Nerve Agent Is New Terrorism Threat

Last week Kim Jong Nam, the son of the late North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, was assassinated according to Malaysian police. Kim Jong Nam died shortly after two women put a substance on his face while he was checking in for a flight. Police have not said how the women were able to apply the nerve agent to Kim’s face and also avoid becoming ill themselves. The seeming contradiction of a poison that could kill him quickly but not sicken the attackers has stumped experts. A statement from the inspector general of police said that a preliminary analysis from the Chemistry Department of Malaysia identified the agent as “VX Nerve Agent.”


When I heard the news events regarding Kim Jong Nam I couldn’t help but think, “this is like a 007 film in real life.” The scary world of missile test launches just took a back seat causing the world to become a whole lot more terrifying. Just think for one moment that every bomb terror plot or dirty nuclear device that our nation heavily investigates and monitors now has to deal with a potential military grade nerve agent that can kill unmonitored within seconds. What makes this story interesting is that it was quickly administered with the potential to expose others in a public area such as an airport. Look for a moment at the diplomatic chaos it has stirred. Is Homeland Security prepared for this new threat both domestic and internationally? Maybe on paper, but perhaps not as prepared as we may think.


My question is, “was this a test of a new terrorism threat to airport security?” If so, how will airports or security experts deal with detecting nerve agents as a threat from public places? But another question is where did this nerve agent come from? It has been since the 1960’s since nerve agents were widely identified. Ask any soldier from the Cold War Era, and they will mention stories about Nerve Agent Treatment Autoinjector training scenarios. The threat was real until Congress banned nerve agents in 1972. 32,000 tons of nerve and mustard agents had already been dumped into the ocean waters off the United States. Currently, Russia stockpile of nerve agents is still available but lacks the money and resource to destroy it. Perhaps this is the footprint from where an international investigation should begin? But that is likely to occur due to the current relations between the United States and Russia.


I would suggest that Congress and the United Nations begin an accountability audit of nerve agent nation facilities immediately. This is not the time to point fingers at how the nerve agent was acquired or used. It is a time to place steps and practices, so this horrible event doesn’t escalate into a catastrophic incident. If I were the Director of the CIA, I would be concerned how a nation such as Malaysia has a military grade nerve agent on its land. What if this nerve agent was in a small container on a plane bound for the United States? Do we have the technology to intercept it? These are the questions that you and I should be concerned about.


Another Wag the Dog Repeat?

I don’t wish to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Such sounding rhetoric does not add to any credibility. But President Trump seems a bit hell bent on sending us into a possible war with just about anyone. Trump sent out a recent Twitter message to Iran with an “all options response are on the table” ending. This only eludes that the United States has a plan to use force or strong military action.

Okay, for the sake of argument lets say that something does happen and the United States shells an Iranian Navy ship or patrol boat. It’s safe to say that that’s all it would take to incite an Iranian response. Now, let’s mix that powderkeg immigration policy that seems to play into the hands of Al-Qaeda where I fear that terror cells already in the United States and abroad will begin their campaigns. It as if Trump had a plan to flush terror plots quickly which will, in turn, require a substantial funding for military operations. This is where a Wag The Dog moment becomes quietly historical. Terror incidents mixed with a potential Iranian conflict will be a headliner. The best kept Trump secret is when our NATO allies are not 100% on board with something that was agitated in general. Therefore I predict that Trump will lean in towards Russia for some cooperative assistance as a gesture of improved partnerships.

What all these military actions, at least in theory, are spattered all over the headline news. Quietly in the background, the dismantling of Obamacare and other highly politized issues will never have the chance to make a front line news. Naturally, Trump has a clever way of controlling the media with his Twitter account and diverting important issues to be back burner. I feel this is what we should expect to become as a Trump strategy. But if NATO becomes divided between international and incited domestic issues is where Trump may fracture the NATO alliance and shift chaos to the United Nations. We may quietly witness historical UN declarations and possible sanctions for the first time levied against the United States. Again, this is all speculative but plausible based on the path some are witnessing.

Our nation is still attempting to recover from a historical market crash from a Republican-led administration. We had two separate wars going on not to mention some questionable situations with other host nations. Our banking institutions and corporations were at the brink of collapse. It took nearly another presidential two terms to reduce that debt. Are we to repeat another war-like effort just to “get it over with” and have another President spend his/her time to mitigate that issue? It seems and smells like another national disaster in the making leaving the United States and its citizens to clean up the mess all over again.

Did the U.N. do the Right Thing?

Albert Einstein said, “Peace cannot be kept by force; if can only be achieved by understanding.” It appears that Israel has been dealt a mighty blow from the United Nations Security Council. The U.N. resolution demands an end to Israeli settlement building. The vote was able to pass the 15-member council because the United States broke with a long-standing approach of diplomatically shielding Israel and did not wield its veto power as it had on many times before.

I think the media once again missed an opportunity to explain to the American people on the purpose of the United Nations. Instead, the hype has been centered around how Israeli President Netanyahu is angered by the outcome. What is missing from this argument is who is on the United Nations Security Council.



The U.N. Security Council has permanent and non-permanent members. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, England and the United States. The other members are Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, Space, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In this recent vote, the United States abstained allowing a unanimous vote to the resolution. I don’t see Netanyahu angrily bashing Japan, England, Russia, China, France or other nations. What I do read and hear is Israeli leadership and political snap rhetoric to defund the very world body of peace and policy because it didn’t get its way. Threats to peaceful means rather it is monetary, or force will only further isolate us from understanding. Such rhetoric is dangerous and only fuels contempt that the United Nations relocate to another nation.

It is vital to highlight that matters of U.S. politics has created a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. If the U.S. would have vetoed the resolution, then I am almost positive opposite political parties would have complained just as loudly. Perhaps the incoming administration has a tender feeling of what an empty chair on the U.S. Supreme Court feels like. After all, this is politics at its best.

I am not here to defend or credit the United Nations resolution. Instead, I am here to assess that the United Nations did exactly what its body was designed to do. It passed a unanimous resolution without the influence or adulteration of due process. The United Kingdom is currently led by the Tory (Conservative) Party and gave support to the U.N. decision. Even Russia, a conservative-led government, supports Palestinian statehood and resolutions. Why is the United States acting so differently than the rest of the world? Are we out of touch and continually misled? Perhaps Netanyahu should begin asking not why the United States abstained but why did the U.N. vote the way it did. The media should start assessing that path rather than placing blame at the United States. Perhaps our nation should reflect on the words of George Washington, “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.