 and 2008, there were “substantial irregularities – some intentional such as manipulation, fraud and intimidation and others resulting from inexperience,” he said. Human Rights Watch also accused the government of “numerous incidents of political violence, intimidation of protesters, and crackdowns on peaceful demonstrations,” in a report issued on August 1. “The human rights environment in Angola is not conducive for free, fair and peaceful elections,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director for the rights monitoring group. “The Angolan government needs to stop trying to stifle peaceful protests, gag the independent press or use the state media for partisan purposes if these elections are to be meaningful,” Lefkow said. Angola, sub-Saharan Africa’s second-largest oil producer, pumps out more than 1.9 million barrels per day and boasts an expanding investment portfolio in its former colonial power, Portugal, and in other parts of Africa. But despite big spending on infrastructure and social programs since the end of its brutal civil war in 2002, corruption, poor governance and economic inequality remain serious issues for much of the country’s population of about 18 million. Angola ranked 168th out of 183 countries on Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, and was 148th out of 187 countries in the U.N.’s Human Development Index. A number of small but consistent demonstrations have taken place in Angola since last year, revealing a growing frustration with the economic hardship that many still face in the country. Over the last few months, civil war veterans have taken to the streets to demand overdue subsidy payments, and disgruntled youths and civil rights activists have staged rallies to voice their concerns about the lack of jobs and opportunities. The protracted civil war killed up to 1.5 million people, according to the CIA World Factbook. About 4 million people were internally displaced, more than half of them children, the United Nations said. After peace was established, the country faced the challenge of reestablishing civil institutions, rebuilding damaged infrastructure, clearing land mines and demobilizing large numbers of former fighters. Opinion: Is oil-rich Angola a development success?


Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems to have learned a very important lesson of Trumpworld in his three months or so as the nation’s top cop: Never, ever apologize. Twenty four hours after referring dismissively to Hawaii as “an island in the Pacific” as part of a broader condemnation of the judicial blockade against the implementation of President Trump’s travel ban, Sessions was given a chance to revise and extend those comments. He didn’t. Here’s how Sessions responded to a question from CNN’s Kate Bolduan on Friday about whether his comments disrespected the judge (and the state): “No, I think the island is a fabulous place. I’ve got a granddaughter born there. But I’ve got to tell you, it is a point worth making that a single sitting district judge out of 600, 700 district judges, can issue an order stopping a presidential executive order that I believe is fully constitutional, designed to protect the United States of America from terrorist attack. And I was just raising the point of that issue of a single judge.” Bolduan tried another tack with Sessions. “Do you wish you had phrased it differently now?” she asked. “I don’t know that I said anything that I would want to phrase differently,” Sessions replied. “No.” And, scene. Remember that Sessions knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bolduan would ask about his Hawaii comments when he agreed to the interview.  Which means he had a clear strategy to not say “sorry” and to, in fact, double down on the idea that it was offensive to him that one judge could have so much power. What’s fascinating to me about how Sessions handled this latest flap is how obviously it was influenced by his decision to recuse himself from Justice Department investigations regarding the 2016 election after it was revealed he had forgotten to make clear he huddled with the Russian ambassador on two occasions. Trump insisted Sessions had done nothing wrong and had no reason to recuse himself shortly before the former Alabama Senator did just that. And, according to CNN reporting, it set Trump off. This comes from a March 6 CNN piece: President Donald Trump is extremely frustrated with his senior staff and communications team for allowing the firestorm surrounding Attorney General Jeff Sessions to steal his thunder in the wake of his address to Congress, sources tell CNN. “Nobody has seen him that upset,” one source said, adding the feeling was the communications team allowed the Sessions news, which the administration deemed a nonstory, to overtake the narrative. Trump is a firm believer in a “no apologies” strategy on, well, life, the universe and everything.  He believes apologies – or, in this case, recusals – make you look weak, embolden your enemies and fuel the story.  Declare victory and move on is the Trump way, Sessions clearly has internalized that Trump philosophy – likely as a survival tactic in dealing with his new boss. And, while his “no retreat, no surrender” approach with Bolduan on Friday won’t likely win him any new fans, it will endear himself to the only person whose opinion truly matters in the White House: Donald John Trump.


Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions said Sunday that Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim travel ban could include people attempting to travel to the U.S. from countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and others, but would be limited in scope to “slow down” immigration while officials conduct anti-terror investigations. “The public data that we have indicate there are quite a number of countries in that region that have sent a large number of people that have become terrorists … Pakistan has a number, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen,” Sessions told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.” But Sessions emphasized that any ban would likely exclude some people, such as businesspeople and diplomats. On Monday, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, Trump said if elected he would “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” Sessions, who was the first senator to endorse Trump and has been a staunch defender of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said Trump simply wants to “slow down” immigration from some countries. “He simply said, and the way I understand it is, that we should slow down. Let’s have a pause and begin to analyze where the threats are coming from,” Sessions said. “We have a toxic ideology, hopefully very small within Islam; certainly most people, most Muslims don’t agree with this violent, jihadist approach. And we need to figure out a better way to identify that.”

Donald Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban


Thousands of children abused by Australian priests Average age of victims at the time of abuse was 11 After years of investigations and hearings, the sheer scale of child sexual abuse within the Australian Catholic Church has been revealed. Between 1950 and 2015, 7% of Australian priests were accused of abusing children, according to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Over 40% of brothers in some orders have been accused of abuse. In tears, church official Francis Sullivan told the hearing Monday, “these numbers are shocking. They are tragic and they are indefensible.” The commission’s findings provide yet more evidence of a global epidemic of sex abuse and cover-up within the church. Previous reports have documented widespread abuse in the United States, Ireland, Brazil, the Netherlands and Germany, among other countries. The Vatican established a commission to investigate claims of sex abuse in 2013, while in 2015 Pope Francis created a church tribunal to judge bishops who failed to protect children from predatory priests. As she delivered the findings Monday, Senior Counsel Gail Furness said victims’ accounts were “harrowing.” “The accounts were depressingly familiar,” she said. “Children (who came forward) were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations were not investigated.” Priests who had been accused of abuse were moved to other communities that “knew nothing of their past,” Furness said. “Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.” The commission has conducted 50 hearings since it was founded in 2013, and the history of sex abuse within the Australian Catholic Church has been well documented. However, much of the evidence to date has been anecdotal and didn’t quantify the extent of the problem. The commission found, between January 1980 and February 2015, there were 4,444 victims of alleged sex abuse. From three separate data surveys and witness testimonies, the commission found 7% of priests belonging to 75 Catholic Church authorities were alleged perpetrators. The average age of victims at the time of abuse was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. At least 1,880 alleged perpetrators were identified, according to the commission. Of the alleged perpetrators, 32% were religious brothers, 30% were priests, 29% were lay people and 5% were religious sisters. Within religious orders, the frequency was higher. Over 40% of St John of God Brothers were accused of abuse. The Order set up schools for boys with learning difficulties in the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria, as well as New Zealand. In a CNN interview Sullivan – who heads the church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council – said abuse had taken place on such a scale because priests “who have always been held in such high regard were never questioned. They were never in any way accountable.” He added: “Not only that – people in positions of privilege covered it up. They were more interested in protecting the image of the Catholic Church than they were in protecting children and believing victims.” Sullivan told CNN that until those “at the very top” recognize that the problem “is how the church operates and its culture … then they’ll never get it.” Asked what will happen now in terms of securing justice for the victims, he replied: “The first thing in Australia is that the Catholic Church can no longer investigate itself. It can no longer attempt to resolve issues and complaints and claims. There needs to be an independent system away from the church. “The second thing, which we’ve already started, is there’s a new company that will audit the performance of bishops and religious leaders in how they do safeguard children. We’d have to put ourselves in the position, almost the church on its knees, so that it allows the victims to teach the church, not the other way round. A humble disposition for a change.” Over the next three weeks, the hearing will hear testimony from six archbishops. In a letter to parishioners around the country last week, President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Archbishop Denis Hart warned that the hearing “may be a difficult and even distressing time.” “Deeply mindful of the hurt and pain caused by abuse, I once again offer my apology on behalf of the Catholic Church,” he wrote, according to the ABC. CNN’s Bex Wright and Elizabeth Roberts contributed reporting.


