A Second American Civil War???????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi68gfsA6H8

Be Prepared For An October Surprise Before The US Midterm Elections

We are precisely one month away from the U.S. mid-term elections. What keeps me concerned is the possibility of "An October Surprise." We have two desperate, cornered, and very powerful men we all must be concerned with as follows: Vladimir Putin (Russia) Ahamad Vahidi (Iran) Iran is a couple of weeks away from the economy imploding. (Some readers like Elena get upset with me for this prediction. I refer to the quotation from the Greeks several thousand years ago: "Do not kill the messenger if you do not like the message.") When the economy implodes, the IRGC will fall. Rest assured that they will not "go quietly into the night." The mortally wounded animal will strike out violently one final time. This could come as a terrorist attack or attacks on the US. It could come in the form of "dirty bombs" being lobbed at other Middle Eastern countries, including Israel. Even more concerning is a part of Russia called Kaliningrad. It is one of the most militarized places on Earth. Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend this area. Credible sources warn that Putin is planning an attack on areas of Europe to build a land bridge between Belarus and Kaliningrad. Here is an excellent link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAe5VtkpRT4 Please take the time to watch this podcast.

The CIA Station In Mexico: The Last JFK Assassination Records Secrets

The CIA Station in Mexico: The Last JFK Assassination Records Secrets Film stills from the documentary El Grito of the massacre at Tlatelolco, October 2, 1968 Film stills from the documentary El Grito of the massacre at Tlatelolco, October 2, 1968. Source: FilmotecaUNAM/Youtube Covert Operations Targeted Student Groups Before and After Tlatelolco Massacre On 58th Anniversary, Archive Calls on CIA to Declassify All Remaining Records on 1968 Student Killings Published: Oct 1, 2026 Briefing Book # 931 By Claire Dorfman and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi For more information, contact: 202-994-7000 or nsarchiv@gwu.edu Subjects Cold War – General Human Rights and Genocide Regions Mexico and Central America Project Intelligence Mexico Winston M. Scott Winston M. Scott, Chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station from 1956 to 1969. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) President Adolfo López Mateos plays the guitar President Adolfo López Mateos plays the guitar during a barbecue hosted by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson at the LBJ Ranch in Texas, October 18, 1959. (Source: The Portal to Texas History) The Mexican army detains students after the Tlatelolco massacre The Mexican army detains students after the Tlatelolco massacre, October 2, 1968. (Source: Colección Manuel Gutiérrez Paredes/Archivo Histórico de la UNAM) President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz pictured with president-elect Luis Echeverría in 1970 President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz pictured with president-elect Luis Echeverría in 1970. (Source: El Universal) Washington, D.C., October 1, 2026 - The CIA continues to keep secret major substantive portions of an internal accounting of its activities in Mexico, including information on covert operations targeting student groups in the days leading up to the massacre at Tlatelolco 58 years ago this week on October 2, 1968. Long-redacted excerpts from the three-volume Mexico City station history are among the last remaining secrets from the massive trove of records that were reviewed for declassification under the JFK Assassination Records Review Act of 1992. At the same time, other CIA documents from the JFK collection offer clues as to what the Agency is hiding. In 1967, one year prior to the Tlatelolco massacre, a CIA official warned of the consequences of supporting the radical right-wing student group MURO (Movimiento Universitario de Renovadora Orientación). “We appreciate the need for a Station militant action team for specific harassment purposes as the need arises,” the official wrote. “We believe, however, that the long-range negative effect of perpetuating MURO outweighs the tactical short-range benefits to be derived from MURO harassment actions at our instigation.” (Document 3, p. 31) By 1968, the CIA station in Mexico City had been financing far-right radical extremists at universities and adding to the polarization of the Mexican student movement for years. Together, the redacted station history and other declassified documents from the JFK files reveal that, despite dissent within the Agency and State Department, the CIA continued to conduct extensive operations against leftist student groups in Mexico, even after the violence at Tlatelolco. The CIA’s Mexico City station history is an essential document in the JFK Assassination Records Collection that provides a rare view into U.S.-Mexico relations and what the CIA considered its most important operations in a capital of Cold War espionage. The document lists and describes dozens of CIA covert operations carried out in Mexico, including projects with cryptonyms like LIHUFF, LICOAX, LIMIX, LIAGOG, and LINOODLE. Yet full transparency remains elusive, as critical redactions remain in the 2025 release of this record. For the Agency, the secrets still buried represent some of their most sensitive projects and relationships with foreign governments. The records published today by the National Security Archive highlight what the JFK collection does and does not reveal about CIA operations in Mexico. Taken together, these documents provide important context to help identify and understand the secrets the Agency still refuses to release more than half a century later. A close reading of the redacted history and these related records reveals what the CIA is most eager to conceal: Nearly ten completely redacted pages detailing CIA operations against left-wing student groups in the lead-up to the massacre at Tlatelolco on October 2, 1968 Key paragraphs related to Miguel Nazar Haro, one of the architects of Mexico’s brutal surveillance state and a CIA asset Operations targeting labor and campesino groups in Mexico City and the countryside Intelligence gathering against the Mexican government through liaison relationships with high-level members of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI) The CIA’s Mexico City Station History In 1978, as part of its investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) requested the CIA hand over a three-volume, 539-page history of its station in Mexico City and bases in Monterrey, Nogales, and Merida, covering Agency exploits from 1947 to June 30, 1969. The CIA initially refused but later supplied 227 pages of the history to congressional investigators. Those excerpts made it into the more than six million pages of materials that comprise the JFK Assassination Records Collection. The vast majority of those documents have been declassified in full under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 and Executive Order 14176 of 2025 which mandated the release of all the records. Since the Archive first highlighted the importance of the CIA Mexico City station history, the document has undergone five additional declassification reviews: twice in 2017 and again in 2022, 2023, and 2025. Last year, the Archive posted the version declassified in 2023, anticipating that a fully unredacted version would soon appear in the JFK Assassination Files. When no new document surfaced, the authors visited the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, only to be denied access and informed that “an agency” was actively reviewing it. In January of this year, the National Archives finally released a copy of the history declassified in 2025, but it still contains major substantive redactions. After the Archive filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the document, the JFK Assassination Collection webpage now explains that “The Office of White House Counsel has informed NARA that the CIA may continue withholding portions of the larger [CIA Mexico City station history] document that do not relate to the assassination of President Kennedy under FOIA exemptions.” The Clandestine Services Historical Program In late 1964, the CIA’s Directorate of Plans initiated the Clandestine Services Historical Program (CSHP) to preserve the Agency’s 18-year institutional memory through a series of historical monographs on intelligence and covert operations.[1] These histories were meant to establish “a record of problems and solutions, failures and accomplishments which will put the past into historical perspective as background for the current direction of central intelligence.” Declassifying these histories remains crucial, as they can provide an especially valuable record for the public to refer to in assessing CIA actions and debating necessary reforms.[2] The Mexico City Station history became CSHP number 329 among more than 500 such projects produced.[3] The vast majority of CSHP histories remain classified, especially those that focus on a particular CIA station. Instead of relying on trained historians, CSHP assigned the writing of these histories to CIA officers with direct experience in the subject. For the Mexico City history, CSHP tapped Anne L. Goodpasture, a veteran of WWII’s Office of Strategic Services and a CIA case officer from 1947-1973. Goodpasture, who was stationed in Guatemala during the 1954 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the Jacobo Árbenz government, joined the Mexico City station in 1957. There, she served for 13 years as the trusted right-hand woman to Winston M. Scott, the Chief of Station. Goodpasture was a natural choice to write the history, as she was one of the few officers who was read-in on the Agency’s most sensitive projects in Mexico. One of these was LITEMPO, the CIA’s operation to build strong liaison relationships with top Mexican government officials, including three Mexican presidents, Adolfo López Mateos, Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, and Luis Echeverría, and top officials from the Federal Security Directorate (Dirección Federal de Seguridad, DFS) Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios and Miguel Nazar Haro.[4] Goodpasture was also involved in the Agency’s most-valued operation in Mexico: project LIENVOY, a joint CIA and Mexican government phone-tapping operation that targeted Soviet, Cuban, and Eastern European diplomatic lines, as well as the perceived political enemies of the Mexican government, including former President Lázaro Cárdenas. (Document 1, pp. 410-413) 2025 Revelations Comparing the 2017 to 2025 versions of the declassified Mexico City station history reveals the CIA is most protective of information on its unilateral operations against Mexican targets; the technical assistance it provided to the DFS and other Mexican security forces despite repeated human rights violations and allegations of corruption; and the degree of cooperation in joint CIA-Mexico projects. In the late 1950s, as the CIA began to realize the limits of its unilateral surveillance activities in Mexico, it sought to increase joint operations with the DFS. The problem was, as Goodpasture would write to the CIA inspector general, that the DFS was a “hip pocket group” comprised of agents that were “vicious, venal, corrupt extortionists.” (Document 2, p. 4) An early example the CIA kept secret until 2025 was the establishment of a joint intelligence group composed of “eight DFS agents under LIVESTOCK-2,” a cryptonym used for one of the Agency’s Mexican contacts, “for training and joint operations against the CP [Mexico’s Communist Party].” Goodpasture writes that LIVESTOCK-2, the DFS official Francisco Luis Velasco, killed a politician and was sent to jail for two years, during which time he remained on the CIA payroll.