Trump’s sudden announcement that the US intends to “immediately withdraw” troops from Syria (and much reduced troops for Afghanistan) has caused much confusion as to US defence policy and, following the resignation of Mattis as Defence Secretary, Trump has found it difficult to get a replacement. While consistent with his election manifesto, Trump appears to have recognised that he was being too hasty and it appears he has accepted the view of National Security adviser, John Bolton, that the withdrawal be extended over a longer period and that it should first involve the elimination of IS (which Trump initially claimed had been achieved). Even so, policy uncertainty remains.

This has been increased by an address made by US Secretary of State Pompeo in Cairo, who declared the US was committed to “expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria where, in alliance with Russia, Tehran, in its drive for regional hegemony, has been propping up the murderous Assad regime. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, Mr Pompeo heaped scorn on the former president’s “misguided” thinking on the use of military force and reluctance to call out “radical Islam”. That was a reference to Mr Obama’s preference for the term “violent extremism” when referring to Islamist terrorism and his call for an “opening towards Muslims” that would “transcend stereotypes”.

“Remember: it was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you … he told you that radical terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals in the Middle East,” Mr Pompeo said as he argued Mr Obama had misjudged the Arab Spring uprisings. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, he said, was an example of “what not to do”, whether in striking the nuclear deal or abandoning long-time ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler, allowing him to be brought down by an uprising orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood” (see Pompeo on US Middle East Policy).

It is difficult to see how Pompeo’s statements can be reconciled with Trump’s.

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

The refusal  by Democrat’s House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer to give Trump approval (in the House) for any finance for building the border wall with Mexico poses a challenge to Trump now facing a majority in the House. In return, Trump has refused to approve finance for a large number of federal government employees and has threatened to declare a national emergency which (it appears) would allow him to obtain indirectly finance for the wall.  But Trump says he is “not yet” taking such action.

Trump has defended his position not with a tweeter but by making his first formal address from the Oval Office (see Text of Trump’s Address on Border) and has announced that he will not now attend the Davos meeting in Switzerland which purports to give major international leaders an opportunity to expound their international policies.He is also reported as actively promoting his view particularly in the south of US.

The Democrats are using the opportunity to remind people not only of their new majority position in the House but also of the problems which Trump is experiencing on implementing some of the various policies he advocates and the problems created by the partial shut-down of the federal government. However, the Democrats are not reported as addressing the illegal immigrant problem which previous Presidents have acknowledged and, in respect of which, some have supported cross Mexican border measures, albeit not one stretching across the country as Trump promised in his election manifesto.

In an editorial yesterday The Australian points out that “in 2017 the number of undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing into the US was just over 300,000, the lowest number in 46 years. In a year, however, that figure has jumped to 400,000. A Morning Consult/Politico poll shows 42 per cent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” on the border, 12 per cent perceive it as “a problem” and only 12 per cent see nothing amiss; Democratic leaders would be wise not to ignore those numbers” (see Merits in Border Security).

In short, the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem, although he should have started to do that some time ago when he had control of both houses. He did of course attempt early in his Presidency to limit immigrants from seven mainly Muslim countries and there has been an ongoing debate in the US on the extent of controls on immigrants. The increasing immigrant policy problem faced by various countries, including the development of the UK’s English Channel problem (see Migrants Attempting to Cross English Channel), may now attract more support in the US for some tightening of controls.

As Greg Sheridan points out, “it is legitimate for Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats to argue that Trump is proposing a bigger wall than that which they previously supported, or that they have changed their minds. What is not legitimate is to claim that Trump’s proposed wall — refashioned rhetorically now into a barrier, and to be made of steel rather than concrete — is a unique crime against the very essence of humanity and decency.  And the wall or barrier or fence that Trump wants to build would certainly help control illegal immigration. So, as ever, there is a good deal of plain common sense in the Trump proposal and it is also what he promised on the election trail … In the next few days Trump will either escalate, by declaring a national emergency and using extraordinary powers — which would be ridiculous but might be effective politically — or capitulate, with some minimal face-saving compromise. In the meantime he has again succeeded in being the trapeze artist from whom no one can avert their eyes” (see Sheridan on Trump’s Wall Explanation).

The Morrison government has made no comment on this matter.  Without supporting Trump’s building of the wall, it would be appropriate in circumstances where there is a general public discussion on immigration policy for Australia to indicate support of the US’s attempts to establish an effective regulatory system to control migrants. That is, of course, a potential major election issue here.

US Trade With China

An article published in the Wall St Journal reports that talks on US/China trade have resumed and that this constitutes “a show of Beijing’s seriousness”. At this stage the representatives on each side are not the most senior but the preparedness of China to engage in talks follows an agreement reached between Trump and Xi in December that the US would suspend until March tariff increases on $US200 bn of Chinese imports and thereby give the Chinese time to address what the US regards as unfair trade and economic practices (China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001).

China has an enormous trade surplus with the US, with in 2017 its exports to the US amounting to $506bn and its imports from the US only $130bn (see China’s Large Trade Surplus With US). This appears to confirm that Trump has correctly threatened trade action against China not for protectionist reasons per se but because China is not conforming with WTO rules. Even so, the various aspects discussed in the attached indicate the complexity attached to any unwinding of Chinese restrictions, which extend to investment in China. As a major source for Australian exports, it is important that a satisfactory outcome be achieved.

Energy Policy

In my Commentary of 1 Jan I drew attention to the Morrison government’s decision to carry-over emissions credits obtained under the Kyoto agreements and that this meant that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, as agreed by Turnbull, will in practice be much less. I also noted that, as a result, the Coalition is an even  better position than it was to contrast the adverse economic effects with Labor’s much larger target of a 50% reduction by 2030.

