Tag Archive for: war

Iranian Regime Leaders’ Kids Have Been Living in Luxury in America, TEACHING at American Universities from NY to LA

Oh, the hypocrisy.

New York Post: Iranian regime leaders have been surreptitiously sending their kids to live, learn, and even teach in America. New York Post: Iranian leaders call the US the “Great Satan” and burn effigies of President Trump in the streets, but that doesn’t stop them from sending their kids here to learn — and to teach. Children of regime leaders and bigwigs are at prestigious universities across the US, including the University of Massachusetts, New York’s Union College and George Washington University, The Post can reveal. Sources said allowing people linked to the regime to assume such influential positions could present a threat to US values. “I would think that there would be a security risk as Iranian academics have been critical in forming public opinion on the left in the US, essentially deceiving liberals into thinking that the regime is more progressive, when it’s still advancing the same hardline agenda,” said Janatan Sayeh, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington, DC-based think tank.

Think about what these monsters do to the young people of Iran….and their offspring is teaching our young.

Children of Iran’s regime leaders are educating America’s students at colleges from New York to Los Angeles

By  Isabel Vincent, NY Post, March 18, 2026:

The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard
Iranian leaders call the US the “Great Satan” and burn effigies of President Trump in the streets, but that doesn’t stop them from sending their kids here to learn — and to teach.

Children of regime leaders and bigwigs are at prestigious universities across the US, including the University of Massachusetts, New York’s Union College and George Washington University, The Post can reveal.

Sources said allowing people linked to the regime to assume such influential positions could present a threat to US values.

Leila Khatami smiling while wearing a white and blue checkered hijab.

Leila Khatami is a professor of mathematics at Union College in upstate New York. She is the daughter of Mohammad, a Shia cleric who was president of Iran from 1997 to 2005.

Collage of six photos showing children of Iranian leaders who studied at US colleges.

“I would think that there would be a security risk as Iranian academics have been critical in forming public opinion on the left in the US, essentially deceiving liberals into thinking that the regime is more progressive, when it’s still advancing the same hardline agenda,” said Janatan Sayeh, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington, DC-based think tank.

Iran executes 19-year-old champion wrestler, two others in horrific public hangings

Barcelona police found missing Alabama student’s phone when they arrested someone: family

Missing University of Alabama student’s frat brother recalls last moments before disappearance in Barcelona
The Post has seen no specific evidence against anyone featured in this story.

The daughter of Iran’s de facto leader Ali Larijani, who was killed in an airstrike Tuesday, is a medical doctor who taught at Emory University in Atlanta.

Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani was a doctor at the university’s prestigious Winship Institute until the university parted ways with her in January, according to reports, following pressure from dissidents.

Ardeshir-Larijani is herself a cancer survivor, who initially came to the US for treatment, according to Iranian dissidents who monitor the regime.

Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani attends a news conference in Damascus.

Ali Larijani, who was killed in an airstrike on Tuesday, was the de facto ruler of Iran following the death of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His daughter and a niece work as professors in the US.

A statue of Baal with the Star of David and US imagery is set on fire during a rally in Tehran.

An effigy of the mythical figure Baal with a Star of David on its forehead and a picture of President Trump attached to it is burned in Tehran earlier this year.

“Fatemeh Larijani … the daughter of Ali Larijani came to the United States for cancer treatment, the very country her family’s system condemns, while millions of Iranians are denied access to basic health care and opportunity,” said Lawdan Bazargan, a human rights activist from the Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists.

Pressure had been building for Ardeshir-Larijani to be fired — and possibly removed from the US — in light of the US-Iran war, although it had been building since the regime’s bloody crackdown on protesters that began in late December.

A Change.org petition signed by more than 156,000 people urges the Trump administration to deport Ardeshir-Larijani.

Headshot of Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, a woman with dark hair in a hijab with floral patterns.

Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, a cancer specialist, was fired in January from Emory University’s prestigious Winship Institute. More than 156,000 people signed a petition to deport her.

Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani

Eissa Hashemi with Masoumeh Ebtekar.

Eissa Hashemi, a professor in Los Angeles, is the son of Masoumeh Ebtekar, who was a spookesperson for the radical students who held American diplomats hostage for 444 days during the Iranian revolution.

In New York, Leila Khatami, the daughter of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, teaches mathematics at Union College in Schenectady.

Mohammad Khatami was president from 1997 and 2005, and while he is considered a reformist within the country’s political system, dissidents say he was still part of a government that condoned human rights abuses and repression of its own citizens.

Following US airstrikes against Iran, which began last month, Leila Khatami’s photo and bio were removed from the Mathematics Department’s faculty and staff web page. Khatami’s aunt is a granddaughter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran after the revolution in 1979 until his death in 1989.

“They’ve turned Iran into a hell for us Iranians, while their children live in the West, holding key positions in universities and spreading anti-Western values,” said a critic of the regime on X.

Vice President Masoumeh Ebtekar speaks at the World Climate Change Conference (COP21) in front of UN and French flags.

Mousemeh Ebtekar is a former vice president of the Islamic Republic. Her son is a professor in the US.

Ehsan Nobakht, an Associate Professor of Medicine at George Washington University School of Medicine.

Ehsan Nobakht is an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. His father is a prestigious physician, and a previous deputy director of Iran’s health ministry.

Another Change.org petition, signed by more than 84,000 verified people, urged the Department of Homeland Security to investigate Khatami’s immigration status, according to a report. The Post is not aware of any evidence that Khatami’s immigration status was procured fraudulently.

“This is not personal revenge. This is justice,” said the petition started by an anonymous “Iranian Patriot.”

Known in Iran as Aghzadehs (“noble born”), such people are largely resented by their countrymen for living in the West while their high-ranking relatives promote anti-Western policies at home.

In total, there are estimated to be between 4,000 and 5,000 relatives of prominent Iranian regime leaders and bureaucrats living in the US, according to experts and dissidents. Hundreds more have taken up residence in Canada and Australia.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini speaking at a news conference in 1979.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic revolution and assumed power in 1979.

“A lot of them are nephews and nieces and it’s hard to track them because they don’t have the same last name as the regime leaders,” Sayeh noted.

Zahra Mohaghegh Damad is the daughter of Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad, a prominent Shia cleric who has held various positions within the Iranian government.

Zahra is also a niece of Ali Larijani and works as a professor in the Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She is also director of a unit that analyzes risk of “complex technological systems” including commercial nuclear plants and reactors.

Eissa Hashemi is an associate professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology in Los Angeles. His mother, Masoumeh Ebtekar, is a former member of Parliament in Iran who worked as a spokesperson for the student militants who held 52 diplomats hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran for 444 days during the 1979 revolution.

At that time, Masoumeh Ebtekar was nicknamed “Screaming Mary” by the US media for her intense rhetoric when delivering the regime’s message in English. Up until 2021, Masoumeh also served as the highest-ranking woman in Iran’s government, overseeing women’s issues and the environment. She has consistently defended hijab laws for women in the country.

Zeinab Hajjarian is the daughter of Saeed Hajjarian, who played a prominent role in Iran’s security and intelligence apparatus after the 1979 revolution. He was an important adviser to Khomeini in the 1980s, even as he has been described as a reformist. Zeinab is assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Meanwhile, at George Washington University, Ehsan Nobakht is an associate professor at the School of Medicine and Health Sciences, specializing in kidney disease and hypertension. He is the son of Ali Nobakht, a renowned physician in Iran and reformist former member of Parliament who served as a former deputy minister in the country’s Department of Health.

Despite holding so-called reformist political views, critics of the regime claim reformers and hardliners operate within the same power structure and share responsibility for maintaining the status quo of hardline religious views, critics say.

“In practice, power in Iran is concentrated within a relatively closed network of interconnected families and political figures,” Bazargan told The Post.

“For a large part of Iranian society, the idea of ‘reformist vs. hardliner’ has lost its meaning. It is seen as an internal division within the same system. Yet Western media and some analysts continue to frame Iranian politics this way, which, in effect, helps prolong the life of the regime by suggesting that meaningful change can come from within it.”

Read original article.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: NYC First Lady Mrs. Mamdani Deletes Old X Account as Posts Glorifying Islamic Terrorists, Jew Hatred, America Hatred Reemerge

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump’s Posture On Israel-Iran War Appears To Reflect His Voters’ Views

Many 2024 voters who supported President Donald Trump appear to line up with his support of Israel against Iran while calling for limits, according to polling data.

