Special 9/11 Anniversary Webinar: A Discussion of the Many Threats to U.S. National Security Transcript

Disclaimer: This transcript is an edited version version of a transcript created using AI technology and may not reflect 100% accuracy.

The video can be found here. 

Laurie: Welcome to today’s webinar, featuring national security expert Gabriel Noronha. Thank you all for joining. As always, we appreciate your support for the important work we do here at EMET. Please save the date for our annual Rays of Light in the Darkness dinner gala. The gala will be held on November 19th in Washington, DC. I hope to see you all there.

Today’s webinar will be recorded and I urge everyone to share the recording far and wide. An informed electorate is critically important to our national security and our ability to survive in a very dangerous world. If you have any questions, you can place them in the Q and A function at the bottom of your screen. I will try to address as many as possible later in the program. Please limit your entries to brief questions only.

The US is facing a frightening number of national security threats from a multitude of enemies across the globe. On September 11, 2001, we were attacked on our own soil in an unprecedented fashion. This attack should have been a wake-up call for the government and military officials responsible for our safety. The September 11^th attack should have alerted them to the precarious nature of our role as the world’s superpower. Yet, 23 years later, Americans are anything but safe and the world appears to be on the verge of World War III. National security expert, Gabriel Noronha is joining us this afternoon to discuss this. Gabriel Noronha currently serves as the executive director of Polaris National Security and as a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. Please refer to the invitation for this webinar for a more in-depth description of Gabriel’s extensive and impressive resume. Welcome, Gabriel, and thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.

Gabriel Noronha: Thanks, Laurie. It is always great to be here with EMET.

Laurie: Thank you. I want to spend the first part of our conversation focusing on Islamist threats to US national security, to the stability of the Middle East and to our greatest ally, Israel.

Today is the day after the 23^rd anniversary of 9/11. The 9/11 attacks were hatched by al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, in a cave in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban, another terrorist organization. 9/11 resulted from intelligence and strategic failures and from a failure of imagination. Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda had attacked US interests abroad, but never at home. Did 9/11 result from us not understanding our enemies’ desires to do us harm on American soil? Have we learned anything since then?

9/11 led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presidents Obama and President Biden ended these wars poorly and we are now back to square one. Obama claimed to have destroyed Qaeda and ISIS, but we are witnessing a resurgence of these groups. Biden basically armed the Taliban when he withdrew from Afghanistan and left $80 billion worth of armaments behind. On Monday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee released a devastating report. The report describes the results of its investigation into the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. This withdrawal led to the deaths of 13 US Marines and hundreds of Afghanis. Polaris put out a great summary of that report and I urge everybody to go to the Polaris website to check it out. Gabriel, do you think our policy-makers have learned from these tragedies, or should we expect more terrorism given the resurgence of these groups?

Gabriel: Although we have learned some lessons, I am afraid we have not learned enough and we are living on borrowed time. A few elements led us to the 9/11 disaster. One was, the failure of imagination you mentioned. We failed to think creatively. We failed to anticipate the different ways terrorists could attempt to penetrate and compromise our systems. The other element leading to 9/11 was a failure to connect intentions and means. We failed to interpret what was happening on the other side of the world. On September 10^th, President Bush received a classified memo asserting that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US homeland. We had some pieces of information about the upcoming attack. However, we did not map the knowledge we had about intentions, to how these could be realized. We failed to link intentions to our compromised immigration system and to opportunities for terrorists to pilot aircrafts in the US. We did not link three categories of key questions together. We did not link intent, capability to commit an attack, and the means to enter the US. Had we connected them successfully, we might have been able to stop the 9/11 attack.

Recently, terror groups in the Middle East have metastasized in a massive way. Afghanistan is back to where it was pre-9/11. I would actually say the situation in Afghanistan might be worse today than it was before 9/11. Al Qaeda is present in all 31 provinces. It is housed in senior capitals across every province, and occupies positions in guest houses in Kabul. ISIS-K is the kind of successor to ISIS in the region. It is also now present in every province in Afghanistan. In the last year alone, they plotted around a dozen attacks on over eight countries across the world. They have not succeeded in many of these. Irrespective, their presence is growing.

General McKenzie was our CENTCOM commander through April, 2022. A year and a half ago, he testified that these terror groups were only six to twelve months away from being able to strike within our homeland with little to no warning. We are now within the timeframe he alluded to. All of this is complicated by our position on our southern border. I have been to the border three times now. On Monday and Tuesday, I will visit Arizona again.

The last time I was there, 40 individuals walked around the end of the border wall, right in front of me. Four of them were from Syria. Although it is likely they were just seeking a better life here, Syria is where ISIS came from. These guys came from a city that used to be controlled by ISIS and therefore could very well represent a threat to the US. It is highly likely these individuals were released into the United States.

We have a clear entry mechanism for would-be terrorists looking to come into the US. The ones who are intending to do us harm will probably not get caught by law enforcement. They will likely have had significant training and they will know how to get through the border without being detected by US law enforcement. They will be trafficked in by the cartels, and they will have the ability to carry out attacks. They are combining the three categories I alluded to earlier, intent, capability to carry out an attack and the means to actually come into the United States.

My theory is that we have a significant number of sleeper cells in the US. They have developed and hardened over the past few years. Once they are activated, we will see a series of attacks, rather than one isolated incident. I fear most that this will happen in a transition between presidents. This is the period that I believe could be most dangerous. This is the time when our national security officials are all in transition.

Laurie: It is a very frightening scenario. I know Polaris has focused extensively on the border, and you just shared the reasons why. I am very happy Polaris is concentrating on exposing border threats. In the wake of 9/11, President George W. Bush established the Department of Homeland Security. Under Alejandro Mayorkas’ leadership, Homeland Security is doing anything but keeping us safe and secure. Hezbollah is thought to have a very large presence in Latin America. From what I understand, their influence extends as far south as Argentina and Venezuela and now up through Mexico. Our southern neighbor, Mexico has been expanding its alignment with anti-US and pro-Iran Latin-American governments. These governments include Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil and Nicaragua and others. How big of a threat is the Venezuela-Iranian alliance to us, and how does that play into the border crisis?

Gabriel: I will address one item I forgot to mention previously, and then I will discuss Hezbollah. Law enforcement has noticed that the ISIS-led smuggling ring is pernicious and is focused on penetrating our southern border. That is the thing that worries me the most.

I think we are seeing the Hezbollah-Iranian axis causticize in Latin America. They have maintained a presence, at different levels, in Latin America for the past three decades. In the past, they focused primarily on revenue generation. This is because they realized they could get a lot of money through drug and weapons smuggling. Originally, they collaborated with the FARC in Colombia but Venezuela is now their predominant access point.

A lot of their activity there continues to be about generating a diversified form of income away from Lebanon and away from the Middle East. They also want to avoid scrutiny from the United States. However, we are worried they will go further and use their influence in Latin America, to create terror cells in the United States. Since 2000, the Department of Justice has prosecuted around 125 individuals for allegiance or military support for Hezbollah. This alleged support occurred from within the United States with around 50 of the cases centered in Michigan. We have observed a huge amount of anti-Semitic activity in Michigan and we often see parades displaying Hezbollah flags there.

So, Hezbollah is waging an economic and a military campaign. They are trying to create diaspora groups in Latin America and to grow communities there.

In the US, we see Islamic education centers in places like Texas, New York City, Georgia and Potomac, Maryland. The Iranian government established these centers and continues to fund them even though the FBI has shut down some of their funding avenues. At these centers, you will see children being indoctrinated and singing allegiance oaths to supreme leader Khamenei. They regularly chant death to America and they held mourning ceremonies for Iranian President Raisi there. This describes some of the tools they use to build a group of supporters and a base of Shia Muslims on the ground. They are brainwashed into believing that their Shia Muslim identity requires allegiance to the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime has spent a huge amount of capital trying to make itself not just the religious center of Shia Islam, but the political center as well. That is something that concerns me considerably. We are referring to the entire western hemisphere.

Laurie: You reminded me about the protests on our college campuses and in the streets of New York City. They are flying Hamas and Hezbollah flags during these protests. It was surprising to see this open support for Hezbollah in particular. Hezbollah has nothing to do with what these people are allegedly protesting about. Do you think that Hezbollah is infiltrating college campuses and is starting to influence more naïve or ignorant Americans as well?

Gabriel: I think Hezbollah, Hamas and others have been waging a 25-year long ideological campaign that is key to their survival. Israel’s defeat is their goal. Their objective cannot be achieved through arms alone. It had to be bolstered through political warfare. To achieve this, they created an alliance with the progressive left. The politics of justice provided them an entry point. They recruited, cultivated and partnered with leftist academic professors on college campuses. They realized campus was the ideal place to influence young minds. Idealistic students are easily convinced to join a cause they perceive to be fighting social injustice. Influencing students on college campuses is one of the key tools they try to use to capture hearts and minds. They have been very explicit about this. A US government official once told me that officials in Lebanon had openly admitted to this being their objective. They admitted they were planning to brainwash the youth of America and have them develop an allegiance to their ideology. That was an integral part of their plan to advance their political interests.

I think a lot of the kids flying Hezbollah flags have no idea what Hezbollah is. I think many of them have been brainwashed and do not actually understand what they are supporting. However, they are adults who are breaking US law by showing allegiance to a foreign terrorist organization. Materially supporting a foreign terror organization can get you a 20-year prison sentence.

I think we are being let down by our college professors. Most Middle-East, or Islamic studies professors are not neutral arbiters and scholars of their subjects. Many are activists who have obtained high-level credentials for the explicit purpose of indoctrinating the next generation. They are activists who have obtained credentials, rather than scholars trying to impart knowledge. That is the original sin. We have allowed our institutions to focus on pushing a biased agenda on students. This has replaced the goal of imparting knowledge. I think a lot of parents with kids in college see this. Many students see it too. College professors try to get students to advocate a certain angle in a paper. They are required to arrive to specific, pre-set conclusions. That is not the purpose of education. The purpose of education is to teach people how to think and how to arrive at their own conclusions.