A Twitter account has already been set up for the pet: @EmbassyCat Wikileaks founder has been hiding at London's Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has a new furry companion to help him pass the time in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he’s been holed up for nearly four years. A Twitter account set up for Assange’s new pet @EmbassyCat shows photos of the 44-year-old posing with the tiny kitten. New home! I've arrived! pic.twitter.com/N7PeuSti4I It’s unclear what Assange has named the cat but its profile states “I live in the Ecuadorian Embassy with Julian Assange,” and also jokes that it is “interested in counter-purrveillance.” U.N. panel: Assange kept “arbitrarily detained” Assange is wanted in Sweden on rape allegations but was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012. He has said he’s afraid that if he leaves the embassy, he could end up being extradited and face the death penalty in the United States over allegations of revealing government secrets through his site, WikiLeaks. Judging by the tweets so far, which have been littered with feline puns, it seems that the cat will be providing amusement not just to Assange but the more than 3,000 followers the account has racked up in less than 24 hours. Everyone loves me! Looks who's shown up to greet me! 😻💢 #nodogsnomasters #counterpurrveillance pic.twitter.com/IZavaOY51m Exciting first day but finally settled down and feline fine 😺 pic.twitter.com/GeMtAy0a3v


At least three congressional panels are investigating Russian meddling in US elections Justice Department indictments could prevent some witnesses from testifying in Congress The charges against three former Trump campaign aides this week provided a jolt to congressional Russia investigators who now know special counsel Robert Mueller is moving quickly — and his moves will shut down potential lanes of inquiry for them and likely eliminate the chances of lawmakers to question those aides. Mueller’s investigation, which has already led to some dust-ups with the Hill, threatens to limit the scope of the congressional Russia probes even further. And Democrats are increasingly coming around to the idea that Mueller may be their best shot at proving whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians — given the reticence of most Republicans to break ranks from the White House and embrace the notion of Trump-Russia ties. Take President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The Senate intelligence committee had interviewed him about the June 2016 meeting with Russians and Donald Trump Jr. but still hoped to speak to him again about a broader range of issues, while the House intelligence panel had still yet to schedule an interview. The Senate judiciary committee was also seriously weighing a subpoena for his testimony. Now that’s almost assuredly a non-starter. “He’s under federal indictment. He won’t come, his lawyer won’t let him come. And if he comes he’ll take the Fifth,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee who has been pressing for Manafort’s appearance since the summer. “And you know what, what you do is you see the importance of a Mueller investigation, because if you think about it, we have the power of subpoena and not telling a lie to the Congress — that’s it.” But Manafort is not the only roadblock. The House intelligence committee had planned to speak this fall with Rick Gates, the Manafort business associate and former Trump aide who was also indicated Monday. Sources said familiar with the matter said that it was delayed as Gates continued to reschedule his appearance, and now it’s possible that it never occurs. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said that the Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos – who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his efforts to arrange high-level Russian meetings with Trump officials – had been in “constant contact” with the committee through his lawyer. Asked Tuesday if that discussion is over, the North Carolina Republican said: “I think it is.” Related article Papadopoulos' guilty plea visualized: From Russian contact to arrest The gap between Republicans and Democrats on whether there is evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is only growing in the wake of Mueller’s charges. If Congress cannot interview key figures, it could make it harder to reach definitive conclusions on a bipartisan basis in reports designed to tell the public the extent of the Russian meddling in the last elections. The gap between Republicans and Democrats on whether there is evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is only growing in the wake of Mueller’s charges. To Democrats, Monday’s indictment of Trump’s former campaign chairman and the guilty plea of a foreign policy adviser who was offered “dirt” from the Russians on then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shows evidence of at least an intent to collude, and the developments provide the congressional probes new avenues to explore. “There are clearly facts and evidence that show collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians, at least individuals involved in the Trump campaign,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. “We are nowhere near the end of this investigation. There is a lot more to be known.” The new revelations – particularly over Papadopoulos and the offer of Clinton dirt – added fuel to their push to prove that the Trump campaign had wittingly or unwittingly been used by Russian operatives to meddle in the elections. “This is a wake-up call,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat on the House intelligence committee. “We have more clear evidence than ever that people at all levels of the campaign sought to work with the Russians. Now we have someone who put his name on a piece of paper under penalty of perjury and said he did that.” But Republicans are not moved. Top Republicans on the committees probing Russian election meddling say this week’s developments do not change their investigation, nor do they add up to collusion. “I’m not sure that it changes anything for our investigation,” Burr said. “I don’t think the indictments were a surprise to any of us who had been involved in the investigation for nine months.” “It looks to me like it’s disconnected from what we’re looking at,” said Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, another senior Republican on the intelligence panel. In the aftermath of Mueller’s charges, some lawmakers remain hopeful that they will have access to some of the officials tied up in the special counsel investigation. Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, expressed optimism that Papadopoulos would be willing to talk to the panel now that he’s cooperating with Mueller’s probe. “I would hope that as part of his plea agreement, his cooperation will extend to the congressional probes as well as to investigators,” Schiff said. “In the near term, I would imagine Manafort and Gates who were also on our witness list would be less likely to testify.” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, said “there are more questions that need to be answered” in the aftermath of the Mueller moves. “We continue to see evidence that Russians were reaching out to Trump officials in a variety of ways, offering discrediting information on Hillary Clinton that included their email,” Warner told CNN. Before Mueller’s charges were revealed this week, there have already been growing calls from Republicans to wrap up the Hill probes this year, with accusations that Democrats are trying to drag out the probes into the 2018 election cycle. While Burr said Tuesday the panel had not come to a conclusion on collusion, he downplayed the significance of the new revelations in the court documents. “If indictments were all about Russians reaching out to Americans, it would be a lot of people who would have been indicted yesterday,” Burr said. “So we know from this investigation that there’s been an active campaign by the Russians to be involved in the 2016 election on both sides and we’re going to try to answer some of the questions.” Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who sits on the Senate intelligence committee, said she still has not seen “definitive evidence of collusion.” “I have read the (Papadopoulos) plea agreement and I think it raises questions but … based on the information that I’ve reviewed through the intelligence committee investigation that I have yet to see any definitive evidence of collusion,” Collins said. And she added that it could be Mueller who ultimately answers that question. “One reason we have a special counsel to pursue any evidence of criminal wrongdoing is to help us get to the answer of that question,” Collins said. “Obviously the intelligence committee is unable to bring criminal charges, which gives a certain leverage in dealing with individuals that you might not otherwise have.”


Editor’s Note: This article originally published in 2015. It’s coverage for Future of Adventure, which explores designs and innovations that enable us to experience the world in thrilling new ways. To see everything, go to cnn.com/adventure World View offers near-space balloon flights at $75,000 compared to Virgin Galactic's price of $250,000 Balloons will lift pressurized capsules carrying six passengers to about 100,000 feet After passengers view the blackness of space and Earth's curvature, a parafoil floats the capsule to Earth Instead of rocket-powered sub-orbital flights like those of Virgin Galactic, could high-altitude ballooning become the most viable way of letting paying tourists experience space – or at least something thrillingly close to it? Ballooning is already tried and tested technology – “It’s the origin of space travel,” explains Annelie Schoenmaker, external relations and legal officer for Zero2infinity, a Spanish company that plans to launch passengers to near space using balloons known as “Bloons” for €110,000 ($124,000) a time. Zero2infinity is one of two organizations hoping to use pressurized capsules suspended beneath helium balloons as a way to take tourists into near space. For more innovations that let us experience the world in thrilling new ways, go to cnn.com/adventure Flights using helium-filled balloons began in the early 1930s. “For me this time was what I call the first space race, as it was the first time we went into the stratosphere,” explains Dr Jonathan Clark, an associate professor in neurology and space medicine, who has advised on both Red Bull Stratos and StratEx – the project that saw Google executive Alan Eustace make a record-breaking space dive, assisted by ballooning company World View Enterprises. “Even the first spacesuits were tested using balloons,” adds Schoenmaker. To this day ballooning is hugely important for space science; NASA and other commercial companies use balloons as an inexpensive means to test payloads in near-space environments. Because balloons can spend a relatively large amount of time in the stratosphere, this “gives increased observation and experiment runs,” explains Jane Poynter, CEO of World View, which will offer near-space ballooning trips for $75,000. High-altitude ballooning even has some high-profile fans within the space community, including veteran of four space shuttle missions, Mark Kelly, who works with World View as director of flight crew operations. Of course, it’s not actually space – balloons only travel to a height of between 30-40km, with 36km being seen as optimum; to reach what is defined as space, you need to travel to a height of 100km. “But it is pretty close and it gives you a totally different experience,” says Michael Lopez-Alegria, former NASA astronaut and president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. You are still high enough that you are above 99% of the Earth’s atmosphere and although you don’t experience weightlessness, you are able to see something that most humans haven’t – the “Thin Blue Line” of the Earth’s atmosphere. Passengers would also be able to see the Earth in the blackness of space, as well as the sun rise over the curvature of the planet. “Our goal is to provide as many people as possible with a perspective-changing view of our planet” adds Poynter. The science behind sending humans to the edge of space is much the