Two polls, released by Democracy Institute (DI) and Gray House respectively, asked Trump voters about direct U.S. military action against Iran. DI specifically asked the question “Should America Go to War, Including Deploying Ground Troops, Against Iran,” according to a screenshot obtained by the Daily Caller. The survey polled 2024 voters generally and provided specific percentages for working class 2024 voters and Trump 2024 voters.

Of the 1,150 Trump 2024 voters DI surveyed, 64% voted against use of ground forces while 26% voted in favor, meaning approximately 736 voted “no.” Fifty-three percent of all 2024 voters surveyed also opposed deploying ground troops while 60% of 2024 working class voters voiced opposition, the screenshot shows.

The poll was conducted from Saturday to Monday and carries an across the margin of error (MOE) of ±3%. The results fall within a 95% confidence interval. 1,500 total 2024 voters and 1,250 working class 2024 voters participated, according to the screenshot.

CHART: Poll from the Democracy Institute, “Should America Go to War, Including Deploying Ground Troops, Against Iran”

Sixty-seven percent of Trump 2024 voters strongly supported Israel’s attack on Iran while 16% somewhat supported it, according to a Gray House poll titled “Israel Iran Poll Results” that surveyed 450 people. On Israel’s Gaza military operations, 70% expressed strong support while 15% were somewhat supportive.

35% strongly supported direct American military intervention to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons while 37% somewhat supported doing so. Notably, the question does not mention ground troops.

Fifty-seven percent considered Iran a “very serious threat” to U.S. nationals security while 74% said they were “very concerned” about Iran possibly developing a nuclear weapon.

Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed strongly supported providing Israel with offensive weapons while 68% of respondents expressed strong support for providing defensive ones. Respondents favored intelligence sharing even more, with 76% strongly supporting the U.S. helping Israel in this manner.

48% of respondents strongly supported the U.S. providing military support to help Israel defend itself against Iranian attacks. Gray House’s survey was conducted between Saturday and Sunday, with a margin of error of ±4.8%.

Israel attacked Iran on June 12, targeting the country’s nuclear program. They also killed multiple Iranian officials and nuclear scientists. Trump responded Friday — the same day Iran retaliated — by saying he gave the mullahs a 60-day deadline to reach an agreement and reiterating his call for negotiations. He has also repeatedly said Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Talks over the 60-day period made little progress as Tehran insisted on maintaining civilian-grade uranium enrichment, something Trump has opposed. Trump said Sunday that the U.S. was not directly involved but acknowledged that future involvement was a possibility.

He has reportedly considered a strike on Iran and claimed Tuesday on Truth Social that “we know” the precise location of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Trump left the Group of Seven Summit early Monday and ordered that the National Security Council come in for a high-level Situation Room meeting. This took place Tuesday.

Vice President JD Vance praised Trump for showing consistency and restraint and highlighted “crazy stuff” online in a Tuesday post amid criticism and calls for the president’s impeachment.

The White House is exploring the possibility of a meeting this week between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to move toward a nuclear deal and cessation of hostilities, four sources briefed on the matter told Axios.

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

STEVE CORTES: Poll Shows Trump’s Immigration Agenda Hugely Popular

LOFTUS: Trump Might Be Sitting On A Tinderbox That Could Derail Presidency

Unlikely Allies Move To Block Trump From Striking Iran

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Israeli PM Netanyahu’s Statement on Gaza War: ‘From now on…negotiations only under fire!’

Tonight, in a message to the nation, Netanyahu told Israelis: “From now on – we will act against Hamas with increasing force. From now on – negotiations only under fire!” 

WATCH: Israeli PM Netanyahu’s Statement on Gaza War: ‘From now on…negotiations only under fire!’

“Hamas is responsible for this war.

It invaded our towns, murdered our people, raped our women, and kidnapped our loved ones.

Hamas refused, offer after offer, to release our hostages.

In the past two weeks, Israel did not initiate any military action in the hope that Hamas would change course. Well, that didn’t happen.

While Israel accepted the offer of President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, Hamas flatly refused to do so.

This is why I authorized yesterday the renewal of military action against Hamas.

Israel does not target Palestinian civilians. We target Hamas terrorists.

And when these terrorists embed themselves in civilian areas, when they use civilians as human shields, they’re the ones who are responsible for all unintended casualties.”

Israel: Harm to hostages will lead to annexation of territories

Amit Segal on Channel 12 News with the first publication of Israel’s threat: Any harm to the kidnapped will lead to annexation of territories.

One of Hamas’ threats was that if Israel returned to war – they would kill hostages.

One of the answers to this is that on any harm that will come to a hostage, Israel will annex Arab territory.

NEWSRAEL: Will this threat be enough to keep the Israeli hostages safe? What do YOU think?

In Surprise Strikes, Israel Kills Hamas’ “King”

Amit Segal on Channel 12 News with the first publication of Israel’s threat: Any harm to the kidnapped will lead to annexation of territories.

One of Hamas’ threats was that if Israel returned to war – they would kill hostages.

One of the answers to this is that on any harm that will come to a hostage, Israel will annex Arab territory.

Hamas confirms elimination of leaders

Reports from Gazan channels and Saudi outlet Al-Hadath: Abu Hamza, spokesperson for Islamic Jihad, has been killed along with his wife and children in an Israeli airstrike.

Hamas Official Statement:

Israel has eliminated the following Hamas leaders:

  • Issam Al-Da’alis – Head of the Government Work Monitoring Committee
  • Yasser Harb – Member of Hamas’ Political Bureau
  • Ahmad Al-Hatta – Deputy Minister of Justice
  • Major General Mahmoud Abu Wafah – Deputy Minister of Interior
  • Major General Bahjat Abu Sultan – Director General of the Internal Security Agency

Gaza media outlets report that the wife and children of Muhammad Shabana, commander of the Rafah Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, were killed in an IDF attack, killing his entire family (three of his sons, Hamas operatives, were killed on October 7 and in the fighting in Rafah).

Hamas was Preparing for Another October 7 during Ceasefire

Israeli security cabinet reportedly convened emergency meeting to discuss recent alerts that Hamas was preparing for another invasion of Israel.

UNITED WITH ISRAEL reports:

Israel’s security cabinet on Monday convened an emergency meeting to discuss alerts in the recent weeks of the ceasefire indicating that Hamas had been preparing for another October 7-style massacre in Israel, Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday, citing Israel’s Channel 12.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz repeated the concerns on Tuesday morning in a meeting with the Otef Israel Forum, mainly comprised of Israelis who live near Gaza.

“There are constant preparations being made by Hamas for an invasion [into Israel], similar to October 7,” Katz said there, according to the Jerusalem Post.

“We must strike them and completely finish the job through both offense and defense,” Katz stated. “This is the goal that drives me.”

The report noted that security forces have identified an dramatic increase in efforts by Hamas to carry out attacks against IDF forces in Gaza, pointing to the possibility that Hamas seeks to prepare for another invasion of Israel.

On Tuesday morning, the IDF announced that it had conducted “extensive” strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip overnight Monday.

“This follows Hamas’s repeated refusal to release our hostages, as well as its rejection of all of the proposals it has received from U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and from the mediators,” the Israeli prime minister’s office stated.

The IDF is “attacking targets of the Hamas terrorist organization throughout the Gaza Strip in order to achieve the objectives of the war as they have been determined by the political echelon including the release of all of our hostages, the living and the deceased,” the statement continued. “Israel will, from now on, act against Hamas with increasing military strength.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that Jerusalem had consulted the Trump administration before launching the operation, which the Israeli military named “Strength and Sword.”

Let’s hear your thoughts in the Comments Section!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel is Establishing Air Superiority That Could Last for Years to Come

‘Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel,’ Trump, Putin agree in call

Iranian Officers Reveal Disaffection in their Military

Hamas used attendee list from peace gathering of Israeli and Palestinian women to murder Israeli attendees on Oct. 7

American Mosques Preach Hate

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael News Desk column with video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


Download the Newsrael App: Google PlayAppStore

War or Peace with Israel

The Israeli journalist Seth Mandel poses a hypothetical: if you were an Arab state, would it be better to be at peace, or at war, with Israel? More on his answer to his own question can be found here: “The Wages of Peace with Israel,” 

If you had the opportunity to start a new Middle East state from scratch, would you rather it be at peace with Israel or at war with Israel?

