Media complains calling him ‘Mohamed ‘ is Islamophobic.
Here we go again.
Islamist Michigan candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s full name has a Mohammed in there. It’s Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed. Now unlike Barack Hussein Obama, whose name was a bit hard to place for Americans without the ‘Hussein’, there’s not a lot of ambiguity about it.
Abdul El-Sayed isn’t exactly Jack Smith or Bob Jones.
But still he chose not to call himself ‘Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’ maybe because it wouldn’t fit on a campaign sign.
Democrats and their media however are now complaining that anyone who calls him ‘Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’ is an Islamophobe.
Other examples immediately started piling up, from the Republican National Committee casting El-Sayed by full name as a “terrorist supporter” to NRSC Vice Chair Jim Banks’ comments saying Michigan’s union Democrats wouldn’t “want to vote for a guy like Abdulrahman El-Sayed.”
Emphasizing El-Sayed’s full name and casting him as a terrorist follows a familiar strategy of using Islamophobic rhetoric to target Democrats of color: Conservatives often invoked — and, sometimes, continue to invoke — former President Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, as a derogatory reference despite his not being Muslim.
Sen. Tim Scott on CNN quickly brushed off the attack.
The same media that refused to note the blatant antisemitism of Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign, is now squealing that using his full name is ‘Islamophobic.’
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Abdulrahman-Mohamed-El-Sayed.jpg360640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2026-08-11 04:44:452026-08-11 06:47:26Now We’re Not Allowed to Use Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’s Full Name
Below are recent poll results from Epoch Tiimes, one of few remaining conservative print news sources. I highlighted % that I personally favored.
Dear Reader,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. We’re pleased to share with you the results of the survey you participated in.
Do you approve or disapprove of the recent US military strikes on Iran?
Approve — 62 %
Disapprove — 36 %
No strong opinion — 2 %
What do you think should be the main goal of US actions toward Iran right now?
Prevent Iran from developing or using nuclear weapons — 59 %
Protect US troops and allies in the region — 6 %
Avoid further escalation and seek de-escalation — 19 %
Focus on other priorities instead of military involvement — 15 %
Not sure — 2 %
How concerned are you about potential risks from the current US military involvement in Iran (such as casualties, higher costs, or wider conflict)?
Very concerned — 44 %
Somewhat concerned — 22 %
Not very concerned — 19 %
Not concerned at all — 13 %
Not sure — 1 %
Should the US prioritize addressing domestic issues (like the economy, borders, and infrastructure) before committing more resources to foreign conflicts like the one with Iran?
Yes, domestic issues should come first — 37 %
No, security threats abroad must be addressed regardless — 30 %
Both should be balanced equally — 32 %
Not sure — 1 %
Do major news outlets provide fair, balanced, and fact-based reporting on the US military strikes and the Iran conflict?
Yes, mostly fair and accurate — 8 %
No, they often push political narratives — 79 %
Sometimes fair, sometimes biased — 10 %
Not sure — 3 %
Would you be interested in subscribing to a news source that focuses on factual, non-partisan reporting without political agendas or sensationalism?
Yes, especially if it offers clear, unbiased coverage — 27 %
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Readers-Poll.jpg360640Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2026-08-10 14:32:042026-08-10 14:43:07Epoch Times Reader’s Poll on the War with Iran
For over four decades, Washington’s posture toward the Islamic Republic of Iran has oscillated between containment, targeted economic sanctions, and episodic diplomatic engagement. Historian and military strategist Victor Davis Hanson argues that this paradigm has proven utterly ineffective at checking Tehran’s regional aggression or supporting the democratic aspirations of the Iranian public. During a high-profile broadcast exchange with commentator Mark Levin, Hanson put forward a provocative shift in U.S. foreign policy: formal diplomatic recognition of an Iranian government-in-exile headed by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Hanson’s proposal fundamentally challenges the conventional wisdom of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Rather than treating the clerical regime as the permanent, sole legitimate authority in Tehran, the United States would actively construct a parallel diplomatic reality — one that isolates the ruling theocracy, provides an institutional anchor for internal and external opposition, and charts a credible path toward democratic restoration.
The core of Victor Davis Hanson’s proposal rests on fundamentally shifting American foreign policy away from the perpetual management of the Islamic Republic and toward its active delegitimization. During his discussions with Mark Levin, Hanson argued that decades of containment, economic sanctions, and episodic negotiations have only subsidized the clerical regime’s survival while ignoring the overwhelmingly secular, pro-Western aspirations of the Iranian public. By proposing that Washington explicitly bypass Tehran and formally recognize an Iranian government-in-exile, Hanson challenges the traditional diplomatic status quo. This strategy aims to strip the ruling theocracy of its international standing, isolate its diplomatic channels, and create a structured external pressure point that forces the regime to absorb the full financial and political costs of its domestic tyranny and regional proxy warfare.
The core pillar of Hanson’s argument is that the United States must stop according de facto legitimacy to the Islamic Republic. For decades, Western powers have operated under the assumption that negotiations — whether over nuclear proliferation, regional proxies, or maritime trade — are the only practical mechanism for managing Iranian hostility. Hanson rejects this premise, asserting that engaging with the regime merely subsidizes its survival and undermines most of the Iranian populace, who remain inherently secular, anti-theocratic, and pro-Western.
By formally recognizing a government-in-exile, Washington would send a clear signal: the ruling clerics no longer possess the legal or moral authority to represent the state of Iran on the global stage. Hanson emphasizes that the U.S. should explicitly refuse to negotiate with the current regime and instead engage directly with this provisional alternative. This shift would strip Tehran of its status as an accepted diplomatic actor, isolating its diplomats, restricting its international standing, and forcing the regime to absorb the full political and financial costs of its domestic oppression and regional subversion.
A central pillar of this strategy is establishing a unified political anchor by tapping Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi to head the provisional government under strict, conditional parameters. Rather than facilitating the return of an absolute monarchy, Hanson stresses that U.S. recognition must be contingent on Pahlavi acting strictly as a temporary steward whose primary mandate is organizing free, multi-party democratic elections within one to two years of the regime’s collapse. This approach directly addresses the historic fragmentation of the Iranian opposition, providing internal dissidents, potential military defectors, and foreign allies with a legitimate focal point. By pairing Pahlavi’s long-standing advocacy for secular democratic pluralism with formal Western backing, Hanson’s framework seeks to convert passive resistance into an organized successor state ready to manage a stable post-theocratic transition.
Crucially, Hanson specifies that U.S. recognition must be conditional. The exile government and Pahlavi must commit to a binding agreement: upon returning to a liberated Iran, the interim administration must organize and conduct free, multi-party democratic elections within one to two years. This constraint addresses historical anxieties regarding dynamic power shifts in the region, ensuring that the provisional authority serves strictly as a bridge to a secular republic or constitutional framework chosen directly by the Iranian nation.
As Mark Levin noted during their discussion, Pahlavi has spent decades advocating for political pluralism, secularism, and human rights rather than personal power. Structuring recognition around a strict transitional deadline guarantees that the government-in-exile remains a vehicle for democratic self-determination rather than an autocratic alternative.
One of the greatest historical obstacles facing the Iranian pro-democracy movement has been fragmentation. While internal uprisings — such as the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement — demonstrate widespread domestic resistance, the lack of an organized political head has allowed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to suppress protests piecemeal.
An officially recognized government-in-exile fundamentally alters this dynamic:
Unified Political Anchor: It provides a singular, legitimate focal point around which internal dissidents, military defectors, and international allies can rally.
Administrative & Financial Utility: A formal exile entity could issue international documentation, establish independent funding channels, and represent Iranian national assets currently frozen abroad.
Psychological Pressure on Tehran: As Levin pointed out, the existence of an internationally backed alternative government creates intense strategic anxiety within the clerical establishment, signaling that a structured successor state is prepared to take power the moment the regime falters.
Hanson’s strategic vision extends beyond diplomatic symbolism; it represents a comprehensive doctrine for long-term Middle Eastern stability. The Islamic Republic functions as the principal engine of instability across the Levant and the Persian Gulf, funding a network of armed proxies. Hanson argues that attempting to manage or appease this system is a proven failure.
By aligning American power directly with the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, the U.S. can help catalyze the collapse of the theocracy from within. Establishing a recognized government-in-exile bridges the gap between Washington’s stated commitment to Iranian freedom and its practical foreign policy, transforming passive opposition into an active strategy for democratic transition. Hanson’s proposal provides an actionable, realist blueprint for ending forty-five years of hostility — not through endless war or futile appeasement, but through the deliberate, institutional delegitimization of the clerical dictatorship.
Figuratively the term Waterloo means a crushing defeat and is a reference to the Battle of Waterloo, the final battle of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1825) when Napoleon was decisively and conclusively defeated. An interesting June 9, 2026, article by Michel Benchimol titled, “Israel’s Right to Exist & Trump’s Iran Gamble” poses the question:
The Iran Trap: Waterloo or Victory?
Trump’s Iran policy is the true test of his transformation. He has pursued maximum pressure—sanctions, tariffs on countries trading with Iran, and repeated military threats.
In June 2025, the U.S. and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities in the largest Western attack since 1979.
Iran retaliated with a missile strike on a U.S. air base in Qatar.
Then came the pivot. In April 2026, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, framing it as a dramatic victory. Tehran has shown willingness to negotiate on uranium enrichment but talks stall over U.S. demands to limit Iran’s missiles and proxies.
Critics call it a disaster. They argue that Trump is abandoning regime change, legitimizing the Iranian regime, and failing to achieve the doctrine Netanyahu vowed to destroy. Some analysts say Iran could become Trump’s Waterloo if escalation leads to sustained conflict, U.S. casualties, and a midterm disaster for Republicans.
The risk is that Trump’s signature tactic—construct a narrative, declare it true, and force the world to submit—doesn’t work when the adversary is a state with nuclear ambitions and proxy networks.
Benchimol’s analysis ignores the foundation of President Trump’s signature “Let’s make a deal” strategy which assumes everyone, and everything has a price that can be negotiated. And President Trump’s negotiating strategy ignores 1400 years of religious Islamic doctrine that commits Muslims to establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
For me, Benchimol is dancing around the problem and revealing his own bias by presenting Trump’s “Let’s make a deal” negotiating style as if it has a possibility of success––it doesn’t. Muslims are doctrinally obligated to destroy Jews and Christians (competing ideologies) to achieve Islam’s expansionist ambition––the establishment of the worldwide Islamic caliphate. Remember, according to Islam, there will be peace on Earth when the whole world is Muslim. That is not a slogan––it is a religious doctrinal imperative.
The better question is: Can Iran be trusted as a negotiating partner?
History is a great teacher and what we learn from history is that some enemies can be negotiated with, and some enemies must be defeated unconditionally. Iran must be defeated unconditionally to secure the peace for the Western world because Iran is ideologically, religiously, and doctrinally dedicated to establishing the worldwide Islamic caliphate.
Iran advances on its centuries-old operating principles of hudna and taqiyya. Hudna is Islam’s fraudulent signature ceasefire agreement that gives a weakened Iran time to regroup, rearm, and reattack. Taqiyya is Islam’s doctrinal religious duty to lie in the service of Islam. Iran is not moved by “peace” deals, business deals, or any other deals.
Islam is a challenger civilization with a replacement ideology that is founded in a binary, supremacist, expansionist, religious doctrine. Islam’s singular goal is to make the whole world Muslim, including America. Iran is not and never was a trustworthy negotiating partner because peace is not and never was Islam’s goal.
America’s return to the negotiating table to give Iran one more chance to become a trustworthy negotiating partner is like a battered wife returning to her abusive husband thinking that this time will be different. Being out of touch with the historical reality is a lethal choice for nations as well as for wives.
No man, not Donald Trump nor any other human being, is going to change 1400 years of Islamic doctrine with promises of peace and profits to Muslim countries doctrinally committed to the Islamic caliphate! It is an absurdity that lives in subjective reality without foundation in objective reality.
For me, President Trump now appears more like a battered wife who continues to give her husband one more chance, because she desperately wants to be happily married, or like the wife who knows her husband is cheating but refuses to acknowledge it because she desperately wants to stay married. These are flawed strategies in marriage as well as in international affairs because denial is not a survival strategy and both deny objective reality.
In my 2011 philosophy book Dear America: Who’s Driving the Bus? I present a universal paradigm of human behavior that explains why people do what they do. I explain that a state of mind is not fixed. It is constantly shifting along the growth continuum, anywhere from total, infantile narcissism to responsible adulthood, depending upon the level and stability of the individual’s inner development and the strength of the external pressures challenging it.
We are each the whole of our life experiences. The children we once were continuing to exist inside our minds. So, the narcissistic infant; the demanding two-year-old; the insecure adolescent; the rebel; the adventurer; the happy child; the angry, frightened, timid, or lonely child we once were all persist as states of mind. Each inner child is an accessible entity that seeks to be in control of the individual’s mind. The inner child’s struggle for power continues to challenge the individual’s rational adult state of mind throughout his or her lifetime.
Anytime an inner entity is at the wheel the individual has psychologically exited the factual real world of objective reality and entered the historical feelings realm of subjective reality.
The bus is a metaphor for our psychological selves. The bus travels along the timeline that is our lifetime. It picks up new passengers as we grow and develop, each new feeling and each new experience adding another rider. The driver of the bus is always selected from the passengers aboard, and the passengers are constantly competing to determine who will drive the bus.
To understand the often inexplicable inconsistencies in an individual’s behavior, and to understand how one person can perceive us in a completely different way than another sees us, we must ask ourselves the seminal question, “Who’s driving the bus?”
Sustaining our most rational adult state of mind is the challenge for preserving our constitutional republic, because freedom is an adult enterprise. It is my opinion that President Trump is being psychologically manipulated again just like he was psychologically manipulated during Covid-19.
During Covid-19 the globalist elite triggered President Trump’s young, frightened, germophobic entity and now they have engaged his businessman entity. Psychological manipulation is a powerful tactical weapon in globalism’s War on America. And anytime President Trump is triggered into subjective reality it is problematic for America.
For freedom to prevail President Trump must demand his most rational adult presidential self be in the driver’s seat. Watching the President realign himself and desperately try to make a deal with Muslim countries in the Middle East is like watching a fish flailing and flapping around on land. It will not end well. Israel knows it. Rubio and Hegseth know it. And our enemies know it because their social engineers remain in objective reality.
I thought we had learned the lesson in WWII that you cannot make a deal with a Nazi––it does not take a genius to realize that you cannot make a deal with an Islamist either. Why? Because, like Nazis, Islamists are ideologically committed to their doctrinal goals and ideological supremacy––everything else is details.
President Trump used to know this, but like the battered wife he is desperate to give the Islamists one more chance because his overarching goal is to be the man who makes peace in the middle east. He is as desperate as the bruised wife going back to give the battering husband one more chance.
The difference between President Trump and the battered wife are the consequences. The battered wife will eventually be battered to death; a battered president leaves America vulnerable and weakened. I no longer trust President Trump’s foreign policy decisions in the Middle East because I no longer trust the entity that is driving his bus.
Just as the police know what will eventually happen to the bruised and battered wife, anyone living in objective reality knows the outcome of Trump’s Iran Gamble.
The Iranian regime will survive and become even more brutal against its own population, and its proxies will be more emboldened to continue terrorizing Jews and Christians worldwide. A battered president leaves a trail of destruction behind him because a president living in subjective reality cannot protect America.
Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier––Reality Is is available in paperback, hardback, and ebook formats on barnesandnoble.com, amazon.com, and directly from Ingram in paperback.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-Gives-Big-Update-on-Iran-Strike-by-the-Numbers.jpg359640Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2026-08-09 08:38:492026-08-10 15:05:00A Battered President
Many people in the West have lost the will to fight the Muslim invasion of their countries. Instead, some embrace the Muslims who are, by the tens of millions, already in their midst, treating them as legitimate “asylum refugees,” to be provided with every sort of welfare benefit, and not as the economic migrants that in fact they are. Some in the West see themselves as having to atone for the colonial conquests of their ancestors, and what better way to do so than by admitting into their countries the descendants of those who supposedly suffered from such colonialism? More on this Western masochism can be found in Giulio Meotti’s article here: “Masochism: the gravest mental illness in the West,” by Giulio Meotti, Israel National News, August 5, 2026:
At the end of his long and magnificent life, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss wrote:
“I began to reflect at a time when our culture was aggressing other cultures, and in that period I set myself up as their defender and witness. Today I have the impression that the movement has been reversed and that our culture has ended up on the defensive in the face of external threats, among which figures the Islamic explosion. And suddenly I found myself being an ethnological defender, and firmly resolved, of my own culture.”
Pippa Bacca, a Milanese artist, pseudonym of Giuseppina Pasqualino Di Marineo, niece of Piero Manzoni, began her itinerant tour “Brides on tour” in a white wedding dress.
To teach Israel “how to make peace,” the Italian leftist decided to hitchhike from Italy to Israel. She had even learned Arabic, to demonstrate that “Islam is not violent.”
The Jewish state needed no lessons on “how to make peace” from the pro-Palestinian Pippa Bacca. Israel has been attempting to make a real peace, and not just a temporary hudna, or truce, with its Arab enemies ever since the 1948 war. Egypt, notably, signed a peace treaty with Israel in order to get back the entire Sinai, that it had lost in the Six-Day War, but relations between Israel and Egypt have hardly improved since. The Egyptian media is still full of vituperative attacks on Israel; at the UN, Egypt leads the anti-Israel bloc of Arab states, and pushes for the General Assembly to adopt anti-Israel measures. Sadat explained to his fellow Egyptians that he only signed the Camp David Accords in 1978 in order to have Israel turn the entire Sinai back to Egypt.
But let’s go back to Pippa Bacca, the innocent Italian leftist, hoping to hitchhike all the way from Italy to Israel, to help bring “peace” between Arab and Jew.
A hitchhiking journey, unconditional trust in others and in the brotherhood among peoples. What could possibly go wrong?
“The only thing that scares me is the cold,” Pippa had said before setting off through Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Bulgaria.
But in Turkey, Pippa met Murat Karatash and her life ended in horror and brutality. Raped and murdered.
Thus concluded Pippa’s parabola, within her own creative work.
Meanwhile another Italian activist, Vittorio Arrigoni, a homosexual, had arrived in Gaza on a boat against the Israeli “blockade” (of weapons) to help “the Palestinian Arab people.” He had tattooed on his arm the Arabic word for “resistance” (مقاومة, muqāwama).
The jihadists of Gaza kidnapped and killed him.
For twenty years it is as if we had put Pippa Bacca in charge of Europe.
Too many in the Western world, like the terminally naïve Pippa Bacca and Vittorio Arrigoni, who paid with their lives, have sympathized with, and trusted, the Palestinians, and other Muslims, and that diseased sympathy has prevented many in the West from comprehending the demographic threat from the Muslims now in their midst. And too many Western officials have for decades been admitting hordes of Muslims — there are now 44 million in Europe — who have no intention of assimilating into Western societies, for why should the “best of peoples” want to integrate with those they know are the “most vile of created beings”? And they are convinced, too, as Muhammad famously said, that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated.”
The attack at Berlin’s Pride once again demonstrates that out there roam wolves who in the name of Islam want to tear us bodily apart. Faced with this very serious danger, a country can react in two ways. Either the rule of law passes from prey to hunter, even if unpleasant images will arise, for example during raids….
In other words, European governments must do everything they can to cease being “prey” to Muslims. This means they must discourage, or prevent altogether, Muslim immigration. Such measures could include putting a stop to all migration from Muslim lands, rounding up and deporting those Muslim migrants who are already in the West illegally, promptly deporting Muslims convicted of crimes at the conclusion of their sentences back to their countries of origin, and preventing migrants — overwhelmingly Muslims — from receiving any welfare benefits during the first five years of their presence in the land.
Pippa Bacca feared the cold, not the man. Arrigoni feared Israel, not the Salafists. The organizers of Berlin Pride fear “instrumentalization,” not those who kill them.
Perhaps the end of Western civilization will not arrive with barbarian invasions, but in a wedding dress, a resistance tattoo and prayers that the murderer be white and Christian.
Giulio Meotti is too pessimistic. He should know that everywhere in the Western world the anti-immigrant parties — or more exactly, the anti-Muslim-immigrant parties — are now in the ascendant. In Germany, Alice Weidel’s Alternative für Deutschland, in Italy Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia, in Spain Santiago Abascal’s Vox party, in the UK Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain Party, and Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party are all determined to diminish the presence of Muslim migrants.