same as sending any other payload. “It’s very easy,” says Schoenmaker, “put in helium, release the balloon and up it goes, very slowly.” The capsules are completely sealed, allowing for full pressurization at altitudes. “Our capsule is fitted with state-of-the-art space-rated life support systems, designed and manufactured by Paragon Space Development Corporation, who are global leaders in life support technology,” says Poynter, of the World View system. Balloons can in theory launch from anywhere in the world, as long as the weather is favorable. Unlike rockets, there is no big acceleration, with a balloon taking between 1.5-2 hours to reach maximum altitude. Once there, inside a capsule attached to the balloon, crew and passengers can bob along on the edge of our atmosphere for up to two hours. Once built, both the Bloon and World View cabins will have toilet facilities and you’ll even be able to dine on board. World View plans to take six passengers and two crew at a time, while Bloon hopes to take up to four passengers and two crew, though the role of the crew is described by Schoenmaker “as more for passenger support and a precaution if something goes wrong.” To return to Earth, helium is vented from the balloon, then a ParaWing, which is already deployed, takes over the remainder of the descent. Schoenmaker explains: “For safety, we also have a further two back-up chutes.” The descent back to Earth takes around an hour, meaning there is no big acceleration, with the capsule landing in a predetermined location, guided back to Earth by a pilot and the support of mission control. The ultimate aim for near-space ballooning is that the experience will be comparable to getting on a commercial airliner. Passengers would be inside a pressurized environment, just like on a plane. However, whether passengers would still need to wear spacesuits will depend on certification from authorities. As with other forms of commercial space travel, in the United States balloons to the stratosphere are regulated by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), under the Office of Commercial Space Transportation – although for flights in Europe, regulation is not yet defined. As with all forms of commercial space experiences, safety is a huge factor in determining when paying passenger flights will realistically take place.  “We will not launch until we are completely satisfied and confident with our testing,” explains Poynter. In late February, World View announced it had successfully flown a parafoil from a height of 102,000 feet (31 kilometers). With extensive unmanned testing already underway, the hope for World View is that it could launch as soon as the end of 2016, with Bloon expecting to begin flights in the next few years. But because the balloons don’t go to space, is there actually interest for this type of experience? “Space ballooning certainly has its market,” believes Brad Inggs, CEO of Orbital Horizon, a space support and intelligence solution agency, based in South Africa. “Once launches become regular, it will catch the interest of people seeking that kind of experience.” Schoenmaker claims that there is already a waiting list for trips on Bloon, but says they cannot disclose numbers. There is also scope for high-altitude balloons to further benefit life on Earth. “Earth observation and communication payloads on board balloons can also assist in disaster relief,” says Inggs. And balloons could also be used to launch nanosatellites from high altitude, reducing the cost of launch.


Education Secretary Betsy DeVos faced backlash from civil rights groups after she told members of Congress on Tuesday that she believed schools can decide whether or not to report undocumented students to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials. The groups say DeVos’s comments would violate the Constitution, pointing to the 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, which found that K-12 schools can’t deny students access to public education based on their immigration status. DeVos said on Tuesday that she believed the choice was up to schools and local communities whether principals and teachers had the responsibility to call ICE if they learned a student or a student’s family members were undocumented. “Sir, I think that’s a school decision, it’s a local community decision,” DeVos said during a House Committee on Education and the Workforce Hearing, as Rep. Adriano Espaillat, a New York Democrat, pressed her for her views on the issue. “Again, I refer to the fact that we have laws and we are also compassionate. I urge this body to do its job and address and clarify where there is confusion around this.” But civil rights groups said that would be unconstitutional. “Let’s be clear: Any school that reports a child to ICE would violate the Constitution,” Lorella Praeli, director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court has made clear that every child in America has a right to a basic education, regardless of immigration status. Secretary DeVos is once again wrong.” Thomas A. Saenz, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said that DeVos’s testimony “stems either from an astounding ignorance of the law or from an insupportable unwillingness to accurately advise local school districts.” “Either of these indicates a severe dereliction of duty,” he added. ICE has clearly stated that schools are considered “sensitive locations,” like churches and places of worship, where they do not conduct immigration enforcement. Asked for comment, Elizabeth Hill, the Education Department press secretary told CNN that “the Secretary has said repeatedly, we are a nation of laws and we are also a nation of compassion.” “The Secretary’s position remains that schools must comply with Plyler and all other applicable law and regulation,” she said. DeVos acknowledged during her testimony Tuesday that the Supreme Court had ruled that the government must provide money to educate undocumented students in K-12 schools throughout the country. “There are undocumented children in K-12 education today that we support and give education to on a daily basis,” she said. CNN’s Tal Kopan contributed reporting.


