Hormuz blockade is 'worse than war’: Iranian official says US blockade would cost Iran $18 billion - Danielle Greyman-Kennard

 

by Danielle Greyman-Kennard

“We must not get used to the blockade as we did with sanctions,” Majidreza Hariri told Iranian site Khabar Online. “We should impose the cost of lifting the blockade on the US, even through war."

 

(photo credit: Screenshot/X/@PeteHegseth)

The ongoing American blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is going to cost the Iranian economy around $18 billion annually, Majidreza Hariri, head of the Iran-China Joint Chamber of Commerce, warned the Iranian media site Khabar Online earlier this week.

“We must not get used to the blockade as we did with sanctions,” he told the site. “We should impose the cost of lifting the blockade on the US, even through war.”

Hariri advised that Iran end the blockade by any means necessary, whether through negotiations, threats, or renewing the war, the site reported. His comments came after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly began advocating a strategy to circumvent the naval blockade.

Iran has invested in major infrastructure to increase truck-based trade

Iran has notably invested in major infrastructure to increase truck-based trade, raising the current level of bilateral trade from $3 billion to at least $10b., according to statements made by Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni last month.

Despite this investment, Hariri said that relying solely on land trade would mean restricting Iran’s import and export capacity to only 20%, and Iran lacks “appropriate relations” to trade with many of its neighbors.

Vessels at the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, June 26, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/STRINGER)

Though not expanded upon, Hariri’s comments likely allude to the fact that Iran has launched attacks on its Gulf neighbors’ critical infrastructure in addition to the United States military infrastructure housed there.

Based on Hariri’s calculation, a container shipped from China to Iran would cost four times as much to transport by land as by sea, reaching an average price of around $12,000. With around two million containers imported annually, and an average additional cost of $9,000, he said this would translate to around $18b. in additional costs for Iranians.

“The worst thing that could happen today is for us to think that we can circumvent the naval blockade and try to run the country despite it,” he said. “We did something similar with the sanctions. Instead of lifting them or finding mechanisms to neutralize them, we turned to circumventing the sanctions, and the result was a weakened economy and major corruption.”

Cost of land transit could mean non-oil experts would no longer be economically viable

Hariri added that the cost of land transit would also mean non-oil exports – which he valued at around $50b. annually – would no longer be economically viable.

“The naval blockade will create fundamental challenges for the country, and if it continues, the country’s economy will grind to a halt. Our total foreign trade is $100b. a year, and adding $20b. in costs to it would bring the entire process to a standstill,” he said.

“Perhaps in the short term, for several weeks or at most a few months, we could use rail and roads to obtain urgent necessities, but this would only work as a necessary measure during a short-term emergency. This is simply about staying alive, but with this approach, the ability to continue operating will be lost.”

He added that the sanctions had already “dramatically increased the costs of our trade, reduced national revenues, and caused the economy to develop an exhausted structure,” and that attempts to circumvent them had led to corruption.

“With the blockade, these developments will occur on a scale several times larger if we convince ourselves that we can circumvent it. We must not allow our economy, or the enemy, to get used to our naval blockade,” he said.

Hariri said that even if it came to “pleading” or renewed war, “this naval blockade must end,” as the consequences of war wouldn’t come close to the economic problems and goods shortages that will result from the continued blockade.

“We must also eliminate the perception in the US that it can resort to such an action whenever it wants, and make it understand that the consequences of such a move could be severe,” he advised.

Danielle Greyman-Kennard

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-905209

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Not Winning? Just Change the Rules - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

When the Left cannot win within the rules, it changes the rules—and when that fails, it changes the people who make them.

 

 

What binds the new Democratic Party to the new Democratic Socialists is a set of shared issues and values. That is, the radicalism of the Democrats in the age of Trump Derangement Syndrome—lawfare, de-balloting, the Mar-a-Lago raid, and calls to destroy the Electoral College, the nine-justice Supreme Court, and the filibuster—helped give birth to the socialists.

But the overriding commonality among those on the new Left is that if they do not get their way, they blame the “system.” Then they seek to change the rules, no matter how hallowed those laws and conventions may have been or how much they themselves benefited from them in the past.

When the Left lost the White House, Congress, and, for the most part, the Supreme Court, it began clamoring to change the system. For left-wing Democrats, that angst also translated into calls to bring in two new blue states, weaponize the FBI and DOJ, ally with social media to suppress the news, and spy on congressional representatives. All the socialists and communists did was up the ante in destroying norms by calling for the end of the presidency, the Senate, the border, the police, and the Pentagon.

By 2021, it was time to destroy the southern border and welcome in some 10 million illegal immigrants—without audits, English proficiency, health checks, or the ability to support themselves.

Had Kamala Harris been elected in 2024, we would have had another four years and another five million illegal aliens. And perhaps America would have gone from 50 million foreign-born residents to 60 million, or about 18 percent of the population.

In this regard, the Left sees California as our most liberal—and most ideal—state and perhaps concludes that the reason is that 28 percent of its resident population is now foreign-born, with the majority arriving with vast needs for health, education, housing, and food subsidies.

Today, 50 percent of all births in California are paid for by Medi-Cal, which serves 40 percent of the population. When second-generation immigrants are added to the foreign-born population, the two groups together comprise roughly 45 percent of California’s current population. This demographic transformation is one of the most profound in American history and came at a time when traditional civic education stressing assimilation, acculturation, integration, and knowledge of American traditions, history, and values was nearly nonexistent in California public schools.

