The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
Though US President Donald Trump has since abandoned the idea, he suggested that vessels should pay a 20% fee on all cargo transiting the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for US military protection.
The Epaminondas ship is seen during seizure by the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran, in this
image obtained by Reuters on April 24, 2026. (photo credit: Meysam Mirzadeh/Tasnim/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS)
The United States’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz
can be legal, even if the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) demands unimpeded passage through the vital waterway, so
long as it respects the terms of the San Remo Manual, Adv. Yoav Harris
of Harris & Co. Maritime Law Office explained to The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
The manual demands that belligerents and neutral states be made fully aware of the blockade,
that the blockade be effective, that it be enforced impartially against
vessels from all nations, that it not be established for the sole
purpose of starving civilians, and that humanitarian relief be allowed
to reach the civilian population if it is inadequately provided for.
The
US blockade came after Iran announced its own blockade of the Strait of
Hormuz on March 4, 2026, shortly after the United States and Israel
began striking the Islamic Republic.
Although both countries announced blockades, the actions are not viewed as equivalent under international law.
One
key factor that Harris explained could determine why a US blockade
might be considered legal while Iran’s is not is that the Islamic
Republic failed to distinguish between enemy and neutral vessels
crossing the strait, targeting all ships that allegedly failed to coordinate with the regime.
Oil
tanker HELGA is moored at one of Iraq's southern offshore oil terminals
near Basra as it prepares to load crude oil, becoming the second vessel
to arrive since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, April 24, 2026.
(credit: REUTERS/Mohammed Aty/File Photo)
Iran's actions in Hormuz 'very close' to definition of piracy
“If
we look into what Iran did here, it was simply firing at vessels going
through the Strait of Hormuz. It has no basis in international law. It
is very close to what is defined as piracy under the UN Convention,
which refers to acts of violence carried out by a vessel or aircraft
against other vessels,” he explained.
“The
only distinction is that piracy is committed by private actors or by
government vessels that have been taken over by their crews. When a
state engages in such actions, it is simply not in accordance with
international law.”
Unaddressed
by Harris, though still relevant per the terms of the manual, is that
Ebrahim Jabbari, a senior adviser to the commander-in-chief of Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, announced in early March that only
countries friendly to the regime would be allowed to cross Iran’s
blockade, violating the need for impartial application.
As
part of its ambitions in the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran has been explicit
about its intention to charge vessels for transiting the waterway.
Iranian officials estimate the regime could generate around $40 billion
annually by levying fees for security, safety, and environmental
services.
The
Persian Gulf Strait Authority has also claimed it reserves the right to
require vessels to purchase insurance in order to pass through the
strait.
Dr. Lynette Nusbacher previously explained to the Post that while charging tolls for the waterway violates UNCLOS, nations are in fact allowed to ask for fees for services rendered.
Iran, however, cannot charge fees for safety while being responsible for the insecurity ships face if they don’t pay.
Likewise,
Harris explained that a blockade doesn’t permit countries to fire at
vessels, and so Iran’s actions do not constitute a “real blockade.”
“In
a maritime blockade, you can stop vessels that are on their way to the
enemy state to provide supplies for the war or any economic benefit. But
when you make a naval blockade, you cannot shoot whoever goes through.
“You
have to stop the vessel. You can search it. You have to make the
differentiation between vessels which are military and vessels which are
merchant, between vessels which are headed to your enemy and neutral
vessels. So the differentiation should be made,” Harris said.
“There
is a strict difference between the behavior of Iran, which is contrary
to any international or traditional law, and the acts done by the United
States, which are according to international law.”
No legal ground for charging fees for compulsory services
Harris
explained that another key element making Iran’s demands a violation of
international law is that services, which render fees, can be offered
but not forced upon vessels. “You cannot make compulsory charges,” he
asserted.
“There
are no legal grounds for charging for compulsory services if a vessel
does not want them. As far as we know, vessels can transit the Strait of
Hormuz using the route closer to Oman, where there is no need for any
security services from Iran. Yet Iran has fired on vessels using that
route. So there is no genuine need for Iranian services,” he outlined.
“The
same principle applies to the United States. It may choose to provide
security services or not, but it cannot compel vessels to accept those
services and then require them to pay for them.”
Though
US President Donald Trump has since abandoned the idea, he suggested
earlier this week that vessels should pay a 20% fee on all cargo
transiting the Strait of Hormuz to the US in exchange for protection
provided by the military, a suggestion Harris said was not permitted by
law.
While
the proposal differed from Iran’s, as the United States was offering
protection against Iranian attacks and not itself creating the issue of
insecurity, Harris argued that such a fee would still not be permitted
under international law.
He
explained that providing protection against piracy is not an optional
commercial service but a legal obligation, meaning it cannot be
conditioned on financial payment.
Trump,
after dropping his 20% fee demand, has since said the US will be
reimbursed through trade and investment deals with the Gulf states.
Trump appears willing to escalate the war to cause enough damage that the Iranian regime will open the Strait of Hormuz and accept Trump's nuclear demands.
Trump appears at a Situation Room meeting in 2025 during a strike on Iran. Photo: Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images
President Trump held a Situation
Room meeting Tuesday to discuss a massive offensive in Iran that will be
wider in scope than the current strikes around the Strait of Hormuz,
three sources with knowledge said.
Why it matters:
Trump appears willing to escalate the war to cause enough damage that
the Iranian regime will open the Strait of Hormuz and accept Trump's
nuclear demands.
Driving the news:
Trump convened the meeting as the U.S. military conducted strikes in
the Strait of Hormuz area and along the southern coast of Iran for the
fourth day in a row.
Most of the targets were air defense and radar systems, anti-ship missile positions and drone launch sites.
U.S.
officials said the aim of the strikes was to significantly degrade
Iran's ability to conduct attacks against ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran retaliated by continuing to launch missiles and drones at U.S. bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain.
On Tuesday afternoon, the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports went into effect.
The
commander of the U.S. military's Central Command, Adm. Brad Cooper,
said in a statement that over the last week Iran "has intentionally
targeted civilians across the region by attacking seven commercial ships
resulting in nearly a dozen civilian crew members killed, missing, or
injured."
Despite the attacks, the U.S. military managed to
coordinate the transit of 300 ships through the strait over the past
week, U.S. officials said.
Inside the room:
Trump was joined in the Situation Room by his top national security
team, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio,
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan
Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House envoy Steve Witkoff and
other senior officials, the sources said.
The sources said
the meeting focused on new plans for devastating strikes on strategic
targets in Iran, in addition to the strikes against Iranian targets in
the Strait of Hormuz.
The White House declined to comment.
What he's saying: In an interview with Fox News before the Situation Room meeting, Trump said the strikes would expand in the coming days.