Editor’s Note: Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and is a national security analyst on a number of global conflicts. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Anthony H. Cordesman: The US must accept that threatening "fire and fury" is not a practical military option in North Korea Instead, the US should devote resources to building up its own military deterrence and that of its allies, Japan and South Korea, he writes It is easy for the US and North Korea to posture and threaten – for North Korea to carry out nuclear and missile tests and for the US to conduct B-1B bomber and F-35 flights and military exercises. It is equally easy for the hopeful and the well-intentioned – and nations on the margin of events, such as China – to call for negotiations or believe that some form of dialogue will lead to conflict resolution and change North Korean behavior. There is always hope that someone else will solve the problem: China, the UN, South Korea or the somewhat mythical “international community.” US military experts can continue to search for preventive options – or any option that will avoid triggering a process of mutual escalation leading to a major military exchange or war. And the US should seek to negotiate and continue to demonstrate its commitment to its East Asian allies. But it is becoming all too clear that the US may well have to accept the reality that to threaten “fire and fury” is not a practical military option, and there probably won’t be any miraculous change in Kim Jong Un’s behavior. At a minimum, he will soon nuclearize the Korean Peninsula and be able to threaten all of Asia, or at least as far as Japan and Guam, with nuclear weapons. In one to two years, he will have a reasonably credible capability to fire a missile with enough accuracy and reliability to carry a nuclear warhead so far as to strike a major city in the West Coast of the continental US. At that point, North Korea will not only have fully joined the nuclear club, it will have become an active threat to America. The key question is: What will the US do about it? One step will be to leave no doubt about the US commitment to deterrence and US willingness to respond to any North Korean nuclear blackmail or use of such a weapon. The US must make it clear that it will deploy a decisively destructive nuclear option to strike North Korea – one capable of effectively destroying the country. Related article North Korea will be a nuclear power. We need to accept that now It must provide convincing “extended” nuclear deterrence to cover South Korea and Japan, and may well have to decide to either reintroduce modern US theater nuclear weapons, or smaller nuclear weapons designed to be effective at battlefield targets, to South Korea, or accept a South Korean nuclear force. There must be no possible seam in the structure of deterrence, and both North Korea and its biggest trading partner China must fully understand just how strong the US retaliatory commitment is. The US also needs to work with Japan and South Korea to give them the most advanced missile defenses possible – both ballistic and cruise missiles – and to create all of the elements to make US missile defenses as effective as possible. It must reassure Russia and China that they do not need to expand their forces to maintain a credible deterrent to the US. The US must also deal openly with Russia and China’s concerns about the US missile defense systems it can deploy in the region. It should also phase the deployment of such capabilities and commitments in ways that are responsive to each new step of the North Koran nuclear and missile buildup, while both working closely and openly with South Korea and Japan and repeatedly stating that it will not seek regime change in North Korea or to displace China’s interests. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Here, the irony is that US military strength and credible actions to build deterrence may be the best approach to real-world negotiation and arms control. If there is any chance at all in moderating North Korean behavior, it lies in Chinese and Russian pressure on Kim. Threatening trade wars is not going to help – tangibly confronting China and Russia with a whole new set of nuclear risks in their backyard just might, and showing that the US is acting out of grim necessity may ease the risk that some future nuclear crisis will escalate beyond North Korea to include China, and even Russia.