So one way of achieving radical change was to alter the demography and welcome as many immigrants as possible who, in the first or second generation, might follow the examples of Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, or Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. They represent an entirely new sort of immigrant who arrives—or is born to immigrant parents—with both complaints against and dependence on their host country. They can see only the sins of America, never the catastrophes of their homeland that drove them or their parents here. This strange demand to change the rules whenever they do not bode well for angry and aggrieved parties permeates every possible manifestation of the Left, but is especially egregious when demanded by immigrants who came originally as uninvited guests but almost immediately damned their magnanimous host.

It is strange for so many new immigrants to act on an elemental desire to reach America—only on arrival to profess that it is full of toxic, sinful people, living and dead. Yet the damned hosts have inexplicably welcomed total strangers like themselves, and have allowed them to share in the freedom, security, and prosperity created by the dead whom the newcomers nonetheless endlessly slander and smear.

If particular minorities statistically did not do as well on the SAT as Asians and whites did on average, the solution was certainly not SAT tutorials in the inner city or K–12 SAT outreach, demands for tougher classes in grammar, math, and analytics, or a return to the melting pot rather than the current salad-bowl tribalist model.

Instead, after the George Floyd riots, the call went out to abolish the SAT entirely—as if there had never been a purpose behind its creation. In fact, merit-based SAT exams were designed in the 1920s and 1930s to allow anyone, regardless of race, gender, region, or class, to enter college through meritorious performance on the tests—and, in particular, to overcome old-boy insider preferences and regional and ethnic prejudices.

Yet when the SAT was mostly abolished for four or five years, higher education thought it had solved the problem of minority underrepresentation.

In fact, its racialist war on standards only magnified its dilemmas. The SAT had once informed admissions officers not only about applicants’ qualifications but also whether admitted students could do the work once enrolled.

But soon liberal professors learned that many of the newly admitted cohorts lacked the K–12 training necessary to do customary university coursework. Yet if professors maintained their regular courses, requirements, and grading, they might soon be labeled racists once particular minorities were shown to do less well than Asians and whites.

So universities inflated grades. They introduced new remedial and gut courses. And they reduced the required coursework. But again, racialism is never a solution to problems. Instead, it is a catalyst that fuels them—as we have seen with the new notion that plagiarism is not an actionable offense when the culprit can plead victim status, whether a former president of Harvard or a current professor at Cambridge. But there are ancient laws and norms that insist intellectual theft is a crime and should be punished, not rewarded or ignored.

Soon employers noticed that the reading, writing, and analytical skills of graduates from prestigious schools were proving dismal. Alumni complained both that the reputations of their almae matres were in decline and resting on the fumes of the past and that their own children, who had prepared diligently to ensure suitably competitive grades and SAT scores for admission, were being rejected solely on the basis of their race.

The Left likewise pushed for lower physical standards for the military’s ground-combat brigades so that women, on average far less strong than their male counterparts, could join elite units. Again, the same ignorance and arrogance were evident. Physical standards were based on a century of combat experience in which morale, group discipline, and unit success rested on ensuring that all soldiers achieved a common level of physical strength and endurance.

This neo-Marxist-driven demand to mandate equality—albeit now substituting racial and gender consciousness for class consciousness—requires the destruction of established traditions, laws, and norms. The radical Left’s key agendas—defunding the police, destroying the border, granting mass amnesties to illegal aliens, subsidizing wind and solar energy while waging a war on fossil fuels, and expanding racial essentialism in hiring and admissions—have never won more than 30 to 40 percent support among the general public. Yet the solution was not to ask why, and then to reflect, reboot, and recalibrate in order to discover how the Left had lost public support.

Instead, the solution was to alter or destroy the system that had denied them power.

So communists, socialists, and radical Democrats prefer moving the goalposts. When equality of opportunity was largely achieved, next they demanded a mandated equality of outcome.

With the ascendancy of a large, affluent middle class, the Left, in its eternal search for a victimized class, pivoted and replaced class oppression with racial victimization.

And when there were not yet enough victimized minorities to guarantee a majority constituency of the aggrieved, the Left redefined the victimized to include anyone who was not a white heterosexual male, regardless of income and privilege.

And when the people finally tired of the Leftists’ totalitarian social engineering, the Left sought to change the system by radically altering the way Americans vote, the manner in which government is formed and functions, and, finally, the very demography of America.

The common denominator? Human nature revolts at forced statism, coercive redistribution, and government-mandated equality of results. It instead yearns for liberty and freedom.

No matter how much deception, camouflage, or brainwashing is employed, statism, socialism, and communism can never sustain public support. Throughout history, the Left has therefore begun by changing the rules and altering the demography—if not initially through changes to election rules, bureaucratic fiat, and biased court orders, then eventually through sheer violence.

Photo: Senate Appropriations Committee Supplemental Hearing UNITED STATES - JULY 21: U.S. Capitol Police move in to remove anti-war protesters interrupting Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testifying during the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on "Review of the President's Supplemental Funding Request of June 24, 2026" in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Tuesday, July 21, 2026. Also testifying were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Caine and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)  

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/2026/08/11/not-winning-just-change-the-rules/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'A new era begins': Israel, Venezuela open up consular relations for first time in 17 years - Amichai Stein, Jerusalem Post Staff, Yoav Etiel

 

by Amichai Stein, Jerusalem Post Staff, Yoav Etiel

The move creates an official channel of coordination between Israel and Venezuela, which have not maintained diplomatic relations since 2009.

 

A supporter of opposition leader Maria Corina Machado’s Vente Venezuela wears a Venezuelan flag during a rally marking the two-year anniversary of presidential elections, which authorities said Nicolas Maduro won, in Caracas, Venezuela, July 28, 2026.