However, there remains much that needs to be done to effect a reduction in electricity prices and the operation of the electricity market. In his analysis of the problems that still exist, climate expert Alan Moran pointed out on January 9 that the latest report by the Energy Regulator, “in line with other official analyses, hugely understated how the electricity market has been undermined by 15 years of government subsidies to the inherently low-quality supply that is wind/solar” (see The Australian Energy Regulator’s Wholesale electricity market performance report).Moran offers a disheartening conclusion as follows:

“Its analytical shortcomings aside, the report’s call for stable policy is a forlorn one.  With half a dozen major Commonwealth policy direction changes since 2001 (and many others at the state level) there is zero prospect of policy stability.  There never can be such stability when energy policy is inextricably tied to emission reduction policy and the targets for renewable energy vary from zero to 100 per cent”.

If the Morrison government can further moderate its energy policy, it would increase its electoral chances. But as John Roskam said last Friday in an article in the AFR “The Liberals are terrified to talk about industrial relations, they don’t have an energy policy and on questions of values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion they can’t agree among themselves on a position”. A lot of policy changes are needed.

It is not clear whether or not Senator Anning’s attendance at a small St Kilda protest rally was intended to stir public discussion and comments from Morrison and Shorten. But this has happened and some points made in my Commentary on Monday have also been reflected in that discussion. Importantly, The Australian has published a number of letters (see OZ Letters on “Far-Right”), including my own as what is sometimes called the lead letter, viz

Not just extreme Right who have migrant concerns 

The Australian, Letters, 12:00AM January 9, 2019 (Ed deleted bits in square brackets)

Your coverage of the [small]protest rally on St Kilda beach attended by Queensland senator Fraser Anning draws attention to his unverified relationship with Vietnamese traders who had been disrupted by youths of African origin [and] who had also caused disruption at the very same beach (”Anning not with us: Vietnamese”, 8/1). [Anning acquired his Senate seat through the back door and is no longer a member of a party. And while he is claiming his expenses, it seems that is legitimate]

[True,] Anning is said to have a “far Right” view but his expressed concern about immigrants having Islamic characteristics or having African origin may not be confined to those with a “far Right” view. As indicated by the recent debate on immigration, most Australians recognise there is limited absorption capacity both in terms of numbers and characteristics which extend beyond our Euro-Judeo culture.

The UK is attempting to stop illegal immigration across the English channel from many who see it as an El Dorado. And while France is still officially welcoming migrants, surveys reveal a majority of the French population want immigration halted or regulated drastically. That President Macron’s polling has fallen to only 18 per cent, and that changes are favoured to the hundreds of no-go zones under the control of imams and Muslim gangs, indicates the importance of having an acceptable population mix from immigrants.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

My main intention was to refer to the possible implications of one of Anning’s reported observations at the rally (“I would not bring any more Muslims or Sudanese in the country. I would put a ban on that. And if any of them committed a crime, I would be shipping them home to where they came from”). As is evident from the heading made by The Australian to its main published letters the key point is that it is “Not just extreme Right who have migrant concerns”.

My letter, and Monday’s Commentary,  sought to draw attention to other countries which have “migrant concerns”, notably France now led by President Macron with polling of only 18 percent and a “far-right” Marie le Pen hot on his trail. The latest report on the French crisis indicates that the French PM has taken over from Macron the handling of the “yellow vesters” and some arrests are being made (see French PM To Respond To Vesters). But it appears that France has become ungovernable unless imprisonment action is taken against violent groups, who might even include some in the Antifa movement whose members here took part in our St Kilda rally (see PS below). Other European countries have migrant concerns as indeed does the United States, with Trump about to make a major statement in support of constructing a wall to help control migrants entering from Mexico.

But most remarkable is the failure of Morrison to use the public discussion/debate on Anning and the rally to recognise that Australia itself has “migrant concerns”. In Monday’s Commentary of 7 January I noted that both Morrison and Shorten deemed it necessary to criticise Anning’s attendance at the rally and quoted Morrison as saying that  “Australians are not anti-migrant nor racist. Genuine concerns held by fair minded Australians about immigration levels, border protection or law and order should not be used as a cover or be hijacked to push hateful and ugly racist agendas.”“As I did yesterday, I’ll always be prepared to call out extremism in all its forms.”

But immigration policy is not simply “calling out extremism in all its forms”. While there is no media statement for 6 January on Morrison’s media releases web, it appears that he has missed the opportunity to make a general statement along the lines that, as I say in my letter, “most Australians recognise there is limited absorption capacity both in terms of numbers and characteristics which extend beyond our Euro-Judeo culture”. Some such observation would likely put the Coalition ahead of Labor on an important policy issue.

I note that the letter published by The Australian from a Mr Jeremy Browne refers to the Antifa movement being at the St Kilda rally. That movement has US origins but is described in Wikepedia as “a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action. They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. Conflicts are both online and in real life. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than through electoral means”. It seems likely that it was people belonging to this movement who ensured that the rally was not a peaceful one.

It is widely accepted that, through its films and those acting in them, Hollywood favourably portrays the left and criticises the right. Because it has established this position over the years, most viewers/readers take account of this bias when commenting on a film and simply say no more than “well just as one expected”. But occasionally the bias is so bad that an observer feels forced to draw attention to it.

That is the case with the film “Vice”, which has just appeared and has received five stars from some film critics. But while The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, acknowledges that the film is “superbly made, ­indeed brilliant”, he portrays it as “profoundly dishonest in its treatment of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s vice-president.” Indeed, he rightly points out that  “it has a wider cultural significance, for it demonstrates one reason it is so difficult for conservatives to prevail in Western societies. The Left has colonised and politicised much of elite and even popular arts production and uses them to project political ­messages. Vice is a supreme propaganda film, using all manner of sly tricks to dehumanise its villains. It is full of specific falsehoods. More generally, the innuendo and the physical mockery of its designated villains makes it manipulative and dishonourable”.

Sheridan’s comments, which are worth reading in full (see Hollywood on Cheney), reflect my own now rather hazy recollection of what happened under Bush as President and Cheney as his Vice P. I note in particular Sheridan’s comment that  “Far from Bush and Cheney lying about the intelligence, they reported the same intelligence as the Clinton administration had. I confirmed this with many senior Clinton figures who had all believed Saddam had WMDs”.