[5] When he was released from prison in 1955, Velasco continued to work with the CIA for the next four years until the project was terminated “for payroll padding, blackmail, providing false information, and the general unreliability of LIVESTOCK-2.” (Document 1, p. 380) More troubling was the CIA’s relationship with LIELEGANT, who Goodpasture describes as “inexperienced, old, and greedy,” and his son, LIENVOY-2, who was a “masterpiece of deceit and corruption.” (Document 2, p. 4) The identities of LIELEGANT and LIENVOY-2 remain unknown, but the 2025 edition of the CIA Station history explains that “LIELEGANT fancied himself a ladies man… LIELEGANT’s friendship with [President] López Mateos developed through their mutual friend Benito Coquet, a cabinet officer in the administration. The three men shared interests in young girls from artistic and motion picture circles.” (Document 1, p. 406) Despite these concerns, President López Mateos demanded that LIELEGANT stay involved in the Mexican government’s most sensitive joint operations with the CIA. The station history makes clear that López Mateos, LIELEGANT, and LIENVOY-2 used the CIA to enhance their own corruption and power plays as much as the CIA used them to expand its surveillance capabilities against the USSR, Cuba, and other targets. As the CIA history acknowledges, “Neither he [LIENVOY-2] nor his father, LIELEGANT, were subject to any control by CIA except through the tightening of purse strings.” (Document 1, p. 416) But this meant that CIA efforts would be less efficient and more easily compromised. As the CIA history explains, “In their dealings with the [CIA] Station, LIENVOY-2 and LIELEGANT gained a considerable knowledge of the station’s operational assets and capabilities. From a security viewpoint, they knew too much to terminate them with prejudice unless the station was also willing to terminate the operations they knew about, which included LIFIRE, LIBIGHT, LITEMPO, and LIENVOY,” referencing the CIA’s valued surveillance projects and liaisons with high-ranking government officials. (Document 1, p. 418) Despite CIA frustrations and concerns with its Mexican counterparts, the 2025 declassifications show that the Agency continued to provide essential technical equipment, money, and training to the DFS and other Mexican security forces, including the military. The phone-tapping capabilities under LIENVOY cost the CIA $150,000 to install (approximately $1.5 million today), and more than $60,000 in annual maintenance costs, or around $600,000 today. (Document 1, pp. 412-413) CIA engineers from the Technical Services Division flew the equipment from the United States and installed the listening post that included “40 Ampex tape recorders for voices, 30 dial recorders for dial tones of numbers called, 11 Wollensak tape recorders for transcribers, and 11 Revere tape recorders for transcribers.” (Document 1, p. 410) The CIA also provided LIENVOY-2 with the capabilities for a mail intercept unit, though the CIA history explains that once the Mexican officials realized the tedious work involved “the function was abandoned as far as the station could determine.” (Document 1, pp. 416-417) In 1968, as the Mexican government was increasing its use of repression against students and other dissident groups, the CIA provided LIELEGANT with portable phone tapping units. (Document 1, p. 415) Miguel Nazar Haro and LITEMPO Velasco (LIVESTOCK-2), LIELEGANT, and LIENVOY-2 were not the only unsavory relationships the CIA maintained in Mexico and hoped to keep secret. Critical redactions in the station history appear in a section about Miguel Nazar Haro and LITEMPO, the operation that focused on building relationships with high-ranking Mexican officials. The station history describes how the early years of the operation, during which the CIA established a “working level relationship” with the DFS, were marked by inconsistent management and poor intelligence. Goodpasture wrote that “the project produced nothing during its first few years.” Agents in the LITEMPO group chose surveillance targets out of self-interest, either “criminal cases or political enemies rather than those of interest to the station.” (Document 1, pp. 420-421) This all changed when Nazar Haro joined LITEMPO. He was recruited to be a CIA asset by the director of the DFS, Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios (LITEMPO-4). The 2025 version of the station history for the first time includes a crucial detail about Nazar Haro’s early formation as an intelligence officer. While it has been known for many years that Nazar Haro trained at the International Police Academy in 1965, a newly declassified line reveals it was the CIA who sponsored and subsidized his training in the United States at the request of Gutiérrez Barrios. After returning to Mexico, Nazar Haro (LITEMPO-12) had around 20 agents “assigned to subversive targets” and met daily with Jeremy Benadum, the principal agent of the LITEMPO operation. From 1966 to 1969, Nazar Haro’s team produced around 20 percent of the “positive intelligence production from the station,” covering the activities of the communist party in Mexico, Cuban exiles, Trotskyites, and Soviet Bloc cultural groups. From 1967 to 1968, “his group also cooperated with the station on covering the activities of US radical students traveling to Cuba.” (Document 1, pp. 422-423) The remaining redactions in this section most likely refer to Nazar Haro’s involvement in covert operations against Mexican student groups leading up to the Tlatelolco massacre. Nazar Haro’s team that cooperated with the CIA was known as c-047. This DFS unit was formed in response to the attack by a band of guerrillas from the Ejército Popular Revolucionario Mexicano (EPRM) on the Mexican Army garrison in Ciudad Madera, Chihuahua in 1965. The elite team answered directly to DFS director Gutiérrez Barrios, bypassing the institutional chain of command.[6] Mexican state archives related to c-047 remain classified, and little is known about the group’s specific operations and cooperation with the CIA beyond key research and interviews with former members conducted by historians such as Camilo Vicente Ovalle and Sergio Aguayo.[7] The significant new information contained in the station history relating to Nazar Haro’s early relationship with the Agency and to c-047 operations fill in crucial gaps in the history of the counterintelligence unit, which was constructed by the Mexican state with U.S. assistance. The c-047 group was one of several special units within the government’s security forces tasked with counterinsurgency operations. Another group, the paramilitary organization known as the Olympic Battalion (Batallón Olimpica/Brigada Olimpica), played a central role in instigating the violence at Tlatelolco. Nazar Haro rose through the ranks of the DFS and became director in 1978. His reputation as a brutal interrogator was matched by extensive corruption and criminal activities within his intelligence service. Nazar Haro was later indicted in the United States, along with twelve other individuals from the DFS, for his role in an extensive car-theft ring between Mexico and the U.S. In 2004, he was arrested in connection with the forced disappearance of Jesús Piedra Ibarra in 1975 but was acquitted in Mexican court. CIA Unilateral Operations against Students, Labor, and the Mexican State Most of the redactions in the 2025 edition of the Mexico City station history deal with CIA unilateral operations, meaning actions that took place without the knowledge of the Mexican government. The current declassifications reveal that in 1954, the CIA mounted four covert action operations at a cost of $35,000 (approximately $435,000 today). However, the CIA redacted how many of these were running in 1961 (at a cost of $229,600 or $2.5 million today), 1964 (at a cost of $542,000 or almost $6 million today), and 1969 (at a cost of $208,821 or $1.9 million today). The CIA has acknowledged that several of those projects focused on Cuba and has been willing to reveal propaganda operations targeting Mexican media. However, other fields and groups that the Agency targeted remain redacted. (Document 1, pp. 302-304) Several key documents in the JFK files provide clues as to the targets of these unilateral operations. The first of these is a Related Mission Directive for the CIA’s station in Mexico from 1965 which was published by the National Security Archive last year. This record details the Agency’s targets for unilateral surveillance and penetration, including Eastern bloc diplomatic installations and personnel in Mexico, as well as leftist groups operating domestically—information not released in a partially redacted appendix of the 2025 redaction of the station history that summarizes the evolution of CIA operational directives for Mexico from 1947 to 1969. The Related Mission Directive lists three priorities for the station: to “obtain information on Sino-Soviet bloc plans and activities in Mexico”; to “seek to reduce, and, if possible, eliminate Communist and leftist control or influence in key governmental and nongovernmental organizations”; and to “obtain information on the organizational structure, key personnel, financing, covert plans and activities of the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM)” and other groups that “may be susceptible to exploitation by International Communism.” The second priority specifically directs the station to “continue to support and guide anti-Communist youth and student organizations, publications, or agents, and when necessary, develop additional assets in key schools in Mexico City and selected provinces.” In short, given the broad definition of communism that the Agency adopted, CIA operations would focus on infiltrating, influencing and/or controlling, and gathering intelligence on key offices inside the Mexican government and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), as well as labor, media, peasant, and student groups. LINOODLE Another key document from the JFK files that sheds light on unilateral CIA covert operations not discussed in the declassified portions of the station history consists of extracts from the 1964 Inspector General’s Survey of the Mexico City Station. The report describes Project LINOODLE as a “highly successful” operation to target peasant and rural populations in the country. According to the document, the project was headed by a Catholic priest “through whose efforts an extensive network of regional organizations have been established including youth groups, credit unions, agricultural co-ops and peasant unions.” The Agency’s project mechanism, the Mexican Institute for Social Studies, administered around 26 regional centers with 12,000 people enrolled throughout the year. The document reveals that the Archbishop of Guatemala (who is not named in the document but may be Mario Casariego y Acevedo) had contacted the Agency for help in creating a similar organization in Guatemala. The CIA considered that “every effort should be made to exploit this possibility” given the Agency’s lack of penetration of peasant groups in the country at that time. The IG report recommends LINOODLE be expanded into Guatemala. (Document 4, p. 8) Student Operations and the Tlatelolco Massacre The Student Operations section in the station history contains the most heavily redacted pages still left in the 2025 version. This section provides a history of the student movement and internal struggles at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM) between its left- and right-wing factions, which culminated in the Tlatelolco massacre on October 2, 1968. Massive student demonstrations had raged throughout the country since July of that year, and the CIA was reporting almost daily on the growing instability. Ten days before the Olympic games were set to begin in Mexico City, the students held a rally at the Plaza de las Tres Culturas. Police and army units surrounded the plaza and fired on thousands of demonstrators. The station history describes the massacre as a “shooting contest” between “rioting students and the Mexican army,” in which “the students lost.” (Document 1, p. 331) Hundreds of people were detained by the military, including LIEMBRACE-4, a CIA asset tasked by the station to report on the demonstration. In the aftermath of the October 2 