Laurie: Okay, I am going to move back to our discussion of the Middle East now. What are the implications of the Democrats’ policy of pulling the US out of the Middle East. This was a policy followed by both Presidents Obama and Biden. I believe this policy would be followed by a future President Harris as well. We know Harris has shared she was the last person in the room when other critically important foreign policy decisions were made. This includes the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Obama was open about his desire to transform America. It appears he wanted to remove the US from its role as superpower. He destroyed the Pax Americana, the state of relative international peace overseen by the US. Team Obama, Biden and Harris had a plan which Mike Duran and Tony Badran called the realignment. The realignment involved replacing the US as the stabilizing force in the Middle East. This was to be achieved by empowering the Islamic Republic of Iran and allowing it to become the new regional hegemon. It is difficult to understand why US leaders believe that if we leave the Middle East, the terrorists will just forget about us. It makes more sense to me to believe that it is our presence and power that actually keeps the peace there.

Can you spend some time talking about the Islamic Republic’s malign and hegemonic intentions? Team Obama, Biden and Harris have provided Iran $175 billion in sanctions relief.  What else have they done to empower Iran? How does this threaten Israel and our other allies in the region? How could this impact our US homeland? You have touched on the people coming across our border and you mentioned sleeper cells in the US. What else do we need to be concerned about with respect to Iran both in the Middle-East and here at home? How did we get to the point where the Islamic Republic is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power?

Gabriel: I think a lot of people are familiar with Marxism and may have read Das Kapital. The vast majority of people are also familiar with Hitler’s beliefs. However, most people are not aware of the true ideology of Iran’s leaders. Ayatollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, composed a sort of key manifesto about the Islamic Republic. In it, he wrote that its goals were to cause the withering of the roots of imperialism, Marxism, and capitalism. He noted they would be replaced by a “brilliant Islamic civilization.”

The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are seeking to establish a massive caliphate similar to the one ISIS tried to create. In this case however, the caliphate would be Shia, and not Sunni dominated. The views of those supporting the Islamic Republic are very similar to those who supported the Soviet Union. They believe that if you are not causing revolutions and not expanding, you are losing. Moreover, if you fail to expand and cause upheavals, you are actually heretical.

The Soviet Union collapsed for many reasons. One of them was that they became intellectually bankrupt. They reached a point where they were no longer igniting revolutions and were all corrupt. The Iranian system is very intent on maintaining and advancing the revolution. One of the ways they have pursued their goal is to try and usurp governments with any Shia elements. They have tried to make these government vassal states of Islam. We saw this play out with Hezbollah in Lebanon. We saw it in Yemen with the Houthis and we saw Assad attempt it in Syria. Assad is not Shia, but he is part of a religious minority. The Iranian regime is also very interested in Iraq.

I think it is worth spending a little time on Iraq because a lot of Americans have forgotten about it. We have been there for 20 years, on and off. Many Americans are tired of hearing about Iraq and we are just not interested in it anymore. Iran is Iraq’s next-door neighbor. They fought a very brutal war in the 80s. Iran’s objective is to subjugate Iraq and make it subservient to Iranian interests. They want to take out the Iraqi militia’s military and replace it with the Popular Militarization Forces (PMF). The PMF is loyal to Iran. Over the last 10 years, both administrations have allowed Iran’s influence campaign to deepen in Iraq. We are about to see complete surrender on this front from the Biden-Harris administration. President Biden just announced his intent to withdraw all US forces from Iraq in the next two years. No one really paid attention to this announcement.

President Obama tried this approach. In 2011, he withdrew troops from Iraq. Following the US withdrawal, ISIS returned and swept through the Middle East. ISIS seized huge amounts of Iraqi territory. We are going to see a repeat of that. This time, however, we will see the Iranian regime sweep through Iraq. They will take over institutions completely and make Iraq a vassal state. If that happens, we will have ceded an enormous amount of territory, power, influence to the Iranian regime. We will sacrifice the blood and treasure that we have already invested in Iraq. We tried to withdraw from Afghanistan. We said we had been there for too long. It was becoming inconvenient and we did not want to remain there. As a result, we returned Afghanistan to a worse situation than the one of 9/11. The same thing is about to happen with Iraq.

I would like to point out a contrasting situation in Korea. We have maintained troops in South Korea since 1953, the putative end of the Korean War. We did not leave because we knew that North Korea would likely attack and take over South Korea if we did. We decided to keep troops there to pay for peace because we knew the other side did not believe in peace. The other side believed in endless war, endless revolution and endless conquest. And as a result of our policy in Korea, South Korea is free and prosperous, and now able to defend themselves.

20 years is just a blink in the span of an empire. We have a myopic ADHD mentality. We decide we have been somewhere a little too long, we are weary and we need to withdraw. However, we are simply ceding space to the enemy.

