Bernard Kerik, beleaguered former New York police chief through 9/11, dead at 69
Bernard 'Bernie' Kerik, who rose to national prominence after leading the New York police department through the September 11 terror attacks, has died aged 69.
FBI Director Kash Patel announced Kerik's death on X, saying he passed away 'after a private battle with illness.'
Lauding Kerik, Patel called him 'a warrior, a patriot and one of the most courageous public servants this country has ever known.'
Kerik was the tough-talking head of the New York police when Osama bin Laden's hijackers struck the World Trade Center towers with commercial passenger jets in September 2001.
In the traumatic days and weeks after the attack, Kerik, with his squat, muscular build, balding head and black moustache, became a familiar face to Americans across the country as he helped then-mayor Rudy Giuliani guide New York through the crisis.
He'd served as Police Commissioner for less than a year when his life and career were altered forever by the terror attacks that killed nearly 2,750 people, including 23 NYPD officers.
When Giuliani's second term ended shortly after the attacks, Kerik left office with him and continued their decades-long friendship and professional allegiance.
Kerik's rough upbringing was detailed in a memoir, The Lost Son: A Life in Pursuit.
Born in New Jersey to an alcoholic sex worker, he was abandoned by his mother and brought up by his father, and had a troubled childhood.
His career took him around the world, with a stint on a military police posting in South Korea and a role as a security consultant for the Saudi royal family in Saudi Arabia.
He later joined the New York Police Department, where he worked undercover in the narcotics division and helped bust 60 members of the notorious Colombian Cali drug cartel.
After leaving the Police Commissioner role post-9/11, Kerik remained active in Republican politics, taking on a tour of duty to Iraq in 2003 to help train their law enforcement personnel for former President George W Bush.
He suffered another fall from grace after pleading guilty in 2009 to felonies, including tax fraud.
He admitted to accepting $255,000 worth of renovations to his apartment from a construction firm suspected of having mob ties, which was angling for government contracts.
His plea helped him avoid a maximum potential sentence of up to 61 years behind bars.
Instead, he was sentenced to four years in prison. He was released in 2013.
Kerik received a presidential pardon in 2020, during President Donald Trump's first term in office.
He later teamed up with Giuliani to investigate debunked allegations of election fraud following Trump's 2020 loss, and was among those subpoenaed by lawmakers over accusations of plotting to overturn the election in the January 6, 2021 attacks on the US Capitol.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Bruce Springsteen blasts Donald Trump: ‘We're living through a terrible moment in history'
Last month, the Born in the U.S.A. singer hit out at the American leader during his Land of Hope and Dreams Tour concert in Manchester, England. During the show, Springsteen called Trump and his colleagues a "corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration". And in an interview for The Sunday Times published over the weekend, The Boss criticised Trump's immigration policies, such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids which recently took place in Los Angeles as part of a plan to deport illegal immigrants.
SBS Australia
5 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Expert raises concerns over US-Israel actions as Iran warns of 'irreparable consequences'
People protest against the US and Israeli strikes on Iran and in support of Palestinians during a demonstration in Times Square then at The Christopher Columbus Statue in New York, NY on June 22, 2025. Few Trump and Israel pro supporters stand by Columbus Circle as well. Credits- AAP Source: ABACA / Guerin Charles/ABACA/PA/AAP Image
News.com.au
6 hours ago
- News.com.au
Iran yet to ‘cast its vote' after nuclear sites attacked by US
Trump has declared a decisive victory. Vance insists bombing Iran was not an act of war. But Iranian officials say they have been 'betrayed', and they 'reserve all options' for retaliation. The United States at the weekend bombed several nuclear production facilities across Iran. US President Donald Trump stated the goal of the strikes was the 'destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity'. And nothing else. Now, he has proclaimed his mission a 'spectacular military success'. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was a little more specific: 'Our initial assessment … is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect.' 'The United States likely just stopped a hostile regime from building the world's deadliest weapon,' argues Atlantic Council Center for Strategy and Security senior director Matthew Kroenig. 'Even in today's cynical and polarized world, this should be a cause for celebration.' But the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, said it was 'way too early' to know how much damage has been done. The military world is full of glib truisms about the nature of war. 'The enemy also gets a vote.' 'No plan survives first contact with the enemy.' Iran is yet to cast its vote. And the true success of Trump's plan remains to be seen. It may yet be that Iran's reaction may force the US to escalate, even if Trump doesn't want to. What if Iran's nuclear program remains even partially intact? What if Iran's regime doesn't capitulate? What if Iran seeks retribution against the US? What if Iran resorts to terrorism? Tehran is already at war with Tel Aviv. Will it declare war on Washington DC? President Trump has gone after the regime's crown jewels – its nuclear program. He attacked Iranian territory. He wants it over and done with. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei knows he risks provoking an overwhelming response if he retaliates. But does he believe he has a choice? 