massacre, the government blamed extremists and communist agitators for the violence. Documents published by the National Security Archive show that, for the most part, the U.S. dutifully followed the Mexican government’s line at the time, with the CIA’s high-level contacts in the PRI reinforcing the narrative that the leftist students were to blame. Almost 60 years later, the Tlatelolco massacre remains an open wound in Mexican society, yet the Agency continues to deny access to critical information about the episode from its station history. (Document 1, pp. 331-341) Nevertheless, important clues about the CIA’s knowledge and possible involvement are scattered throughout the JFK assassination files. First, the endnotes from the redacted pages on student operations in the station history are declassified and mention the following projects: LICOAX, LIMIX, LIAGOG, and LINOODLE. Second, while the CIA’s student operations section in the IG report was excised in the final version, the last page of the student section references project LIHUFF and CIA’s financial support for the conservative think tank Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales y Económicas (IISE) and the right-wing student group MURO. (Document 4) Finally, the 2025 station history does provide one new detail, which dates back to 1952 when the CIA “had a hand [in]” the ouster of the university rector through the right-wing student group LILISP-C. (Document 1, p. 329) Taken together, the CIA had at least five projects spanning two decades of student operations in Mexico: LIHUFF, LICOAX, LIMIX, LIAGOG, and LINOODLE. Another important source of information on unilateral CIA operations in Mexico from the JFK files is a series of project renewals for LIHUFF from 1963 through its termination in 1970. These documents make clear that LIHUFF was a controversial project within the CIA. Chief of Station Winston Scott was a major proponent of the program, but covert action evaluators at CIA headquarters raised multiple concerns from the start related to its efficacy, cost, overlap with other projects, and association with radical right-wing elements. (Document 3) The main agent for the project was Alfonso R. Wichtrich (LIHUFF-1), an American businessman who would become the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico.[8] The CIA station valued Wichtrich’s connections with right-wing circles in Mexico. One of those groups was the conservative think-tank IISE, which was led by Agustín Navarro Vázquez (LIHUFF-2), a lawyer, economist and prolific writer. IISE impressed the CIA station when it provided the names of three thousand Mexican communists. IISE also had offices in El Salvador and Guatemala that the Agency wanted to exploit. In addition to intelligence, the CIA used IISE as a front organization to support the publication of anti-communist books, pamphlets, and newspaper articles, as well as to influence the PRI and support the right-wing student group MURO. (Document 3) Starting in 1963, the CIA began to fund MURO at a rate of $6,000 per year ($65,000 today). The Agency classified its support for MURO as a political action campaign to influence student politics across Mexico. But as a CIA report explains, the group specialized in militant harassment operations with “200 shock troops [that] have campaigned vigorously against Communism and pro-Castro groups at the National University (UNAM), and in the Universities of Puebla and Guadalajara.” Agency proponents of LIHUFF claimed that “MURO takes major credit for the ouster in past months of Communist rectors from the Universities of Monterrey, Puebla, Guadalajara, and Morelia.” (Document 3) Defenders of LIHUFF saw Agency support for MURO as complementary to other CIA student operations. In justifying its renewal for the project, the Mexican station explained that project LILISP-C, described as a “National Student Confederation” (a likely reference to the conservative Confederación Nacional de Estudiantes that worked at the national level), was complementary to MURO’s on-the-ground operations. Similarly, the station explained that “MURO is working the Catholic side of the street while LICOAX works the so-called ‘independents.’” (Document 3) Project LICOAX focused on gaining control over student leadership in Mexican universities, including in the Federación Universitaria de Sociedades Estudiantiles (Document 5). Finally, LIMIX was a larger project with the goal of infiltrating and influencing the PRI, the Federación Nacional de Estudiantes Técnicos (FNET), and student leaders at the Instituto Politécnico Nacional. (Document 6) Some in the U.S. government raised serious concerns over LIHUFF. In the IG report, the CIA acknowledged that the U.S. ambassador to Mexico would “strongly object” to the Agency’s support for the think tank IISE. (Document 4) In 1967, Kenneth Y. Millian from the CIA’s covert action evaluation team warned that “any encouragement or support to MURO, for whatever reasons, will have the inevitable by-product of maintaining and building up the prestige and influence of MURO on the UNAM campus--a result antithetical to the objectives of other Station and embassy efforts in the student field in Mexico (e.g., Project LICOAX).” Considering the long-term costs of empowering radical, violent instigators who only served to polarize student politics, Millian argued in favor of terminating U.S. support for MURO. (Document 3) It is not clear from the available documents when the CIA ended its direct support for MURO, as other projects also contributed to the coffers of the student “shock troops.” By 1964, the Mexican government had also taken interest in the MURO group. As historian Renata Keller explains, “Mexican officials with close connections to [President] Díaz Ordaz had supported the anticommunist student group MURO and encouraged their violent activities.”[9] An internal review of Agency files in 1969 reveals that the CIA and the Mexican government collaborated in their support of MURO through LITEMPO-4 (DFS Director Gutiérrez Barrios), who “was paid $4,000.00 [$41,000 today] by the Station to organize and rally as many students as possible in addition to the MURO planned demonstration in front of the Soviet Embassy.” (Document 3) A close read of the JFK files reveals the extent to which the CIA had become deeply involved in all aspects of student politics in Mexico and actively worked to destabilize left-wing student activism hand-in-hand with Mexico’s security state. A Brutal Legacy Remains Redacted The JFK Assassination files reveal a wide range of CIA covert operations against student groups in Mexico. The Agency assisted in the construction of an extensive surveillance state and either encouraged or ignored its repressive consequences in the final decades of the PRI’s control over the country. As the declassifications currently stand, there is much that remains unknown about the CIA’s involvement in the student massacre on October 2, 1968. At best, the Agency played an active role in the polarization of student politics at the time. At worst, given the Agency’s close relationship with Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios, Miguel Nazar Haro, and the DFS, it played a more direct role in orchestrating the violence. The National Security Archive urges the CIA to comply with the JFK Records Act and fully declassify its Mexico City station history, more than half a century after the massacre at Tlatelolco. The Documents ebb391 d1 Document 1 Mexico City Station History [Extracts] Central Intelligence Agency, secret station history Aug 23, 1978 Source National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, 2025 release, Doc ID: 104-10414-10124 This is the 2025 edition of extracts from the CIA’s Mexico City Station history. Even though the JFK Assassination Records Act and Executive Order 14176 required the full declassification of this history, it still has major redactions. The most significant redactions are pages 331 through 341 that appear to deal with student operations. ebb391 d2 Document 2 Background on Mexico Station Support Assets Central Intelligence Agency, secret memorandum Feb 10, 1977 Source National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, 2023 release, Doc ID: 104-10050-10005 In this memorandum for the CIA’s Inspector General, Anne Goodpasture, the author of the CIA’s Mexico City Station history, summarizes the main elements of the surveillance on Soviet and Cuban facilities and provides a candid assessment of the Mexican officials involved in joint Mexico-CIA operations. ebb931 d3 Document 3 [Project LIHUFF] Central Intelligence Agency, secret project renewals [various dates] Source National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, 2023 release, Doc ID: 104-10218-10044 This fully declassified collection of CIA renewal requests for project LIHUFF from 1963 to 1971 provides insight on CIA divisions over Agency support for the radical student group MURO, as well as descriptions of other CIA student operations, LICOAX and LILISP-C. ebb391 d4 Document 4 [Extracts of Inspector General’s Survey of Mexico City Station] Central Intelligence Agency, secret IG report Jan 1, 1964 Source National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, 2025 release, Doc ID: 104-10301-10010 These rich extracts of the CIA’s Inspector General Report on CIA operations in Mexico provide a detailed description of project LINOODLE, which focused on the Mexican countryside and included a student element. Most of the other references to CIA student operations were removed from this document except for the conclusion on project LIHUFF. ebb391 d5 Document 5 [Project LICOAX] Central Intelligence Agency, secret cable Nov 2, 1963 Source National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, 2025 release, Doc ID: 104-10093-10277 This secret cable on project LICOAX from the Mexico City Station to the Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, shows the CIA’s deep involvement in student politics and the penetration and influence over the Federación Universitaria de Sociedades Estudiantiles. ebb391 d6 Document 6 Status Report, Project [LIOGLE/LIMIX] Covering Period 1 February thru 29 February 1968 Central Intelligence Agency, classification unknown Mar 9, 1968 Source National Archives, JFK Assassination Records, 2025 release, Doc ID: 104-10070-10009 This CIA status report on projects LIOGLE/LIMIX provides crucial details on the Agency’s goals to infiltrate and influence the PRI, the Federación Nacional de Estudiantes Técnicos (the official Mexican government student organization), and student leaders at the Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Notes [1] REDACTED, “Launching the CS History,” December 21, 1964. CIA-RDP78-06202A000100100015-5. [2] REDACTED, “History of the Clandestine Service, Preliminary Appraisal of the Problem (Part 2),” May 21, 1964. CIA-RDP80M00165A002900010109-3. [3] Central Intelligence Agency, “CIA’s Clandestine Services Histories of Civil Air Transport,” pg. 5. For a heavily redacted inventory of CSHP history titles, see CIA “The CIA History Program,” Inventory 1995. Ironically, the CIA’s Mexico City Station history is redacted. [4] The CIA used the cryptonyms LITEMPO-4 and LITEMPO-12 to describe high-ranking Mexican security officials. Jefferson Morley has persuasively shown that these likely refer to Gutiérrez Barrios and Nazar Haro. Jefferson Morley, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA. University Press of Kansas, 2008. [5] For the identity of LIVESTOCK-2 see JFK Assassination Records document No. 104-10187-10026. [6] Vicente Ovalle, Camilo. (2019). [Tiempo suspendido]: una historia de la desaparición forzada en México, 1940-1980. México: Bonilla Artigas. [7] Aguayo Quezada, S. (2001). La charola. Una historia de los servicios de inteligencia en México. Grijalbo. [8] The CIA’s Personal History Statement for Wichtrich noted he was a good horseback rider, but only fair at bridge and gardening as part of his “special qualifications.” JFK 104-10175-10179. [9] Renata Keller, Mexico's Cold War: Cuba, the United States, and the Legacy of the Mexican Revolution, Cambridge University Press, p. 223.

