Tuesday, September 15, 2026

The false narrative about post-9/11 Islamophobia legitimizes antisemitism - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

The obsession with a mythical backlash against Muslims promoted by the political left and liberal media didn’t just distort anniversary coverage. It builds sympathy for Islamist Jew-hatred.

 

9/11 Pentagon 2026
A scene near a ceremony at the Pentagon in observance of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, Sept. 11, 2026. Credit: Molly Riley/White House.

 

The 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001 has come and gone. Despite criticisms and pleas from many of the families of the victims as well as others, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani attended the ceremony held at the 9/11 Memorial Plaza in what was Ground Zero on that awful day. After days of massive attention focused on the commemoration of the attacks, the media and the political class quickly moved on to other contemporary issues and crises.

But before this moment fades into memory, it’s worth pausing and considering how understanding this historical event not only informs how the world thinks about 9/11 and its aftermath. Equally, if not more important, is the ability of mainstream liberal media, opinion leaders and politicians to shape the narrative about it, guiding discourse about today’s challenges that ought to, but often aren’t, linked to the threat the attacks represented.

Who are the true victims of 9/11?

Take, for example, the home page of The New York Times on Friday, September 11. Among its top stories were the following items: “Islamophobia Shaped a Generation of Muslim New Yorkers” and “Facing Islamophobia, Mamdani Keeps Focus on 9/11 Victims.”

As conservative commentator Ben Shapiro put it in an X post that described the feelings of many: “If you were an alien who landed on Earth this morning, and you were reading the top headlines on the NYT’s webpage, you would immediately assume that 9/11 was an attack on Muslims.”

Those stories weren’t the only ones the newspaper published that day about the anniversary, some of which discussed the actual victims of the Al-Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for the murder of the 2,977 people at the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, the Pentagon in Washington and on a field in Shanksville, Pa. Still, Shapiro’s comment aptly characterized the way so much of the country’s chattering classes prefer to think about 9/11.

They may be willing to note that the crimes committed that day were the doing of Al-Qaeda, an Islamist terror organization. But once that basic fact is acknowledged—many conspiracy theorists on the far left and far right prefer, of course, to blame the Jews for this and every other global calamity—they prefer to treat the attacks as if they were not connected to Islamist beliefs about the need for jihad against the West. Nor do they note that those ideas are supported by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide, even if some argue that a majority of the world’s 1.9 billion believers in Islam do not.

More to the point, they have continued to treat Muslims as if they were the primary victims of the 9/11 attacks because of an alleged backlash against them, which fueled the wave of Islamophobia the Times references in its articles.

The newspaper, like much of the mainstream press, treats this backlash as if it were an obvious fact that can be asserted without the need to prove it. Indeed, they have been doing that for the better part of the last two decades. But, as I first pointed out in October 2010 in Commentary magazine, the claim that American Muslims were subjected to widespread and/or systematic discrimination or violence is simply a myth. At that time, the hoax about a 9/11 backlash was used to support an effort to build a Muslim community center and mosque on the footprint of one of the buildings destroyed in the World Trade Center disaster.

The failed effort to build that center and mosque was rooted in a desire to flip the narrative about the terror attacks to focus on the sufferings of Muslims, rather than people who were murdered by Al-Qaeda or the generational war Islamists were waging against the West. While it was never built, the supporters of this project did succeed in doing something more important: They helped set the tone of media commentary about Islamophobia then and since, while downplaying the truth about Islamism.

A myth promoted by interested parties

To point this out is not to deny some examples of prejudice or increases in reported hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11. But most were anecdotal and not rooted in objective proof. Indeed, the studies often cited as backing up these claims are the works of groups funded by left-wing donors whose purpose is to depict the United States as Islamophobic. Others, like Georgetown University’s Bridge Institute, were created and funded by Qatar, the main sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

More objective studies, like FBI hate-crime statistics, point to a very different conclusion. They show a huge increase in religion-based hate crimes in the past 25 years. Its victims, however, are Jews, not Muslims. Though making up less than 2% of the American population, reported hate crimes against Jews have consistently made up the overwhelming majority of such offenses in the United States.

U.S. government officials, starting with President George W. Bush, who laughably repeatedly insisted that Islam was “a religion of peace,” bent over backwards to disassociate Al-Qaeda (and then its successors and fellow Islamists, such as ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah) from normative Muslim ideas. At the same time, American popular culture similarly generally shunned depictions of Muslim terrorists in films and TV shows or explorations of how they were inspired by their faith for fear of validating prejudice.

This dovetailed with the way progressives were imposing new doctrines about race, intersectionality and settler-colonialism on American academia during this same period. It led to a generation being indoctrinated in toxic ideas that labeled Muslims as Third World peoples who were always victims of “white” imperialism and racism, regardless of their own actions. At the same time, Jews and the State of Israel were falsely depicted as “white” oppressors who were always in the wrong, even when they were—as during the Hamas-led Palestinian-Arab terror attacks in southern Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023—the victims of atrocities, torture, rape, kidnapping and murder.

Radical doctrines v. the facts

While these radical obsessions exacerbated racial divisions in the United States, they led most of the chattering classes to assume that Americans were Islamophobic while granting a permission slip to an unprecedented surge of antisemitism, especially after Oct. 7.