(photo credit: REUTERS/LEONARDO FERNANDEZ VILORIA)

srael and Venezuela agreed to renew consular relations and establish an official coordination channel after 17 years without diplomatic ties, the countries said in a joint announcement on Tuesday.

The move creates an official coordination channel between Israel and Venezuela, which have not maintained diplomatic relations since 2009.

The agreement followed talks held in recent weeks between Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Félix Plasencia.

During the talks, the two sides agreed to establish a coordination mechanism that will enable consular services to be provided to citizens of both countries.

Rescuers search through debris, in the aftermath of the June 24 earthquakes in Caraballeda, La Guaira state, Venezuela, July 9, 2026. (credit: Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters)

The statement also emphasized the importance of ties between the State of Israel and Venezuela’s Jewish community, which the community celebrated.

"After 17 years without consular relations, Venezuela and Israel are advancing in a confidence-building process that began with the various Israeli and Jewish organizations that came to Venezuela on the occasion of the double earthquake that struck the country on June 24, and which on that occasion provided great technical and humanitarian aid in the face of the tragedy and devastation," National Coordinator of the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, Dr. Miguel Truzman wrote in a statement.

"Today, a new era begins, taking a first step in the Consular area, as technical support in the areas required, and in the near future, diplomatic relations between both nations will be fully restored."

Jewish residents of Venezuela said that they were excited for a return to normal relations between the two countries.

“This is news that fills us with hope and joy and marks a significant step toward rapprochement and a return to normalcy for many people who have waited years for practical solutions,” A., a Jewish resident of Caracas, told Walla.

He added that “the renewal of the consular coordination mechanism between Venezuela and Israel is not merely a diplomatic matter.

"First and foremost, it provides much-needed relief for families and citizens by facilitating procedures and administrative matters, and by building a bridge of understanding and human assistance where there had previously been distance," he added.

“I warmly welcome this rapprochement, which offers an opportunity to renew ties, resolve everyday issues, and look to the future with a renewed commitment to cooperation and mutual respect,” he said. “Bravo to Minister Félix Ramón Plasencia González, and bravo to AIV Chief Rabbi Isaac Cohen."

Israel and Venezuela agree to continue coordination after massive earthquake

Additionally, following the earthquake and the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, the pair also agreed to continue cooperating on emergency response and recovery efforts. An Israeli delegation was deployed there in June and has since helped tens of thousands of Venezuelans return to their homes.

The Venezuelan government’s receipt of Israeli assistance contrasts with the complete cut-off in relations between the countries dating back to 2009.

In the aftermath, officials estimated that at least 5,000 people died.

Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report. 

Amichai Stein, Jerusalem Post Staff, Yoav Etiel

Source:https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-905225

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-905225 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Netanyahu’s congressional call for a NATO-style alliance to counter Iran gives way to a Sunni state alliance - Alex Traiman

 

by Alex Traiman

The new Ankara-Riyadh-Islamabad alignment presents Israel with a complex strategic calculus that requires careful navigation.

 

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reviews the honor guard as he welcomes Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Complex in Ankara on June 22, 2022. Photo by Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood at the podium before a joint session of the U.S. Congress in July 2024, he laid out a bold vision for the future security architecture of the Middle East. Confronting what he described as an existential struggle between civilization and barbarism, Netanyahu called on Washington to help build a permanent regional defense coalition, a NATO-style alliance designed explicitly to neutralize the existential threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“In the Middle East, Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends,” Netanyahu told lawmakers. “America and Israel can forge a regional security alliance in the Middle East to counter the growing Iranian threat. All countries that are at peace with Israel and all those countries that will make peace with Israel should be invited to join this alliance.”

Netanyahu dubbed this vision the “Abraham Alliance,” pointing to the historic April 2024 interception of over 300 Iranian drones and missiles by an ad hoc coalition of American, Israeli, Arab and Western forces as proof that such a coalition was not merely a theoretical pipe dream, but an operational necessity.

At the time, the geopolitical logic seemed central. For decades, Iran had been creating a Shi’ite terror crescent, stretching from Tehran through Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, down to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in Yemen, that was destabilizing the entire Middle East. The regime’s ring of fire, powered by proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Shi’ite militias and the Houthis, threatened the Jewish state and moderate Sunni Arab regimes alike. The ultimate counterweight appeared to be a unified front led by Israel—the region’s acknowledged military and technological powerhouse—alongside key Arab signatories of the Abraham Accords and, crucially, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Fast forward to the present reality, and the regional chessboard has taken a dramatic, unexpected turn. Rather than an Israel-anchored “Abraham Alliance,” what has emerged on the ground is a sweeping mutual defense arrangement forged entirely among major Sunni Muslim powers—specifically Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.

A new Sunni axis emerges

In a development that has sent shock waves through international diplomatic circles, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan recently signed a comprehensive mutual defense agreement. The pact explicitly declares that an armed attack against any one of the three nations will be regarded as an attack against all three, a provision that Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan noted is technically equivalent to NATO’s famous Article 5 collective defense clause.

The composition of this coalition has profound significance. Saudi Arabia is the financial heavyweight of the Arab world and the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites; Turkey brings NATO’s second-largest standing military to the table; and Pakistan is the Muslim world’s sole nuclear-armed state. All three are prominent Sunni-majority nations.

The catalyst for Riyadh’s turn toward Ankara and Islamabad—leaving Israel on the sidelines of its primary formal alliance structure—lies in the escalating regional violence perpetrated by Iran’s proxy network. Despite heavy blows dealt to Iran’s offensive capabilities over months of conflict, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have stepped up direct cross-border attacks on Saudi territory, alongside attacks from Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. Fearing an impending, large-scale direct strike from Tehran or its proxies, Saudi Arabia sought immediate, concrete security guarantees.

Strategic implications and caution for Jerusalem

For Israel, this new Sunni alignment presents a complex strategic calculus that requires careful navigation. While Riyadh’s primary motivation is containing Tehran, Jerusalem must watch this alliance closely. Any defense arrangement heavily influenced by Turkey demands deep scrutiny, given President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s long-standing hostile rhetoric toward Israel.

President Donald Trump previously noted that his administration worked to keep Turkey from entering the broader regional war, a scenario where Turkish forces could have targeted Israel directly. Yet, within the framework of this new Sunni pact, Turkey’s military weight is now re-anchored against a different target. Instead of directing its forces southward, Turkey may ultimately be drawn into confronting Israel’s primary strategic adversary, Iran, should Tehran or its proxies attack Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, this pact does not mean Saudi Arabia has abandoned its long-term trajectory toward normalization with Israel. Riyadh remains firmly opposed to Iranian hegemony and continues to operate within the broader orbit of states aligned with Washington. Signing a mutual defense agreement with Turkey and Pakistan does not preclude Saudi Arabia from pursuing future diplomatic ties with Israel, nor does it automatically turn the pact as a whole into an active offensive threat to the Jewish state.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe the United States is not merely an observer, but potentially a quiet facilitator of this dynamic. Washington maintains strong ties with Ankara, Riyadh and Islamabad, with President Trump frequently citing his strong personal relationships to both Erdoğan and Pakistan’s military leadership. By supporting a Sunni defense bloc, the U.S. establishes a powerful regional containment mechanism against Iranian aggression without necessitating a heavier deployment of American ground forces.

The Shi’ite crescent vs the Sunni bloc

The geopolitical reality of the Middle East is being rapidly rewritten. For years, Iran’s strategy relied on exploiting regional divisions to build its Shi’ite terror crescent, encircling Israel and threatening Gulf monarchies through asymmetric proxy warfare. By weaponizing proxies across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Tehran destabilized the region while keeping its homeland largely insulated from direct cost.

Today, that dynamic has inverted. The Iranian economy is on the brink of absolute collapse, its proxy network has been severely battered, and its strategic depth is eroding. Instead of confronting a fragmented Middle East, Tehran faces a dual front: on one side, an uncompromising Israeli military “locked and loaded” to defend its sovereignty; on the other, an emerging defense bloc of three major Sunni military powers backed by global weight.

While Prime Minister Netanyahu’s explicit vision of a formal “Abraham Alliance” with Israel at the center has evolved into a distinct Sunni state alliance, the strategic core of his message to Congress remains unchanged: The push to isolate and counter Iran has become the defining axis of Middle Eastern security. Whether through formal treaties or operational alignment, the nations of the region are recognizing that confronting Tehran’s destabilizing agenda is the nonnegotiable prerequisite for long-term regional stability. 

Alex Traiman is the CEO and Jerusalem bureau chief of the Jerusalem News Syndicate (JNS) and host of “Jerusalem Minute.” A seasoned Israeli journalist, documentary filmmaker and startup consultant, he is an expert on Israeli politics and U.S.-Israel relations. He has interviewed top political figures, including Israeli leaders, U.S. senators and national security officials with insights featured on major networks like BBC, Bloomberg, CBS, NBC, Fox and Newsmax. A former NCAA champion fencer and Yeshiva University Sports Hall of Fame member, he made aliyah in 2004, and lives in Jerusalem with his wife and five children.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/alex-traiman/netanyahus-congressional-call-for-a-nato-style-alliance-to-counter-iran-gives-way-to-a-sunni-state-alliance

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Dictatorship of Virtue - Pierre Rehov

 

by Pierre Rehov

University offices created to enforce civil rights law grew into administrative empires devoted to reshaping thought and policing dissent.

 

• Certain opinions are no longer treated as debatable; they are treated as evidence of bigotry or harm. Institutions that once managed disagreement now police belief, and dissent is answered not with argument but with consequences a person can feel: a lost job, a withdrawn invitation, a name circulated as a warning to others.

• Nowhere has the shift been more thorough than in higher education. University offices created to enforce civil rights law grew into administrative empires devoted to reshaping thought and policing dissent. Many universities began requiring faculty candidates to submit "diversity statements" that worked as political litmus tests, obliging applicants to affirm theories about systemic oppression and then pledge to advance them.

• Employees were pressured to affirm contested propositions, among them that all white people benefit from and are complicit in racism, or that colorblindness is itself a form of bias, rather than simply to treat colleagues fairly. Several brands then paid a commercial price when customers concluded they had been recast as targets to be re-educated.

• Some school districts "socially transitioned" children without telling their parents, then labeled the objecting parents extremists. When states legislated to protect minors and preserve single-sex spaces such as restrooms and changing rooms, the answer from activist organizations was frequently accusations of bigotry rather than arguing with evidence.

• When institutions decide that disagreement itself constitutes harm, fact-finding becomes secondary to control of the narrative.

• The American constitutional order rests on the opposite assumption. The Founding Founders did not believe any faction held a monopoly on truth and morality or a right to compel agreement. They protected speech because they knew the powerful would always be tempted to silence inconvenient views in the name of progress or safety, and always claimed to be for the listener's own good. The First Amendment exists to shield the opinions that the elites and the powerful dislike, not the ones they already share. It reflects a sober estimate of human nature and the appetites of institutional power.

• Enforced virtue has never produced better people. It produces people who have learned to keep their real thoughts to themselves until the moment they no longer have to.

Certain opinions are no longer treated as debatable; they are treated as evidence of bigotry or harm. Institutions that once managed disagreement now police belief, and dissent is answered not with argument but with consequences a person can feel: a lost job, a withdrawn invitation, a name circulated as a warning to others.

The urge to treat political disagreement as moral failure did not originate in American universities or human resources departments. It is an impulse older than the Spanish Inquisition, and it always arrives wearing the robes of a higher cause.

During the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre argued that the new republic required citizens whose private convictions aligned with revolutionary virtue. Those who fell short were not considered fellow citizens holding different opinions. They were enemies of the people, to be corrected or removed. He built the machinery to enforce that view, and for a year the Reign of Terror sent thousands to the guillotine on suspicion of insufficient zeal. Then the premise turned on him. On July 27, 1794, the same Convention Robespierre had threatened the day before shouted him down and decreed his arrest; the next evening, he and 21 of his closest associates met the same guillotine, without trial, before a cheering crowd.

The experiment proved a durable lesson: once a faction claims the exclusive right to define truth and the power to enforce it, the result is not a better society but fear, purges, and eventual backlash against the enforcers themselves.

The same impulse now operates inside the United States under gentler branding. Diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-racism, and transgender affirmation have replaced the older revolutionary vocabulary, but the structure is identical. Certain opinions are no longer treated as debatable; they are treated as evidence of bigotry or harm. Institutions that once managed disagreement now police belief, and dissent is answered not with argument but with consequences a person can feel: a lost job, a withdrawn invitation, a name circulated as a warning to others.

Consider what happened to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor of medicine who argued that prolonged COVID-19 lockdowns would harm children and that protection should focus on the elderly. Internal records later released as "the Twitter files" showed that the social media platform had quietly placed him on a "Trends Blacklist" that throttled the reach of his posts. He had used no abusive language. His offense was holding a scientific position that Twitter, under pressure from the US federal government, had decided fell outside permissible debate.

Nowhere has the shift been more thorough than in higher education. University offices created to enforce civil rights law grew into administrative empires devoted to reshaping thought and policing dissent. Many universities began requiring faculty candidates to submit "diversity statements" that worked as political litmus tests, obliging applicants to affirm theories about systemic oppression and then pledge to advance them. Eventually, some states, such as Florida and Texas, moved to ban these requirements at public institutions precisely because they operated as loyalty oaths. When Texas's law took effect, the University of Texas at Austin dismissed roughly 60 staff and shuttered the offices that had administered them.

The 2023 congressional hearings on antisemitism at American universities exposed the double standard in real time. Asked directly whether "calling for the genocide of Jews" violated their codes of conduct, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania each answered that "the answer depended on the context." The equivocation was not accidental. It revealed institutions that had spent years expanding the definition of "harm" to shield favored groups while struggling to name an actual call for mass murder. Within days, Liz Magill resigned from Penn, and the storm over Harvard's Claudine Gay had begun.

Corporate America, in 2020, absorbed the same demands. Following the death of George Floyd, major companies pledged billions to "racial equity" programs and training that often recast ordinary workplace friction as evidence of systemic racism. Employees were pressured to affirm contested propositions, among them that all white people benefit from and are complicit in racism, or that colorblindness is itself a form of bias, rather than simply to treat colleagues fairly. Several brands then paid a commercial price when customers concluded they had been recast as targets to be re-educated. Anheuser-Busch learned this most expensively: after Bud Light created a commemorative beer can for transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, a boycott took hold, the brand lost its decades-long crown as America's best-selling beer, and the parent company's North American revenue fell by roughly $1.4 billion over the year. The big-box retailer Target absorbed a similar blow over LGBT pride merchandise marketed to children.

The same pattern reached the institutions that supply information. During the COVID-19 pandemic, legitimate questions about lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine policy were frequently reframed as moral rather than empirical disputes. The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford and eventually by tens of thousands more medical professionals, was denounced and quietly suppressed. Later data on learning loss, heaviest among poor and minority children, and on the mental health toll of prolonged closures suggested that those inconvenient opinions had not been wrong, merely unwelcome.

Enforcement has been equally aggressive on transgenderism. American medical organizations continued to push an "affirmation-only" model for minors even as Europe moved the other way. Britain's Cass Review found "remarkably weak" evidence that puberty blockers relieve gender dysphoria and led the UK National Health Service to halt their routine use, with Sweden and Finland restricting such treatment to research settings. Gender transition in the US, meanwhile, exploded, driven largely by adolescent girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria, and detransitioners began suing the medical practitioners and institutions that had rushed them.

Some school districts "socially transitioned" children without telling their parents, then labeled the objecting parents extremists. When states legislated to protect minors and preserve single-sex spaces such as restrooms and changing rooms, the answer from activist organizations was frequently accusations of bigotry rather than arguing with evidence.

When institutions decide that disagreement itself constitutes harm, fact-finding becomes secondary to control of the narrative.

This approach carries predictable costs. When institutions punish dissent and reward conformity, they bleed competence and public trust. Over the past decade, public opinion polls by Gallup have recorded falling confidence across most major institutions, from the media to large corporations to the US Congress, with higher education suffering the steepest decline of all, from a 57% majority in 2015 to a record low of 36%. Parents have organized at school boards. States have cut funding for diversity bureaucracies. These reactions are routinely filed under "polarization" or "backlash." They can equally be described as citizens noticing that certain institutions decided ordinary Americans required re-education, and are beginning to say no.