I think a future President Harris will want to continue the withdrawal from Iraq. The current administration is also trying to make it very difficult for a future President Trump to reverse this decision. They will have already made an agreement with the Iraqi government which would be very difficult for Trump to walk back. I think it is a very dangerous mistake to leave Iraq. The question is whether we are willing to turn Iraq over to the Islamic Regime and whether we will do something to fight it.

Iraq is a lot closer to Israel than Iran. Iran is building a pathway to encircle Israel. They have Hezbollah in the north and they have increased their infiltration of Jordan from the east. They have the Houthis in the south. They are trying to do everything they can to surround and ultimately destroy Israel.

Once they have destroyed Israel, they will target the Arab states. They will not stop at Israel. They will continue until they control the entire Middle East. If you consider their ideological ambition, you know they will not stop until they control the whole world.

Laurie: Thanks for that information, it is frightening. I had not yet heard about Biden’s plans to withdraw all US troops from Iraq. It does not appear that the US has not done anything to respond to Iran’s plots to assassinate former senior US officials on American soil. Iran targeted John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook, and President Trump himself.

Earlier this year, FBI Director Chris Wray testified, “Foreign terrorists, including ISIS, Al Qaeda, and their adherents have renewed calls for attacks against Jewish communities here in the United States and across the west in statements and propaganda. The foreign terrorist threat and the potential for a coordinated attack here in the homeland, like the ISIS-K attack we saw at the Russian concert hall a couple of weeks ago, is now increasingly concerning.” Is the government focused on addressing these homeland threats?

Gabriel: I have good news and bad news in this regard. Last week, the Department of Justice arrested a Canadian-Pakistani man who was trying to create a 9/11 for the Jews. His plan was to attack a Jewish community center in Brooklyn. He had explosives and planned mass attacks against Jews. He wanted to slaughter Jews on the anniversary of October 7^th, presumably at mourning ceremonies. Fortunately, this was stopped. However, the Iranian government is supporting exactly this kind of event. They are spending huge amounts of time, effort, and money facilitating such events.

Thanks to US intelligence, we now know that Iran is spending money and resources funding protests against Israel in the United States. They are creating propaganda online and they are inculcating and fomenting protests in Israel as well. They are trying to sponsor anti-government protests in Israel. This does not get the level of attention from the media that I think it merits. I think if Russia was doing something similar, we would see a whole lot more concern from the media. We saw a lot of angst from them when anyone took actions beneficial to the Russian government.

We have not seen a similar focus placed on Iran’s role in supporting nefarious activities in the US. About two hours ago, I briefed senior members of Congress on the Iranian terror threat. It has been four years since Iran threatened some of our officials. If there was a guy with a gun coming to shoot up New York City, the US government would stop him. We are not doing anything to message actual consequences to the Iranian regime. We are not taking out their assassins on their own territory.

I think President Clinton acted in an exemplary fashion in this regard. Iraq threatened to assassinate former president, George Bush. Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate him while he was on a foreign trip. In response, President Clinton fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at the Iraqi Ministry of Intelligence. Through this action, he sent a message that American citizens cannot be threatened with impunity. Even though Hussein did not succeed, Clinton made it clear that the mere act of plotting to assassinate an American official was unacceptable and the cost would be extracted in Hussein’s homeland.

That is the type of action President Biden should have taken over the past three and a half years. Iran has suffered zero consequences for plotting attacks against US personnel over the past four years. I think that is pretty insulting to public servants in both parties. They have served our country and deserve to live free from these types of threats.

Laurie: I think Biden likes to say, “don’t” and he expects people to listen. That has not occurred.

Gabriel: Not a great track record of success.

Laurie: No. We are now facing a new axis of evil in the form of strategic cooperation between Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea. This collaboration involves arms sales, research, development of weapons systems, and, I assume, intelligence sharing. We knew Iran was supplying Russia with drones. However, we learned, just this week, that the Islamic Republic is also sending ballistic missiles to Russia.

We will get into a more in-depth discussion about China and Russia and the individual threats they pose. Before we do that, please discuss the strength of the ties between the four countries I mentioned. What does this growing alliance mean for our national security? When evil alliances are built, do they inevitably require war to dismantle them? Is this one of the lessons to be learned from prior world wars?

Gabriel: World War II provides a good basis for comparison against what is happening today. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and fascist Italy did not share ideologies per se. Although they shared interests and information here and there, they did not have a robust supply chain linking them together. In the pre-war period, there was a weak supply chain between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany rearm.

In contrast, we are seeing extensive supply chains today. Iran and North Korea are providing massive help to Russia. They are supplying missiles, drones and ammunition and fueling the Russian war machine. Their aid is going to be reciprocated in the form of advanced technology transfers, missile technology, and perhaps even nuclear cooperation in the coming years.