But as the Times’s account of Mamdani’s plight as a victim of Islamophobia makes clear, most of what falls under the rubric of that form of prejudice is actually something very different.

If many New Yorkers and others are critical of Mamdani, it’s not because they hate Muslims. It’s because they understand that he is someone who has dedicated his career to supporting Islamists and seeking the destruction of the only Jewish state on the planet. The same applies to other supposed contemporary victims of Islamophobia, like Michigan Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed.

Indeed, the organization most often cited by liberal media sources as the authority on Islamophobia—the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—was founded as a front group for fundraisers for Hamas and is guilty of spreading Jew-hatred. The majority of what CAIR labels as “Islamophobia” is nothing more than noting prejudice against Jews and examples of antipathy for Western civilization that emanates from the Muslim community.

And far from such views being relegated to the margins where hate groups dwell, they have been mainstreamed by the corporate press, as well as the former Biden administration, which created a “National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate” by following CAIR’s lead. Just as shocking was Biden’s willingness to include CAIR as a consultant in its confused and ineffective effort to counter antisemitism.

If a generation of Muslims thinks of themselves as victims, it is not because they have been subjected to a campaign of hate and violence in the United States. It’s because they have been taught—as is the case with so many others of their fellow Americans—that their country is irredeemably racist. They may deny that they are the ones spreading hate. But their widespread involvement in spreading prejudice and bigotry against Jews and Israel, or organizing pro-Hamas rallies on college campuses and in U.S. city streets after Oct. 7, cannot be denied. Yet since their prejudices have been validated by those who focus on Islamophobia while ignoring antisemitism, they continue to point to 9/11 as if they are the ones who were wronged that day and ever since.

The impulse to oppose all forms of prejudice is laudable. Yet one of the primary reasons why antisemitism is out of control in the United States is because those who spread it have largely been granted a pass for doing so because of lies about America after 9/11 and leftist doctrines about race. The belief that the Jews and Israel are inherently evil and guilty of horrible crimes like “genocide” and “apartheid” was once only believed by those who dwelled in the fever swamps of American politics on the far left and far right. But now, such blood libels are routinely given credence by publications like the Times.

By treating the backlash myth as fact and depicting Mamdani—a politician whose entire career has been dedicated to spreading blood libels against the Jewish state—as a victim of prejudice rather than a hate-monger, outlets like the Times didn’t just get the 9/11 anniversary story wrong. Sadly, it has become part of the mindset that has allowed American antisemitism to fester and go mainstream.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, available on all major audio platforms and on YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won 60-plus awards for his columns, commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/jonathan-s-tobin/the-false-narrative-about-post-9-11-islamophobia-legitimizes-antisemitism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mokha is a warning: The Houthis are coming for Bab el-Mandeb - Habtom Ghebrezghiabher

 

by Habtom Ghebrezghiabher

How Iran is turning the Red Sea’s geography, armed networks and strategic chokepoints into a regional power advantage.

 

The navigation bridge of a sunken vessel at the surface of the water in the Port of Mokha the day after an attack by the Houthis on the city of Mokha, held by Yemen's internationally recognized, Aden-based government, on Aug. 10, 2026. Photo by Khaled Ziad/AFP via Getty Images.
The navigation bridge of a sunken vessel at the surface of the water in the Port of Mokha the day after an attack by the Houthis on the city of Mokha, held by Yemen’s internationally recognized, Aden-based government, on Aug. 10, 2026. Photo by Khaled Ziad/AFP via Getty Images.

The warning was on the wall for years. The capture of Mokha, a port city on the Red Sea coast of Yemen, is the consequence. And it’s not surprising. The answer must therefore be regional, territorial and aimed at defeating the Houthi military machine and dismantling the network behind it.

The Houthi seizure of Mokha, their control of Perim Island—a piece of land inside the Bab el-Mandeb itself—and their defeat of Yemeni forces backed by Saudi Arabia are not simply another development in Yemen’s war.

It is the latest result of a strategy that allowed an Iranian-backed Islamist armed militia to transform itself from a small insurgency into a territorial and military force along Yemen’s Red Sea coast.

Iran planned this strategy and succeeded. By building the Houthi military machine, Tehran turned an allied militia into a territorial force capable of exerting power over Bab el-Mandeb. Iran now has strategic leverage over both of the region’s critical maritime chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb.

Since 2015, Saudi Arabia failed to defeat the Houthis. The 2022 Saudi Arabia-Houthi truce froze the conflict without dismantling the Houthi military structure. The years that followed gave the movement time to strengthen its forces and expand its regional network. The 2025 U.S.-Houthi ceasefire repeated the fundamental error from another direction: Military pressure was reduced without eliminating the military organization that had created the Red Sea threat.

Mokha and Perim Island give the Houthis a stronger position near Bab el-Mandeb and greater leverage over the maritime corridor linking the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden.

This is a global security problem with direct consequences for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa and Israel.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly pressed U.S. President Donald Trump for U.S. strikes against the Houthis, while Washington has so far resisted direct military intervention.

The security threat at the Red Sea extends far beyond the Houthis, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It is increasingly becoming a single strategic theater where developments on the Arabian side interact with armed networks and political instability on the African side.

Yemeni forces have reported finding Somali al-Shabaab fighters among Houthi casualties in the battle for control of Mokha. The relationship has involved transfers of technological expertise, drones, missiles and other military capabilities, while al-Shabaab fighters have participated in the Houthis’ war.

