Tuesday, September 29, 2026

Source to 'Post': Israel on high alert, but no concrete intel. warning for attack before elections - Amichai Stein

 

by Amichai Stein

"There is currently no specific intelligence warning on the table,” one official told the Post. This comes after PM Netanyahu warned that Israel's enemies might try to attack before the elections.

 

After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks on Tuesday, several Israeli officials told The Jerusalem Post that there is currently no concrete threat to Israel, though they cautioned that the situation could change at any moment.

“We are on high alert and closely monitoring Iran’s actions. The escalation in the West Bank could also quickly turn into something much broader. But there is currently no specific intelligence warning on the table,” one official told the Post.

A second Israeli official said Tehran could decide at any moment to launch missiles at Israel. For now, however, the official stressed that this remains an “option” rather than an “immediate threat.”

Netanyahu warns of attacks ahead of elections

Earlier on Tuesday, Netanyahu said during a visit to the Tel Nof Air Base that Israel had indications that its enemies could attempt attacks on the country ahead of elections.

Netanyahu warns of indications that Israel's enemies may attack in run up to election from Tel Nof Air Force Base.
Netanyahu warns of indications that Israel's enemies may attack in run up to election from Tel Nof Air Force Base. (credit: MA'AYAN TOAF/GPO)
.

“From here, from the Air Force base, from the long arm of the State of Israel, I send you a message: Don’t mess with us, not now and not ever. Our long arm will reach you anywhere and at any time,” Netanyahu said.

Later on Tuesday evening, Netanyahu chaired a security assessment. An Israeli official told the Post, however, that the meeting had been scheduled several days in advance.

“It is unclear why they decided at the last minute to move it to a more secure location,” the official said. 


Amichai Stein

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-910112

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hamas official's arrest in Gaza gave Israel intelligence surge to kill top terrorists - JPost exclusive - Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob

Three Hamas brigade commanders have been killed since September 11, following the September 2 capture of senior Hamas security official Mu'in al-Arabid in Gaza.

 

Palestinian firefighters extinguish a fire on a vehicle hit by an Israeli airstrike in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, September 23, 2026
Palestinian firefighters extinguish a fire on a vehicle hit by an Israeli airstrike in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, September 23, 2026
(photo credit: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed)

 

The arrest of a senior Hamas official on September 2 provided Israel with detailed intelligence that assisted in the location and assassination of top Hamas operatives, funds, and weapons, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

On September 2, the IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Service), and various Palestinian militias captured Mu’in al-Arabid, one of Hamas’s top internal security officials.

The IDF and Shin Bet on Tuesday confirmed the overnight assassination of Hamas Northern Gaza Brigade Chief Izz al-Din al-Bik in Gaza City. Al-Bik had served in his current role since Ahmed Randur was assassinated by Israel on November 10, 2023.

This is the third assassination of a Hamas brigade chief since September 11; three of the five brigade commanders were killed during that period.

According to the joint statement, al-Bik was responsible for managing the activities of the brigade’s operatives, including issuing orders to carry out attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Smoke and flames rise after an Israeli airstrike hit a mosque in Gaza City, July 28, 2026
Smoke and flames rise after an Israeli airstrike hit a mosque in Gaza City, July 28, 2026 (credit: REUTERS/DAWOUD ABU ALKAS)

He also managed efforts to reconstitute the brigade’s capabilities, which had been heavily damaged over the last three years of war, said the IDF.

Defense Minister Israel Katz disclosed the assassination in a statement shortly before the official IDF and Shin Bet statement.

Prior, the IDF killed two of five Hamas brigade commanders

In mid-September, the IDF and Shin Bet killed Muhammad Yazouri in the Khan Yunis area. Yazouri served as commander of Hamas’s Khan Yunis Brigade.

He was appointed to the position after holding a series of roles in the brigade, including deputy commander of the Khan Yunis Brigade, and he replaced Rafa Salame.

Further, in mid-September, the IDF and Shin Bet also announced that they had struck Hamas Rafah Brigade commander Nayal Abu Obeid.

Abu Obeid replaced his predecessor, Mohammad Shabanah, who was killed by the IDF in May 2025.

Abu Obeid was a key figure among Hamas leaders, according to a statement from the IDF, previously the deputy commander of the Rafah Brigade and commander of the Tel al-Sultan and Yibna Battalions.

Jerusalem Post Staff contributed to this story.


Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-910056

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran’s terror war is reaching America - Erfan Fard

 

by Erfan Fard

Is the U.S. intelligence community prepared to foil a plot before people are killed?

 

Tehran. Credit: Borna_Mirahmadian/Shutterstock.
Tehran. Credit: Borna_Mirahmadian/Shutterstock.

 

For more than two decades, I have studied counterterrorism and radical Islamist organizations in the Middle East. I now want to address the U.S. intelligence community directly.

The question is not whether the Islamic Republic is willing to pursue violence on American soil. Its record has answered that. The question is whether America will recognize the next plot before Tehran succeeds.