Sheridan reference to the film’s “wider cultural significance” is also important. Such a well-made, five star film will be widely seen and its bias will be more accepted as fact than might otherwise be the case. One of the bias objects in “Vice” might be to pose the question of whether the Trump administration is “as poor as” the Bush one seems to be portrayed in the film. I don’t know when the film was made but the latest Pew survey published on October 1 in the US summarises the result as “Trump gets lower ratings than his predecessors in recent midterm years – Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – for being trustworthy, empathetic and well-informed. However, Trump fares comparatively well in public perceptions of his ability to get things done” (See Pew Rating on Trump).

The extent of the opposition to Trump in the US might have influenced the way the film makers presented Bush/ Cheney in “Vice”. My own perspective is that, although as Pew says “Trump Gets Negative Ratings for Many Personal Traits”, his policy decisions have made an important positive contribution to the way  the US has been seen domestically and rescued it from the negative perspective which developed under Obama both domestically and here in Australia.

Trump’s Negative Perspective on Syria

In my 24 December Commentary I said that Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was sending “the wrong signal to Islamic extremists, and to those with Islamic beliefs in other countries”. An editorial in today’s Australian rightly argues that”Mr Trump failed to take into account the historical perspective of what has and has not worked in the battle against Islamist terrorism since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001”.

It also suggests that Trump has “not understood the implications for the West and Israel of recent moves that have highlighted the way Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at best a very uncertain NATO ally, is now working in lock-step over Syria’s future with Vladimir Putin, Iran and the Assad regime, with each seeking to consolidate their gains in Syria” (see Trump on Syria). It is encouraging to have such points made in a leading editorial.

The importance of continuing to draw attention to Islamic terrorist activity, and the need to respond to it, is reflected in the latest reporting of the stabbing by a “Muslim terrorist of two civilians and a police officer at a train station in Manchester. He shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ and other pro-Islam sentiments upon his arrest but the authorities have arrested him under the ‘Mental Health Act’. Thankfully they are using the counter-terror unit to investigate, but probably only because witnessed heard him shouting those Islamic sayings. Had he not uttered those sentiments, the British authorities might very well have ignored the need to investigate it as a terror attack and preferred to deal with it as a ‘mental health’ issue (see Terrorism Again in Manchester).

A detailed report of the recent murder of two Scandinavian students while hiking in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco is particularly interesting.  The author, Bill Muehlenberg (an expert on Islam who is known to me), says “the horrific deaths (including decapitation) were videotaped by the Islamists and images of it were sent to parents of one of the girls. But as has now become the norm, much of the mainstream media in the West has put its own spin on the story. Thus we are once again left to get the actual facts from the alternative media. And there are several issues here which need to be addressed. The main one has to do with the nature of Islam. There is nothing unusual about these murders for the devout Muslim. It is all covered in, and approved by, the main Islamic religious texts. Beheading the infidel is simply par for the course. I document this here in some detail: billmuehlenberg.com/2014/08/27/beheading-and-islam/” (see Morocco, Muslims, Murder and Media Mischief).

Since Trump made the announced withdrawal, and the resignation of some military advisers, there have been reports that he is backtracking. However, it appears that all that he is saying is that the time of the withdrawal is not yet determined.

Romney Attacks Trump Too

The former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who has now become a senator, has also attacked Trump “on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office” (see New Senator Romney Attacks Trump’s Character). In the attachment,Michelle Moons, who is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News, reports that “Romney acknowledged that Trump had enacted “policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.” He praised aligning “U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors,” deregulation, cracking down on China’s “unfair” trade practices, criminal justice reform, and appointments of conservative judges.

But he went on to assail Trump’s character: “With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

But Romney’s assail may need to be assessed against the “gaffes” he made during his presidential campaign (see Romney’s Gaffes).

In my Commentary published on 18 November I suggested the handling of the Bourke St incident indicated serious deficiencies. This has been confirmed by developments since then.

Most important has been the statement by Victorian Attorney General Pakula that Victorian police had not received information from federal sources which would warrant them acting to at least monitor the now dead Muslim terrorist, Shire Ali. But Victorian police chief Ashton subsequently announced that they had in fact received the necessary federal information. This prompted me to send a letter to the press arguing that Pakula should resign but, as he has stuck to his guns and has been supported by Victorian Premier Andrews, that won’t happen a couple of days before the election (see OZ on Bourke St Terrorist Revelationsand Pakula Claims Not Informed of Terrorists Passport Withdrawal).

My letter was published in today’s Australian (see below)  and the Herald Sun published a slightly different version

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

Following the killing of Sisto Malaspina by terrorist Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the many questions about the performance of security, police services and Victorian ministers, three men have now been arrested over another alleged terrorist plot (“Melbourne terror raids: three men charged over plot designed for ‘maximum casualties’”, 20/11).

While the capacity of protective services to prevent terrorism is limited, it must be given top priority in monitoring suspects. But despite removal of his passport, and frequent attendance at Muslim prayer bodies, Shire Ali was not.

Information about potential activists must be fully exchanged between state and federal agencies and ministers. Despite the initial denial by Victorian Attorney-General Pakula (“ASIO, Home Affairs contradict Martin Pakula on Shire Ali’s passport”, 19/11), this now appears to have been the case. This avoidance of facts, and failure to stop Shire Ali, calls for the resignation of Pakula.

Most importantly, federal and state governments need to review what appear to be serious deficiencies in arrangements for preventing terrorist activity.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Debate on this incident will doubtless continue but public attention moved yesterday to the announcement by Victorian police that three Muslims had been arrested as terrorists. It appears that these three had been planning a shooting expedition into a large crowd and their planning had been followed by police for some months despite their use of encryptions (see Objectives of Three Terrorists). Note that they were influenced by“Anwar al-­Awlaki, a Yemeni-American ­cleric who was killed in a drone ­attack and whose hate sermons inspired two of America’s worst terror attacks: the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, and the San Bernardino shooting”.

The report also reveals that “­Armagan Eriklioglu, the father of two brothers in the alleged terror cell, posted a link to a Turkish-language Islamic State Facebook –account”. He was not arrested yesterday and the report says he “is not suspected of being part of his sons’ alleged plans”, which seems surprising.