Transgender Man Murdered By His Wife's Family

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/nyt-engineer-east-bay-shooting-court-documents-22454532.php?utm_content=hed&sid=53b99920a256ab0848000710&ss=A&st_rid=7b0b9bde-a404-40e4-b986-a4c78b628ce7&utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=copy-url-link&utm_term=headlines&utm_campaign=article-share&hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2ZjaHJvbmljbGUuY29tL2NyaW1lL2FydGljbGUvbnl0LWVuZ2luZWVyLWVhc3QtYmF5LXNob290aW5nLWNvdXJ0LWRvY3VtZW50cy0yMjQ1NDUzMi5waHA%3D&time=MTc5MDc4MTYzOTI1OQ%3D%3D&rid=N2IwYjliZGUtYTQwNC00MGU0LWI5ODYtYTRjNzhiNjI4Y2U3&sharecount=MA%3D%3D

Nepal: 6,000 still missing and big problems for China and India

Catastrophic Floods Saddle Nepal With a Power Conundrum and a Massive India-China Headache NEPAL Nepal Weeks after catastrophic floods swept through Nepal, people continue to bury and mourn the more than 1,400 people who died, while searching for thousands still missing after a glacier collapsed, sending a torrent of water, ice, rock and mud that engulfed entire villages. But anger is growing, too, especially toward Nepal’s two powerful neighbors, India and China, which many Nepalis blame for contributing to climate change, which they say caused the disaster. “After the glacial collapse happened two weeks ago, people in my region have realized that this can now happen anywhere in Nepal since the Himalayas are warming and glaciers are melting faster,” said Shreya KC, 28, whose home lies downstream from Himalayan glaciers in Solukhumbu, a mountainous district in eastern Nepal that includes Mount Everest. “Because of other countries, today Nepalis are the ones most impacted by climate change. So people want justice.” The Aug. 26 catastrophe began when a mass of rock and glacier ice broke away from a high mountain slope, unleashing debris-laden floodwaters that destroyed homes, roads, bridges and hydropower plants in parts of Nepal and Chinese-controlled Tibet. In Nepal, more than 6,000 people remain missing. Scientists don’t yet know precisely what triggered the collapse, but say global warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions causes glaciers to melt faster and thaws permafrost that anchors ice and rock at high altitudes. Authorities estimate recovery will cost $5 billion. Now, Nepal is demanding compensation from the three largest greenhouse gas emitters – China, the United States and India. That demand is politically tricky because China and India are powerful neighbors on which tiny, landlocked Nepal depends for its trade routes and other needs. For Prime Minister Balendra Shah, an inexperienced national leader just five months into his term, the disaster has created two formidable tasks – rebuilding safely and performing the tricky balancing act of managing Nepal’s dependence on its two neighbors without leaning too far toward either Beijing or New Delhi. “The disaster serves as a geopolitical stress test,” wrote Fair Observer, a US nonprofit international affairs publication. “It struck precisely where two of Nepal’s long-running strategic dilemmas intersect.” As a landlocked country, Nepal long relied on transit routes through India to export its goods. To reduce that dependence, the country expanded the Kerung border crossing as its principal trade route with China following repeated border disruptions with India, most recently a 2015 blockade that Kathmandu blamed on New Delhi and that caused severe shortages. The floods have now destroyed infrastructure at the crossing, cutting off that trade route. “Kathmandu will need Chinese technical and financial assistance to restore damaged border infrastructure,” said the Diplomat, a Washington-based Asia affairs publication. “The floods could therefore produce a peculiar form of dual dependence: greater reliance on India for immediate trade and transit, even as Nepal turns to China to rebuild the infrastructure needed to reduce that very reliance.” Nepal now depends more heavily on India for electricity, too. The floods knocked out more than 10 percent of its generating capacity, forcing it to halt power exports and seek additional electricity from India. Before the disaster, almost all of Nepal’s power and nearly $200 million in annual export earnings came from hydropower. Meanwhile, the safety of some of Nepal’s hydropower projects is coming under scrutiny. Take Upper Trishuli-1, for example. The 216-megawatt hydropower project was being built in the flood’s path near Nepal’s border with Tibet. More than 90 percent of the $647 million project’s “upper facilities” were destroyed, a project official said, prompting questions about whether flood and landslide risks were truly addressed by its backers, which included the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank Group’s private-sector development arm. The Upper Trishuli 3A hydropower plant, which was also severely hit, was funded by the Export-Import Bank of China. International lenders were “acutely aware of the extreme danger to which they were exposing thousands of laborers, officials, residents, rivers, infrastructure and landscape,” Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, told the BBC. “Their own reports repeatedly highlighted it. But they did not take any preventive steps, did not demand stringent checks and balances, nor were they prepared for a calamity they knew could occur.” Some lenders defended the Upper Trishuli-1 project, saying its design “reflected findings from independent technical assessments that looked at the risks of flooding and landslides affecting the project site, using studies of the glaciers and glacial lakes and historical evidence available at the time.” Now, the government faces a major reconstruction challenge: rebuilding foreign-financed hydropower projects with stronger safeguards while restoring the electricity, export income and livelihoods they support. Nepal has already halted electricity exports and begun importing power from India to cover domestic shortages. “The disaster therefore presents Nepal with more than an immediate humanitarian emergency,” said the Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank. “For Kathmandu, Beijing and New Delhi, the question is not simply how to respond to this disaster, but how to reduce the economic and human consequences of the next one.”

Russia Is Getting Ready To Attack NATO

https://www.patreon.com/PilotBlog/posts/possible-new-war-168052128?utm_campaign=patron_engagement&utm_source=post_link&post_id=168052128&utm_id=44a837e5-df5d-452c-9fc8-953860edc8a6&utm_medium=email

Australia Has Made Great Progress In Solving The Inequality Problem

I started life in very humble circumstances. I lived years of my life in poverty. Now, I am doing all right. The question always haunts me: "How do we solve the problem of inequality?" Star Trek and Elon Musk see a world coming with so much plenty that money will not even be necessary. The Australian government decided not to wait. They developed an innovative and "think outside the box" solution. They did not confiscate money or property from the rich. They did not create social disruption and unrest. Here was their solution that works brilliantly: The idea is not just to break up the concentration of wealth at the top but to build it from below. The best way to fight inequality in the age of AI is to spread the equity around. How would sharing wealth work? The appropriate model is Australia’s superannuation system, which was passed into law in 1992 under former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. As he explains it, thanks to deregulation, tax cuts and labour bargaining by enterprises instead of industry, productivity grew by 2 per cent. To capture and build on the wealth created by that growth instead of just dispensing it as income for consumption, he instituted a savings plan in which employers and employees would contribute 2 per cent of payroll to a fund which would be widely invested across markets to earn compounding returns for retirement as a supplement to basic pensions. In the ensuing decades, the system has grown in value to $3.2tn, greater than the GDP of Australia. As a result, the average wealth of voting-age Australian adults today is among the highest in the world at about $600,000. This is a start. We need to expand on this a lot! Be careful out there! Stay "Far from the madding crowd." Amo-a, -JackW

Hard Times Are Coming For The World Economy!

Madame President: Your Monday morning briefing...The 3-dimensional 360-degree sweep radar has detected something very important about Iran. Before I move to that discussion, let me go back to my experiences during the Vietnam War. There was a vigorous anti-war protest campaign starting in 1966 and going on until 1973. One dramatic protest saw over one million people gathering in Washington, DC. None of these efforts stopped the war. When Congress got very angry with President Nixon over the Watergate scandal, they retaliated by cutting off all funding for the Vietnam War. War is a very expensive business. When you cut off the money, military operations cease. The US is now going full force to cut off all the money that Iran gets from oil. The quick and direct way would be to bomb Kharg Island. That would leave Iran with no way to economically recover once the war ends. Here is a report from David Hookstead on what is going on right now in Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFKRdmQJvWk This economic program is already hitting Iran where it hurts. As the old saying goes, "They are starting to see the handwriting on the wall." They know that their regime will collapse when the money dries up. Russia does not have the money to help them. China has the money. Their game plan would be to let the regime collapse and come in and pick up the pieces at a huge profit for them. I am going to issue a stark warning. As things get worse and worse, Iran will decide to "Take everyone else with them" as the regime collapses. Iran is going to fire every ballistic missile and drone they have to destroy all the oil-producing capacity in the Middle East. The countries being attacked will retaliate and destroy Iran's oil-producing capabilities. The world oil market will be devastated. We could see oil go up to $300 a barrel. Countries like the US. Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brasil, Guyana, Argentina, with oil and gas deposits, will survive. China will survive due to the careful design of its energy program. Other countries will suffer economic collapse. We will go into an economic depression. Hard times are coming!!!