In March 2026, a federal jury convicted Asif Merchant of murder-for-hire and attempting an act of terrorism across national boundaries. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Merchant testified that he worked for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and came to the United States to arrange political assassinations. U.S. President Donald Trump was among the potential targets identified in the case. American investigators stopped the plot; they cannot assume they will stop every one.

After seven months of war, Tehran faces mounting pressure and the possibility of historic upheaval at home. A regime sustained by propaganda and repression may become more dangerous, not less, when it fears for its future. That is my assessment; I do not claim to know whether an attack has been ordered. The distinction matters. A serious warning must identify what the evidence shows and then ask what those facts require America to prepare for.

The intelligence community’s 2026 threat assessment states that Iran has demonstrated the capability to develop lethal operations against Americans at home and abroad and will probably pursue such efforts again if the government remains in power and rebuilds. The threat is not a product of imagination, even if the timing and form of another attempt remain unknown.

The Islamic Republic’s ruling establishment has long used intimidation and violence to reach beyond Iran’s borders. Its ideological certainty turns opponents into enemies and makes coercion an instrument of survival. But American agencies should not picture only the conventional terrorist cell waiting for instructions in a basement. The more difficult threat may involve a dormant network, a facilitator, a criminal intermediary or someone already positioned to gather information about a target.

The Department of Homeland Security has assessed that Iran relies on people with preexisting access to the United States—including members of criminal networks and private investigators—for surveillance and lethal plotting. These are the kinds of connections an intelligence service can exploit without sending an identifiable assassination team from Tehran.

At the center of concern are the IRGC, its Quds Force and Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence—institutions whose activities must be understood across the boundaries between espionage, terrorism and transnational repression. Their reach need not depend on every participant knowing the whole operation. A person who collects information, a criminal willing to accept payment and a handler abroad may each occupy a different part of the chain.

What matters is whether American agencies can put those parts together before a plan reaches its intended victim. The phrase “sleeper cell” captures the fear, but it should not become a substitute for identifying the people, relationships and conduct that make a threat real.

A regime sustained by propaganda and repression may become more dangerous when it fears for its future.

That is also why counterintelligence cannot confine its attention to the familiar image of a uniformed Iranian operative. Universities, media, charities, religious institutions and political organizations are places where people work, speak and associate freely—and where a hostile intelligence service might seek access or influence. This does not make those institutions suspect, or their members agents of Tehran. It means investigators must follow evidence of foreign direction wherever it leads, while refusing to confuse political speech, religious belief or Iranian ancestry with operational involvement. An indiscriminate response would wrong many of the people the regime itself seeks to intimidate.

The lives of Trump and other American officials are at stake, but so are the lives of Iranian dissidents who have sought safety in the United States. The plot against journalist Masih Alinejad shows why those threats belong in the same homeland-security conversation. In one Iran-directed murder-for-hire case, two organized crime figures were sentenced to 25 years in prison. In another, an American convicted murderer was sentenced to 15 years for his role in a plot against Alinejad. For Tehran, an outspoken opponent abroad may be a target; for America, she is a person entitled to the protection of its laws. An attempt to kill her in New York is not merely an extension of Iranian politics; it is an assault on American sovereignty.

These cases should not be filed away as unrelated prosecutions. They expose a method: the use of intermediaries to put distance between a decision made by the regime and violence carried out elsewhere. That distance can complicate attribution and offer plausible deniability, but it should not obscure the underlying threat.

American law enforcement deserves credit for the plots it has disrupted. Success, however, can become a dangerous comfort if officials regard each arrest as the end of a story rather than another source of insight into how a future operation might be organized.

Iran’s violence against its own people adds urgency to this question. During the bloody repression of January 2026, the authorities imposed severe communications restrictions as protests spread. A government willing to silence its citizens and punish dissent at home should not be presumed to respect the safety of its critics abroad. Washington’s concern for Iranian dissidents in America must therefore be practical, not ceremonial: When a credible threat emerges, protection, warning and investigation should follow before a victim becomes the subject of another indictment.

The danger is not limited to a single kind of target or operation. An official, a dissident or a Jewish or Israeli institution may face different threats requiring different responses. Cyber activity and physical violence must be assessed together when evidence connects them, not casually treated as parts of a plot merely because both are possible. Nor should concern about unconventional attacks be turned into a prediction for which there is no case-specific basis. The task of intelligence is to separate a demonstrated capability from a feared scenario, then act decisively when warning signs move from one toward the other.

That task belongs to more than one agency. The FBI’s investigations, DHS’s homeland intelligence and border responsibilities, the Secret Service’s protective mission, cyber defense, financial investigations, and the work of state and local law enforcement must reinforce one another. The objective is not another general declaration that Iran is dangerous. It is the timely recognition of suspicious recruitment, surveillance, payments and foreign direction, especially where a criminal intermediary or locally placed facilitator stands between Tehran and a potential victim. The strongest defense is one in which information reaches those able to act before the threat becomes an attack.