It is possible that this decision by Victorian police to arrest three was timed in order to demonstrate their efficiency (sic) after their poor performance in handling Shire Ali!

As to encryptions, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the opportunity to call for “the Intelligence Committee today within the parliament to return their advice back to parliament very quickly because this is legislation the government needs to deal with very quickly,” he told reporters. “We have a bill before the parliament that provides the appropriate safety mechanisms, the privacy protections in place, but it allows police and ASIO to do their jobs in relation to these terrorist investigations”. “Mr Shorten has been opposed to this legislation but he needs to review his position as well. We are in a position of vulnerability” (see Dutton Seeks Shorten’s Support on Encryption).

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

The Fairfax/Ipsos poll for Nov 14-17 shows an increase in the Coalition’s rating to 48/52 TPP from 45/55 in Oct 10-13. At this level the Morrison government is at a higher rating than the Turnbull one was when he was deposed. But there is still a long way to  go for the Coalition and Morrison’s personal performance rating fell to 48 per cent from 50 per cent and his preferred PM rating also fell by a percentage point to 47.

The poll also asked pollers about their views on Energy Policy and Immigrants from Muslim countries, viz

• Main energy priority for Government is 47% for Reduce Household Bills cf with 39% for Reduce Emissions.This suggests that, once the cost of reducing emissions hits bank accounts, there is a tendency to reduce support for measures which add to living costs. If the Morrison government were to reduce the cost of emissions (and hence Household Bills) that would likely further reduce support for the mythical dangerous warming thesis.
• For views on Immigrants from Muslim countries, 47% say they should be reduced (cf 45% in previous poll) compared with 35% who voted for them to stay the same (cf 29% in previous poll). Those favouring an increase fell from 23% to 14%.  As this poll was taken before the Bourke St killing, it probably understates those who think Muslim immigrants should be reduced, as does the latest arrest of three Muslims. A more appropriate assessment would likely occur if the government were to publish an information paper on Muslim beliefs (see Fairfax-Ipso Poll Opposes Increased Muslims)

Immigration Statement by Morrison

In his so-called population speech on Monday, Morrison “floated the idea of reducing the permanent migration cap by about 30,000 people a year. This would bring the maximum permanent intake to the level to which it has fallen in the past year, despite the current cap being 190,000. The population plan will be discussed at the next meeting ­between state and federal govern­ments on December 12” (see Possible Immigration Targets).

While Labor has indicated it may support a reduction, this is a disappointing response to the many commentators who have argued for a higher reduction figure and to the decision not being made by the Federal government, which should be the policy determinant.

However, Morrison is reported as saying that “Australia will refuse to sign up to the UN’s migration pact, which has already been rejected by the US and several European countries, on the grounds it would weaken border security and undermine the annual immigration program”. He took the position that the compact is

“contrary to the ­national interest and would be used against Australia by critics of its border policies”. “I’m not going to sign up to an agreement that I believe will only be used by those who have always tried to tear our stronger border policies down”… “I experienced this first-hand back when I was responsible for stopping the boats. We must ­always decide on these issues and not have our laws undermined by outside influences” … and has a “fundamental flaw” in failing “to distinguish ­between illegal and “proper” ­migration when it came to the provision of welfare benefits” (see Australia Not Signing UN Global Migrant Pact).

Hopefully, this decision may also lead to rejecting other global agreements, such as the Paris one on climate change which is clearly not in Australia’s interests. But his statements justifying our immigration policy also need to emphasize that, while reflecting the cultural basis of our society, it is non-discriminatory. As indicated in the recent report by the Centre of Independent Studies, the social cohesion objective is an important component of immigration policy (see CIS Report on Immigration).

In last Thursday’s Commentary I drew attention to an article in The Australian by John Stone suggesting that immigration isthe most obvious example of Morrison’s present policy deficiencies and arguing that the permanent settler program should be cut by 60,000. Stone added that if Morrison  was “prepared to say that Australia will continue to be non-discriminatory on racial or ethnic grounds, but will henceforth reject all permanen­t visa applicants judged to be culturally incompatible with our Australian way of life, he would enormously enhance his electoral prospects next year”.

Since then the need for a statement on immigration policy has become more important given that the Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration  is to be held on 10 – 11 December in Marrakech, Morocco. Although not legally binding this would allow the UN (which will establish the compact itself through an agency) and representatives of other member countries a basis for seeking changes to our policy. One out of a large number of “rules” is that the compact “aims to mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin” (see UN Agreement on Migration, which allows access to the Compact of no less than 34 pages!).

Australia should not be a member of any international body having the right to use such an arrangement as a basis for comment on our immigration policy. That is a matter for Australia alone. Last Friday’s Spectator weekly magazine has an editorial arguing strongly that we should not sign the compact and concluding that“if the Morrison government goes ahead and signs Australia up to these follies, thereby putting at risk our precious sovereignty and hard-won border security, it will be impossible to continue” the support it has been giving to the Morrison government.

Turnbull Continues Rampage

Contrary to his undertaking to keep out of politics after he ceased being PM, Turnbull has told a NSW Bar Association dinner of the various faults of the Liberal Party and of the failure of anyone who voted to remove him to explain why! According to an SMH/Age reporter,  Turnbull “reserved his harshest remarks for the man blamed for instigating his demise – Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, who scored 35 votes against Mr Turnbull in the first leadership ballot, in what turned out to be a fatal blow. ‘If Peter was the answer, you’d have to ask: what was the question?’ Turnbull said to roars of laughter and applause. He later added: ‘I’m not a hater, I’m a positive person’” (see Turnbull on Dutton).

It is surprising that Morrison has not yet indicated that Turnbull insisted on policies which became inconsistent with Liberal values and that this was the cause of his removal. Such a statement would help the Coalition’s polling. Indeed, it may be a sine qua non for it.

Identifying Possible Terrorists

Both News Corp and Fairfax Press have continued today to write about the Bourke St incident and have been examining the problems faced by the police and intelligent agencies in assessing who should receive copies of “sensitive” assessments of possible terrorists and at what stage legal action should be taken to stop possible terrorist action. From the outside it appears that there are serious deficiencies in existing arrangements and, while there are limits in the extent to which terrorists can be identified, based on the experiences reported in regard to the Bourke St and other terrorists it should be possible to tighten constraints on people who are on the fringes without unduly affecting civil liberties.

The fact that the Bourke St terrorist had had his passport withdrawn sent a warning message and all relevant authorities should have been told. Similarly, the fact that he had also broken his numerous bails should have warranted a watching regime, as should the Perth man who had his passport closed. It is of concern that so many appear to be being watched and that this costs much. But Australia does not want to reach the French situation where armed forces are used in the Paris streets ie better to increase spending now when we likely have fewer possible terrorists (see Difficulties in Identifying Terrorists).

California Fires

The horrendous fires in California have produced many explanations of causes , including of course “climate change”. But CFACTs refers to the view of Marc Morano, a US climate expert who operates Climate Depot, that “California’s rain and drought are historically normal.  In fact, the total U.S. acreage burned by wildfires is actually down in recent years. That said, there are anthropogenic roots to this catastrophe. But they are not the human causal links Governor Brown points to. Rapid population growth, extensive development, poor water management, and most critically, irresponsible forest management are principally to blame. Green activists blocked forest clearing in the name of species protection, leaving California with 129 million dead trees, clogging 8.9 million acres”.

Note the graph showing that the extent of US forests burned was much greater in the 1920-30s than it has been recently (see California Forest Fires).

As expected, more information is emerging about the activity of radicalised Muslims and their relationship with the Hume Islamic Centre. The most worrying development reported today about the Bourke St terrorist, Shire Ali, is that he was on bail when the killing occurred and had a record of getting away with breaking previous bails. This information would have been available to the Victorian government and to senior police. In those circumstances Shire Ali should have been at least closely watched but there have been no reports that he was.  More details will be available tomorrow but there is no doubt that this will become a major issue in the imminent Victorian election.

Earlier today, the Fairfax press reported that the Hume centre is where (now known) terrorists have said they have attended and presumably participated in endorsing the message conveyed by the leader (this denied by the head, Sheik Omran). Now the centre is seeking to increase the number of attendees at peak periods to up to 500. Shire Ali, who killed the owner of the coffee shop in Bourke St, apparently attended the centre, although Omran denies this too – “Shire Ali, he never came here — or once in a blue moon.” Omran, who is head of the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, also makes the unbelievable claim that no radicalizations have occurred at the centre.

The only body responsible for approving or denying approval to expand seems to be the local Hume Council and the major question for considering expansion seems to be whether there would be enough car parking available in the surrounding area (see Islamic Centre Seeks Expansion). One would have thought that the Federal government should also have a say and should also be informed about any radicalizations. It is possible that Australian Federal Police/ASIO have infiltrated the centre but there should be publicly available information about the centre (and any other similar ones), just as there is for normal clubs et al.

The Australian reported today that “Islamic State-aligned groups have released fresh propaganda based on Friday’s terror attack in Bourke Street, as new data showed a high incidence of ­violent radicalism among Australians denied their passports by security agencies. Islamic State-linked Sunni Shield Media Foundation this week released posters with ­images of the Bourke Street ­attack, including one showing ­attacker Hassan Khalif Shire Ali attempting to stab a police officer. Another poster contained a photo of the utility that Shire Ali set alight during his fatal jihadi mission. ‘Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks,’ the text on the poster read”.

OZ also reports that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday condemned the propaganda (“This demonstration shows their evil minds at work,” he said. “We will continue our efforts to counter propaganda and gather intelligence to defeat the scourge”).  Bill Shorten also did so, urging “internet providers and social media companies to remove any objectionable material which encourages terrorism.” The Opposition Leader said “We all have an obligation to ensure it is not disseminated further and doesn’t reach vulnerable young people.”

What this so-called propaganda seems aimed to do is not only to excuse the terrorist but also attract Muslims to radicalise. The phrase “Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks” used above might be subject to legal action against the person responsible for making the poster. It certainly calls for a response from the body responsible for our national security – the federal government.

The Australian has also published a considerable number of letters expressing concern at what has happened and at the apparent influence of Islam. My letter was also published, albeit in a heavily edited form, and is set out below.

It’s Chilling to See Would-Be Killers Laughing in Court

Letter Published in The Australian, 16 Nov 2018 (Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

“PM Morrison should be applauded for his sensible statements on [Australia’s sixth deadly] the Islamic terrorist attack which occurred in Melbourne, as should your editorial in asserting that “Islamist terrorism must be confronted, not denied” (14/11). But with a Muslim community having [, surveys suggest,] a [not in] significant proportion who support the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, the question is what action might be taken to limit deadly attacks.

[First, the government should publish a paper providing to Australians the extent of the beliefs of Muhammad, why they are still accepted by some today, the extent of the threat to national security, and what action is being take to minimise the threat. It should include the views of leaders of our Islamic community but should also make clear that the problem is not with ‘extremists’ as such but with interpreters of the religion itself who believe in the killing of infidels including fellow Muslims.]

The government should in cooperation with the states enhance our deficient police and intelligent analysts and take steps to access the encrypted exchanges now hidden from detection. This should include the deportation of those attempting or advocating extremist action and should require mosques and prayer centres to provide special police forces with access to what is said at meetings. [As is happening now  in European countries, additional funding should not be held back].

And Australia should seek agreement with other Judaeo-Christian countries to pursue such action on an international basis”.

The developments outlined above, and the widespread increased concern, call for a statement by the Federal Government on what additional protective measures it is considering and that it plans to publish an educative information paper about Islam .

Last Sunday’s Commentary on the killing by a Somalian (Shire Ali) in Bourke St gave the gist of  PM Morrison’s reaction that   “I am the first to protect religious freedom in this country, but it also means I must be the first to call out religious extremism,” he said. “Religious extremism takes many forms around the world, and no religion is immune from it … But here in Australia, we would be kidding ourselves if we did not call out the fact that the greatest threat of religious extremism … is the radical and dangerous ideology of extremist Islam.”

Responding yesterday to queries, Morrison said that the terrorist’s past substance abuse and alleged mental health issues are an “excuse” and that he would continue to call out extremist Islam and that this is “the elephant in the room”. He pointed out that Shire Ali’s reported marital struggles and substance abuse did not deter from the fact he was radicalised.  “I think that’s an excuse. This bloke, radicalised in Australia with extreme Islam, took a knife and cut down a fellow Australian on Bourke Street,” he told the Ten Network’s Studio 10 this morning. “I’m not going to make excuses … he was a terrorist. He was a radicalised extremist terrorist.”

He added that he had consulted with a Muslim community leader before he made the initial comments, and that commentators accusing him of “dog whistling” are making excuses for terror. “That is the same lame, old, tired excuse for not dealing with this problem as has always been served up,” he said. “I don’t believe that’s where the majority of decent, hard-working, respectable Australian Muslims are at. They want their communities to be safer” (see Terrorist Had Communicated With IS).

Today’s Australian reports that Mr Morrison has urged imams to identify “infiltrators’’ in their mosques and to be more alert for and proactive towards any signs of radicalisation. It describes the Prime Minister’s “forceful rhetoric” as aimed squarely at imams he believed were “looking the other way’’ when confronted with extremism in their mosques. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has also called for Muslim community members to help bring potentially dangerous radicals to the attention of police. Morrison is reported as claiming that  the “active co-­operation” of Islamic leaders was required to prevent terrorism. “When you’ve got 400 people on an investigation program and 230 people with cancelled passports, there’s no way you can have active eyes on everyone,” Mr ­Morrison said. “No government can achieve that. This is about protecting their own communities, and their own religious communities’ integrity, because at some point a young person is always going to be ­vulnerable. “That’s when these infiltrators go to work. They can sniff it out and in they go. We’ve seen it time and again.”

By contrast, today’s Australian also reports Sheik Omran, the spiritual leader of the Islamic youth centre where Shire Ali ­attended prayer sessions, as ­accusing Morrison of “making the Muslim community a scapegoat to distract from the failure of police and intelligence services to prevent Friday’s attack”. Mohammed Omran, the emir of the Hume Islamic Youth Centre close to Shire Ali’s Meadow Heights home, dismissed the “bloody Prime Minister’s’’ call for imams to do more to stop Islamic extremists, saying the greatest power he had was to dial triple-0 when confronted with a threat. According to The Australian, “the HIYC, a sprawling mosque, cafe, gym and bookstore in the Melbourne suburb of ­Coolaroo, has seen a procession of jihadists and would-be terrorists through its doors, including ­domestic terror plotters and suicide bombers who killed themselves in Iraq” (see Muslim Leader’s Attack on Morrison).

Another report today confirms that Shire Ali had had contacts with Yacqub Khayre ( the man responsible for the Brighton siege last year and the murder of a receptionist) and his friends, as well as being an online friend of infamous Australian terrorist Khaled Sharrouf in 2014 (the man who posted a photo of his young son holding a severed head online in 2014) (see Ali Had Friends with Other Radicalists).

Judging by the foregoing activity of Shire Ali and his Islamic “friends” (of which more will doubtless be revealed), the anti-terrorist policies and the accommodative attitude adopted toward the Islamic community by former PM Turnbull and Victorian Premier Andrews have, even with the large increase in police and intelligent analysts, clearly been deficient. According to comments by Victorian Opposition Leader Guy,  while Premier Andrews ­ had four years to back the federal government on deportation “the government hasn’t recommended a single person for deportation in four years. Now he says this is on the agenda.” Yesterday Andrews declared the Victorian government “stands ready” to co-operate with the federal govern­ment on deportations and visas, in a break from past responses to ­federal intervention on state law and order (see Andrews Now Supports Deportation and Visas).

But policies need to extend much further into restricting statements by Muslim preachers et al endorsing all of the Koran. Freedom of religion is generally accepted but, in this day and age, it should not allow the preaching of death to believers  in other religions.An experienced analyst of the Koran, Bill Muehelenberg, argues that “the problem is not with ‘extremists’ but with the religion itself. The religion commands its followers to kill the infidel. Its founder led the way here, leaving all Muslims a perfect example of what they should do”… “The simple truth is this: if a Christian kills in the name of Christ, he does so in total opposition to the life and teachings of Christ, and the entire New Testament. However, if a Muslim kills in the name of Allah, he has full justification to do so from the life and teachings of Muhammad, from the Koran, and from the hadith and sira” (see billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/21/jesus-muhammad-and-violence/).

As I argued in a recent Commentary, the government should publish a paper outlining the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, which was put together after the death of Muhammed in 632 but for which he left no records. And other new policies are also needed.

Further Downturn in Newspoll

Last Monday’s Newspoll showed a further drop in the Coalition’s polling to 54/55 on a TPP basis and a drop also in Morrison’s personal satisfaction ratio. As argued in previous Commentary, I believe this reflects Morrison’s failure to indicate policies on major issues. This view is also reflected in an editorial today’s Australian, viz

“Mr Morrison does not need to don baseball caps and give us the thumbs up to convince us he is a suburban dad. We get it. He needs to use the authority of the top job to deliver the reforms and arguments this nation needs. As a Coalition Prime Minister there must be more he wants to achieve on tax reform or energy affordability. He must be concerned about cultural issues such as our university sector rejecting a centre for Western civilisation or a Labor opponent refusing to call out Islamist terrorism. In short, Mr Morrison will win government in his own right only if he provides the central missing ingredient of this dismal past decade of politics: leadership”  (see OZ Says Morrison Needs to Deliver Basic Reforms),viz

“Mr Morrison does not need to don baseball caps and give us the thumbs up to convince us he is a suburban dad. We get it. He needs to use the authority of the top job to deliver the reforms and arguments this nation needs. As a Coalition Prime Minister there must be more he wants to achieve on tax reform or energy affordability.

He must be concerned about cultural issues such as our university sector rejecting a centre for Western civilisation or a Labor opponent refusing to call out Islamist terrorism. In short, Mr Morrison will win government in his own right only if he provides the central missing ingredient of this dismal past decade of politics: leadership”.