Iran's IRGC Plans To Launch Attacks In THe US

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9lNAlMITxE

A Former U.S. Navy SEAL Issues A Troubling Warning

In the last few days, 7 water facilities in 7 US states have been victims of cyber attacks, with Iran as the suspect. We need to be prepared for more such attacks. Here is a warning from a former US Navy SEAL: Navy SEAL and survival show host Joel Lambert warns Americans to prepare for weeks without supplies Joel Lambert recommends building a six-to-eight-week reserve of food, water and medications before emergencies arrive By Amber Harding OutKick Published July 31, 2026 4:37pm EDT Facebook Twitter Threads Flipboard Comments Print Email Add Fox News on Google "This Isn't a Long War" — Joel Lambert Breaks Down Iran & Global Control | Tomi Lahren is Fearless From Iran and the possibility of a wider war to AI data centers, flock cameras, bug-in preparedness, and why he believes humanity is at a crossroads—this is a conversation you don't want to miss. Former Navy SEAL and Discovery Channel host Joel Lambert says Americans preparing for an emergency should forget the Hollywood fantasy of grabbing a backpack and disappearing into the wilderness. Instead, they should start by making sure they can survive inside their own homes. Lambert, author of "A Navy SEAL’s Bug-In Guide: How to Turn Your House into the Safest Place on Earth," joined OutKick’s "Tomi Lahren is Fearless" this week to discuss emergency preparedness, wilderness survival and what television survival shows get right — and wrong. CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE FROM OUTKICK Joel Lambert looks directly at the camera. Joel Lambert looks at the camera. (Photo via Joel Lambert / Discovery Communications) While Lambert said he is optimistic about humanity’s future, he also warned that getting there could involve serious uncertainty. "I think we’re heading toward a brave new world in a good way," Lambert said. "I think we’re in the fourth turning, and we’re moving into a golden age in the world and humanity. However, that’s going to be a bumpy ride." That makes self-sufficiency especially important, he said, whether the disruption comes from war, political instability, a natural disaster or a widespread power outage. Lambert’s advice is not built around one miracle tool or expensive piece of tactical gear. He said families should instead prepare for a scenario in which ordinary services and supplies are unavailable for an extended period. "I think you need to be prepared for a, say, six-to-eight-week scenario where you’re not able to get prescriptions," Lambert said. "You’re not able to get medications. You’re not able to get grocery store runs, or they might be limited, or water issues or power issues." That means having enough essentials to get every member of the household through several weeks without relying on a last-minute grocery run. And sure, six to eight weeks of emergency supplies might sound a little alarmist — maybe borderline doomsday prep-y. But you don’t have to be staring down Armageddon or nuclear annihilation for those supplies to come in handy. A hurricane, major snowstorm, flood or city-wide power outage can disrupt access to food, clean water, medication, electricity or cell service. These things happen all the time. Lambert grouped human needs into five basic categories: shelter, water, food, communication and navigation. "Shelter, water, food, which are the most important in that order, and then communications and navigation," he said. Communication could include anything that allows a person to receive or transmit information, from a cell phone to a signal fire. Navigation means having the ability to travel safely and know where you are even when modern technology or infrastructure is unavailable. The key, Lambert said, is to prepare before an emergency arrives. "Get your house in order," he said. "Make sure that you have some food to get yourself through, you know, several weeks of uncertainty." A person arranges emergency supplies including a first aid kit, canned food, and medication on a table. An individual prepares emergency supplies, including a first aid kit, canned food and medication. (Getty Images) placeholder Lambert also offered a reality check for viewers who think watching survival television has prepared them for the real thing. He described CBS’ "Survivor" as more of an elimination competition than a true survival program and acknowledged that even legitimate outdoor shows must make concessions for television production. Lambert hosted Discovery’s "Lone Target," also released internationally as "Manhunt," which followed him as he attempted to evade military and law-enforcement tracking units in remote environments. "When I started doing survival shows on Discovery Channel, I did not want to be a fake survival show," Lambert said. "I’m like, I just got out of the SEAL team. So I’m like, ‘if I’m going to do this, I’m gonna do it real.’" Some high-risk portions, such as parachute jumps, were filmed separately so an injury would not derail an entire production. Lambert said the actual pursuits, however, were genuine. "Everything that happened from the time I inserted ‘til the time I got extracted was real," he said. He recalled an episode filmed in Africa in which he continued moving through an area where lions were hunting, despite the crew attempting to stop him. Lambert said he encountered lions that had recently made a kill and realized he "could really literally die in the African bush doing the show." Still, he continued. "It’s better to finish and die than quit and live," Lambert said. Spoken like a true Navy SEAL. Joel Lambert trekking through the Panama forest. Joel Lambert trekking through the Panama forest. (Photo via Joel Lambert / International Networks/Barbini) Fortunately, the average person is far more likely to face a power outage, storm or water disruption than a team of trackers and hungry lions. For ordinary wilderness situations, Lambert recommended remembering the "rule of threes." A person can generally survive approximately three hours without shelter in harsh conditions, three days without water and three weeks without food. That order matters. "Everyone always tends to go to food immediately, just because that’s what we all think of, but you can go a long time without food," Lambert said. Asked whether someone should drink directly from a creek or another natural water source, Lambert said the circumstances will always dictate the decision. But whenever possible, the water should be purified. Hiker kneels beside a flowing stream and fills a water bottle in the woods. An American hiker fills his water bottle from a stream while exploring the woods. (Getty Images) "In the wild, you always need to purify your water just ’cause you just don’t know," he said. "You can find the most beautiful mountain stream that’s just clear and perfect, and you don’t know a mile up there’s a dead buck or something laying in the middle of the stream." WOULD THIS SURVIVAL POD MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER? Lambert recommended carrying a portable filtration straw or hand pump, along with iodine or chlorine tablets. Those inexpensive tools can dramatically reduce the risk of becoming sick from contaminated water. Fire is another versatile survival tool. Given a choice between hunting equipment, a tarp or a ferro rod in a tropical jungle, Lambert said he would likely choose the ability to make fire. "Fire is shelter," he said. "It protects your corporeal body from the elements. You can purify water, you can cook food, you can signal with fire, you keep warm." Man reads a book while sitting near a campfire in a forest. Man reads a book while sitting near a campfire in a forest. (Getty Images) The lesson running through Lambert’s advice is that survival is rarely about possessing one flashy item or a singular strategy. The environment, weather and immediate threat should determine the next move. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP But for most Americans, Lambert explained, the first move is much simpler. Build a reserve of food, clean water, necessary medication and basic emergency equipment before you need them. Because when the alarms are already blaring, it may be too late to start getting the house in order. ... [Message clipped] View entire message

Please Take Seriously IRGC Plots To Assassinate Senior U.S. Government Officials

Madame President: Your Friday morning briefing...As Friday starts, we have hostilities going full force between U.S. forces, the IRGC, and several Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan. Numerous additional IRGC leaders have been "flatlined." There is a virtue to that old saying: "Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it." When it comes to assassinations, the Israeli Mossad is the best in the world. I have been praising this agency for 31 years. They have shared their skills with US forces. A lot of Iran's senior leadership is dead. Inexperienced people have taken over. There are splits into several different factions among the surviving leaders. In my opinion, the current situation makes it impossible to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran. Many different and serious news sources, including C.N.N. and News Nation, have reported that a contract has been put out on the lives of President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and General John D. Cain. Back channel sources sympathetic to the U.S. and Israel fear that they are on this hit list. I have seen no substantial confirmation of this. Past Iranian efforts to assassinate high-level leaders were simply a large reward promised to anyone who "does the dirty deed." Now there is an indication of an evolution where Iran, which has good relations with drug cartels, has hired drug cartels to carry out the killings. Over the past few centuries, when a major world leader was assassinated, some mentally unbalanced person "got in a lucky shot" or bomb blast that did the work. Israel has shown itself to be the only country witht the competence and resources to kill world leaders. They proved this with the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran. With serious drug cartels "coming to the assassination party," we have a very dangerous new element. (Recently, almost a ton of Iranian heroin was seized in Poland. This shows the close relationship between Iran and the drug cartels.) These criminal organizations have huge financial resources. They have access to the most modern weapons short of nuclear weapons. They probably have hired Ukrainians to provide them with the most advanced drone technology in the world. A highly sophisticated drone swarm could overwhelm the best U.S. security systems. Chris Cuomo hosts a daily discussion program on the Sirius Network. A very learned person being interviewed warned that world leaders could be attacked with drone swarms. The cartel leadership taking on such a project would not doubt that "all heaven and earth would fall on them" if they were successful. Some back channel sources say that such acts would provoke nuclear retaliation against Iran and some cartel resources. The first challenge that authorities would face after such an event would be to prove who did it. The investigation could take months. Hard proof would be difficult to obtain due to the opaque and deadly nature of these cartels. Please bear in mind that the U.S. government has been tempted several times to send military forces into Mexico to attack the cartels. Each time, they have backed off after having seen estimates of the casualties they would suffer and the angry response from the Mexican government. We are entering a very dangerous time. I take the current Iranian threats against US leaders seriously. They have been incompetent in the past. Now we have major drug cartels that are very competent.

My Fourth Of July Message

The 250th Anniversary of the U.S. is upon us! Yesterday afternoon, Elena and I waited with great expectation for the beginning of the World Cup match between Argentina and Cabo Verde. We were brimming with confidence. It was going to be an easy victory for Argentina. Elena got a surprise delivery from UPS. It was a gift from me. It was the same shirt that each Argentina player wears on the field. We had a huge and unpleasant surprise. The game lasted 120 minutes instead of the normal 90 minutes. It was a ferocious and hard-fought battle. The humble people of that little island became David taking on Goliath. They almost pulled it off. Argentina won 3-2. I always warn people: never underestimate an opponent! Now we come to this special day. Many people claim that the founding fathers were all elite white males who owned slaves. In reality, some were, and some were not. Each man knew that if he failed, his life would end on the gallows. I hear all sorts of talk about slavery, racism, putting native Americans on reservations, internment of Japanese in World War II, forever wars, etc. After hours of agonizing thought, I focus on the great movie actor Kirk Douglas. He was born to a Jewish family in Ukraine. Had he not gotten out of there, he would have died in one of Stalin's famines or been killed by the Nazis. Think of all the wonderful performances on the screen we never would have seen. In Christmas of 1988, my second job was at a center that helped homeless people get back on their feet. A surprise speaker came to talk to the people with little hope. It was the famous movie actor Kirk Douglas. He was just as handsome and charming in person as he was on the screen. He told the people something surprising when he said the following: "Many decades ago, I was in the same position that you are in. I got mad and decided to do something about it." In September 1996, I found myself in the same position that Kirk found himself in long ago. Super Grok told me many years later that I had a 1/3 of 1% probability of emerging from homelessness to a life of prosperity. (Heck, I had a better chance of becoming an astronaut.) I remembered Kirk's words from long ago. I got mad. I decided to do something about it. I also thought of the words of former President Barack Obama: "Yes we can!" It was a long battle; I emerged from homelessness on July 17, 1999. In 27 years, I have never come back. Elena began life "one click away from the slum" in a very poor Buenos Aires suburb. Her family could not afford a car or a television. Their drinking water came from a well. She ended her career as a successful and respected doctor in Northern California. My former domestic partner Antonieta was born in a Guatemala slum of an unwed mother. She came to this country. She had a good career. She married a wonderful man. She has two beautiful daughters. She lives in a nicer house than our house. Everybody, me and many other people like me, are what this country is all about! We came from poverty, beat the odds, and have had a great life. Elena thinks that we are a little tiny minority. I beg to differ. There are millions of us! Please eat some healthy and unprocessed food. Get some life-renewing exercise. Get some rest after a week of hard work. Most importantly, tell someone close to you that you love them. (I have already done that!) -JackW

Argentina vs Austria-World Cup Action At Its Best In Dallas, Texas

We are back at home safely. This trip was an education for me. Argentina has the most devoted and ardent soccer fans in the world. A couple of centuries ago, Charles Dickens wrote a classic book, "A Tale of Two Cities." I am going to briefly give you a tale of two cities this morning: Dallas, Texas, and Arlington, Texas. Sunday morning, Elena and I found ourselves in downtown Dallas around ten in the morning. Even at that early hour, Argentina fans were starting to congregate in the principal downtown park, which is like a long walking trail. A huge flat screen television was already showing soccer games. When the Dallas Museum of Art opened at 11:00, Elena and I toured the museum. It was impressive. It was amazing to see the museum full of people wearing Argentina soccer shirts. The sports fan also appreciated culture. After the museum tour, Elena and I emerged onto the street. Hundreds or perhaps thousands of Argentina fans were now on the streets. All sorts of food trucks and souvenir vendors were seen. Some fans from Spain and Austria were also spotted. Things were peaceful and mellow. We went to lunch at an excellent Tex-Mex restaurant. The restaurant was full of upper-middle-class and wealthy Argentine fans. These were the people with actual tickets to the game coming on Monday. What was amazing was that many Argentine fans of humble means found the way to travel to Dallas. They did have tickets to the game. They would watch the game on the big screen television in the downtown park. What a beautiful moment full of love. Law enforcement stayed discreetly in the background. They let the party go on. It reached its height at five in the afternoon. So many people came that the major Dallas freeways were clogged as if it were rush hour traffic. The next day, Elena and I boarded a trolley at nine in the morning that took us to the stadium where the game between Argentina and Austria was to be played. The crowd at the stadium was counted at 70,649. There was a massive law enforcement presence from the Arlington Police Department, with officers in full battle dress and often riding around in ATVs and other military vehicles. A helicopter prowled overhead. I am sure there was a large contingent of law enforcement and intelligence officers in plain clothes. The stadium was an engineering marvel. It was covered on the top with a highly efficient air conditioning system. Elena and I rode escalators up five levels to find our modest seats. We had a pleasant surprise. The seats assigned to us were comfortable. We had a marvelous view of the field below. Argentina perfomed brilliant in the second half. They scored two goals and won. Lionel Messi set a FIFA record for the most goals scored. What a beautiful and unforgettable time.

