The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
“No one can imagine the level of fear and intimidation Hamas has instilled in people’s hearts since its foundation in 1987,” said one Palestinian from Gaza City.
[ILLUSTRATIVE]Palestinians protest to demand an end to war,
chanting anti-Hamas slogans, in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip
March 26, 2025. (photo credit: REUTERS/STRINGER)
Despite
almost three years of hardship and devastation during the Gaza war
caused by Hamas’s October 7 massacre in southern Israel, calls for a
mass protest on June 26 in the Strip went largely unanswered. The
initiative to bring Gazans together to demonstrate against Hamas’s rule
drew little public response last Friday, highlighting how years of
oppression have kept most Palestinians in the Strip from expressing
dissent.
“No
one can imagine the level of fear and intimidation Hamas has instilled
in people’s hearts since its foundation in 1987,” said one Palestinian
from Gaza City.
“People are simply too afraid to protest, even now after all what they’ve been through,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “This is because Hamas is still here, controlling people’s lives, and nobody can say a word,” he said.
'There was a lot of pressure on people to keep silent'
There
was widespread anticipation about whether the demonstrations, set for 4
p.m., would attract local residents, but it soon became clear that the
June 26 protest failed, as almost no one showed up.
“It ended in failure because there was a lot of pressure on people to keep silent,” said the Gaza
resident, speaking anonymously, out of fear of reprisal. “Anyone who
even considered joining the rallies refrained from doing so, as
participants were labeled traitors and agents of anarchy.”
[FILE
PHOTO] PALESTINIANS DEMAND an end to war, chanting anti-Hamas slogans,
in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip. (credit: REUTERS)
“It’s
very hard to explain the scale of the security, political and social
control that Hamas asserts,” he noted. “For example, social and trade
associations, such as the chamber of commerce and the industry unions,
are in one way or another operating under Hamas’s oversight and are
subject to its authority. That means they cannot say or do what they
want,” he charged.
The
protest movement, described as the "June 26 revolution," was organized
mainly by social and political activists, social media influencers, and
some Palestinian journalists living abroad, most of them based in Egypt.
It was launched primarily through social media platforms, with frequent
announcements, posts, and videos criticizing Hamas’s rule and urging
Gazans to go out and voice opposition to the grave humanitarian
conditions and continued Hamas control.
The
anti-Hamas campaign leaders encouraged Gazans in the Strip to demand
their rights, insisting that “change will come from the people
themselves.” A prominent figure pushing the protest, Abed al-Hamid Abed
al-Ati, told the Post in an interview prior to June 26 that
“the aim was to give hope to Gazans and show them a path to dignity and
normal life, as no one else is stepping in.”
Hamas
closely monitored the activists’ plans and, from the outset, sought to
suppress the movement. Some protest organizers received messages from
Hamas conveyed through their family members in the Strip, demanding that
they withdraw from the campaign. Other relatives were threatened with
death, Palestinian sources said.
Hamas also made extensive efforts to curb the "June 26 campaign" through
public denunciations and shaming of the movement and its supporters.
The terror group accused protest leaders and activists of being backed
by Israel, a claim they denied, and worked to discredit them in the
media.
Another
factor that some Palestinians argue contributed to the protest’s
failure was the reaction to the campaign in Israel ahead of Friday’s
events. One Palestinian figure involved in organizing the protest
explained to the Post that when Israeli media outlets and
public figures began to circulate the campaign messages and endorse the
idea promoted by it, with some even encouraging Gazans to rise up
against Hamas, it did more harm than good.
He
said that it helped Hamas embolden its narrative that “the protest is
pushed by the Zionist enemy that wants to destroy Gaza and the
Palestinian people.”
Another
Palestinian resident mentioned the video posted by the Israeli
Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, a day before the planned
demonstration, noting, “He (the minister) believes his words were
against Hamas, but unfortunately, his message served Hamas.”
Dichter, who formerly served as head of the Shin Bet,
addressed the people in Gaza in Arabic, encouraging them to protest
Hamas’s regime. “You are in the worst situation ever. How much longer
will this gang of thugs from Hamas control you?” Dichter said in the
video. “The fear of them has paralyzed you, even from thinking. Wake up-
take responsibility for your life and your children’s future.”
The
Palestinian resident argued that this gave Hamas a pretext to further
delegitimize the protest movement by portraying it as an Israeli-backed
effort to undermine the Palestinian cause. “Anyone who responds to a
call coming from the Israeli side is seen as committing treason, even if
the action serves our own interests. That’s the way of thinking,” he
explained.
Hamas
described the protest as a failure and as “evidence of Gazans’
consciousness in confronting dangerous schemes targeting them.” Group
member Bassem Naim stated that “the people of Gaza have once again
demonstrated their deep national sense of belonging and that they cannot
be deceived by parties seeking to promote suspicious agendas.”
Some Palestinians suggested that Hamas
tried to assure the public that recent discussions in Cairo with
mediators and Board of Peace representatives could bring about positive
change, giving the impression that protests were unnecessary or even
counterproductive.
In
addition, a legal Islamic ruling, amounting to a fatwa, was issued as a
means of intimidation to prevent the rallies. An organization calling
itself "Palestine Scholars Authority," based in Turkey, released an
announcement, stating “it is forbidden for believers to call for or
participate in it.” The ruling described the protest as “a criminal act
of betrayal of Allah and an assistance to the occupation and its goals.”
'Preserving the unity of society'
The
Gaza City resident pointed to the role of powerful clans and families
in Gaza as another reason for the limited engagement. He noted that many
of them are “forced to align with Hamas” even if they don’t want to
because the organization has remained a dominant force in the Strip.
“We
appreciate the position of our people and the security forces in
preserving the unity of society and thwarting attempts at chaos,” read a
joint statement by the clans following the failure of the planned
protest.
“We reject any calls or movements targeting the home front or exploiting the humanitarian situation in Gaza,” it stated.
The resident said that “some of the clans are supported by Hamas, directly or indirectly.”
“They
get salaries or aid, so they have no choice but to do what Hamas says.
Even those who are not supported by the organization just can’t act
independently, he added.”
“No protest can succeed under these conditions while Hamas is still here in control,” he said.
The new upgrade significantly improves the system's ability to counter swarms of UAVs, cruise missiles, and high-volume barrages fired at exceptionally rapid rates.
Upgraded Iron Dome system Minister of Defense Spokesperson
The Defense Ministry's Directorate of Defense Research and
Development (DDR&D), through the Israel Missile Defense Organization
(IMDO), together with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, has successfully
completed a series of extensive trials of the upgraded Iron Dome air
defense system.
The trials examined advanced technological
improvements designed to enhance the system's ability to deal with
future battlefield threats and complex operational scenarios.
Among
the upgrades were improved interception capabilities against advanced
rockets, cruise missiles and swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The enhanced system also demonstrated improved performance against
massive barrages involving exceptionally high launch rates and large
volumes of incoming fire.
A
significant milestone in the latest trials was the continued
operational integration of the high-powered "Or Eitan" laser system.
Several
months after the laser system was delivered to the IDF, the trials
marked the first time that Iron Dome and the laser system were operated
simultaneously in joint scenarios. During the tests, the laser system
was controlled directly through Iron Dome's existing command-and-control
network.
Defense officials said the technological upgrades are
also being accompanied by extensive logistical efforts to ensure
adequate interceptor stockpiles.
Moshe Patel, head of the Israel
Missile Defense Organization, said the lessons learned during the recent
war have shaped the latest improvements.