The
U.S. military is going to hit Iran "hard" over the next three days, he
said, before stressing that strikes could significantly escalate after
that.
"Next
week, it gets really bad for them because next week comes the power
plants," Trump said. "Next week comes the bridges. We're gonna knock out
all their power plants. We're gonna knock out all their bridges unless
they get to the table and negotiate."
What to watch:
Trump said the U.S. is monitoring suspicious activity by Iran at
Pickaxe Mountain, a deep underground site that the U.S. and Israel think
Iran wants to use for its nuclear program and that will be immune from
airstrikes.
Trump said the U.S. bunker busters "can go deep"
and claimed "nobody knows" if Pickaxe Mountain is impervious to such an
attack.
"By the way, nobody knows if they even are doing
anything in Pickaxe. It's just something that comes up. We have cameras
on it. There's very little activity there. But, uh, if there's even just
a small amount, we'll hit it and we'll hit it hard," he said.
State of play:
Trump said his negotiators spoke with Iranian officials on Tuesday and
delivered the message that Iran needs to come to the table.
"I said, 'You better make a deal, [or] you're not gonna have anything left,'" Trump said.
Records released by Senate oversight committees reveal that Jack Smith’s investigative team bypassed internal filter teams to view the text messages of 44 lawmakers during the Trump probe
Newly released records reveal that Special Counsel Jack
Smith’s team bypassed mandatory protocols to secretly access the private
text messages of 44 members of Congress during the probe into President
Donald Trump, the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.
The disclosure, confirmed by records released by the Senate Judiciary Committee, has become a major constitutional flashpoint.
As lawmakers confront the reality that their private
communications were accessed without following established filter
protocols, the inquiry is igniting a broader debate over the separation
of powers between the executive branch and the legislative body.
“Communications from Members of Congress pertaining to
their official legislative duties are protected from criminal
prosecution under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause,” the
Senate Judiciary’s press release said.
The Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6)
serves as a check on executive power and is designed to prevent members
of Congress from being “questioned in any other Place,” ensuring they
cannot be subjected to the scrutiny of the Justice Department or the
judicial branch for their legislative acts.
Yet DOJ records released
to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reveal
that former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team reviewed the texts of 44
members of Congress, including 40 Republicans and four Democrats, during
the investigation into President Donald Trump.
The investigation, led by Grassley and Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., uncovered
these records after receiving legally protected whistleblower
disclosures, after which they formally requested records from the DOJ.
“This is a blatant abuse of power, and exactly what our Founders warned about,” Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., also wrote on X.
Paul also called out Jack Smith, where, during a December 2025
congressional deposition when he was asked under oath whether his team
had reviewed the content of text messages belonging to members of
Congress, he answered, “No.”
December 2025: Jack Smith swore under oath that he didn't spy on text messages belonging to members of Congress.
Today: New evidence confirms he spied on dozens of members of Congress, myself included.
Smith had been appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick
Garland in November 2022 to oversee the Biden DOJ’s investigation into
President Donald Trump after his announcement of this third presidential
campaign.
The records released by Senators Grassley and Johnson
provide evidence that the Biden DOJ established a “Filter Team” to
evaluate materials obtained in the course of Jack Smith’s
investigations. These included a probe relating to January 6 codenamed
“Project Coconut,” an investigation into Trump’s handling of classified
documents at Mar-a-Lago, known as Project “Cranberry,” all part of
“Arctic Frost,” a sweeping probe into efforts to challenge 2020 election
results, the press release said.
While the Filter Team’s purpose was to prevent
investigators from the Special Counsel’s Office and the FBI from
accessing privileged materials among records obtained, evidence shows
that investigators bypassed this, potentially infringing on
constitutional guardrails, according to the release.
Smith was ultimately unable to secure a conviction against
Trump, bringing his efforts into further scrutiny. The Special Counsel’s
Office had obtained the private text messages through a subpoena to the
National Archives and Records Administration for phone records stored
between October 2020 to January 20, 2022, which were handed over on
August 21, 2023.
The phones were associated with a long list of officials
serving in the White House during President Trump’s first term,
including Trump himself, as well as Stephen Miller, Rudy Giuliani,
Kellyanne Conway, Peter Navarro, the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump,
former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Vice President
Mike Pence.
Smith’s investigative team downloaded and began reviewing the texts without waiting for the Filter Team’s evaluation.
“Based on the information that’s been produced to me and
Senator Johnson, Biden, DOJ and FBI investigators apparently ignored
their own routine investigative protocols to obtain and review
work-related messages from me and dozens of my Republican and Democrat
colleagues,” said Grassley in his statement, who was also targeted in these investigations.
Meanwhile, the scope of this investigative overreach has been igniting sharp backlash on Capitol Hill.
“They're sick and tired of Americans being spied on. And my
message to the American people is: if they'll do it to senators and
congressmen, guess what? They'll do it to you as well," said Rep. Eli
Crane, R-Ariz, a former U.S. Navy SEAL on the Just the News, No Noise show on Tuesday.
Crane also said that he had “several friends” who had found
out they had been spied on, including Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., saying
that “these individuals who engaged in that type of behavior absolutely
need to be held accountable.”
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also slammed
the findings of the DOJ records, writing on X, “Joe Biden’s DOJ not
only tapped my phone; I just learned they ILLEGALLY obtained my texts
with members of President Trump’s administration,” adding, “Everyone
involved needs to be PROSECUTED.”
Lawmakers are now calling for a full-scale investigation into the breach, decrying what Senator Ron Johnson described
as the “Biden administration’s weaponization of the Justice
Department.” At the core of their concerns is whether the government has
prioritized its investigative reach over constitutional restraints.
Grassley has stated he intends to have former Special Counsel Jack Smith appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold him accountable.
“I hope my Democrat colleagues, several of whom had their
own texts swept up, finally put partisanship aside and recognize the
severity of these actions. Smith’s team ran roughshod over the
Constitution even after repeated warnings,” Grassley said. Crane echoed
these concerns.
“You know what they say: if these folks aren't held
accountable, it's going to happen again, and the American people are
sick and tired of a two-tiered justice system,” he said.
As the new Iraqi Prime Minister pivots to the U.S.-backed reforms to limit Iran’s influence, President Trump sees an opportunity for U.S. investment, oil deals, and a withdrawal of troops.
The Trump administration has exploited the U.S. war with
Iran to pull Iraq back into alignment with the United States in the
Middle East, attempting to reverse years of growing Iranian influence in
Iraq's politics.
President Donald Trump gambled that by intervening in the
selection of Iraq’s new prime minister earlier this year, he could spur
Baghdad’s realignment, promote American investments in Iraq’s oil
industry, and end the influence of Iran-backed militias in Iraq’s
government.
Ali al-Zaidi appears receptive to Trump's overtures
The new Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, appears to be
delivering. During his first trip abroad, he met with President Trump in
Washington on Tuesday and outlined plans to open Iraq for U.S.
investment, disarm Iran-backed militias still operating in the country,
and bolster his country’s economy.
President Trump assessed that Baghdad’s progress on these
issues would not have been possible without the unique conditions
created by the United States’ war with Iran, which began earlier this
year after joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes.
“Iran has been very much destabilized, and really their military power is only a fraction of what it was,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. “It has given [Iraq] freedom to do what they want to do,” he added.
In April, and in the midst of war with Iran, the Trump
administration, citing attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel by Iraqi
militias, froze transfers of oil revenue Iraq had expected. The funds
are held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Seeing an opportunity, the administration also lobbied the
Iraqi parliament to prevent the selection of Nouri al-Maliki as the new
prime minister. Al-Maliki previously served in the role from 2006 to 2014, but resigned after Iraq’s military suffered devastating early defeats against the Islamic State.
Shortly before leaving office, al-Maliki formalized the
role of a group of Shia Muslim militias that make up the Popular
Mobilization Forces (PMF). Many of these groups remain closely tied with
Iran, which has used them to exert influence over Baghdad ever since.
Members of the PMF, including Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat
Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, are U.S.-designated terrorist
organizations and have targeted U.S. diplomatic staff, military
personnel, and allies. As of March of this year, the Secretary of State
has identified 94 entities as terrorist organizations.
For the Trump administration, a return by Maliki to power
was unacceptable. Under pressure after the U.S. withheld oil revenue,
the Shia Coordination Framework – the coalition of Shiite political
leaders that wields significant influence in Baghdad – backed al-Zaidi
to take the post instead.
Disbanding the Iran-backed militias
Since taking office on May 16, Zaidi moved quickly to bring
Iran-backed militias under greater state control before his Washington
visit. This has been a central demand of the Trump administration, which
had grown frustrated with what it viewed as delays by the previous
Iraqi government.
Earlier this year, al-Zaidi issued an order to begin folding the various militias into the official command hierarchy
of the Iraqi military. The plan received buy-in from PMF chief Faleh
al-Fayyadh, who said in June that a new committee had been formed to
achieve the “complete disengagement” of the militias from any other
Iraqi political entities.
Al-Zaidi has set a Sept. 30 deadline for the process.
“After the 30th of September we will never accept any entity to carry
weapons outside the authority of the state,” al-Zaidi told reporters and
President Trump on Tuesday. So far, the Saraya al-Salam militia
affiliated with populist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, along with Asaib
Ahl al-Haq and Kataib al-Imam Ali, have agreed to the initiative.
However, two holdout militias, Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat
Hezbollah al-Nujaba, that maintain the closest ties to Iran are still,
so far, resisting the state’s efforts, making the road ahead uncertain.
Paired with al-Zaidi’s deadline to disarm the independent
militias, President Trump says that the United States plans to withdraw
the last remaining U.S. forces stationed in Iraq by the same Sept. 30
deadline.
"Well, we don't think we need the military there anymore,"
Trump said in his Oval Office meeting with al-Zaidi. A drawdown in U.S.
military forces began last September
pursuant to an earlier 2024 agreement between Washington and Baghdad.
At that time, only 2,500 U.S. troops remained in the country, down from a
peak of about 170,000 in 2007 during the Iraq war.
Al-Zaidi also launched an anti-corruption campaign,
dubbed “Operation Dawn Strike” which targeted those accused of
embezzling state funds. The crackdown was also reportedly aimed at
cutting ties between Iran-aligned figures and the Iraqi state, according
to the Arabic language news outlet Asharq Al-Awsat.
Boosting oil investments
Al-Zaidi stressed that the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq would not mark the end of the two countries’ partnership.
"The 30th of September, the U.S. forces would be out of
Iraq. While U.S. companies will be inside Iraq,” the Iraqi prime
minister said in the Oval Office.
Since al-Zaidi took power in April, his government has
already agreed to contracts with American energy companies to invest in
the country’s hydrocarbon sector. Last week, Halliburton secured a contract
from Iraq’s state-owned oil company, Basra, to develop the Bin Umar and
Sindbad oil fields, boosting the country’s crude oil output.
Earlier this month, the Iraqi government authorized Basra Oil Company to sign a preliminary agreement with American companies
Capital TI and Chevron to explore oil export pipeline projects. “The
oil companies are all going in now, and they’re doing partnerships with
Iraq, and they’re getting along very well,” President Trump said on
Tuesday.
Just the News reported in June that al-Zaidi has made it a priority
to provide security guarantees for U.S. and other international energy
projects as well as to protect the Kurdistan Regional Government, a
semi-autonomous region in northeast Iraq, so that oil exports can resume
there. The initiative is aimed at restoring production and exports from
Kurdistan through the Iraq-Turkey pipeline after the conflict with Iran
effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, sharply reducing Iraqi oil
revenues.
The Trump administration is also pursuing a new pipeline that would transport oil from Iraq to Syria as another means of bypassing the strategic waterway.
The Iraqi government also promised to compensate
international and U.S. companies for any losses resulting from attacks
on their facilities if those attacks originated within Iraq, according
to correspondence reviewed by Just the News last month ahead of al-Zaidi’s visit to Washington, D.C.
The Kurds are a valiant
people who have repeatedly stood by the West. This was evident in the
role of the Peshmerga in the fight against the Islamic State. Whenever
they were called upon, they answered. Then, every time the crisis had
passed, they were abandoned again to their fate.
In that respect, Trump is doing nothing different from his predecessors: no one cares about the Kurds unless they are needed.
Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) has called Iran "a 47-year-old war
crime." Those who invoke international law to denounce the ongoing war
against the regime of the mullahs are, in fact, pleading for the
survival of a regime that has crushed its people for 47 years.
International law, a noble concept in itself, is today being
perverted — serving as a shield for some of the worst executioners on
the planet. Have the West's useful idiots of the Islamic Republic of
Iran already forgotten the tens of thousands of unarmed Iranian citizens
massacred by their own horrific government in just two days, on January
8 and 9?
When one looks at the composition of the Board of Peace — with
countries such as Turkey or Qatar — one thinks: this is not off to a
good start. The risk is that it will reproduce the same problems as
before.
If tomorrow the "Board of Peace" shifts to a system in which each
country has equal weight, why would the whole operation not fall back
into the same structural bias as the UN — the one that favors
dictatorships and authoritarian regimes?
Sadly, this "Board of Peace" does not seem to solve the
underlying problem we face at the UN: it risks merely shifting it
elsewhere without correcting it.
When you see Jewish graves desecrated, Jewish artists,
intellectuals, athletes and businesses boycotted, incitement to violence
against Jews, demonstrations where thousands chant for the destruction
of the Jewish state or glorify the "martyrs" Sinwar and Nasrallah — and
where leading political figures join these marches — you realize there
is a serious problem in my country....
No one has said: "From now on, baptisms must be performed by
lifeguards," or "this sacrament should be taken away from priests." It
is easy to see how absurd this would be.
What this dispute actually highlights is the disproportionate response of the Belgian judicial system when it comes to Jews.
[W]hen it comes to antisemitism — explicit, documented,
undeniable — the response is most often inadequate or nonexistent. On
October 7, 2024, exactly one year after the October 7 jihad,
pro-Palestinian demonstration took place in Brussels, in the heart of
the capital. From the stage, a speaker intoned in Arabic: "O Allah, burn
the Jews" — and the crowd responded in unison, "Ameen." We filed a
complaint with the Brussels public prosecutor's office, together with
video evidence. To this day, there has been no response—not even an
acknowledgment of receipt.
One can discuss complex and nuanced cases, where intention and
context may be debated. But when statements are as explicit as "Jews
forbidden," "Burn the Jews," "I feel like plunging a knife into the
throat of every Jew," or "Jews are real psychopaths, serial killers," a
judge—even a novice—should, without question, condemn such remarks as
violations of Belgium's 1981 law against racism and xenophobia.
That is where the contrast becomes unacceptable: a complaint
filed by an alleged antisemite triggers an investigation, while
antisemitic acts and statements themselves go unpunished.
We are not in 1933. But there are echoes that recall the darker
chapters of history: antisemitic agitation in the streets, attacks on
religious practices, physical assaults on Jews, political and media
incitement, boycotts of Jewish figures and businesses, the need for Jews
to conceal their identity, and the failure of the justice system to
protect them.
"International law, a noble concept in itself, is today
being perverted — serving as a shield for some of the worst executioners
on the planet. Have the West's useful idiots of the Islamic Republic of
Iran already forgotten the tens of thousands of unarmed Iranian
citizens massacred by their own horrific government in just two days, on
January 8 and 9?" — Joël Rubinfeld. Pictured: Rubinfeld (center) at a
march against antisemitism in Brussels on December 10, 2023. (Photo by
Simon Wohlfahrt/AFP via Getty Images)
Joël Rubinfeld is a founding member and president of the Belgian
League Against Antisemitism and president of the Jewish Coalition for
Kurdistan. He was president of the Coordinating Committee of Jewish
Organizations in Belgium, vice-president of the European Jewish
Congress, and co-chairman of the European Jewish Parliament.
Read Part II: 'There Is a Serious Problem in My Country'
Canlorbe: In your view, is Trump's Board of Peace a viable
alternative to the UN, one that could also put an end to the unfair,
demonizing treatment of Israel?
Rubinfeld: When I look at the composition of the "Board of Peace," I am skeptical.
What is paradoxical is that the founding idea of the UN is
fascinating: to bring everyone to the table and try to resolve conflicts
through diplomacy. In principle, it is even admirable and carried
promise.
In practice, however, the UN has become something quite different.
Charles de Gaulle called it "the thingamajig"; I would add: "the
antisemitic thingamajig." Today, the UN serves as the world's leading
international sounding-board for contemporary antisemitism.
Why? Because the balance of power works against the ideal.
Take the example of the General Assembly. Of its 193 member states, a
majority are dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Although the
General Assembly does not "make" law in the strict sense—its resolutions
are not binding—it still gives a sense of the overall climate: one of
structural hostility toward the Jewish state. As Abba Eban, Israel's
foreign minister at the time, remarked
in the 1970s: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the
earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote
of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."
To return to the Board of Peace: in principle, yes, the idea is
appealing. President Trump has said that he is not trying to replace the
UN -- and most likely he is not, as that would completely abandon it to
the dictatorships. He may be trying to make peace among countries that
have a history of hostilities with both Israel and one another.
President Trump, however, may be making a fundamental mistake. He may
believe that most people can be made into an ally through doing
business. He does not seem to appreciate that this may not be true for
countries that place religion as a priority, especially if they already
have enough money through oil or are bent on global conquest, such as
China
When one looks at the composition of the "Board of Peace"—with
countries such as Turkey or Qatar—one thinks: this is not off to a good
start. The risk is that it will reproduce the same problems as before.
Now there is a boss—Trump—steering the whole thing. Fair enough. But he
may not be involved forever. What happens after that?
If tomorrow the "Board of Peace" shifts to a system in which each
country has equal weight, why would the whole operation not fall back
into the same structural bias as the UN—the one that favors
dictatorships and authoritarian regimes?
Sadly, this "Board of Peace" does not seem to solve the underlying
problem we face at the UN: it risks merely shifting it elsewhere without
correcting it.
Canlorbe: How do you assess American policy regarding Kurdistan, the UN and Palestinians?
Rubinfeld: Since the Lausanne Conference in 1923, nations have
betrayed the Kurds again and again. The result is that the Kurdish
people—the largest stateless people in the world—now number some 40
million, strangers on their own land. Yet despite being fragmented
across four countries—Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran—they remain one
people, with a shared history, culture, and identity.
What strikes me is the contrast with the Palestinian cause, which
mobilizes international opinion so feverishly. The Kurds have existed as
a people since time immemorial, yet their legitimate aspiration to
self-determination attracts virtually no attention and the free world
remains unmoved.
The Kurds are a valiant people who have repeatedly stood by the West.
This was evident in the role of the Peshmerga in the fight against the
Islamic State. Whenever they were called upon, they answered. Then,
every time the crisis had passed, they were abandoned again to their
fate.
In that respect, Trump is doing nothing different from his predecessors: no one cares about the Kurds unless they are needed.
Take the example of the 2017 referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan: 92.7% of
voters cast their ballots in favor of independence. Yet only one country
publicly backed the result: Israel. In Erbil, Israeli flags could be
seen in the streets—not burned but proudly waved. In the eyes of many
Kurds, Israel embodies what they aspire to become: people, against all
odds, who are finally masters of their own destiny.
I hope that one day the dream of a free Kurdistan will come true. If
it does, it will not emerge by consensus, but probably in the wake of
regional chaos.
In the meantime, since the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the
Kurds have been paying the price of the international community's broken
promises for more than a century.
Canlorbe: Should the U.S.-Israel military operation have been
carried out with a view to liberating Iran? Would such a goal be
beneficial for Iran, for Israel, and more generally for the world?
Rubinfeld: For 47 years, since the Khomeinist Islamic
Revolution of 1979, Iran has been the main destabilizing factor in the
region—particularly in terms of support for terrorism. It is this regime
that established the "Shiite crescent" to surround Israel and that the
mullahs called the "Axis of Resistance": a constellation of militias and
terrorist groups used by Iran as proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar
al-Assad's regime in Syria, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in
Yemen, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Already
in 1979, Khomeini was calling for "Death to Israel," the "Little Satan,"
and "Death to America," the "Great Satan."
Under the Iranian presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called Israel a "dead fish" and a "stinking corpse" to be "wiped"
off the map, the regime became known for an even more rabid
antisemitism. The international conference he organized in Tehran in
2006 brought together leading Holocaust deniers, including Robert
Faurisson and David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. At
official gatherings and during Friday prayers, "Death to Israel" and
"Death to America" are still routinely chanted (here,here and here). Iran's late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that "'Death to America' is not a slogan, it is a policy."
Apart from words, there are means. Iran has been seeking to develop
nuclear weapons for more than 40 years. A signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran claims to be pursuing nuclear power for
civilian purposes, but the level of enrichment, and the recent admission
to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff that Iran had enough enriched uranium
for 11 nuclear bombs, inside of two weeks, tell a very different story.
For civilian use, uranium enrichment is typically around 4%. Yet IAEA
data and statements by the Iranian regime point to a current stockpile
of more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. When the US negotiators repeatedly offered (here and here)
to supply Iran with all the energy it would need for civilian use
long-term and cost-free, Iran repeatedly declined. One would have to be
incredibly naive to believe that Iran is not seeking to build nuclear
weapons.
The joint Israeli-American military intervention was therefore
necessary. It is a response to a genuine immediate existential
threat—two weeks to a nuclear breakout are a clear and present danger.
The Iranian population, massacred by the thousands—more than 40,000 in January alone—aspires to free itself from a regime that has ruthlessly oppressed it for nearly half a century. In Iran, it is crucial to note, the people are not the same as the regime. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) has called
Iran a "47-year-old war crime." Those who invoke international law to
denounce the ongoing war against the regime of the mullahs are, in fact,
pleading for the survival of a regime that has crushed its people for
47 years.
International law, a noble concept in itself, is today being
perverted—serving as a shield for some of the worst executioners on the
planet. Have the West's useful idiots of the Islamic Republic of Iran
already forgotten the tens of thousands of unarmed Iranian citizens massacred by their own horrific
government in just two days, on January 8 and 9? Men such as Spain's
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, French politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and,
in Belgium, Paul Magnette and Raoul Hedebouw belong to that old
political tradition of moralizers whom history invariably consigns to
oblivion.
There is another, deeper dimension: the relationship between the
Jewish people and the Persian people, rooted in their histories.
We must go back 2,500 years -- to the conquest of the Kingdom of
Judah by the Babylonians and the exile that followed. Persia defeated
Babylon and allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild
their Temple in Jerusalem, which had been destroyed fifty years earlier
during the invasion. That memory has created a historical debt.
The names chosen by Israel for its military operations, both in last
June's strikes and in the current war, the "lion" is given pride of
place —"Operation Rising Lion" and "Operation Roaring Lion" – means of
course the Lion of Judah, the emblem of one of the twelve tribes of
Israel. The lion, however, is also a central symbol of the Persian
people. It appeared on Iran's flag before being replaced after
Khomeini's rise to power. It is precisely this historic emblem—the Lion
and Sun—that is now being waved in the streets of Iran, as well as at
gatherings of the Iranian diaspora—where Israeli and American flags can
also be seen flying.
This sequence therefore transcends a mere military operation. It
combines the urgency of the present—neutralizing the nuclear threat—with
the echo of a 2,500-year-old bond.
One of the major differences with the Iraq War is that, here, there
exists a credible alternative to the regime in place: Reza Pahlavi. His
name is chanted in the streets of Iran. In Los Angeles, New York,
London, Berlin, Paris, Brussels, and elsewhere, the same symbols recur:
portraits of Reza Pahlavi and the "Lion and Sun" emblem.
Imagine the day the regime falls: Reza Pahlavi lands in Tehran on an
American plane—echoing Khomeini's arrival there, 47 years earlier, on an
Air France flight. The closing shot: Donald Trump and Benjamin
Netanyahu in Tehran, presiding over the reopening of the U.S. embassy
and the inauguration of Israel's.
Yet the recent developments in the US–Israel–Iran war suggest that such an outcome is becoming increasingly distant.
Canlorbe: On February 16, the American ambassador to Belgium,
Bill White, raised the issue of antisemitism in Belgium and denounced
the prosecutions brought against two mohels from Antwerp, accused of
performing circumcisions without being doctors. In your view, was the
ambassador acting within his proper role?
Rubinfeld: What he said—even if it did not conform to
diplomatic standards—was fully legitimate. It may not be enough to solve
the problem, but at least Bill White had the moral clarity to name it.
People speak of "interference," but sometimes the absence of
interference amounts to a moral failure.
When you see Jewish graves desecrated, Jewish artists, intellectuals,
athletes and businesses boycotted, incitement to violence against Jews,
demonstrations where thousands chant for the destruction of the Jewish
state or glorify the "martyrs" Sinwar and Nasrallah—and where leading
political figures join these marches—you realize there is a serious
problem in my country: a country where increasing numbers of Jews
conceal their Star of David, remove mezuzahs from their doorways, hide
their kippahs beneath hats, and change their names on apps such as Uber
and on social media.
Let us return to the case of the circumcisers. In May 2025, Belgian
police carried out raids on Jewish homes in Antwerp, targeting two
rabbis who perform ritual circumcision. In Judaism, male circumcision is
performed on the eighth day by a mohel, a practitioner rigorously
trained in this three-thousand-year-old tradition. The reality is that
circumcision performed by a mohel is the safest way to carry out the
procedure—King Charles III, who was circumcised by Jacob Snowman, then
the mohel to the British royal family, is a case in point.
In Belgium, to the best of my knowledge, there have never been any
accidents during circumcisions performed by a mohel. The problem lies
elsewhere—with the man who filed the complaint against them and branded
them "butchers": the "rabbi" Moshe Friedman.
Friedman belongs to an ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect, the Neturei Karta,
known for its radical anti-Zionism. For them, the State of Israel is an
"imposture" that must be wiped off the map, as the restoration of the
Jewish people to the Promised Land should be the work of the Messiah,
not man—whether Theodor Herzl or David Ben-Gurion.
In 2006, Friedman took part in the Holocaust denial conference organized in Tehran. At that conference, he challenged the figure of six million Jewish victims, reducing it, falsely, to "about one million."
There are such things as Jewish antisemites – such as "rabbis" who
claim that circumcisions performed by mohels have led to death or severe
complications, the public tends to take such claims at face value —
unaware that they are being deceived by closet antisemites.
A quick computer search
turns up several cases of drowning deaths after the baptism of
Christian children or adults — in the United States, Romania, Moldova,
South Africa, and elsewhere. These are tragedies, but they have not
called into question the practice of a two-thousand-year-old rite. No
one has said: "From now on, baptisms must be performed by lifeguards,"
or "this sacrament should be taken away from priests." It is easy to see
how absurd this would be.
What this dispute actually highlights is the disproportionate response of the Belgian judicial system when it comes to Jews.
On one side, on the basis of a complaint filed by an alleged
antisemite, the judicial apparatus is set in motion: searches, the
seizure of equipment, and a request for a list of children circumcised
in recent years. One must fully grasp the repercussions of that act: the
judicial authorities demand a list of Jewish children.
On the other side, when it comes to antisemitism — explicit,
documented, undeniable — the response is most often inadequate or
nonexistent. On October 7, 2024, exactly one year after the October 7
jihad, pro-Palestinian demonstration took place in Brussels, in the
heart of the capital. From the stage, a speaker intoned in Arabic:
"O Allah, burn the Jews" — and the crowd responded in unison, "Ameen."
We filed a complaint with the Brussels public prosecutor's office,
together with video evidence. To this day, there has been no response —
not even an acknowledgment of receipt.
The absurd epilogue to this story is that, after denouncing these
facts on Belgian and French television, I was summoned by the police
after a complaint lodged by the organizer of that demonstration, who
accused me of endangering him by describing the event as antisemitic.
Another time, a restaurateur put up a sign in his window reading:
"Dogs welcome, Jews forbidden." The violation of Belgian anti-racism law
is pretty clear-cut. Yet the Liège public prosecutor's office proposed
mediation — which we refused — and then dropped the case two years
later. In yet another case, a columnist at one of the country's leading
Flemish weeklies wrote that he "felt like plunging a knife into the
throat of every Jew [he] meets in the street." A complaint was filed,
followed by an acquittal by the Ghent court. In still another case, when
the leader of a political party made openly antisemitic remarks and
defended Hamas, the complaint was dismissed by the Brussels public
prosecutor's office.
One can discuss complex and nuanced cases, where intention and
context may be debated. But when statements are as explicit as "Jews
forbidden," "Burn the Jews," "I feel like plunging a knife into the
throat of every Jew," or "Jews are real psychopaths, serial killers," a
judge — even a novice — should, without question, condemn such remarks
as violations of Belgium's 1981 law against racism and xenophobia.
That is where the contrast becomes unacceptable: a complaint filed by
an antisemite triggers an investigation, while antisemitic acts and
statements themselves go unpunished.
We are not in 1933. But there are echoes that recall the darker
chapters of history: antisemitic agitation in the streets, attacks on
religious practices, physical assaults on Jews, political and media
incitement, boycotts of Jewish figures and businesses, the need for Jews to conceal their identity, and the failure of the justice system to protect them.
For all these reasons, I thank Ambassador White for shaking things
up. This will not solve the problem of antisemitism in Belgium, but he
deserves credit for bringing the issue into the spotlight.
In the Western world, over the past 25 years, only two countries have
drawn millions into the streets to burn their flags and vilify them:
Israel and the United States.
Ironically, that part of Western public opinion — the part that takes
to the streets — echoes the very same themes as the Iranian regime:
"Down with the Little Satan and the Great Satan."
When I see people joining the pack, it seems sad that the concept of
"self-hatred," which one finds among certain Jews and Westerners, does
not spare youths either — youths who may well end up in a "socialist"
country that strips them of the liberties they appear to take so for
granted.
This Marxist and Islamist indoctrination calls into question the future of Western civilization. As the author Jaime Semprun noted,
"When the eco-citizen claims to raise the most disturbing question by
asking 'What world are we going to leave to our children?' he avoids
asking the other, truly disturbing question: 'To what children are we
going to leave the world?'"
Grégoire Canlorbe, a journalist, currently lives in
Paris. He has conducted interviews for journals such as Man and the
Economy, founded by Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase, and
think tanks such as Mises Institute and Gatestone Institute. Contact: gregoire.canlorbe@wanadoo.fr
It’s only a matter of time before we see the use of the latest drone technology against targets in the United States.
An unjammable fiber-optic kamikaze drone—a drone you fly directly
into a target to kill it—was recently discovered in a cartel compound,
500 miles from the U.S. border. You probably won’t have heard about
this, but it’s big news. Or it should be.
It’s yet another indication of how closely drug gangs are coming to
resemble state or quasi-state actors, not just in the territories they
control and administer but also in the threat they pose to real states,
including the United States. The classic definition of the state,
derived from sociologist Max Weber, is an entity that monopolizes
violence within a set of given borders. And while the cartels have been
using military-grade equipment like .50-caliber machine guns and
rocket-propelled grenades for some time, their determined attempts to
acquire the latest drone capabilities reveal a greater ambition: to
achieve technological and tactical parity with second- and maybe even
first-tier nations.
The kamikaze drone in question was discovered by accident
when the Mexican military searched a property in Dolores del Río. The
authorities had been alerted to possible criminal activity at the
address, and when they arrived, they discovered the usual
paraphernalia—bombs, guns, ammunition—associated with cartel violence.
But they also discovered a weapon that, until now, has been entirely
confined to warzones and to one warzone in particular.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that South American drug cartels and
paramilitaries have been paying close attention to Ukraine, where drones
are revolutionizing warfare in a way that even a hobbyist with a 3D
printer and a chip on his shoulder can replicate. Cheap, mass-producible
weapons can be used to destroy tanks and other equipment worth tens of
millions of dollars; to eliminate entire squads of soldiers
single-handedly, on the battlefield or before they even arrive on it, as
they sit huddled in the back of an armored personnel carrier; to
assassinate important military and civilian leaders; or to strike deep
behind enemy lines, crippling vital military, energy, and communications
infrastructure.
We see evidence of the brutal effectiveness of drones, often from
their direct perspective (“FPV” or “first-person view”), in videos on
social media every day. As much as anything else, these videos serve as
propaganda and statements of intent: to show Ukraine is still very much
in the fight and that nobody and nowhere is safe from a technology that
continues to evolve at a frightening pace.
In the early stages of the war, which began in the spring of 2022,
drones weren’t that important, but as the war has progressed—it’s now
been going on for longer than World War I—the drone has become its
signature weapon and especially that of the battered but unbowed
underdog.
Ukraine is producing millions of drones annually. The target for 2026
is between 5 million and 7 million. It’s estimated that around 9,000
are deployed a day for short-range missions over the battlefield zone
but also, increasingly, for long-range strikes far beyond Russia’s
western borders. New one-way drones—drones that aren’t intended to
return to sender—can travel up to 2,000 kilometers, which puts targets
in Siberia, including air bases that house Russia’s nuclear bombers,
well within their range. In June of 2026, drones conducted close to
2,400 deep-strike missions in Russia.
President Zelenskyy’s latest “influence operation” to bring Vladimir
Putin to the negotiating table within 40 days is built on targeted drone
strikes against critical infrastructure that previously were
off-limits, either for fear of escalation or because Ukraine lacked the
ability to hit them.
The strategy appears to be working. There are fuel shortages in
Russia and widespread popular anger as Russians discover that their
strongman leader can no longer do what every strongman leader must: keep
his own people safe.
In the crucible of war—perhaps the ultimate testing ground and
incubator of rapid innovation—the drone continues to adapt. Wireless
technology, for example, has given way to wiring—miles and miles of
fiber-optic cable in a spool on the back of the drone—so that it can’t
be jammed by electronic countermeasures. The Ukrainians are also
integrating AI targeting, allowing drones greater autonomy on the
battlefield and deploying them in massed “swarms” that are almost
impossible to eliminate before they hit their target.
The cartels haven’t just been watching from afar, mouths agape, like you or I. In July 2025, it was reported
that cartel soldiers were being sent to Ukraine to join the
“international brigades” of foreign volunteers specifically so they
could learn the very latest techniques in drone warfare. Ukraine may
very well be the only country whose military offers a comprehensive
training curriculum in every aspect of drone warfare, from their
deployment to piloting and “real-time battlefield coordination.”
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU)
launched a joint investigation with military intelligence after Mexico’s
National Intelligence Center warned in early summer that Mexican
volunteers had joined Ukraine’s foreign fighter units specifically to
acquire first-person view drone capabilities. The probe has since
expanded to include Colombian nationals, raising concerns about
Ukraine’s inadvertent role as a training ground for transnational
criminal organizations…
The investigation centers on several
Spanish-speaking units within the International Legion, particularly the
tactical group ‘Ethos,’ operating in the Donetsk and Kharkiv regions.
Ukrainian investigators reportedly suspect that some Mexican and
Colombian volunteers intentionally sought placement in drone operator
units to later use this training in the service of foreign criminal
organizations.
One noteworthy case is that of a Mexican
national operating under the alias ‘Águila-7,’ who registered in March
2024 using fraudulent Salvadoran documentation. Posing as a humanitarian
volunteer, he completed comprehensive drone training in Lviv while
demonstrating exceptional technical expertise that eventually had
instructors suspicious.
Águila-7 demonstrated “extensive technical knowledge,” including
familiarity with “electronic warfare countermeasures and thermal
detection avoidance.” Background checks suggested he had been a member
of Mexico’s Cuerpo de Fuerzas Especiales (GAFE) special forces, many of
whom end up working for the cartels, which offer much better pay and
regular bloody work.
Members of Colombia’s Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia
(FARC) guerrillas were also discovered among the international brigades.
They had apparently traveled to Ukraine with forged Panamanian and
Venezuelan papers. Further investigation revealed a sophisticated
pan-Latin American operation, where private security firms obtained fake
papers and coordinated the “placement,” via front companies, of cartel
and guerrilla operatives in Ukraine.
We welcome volunteers in good faith. But
we must now recognize that Ukraine has become a platform for the global
dissemination of FPV tactics. Some come here to learn how to kill with a
$400 drone, then sell this knowledge elsewhere to the highest bidder.
Cartels are using drones
against their enemies on an almost daily basis. In 2023, there were at
least 260 attacks with explosive drones, and their sophistication has
been increasing. A year later, the cartels used explosive drones to
launch an ambush that was followed by a traditional infantry-style
attack in a remote part of the country. Soldiers and police, as well as
other cartels, are now regular targets for drones. A recent attack in
Chihuahua saw two soldiers and a policeman sent to the hospital.
The United States is only slowly waking up to the danger right on its border. In 2024, Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot testified that over 1,000 drones cross into the United States from Mexico every month.
“I don’t know the actual number—I don’t think anybody does—but it’s in the thousands,” Guillot told lawmakers.
“We… probably have over 1,000 a month.”
Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been a dependable voice of alarm. He spoke to CBS
at the end of last year and warned that the threat from drones to
military sites and civilian events is “severe and growing.” He cited
hundreds of unauthorized drone flights over military installations and
data that showed over 27,000 drones were detected within 500 meters of
the U.S. southern border in the last six months of 2024.
Rules and regulations are a key problem, Sen. Cotton noted, with
military installations lacking the authorization to deploy anti-drone
countermeasures. Perhaps as few as half of all military installations in
the United States are allowed to intercept drones. Civil authorities
are in a much worse position. They generally can’t do anything to
detect, track, or intercept drones flying close to stadiums and even
airports.
It’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see the use of the
latest drone technology against targets in the United States, either on
the border or deeper inside the country. President Trump has made no
secret of his desire to destroy the Mexican cartels, a promise he made
on the campaign trail in 2024. Since returning to office, Trump has
designated six Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations; applied
sanctions and financial pressure to them; used the threat of tariffs to
push Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum—who has faced credible
accusations, like her predecessor AMLO, of being in the cartels’
pocket—to take action against them, which included the recent killing of
cartel bigwig “El Mencho”; and militarized the entire southern border
with tens of thousands of troops and heavy equipment. President Trump
has also threatened military action across the border, which would
obviously be a huge escalation, but it’s entirely possible we could see a
“Sicario”-type situation involving special forces in the near future.
There are few red-blooded Americans who wouldn’t like to see that
happen.
What President Trump has done has already caused the cartels great
discomfort. Just the impact on the profits of human trafficking, as
important to the cartels as their traditional powdered offerings, is
difficult to overstate. In the Biden boom days, bringing people across
the southern border was worth as much as $13 billion a year to the
cartels. Now it’s worth nothing, or might as well be.
The threat of violence is no reason not to take on groups whose
raison d’être is violence and misery. But we’ve seen, with Israel’s
latest incursion into Lebanon, what it looks like for a powerful
military to ignore the lessons of Ukraine when confronting a determined,
well-armed paramilitary group that has been paying attention. It’s not
pretty. The cartels are every bit as powerful as Hamas, every bit as
well-equipped and battle-hardened. It may not be long before we get a
drone’s-eye view, visible from the homepage of X, on a new battlefield
very much closer to home.