The American constitutional order rests on the opposite assumption. The Founding Founders did not believe any faction held a monopoly on truth and morality or a right to compel agreement. They protected speech because they knew the powerful would always be tempted to silence inconvenient views in the name of progress or safety, and always claimed to be for the listener's own good. The First Amendment exists to shield the opinions that the elites and the powerful dislike, not the ones they already share. It reflects a sober estimate of human nature and the appetites of institutional power.

A dictatorship of virtue eventually consumes its own promises. It guarantees fairness and cohesion but delivers resentment, cynicism and decay. America is watching the process unfold across its campuses, corporations, newsrooms and government agencies. The question is not whether citizens will keep noticing the contradictions and their costs; they already have. It is whether the institutions that embraced this model will adapt before they spend the last of their legitimacy. History is not encouraging. Enforced virtue has never produced better people. It produces people who have learned to keep their real thoughts to themselves until the moment they no longer have to.

Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22662/dictatorship-of-virtue

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hamas sniper targets IDF as postwar plan gains momentum - Israel National News

 

by Israel National News

Violating ceasefire, Hamas sniper targets IDF troops, forcing response and highlighting danger in IDF withdrawal.

 

Hamas terrorists training in Gaza                                      (illustrative)Aaed Tayeh/Flash90

DF troops on Tuesday eliminated a Hamas sniper who violated the ceasefire and posed an immediate threat to troops.

"A short while ago, IDF troops identified a sniper from the Hamas terrorist organization who posed an immediate threat near the Yellow Line area, where IDF troops are operating in the northern Gaza Strip," the IDF confirmed.

"Shortly after the identification, IDF troops fired toward the terrorist in order to remove the threat. A hit was identified.

"IDF troops under the Southern Command remain deployed in the area in accordance with the agreement and will continue to operate to remove any immediate threat."

Hamas' violation of the ceasefire follows reports that the IDF is already implementing a 15-point plan to reconstruct Gaza, despite the terror group's failure to disarm.

Earlier on Tuesday, Channel 12 News reported that the proposed multinational force is not expected to begin deploying in Gaza before October, with a real possibility that its arrival will be delayed until after Israel's elections.

On Monday, senior officials in Gaza's "Board of Peace" told Ynet that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declaration rejecting the 15-point Gaza plan is in contradiction to the facts on the ground.

"We look at actions in practice, and less at words and declarations," the sources told Ynet. "In practice, Israel has halted targeted killings and is observing the ceasefire."

According to the officials, "In essence, Israel is keeping the 15-point agreement. The IDF is positioned along the original Yellow Line, controlling 53% of the Gaza Strip, and there are no outposts or forces beyond the yellow line. Israel is implementing the 15-point document even while verbally rejecting it. Of course, it would have been better for Israel if its declarations matched its actions, because it would have benefited diplomatically from complying with the agreement."

On Saturday night, Channel 12 News reported that Israel's defense establishment recently held discussions examining the possibility of withdrawing IDF forces from several locations in the Gaza Strip.

According to the report, the exiting IDF forces would be replaced with a multinational force, despite Hamas remaining far from disarming.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly stated that the IDF will not withdraw from the "Yellow Line" until Hamas disarms. However, according to the report, security officials are already preparing contingency plans should a withdrawal be approved.

Channel 12 noted that the exact definition of "disarmament" has yet to be clarified, but the US is increasing pressure on Israel to withdraw from Gaza.

A senior security source told Channel 12, "The number of troops [in the multi-national force] is simply not enough. It's only a handful of soldiers, and they're trying to build towers on the basis of that force. It's very worrying. The Americans aren't leaving us with many alternatives - but they're creating a problem for us in Gaza."

The report also noted that defense officials greatly doubt that such a limited force could play a meaningful role in Gaza, particularly if it is expected to replace IDF troops in areas from which Israel withdraws. 

Israel National News

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/431567

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Defunding police and prisons: Radical DSA platform grabs spotlight as candidates surge in primaries - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

The Democratic Socialists of America platform contains radical proposals, from abolishing the Senate and office of the President to getting rid of police and prisons.

 

As they experience newfound success across the United States in Democratic primaries, the Democratic Socialists of America have gone on a media blitz to share their vision for America. That vision includes radical changes to the American political system, like abolishing the senate, heavily restricting private markets, and abolishing police and prisons. 

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) rode a wave of dissatisfaction with the status quo to unprecedented electoral success this year. DSA affiliated candidates and fellow travelers lead New York City and are poised to dominate its congressional delegation. In other areas of the country, DSA candidates are campaigning on a radical platform once unthinkable.

Beyond New York, DSA candidates have won in Colorado, Michigan, and in down-ballot races in Oregon, California, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Utah and Maryland. 

Dismantling the entire American system of government

On Tuesday, a DSA member is leading in the polls for the Democratic Party nomination for governor in Wisconsin, testing the viability of the far-left political and economic messaging in a state that President Donald Trump won in 2024. Controversy has followed Francesca Hong. Like many other DSA affiliates, her past social media posts, including arguing to defund the police and calling to cancel Thanksgiving, are at the center of it. 

In an interview last month on Fox News, DSA’s national co-chair, Megan Romer, answered that, “yes,” the DSA’s platform includes “abolishing the Senate,” “[replacing] the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them,” and "absolutely" abolishing immigration enforcement, defunding the military, and, eventually, abolishing police and prisons. 

“Yes,” “true,” and “yep,” said Romer in response to the host’s questions. 

The relentless media tour by senior DSA leaders focused scrutiny on the organization's official platform. Republicans sensed an opening and traditional Democrats are worried the group’s radical proposals might sink the party’s midterm chances. 

Indeed, many of the Democratic Socialist leaders are self-professed communists, Just the News previously reported. Many of the DSA’s leaders belong to internal party caucuses that explicitly define themselves as Marxist and advocate for achieving communism. This includes Romer, who is a member of the Red Star caucus of the DSA, which explicitly pronounces its ultimate aim: the overthrow of capitalism in the U.S. and, eventually, communism. 

Last month, the DSA released a new “program,” or platform, that outlined its priorities. Here are some of the most striking in the group’s own words: 

• ‘End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity’ 

The DSA’s platform includes radical proposals to defund, and eventually abolish, the “police and prison system,” which the organization argues is slanted for the benefit of the rich. Similar comments made by DSA-backed candidates have stirred controversy.   

“Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor,” the DSA’s program reads. 

Francesca Hong, the DSA member vying for the gubernatorial nomination in Wisconsin, has worked to distance herself from prior social media posts from years ago in which she argued for abolishing police. “I support defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police,” Hong posted in 2020, echoing the modern DSA policy platform. 

Other DSA-tied candidates have come under fire for holding similar views. For example, Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York City faced scrutiny for a series of deleted posts to social media expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders, seizing private property, and nationalizing industries, Just the News previously reported. 

“A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward,” Chevalier posted to Twitter, now X, in September 2021.

• ‘Abolish ICE’ and ‘Amnesty for All’

The DSA’s program also calls for completely ending immigration enforcement, including ICE detentions and deportations. 

DSA organizers have been at the center of nationwide protests against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies, cooperating with a coalition of left-wing organizations, some of which received funding from China-based billionaire Neville Roy Singham.  

“End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas,” DSA’s program reads. 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is a member of the DSA, has called repeatedly for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished. 

“As [New York’s] mayor, I firmly believe that ICE should be abolished,” Mamdani said. “I will not sit here beside you and proclaim the only way to respond to [immigration] is an agency that I'm older than.”

Hong, who will face Wisconsin Democratic voters on Tuesday, has also called for abolishing the agency. “Abolishing ICE isn’t radical — it’s good policy,” she posted to social media in January. 

• ‘Abolish the Senate’ and ‘Replace the President and Supreme Court’

The DSA’s proposals for reforming the United States government are also nothing short of radical. The organization envisions completely remaking the three separate branches of power in Washington and replacing the current system with a single legislature that directly appoints the other branches. 

For example, rather than reform the Senate, as some Democratic politicians have argued for many years, the DSA wants to do away with the upper legislative chamber completely, vesting all congressional power in an expanded and more proportional House of Representatives. The organization's leaders argue that doing so would make the country more democratic and representative. 

“The Senate is a very undemocratic institution,” DSA co-chairman Ashik Siddiqu said in an interview on C-SPAN. “I talked a bit about democracy, a ‘small d’ democracy, and that’s really important to us. We want democratic representation of all people who live in this country.”

• “Public Ownership” of “Corporations”

The DSA calls for the “public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.” This program of nationalization would be “to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.” To this end, the organization’s program calls for “the end of capitalism” as the system of economic organization. 

In some way, New York City Mayor Mamdani is piloting aspects of this broader plan in a place where the DSA actually holds levers of power. His city-run grocery store experiment intends to create a system of stores that will offer a 30% discount compared to private competitors. The plan has some in the city warning that the stores will cost taxpayers and may force private stores to close. 

More easily said than done

The platform also argues for replacing the presidency and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary panel “chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” 

All of these reforms would require major constitutional changes. Abolishing the Senate would likely require the approval of all the states because of the special constitutional provision requiring each state to have “equal Suffrage in the Senate.” 

Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/democratic-socialist-platform-spotlight-candidates-surge-primaries

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Just the News Exclusive: Lawmakers demand records from software vendor over foreign voter registrations in NJ - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

The New Jersey governor’s claim that a glitch resulted in the registration of 6,600 noncitizen voters in the state was disputed by the software vendor running the program.

 

The two House committees probing how 6,600 non-citizens ended up on New Jersey voter rolls asked the software vendor that administers the state’s system on Tuesday to turn over all documents and communications related to the alleged software errors that allowed ineligible voters to be registered. 

Republican leadership of the House Administration and Judiciary Committees conveyed their demands to the software company IDEMIA North America on Tuesday, according to a letter Just the News reviewed.

The lawmakers also sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon asking the Justice Department to investigate whether New Jersey is fully complying with federal laws, especially the Civil Rights Act. 

The request for materials comes amid a dispute between New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherill, a Democrat, and the software vendor, IDEMIA, over whether a software glitch caused the registration errors at the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC). IDEMIA North America is a branch of IDEMIA, a France-based company.

Last month, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill claimed that such a software glitch resulted in the state’s motor vehicle system accidentally registering 6,600 non-citizens to vote. She also acknowledged that the error allowed at least 400 of those individuals to vote in recent elections. 

However, the software vendor for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, IDEMIA, issued a statement disputing those claims, saying it was the responsibility of the state government to verify eligibility to vote, Just the News first reported last month.  

In fact, according to subsequent reporting, the Motor Vehicle Commission had identified the issue in June 2024 and requested at the time that the software vendor change its settings so that those who said they were non-citizens would not have the option to register to vote.

“Based on this information, the Committees are concerned about the application of federal law in New Jersey as it pertains to accurate voter registration, as well as the effect that New Jersey’s failure to identify and remove noncitizens from its voter rolls has on the civil liberties of American voters and their ability to elect their representatives,” House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Rep. Laurel Lee and Rep. Jeff Van Drew wrote in the letter. 

“As the vendor that provided the software that allegedly made an error, IDEMIA has relevant information regarding the nature of the supposed error, the information collected by your software that New Jersey had in its possession, and how IDEMIA communicated with New Jersey state authorities about fixing the error,” they added. 

You can read the letters to IDEMIA and the Justice Department below: 

2026-08-11 JDJ BS LL JVD to Cole - IDEMIA re NJ noncitizen voting.pdf

2026-08-11 JVD JDJ LL BS to DOJ - Dhillon re NJ noncitizen voting.pdf

The lawmakers asked IDEMIA to turn over all documents and communications related to the alleged software errors resulting in the illegal registrations, including how the errors were discovered. Additionally, they asked the company for its communications with the state of New Jersey regarding the collection of voter information and about how the errors were identified and corrected. 

The House committees also sent a letter to New Jersey’s chief elections official, Lt. Gov. Dale Caldwell, last week seeking information about the “alleged software errors,” Just the News reported.

“Thousands of noncitizens registering to vote in New Jersey is not a minor mistake. It is a massive breakdown of the safeguards that are supposed to protect our elections,” Rep. Van Drew told Just the News in a statement. 

“If people who openly identified themselves as noncitizens were still able to register to vote, then we have every right to ask how many others slipped through the cracks. That is why this is now a coordinated effort between Congress and the Department of Justice to get to the bottom of exactly what happened," he said. 

"We are asking the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to brief the Committee on its findings, and New Jersey cannot run away from the questions that Congress and the Administration are asking," Van Drew went on. "The people of New Jersey deserve answers, accountability, and immediate action. The right to vote belongs to American citizens, and we will not apologize for demanding a system that verifies that basic requirement." 

Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/exclusive-lawmakers-demand-records-software-vendor-over-foreign-voter

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

DOJ to conduct poll monitoring in Minnesota primary - Ben Whedon

 

by Ben Whedon

Minnesota voters are set to choose party nominees for the governor's race and several down-ballot contests.

 

The Department of Justice on Tuesday will conduct poll monitoring in Minnesota counties during the state's primary elections.

The operation will take place in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, and include roughly 20 personnel from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division and the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office.

“Minnesota is DOJ’s next stop on its nationwide effort to ensure free and fair elections,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement. “The DOJ is committed to nondiscriminatory monitoring throughout the primary and general election seasons.”

The effort comes as the Trump administration works with states to clean up voter rolls and has attempted to crack down on voter fraud across the nation.

Minnesota voters are set to choose party nominees for the governor's race and several down-ballot contests.

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

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/doj-conduct-poll-monitoring-minnesota-primary

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

DOJ seeks to shield Trump advisers from Dem probes - Avery Lotz

 

by Avery Lotz

The new opinion could create a new hurdle for Democrats should they retake Congress.

 

A banner showing a picture of President Trump is displayed outside of the Department of Justice (DOJ) building on July 2 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Executive privilege can shield President Trump's communications with "private advisers" outside of the government, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded Monday.

Why it matters: Democrats have been planning to bypass expected White House stonewalling by subpoenaing companies, colleges and private citizens if they win enough seats in November. The new opinion could create a new hurdle for Democrats should they retake Congress.

• "It really could be a pretty significant weapon" for the administration "to deflect a lot of that congressional investigation of private parties," says Jonathan Shaub, a University of Kentucky law professor and former OLC attorney.

The fine print: "The need for presidential confidentiality applies to communications with private advisers just as it does with government officials," the opinion reads, arguing outside sources may be less willing to give advice if they fear public disclosure.

• The OLC said privilege applies when three boxes are checked: The communications must "relate to official presidential decisionmaking," "involve or reflect communications" with the president or his direct advisers, and remain confidential.
• The memo's release was first reported by Punchbowl News.
• Beyond its implications for future fights on the Hill, the opinion comes as the administration fights an American Bar Association subpoena directed at Boris Epshteyn, Trump's senior personal counsel, in relation to a lawsuit over deals the administration struck with law firms.

Reality check: Even if the memo offers a legal argument for individuals fighting subpoenas, Shaub doubts courts will buy into the OLC's theory.

• Shaub tells Axios that while the OLC has long held a broad interpretation of executive privilege, this goes beyond anything it's formally ruled in the past.
• "The understanding was the general public and the courts would never accept this," he says. However, "this OLC doesn't seem hesitant to make these broad, sweeping claims."
• And while it could be a roadblock for lawmakers seeking information from private parties, it only applies to presidential duties, Shaub says. A probe into something like Trump's cryptocurrency empire may be harder to defend as privileged.

What they're saying: A DOJ official told Axios in a statement that the "issue has not been litigated frequently," but the opinion "reaffirms the longstanding position of the office going back at least as far as Paul Clement in 2007 and arguably as far back as 1972."

The other side: Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff (Calif.), however, slammed the opinion as a "partisan measure to insulate the president and his corrupt activities from Congressional subpoenas."

Catch up quick: The Trump administration has intermingled with the private sector in historic ways and has built a political orbit that stretches far beyond his Cabinet into business, tech, media and his family.

• It has also taken other steps to shield records from the public, including declaring the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978 unconstitutional (in a memo that was later shot down by a federal judge).

What we're watching: The OLC opinion lands as the administration's legal apparatus undergoes a makeover: Todd Blanche was formally sworn in as attorney general, and White House staff secretary Will Scharf will soon take over as White House counsel.

• If the midterms go well for Democrats, that could put Scharf at the center of debates over executive privilege.

Go deeper: Inside Trump's assault on public records

Editor's note: This story has been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff. 

Avery Lotz

Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/08/11/trump-doj-executive-privilege-democratic-probes

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter