Diplomacy Archives - Dr. Rich Swier

Tag Archive for: Diplomacy

The Iran War Didn’t End — It Changed Shape

April 30, 2026/in America 250, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Islam, National Security, News, Policy, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism, The Truth, Violence/by Family Research Council

Hours after President Trump extended the ceasefire with Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Talks in Pakistan collapsed without an agreement. The nuclear stockpile is buried underground and unaccounted for. And Beijing is already cashing in.

If that sounds like peace, we have badly redefined the word.

What we are witnessing is not the end of this war. It is a transition into a more complicated — and potentially more dangerous — phase of it. The visible conflict is winding down. The harder one has already begun.

Our Military Did Its Job

Let me be direct about what our forces accomplished. Navy, Army, and Air Force crews operating in the constrained waters of the Persian Gulf and aircrews executing precision strikes imposed real costs on a dangerous regime. They degraded Iran’s conventional navy — over 150 ships now rest on the bottom. They demonstrated American reach. They restored a measure of deterrence. That matters.

But history is unambiguous on one point: military success does not automatically produce strategic success. Clausewitz understood this two centuries ago. A war is not defined by targets destroyed. It is defined by the political outcome achieved. By that standard, this conflict remains unresolved.

The Score So Far

Iran’s conventional military capabilities have been degraded. Its proxies have been pressured. Those are real, hard-won achievements. But the regime is still standing. Its nuclear ambitions are unresolved. Its grip on the world’s most critical shipping lane is intact.

The Clausewitz test makes it clear: degrading Iran’s arsenal is not the same as changing Iran’s political behavior. Regime survival is Tehran’s definition of victory. By that measure, they are still in the game.

The nuclear question is the sharpest edge of this problem. Before the war, Iran held nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium just short of weapons-grade purity, according to the IAEA. U.S. and Israeli strikes hit above-ground facilities, but the IAEA’s director general stated plainly that the program cannot be eliminated by airstrikes — that the material remains largely where it was, perhaps buried deep at Isfahan and Natanz. That is not a resolved problem. It is a deferred one.

The Strait Is the Center of Gravity

Iran’s conventional navy is gone. What remains is more dangerous in different ways. IRGC fast-attack craft now serve as the backbone of Tehran’s remaining naval strategy — armed speedboats and gunboats capable of harassment, boarding, and seizure in narrow waters where our carriers cannot maneuver effectively. Washington Institute analyst Farzin Nadimi has noted that Iran’s IRGC Navy relies on large numbers of small, fast-attack craft — with estimates ranging into the thousands of vessels — designed for swarm tactics in the Persian Gulf. That is not a fleet you eliminate with a two-week air campaign.

The strategic weight of this is enormous. The Strait handles roughly one-fifth of global oil supply and the same share of LNG during peacetime. Approximately 2,000 ships remain stranded in the Gulf, waiting for clearance from two rival militaries. The International Energy Agency has called this the largest oil supply disruption in history — larger than the 1970s shocks. Tehran knows this and is playing it deliberately.

There is, however, a structural consequence of this crisis that works against Iran long-term. Gulf states have told CNBC that Iran’s behavior has created a “huge trust gap” that may never be repaired, and they are already acting on it. Saudi Arabia has pushed its East-West Pipeline to full capacity — seven million barrels a day — routing exports to the Red Sea port of Yanbu and bypassing the Strait entirely. Iraq is reopening the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline through Turkey to the Mediterranean. Every barrel that moves through those alternative corridors is a barrel that no longer depends on Iranian goodwill. Iran’s chokehold is loosening — slowly — and the Gulf states intend to make that permanent.

China Is Watching — and Winning

The dimension Washington is not discussing loudly enough is China. In “The New AI Cold War,” I argue that great-power competition plays out in every theater simultaneously. Iran is a classroom as much as a battlefield, and Beijing is studying every lesson.

Beijing purchased roughly 80 to 90% of Iran’s exported oil going into this conflict and used a shadow fleet to assemble a strategic petroleum reserve of approximately 1.2 billion barrels — about 109 days of seaborne import cover — at below-market rates, using the very oil Western sanctions were designed to strand. China entered this war with full tanks. It is learning that the United States can dominate the opening phase of a conventional conflict — and that converting military dominance into decisive political outcomes is far harder. Those observations feed directly into Beijing’s calculus on Taiwan and the South China Sea.

The Road Ahead

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News this week that Iran’s fractured leadership is the biggest obstacle to a durable agreement. They are all hardliners, he said — but split between those who understand they need to run a country and economy, and those “completely motivated by theology” with “an apocalyptic vision of the future.” The latter holds ultimate power. That does not produce flexible negotiating partners.

Iran’s strategy has never changed. It does not need to defeat the United States. It needs to endure — to survive long enough to rebuild, reposition, and reassert. That game is measured in years, not weeks.