The Eritrean dictator Isaias Afwerki has long maintained a deeply anti-Israel and anti-American posture while cultivating ties with Iran and the Houthis. Remarkably, after decades of avoiding international interviews, his foreign minister, Osman Saleh, emerged publicly following the Houthi victory to defend Asmara’s position, declaring that there is “no military solution” in Yemen while attacking Israel’s presence and strategic role in the Red Sea.

Eritrea has previously provided Iran with strategic access to the Red Sea, including the presence of the Iranian military vessel Saviz in Eritrean waters while supporting Iranian operations around Yemen. Afwerki has repeatedly refused to condemn Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Thousands of Somali soldiers were trained in Eritrea before returning to Somalia, and some have reportedly joined al-Shabaab. Whether any of the fighters now appearing alongside the Houthis previously passed through Eritrean training programs is a question that should be investigated seriously.

With Iranian support and the cooperation of the Eritrean dictator, the Houthi model of asymmetric warfare and armed-network expansion is spreading across the Red Sea into Sudan.

The Houthis are consolidating military power on the Arabian side; al-Shabaab is developing links with them across the Gulf of Aden; Sudan remains vulnerable to Islamist networks and Iranian influence; and Afwerki’s Eritrea occupies the coastline directly opposite Yemen.

Hormuz pressures the Gulf. Bab el-Mandeb pressures the Red Sea. Together, they create a strategic vulnerability extending from the Persian Gulf through the Arabian Peninsula and into the Suez corridor.

The military objective must be territorial, backed by regional alliances, airpower, naval power and ground capability: Destroy the Houthi military machine and remove its ability to control strategic territory along the Red Sea.

Regional forces must provide the ground component and hold territory—that means Yemeni forces supported by countries with the capability and strategic interest to defeat the Houthis. Ethiopia and Eritrea, under a different regime, are ideal candidates for this. Horn of Africa countries are among those most directly exposed to this threat and have more at stake in Bab el-Mandeb than almost any others.

This is where Eritrea’s future becomes strategically decisive. Afwerki’s Eritrea is part of today’s problem. A post-Afwerki Eritrea could become part of tomorrow’s solution. Its coastline, military geography and proximity to Yemen and Sudan could make it a valuable partner in a future Red Sea security architecture, if its strategic orientation changes with the end of Afwerki’s rule.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have the financial capacity. The United States and NATO can provide intelligence, airpower, naval power and coordination. Israel brings intelligence and precision-strike capabilities critical to dismantling Iranian and Houthi military infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE cannot afford rivalry in Yemen and Sudan; they must align against the expanding regional network. Riyadh must stop opposing the UAE in Sudan—leaving the country open to Iran and the Eritrean dictator’s ambitions—and stop opposing Somaliland, a potentially valuable Red Sea partner. Saudi Arabia must also stop being hostile to Israel.

For Israel, this is not simply a Houthi problem. The network is replicating the Houthi model in Sudan, bringing an Iranian-aligned threat closer to Israel. The threat is no longer only to Israeli shipping or Eilat; it could put the entire country within range of missiles and drones launched from Sudan.

The Houthis’ advance toward Bab el-Mandeb is not simply a Saudi problem, even though Saudi Arabia bears responsibility for many of the strategic mistakes that allowed the Houthi threat to grow.

This is a global security problem with direct consequences for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa and Israel. They must act together to defeat the Houthi military machine and dismantle the regional network before it takes control of the Red Sea and threatens the region from both shores. 


Habtom Ghebrezghiabher, Ph.D., from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is an expert on geopolitical and security dynamics in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/habtom-ghebrezghiabher/mokha-is-a-warning-the-houthis-are-coming-for-bab-el-mandeb

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Scoop: U.S., Israeli and Arab military chiefs held secret meeting on Iran - Barak Ravid

 

by Barak Ravid

Cooperation between Israel and other countries in the region has intensified since the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain in Sept. 2020.

 

Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Navy Adm. Brad Cooper testifies during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 14, 2026.
Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Navy Adm. Brad Cooper organized a meeting in Germany for Israel and several Gulf counties to discuss the war in Iran. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Top military commanders from the U.S., Israel and several Arab countries met last week in Germany to discuss the war with Iran and broader tensions in the region, two Israeli officials told Axios.

Why it matters: The private retreat, organized by Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Adm. Brad Cooper, was not officially announced by any of the participating countries.

  • While similar meetings have taken place in the past, this was the first such gathering since the U.S. and Israel went to war with Iran more than six months ago.
  • It was a rare opportunity for military commanders from Israel and Arab Gulf countries that don't have diplomatic relations with Israel to meet and exchange views on the war.

Inside the room: In addition to Cooper, the meeting was attended by the military chiefs of staff of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt.

  • Cooper reassured the group that the U.S. military would not withdraw its forces from the region despite Iranian attacks on U.S. bases.
  • He also briefed his colleagues on the U.S. plan for expanding ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
  • An Israeli official said Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Eyal Zamir briefed the other participants on IDF operations on various fronts.
  • CENTCOM confirmed the meeting, saying in a statement that it "hosted senior military leaders from eight nations during a scheduled conference in Germany. The leaders discussed opportunities for enhancing security cooperation in the Middle East."

The big picture: Cooperation between Israel and other countries in the region has intensified since the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain in Sept. 2020.

  • Shortly afterward, Israel was moved from the European Command's area of responsibility to CENTCOM.
  • This move allowed it to cooperate militarily with Arab countries under the CENTCOM umbrella and be part of the regional security architecture, mainly when it comes to air and missile defense.
  • During the war, Israel has worked with the UAE and the U.S. on both defensive and offensive operations.
  • Israel deployed the Iron Dome missile defense system in the UAE, along with personnel to operate it, and gave the UAE real-time assistance with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), Israeli officials say.
  • Intelligence sharing between Israel and other Arab countries in the region has also increased during the war.

What to watch: The meeting took place as the Houthis escalated attacks on Saudi Arabia, making advances on the ground and taking effective control of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea.

  • A source with knowledge of the matter said Israel and Saudi Arabia — with the assistance of CENTCOM — are discussing how Israel could support Saudi military operations against the Houthis and provide ISR assistance modeled on its support for the UAE.


Barak Ravid

Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/09/15/military-commanders-us-israel-arab-countries-iran-meeting-germany

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Additional country may join Abraham Accords within six months, ambassador to UAE says - Idan Kweller

 

by Idan Kweller

The Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Yossi Shelley, said on Tuesday that a country, possibly the State of Kuwait, could join the agreements.

 

Israel's Ambassador to the UAE, Yossi Shelley.
Israel's Ambassador to the UAE, Yossi Shelley.
(photo credit: MFA)

 

Israel’s ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Yossi Shelley, said on Tuesday that another country, possibly Kuwait, could join the Abraham Accords within four to six months, he said in an interview with KAN Reshet Bet.

Several months ago, US President Donald Trump wrote in a post on the Truth social media platform that negotiations with Iran were “moving along nicely,” but stressed that from his perspective the options were “a big deal for everyone, or no deal at all.”

Trump said that if an agreement is not reached, the sides would return “to the battlefield and to shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before,” adding that “nobody wants that.”

Trump calls for broader Abraham Accords participation

Trump also referred to talks he held on Saturday with leaders from the Middle East and the Muslim world, which included Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (MBZ), Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s military chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

He said that “after the great work the United States has invested in formulating the agreement, the countries involved should sign the Abraham Accords simultaneously.”

From right to left: Eliram Azulay, Head of the Har Hevron Regional Council; Yossi Shelley, Israel's Ambassador to the UAE; Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi; Yisrael Ganz, Head of the Binyamin Regional Council and Chairman of the Yesha Council; and Omer Rahamim, CEO of the Yesha Council.
From right to left: Eliram Azulay, Head of the Har Hevron Regional Council; Yossi Shelley, Israel's Ambassador to the UAE; Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi; Yisrael Ganz, Head of the Binyamin Regional Council and Chairman of the Yesha Council; and Omer Rahamim, CEO of the Yesha Council. (credit: YESHA COUNCIL)

According to Trump, the countries that should join the agreements are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain.

Trump noted that the UAE and Bahrain are already members of the accords, and added that one or two countries may choose not to join. However, he said that most should be “ready, willing and able” to turn the arrangement with Iran into a broader historic event.

Shelly denies report of Emirati warnings before October 7

Shelley also addressed the reports that MBZ warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the October 7 massacre and denied the claims. “I was there during those days. I do not remember any warning or any discussion about it,” Shelley told KAN Reshet Bet.

“In my opinion, it passed as if it never happened. I can say something: I was also there during those days. I do not remember any warning or discussion about it. But who am I, the small person who sat in several cabinets? I never heard of this thing, not in March, not in April, not in May, and not in June,” he said when asked about the impact of these reports.

“I think any statement by the Emiratis in this area would have disrupted the issue for both sides. They said what they said, and I think that whoever reads between the lines understands what happened. So it is hard to interpret what isn't explicit. The most important thing is that we are on the rise. I see it in our relations, I see it in the visits, some of which are reported and some of which are not, because naturally our region is quite sensitive,” he added.

Against the backdrop of the six-year anniversary of the UAE joining the Abraham Accords, Shelley discussed the ups and downs in relations between Jerusalem and Abu Dhabi, saying the ties are strengthening.

“We are experiencing dramatic growth, and the bottom line is that we are true partners at the moment of truth. In the end, in the money time, who do you say will be the person you pick up the phone to and they will give you help?” he said.

Jerusalem Post Staff contributed to this report. 


Idan Kweller

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/abraham-accords/article-908691

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Pentagon claps back as Massie roles out impeachment articles - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

Massie's impeachment articles are not expected to clear the lower chamber.

 

The Pentagon came out swinging on Tuesday after Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., read articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over the prosecution of the Iran war.

Massie's articles focused on the continued involvement of U.S. forces in active fighting past the 60-day maximum, after which the White House must seek authorization from Congress. The Iran war began in late February and was subject to a nominal ceasefire for several weeks. The Trump administration previously argued that the official pause in fighting reset the clock.

After Massie's remarks on the House floor, however, the Pentagon embraced a defiant tone, with press secretary Kingsley Wilson telling reporters that “Secretary Hegseth has been a transformative leader for the Department of War. Standards and merit are back, our arsenal is stronger than ever before, and morale and recruitment across every service are at all-time highs."

"Secretary Hegseth has slashed bureaucracy, unleashed innovation, and delivered for our warfighters every step of the way," she added. "By every measurable metric, the Department of War is better under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s leadership than before. The entire Department is unified behind the Secretary’s vision and will continue working to put our warfighters and America first."

Massie's impeachment articles are not expected to clear the lower chamber.


Ben Whedon is the Chief Political Correspondent for Just the News. Follow him on X.

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/pentagon-claps-back-massie-roles-out-impeachment-articles

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Comer demands release of Ilhan Omar immigration evidence so Congress can weigh expulsion - John Solomon

 

by John Solomon

Homeland Secretary Markwayne Mullin and White House border czar Tom Homan indicate there is evidence against Omar in an immigration case.

 

The chairman of the House Oversight Committee is vowing to pursue a contempt vote against financier Leon Black for refusing testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein probe and calling on the Trump administration to release any evidence showing whether Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar broke immigration laws and should be expelled from Congress.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., made the comments Monday night after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and White House border czar Tom Homan indicated such evidence involving Omar exists and is under investigation.

“I think they should make it public. Absolutely, make it public,” Comer said during an interview on the Just the News, No Noise television show. “The evidence that I've seen would show that they would be privy to a lot more evidence than I would have. Most of the evidence I have is public already, anyway. So I think it should be made public, and I think the members of Congress should be the judge and the jury in this.

“Let us vote as to whether or not she needs to remain in Congress. If you violated the laws to become a citizen, should that make you ineligible to be a member of Congress? I think so. But put it up for a vote in Congress and let the American people see how their member of Congress would vote on that.”

Mullin revealed Thursday there is evidence that Omar, D-Minn., "married her brother" as part of an alleged immigration scheme and there is an "ongoing" investigation.

“We know that she married her brother to try to bring him to the United States,” Mullin told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, adding that Omar's ex-husband lives in London. 

Mullin explained that lying about certain things on an immigration application can result in deportation, and there's no expiration for that. 

The investigation may turn up "illegal activity," which could result in Omar being deported, Mullin suggested. He cautioned that the case is still being investigated and insisted it's not politically motivated. 

Omar became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000, when she was 17 years old, and she has vehemently denied marrying her brother. 

Homan confirmed Sunday federal officials are looking into the allegations as part of an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

“I know things are going on, but I can’t give specifics of what’s happening,” he said.

“If someone committed an immigration violation, if someone committed marriage fraud or anything like that, regardless if they’re a congressman or not, no one’s above the law. So, I’ll leave it at that. We’ll let HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, continue the investigation," he added.

Meanwhile, Comer said he is preparing to proceed with a contempt vote after Black failed to appear under subpoena for testimony in the House. 

“Look, we've issued a lawful subpoena. It was a bipartisan subpoena. It was voted on by the committee and both parties. This is a person of interest. We are not accusing him of any wrongdoing. Everyone is entitled to due process,” he said. 

“But we have some questions, not just for him, but we also have questions about potential non-disclosure agreements that he may have signed with some of these Epstein victims. So there are a lot of important questions that he needs to answer, and he defied a lawful subpoena. So the next step is to hold him in contempt,” he added.

Black, the former CEO of Apollo Global Management, is suing the committee. 

The lawsuit asks a federal court to block subpoenas that were issued as part of its investigation into Epstein.

The first subpoena compelled Mr. Black to appear for a deposition, and the second subpoena required him to produce nondisclosure agreements to the Committee.  

Black refused to appear for the deposition on Thursday, instead electing to file the lawsuit. Black's lawsuit argues the subpoenas exceed the committee's authority by seeking private information. 

“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility,” Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, said in a statement. 


John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/tuea-comer-vows-contempt-vote-epstein-witness-seeks-release-ilhan-omar

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US military has deployed a weapon in space as competition with China and Russia escalates - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink didn't elaborate on the nature of the weapon during his keynote address at the conference, but said it is "capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action."

 

The U.S. is developing advanced space weapons and a missile shield, according to Pentagon officials who spoke at a conference just outside Washington on Monday. 

The military now has a weapon in orbit around the Earth, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink announced at the Air and Space Forces Association conference in Oxon Hill, Maryland, the Washington Times reported

Meink didn't elaborate on the nature of the weapon during his keynote address at the conference, but said it is "capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action." 

The announcement suggested that the U.S. is now openly engaged in military competition in space with China and Russia. 

Meink also said that the Air Force plans to conduct the first launchpad test of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile next year. The system, whose development is led by Northrop Grumman, will replace the 50-year-old Minuteman III program.  


Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/us-military-has-deployed-weapon-space-competition-china-and-russia-escalates

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Kash Patel confirms admin working on legislation to stop 'birth tourism' - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

Patel made the remarks during an appearance before Senate lawmakers of the Judiciary Committee.

 

FBI Director Kash Patel on Tuesday confirmed that the Trump administration was working to create legislation to target "birth tourism," the practice of traveling to the U.S. to give birth and secure citizenship for newborns.

Patel made the remarks during an appearance before Senate lawmakers of the Judiciary Committee.

“We are following the federal statutes that we have on the books right now, and we’re working with our partners in Congress to draft new legislation to give us new authorities to make sure that we can combat the threat,” he said, according to Politico.

The effort follows the Supreme Court rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, finding that the children of illegal aliens hold birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.


Ben Whedon
is the Chief Political Correspondent for Just the News. Follow him on X.

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/kash-patel-confirms-admin-working-legislation-stop-birth-tourism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China's Proxy Conflicts: Is World War III Upon Us? - Gordon G. Chang

 

by Gordon G. Chang

Xi has been busy disrupting the world. "Great chaos under Heaven achieves great order under Heaven," wrote Mao Zedong in 1966

 

  • By not adopting resolute approaches, the United States and partners have allowed bad actors to bring the world closer to global conflict.

  • Xi is apparently trying to "encircle the cities from the countryside." Today, the Chinese leader considers places like Ukraine to be countryside and America the most important city.

  • Xi has been busy disrupting the world. "Great chaos under Heaven achieves great order under Heaven," wrote Mao Zedong in 1966 in a letter to his wife, Jiang Qing, referring to his goal of establishing worldwide Chinese rule. Xi, throughout this century, has been making references to the imperial era notion that Chinese leaders not only had the right to rule tianxia — "all under Heaven" — but had the obligation to do so.

  • America has to confront the Chinese state wherever the Chinese state confronts the world. Every fight — Xi Jinping is now waging proxy wars on three continents — has therefore become critical if not part of an existential struggle.

  • China and Russia have not chosen to fight the United States directly since the Korean War, but they are getting close, in both Ukraine and Iran. Both conflicts now are proxy contests.

  • In the late 1930s separate wars merged into what we now call World War II.

  • "The question may therefore be not whether World War III is imminent but how many simultaneous regional wars can occur before the distinction between regional conflict and world war loses strategic meaning." — David Maxwell, vice president of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy, to the author, September 2026.

Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping has been busy disrupting the world. "Great chaos under Heaven achieves great order under Heaven," wrote Mao Zedong in 1966 in a letter to his wife, Jiang Qing, referring to his goal of establishing worldwide Chinese rule. Xi, throughout this century, has been making references to the imperial era notion that Chinese leaders not only had the right to rule tianxia — "all under Heaven" — but had the obligation to do so. Pictured: Xi arrives before the start of the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on September 12, 2026. (Photo by Alexander Kazakov/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

"No, we are not on the eve of World War III," writes Leon Hadar in Asia Times.

"What's actually happening in 2026 is not the slow ignition of a single global war," he adds. "It's the slow unwinding of the postwar America-led order, playing out simultaneously in half a dozen theaters that don't yet cohere into one fight."

Whether Hadar is correct or not, a friend mentioned in June that "the world is all out of control."

In our out-of-control world, the pace of change is accelerating. As Vladimir Lenin reportedly said, "There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen."

In this period of rapid change, Hadar admits there are regional wars but finds them "a symptom of disorder rather than a step toward global war."

"The danger in over-diagnosing 'World War III' isn't just inaccuracy," Hadar argues. "It's that the framing tends to produce the very policies—maximalist commitments, reflexive military posturing, treating every regional dispute as an existential test of resolve—that make the smaller fires harder to put out."

This reasonable-sounding view misses a bigger point. By not adopting resolute approaches, the United States and partners have allowed bad actors to bring the world closer to global conflict.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, for instance, almost certainly perceived American and Western indecision in early 2022 — President Joe Biden said he might tolerate a "minor incursion" into Ukraine — as a green light for a full-scale invasion.

If Biden had instead made the invasion "an existential test of resolve," he probably would have stared down the Russian leader. Instead, his feeble approach opened the door to a long-running war.

Ukraine matters, far more than most realize. As Gregory Copley, president of the International Strategic Studies Association, told Gatestone in December 2023, there are no more "regional wars" because "all of them have some degree of involvement by the great powers."

In Ukraine, for instance, China has provided across-the-board support for Russia.

Xi Jinping has fully backed Putin because the Chinese leader has evidently taken two pages from Mao Zedong's "peasant movement" playbook.

First, Xi is apparently trying to "encircle the cities from the countryside." Today, the Chinese leader considers places like Ukraine to be countryside and America the most important city. Mao prevailed with that countryside-cities strategy in 1949 against the superior forces of Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists.

Second, Xi has been busy disrupting the world. "Great chaos under Heaven achieves great order under Heaven," wrote Mao Zedong in 1966 in a letter to his wife, Jiang Qing, referring to his goal of establishing worldwide Chinese rule. Xi, throughout this century, has been making references to the imperial era notion that Chinese leaders not only had the right to rule tianxia — "all under Heaven" — but had the obligation to do so.

America has to confront the Chinese state wherever the Chinese state confronts the world. Every fight — Xi Jinping is now waging proxy wars on three continents — has therefore become critical if not part of an existential struggle.

"A genuine world war requires great powers choosing direct confrontation with each other," Hadar writes. "What we have instead is several great and middle powers each pursuing narrower, more transactional aims, occasionally colliding, usually not on purpose."

It's true that China and Russia have not chosen to fight the United States directly since the Korean War, but they are getting close, in both Ukraine and Iran. Both conflicts now are proxy contests.

"World wars are often recognizable with certainty only after interconnected crises have become one conflict," David Maxwell, vice president of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy, wrote to me this month. "Separate wars need not begin as a coordinated global struggle."

Maxwell is right: In the late 1930s separate wars merged into what we now call World War II.

As he notes, "The question may therefore be not whether World War III is imminent but how many simultaneous regional wars can occur before the distinction between regional conflict and world war loses strategic meaning."

Today, both Russia and China have motives to fight to the end, Russia because it is losing badly in Ukraine and China because it faces internal crises that can end Communist Party rule.

The risk now is that a desperate Putin or an insecure Xi could use his most powerful weapons as he fights what becomes history's last war.

 

Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22858/china-proxy-conflicts

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Fantasy House of Mark Carney - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

Mark Carney’s anti-American crusade risks hurting Canada’s economy while strengthening China and exposing the contradictions behind his trade war with the United States.

 

 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney now believes he is more than just the Western foil to Donald Trump and his MAGA movement—he is the global one. Accordingly, he seems determined to demonstrate to the world how to stand up to Donald Trump, to force Trump to lose the midterms, and to hurt the U.S. economy to such a degree that Trump will never again bully other nations.

So, at the eleventh hour, Carney stormed out of an apparently completed tariff deal with the United States that would have privileged Canada over almost all of America’s other trading partners. Canada, we recall, has enjoyed a $50 billion goods trade surplus with the United States for years in a supposedly free and equitable North American trade zone.

Carney claimed that American proposals stripped away Canadian sovereignty and quashed Canadian culture, particularly French-Canadian culture. Yet he has not released the documents detailing the bilateral offers he rejected. Nor has he allowed his representatives to explain to the media why Canada blew up the negotiations at the last minute. Carney’s ever-changing excuses, explanations, and invectives about what happened are incoherent and contradictory.

That said, analysts on both sides of the border now concede that American digital-media companies do not customarily pay special taxes, as Carney demands, to promote local, regional, and ethnic culture while operating in Canada—any more than Canadian companies would be taxed for those purposes in the United States.

Canada and the United States both agree that China dumps cheap steel and aluminum into Canada, allowing Canadian manufacturers to use that cost advantage to export assembled vehicles to the vast U.S. market at prices below those of American vehicles. In that way, Canada’s new partnership with China circumvents America’s tariffs on Beijing. China will also send nearly 50,000 electric cars and trucks into Canada under a meager tariff, ensuring that the Canadian EV market is increasingly dominated by Chinese vehicles.

But Carney’s ploy goes beyond helping the communist Chinese dictatorship gain trade leverage over his own NATO neighbor. He has eagerly concluded a comprehensive Chinese-Canadian pact involving travel, visas, food safety, energy, and public security. Carney has grandly described these new agreements with Beijing as part of a new paradigm in which “middle powers” like Canada play China against the United States (Canada’s annual nominal GDP is roughly the size of New York State’s).

How ironic that Carney attacks his neighbor, the United States, for trade unfairness while warming to the communist dictatorship in China. Communist China, after all, is history’s greatest violator of trade protocols—guilty of manipulating its currency, dumping products to secure market share, violating copyright and patent laws, and imprisoning a million Uyghurs.

Has Carney learned anything from Panama’s misadventures after naively inviting in a Chinese omnipresence at the American-built Panama Canal? Does Carney recall that the American Monroe Doctrine originally was aimed at foreign intrusion into the North American west?

Canada’s new partner is a totalitarian police state that infected the world with its manufactured gain-of-function COVID-19 virus, which killed more than 1.5 million North Americans. China stonewalled inquiries and never offered details about the pandemic’s origins in its Wuhan lab. It has promised to conquer Taiwan and so terrified its democratic neighbors—Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea—that they have joined a defensive alliance with the United States.

So what drives Carney’s hubristic fantasies? Has Canada’s natural wealth in oil, gas, timber, and minerals made it a military and economic dynamo, as it once was?

Hardly.

Canada’s population is 11.8 percent of America’s. Its economy is barely one-thirteenth the size of America’s. Canadian GDP per capita is only 60 percent of America’s.

Canada quietly relies on the U.S. military to deter foreign powers from North America, whether by fending off challenges to Canada’s extensive Arctic claims—including its dubious claim of absolute sovereignty over the Northwest Passage—or by keeping Canadian skies free of foreign combat aircraft and missiles.

Canada’s navy—once one of the world’s preeminent surface fleets—has been reduced to fewer than 30 ships. Its 89 American-made jets are more than 40 years old.

Paradoxically, Carney’s dreams derive not from confidence and strength but from insecurity and defensiveness. Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nearly ruined the Canadian economy despite the country’s treasure trove of natural resources. Canada has only half the GDP of California—a state currently decaying under neo-socialist governance—despite having roughly the same population.

Nearly 45 percent of Canadians are either foreign-born or the children of foreign-born parents. These often-impoverished immigrants impose gargantuan social-welfare costs that Canada’s European-style socialist economy simply cannot support. While Carney lectures on “Canadian values,” Canada’s fertility rate of 1.25 is among the lowest in the Western world, while euthanasia accounts for 5 percent of all deaths, the highest rate in the West.

Nevertheless, Carney now claims, in passive-aggressive fashion, that the United States bullies Canada—even as Canada runs trade surpluses with America, relies on the American economy for 72 percent of its exports, and depends on the American military for its safety. That asymmetry indirectly subsidizes Canada’s disastrous energy, immigration, defense, regulatory, and tax policies.

The Canadian energy industry depends on U.S. purchases of much of its tar sands oil, specialized U.S. refineries, and American pipelines. For over a decade, globalist Canada refused to meet its NATO commitment to invest 2 percent of GDP in defense, relying instead on American magnanimity to protect North America from foreign aggression.

No matter. Carney has melodramatically characterized his tiff with the United States as a “fight” and even a “war.” Yet, oddly for such an anti-American Canadian hyper-nationalist, Carney is a globalist banker who, until he became prime minister, held citizenship in three nations.

Yet the Canadian prime minister who urges Canada’s vulnerable working classes to decouple from America is himself—like thousands of Canadian grandees—deeply entwined with the United States. Some 91 percent of Carney’s investments are in U.S.-based companies, and two of his four children, like their father, attended college in the United States. Both now reside in America, along with nearly one million other Canadians. Apparently, Carney is so eager for a veritable economic, cultural, and political war with the United States that 91 percent of his holdings remain invested in the homeland of his enemy.

But why, from a position of such hypocrisy and vulnerability, has Carney blown up the trade agreement, ginned up anti-American Canadian nationalism—and done so now?

Only in this way, Carney believes, can he stop autonomy referenda in Alberta and Quebec. And only in this way can he openly interfere in the U.S. midterm elections by targeting new tariffs at red and purple border states while working directly with left-wing Democratic politicians to help Democrats regain control of Congress and restore the prior status quo.

His anti-American screeds have certainly worked at home. Canadians now boo at the mere sound of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” They brag of a new “elbows up” policy to stop U.S. “aggression.” Their social media is flooded with braggadocio about new ways to hurt Americans. Some three-quarters of the country has bought into Carney’s fantasies. Hating America is the new Canadian pastime.

But, sadly, this will not end well for Canada, for at least five reasons.

First, America certainly is not the cause of Canada’s maladies, other than by subsidizing its suicidal domestic choices for years. Canada’s self-destructive socialist and globalist policies are its government’s doing alone.

The United States did not force Canada to adopt European-style socialist policies of mass unvetted immigration, subsidized green energy, near-disarmament, and unsustainable social-welfare spending. America did not urge Canadians to stop having children or enlist their government to help them kill themselves.

In truth, America prefers a militarily and economically strong Canadian partner, not a weak one lashing out from insecurity.

Second, the American public has so far been mostly indifferent to the spat. But now that the North American media has begun revealing the extent of Canada’s anti-American venom, along with Carney’s brinkmanship and disingenuous rhetoric, anger is rising at his cheap politicking and the animus he has fanned.

In sum, Carney has no idea that he is reframing the dispute not as a conflict with Trump but as an affront to the American people themselves—who have long memories.

Third, for all his globalist background and internationalist performance-art stunts, Carney is alone on the world stage. Europe may applaud his defiance, but it has no desire to join his anti-American campaign. When the United States finally insisted on symmetrical trade, only communist China and Canada—the latter enjoying the most generous entrée into the American economy of any country in the world—slapped counter-tariffs on the United States. Apparently, other nations did not agree that Carney’s perennial $50 billion surplus was his birthright.

Fourth, Canada is far more vulnerable than the United States if Carney’s “war” continues. Canada relies on the United States for 72 percent of its exports, while America relies on Canada for only 15 percent of its own exports. Last month, even before the full effect of the new tariffs was felt, Canada lost 42,000 jobs while the United States gained 160,000. The damage will only grow, ever more asymmetrically, as tariffs mount on Canadian businesses.

Nearly a million Canadians reside in the United States, but only 350,000 Americans live in Canada. And it is easier for a Canadian to obtain an expedited U.S. work visa than for an American to do the same in Canada. Indeed, Canadians do not appreciate that they are nearly the only visitors in the world granted six months of residence in the United States without a visa.

Fifth, since Carney walked out at the last minute, it will be incumbent upon him to resume talks—especially as the damage he has done to Canadian workers and small businesses worsens. But should Carney seek to renew negotiations immediately after the Canadian provincial elections and the U.S. midterms, he will be exposed as a disingenuous politico who ginned up the fight to manipulate both Canadian and American balloting to benefit himself and his party.

If that happens, he may learn that the American friendship train has left the station. He will also discover that China treats obsequious outreach from Western “middle powers” as weakness to exploit, not magnanimity to reciprocate.

Carney’s political disingenuousness will eventually earn the animus of Canadians and Americans alike—who may ironically unite in their distaste for Mark Carney and his fantasy house.

Photo: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at a press conference in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 22, 2026 after trade talks with the US collapsed. Carney said his country could not accept US terms for a trade deal, and would slap retaliatory tariffs on steel and dairy products in response to heavy duties imposed by Washington. "We cannot accept what they've offered, and we will not give what they've asked," Carney said in remarks on the failed negotiations, adding that Ottawa's new trade measures would take effect on September 8. (Photo by Dave Chan / AFP)


Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004, and is the 2023 Giles O'Malley Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and the Bradley Prize in 2008. Hanson is also a farmer (growing almonds on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author of the just released New York Times best seller, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, published by Basic Books on May 7, 2024, as well as the recent  The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump, and The Dying Citizen.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/09/15/the-fantasy-house-of-mark-carney/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter