Robert C. O'Brien

3.3K posts

Robert C. O'Brien banner
Robert C. O'Brien

Robert C. O'Brien

@robertcobrien

Robert C. O'Brien served as the 27th Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Views on this account are personal.

Washington, DC Katılım Eylül 2010
968 Takip Edilen43.2K Takipçiler
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
National Security Division, U.S. Dept of Justice
National Security Division, U.S. Dept of Justice@DOJNatSec·
Three Charged with Conspiring to Unlawfully Divert Cutting Edge U.S. Artificial Intelligence Technology to China “The indictment unsealed today details alleged efforts to evade U.S. export laws through false documents, staged dummy servers to mislead inspectors, and convoluted transshipment schemes, in order to obfuscate the true destination of restricted AI technology—China,” said John A. Eisenberg, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “These chips are the product of American ingenuity, and NSD will continue to enforce our export-control laws to protect that advantage.” 🔗: justice.gov/opa/pr/three-c…
National Security Division, U.S. Dept of Justice tweet media
English
198
1.1K
3.5K
2.8M
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Scowcroft Center
Scowcroft Center@ACScowcroft·
Today, we remember our namesake, General Brent Scowcroft, on what would have been his 101st birthday. National Security Advisor to two presidents, he fundamentally changed the national security apparatus as we know it. We are proud to carry your legacy forward. #TodayInScowcroftHistory Learn more about General Scowcroft and his legacy: atlanticcouncil.org/brent-scowcrof…
English
2
9
28
1.7K
Robert C. O'Brien
Robert C. O'Brien@robertcobrien·
What a terrific week at the ⁦@BNPPARIBASOPEN⁩ in Indian Wells, California with family, friends and clients. Congratulations to @janniksin who played flawlessly & added another prestigious tournament to his CV.
Robert C. O'Brien tweet mediaRobert C. O'Brien tweet mediaRobert C. O'Brien tweet mediaRobert C. O'Brien tweet media
English
1
1
12
889
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Center Street
Center Street@centerstreet·
“Arthur Herman is one of America’s greatest historians. The book is a must-read for today’s pivotal era.” ― @robertcobrien, 27th US National Security Advisor
Center Street tweet media
English
0
2
10
735
Robert C. O'Brien
Robert C. O'Brien@robertcobrien·
The USG's next move in the global AI competition must be to promote policies that secure our competitive access to memory chips, especially in a time of rising prices. Such a course will maintain the U.S. technology leadership that is vital to protecting liberty in a world in crisis. wsj.com/tech/ai/memory….
English
1
4
15
1.4K
Robert C. O'Brien
Robert C. O'Brien@robertcobrien·
This is a critical moment for the Atlantic Alliance & the Special Relationship. The Euros & Brits reticence to support the USA & Israel, the bulwarks of the "Free World" or "West", against an evil Iran, reinforces every negative sentiment & stereotype about the value of these allies.
Hugh Hewitt@hughhewitt

When @LindseyGrahamSC and other Reagan conservatives voice doubts over value of “European allies,” the moment is at hand for Europe to choose. I hope they do so wisely.

English
66
28
132
16.9K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Christopher Landau
Christopher Landau@DeputySecState·
I want to add my congratulations to President @Rodrigo_PazP and the Bolivian Government for the bold and successful operation involving the capture of Sebastian Marset, a major international drug trafficker. He is now in custody in the US facing trial. Thanks to the new government, Bolivia is no longer a haven for criminals. The Bolivian people can be very proud of a brilliant operation by their police. Getting this criminal off the streets is good for Bolivia, the US, the region, and the world. 🇺🇸🤝🇧🇴
US Dept of State INL@StateINL

CAPTURED. Sebastian Marset’s reign of terror and chaos is over. Thanks to President @Rodrigo_PazP's leadership and rapidly strengthening U.S.-Bolivia law enforcement cooperation, notorious drug trafficker Marset will face justice. The Shield of the Americas is making our region safer and stronger.