The path forward is straightforward on paper. Maintain the naval blockade. Treat the Strait as a permanent strategic priority, not a temporary inconvenience. Keep degrading Iran’s proxy network. And stand firm on nuclear issues. The IAEA chief has already warned that any deal without inspection provisions is an “illusion of an agreement” — a lesson learned the hard way after Desert Storm, when inspectors discovered how far Iraq’s secret weapons programs had advanced.

The Test Ahead

President Trump made the right decision to act. Our military executed with distinction. But the test of strategy is not the first eight weeks.

Iran has been checked — not changed. The regime is still standing. The Strait is still contested. The uranium stockpile is still buried underground, unverified, and unresolved.

This conflict has not ended. It has changed shape. The first war was fought with force. The second will be fought with patience, discipline, and strategic clarity. That is the harder war to win. We had better be prepared to fight it.

AUTHOR

Robert Maginnis

Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 14 books. His latest, “The New AI Cold War,” releases in April 2026.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Cracks Start to Show in Iran’s Shaky Truce with Trump

April 12, 2026/in Anti-Semitism, Culture War, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, Islam, Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism, Violence/by Family Research Council

To the entire planet’s relief, Artemis II isn’t flying back to an Earth marked by a gigantic atomic plume. While no one knows what the president had planned, whatever ballistic holocaust that Donald Trump threatened for Iran on Tuesday night didn’t happen. Ninety minutes before his deadline for bombing the country into extinction, the White House declared a buzzer-beating two-week ceasefire. And while the announcement provided some much-needed breathing space for the Middle East, it also triggered an onslaught of questions about just how sincere the prospect of peace could actually be.

Unlike the president, who went from proposing the region’s annihilation to suggesting the region was about to enter its “Golden Age,” others are wondering if the two nations can even make it 10 days without trading fire. While coming to the table is a savvy way to buy time (Hamas made a professional sport of it), who’s to say Iran is interested in upholding any sort of treaty with the West? As Jim Geraghty at NRO reminds the optimists, a recurring theme of the regime is its willingness to break just about every peace deal it’s ever signed.

But then, how exactly does one have “peace” with Islamist radicals honor-bound to annihilate every non-Muslim on the planet? No one is quite sure. Maybe that’s why Vice President J.D. Vance was quick to describe the current agreement as a “fragile truce.” “If the Iranians are willing in good faith to work with us, I think we can make an agreement,” he said. “If they’re going to lie, if they’re going to cheat, if they’re trying then to prevent even the fragile truce that we’ve set up from taking place, then they’re not going to be happy,” he warned, “because what the president has also shown is that we still have clear military, diplomatic and, maybe most importantly, we have extraordinary economic leverage.”

Right now, the two sides seem to be oceans apart on terms. To hear Trump tell it, the United States will be “hangin’ around” the Strait of Hormuz to “make sure that everything goes well” in the strategic waterway. In America’s reportedly 15-point plan, there’s obviously interest in making sure that Iran never acquires — or tries to acquire — nuclear weapons again. The president is also insisting on removing the remains of Iran’s “previous stockpiles” of uranium. Then, of course, there are the concerns about the regime’s cooperation in the global oil trade.

By Wednesday afternoon, the regime was already breaking its word on the Strait of Hormuz, closing it in retaliation for Israel’s continued bombardment of Lebanon, and striking energy complexes across Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. “That is completely unacceptable,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued. “And again, this is a case of what they’re saying publicly is different privately. We have seen an uptick of traffic in the Strait today. And I will reiterate the president’s expectation and demand that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened immediately, quickly, and safely. That is his expectation.”

Meanwhile, Iran has its own list of 10 mind-boggling demands — nine and a half of which, Geraghty underscores, are complete non-starters.

“The U.S. should commit, in principle, to guarantee non-aggression
Iran’s continued control of the Strait of Hormuz
Iran’s uranium enrichment right should be accepted
Lifting of all primary sanctions
Lifting of all secondary sanctions
Termination of all U.N. Security Council resolutions
Termination of all IAEA Board of Governors resolutions
Payment of compensation for damages inflicted on Iran
Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region
Cessation of the war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic resistance in Lebanon” (aka Hezbollah)

“A U.S. concession to just about any of them would represent a dreadful setback to American national security interests,” he underscores. “This is an ayatollah’s wish list. Late last month, I warned, ‘What’s left of the Iranian regime will make promises that they have no intention of keeping, lie at the negotiating table and in television interviews, cheat, steal, block international inspectors — you name it.’ In light of this,” Geraghty shook his head, “it is fair to wonder what the point of negotiating with them is.”

Recognizing that Iran is likely not acting in good faith, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told reporters Wednesday that American troops are “not going anywhere” until this deal is iron-clad. “Our troops are prepared to defend, prepared to go on offense, prepared to restart at a moment’s notice with whatever target package would be needed,” he insisted. “What we know is that Iran is going to say a lot of things. A lot of people are going to say a lot of things, claim a lot of things.” As for the Strait of Hormuz, Hegseth shrugged. “What has been agreed to, what’s been stated, is the strait is open. Our military is watching. I’m sure their military is watching, but commerce will flow. And that’s what you saw the market reacts to, is that reality.”

The tenuous deal did seem to at least temporarily placate Wall Street and the oil industry, where prices dropped $100 a barrel. Financial markets around the world were also up after Trump postponed Iran’s obliteration. But, as experts are quick to point out, “Keep in mind: there are a lot of oil refineries, natural gas facilities, industrial sites, and ports in the Arab states that have been damaged in the past five weeks, and repairing those sites will take time.”

Speaking of those damaged sites, the reality of what the U.S. and Israeli militaries accomplished in these few weeks is astounding. While the media spares no ink praising Trump’s unprecedented offensive against the number one state sponsor of terrorism, the breadth of destruction in Iran is impressive by any metric. Let’s review, Noah Rothman urges. “Iran’s central nervous system has been severed. … Its command-and-control, intelligence, and domestic security apparatuses have been severely degraded. Its navy and air force are gone. Its air defense network and nuclear weapons programs — two pricey sources of regime prestige — are in ruins. Its petrochemical and steel industries have been badly damaged, truncating two major sources of foreign revenue that sustain the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” When the Iranian people “come for their tormenters again,” he added, pointing to the massive protests, “they will do so knowing the state terror apparatus that has haunted them for generations is a shell of what it once was.”

Operation Epic Fury has been, by all accounts, a groundbreaking success. How it ends, however, matters — a fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reiterated to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Wednesday’s “Washington Watch.” Look, the senator admitted, “I prefer diplomacy to end the reign of terror of the Iranian regime. But the goal is to end the Iranian regime’s terror tactics. And if we can do it through diplomacy, fine.” But, he cautioned, “The president said today that the 10-point Iranian plan he didn’t support. … He’d like to end this well, but it takes two to tango. And I’m very suspicious that Iran will ever do this,” he cautioned. “It’s in their DNA to want to acquire a nuclear weapon because this is not a normal regime.”

For Iran, Graham insisted, “It’s a face-saving deal. [But] I don’t care about saving face for somebody who’s killed 45,000 of their own people [and who’s] got American blood dripping from their hands.”

To those on the Left and around the world who shamed Trump for acting against Iran, Graham’s colleague, Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) reminds everyone, “For 47 years, they’ve been shooting at American servicemembers and [at others] in the neighborhood. They’ve been a menace, to say the least.” And to suggest that we shouldn’t have to strike, “Remember,” he told Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “that’s what George Bush thought when the Twin Towers came down. That’s what Roosevelt thought when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That’s what we thought in World War I, ‘That’s not our problem.’”

It’s much less costly in lives and dollars, he underscored, “to hit them before they hit us.” But then, Cramer said, “I think you have to make [the case] over and over and over again, because our friends [in the] mainstream media are never going to tell that story.”

Perkins agreed, pointing to the run-up to World War II. “Had people actually listened to what Adolf Hitler was saying … his intentions were very clear, but yet no one wanted to act. And I do think it’s much easier in hindsight to say, ‘Well, we should have acted.’ And there’s a lot of criticism when people do act [from people saying], ‘We didn’t need to act.’” In this instance, the evidence was incredibly “strong.”

For now, the fate of the Middle East — and Israel especially — hangs in the balance. There will be no freedom in Iran, religious or otherwise, if the regime “ever comes back,” Graham stressed. “It’s a nightmare for Israel. We’re very close to finishing this regime off. Let’s finish them off if they don’t do a good deal.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

Iran’s New Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei Secretly Owns a £100M+ Luxury Empire in London

Diplomatic Ruptures in Latin America with Castroism: Another Effect of the Donroe Doctrine

March 10, 2026/in America 250, Communism, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Must Read, Narco-Socialism, Narco-Terrorism, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Socialism, Terrorism, The Truth, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

Burning documents. That’s how diplomats from the Castro regime left Ecuador after President Daniel Noboa declared Ambassador Basilio Antonio Gutiérrez and 21 other officials persona non grata. He gave them 48 hours to leave Ecuadorian territory.

And shortly after the announcement, smoke began to billow from the roof of the Cuban embassy. Neighbors complained about the smoke, according to local reports. The last image of the diplomatic headquarters in Quito, which went viral in the press, shows a man burning documents in front of a metal structure.

Was Gutiérrez hiding close ties with members of the Ecuadorian leftist political group known as RC5, a frequent defender of the communist regime in Cuba? Were there any conversations during the multiple meetings with legislators like Héctor Rodríguez and Liliana Durán, supporters of former President Rafael Correa, a fugitive from justice?

Cuban embassies have historically served as a contact center for Castro’s intelligence services, and their ambassadors are generally high-ranking officials within those military structures. This role they still maintain.

It is no coincidence that Fidel Castro invested so much in expanding the Revolution’s diplomatic network through diplomatic missions and the so-called “solidarity groups with Cuba,” which are proliferating in almost every corner of the planet.

For the moment, the Daniel Noboa government has not offered any explanation for the expulsion, but the measure comes just days before the president is scheduled to travel to the United States to participate in a summit of Latin American presidents with Donald Trump.

Starting in 2025, the region’s alignment with the White House’s foreign policy, rebranded as the Donroe Doctrine, has politically drawn Noboa and his cabinet into this alliance.

Last November, it came as no surprise when the president of Ecuador confirmed that the Armed Forces were conducting operations against illegal mining, which generally fuels the cartels, in the north of the country.

Spectacular images circulated on social media of cannon fire against mountains that billowed smoke in the distance, in the Andean province of Imbabura. There were arrests, including a member of the Oliver Sinisterra Front, a dissident group from the former socialist guerrilla group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

That alliance has recently been strengthened by another development. Last week, military personnel from Ecuador and the United States began joint operations in an attempt to combat organized crime groups and ensure security in the region.

U.S. Southern Command stated on X that it “is actively working with social partners in Latin America and the Caribbean to combat narco-terrorism,” and that “collaborative efforts, such as the current operations between Ecuador and the United States” against such organizations, “are essential to ensuring security and stability in the Western Hemisphere and protecting the homeland.”

In that context, the expulsion of the Cuban ambassador from Quito is entirely understandable. Trump has further tightened the noose around Castroism since capturing Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro this January, thus cutting off the island’s constant supply of oil at preferential prices.

“Cuba’s going to fall,” he said in a recent interview with Politico.

In November 2025, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Carlos Zamora, Cuba’s ambassador to Peru, had to leave the country permanently. The measure was announced after a meeting with Deputy Minister Félix Denegri Boza, who summoned him to discuss matters related to his administration.

Zamora, known as “El Gallo” (The Rooster), has served in the Castro regime’s foreign service for over five decades. According to the newspaper Infobae, he “joined Cuba’s intelligence structure in 1968 and subsequently represented his country in various nations of the region,” in the embassies of Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, El Salvador, and Bolivia.

In December 2021, he had been accredited as ambassador to Peru during the administration of then-leftist President Pedro Castillo, who is imprisoned for an attempted coup. Former Cuban agents, such as Enrique García, warned at that time that Zamora and his wife, Maura Juampere Pérez, held the rank of colonel in Cuba’s Directorate of Intelligence.

Although shrouded in secrecy, Zamora’s departure once again supported Washington’s policy of diplomatic isolation and weakening of the socialist regime.

When consulted for this article, Peruvian congresswoman Milagros Aguayo stated that Zamora was asked to leave the country “because of his constant interference in national politics.”

Whatever the reason, Havana is clearly not at its most popular in the region, where refreshing winds from the right are blowing to dispel old political clouds.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is a writer, producer, and journalist, exiled from Cuba due to his investigative reporting about themes like torture, political prisoners, government black lists, cybersurveillance, and freedom of expression and conscience. He is the author of the books “Leviathan: Political Police and Socialist Terror” and “El Soplo del Demonio: Violence and Gangsterism in Havana.”

Israel Orders Airstrikes after Hamas Violates Ceasefire

October 31, 2025/in Anti-Semitism, Culture War, Iranian influence, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Social Issues, Terrorism, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The Israeli Air Force carried out airstrikes in Gaza Tuesday in retaliation for multiple terrorist attacks on its forces. Both Israel and the U.S. affirm that the ceasefire still holds for now, but Hamas’s repeated violations and ongoing presence in the strip raise questions about whether Trump’s peace plan will ever proceed beyond Phase One.

At around 3:45 p.m. (local time) on Tuesday afternoon, terrorist snipers in Rafah opened fire at a building used by Israeli troops, as well as at an army excavator engaged in removing terrorist infrastructure within Israel’s zone of control. The snipers shot and killed Master Sgt. Yona Efraim Feldbaum, a reservist, who was operating the excavator at the time. Shortly afterward, terrorist operatives also fired several RPGs at Israeli forces, hitting an armored vehicle but inflicting no further human casualties.

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed a “forceful” response, the Israeli Air Force launched airstrikes overnight on over 30 commanders of Hamas and other terror groups in the Strip. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry estimated that 104 people were killed in the strikes, but it does not distinguish between combatants and civilians, nor has it built a record for credibility. Netanyahu informed the U.S. of the strikes after giving the order but before they were executed.

Even before the violence began, Israel was already complaining about Hamas’s failure to return all the bodies of deceased hostages by the stipulated deadline. According to the terms of the ceasefire, Hamas obligated itself to return all remains of the hostages within 72 hours from the return of the last living hostages, which took place on October 13. Hamas’s 72 hours have stretched into more than two weeks, but so far, Hamas has returned only 15 of the 28 deceased hostages remaining in Gaza.

Thus far, Hamas has relied on the plausible excuse that it is difficult to find the bodies of hostages buried under rubble, but they are working to find them as quickly as they can.

However, footage captured Tuesday by an Israeli drone showed that, at least in some instances, Hamas is lying. The footage, which Israel shared with the U.S. and the Red Cross, showed militants bringing partial remains of one hostage out of a building, burying it in a large hole they had dug, covering it with dirt, and then later pretending to discover the remains in front of members of the Red Cross. The partial remains belonged to deceased hostage Ofir Tzarfati, whose remains had also been returned to Israel on two previous occasions.

The video evidence was so clear that the Red Cross issued a rare criticism, saying that its staff “were not aware that a deceased person had been placed there prior to their arrival, as seen in the footage. … It is unacceptable that a fake recovery was staged, when so much depends on this agreement being upheld.”

“Hamas knows the location of all the hostages,” asserted Israel’s Hostages and Missing Families forum, “and continues to act with contempt, deceiving mediators and the international community while desecrating the dignity of our loved ones.”

“Everybody figured that Hamas might cheat on the deal,” remarked Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) on “Washington Watch,” “and it looks like they are.”

Yet senior Trump administration officials counseled Israel to moderation, contending that the footage did not show a ceasefire violation clear enough to justify “radical measures” in response. Instead, they recommended issuing a tougher ultimatum for Hamas to return the remaining bodies within 72 hours. If Hamas did not comply, then the U.S. would support Israel advancing its “Yellow Line” of control in Gaza.

Within hours, this counsel was rendered obsolete by much clearer violations of the ceasefire, as terrorists in Gaza shot at Israeli soldiers and killed one. Since the essence of a ceasefire requires that both sides cease firing, this was an indisputable violation.

When asked about the Israeli airstrikes during his tour of eastern Asia, President Donald Trump appeared entirely unconcerned. “They killed an Israeli soldier, so the Israelis hit back, and they should hit back,” Trump said. “If they [Hamas] are good, they are going to be happy, and if they are not good, they are going to be terminated, their lives will be terminated.”

“You have to understand Hamas is a very small part of peace in the Middle East, and they have to behave,” the president added, declaring that “nothing is going to jeopardize” his Gaza ceasefire.

Vice President J.D. Vance projected similar confidence in the ceasefire. “The ceasefire is holding. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be little skirmishes here and there,” he reasoned. “We know that Hamas or somebody else within Gaza attacked an IDF soldier. We expect the Israelis are going to respond, but I think the president’s peace is going to hold despite it.”

After concluding its retaliatory strikes, the Israeli military said it would resume enforcing the ceasefire in Gaza. For its part, the untrustworthy Hamas also insisted that it remains committed to the ceasefire.

At the same time, Hamas found its own saber to rattle. On Tuesday, Hamas said it had located the body of another hostage but would postpone returning the body to Israel due to Israel’s ceasefire “violations” — likely referring to the then-ongoing retaliatory strikes. Under the ceasefire, Israel has a right to respond to imminent threats. On Tuesday night, Hamas claimed to find the bodies of two other hostages, whom it named.

However, after an Israeli drone caught Hamas operatives in the act of fabricating the “discovery” of hostage remains, any Hamas claim to “find” new bodies must be treated as highly suspect. Israel maintains that Hamas already knows where the bodies of the remaining hostages are.

Assuming this is true, it would mean that Hamas is now using the bodies of the dead hostages as they used the bodies of the living hostages: as leverage. It would mean that Hamas is gradually releasing the hostages as slowly as possible while they rearm and reassert their control over Gaza. And it also appears that Hamas wants to use the bodies of the hostages as leverage to deter Israel from forcibly responding to Hamas’s own violations of the ceasefire.

“It would be a shame if the truce doesn’t hold,” reflected Harris. “Hopefully, again, every time the Israelis do one of these missions … it’ll end the conflict.”

Yet a ceasefire, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link. As usual, that weakest link appears to be Hamas. A ceasefire means nothing if one belligerent will not cease firing.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

PERKINS: There Can Be No Peace If Terrorism Is Allowed to Flourish

October 27, 2025/in Anti-Semitism, Assassination, Assassination attempt, Communism, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Social Issues, Socialism, Terrorism, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

In Matthew chapter 5, Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” If we are children of God, pursuing peace should be our default posture. As a nation founded on biblical principles and declaring our trust in God, America should likewise be a nation that seeks peace.

For that reason, I am grateful for the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to seek peace in regions long defined by conflict. But Scripture also makes clear that peace cannot exist apart from truth and righteousness. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the Messiah and His kingdom, said, “The work of righteousness will be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). The prophet Jeremiah, by contrast, warned of false peace built on deception: “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14).

Both Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were in Israel this month shoring up the president’s 20-point Gaza Peace Plan. Meanwhile, the Israeli Knesset took steps toward asserting sovereignty over more of Judea and Samaria. Secretary Rubio cautioned that the move could jeopardize the Gaza peace process. Vice President Vance responded that it was “a political stunt,” reaffirming that “the policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel.”

But let’s be clear: there will be no enduring peace in the Middle East so long as those who deny Israel’s right to exist are allowed to operate within her borders — harboring the illusion that terrorism and agitation will eventually yield them a state carved from the heart of Israel.

The term “West Bank” is itself a deceptive invention, coined by those who reject Israel’s legitimacy. The land’s biblical name is Judea and Samaria — nearly a quarter of Israel’s territory and the setting for roughly 80% of the events recorded in Scripture. Today, it is also a breeding ground for terror. Over the past two years, there have been 128 deadly attacks and more than 1,000 attempted or thwarted assaults in the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, which encompass about 40% of the region.

That violence is poised to intensify after Phase One of the peace plan, which traded 2,000 imprisoned terrorists for 20 remaining hostages, transferring those freed militants to Ramallah — the Palestinian Authority’s capital in Samaria.

History warns us: before the five wars with Hamas in Gaza came the First and Second Intifadas, both launched from Judea and Samaria and lasting more than a decade.

If Israel is to achieve even a managed peace, it must remove from its enemies the false hope of a Palestinian state within its God-given borders. The surest path to lasting stability is for Israel to fully exercise sovereignty over the land promised to her — a peace anchored not in illusion, but in truth and righteousness.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State Surges in Eastern Syria

Trump Builds Diplomatic Momentum Securing Peace, Trade Deals Ahead Of Looming Meeting With China

Scott Jennings Doesn’t Fall For CNN Host’s Attempt To Downplay Mamdani’s Picture With Terrorist Co-Conspirator

Hakeem Jeffries Finally Bends The Knee To Socialist Zohran Mamdani Ahead Of Early Voting

Fatah: ‘Don’t condemn armed struggle, we used it deliberately and strategically’

Final Hostages Come Home: Israel Celebrates at a Fork in the Road

October 14, 2025/in Anti-Semitism, Culture War, Hot Topics, Iranian influence, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Radical Islamic Terrorism, Social Issues, Techno-Fascism, Terrorism, Violence, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

In a Monday prisoner exchange, Hamas finally released the last 20 living hostages it captured on October 7, resolving for Israel the long-sustained dissonance of negotiating lopsided hostage releases with its genocidal foe. The moment provides Israel with great cause for rejoicing, but it also brings the Israeli government to a difficult, untrodden fork in the road.

On the seventh Day of Sukkot (the Feast of Booths, Leviticus 23:39), thousands of Israelis assembled in Tel Aviv’s Hostage Square to welcome the returning hostages, joined by tens of thousands of Israelis watching at public viewings across the country. The date held symbolic significance in the Jewish calendar, since it comes on the eve of the two-year anniversary of Hamas’s terror attack, which came on Simchat Torah or the eighth day of the Feast of Booths (Leviticus 23:39).

For the hostages, their release after long captivity surely felt like a return from exile. They endured years of malicious starvation, physical abuse, psychological torment, and heartless wickedness at the hands of their terrorist captors. They spent most of the time hidden in oxygen-poor tunnels, cut off from the outside world.

Theirs were conditions like the psalmist described, “Some sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, prisoners in affliction and in irons,” until Yahweh “brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and burst their bonds apart. Let them thank the Lord for his steadfast love. … For he shatters the doors of bronze and cuts in two the bars of iron” (Psalm 107:10, 14-16).

If ever there were a day for Israel to celebrate, surely the release of the final hostages qualifies.

Yet there remains a significant loose end. For starters, Hamas has only restored the living hostages to Israel, along with the bodies of four dead hostages. There are more than two dozen dead hostages remaining in Gaza. “Hamas is required to abide by the agreement and make the necessary efforts to return all the bodies,” insisted the IDF.

Part of the problem may be that not even Hamas leaders know where all the hostage bodies are. An international task force will seek to assist in locating the remaining bodies within 72 hours.

These conditions illustrate another problem: Hamas is still in Gaza. Under the terms of Trump’s 20-point peace plan, to which both Israel and Arab nations have agreed, Hamas is supposed to surrender its weapons and relinquish control of Gaza to a technocratic governing body, thereby securing Israel’s safety.

Like a towering redwood, the deep-rooted problem of Hamas in Gaza stands athwart Israel’s path, dividing it into two. Now that Israel has recovered every living hostage, it has now reached the fork in its path, and the moment of decision.

On one hand lies the trail that everyone from Arab despots to President Donald Trump is pressuring Israel to take: declare victory and end the war.

“Today, the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a holy land that is finally at peace, a land and a region that will live, God willing, in peace for all eternity,” intoned Trump in a Sunday speech before the Israeli Knesset. “The forces of chaos, terror, and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated,” he added.

These remarks built up to Trump’s crescendo, “You’ve won!” he declared. “Now it is time to translate these victories against terrorists on the battlefield into the ultimate prize of peace and prosperity for the entire Middle East.”

This was no idle rhetoric on Trump’s part. From Jerusalem, he journeyed on to Egypt Monday to meet with 20 Arab and Muslim leaders about the future of Gaza. Trump really believes — or wants to believe — that the war is over.

(Significantly, Netanyahu did not attend the summit, even though he originally planned to attend. Behind the scenes, Turkish President Recep Erdogan created last-minute drama, circling the airport and threatening to boycott the meeting “if any Israeli plane lands.” Netanyahu’s office gave the Jewish holiday as the reason for his absence.)

The question is, has Trump declared victory in Gaza too soon? Have he and his Arab negotiating partners begun to measure the drapes on a waterfront resort property whose blueprints have not yet been finalized?

The hard reality is that Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza, evil to its core, and an existential threat to Israel. The Monday hostage exchanges gave Hamas new life, after Israel released 1,900 prisoners in exchange for the 20 living hostages. Of these, 250 prisoners were hardened terrorists, serving life sentences on murder and terrorism charges, while the others had been detained since October 7. The result is many more foot soldiers at the disposal of Hamas (although not all were released into Gaza).

Already, emboldened by the ceasefire with Israel, armed men in masks have been seen on the streets of Gaza and in conflict with anti-Hamas tribal militias. Over the weekend, Hamas militants raided the Gaza City neighborhood occupied by the Al Doghmush family militia. The one-sided violence resulted in the death of 52 Doghmush members and 12 Hamas militants.

Objectors may point out that the current ceasefire prevents Hamas from attacking Israel, but Israel vividly remembers Hamas’s bad faith towards temporary peace agreements. Hamas broke ceasefires with Israel in 2003, 2007, and 2008, nine ceasefires in 2014, and another on October 7, 2023. Whenever a military or political opportunity next presents itself, Hamas is sure to break the ceasefire again.

Hamas is evil not only for its untrustworthiness, but for the brutal, illegal terrorist tactics it routinely employs in pursuit of its goal: genocide of the Jews. Israel recently reminded the world of Hamas’s evil intentions by publishing an August 2023 memo written by the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, in which Sinwar instructed Hamas’s terror brigades mobilized in the planned October 7 massacres to attack civilians and film their atrocities to frighten and destabilize Israel.

As a result of Israel’s many security concerns, Netanyahu seems poised to choose a different path than that urged by Trump. “The campaign is not over. There are still very great security challenges ahead of us,” he cautioned on Sunday. That sure sounds like Netanyahu plans to continue fighting, even as the White House would like to declare victory.

It is difficult to know what lies upon any path beyond the first bend of the future. If Israel resolves to keep on fighting an unyielding Hamas, will that provoke Trump’s anger and a permanent loss of support? Will it merely prompt a public disagreement while the two leaders continue to cooperate at a deeper level? Or, will Netanyahu be able to amass sufficient evidence of Hamas violations that Trump actually sides with Israel?

The other unknown question is what world leaders will do with Hamas. Will Arab nations shoulder their newly assumed responsibility for Gaza’s security and kick Hamas to the curb? Will they allow Israel to do the dirty work instead? Or will they simply revert to the pre-war status quo of providing soft support to Hamas as an incurable nuisance to Israel?

In other words, the stakes are nothing less than the legacy and longevity of Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza, and the most important criterion is whether it will result in world leaders ousting Hamas from power. The deal has been struck, but now comes the hard part.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Defies Expectations: The Peacemaker the World Never Saw Coming

Coming Home: The Hostages, America, and the Hope for Unity

U.S. State Department Mulls Closing 27 Embassies and Consulates

April 17, 2025/in Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, National Security, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The U.S. State Department is formulating plans to close 10 embassies and 17 consulates, reported The New York Times, based upon an internal memo. The plan, which expands on one circulated in an earlier March memo, is part of an internal budget-cutting campaign, which aims to reduce the State Department operations budget by as much as 20%.

The memo proposed shuttering six embassies in Africa (Central African Republic [C.A.R.], Eritrea, Gambia, Lesotho, the Republic of Congo and South Sudan), two in Europe (Luxembourg and Malta), one in the Caribbean (Grenada), and one in the Indian Ocean (the Maldives), according to the Times. However, the official State Department list of embassies does not list a U.S. embassy in Grenada.

The memo also proposed closing all five U.S. consulates in France, two out of five U.S. consulates in Germany, and both branch offices of the embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Times said. It also proposed closing the consulates in Thessaloniki, Greece; Florence, Italy; Ponta Delgada, Portugal; and Edinburgh, Scotland, plus four outside of Europe: Douala, Cameroon; Medan, Indonesia; Durban, South Africa; and Busan, South Korea.

The U.S. operated 271 diplomatic missions overseas (embassies and consulates) in 2023, according to the Lowy Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index. These proposals therefore represent a 10% cut to the number of U.S. missions.

The Times complained that closing embassies “would hinder the work of large parts of the federal government,” especially the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which usually posts its officers at embassies under a diplomatic cover. “Embassies house officers from the military, intelligence, law enforcement, health, commerce, trade, treasury and other agencies,” they explained. They especially fretted over “ceding vital diplomatic space to China,” which according to the Lowy Institute operates 274 overseas missions.

But diplomatic influence cannot be measured simply by counting the number of foreign missions a nation operates. There are many important factors, including how a nation uses the diplomatic missions it has. (In that respect, the U.S. is never going to leverage its overseas missions as far as China, which has operated secret police stations even inside the U.S. to keep tabs on its own citizens.)

The point is, if some U.S. missions see little to no use, or are more of a liability than an asset, then they should be shut down. And suggesting “then we’ll have less than China” is not a good argument for keeping them open.

There are already at least 25 nations without an official U.S. embassy in-country, TWS found. The U.S. embassies in six nations (Afghanistan, 2021; Belarus, 2022; Sudan, 2023; Syria, 2012; Venezuela, 2019; and Yemen, 2015) have suspended operations entirely due to dangerous conditions persisting there. Meanwhile, the American embassy to Guinea-Bissau is located in neighboring Senegal, the embassy to Libya operates out of Tunisia, and the embassy listed for Iran is really the Swiss embassy.

For 16 other nations, the U.S. has no embassy listed at all. This includes six Caribbean island nations (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines), which all use the U.S. embassy in Barbados. It also includes four Pacific island nations (Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu) and one African island nation (Sao Tome and Principe). Rounding out the list are three tiny European nations (Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco), and two nations with whom the U.S. has no formal relations (Bhutan and North Korea).

The clever reader will likely notice a theme to nations lacking U.S. embassies: most are tiny nations with small populations, small economies, and therefore little business to transact with the U.S. What little business there is can more easily be conducted through an embassy in a neighboring country than by establishing a whole new embassy, requiring infrastructure, staff, vetting procedures, etc.

The embassy closures proposed by the State Department largely continue this theme: Lesotho and Gambia are entirely surrounded by another country, while Luxembourg, Malta, and the Maldives are small (and, for two out of three, also islands). It’s less obvious why the State Department chose certain consulates to shutter, but it could be for the same reason: little work to do that could not be handled more easily somewhere else.

The most notable embassies to be closed are those in the relatively larger nations of C.A.R., South Sudan, and Republic of Congo. The first two are landlocked, impoverished nations that have little intercourse with the U.S.; C.A.R. ranks among the world’s most repressive countries, while South Sudan has little infrastructure or civic stability. The Republic of Congo is better off, but perhaps the State Department noticed that the U.S. operated another embassy only four miles away (as the crow flies), across the river in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It is also notable that so many proposed consulate closures are in Europe. This could reflect a downturn in European tourism, likely due to lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in fewer Americans requiring consular services.

This could also reflect the Trump administration’s wariness about European countries that have retreated from certain fundamental freedoms. “The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia; it’s not China; it’s not any other external actor,” Vice President J.D. Vance said in February. “What I worry about is the threat from within: the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”

This raises another factor the State Department must consider: the potential threats to U.S. diplomatic missions. The 2012 attack on America’s consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in four American deaths, dramatically underscores the real risk associated with operating far-flung diplomatic missions in hostile corners of the globe, with only a handful of staff.

So far this year, the State Department has seen an unusually high number of resignations (about 700), including 450 career diplomats. For the safety of America’s own diplomats, it makes sense to consolidate our diplomatic missions, so that America operates no more than it can fully staff.

With staffing cuts and budget cuts, it makes sense for the State Department to trim away the least important overseas missions, too. And, once those reductions are made, a slimmer State Department — and the U.S. taxpayers who fund it — will benefit for years to come.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.