This collaboration between our adversaries poses an even greater threat than in World War II. This is because all of these powers either have nuclear weapons capability or are on the verge of obtaining it. I believe that we are in the early stages of World War III. I think 1939 and 1940 signaled the beginning of World War II, even if we did not acknowledge it until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think we are simply waiting around for the next Pearl Harbor attack. I believe there is a lot of complacency in the West, in America and in Congress on this. We struggle to increase our defense budget. We have not had any real inflation-adjusted increases to the defense budget in the past three years. Inflation has eaten away at any increases. In a war with China right now, we would run out of long-range munitions within seven to ten days.  We would lose 5,000 to 10,000 sailors in the first week. I do not think most Americans are aware of that. They are not prepared for it. It is not a war we want. However, if China starts a war, it is going to be extremely painful for us. We do not have the industrial capacity to sustain it.

Iran, Russia, and China are spending in the range of 5% to 6% of their GDP on their defense and military. The US allocates around 3% of its budget on defense and military spending. This is pretty much the highest rate of military spending in the West. Europe is starting to hit the 2% mark. The West is just not there yet. We need to be of the mindset that the war has started, and we need to be prepared to win it. If we do not change our perspective, war could be very costly for us.

Laurie: I am glad you brought up the military. From what I understand, we are not reaching our target recruitment numbers. We have a woke military that is focused on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT). I think under a Trump administration, there would be more of an awareness of the need to bolster our military. The Pentagon understands we have serious issues that need to be confronted before it is too late.

Gabriel: We have a recruitment shortfall of roughly 25,000 people in the army, 7,000 to 10,000 in the Air Force and Navy and 5,000 in the Marine Corps. These are pretty bad numbers. I attribute a good part of these shortfalls to the impact of DEI.

We are also witnessing two fundamental flaws that started 2016 and 2017. The first is the lack of patriotism amongst today’s youth. I think this lack of patriotism is a cultural manifestation of today’s culture. The other flaw relates to physical fitness. Only about a third, or even a quarter, of today’s youth, are physically eligible to serve in the military. Others are overweight or have other physical issues impacting their ability to serve. Of those physically able to serve, only about 7% of them are willing to do so. A good chunk of those attend universities and become lawyers and enter other valuable professions. So, we have these twin crises of health and patriotism that are compounding the long-term recruitment problem.

Our kids are not becoming any healthier or any lighter, and they are not becoming any more patriotic. After 9/11, we saw a massive surge in patriotism because we were attacked. We saw the same things happen in Ukraine and in Israel. Once they were attacked, they mobilized and did many incredible things. We all wish we had been prepared two years, or even two months before those wars. The same thing is going to happen here. If we are attacked, we will see that surge of patriotism and an accompanying surge in recruitment. However, the best way to win a war is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Again, I think that resolution of the issues facing us requires a change in our cultural conversation. Serving in the military needs to be viewed as a valiant endeavor. Soldiers should not be seen as baby killers. There are many great career tracks in the military. People in the Pentagon worry about these issues but I am concerned they are not serious about implementing real solutions.

Laurie: I am going to pivot to China. A policy memorandum on the Polaris website states, “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the greatest danger to America since the Soviet Union. It aims to overtake the US-led liberal international order and replace it with authoritarianism that uses military coercion to advance China’s interests. China threatens our military superiority, economic and technological security, and social fabric.” The memorandum continues, “Inadequate action has been taken to enhance our defense posture, confront the CCP’s manipulative trade practices, block its espionage tactics, and deliver accountability to world companies kowtowing to Beijing.”  It also mentions that the US is in a cold war with China and describes how we are in the early stages of World War III.

Please elaborate on the content of this memorandum. Is the US acknowledging this cold war with China? Also, please also touch on Chinese domestic spying, including that revealed in the Hochul administration last week.

Gabriel: Look at the Soviet Union. They had vast capabilities but they were way behind the United States from a technological perspective. Look at their economic state. Their economy was a 10^th of the size of the United States.  Compare that to where China is today. They are on par as regards GDP. The Chinese are producing far more patents today than we are in the United States. Their defense budget is actually about 700 billion, compared to our budget of 850 to 900 billion. So, their military budget spending is close to ours. They are efficient and ruthless, and they have penetrated all aspects of American business and technological institutions. They may well have penetrated our military and political institutions as well. There is a story in the Wall Street Journal today which indicates this is the case.

Most American ports bought their cranes and associated technology from China. China installed Internet devices on all these cranes to be able to collect and disseminate information back to Beijing. It is likely they also have the ability to turn off and sabotage these cranes. If we were in the war with China in the Pacific, we would need to use these cranes to load troops and materials onto our ships. It is very likely they could just shut them off. This would be a complete disaster for us. This is a threat, unlike anything that the Soviet Union posed. The Soviets did not have us compromised in the same way.

We have similar problems with China in multiple areas. I will give the Biden administration a little credit for continuing President Trump’s wake-up on China. At least they admit there is a problem. However, I think their attempts at implementing solutions are lacking. They believe we can arrive at an accommodation with China. Their view is that we can successfully smooth out our relations with the Chinese. I think that view is naïve and I think we need to take China’s track record into account. China provokes us every time we give them concessions to try to stabilize our relationship with them. They steal something or they attack our ships somewhere. Our response is always to de-escalate the situation.