"During the Swords of
Iron War [War of Revival], and even more so during Operation Rising
Lion, we faced an unprecedented reality of heavy barrages that required
tremendous flexibility in providing operational support during peak
demand," Patel said.
"The integration of the laser system into
Iron Dome's command-and-control network brings Israel's air defense
capabilities to new heights. At the same time, the Israel Missile
Defense Organization is advancing multiple initiatives to accelerate
interceptor production in both Israel and the US in order to strengthen
preparedness for every scenario."
Rafael CEO Yoav Tourgeman welcomed the successful completion of the trials.
"Rafael
is proud to complete another advanced test of the Iron Dome system,"
Tourgeman said. "Iron Dome continues to prove itself time and again,
including during periods of intensive combat, while also evolving to
meet future threats and operational challenges."
"The latest trial
marks another step in expanding the system's capabilities. The
innovation, creativity and dedication of Rafael's scientists and
engineers enable us to continue leading the field of air defense and
providing the State of Israel with advanced operational solutions."
Four cases remain on the docket without opinions for the term having been published.
The Supreme Court is set to release its final opinions of
the term on Tuesday, with key rulings expected on birthright
citizenship, transgender sports bans, and campaign finance regulations.
The Supreme Court calendar
currently lists Tuesday, June 30 as the final day for releasing
opinions, which typically appear on the court website around 10:00 a.m.
ET. Four cases remain so far on the docket without published opinions
for the term.
Among those, the most highly anticipated is their ruling on
President Donald Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to
interpret the 14th Amendment as not granting birthright citizenship to
the children of illegal immigrants. Two more cases involve transgender
sports bans in West Virginia and Idaho, while the fourth remaining case
addresses federal limits on party committees spending in coordination
with their respective candidates.
Here’s a look at what to expect:
Trump v. Barbara
The birthright citizenship case addresses President Donald
Trump’s 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to interpret the
14th Amendment as not granting birthright citizenship to the children
of illegal immigrants.
The Court heard oral arguments in April, at which time analysts broadly suggested that the justices appeared skeptical
of the administration’s arguments. Much of the case rests around the
language of the 14th Amendment, which includes a mention of persons born
in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The case is widely expected to go against the Trump
administration, though whether the justices will rule on the
constitutional question or punt the matter to Congress remains unclear.
NRSC v. FEC
The National Republican Senatorial Committee has challenged the constitutionality of federal coordinated spending limits, citing the First Amendment. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) sets forth the coordinated spending limits, which vary based on the office in question.
A win for the NRSC is expected to be a significant boost to
Republicans, as their committee has more cash on hand than the
Democratic counterpart. Should the Court eliminate those limits, the
NRSC would be able to work more closely with its candidates this cycle
and coordinate their spending on advertising, promotions and outreach.
The justices heard arguments in December.
West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox
The twin cases address statewide bans on transgender
participation in public school sports. At present, 29 states have either
laws or regulations barring the participation of transgender students
in sports on the basis of gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Four states, however, are subject to judicial stays blocking those laws or policies, including Idaho and West Virginia.
West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act
bars biological men from participating in women’s sports and has faced a
challenge from transgender teenager Becky Pepper Jackson, who at the
age of 15 participates in shot-put and discus throwing. Idaho’s ban
faces a challenger from Lindsay Hecox, a collegiate transgender track
and field specialist. The Court’s rulings in these cases could be either
tailored to the language of each specific ban, or a broader ruling that
could impact dozens of states with similar laws.
The Court heard arguments in January on both cases.
Ben Whedon is the Chief Political Correspondent for Just the News. Follow him on X.
Several bills, most notably the Birthright Citizenship Act in 2025, seek to end or sharply restrict automatic birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. Will it pass constitutional muster?
The Supreme Court is expected to rule Tuesday in Trump v. Barbara, a high-stakes challenge to President Donald Trump's 2025 executive order
that seeks to restrict automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th
Amendment for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders.
In the event the court rules against Trump, a number of Congressional
Republicans have legislation pending that could practically accomplish
what a different ruling would have done.
"American citizenship is a priceless privilege that must be
protected, not exploited. We must restore integrity to our immigration
system, uphold the rule of law, and protect the value of American
citizenship for generations to come," Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, told Just The News.
Several bills, most notably the Birthright Citizenship Act
introduced by Babin and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one day after
Trump's inauguration in 2025 (and similar versions in recent
Congresses), seek to end or sharply restrict automatic birthright
citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
These measures would reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
clause to grant citizenship at birth only to children with at least one
parent who is a U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident (LPR)
residing in the U.S., or an LPR serving in the military.
CIS: 225,000 to 250,000 births to illegal immigrants occurred in 2023
The exploitation of U.S. birthright citizenship through “anchor
babies” involves pregnant illegal immigrants, predominantly from Latin
America, giving birth to children in U.S. territory, and thus,
automatically becoming citizens, which may later serve as a basis for
family sponsorship or complicate deportation proceedings.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates
225,000 to 250,000 births to illegal immigrants occurred in 2023—nearly
7 percent of total U.S. births — with the large majority involving
parents from Mexico and Central America who, in the aggregate, account
for roughly 68 percent of the unauthorized population.
While minor U.S.-citizen children cannot sponsor
parents until age 21 (per 1976 amendments to immigration law), critics
have argued that these births create long-term “anchors” for chain
migration and mixed-status households, generating substantial taxpayer
costs for education, healthcare and welfare while raising questions
about enforcement priorities in families with citizen children.
Estimates suggest millions of U.S.-born children of unauthorized
Latin American immigrants now reside in the
country.
The birthright citizenship bonanza
Birthright citizenship abuse via birth tourism, when foreign
nationals travel to the United States on temporary visas specifically to
give birth, is an issue that Trump addressed early in his second term.
Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer detailed this practice extensively in his 2026 book, "The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon," in which he described how China has industrialized the practice on a large scale through an organized industry.
Chinese officials have estimated around 50,000 Chinese nationals
per year give birth in the U.S. or territories like Saipan, while some
scholars place the figure closer to 100,000 annually, according to Marketplace’s China.
Schweizer reports more than 1,000 birth tourism companies
operate in China focused on the U.S., offering concierge packages
costing up to $100,000 that include visa guidance, medical arrangements,
and sometimes instructions on concealing pregnancies or claiming
indigent to reduce hospital bills.
China leads this activity by a wide margin, but Russia has also participated notably, with dedicated firms in South Florida like Miami Mama.
South Florida NBC affiliate NBC6 reported that Miami Mama LLC was
raided by the FBI in 2017 and has been operating in Miami since 2009.
The company offers packages ranging from just under $20,000 to over
$53,000 that include all the medicines and procedures that come along
with childbirth. NBC also noted that the owner was never convicted of
the business's operations.
Independent estimates from the Center for Immigration Studies suggest total U.S. birth tourism births range from about 20,000–36,000 annually
in recent years (a small fraction of overall U.S. births), though
precise official figures are unavailable because the U.S. does not
systematically track parents’ nationalities or travel intent on birth
certificates
The CDC
has reported roughly 9,600 births to foreign mothers listing addresses
outside the U.S. and territories in 2024 as one limited proxy.
Aside from legislation to end birthright citizenship, there are other
bills proposed to end the birth tourism industry. These bills would
disrupt profit-driven networks arranging travel, housing, medical care
and visas for pregnant foreigners seeking U.S. citizenship for their
children.
Key bills include Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s Ban Birth Tourism Act (S. 1812, 2025), which amends the INA to deem such visitors inadmissible on B visas, and Sen. John Cornyn’s BACK OFF Act (2026),
which imposes criminal penalties on facilitators for fraud and
organized schemes while creating a dedicated enforcement task force.
Amanda Head is White House Correspondent for Just The News. You can follow her here.
The new socialist movement believes it can remake America—but its growing radicalism may prove the very thing that drives voters away and fuels a counterrevolution.
Win some blue-state and blue-city races, and the cocky new socialist
Jacobins believe that they have either already taken over the Democratic
Party or will soon absorb it. And in reaction to these new swarms, an
increasingly terrified and ossified old Democrat guard either limps away
from the hive or invites them in to take over more.
It is fascinating but ultimately depressing to watch old-style
Democrats say or do anything to avoid the new mob of Robespierres.
Democrat candidates who recently begged for a Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries
endorsement now are telling them to get in line at the guillotine.
Jewish American Democrats are terrified that what happened to the
primaried and defeated Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, an arch-Trump
hater, could befall them. Goldman’s obnoxious showboating hatred of
Trump and championing of neo-socialist agendas offered no defense
against the Jacobins’ antisemitism and hatred of Israel.
A number of Jewish Democrat candidates, like wannabe California
congressman Scott Wiener, are backing off from Israel and now join the
“genocide!” mob. Wiener hopes that the throng will reward his new
anti-Israel position by overlooking the now inconvenient fact that to
the anti-Semitic Democrat base he is still Jewish.
Some of the rich, likewise, think they can escape the guillotine—the
various proposed taxes on “billionaires” and “millionaires” on their net
worth or unrealized capital gains or plans to confiscate private
properties deemed “not in the people’s interests.” They will either flee
to Florida or join the mob and hope their donations spare them from the
blade.
The hard socialist agenda, which lacks even 50 percent popular
support, is often recognizable despite efforts to conceal it until after
elections. Given the clickbait lunacy of these socialists’ mindset,
their true views often trickle out from prior social media posts, hot
mics, leaks, and occasional temper-tantrum outbursts (cf. Mamdani’s
“monsters” or Talarico’s “I hate Christianity” or Platner’s litany of
unapologetic racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic outbursts).
In general, the socialist challenge is to “fundamentally transform
America” into a statist, inert redistribution machine—nuttier than
socialist Europe, a prescription for North Korean-style poverty, and
completely unrecognizable to the Founders and most contemporary
Americans. As far as we can distill, here are their agendas:
The New Demography: Open borders, massive, unaudited new immigration ending the distinction between mere residence and citizenship.
Dismantling the “System”: Packing the court,
destroying the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, bringing in new
left-wing states, defunding the police, ensuring same-day
registration/voting, no voter ID, foreign nationals residing here being
eligible to vote.
The Islamization of America: Ending America’s
traditional friendship with Israel and realigning the U.S. with the West
Bank, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their autocratic and illiberal,
terrorism-sponsoring Muslim regimes. Restoring massive USAID subsidies
to fund left-wing takeovers abroad and mainstreaming now overt
harassment of Jews at home.
Old Communism: The government takeover of housing
and utilities, targeted expropriation of private property, new punitive
taxes on net worth and unrealized capital gains. Wild talk of
nationalizing airlines and all health care.
Statism: Massive new entitlements, free college,
canceling $1.7 trillion in student loans, more federal acquisition of
private lands, rent freezes.
Reparations: Compensation for victims of alleged
“white privilege,” institutionalization of radical identity politics,
and racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation chauvinism. Third world
hatred of supposed white oppressors, justifying reparatory preferences
for the non-white “oppressed.”
Globalism: Pledging solidarity with
socialist/communist movements abroad while despising Western
civilization in general and the U.S. in particular.
Once “Mayor” Zohran Mamdani took control of New York, he began
promising to confiscate rental properties from landlords and to focus on
“white” neighborhoods, and he no longer disguised his innate hatred of
Jews.
Governor Spanberger of Virginia dropped her moderate false face and
began radically ramming through hard-left executive orders to ensure
more DEI, higher taxes, and anti-ICE hysterics. After being elected,
Seattle Mayor Katie Willson gushed “bye-bye” to the billionaire
entrepreneurs who are fleeing from Washington state’s new “millionaire’s
tax.” She mocked their departure and cared not a whit that her
now-socialist city would further descend into a West Coast Detroit or
Baltimore.
Socialists hide their revolutionary anger with banal pleasantries. We
have become well accustomed now to the “socialist smile,” emblemized by
the grinning Mamdani or the faux-happy face of James Talarico. Usually,
the new touchy-feely socialists chuckle loudest when a rare reporter
presses them on their past lunatic harangues, which are then laughed off
as hysterias from paranoid right-wing minds.
Sometimes socialists embrace the hard commissar style, like the
perpetually venomous Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, who
ridicules journalists, lies flagrantly, and takes back none of his
hate-filled rants.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) perpetually screams rather than talks,
usually venting her monotonous hatred for the Jewish state. Her latest
socialist champions are the Antifa criminals just sentenced to long
prison sentences for their conspiracy to murder ICE officers.
The more Ilhan Omar is caught trafficking in antisemitic tropes,
denying alleged immigration fraud schemes, or filing preposterous
federal financial disclosure forms, the more defiant her shouts of
“racist” become.
The newly emerging socialists, like recent congressional nominees
Darializa Avila Chevalier or Analilia Mejia, can never explain why their
parents left socialist paradises in Latin America to come to cutthroat
capitalist America.
Nor do they explain to us why and how such a supposedly toxic, racist
nation would extend such generous scholarships and DEI preferences to
both. They suffer from the Joy Reid/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib/AOC
socialist syndrome: parents flee socialist paradises of indigenous
peoples to ensure their children might thrive in a settler/colonialist
and capitalist U.S. whose magnanimity they interpret as proof of guilt
that is therefore to be reciprocated not with gratitude but with ever
more venom.
And once the second-generation socialists joined the privileged elite
classes of America, these boutique radicals decided to tear down the
very system that nurtured them, without ever expressing a wish to return
to the socialist paradises of their parents’ homelands.
What drives the sheer hatred of the new upscale socialists, and why are they in vogue now?
There are three constants in all these new socialists, as we have
seen recently from the recent nationwide primary elections, as well as
the daily street theater.
One, they hate the United States—loathe its foundation, hate its
maturation, and despise the current American nation. They detest
especially the middle classes, who lack both the romance of the
dependent poor and the supposed “refinement” and “culture” of their own
elite socialist aristocracy. And the more they demagogue “white
privilege” and “white supremacy,” the more they feel that the river of
exemptions, set-asides, preferences, and special considerations will
flow to them from a supposedly guilty nation.
The socialists’ hatred of America is becoming clearer as middle
America embraces the 250th anniversary of the nation, highlighted by
throngs of World Cup tourists who cannot praise highly enough the
decency, amicability, and prosperity of America between the coasts. So,
what is a perennial socialist PhD candidate, or a failed “community
organizer,” or NGO flack to do when millions happily suffer from “false
consciousness” and have failed to listen to their Marxist handlers?
The socialist architects of the current Jacobin takeover see no
contradiction in that, like moths harkening to flames, they cannot get
enough of the American good life, conspicuous consumer consumption, and
merit badges of success like their Ivy League-branded kids, letters and
titles after their names, and the right zip code for their first and
second homes.
Every socialist buffoon reminds us almost daily of Alexis de
Tocqueville’s droll warning that most people would prefer everyone to be
absolutely equal and worse off than all better off, but with some
better off than themselves.
The socialists’ hatred of America is also revealed in their envy.
Unlike the poet Hesiod’s notion of a “good” envy—embodied in the
American tradition of emulation and admiration of those richer than
themselves—they buy into the “bad” envy of wanting to destroy those who
are brighter, more successful, richer, and more essential to America
than themselves, whether an Elon Musk, a Larry Ellison, or a Jeff Bezos.
Second, socialists still have little current power other than their
control of institutions such as K–12 education, academia, the media,
foundations, the bureaucracies, the corporate boardrooms, professional
sports, entertainment, and popular culture. Perhaps they wish to end up
like the lifelong government employee, Bernie Sanders, who for a
half-century shook his two upraised fists at America, screamed at the
greed, and ended up with three homes and membership in the millionaire
class.
Socialists and communists have no confidence in winning over the
majority of the American people, at least outside blue-city and
blue-state districts. Hence, their efforts to change balloting laws,
destroy the border, import angry, poor, new constituents, stage violent
street confrontations, and either celebrate or contextualize
assassinations from the attempts on Trump to the killing of Charlie
Kirk.
Sane Democrats would reexamine 2024 and conclude the party was far
too left-wing and the antidote was a return to the winning formulas of
Bill Clinton. But unhinged socialists and communists would claim that
2024 was lost because they were not far-left enough. So we are to
believe that Americans scared of Harris’s poorly disguised radicalism
can be won over by scaring them even further? A communist in 2028 can
win over America when a socialist in 2024 could not?
Third, Donald Trump has driven the Left so crazy that they have
gyrated from Obama’s four-mansion socialism to unapologetic hardcore
Trotskyism. Why? Their pathological hatred transcends Trump’s
background, his appearance, his accent, his tweets, and even his appeal
to the despised “clingers, irredeemables, deplorables, chumps, dregs,
and garbage.”
Of course, Trump is a conservative, so he suffers the same left-wing
slurs of “fascist” and “Nazi” that met Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
But in his second term, Trump, quite unlike most Republican presidents,
is not addressing just symptoms but also the causes and fuel of the
socialist project.
Trump did not just jawbone the “fake news” but cut off subsidies to
NPR and PBS, suing the media when they deliberately engaged in baseless
character assassination. He did not just close the border but began
deporting the criminal cohort of Biden’s 10 million illegal entrants,
sought to end birthright citizenship, made would-be refugees apply for
entry in their home country, ended catch-and-release, and will wall off
or electronically secure the entire southern border from the Pacific to
the Gulf of America.
He did not just rhetorically critique DEI; he banned it from the
federal bureaucracy. Unlike past Republicans, Trump did not merely
critique elitist campuses; he leveraged them to behave like normal
people—taxing endowments, banning racist DEI protocols, prohibiting
grant surcharge scamming, and demanding they abide by the Bill of
Rights. He slashed the left-wing USAID money machine rather than just
whining that it subsidized America’s worst critics abroad.
In other words, the socialists are enraged not just because they
despise the U.S. and lack the power to turn America into Cuba or because
they have not yet stabbed, poisoned, shot, decapitated, or blown up the
hated Trump, as their followers, celebrities, and a few of their
leaders have so often boasted.
The real rub is that Trump is their flip side—not a revolutionary but
a counterrevolutionary. He seeks to overturn root and branch the entire
100-year progressive project and ensure America’s insidious slouching
toward socialism ends with his term—for good. The more they brag about
our collective socialist tomorrow, the more Trump incessantly dismantles
socialism today.
So far, they haven’t stopped him yet—but their lidless eyes never close.
Photo: NYC-DSA holds a rally to tax the
rich
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - NOVEMBER 16: New York City Democratic
Socialists (NYC-DSA) hold a rally in Union Square marking the start of a
campaign to tax the rich and win universal childcare on November 16,
2025, in New York City, United States. (Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu 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.
Tasnim News, which is an IRGC-affiliated network, reported that “two members of Iran’s IRGC were killed and two others were injured in an ‘armed terrorist attack.'"
Kurdish fighters from the People's Protection Units (YPG) run across a street in Raqqa, Syria, July 3, 2017. (photo credit: GORAN TOMASEVIC/REUTERS)
In recent days, Iranian security forces have been killed in several clashes. Iraq’sShafaqNews
noted on June 30 that “four Iranian security personnel were killed and
several others injured in two separate armed attacks in western and
northwestern Iran on Tuesday, local media reported.”
The reports go on to note that Iran’s Tasnim News, which is close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),
had reported that “two members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps were killed and two others injured in an ‘armed terrorist attack’
in the border city of Paveh in Kermanshah province.”
In
a different incident, there was also a shooting in the city of Baneh in
Iran’s Kurdistan province. “Gunmen targeted a police checkpoint,
leaving two police officers dead and injuring three other people,
including a three-year-old girl.” It was not clear who was behind this
attack.
Meanwhile, Rojhelat.Info, an online resource that mostly covers Kurdish issues in Iran, noted that armed clashes were continuing. Rojhelat is the Kurdish name for Eastern Kurdistan.
The
report says that Paveh is now a flashpoint of clashes. It also names
Marivan and Mahabad as being areas where clashes are happening.
n
Iraqi Kurdish border employee walks outside at the Haji Omran border
crossing with Iran (Iranian flag in the background), in Iraq's
autonomous northern Kurdish region, on February 1, 2026. (credit: SAFIN
HAMID/AFP via Getty Images)
Armed clashes continue to spread throughout western Iran
These
areas are not near each other. Mahabad is around 230km north of
Marivan. Paveh is 100km south of Marivan. Baneh is between Marivan and
Mahabad. All of these areas are in the relatively mountainous western
Iran, where Kurds live. Mahabad is in West Azerbaijan province, but it
is primarily a Kurdish city with a population of around 170,000.
The
Rojhelat media account noted that “as armed clashes continue to spread
across different parts of Rojhelat (Iranian Kurdistan), local sources
reported another armed attack on Monday night targeting Iranian military
and security positions in the Doli Mirawa area of Paveh (Pawe), in
Kermanshah (Kirmasan) Province.”
It
said that “at least three government security personnel were killed in
the attack. However, these reports have not yet been independently
verified.”
The
incident followed the clashes in Marivan and Mahabad where IRGC members
had suffered casualties. The report said that the Eastern Kurdistan
Defense Units (YRK) had been involved in the clashes with the IRGC. The
YRK are the armed part of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK).
PJAK
is a far-left Kurdish party that is often described as the Kurdish
Iranian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The PKK is well
known for creating numerous offshoots and branches with an alphabet soup
of names. They did the same thing in Syria with the PYD and YPG and
other groups.
Turkey
views the PKK as a terrorist group, although in the last year Ankara
has sought to complete a deal that would see the PKK disarm and
essentially end a multi-decade conflict. Turkey has opposed a Kurdish
uprising in Iran, primarily because it is concerned about PJAK
exploiting such a rising.
PJAK
is one of seven Kurdish Iranian opposition groups that joined a
coalition in late December 2025 to support protests in Iran and also
oppose the regime. In the past, PJAK has not gotten along with more
nationalist Kurdish groups, such as PDKI, due to significant ideological
differences.
However,
in recent months, there have been more joint discussions among PDKI,
PJAK, PAK, Khabat, and branches of the Kurdish Komala party about what
comes next in the struggle against the Tehran regime.
An
armed Kurdish Peshmerga of the Komala party in a ceremony held in
memory of Komala Martyrs' Day in Sidakan, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, on
March 17, 2021. (credit: YOUNES MOHAMMAD/Middle East Images/AFP via
Getty Images)
Spotlight on Kurdish insurgent groups, nationalist ambitions
Western
media reports about the US or Israel potentially supporting Kurdish
groups have put a spotlight on them. The groups were initially skeptical
of launching an offensive in Iran in March 2026.
Many
other minority groups in Iran, as well as the Persian opposition
groups, often oppose the Kurds. As such, the groups were wary of being
sucked into a cauldron, then exposed and subjected to a crackdown.
It’s
worth noting that some Kurds, just people people all across Iran, serve
with government forces. As such, any Kurdish uprising would also pit
Kurds against each other potentially. Iran has been pressuring Iraq to
expel Kurdish Iranian opposition groups.
Iran
and its proxies in Iraq also targeted the Kurdistan Region of Iraq more
than 850 times since the February 2026 conflict began. As such, Iran
wants to crush Kurdish opposition before it can grow. PJAK mostly stayed
out of this conflict so far, with Iran also avoiding strikes on PJAK
camps.
Now
it appears PJAK is clashing with the IRGC. “With the latest incident,
three provinces in Rojhelat - West Azerbaijan (Urmia), Kurdistan (Sine),
and Kermanshah (Kirmaşan) - have witnessed similar armed clashes over
the past week, pointing to a significant escalation in military
confrontations across the regime,” Rojhelat.Info notes.
Rudaw
Kurdish media noted that “In a short statement late Sunday, PJAK said
the IRGC had launched an operation in the Gagosh area, south of Mahabad
in West Azerbaijan
province, triggering clashes between PJAK fighters and IRGC forces.”
PJAK said that “the IRGC has started an operation in the village of
Gagosh in the Mahabad region and, based on our information, the clashes
have continued until now.”
Despite resistance from the teachers’ unions, we must implement merit-based pay for teachers and expand parental choice to improve educational outcomes.
The recently released scores
from the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known
as the nation’s report card, offer little good news. The results show
that 2025 test scores remain below 2012 levels for both nine- and
13-year-olds. The only positive is that nine-year-olds made slight gains
since the COVID-19-related shutdowns earlier this decade.
Currently, there are many opinions on how to improve
this sorry state of affairs. Banning cell phones in schools and
emphasizing the importance of books are just two of the more popular remedies.
But there is much more we can do to improve student
learning. One idea is to establish merit pay, or “pay for performance,”
so that educators who demonstrate classroom excellence are paid more
than their less-talented peers. Several recent studies suggest that performance pay benefits students.
In South Carolina, researchers examined a
comprehensive teacher improvement program funded by the federal
government. It included pay incentives tied to student test scores,
career advancement opportunities, and additional professional
development.
As noted by Chalkbeat’sMatt Barnum,
“The researchers compared students in middle schools that adopted this
program, starting in 2007, against similar schools that didn’t
participate. They found benefits that carried on into high school.
Students’ 10th-grade test scores rose, and their chances of graduating
high school increased by about 4 percentage points.”
In Texas, Jacob Kirksey, a professor at Texas Tech, studied an initiative that allocates additional funding
to school districts that adopt a merit-pay plan. Teachers designated as
high-performing receive salary increases of several thousand dollars.
Kirksey found that standardized test scores rose.
Small benefits of the project emerged soon after adoption and grew over
the next few years. Teacher retention also increased, and effective
teachers, in particular, were more likely to remain on the job.
Also, Arkansas implemented a new program called the “Arkansas Teaching, Learning, and Assessment System,” featuring higher teacher pay and performance-based bonuses.
Proficiency scores rose across all major areas
from 2024 to 2026, with mathematics increasing from 36.4 percent to
44.2 percent, science from 35.6 percent to 44 percent, and English
language arts from 33.8 percent to 39.5 percent. Overall proficiency
rose from 36.9 percent last year to 42.2 percent in 2026.
However, merit pay isn’t possible where teachers’
unions rule the roost. In those districts, educators are part of an
industrial-style “step and column” salary regimen, receiving raises
based on years of service and on completing (often meaningless)
professional development classes. Great teachers are worth more—a lot
more—and should receive higher pay than their less capable colleagues.
Any suggestion to expand merit pay, which would turn teachers into
independent professionals, is a red flag for teachers’ unions, which
view educators as identical dues-paying automatons.
The second major way to increase student learning is the national tax-credit scholarship plan. The Educational Choice for Children Act
(ECCA) is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit program that will take effect
next year. It allows taxpayers nationwide to donate up to $1,700 to a
scholarship-granting organization (SGO) and apply that donation to
reduce their federal tax bill. The SGO then allocates funds to provide
scholarships that cover expenses such as tuition at private and
religious schools, textbooks, tutoring, educational therapies,
transportation, technology, and other education-related costs.
Students—including those in public schools—whose households earn up to
three times the local median income will be eligible for these
scholarships.
So far, Education Week’s tracker
has identified 31 states that will opt into the federal tax-credit
scholarship, while two Democratic governors (in Minnesota and Wisconsin)
have said their states won’t participate. The remaining state
leaders and the D.C. mayor have not yet made formal decisions.
Importantly, while school choice has traditionally
been a Republican issue, the federal program enjoys strong support from
leading Democrats. Leading the charge is Jorge Elorza, president of Democrats for Education Reform, who states, “There’s an education crisis
that we have throughout the country. The outcomes have declined over
the past decade, and kids are struggling. It’s incumbent on all of us to
consider every option and every tool that can help us meet the diverse
needs of every single child.”
ECCA is very popular with the general public. According to a recent survey, 64 percent of voters support it, while only 19 percent oppose it.
Needless to say, the major fly in the ointment is
the competition-phobic teachers’ unions, which are threatened by any
change to the government-union education Leviathan.
On June 23, the latest attempt by the unions to quash the program took the form of an open letter
sent to the nation’s undecided Democratic governors by Becky Pringle
and Randi Weingarten—the presidents of the National Education
Association and the American Federation of Teachers. The missive urged
the state leaders to reject the school choice effort, hysterically
labeling it a “grave and urgent threat to the public schools that serve
nearly 90 percent of the nation’s K–12 students.”
The union bosses asserted, “Public education is a
core value of our communities and the foundation of a thriving
democracy. Every child deserves access to a high-quality education in
well-supported public schools,” adding that “the program is a Trojan horse
carrying near-universal K–12 private school vouchers into every state
that participates—even states where voters have rejected vouchers at the
ballot box.”
Using a mafia-like tone, the letter threatened the governors, warning that accepting the program would invite the unions’ political wrath,
which could be costly. The unions do indeed spend oodles on politics. A
report released in April by Defending Education found that the two
national teachers’ unions have donated nearly $700 million to left-leaning political groups and causes since 2015.
It’s clear that the war between teacher-union
dominance and the needs of American families is in full swing.
Ultimately, it’s a battle over the country’s future. All good people
must acknowledge this and rise to the challenge posed by the teachers’
unions’ seemingly insurmountable power and fight for changes that
benefit children.
Photo: Large group of happy students raising their hands to answer the teacher's question during a class at elementary school.
Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network—a
nonpartisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and
the general public with reliable and balanced information about
professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views
presented here are strictly his own.
Once hailed as a prototype European leader, Macron now appears to be the last remaining champion of Europe's battered liberal center
When Emanuel Macron was first elected French president nearly a
decade ago, he looked like the prototype of Europe’s next generation of
leaders: young, reform-minded, pro-market, pro-European, strategic, not
clearly on the right or the left.
Macron is still ambitious internationally, but at home he is term
limited, with falling approval levels, and looking increasingly like the
last remaining champion of Europe’s battered liberal center.
“He’s politically unpopular at home,
yet I think [Macron] is sort of winning the overall battle of ideas
about Europe’s trajectory,” Max Bergmann, director of the Europe,
Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, told Reuters.
Rym Momtaz, a geopolitical consultant with Carnegie Europe, was more critical: “He has ‘thought leadership’ but he doesn’t always have ‘action leadership,’” Momtaz said.
That was in evidence at the recently completed Group of Seven
leaders’ summit in Évian-les-Bains, where host France offered a
compressed version of the tail end of Macron’s presidency, including
grand staging, ambitious language and at least a little real diplomatic movement.
On paper, the G7 gave something to brag about: leaders emerged with
broad declarations on support for Ukraine in the country’s four-year-old
war against Russia, sanctions against Moscow, cooperation on the trade
of critical minerals, the need for regulation of artificial
intelligence, migration, and drug trafficking.
Perhaps most importantly, after months of European anxiety about
Washington’s reliability, U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to move a
little on Ukraine. Macron said Friday that Trump agreed that the U.S. was “no longer a neutral mediator” between Russia and Ukraine, instead “supporting Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
At home, Macron is nearing the end of his mandate. He was elected to a
five-year term in 2017, and he won re-election in 2022. But he lost his majority in parliament in 2024, and his centrist movement is now feeling pressure from both directions.
On
the right, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally has moved from a protest
party to a plausible leader of the government. And on the left, Jean-Luc
Mélenchon and his party France Unbowed have gained traction and have
pulled support from the center.
In between, the fractured post-Macron camp is led by lesser-known
figures who will decide whether “Macronism” can survive with Macron
himself on the sidelines.
If that worries Macron, he is not showing it as he continues to push
his agenda, such as when he told the Munich Security Conference earlier
this year that it was more important than ever for Europe to stand up
for itself.
“This is the right time for audacity,” Macron said. “This is the right time for a strong Europe. Europe must learn to become a geopolitical power.”
Trump's abrupt decision, on April 8, 2026, to end the joint U.S.-Israel offensive (Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion), which had begun February 28 -- evidently signaled to adversaries not strength but weakness: that he could not tolerate more than a short-run intervention.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Middle East, Trump's approaches have not been the magic bullets he might have hoped.
With the plan of turning Gaza into a "Riviera of the Middle
East," both Hamas-free and (in the October 2025 update of the plan)
placed under the administration of a committee supervised by a "Board of
Peace" -- much of which, bizarrely, appears made up of countries
engrossed in waging jihad -- Trump has so far been less than successful.
Hamas, to this day, has not disarmed and refuses even to entertain the
notion. Much of Gaza remains solidly under its control.
In addition, Trump's January promise to the Iranian people that
"HELP IS ON ITS WAY" seems equally on the rocks. Executions of
dissidents have once again been stepped up, and the US is apparently
doing nothing about it.
Trump's abrupt decision, on April 8, 2026, to end the joint
U.S.-Israel offensive (Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion),
which had begun February 28 -- evidently signaled to adversaries not
strength but weakness: that he could not tolerate more than a short-run
intervention.
Most of the declared goals of the US offensive – including that
"Help is on its way" –- have, tragically, been abandoned.... Now Iran is
saying that it has "no choice but to obtain nuclear weapons."
American voters are watching the IRGC dictate its terms to the US -- as if they are the victors. No wonder Iran's leaders are celebrating.
Souk-bargaining over the end of the MOU, after all the money and
benefits have been given up front... will easily outlast the Trump
Administration to enable Iran's regime to rebuild, possibly stronger
than before. Trump's MOU will not bring peace. It is simply a coffee
break until he is safely out of office.
Trump's current MOU "deal" is a deal to talk about a deal – for eternity.
Later, when Iran's hardline regime – the same as before, just
with new faces – becomes restive again, it will be far more difficult,
and more costly in blood and treasure, to stop. A single one of Iran's
ballistic missiles can obliterate an entire city block. Ballistic
missiles may not be able to "blow up the planet," but they can threaten
and devastate other countries -- and were seemingly the reason Trump
called for the April 8 ceasefire. That call was possibly Trump's
greatest disaster. America was winning -- then Trump stopped!
Iran's ballistic missiles can hit Europe as well as Israel and
other neighbors in the Middle East. Future models will be able to reach
Boston, Washington, DC and New York. It would have been so much easier
to stop Hitler before he crossed the Rhine.
There are no moderate IRGC jihadists -- no Delcy Rodríguez-like
figure with whom to negotiate -- just as there were no moderate Nazis in
Germany. If there is no real regime change, there will be no peace.
No one is expecting Iran's regime to live up to anything it signs
anyway. It never has. The Trump Administration is reportedly waiting to
see a "change in destructive behavior" -- which may last only as long
as the time it takes to change a "toll" to a "fee," for the "service" of
allowing transit of commercial cargo ships through an international
waterway, especially when Trump's term in office is over.
The most tragic part is that Trump's original instincts were
right. Turn Gaza into a "Riviera in the Middle East" -- an American
protectorate on the Mediterranean, perhaps with a U.S. military base to
keep order. Trump seems to have let himself fall into a trap of
listening to "friends " -- who are not friends -- then sidelining and
excoriating his true friends, such as Israel.
If some of the rulers in the Middle East convinced Trump to let
them generously "help" with the reconstruction of Gaza, it may well have
been to acquire a foothold on Israel's border from which to keep trying
to obliterate Israel.... no one new seems to be rushing to join them.
Perhaps these countries have a different plan in mind.
America regrettably cannot be "made great again" without
restoring its leadership as a bulwark against oppression and
barbarism.... No wonder Trump did not want the MOU made public. By now,
he probably knows it is a dud. He is probably concerned about America's
250th birthday party this week and the price of gas at the pump.
Perhaps Trump has become infatuated with dreams of glory – even
for a fake peace – rather than for America First or even the future of
the West. Many of Trump's new fake "friends" are, in reality,
cold-blooded dictators who loathe the West and, despite what they tell
him, have not lost their appetite one day to overthrow it.
If one were to ask many countries in the Middle East if they
would rather go forward into the 21st century with artificial
intelligence and high tech or remain in the 7th century, they would
probably ask why they cannot have both: better technology with which to
fulfill Allah's divine mission of a global caliphate?
Perhaps Trump is hoping to win over these dictators. Perhaps they might even sound won over – until his presidency is over.
Trump has negotiated impressive investments in the US from
oil-rich Arab states. Qatar... What have they asked for from Trump as
his end of the deal?
Trump still can inform Iran's regime that "We won, you lost, now
here is what you are going to do." Trump can still decide to make Gaza
the "Riviera of the Middle East " under joint American and Israeli
supervision. It is what American voters are waiting to hear. Until then,
Iran is effectively calling the shots while Trump is backtracking off
one red line after another... Why should Americans vote for that? Many must be justifiably horrified. America is -- again! -- choosing to lose.
The entire West would do well to get over the illusion that
fighting back against those planning to destroy you is endangering you.
If adversaries are planning to destroy you, you are already in danger.
Confronting them is the proper reaction, not the wrong one
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Middle East, U.S.
President Donald J. Trump's approaches have not been the magic bullets
he might have hoped. Pictured: Trump speaks during the Gaza Peace Summit
in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on October 13, 2025. (Photo by Yoan
Valat/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
"Peace through strength,"
when it comes to U.S. President Donald J. Trump, appears to mean "peace
through whatever works" – diplomacy, sometimes seeming to verge on
suicidal patience, and economic pressure, with military pressure only as
a last resort, and even then, only in a short-run way.
As one might expect from the co-author of The Art of the Deal, the core of his foreign policy so far has been making deals – or trying to.
Trump has not been afraid to use pressure — economic and short-run
military — to persuade foreign powers to sign agreements that match U.S.
interests or, when U.S. interests are not involved, to make the world,
eventually, more peaceful for the free world.
Among Trump's amazing achievements at the White House are
indisputably the Abraham Accords, and -- in dazzling partnership with
Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu --
freeing the Hamas hostages and effectively demolishing much of Iran's
military and nuclear infrastructure, a threat no prior president had the
courage to confront.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Middle East, Trump's approaches have not been the magic bullets he might have hoped.
With the plan of turning Gaza into a "Riviera of the Middle East,"
both Hamas-free and (in the October 2025 update of the plan) placed
under the administration of a committee supervised by a "Board of Peace"
-- much of which, bizarrely, appears made up of countries engrossed in
waging jihad -- Trump has so far been less than successful. Hamas, to
this day, has not disarmed and refuses even to entertain the notion. Much of Gaza remains solidly under its control.
In addition, Trump's January promise to the Iranian people that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY" seems equally on the rocks. Executions of dissidents have once again been stepped up, and the US is apparently doing nothing about it.
Trump appears first to envision a goal and then the extent to which
that goal may be reached through dealmaking or pressure. If the goal
cannot be reached fully in those ways, the goal is then revised
downward, if not abandoned. Trump appears to choose dealmaking over war,
and adjust his goals accordingly.
When the goals are adjusted downwards from U.S. and Western
interests, the results tend to be less than positive. One issue in which
The Art of the Deal might have been better left aside is trying to negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Trump's abrupt decision, on April 8, 2026, to end the joint U.S.-Israel offensive (Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion), which had begun February 28 -- evidently signaled to adversaries not strength but weakness: that he could not tolerate more than a short-run intervention.
The Arab Gulf states, as Iran's rulers had most likely planned, presumably informed Trump that they did not appreciate being attacked.
Most of the declared goals of the US offensive – including that "Help
is on its way" –- have, tragically, been abandoned. According to the
U.S. version of the MOU (Iran released this one) and according to Trump himself, "It's okay"
if Iran's radical Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has ballistic
missiles. In addition, after 60 days, control of the Strait of Hormuz
will be negotiated, as will control of Iran's enriched uranium, which
Iran is apparently planning to "blend down" until it is enriched back up
again. Also apparently up for grabs are control of a sovereign state,
Lebanon, in addition to Iran's other proxies, Hamas and the Houthis,
neither of which was even mentioned in the MOU – and control of Iran's
centrifuges to resume enriching uranium "for peaceful purposes only," of
course – and presumably for making nuclear weapons on the side, just as
in President Barack Obama's 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) "nuclear deal."
Trump's stated
reason for going to war was that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon" --
it is why the U.S. and Israel in June 2025 bombed three mountains
within which Iran stored its enriched uranium. Now Iran is saying that it has "no choice but to obtain nuclear weapons."
American voters are watching the IRGC dictate its terms to the US -- as if they are the victors. No wonder Iran's leaders are celebrating.
Souk-bargaining over the end of the MOU, after all the money and
benefits have been given up front -- including $300 billion, $3 billion
of which has already been transferred
to them --- will easily outlast the Trump Administration to enable
Iran's regime to rebuild, possibly stronger than before. Trump's MOU
will not bring peace. It is simply a coffee break until he is safely out
of office.
Later, when Iran's hardline regime – the same as before, just with
new faces – becomes restive again, it will be far more difficult, and
more costly in blood and treasure, to stop. A single one of Iran's
ballistic missiles can obliterate an entire city block. Ballistic missiles may not be able to "blow up the planet,"
but they can threaten and devastate other countries -- and were
seemingly the reason Trump called for the April 8 ceasefire. That call
was possibly Trump's greatest disaster. America was winning -- then
Trump stopped!
Iran's ballistic missiles can hit Europe
as well as Israel and other neighbors in the Middle East. Future models
will be able to reach Boston, Washington, DC and New York. It would
have been so much easier to stop Hitler before he crossed the Rhine.
When the ceasefire was announced
in April, Iran's missile and drone capabilities had been severely
degraded, its air force and navy mostly annihilated, and its
defense-industrial base largely destroyed (but its reconstitution not
prevented). Iran's energy infrastructure is still in place and, most
importantly, there has been no regime change: the IRGC became the sole
power structure with the new, incapacitated Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei formally sitting at the top.
There are no moderate IRGC jihadists -- no Delcy Rodríguez-like
figure with whom to negotiate -- just as there were no moderate Nazis in
Germany. If there is no real regime change, there will be no peace.
After the April 8 ceasefire, several requests were relayed to Tehran through the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and strikes
on naval vessels, air-defense systems, radar, surveillance, and
command-and-control sites, and drone- or missile-related control nodes.
In the meantime, however, demands for Iran to renounce its nuclear
weapon ambitions, relinquish its enriched uranium, limit its ballistic
missile production and discontinue support for its proxies, would all be
reduced to just opening the Strait for shipping, possibly until the IRGC felt like closing it again
No one is expecting Iran's regime to live up to anything it signs
anyway. It never has. The Trump Administration is reportedly waiting to
see a "change in destructive behavior"
-- which may last only as long as the time it takes to change a "toll"
to a "fee," for the "service" of allowing transit of commercial cargo
ships through an international waterway, especially when Trump's term in
office is over.
Trump's current MOU "deal" is a deal to talk about a deal – for eternity.
"Rather than waging the war to the end, Trump chose to suspend it," wrote Guy Millière, a senior fellow of the Gatestone Institute, on May 26.
"When one wages a war and is winning, one does not stop
along the way; otherwise, one gives the enemy a respite and gives it the
means to reorganize and rearm. [...] The agreement, if it is reached
and if it corresponds to what it appears to be [...], will lead to the
regime parting with its enriched uranium and saying that it renounces
its military nuclear program. That said, the renunciation of its
military nuclear program will be merely a verbal renunciation. [...] If
the agreement is reached, whatever its content, it will leave the regime
in place, and that regime will still be a fanatical regime [...]
seeking to destroy Israel and support Islamic terrorism. This regime
will regard its survival as a victory."
Trump, for all his mastery in the "art of the deal," refuses to see the leadership role of the U.S. through to the end. He "choked," as he would say.
Trump, after claiming that "help is on its way,"
abandoned the Iranian populace. Then, when Israel was told not to
protect itself adequately from the missiles and attack drones launched
by Iran's proxy Hezbollah, Trump abandoned Israel – just as the Iranians
had planned.
The most tragic part is that Trump's original instincts were right.
Turn Gaza into a "Riviera in the Middle East" -- an American
protectorate on the Mediterranean, perhaps with a U.S. military base to
keep order. Trump seems to have let himself fall into a trap of
listening to "friends " -- who are not friends -- then sidelining and
excoriating his true friends, such as Israel.
While Trump was boasting that Iran's new IRGC rulers with whom he is
negotiating are "less radical," the very man who had electronically
signed the MOU, Iran's "New Rational Leader," Speaker of the Parliament
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, immediately went on television declaring the
"liberation of Jerusalem."
If some of the rulers in the Middle East convinced Trump to let them
generously "help" with the reconstruction of Gaza, it may well have been
to acquire a foothold on Israel's border from which to keep trying to
obliterate Israel. Despite all the glowing advancements promised by the
Abraham Accords, no one new seems to be rushing to join them. Perhaps
these countries have a different plan in mind.
America regrettably cannot be "made great again" without restoring
its leadership as a bulwark against oppression and barbarism. Unless the
Trump Administration can demonstrate a real win -- not a fake one, no
matter how often Trump tries to tell us how good his deal is -- his
party may not even be able to keep the House and Senate in the midterms
this November. No wonder Trump did not want the MOU made public. By now,
he probably knows it is a dud. He is probably concerned about America's
250th birthday party this week and the price of gas at the pump.
Where fulfilling the role of a great world leader is compatible with
dealmaking, Trump appears to be willing to assert himself as a great
power; but where a choice has to be made between that and the terrible
advice he is following to negotiate with terrorists instead of dictating
his terms to them, he appears to shrink back to his role as a dealmaker
– and from the looks of it, not even one that can best Iran or Hamas.
Perhaps Trump has become infatuated with dreams of glory – even for a
fake peace – rather than for America First or even the future of the
West. Many of Trump's new fake "friends" are, in reality, cold-blooded
dictators who loathe the West and, despite what they tell him, have not
lost their appetite one day to overthrow it.
Qatar has "invested" more than $400 billion in infiltrating the US – possibly more than a trillion dollars
all told -- no doubt with Muslim Brotherhood "strings attached." China
is waging war on America every way it can. It maintains secret
biological warfare laboratories in California and Nevada that are
developing deadly genetic pathogens. It sends poisonous agriculture
seeds to the U.S.; steals American intellectual property valued at
roughly $600 billion a year;
sends spy balloons over U.S. military sites, buys up "farmland" next to
them, and smuggles in fentanyl to kill around 100,000 Americans each
year -- the equivalent of one jumbo jet crashing every day.
Trump's Russian "friend," President Vladimir Putin, has a record of killing critics too numerous to name; razing Grozny, and invading Georgia and Ukraine.
If one were to ask many countries in the Middle East if they would
rather go forward into the 21st century with artificial intelligence and
high tech or remain in the 7th century, they would probably ask why
they cannot have both: better technology with which to fulfill Allah's
divine mission of a global caliphate?
Trump is poorly placed to warn that the U.S. might have to distance
itself from some European countries undergoing Islamization when he
himself cozies up to supporters of terrorism such as Qatar – which according to at least one expert, "funds more terrorism than Iran " -- or Turkey, which is reportedly preparing for war, or Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whom Trump appears
proud of having "essentially put there; he's doing a phenomenal job,"
but under whose leadership attacks on Alawites, Christians and Druze
have "skyrocketed," despite Western-friendly talk about "inclusivity" and "pluralism." Meanwhile, Syria is "coming together" more hard-core Islamized than ever.
Perhaps Trump is hoping to win over these dictators. Perhaps they might even sound won over – until his presidency is over.
As a Western power, you should never prioritize the interests of a
non-Western power over those that are Western -- even if it looks as if
your short-term interests are being served. It can backfire someday. The
issues of civilization, the continuing security of the West, cannot be
detached from national interests.1
The 2025 White House National Security Strategy
correctly refers to European countries' ongoing "loss of national
identities" and to the "stark prospect of civilizational erasure." The
report also raises the question of, by that erasure or by "regulatory
suffocation", "whether certain European countries will have economies
and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies."
Trump has negotiated impressive investments in the US from oil-rich
Arab states. Qatar, for instance, committed last year to investing $1.2 trillion in America, as well as a $400 million aircraft, the "flying palace," among other tributes.2 What have they asked for from Trump as his end of the deal?
Regarding the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, Trump lately has been
favoring the interests of Muslim countries over those of Israel. On June 24, 2025, then on April 8, 2026, Trump prevented escalations
that would have endangered Iran's Muslim neighbors. However, he then
called for a ceasefire that prevented Israel from further weakening
Iran.
On April 8, Trump called for another ceasefire just as Israel was
successfully degrading Iran's biggest proxy Hezbollah, which has been
bombarding Israel, most likely at the behest of Iran. Having Hezbollah
bombard Israel serves at least two of Iran's objectives. It drives
Israelis out of the northern part of their country -- Iran might hope
permanently -- then, when Israel retaliates, Trump orders it to stop
before it can accomplish its goals. The latest ceasefire also created
tension between the U.S. and Israel, which Iran regards as its two
biggest targets singled out for demolition.
Trump acted similarly again on March and May, when he asked Netanyahu to abstain from some strikes.
Trump would have done better to learn from Netanyahu rather than to
hamper his efforts. Trump still can inform Iran's regime that "We won,
you lost, now here is what you are going to do." Trump can still decide
to make Gaza the "Riviera of the Middle East " under joint American and
Israeli supervision. It is what American voters are waiting to hear.
Until then, Iran is effectively calling the shots while Trump is
backtracking off one red line after another: ballistic missiles,
removing Iran's enriched uranium, "Help is on its way," ending Iranian
support for terrorist proxies, possibly freedom of navigation – and a
status quo of once more having Iran enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Why should Americans vote for that? Many must be justifiably horrified. America is -- again! -- choosing to lose.
The entire West would do well to get over the illusion that fighting
back against those planning to destroy you is endangering you. If
adversaries are planning to destroy you, you are already in danger.
Confronting them is the proper reaction, not the wrong one
Israel's retaliation against Hamas in Gaza did not cause masses of Muslims or Palestine-friendly Westerners to rally against Israel. Pursuing the operations in Iran would not
have resulted in chaos. Now, Iran is being allowed to continue being a
major source of regional and worldwide destabilization and a threat to
Israel and America. That is what will result in chaos.
1 Previous cases of such detachment are certainly legion: the French-Ottoman alliance that, in the 16th century, was directed against Habsburg Spain and the Holy Roman Empire; the England-Morocco alliance that, at the crossroads of the 16th and 17th centuries, was directed against Spain; the Britain-Ottoman alliance
that, in 1798-1801, was directed against France during the French
campaign in Egypt; or the alliance that Britain and France, in the Crimean War of 1853-1856, formed with the Ottoman Empire against Russia.
2 Trump, on the occasion of his May 2025 Middle East trip, signed a U.S.-Qatar economic agreement
worth at least $1.2 trillion, which included commercial aircraft but
also defense, energy, and advanced technology; and announced a $600
billion Saudi commitment
to invest in the U.S., in areas like energy security, defense,
technology, infrastructure, or critical minerals, as well as more than
$200 billion in new U.S.–UAE deals. Other Islamic countries with which substantial economic agreements, in 2025, were announced are Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, or even Turkey; concerning the latter, on the occasion of Erdoğan's White House visit
on September 25, 2025, a U.S.-sourced LNG supply deal involving
Turkey's BOTAS and Mercuria, with a targeted bilateral trade volume of $100 billion, was settled in the natural gas sector. A U.S.-Turkey memorandum on strategic civil nuclear technology, beside was concluded, as well as Turkish Airlines' planned purchase of up to 225 Boeing aircraft.
![[ILLUSTRATIVE]Palestinians protest to demand an end to war, chanting anti-Hamas slogans, in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip March 26, 2025.](https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/q_auto/c_fill,g_faces:center,h_720,w_1280/727663 "[ILLUSTRATIVE]Palestinians protest to demand an end to war, chanting anti-Hamas slogans, in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip March 26, 2025.")
![[FILE PHOTO] PALESTINIANS DEMAND an end to war, chanting anti-Hamas slogans, in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip.](https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/c_fill,g_faces:center,h_537,w_822/659870)