I genuinely wish regional leaders would ask themselves this question once in a while. And the fall of the house of Assad is a great time to do so.

Israel’s offer of peace has been on the table to all comers from the start. If you want peace with the Jewish state, you can have it. Should you take the offer?

If the citizens of your state are of any concern to you, it’s pretty obvious you should take the deal.

Israel borders Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. In recent weeks and months, we have watched Lebanon continue its long history of abridged sovereignty and political decay. The Iranian/Hezbollah statelet in South Lebanon persists, though in a weakened state. That occupation exists to regularly plunge the country into war with Israel. Before the area was Hezbollah’s playground, it was the mini-state of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which instigated two types of armed conflict: war with Israel and civil war within Lebanon. After Israel ousted the PLO from southern Lebanon in 1982, Syria intervened to ensure there would be no peace with Israel by killing Lebanese politicians who wanted an end to the bloodshed.

Hezbollah has for decades been a state within a state in Lebanon. It has until its recent crippling war with the IDF enforced its will by killing political leaders who are deemed to be anti-Syrian, and thus anti-Hezbollah as well, for Hezbollah and Assad’s Syria were both close collaborators and allies of Iran. Syria served for decades as the conduit through which Hezbollah received weapons from Iran. Among the politicians it has killed are Rafik Hariri, Samir Kassir, George Hawi, Gebrn Tueni, Pierre Amine Gemayel, and Walid Edo.

Its military was always much stronger than the Lebanese National Army, and it prevented the LNA and UNIFIL from enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed in 2006, and required Hezbollah to remove its forces from southern Lebanon and to pull them north of the Litani River. Hezbollah never did, and only now, because it has been so battered by the IDF, has Hezbollah eagerly accepted a ceasefire with Israel, by which it now agrees that this time it will indeed pull back its weapons and fighters north of the Litani. So far, that ceasefire has been holding, with the IDF engaging occasionally in striking Hezbollah combatants found to be moving men and weapons around between the Litani and Israel’s border with Lebanon.

Syria, meanwhile, has been in the news because a decade-long revolt finally succeeded in ousting Bashar al-Assad, who has only been able to stay in power with the help of Hezbollah terrorists, Iranian generals, and chemical weapons that Assad’s forces used on civilians. Three-quarters of a century into Israel’s existence, such is the reality of life in the neighboring countries that insist on permanent hostility to Israel’s existence.

It is no coincidence that this is not the state of affairs in Jordan or Egypt. Peace with Israel isn’t the only reason for their relative stability. But not being at war with a first-rate military and ally of the Western democracies is a pretty big factor….

Mandel might also have mentioned the benefits to the Arab states that have made peace with Israel by signing onto the Abraham Accords — Morocco, the UAE, and Bahrain — all of which have made business deals with Israeli companies and the Israeli government, especially in the areas of high tech, renewable energy, water desalination, agriculture, and tourism.

No Arab state has benefited from making war against Israel, from 1948 to the present. The costs to Arab states, in men, money, and materiel, when they tried to wipe out Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, amounted to tens of billions of dollars. But those Arab states that have chosen to make peace with Israel, either through a peace treaty, as Egypt and Jordan have done, or through becoming members of the Abraham Accords and agreeing to normalize ties with the Jewish state, have only benefited.

War or peace? Israel is ready for both. Will the new rulers of Syria choose rightly?

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Druze in Syria’s Golan Want Israel to Annex Them

Everything in the Middle East Means the Opposite

Syria New Terror Regime: HTS (ISIS 2.0) Fatwa Council Head Attacks US, Says Its “An Enemy of The Islamic Nation”

RELATED VIDEOS:

Netanyahu says Tehran is next after Damascus

Anti-regime Iranians change name of street to “Netanyahu”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The first and perhaps last Iran-Israel war

Iran declared war in 1979 as one of the first acts after the Islamic Revolution. Along with declaring the aim of bringing about the demise of the United States, it embarked on a war of extermination against Israel. It has been relentless in building the capacity over the intervening five decades to realize its objectives. We are now seeing the start of the final, acute phase of that war in which Iran promises to exterminate Israel, and Israel – fifty year later – has moved to try to destabilize the Iranian regime.

In recent years, Iran persisted in developing its nuclear and ballistic programs to establish itself as a regional power to threaten not only Israel, but other continents. It also built a robust network of proxies to attack Israel, which it dubbed the “ring of fire.” Recently, it has also cultivated distant allies, such as Venezuela, Columbia, Chile, Brazil to begin to leverage gangs and drug pipelines to build a more limited version of the “ring of fire” to bear down on the United States itself.

On October 7, 2023, Iran activated the Middle Eastern network of proxies in the bone-chillingly bloody and depraved invasion. This represented a new phase in Iran’s war against Israel, since it signaled the beginning of what it believed would have been an acute, ongoing war of attrition on eight fronts rather than periodic along alternate acting fronts. This was Iran’s first miscalculation of Israel. Israel realized this war of attrition was in fact the final stage of an existential attack Iran was launching. As a result, it went beyond engaging in this war of attrition on Iran’s terms and embraced instead a war whose strategy was not conflict management, but total victory and defeat of these proxies.

After a series of devastating blows to the key proxy, Hizballah, and the killing of senior Iranian liaison officers to that proxy in Damascus, Iran miscalculated a second time on April 14. It launched the first direct missile assault on Israel from Iranian territory. This transformed the war from one of Israel against Iran’s proxies – a war against the proxy tentacles of the Iranian octopus – in a direct war between Israel and Iran.

This also transformed the war from a long-term war with the proxies into a twilight, direct struggle between the Iranian nation run by a tyranny that seeks to extinguish another – democratic Israel. After April 14, the containment of Iran and its management by deterrence was no longer vulnerable; it has become a showdown in which either Iran or Israel, but not both, would emerge not only as victor but as survivor.

This then led to Iran’s third mistake, or more accurately strategic delusion. It is the same misperception plaguing all of Iran’s proxies – which led to Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah to famously dub Israel as a mere, fragile spiderweb easily imploded – and its minions in the West protesting on campuses against the “white” Israel against the “indigenous people of color” of Palestine. The mistake is not that they underestimated Israel’s capabilities, prowess, nor that they misread its messy disunity and internal divisiveness on display almost daily as systemic collapse, but that they internalized their own ideology that Israel is a fake, fragile colonial entity rather than a deeply rooted civilization – one of the oldest and most solid, in fact. Israel has shown that despite its mistakes and setbacks, its internal strength and its “mystic chords of memory” (to borrow from Abraham Lincoln)  transcended that of any of their neighbors, especially their more recently invented Palestinian nemesis.

The cumulative effects of Iran’s miscalculations in this Iran-Israel war came home to roost and took a dramatic turn as a result of the last two weeks. The proxy “ring of fire” — the network of proxies surrounding Israel which Iran built — not only had an aggressive aim to choke Israel to death by initiating a violent war of attrition and isolation, including closing ports and ending international airline’s flying to Israel. It also acted as a defensive deterrent against Israel. The ring of fire — particularly Hizballah — shielded Iran from any potential Israeli proactive action against Iran directly. Indeed, so powerful was the Hizballah tentacle that Israel feared it more than the head of the octopus on Tehran. But the devastation wrought on Hizballah over recent weeks, starting with “Operation Grim Beeper”[1] which incapacitated or killed 5000 of the key commanders at the heart of the organization, after a second, similar blow with the exploding walkie-talkie radios and other electronic means of communication the next day, followed the third day with the airstrike that took out the entire surviving command of its elite ground forces, and then a week later losing its iconic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, overturned Iran’s entire strategy. Hizballah was the strategic linchpin of the proxy network at the center of the ring of fire. It was the greatest threat Israel faced. With its destruction, its deterrent contribution against Israel was erased. Iran was now left fully exposed to the full weight of Israeli power.

Which led Iran to commit its fourth big mistake on the last day of September: again directly attacking Israel, which opened the door for a material Israeli direct counterattack, which Israel had chosen – under great U.S. pressure – not to do in April. The result is that Iran will surely now feel the vulnerability to which it has exposed itself as Israel proceeds without fear any more of either Hizballah’s or Iran’s response. Jerusalem will take the war from the defensive to the offensive against Iran’s regime.

Nor is Iran in a good position to engage Israel. Iran’s strategy depends entirely on manipulation into paralysis of foes who possess far greater raw power. Until now by deterrence and use of a failed will of Israel’s primary ally, the United States, Iran felt it could manipulate Israel and even more so the United States to play by rules that delivered it great strategic advantage and ultimate victory. But a strategy of manipulation depends on facing a predictable adversary. As long as the Untied States and Israel restrained themselves within the rule that Iran had imposed on them, Iran’s far superior strategic acumen and the regime’s talent for strategic manipulation delivered for Iran a ramp leading to triumph. This then led to Iran’s fifth miscalculation: Israel changed the rules after October 7 and became unpredictable for Iran. For Iran, Israel was no longer controllable and restrainable, but a crazed wild man lashing out akin to the way a spraying firehose is flailing and uncontrollable. There is no strategy of manipulation that can harness this flailing firehose, one can only run for over or shut off the water leading to the nozzle. Iran now fears Israel and no longer knows how to handle it or its superior raw power.

⁠Iran has limited options but can be counted on to embark on three strategic responses.

First, it will try to “shut off the water” to the fire hose’s nozzle. This means that it will try to entangle the United States and threaten to raise the specter of a dangerous regional war to such vast and imaginary dimensions — far beyond any which it actually possesses the power to execute — that it unnerves and manipulates the United Stares into imposing a ceasefire, thus saving Iran from Israel’s counteroffensive against it. There already are signs of this strategy’s being implemented as some of the Iranian regime’s proxy voices in the U.S. echo this, such as Vali Nasr on Monday (Sep 29).

Second, Iran fears its own people and needs to frighten them into somehow rallying around the regime. The incompetence and impotence exposed by its proxies and itself in recent weeks threaten a regime whose tyrannical survival depends on projecting internally against its own people an insurmountable image of terror and omnipotence. It needs somehow to rally a people that both despises and begins to lose fear of it. As such, the regime will seek to transform the Iran-Israel war into a part of a great Sunni-Shiite conflagration. It will likely even attack Sunni Gulf Arab states to provoke them to respond and thus to stimulate the existential fears Iranians all harbor in their every fiber of the Sunni Arab threat.

Third, for the same reason of trying in despair to rally their own population which loathes it, Iran’s regime will instigate ethnic divisions in its own country — potentially even with high-profile self-inflicted false flag terror attacks — in order to establish among its populace that the survival of the regime is the sole barrier to the nation’s descending into a bloody internal ethnic civil war.

It is in the American interest – indeed in the interest of Western civilization – that Israel be allowed to press its hard-fought advantages and be allowed to gallop toward victory against the Iranian regime. Unfortunately, the current administration appears incapable of restraining itself from continually sabotaging Israel instead. Even so, Israel proceeds toward that victory, but more laboriously and turbulently than would otherwise be necessary if it had genuine U.S. backing.

And yet, one caveat. Israel should do so in ways that avoid tapping either the Sunni card or the ethic demon. Ironically, Israel’s attacking Iran as the representative of the Jewish people with which Persia and Iran has had a 2,500 years history of alliance and amity – Cyrus returned the Jewish people from Babylonian exile to the Land of Israel and funded the reconstruction of the second Temple – purchases for Israel great popular Iranian support as the agent of their liberation from tyranny as long as it is not seen as doing so in service of Sunni Arabs or ethnic divide-and-conquer schemers.

[1] The nickname was first originated by Mike Doran.

AUTHOR

David Wurmser

Senior Analyst for Middle East Affairs

Dr. David Wurmser, is a Senior Analyst for Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy, as well as a Fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy. He also is the executive and founding member of the Delphi Global Analysis Group, LLC – a firm specializing in geopolitical risk analysis and mitigation for infrastructure, high-tech, defense and financial firms from the United States, Japan and India navigating in Israel – – since its founding in 2007. From December 2018 until September 2019, Dr. Wurmser also served as senior advisor to the U.S. National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton.

Prior to this, Dr. Wurmser was the senior advisor from 2003-2007 to the U.S. Vice President Cheney on Middle East, proliferation and strategic affairs. Before becoming the senior advisor for the Vice President in 2003, Dr. Wurmser was the senior advisor to Under Secretary of State John Bolton at the State Department.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Aaron Cohen: Israel needs to move quickly

ENEMIES AT HOME: Memorial Service for ‘Perfect’ Hezbollah Terrorist Leader Held in Michigan

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Update on the curious high-tech war between Iran plus its proxies and Israel

From last night:

Breitbart:

Report: Hezbollah Had Planned to Hit Tel Aviv at 5:00 a.m.

The New York Times reported Saturday evening that Hezbollah had planned to hit Tel Aviv with missiles at 5:00 a.m. Sunday morning Israel time, which is why the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a pre-dawn preemptive strike.

The Times’ Ronen Bergman reported:

Israel’s preemptive attack was aimed at missile launchers in Lebanon that had been programmed to be fired at 5 a.m. in the direction of Tel Aviv, according to a Western intelligence official. The official said that all the launchers that were targeted were destroyed and that Israel was anticipating a harsh response from Hezbollah.

As Breitbart News reported, the IDF launched a large preemptive strike early Sunday morning local time, preempting what it said was a major imminent attack by Hezbollah. Israeli authorities urged residents of the northern half of the country, from Tel Aviv northwards, to stay near bomb shelters and safe rooms, and prohibited public gatherings of more than 130 people as a precaution. It said people should feel free to go to work if they were near available shelters.

IDF: Israel Hit ‘Thousands’ of Hezbollah Launchers; Lebanon: One Dead

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said Sunday that it had hit “thousands” of Hezbollah rocket launchers in southern Lebanon in a pre-dawn preemptive strike to thwart an attack on Tel Aviv. Lebanon reported one dead in the attack.

In a statement, the IDF said:

Approximately 100 [Israel Air Force] fighter jets, directed by IDF intelligence, struck and destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rocket launcher barrels that were located and embedded in southern Lebanon. Most of these launchers were aimed toward northern Israel and some were aimed toward central Israel. More than 40 launch areas in Lebanon were struck during the strikes. 

The Lebanese media reported one dead in the attack, according to the Times of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement from the “Kirya,” Israel’s military headquarters, in Tel Aviv (translated from Hebrew by the Government Press Office):

This morning we identified Hezbollah preparations to attack Israel. In consensus with the Defense Minister and the IDF Chief-of-Staff, we directed the IDF initiate action to eliminate the threat.

Since then, the IDF has been taking strong action to foil the threats. It has eliminated thousands of rockets that were aimed at northern Israel. It is thwarting many other threats and is taking very strong action – both defensively and offensively.

Citizens of Israel, I request that you adhere to the directives from IDF Home Front Command.

We are determined to do everything to defend our country, to return the residents of the north securely to their homes and to continue upholding a simple rule: Whoever harms us – we will harm them.

According to some reports, Hezbollah had been planning to launch a barrage of thousands of rockets at Tel Aviv. After the Israeli airstrike, Hezbollah launched hundreds of rockets, to little effect. More Hezbollah rockets were expected.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Who is directing the war on agriculture and nutrition?

Billionaire organizations and foundations, government agencies, and activist pressure groups are funding and coordinating a global war on modern agriculture, nutrition, and Earth’s poorest, hungriest people. Instead of helping more families get nutritious food, better healthcare, and higher living standards, they’re doing the opposite and harming biodiversity in the process.

The World Economic Forum wants to reimagine, reinvent, and transform the global food system to eliminate greenhouse gases from food production. Central to its plan are alternatives to animal protein: meal worm potato chips, bug burgers instead of beef patties, and meat loaves and sausages made from lake flies, for instance. Fixing the WEF’s toxic workplace is apparently a low priority.

A UN Food and Agriculture Organization report advises that turning “edible insects” into “tasty” food products can create thriving local businesses and even promote “inclusion of women.”

Created to alleviate global poverty, the World Bank has decided the “manmade climate crisis” is a far greater threat to impoverished families than contaminated water, malaria, and other killer diseases, hunger, or even two billion people still burning wood and dung because they don’t have reliable, affordable electricity. It has unilaterally decreed that 45% of its funds – an extra $9 billion in FY2024 – will be shifted to helping the poor “better withstand the devastation of climate change.”

(The Bank has also decided that even more of its taxpayer funding – $300-million instead of “only” $70-million – should be gifted to the Palestinian Authority, which pays terrorists to murder Israelis.)

Of course, most of the better and lesser-known environmental pressure groups are also deeply involved in food, agriculture, and energy policy campaigns: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, La Via Campesina (The Peasant Way), Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and countless others.

Like the rest of the “agro-ecology” movement, they deride and malign modern agriculture as a scourge inflicted by greedy mega-corporations. They oppose fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, and biotechnology. They extol “food sovereignty” and the “right to choose.” But their policies reflect top-down tyranny and bullying, with little room for poor farmers to embrace modern agricultural technologies and practices.

In addition to WEF, FAO, and World Bank support, these hard-green organizations have the ideological, organizational, and financial backing of the US Agency for International Development, EU agencies, and a host of progressive and far-left American, European, and other foundations.

The US-based AgroEcology Fund was created by the Christensen FundNew Fields Foundation, and Swift Foundation. Its funding and programs are overseen by the New Venture Fund, which helps “charitable” and “educational” organizations direct funds to programs that align with what many characterize as neo-colonialist and eco-imperialist goals.

Other major players include the Schmidt Family Foundation, Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and Ben and Jerry Foundation.

This is serious money – hundreds of millions of dollars per year in food, agriculture, and climate change funding. It completely overshadows the piddling $9,000 that Kenyan farmer Jusper Machogu raised via donations to his “climate realism” website – much of it given to neighbors so they could drill water wells, buy tanks of propane, or get connected to the local grid.

And yet Mr. Machogu incurred the wrath of the BBC’s “Climate Disinformation Officer.” (Yes, the Beeb actually has such a position.) The CDO attacked him for “tweeting false and misleading claims” about climate change and saying Africa should develop its oil, gas, and coal reserves – instead of relying entirely on intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar. Even worse, the farmer had the temerity to accept donations from non-Africans, including “individuals with links to the fossil fuel industry and groups known for promoting climate change denial.”

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors is another major donor to agro-ecology outfits. It’s part of the legacy of guilt-ridden oil money from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Co. corporate trust – an inheritance that includes nearly 1,000 climate-related institutions, foundations, and activist organizations.

As Canada’s Frontier Centre put it, “Every time you hear a ‘climate change’ scare story, [the person writing it] was PAID. He is a Rockefeller stooge. He may not know it, but his profession has been entirely corrupted.” Far worse, I would add, the writer and his (or her) organization are complicit in perpetuating global poverty, energy deprivation, hunger, disease, and death – because the fearmongering drives destructive energy and food production policies.

Alone or collectively, these policy corrupters must not be underestimated in this war to preserve and expand modern energy, agriculture, and global nutrition. Thankfully, there is increasing pushback. Many families simply do not want to be trapped in poverty, disease, mud-and-thatch huts, an absence of educational opportunities for their children, and a future of backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk labor in little subsistence-farming fields.

That’s especially so when films, news stories, and cell phones present American and European farming equipment and practices – and the crop yields, wealth, health, homes, leisure time, and opportunities that accompany those modern agricultural systems.

Poor farmers also see China, India, Indonesia, and other countries rapidly industrializing and modernizing by using oil, gas, and coal. They see rumblings of change in many countries that are intent on charting their own courses, with fossil fuels as the energy foundation for that growth. They’re rejecting the eco-colonialism and eco-imperialism that wealthy Westerners seek to impose on them.

They are getting the message that humanity has faced climate fluctuations and extreme weather events throughout history … and survived them, dealt with them, adapted to them, prospered. That there is no real-world evidence that manmade greenhouse gas emissions – especially the trivial amounts generated by agriculture – have replaced the powerful natural forces that caused past climate changes.

They increasingly realize that organic and subsistence farming requires vastly more land – which would otherwise be wildlife habitats – than modern mechanized farming to get the same yields. Plowing those habitats would decimate plant and animal diversity.

That locking up fossil fuels and relying instead on biofuels and plant-based feedstocks for thousands of essential products would require even more acreage. So would mining for massive amounts of metals and minerals to manufacture wind, solar, and battery technologies.

Most importantly, they understand that humanity today has far greater wealth, far more knowledge, far better technologies, and resources than any past generations.

To suggest that we cannot adapt to climate changes or survive and recover from extreme weather events is simply absurd. To suggest that farmers should revert to … or remain stuck in … ancient farming practices and technologies – to save the world from computer-generated manmade climate disasters – is eco-imperialism at its most lethal.

South Africa’s electricity minister recently said his country will not be “turned into a guinea pig for a worldwide Green New Deal.” Hopefully, all developing countries will soon apply that same attitude to anarchists who would use the world’s poor as guinea pigs in global agricultural and nutrition experiments.

AUTHOR

Paul Driessen

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why does war exist?

Why War? by Richard Overy | W. W. Norton & Co., 2004, 304 pages


The question of why war exists is a commonly asked one. Why have human beings throughout the history of the species engaged in organised violence against one another? In our modern world, why do educated and mostly civilised people support the large-scale slaughter of their fellow man?

A distinguished military historian like Richard Overy — whose greatest expertise relates to those most destructive of wars waged during the 1930s and 1940s — is well-placed to try to answer this.

Published in June, Overy’s Why War? is an ambitious work.

His book is broken down into two sections. Firstly, Overy examines the general causes of warfare, surveying the theories which have been proposed and the evidence which has been uncovered in areas such as biology, psychology, anthropology and ecology.

Secondly, he looks at the specific motives for warfare under four headings: resources, belief, power and security. These, he stresses, are not mutually exclusive. Many wars will be waged for more than one reason, even if one reason is cited as casus belli.

Ancient conflicts

It is most welcome that Overy rightly dismisses the modern trend to overlook lethal violence from the pre-state past, as if organised violence was something relatively new in human history.

He cites chilling archaeological evidence of ancient massacres, including the discovery of the remains of 66 human beings who were mostly butchered with axes near Vienna around 7,000 years ago.

On the question of biological determinism and the controversial claim of Harvard entomologist Professor Edward Wilson that aggression was innate, Overy suggests that recent research on behavioural genetics has mostly vindicated Wilson’s findings.

If our genes explain some part of this mystery, the evolution of human psychology is another factor worth pondering.

“The evolution of a psychology for warfare is a universal, species-typical adaptation, even though it is manifested in different locations and times in a variety of ways,” Overy writes.

This psychological basis for conflict can be as extreme as those martial values cultivated in ancient Sparta or amongst the Vikings, or it can be observed in the sanitised military culture of any modern army.

When combined with a strong in-group attachment — and expressed against an out-group enemy — this warrior spirit can become extraordinarily lethal.

Prehistoric conflict is particularly interesting. As Overy explains, there are serious challenges involved in interpreting the archaeological evidence of such conflict, whether that be skeletal trauma, iconography such as cave drawings of battles, weaponry or fortifications.

While historians can continue to argue over whether conflicts between small tribes can really warrant the term ‘warfare’, it takes an incredible amount of naivety to follow the example of Jean Jacques Rousseau in assuming that our ancestors lived peaceful and idyllic lives.

One case-in-point is the Alpine iceman, Ötzi, whose frozen remains were discovered in 1991, more than 5,000 years after his death.

Ten years after this discovery, analysis showed that in Ötzi’s back, there was an arrowhead. On his blade, there was the blood of at least three different humans.

Competition and religion

The second half of the book is less interesting, dealing with the various reasons why groups choose to engage in warfare. Resource shortages are certainly important, and Overy references the cross-cultural work of Carol and Melvin Ember, who found that a fear of resource scarcity has led to the great majority of conflicts.

Gold or slaves were the prizes of choice in the past, just as oil has been a crucial factor in many cases since the Industrial Revolution began. In the coming decades, wars may be fought over the critical raw materials upon which the modern economy is built. Alternatively, in a return to the past, wars could be waged over access to that most crucial resource: clean water.

With virtually all wars having multiple causal factors, there has been a tendency in this secular age to refuse to seriously examine the role of religious belief in explaining conflicts. Conversely, anti-religious voices (the Marxist writer Christopher Hitchens, for example) have often wildly overstated religion’s role in their struggle to bully their way to a secularist society.

In the post-9/11 world, Overy suggests that “historians and social scientists have begun to argue that belief must be injected back into any analysis of warfare where religious or ideological motives can be seen to be paramount.”

This represents some progress, even if the return to bloodshed represents atavism. The conflicts that exist between countries and within countries cannot be solved unless they are understood, and that will often require a more serious religious dialogue than has been heard in recent times.

Current pre-war era

Arguably, the most important geopolitical development in recent years has been the collapse of the ‘End of History’ narrative which Francis Fukuyama put forward when arguing that liberal democracy would become the universal form of government after the Cold War.

What we are now witnessing is a return to history: the renewed willingness of autocracies to wage industrial-scale warfare, the rearming of Europe and the growing importance of alliances and great power rivalry.

In this situation, Overy’s book is timely and very worthwhile, even if the writing style is rather dull, possibly due to the difference between this type of book and the great historical narratives in which he has specialised up until now.

In his conclusion, Overy quotes his fellow academic, Kenneth Waltz.

Theorists explain what historians know: War is normal.

A more captivating quote would have been from Cormac McCarthy’s ‘Blood Meridian’, when Judge Holden hears his accomplices discussing the morals of warfare, and quickly silences them.

“It makes no difference what men think of war,” the monstrous Judge, the Devil incarnate, tells them.

“War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.”

As leaders ready their countries’ defences in preparation for an uncertain future, it is also time to arm ourselves with knowledge of why war is so large a part of the human experience. This book is a very good place to start.


What do you think of this book’s thesis? Comment below.


AUTHOR

James Bradshaw writes from Ireland on topics including politics, history, culture, film and literature.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

UCLA Riots Were About So Much More Than Just The Israel-Hamas War

What started as routine leftist protests in April quickly turned into a battle for the UCLA campus — and the Daily Caller’s investigative reporters were on the ground to document it all.

April protests over the Israel-Hamas war quickly turned to encampments on the picturesque UCLA quad. This set the stage for riots as anti-Israel activists, pro-Israel counter-protesters, and the Los Angeles Police Department all clashed in the wee hours of the night.

The Daily Caller’s new documentary, “Anarchy U,” captured it all as it unfolded in real time: the violence, the building takeovers, the construction and destruction of the encampment and the power struggle between might, right and the law.

But in documenting the chaos, we uncovered the motives of the anti-Israel protesters go far deeper than just Palestinian solidarity. They even go beyond the destruction of Israel. What they seek is nothing less than the destruction of the entire Western world order.

Anarchy U” is available exclusively to Patriots members. Catch an exclusive first glimpse below.

You’ve most likely heard anti-Israel protesters’ favorite buzzword repeated ad nauseam since the Oct. 7 attack: “Decolonization now!” they demand.

This term has countless iterations. It’s not just Israel that must be “decolonized,” but American society, the developing world, schools, medicine, media, and culture ― seemingly the entire world suffers under the legacy of colonialism.

But colonization no longer exists, you might be thinking. We live in a global community of nations, and in first world countries like America and Israel at least, we all have guaranteed to safeguard us from arbitrary tyranny. So what does this decolonization crowd really want?

Investigative reporter Cam Higby was able to paint a clearer picture as he infiltrated the encampments at UCLA. The same people chanting for Intifada at UCLA often had a broader array of goals. “It’s BLM version two,” Higby explains.

Higby documents the rallies, as organizers call not just for the “liberation” of Palestinians, but of “workers, and all of the multitude of oppressed.”

“Let’s fight for a socialist world, and against this vicious capitalism of U.S. imperialism,” the agitator continues.

To the anti-Israel crowd, Israel is just a small part of a larger imperialist whole. Decolonization is nothing but Marxism, repackaged for a modern audience under the umbrella of identity politics.

For Marx, it was proletariat versus bourgeois, or the worker who was exploited by his capitalist boss. Today’s Marxists take the same oppressor-victim formula and broaden it out — way out. Colonized vs. colonizer, black vs. white, female vs. male, gay vs. straight — all are formulations of the new Marxism.

In America, the post-war standard of living was just too high to agitate workers against capitalists, so the Marxists needed to get creative. Instead, they took a real instance of historical oppression in America — slavery and anti-black racism — and built a new founding around it. Racism, it’s said by these new Marxists, is just the inevitable outcome of exploitative capitalism. It’s a tool used to ensure the wealthy and the powerful remain wealthy and powerful. That’s how we wind up with ideas like “system racism,” a phantom menace that can only truly be defeated once capitalism is overthrown in the West — the purpose of decolonizing American life from the supposed scourge of white supremacy.

Europe doesn’t have the same painful legacy of slavery, so the new Marxists targeted the European history of colonialism. Again, it’s a true instance of past injustice, abstractly defined to move the present world towards Marxism. The third world today isn’t underdeveloped because of any choice they did or didn’t make.  Rather, they are behind due to centuries of Western oppression, the legacy of which continues through capitalism. They can never catch up when the West had such a head start. Once again, the only solution is to overthrow the system entirely.

You might be thinking: Israel doesn’t fit neatly into either category. But for the decolonization crowd, Israel is nothing but an outpost of white, European “settler colonialism.” It was “stolen” by colonizers, and given to European Jews at the expense of “Palestinians.” Under this line of thinking, the only true “justice” is Intifada, literally the “shaking off” of Israel and the entire Western order.

But the destruction of Israel is not enough. The goal, forever and always, is world revolution. It can’t happen in one country alone. It must happen everywhere, all at once — a constant battle for “decolonization” — or the oppressors will always find a way to hold on to power.

So when anti-Israel protesters grasp at the mantle of morality and justice, know that they are lying. They don’t want a better world. They want a world in which they call the shots, a Marxist hellscape, where everyone is worse off except them.

Watch “Anarchy U” today to learn more about the insidious motives of the anti-Israel protesters, and how they intersect with BLM, Antifa, and all the leftist groups who want to see the American way of life destroyed.

AUTHOR

GAGE KLIPPER

Commentary and analysis writer.

RELATED ARTICLE: America Is A Mess Because Of Democrat Policies, Not Just Biden

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


The Daily Caller’s documentary productions are made possible by our faithful Patriots members, and we wouldn’t be able to do it without them. To watch “Anarchy U” — and to help support future investigative documentaries — please consider subscribing.

Secretive Bilderberg Meeting Concludes in Madrid with War, War, and More War on the Agenda

Globalist elites representing the rich and powerful in politics, banking, big tech, media, industry, and academia converged in Madrid, Spain, on May 30-June 2 to discuss the launching of World War III and policies meant to advance the global control grid and one-world system.

While most of the attention this year was on the WHO World Health Assembly in Geneva, the Bilderbergs met secretly in Madrid for their 70th annual conference. (Go to my Substack to read about the shocking turn of events on June 1 at the WHO World Health Assembly)

Topics of discussion at the shadowy Bilderberg conference included artificial intelligence, “climate change,” the “future of warfare” and “changing faces of biology.”

The full list of announced topics discussed at the annual globalist conference were as follows.

  • State of AI
  • AI Safety
  • Changing Faces of Biology
  • Climate
  • Future of Warfare
  • Geopolitical Landscape
  • Europe’s Economic Challenges
  • US Economic Challenges
  • US Political Landscape
  • Ukraine and the World
  • Middle East
  • China
  • Russia

Besides AI, transhumanist issues surrounding the “changing faces of biology,” and economic issues, notice that most of the remaining topics are related to the growing global conflicts that appear headed toward open warfare being conducted between nuclear-armed superpowers in multiple theaters — U.S./NATO against the Russians in Ukraine, war in the Middle East, and war the Far East involving China-Taiwan and potentially on the Korean peninsula.

The issue of “AI safety” likely had to do with the globalists’ plan to remove anonymity from the Internet and make all online parties take on a digital ID, thus making it easier to censor and punish online voices that disagree with the prevailing globalist narratives.

Founded in 1954 with a meeting hosted by Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands in the Hotel de Bilderberg in the Dutch village of Oosterbeek, the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group is believed to be a driving force behind major globalist projects and initiatives.

Unlike similar institutions such as the World Economic Forum, the Bilderbergs meet strictly behind closed doors with participants sworn to secrecy according to the so-called Chatham House Rule. This rule prohibits the disclosure of the identity of those behind any idea mentioned during the meeting.

The shroud of secrecy surrounding the meeting of Bilderberg globalists has led to many theories regarding the influence the conference may exert on the policy of various nations and corporations.

Breitbart reports that a 2023 study from Lukas Kantor of Prague’s Charles University found that at least 133 politicians were elevated to positions of power after attending a Bilderberg meeting, including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, ex-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and current French President Emmanuel Macron.

According to Kantor, at least 42 participants became either prime ministers, presidents, or the top officials of international organizations such as the European Union, NATO or the International Monetary Fund.

Kantor wrote:

“From 2019 to 2023, all key international organizations—EU, NATO, IMF, and UN—have been chaired by Bilderbergers (Ursula von der Leyen, Jens Stoltenberg, Kristalina Georgieva and Antonio Guterres). It seems improbable that this is just a coincidence.”

It’s interesting that war is on the agenda for Bilderberg 2024.

Almost every Western nation is on board with pushing the Russia-Ukraine conflict into one of the main theaters of World War III, which more than likely will turn nuclear at some point.

The only two countries in the West that have leaders firmly against expanding the war are Hungary and Slovakia. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, is under pressure to resign over trumped up allegations of corruption and the prime minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, was shot four times in an assassination attempt last month (he miraculously survived). Any Western leader who dares to oppose the policies of the globalist elite risks being eliminated by one means or another.

But that hasn’t stopped PM Viktor Orban of Hungary.

Hundreds of thousands participated in a peace march in Hungary’s capital of Budapest on Saturday, June 1, denouncing the EU’s policy of escalating tensions with Russia.

The event culminated with a speech by Orban, who accused Brussels of bringing Europe to the brink of World War III.

The demonstrators marched from the iconic Chain Bridge to Margaret Island on the Danube River.

Many carried flags, chanted anti-war slogans, and held signs reading “No war” and “Give us peace, Lord.”

Prime Minister Orban then addressed the crowd, saying:

“Never before have so many people lined up for peace. We are the biggest peace corps, the largest peacekeeping force in Europe. Europe must be prevented from rushing into war, into its own destruction.”


Orban said his country must draw lessons from the devastation it went through during the darkest times of the 20th century.

He told the crowd:

“In the two world wars, the Hungarians lost 1.5 million lives, and with them – their future children and grandchildren. I’m saying this slowly so that Brussels would understand: we will not go to war. We will not go to the East for a third time, we will not go to the Russian front again.”

Orban urged everyone to support the “pro-peace and pro-sovereignty” agenda of the ruling Fidesz party in the European Parliament election next week, adding, “Do we want to shed Hungarian blood for Ukraine? No, we don’t.”

There were also large protests in Berlin this weekend. You won’t hear much about this growing anti-war movement on NBC, ABC, CNN or Fox News. No American or European parents or grandparents in their right minds wish to see their young people sent off to fight Russians in defense of the corrupt Western proxy nation of Ukraine. But that’s exactly where the Bilderbergs, Trilateralists, WEF’rs and their puppet leaders are driving us.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: 70th Bilderberg meeting in Madrid focuses on future of warfare and global challenges

RELATED VIDEO: Viktor Orbán: NATO countries appear to be creating a mood for a larger war

Must-Read Vatican Document Slams Surrogacy, Gender Theory, War and Abortion

Earlier this week the Vatican published a 16,000-word document reaffirming Catholic condemnations of a wide range of moral issues, from war to surrogacy and human trafficking. Dignitas Infinita, or “Infinite Dignity”, is both a philosophical and a theological essay, appealing to open-minded people of all faiths and none.

Seldom has there been so much media coverage about a Vatican document which contains so few surprises. It’s no secret that the Catholic Church opposes abortion and euthanasia. Perhaps both the fans and foes of Francis thought that he might open up a crack for sex changes or for surrogacy.

But almost nothing has changed. Under Francis the Church is as severe as ever on life issues. Over at the New York Times, columnist Ross Douthat opined that the Pope’s “style has been to consistently push at the boundaries of his office, testing how far a pope can go in altering Catholic teaching”. He sounded mortified to report that Dignitas Infinita was “a clearer-than-usual line against developments in progressive thought and culture”.

Controversial issues

Here are some notable highlights.

Dignitas Infinita condemns surrogacy, first as a violation of the child’s dignity and second as a violation of the surrogate mother’s. It says:

the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a “right to a child” that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life … in this practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.

The document also rejects gender theory. In a few perceptive sentences, it criticises the transhumanist impulse to “self-determination”, describing it as “a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God”. Furthermore, it describes the difference between male and female as “foundational”.

In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvellous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world.

Sex-change interventions are also condemned. The document quotes the Pope: “creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.”

One possible innovation in Dignitas Infinita is its approach to war. While lamenting the cruelty and senselessness of wars, the Catholic Church has traditionally supported the possibility of a “just war”. However, with weapons of mass destruction, asymmetric warfare and terrorism, perhaps the nature of war has changed. The document quotes the Pope — “it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war.’ Never again war!”

Does this mean that requirements for a just war will be updated? Possibly.

Explaining human dignity

Even though there appears to be little novelty in Dignitas Infinita, it was five years in the making. The Pope’s top theologian, fellow Argentinian Cardinal Victor Fernández, explains in an unusual preamble that the document went through several versions, because the Pope had ordered some significant changes. He wanted the list of violations of human dignity to include issues like poverty, the wretchedness of migrants, violence against women, human trafficking, and war.

This is consistent with Francis’s impatience with what he feels is some Catholics’ single-minded focus on abortion and other pro-life issues. Dignitas Infinita endorses the notion that Catholic moral teaching is a “seamless garment” and that abusing migrants and abortion are both horrendous violations of human dignity.

But what is human dignity? The first half of the document offers a very helpful and thoughtful exploration of the topic.

It begins with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 75th anniversary occurred last year. After the barbarism of World War II, the UDHR was a high-minded commitment by its signatories to restore a respect for human dignity. Its opening sentence asserts “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. John Paul II described the UDHR as “one of the highest expressions of the human conscience”.

However, it’s obvious that the concept of human rights has become so muddled that it is almost meaningless. Accompanied by claims to be advancing human dignity, rights have multiplied and morphed. Nowadays internet accessair conditioning and same-sex marriage are claimed as human rights, along with a right to abortion.

Although this is a very complex question, one reason for this proliferation is that people base their approach to human dignity on different foundations.

The Church’s approach is ontological; human dignity flows from the very fact of being a human being created by God. This means that all humans have dignity, not just those who possess privileges like awareness or intelligence or autonomy. Notoriously, Peter Singer (and other philosophers) say that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

In a brief, but very insightful observation, Dignitas Infinita analyses Singer’s notion of human dignity (without naming him):

Some people propose that it is better to use the expression “personal dignity” (and the rights “of the person”) instead of “human dignity” (and the rights “of man”) since they understand a “person” to be only “one who is capable of reasoning.” They then argue that dignity and rights are deduced from the individual’s capacity for knowledge and freedom, which not all humans possess. Thus, according to them, the unborn child would not have personal dignity, nor would the older person who is dependent upon others, nor would an individual with mental disabilities. On the contrary, the Church insists that the dignity of every human person, precisely because it is intrinsic, remains “in all circumstances.”

As well, the document deploys a very important concept: that we humans are relational beings. Fundamentally, none of us are individuals. We are all bound up in a web of relations with other humans, past, present and future: “Indeed, there is an ever-growing risk of reducing human dignity to the ability to determine one’s identity and future independently of others, without regard for one’s membership in the human community.”

The document condemns “a self-referential and individualistic freedom that claims to create its own values regardless of the objective norms of the good and of our relationship with other living beings” Unless one grasps this, it may be hard to appreciate why the Church rejects surrogacy, transgenderism, euthanasia and so on.

Dignitas Infinita may contain no surprises, but its clarity and consistency are admirable. It’s a good springboard for responding to today’s ethical challenges.


Does the Catholic Church have anything valuable to say about human rights? Leave a comment in the box below.


AUTHOR

Michael Cook is editor of Mercator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Major UK report throws transgender medicine onto the rubbish heap

Celebrity queer philosopher Judith Butler fights to vindicate her life’s work

Enver Hoxha tried to make Albania the world’s only officially atheist state. He failed miserably

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Israel Passes Law To Temporarily Shut Down Al Jazeera

The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a law Monday that would allow the government to temporarily close foreign news networks deemed a national security threat, The Times of Israel reported.

The law — known as the Al Jazeera law — is geared towards shutting down the popular Arabic news channel Al Jazeera in Israel, according to the outlet.

The law itself will reportedly allow shut downs for a period of 45 days but could be extended in additional 45-day increments, the outlet reported.

“There will be no freedom of speech for Hamas mouthpieces in Israel. Al Jazeera will be closed in the coming days. We have brought an efficient and quick tool for action against those who use the freedom of the press to harm Israel’s security and IDF soldiers and incite terrorism in times of war,” Israel’s Minister of Communications Shlomo Karhi tweeted in Hebrew.

“We will act immediately!” Karhi vowed.

“Al Jazeera harmed Israel’s security, actively participated in the October 7 massacre, and incited against IDF soldiers. It is time to remove the shofar of Hamas from our country. The terrorist channel Al Jazeera will no longer broadcast from Israel. I intend to act immediately in accordance with the new law to stop the channel’s activity,” Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted in Hebrew.

Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based news network, is particularly accused by Israeli officials of glorifying Hamas and terrorism against Israelis.  One example cited by critics of the Arabic news outlet’s protection of Hamas was when one of its reporters attempted to cut off an elderly wounded Gazan who was speaking critically of Hamas for hiding among civilians, according to the English translation.

AUTHOR

ILAN HULKOWER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al-Jazeera’s Gaza Script Sabotaged By Their Ally Hamas

Al Jazeera Spied On American Jews For A Documentary And It’s About To Premier

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RFK Jr. Comes Out Against Gaza Ceasefire

Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. strongly questioned the wisdom of a ceasefire in Gaza during an interview with Reuters on Wednesday.

“I don’t even know what that means right now,” Kennedy, who is running as an independenttold Reuters in response to a question about a temporary ceasefire.

Kennedy argued that Hamas had used every previous ceasefire to merely “rebuild and then launch another surprise attack,” the outlet noted.

“So what would be different this time?” Kennedy asked Reuters.

Kennedy argued that Israel had not chosen to fight the current war and blamed Hamas for rejecting a two-state solution and for its history of aggression.

“Any other nation that was adjacent to a neighboring nation that was bombing it with rockets, sending commandos over to murder its citizens, pledging itself to murder every person in that nation and annihilate it, would go and level it with aerial bombardment,” he said. “But Israel is a moral nation. So it didn’t do that. Instead, it built an Iron Dome to protect itself so it would not have to go into Gaza.”

Kennedy told Reuters that the Oct. 7 attack — which killed over 1,200 people and left some 250 as Hamas hostages — left Israel with no other option but to invade Gaza.

“[T]he scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens,” Kennedy tweeted the day of the terrorist attack. “Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense.”

Kennedy’s rejection of a ceasefire with Hamas puts the ex-Democrat at odds with an increasing number of prominent politicians in his former party.

A group of House Democrats, including Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, introduced a ceasefire resolution on Oct. 16, 2023; Democratic Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley wrote an article backing a ceasefire on Nov. 20; and Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed an “immediate ceasefire” on March 3.

AUTHOR

ILAN HULKOWER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The American betrayal of Israel

We Have To Do Something’: Mike Rowe Responds To Being Put On RFK Jr.’s VP Shortlist

DC Drops Reportedly Charges Against Gold Star Dad Who Interrupted Biden State Of The Union

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What is War, and How Are We to Wage It?

There is an entire portion in the Torah that begins “when you go to war” (Ki Teitzei, Deut. 21:10)… not “if”, but “when.” We are given specific rules about what we can and cannot do throughout the Torah, Talmud, and later texts.

But in today’s world, the lines of “war” are not as clear. We’re clearly in the midst of war, but with whom? How should we act? These are not easy questions, and worth looking at as we are beginning our sixth month of war in Israel.

Some things are clear. We are to destroy Amalek completely. If we experience perpetrators on the weak, sick, old, young… we can define that perpetration (both externally as a physical enemy and internally as addiction) as Amalek; and it must not be negotiated with, but utterly destroyed.

Given the events of Oct. 7, it is clear that Hamas is a modern Amalek and must be destroyed.

That example is pretty self-evident.

When at war, we are to be compassionate as well with enemies who are not Amaleks. The Torah teaches how we are to treat people other than Amalek, and the underlying concept is that our goal in war is not victory per se, but lasting peace.

This is one of the reasons that many of us were hesitant to believe that any IDF soldiers fired in civilians last week who were trying to aid from convoy trucks in Gaza. Our suspicions have now been totally confirmed thanks to footage from multiple drones. The IDF never fired at any person heading to the trucks. Footage shows that the only shots fired by Israel were at people who were attacking the soldiers: not heading towards the convoy at all, but violently charging the soldiers. Again, the reports of Hamas were lies, and proven to be so by now released drone footage.

What about Hezbollah? Like Hamas, they have vowed to destroy Israel and obliterate all Jews in the worldwide caliphate they seek to create. They send rockets almost daily into northern Israel, and displaced almost 100,000 Israelis from their homes. But despite their verbal vows, they have not enacted “Amalek-type” behavior as Hamas did on Oct. 7. They attack haphazardly, but not with the conscious intent of specifically targeting children and the weak. Based on the conflict in the north, it is the hope that a miracle can happen, and that a lasting peace can be created without needing their complete destruction. Unlike Hamas, they have not crossed the Rubicon, and it is still the hope and prayer that a lasting peace can be structured with them.

While the news was filled today with the State of the Union speech, there was also a small bit of news that radically affects Israel, and potentially the US/Israel relationship. Although any student of history or geo-politics realizes that a “two state solution” is a philosophical and practical impossibility, the President made it clear in his speech that this is his intention. He even went as far to say that the US will be building a port in Gaza. But to build a port or base in a foreign country without permission is actually considered an act of war. By that accepted definition, Biden declared an intention of a war act against Israel… Gaza is recognized as part of Israel even by the UN, so wouldn’t building a port or base there without Israel’s permission be an act of war? And is it the intention of the U.S. to build and man a port on foreign soil? And for how long? These are questions that many Israelis and international political scientists have been discussing since President Biden made the announcement of his intended port today.

But the greatest war is always our individual war with our own “yetzer hara”…our personal “evil inclination”. We must do what must be done, but we must never take joy in it. We must destroy Hamas, but feel the sadness of having to kill anyone…even the Hamas terrorists who have surrendered their own souls in their quest for a caliphate. And at the same time, we need to remember that the yetzer hara can be manifest just as easily as a desire for mercy when there should be none. Amalek must be destroyed, even though doing that is painful.

We must remember that our greatest ally in any war; both with an external enemy or with our inner yetzer hara, is always God. He brings us to victory over external enemies as well as the ally that allows us to rid ourselves of things like addictions, evil behavior, or any problem in our lives both individually and collectively.

As these wars continue, may we all find within them the opportunity to deepen our relationship with God and each other.

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael column by Rabbi Michael Barclay is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Meet the Terrorists Entering the USA

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Israel ‘weeks away from victory’ once IDF begins Rafah Operation

February 25, 2024 / JNS — Once the IDF launches its military operation in Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, it will be “weeks away from total victory,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CBS News on Sunday.

Plans for the IDF offensive in Rafah, Hamas’s last stronghold in the Gaza Strip, will be reviewed by the political echelon on Sunday, the premier said in an interview with CBS‘s “Face the Nation.”

The potential hostages-for-ceasefire deal under discussion in Doha won’t stop the IDF from operating in the city, Netanyahu added.

“If we have a deal, it will be delayed somewhat, but it [the Battle of Rafah] will happen. If we don’t have a deal, we’ll do it anyway,” he stated.

“We very much want to achieve another [hostage] release and we are prepared to go far, but we are not prepared to pay any price, certainly not the delusional prices that Hamas is demanding of us, the meaning of which is the defeat of the State of Israel,” said Netanyahu last week.

“I speak with world leaders every day. I tell them decisively: Israel will fight until we achieve total victory. And indeed, this includes action in Rafah, of course after we allow the civilians found in the combat zones to evacuate to safe areas,” said Netanyahu.

“Whoever wants to prevent us from operating in Rafah is telling us in effect to lose the war. I will not allow this. … We will not surrender to any pressure. We will not surrender, because we are a people of heroes. We will not surrender because we are a people that desires life. We will not surrender because we must—must—defeat the evil,” he added.

The comments came after U.S. President Joe Biden demanded a temporary ceasefire to secure the release of hostages in Gaza, claiming that a deal “has to” go through before Israel launches a military operation in Rafah.

In a call on Thursday with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Lloyd Austin, the U.S. secretary of defense, raised “the need for a credible plan to ensure the safety of and support for the more than one million people sheltering in Rafah before any military operations proceed there.”

“We have worked out a detailed plan to do so. And that’s what we have done up to now,” explained Netanyahu. “We are not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort, to get civilians out of harm’s way. It’s part of Hamas’s effort to keep them in harm’s way. But we’ve so far succeeded and we are going to succeed again.”

RELATED ARTICLE: ARAB VOICES: Arabic Twitter has this to say about PM Netanyahu

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.