US policy on North Korea nuclear deterrence


Israel claims it struck almost all of Iran’s military capabilities in Syria after what it says was an Iranian missile attack on the Golan Heights. In the most direct confrontation between Israel and Iran to date, the regional enemies exchanged fire for hours late Wednesday. The extended barrage of fire comes amid soaring tensions between Israel and Iran, rivals battling for regional influence, and less than two days after the United States withdrew from the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. In a YouTube statement Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran had “crossed a red line,” and that Israel’s action was appropriate. Netanyahu spoke with British Prime Minister Theresa May on the phone on Thursday evening. According to a readout of the call from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, the two spoke about “Iranian aggression, developments in the region, and the situation in Syria.” Netanyahu thanked May for condemning Iran and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself. “Whoever hits us will get hit seven times over. Whoever prepares themselves to attack us will be attacked first. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue doing,” Netanyahu said. According to the UK government’s readout of the conversation, May called for “calm on all sides.” The sentiment was echoed by the European Union, which released a statement urging “all regional actors to show restraint and avoid any escalation, which could further undermine regional stability.” Israel said more than 20 rockets were launched by Iranian forces in Syria in the direction of Israel late Wednesday, often criss-crossing in the clear night skies. A number of those rockets were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome aerial defense system, resulting in bright and sudden explosions. Israel retaliated with what appeared to be surface-to-surface missiles, and Syrian anti-aircraft batteries hosed the sky with fire in an effort to intercept them. Thunderclaps of Israeli artillery fire reverberated across the frontier between Syria and Israel, with the faint sound of impact echoing back moments later. “Israel has hit almost all of Iran’s infrastructure in Syria,” Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said. “If it will rain in Israel, there will be a biblical flood on the other side.” He reiterated Israel’s stance that this latest offensive was not an ongoing operation, adding: “I hope this chapter is over, and everyone understands the situation, and we won’t have to spend nights in situation rooms.” Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus said Israel had successfully hit dozens of Iranian targets in Syria in what he described as “the largest operation against Iranian targets” in years. Iran’s leaders have not yet issued a response to the Israeli accusations or the military strikes, but if confirmed it would be the first time Iranian forces have fired rockets directly at Israeli forces. All night, drones buzzed overhead, heard but not seen in the darkness. Three people were killed and two others were injured by the Israeli missiles, the Syrian military said in a statement. The strikes also destroyed a radar station, ammunition depot and caused material damage to Syria’s air defense, it said. The Syrian military claimed that its air defense managed to intercept and destroy a “big part of the wave of Israeli missiles that targeted a number of our military positions.” The Golan Heights is considered Israeli-occupied territory, taken from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel officially annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community. United Nations Security Council Resolutions have demanded the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, but Israeli leaders have made it clear they have no intention of conceding the strategic position to Syria. In a statement delivered early Thursday, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces pinned the blame for the rocket fire on the Quds Force, an elite division of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has forces in Syria and is often seen as the face of Iran’s regional ambitions. Conricus said the rockets, which were targeted at front-line Israeli military positions in the Golan Heights, were all either downed by aerial defense systems or fell short and landed in Syria. On Wednesday night, state-run Sana TV, in southern Syria, carried reports that Israel had fired several missiles at the city of Baath in Quneitra, none of which resulted in casualties. A short time later, Syrian state-run media reported that while dozens of “hostile” Israeli missiles had been intercepted in Syrian airspace, at least two others had hit an ammunition depot and destroyed a radar site. The targets included rocket launchers, intelligence posts, military command posts, and weapons depots. No Israeli fighter jets were hit in the strikes, but Conricus said they came under heavy anti-aircraft fire. He added that “ground assets were also used to strike into Syria.” The IDF released a map showing a list of targets it said it hit. The IDF has struck dozens of Iranian military targets in Syria in response to the Iranian rocket attack against Israel. Quds force is behind attack and has played the initial price. IDF remains ready for various scenarios but does not seek to escalate the situation. pic.twitter.com/4rC8gHK2LG Russia, which like Iran has intervened in Syria’s war on the side of the government, called for “restraint on all sides.” In a statement, the White House said: “The United States condemns the Iranian regime’s provocative rocket attacks from Syria against Israeli citizens, and we strongly support Israel’s right to act in self-defense.” “Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) bears full responsibility for the consequences of its reckless actions,” the statement added. Israel had been expecting an Iranian response for some time, following a series of military strikes in Syria that targeted Iranian positions. Syria and Iran blamed those strikes on Israel, and Iran’s leaders vowed revenge. One of the strikes occurred Tuesday night, only hours after President Donald Trump had withdrawn the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, sparking fears of further destabilization in the Middle East. Related article Trump warns Iran against restarting nuclear program A US defense official told CNN that it was an Israeli military strike that hit suspected Iranian weapons near Damascus. Israel has not commented on the strike. On Tuesday, the IDF went on high alert in anticipation of an Iranian response, in addition to calling up a limited number of reserve troops “on an as needed basis.” Israel opened bomb shelters in the Golan Heights, but did not instruct people to enter the shelters. On Wednesday morning, the IDF chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, visited the Golan Heights to meet with military and civilian leaders on the IDF’s assessment of the situation. Israel says it has a series of “red lines” in Syria; among them, preventing Iran’s military entrenchment in the country. Netanyahu reiterated that in his statement Thursday, calling on the international community to prevent Iran’s Quds Force from basing in Syria. “We need to unite to dismember the arm of the evil that is spreading itself in every place,” he said. Netanyahu also said Israel’s most recent strike was a message to the Assad regime. He said Israel’s “operations are against Iranian targets in Syria, but if the Syrian army will act against us, we will act against them.” “That is exactly what happened yesterday. [The] Syrian army fired ground-to-air missiles against, us so we hit them.” On Wednesday, Netanyahu met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Victory Day, which marks the 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany. In a bilateral meeting after the celebrations, Netanyahu said that Israel has the “obligation and right to defend itself against Iranian aggression, from Syrian territory. They are trying to transfer forces and deadly weapons there with the explicit goal of attacking the State of Israel. Certainly, it is Israel’s right to take such steps as necessary to defend itself against this aggression.” Putin, as one of the few leaders who has good relations and significant influence with both Israel and Iran, urged restraint. “The situation, unfortunately, is very acute. I want to hope that we will be able not only to discuss with you, but also to look for solutions that would soften the situation,” said Putin. Russia and Israel coordinate their actions within Syria for the purpose of deconfliction. According to Conricus, Israel notified Russia before carrying out the overnight strikes. Russian and Iranian intervention in Syria’s long-running civil war helped tilt the balance of power back toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In an interview with the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Assad said fears of a third world war erupting in Syria were misplaced, despite escalating tensions. Assad told the paper that “wise Russian leadership” would prevent such an event, describing the current conflict as “something more than a cold war, less than a full-blown war.” He also took aim at the US, saying the Russians “know that the agenda of the deep state in the United States is to create a conflict.” Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing it from Syria in the Six Day War in 1967. The international community has never recognized the annexation and regards the Golan Heights as Israeli-occupied territory. CNN’s Oren Liebermann and Salma Abdelaziz reported from Golan Heights. James Masters wrote from London. Sarah El Sirgany contributed to this report from Abu Dhabi. Hamdi Alkhshali contributed from Atlanta. Mike Schwartz, Ian Lee and Amir Tal contributed from Jerusalem.


Editor’s Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on Snapchat, Facebook and email. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Sutter: Decisions we make about energy use today will define how deadly hurricanes will be for many generations To stop storms like this from getting even more intense, we need to rid the economy of fossil fuels As Hurricane Matthew continues to churn through the Atlantic, leaving more than 260 dead in the Caribbean and threatening the Florida coast, the focus must be on public safety. People in the storm’s path must seek refuge, as Florida’s governor has implored. And those in the Caribbean likely will need assistance as they mourn their dead and clean up the wreckage. But as the impact of the storm becomes clear, there’s an uncomfortable truth the rest of us should wrestle with: Hurricane Matthew looks a lot like future climate change. And if we want to stop storms like this from getting even more intense, we need to do everything we can to rid the economy of fossil fuels. Related video Hurricane Matthew closes in on Florida “We expect to see more high-intensity events, Category 4 and 5 events, that are around 13% of total hurricanes but do a disproportionate amount of damage,” Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, told The Guardian. “The theory is robust and there are hints that we are already beginning to see it in nature.” “Last year was the warmest our oceans have ever been on record. And that’s critical context,” Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, told Democracy Now. “It’s that warmth that provides the energy that intensifies these storms. And it isn’t a coincidence that we’ve seen the strongest hurricane in both hemispheres within the last year.” Emanuel, the MIT professor, told me it’s not possible to say Hurricane Matthew was caused by climate change. We just don’t know that. But we do know that by burning coal, natural gas and oil we are heating up the atmosphere and oceans, and that’s expected to strengthen hurricanes like this over time. Related video Hurricane Matthew leaves devastation, destruction By 2100, tropical hurricanes are expected to be 2% to 11% more intense because of global warming, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, citing UN data. Global warming also is expected to make hurricanes produce about 20% more rain near the eye of the storm, according to a US government report. That’s critical because freshwater flooding is the second deadliest feature of hurricanes, Emanuel told me. The top killer is storm surge, he said, and that also will be shaped by our fossil fuel addiction. As the planet heats up, the ocean is expanding and ice sheets are melting from the land into the sea. That’s causing already noticeable increases in tide lines, leading to sunny-day flooding in Miami and Norfolk, Virginia, for example, as tides spill into streets and yards. Rising tides make hurricane storm surges even higher, causing greater risks for people living on the coast. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook “Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms along the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico by $2 billion to $3.5 billion,” a 2014 report from the Risky Business Project, chaired by  Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer, found. “Adding in potential changes in hurricane activity, the likely increase in average annual losses grows to up to $7.3 billion, bringing the total annual price tag for hurricanes and other coastal storms to $35 billion.” The decisions we make about our energy use today will define how deadly and costly hurricanes like Matthew will be for many generations to come. We ignore these warnings at our peril.