English
56
310
1.3K
73.2K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Hugh Hewitt
Hugh Hewitt@hughhewitt·
From @AmitSegal: “Israel has beheaded the snake, again. In a strike unprecedented since three weeks ago, Israel eliminated senior regime figures, the head of the paramilitary Basij forces, his deputy, and most prominently, Ali Larijani—Iran’s most senior military official. Since August 2025, Larijani had headed the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s highest security body. Israel promoted him again last month, eliminating most of his superiors and leaving him as the highest-ranking security official still standing. Since that day, he had been viewed as one of, if not the most powerful man in the regime. As head of the SNSC, he sat at the center of Iran’s war effort. After Israel beheaded the regime’s leadership, he was one of the few remaining figures capable of convening the emergency council—one he may not have participated in directly, but over which he almost certainly wielded significant influence. He was also likely among the shadowy IRGC commanders standing behind the maimed Mojtaba Khamenei, pulling the strings of the new supreme leader. Larijani unwisely tempted Israel. On Friday, he appeared publicly in Tehran alongside the president and other senior officials at the Al-Quds Day march. Surrounded by civilians, he felt comfortable enough to mock Israel and the U.S. strikes on Tehran as signs of their ‘desperation.’ The appearance was almost certainly choreographed by the IRGC to project continuity and resolve in a moment of pressure and collapse. Unfortunately for the IRGC’s PR team, they underestimated Israel. Though I’m sure the New York Times will mourn the loss of another moderate, allow me to explain who this man actually was. Like many in the IRGC, Larijani quietly embraced the luxuries of the West. Until last month, his daughter, Fatemeh Larijani, was an assistant professor at a university in Atlanta. His nephew Hadi is a professor at Glasgow Caledonian University’s technology center in the UK. Hadi’s brother Sina is a director at the Royal Bank of Canada in Vancouver. While his family enjoyed the fruits of his corruption, Larijani was massacring Iranians for daring to want the same. His name is closely tied to the suppression of both the 2009 and 2026 protests. According to U.S. intelligence, he was a key architect of the crackdown that killed upwards of 30,000 protesters—greatly assisted by the other officials eliminated last night, such as Gholamreza Soleimani, head of the Basij, and his deputy. With all the blood on his hands, I think I will quote Iranian-Australian broadcaster Rita Panahi’s statement after Khamenei’s assassination. Panahi’s remarks were delivered in Persian, but roughly translated, I would like to say to Larijani, ‘Your father is a d*g, dirt be on your head and burn in hell.’””
English
20
97
490
15.2K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Riley Owen
Riley Owen@utahriley·
Go to caucus. Speak up. Get involved in one of the most grassroots political systems in the country.
Riley Owen tweet media
English
1
3
44
1.1K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Rob
Rob@_ROB_29·
10,000 ft jump with zero fear
English
379
1.5K
8.1K
197.5K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Nigel Farage MP
Nigel Farage MP@Nigel_Farage·
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes. This is the definition of woke.
English
4.1K
2.7K
19.5K
2.9M
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
GretchenInOK
GretchenInOK@GretchenInOK·
From a Secret Service agent guarding President Trump: 🚨LATEST UPDATE | A Secret Service agent protecting Trump just said something that SHOCKED everyone: “Trump has RUINED me - I can never protect another President after him” - and before you think that’s criticism, wait until you hear what he actually MEANS by “ruined,” because his explanation about Trump is making the entire Secret Service agency emotional. Here’s what the agent meant by “Trump ruined me”: This Secret Service agent has protected multiple Presidents before Trump. He was trained professionally. Did his job perfectly. Protected each President the same way - with discipline, distance, and duty. Then he got assigned to protect Trump. And everything CHANGED. The agent explained: “Trump RUINED me for this job. Not because he’s difficult - but because he’s the OPPOSITE. Trump knows my NAME. Every other President called me ‘agent.’ Trump calls me by my actual name. Trump knows my WIFE’S name. My CHILDREN’S names. Asks about my son’s baseball games by name. Trump NOTICES when I’m tired after standing 8 hours and says ‘Sit down, you need rest.’ Trump orders EXTRA food during long days: ‘Make sure my guys eat first.’ Trump attended my FATHER’S FUNERAL when he passed. No cameras. No press. Just came to honor the man who raised the agent protecting him. After experiencing THIS - how can I go back to being called ‘agent’ by future Presidents? After Trump remembered my KIDS’ names, how can I protect someone who won’t even learn MY name? After Trump treated me like FAMILY, how can I go back to being treated like FURNITURE? Trump RUINED me. He raised the bar so high for how Presidents should treat Secret Service that I can NEVER accept the old standard again. That’s what I mean by ruined.” Here’s what this confession proves: Trump didn’t just earn Secret Service protection - he RUINED them for protecting anyone else because once you’re treated like FAMILY, you can’t go back to being equipment. 😭🛡️🇺🇸 Drop 🫡 and type: TRUMP RUINED THE STANDARD. Comment: Once treated like FAMILY, can’t go back to FURNITURE - that’s Trump’s effect. Share so people understand: “ruined” = highest compliment. Follow if raising standards inspires. Ruined for good! 🛡️😭💙🇺🇸
English
2.4K
17.4K
60.7K
2.7M
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
Dustin
Dustin@r0ck3t23·
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang just said the quiet part out loud about what the education system will never admit. For a century, we built humans to think like calculators. The algorithm made that skillset obsolete overnight. Huang: “The definition of smart is somebody who’s intelligent, solve problems, technical. But I find that that’s a commodity. And we’re about to prove that artificial intelligence is able to handle that part easiest.” Software engineering was supposed to be the safe play. Superintelligence cleared it first. The SAT was supposed to measure intelligence. It was measuring the ability to follow instructions. Raw technical processing isn’t a competitive edge anymore. It’s the floor the machine stepped over before you woke up. The question isn’t what you can calculate. It’s what you can see before the data shows up. Huang: “People who are able to see around corners are truly, truly smart. And their value is incredible. To be able to preempt problems before they show up, just because you feel the vibe.” That vibe isn’t magic. It’s the collision of first principles, human empathy, and lived experience no model can fake. Huang: “That vibe came from a combination of data, analysis, first principle, life experience, wisdom, sensing other people.” The operators who see around corners will command the AI. The ones waiting for dashboards to update will be replaced by it. Huang: “I think long term the definition of smart is someone who sits at that intersection of being technically astute, but human empathy and having the ability to infer the unspoken, around the corners, the unknowables.” The unspoken variables are the new leverage. The human psychology inside a market. The invisible friction in a negotiation. The instinct to build something nobody asked for yet. You can’t spreadsheet your way there. You can’t prompt your way to that perception. It comes from decades of watching what doesn’t show up in the metrics. Huang: “And that person might actually score horribly on the SAT.” The future doesn’t belong to people who memorized answers. It belongs to people who sense the questions before anyone thinks to ask. The old system tested your ability to follow orders. The new one tests your ability to move through the unknown. And the machine can’t help you with that part. That part is entirely on you.
English
224
1K
4.2K
698.6K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
John Ʌ Konrad V
John Ʌ Konrad V@johnkonrad·
If the post below doesn’t get me banned from polite society… this one will. The Overton Window exists in war too. The left tried very hard to move the OW after the Iranian warship was torpedoed. Thankfully military veterans and navalists on both sides prevented that from happening. This isn’t the first time. I was in the pentagon briefing room for the Venezuela boat strikes and there was an attempt to shift OW left then too. The truth is currently the OW, even for the most pro-Trump commentators, sits exactly where the strikes have taken place…. And the only people actively pushing-it right are Hegseth and Trump. I was not a supporter of these strikes, I personally asked that @CENTCOM be bulldozed months ago, but as a student of history I also know that military commanders need maneuvering room. If they don’t have it then wars are protracted and more people end up dying and suffering. Fewer wars that are more brutal are what prevent the most death and suffering. Teddy Roosevelt knew this when he built the Great White Fleet and Colin Powell knew this during the first Gulf War when he said we should have an unfair and more lethal advantage. @PeteHegseth has been criticized for replacing liberal media with conservatives in the Pentagon Press Corps (myself included)… but in three press conferences about Iran not one conservative even attempted to shift the OW in Trump’s favor. Several asked about civilian casualties, rescue of the sunk sailors and the extent of damage done…. all questions that move the OW left. None asked if bombing more military targets harder might save civilian lives by shortening the war. Nobody asked if retaliatory strikes could be more brutal forcing a peace. None asked if there are plans to kill more IRGC leaders. And this is why Americans lose wars. Because even those of us labeled “warmongers” by the left are more worried about finding out who accidentally hit a school than how we will win (& thus end) this war. A few have on x have. @ed_fin posted that Iranian oil tankers be told to turn around or be torpedoed. I wrote: ENDORSED Then my good friend Sal @mercoglianos suggested we send special forces to seize the ships. It was a sensible plan. He of course got called a warmonger too. Because he is a good person Sal explained himself on his next video. He explained how ships could be arrested without taking lives. He scoffed at the person calling him a warmonger. Ok, but how is this different than conservatives for years defending themselves from baseless claims of racism? Of course I prefer Sal’s more reasonable plan but I didn’t endorse it. I endorsed Ed’s. Why? Because if the OW is open just enough to do ship boardings then our admirals will likely do nothing. But if OW is open enough to torpedo oil tankers then that gives the warfighter breathing room to pick the more sensible option. The objective of calling us “warmongers” & “racist” is the same: make us defend ourselves which will shift the OW to the left. Let me be clear. I want peace. I want an end to all war. I want this conflict to end now. I also want our commanders to have maximum authority to do that. The purpose of suggesting more brutality on X is not be to encourage more brutality but to give commanders on the field more room to make decisions that shorten the war. Because today I talked to three former submarine commanders and all said they defend the strike but they also said it’s brought unwanted attention on the silent service so it’s unlikey to happen again. We lost that option. We held the OW open just enough to prevent public outrage for the sinking but in reality by not suggesting we hit MORE Iranian warships… it shifted left. If we want to win wars. If we want to prevent more foreign wars. Then someone besides Trump (who normalized the action and pushed the window right by saying they sunk it for fun) will have to help move the OW further right than anyone (myself included) is willing to admit.
John Ʌ Konrad V@johnkonrad