Washington must also confront the strategic question it has postponed. I believe the Islamic Republic’s growing vulnerability makes serious attention to Iran’s political future unavoidable. An endless search for another deal cannot, by itself, answer the problem posed by a regime that has pursued opponents abroad while repressing its people at home. The aspirations of Iranians must not disappear behind negotiations about the rulers who govern them. Nor should uncertainty about America’s ultimate Iran policy become an excuse for uncertainty about its immediate obligation: protecting people on American soil.

I am not predicting the place, date or form of Tehran’s next attempt. I am saying that the possibility of major violence in the United States cannot be dismissed simply because earlier plots failed.

The intelligence community should examine suspected facilitators and criminal connections, protect those credibly threatened and treat every disrupted operation as both a success and a warning. America should not have to learn how far the regime’s reach extends from an atrocity America failed to prevent. Counterterrorism is measured not by how thoroughly a crime can be reconstructed afterward, but by whether it was stopped before anyone was killed.


Erfan Fard is a counter-terrorism analyst and Middle East Studies researcher based in Washington, D.C.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/erfan-fard/irans-terror-war-is-reaching-america

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Netanyahu seeks NIS 2.6m. from media outlets over reports of UAE's warning about October 7 - Sarah Ben Nun

 

by Sarah Ben Nun

Suit targets Haaretz, Ynet, Channel 12, and six journalists and commentators over disputed reports that Arab officials warned Netanyahu before the Hamas attack.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at the United Nations in New York City, September 24, 2026.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at the United Nations in New York City, September 24, 2026.
(photo credit: Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90)

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking NIS 2.6 million in a defamation suit against three major Israeli media groups and six journalists and commentators over reports that he personally received warnings ahead of Hamas’s October 7 attack but did not pass them to Israel’s security chiefs.

The lawsuit, dated Tuesday and addressed to the Jerusalem District Court, names Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronot, Ynet News, and Channel 12 as defendants.

It also names Haaretz journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval, Haaretz columnist Uri Misgav, Yedioth Ahronot columnist Nadav Eyal, Channel 12 Washington correspondent Barak Ravid and former Ynet journalist Attila Somfalvi.

The suit centers on two disputed accounts: that United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu in late September 2023 that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was planning a major operation, and that then-Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel personally warned him shortly before the attack.

The media reports cited unnamed sources, while Netanyahu has repeatedly denied receiving either warning.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns of a possible attack during the 2026 election.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns of a possible attack during the 2026 election. (credit: MA'AYAN TOAF/GPO)

First mention of report done by Haaretz

The first account was published by Haaretz on September 8 as part of an investigation by Eldar and Yuval for their book, Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment. They reported that bin Zayed spoke with Netanyahu for approximately 45 minutes after receiving a message that Sinwar was preparing a major “surprise.”

The report said Netanyahu did not relay the warning to the defense minister, IDF chief of staff, Shin Bet (Israel Security Service) director, or Mossad director. Netanyahu’s office denied that the conversation occurred.

According to the suit, official Prime Minister’s Office records contain no entry, telephone record, or other documentation of direct contact between Netanyahu and bin Zayed between September 1 and October 7, 2023.

The filing argues that Haaretz and its journalists published the account despite Netanyahu’s denial and that other defendants repeated or amplified it. It cites Misgav’s description of the alleged failure as “betrayal from within.” Channel 12 reported on the purported call, and Eyal’s column argued that the warning had stopped with Netanyahu.

Haaretz previously rejected Netanyahu’s demand to remove the investigation, publish an apology, and pay him NIS 1 million. The newspaper said the report was the result of an extensive, source-based investigation into a matter of overriding public interest and that it was prepared to defend the reporting in court.

Israeli media cited a New York Times report

Subsequent reports have added to, rather than resolved, the dispute. Israeli media cited a New York Times report in which five Israeli officials allegedly supported the account that bin Zayed warned Netanyahu. An Emirati official later denied that the UAE president had personally warned Netanyahu of an imminent Hamas attack, although an earlier Emirati response had not categorically denied that communication took place.

The second part of the lawsuit concerns a Ynet report, based on The Wall Street Journal, that Kamel telephoned Netanyahu in early October 2023 and warned of an approaching attack from Gaza.

Netanyahu denied speaking or meeting with Kamel in the months before October 7 and said no Israeli intelligence official conveyed such a warning to him.

The claim also refers to separate reporting that Kamel made a brief visit to Israel on September 26, 2023, and warned Israeli officials that Gaza was approaching a major escalation. That account did not establish publicly whom Kamel met during the visit or that he spoke directly with Netanyahu.

Netanyahu argues that the defendants acted deliberately and for political and commercial gain during an election campaign.

The suit seeks at least NIS 2.6 million without requiring proof of specific financial damage. It argues that the reports constituted numerous separate publications across print, television, news websites, and social media, and that any statutory award should be increased because they were allegedly published with intent to cause harm.

Under Israeli defamation law, the defendants may argue, among other defenses, that the reporting was true and concerned a matter of public interest, or that it was published in good faith following responsible journalistic work.

The defendants have 60 days from the date they are formally served to submit their statements of defense.


Sarah Ben Nun

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/crime-in-israel/article-910114

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hawley slams Smith over 'hilarious' claim his probe wasn't political - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to answer questions about his prosecution of the then-former president.

 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., on Tuesday accused former special counsel Jack Smith of using his investigation into President Donald Trump as a political tool to stifle his chances of returning to the White House.

Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to answer questions about his prosecution of the then-former president.

"Mr. Smith, I have to start by saying I think that maybe I underestimated you. I underestimated, in particular, your comedic talent," Hawley said. "I've been watching this whole hearing. I've watched everything you said. I noticed that you began by saying, 'I have no partisan loyalty,' and you repeated over and over and over, there's nothing in your investigation about politics. That's hilarious."

"In fact, your investigation was all about politics from day one. Your investigation, so-called, your prosecution, so-called, was nothing other than an attempt to interfere politically in a presidential election in the United States of America," he went on.

Hawley further accused Smith of ignoring the advice of his staff, court precedent, and other barriers to legitimately acquiring communications from lawmakers.


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

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/hawley-slams-smith-over-hilarious-claim-his-probe-wasnt-political

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ban on many Canadian imports goes into effect with trade negotiations ongoing and uncertain - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

The list of goods under the restrictions includes motorcycles and mopeds with gasoline engines larger than 800cc, whey products and molasses, and many alcoholic beverages — primarily those packaged for direct consumption.

 

The White House banned imports on a long list of Canadian imports on Tuesday as trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada continue. 

The list of goods under the restrictions includes motorcycles and mopeds with gasoline engines larger than 800cc, whey products and molasses, and many alcoholic beverages — primarily those packaged for direct consumption, CNBC reported. 

The total value of the restricted Canadian imports is estimated at approximately $19.9 billion, according to the American Action Forum. 

The Trump administration announced earlier this month that it would be enacting an import ban after trade negotiations gave way to tit-for-tat tariffs. President Donald Trump on Monday said that he expected the U.S. and Canada to reach an agreement in the coming weeks, but he continued to express frustration with America's northern neighbor. 

"They take advantage of us, they feel entitled ... there’s nothing they have that we need...I think what’s going to happen is over the next three to four weeks they’re going to come to us, and they’re going to say, ‘We’re going to get rid of all the tariffs.' We’re going to win everything,” Trump said.

Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a news conference on Friday that the U.S. tariffs were "illegal and unjustified," while causing "considerable hardship to businesses and workers across the country.”

LeBlanc also signaled that Canada wouldn't sign a deal it didn't consider beneficial, nor was it in a rush to resolve the differences with the U.S. 

“We have said we will sign an agreement when we think there is one that is in the interests of Canada’s sovereignty and Canada’s economy ... but we’re not waiting by the phone,” LeBlanc said. 


Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/canada/ban-many-canadian-imports-goes-effect-trade-negotiations-ongoing-and-uncertain

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Remembering the False Gloom and Doom of the 1992 Elections—and the Upcoming Midterms - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

Republicans risk repeating 1992 by failing to counter economic pessimism with the facts about strong growth, falling inflation, rising incomes, and a recovering economy.

 

 

Remembering the False Gloom and Doom of the 1992 Elections—and the Upcoming Midterms

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidential election partly on the basis of his campaign’s false accusation that George H. W. Bush had overseen “the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.” Or so claimed Clinton’s running mate Al Gore.

James Carville, chief campaign adviser to Clinton/Gore, amplified that message with the constant refrain: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

That strategy worked for three reasons.

First, third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 19 percent of the vote. Most of his supporters would otherwise likely have gone to Bush. Perot allowed Clinton to win with a mere 43 percent of the popular vote, in part by echoing the false narrative of a crushing Bush recession.

Second, the brilliant Bush campaign strategist Lee Atwater, who had virtually destroyed the Dukakis campaign in 1988—remember the tank ad, the Boston Harbor ad, and the Willie Horton ad?—had died in 1991 at the age of 40 from a brain tumor.

Atwater’s canny but hardball 1988 tactics had turned off establishment Republicans. So in 1992, Republicans reverted to the notion of losing nobly rather than winning ugly and resumed unilaterally playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. The result of Democratic demagoguery was that the sober and competent elder Bush was branded a heartless elitist who had wrecked the economy and defended Kuwait only for “blood for oil.” And without Atwater, the Bush team utterly failed to refute such caricatures and counterattack.

Third, and most important, the anemic Bush reelection campaign never refuted the Clinton-Gore economic hysteria. That “recession” deception had drowned out the historic foreign policy achievements of Bush’s four years, from the successful policies that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to the decisive 1991 Gulf War.

Despite overwrought claims about a recession or even a new Great Depression, in truth, the recession had ended in March 1991. In fact, final GDP growth for 1992 was a robust 3.52 percent. That was hardly a recessionary indicator. Indeed, the election-year growth proved even stronger than in Clinton’s first year of governance in 1993.

While unemployment was still high at 7.5 percent, the 1992 stock market nonetheless grew by 7.6 percent. And the 1992 inflation rate had stayed moderate at 2.9 percent.

In other words, the economy had already begun to recover from the 1990–91 recession, which—to reiterate—had officially ended 20 months before the 1992 election.

One cause—eerily now familiar—of the earlier 1990–91 downturn was that oil prices had initially doubled after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the U.S. military response. But prices collapsed as soon as Operation Desert Storm began, despite the later torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields and continued uncertainty in the Gulf. Yet by the November 1992 election, oil prices had long been back to pre-invasion levels.

In short, the Democrats’ charge that 1992 saw the worst recession in 60 years was absurd. (The 1973–75 and 1981–82 recessions were far worse than the 1990–91 recession.)

Fast forward to the present. The economy today is far better than in 1992. But Democrats’ successful 1992 demagoguery should remind Republicans that the perception of the economy peddled by campaign rhetoric can often decide elections more than the reality does.

Take the just-released 2025 poverty rate. It hit an all-time low of 10.2 percent. Child poverty also fell to a historic low. Such amazing news refutes wild leftist charges that uncovering vast welfare fraud, deporting thousands of illegal aliens, and cutting 400,000 federal jobs would spike poverty. In fact, those actions more likely contributed to reducing poverty, as did an astounding lowest violent crime rate in some 70 years.

Median household income also hit a record high of $87,460. That is the highest median household income in the world, dwarfing all other large industrial nations that are not petro-states or tax havens. The same holds true for our GDP per capita—which, incidentally, was already over $34,000 higher than in Canada.

New business reports show that this past August manufacturing achieved its largest monthly increase since 2022. And service-sector growth jumped to its highest level since 2021. New orders for metals, machinery, computers, appliances, communications—in truth, almost everything—continue to rise every month, especially and most recently in August.

Despite the Iran war and its global petroleum interruptions, the Atlanta Federal Reserve now predicts that third-quarter GDP growth will finish at a blistering 5 percent. The Dow and the S&P have grown by a strong 8.1 percent and a staggering 13.5 percent, respectively, in 2026.

Take away the climb in gas prices from a January 2026 average of $2.81 a gallon to $4.50, and the inflation rate was only 2.5 percent—below the 2025 yearly average of 2.7 percent—and Wall Street estimates put the annual rate at around 2.2 percent once the Iran war ends and a huge influx of oil hits the global market. The United States is now the greatest producer of oil and the greatest producer and exporter of natural gas in history—and is still increasing output.

August unemployment was a low 4.1 percent, while 162,000 new jobs were created in that month alone. Consumer spending remains strong.

The U.S. economy is entering a boom cycle. Its growth ensures that it remains the largest in the world and continues to outpace all competitors.

Many of the dire predictions at the millennium about the supposedly superior collectivist paradigm of the European Union—or the inevitable rise of a China of 1.4 billion people—surpassing the United States simply did not come true.

The EU has about 100 million more people than the United States. China’s population is four times larger than America’s. Yet both have fallen further behind the United States in terms of economic production.

Indeed, the U.S. economy is roughly $10 trillion larger than either China’s or the EU’s. Far from some predictions of a decade ago that within 10 years China would overtake the United States, the opposite has occurred. America’s nominal GDP of $18.8 trillion in 2016 soared to $32.4 trillion in 2026—as the American share of global GDP increased to 26 percent. In contrast, the EU’s share of global GDP actually shrank, and China’s still stayed well behind the United States.

In key categories such as digital media, software, AI, bioengineering, and space technology, American companies remain the world’s largest and most successful. They usually dominate global top-ten rankings, with eight or nine U.S. corporations among the top slots.

If the Republicans broadcast this positive news about the economy, it will in turn complement Trump’s unambiguous foreign policy successes, which are largely underappreciated, if not unknown, among the public.

But they remain impressive: the rebooting of NATO by getting its members to rearm and take up their fair share of collective defense; the acquisition of new treaties ensuring an American military presence in the Greenland to monitor the contested Arctic; the radical transformation of much of the Western Hemisphere from leftist and anti-American nations into pro-American, tough-on-crime, free-market countries; the expulsion of the Chinese bad actors from the Panama Canal and the extradition of the anti-American communist Maduro from Venezuela; the restoration of Pentagon recruitment; and the change in Pentagon procurement to emphasize quantity of weaponry along with quality.

The verdict on the unpopular war against the Iranian theocracy is still out. But the idea that the last seven months of on-again, off-again strikes and negotiations amount, in terms of human and material costs, to a “forever war” is absurd and a lie.

While all our soldiers’ deaths are tragic, the conduct of the war against the terrorist powerhouse of the Middle East had deliberately been waged to limit the loss of American lives. Indeed, the average daily fatality rate due to accidents in all branches of the military during the seven months of the Iran conflict is some eleven times greater than the number of those killed fighting Iran.

The roughly $40 billion cost of the war so far, while substantial, amounts to about 25% of the conservative estimates of recently discovered welfare corruption and fraud in California alone—involving theft of Medi-Cal, unemployment insurance, in-home services, and hospice funding.

The war will be judged by historians, fairly or not, on whether it delays for years or, if not, ends Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons altogether, and on whether it so weakens the theocracy that it permanently loses its terrorist leverage over the Middle East—if not eventually implodes from popular resistance. If such a regime collapse should follow the conflict, the Middle East miasma of the last 70 years would largely end, marking the most profound American achievement abroad since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

So much is at stake.

Nevertheless, the Republicans have not yet developed a strategy to inform the public that the economy is sound and improving—and will likely soon take off, after the Iran conflict is over, oil becomes plentiful again, and tax cuts, foreign investment, deregulation, and productivity gains from AI take their full effect.

Most importantly, Republicans have still not articulated why the “affordability” issue persists. Under Joe Biden, average prices were nearly 21 percent higher than when he took office, with a yearly average increase of more than 5 percent.

The Trump administration nearly halved that annual rate in 2025. It will reduce Biden’s yearly inflation rate substantially again in 2026.

But neither Trump nor any other president could or would wish by design to engineer radical deflation to restore prices to the pre-Biden levels of 2020 during Trump’s last year in office.

Trump’s first-term total four-year inflation rate was under 8 percent, averaging about 2 percent per year—far less than half the yearly inflation average of the subsequent Biden years.

In 2025, wages still climbed higher than the rate of inflation. But it would require a damaging recession to undo Biden’s 20 percent rise in prices. And worse still, the cost of staples such as food, shelter, vehicles, fuel, and insurance rose nearly 30 percent over Biden’s four years.

Nor have Republicans made the easy case that the midterms are no longer merely a matter of liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, or even progressives versus MAGA.

Rather, November 3 represents normality and common sense pitted against an unrecognizable “Democratic” revolutionary party that is driven by Islamist-sympathizing socialist zealots who are not fond of the United States as it has existed for 250 years. They are not shy about planning to remake America along the lines of, at best, radical European socialism and, at worst, something resembling Cuba.

Needless to say, if they get their way, even the most lurid false liberal claims about our current alleged economic problems will pale by comparison. 


Victor Davis Hanson

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/09/29/remembering-the-false-gloom-and-doom-of-the-1992-elections-and-the-upcoming-midterms/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Selling F-35s to Saudi Arabia: A Gift to China? - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

A recent warning issued by US intelligence and cybersecurity agencies highlighted an aggressive campaign by Chinese AI developers to extract "proprietary functionalities and capabilities" from American frontier AI models to advance the development of their own models.

 

  • The deal [to sell F-35 stealth fighter jets to Saudi Arabia] has already generated a great deal of controversy, not least because of warnings from American intelligence that it could result in Beijing using its ties with Riyadh to acquire the F-35's top-secret stealth technology.

  • [T]he deal "could put the crown jewels of American military technology within reach of the Chinese Communist Party." — US Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), member of the House Intelligence Committee.

  • A recent warning issued by US intelligence and cybersecurity agencies highlighted an aggressive campaign by Chinese AI developers to extract "proprietary functionalities and capabilities" from American frontier AI models to advance the development of their own models. "China-based AI companies are engaging in aggressive, malicious, and targeted distillation activities at an industrial scale," the report stated.

  • While China is indulging in these practices to win the AI race with the US, there is no doubt that it will attempt to obtain F-35 technology. The Trump administration therefore needs to proceed with the utmost caution before signing off on any deal that could enable highly sensitive technology, whether it relates to AI or stealth fighter jets, to fall into Chinese hands.

US President Donald Trump's decision to sell state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jets to Saudi Arabia seriously risks undermining his efforts to secure America's technological advantage over China, both in national security and the battle for global AI supremacy. Pictured: The Chinese and the Saudi flags fly in Riyadh, on December 7, 2022, ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to the Saudi capital. (Photo by Fayez Nureldine/AFP via Getty Images)

US President Donald Trump's decision to sell state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter jets to Saudi Arabia seriously risks undermining his efforts to secure America's technological advantage over China, both in national security and the battle for global AI supremacy.

Trump initially agreed to sell the Saudis 48 F-35s in a deal worth an estimated $24.3 billion when he hosted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House in November 2025.

The administration has now approved the sale, giving the go-ahead for a deal that will provide Riyadh, which enjoys close diplomatic and trade ties with China, access to some of the American military's most advanced technology.

The deal has already generated a great deal of controversy, not least because of warnings from American intelligence that it could result in Beijing using its ties with Riyadh to acquire the F-35's top-secret stealth technology.

US intelligence officials have already flagged their concerns about possible Chinese espionage through the security partnership between Beijing and Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency recently issued a report claiming that Chinese military access to Saudi bases, and the Saudi use of Chinese technology, could compromise the F-35 technology.

The proposed deal has also prompted fierce criticism from Israel, the only Middle East country that currently operates F-35s. Israel fears the deal would effectively give the Saudis parity with their own air force, which operates a fleet of F-35 fighters that have recently seen action in Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

Providing Saudi Arabia with the warplanes risks undermining the Trump administration's commitment to help Israel maintain a "qualitative military edge" over other countries in the region, a commitment the US State Department stressed would not be affected by the sale.

"The proposed ⁠sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military ⁠balance in the region," the State Department alleged in a notice announcing the decision.

The controversy over the sale to Saudi Arabia is likely to continue, as it will require the approval of the US Congress, which has already raised concerns about the likely security implications of the deal.

As US Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, recently commented, the deal "could put the crown jewels of American military technology within reach of the Chinese Communist Party."

Congressional concerns over the deal, moreover, have deepened following reports that sensitive F-35 technology may have already fallen into Chinese hands after a shipment of weapon components was unexpectedly diverted to Hong Kong in the summer.

The shipment, which was being sent from the US to Australia, included one of the F-35's canopies, which covers the cockpit and contains stealth technology that only the US and its allies have access to. This has prompted concerns that the parts could be analysed by Chinese scientists and used to improve Beijing's own military technology.

The Pentagon has issued a statement saying it was "aware of the shipment issue", while politicians on Capitol Hill are undertaking their own inquiry.

The Trump administration's attempt to sell-F-35s to Saudi Arabia is not the first time it has faced stiff Congressional scrutiny about signing lucrative deals to provide the world's most sophisticated fighter to countries with questionable alliances.

The United Arab Emirates officially paused a proposed $23 billion F-35 purchase agreement in 2021, after the Biden administration expressed concerns over Abu Dhabi's relationship with Beijing and its use of Huawei 5G technology.

More recently, Congress has raised concerns about the Trump administration's recent willingness to allow Turkey to rejoin the F-35 programme, years after it was suspended due to the country's purchase of the Russian S-400 air defence system.

The pressure on the Trump administration to cancel the F-35 sale to the Saudis is likely to intensify. It comes against the backdrop of the deepening rivalry between the US and China over who wins the AI race, with Beijing being accused of waging a dirty tricks campaign to gain an advantage over US technology firms.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently warned that China had been "kicking" the US on rare earth minerals and AI intellectual property theft as part of its long-running campaign to achieve technological supremacy over the US. "And you know, if we have to," he said, "we'll kick back."

A recent warning issued by US intelligence and cybersecurity agencies highlighted an aggressive campaign by Chinese AI developers to extract "proprietary functionalities and capabilities" from American frontier AI models to advance the development of their own models. "China-based AI companies are engaging in aggressive, malicious, and targeted distillation activities at an industrial scale," the report stated.

While China is indulging in these practices to win the AI race with the US, there is no doubt that it will attempt to obtain F-35 technology. The Trump administration therefore needs to proceed with the utmost caution before signing off on any deal that could enable highly sensitive technology, whether it relates to AI or stealth fighter jets, to fall into Chinese hands.


Con Coughlin
is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22888/saudi-arabia-f35s-china

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Curious Case of Xi Jinping - Sasha Gong

 

by Sasha Gong

I am left with the impression that Americans still do not understand who Xi Jinping really is.

 

Xi Jinping spent two days in the United States. There were red carpets, a state dinner, military honors, and meetings at the White House. President Donald Trump showed him Marine One. Television cameras followed him almost everywhere.

Yet after two days, I am left with the impression that Americans still do not understand who Xi Jinping really is.

In public, Xi rarely says a word that is not scripted. He smiles, shakes hands, and nods at precisely the right moments. It is almost impossible to tell from his face whether he is pleased, angry, nervous, or suspicious. Americans are accustomed to judging politicians by spontaneous answers, jokes, facial expressions, and even gaffes. With Xi, that method can be misleading.

Hiding himself has been one of the keys to his political survival.

Communist regimes have produced a curious pattern. Their founders often possess enormous personalities and enormous capacity for brutality. Lenin did. Mao Zedong did. But in later generations, a strong personality can become a political liability. Standing out creates enemies. Independent ideas can look like challenges to the leader. Even appearing too clever can be dangerous.

Nikita Khrushchev had a distinctive personality and his own political agenda. His comrades eventually removed him. By the Brezhnev era, the Soviet system increasingly rewarded a different type: cautious, unthreatening, and bureaucratic. Brezhnev’s successors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, looked more like products of a vast party machine than charismatic political leaders.

There is, of course, a more frightening possibility: a man who learns to conceal himself until he acquires supreme power. Stalin was such a man.

Xi grew up with unusually intimate knowledge of this political world.

His father, Xi Zhongxun, was a Communist revolutionary—and repeatedly a prisoner of his own party. During a purge in northwest China in 1935, he was arrested by fellow Communists and narrowly escaped death. Beginning in 1962, he was purged again and spent 16 years under investigation, in detention, and under political supervision.

In 1978, after his rehabilitation, Xi Zhongxun was sent to Guangdong to lead the province.

That is where I met him.

I was living in Guangdong. A group of friends and I had been branded counterrevolutionaries after describing Maoist rule as a “feudal-fascist dictatorship.” Soon after Xi Zhongxun arrived, our cases were overturned.

Before our formal rehabilitation, he summoned us for a meeting.

We told him how we had been arrested, imprisoned, and persecuted. I still remember where he sat, diagonally across from me. When he stood up, I noticed his extraordinarily broad shoulders—the build of a northern Chinese man, uncommon in Guangdong.

After listening to us, he sighed.

“I spent 16 years in Communist prisons,” he said. “For five of those years, I wore shackles.”

We young people fell silent.

Here was one of the men who had helped build the Communist regime, telling us that he had also been its prisoner.

Xi Jinping grew up inside that contradiction.

Born in 1953, he spent his early childhood among Beijing’s privileged Communist elite. Then, when he was nine, his father fell from power. During the Cultural Revolution, the family was torn apart. His father was denounced, detained, and sent away. His sister Xi Heping died amid the persecution. Xi himself was publicly humiliated because of his father.

His mother, Qi Xin, remained a loyal Communist Party member. Accounts of Xi’s youth describe her as participating, under the extraordinary political pressures of the era, in the public denunciation of her own son.

Imagine the world the young Xi saw around him. He lived among China’s most privileged political families, while his own father was being persecuted by the same party that had given the family its privileged position.

In 1969, at 15, Xi was sent to the desperately poor village of Liangjiahe in Shaanxi province. He initially fled back to Beijing but was caught. According to later recollections attributed to a family friend, during one period of detention he escaped at night and went home, hoping his mother would give him something to eat. She reportedly went out in the rain to alert the authorities. He was taken back into custody and eventually returned to the countryside.

Whatever one makes of such recollections, Xi learned very young how merciless Communist politics could be.

Yet he did not reject the system. He struggled to join it.

After repeated applications, Xi was admitted to the Communist Party. He was selected to attend Tsinghua University and entered the party bureaucracy, rising through Hebei, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Shanghai before reaching the summit in Beijing.

That trajectory may tell us more about Xi than his speeches do.

He had seen what happens when a powerful man loses power. Yesterday’s comrades become today’s accusers. Friends disappear. Even family members may be compelled—or choose—to stand on the other side.

Xi’s great political skill was that for many years he did not appear threatening.

Consider Bo Xilai, another son of a Communist revolutionary and, incidentally, my classmate in the history department at Peking University. Bo was flamboyant, theatrical, and openly ambitious. Xi was almost his opposite. Both approached the pinnacle of Chinese politics. One became China’s supreme leader. The other received a life sentence and remains in prison.

Before Xi became general secretary in 2012, many party elders regarded him as honest, steady, and unassuming. That mattered enormously.

Their generation had survived Mao. Many had been imprisoned. Others had been publicly humiliated. Families had been destroyed. Xi’s own family had suffered all three.

After Mao’s death, these survivors tried to make sure China would never again be dominated by a single leader for life. They did not create democracy, but they gradually created rules governing retirement, succession, and the transfer of power. Jiang Zemin eventually stepped down. Hu Jintao did the same. For the first time in Communist China, supreme power appeared to have an expiration date.

The arrangements were imperfect, but they addressed one of the Communist world’s oldest problems: How do you prevent another all-powerful ruler?

Xi concealed himself remarkably well.

Only after he reached the top did the answer begin to emerge.

Power flowed steadily toward him. The party, government, military, and security apparatus came increasingly under his personal control. His anti-corruption campaigns removed large numbers of senior officials. Collective leadership receded. In 2018, China abolished the constitutional two-term limit on the presidency. In 2022, Xi began a third term as general secretary of the Communist Party.

The old revolutionaries who had suffered under Mao thought they were choosing a safe, unassuming man who would never subject them or their families to another strongman’s arbitrary power.

History played a remarkable trick on them.

Xi’s father had been imprisoned by the Communist Party, nearly killed in one purge and deprived of freedom for 16 years in another. His sister died amid the Cultural Revolution. Xi himself experienced humiliation, exile to the countryside, and detention.

Such experiences might teach a man why power must be limited.

They can also teach him a very different lesson:

Never be the man who loses it. 


Sasha Gong

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/09/29/the-curious-case-of-xi-jinping/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Fox News hires former Cuomo aide who admitted to covering up nursing home deaths during COVID - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

Melissa DeRosa admitted on a conference call with Democratic lawmakers that the Cuomo administration hid the number of deaths at nursing homes, fearing it would be politicized by Cuomo's political opponents.

 

Fox News has hired a former aide to former New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo who admitted to covering up deaths at nursing homes in the state during the COVID pandemic. 

Melissa DeRosa will be a contributor and co-host of a new podcast, "The Girls," set to air beginning Oct. 1., according to a Fox News Media press release. 

DeRosa while working for the Cuomo admitted on a conference call with Democratic lawmakers that his administration hid the number of deaths at nursing homes, fearing it would be politicized by political opponents, including President Donald Trump, the Daily Caller reported. 

Revelations that New York omitted an unknown number of deaths from COVID in reports on residents of nursing homes and adult care facilities were first reported in 2020 by the Daily Caller. A 2021 report from the New York State Assembly alleged that Cuomo had personally edited the Department of Health’s numbers to reduce nursing home COVID deaths by thousands.

DeRosa resigned in August 2021 following allegations Cuomo sexually harassed government employees.  


Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/fox-news-hires-former-cuomo-aide-who-admitted-covering-nursing-home-deaths

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter