President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Ret. Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, recently said the United States must return to the policy of ‘maximum pressure’ and that the Iranian regime’s weakness has reopened what the future of Iran will look like.

‘I believe this year should be considered a year of hope, it should be considered a year of action, and it should be considered a year of change,’ Kellogg, who served in Trump’s first administration, said at an event sponsored by an Iranian opposition group, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, in Paris.

The retired lieutenant general said that Iran’s development and acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the most destabilizing event for the Middle East. Kellogg reminded the opposition group that then-President Trump walked away from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term, even with opposition from those who served in the first administration.

‘For the United States, a policy of maximum pressure must be reinstated, and it must be reinstated with the help of the rest of the globe, and that includes standing with the Iranian people and their aspirations for democracy,’ Kellogg said.

Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, during his first term in 2018 and reapplied crippling economic sanctions. While some, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, applauded the move, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Germany had urged the president to remain committed to the deal.

The remarks, made just days before Trump is set to take office for his second term, are yet another signal of how a second Trump administration will face the threat posed by Iran in a new environment with much of the Middle East embroiled in conflict since the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel. 

‘The beginning of the end of Iran’s primacy began, ironically, a year ago, on 7 October,’ Kellogg said.

Kellogg noted that pressures applied to Iran would not only be kinetic or military force, but must include economic and diplomatic as well.

Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), told the event that the fall of Syria’s longtime dictator, Bashar al-Assad, provided a unique opportunity for Iranians to remake their own future.

‘Khamenei and his IRGC were unable to preserve the Syrian dictatorship, and they certainly cannot preserve their regime in the face of organized resistance and uprising. The regime will be overthrown,’ Rajavi said.

Rajavi said it was a decisive moment in the history of Iran. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, according to Rajavi, has a path forward for a democratic Iran, which includes a step-by-step process after the overthrow of the current regime. A transitional government would be formed for a maximum of six months, and its main task would be to hold free elections for a Constituent Assembly and transfer power to the people’s representatives.

‘The overthrow of the mullahs’ regime is the only way to establish freedom in Iran and peace and tranquility in the region,’ a hopeful Rajavi said.

Kellogg championed these ideas and said a ‘more friendly, stable, non-belligerent, and a non-nuclear Iran’ must be the near term goal and that the United States needs to exploit Iran’s current weaknesses.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baqaei slammed France for hosting what the Iranian government called a ‘terrorist group’ and accused the French government of violating its international legal obligations to prevent and fight terror.

President-elect Donald Trump’s pre-emptive tariff threat several weeks ago against the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, among others) who want to usurp the U.S. dollar as the global currency was a prescient and powerful move. But as night follows day, a BRICS leader – China – immediately counter-punched: denying U.S. access to several critical minerals that America needs for national defense but now largely imports from BRICS countries. 

On New Year’s Day, China upped the ante. It added 28 U.S. defense industry companies to its export control list, which restricts the export to these companies of ‘dual use’ materials that have both commercial and defense uses. 

What does this mean? If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses this to justify banning the export of components that contain critical materials such as rare earth permanent magnets – which I believe they will do – then the long-feared critical minerals war has begun. This was predicted on the pages of FoxNews.com in early 2023. 

China launched these attacks ostensibly in response to actions taken by the Biden administration. But China knows that throwing a critical minerals hook to the U.S. military serves several strategic goals that benefit both China and the BRICS cabal: 

• It directly weakens U.S. national security without having to fire a shot.
• It is a strong response to U.S. export restrictions without engaging in a lose-lose fight against America’s tariff master.
• It should increase revenue to BRICs-based minerals producers, weaken global competitors, and potentially exacerbate inflationary pressures in the U.S.
• It enables China and its BRICs allies to get into the ring with an opponent – the U.S. – that has in recent decades tied both hands behind its back in terms of critical minerals production.

But the BRICS nations may have made a serious miscalculation: they underestimate America’s ability to unleash a new era of ‘Mine, Baby, Mine’ under Trump. Domestic critical minerals mining in the U.S. – including in much-talked-about jurisdictions such as Greenland – is key to removing the dangerous leverage that BRICS nations hold over our economic and national security.

BRICS starts with a huge advantage over the U.S. They all have rich mineral resources and the will to extract their value to their own economic, military and geopolitical advantage. Collectively, they control or heavily influence global supply chains for rare earths, niobium, scandium, titanium metal, vanadium, nickel, antimony, cobalt, lithium, graphite, gallium, platinum and many others. The breadth and depth of this geopolitical power sends shivers down the spine of any serious U.S. military planner. 

For example, government-controlled entities in China and Russia manipulate critical minerals commodity pricing to grab market share. They surreptitiously flow their molecules through third parties to hide provenance and evade tariffs. They invest orders of magnitude more than the U.S. in minerals research, development and specialized workforce training, further cementing their huge competitive advantage. 

BRICS nations have even been reliably accused of fueling anti-mining sentiment in the U.S. by funneling money to global anti-mining activists that work to tie up U.S. mining projects in red tape and endless litigation.  

China provides the primary fulcrum of BRICS’ mineral leverage. Companies controlled by the CCP have helped China become the top producer and/or refiner of more than half of the 50 minerals the U.S. government has determined are critical. What’s more, the CCP is clearly willing to weaponize this advantage, as the latest moves to restrict U.S. access to certain critical minerals demonstrate.  

Make no mistake, restrictions on critical minerals exports to the U.S. will likely grow. At some point, such bans – especially if extended to the magnetic rare earth elements, as I believe are now inevitable – mean that newly built F-35s can’t fly, smart bombs turn dumb, advanced submarines can’t be built, and soldiers lose future supplies of night-vision goggles. 

How can the incoming Trump administration counter the BRICS minerals threat? In the interest of transparency, let me note that I am a 40+ year veteran of the mining industry and my team and I are today developing an advanced critical minerals project in Nebraska. I have a personal interest in seeing America ramp up mineral development. But I offer the following suggestions on behalf of the industry and, more important, U.S. national security. 

• Provide low-interest loans to new mines that have already obtained all necessary federal, state, and local permits and which have earned strong buy-in from local communities.

• Focus on polymetallic mines that can produce multiple critical minerals from a single orebody and can also expand production by recycling post-consumer waste streams, such as rare earth permanent magnets.
• Expand the authority of the U.S. Department of Defense, through its Office of Strategic Capital and Title III programs, to become a major funding source for new mines. Also, enable the National Defense Stockpile to build a much larger store of a defense-critical minerals and to enter into forward purchase agreements with U.S. mines not yet in production.
• Encourage the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) to accelerate debt financing of domestic critical minerals projects. To its credit, EXIM has already launched a first-in-its-history effort to finance domestic U.S. projects. What’s more, EXIM’s loan revenue has historically covered its operating costs and allowed it to generate net government revenues. Few government agencies deliver such value.
• Waive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for defense critical minerals projects that are not otherwise subject to NEPA but for the receipt of federal funding.

Companies controlled by the CCP have helped China become the top producer and/or refiner of more than half of the 50 minerals the U.S. government has determined are critical. What’s more, the CCP is clearly willing to weaponize this advantage, as the latest moves to restrict U.S. access to certain critical minerals demonstrate.  

• Legislate reasonable limits on litigation timelines. It now takes an average of 29 years to get a mine online in the U.S. Only Zambia is worse.
• Streamline federal permitting processes. The first Trump administration made excellent progress on this, but much of that was reversed by follow-on executive orders. Permitting reform via changes to U.S. statutes is a must.

The U.S. does mining and mineral processing more efficiently and with greater environmental care than any nation. Let’s restore and unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit and ‘Mine, Baby, Mine’ our way to a more prosperous and secure future. 

Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is bracing himself for the hot seat as he prepares to sit through the often-arduous confirmation hearing process on Wednesday with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as he vies to lead the State Department under the next Trump administration. 

Though Rubio is not expected to get off easy in front of the panel of his colleagues posed to pressure him on everything ranging from the war in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East and a trade war with China, which Trump has threatened to drastically increase, he is expected to pass through more smoothly than other candidates Trump has slated for his Cabinet.

In an excerpt of Rubio’s remarks obtained by Fox News Digital ahead of his address to the Senate body, he highlights the security threats that have emerged following the end of the Cold War and the belief that democracy could succeed across the globe and international free trade was the way of the future.

‘While America far too often continued to prioritize the ‘global order’ above our core national interests, other nations continued to act the way countries always have and always will, in what they perceive to be in their best interest,’ the remarks read. ‘And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interest at the expense of ours.’

‘The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us,’ he added. 

Senate Democrat Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois already threw his support behind his Republican peer and on Monday said, ‘Sen. Rubio and I share many similar views on foreign policy and, as a result, have worked closely together in the Senate to move forward with legislation regarding human rights around the world.’

‘I believe Senator Rubio has a thorough understanding of the United States’ role on an international scale, has served with honor on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is a good choice to lead the State Department. I plan to vote yes on his nomination when it comes before the Senate,’ Durbin said in a statement after a meeting in which they discussed security issues involving Russia’s threat in the Baltic Sea and the NATO alliance. 

Trump announced his nomination of Rubio for the top diplomatic job in November, which the senior member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said was not only a ‘tremendous honor’ but a ‘tremendous responsibility.’

‘The job of the secretary of state is to execute on the foreign policy set by the elected president of the United States. And I hope to have the opportunity to do it, if my current colleagues here in the U.S. Senate confirm me so,’ he told reporters on the Hill. 

But Rubio’s commitment to execute the wishes of the executive office could also prove to be his most difficult hurdle, not only during Senate questioning but also in taking up the job should he be approved by the upper chamber. 

Trump has repeatedly made clear he expects unwavering loyalty from Cabinet members, advisers in the White House and even military leaders, and reports this week suggest the incoming administration may be planning on clearing house in the National Security Council to ensure the president is only surrounded by those who support his agenda, according to an Associated Press report. 

While Rubio and Trump see eye-to-eye on issues like U.S. support for Israel, remaining tough on China and opposing dictatorial powers in Latin America – all of which are unlikely to garner much opposition from Democrats in the Senate – there are issues that could prove tricky for the three-term senator to navigate.

Rubio and Trump have a history of exchanging barbs, particularly during the 2016 presidential race.

The duo have long patched up their hostilities in large part because Rubio has more closely aligned himself behind Trump, a move that has meant he is no novice when it comes to walking the political tightrope between appeasing Trump and pursing issues important to him.

This balancing act became evident on the campaign trail when Rubio was asked about controversial comments made by the Trump camp when it came to U.S. support for Ukraine and how to end the now three-year war.

‘I’m not on Russia’s side, but unfortunately the reality of it is that the way the war in Ukraine is going to end is with a negotiated settlement,’ Rubio said in a September interview with NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’ 

Rubio dodged questions on whether he backed comments made by Vice President-elect JD Vance when he suggested Ukraine cede land to Russia and agree to a demilitarized zone along the current front lines.

Instead, he said, ‘I would be comfortable with a deal that ends these hostilities and that, I think, is favorable to Ukraine, meaning that they have their own sovereignty, that they don’t become a satellite state or a puppet state.’

Rubio also backed Trump after concern mounted over the now-president-elect’s position on NATO when he said he would encourage any nation, including Russia, to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO nation not fulfilling their defense spending commitments.

‘Donald Trump is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,’ Rubio told CNN’s Jake Tapper in February. ‘He doesn’t talk like a traditional politician, and we’ve already been through this. You would think people would’ve figured it out by now.’

That said, Rubio in 2019 also helped reintroduce bipartisan legislation that would prohibit any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without Senate approval, a move that Trump threatened during his first term and which remained a top concern that was echoed by Trump’s former NSC adviser, John Bolton, during the latest presidential race. 

Rubio’s unwavering outward loyalty to the incoming president could be tested if he is questioned about the president-elect’s expansionist rhetoric, like acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal through the use of the U.S. military. 

Fox News Digital could not reach Rubio’s office for comment on where he stands on U.S. intervention in Greenland, which is technically under the protection of NATO so long as it remains a territory of Denmark, as well as the Panama Canal, which the U.S. gave back to Panama in 1999 but which Trump has accused China of taking over.