Let me tell you the secret difference between a Navy and merchant ship captain that goes beyond the obvious. It’s 1AM & I feel sick to my stomach over this war and can’t sleep. I’m at a shipowner conference & I had dinner with a gentleman from Dubai and one from Tel Aviv. Both had the dispassion of distance but one told me his family is furious with America and it won’t be safe to visit his nation for years. The other said his nation is eternally grateful. Both are getting attacked by Iran with similar weapons but the reactions are polar opposite. The difference of course is duration. One thinks if we stop tomorrow then Iran will stop. The other thinks if we stop tomorrow the attacks will never end. Perception is an important component of reality. Iran knows this which is why they are attacking Iran. Iran’s calculus includes perception and public outrage. Change the UAE’s perception to that of Israel & the bombing of Dubai would likely stop. Calculus is important in war. Now of course it’s not just perception. The US did strike Iran knowing the calculus. We are responsible for the strikes. What does this have to do with commercial ships? At the conference every single shipowner I talk to says it’s not worth risking a single life running the Strait of Hormuz. The merchant marine captain part of my brain agrees fully with this. The problem is the son of a decorated veteran buried in Arlington does not. The duty of any captain, merchant or Navy, is to do the most good for the most number of people. We would not risk the lives of a single crew saving a ship that’s sinking. That is unless people are trapped below. In that case I might need to risk the life of 2 crew members to go below and rescue 6. The most good for the most people. I don’t care if the ship sinks. It & the cargo are replaceable. But the calculus for a Navy captain is different. The slogan of the Navy is “Don’t give up the ship.” In war a Navy captain might risk the lives of his entire crew to prevent one ship from sinking. Economically the calculus is the same. The Navy ship is more expensive but the government has infinitely more wealth than a shipowner. A warship & a merchant ship can both be replaced with money. The big difference is the Navy ship has a bigger mission than itself. It must stay floating to protect the 5,000+ crew of a carrier or millions in a city it’s defending. The merchant ship captain has nothing more to protect bigger than his ship. Today US Merchant Mariners are typically given medals under one condition: in support of a military mission. These ships are a hybrid. They carry regular cargo most of the time & the captain would let that cargo sink before risking one life. But what if it’s carrying medical supplies? That cargo could save hundreds of lives, a lot more than his 25 crew. If it’s carrying anti-air missiles? Without resupply of those the warship is useless. Now the merchant ship is almost as important as the warship. If it’s carrying fuel for the carrier air wing? Now it might be MORE important than a single destroyer. That’s the secret difference between a merchant & Navy captain. Now the majority of merchant ships in the Persian Gulf do not have military cargo so no shipowner wants to risk a single life. The problem nobody here seems to realize (I got angry replies for bringing up) is individually each ship is replaceable & each individual cargo load is not too important. But collectively the calculus changes. Roughly a third of all fertilizer comes from the Gulf. More if you include the energy needed to make fertilizer elsewhere. One ship won’t make a difference but dozens of sunk ships would lead to mass starvation. “So don’t send any ships through and nothing will be sunk,” said one owner. OK but the ship is not the limiting factor. Delivery of the cargo is. So if Iran sinks 10 ships but 90 make it through, people won’t starve. That’s the new calculus nobody seems to understand.

English
66
205
1K
72.7K
Robert C. O'Brien retweetledi
John Ʌ Konrad V
John Ʌ Konrad V@johnkonrad·
Part three…. Historical Precedent The post below explains how, despite national security experts on both the left and right defended the torpedoing of an Iranian warship…. submarine captains might not be willing to sink more. This would shift the Overton Window left and could potentially extend the war by not providing Trump with the negotiating leverage he needs. The problem is, regardless of how many Iranian ships are sunk it probably won’t end the war any faster. But it could set a dangerous precedent. To win commanders in the field (and underwater) need freedom of action. Now considering this warship was unique it will probably be taught in war colleges. We all know that educators lean left so how will this be taught? Most likely they will say “although experts agreed it was a fully legitimate targeted, public backlash prevented any more ships from being sunk by torpedo.” Seems innocuous but how does a future submarine command hear this interpretation? He hears: this is a bad idea for my career. I’m going to avoid doing that. And in doing so he sets stricter Rules of Engagement on himself than his commander (or the law) allows. And that could be a decisive decision. So IMHO we should sink at least one more ship…. but there is another possibility: make an example of them. When people hear this they think a negative example… but there are positive examples too. We could guve them medals, @SecWar could mention them by name, we could even hold a parade Then the war college lesson would become “experts agreed it was a fully legitimate targeted and the crew was decorated for the action.” That sends an entirely different message into the head of future submarine commanders.
John Ʌ Konrad V@johnkonrad

If the post below doesn’t get me banned from polite society… this one will. The Overton Window exists in war too. The left tried very hard to move the OW after the Iranian warship was torpedoed. Thankfully military veterans and navalists on both sides prevented that from happening. This isn’t the first time. I was in the pentagon briefing room for the Venezuela boat strikes and there was an attempt to shift OW left then too. The truth is currently the OW, even for the most pro-Trump commentators, sits exactly where the strikes have taken place…. And the only people actively pushing-it right are Hegseth and Trump. I was not a supporter of these strikes, I personally asked that @CENTCOM be bulldozed months ago, but as a student of history I also know that military commanders need maneuvering room. If they don’t have it then wars are protracted and more people end up dying and suffering. Fewer wars that are more brutal are what prevent the most death and suffering. Teddy Roosevelt knew this when he built the Great White Fleet and Colin Powell knew this during the first Gulf War when he said we should have an unfair and more lethal advantage. @PeteHegseth has been criticized for replacing liberal media with conservatives in the Pentagon Press Corps (myself included)… but in three press conferences about Iran not one conservative even attempted to shift the OW in Trump’s favor. Several asked about civilian casualties, rescue of the sunk sailors and the extent of damage done…. all questions that move the OW left. None asked if bombing more military targets harder might save civilian lives by shortening the war. Nobody asked if retaliatory strikes could be more brutal forcing a peace. None asked if there are plans to kill more IRGC leaders. And this is why Americans lose wars. Because even those of us labeled “warmongers” by the left are more worried about finding out who accidentally hit a school than how we will win (& thus end) this war. A few have on x have. @ed_fin posted that Iranian oil tankers be told to turn around or be torpedoed. I wrote: ENDORSED Then my good friend Sal @mercoglianos suggested we send special forces to seize the ships. It was a sensible plan. He of course got called a warmonger too. Because he is a good person Sal explained himself on his next video. He explained how ships could be arrested without taking lives. He scoffed at the person calling him a warmonger. Ok, but how is this different than conservatives for years defending themselves from baseless claims of racism? Of course I prefer Sal’s more reasonable plan but I didn’t endorse it. I endorsed Ed’s. Why? Because if the OW is open just enough to do ship boardings then our admirals will likely do nothing. But if OW is open enough to torpedo oil tankers then that gives the warfighter breathing room to pick the more sensible option. The objective of calling us “warmongers” & “racist” is the same: make us defend ourselves which will shift the OW to the left. Let me be clear. I want peace. I want an end to all war. I want this conflict to end now. I also want our commanders to have maximum authority to do that. The purpose of suggesting more brutality on X is not be to encourage more brutality but to give commanders on the field more room to make decisions that shorten the war. Because today I talked to three former submarine commanders and all said they defend the strike but they also said it’s brought unwanted attention on the silent service so it’s unlikey to happen again. We lost that option. We held the OW open just enough to prevent public outrage for the sinking but in reality by not suggesting we hit MORE Iranian warships… it shifted left. If we want to win wars. If we want to prevent more foreign wars. Then someone besides Trump (who normalized the action and pushed the window right by saying they sunk it for fun) will have to help move the OW further right than anyone (myself included) is willing to admit.

English
11
29
132
9.4K

Keşfet

@apolyakova @washingtonpost @BNPPARIBASOPEN @janniksin @SenatorBanks @ChrisCoons @NotreDame @Rodrigo_PazP