As a result, China has not faced any consequences for taking action against us in many different arenas. We are in a really dangerous place in the military arena. China has declared its ambition to be able to attack Taiwan by 2027. That is just two and a half years from now. I do think that date has shifted out a bit because the Chinese have had some problems with their military. They do not actually have the training and the readiness they were hoping for. Xi Jinping is pretty upset with a lot of his top generals so I think we have bought a few years. Also, China witnessing Russia’s complete failure in Ukraine, has been a good thing for us.

On the other hand, China is producing more ships in one shipyard, than the entire US naval fleet combined. Currently, we have about 300 ships in our US Navy. China has around 350 ships right now. They are set to have 450 ships in 2030. In 2030, we will still have 300 ships. The issue here is that if we go into war, there are going to be a lot of ships sunk on both sides. We will not have the ability to replace or repair them. China will be able to do that five or ten times faster than we can. We are in a really serious place with our shipbuilding capacity. It has been completely decimated by mismanagement, by lack of consistent budgets, and because we have outsourced all of this work to other countries. I was in Korea last week. I was in one of their commercial shipyards. They can build 35 ships a year. That is also the entire output of the US entire shipbuilding industry across our entire country.

So, we have lost a lot of the skills we need to be able to compete with China. These are the types of things that Biden’s budget does not prioritize. They prioritize spending on climate over defense. That is a choice. There are people that might legitimately believe that the climate is a greater threat than communist China. I do not agree with that assumption. The consequences may well be that we might lose a war to China if it happens.

Laurie: Very frightening. Thank you for all of this information, Gabriel. With regard to Russia’s war in Ukraine, Polaris notes, “It is critical to remind Americans the Biden-Harris administration has failed at one of the most important tasks facing American presidents since 1945, preventing wars of conquest on the European continent. There have been three critical faults with Biden-Harris policies, a failure to deter Moscow, a failure to equip Ukraine, and a failure to weaken Russia’s economy, which funds the war effort.”

Can you explain why a Ukrainian victory is important to protect US national security interests? I think both sides of the aisle need a better understanding of why a Ukrainian victory over Russia is so crucial. You mentioned that Russia’s inability to defeat Ukraine may serve as somewhat of a deterrence to China as regards an attack on Taiwan. Can you discuss Ukraine a little more?

Gabriel: We should be thinking of how to prevent Iran from going nuclear. We should also be thinking of how to prevent China from invading Taiwan. In both cases, we have to have a credible defense and one which would be painful for our adversaries. I think our failure to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine is one of the greatest blunders of this century. We should not have allowed Russia to invade Europe.

Preventing such an invasion has been the bulwark of US foreign policy from 1946 onwards. We failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine because we did not threaten Russia with severe enough consequences. The Russians dismissed the sanctions package we threatened to impose in response to an invasion. They believed that many European politicians were compromised and would help them to avoid the pressure of sanctions. Their assessment was mostly accurate in this regard. They also believed that they would be able to roll into Kyiv and take over the country. Although that assumption proved false, they were correct in their evaluation that the consequences for their invasion of Ukraine would not be severe.

The Biden team has refused to place dozens, or even hundreds, of possible sanctions on Russia. The Europeans have also refused to put pressure on Russia. They fear such actions might inconvenience their reelection campaigns. They refuse to sanction Russian oil to this day. This is because they are concerned this may cause an increase in the price of oil at the pump. They know increased prices at the pump might hurt their reelection prospects.

There is a feasible solution to winning the Ukraine war. It requires a similar approach to the one employed against Iran during the Trump administration. The Trump administration placed effective sanctions on Iran’s oil. We succeeded because we pumped more oil in the US. We took two-million barrels of Iranian oil off the world market and replaced it with US oil. A small portion of the replacement oil also came from other countries as well.

If we believed in producing our own energy, we could impact Russia in the same way we did Iran. However, we have a fascination with closing down American oil production. We are then forced to reach out to Iran and Venezuela and request they pump more oil to supply the oil markets

Venezuela is one of the dirtiest oil producers in the world. They have had 72 oil spills in one year. Neglecting American oil and energy production in favor of Venezuela is the greatest climate crime you can commit. I do not think it makes any sense at all.

So, we failed to deter Russia. We cannot afford to fail to deter Iran and China. I think the consequences of such failures to American national security interests will be even worse than losing deterrence with Russia.

I think the vast majority of Americans support equipping Ukraine with American weapons. However, we do not want to spend our taxpayer dollars on this forever. We are not equipping Ukraine for the sake of equipping Ukraine. We want Ukraine to win and then we want to stop sending them weapons using US taxpayer dollars. The issue with the Biden approach is that they have given Ukraine enough to survive but not enough to win. They have delayed every single important weapons shipment to Ukraine. They have downgraded each weapons request from Ukraine, so as not to provoke Russia. Russia has already invaded a sovereign country. We need to give Ukraine the weapons they need to win and to end the war. We have given Ukraine about $150 billion over the last two and a half years. I am happy we have supplied Ukraine. However, I wish we had never had to spend a dollar of that. That would have been the case if we had implemented the right policies. If we change our policy in the future, we can make one last payment to Ukraine and call it a day. That is certainly what we would like to see here at Polaris.

Laurie: Yeah. So, the war in Ukraine has not stopped Russia’s advancements in Africa, particularly in the Sahel region. We have withdrawn from Niger and our overall presence in the Sahel region has decreased significantly. I think our reduced presence presents opportunities for Russia. It impacts our ability to deal with Islamist movements there and it hurts our counterterrorism efforts in the region as well. How concerned should we be about our reduced presence in that area of the world? What are the long-term implications to our national security?

Gabriel: Two decades ago, we discussed how Asia was the future. Asia’s current economic output, number of people and other measures, confirm our assumption. However, for the rest of this century, a significant part of the future is Africa. They are going to account for almost the entire world’s population growth. They are going to add two to three billion people to the world’s population over the next few decades.

The current set up in Africa is going to lead to a massive nightmare. It is surrounded by terror groups. There are very few jobs and few houses available for the people. They are going to turn to terrorism in desperation. If we think that will not affect us here in the United States, we are very naïve. Many of us thought the Middle East was far away and would not affect us here. We were wrong.

Russia’s goal is to foment a lot of what is happening in Africa. They plan to profit from it, and then to destabilize the United States and Europe from its underbelly. They love to see war in Africa, because it creates huge migrant flows into Europe. These migrant flows cause all sorts of problems for the Europeans.

It is not primarily Mexicans who are coming through our southern border. People from all over the world are coming into the US from our southern border. Anyone who manages to get an airplane ticket to Bolivia can hike up to Mexico, or take a train there. Then they are able to cross the border into the US. So, the situation in Africa impacts our own economic and national security.

Under the Biden administration, we have lost a huge amount of ground in Africa. We have been kicked out of three countries. We have lost our military base in Niger. The people who walked into our military base were Russian mercenaries. They literally moved into our barracks as we were leaving. We saw a similar situation in Mali. ISIS’s real home and Al Qaeda’s true operational center now is no longer in the Middle East, it is actually in Africa. This is where we are seeing the bulk of Boko Haram, ISIS, and Al Qaeda recruitment. Their membership is growing. Right now, there is a lot more focus on local conflicts and local battles. It will move to the west next. I think we are going to have to dig out a lot over the next few years. We are already trying to dig out and to reestablish bases and authorities there that we never should have lost in the first place.

Laurie: The Reagan doctrine advocates peace through strength. What would you suggest that any incoming administration do to strengthen our national security and defenses? How quickly do you think we can turn things around?

Gabriel: I think there are two things that are most important. The first is money. We always need money. We need to be able to pay for a larger military, for the munitions we need to win wars and for intelligence-collection capabilities. Money is the easy answer. The harder answer, which I think is more important, is we need to show US resolve and credibility. If an American is injured or killed by a foreign adversary, we need to respond decisively. We need to respond disproportionately. If one American is killed by Iran, we need to be killing or destroying significant parts of the regime. We achieve nothing by entering into a tit-for-tat with Iran. The regime does not care about its grunts. They do not care about their pawns on the front. They care if their regime leaders are hurt. They care if their buildings in Tehran are hit by missiles. That would deter them. What is even more important is that it would send a message to Russia, China, Venezuela and Cuba. It would let them know we are not going to get pushed over. Such actions would be great indicators of intent and resolve and are cheap for us militarily. An overwhelming response to Iranian provocations would not cost much money. It is difficult reputationally and politically, but it would yield a really strong outcome.

Right now, I am most concerned that people believe the United States is a pushover. They believe they can get away with a lot. We have to reverse and dispel that notion if we want to prevent our enemies from taking advantage of us.

Laurie: I am going to turn to the audience questions and address some of these before our time is over. How reliable is the US support of Israel? What are Israel’s options if US support is in doubt?

Gabriel: I think US support for Israel depends on the political party. The Republicans overwhelmingly support Israel. I talked to members of Congress. There is zero daylight between Israel and Republican members of Congress. There is zero desire to fall victim to Hamas’ propaganda or extortion. The Republicans want to stand with Israel until they wipe out every last Hamas member. They want to work with the Israelis to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.

There is a lot of support amongst Republicans for continued military assistance to Israel. I would note that in addition to supporting Israel, the US is also trying to support Ukraine and Taiwan. There is also a lot we need to be doing in Asia. Our budget is stretched thin. However, we need to continue to support Israel militarily. Luckily, Israel does still have an economy. The Israeli economy has not been hit as badly as that of Ukraine. As such, I hope the Israelis can continue to do what they have already been doing economically, because we are stretched so thin across the world. I hope they can continue to support themselves a lot on the financial side. That said, we should never put any type of arms embargo or arms restriction on Israel. I do not think a single Republican supports this.