'For Iran's leaders, it is increasingly looking like a lose-lose proposition,' University of Michigan Middle East affairs expert associate professor Javed Ali warns. 'If they don't respond in a meaningful way, they look weak and more vulnerable. But if they do hit US targets in any meaningful way, they will invite a stronger US involvement in the conflict, as Trump has warned.' And has Trump truly 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear program with a single blow? 'Given the limited US role so far, the first area of concern is that the current US and Israeli strikes simply do not do enough damage to Iran's nuclear program to make the war worth it — with all its attendant cost, destruction, and risk,' warns Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) professor Daniel Byman. Mission accomplished? 'What will happen now?' asks Kroenig. 'The critics would have us believe that this will lead to a wider regional war, worse than Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly to World War III. They argue that military action will remove any doubt in Khamenei's mind about building nuclear weapons and cause him to redouble his efforts to sprint to a bomb. Paradoxically, they argue, strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities will actually make it more likely that Iran builds the bomb.' But victory is not yet a certainty. It all comes down to Trump's success. Or lack of it. Vice President Vance is confident; 'I'm not going to get into sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground there in Iran,' he said. 'But we've seen a lot, and I feel very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon. And that was the goal of this attack. That's why it was a success.' At the heart of the matter is 400kg of enriched uranium. Where is it? About 50kg can be stored in gas cylinders similar in size to those used to fuel household stoves. And given Trump reportedly warned Iran of the impending attack, it's possible some – or all – has been moved to safety. 'Fears that Iran will now dash to a bomb are also nonsensical,' asserts Kroenig. 'Iran's nuclear program likely lays in waste, and its top scientists have been eliminated. There is no capability to dash to a bomb in the short term.' Open-source intelligence analysts are scouring satellite photos and local social media posts for clues as to the truth of these words. US and Israeli intelligence operatives will have the advantage of electronic intercepts and spies. But questions have been raised about the ability of the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordinance Bomb (MOB) to both penetrate to the required depth and do enough damage once it gets there. Analysts point to the absence of 'blowback' – dust, and rubble vented from tunnel entrances – as evidence of internal explosions or collapse. So, what if some enriched uranium and centrifuges survived? 'In this scenario, Iran will certainly attempt to obtain a nuclear weapon,' states Jewish advocacy group J Street executive and former Iran adviser to the Secretary of Defense Ilan Goldenberg. 'Given the blows already delivered to Iran's program and its resources, it is unclear how long this would take … it is possible an Iranian regime could pick up the pieces and get to a bomb in a couple of years.' Like the First Iraq War of 1990, only 'boots on the ground' – a land invasion of Iran – can guarantee the nuclear program won't be salvaged. 'This is a very big gamble on our part, coming on top of Israel's great gamble,' warns the Middle East Institute's Kenneth Pollack. 'We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next 3-5 years without this Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want. Preventing that has to be America's (and Israel's) highest priority now.' Spiralling towards war Is one strike enough? Is 100? If the weekend's raid failed to demolish the heavily reinforced concrete bunkers, Trump may be forced to try again. 'No … we're not at war with Iran,' Vice President Vance insisted overnight. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' 'What we said to the Iranians is we do not want war with Iran; we actually want peace,' he said. 'But we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program, and that's exactly what the president accomplished last night.' Whether or not Ayatollah Khamenei agrees with this is yet to be seen. 'Iran has few good retaliatory options, and moreover, it does not want a major war with the United States,' argues Kroenig. 'Iran's proxy network, including Hamas and Hezbollah, has been decimated by Israel over the past year, and, so far, the groups are staying on the sidelines of this conflict.' Trump does not want a war. But he doesn't want a nuclear Iran. 'This strike may allow Trump to achieve those seemingly contradictory goals,' argues Professor Ali. 'If US initial assessments are correct, Iran's nuclear program will have been severely compromised.' Goldenberg agrees this is possible. 'It is entirely plausible that in the aftermath of these US strikes, the situation does not escalate,' he writes. 'Iran could launch a limited number of missiles at US targets that cause few or no casualties. Trump then chooses to take the Iranian strikes and ends the cycle of escalation, and Israel, satisfied with the outcomes of the war, also holds back.' But Goldenberg doesn't think this is probable. 'Given the number of variables, however, much will depend on the wisdom and restraint of Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the people around them,' he explains. 'And that does not bode well in the short or long term.' Personality plays a central role in this conflict. As does chance. And ideology. 'While the president basks in the apparent success of the strikes, it is important to anticipate — and guard against — how the war could go south,' warns Professor Byman. 'If Iran appears weak, as it does now, it will be tempting for US policymakers to expand their goals to address all forms of noxious Iranian behaviour … 'The challenge for the United States will be to walk the line between opportunism and caution, recognizing that the more ambitious the goals, the more troops and resources the United States would need to commit to the war to ensure its success.' Whatever the outcome, the future looks grim for the Iranian regime. 'It is sadly easy to imagine the horrible destruction that would rain down on Iran,' Atlantic Council Middle East Program director William Wechsler states. 'But it is nearly impossible to see the regime surviving it — and what would succeed the regime is profoundly unpredictable at this point.'  An eye for an eye? 'Iran's nuclear program has posed one of the greatest challenges to US and global security for more than two decades,' says Kroenig. 'Now, according to US President Donald Trump, that program no longer exists. This may be the United States' biggest foreign-policy victory since the end of the Cold War.' Iran is believed to have already expended half of its long-range ballistic missiles. How many of its short and medium-range weapons remain is unknown. Its proxies in Syria and Lebanon have all but been defeated. Which leaves only the Houthis in Yemen potentially able to intervene. But success can have unintended consequences. What has Ayatollah Khamenei left to lose? 'If Iran retains any capabilities — missiles, drones, proxies, cyber, or terror cells — it now has little reason not to use them,' argues Middle East Institute analyst John Calabrese. 'A direct US strike on its nuclear facilities shatters prior restraints and pressures Tehran to respond forcefully. Expect asymmetric retaliation. A new and dangerous phase of confrontation is likely underway.' Ayatollah Khamenei threatened 'irreparable damage' if Trump was to enter Netanyahu's war. He risks losing face – and control – if he fails to deliver. Iran does not have the military capacity to strike the mainland United States. But the tens of thousands of US troops in the Middle East would be a tempting target. And Trump – dubbed TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) by Wall Street – may have unwittingly convinced the regime it can fight back. 'Iran's leadership may have learned the lesson from Trump's actions earlier this year in Yemen, where he escalated the military campaign against the Houthis only to back off a month later when American attacks failed to show results,' argues Goldenberg. 'Persistence and aggression, Tehran could reason, are the best ways to get Trump to back down.' Under this scenario, Iran will impose a war of attrition upon the US and Israel. And that only escalates the need for intervention on the ground to achieve a definitive outcome. 'Iran cannot match Israel blow for blow, let alone the United States, and Tehran has long had a healthy respect for US military power,' says Professor Byman. 'So it is possible the regime will hunker down, trying to withstand US and Israeli blows, and seek a deal, although for now Tehran is emphasizing defiance, not diplomacy.' Enemies within 'ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT.' President Trump shouted on his Truth Social account overnight. The prospect of another 9/11 terror attack on the mainland United States looms large. 'Iran could turn to more desperate measures, such as sponsoring international terrorism, launching biological weapons, or closing the Strait of Hormuz,' says Kroenig. 'But Iran knows that these are the kinds of actions that could lead to a major war with the United States and result in the destruction of Iran's military and the end of its regime.' But the religious-extremist state of Iran may believe it has nothing to lose. 'Of course, Iran could look outside the region,' argues Professor Ali. 'In the past, the country has been involved in assassinations, kidnappings and terror attacks abroad that were organized through its Quds Force or via operatives of MOIS, its intelligence service.' These are not as susceptible to pre-emptive strikes as are uranium enrichment centrifuges. 'Iran's network of operatives, proxies and cyber actors may be harder to hit than stationary launching sites and military headquarters,' warns Pennsylvania State University analyst Nakissa Jahanbani. 'They remain active and capable, even amid military degradation and leadership losses. 'The more Tehran is pressured through direct strikes, the more likely it is to turn to these unconventional warfare tools.' Iran is already an international pariah. So the risk of political backlash is unlikely to deter. 'It is also a way, perhaps the only way, Iran can make its enemies pay a price,' Professor Byman concludes. 'This would be a form of revenge and, from Tehran's point of view, a way to bolster its deterrent. 'Although Iran would surely suffer reprisals if it carried out an attack, the death of Americans could, over time, turn popular opinion in the United States against the war.' And that's a real threat. President Trump promised his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement 'no new wars'. His entry into Israel's war on Iran has inevitably divided its ranks. Therefore, the loss of any US lives or assets to Iran would have unpredictable results. Which is why the world's diplomats and analysts are watching Iran's reactions closely. 'Such actions risk either damaging the global economy or drawing the US deeper into the conflict,' argues Professor Ali; 'It would evolve from a 'one and done' strike to a cycle of attacks and responses. And that could widen political cracks between hawks in the administration and parts of Trump's MAGA faithful who are against the US being involved in overseas wars.' Goldstein also sees fallout for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel. 'If the United States gets drawn into a war that most Americans do not believe the country should enter, and it goes badly, the American public will justifiably blame Israel,' he concludes.
