Conditions have been getting so bad for the approximately 1,100 U.S. military personnel stationed in Niger right now that one member of the Air Force decided to write Congress.
In a letter reported by the Washington Post Wednesday night, a whistleblower complained to Congress that the U.S. Embassy in Niger, particularly Ambassador Kathleen FitzGibbon and Air Force Col. Nora J. Nelson-Richter, the defense attaché posted there, was putting troops at risk by ignoring the military junta's March demands that the military leave and insisting that a diplomatic resolution was "being worked."
The junta overthrew the president Mohamed Bazoum in July 2023 in a coup and by all accounts is still holding him and his family in the basement of the presidential palace. After a reportedly disastrous meeting between U.S. officials and Niger last month, the junta said it wanted the U.S. military footprint gone from Niger, drone base and all. Since that base is so important to the military, especially at a time when things in the Middle East are rupturing and Great and Middle Power Politics is swirling around the Sahel and North African region, Washington is doing whatever to takes to stay put.
This includes putting the troops there at risk, says the whistleblower, who claims the embassy's actions, which included suppressing intelligence to maintain the facade that diplomatic efforts were progressing, have “potential implications” for U.S. relations with other African nations “and the safety of our personnel in the region.” Importantly, the whistleblower said the junta was not approving any more visas for U.S. military members, which would include replacements for those who were supposed to go home in April after a six month mission. The full letter, published last night:
Both the State Department and Defense Department have rejected the whistleblower's claims, but the their charges are sure to inflame those on Capitol Hill who have been calling for a withdrawal of the U.S. military presence all along.
“We have Army soldiers right now in Niger who aren’t getting their troop rotations, who aren’t getting their medicine, who aren’t getting their supplies, who aren’t getting their mail and the two senior people in the United States Army are sitting before me and it’s like ‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,’” Rep.Matt Gaetz (R-Fla,) said in a hearing with U.S. Army officers on Tuesday. He said he has talked to a half a dozen service members directly about the conditions there right now.
The whistleblower complaints were reported the same day U.S. officials were meeting with the Nigerien prime minister, with follow-on discussions expected next week on the status of U.S.-Niger relations — talks that the Washington Post says "have appeared to make little headway.
Recent news that high level Trump administration officials — including special envoy Steve Witkoff — will meet either indirectly or directly with their Iranian counterparts, including Iran’s foreign minister, this coming weekend in Oman is quite remarkable, particularly given that the Biden administration never managed to get this far in four years.
Many in Washington will conclude that Trump succeeded in getting these negotiations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program started because he orchestrated a credible military threat against Iran. Indeed, that is a factor.
But a far more important factor is the other side of the equation: Tehran appears to believe that Trump really wants a deal and that he's willing and capable to offer serious sanctions relief to get it.
That upside never existed with Biden. Lifting sanctions on Iran was just too painful for the former president. And even the limited sanctions relief Biden was willing to offer, he could not make sustainable.
In that sense, Trump is very different. He doesn't treat diplomacy with America's detractors as a costly endeavor, nor is he a fan of sanctions that punish American companies.
So the promise for Iran is far greater with Trump than it was with Biden. And Tehran is apparently willing to offer concessions to secure that upside. Which is the main (but not the only) reason as to why things are moving so fast now.
As far as the substance of the talks goes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week pushing for the so-called “Libya model” — or a complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
But if Trump seeks to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program Libya-style, in addition to closing down Iran's missile program and Tehran's relations with its regional partners, then diplomacy will most likely be dead on arrival.
This strategy has been favored by proponents of war with Iran precisely because they know it will fail.
If Trump's strategy is centered on achieving a verification-based deal that prevents an Iranian bomb — his only red line — then there is reason to be optimistic about upcoming talks.
But beyond the substance of Netanyahu’s proposal, Trump would be foolish to take his advice on Iran diplomacy, given the fact that this accused war criminal has — for more than 20 years now — sought to prevent and sabotage talks in order to trap the U.S. into a forever war with Iran.
Instead, Trump should listen to those — including many of his own prominent supporters like conservative media personality Tucker Carlson — who know that a U.S.-Iran war would have destructive consequences for America. Following Netanyahu and others who share his views down the path to war with Iran is a great way to ensure that U.S. foreign policy puts Americans' best interests last.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska during Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18 in Kodiak, Alaska, U.S. on July 11, 2017. Picture taken on July 11, 2017. Courtesy Leah Garton/Missile Defense Agency/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY.
Amid the broken ceasefire in Gaza and boiling Israel-Iran tensions, Arab and Israeli media outlets are reporting that the U.S. is now deploying more missile defense capabilities to Israel.
The news broke ahead of President Trump’s Monday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. NBC News previously reported on March 30 that defense officials had approved a second Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system’s relocation to the Middle East; the Telegraph reported Monday that a C-5M Super Galaxy, a large U.S. transport aircraft able to carry a THAAD system, was at Nevatim airbase in Southern Israel on Saturday.
“America is understood to have delivered an advanced missile defence system to Israel,” the Telegraph reported.
One of the U.S.’s most powerful anti-missile systems, THAAD can intercept incoming projectiles with kinetic energy, in a process often referred to as “hit-to-kill,” or “kinetic kill.” Through this process, THAAD can intercept ballistic missiles from up to about 120 miles away.
"If reports that a second THAAD missile battery is being deployed to Israel are true, this would put almost a third of U.S. THAAD systems in the small country,” Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow and Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, told RS. “This incredible commitment of scarce resources is out of proportion with the limited U.S. interests in the Middle East and the Trump administration's stated intent to focus on security threats in Asia.”
One hundred U.S. soldiers went to Israel to help operate the first THAAD system sent there, suggesting more troops could be on their way to operate a reported second one.
This follows numerous other weapons sent to Israel in the last few weeks, which Kavanagh said includes B-2 bombers, fighter jets and warships, a Navy carrier strike group, and Patriot air defense systems. Meanwhile, Israel already has other anti-missile systems on hand, including missile-based projectile interception system Iron Dome and David’s Sling, which can take out short-range targets.
Altogether, this continued proliferation of advanced weapons systems in the region creates prospects for more explosive conflict under already tenuous geopolitical conditions.
With THAAD, “the Trump team might be setting the foundation for further escalation in the region, including strikes on Iran. In advance of such a move, U.S. defense leaders might put air defense and other assets in place to guard Israel from any Iranian blow back,” Kavanagh explained.
“Regardless of the intent, the deployment of second THAAD sucks the United States more deeply into a region it has been trying to get out of and risks pulling it more directly into Israel's ongoing wars with its neighbors, not least because a THAAD in Israel will mean more U.S. operators on the ground in that country as well,” she added.
Indeed, others observed that the THAAD deployment enables Israel to pursue further conflict with its neighbors.
“The deployment of a second THAAD missile defense battery to Israel could just be another symbol of the Trump administration's ‘all in’ support for Israeli aggression in Gaza and beyond,” said William Hartung, a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “Or it could have specific relevance to defending Israel from a counter-attack in the event that it goes forward with plans to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. This is precisely the wrong approach.”
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: US President Richard Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai toast, February 25, 1972.
President Donald Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy has alarm bells ringing around the world, not least in Washington, D.C. While much of the inside-the-beltway elite is horrified at the prospect of America supposedly reorienting toward Russia, administration insiders have hinted at an ambitious plan to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing.
They’ve raised the possibility of a so-called “Reverse Nixon” maneuver aimed at fostering a global balance of power more favorable to America. But can it work?
President Richard Nixon famously visited China in 1972, ending a 25-year freeze between Washington and Beijing. The table had been set for his diplomacy years earlier with bloody skirmishes along the Chinese-Soviet border in 1969. This fracture between the Eurasian communist giants effectively opened a door for Nixon.
Nixon’s decisive move on the global chessboard proved an immense geopolitical blow to the Soviets. Now, the Kremlin had to contend with powerful military blocs on both its western and eastern frontiers. And, as would become clear in the 1980s, the combination of America’s technological prowess and China’s immense demographic resources and hunger for modernization would prove more than a little unnerving for the USSR, which was already overextended.
Today’s world is very different, of course, but could Trump’s attempted rapprochement with the Kremlin bring about a similarly stunning transformation in world politics?
Unfortunately, such an outcome is unlikely. Beyond the acute antagonism in U.S.-Russia relations, there’s another important factor at work: the broad and deep solidarity that characterizes the China-Russia relationship.
Some Western experts have characterized the ties that bind Beijing and Moscow as a mere “marriage of convenience,” suggesting that a hypothetical break — akin to what occurred in the 1960s — remains conceivable. It’s not that the relationship is devoid of tensions, whether with respect to environmental issues, such as rapacious logging in Siberia for the Chinese market, or lingering foreign policy questions like how to deal with India or Vietnam. After all, Beijing is not pleased that Moscow sells myriad armaments to China’s regional rivals.
Moreover, neither side is eager to discuss the painful history of the Sino-Soviet conflict. Many have pointed out there is an obvious power asymmetry between the two countries that has created some instability.
Yet the overall picture is of a harmonious bilateral relationship. China-Russia trade has boomed in recent years. The vast Chinese market has allowed Russia to divert exports previously meant for Europe to Chinese customers. This has meant cheap energy for Beijing and, more critically, has played a key role in stabilizing Russia’s finances amid the heavy sanctions that have been slapped on the country since 2022.
Beijing has done much more for the Kremlin than simply stabilize Russia’s finances and fill in its large consumer markets. Crucially, it has provided both key components to Russia’s war machine as well as timely logistics aid, including non-lethal assistance that has proven significant too.
Chinese excavators seem to have proven quite important to building the Russian “Surovikin Line” that decisively defeated Ukraine’s summer 2023 offensive aimed at reaching the Sea of Azov. Just as importantly, Beijing leaders and experts have provided a steady stream of statements that are generally supportive of the Kremlin in its struggle against the West.
And while China has refused to send lethal weapons let alone troops to Ukraine, it has continued regular joint military exercises with Russia that now routinely include both strategic forces and irregular forces. In October 2024, Chinese and Russian coast guard forces linked up for their first ever joint patrol through the Bering Strait — proximate to Alaska’s shoreline. The Arctic forms an arena of multi-domain partnership between China and Russia wherein their interests are quite well-aligned. In short, China seeks natural resources, while Russia badly needs both capital and technical expertise to spur development of the High North.
Notably, the Sino-Russian military partnership now sometimes embraces third countries, such as Iran. A 2024 Chinese academic analysis suggests, moreover, that the pressure from “U.S. maritime hegemony” can be felt simultaneously in both the Black Sea and also the South China Sea, implying a genuinely common strategic viewpoint.
The many cooperative domains suggested above imply a deeply rooted bond between China and Russia that will not be easily broken. This casts major doubt on the viability of a so-called “reverse Nixon” maneuver.
Yet there are still sound reasons to pursue improved relations between Washington and Moscow. First and foremost, there is the humanitarian necessity to stop the awful bloodletting in Ukraine.
Second, the best way to mitigate nuclear war dangers and curb nuclear proliferation is to reinvigorate arms control by improving relations between the leading nuclear weapons states. Improved relations with the Kremlin could yield strategic dividends with other problematic states like North Korea and Iran.
Finally, it is conceivable that a more confident Russia will be slightly less beholden to China and thus less likely to share the “crown jewels” of Russian military technology. This includes the sensitive domains of nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons development.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.