Abramowitz: U.S. Faces 21 Wars, Needs to Vet Candidates

Kenneth Abramowitz outlined a comprehensive view of the threats facing the United States, categorizing them as a "multi-front war." He identified three primary adversaries: "Reds," representing communists; "Greens," referring to Islamists; and "Blues," denoting globalists. These groups are allegedly employing seven forms of warfare—kinetic, chemical/biological, cultural, economic, lawfare, demographic, and cyber—resulting in 21 distinct "wars" currently being fought against the U.S.

Under the 'lawfare' front, Abramowitz proposed a controversial legal strategy: initiating Nuremberg-like trials against top Iranian leaders. He suggested that former President Trump should lead efforts to put the top 10-20 Iranian leaders on trial within the U.S. This recommendation reflects a belief in aggressively using legal means to confront foreign adversaries.

Abramowitz differentiated between those who actively undermine U.S. interests and those who unwittingly aid them. He claimed that approximately 10% of isolationists are actual foreign agents, while the remaining 90% are "useful idiots." He clarified that the latter group, often struggling to make ends meet in places like Nebraska, are not malicious but simply uninformed, reacting normally to global events without understanding the broader implications.

Frank Gaffney introduced Kenneth Abramowitz, commending his financial acumen and its application to national security analysis. The discussion then delved into Abramowitz's framework of national security threats, specifically focusing on the seven fronts and 21 wars America is currently facing. A significant portion of the conversation explored the role of domestic actors who, wittingly or unwittingly, act against U.S. interests.

Abramowitz explained how substantial financial incentives could corrupt individuals and institutions, transforming even otherwise honest people. He asserted that large sums of money from foreign entities such as China, Russia, Qatar, and other global organizations are used to influence U.S. leadership and institutions. As an example, he cited the New York Stock Exchange, which he claimed permits Chinese companies to be listed even when they do not meet standard regulatory requirements, suggesting a compromised system.

The discussion highlighted the pervasive influence of foreign donations on American universities. While universities often justify accepting foreign money by claiming it supports student financial aid, Gaffney argued that these donations provide foreign entities with significant influence over students and academic curricula. He emphasized that the cumulative effect of such influence has become undeniably pronounced, despite the federal government's failure to enforce disclosure of these foreign gifts.

Gaffney and Abramowitz debated the true motivations behind decisions made by university presidents regarding foreign funding. Gaffney rejected the idea that these leaders are simply naive, suggesting instead that they are corrupt and fully aware of the implications of their actions. Abramowitz concurred that corruption, rather than treason, is often the driving force. Concerns were also raised about the growing presence of Chinese students and Confucius Institutes within U.S. higher education, adding to the debate about foreign influence.

Abramowitz detailed the significant counterintelligence threat posed by the presence of Chinese students in American universities. He noted that U.S. universities receive approximately $60 billion annually in tuition fees paid by the Chinese government, creating a financial incentive to maintain these programs. However, he argued that this influx of students, who are often highly intelligent and return to China with advanced knowledge and training, constitutes a major security risk, especially given China's undeclared state of war with the U.S.

Frank Gaffney emphasized that the multi-front war includes a substantial domestic component, identifying "domestic enemies" as a primary threat alongside foreign adversaries. He pointed to a "red-green axis" as a critical area of concern, suggesting a convergence of communist and Islamist ideologies within the U.S. Gaffney also mentioned a letter sent to former President Trump, urging him to address these threats at a convention in Dallas, highlighting the perceived urgency of confronting internal challenges.

Abramowitz presented a controversial proposal: disallowing candidates from the "Reds," "Greens," and "Blues" (communists, Islamists, and globalists) from running in elections. He argued that these groups are inherently supremacist and "treasonous," and therefore should not be permitted to seek public office. To enforce this, he suggested implementing mandatory national security clearances for all individuals aspiring to public office, ensuring ideological alignment with American values.

Gaffney echoed concerns about the lack of stringent vetting for political candidates, calling it a significant blind spot in the U.S. political system. He referenced Trevor Loudon's analogy, stating that many candidates could not pass the background checks required to drive a school bus. The discussion underscored the political and logistical challenges of implementing such a change, emphasizing the need for comprehensive security clearances for all individuals seeking public office.

Abramowitz detailed three distinct wars that the U.S. is simultaneously fighting with Iran. The first is a "six-month war," which is half kinetic and half cultural, implying ongoing direct and indirect confrontations. The second is a "47-year war," dating back to the 1979 theocratic coup, representing a sustained ideological and geopolitical struggle. Finally, he described a "1400-year war," an ideological conflict rooted in the founding of Islam itself, suggesting a deep-seated and long-standing clash of civilizations. This multi-layered conflict necessitates varied strategic approaches for each dimension.

Abramowitz asserted that both U.S. and Israeli leadership are now openly advocating for the collapse of the Iranian regime. He claimed that a significant majority, 85%, of the Iranian population opposes their current government. Citing the combined power of the U.S. and Israel, he suggested that a joint venture, possibly involving Israel's Mossad, could effectively bring down the regime, given the widespread internal dissent. This strategy emphasizes leveraging external power with internal opposition to achieve regime change.

Frank Gaffney posed a fundamental question: whether the U.S. is truly committed to winning its conflicts. He argued that only with such a commitment could the nation avoid endless wars and genuinely alter the nature of many complex problems. He drew a parallel to the concept of unconditional surrender in World War II, contrasting it with the current approach of merely containing adversaries. Gaffney suggested that a clear definition of 'winning' is crucial for effective national security strategy.

Abramowitz outlined a differentiated strategy for various adversaries, based on the principle of never accepting defeat. He argued that for Iran, the only option is outright victory through regime change, particularly after November. In contrast, for China, he proposed a strategy of containment rather than outright victory, suggesting that blowing up China is not a viable option. He referred to this as a "tying option," aiming to neutralize threats without seeking total collapse. The strategy for Russia was not explicitly detailed but implied a similar nuanced approach.

Frank Gaffney challenged Abramowitz's containment strategy for China, referencing Ronald Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union. Gaffney argued that Reagan actively sought to defeat the powerful Soviet adversary through "unrestricted warfare" against the Soviet Communist Party, rather than merely containing it. He suggested that this model should be applied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as well, advocating for an active strategy aimed at ending the CCP rather than simply containing its influence. This implies a more aggressive, confrontational stance towards China.