Conversely, Kamala Harris has displayed a real willingness to impose an arms embargo on Israel. She has hesitated to send weapons to Israel for political, and not economic reasons. She has criticized Israel left and right. She has caved to Hamas propaganda and has fallen victim to Iranian extortion threats. I am really worried that the Democrat Party as a whole is going in the direction of abandoning Israel.

They are not there yet because there are enough Democrats, especially Jewish Democrats, who have said that this is the most important thing to them. They will extract a political penalty from anyone that caves. However, Democratic support for Israel is in real doubt. I think this is partly because of what we have seen on campuses and in academia. The is a persistent, advanced group on the left pushing to undermine the Democratic Party’s support for Israel.

I think it is incredibly important that we have allies like Richie Torres, Senator Fetterman, and others. They are doing incredible work maintaining the Democratic Party’s support for Israel. I do not trust President Harris to do the right thing. Again, Harris has been held captive by her progressive base on issue after issue.

Laurie: A couple of people have asked what Trump would do differently from Harris. Do you think Trump will be any better for Israel since he wants to keep us out of wars and he does not want to maintain troops in hostile areas? I love that this question is being posed to you, Gabriel, because you served under Trump during his first term as president. Can you share your thoughts with our audience?

Gabriel: When I worked in the Trump administration, I saw Israel had no greater friend than President Trump. Under Trump, the US recognized the Golan Heights, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and implemented many successful measures to constrain Iran. The Trump administration worked hand-in-glove with the Israelis every day.

President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have had ups and downs in their relationship and that is something that is going to have to be worked out. However, on the substantive and technical sides, we saw really great cooperation. That is what I would expect from a second Trump administration. I think we will see a real focus on putting pressure back on Iran and on putting Israel’s enemies on the defensive. This will replace the need for Israel to have to continually be on the defensive.

Laurie: This is true from an overall national security standpoint as well, not just as it relates to Israel.

Gabriel: Yeah. The same approach will hold true for China and Russia. Trump will place them on the back foot. One of my biggest issues with our current policy is we are constantly on the defensive. We allow others to provoke us. We have to figure out how to respond effectively. It is good to have the enemy on the back foot. We should be advancing sanctions and having them calling us to de-escalate rather than the other way around.

Laurie: Sara Stern asked if you could comment on the number of fatalities in the Sudanese war. Why is there an obsession with the war that Iran imposed on Israel on seven fronts? Why is there no focus on what’s going on in Sudan?

Gabriel: I sometimes see the slogan Free Sudan. I am curious about whether they are supporting the Janjaweed or the Sudanese armed forces, both of which have committed humongous human rights atrocities. I have asked but I have never received a response to my question. There are five million-plus Sudanese facing famine today. We have heard that about 50,000 people died over the past year and a half in the war in Sudan. The real number of deaths is probably closer to 250,000. There are some horrific pictures coming out of Sudan showing children starving. There are pictures of people who are pretty much just skeletons. Yet, we have seen almost no media coverage of the tragedy in Sudan.

The Sudanese war is a real tragedy. In 2020, when we left Sudan, it was in a really good place. We had just taken Sudan off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. They were working towards a better future. Since then, we have witnessed every part of that completely collapse. Khartoum used to have four-star or five-star hotels, but they have all been destroyed. There are no great answers there.

The war in Sudan is being fueled by all sorts of different actors. The Russians, Emiratis, Turks, Egyptians and Libyans are all involved. They are each pursuing their own agendas. Each is trying to sort of gain their own leverage. They are seeking their own access to natural resources and to the ocean.

This administration has placed almost no emphasis on Sudan. I believe Secretary Blinken has visited Israel eight times since October 7^th, with very little to show for it. He has visited Africa a total of four times over the four years of the Biden administration. I am all for visiting Israel if you are actually doing something that is useful. However, he has zero results to show for his visits to Israel and he has completely neglected Africa.

One interesting tidbit. For the past 30 years, the Chinese foreign minister’s very first visit has been to Africa. They have understood the importance of building relationships, influence and trade networks in Africa. As a result, China trades nine times more with Africa than we do.

We give nine times more aid to Africa than China does. That aid has not bought us leverage. It has not bought us influence and has not bought us security. China has done the economic influence operation far, far more successfully. So, I think the whole approach of Secretary Blinken and President Biden to Africa, is misguided.

To my knowledge, Biden has not been to Africa once during his presidency. His administration ignored the conflict. We barely see any comments on it and we do not see top US leaders going and trying to solve issues there. I think it is a wasted opportunity for the US and it has yielded a tragic outcome.

Laurie: Thank you so much, Gabriel. I learned a tremendous amount today. I am hoping that our audience shares this recording far and wide, because we covered a lot of ground. For anybody interested, Polaris has published a number of important policy papers on their website at https://polaris-us.org/. Please check it out. They actually have a summary of President Harris’s foreign policy and national security statements. They also outline anticipated shortcomings in the future Harris administration as well. So, I urge everybody to take a look at that. Thank you again for joining this afternoon everyone and Gabriel, once again, appreciate it and look forward to having you back another time.

Gabriel: Thanks, Laurie. I appreciate it. Thanks all.

[END]