Austin, Texas Has Created Affordable Housing

Austin, Texas, has built a substantial amount of affordable housing (and overall housing) through a combination of aggressive zoning reforms to boost overall supply, targeted subsidies and incentives for income-restricted units, voter-approved bonds, public-private partnerships, and streamlined permitting. This multi-pronged approach has helped it lead the U.S. in affordable housing production in some recent years while significantly increasing total housing stock. pew.org Massive Overall Housing Supply Increase (Market-Rate + Affordable)From 2015–2024, Austin added ~120,000 new housing units — a 30% increase in its housing stock (far outpacing the U.S. average of 9%). This surge, including many market-rate apartments, helped drive down median rents (from ~$1,546 in late 2021 to ~$1,296 by early 2026). pew.org Much of this came from land-use reforms that made it easier and more profitable to build:HOME Amendments (2023–2024): Allowed up to 3 units (including duplexes/triplexes/tiny homes) on single-family lots and reduced minimum lot sizes (down to 1,800 sq ft in Phase 2). This enabled "missing middle" housing and more attainable homes on existing lots. enotrans.org Reduced/eliminated minimum parking requirements and eased other restrictions (e.g., compatibility standards, setbacks). better-cities.org Affordability Unlocked (2019 onward): Density bonuses, height increases, and waivers in exchange for setting aside a high percentage of units as affordable. This program significantly boosted production. kut.org These changes encouraged private developers to build at scale, with many "affordable" units emerging naturally from increased supply (especially in Class C/older buildings).Targeted Affordable (Income-Restricted) Housing ProductionAustin led the nation in new affordable units in 2024 with 4,605 built — more than double 2023 levels. Projections suggested strong continued output. kut.org Strategic Housing Blueprint (2017): 10-year plan targeting 60,000 units affordable to households ≤80% of median family income (MFI) by ~2027. Progress reached ~37% of the goal by 2023, with strong gains in some districts and near transit. austintexas.gov Voter-approved bonds: Multiple General Obligation bonds (e.g., $250M in 2018, $350M in 2022) funded land acquisition, rental/ownership development, rehabilitation, and programs. These provided direct subsidies and gap financing. austintexas.gov Density bonuses, tax incentives, public-private partnerships (e.g., with Housing Authority of the City of Austin), and federal/low-income housing tax credits supplemented local efforts. huduser.gov Other Supporting FactorsStreamlined online permitting (Austin Build + Connect) sped up approvals. Focus on transit-oriented and "Imagine Austin" centers/corridors for equitable distribution. Nonprofit and for-profit partnerships (e.g., Habitat for Humanity, developers like NRP Group). Broader Texas context: No state income tax, business-friendly environment, and pro-growth policies attracted developers. Results and caveats: Rents and some prices have moderated despite population growth, proving supply works. Challenges remain for the deepest affordability (≤30–50% MFI) and equitable geographic spread. Not all new units are subsidized "affordable" — much of the relief comes from filtering and competition in the broader market. pew.org Austin's success stems from aligning supply-side deregulation (to unleash private building) with targeted public investment (for deeper affordability), rather than relying on one alone. This model has been studied as a practical example for other growing cities. For the latest data, check the City's Housing Department scorecards or reports from Pew, HousingWorks Austin, or Yardi Matrix.

FPV Drones Are Unstoppable

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16Q6uH8-iipCXmzCtz3wQCzs9x5HVVX-a/view

The Most Important Lesson I Have Learned In 77 Years of Life

Let us do something uplifting and fun on Sunday. It starts with a simple question: In all the years of your life, what is the most important lesson that you have learned? My most important lesson begins with the 1984 film Starman. For those curious, here is the IMDB link to the film: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088172/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_Starman An alien spacecraft enters Earth's atmosphere. It is immediately detected by US radars. Jet fighters are scrambled. One jet fighter gets an incredible, lucky shot. The spacecraft is badly damaged. Its pilot executes a crash landing in a rural area of Wisconsin. The alien alights from the spacecraft. He activates the autodestruct. A big fire follows. The alien takes shelter in a nearby house. He does a fast scan. He discovers that the house is occupied by a young widow. She has recently and unexpectedly lost her beloved husband. He begins a metamorphosis to become the dead husband. While this process is underway, the widow comes out of her bedroom with a gun in her hand. She is mesmerized by the process underway. When it finishes, she finds her beloved husband facing her naked. Right at this point, the movie transitions from a routine science fiction film to a beautiful love story. When the alien asks her to define love, she answers that it means caring about another person more than you care about yourself. She agrees to come with the alien as he travels from Wisconsin to Winslow, Arizona, to be at an extraction point to return to his home planet. The couple falls deeply in love. The alien has never experienced romantic love before. He thinks it is beautiful. They become intimate. The widow gets pregnant with a human child despite a previous medical diagnosis saying she could never get pregnant. When the couple reaches Winslow, Arizona, they are detained by the US government. A young scientist from SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) starts the debrief. The alien convinces him to let him go so he can return to his home world. He then says these words to his love interest and the young scientist: You humans, are at your very best when things are the worse. That is the most important lesson I have learned in 77 years of life!

The US Wins The Drone War With An Innovative New $35,000 Draone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4VF6YmABu8

The Kissinger Tapes

The Kissinger Tapes The Kissinger Tapes New Book by Tom Wells Features Kissinger ‘Telcons’ Obtained by Archive Secretly Recorded Phone Conversations Shed Light on Kissinger’s Foreign Policies, Strategies, Personality and Efforts to Deceive Colleagues and Journalists Transcripts Detail Nixon White House Abuses, Wiretapping and Watergate Published: Mar 19, 2026 Briefing Book # 919 Edited by Peter Kornbluh For more information, contact Peter Kornbluh: 202-994-7000 or peter.kornbluh@gmail.com Subjects Covert Action Human Rights and Genocide Policy Making and Diplomacy Political Crimes and Abuse of Power Secrecy and FOIA Soviet-U.S. Relations Regions South America Southeast Asia Events Argentine Dirty War, 1976-1983 Chile – Coup d’État, 1973 Operation Condor, 1975-1980 Vietnam War, 1954-1975 Project Chile Cold War Henry Kissinger Indonesia Southern Cone Vietnam Tom Wells Tom Wells William Burr Archive Senior Analyst William Burr led the project to obtain the Kissinger telcons The Kissinger transcripts book cover The Kissinger Transcripts: The Top-Secret Talks with Beijing and Moscow Feb 1, 1999 Washington, D.C., March 19, 2026 - On August 10, 1973, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger placed a call to Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to complain about U.S. officials who were participating in congressional hearings to investigate the secret bombing of Cambodia. As the Nixon administration’s cover up was unraveling, Kissinger was angry that “these @*%&* over there are acting as if it happened on the moon”; he demanded that Secretary Laird defend the original Nixon/Kissinger decision to launch clandestine attacks on Cambodia. “I mean, we saved American life,” Kissinger argued in a phone conversation he was secretly tape recording. “There were North Vietnamese troops there. The government of the country we were bombing were asking us to do it. What the hell—one sometimes thinks we are in a madhouse.” The candid and revealing Kissinger-Laird conversation is one of hundreds included in The Kissinger Tapes: Inside His Secretly Recorded Phone Conversations, an edited selection of Kissinger telephone conversation transcripts—known as “telcons”—by historian Tom Wells. Published this month by Oxford University Press, the 620-page book provides an essential history—as told in Kissinger’s own words—of his tenure as national security advisor and secretary of state during the Nixon years—1969 to mid-1974. An early review of the book in Foreign Affairs said it offers “unparalleled insight into the premier diplomat of the twentieth century,” bolstering Kissinger’s “reputation for brilliance, wit, and strategic thinking” while also revealing “his proclivity to backstab and battle nonstop with senior colleagues; his manipulation of and lying to journalists; his mistrustful relationship with Nixon, an equally facile liar; [and] his self-described preference for ‘brutal’ behavior.” In Wells’ telcon selection, Kissinger literally speaks to those issues, providing hundreds of pages of revealing evidence into his policies, strategies, personality and the rampant abuses of power that defined his stewardship of U.S. foreign policy during the Nixon years. Among the key themes that emerge from the telcons: ** Kissinger and Nixon’s complete disregard and indifference to human rights and human suffering: The book includes numerous conversations, particularly between Kissinger and Nixon, on human rights abuses committed with U.S. support. In a March 1971 conversation, for example, Kissinger and Nixon discussed a cable sent by U.S. consul Archer Blood in East Pakistan detailing the massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians being committed by the U.S.-backed Pakistani military dictatorship in what is now called Bangladesh. “We’ve had a bleeding [bleating] cable from our consul in Dacca who wants us to put out a statement condemning what the West Pakistanis are doing. But of course, we won’t consider it,” Kissinger tells Nixon. “Oh, for Christ’s sake,” responds the President. “Well, he’s just one of those pansies,” Kissinger states disparaging his own diplomat. “And he says condemning them?” Nixon asks. “Yeah, for genocide,” Kissinger responds. “Well, now, remove him,” Nixon orders. “I want him out of the job.” March telcon ** Kissinger was a pathological liar and veteran manipulator: In his introduction, Wells cites a top Kissinger aide, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, as stating that “Henry does not lie because it is in his interest. He lies because it is in his nature.” The book contains dozens of examples of Kissinger’s efforts to deceive colleagues, friends and especially journalists to influence their coverage. “The man lied the way most people breath,” as Wells quotes Seymour Hersh who, as a New York Times reporter, was on the receiving end of Kissinger’s duplicity. In one July 1973 conversation where Hersh sought information on the falsified official reports designed to hide the secret Cambodia bombing, Kissinger repeatedly denied knowing anything about them. The telcon transcripts reveal that three hours later Kissinger called his deputy, Alexander Haig, to basically brief him on how he had attempted to deceive Hersh. ** Kissinger spent considerable time attempting to influence the press: The Kissinger Tapes record numerous conversations with the leading journalists of Kissinger’s era—CBS reporter Marvin Kalb, Time magazine’s Hugh Sidey, columnist Rowland Evans, and ABC News celebrity Barbara Walters. At one point Kissinger called Walters to seek public relations advice on a “nightmare” book by a French journalist who had become smitten with Kissinger. “I read it and I thought, you didn’t kiss her, you didn’t touch her. You were as nice to her as you are to me or any reporter,” Walters told him. “I am a hell of a lot nicer—I like you,” Kissinger responded. More than any other collection of documents, his recorded conversations with leading journalists reveal how the top tier of the U.S. media related to those in power. Walter-Kissinger “Henry Kissinger’s phone transcripts touch on every important issue of his day and provide a panoramic view of his tenure in power,” notes Wells, who sifted through thousands of pages of transcripts to compile the book. “They shed new light on the many controversies of Kissinger’s era while throwing his personality and character into sharp relief,” Wells added. “Kissinger never intended for his phone transcripts to be public, and it was only due to the prolonged legal efforts of the National Security Archive that he was forced to relinquish them.” Kissinger falsely designated the government-created telcons as his “private papers” and took them when he left office in late 1976; he subsequently used them extensively to write his three-volume memoirs. In January 2001, the National Security Archive presented a legal complaint to both the State Department and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) demanding that they recover the 20,000 pages of Kissinger telephone conversation transcripts. Facing a potentially successful lawsuit, lawyers from the State Department approached Kissinger and negotiated the return of those papers in mid 2001 and early 2002. Led by Kissinger project director Bill Burr, the Archive then filed a comprehensive set of FOIA petitions for the declassification of the records. Our FOIA requests resulted in the declassification of over 15,000 pages of transcripts in August 2004, generating headlines around the world when the Archive began posting them on our website. Dr. Burr subsequently edited a major digitalized, indexed, collection of the telcons, The Kissinger Transcripts: A Verbatim Record of U.S. Diplomacy, 1969-1977, that was published as part of the award-winning Digital National Security Archive series. “One of Bill’s many great legacies is the recovery of the Kissinger files,” Archive director Tom Blanton emphasized in a memorial to Dr. Burr who died on December 11, 2025. “Thousands of Kissinger memcons and over 15,000 of his telcons are now on the public record, all because of Bill Burr. A permanent scholarly tribute. A permanent accountability tribute.” Burr’s colleague Peter Kornbluh said The Kissinger Tapes book is proof that the telcons are an invaluable gift to history that keeps on giving. The book “provides an incomparable compilation of Henry Kissinger in his own words,” Kornbluh said, “and a verdict of history on his controversial foreign policies.” The Documents 1 919 Document 1 White House, Telcon, Kissinger and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, 21 November 1969, 3:50 p.m. Nov 21, 1969 Source Nixon Presidential Materials Project, Henry A. Kissinger Telephone Conversations Transcripts, Chronological File, Box 3, File 3, 083-084 A week after investigative reporter Seymour Hersh broke the story of the My Lai massacre in the New York Times, Kissinger calls Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to make sure they have a “unified line” to respond to the scandal. Laird has gruesome photographs that were appearing in the press; he and Kissinger agree the Pentagon will not distribute the photos in their possession to the press. Plainly appalled by the massacre but anxious to avoid having the Pentagon tarred by an atrocity, Laird was inclined to sweep it “under the rug.” Kissinger warns him that cannot be done. 2 919 Document 2 White House, Telcon, Kissinger-Nixon conversation on Archer Blood “Genocide” Cable, March 28, 1971 Mar 28, 1971 Source Tom Wells Collection In this conversation, Kissinger advises President Nixon that he has received a cable from the consul in Dacca, Archer Blood, reporting on the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), by the U.S.-backed Pakastani military regime. In a now famous dissent channel report known as “the Blood telegram,” the consul recommended that the Nixon administration condemn the repression which he suggested could be “genocide.” Referring to Blood’s message, Kissinger says, “We’ve had a bleeding [bleating] cable from our consul in Dacca who wants us to put out a statement condemning what the West Pakistanis are doing. But of course, we won’t consider it.” “Oh, for Christ’s sake,” responds the President. “Well, he’s just one of those pansies,” Kissinger states disparaging his own diplomat. Nixon then orders Kissinger to fire Blood. 3 919 Document 3 White House, Telcon, Kissinger Conversation with President Nixon about Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin, bombing North Vietnam, and Planned Summit in Moscow, April 15, 1972 Apr 15, 1972 Source The Kissinger Transcripts: A Verbatim Record of U.S. Diplomacy, 1969-1977 After a visit from Soviet Ambassador Anatoli Dobrynin, Kissinger calls Nixon to report on their conversation. He repeatedly disparages Dobrynin for “slobbering over me,” even as the U.S. is bombing North Vietnam. “He was slobbering so much,” Kissinger gloats to Nixon. “Here we are bombing the capital..of one of their close allies. According to the peacenik textbook, he should be yelling and screaming.” 4 919 Document 4 White House, Telcon, Kissinger Conversation with Barbara Walters, June 17, 1972 Jun 17, 1972 Source Tom Wells Collection Kissinger holds a lengthy conversation with high-profile ABC News journalist Barbara Walters. During their discussion he asks her for media advice on how to respond to a newly published “tell all” book, Dear Henry, by French reporter Danielle Hunebelle, who claims that Kissinger romantically told her “I am your slave.” Kissinger refers to Hunebelle as “a nightmarish girl,” and Walters calls the book “the worst piece of crap I have ever read.” “I read it and I thought, you didn’t kiss her, you didn’t touch her. You were as nice to her as you are to me or any reporter,” Walters tells him. “I am a hell of a lot nicer—I like you,” Kissinger replies. 5 919 Document 5 White House, Telcon, Kissinger conversation with Nixon advisor Leonard Garment about the unfolding scandal of Watergate, April 21, 1973 Apr 21, 1973 Source Tom Wells Collection As the Watergate scandal unfolds, Kissinger talks to White House advisor Leonard Garment about the cascading scandal. “This is without a doubt the most depressing period that I know in our history,” Kissinger tells him. “It was almost beyond my belief. It was beyond my emotional belief. Because another thing that is bound to come out now—one has to assume Watergate could not have been an isolated incident.” According to Garment, “it was part of a long, wide range of events,” some of which Kissinger is aware. 6 919 Document 6 White House, Telcon, “The President/Mr. Kissinger 7:00pm., June 1, 1973 [Discussing wiretap scandal] Jun 1, 1973 Source DNSA, Nixon Presidential Materials Project, Henry A. Kissinger Telephone Conversations After the FBI wiretap scandal breaks into the media, Nixon orders a report on wiretapping under previous administrations. He calls Kissinger in anger to tell him: “Let’s get away from the bullshit. Bobby Kennedy was the greatest tapper.” He accuses the former attorney general of tapping the phones of 300 people in 1963 and tells Kissinger that he is going to publish the names of the individuals Kennedy had placed under surveillance. “And let the[se] assholes know that they’re going to get this, Henry.” Kissinger responds: “I think you should.” “They started it,” Nixon reiterates. “They want to have a g[ood] fight; they’re going to get one, Henry, you understand.” 7 919 Document 7 White House, Telcons, Kissinger conversation with Seymour Hersh, July 17, 1973 Jul 17, 1973 Source Tom Wells Collection New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh calls Kissinger to find out if he has authorized a set of falsified military reports on the secret bombing of Cambodia. Despite Hersh’s efforts to cajole Kissinger into admitting his involvement, Kissinger repeatedly claims ignorance. “The first time I heard of false reporting was in a Monday newspaper,” Kissinger tells Hersh—mendaciously denying prior knowledge of an operation for which he was responsible. 8 919 Document 8 White House, Telcons, Kissinger conversation with Alexander Haig, July 17, 1973 Jul 17, 1973 Source Tom Wells Collection Three hours after attempting to deceive Seymour Hersh about his involvement in the falsified military reports on Cambodia, Kissinger calls his deputy, Alexander Haig, to brief him on the sham story he told Hersh. “Why should we even tell Seymour Hersh anything?” Haig declares. “Well, you can take that attitude, but I can’t,” Kissinger replies. “I knew about the [falsification] operation. Well, anyway, if he calls you, at least you know what he wants.” 9 919 Document 9 White House, telcon, Kissinger Conversation with William Safire and John Crewdson of the New York Times regarding the FBI wiretap on Safire, August 3, 1973 Aug 3, 1973 Source Tom Wells Collection New York Times columnist William Safire calls Kissinger as part of a Times investigation into the wiretapping of Safire. Safire’s colleague, John Crewdson, presses Kissinger to admit that he ordered a wiretap on Safire’s phone. Although Kissinger picked the 17 individuals he wanted the FBI to tap, he obfuscates throughout the conversation, claiming “I did not request any wiretaps at all.” Instead, he implies that “the authority was from [Attorney General John] Mitchell.” 10 919 Document 10 White House, Telcon, Kissinger Conversation with Secretary of Defense Laird on Cambodia Bombing, August 10, 1973 Aug 10, 1973 Source Tom Wells collection As the U.S. Congress holds hearings to investigate the secret bombing of Cambodia, Kissinger makes an effort to browbeat Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird into publicly defending the White House’s controversial decision to expand the war in Indochina. He calls Laird to complain about the lack of support from other U.S. officials who are testifying during the hearings. “I mean, we saved American life,” as Kissinger tries to convince Laird. “There were North Vietnamese troops there. The government of the country we were bombing were asking us to do it. What the hell—one sometimes thinks we are in a madhouse.” 11 919 Document 11 NSC, Telcon, Kissinger Discussion with Nixon on the coup in Chile, September 16, 1973 Sep 16, 1973 Source The Kissinger Transcripts: A Verbatim Record of U.S. Diplomacy, 1969-1977 In their first substantive conversation following the military coup in Chile, Kissinger and Nixon discuss the U.S. role in the overthrow of Allende and the adverse reaction in the news media. When Nixon asks if the U.S. “hand” will show in the coup, Kissinger admits “we helped them” and that “[deleted reference to U.S or CIA] created conditions as great as possible.” The two commiserate over what Kissinger calls the “bleating” liberal press. In the Eisenhower period, he states, “we would be heroes.” Nixon assures him that the people will appreciate what they did: “let me say they aren’t going to buy this crap from the liberals on this one.”

The US Marines on Kharg Island

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5IpUnk4-E

Kharg Island In Detail

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4T7eIU0KLw

The U.S. Marine Corps Invades Kharg Island-A War Game Simultion

Yes, a US Marine Corps invasion of Kharg Island would almost certainly succeed in the short term (tactical seizure within 24–72 hours), but holding it long-term against Iranian mainland counterattacks would carry ongoing risks and require reinforcements. This is a pure hypothetical wargame based on current realities as of March 15, 2026: US precision strikes on March 13 already “obliterated” 90+ Iranian military targets on the island (air defenses, radar, naval base, missile/mine storage, runway), rendering Iranian on-island capabilities severely degraded while deliberately sparing the oil infrastructure. The US is actively deploying ~2,500 Marines (elements of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit) plus the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (with F-35Bs, MV-22 Ospreys, helicopters, landing craft) from the Indo-Pacific — exactly the force package designed for opposed shore landings. No public think-tank wargame (CSIS, RAND, etc.) has modeled this exact scenario in open sources, but analogous USMC doctrine, recent strikes, and analyst commentary allow a reasoned simulation. Kharg is a small (~10 sq km) coral island ~25–30 km off Iran’s mainland — close enough for threats but vulnerable to US air/naval supremacy. Wargame Phases (USMC Amphibious Assault Doctrine) Phase 0: Preparation (Already 70–80% Complete / 24–48 Hours Pre-Landing) Further SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) and EW jamming (EA-18G Growlers + ship-based systems) to blind Iranian C2, drones, and missile guidance. Mine clearance and remaining coastal threats neutralized by helos/submarines. Naval/air cover from carriers and destroyers establishes total sea/air superiority. Outcome: Iranian Navy already “combat ineffective”; on-island defenses largely gone. Success probability: near-certain. Phase 1: Assault (D-Day – Night or Dawn Landing) Simultaneous helicopter-borne (MV-22/CH-53) and surface assault (AAVs + LCACs from USS Tripoli). Pre-landing naval gunfire, F-35B close air support, and precision munitions. Objective: Secure beaches, airport, oil terminal, and key high ground. Iranian response: Mainland-launched supersonic anti-ship missiles (Khalij-e Fars), drone swarms (Ababil/Shahed), speedboat swarms, and possible residual coastal fire. These are the main risks — but US ship defenses (Aegis, SM-6) + jamming + fighter cover blunt most of them. Duration: 12–24 hours to initial foothold. Phase 2: Secure the Island (Days 1–3) Clear remaining pockets (small IRGC garrison + security forces; civilian oil workers largely non-combatant). Establish defensive perimeter with Marine artillery, anti-air, and rapid resupply. Restore/secure oil export operations under US control (to pressure/reopen Hormuz). Phase 3: Hold & Defend (Ongoing) Continuous US air patrols and strikes on mainland launch sites. Potential need for follow-on Army/ additional Marine forces if Iran sustains attacks. Iranian escalation options: Proxy strikes elsewhere, Gulf oil facility attacks, or attempts to recapture via small-boat raids (low success odds). Would It Succeed? Tactical success: Yes (80–95% probability in 3–7 days). The prior strikes turned Kharg from a “fortress” into a degraded target. A ~2,500-Marine MEU is sized exactly for this kind of limited objective (historical parallels: Grenada 1983, small-island seizures). Analysts note the force can “physically executable” seize the island quickly with organic air/landing assets. Strategic/holding success: More conditional (60–70%). Mainland missile/drone threats persist; some analysts (including Russian experts) call it a potential “strategic disaster” or “trap” if Iran concentrates fire. However, US multi-domain dominance (air, EW, naval escort) and the ability to strike launch sites mitigate this. It would not be a “forever siege” like a full Iran invasion — more like a high-leverage raid/occupation. Casualty Estimates (No Official Numbers Exist — Reasoned Range) These are informed projections based on degraded Iranian defenses, US air superiority, and similar modern amphibious scenarios (not direct analogies like Taiwan wargames). US Marines & supporting forces: 50–300 total casualties (KIA/WIA). Low end if Iranian response is fragmented; higher if a lucky anti-ship missile or drone swarm hits during landing/transit. Ships could take damage, but Marine ground losses would stay limited due to rapid insertion and fire support. No massed Iranian armor or intact defenses on-island. Iranian side: 200–1,000+ (mostly IRGC defenders + any civilians caught in crossfire). Garrison likely small; most losses from initial assault + any failed counterattacks. Prior US strikes reported zero civilian deaths; the operation would prioritize precision. Iranian retaliation during/after: Intensified mainland missile/drone barrages and proxy attacks elsewhere (as already threatened), but overall capacity is reduced after two weeks of war. Key Risks & Caveats Escalation: Oil prices could spike violently then drop if Hormuz reopens under US control (25% probability scenario per some analysts). Political: High-visibility Marine casualties could shift US public support. Iranian doctrine: Asymmetric focus (mines, swarms) remains dangerous despite degradation. In summary, the USMC package now heading to the Gulf is purpose-built for this mission. With the March 13 strikes having done the heavy lifting on defenses, seizure is militarily feasible and likely — but it would be a high-stakes coercive move, not a low-cost operation. This remains hypothetical; President Trump has called seizure “not high on the list” but open to change if Iran keeps blocking the Strait. Real outcomes would depend on exact Iranian remaining capabilities and US rules of engagement at the time.996msExpert

An Invasion Of Kharg Island And Its Aftermath

From 1967 to 1973, there were violent protests all over the US about the Vietnam War. One protest brought one million people to Washington, DC. The war did not end until Congress got mad at President Nixon in 1973 due to Watergate. All funding for the Vietnam War ended. The US involvement in the war came to an end. What keeps the IRGC and all its proxies going is the revenue from oil sales that Iran collects through a brilliant Islamic money moving systems that outsmarts all sanctions. If the oil money were cut off, Iran would rapidly run out of money. They could not continue to prosecute the war and continue terrorist attacks. President Trump has decided to take over Kharg Island. This is the place where all the oil is being shipped to countries like China. President Trump launched a massive air attack against all military facilities on Kharg Island. A US Marine expeditionary force of 5,000 is on its way from Japan to Kharg Island. Their mission is to invade the island and hold it. As you can imagine, the IRGC would mount a ferocious resistance to the US Marine invasion. This landing would be equal to one of the World War II invasions of Pacific islands occupied by the Japanese. I will give no estimate as to what the possible casualties would be. I feel that US forces would prevail at a high cost. I always advise people to think in three dimensions. The big question on my mind is how Iran will react if Karg Island is taken. Here is what Grok thinks: This is a hypothetical escalation scenario. As of March 14, 2026, the US has not seized Kharg Island (correct spelling; Iran’s main oil export terminal, handling ~90-95% of its crude exports) with Marines or ground troops. US forces conducted airstrikes that “obliterated” military targets there (naval bases, missile bunkers, air defenses), but deliberately spared the oil infrastructure. President Trump has threatened to target the oil facilities only if Iran continues blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has responded with tanker attacks, mine-laying, and partial Hormuz disruption, but no full-scale ground invasion has occurred. Additional US Marines and amphibious assets are deploying to the region. A full US Marine seizure/occupation of Kharg Island (to permanently shut off Iran’s oil deliveries) would cross what Iranian officials call a “red line”—an existential economic threat. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which controls coastal defense, naval forces, and asymmetric operations, has already signaled its response through official statements. Here is what they have explicitly threatened and what military analysts expect based on IRGC doctrine: 1. Direct Threats from Iranian Officials (Already Issued) “Persian Gulf will run with the blood of invaders”: Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf warned that any ground aggression against Iranian islands (including Kharg) would cause Iran to “abandon all restraint.” He stated the blood of American soldiers would be “Trump’s personal responsibility.” Regional oil infrastructure retaliation: Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters (IRGC-linked) declared that any attack on or seizure of Iranian energy/oil facilities would trigger immediate strikes on “all oil, energy, and economic infrastructure” in the region belonging to companies with American shares or cooperating with the US. These would be “destroyed and turned into a pile of ashes.” US bases in Gulf states targeted: The IRGC has told the UAE that American “hideouts” (ports, docks, and soldier positions) are now “legitimate targets.” Similar warnings apply to other US-linked sites in the Gulf. 2. Likely IRGC Retaliation Tactics (Asymmetric Warfare Doctrine) The IRGC does not match US conventional power head-on. Instead, it relies on swarms, missiles, mines, and proxies—capabilities it has used since 2019 and in the current conflict: Full Strait of Hormuz closure and shipping attacks: Expect intensified mining (Iran has thousands of naval mines), speedboat swarms, unmanned surface vessels, coastal anti-ship missiles, and drones targeting tankers and US Navy vessels. Iran’s new supreme leader has already vowed to keep the Strait closed as leverage; seizure of Kharg would accelerate this. About 20% of global oil passes here—disruption would spike prices further. Missile and drone barrages on US/Gulf targets: Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones aimed at US bases in the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia—plus any Marine positions on or near Kharg. IRGC coastal units would likely fire on the island itself to deny US use. Strikes on Gulf oil facilities: Retaliatory attacks on Saudi Aramco sites, UAE refineries, or other US-linked energy infrastructure (echoing the 2019 Aramco drone strikes). Iran has warned it will “set the Middle East on fire” if its oil lifeline is cut. Proxy escalation: Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthis (Yemen), and Iraqi/Shia militias would ramp up attacks on US interests, Israel, and shipping—already occurring but would intensify. Other tools: Cyber operations, possible attempts to recapture the island via small boat/helicopter raids (though low success odds against US air/naval superiority), and self-sabotage of remaining facilities to prevent US control. Key Caveats Capabilities degraded: Weeks of US/Israeli strikes have hit IRGC bases, missile sites, and command nodes, limiting sustained attacks. Retaliation would be painful but shorter-lived than in past scenarios. High global risk: Analysts (JP Morgan, think tanks) warn that a Kharg seizure would cause immediate oil export collapse for Iran, trigger severe retaliation, and send oil prices soaring with worldwide economic fallout. Uncertain execution: Iran’s responses so far have been calibrated to avoid total war. A Marine landing would be “high-risk, high-reward” for the US but could lead to prolonged asymmetric fighting. In short, the IRGC has pre-positioned its response: economic warfare via Hormuz + direct strikes on US/Gulf oil and bases, framed as existential defense. This aligns with decades of Iranian strategy against superior naval forces. The situation is fluid—any actual seizure would be a major turning point in the ongoing conflict. For real-time developments, official US Central Command or Iranian state media statements are the primary sources.