The peoples of Europe have been slow to grasp the demographic threat, but now the scales have fallen from their eyes, and many are bestirring themselves to support leaders well aware of the Muslim menace. Note to Giulio Meotti: Sursum corda! The cavalry is coming.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Pippa-Bacca.jpg360640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2026-08-09 04:46:162026-08-09 04:52:04The Masochism of the West
Lars Møller recently published a piece on three farsighted people — the late Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, and Douglas Murray — who understood and have written about the mortal threat to Western civilization from “the sons of Allah,” tens of millions of whom are now living in our midst. More. on his tribute to the three (and he might have added the names of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq to his list) and the alarm he now feels, because so few in the West have heeded them, can be found here:
The moral decline of the West is no longer a matter of speculation but a demographic, cultural, and spiritual fact, visible in collapsing birth rates, the erosion of civilizational confidence, and the supine accommodation of an ideology fundamentally hostile to the Enlightenment inheritance. Where once the West confronted Nazism and Bolshevism—two totalitarian waves that sought to remake humanity through terror and ideology—it now faces a third: Islamist totalitarianism, advancing not primarily through tanks or gulags, but through demographic momentum, elite cowardice, and the patient erosion of liberal norms.
In this darkening landscape, the voices of Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, and Douglas Murray rate as lonely sentinels. Far from unreflective “Islamophobes,” as their detractors sneer, these thinkers form an intellectual continuum defending Western liberty against civilizational surrender. Their warnings, typically dismissed as “alarmist” in the complacent halls of Brussels or academia, grow more prescient with each passing year. To ignore them is to invite a future in which Europe—and by extension the West—becomes unrecognizable, its freedoms subordinated to a theocratic vision incompatible with individual rights.
Oriana Fallaci’s The Rage and the Pride (2001), written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, remains a visceral cri de coeur. An accomplished journalist who had interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini, she possessed intimate knowledge of radical Islam’s face. She beheld in post-9/11 Europe not multicultural enrichment but a “reverse crusade”—a Muslim invasion facilitated by mass immigration, differential birth rates, and the craven multiculturalism of European elites. She adopted and popularized the term “Eurabia” from the writings of Bat Ye’or to describe the continent’s trajectory towards becoming an Islamic colony. For Fallaci, the threat was civilizational: Islam, in its political and expansionist form, sows “hatred in place of love,” subjugates women, stifles inquiry, and rejects the separation of mosque and state….
Mark Steyn, in America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It (2006), provided the demographic and strategic depth to Fallaci’s passion. His thesis is stark: Europe is dying of self-inflicted wounds—sub-replacement fertility, cultural self-loathing, and a welfare state that imports dependents rather than nurturing its own children. Muslim populations, with higher birth rates and assertive religious identities, fill the vacuum. Steyn distinguishes, as do his peers, between individual Muslims and the political ideology of Islamism, yet he refuses the comforting delusion that the two can be neatly separated when scriptural sources and historical patterns urge otherwise. His prediction of “Islamization” warned of a “fearless Muslim advance” met by “weak-kneed European elites.” The endgame, he foresaw, would be either submission or civil war, perhaps yielding neo-nationalist strongmen as desperate backlash….
Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe (2017) synthesizes and updates these analyses with empirical rigor and moral clarity. He documents how mass migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, combined with elite refusal to insist on assimilation, has produced parallel societies, grooming scandals, no-go zones in practice if not in euphemistic language, and rising extremism. An atheist himself, he examined Islamic texts and found them incompatible with the secular, pluralistic order that Europe claims to cherish.
Murray’s controversial statements—that conditions for Muslims in Europe should be made “harder across the board” to discourage further settlement and failed integration — stem not from gratuitous cruelty but from observed reality: tolerance extended unilaterally becomes suicide. Jihadism, he insists, “comes from Islam,” drawing on theology, history, and contemporary events from Bataclan to Cologne. Like Fallaci and Steyn, he deplores the West’s loss of identity. Europe, he argues, no longer believes that its own story is worth defending. This spiritual exhaustion invites conquest by those who believe fervently in theirs.
After such knowledge, what forgiveness? In the spirit of “Sursum Corda,” let’s consider the reasons for hope so as to dispel the gloom. In Europe, almost everywhere the anti-immigrant — or more exactly, anti-Muslim immigrant parties, are ahead in the polls. In Germany, Alice Weidel of the Alternative für Deutschland, in France, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella of the National Rally, and Bruno Retailleau of Les Républicains, in Italy, Giorgia Meloni of Fratelli d’Italia, while in the UK, Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain Party, not even a year old, is rapidly gaining support from those who have found Nigel Farage’s Reform Party not sufficiently adamant on the subject of ending Muslim migration.
It is the next decade or two that will determine Europe’s fate. Will it continue to welcome Muslim migrants or call a halt to increasing their presence? Will European states limit welfare benefits so that, as Bruno Retailleau has suggested, for the first five years of their presence, immigrants will not be eligible for any benefits? Will the peoples of Europe inform themselves sufficiently about the texts and teachings of Islam to rouse themselves, as if after a long sleep? How many will educate themselves in time about this menace, which turns out to be more dangerous than even Nazism and Bolshevism, for it has already burrowed into our societies, affecting our political life, our media, our impressionable young?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Islamic-Threat-to-the-West-GR.jpg360640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-08 06:07:402026-08-10 14:19:55The Islamic Threat to the West
Inspired by his service in the Prussian and Russian armies in the Napoleonic wars at the start of the 19th Century, Carl von Clausewitz has left us with many famous sayings from his unfinished treatise, On War, published after his death in 1830.
Among them was that the “fog of war” often obscures what is really happening on the battlefield. Another, which is my theme for today, is that “war is politics by other means.”
President Trump has been criticized in recent weeks by the left and the right for his repeated threats to launch yet another “massive” military strike on Iran, only to relent at the last minute in hopes of some last minute breakthrough in negotiations that would satisfy the two major U.S. goals in this war: the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
So far, each time it has happened, the Iranians have backed away from a negotiated settlement, either by new drone or missile strikes against ships in the Strait of Hormuz, or by instructing their proxies to carry out attacks against our Gulf allies. (In recent weeks, they have used Shiite militias in Iraq to attack civilian infrastructure in Kuwait, and the Houthis in Yemen to hit Saudi vessels in the Red Sea). And each time that happens, the United States responds by taking out IRGC assets in southern Iran.
The President has repeatedly expressed his reluctance to inflict massive damage on Iran’s infrastructure, all the while threatening to do so should the Iranian regime not agree to his conditions.
I believe he is trying to find the sweet spot of just enough military pressure to achieve his political goals, without inflicting what he sees as unnecessary and unfortunate damage.
But so far, he has failed to find that sweet spot. The regime — or whoever is calling the shots in Iran — responds with increased aggression: more missiles, more drones, and more irredentist demands.
The latest, on Thursday, was a claim by the Iranian parliament that the regime had reached an agreement with Oman over joint control of the Strait of Hormuz that would inflict a toll of between 5% to 7% on ships transiting the Strait that would bring in an estimated $385 million per day to the Revolutionary Guards to oppress the Iranian people, and to use to build more drones and missiles and to arm their proxies.
The alleged deal would also bar ships from the United States, Israel, and any other country opposing the “Axis of Resistance” from transiting the Strait. That designation would bar Saudi Arabian ships, since the Saudis have been at war with the Houthis for over a decade.
Clearly, such a deal is not just unacceptable: it is outrageous.
If you read the international media, you might forget the whole reason we are even negotiating over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. It’s because Iran mined the customary passageways in the middle of the Strait at the beginning of the war, and no one has yet removed those mines.
That’s why there is all this talk of the “northern route” transiting Iran’s territorial waters, and the “southern route” that uses Oman’s.
The historic passageway through the Strait transits through international waters. But Iran closed that passageway at the onset of the conflict, an act of war in violation of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty that should have triggered unanimous international action, spearheaded by the UN Security Council.
If it weren’t for the support that Russia and China have been providing Iran, the United States could have gone to the United Nations and invoked Chapter VII of the UN charter that authorizes member nations to use “all necessary measures” — including military action — to restore international peace and security, just as we did twice in wars against Saddam Hussein.
We actually tried that in May, with the predictable result that both the Chinese and the Russians threatened to veto any resolution against Iran.
Since then, both the Brits and the French have said they would join an international mine-sweeping force, and then promptly backed out when it became obvious that mines were not only still present in the Strait but that the IRGC was going to attack any ships trying to remove them.
So much for the international “order.” And so much for our allies.
That leaves President Trump with the course he has followed in recent weeks: apply just enough force to keep the IRGC on its heels, while not triggering a massive spike in oil prices or spooking international markets.
He has succeeded on all three counts, extremely significant accomplishments.
But the United States cannot just “walk away and go home” if our diplomacy fails, as Vice-president JD Vance suggested recently in his very unfortunate three-hour appearance on the Joe Rogan show.
There is that pesky second demand that Iran give up its nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, reports from Israel resurfaced an earlier claim by the current IRGC Chief, Ahmad Vahidi, while he was Interior Minister, that Iran would continue to develop nuclear weapons as long as the United States and Israel possessed them. “If they disarm, we will disarm,” he reportedly said.
There has been some parsing of that quote in recent days. One Iranian commentator claimed that the correct quote was this: “As long as the United States and Israel possess nuclear weapons, activities related to national security will not cease.”
Sorry, but in IRGC-speak, that means exactly the same thing.
In the end, whether Vahidi made those public comments or not makes little difference. There is no other explanation for the massive expenditures on uranium enrichment, buried nuclear sites, the Iranian regime’s absolute refusal to discuss its nuclear programs or the recent revelations about Mount Kalang (aka “Pickaxe Mountain”).
The Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons and thank God they don’t yet have them or they would have already used them on Israel or on us, either in direct attacks or in EMP mode to destroy our electric power grid and send us back to the 1880s, when the United States could support a population of between 80 to 90 million.
This is a regime that has already acted out its intentions to wipe Israel off the map, and has shown its willingness to destroy the entire civilian infrastructure of its Persian Gulf neighbors, including their destination plants.
If anyone has any doubts as to why President Trump is fighting this war, just think of what the IRGC would do if it actually had operational nuclear warheads.
I discuss this, as well as the latest reports of Chinese and Russian weapons shipments to Iran and Russian threats to NATO, on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live on 104.9 FM or 550 AM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area, or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app.
Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue,can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here.
Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-iran-nuclear-program.jpg360640Kenneth R. Timmermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKenneth R. Timmerman2026-08-08 05:52:502026-08-10 09:16:06Politics By Other Means
The Awakening of Persia: Why Iran Stands Alone Against Islam
Enough is enough. Iran’s soul is not defined by Islam. Its spirit cannot be cagedbya barbarian ideology imposed upon the civilisation of Iran. For generations, this cult has fractured the nation, dimmed its brilliance, and chained its people to shadows. Islam has brought only division, oppression, and shadows — never peace.
Telling Iranians to celebrate Islam is like asking someone to cherish the very weapon that scarred them, simply because they later polished it.
Iran is not the land of clerics and fanaticism. It is the land of Zarathustra, the legacy of Cyrus the Great — a civilization built on dignity, wisdom, and leadership long before desert chaos swept in from Arabia. It’s time to reclaim that greatness.
The day will come when Western nations look toward Iran — the nation that broke free from Islam’s grip. Doubt it now, but history will prove it. I’ve tried to awaken America for decades, but America resists salvation. Welcome back to Persia.
While the streets of major European capitals and American cities echo with endless apologies, accommodations, and systemic catering to Islamic orthodoxy, a profound, historic rebellion is quietly brewing in the heart of the Middle East. Western governments, blinded by institutional guilt, cultural relativism, and political correctness, bend over backward to appease an ideology that fundamentally opposes Western liberal values. Leaders in London, Paris, Berlin, and Washington fall over themselves to fund, protect, and normalize religious dogmatism, believing they are championing diversity. In reality, they are importing and nurturing the very intolerant systems that their own Enlightenment fought centuries to escape.
Every major Western nation bows to the altar of political sensitivity, too paralyzed by fear of backlash to address the authoritarian core of Islamic governance. They tolerate the intolerable, normalize the regressive, and silence domestic critics under the guise of progressivism.
Yet, across the globe, one nation-and one nation alone-stands as the living, breathing antidote to this global capitulation. That nation is Iran.
To understand modern Iran, one must look past the turbulent veneer of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the iron-fisted tyranny of the mullahs. The current regime does not represent the soul of the Iranian people; it is an occupying ideological force holding an ancient culture hostage.
For over fourteen centuries, Iranians have endured an identity crisis born from conquest. The Arab invasion dismantled the mighty Sasanian Empire, replacing a civilization of philosophy, science, art, and light with a system of absolute religious submission. Zoroastrianism-the ancient Iranian faith centered on Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds-was systematically suppressed, replaced by a theology that many contemporary Iranians view as fundamentally foreign to their national ethos.
Today, the citizens of Iran are waging a silent, daily war against their oppressors. From underground Christian conversions and secular defiance to massive nationwide protests led by brave women burning mandatory headscarves, the Iranian populace is rejecting the Islamic Republic from the ground up. They are proving, with every act of resistance, that Islam is a garment forced upon them at sword-point, not a heritage chosen by their hearts.
When we strip away the dark theology imposed upon the nation, what remains is the immortal spirit of Persia. This is the land that gave the world the Cyrus Cylinder-widely celebrated as the world’s first declaration of human rights. It is the birthplace of astronomical innovation, breathtaking architecture, poetry that speaks of universal human love, and an administrative genius that united millions under a banner of cultural and religious tolerance.
To ask an Iranian to tie their national identity to the clerics ruling Tehran is a profound historical insult. It is asking a proud lion to celebrate the cage it was born in. The current regime relies on terror, censorship, and ideological indoctrination precisely because it knows that the moment freedom returns, the entire Islamic superstructure will collapse like a house of cards.
Look at the West today. Decades of institutional surrender have left American and European societies fractured, defensive, and culturally confused. Leaders preach tolerance while eroding the foundational pillars of free speech and individual liberty. Having spent four decades watching the systematic degradation of Western political courage, it becomes painfully clear: America does not want to be saved. It is sleepwalking into its own cultural dissolution, trading its heritage for the hollow applause of globalist appeasers.
Meanwhile, Iranians are paying in blood to undo the damage of religious totalitarianism. They are the only people on earth who have lived under a pure, unadulterated Islamic theocracy for decades-and because of that, they are the only people who truly see it for what it is. They have lived through the nightmare, tasted the poison, and rejected the cureless disease.
History moves in cycles. Empires rise, fall, and occasionally rise again from the ashes of their own destruction. The day is coming when the dark cloud hanging over Tehran will lift, swept away by an unstoppable wave of secular nationalism, cultural renaissance, and historical reclamation.
When that day arrives, the dynamic will flip entirely. A free, secularized Persia-liberated from the shackles of religious fanaticism-will emerge as the most advanced, enlightened, and culturally vibrant nation in the region. Disillusioned citizens from the West, fleeing societies crushed by their own moral cowardice and cultural surrender, will look eastward.
They will look to the land that dared to stare down theocratic tyranny and win. Welcome to Persia.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Iran-Is-Fighting-to-Break-Free.jpg360640Amil Imanihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmil Imani2026-08-08 05:42:032026-08-08 05:44:24While the West Surrenders to Islam, Iran Is Fighting to Break Free From It
The photos started circulating last Wednesday, and many people assumed that they must be a joke: a female Muslim lawyer in Nigeria who wears the niqab published photos of herself wearing that Islamic garment, which conceals everything except the eyes. These photos, however, had a twist. On top of her head, the lawyer, Rodiyah Omotoyosi Mikail wore the eighteenth-century-style court wig that lawyers and judges in Britain and some of its former colonies often sport.
It was an emblematic photo for our absurd age. The wig sat atop not Rodiyah Omotoyosi Mikail’s natural hair, but her Islamic head covering. The whole effect epitomized the Islamization of the West: a woman wearing a garment that was never seen in the Western world until recently perched a quaint artifact of a dying legal system on top of her head, giving the world the visual effect of a hollow and desiccated Western tradition that has by this point retained only its outer shell, while everything in the photo that is living and animated is Islamic.
Yes, the photos are ludicrous, but many will point at the achievement of Rodiyah Omotoyosi Mikail as evidence that Islamic law doesn’t deny or impede the rights of women, and that women who wear the hijab, niqab, or even the burqa can be and are just as accomplished as anyone else. And while Rodiyah Omotoyosi Mikail’s achievement is undeniable, she is still proclaiming in her manner of dress that women are subjugated to men. She is wearing a garment that women have been brutalized, imprisoned and even killed for daring not to wear. Is that really an advance in women’s rights?
In the West, non-Muslim annually don the hijab on World Hijab Day, in order to show solidarity with the allegedly oppressed Muslim women who are supposedly persecuted for wearing the hijab. The actual oppression related to the hijab, however, is not linked to wearing it, but to not wearing it. Actual incidents of Muslim women being harassed or discriminated against for wearing the hijab in the U.S., meanwhile, are extraordinarily hard to find. It’s much easier to find examples of Muslim women in America who falsely claimed that they were being harassed or discriminated against in order to score points on the left’s insane scale of victimhood worship.
Back on Sept. 16, 2022, in Tehran, the Iranian morality police arrested Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, for not wearing her hijab properly. Amini later died in a hospital in Tehran, and numerous Iranians charged that she had been tortured to death while in custody. All over the country, protesters took to the streets to protest not against the hijab laws, but against the repressive and brutal Islamic Republic itself.
Other women, and male protesters as well, were killed as the Iranian regime ruthlessly applied the Qur’anic injunction to “strike terror in the enemies of Allah” (8:60). The protests went on for months until the regime began summarily executing protesters, and even then, some indomitably courageous Iranians continued to take to the streets to demand their freedom.
innumerable women in Iran today, the hijab is the most visible sign of their second-class status, and of the brutality of the regime that will imprison them for years or even kill them outright for daring to venture out in public without wearing it.
The Iranian authorities call their morality police the “Guidance Patrol,” an Orwellian name that makes them sound as if they’re a bunch of benign, avuncular individuals selflessly dedicated to helping young Iranians avoid moral pitfalls and stay on the straight and narrow. A more accurate name, however, would be the Terror Patrol, for the morality that these officials enforce is not the virtuous person’s free choice of the good, but the enforced obedience of those who are frightened into submission.
The hijab allows others to see the wearer’s face. The niqab does not. The idea behind both is the same: Women must cover themselves to avoid tempting men. If they tempt them anyway, it’s the woman’s fault. If a woman chooses not to wear it, she could be beaten, imprisoned, or killed. That is the legal system for which Rodiyah Omotoyosi Mikail stands. Her photos may be absurd, but Sharia itself is no laughing matter.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Rodiyah-Omotoyosi-Mikail.jpg360640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-07 07:26:202026-08-10 09:18:56Female Muslim Becomes Nigerian First Lawyer to Wear a Niqab
Abdul El-Sayed is the Democrat Party’s candidate for the United States Senate from the state of Michigan, and he is just the latest on an ever-growing list of Democrat candidates who would deride Uncle Joe Stalin as a reactionary capitalist roader. The Democrat establishment is feeling the heat, but one of El-Sayed’s most fervent and prominent boosters, the fiendishly anti-American and antisemitic social media star Hasan Piker, is in no mood for reconciliation.
On the contrary: flush with El-Sayed’s victory, Piker is ready to move in for the kill and take over the Democrat Party, which is already a hollowed-out shell, for the authoritarians and oligarchs who claim they’re the champions of the common people. Piker insists that there will be no “mending bridges” with the establishment Democrats. Like Stalin rooting out the “rightists” (including many of the Bolsheviks who helped establish the Soviet Union and even some who helped Stalin gain absolute power) and sending them to their deaths, Piker wants the Democrat Old Guard to leave the arena, giving up the hollowed-out shell that is today’s Democrat Party and allowing the Marxists to gain full and official control.
Dearborn, Michigan – “Down with AIPAC,” the crowd chanted at a campaign rally for Democratic Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed in a suburb of Detroit.
AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — has become the main topic of conversation in the Democratic primary in Michigan, which analysts say could affect the party’s approach to Israel for years to come.
Michigan state legislator Alabas Farhat vowed at the rally in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn on Friday that voters would make the pro-Israel group “burn” millions of dollars by electing El-Sayed to the US Senate.
“The status quo has told us for a long time that we don’t have money for modern schools; we don’t have money for clean water to drink, for health care, for affordable housing,” Farhat told the rally.
“But when we call up money to go and bomb children in Gaza, to do an ethnic cleansing campaign in South Lebanon – this administration seems to find that money.”
Several speakers, including Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, also took to the stage but the name of El-Sayed’s opponent in Tuesday’s election, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, was hardly mentioned.
Instead, AIPAC – which is breaking records in campaign spending to defeat candidates critical of Israeli policies, such as El-Sayed — was repeatedly brought up, booed and denounced.
El-Sayed, a progressive epidemiologist and former public health official, is running against Stevens, a four-term Congress member, to replace retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. The winner will face former Congressman Mike Rogers, the likely Republican nominee, in November.
Michigan state legislator Alabas Farhat vowed at the rally in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn on Friday that voters would make the pro-Israel group “burn” millions of dollars by electing El-Sayed to the US Senate.
“The status quo has told us for a long time that we don’t have money for modern schools; we don’t have money for clean water to drink, for health care, for affordable housing,” Farhat told the rally.
“But when we call up money to go and bomb children in Gaza, to do an ethnic cleansing campaign in South Lebanon – this administration seems to find that money.”
Several speakers, including Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, also took to the stage but the name of El-Sayed’s opponent in Tuesday’s election, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, was hardly mentioned.
Instead, AIPAC — which is breaking records in campaign spending to defeat candidates critical of Israeli policies, such as El-Sayed — was repeatedly brought up, booed and denounced.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
I am happy to be able to offer you a 5% discount on becoming a VIP member at PJ Media. Just enter the code SPENCER when you sign up here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Hasan-Piker-speaking-at-a-rally-in-2026.jpg374640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2026-08-07 06:17:052026-08-07 10:32:01The Revolution Is On, Comrades: Hasan Piker Says No Reconciliation With Dem Establishment
Understandable move since the Muslim Brotherhood is now a significant part of the Democratic Party’s political operation.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and other Senate Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono, Alex Padilla, and Peter Welch issued a snippy statement on their boycott of the “Hidden in Plain Sight: Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood Network in America” hearing by Sen. Ted Cruz.
The statement falsely claimed that this was “scapegoating Muslims” and claimed that “Democrats have no intention of indulging this political creepshow, particularly after the recent violence targeting places of faith.” A number of such attacks have targeted synagogues and Jews, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the subject of the investigation, has remained a vector for Islamic terrorism.
CAIR, whose leadership supported the Oct 7 attacks carried out by Hamas, the Gaza arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and which is itself linked to the Brotherhood, issued a statement denouncing what it called “persistent and manufactured anti-Muslim fearmongering” and complained that the witnesses were “known for promoting anti-Muslim narratives”.
The witnesses in question are respected figures who “include Lara Burns, a former FBI special agent and senior research fellow at The George Washington University’s Program on Extremism; Arielle Klepach, senior counsel at the National Jewish Advocacy Center; and Kyle Shideler, a senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy.”
Senate Dems chose to stand with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood over law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals which is to say, standing with America’s enemies.
The U.S. restarted a blockade on Iranian ports Tuesday afternoon and launched dozens of additional strikes on Iran, marking the fourth consecutive night of attacks.
President Trump said it will get “really bad” next week, with strikes on Iranian bridges and power plants, if Iran doesn’t cut a deal.
Mr. Trump said he “decided to replace” a planned 20% fee on cargo through the Strait of Hormuz with trade and investment deals from Gulf states, after shipping industry experts balked at the fee. Iran has not ruled out charging its own tolls for use of the Strait of Hormuz, and has threatened ships that sail through the waterway without its permission.
The price of crude oil has shot up over the last two days as U.S.-Iran fighting resumes, including Iranian attacks on cargo ships.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast-2659476_640.jpg360640Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TVhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV2026-08-07 05:20:562026-08-07 05:22:36U.S. Blockades Iranian Ports
The ICC’s witch hunt against America and Israel has imperiled its continued existence.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio set the proverbial cat among the pigeons with his recent declaration of his intention to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court (ICC) and urged other nations to join in the effort. Rubio launched the campaign, vowing to employ “all the tools at our government’s disposal” to “dismantle the ICC, brick by brick.” Against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s escalating actions against the ICC, Rubio accused the court of “waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles,” but with “the force of so-called international law.”
A warped sense of justice?
The administration’s ire against the ICC dates back to President Trump’s first term, when it targeted the ICC for seeking to investigate alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, the second Trump administration has imposed a slew of sanctions against ICC officials for their attempts to investigate the US and Israel—neither of which is even a member of the ICC.
But the new trigger for the White House’s intensifying its punitive action against the ICC was its scandalous issue of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
In a feeble ICC attempt to feign evenhandedness, warrants were also issued against Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh—after their deaths—which, quite apart from the absurdity of equating the perpetrators of the October 7 massacre with those who responded to it, underscores the warped sense of justice the ICC purports to administer.
Gravely misinformed or grossly dishonest
The figure behind these measures was ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who initiated the request for the arrest warrants. Khan has since been forced to leave office following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. According to some sources, the arrest warrants were motivated, at least in part, to divert attention from these allegations.
Significantly, Khan is not the only chief ICC prosecutor against whom allegations of severe impropriety (conducted before, during, or after their term in office) have been leveled.
For example, Fatou Bensouda (2012-2021), who prior to her appointment as Chief ICC prosecutor held top posts in the Gambian judiciary under the brutal military dictatorship that ruled Gambia from 1994 to 2017. Bensouda claimed she had no knowledge of the human rights abuses of the regime she served. However, given her seniority and long association with the regime, this leaves one to ponder which is worse: Whether she really was oblivious of the abuses or whether she was not— whether she was gravely ill-informed or whether she was grossly deceitful.
Sexual misconduct & financial shenanigans?
Likewise, Bensouda’s predecessor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the ICC’s first prosecutor (2003–2012), also fell under a cloud of suspicion—both while in office and after leaving it.
Thus, Ocampo was accused of sexual misconduct (2005) in South Africa by an ICC whistleblower. Although Ocampo’s ICC cronies dismissed the charges, the whistleblower was vindictively dismissed by Ocampo himself—despite the ICC’s own internal Disciplinary Advisory Board’s call to rescind the dismissal. Undeterred, the whistleblower appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which found resoundingly in his favor, awarding him substantial monetary compensation, casting further doubts on the ICC’s integrity.
After leaving the ICC in 2012, Ocampo became the subject of several allegations concerning his financial and professional activities. (Also see here) These included the abuse of his position as former ICC prosecutor, shady financial shenanigans, and severe conflicts of interest. These allegations stemmed primarily from the far-reaching 2017 “Secrets of the Court” investigation by the European Investigative Collaborations, a nonprofit network of leading investigative journalists and media organizations established in 2015 to conduct collaborative cross-border investigations into issues of public interest. While the allegations did not result in actual judicial convictions, the ethical issues they raised served to tarnish his reputation, and, by association, that of the ICC’s judicial practices.
The Israeli angle
For Israel, Rubio’s initiative is a welcome development. For it serves to undermine the legitimacy of the ICC measures against senior Israeli personnel and expose just how the hypocrisy-ridden ICC has strayed from its lofty founding principles and noble aims.
For the fallen Karim Khan and his cronies, it perhaps reflects that Biblical maxim in Numbers 24:9: Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed. And whoever curses Israel will be cursed.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rubio-1-e1676636786878.jpg360640Dr. Martin Shermanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Martin Sherman2026-08-06 13:54:562026-08-06 14:01:15USA vs ICC — Rubio Vows to Dismantle International Criminal Court “Brick by Brick”
The Islamic Republic, amid severe structural weakness and a crisis of legitimacy, intends to advance and implement the “Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea” (Aktau Convention).
This effort by the regime, lacking the backing of the Iranian nation’s will and without clear and complete guarantees of the country’s historical rights, is a disturbing action and a serious threat to Iran’s national interests. Based on the 1921 and 1940 treaties between Iran and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the legal regime of the Caspian Sea was shaped on the basis of shared rights of the parties, the principle of agreement, and mutual interests.
Following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the newly independent countries, in the “Almaty Declaration” (December 1991), emphasized their commitment to the former Soviet treaties and the guarantee of fulfilling international obligations arising from those contracts and pacts by the successor states. On this basis, any fundamental change in the legal status of this strategic body of water must be carried out with the mutual agreement of all coastal states and in full observance of Iran’s rights. Nevertheless, the Aktau Convention provides for the possibility of concluding bilateral and multilateral agreements among the coastal states regarding portions of the seabed and subsoil of the Caspian Sea—portions that were previously considered part of the shared waters of Iran and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
This dangerous precedent, by circumventing the principle of consensus among all coastal states, effectively undermines Iran’s historical position and diminishes the country’s role in determining the fate of the Caspian Sea. Since the signing of the Aktau Convention in 2018, I have repeatedly warned that “safeguarding national interests from a position of weakness is impossible.”
At that time, I also emphasized that the criminal sect of the Islamic Republic sacrifices the interests of the Iranian nation and homeland for its own survival and, in foreign policy, resorts to successive extortions from a position of weakness.
My stance on the current process remains the same. I consider the Islamic Republic’s effort to ratify this convention an action contrary to Iran’s national interests.
No decision regarding Iran’s resources, borders, and rights in this body of water will enjoy legitimacy without the genuine consent and participation of the Iranian nation. Iran’s rights in the Caspian Sea are non-negotiable and non-waivable.
Any action aimed at infringing upon these rights will be recorded in the historical memory of the Iranian nation, and the decision-makers will be held accountable and called to answer before the Iranian people.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Reza-Shah-Pahlavi.jpg360640Amil Imanihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmil Imani2026-08-06 13:43:322026-08-06 13:45:03No decision regarding the resources, borders, and rights of Iran in this body of water will enjoy legitimacy without the consent and genuine participation of the Iranian nation
Former public health official Abdul El-Sayed defeated Democratic Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic Senate primary Tuesday, dealing another blow to establishment Democrats and the pro-Israel lobby.
El-Sayed beat Stevens in a 48.5% to 47.5% vote after receiving endorsements from independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other far-left Democrats, results from The Associated Press showed. While establishment Democrats supported Stevens, the pro-Israel lobby spent millions to help Stevens win.
Stevens has served in the House since 2019, flipping her seat from red to blue. In the Senate race, she supported reforming rather than abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, implementing a public option over Medicare for All and expressing strong support for Israel.
El-Sayed campaigned on supporting Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, codifying abortion into law and permitting so-called “gender-affirming care,” according to his campaign website. He rejected the socialist label, stating that he is a “capitalist” who wanted to regulate monopolies and oligopolies.
“I’m not a socialist. I’m just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works,” El-Sayed said. “I think government ought to be there to regulate monopolies and oligopolies so that everybody can actually participate in the economy without having to be forced to pay more or get paid less.”
Sanders said in a campaign advertisement that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and further-left candidates are “taking on the establishment.”
“We are taking on the establishment all over this country. All over the country, ordinary people, unionists, young people, people of color [are] getting involved in the political process and they’re saying wait a minute, maybe the Democratic Party should belong to us and not just wealthy campaign contributors. And then in the midst of this comes Dr. Abdul El-Sayed,” Sanders said.
The Michigan Senate primary is a fight as to whether billionaires and their super PACs will continue to control American politics, or whether we can have a government that represents working families.
Stevens received the establishment’s backing, including from Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn and Delaware Sen. Chris Coons. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quietly supported Stevens behind the scenes and asked party donors to support her, according to The New York Times. He said in June that Stevens had the “best chance of winning,” to Punchbowl News.
Former Republican Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, the presumptive GOP nominee in the race, led El-Sayed by 10 points in a hypothetical matchup, according to a Michigan Education survey from July 28. The poll showed that Rogers was almost tied with Stevens, as Stevens narrowly led him 46% to 45%.
About $80 million had been spent on the Michigan Senate race, making it one of the most expensive races in the U.S., according to CBS News. Around $60 million had been spent on Stevens’ behalf, much of it coming from the pro-Israel lobby.
About 31% of donors who gave at least $200 to Stevens’ Senate campaign also donated to AIPAC since the start of 2025, The Detroit News reported in May. An AIPAC affiliate spent more than $5 million between campaign donations and independent expenditures in 2022, the last time Stevens ran in a House primary.
During a July 28 debate, El-Sayed attacked Stevens for receiving money from the pro-Israel lobby. Stevens doubled down on her support for Israel, arguing that she supported a two-state solution and “long-term peace.”
El-Sayed accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza and criticized U.S. aid to the country. U.S. support for Israel has become a divisive issue within the Democratic Party, as 103 Democratic members of Congress voted for Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to slash $3.3 billion in foreign aid to Israel.
Stevens faced mockery for her bizarre campaign pep talk in mid-July.
“I am gonna be telling the stories on our behalf. And you better believe I’m gonna be doing it with a little bit of joy, a little bit of enthusiasm, a little bit of energy and a little bit of stick it to ‘em. Because that’s the Michigan way,” Stevens said.
A campaign speech that’s got everyone scratching their head.
Democratic Senate candidate Haley Stevens is facing a wave of online mockery after an “awkward” campaign pep talk urging supporters to “stick it to them” went viral, with critics zeroing in on her delivery and style. pic.twitter.com/0JyBJXNNlP
El-Sayed led Stevens by a 15-point margin as of Thursday, according to an Emerson College Polling/WLNS/WOODTV survey.
Further-left Democrats and DSA candidates defeated longtime incumbents and establishment-backed candidates in the New York and Colorado races. DSA candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated five-term incumbent Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th district in June, while socialist Melat Kiros beat incumbent Democratic Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, who served 29 years in Congress.