Morrison Government Policies

I have already expressed some concern that the Morrison/Frydenberg government is portraying itself as too close to the Turnbull regime.  This seems to be reflected in  statements and policies which are now being made and/or implemented by those two. For a start, it is now reported that, instead of distinguishing his government from Turnbull’s,  Morrison has in fact offered Turnbull in New York that some of his travel costs on “government business” could be met (see Turnbull’s Travel Costs Offered by Morrison). This comes on top of his acknowledgement of having frequent contact with Turnbull in NY.

And, although Morrison is attacked front page in the Fairfax press on failures (sic) to implement climate change policies or indeed to take them further (see Fairfax Attacks Morrison for Abandoning NEG), Fairfax overlooks his retention of emissions reductions and increased renewables while continuing, contradiction ally, to claim that power prices will be reduced and that he has appointed a minister to do this. No indication has been given as to what attitude the government takes to the IPCC report to be released on Sunday next and which is already reported to once again be endorsing the dangerous warming theory. This despite it being the umpteenth such report which has made incorrect temperature predictions and failed to attribute to reasons other than CO2 increases which may have caused temperature increases (see attached letter published in The Australian by expert analyst William Kininmonth on CChange).

As to the budget, the Australian’s David Uren notes that while “the Morrison government appears to have decided that budget repair is mission accomplished,

big spending decisions — the $4.6 billion fix for school funding and the $9bn fix for Western Australia’s GST — are unlikely to be offset by savings. There is still a drought package, a small business tax package and a federal election to come” (see Morrison/Frydenberg to Ease Budget Policy?). Yet while both Frydenburg and Morrison have acknowledged that new spending should be offset by savings, they do not give any undertaking of such action. Uren rightly concludes that “there should be a greater buffer against adversity in the budget before we start spending surpluses that are yet to arrive”.

As to the ABC, apart from the appointment of the very pro-ABC Ferguson as acting chair (for which there has been no explanation), Morrison seems happy that the inquiry by the Departmental head will provide a satisfactory basis for possible changes. Yet controversies continue about what actually happened to instigate the sacking of Guthrie and why Ferguson could not have been requested by the Minister for Communications to make obviously-needed changes as a condition of her appointment. In the attached article (ABC Stuck with Greenism) former Chair Maurice Newman identifies many but his reference to the failure to handle complaints (0.5% upheld !), and the rejection of an analysis by expert Meteorologist Bob Fernley-Jones, indicate the need for immediate change (and for there to be a change which would give credibility to the government).

As to foreign policy, the increased foreign activity by a China, now run by a Marxist who has “shuffled” leaders to centralized power in himself,  requires much greater expressions of concern by Australia. This applies to inter alia a number of Chinese activities including in the South China sea. Defence Minister Pyne, who addressed a dinner I attended on Wednesday evening, said that Australia will be participating in an official group which will be sailing through the SC sea but did not say whether that group would accept any Chinese restrictions and what it would do if the Chinese acted as it did against a US ship (see Chinese Threaten US Warship).

Morrison’s attempt to explain that Australia has good relations with both the US and China fell short of what our foreign policy requires, which would include endorsement of US policy supporting independent nations and which recognises how important to us the US is militarily. Pyne mentioned that we have increased defence spending since the cut-backs under Labor and said the aim is to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP from the 1.9% aim in 2018-19. But we are small and the planned new subs have not yet been started and will not be ready until 2030.

This situation requires closer support of US defence/foreign policies, including the de-nuclear policies in regard to Iran, which has now attempted a bomb plot in France where the counter-government for Iran is situated (see France Threatened by Iran).  The US describes Iran as “the world’s top sponsor of terrorism” and it has conducted terrorist activity in countries distant from itself. Australia should recognise and support the US policy on Iran.

My Commentary of 5 June suggested that the ANU should explain if programs funded by Arab money are free from attempts to persuade students of the benefits in the Koran. It appears that so far there has been no such explanation and Vice-Chancellor Schmidt has refused to interview The Australian’s rep (see ANU’s Program on Arab/Islamic Studies). However, according to The Australian report, the ANU’s Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies “has been at the forefront of contentious discussions around Middle Eastern politics and society with minimal backlash from its ­academics” and has received “sizeable donations from the United Arab Emirates and the governments of Iran and Turkey, frequently publishes ­articles supportive of a Palestine state and Iran, hosts lectures on ‘deconstructing the extremist narrative’ and ‘Islamophobia in post-communist Europe’, and has featured guest speakers who are critical of US policy”.

Even the Deputy Director of the Centre, Prof James Piscatori, has acknowledged that the clumsy handling of the question may be interpreted as “literary terrorism”.

So far, only two members of the Coalition have been reported in the media: Craig Kelly told Sky News that  “They are accepting money from Iran. That’s a despotic government … that does everything to suppress academic freedoms, the freedoms of women”; and Tony Abbott also pointed out the “hypocrisy” of the union opposing the course on Western Civilisation when the university had accepted funds from Dubai, Iran and Turkey in the past. Today, however, Turnbull has indicated that he will discuss the matter with Schmidt. One wonders whether he might mention the extent to which his government funds the ANU.

Abbott’s Priorities

As it happened, Abbott had just co-launched a new relevant book by education expert, Kevin Donnelly, titled How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia; Enemies Within and Without. Fellow launcher, and top rating Radio Broadcaster, Alan Jones, praised Abbott for sticking around “as the nation confronted a crisis in leadership”. Responding to a comment by Jones that a crisis in Western political leadership and education would not have continued if Mr Abbott remained prime minister, Mr Abbott said: “I wish. What you discover in big jobs is that you don’t have all the power that you would like.I discovered, for instance, as prime minister that there were many things the government couldn’t do. It couldn’t get every aspect of its budget passed because the Senate wouldn’t let us. All too often, centre-right governments are in office but not in power.”

Asked to nominate one thing he would “fix” if prime minister again, Mr Abbott picked two.“Take the pressure off the cost of living by doing something about power prices,” he said. “The next thing you would do is scale back the rate of ­immigration.” (see Abbott’s Priorities).

Turnbull Wrong Again on CChange

In his tour of rural areas experiencing drought conditions, Turnbull told the farmers “There’s no doubt that our climate is getting warmer,” he said. “I don’t know many people in rural NSW that I talk to that don’t think the climate is getting drier and rainfall is becoming more volatile.” As pointed out in The Australian’s editorial, there is no evidence of increases in droughts and, as I have indicated many times, there is no co-relationship between increases in temperatures and in usage of carbon dioxide (see Turnbull Wrong Again).

In fact, the Wall St Journal has published an article by  an expert in California pointing out that “while opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution” The author suggests that “climate change as an issue is over” (see Climate Change Over as Big Issue).

Increasing Recognition of the Iran Problem (But Not By ABC)

Israeli PM Netanyahu is providing support for Trump in his announcement that the US is withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu is having head to head meetings with the leaders of three major EU countries who still adhere to it. That their Finance Ministers are seeking support for exemptions from the sanctions being imposed on Iran by Trump suggests that he may be having some affect (see Netanyahu Meets Macron on Iran Deal).

The Australian has also weighed in, arguing that the three countries should withdraw. As its editorial points out,  “the deal’s boost to Iran, with $US100 billion from the US in sanctions repayments, has done much to further Tehran’s ambitions across the Middle East, propping up the Syrian regime and providing weapons and resources to Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who want to destroy Israel. Whatever the commercial imperatives, European cosignatories cannot remain blind to the grave shortcomings of the Obama deal. They will be ill-serving the West’s strategic interests in doing so” (see New Evidence on Iran).

One might add that the Australian government should announce that it supports the US withdrawal.

AIJAC leader, Colin Rubenstein, has also complained at the failure of the ABC to provide any significant coverage of one of the most deadly recent attacks launched by Palestinian militants (who are supported by Iran/Hamas) ­despite more than a hundred rockets being launched indiscriminately toward Israel. As Rubenstein points out, this is only one of many failures by the ABC about the attacks on Israel and even Minister Fifield has sought an official response from the ABC.

NK Summit Supported By Kim

Reports of internal action taken by Kim indicate that the Trump/Kim summit will go ahead on June 12 ( a separate report says that a top NK official begged on his knees to have the summit !)

China has Become Communised

Last night my wife and I attended an AIIA function to hear Rowan Callick speak about China under Xi. His analysis was truly alarming (see Callick on China). It seems that China is now run by the Communist Party even more than it was under Mao. I asked C what influence the military has on policy. He said that the previous military heads had been sacked and were replaced by those who were educated in the Communist line and this applies more or less across the board, including in the media. Just about every important organisation has been “communised”. At universities there are watchers who report on any dissidents and, at a recent discussion attended by students, seven cameras had been installed.

It is hoped that the AIIA will be able to send the text of this address to a wider audience.

Some Implications of NEG

Today’s meeting between Commonwealth and State energy ministers takes place as the independent Climate Study Group (CSG) publishes an analysis by experts which challenges the basis of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) on which the Turnbull government seeks the States agreement. Astonishingly given the lengthy time since it was first proposed, this meeting is not the “final” meeting: that will take place in August.

The Australian has published the CSG analysis as a half-page advertisement on page 5 (see Climate Change Cycles). Richard Morgan is to be congratulated for forming the CSG, which in its third edition concludes that

“Australia must develop a strategy that promotes reliable, efficient coal power stations including, if competitive, unsubsidised renewable energy which covers the full cost of meeting rated dispatchable generation.  Our industries will then have reliable and globally competitive power costs that they require to compete in world markets and at the same time improve living standards”.

The CSG acknowledges that, following a period when global temperatures fell, there has been a gradual increase over the past 150 years but this has occurred “independent of CO2 levels”. It also points out that models based on the burning of fossil fuels have failed in their predictions of even higher temperatures and a graph of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes shows no increase in strength or frequency since 1971 (if anything a decline). Moreover, even if Australia did not stick to its target to reduce emissions by 26% by 2030, any consequential increase in global temperatures would be tiny.

This leads the CSG to draw attention to the astonishingly large increase in government expenditure on measures designed to reduce or replace emissions of CO2. Importantly, it also has a graph showing that since about 2005 Australian electricity prices have about doubled. This is the period when various measures were taken by our governments to reduce emissions and subsidise renewables to replace coal-fired sources. The CSG claims that

“the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), would still leave Australia with power costs much in excess of countries with efficient coal fired power stations.  The extent to which any improvements to power costs rely on cross subsidisation from coal fired power stations and/or direct subsidies should be made public.  A figure of total subsidies for the NEG of $60 billion by 2030 has been mentioned in media reports”.

This analysis confirms that the Turnbull government should not go ahead with NEG and it should institute a genuinely independent review of any such proposal.

McCrann on NEG

Terry McCrann has more directly attacked the basis of NEG with an article highlighting the deficiencies of using wind and solar power (see McCrann on Renewables). He asks whether we are “completely insane” in having invested in wind-driven capacity of 3400 MW and now paying electricity prices which run to over $100 a MWhour  compared with only $20-30 a MW hour before such investment started around 2000. He predicts that Victoria and South Australia will possibly require less electricity in the 2020s as “more and more factories are shuttered as a consequence of crippling power prices”.

Increased Threats to Israel

In February the T-4 airbase near Homs in Syria was used by Iran to send an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) into Israeli territory and was shot down by the Israeli military. The Israel Defence Force revealed last Friday that its investigation concluded the Iranian drone sent from T-4 was carrying explosives and was seemingly deployed to attack an Israeli target.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported the T-4 base housed an advanced Iranian air defense system and drone hangar, underscoring Iran’s military expansionism in Syria as Tehran helps to lead Bashar al-Assad’s successful counterinsurgency against the rebels targeting his regime.

The Jerusalem Post has reported that Israel believes that Iranian retaliation could come in the form of direct missile or drone attacks launched from Syria.

Israel has an efficient defence force but will doubtless be looking for US support if necessary. Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been in communication with Trump about handling the possibility of a serious attack (see Threats to Attack Israel).