TIK TOK SAGA
As TikTok moves through the 90-day grace period offered to it by President Trump to find a solution to its ownership dilemma in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court decision backing an overwhelmingly bipartisan act of Congress banning it, we thought it might be a good idea to find out why the use of this app by over 170 million Americans is so detrimental to U.S. national security interests.
According to a well-placed source in the intelligence world, both the Congress and Court were wise to ban TikTok in its current, wholly Chinese owned status. He told us that there are at least three fundamental reasons why the USG has a legitimate national security concern:
- First, there is China’s 2017 law which requires any organization to cooperate with the Ministry of Internal Security (MIS) if it is asked to do so. Sensitive data on each and every one of the 170 million plus American users is subject to theft or scrutiny by the Chinese security sources.
- Second, there is the existence of China’s veto over the foreign sale of TikTok’s algorithm, a veto which has already been exercised which President Trump is trying to alter. And,
- Third, China’s purchase of a golden share in TikTok’s parent company, Byte Dance, which enables it to plant an official on the board of any China-based subsidiary.
Our source added that, in addition to this blatant concern about China’s legal oversight of TikTok, there is also evidence that China has shaped the way in which the company operates. Last year, the app openly encouraged its 170 million U.S. users to lobby Congress against on-going efforts to ban it – which thousands of them did. Our source noted that the app regularly suppresses topics like Hong Kong democracy, Taiwanese independence, the “Great Firewall,” or Tibet.
Comment: Technically, the TikTok ban has entered into force – the President’s Executive Order delaying its enforcement notwithstanding. China has said it will not sell the app, while Trump has voiced support for a yet-to-be-determined kind of 50/50 Joint Venture. His new National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, has spoken about creating new firewalls, although nothing has been advanced yet. One hopes that a satisfactory ‘solution’ is found which is acceptable to the several parties involved, but this somehow seems unlikely within the short timeframe which is available for serious negotiations. We wait to be surprised. End Comment.
GERMANS GOING TO THE POLLS!
A continuing economic crisis, migration concerns, the on-going war in Ukraine, and an unpredictable U.S. president are the main topics on the minds of most German voters in the snap German election which will be held on Sunday, February 23. While most observers are leery of making electoral predictions, most of our sources on the continent say with as much certainty as they can muster that the principal loser will be current left-of-center coalition headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Certainly, this has the contention in every opinion poll conducted since the current coalition collapsed last November. In the latest survey available (the YouGov poll collected from January 24 to 27, 2025), support for Scholz’s center-left Social Democrats (SPD) fell sharply by 4 points to 15% compared to one week earlier, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) saw significant gains to 23% from 19% behind the more conservative CDU/CSU bloc which is at 29% in this poll (and above 30% in a few others).
The Greens are at 16%, while The Left party rose by one point to 5%, meaning that it would be represented in the next Bundestag if this percentage holds. The same would apply to the populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which remained unchanged at 6%. Meanwhile, the Free Democrats, who are blamed by many in Scholtz’s party for bringing down the coalition, is finding it difficult to get to the 5% total needed to score parliamentary representation.
It should be noted that this survey was conducted only days after a man and a young boy were killed in a knife attack in Bavaria. The suspect in the killings is a 28-year-old Afghan citizen whose application to remain in Germany had been rejected. This is one reason why migration has become the leading campaign issue for 36% of respondents, up from 23% the prior week. Another issue of importance is Ukraine. While the CDU/CSU, the Greens, and the SPD want to continue backing Zelensky, the other parties – the AfD, the Left, and the BSW, to varying degrees want to diminish if not remove Germany’s support in its entirety.
Comment: Many observers on both sides of the Atlantic view Germany as approaching an existential crisis of sorts, with its migration stance under domestic attack and its export-driven economy under serious challenge from abroad, especially from China. The bad blood between Team Trump and the Scholz coalition has undoubtedly contributed to these feelings. But what this narrative fails to recognize is the historic resiliency and latent competence of the Germans. When faced with a challenge, modern Germany has always tended to outperform its sceptics. When East and West Germany combined more than 30 years ago, many pundits claimed it would take decades to reintegrate the two parts of the country. Instead, the subsequent unification drive resulted in an industrial boom which resulted in the German DAX stock exchange outperforming its British, Italian, and Spanish counterparts by more than three to one. End Comment.
WESTERN AMERICA WATER WOES
The American West is on the precipice of the most high-stakes water war the United States has ever witnessed. The reason is the near collapse of the Colorado River Watershed. The Colorado River is the lifeblood of 40 million people from Wyoming to Mexico, the backbone of economies from Phoenix to Los Angeles to Denver. But it has shrunk dramatically over the past 25 years. The Colorado has lost 20 percent of its flows since the turn of the century, gripped by a megadrought that climate experts say may be just a taste of things to come.
Now, the rules that govern water deliveries are set to expire next year, and the seven states that share the waterway, along with the federal government, must agree on new ones that will work in a far drier future. It’s a wrenching task that can only bring political and economic pain. The talks over new rules are not going well. Fundamental, century-old disputes over how the river gets divided are now unavoidable. At the center of the debate are two factions: the Upper Basin states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming—and the Lower Basin states, which include Arizona, California and Nevada. Upper Basin states argue that their smaller reservoirs and more severe drought conditions justify keeping their water consumption levels higher, while the Lower Basin states, already committed to significant cuts, push for more aggressive reductions.
Relationships among the governors’ representatives have turned bitter and acrimonious. Several states like Arizona have begun openly preparing for the once unthinkable possibility of a Supreme Court battle. In such moments, the federal government can be a crucial player. Although water supplies are primarily governed by the states, the Interior Department owns and operates the river’s biggest dams and reservoirs, and oversees water deliveries in Arizona, California and Nevada. But the Biden administration’s negotiators were muzzled by the White House during much of 2024, amid fears that any move could carry political consequences in a region with two highly prized electoral swing states. Now it will be up to the Trump Administration to work out the “best solution,” a situation which is now complicated by the severe Los Angeles fires which raised serious questions about water availability.
Comment: For all President Trump’s disruptive instincts, he placed pragmatists in key posts relating to the Colorado River during his first term, and they achieved good results. Despite his campaign bombast about Mexico in 2016, his administration quietly clinched a major Colorado River deal with that country during his first year in office. His Interior Department also pushed a key drought agreement among the seven states over the finish line in 2019. A similar level of astuteness is called for this year. The question is whether the river can be kept away from partisan politics this go-round. Trump’s pick to head Interior in his second term, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, has soothed some worries. Burgum is seen as a serious, steady hand, even by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum. If he is permitted to carry out his responsibilities unfettered, he is seen as the best option available to bring these tricky negotiations to a conclusion within the tight timeframe allotted. End Comment.
SYRIA’S NEW ISLAMISTS GETTING A PASS?
It has been two months since Syrian militants headed by a former al-Qa’ida offshoot known by the initials HST seized Damascus and ended over 50 years of al-Asad family rule in the country. SocoSIX has been told by knowledgeable intelligence sources in Doha that Qatar paid $50 million to the HST leader (and current de facto Syrian president), Ahmad al-Sharaa, to bankroll his offense, with tacit backing from Turkey. The Syrian military largely “evaporated” in the face of the newly incentivized onslaught, much as the Iraqi defense of Mosul withered away when attacked by a relatively small force of ISIS partisans in 2014, abandoning a city the size of Boston to its horrific fate.
This time, HST says it is behaving, and al-Sharaa has indicated that his fledgling government will respect women’s rights and the various non-Sunni Islamic sects active in Syria (the Druse, Alawites, Shia, and various Christian groups). Still, his Justice Minister – whose video of his presiding over the execution of a woman accused of adultery in Idlib Governorate several years ago has raised serious concerns – promulgated an overtly Islamist curriculum for schools and called for the implementation of Islamic Law.
Sources within Syria tell us that thousands of the Syrian diaspora are returning to their homeland after years in exile. Killings of presumed old regime supporters and of those accused of complicity in the system of torture and murder which was rampant in al-Asad’s notorious prison system are being reported.
Meanwhile, countries are moving to reopen their diplomatic missions and beginning to talk to the new rulers in Damascus, while the latter have dispatched Ministers to several countries in the Middle East to speed up the removal of sanctions. Qatar’s Amir, Shaykh Tamim, became the first head of state to visit Damascus on January 30 and can be expected to make a substantial contribution to Syria’s recovery efforts.
The U.S. also dispatched a high-level State Department team to assess the situation, even though our position is more complicated than most, given our Special Forces deployment in Eastern Syria where the oil fields are located and where Syrian rebels still hold large areas of land in a semi-autonomous region which has been under their control for nearly a decade. And Russia, meanwhile, dispatched an even more senior team to Damascus for talks about retaining its naval and air bases in the country, demonstrating a chutzpah bordering on the incomprehensible but indicative of the new multipolar world we find in today’s Middle East.
These visits are paying dividends to al-Sharaa both personally and for his government, as well. The U.S. has rescinded the $10 million bounty it had placed on his head and is reviewing other sanctions, as well. The EU has removed some sanctions and will remove the remainder over the next year if Sharaa maintains his pledges regarding moderation. And who knows what the Russians might be offering to maintain some kind of strategic foothold in the country?
Comment: Syria is one of those areas of the world where President Trump would like to us disengage, but we should watch our timing carefully. ISIS is starting to gather greater strength in the current political vacuum which defines much of Syria today. The Kurds – who oversee two large cantonments of both former ISIS fighters and one for 20,000 of their family members –perform this task largely because of the nearby U.S. military presence. The ISIS Question should be resolved before any preemptive withdrawal is undertaken, and this will involve difficult, multilateral negotiations before a more satisfactory solution can be contemplated.
Israel is watching this situation carefully – and now from an enhanced security position from new territory occupied on Mount Herman and the Golan Heights since Asad’s fall in December. Netanyahu is in the perfect position to offer his counsel to Trump on the Syrian/ISIS issue during their February 4 White House meeting, but he is more inclined to join the President in his call for the resettlement of Gazan Palestinians in Jordan and Egypt and not want the distraction.
Meanwhile, American business should be alert to business opportunities which will be opening in Syria once sanctions are removed and Syrians begin to return to reconstruct their country anew. It would be a pity to leave the pickings to Turkey, South Korea, China, and Gulf construction conglomerates such as was the case in Iraq and elsewhere where the U.S. has little to show from the enormous amount of treasure spent and lives lost in pursuit of inchoate objectives. End Comment.
AFRICA BECKONS – WITH BOTH PROMISE AND TROUBLE
ANGOLAN PROMISE — In a visit which went largely unnoticed in the U.S., President Biden met his Angolan counterpart Joao Lourenco for a short (December 3-5, 2024) two-day visit to Angola centered on a major infrastructure project that showcases U.S. investment on the continent, where rival China has been boosting its own interests for years. The two presidents discussed trade, security, and investment, including a massive project to rehabilitate a railway line that transports minerals from inland countries like the Congo (DRC) and Zambia to the Angolan port of Lobito for export.
That Angola’s future is consequential is undeniable. Its position on the Atlantic coast (where China is endeavoring to establish a base to support what is the world’s largest, ‘blue water’ navy), along with its capable military forces, make its security choices influential. Working with Angola, where we share common interests both politically and economically, makes perfect sense, should we truly wish to expand our African footprint.
A State Department source told us last month that we should tread carefully in Angola. Its predominantly young population is struggling with high rates of unemployment, and recent polling shows that less than 40 percent of young people under 25 approve of the way the president and members of parliament are performing. Freedom House gives Angola a mere 28 out of a 100 score in its latest Freedom in the World report.
President Lourenço’s government has reacted to popular protests with new laws that restrict media freedoms and threaten protesters, or anyone documenting the security forces’ response to protests, with long prison terms. Corruption on a large scale even by African standards is corrosive, while jarring inequality and inordinately high prices continue to characterize the country’s political economy.
CONGOLESE (DRC) TROUBLE — It is quite likely that the Trump Administration will appreciate Angola’s mineral wealth more than the domestic problems faced by President Lourenço. For the moment at least, Angola appears stable – unlike its massive neighbor to its east, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Our Africa watchers at both State and DOD take with utmost seriousness the seizure of Goma by the M23 rebels and their Rwandan backers last month. Goma is the capital of the North Kivu sub-region and, along with the bordering Rwanda city of Gisenyi along the northwestern shore of Lake Kivu, forms the largest urbanized area of the large Kivu Region (with a total of more than one million inhabitants). Its seizure for all intents and purposes by Rwanda suggests that the powerful Rwandan president may be trying to reclaim land which he has long considered part of “Greater Rwanda.”
Goma’s seizure, which included encounters with one of the largest UN peacekeeping forces in the world, has been widely condemned, including in meetings at the UN Security Council on January 26th and 28th. Our new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has spoken to both DRC President Tshisekedi and Rwanda’s President Kagame, calling on all parties to respect sovereign territorial integrity.
Despite these calls for restraint, the ball appears to be very much in Kagame’s court. Europeans are considering whether to halt aid for projects in Rwanda, but our State Department analyst concludes that the West will not enforce sanctions that would compel Rwanda to reverse course. Similarly, no African country has enough influence or power to stop the current onslaught.
American-sponsored talks in Angola failed to develop any traction last year. President William Ruto of Kenya asked for talks on January 29, 2025, but Tshisekedi declined to participate because of a view that Ruto is too close to his Rwandan counterpart. Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa’s president might be inclined to host talks, but Kagame is unlikely to find him acceptable as a neutral arbiter, given that his M23 surrogates killed more than one dozen South African peacekeepers during January’s fighting in Goma.
Comment: What happens next? M23 seems to have every intention of remaining in Goma, presumably with Rwandan assistance. Both of our sources believe that the M23 does not intend to stop with this prize and are concerned that the capital of the Kivu Region – Bukavu – may be their next target. With peace talks currently stymied, our Defense source said there is currently some concern that Kagame might even be considering regime change in the DRC — just as he did once before in the 1990s when his army pushed into Kinshasa and deposed the then strongman of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seku. Our Defense analyst said that the M23 is increasingly seen as capable enough to be able to carry out this threat.
In separate conversations, both of our sources at the State and Defense Departments concluded that, unlike Rwanda (or Angola for that matter), the DRC military is demoralized, poorly equipped and poorly led. Its troops removed their uniform, ditched their weapons, and fled “by the hundreds” in the last days of the Goma fight. Romanian mercenaries, hired by the DRC, left for Rwanda by bus (according to an Economist correspondent) when the M23 started to surge into Goma, while the UN peacekeepers retreated to their barracks after several of their number were killed in clashes with the invading forces. In short, for the moment at least, the ball is very much in President Paul Kagame’s court. End Comment.