Photo: CENTRAL, UKRAINE - JULY 7: The P1-SUN
Long Interceptor Drone is seen flying during a live demonstration on
July 7, 2026 in Central Ukraine. Ukrainian defense technology company
SkyFall has launched the P1-SUN Long Interceptor Drone, which uses an AI
module to autonomously detect, track, and pursue drones, such as the
Shaheed-type UAV. According to the company, the First-Person View (FPV)
drone interceptor has already allowed Ukrainian Defense Forces to
destroy Russian drones, extending the range of an earlier model from
15-23 km to a maximum range of 33 km. (Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty
Images)
Raw Egg Nationalist is Dr. Charles Cornish-Dale, an Oxford- and Cambridge-educated historian
and anthropologist. He rose to prominence as “Raw Egg Nationalist.” He has a
large social media following, is a bestselling author, has appeared on
national television, and has influenced debates on health, fitness,
politics, and culture. His latest book is 'The Last Men: Liberalism and
the Death of Masculinity.'
There is a moronic but popular sports-talk radio host in the Twin
Cities, Dan Barreiro, who uses a quote from Sarah Palin as part of the
lead-in to his weekly Wednesday segment with local “political wonk” Pat
Kessler, a long-time lefty who has worked for WCCO for decades.
Barreiro, who considers himself the very soul of moderation, employs
the quote to mock Palin, as if her quote was demonstrably false, indeed
preposterous.
Palin’s quote? “I wish the American media would take a great look at
the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or
anti-America.”
The off-puttingly smug host of the “Bumper to Bumper” show apparently
has no idea that a great number of today’s Democrats, “progressives,”
and Democratic Socialists of America, including some in Congress, have
repeatedly stated their disdain for the U.S., and have openly shared
their desire for violent revolution and the utter destruction of the
American “imperialist empire.”
Take, for example, repulsive Rep. Rashida Tlaib,
who recently spoke at something called the 'People's Conference for
Palestine.’ (Note to Barreiro: “Rep.” means she is in Congress.)
Tlaib stated: "Look at this room, motherf***ers, we ain't going
anywhere! The political structures that I have to work in, that we all
are surrounded by, was built on slavery, and genocide, and rape, and
oppression. Real change doesn't come from the cowards and warmongers in
Congress, it comes from the streets. It comes from all of us mobilizing
and seizing the power to resist and fight back."
She seems nice.
She added, "Gaza is the compass in this country,“ and, chillingly,
“Now we're in Congress and we're in every corner of the United States."
Tlaib apparently believes Jan. 6 was a dark day indeed, but the Oct. 7
torture and slaughter of more than a thousand men, women, and children
was a day of celebration and the way forward.
It is no longer enough for Democrats to try to “fundamentally
transform” the (formerly) United States, something one wouldn’t do if
one respected and appreciated it. Now, the cool kids in the DSA want to
destroy it. The DSA’s platform
endorses “scrapping the U.S. Senate, ‘abolishing the carceral forces of
the capitalist state,’ defunding the police and Department of War, open
borders forever, amnesty for each and every illegal immigrant, and
replacing the president and Supreme Court.
Of course, what and who they really want to replace is you, the
patriotic middle-class voter in “fly-over country.” That their policies
would necessarily destroy you as citizens is a feature, not a bug.
Their goal is the same as that of every Marxist/Communist tyrant that
has ever lived: complete control of you and eternal power for
themselves. The Founders knew this. That is why the left demonizes and
despises them … and why they try so hard to get you and I to do so, as
well.
But the Founders studied all of history and embarked on a nearly
impossible journey to grant us a limited government of, by, and for, the
people. Against all odds, they succeeded, and we were bequeathed
documents meant to forever enshrine our “unalienable” rights, granted to
us by our Creator. (By the way, these documents made it a virtual fait accompli that
slavery would soon end in America, even as it was still practiced in
various other countries, something the American media would never tell
you.)
The Democrat party has undergone a remarkable transformation, having
been “fundamentally transformed” itself. (Emphasis on “trans.”) Whereas
it was once openly hostile and racist to blacks, it is now openly
hostile and racist to whites, Christians, heterosexuals, and patriots …
even while continuing to promote policies extremely detrimental to black
people. That is truly remarkable. Or what some people would call evil,
myself included.
In many ways, Graham Platner was the perfect modern-day face of the
Democrat party: (“alleged”) sexual abuser, communist, etc., etc. His
last reported words to election officials as he announced his decision
to exit the race? “F*ck ICE. Free Palestine. Up the hearts.”
Well, he’s not exactly John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, but whatever … right?
There are many on the left that simply do not believe in the concepts
— or existence -- of good and evil … except when it comes to demonizing
those with whom they disagree. Not for the unfettered killing of babies
for personal convenience? You are the devil. Want to make America great
again? You are Hitler. Prefer Christianity over Islam? Bigoted
Islamophobe! Like to engage in dialogue on these topics with students at
colleges? Then you deserve to die.
At this point, the pertinent question isn’t whether anyone in Congress is anti-America, but whether there are many who are truly pro-America … and for the right reasons.
For Israel, there is no real strategic or tactical need to keep up the friction with Syrian villages along the buffer zone - and a re-think may be necessary in the future.
(L-R) Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, on the backdrop of Syrian and Israeli flags
(illustrative)(photo credit: REUTERS/KHALIL ASHAWI, Yair Sagi/POOL)
US
President Donald Trump may be pressuring Israel to withdraw forces from
several areas along the border with Syria, according to Axios.
“President Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
during a phone call Thursday that Israel should start redeploying its
forces out of Syria and urged him to do the same in Lebanon, according
to US and Israeli officials,” an Axios report by Barak Ravid noted on
Tuesday.
This
leads to questions about where Israel might shift forces and what areas
are in the spotlight. To understand Israel’s current posture in Syria,
it’s worth understanding how it got here.
Israel conquered the Golan Heights
from Syria in the Six-Day War in 1967. After the Yom Kippur War in 1973
led to a ceasefire with Syria and Egypt, there was a new buffer zone
created in the Golan between Israeli and Syrian forces. This led to a
1974 ceasefire line.
The line is not a simple line. It is actually several lines, one of which is called Alpha and another called Bravo. In
2020, the IDF noted that “the Israel-Syria border consists of two lines
which are separated by a 155-square-mile buffer zone. This buffer zone
lies in Syrian territory and is monitored by the UN. To the east of it
is the Bravo Line that signifies the end of the buffer zone and the
beginning of Syria. To the west is the Alpha Line, where the UN buffer
zone ends and Israel begins.”
US
President Donald Trump shakes hands with Syrian President Ahmed
al-Sharaa during a bilateral meeting alongside the NATO leaders summit
at the Bestepe Presidential Compound in Ankara, Turkey, July 8, 2026.
(credit: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)
Israel's concerns about threats from Syria
Therefore,
we are actually talking about an area that is a long strip of land.
There are Syrians who live along this line. During the Syrian civil war,
Israel became more active along the Golan and reinforced its border
fence while also providing food and medical care to Syrians.
