Defense Minister: 'Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza' - Uzi Baruch

 

by Uzi Baruch

Defense Minister Katz declared that Israel is determined to keep the IDF in security zones in Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip indefinitely to protect Israel's borders and communities.

 

Israel Katz                                                                                                             Flash 90

Defense Minister Israel Katz announced Monday that Israel has no intention of withdrawing IDF forces from the security zones currently held in Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip, saying the military will remain there indefinitely to protect Israel’s borders and communities.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I are leading a clear policy that the IDF will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza indefinitely in order to defend the border and Israeli communities against jihadist elements," Katz wrote.

The defense minister said the areas under IDF control would be cleared of local residents and that all terrorist infrastructure, both above and below ground, would be destroyed.

“The area will be cleared of local residents, and all terrorist infrastructure, including the houses that served as terrorist outposts, will be destroyed," he said.

Katz described the establishment of security zones and the IDF’s territorial control as a major lesson from the October 7th massacre, calling it “one of the IDF’s greatest achievements" in the current war under the direction of Israel’s political leadership.

The defense minister also addressed international pressure calling for an Israeli withdrawal, particularly from southern Lebanon, and said the government would oppose such moves.

“We oppose the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon despite all existing pressures and those that may come in the future," Katz stated.

He said Netanyahu had raised the issue with U.S. President Donald Trump and other senior American officials, while Katz himself discussed it with Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Katz also criticized opposition figures who support an IDF withdrawal, saying they should publicly state their position so that Israelis can judge the competing approaches.

“We will not compromise on Israel’s supreme security interest, the protection of our citizens, and we will not withdraw from the security zones," he said. “If Iran attacks Israel because of the events in Lebanon, we will strike with full force and clearly demonstrate the disparity in power. We are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the State of Israel." 

Uzi Baruch

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428649

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What does America get for $3.8 billion in Israel? - John Spencer

 

by John Spencer

Far from being a one-way transfer, U.S. military assistance to Israel delivers substantial strategic, economic and security returns to the United States.

 

Ground crew members apply an Israeli Air Force insignia to the fuselage of an F-35I “Adir” fighter jet, one of three newly arrived U.S.-made aircraft at Nevatim Airbase in the Negev, on Jan. 18, 2026. Credit: IDF.

 

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the question: Why does the United States give Israel $3.8 billion in military aid? Or what does the United States get in return for our $3.8 billion? If genuine, these are fair questions, and U.S. taxpayers deserve serious answers. Foreign assistance should always be judged through the lens of American interests.

Firstly, discussions about aid to Israel often begin with the assumption that the United States simply gives money away and receives little in return. That is not true and rests on an assumption that ignores both how the aid/assistance works and what the United States gains from one of its closest allies. In fact, the better way to view U.S. assistance to Israel is not as a transfer of money but as a long-term strategic investment. Then, a better question is whether that investment produced returns for the United States. Looking at intelligence cooperation, military innovation, technological development, strategic access and shared security interests, the answer is clearly yes.

Many of the benefits America receives from Israel would continue even if the aid disappeared tomorrow. Israel shares intelligence, develops military technologies and confronts common adversaries because the two countries share interests, threats and a decades-long strategic partnership. The assistance did not purchase those benefits. It helped build and strengthen a strategic partnership that now generates enormous value for both countries. The relevant question is not just whether America gets something for its investment. The question could also be whether any other recipient of American military assistance provides as much in return.

The United States provides military assistance through a program called Foreign Military Financing (FMF), which allows partner nations to purchase American-made military equipment. Egypt receives approximately $1.3 billion annually in military aid. Jordan receives almost half a billion. We maintain these programs because alliances are expected to advance American interests. Yet Israel occupies a category of its own. No other recipient of American military assistance provides the same combination of economic, security, military, innovation and strategic returns. If foreign military assistance is meant to serve American interests, then there should be clear answers to what the alliance delivers and returns on those investments.

Many of the debates about the U.S.-Israel relationship start with a misunderstanding of where the money goes. Under the current Memorandum of Understanding, Israel receives approximately $3.3 billion annually in Foreign Military Financing and another $500 million for cooperative missile-defense programs. Almost all of the military assistance provided to Israel is spent in the United States.

Historically, approximately 74% of U.S. military assistance to Israel was required to be spent on American-made defense goods and services. Under a special arrangement known as Offshore Procurement, Israel was permitted to spend up to 26 percent of its Foreign Military Financing allocation within its own defense industry. That exception is being phased out.

By 2028, 100 percent of FMF assistance must be spent in the United States on American-made defense goods and services. No other major recipient of American military assistance operates under a similar arrangement. The money does not leave the American economy. It circulates through American factories, American supply chains and American workers. In practice, much of what critics describe as foreign aid flows directly to American defense companies, American workers and the industrial base that also equips the U.S. military.

That money directly supports American workers and American manufacturing. Israel is the largest international operator of the F-35 fighter aircraft, purchasing the jets from Lockheed Martin’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Each aircraft supports a supply chain spanning more than 45 states. Israel also purchases American helicopters, precision-guided munitions, communications systems, radar equipment, engines and other military technology.

The relationship extends beyond simple purchases. Israeli firms participate in the production and development of systems such as the F-35, with Israel Aerospace Industries manufacturing wings for the global fleet and Israeli companies contributing technologies used throughout the program. The result is a deeply integrated defense-industrial partnership that benefits both countries.

Israel is also the first nation to employ the F-35 extensively in combat. Because the United States permits Israel to test and integrate unique capabilities on its F-35I fleet, lessons learned from real-world combat operations help shape tactics, software updates, electronic warfare capabilities and future improvements to the F-35s that American pilots have now flown in Venezuela, Iran and other theaters.

Missile defense cooperation offers another example. The United States and Israel jointly fund and develop systems, such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow. These are cooperative programs in which American companies manufacture major components, American engineers participate in development, and American military organizations benefit directly from the resulting technologies and operational knowledge.

RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies) partners with Rafael on missile defense technologies. Boeing manufactures major components for Arrow interceptors. Tamir interceptors used by Iron Dome are produced at American factories and through joint ventures. These programs sustain manufacturing jobs and generate unique technologies that protect both countries.

The benefits also extend beyond just production and into capability. Some come from joint U.S.-Israeli development programs, while others stem from Israeli innovations that the United States has directly adopted or studied closely. The Trophy Active Protection System, developed by Israel and proven in combat against anti-tank missiles, has been integrated onto U.S. Army Abrams tanks and other vehicles to help protect American crews. The United States has also acquired Iron Dome batteries for homeland and force protection missions while benefiting from years of operational data generated through real-world interceptions.

American engineers and military planners have benefited from Israeli advances in missile defense, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow; active protection systems; F-35 operational experience that helps inform tactics, training, and future capability development across the broader F-35 enterprise; battlefield medicine innovations, casualty evacuation, forward trauma care; counter-drone technologies refined through constant operational use; tunnel warfare adaptations studied by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps; and artificial intelligence applications for intelligence fusion, target recognition and battlefield decision-making. The United States gains access not only to a technology but to years of combat experience that would otherwise require costly testing or wartime adaptation.

The economic relationship extends well beyond defense procurement. Trade between the United States and Israel exceeds $50 billion annually. American companies maintain research and development centers throughout Israel, while Israeli firms employ thousands of workers across the United States. Cooperation stretches from cybersecurity and artificial intelligence to aerospace, medicine, software development, agriculture and advanced manufacturing. Many of the technologies emerging from those partnerships have both civilian and military applications. In an era where technological leadership increasingly determines economic strength and military power, those relationships matter.

National security, however, remains the strongest argument for the partnership. The United States maintains alliances because they reduce risk, strengthen deterrence, expand influence, and help protect American interests. Israel has filled that role for decades in one of the world’s most important and unstable regions. Iran continues to expand its missile arsenal; support proxy organizations; and challenge American interests through a network that stretches from Lebanon and Syria to Iraq and Yemen. Israel confronts those threats every day with its own military, its own resources, and its own political leadership.

Former Secretary of State Alexander Haig once described Israel as an American aircraft carrier in the Middle East. The relationship also provides practical military advantages that rarely enter public discussions. For decades, the United States has maintained prepositioned military stockpiles in Israel under the War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel program. The equipment is intended primarily for potential American use during regional contingencies and provides the United States with forward-positioned supplies in a strategically important theater without the costs associated with a large permanent military presence.

The analogy remains useful because Israel provides many of the strategic advantages associated with a major American military presence without requiring the United States to deploy and sustain tens of thousands of personnel. Israel secures itself. Israel funds the overwhelming majority of its own defense. Israel fields one of the world’s most capable militaries and routinely acts against threats that concern Washington as much as Jerusalem. Few allies combine that level of capability with that degree of self-sufficiency. Even fewer are confronting threats that overlap so directly with American interests.

The strategic importance of that reality extends beyond Israel itself. The Middle East has long been an arena of great-power competition. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union invested heavily in military partnerships, arms sales and political influence across the region. Today, China is pursuing many of its interests through economic rather than ideological means. Beijing has become a major purchaser of Iranian oil, invested billions through the Belt and Road Initiative, expanded commercial ties with Gulf states, and sought greater influence over critical infrastructure and trade routes. Russia has likewise worked to preserve military and political influence through relationships with Syria, Iran, and other regional partners.

For more than two decades, American administrations from both parties have argued that the United States should devote greater attention and resources to the Indo-Pacific. Yet the Middle East remains too important to abandon. It sits at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. Major energy producers, critical shipping routes, emerging trade corridors and key security partners all converge there.

A capable ally that can secure itself, deter common adversaries, and contribute to regional stability allows the United States greater freedom to pursue its broader strategic priorities. Israel does not replace American power in the region, but it helps reduce the burden on it. That matters as Washington seeks to strengthen partnerships with India, deepen ties with Gulf states, and compete with China globally while operating under finite military and economic resources.

The intelligence relationship is one part of that value. For decades, Israeli intelligence services have provided information on terrorist organizations, Iranian military activities, weapons proliferation networks, cyber threats and regional developments. During the Cold War, Israel provided the United States access to captured Soviet military equipment that improved American understanding of its principal adversary. More recently, intelligence cooperation has focused heavily on Iran’s missile programs, drone capabilities, proxy networks, cyber activities and nuclear ambitions. Much of the value of intelligence never becomes public because successful intelligence operations often prevent events from occurring in the first place.

The cooperation extends beyond information-sharing. Israel has spent decades confronting many of the same organizations that have targeted Americans, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda affiliates, ISIS and Iranian-backed militias. Israeli intelligence has contributed to efforts that protect American personnel, diplomatic facilities and interests overseas, while helping disrupt terrorist plots and weapons proliferation networks before they reach American targets. Israel has also acted against strategic threats that later became major American concerns.

In 1981, Israeli aircraft destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. In 2007, Israel destroyed Syria’s covert nuclear reactor before it became operational. In 2018, Israel conducted a high-risk raid in Tehran that seized Iran’s secret nuclear archive, providing the international community with extensive documentation of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and preserving evidence of years of nuclear-related research and development. For years, Israeli intelligence and covert operations have disrupted elements of Iran’s nuclear program and weapons procurement efforts. American policymakers have not always agreed with every Israeli action. What is difficult to dispute is that preventing hostile regimes from acquiring advanced weapons capabilities has served broader American security interests.

Israel serves as one of the world’s most active laboratories for modern warfare. Rocket attacks, ballistic missiles, drone swarms, tunnel networks, urban warfare, cyber operations, electronic warfare, cross-border infiltration and information campaigns are recurring realities rather than theoretical scenarios. Every conflict generates operational data, battlefield lessons and technological adaptations that are shared with American military organizations.

The United States spends billions of dollars every year studying future warfare through research programs, simulations, exercises and experimentation. DARPA alone receives nearly $5 billion annually to develop breakthrough military technologies and better understand the future battlefield. Those investments are essential. Yet some knowledge cannot be generated in a laboratory, replicated on a test range or fully captured in a war game.

Combat remains the ultimate proving ground. Israel’s military and defense industry are constantly adapting to real-world threats and real-world adversaries. The operational data, technological innovations and battlefield lessons that emerge from that experience would be extraordinarily difficult, expensive, and in some cases impossible for the United States to reproduce on its own.

Some of that value can be measured in technologies adopted by American forces, intelligence shared between allies and joint defense programs that benefit both countries. Much of it cannot. The experience gained from repeated combat against modern threats is, in many respects, irreplaceable. The United States benefits from those lessons without having to learn them first through American casualties, American mistakes or American wars.

The value of that exchange is not theoretical. For years, the U.S. military has actively studied Israeli combat experience to improve American readiness. American officers have examined Israeli adaptations in urban warfare, tunnel operations, counter-drone technologies, force protection measures, military working dog employment, intelligence integration and battlefield medicine.

The relationship extends beyond reports and briefings. American military units have regularly trained alongside Israeli forces and visited Israeli training centers to observe tactics, technologies and lessons developed through combat experience. Many of those lessons emerged from combat against adversaries employing tactics that American forces faced in past wars and are increasingly likely to encounter in future conflicts. The result is that Israeli battlefield experience often becomes American military knowledge without the United States having to pay for those lessons in blood.

Similar examples can be found across missile defense, counter-drone technologies, intelligence fusion systems, tunnel warfare capabilities, battlefield medicine and artificial intelligence-enabled decision support tools developed under operational conditions.

Missile defense provides perhaps the clearest example. Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow were not developed through laboratory testing alone. They evolved through repeated combat use against real threats. Thousands of interceptions have produced an enormous body of operational knowledge about air defense, command and control, target discrimination, radar integration and emerging missile technologies. American companies participate directly in these programs. American engineers contribute to them. American military organizations study the data they produce.

Thousands of real-world interceptions have generated operational knowledge that no test range can fully replicate. The cooperation extends beyond research and analysis. The U.S. Marine Corps has selected the Tamir interceptor, originally developed for Iron Dome, as part of its Medium Range Intercept Capability (MRIC) air-defense system. The United States would spend many times more than $3.8 billion attempting to independently develop, test and combat-validate the technologies, concepts and operational lessons generated through decades of U.S.-Israeli cooperation.

Perhaps the most overlooked benefit is Israel’s defense innovation ecosystem. Today, more than 300 Israeli defense technology companies operate in fields including artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, cybersecurity, robotics, electronic warfare, missile defense, sensors and counter-drone technologies. That number has nearly doubled since Oct. 7.

For a country of roughly 10 million people, the scale is remarkable. Many of these firms were founded by veterans of elite military and intelligence units who are solving problems they encountered during service. The distance between battlefield operators and technology developers is unusually short. In many cases, the people designing the technology are the same people who recently used it in combat. New threats emerge, solutions are developed and capabilities move into operational use with a speed that would be difficult for most governments to replicate.

American companies partner with Israeli firms because they recognize the value of that innovation cycle. American military organizations gain access to technologies, expertise and operational insights that would be expensive, time-consuming, and often impossible to reproduce on their own.

Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly important within that ecosystem. Israeli companies and military organizations are integrating AI into missile defense, sensor fusion, target recognition, intelligence analysis, autonomous systems and active protection technologies. Future wars will be shaped by the ability to process information faster than an adversary and convert that information into action. Israel’s experience operating those systems under real-world conditions provides lessons that help prepare American forces for the conflicts ahead.

The value of the relationship becomes even clearer when compared with other recipients of American military assistance. Egypt contributes to regional stability and maintains peace with Israel. Jordan remains an important security partner and counterterrorism ally. Both relationships advance legitimate American interests. Neither generates the same intelligence cooperation, defense technology innovation, industrial integration or battlefield lessons that flow from the U.S.-Israel partnership.

The United States does not gain access to hundreds of defense technology startups through Egypt. It does not field combat-proven active protection systems developed through Jordan. It does not receive the same volume of battlefield lessons on missile defense, drones, tunnels, artificial intelligence and urban warfare from either country. Israel’s value derives not only from its location but from the capabilities it continually produces.

There is also a political dimension to the alliance. The United States and Israel are democracies. Neither is perfect. Both experience fierce political disagreements, contentious elections and intense public debate. Both operate under the rule of law and maintain independent institutions. Shared values alone do not determine foreign policy, but alliances tend to endure when interests and political traditions reinforce one another. That reality has helped sustain the relationship across administrations of both parties.

Reasonable people can debate aid levels. They can debate specific policies pursued by either government. They can argue about how the relationship should evolve over time. Those are legitimate discussions. What is far more difficult to sustain is the argument that America receives little in return. The United States gains access to intelligence that helps prevent attacks against Americans and American interests. It gains military technologies refined through combat experience. It gains battlefield lessons that would otherwise cost billions to acquire independently. It gains access to one of the most dynamic defense innovation ecosystems on the planet. It gains a capable ally operating in a strategically important region against many of the same adversaries confronting the United States.

The future of the relationship may itself demonstrate the success of the investment. In recent interviews, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that Israel should gradually reduce its reliance on American military financing as its economy and defense industry continue to expand. He has spoken about eventually transitioning from traditional assistance toward deeper cooperation in areas such as cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, missile defense, directed energy and other emerging technologies.

Whether that transition occurs in the next Memorandum of Understanding or further in the future remains uncertain. Israel continues to face significant security threats and remains engaged in multiple conflicts. The broader point is that the relationship has evolved. American assistance helped support Israel during periods when its economy was smaller, its defense industry less developed, and its security challenges no less severe. Today, Israel possesses one of the world’s most advanced defense sectors, a thriving technology economy, and military capabilities that generate value not only for its own security but for the United States as well.

If future agreements place less emphasis on direct financing and greater emphasis on joint research, co-development and technological collaboration, that would not signal a weakening partnership. It would reflect a mature partnership built on decades of successful investment. American assistance helped Israel build capabilities that now generate value for both countries. If Israel eventually requires less direct assistance while contributing more technology, innovation, intelligence and operational expertise, that would not represent the failure of the partnership. It would represent one measure of its success.

So the next time someone asks what the United States gets for $3.8 billion in Israel, the answer is straightforward:

• Jobs: American jobs and manufacturing supported through purchases of U.S.-made military equipment.
• Industry: A stronger U.S. defense industrial base through joint production, co-development and missile-defense cooperation.
• Intelligence: Intelligence that helps prevent attacks against Americans, American forces and American interests.
• Technology: Military technologies refined in combat, from active protection systems and missile defense to counter-drone capabilities and artificial intelligence.
• Laboratory: Access to one of the world’s most active laboratories for modern warfare, generating operational data, experimentation, innovation and combat experience that would be difficult, expensive and in some cases impossible to reproduce independently.
• Lessons: Battlefield lessons in urban warfare, tunnel warfare, missile defense, drones and modern combat without having to learn them first through American casualties, American mistakes or American wars.
• Innovation: A defense innovation ecosystem producing technologies and ideas that benefit both countries.
• Ally: A capable ally helping deter common adversaries and maintain stability in one of the world’s most strategically important regions and, if necessary, willing and able to fight alongside the United States.
• Strategy: Greater freedom for the United States to focus military and economic resources on long-term competition with China in the Indo-Pacific while helping preserve a favorable balance of power in the Middle East.

That is what America gets in return.

John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, co-director of MWI’s Urban Warfare Project and host of the “Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He served for 25 years as an infantry soldier, which included two combat tours in Iraq. He is the author of the book Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership and Social Connection in Modern War and co-author of Understanding Urban Warfare. See his Substack.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/john-spencer/what-does-america-get-for-3-8-billion-in-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Two-State Fantasy: Europe on Board for Israel's Destruction - Bassam Tawil

 

by Bassam Tawil

Is the actual wish to help the Palestinians "finish the job" Hitler started while they, the Europeans, sipping their claret, can pretend to appear as righteous and just?

 

• Why would any country -- especially one smaller than Maricopa County, Arizona -- allow anywhere near it, let alone on its border, a barbaric, homicidal state, committed to its destruction? Would Luxembourg, or even France, welcome Al-Qaeda or Islamic State on its border?

• Such a hostile state, dedicated to Israel's destruction, would pose an existential threat to its neighbor and massively destabilize the region. Perhaps that is why the Europeans are advocating it?

• If the Gaza Strip, after Israel's withdrawal, became a launching pad for terrorism, why should anyone believe that a Palestinian state in the West Bank would be any different?

• As US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee noted last year: "If France is really so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them–carve out a piece of the French Riviera."

• Even now, a year after Abbas promised French President Emmanuel Macron that he would hold presidential and parliamentary elections, no elections have taken place.... Macron publicly welcomed it as evidence that the Palestinian Authority was committed to reform and democratic renewal.

• One year later, there are no elections, no timetable, and no meaningful reforms.

• As Palestinians would no doubt have elected the terrorist organization Hamas, perhaps it is for the best that elections have not taken place. Abbas can plainly see that he would be have been committing himself and his Palestinian Authority to a sumptuous, permanent retirement.

• Palestinian leaders fear being branded traitors by their own people if they accept compromise with Israel. They have preferred to reject the Israeli proposals rather than explain to their people that peace requires difficult concessions – chiefly, giving up their dream of obliterating Israel.

• At the same time, Palestinian leaders have failed -- deliberately, one assumes -- to prepare Palestinians for peaceful coexistence with Israel. Instead of promoting reconciliation, many Palestinian leaders continue to pay and glorify terrorists, incite hatred and teach generations of Palestinians that Israel has no right to exist.

• Hamas, for its part, squarely rejects any disarmament plan or peace process. Hamas does not seek a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Hamas seeks a Palestinian state replacing Israel.

• That goal appears to be what the Paris conference was really about.

• The conflict is not fundamentally about the absence of a Palestinian state. It is about the refusal of many Palestinians, as well as Iran and its terror proxies, to accept the existence of Israel within any borders. The Europeans, pressing for an openly warmongering Palestinian state, apparently agree.

• The entire goal of these supposed "friends" of Trump in "helping" him has been to make sure that Iran's regime survives to try to eliminate Israel after Trump leaves office.

• Sadly, the Paris conference could have made a meaningful, constructive contribution. It could have called on Palestinians to renounce terrorism, end incitement, and recognize Israel's right to exist. It could have insisted on genuine reform and elections inside the Palestinian political system.

• France and other Western countries are free to continue promoting the two-state solution. Before doing so, however, they should answer a few basic questions: Who will govern the Palestinian state? How will Hamas be prevented from taking over and attacking Israel "time and again until it is annihilated," as it has vowed to do? How will Iran be prevented from again turning the Gaza Strip into a forward operating base against Israel? What guarantees will be provided that October 7 will not be repeated from the West Bank hills overlooking Israel's major population centers?

As US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee noted last year: "If France is really so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them–carve out a piece of the French Riviera." Pictured: Huckabee testifies during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Nearly three years after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, many Western governments and diplomats remain trapped in a dangerous fantasy: the belief that creating a Palestinian state will bring peace to the Middle East.

The latest example is France's international conference in Paris, where foreign ministers, activists, and self-appointed peace advocates gathered this month to revive the two-state solution and promote the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The conference is detached from reality. Why would any country -- especially one smaller than Maricopa County, Arizona -- allow anywhere near it, let alone on its border, a barbaric, homicidal state, committed to its destruction? Would Luxembourg, or even France, welcome Al-Qaeda or Islamic State on its border?

It is astonishing that after October 7, anyone can still argue that a Palestinian state under current circumstances would enhance peace and security. The opposite is true. Such a hostile state, dedicated to Israel's destruction, would pose an existential threat to its neighbor and massively destabilize the region. Perhaps that is why the Europeans are advocating it?

Is it possible that the organizers of the Paris conference appear to have learned from October 7 that possibly Israel might be able to be destroyed -- and are now, over wine and frisée, hoping to call into existence a 21^st century Wehrmacht (Nazi Germany's armed forces)?

Is the actual wish to help the Palestinians "finish the job" Hitler started while they, the Europeans, sipping their claret, can pretend to appear as righteous and just?

The Gaza Strip, home to two million Palestinians, already served as a test case for Palestinian self-rule. After Israel removed every soldier and Jewish civilian from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinians received an opportunity to build foundations of a future state. Instead of focusing on economic development, institution-building, and peaceful coexistence, the Iran-backed Hamas seized control of the territory in 2007 and transformed it into a base for jihad (holy war) against Israel.

Billions of dollars in international aid flowed into the Gaza Strip. Much of the money, however, was diverted to digging tunnels, manufacturing rockets, and creating a military infrastructure designed for one purpose: the destruction of Israel.

The result was October 7, when thousands of Hamas terrorists crossed the border from the Gaza Strip and carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. They murdered, raped, kidnapped, and tortured hundreds of Israeli civilians and foreign nationals. Their objective was not to improve living conditions or advance Palestinian statehood. Their objective was to eliminate Israel.

If the Gaza Strip, after Israel's withdrawal, became a launching pad for terrorism, why should anyone believe that a Palestinian state in the West Bank would be any different?

As US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee noted last year: "If France is really so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them–carve out a piece of the French Riviera."

The reality is that Hamas would almost certainly emerge as the dominant force in any future Palestinian state.

The Palestinian Authority (PA), which currently controls parts of the West Bank, is weak, corrupt, and deeply unpopular among its own people. Countless public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Palestinians want PA President Mahmoud Abbas to resign.

The PA has lost much of its legitimacy because of financial and administrative corruption, mismanagement, and its inability to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

Even now, a year after Abbas promised French President Emmanuel Macron that he would hold presidential and parliamentary elections, no elections have taken place. Abbas made the promise in June 2025. Macron publicly welcomed it as evidence that the Palestinian Authority was committed to reform and democratic renewal.

One year later, there are no elections, no timetable, and no meaningful reforms.

As Palestinians would no doubt have elected the terrorist organization Hamas, perhaps it is for the best that elections have not taken place. Abbas can plainly see that he would be have been committing himself and his Palestinian Authority to a sumptuous, permanent retirement.

Instead of democratic renewal, Palestinians have witnessed further stagnation and growing concerns about succession politics inside Abbas's ruling Fatah faction.

The failure to implement even the most basic democratic commitments raises an unavoidable question: How can Western governments speak about Palestinian statehood when the Palestinian leadership has failed to fulfill promises it voluntarily made just a year earlier.

The truth -- which Macron and the other Europeans would have had to work hard not to know -- is that Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected opportunities to establish a state. Over the past quarter century, Israel presented far-reaching proposals that would have resulted in the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Yasser Arafat did not accept the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000.

Abbas did not accept the proposal presented by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.

Both proposals offered the Palestinians more than 90% of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian control over large parts of east Jerusalem.

Palestinian leaders fear being branded traitors by their own people if they accept compromise with Israel. They have preferred to reject the Israeli proposals rather than explain to their people that peace requires difficult concessions – chiefly, giving up their dream of obliterating Israel.

At the same time, Palestinian leaders have failed -- deliberately, one assumes -- to prepare Palestinians for peaceful coexistence with Israel. Instead of promoting reconciliation, many Palestinian leaders continue to pay and glorify terrorists, incite hatred (such as here, here and here), and teach generations of Palestinians that Israel has no right to exist.

Hamas, for its part, squarely rejects any disarmament plan or peace process. Hamas does not seek a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Hamas seeks a Palestinian state replacing Israel.

That goal appears to be what the Paris conference was really about.

The participants spoke as if the conflict revolves around borders and settlements. October 7 proved otherwise. The conflict is not fundamentally about the absence of a Palestinian state. It is about the refusal of many Palestinians, as well as Iran and its terror proxies, to accept the existence of Israel within any borders. The Europeans, pressing for an openly warmongering Palestinian state, apparently agree.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Iranian regime are not fighting for a two-state solution. They are fighting for a one-state solution -- without any Israel. Even after a "peace deal" is signed, they will not stop planning for that result.

By continuing to promote Palestinian statehood without addressing this reality, Westerners are rewarding extremism and terrorism.

US President Donald J. Trump's "helpful" mediators -- Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey -- all loathe Israel, despite Egypt's icy peace treaty. For signing it, Egypt's then President Anwar Sadat was murdered by his countrymen. Turkey sounds as if it is already gearing up for a war with Israel. The entire goal of these supposed "friends" of Trump in "helping" him has been to make sure that Iran's regime survives to try to eliminate Israel after Trump leaves office.

Trump appears to have an understandably hard time seeing who his real friends are. If world leaders are charming to him -- that is their job; how else can they get their way? -- he seems to believe that they are actually his friends and have his and America's best interests at heart, not just their own, possibly extremely different, long-term agendas. This difficulty also includes "my friend," the KGB wonder boy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the president of China's Communist Party, Xi Jinping.

The message the Europeans are, in fact, sending to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups is: massacre Israelis, launch wars, reject compromise, and eventually the international community will pressure Israel to agree to its own destruction.

Sadly, the Paris conference could have made a meaningful, constructive contribution. It could have called on Palestinians to renounce terrorism, end incitement, and recognize Israel's right to exist. It could have insisted on genuine reform and elections inside the Palestinian political system.

Instead, the participants chose to recycle slogans and formulas that -- to no one's surprise -- have repeatedly failed.

An additional revealing aspect of the conference is the question: Who exactly do the attendees represent? Certainly not Hamas. Certainly not the Palestinian Authority leadership. It is a group of Europeans trying to tell Israelis, in their far-away sovereign state, how to live. Have the Europeans pressed Turkey for a Kurdish state or to abandon occupied northern Cyprus?

The conference largely relies on civil society activists, NGOs, and members of what has become known as an international "peace industry" that often speaks in the name of Palestinians and Israelis without enjoying broad public support from either society, and without having to suffer the potential consequences of their soft-headed, unworkable ideas.

It would seem as if Europe has enough troubles of its own that they appear committed to not solving. Chief among these are a self-inflicted energy crisis, increasing repression of free speech and a ballooning hijrah – a migration in the cause of Allah to anchor Islam across Europe's Judeo-Christian culture.

Conferences produce photographs, declarations, and communiqués. They do not produce peace.

France and other Western countries are free to continue promoting the two-state solution. Before doing so, however, they should answer a few basic questions: Who will govern the Palestinian state? How will Hamas be prevented from taking over and attacking Israel "time and again until it is annihilated," as it has vowed to do? How will Iran be prevented from again turning the Gaza Strip into a forward operating base against Israel? What guarantees will be provided that October 7 will not be repeated from the West Bank hills overlooking Israel's major population centers?

Until these questions are answered, conferences such as the one in Paris do not advance peace. Instead, they promote, as their sponsors undoubtedly know, merely a destabilizing illusion.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. His work is made possible through the generous donation of a couple who wish to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most grateful.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22612/the-two-state-fantasy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

National Council of Resistance of Iran reacts to news of peace deal between U.S. and Iran - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

"I reiterate once again that any international agreement to end the war must include an end to the execution of political prisoners and the killing of protesters,” says president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran

 

Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), reacted to the news of a peace deal between the U.S. and Iran on Sunday.

"The Iranian Resistance, which for nearly five decades has sought freedom and peace, welcomes any understanding to end the war and the suffering of the Iranian people. In Iran, no one except the remnants of the mullahs and the Shah has wanted or wants war," she said in a statement obtained by Just the News.

"The effort to produce nuclear weapons, warmongering, and meddling in the countries of the region are part of the survival strategy of the religious fascism ruling Iran, and it will not abandon them as long as it can," she added.

She said that war is the regime’s "shield against popular uprisings, while peace and a ceasefire are, as Khomeini put it, like 'poison' for it."

"The overthrow of the regime is the responsibility of the Iranian people and their organized Resistance," she said in the statement. "I reiterate once again that any international agreement to end the war must include an end to the execution of political prisoners and the killing of protesters." 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/middle-east/national-council-resistance-iran-reacts-news-peace-deal-between-us-and-iran

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Debt will balloon to 123% of entire US economy by 2036 without action from Congress: GAO - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

"Over the long term, it is unsustainable for debt to grow faster than the economy grows," the GAO report says. The public debt is projected to "grow more than twice as fast as the economy over the next 10 years, reaching 123% of the size of the economy in 2036."

 

The federal government's financial trajectory is becoming increasingly unsustainable, according to a new Government Accountability Office report that warns rising debt and interest costs could create dire economic issues if policymakers do not take significant action soon.

In its annual fiscal health report to Congress released this week, the GAO said that publicly held debt was $31.3 trillion as of April 2026, which is "roughly equal to the size of the country's economy."

The public debt is projected to "grow more than twice as fast as the economy over the next 10 years, reaching 123% of the size of the economy in 2036."

Under current tax and spending policies, that figure is projected to continue climbing rapidly in the coming decades.

Deficits are expected to continue growing

"The federal government's long-term fiscal outlook presents risks and challenges that must be confronted," the report stated.

GAO projected that debt held by the public would surpass its previous record of 106% of GDP by 2029 and rise to 123% by 2036. Over the next three decades, the watchdog estimated the debt burden could swell to 251% of GDP. "Over the long term, it is unsustainable for debt to grow faster than the economy grows," the report said.

The agency attributed the worsening outlook to a persistent mismatch between government spending and revenue collection. For most of the past two decades, Washington had spent more money than it brought in, requiring increased borrowing to cover annual deficits. 

GAO found that an aging population and rising healthcare costs would drive substantial increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other federal health programs. At the same time, revenue growth was not expected to keep pace.

The report noted that the federal government ran a primary deficit of $805 billion in fiscal year 2025, excluding interest costs. Under current policies, those deficits were projected to become larger over time.

Debt service on interest is one of the largest categories of federal spending

Meanwhile, interest payments on the national debt were consuming an increasingly large share of federal resources.

According to GAO, the government spent more than $970 billion on net interest payments in fiscal year 2025, which has made interest one of the largest categories of federal spending. The agency noted that Washington was spending more on interest than on national defense and nearly as much as it spent on Medicare.

Under current projections, interest costs were expected to continue accelerating and could reach nearly 10% of GDP by 2056.

"As of April 2026, publicly held debt was $31.3 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the country's economy," the watchdog reported. "Publicly held debt is projected to grow more than twice as fast as the economy over the next 10 years, reaching 123% of the size of the economy in 2036."

"We project that by 2044 the government will spend more on net interest than on Social Security," the report stated.

GAO urges Congress and the White House to develop a long-term fiscal strategy.

The GAO warned that the implications of further increases in the debt level extended beyond the federal government's budgetary balances. The increase in debt would raise borrowing costs for consumers and businesses, hinder economic growth, and constrain the government's capacity to handle emergencies. 

In addition, the agency stated that the worsening fiscal outlook posed "serious economic, national security, and societal challenges," including "lower wage growth, higher prices, and higher interest rates for household and business loans."

To address the problems, the GAO urged Congress and the White House to develop a long-term fiscal strategy. The watchdog recommended establishing fiscal targets and budget rules designed to place debt on a more sustainable path.

Among the options discussed in the report were increasing federal revenues, reducing spending, reforming major entitlement programs, reviewing tax expenditures and addressing financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.

The GAO estimated that maintaining debt at roughly 100% of GDP by 2056 would require either collecting 26% more revenue every year, cutting federal program spending by 21% annually, or adopting some combination of tax increases and spending reductions.

The report also emphasized that delaying action would only make the problem more difficult to solve in the future. "The longer actions are delayed, the more dramatic they will need to be," GAO warned. The agency additionally renewed its call to replace the current debt-limit process, arguing that the existing system "does not serve as a control on fiscal policy." 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/debt-balloon-123-entire-size-us-economy-2036-without-action-congress

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Oil prices sink on announcement of Iran deal - Ben Geman

 

by Ben Geman

Severe restrictions on oil traffic through the strait since the conflict began in late February have created an unprecedented energy shock that's a drag on the global economy.

 

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Crude oil prices fell over 4% to their lowest levels in over three months Sunday after the U.S. and Iran agreed to a ceasefire extension that could lead to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Why it matters: Severe restrictions on oil traffic through the strait since the conflict began in late February have created an unprecedented energy shock that's a drag on the global economy.

• The oil price spike caused U.S. gasoline prices to soar to their highest levels since 2022, adding to GOP political peril ahead of the midterm elections.

The latest: The global benchmark Brent crude is down 3.6% to $84.21 per barrel. It initially fell even more steeply before reversing some of the decline.

• WTI, the U.S. reference, is down over 4% to $81.38 per barrel.
• Sunday's decline follows prices that had already slid Friday on reports that an agreement was imminent.
• The apparent agreement could greatly expand tanker traffic through the narrow waterway that handles about a fifth of the global oil trade. Axios' Barak Ravid has the latest on the agreement.

Catch up quick: The memorandum of understanding would mark the biggest diplomatic breakthrough of the war and buy time to settle the hardest questions over Iran's nuclear program.

What we're watching: Average U.S. gasoline prices soared to a high of roughly $4.56 per gallon in May, but have retreated in recent weeks and now average $4.07, per AAA.

• That's still over $1 higher than pre-war levels at a time when affordability is front and center in midterm election battles.

• But prices will likely recede if crude oil prices — the largest variable in retail pump prices — continue to recede.

What's next: The disrupted market will take months to fully untangle, but the apparent deal could enable a major increase in tanker transit.

• But it's not clear how many ship owners and operators will quickly have confidence to move through the waterway.
• Plus, even if the strait is fully open, Persian Gulf oil producers that cut production when the main export route was cut off will need time to revive it.

Go deeper: Gas prices won't return to pre-war levels anytime soon 

Ben Geman

Source: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/14/oil-prices-us-iran-war-hormuz-strait-peace-deal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iranian Freedom Fighters Need Guns—America Could Arm Them - Arthur Schaper

 

by Arthur Schaper

The fastest path to a free Iran isn't more American troops—it's giving Iranians the means to overthrow the regime themselves.

 

If the last argument of kings is war, the best response from the subjects is guns.

Machiavelli wrote that “the chief foundations of all states . . . are good laws and good arms.”

Those good arms must be in the hands of citizens, and the world is waking up to the need for guns for themselves to fight the tyrants who persecute them or seek their extermination. We Americans are not fools for holding onto our firearms. Corporate media stateside and around the world can laugh at us or condemn us for the high number of gun-related deaths, but when controlled for location (big Democrat-run cities vs. Rest of America) and reasons (self-defense vs. murder), the numbers even out, and America comes out better.

Americans are safer and freer than the rest of the world because of our guns.

In a previous article, I argued that Trump should pressure other countries to adopt their own version of our Second Amendment in their respective constitutions. If other countries want to make their countries great again, then good citizens need good arms to ensure the enforcement of good laws.

There’s no better example of this need than Iran. President Trump took out their nuclear capabilities last year. Israel and the United States have escalated the war to break the will of the Islamic militant government and finish it off.

The United States cannot finish the job alone. The Europeans are unsure about stepping in, and China has only pressured Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz. One key demographic must intervene for freedom: the Iranian people themselves.

How do we assist the Iranians? The ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are committed to global jihad, even if it means mowing down their own people, and nearly 50,000 have been wiped out.

For ancient Persia to be free once again, the Iranians need guns. We can supply them, too.

There is precedent for this.

In 1944, American forces airlifted weapons into Poland to assist the resistance against the Nazis. We also supplied the French maquis resistance fighters.

Arming Iranian citizens will serve several purposes:

1. Allow the citizens to rise up, which would force the unelected IRGC to focus on internal matters.
2. By overloading and reprioritizing their attention, the ayatollahs and IRGC would have fewer resources to police or frustrate the Strait of Hormuz.
3. This effort would save lives. The unelected IRGC will likely murder more of their own people. Arming those “defenseless citizens” would give the innocent a fighting chance to protect themselves.
4. This maneuver would cost the United States far less in terms of blood and treasure. Dropping arms into key locations across the country will assist the Iranian resistance and flip the balance of power in the country.

Can we trust them to fight back? Would they raise their arms against the regime?

They have every right to!

Their faith declares that killing one’s Muslim brothers is strictly prohibited. Quran 4:93 says, “But whoever kills a believer intentionally—his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.”

Despite this severe admonishment by the Prophet, the corrupt leaders in Iran have slaughtered fellow Muslims with irreligious abandon.

Between the corrupt regime of Iran and its proxy militia, they have murdered hundreds of thousands more Muslims around the world since 1979. In fact, the unelected Iranian leaders are an “occupying government” that has slaughtered far more Muslims than their inflated claims against Israel and America suggest.

Furthermore, Iran’s leaders are stealing the people’s money to foment revolution in Sunni-dominated countries. These funded militant radicals in other countries (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.) murder other innocent Muslims on Iran’s behalf. When the present conflict started, Iranian terrorist dictators attacked fellow Muslim countries more than the United States!

Indeed, Iranian citizens will rise if they receive arms to protect themselves. Muslim countries targeted by Iran could follow suit and help provide weapons to their fellow adherents.

Iran has a whole smuggling operation to get weapons into other nations for their overthrow. There is even new evidence that Iran has previously helped Shia Muslims in Pakistan. It’s time to return the favor to destroy this megalomaniacal regime.

In the Wild West, Americans called the handgun “the great equalizer” for a good reason. In fact, they say that the handgun won the American West; it brought law and order.

America and the Arab alliance can take advantage of boots on the ground by arming Iranian citizens. Unlike the militants in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Gaza, the majority of the Iranians would be happy to overthrow their government.

As they continue begging America to continue its pressure until the government is overthrown, Trump has told them to wait. Receiving handguns would signal that they no longer have to hold on. Give them the means to fight, and you give them a chance at freedom and protecting themselves. On a related note, it is vital that the United States not allow Iran to continue to nationally televise their propaganda. U.S. military action must block it or shut it down.

Will there be objections to this proposal? Certainly, from the CIA and foreign policy brass still wasting space in Washington, D.C. They are confirmed liberals who live and work in Northern Virginia. They watch MSNOW (formerly MSNBC) religiously, and they make large donations to the Democratic Party. Trump has hired better leaders this term, but those Deep State analysts embedded in the federal government are still causing trouble.

Let’s consider their possible excuses and refute them all.

CLAIM: Supplying guns to civilians will help topple the regime but cause someone worse to take over the country.

FACT: Iran’s government is already a suicidal cult. They believe that global war will hasten Allah’s return, and dying in the name of Allah will assure their heavenly rewards. There’s no risk because only saner minds will take over.

CLAIM: You cannot air-drop firearms because they would hurt civilians on the ground.

FACT: Deliveries at night and in secure packaging would reduce serious harm. Private firms engage in similar delivery methods. The United States can follow their example. One hundred thousand to 150,000 units must be provided, which would arm a massive civilian army that can achieve a successful revolution for the people.

CLAIM: The Kurds stole the weapons that we had delivered to them for this effort. Iranian civilians might do the same.

FACT: The Iranian people will most likely use the guns to resolve the largest problem facing them: annihilation by their government. Let’s trust them to serve their best interests.

CLAIM: If the Kurds didn’t fight, the Iranians wouldn’t either.

FACT: Besides the Iranians, regional groups, such as the Baloch, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and many others, can lead a revolt. Providing the weapons will help them all.

President Trump has initiated a military action long needed but too long delayed.

Trump should release firearms in strategic locations to Iranian rebel groups prepared to organize and fight. With this savvy military move, Trump can finish off the IRGC, establish peace, and assure his party’s reelection chances in November. 

Photo: TEHRAN, IRAN - JANUARY 8: Fires are lit as protesters rally on January 8, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. Demonstrations have been ongoing since December, triggered by soaring inflation and the collapse of the rial, and have expanded into broader demands for political change. (Photo by Anonymous/Getty Images) 

Arthur Schaper

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/06/15/iranian-freedom-fighters-need-guns-america-could-arm-them/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Elon Musk vs. the Democrats: Outcomes vs. Process - Stephen Soukup

 

by Stephen Soukup

Elon Musk didn’t leave the Left—the Left left innovation behind, and the world’s first trillionaire made them pay the price for it.

 

Years ago, when my oldest son was a Boy Scout, he was asked to write a report/make a presentation on a modern American “hero.” He chose Elon Musk, and I, of course, rolled my eyes so hard they nearly popped out of my head. I knew Musk was a successful businessman, but I also knew that he was both an advocate for and a seasoned manipulator of Big Government. Tesla, for example, received a $465 million Department of Energy loan in 2010 under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, a Big Government scheme to encourage private companies to advance Big Government priorities (namely, fighting Climate Change by reducing carbon emissions). Likewise, Tesla was, at least at the time, commercially viable only because of the more than $1 billion ($7,500/vehicle) in federal EV tax credits claimed by its buyers. Without government greasing the proverbial wheels a bit, Tesla would have struggled to get the literal wheels rolling out the sales floor doors. Moreover, Musk publicly acknowledged that he voted for Obama and presented himself as part of the “green” business revolution, men and women who could and would “do well by doing good.”

My, how things change.

Just a short decade later, Elon Musk is, indeed, regarded as a genuine hero by most on the American political Right—and by anyone who favors free enterprise—while he is loathed and actively derided by his former friends and allies on the Left. Especially this past week, after the SpaceX IPO made him the world’s first trillionaire, the Democrats and other leftists who once loved him, partnered with him, and sang his praises loudly have shown nothing but contempt for him and hatred for his inarguable business success. As the controversial Democratic Senate nominee from Maine, Graham Platner, ominously put it, “Elon Musk just became the world’s first trillionaire. Let’s make sure he’s also the last.”

How, exactly, did we get here?

The biggest part of the story is Musk’s own political evolution, which proceeded slowly, in stages, but was accelerated at a handful of inflection points. Of these inflection points, two stand out among the others.

The first of these took place during President Biden’s first year in office. Biden and his administration were knee-deep in pushing a new, far more aggressive climate agenda. On his first day in office, Biden issued 17 executive orders, several of which addressed climate change and other environmental matters. Most notably, he signed an order to reinstate the nation’s participation in the Paris Accords, thereby placing a policy-making emphasis on electrification and decarbonization. A big part of that effort—as would be evinced in the “Inflation Reduction Act” passed the following year—was pushing the purchase of electric vehicles. To that end, on August 4, 2021, Biden hosted an EV “summit” at the White House. He invited three EV makers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis—to watch him sign another executive order, this one mandating that half of all new vehicles sold in the United States by 2030 be EVs. Of the three, GM had the largest percentage of its sales derived from fully electric vehicles—1.5 percent. Ford sat at 1.3 percent, and Stellantis didn’t even have an electric vehicle for sale in the American market. Meanwhile, Tesla was the nation’s largest EV auto seller at the time, and 100 percent of its vehicles were fully electric. Yet Musk and his company were left off the Biden team’s guest list.

What GM, Ford, and Stellantis did have, of course, was the support of the United Auto Workers Union. In fact, the three also just happened to be the largest UAW employers. Tesla, by contrast, had long fought the unionization of its factories and had been embroiled in a rather ugly dispute with the UAW. In response to the snub, Musk vented a bit, tweeting:

Biden held this EV summit. Didn’t invite Tesla. Invited GM, Ford, Chrysler, and UAW. EV summit at the White House, didn’t mention Tesla once and praised GM and Ford for leading the EV revolution. Doesn’t it sound a little bias? It’s not the friendliest of administrations. Seems to be controlled by the unions.

Just under a year later, Musk reached the second inflection point, which also turned out to be his breaking point. In May 2022, the S&P 500 ESG Index conducted its annual rebalancing. And when it did, it removed Tesla. ESG stands for “environmental, social, and governance” investing, a strategy that purports to push corporations to address issues beyond traditional profits and losses, focusing on the broader societal impacts of their operations. I wrote a whole book about ESG (The Dictatorship of Woke Capital) in which I made the case that its flaws are numerous and disqualifying. One of the most significant of these is that ESG has no set definition. It means whatever its practitioners decide it means in the moment, based on little more than preference and convenience. And this is precisely where the S&P’s index ran into problems with Tesla.

By any objective measure, Tesla should have been a mainstay of any investment strategy focused on environmental benefits. It was and is a pioneer in carbon reduction strategies in the personal transportation market. What could be more environmentally friendly than that? The S&P, however, objected to Tesla’s procedural strategies, or lack thereof. It argued that Tesla didn’t have a published “low-carbon strategy,” or verifiable “codes of conduct.” It noted that the automaker had been accused of racial discrimination and didn’t do a great job of handling a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigation. In short, the ESG index tossed the innovator in “E” technology off its list of acceptable companies because it valued the process of the ESG strategy more than it did the outcomes.

Needless to say, this incensed Musk. On May 18, he (once again) tweeted his frustration:

Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance (ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didn’t make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.

Not coincidentally, two and a half hours later, Musk returned to Twitter to make an announcement about his partisan political future:

In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party. But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold . . .

It is worth noting here that Musk didn’t just switch parties. He radicalized. His change in partisan affiliation and political involvement was night and day. He went from a quiet, nominally aligned center-leftist to a full-blown, aggressive libertarian-conservative. Instead of giving $1,000 here and $1,000 there to Democratic candidates, he started throwing money into politics as if he’d never miss it (in part because he never would). He backed Donald Trump with millions of dollars and then joined his administration (for free) as the leader and organizer of DOGE. The combination of the union-driven and the ESG-driven snubs sent him over the edge. Not only would he no longer support Democrats, but he would support their opponents loudly and generously.

Although it would be easy (and not entirely wrong) to say that Elon Musk’s political evolution was a self-inflicted wound by the Democrats, who enthusiastically chased him out of their party, it’s more accurate to say that the break between the two was a structural inevitability. That inevitability was inarguably exacerbated and hastened by Democratic overconfidence and miscalculation, but that’s the difference between Musk simply leaving the party and becoming radicalized for the other side. Musk’s shift away from Democratic politics was likely always going to happen and is emblematic of the long-standing tension between so-called “progressives” and actual progress. The ideology that once sought explicitly to “better” the nation and its people has become little more than a machine for creating rules, often at the expense of that improvement. Musk’s fervent embrace of the Democrats’ opponents was driven by personalities—theirs, his, and probably Trump’s.

Think about it this way. The Progressive coalition traditionally has very much resembled the S&P ESG index noted above. It has always been carefully managed, regulated, labor-friendly, bureaucratic, and procedure-driven. It has always been more about process than outcome. Musk, for his part, is the opposite. He is disruptive, as capitalist entrepreneurs tend to be. He favors that which moves fast, eschews established rubrics, and achieves results. He is outcome-driven and cares very little (sometimes, maybe, too little) about process. The idea that he and today’s Democrats could have remained strongly aligned is, in retrospect, incongruous.

That’s not to say that he and the GOP are perfectly aligned, but certainly his ethos fits better there, at least for the moment.

The bottom line here is that while process values have their place, they can be self-defeating, particularly when they are allowed to serve as a substitute for experience and reality.

The Democrats don’t hate Elon Musk because he’s a trillionaire. They hate him because he became a trillionaire by breaking all their dearly held and largely outmoded rules.

There’s a profound lesson in that, if anyone is willing to learn it.

Photo: LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA - OCTOBER 26: SpaceX and Tesla founder Elon Musk speaks during an America PAC town hall on October 26, 2024 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Musk has donated more than $75 million to America PAC, which he co-founded with fellow Silicon Valley venture capitalists and tech businessmen to support Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images) 

Stephen Soukup is the Director of The Political Forum Institute and the author of The Dictatorship of Woke Capital (Encounter, 2021, 2023)

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/06/15/elon-musk-vs-the-democrats-outcomes-vs-process/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden DOJ targeted parents at school board meetings despite FBI, sheriffs' objections, memos show - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

AFL said it acquired the documents as part of its ongoing lawsuit related to former Attorney General Merrick Garland’s October 4, 2021 memorandum that targeted concerned parents at school board meetings during the COVID pandemic.

 

Former President Joe Biden’s Justuce Department used federal law enforcement to target parents at school board meetings as potential threats "despite warnings from FBI officials and the National Sheriffs’ Association," according to America First Legal's analysis of new government documents it obtained.

AFL, a conservative legal nonprofit, said it acquired the documents as part of its ongoing lawsuit related to former Attorney General Merrick Garland’s October 4, 2021 memorandum that targeted concerned parents at school board meetings during the COVID pandemic.

"On October 4, 2021 — the day the memo was released — FBI Deputy Assistant Director Jay Greenberg emailed the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, stating the FBI had 'some concern.' He requested “additional time to engage” before messaging about the infamous memo went out," AFL wrote on X, linking to the DOJ documents it obtained.

Greenberg also asked for help “to find common ground we can all support” on the situation.

Some inside DOJ also fretted the strategy would boomerang, and create a political headache for elections,

"I don't think it's possible to state how strongly I object to this. It will completely and totally nuke our election threats efforts, and will damage the reputation of the Public Integrity Section into the bargain," one top DOJ official wrote in an email. "It's like they've affirmatively trying to make this thing not work and look political."

"If they do this, they might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force," an official wrote. 

The National Sheriffs’ Association also shared concerns like those of the FBI, the memos show.

"On October 8, 2021, the National Sheriffs’ Association reached out to officials in the Associate Deputy Attorney General’s Office, stating that its sheriffs had 'not heard any concerns about threats to local school boards' and that 'it would have been nice to have a heads-up,'" the group wrote on X, referencing the internal emails it obtained.

Despite the concerns raised, Garland’s memo was issued on October 4, 2021.

“Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values,” wrote Attorney General Garland. “Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.”

The FBI enforced the memo, AFL noted, establishing a new threat tag, “EDUOFFICIALS.” 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/afl

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter