Matthew Hoh is a former U.S. Marine Officer and State Department Official. Hoh discusses the growing divisions within the US, which threaten the US empire.
WASHINGTON – US senior Special Operations officers in a briefing last month did not provide a comprehensive explanation why the Trump administration needed a massive military presence in the Caribbean for strikes on a few small boats allegedly used by drug cartels, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing sources with the knowledge.
At the moment, there is no public information from the Pentagon on what the military is using to conduct the strikes, but the sources told CNN that MQ-9 Reaper drones are used for US attacks on alleged drug boats, as well as AC-130J gunships and fighter jets.
The sources told CNN that the Pentagon officials also could not provide an exact amount of taxpayers’ dollars spent on the counternarcotics campaign. However, administration officials have stated that each strike costs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the report said.
A significant part of all deployed US naval assets worldwide have been located in US Southern Command since last month, and even more US military assets are about to be placed in the Caribbean, the report added.
Earlier this week, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the United States conducted strikes on two drug trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific, killing six people.
To date, the US military has conducted 19 strikes, destroyed 20 boats, and killed 76 people as part of a counternarcotics campaign, CNN reported.
In late October, the Trump administration held a briefing in the US Congress to lay out its legal justification for the strikes on Venezuelan ships. However, only Republicans were invited to the briefing, causing negative responses and vast criticism among Democrats.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres believes that US attacks in the Caribbean contradict international law, and so does UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
As the latest data on European Union imports have shown, the bloc cannot do without Russian gas and will continue to find ways to buy it despite announcements to completely oust this energy source from the European market by 2028. Confusingly, the EU made this decision precisely when, despite strong anti-Russian sanctions, it actually increased its gas purchases from Russia.
In October, a record 1.68 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia reached the EU via the Turkish Stream, the highest monthly volume since the pipeline began operating in 2020. The pipeline’s average capacity utilization in October was 96%, and imports were 13% higher than in October last year.
The EU has also increased its imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia, with the value up by 7% compared to the same period last year. Russian LNG, as reported by EUObserver, accounted for 16% of total imports into the EU.
At the same time, the EU cannot completely replace Russian gas in two years, especially since US Secretary of the Interior Doug Bergham recently stated that although the United States has enough resources to replace Russian gas, this would require major infrastructure investments in Eastern Europe. In other words, he is calling for the Turkish Stream and the Russian gas in it to be replaced by an American Stream, even if it comes at a huge economic cost for the Europeans.
The US probably has enough gas in its reserves, but private companies do not want to jeopardize their financial position by investing in the infrastructure on American soil necessary to convert natural gas into liquid and transport it to Europe. This liquefied gas must then be returned to its gaseous state in Europe and then transported by pipeline to the end user—a complicated and expensive task.
That is why Europe has imported much more Russian gas than usual. American gas is more expensive, and no one has money to throw away, especially in the faltering European economy, where Germany, the engine of its development, has been struggling with a long recession. In effect, Europe’s economy will be buried if it relies only on American gas.
Although there is constant talk of gas from Azerbaijan, it never arrives in quantities above usual levels. Given the amount of gas the Caucasian country produces and sells, they are not enticed to invest huge sums in new deposits and significantly increased gas production that might not have a buyer in Europe in the future.
The EU cannot do without Russian gas because the bloc lacks the funds to build the necessary infrastructure. The Trump administration would certainly not finance the necessary infrastructure on European soil for LNG delivery and regasification. The pipeline required, and Europe, with its economy, is not able to finance the American Stream.
Even if a terminal for the reception and regasification of American LNG is built in the Black Sea in two years, the same amount of time as the Greek one in Alexandroupolis in the Aegean Sea, which was put into operation a year ago, is built, it is clear that its capacities are modest. The Bulgarian-Greek interconnector, which receives gas from Alexandroupolis, has a capacity of only 3 billion cubic meters per year.
Nonetheless, if it were that large in the Black Sea, it would be more than modest compared to the capacity of the Balkan Stream. Even the Turkish Stream, with a capacity of 31 billion cubic meters of gas, of which the Balkan Stream is a branch, is insufficient to meet Europe’s needs.
The EU has recently received a warning from Qatar, whose LNG imports account for around 14% of its imports. Qatar has threatened to stop supplying gas to the EU if it imposes a 5.0% fine on companies that fail to respect human rights and environmental standards. If this were to occur, Europe could eventually be left without both Russian and Qatari gas, as well as without sufficient American gas.
It cannot be expected that there will be any automatic change when peace is achieved in Ukraine because Russia will not turn its back on its new major partners, such as India. Europe is increasingly being left behind as other parts of the world, the main consumers of Russian energy, come into the spotlight. These countries are the main consumers, and as their industries develop, they will need more oil and gas. In effect, as Russian energy exports to the non-Western World grow, the constant threats by Europe to end imports will have little impact on the Russian economy and will boomerang on Europe, as all other sanctions packages have.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
The photo ops from Trump’s Southeast Asia tour hid a deeper shift in US thinking. Washington’s new China strategy, shaped by the Pentagon, now calls for restraint, mutual legitimacy, and shared rules rather than confrontation.
In short, America’s foreign policy hawks are quietly preparing for coexistence, not conquest. Trump’s visit was to showcase this change. The question, however, remains: will the US find success ultimately?
Trump’s visit
Trump came as a peacemaker. He wanted to demonstrate that the US still matters in the region, reminding regional powers of Washington’s seriousness that it really means business going forward. Therefore, while the headlines focused on his dance performances in Malaysia and the signing ceremonies, the trip produced two notable outcomes: a peace accord between Thailand and Cambodia and a series of trade and investment frameworks with key ASEAN economies. The Thailand–Cambodia agreement, signed at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur and witnessed by Trump, commits both sides to a cease-fire, land-mine clearance, and the release of detainees, marking a rare US-brokered diplomatic success in the region. On the economic front, Trump announced new or expanded trade arrangements with Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam—some finalized, others still in negotiation—covering areas like critical minerals, supply chains, and energy investment. Washington also upgraded its partnership with Malaysia to a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,” signaling a deeper US pivot toward Southeast Asia’s economic and geopolitical center. Yet, much of this remains more symbolic than substantive for now, as the real test lies in whether these deals translate into durable peace and concrete trade outcomes—or fade as another episode of diplomatic theatre.
Much of the possible success of this visit and the durability of its outcomes is tied directly to the extent to which the Trump administration can implement its own new geopolitical thinking towards the region more generally and China more specifically—a country that it wants to primarily counter in Asia and the Pacific. This new geopolitical thinking is anchored in a recent report published by the Pentagon-backed RAND corporation.
The new thinking
The RAND report delivers a striking argument: Washington must abandon—after trying it unsuccessfully for years—the fantasy of defeating China and instead learn to manage an enduring, structured rivalry. The report frames the contest as the defining axis of twenty-first-century geopolitics—an unavoidable clash of systems and ambitions—but warns that a US strategy driven by dominance, containment, or ideological confrontation risks pushing both powers toward catastrophic instability. RAND’s central proposal is not détente, but what it calls a disciplined modus vivendi: a framework that accepts competition as inevitable yet seeks to prevent it from spiraling into open conflict. This is especially important for Washington insofar as it allows it to present to the wider Southeast Asian region that it is not seeking Cold War-like alliances where regional countries must choose sides. Therefore, the authors lay out six core principles to stabilize the relationship: both sides must internalize that coexistence, not victory, is the only sustainable outcome; recognize the political legitimacy of each other’s systems, however distasteful; construct shared norms and institutions in areas of friction such as Taiwan, the South China Sea, and technology; exercise restraint in developing capabilities that threaten the other’s deterrence systems; agree on basic rules for world order; and strengthen crisis-management channels to prevent miscalculation.
To translate this into policy, the report recommends six deliberate moves for the US. First, Washington should clarify that its goal is not China’s overthrow but a stable, rules-based rivalry. Second, it must reestablish senior-level communication channels to rebuild minimal trust. Third, it should institutionalize crisis-management mechanisms, particularly around Taiwan and maritime disputes. Fourth, it should negotiate limited accords to restrain cyber and AI competition. Fifth, the US and China should mutually recognize each other’s nuclear deterrence and avoid doctrines that invite preemption. Finally, Washington should pursue narrow cooperative projects—climate, health, scientific exchanges—to maintain some connective tissue in an otherwise adversarial relationship.
Trump’s visit reflected this thinking very much. For example, throughout this tour, Trump made no mention of the QUAD—an anti-China alliance comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia. It means that Washington is moving away from its strategy of building economic and military alliances with anti-China states, such as India and Japan, to use them as counterweights to China’s influence. This narrative aligns with what the RAND report refers to as recognizing the legitimacy of China and its ruling party.
Beyond Ambitions
Having said this, none of this means that a complete reset has taken place, or will take place soon. Undoubtedly, several bones of contention have been healed, but several remain. Trump’s meeting with Xi, for instance, produced a tactical easing of tensions rather than a strategic breakthrough. Both leaders agreed to cut US tariffs on Chinese imports from roughly 57 to 47 percent, while Beijing pledged to resume large purchases of American soybeans and temporarily lift its export restrictions on rare earth minerals—an issue Trump declared “completely resolved” for now. China also committed to tightening controls on the export of fentanyl precursors, offering Trump a domestic win. Yet these agreements are largely short-term gestures: most are limited to a year, and none address the deeper structural rifts over Taiwan, technology export controls, or military rivalry. In effect, the meeting delivered a pause—a breathing space for both sides to stabilize strained supply chains and political optics—rather than a genuine reset of relations. The underlying strategic mistrust remains intact, making this more a tactical truce than a transformation of US-China relations.
Trump’s tour and his carefully choreographed diplomacy signal that Washington is experimenting with a softer, more disciplined form of competition—one that seeks to manage, not eliminate, China’s rise. Yet the contradictions at the heart of this strategy remain unresolved. The US still ultimately wants to lead Asia while pretending to share it; it seeks coexistence but clings to primacy. The Pentagon’s call for mutual legitimacy and restraint may sound pragmatic, but it runs up against the political and ideological reflexes of an America that views China as a rival to be outlasted, not accommodated. Trump’s gestures toward peace and partnership may buy time and goodwill to achieve this objective ultimately. China, however, will be very mindful.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
Iran’s top security official says the West is using the country’s missile capabilities as a means of pressure, stressing it is in no position to comment on the issue.
“The current debate on Iran’s missiles is not out of genuine security concerns but rather serves as a tool to exert pressure and restrict the country’s defensive power,” Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani said on Monday.
He added that it is irrelevant for the West to comment on the range of Iran’s missiles, questioning their involvement in the matter.
“What does it have to do with the West that it comments on the range of Iran’s missiles?” he asked.
Larijani, who was a former nuclear negotiator, emphasized that Western countries also use the nuclear issue as a pretext to harbor animosity towards the Iranian nation, saying the US and Europe are raising issues about the range of Iran’s missiles with the aim of imposing control and dominance.
“No country is entitled to interfere in the Iranian nation’s defensive power,” which is a matter of independence, Larijani pointed out.
The United States and its European allies have repeatedly called for any future agreement on Iran’s nuclear activities to include its ballistic missile program as well.
Tehran has consistently rejected that demand, saying its military capabilities are non-negotiable.
Iran held five rounds of talks on a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal prior to the US-Israeli airstrikes on the country and its nuclear facilities in mid-June.
In his remarks, Larijani further pointed to Iran-West relations and the Islamic Revolution’s stance on the country’s political, cultural, and economic independence, adding, “Iran is neither seeking control [over other nations] nor is submissive to the dominance of any power.”
Larijani further pointed to Iran-West relations and the Islamic Revolution’s stance on the country’s political, cultural, and economic independence, adding, “Iran is neither imperialistic nor submissive to the dominance of any power.”
Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Iran has increased its trade relations with the East, Muslim countries, and the neighbors, although for years the West was Iran’s primary trading partner, the SNSC secretary noted.
He slammed the West’s arrogant policies with respect to political and security issues, saying the policy resulted in a crisis in its cooperation with Iran.
Larijani stressed the importance of maintaining Iran’s independence “because freedom, culture, and economy will not remain stable in the absence of independence.”
The West, under the guise of advocating human rights and peace, has been the main obstacle to the independence of nations for centuries, he asserted.
Iran’s top security official described national unity as the “greatest asset” of the country, warning of plots to weaken the will of the Iranian people.
He said the Iranian nation has proved over the past four decades, particularly during the US-Israeli war in mid-June, that it will never compromise over its independence.
“Iran will not retreat from its path of independence and dignity, even if it means facing full-scale confrontation,” he emphasized.
He reaffirmed the Iranian nation’s will to stand strong and rational in the face of “modern brutality.”
Commercial nuclear power has turned into the welfare energy de jure. It is politically correct despite many decades of failure to compete against other forms of thermal energy. Uranium might be the ultimate energy density-wise, but nuclear fission (and more so nuclear fusion) is the most complicated, expensive, fraught way to boil water.
Commercial nuclear power was government-created in the 1950s and remains government dependent today. (Stay tuned: my primer on the history of this energy source is forthcoming. [1]). Regarding the present, consider this example from Jamie Smyth, editor of US Energy, who wrote:
Nuclear technology company Oklo has no revenues, no licence to operate reactors and no binding contracts to supply power. But this has not stopped the Silicon Valley-based start-up from riding a wave of investor enthusiasm that has propelled its stock market valuation above $20bn, a rise of more than 500 per cent since the turn of the year.
He provided the background.
The company, backed by technology boss Sam Altman and with close ties to Donald Trump’s energy secretary, has set ambitious targets to deliver commercial power to its first customers in 2027, having broken ground on its pilot in Idaho last month.
Oklo, led by the husband-and-wife team Jacob and Caroline DeWitte, envisages a future powered by a new generation of small modular reactors that use liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant. The company is seeking to become a leader among businesses that will supply energy hungry data centres with the power they need to fuel the artificial intelligence boom.
Yet the surge in its shares, buoyed by enthusiasm from retail investors who make up an outsized proportion of its shareholders, has worried experts who fear the stock has become wildly overheated. It is among the highest valued pre-revenue businesses listed in the US.
A government play, like Tesla. Political capitalism with the US DOE ready to subsidize commercial nuclear power. Nuclear is the new subsidy baby, or welfare queen, the politically correct replacement for wind/solar/batteries under a new political regime.
The siren song of “competitive” nuclear power continues into its seventh decade. Taxpayer and ratepayers beware.
———————
[1] “Nuclear Power: A Free-Market Perspective.” American Institute for Economic Research, forthcoming.
Iran has set a new record in its oil exports despite the continued pressure of US and UN sanctions, according to the latest data from a leading energy analytics firm.
The Tankers Trackers said in a post on its X account on Sunday that Iran had exported an average of 2.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil over the past four weeks.
“These are numbers we haven’t seen since the early half of 2018,” the post said.
Iran’s oil exports came under sweeping US sanctions in May 2018, when Washington withdrew from a landmark international deal on Iran’s nuclear program, known as the JCPOA.
The sanctions affected Iranian oil shipments when they were tightened in May 2019, but they gradually became ineffective as Iran managed to restore and expand its exports, particularly to private buyers in China.
The Tanker Trackers had already reported a seven-year record in Iran’s oil exports in September when shipments reached nearly 2 million bpd.
That report came just before the United Nations re-imposed six sanction resolutions on Iran that had been lifted in 2015 when the country signed the JCPOA with world powers.
The US and allies in Europe, who triggered the so-called snapback of UN sanctions on Iran, had expected that the sanctions could curb the flow of oil from Iran to major customers like China.
However, experts and authorities in Iran have consistently downplayed concerns raised about the country’s oil exports, arguing that UN sanctions wouldn’t affect Iran’s oil trade or its access to international markets.
Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad said in early October that UN sanctions would not add any new pressure on the country’s oil exports as he insisted that the country had overcome some of the harshest American sanctions targeting its oil industry in recent years.
The unwillingness of Bangladesh to condemn Russia over the Ukraine conflict was one of the reasons the US wanted to oust Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, former cabinet minister and chief negotiator Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury has said in an interview with RT.
Hasina, who led Bangladesh for 15 years, fled the country in August 2024, following weeks of violent student-led protests which claimed 700 lives, according to some estimates.
Chowdhury, who served as the country’s shipping minister, was at the heart of negotiations between the authorities in Dhaka and demonstrators during the crisis. The country has been led by an interim government since then, which pledged to hold an election in 2026.
Chowdhury told RT in an exclusive interview to be aired on Monday that the uprising was instigated by NGOs linked to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Clinton family.
Asked about what Washington’s problem with Hasina’s government was, he pointed to “Bangladesh’s position during the time of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.”
“There was a resolution that was brought in the UN. And there was intense lobbying for Bangladesh to vote against Russia. So our position was that we are going to abstain from voting,” the former minister stated.
Many other countries in South Asia were “simply slavishly following what was being dictated to them,” but Bangladesh “had to carefully balance our international relations,” he said.
“Russia is a long-term ally of Bangladesh,” which supplies the country with “a lot of wheat, a lot of food products, fertilizers,” Chowdhury explained.
“The people in the Global South suffer the most” due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which is being “escalated by certain powers,” he said, adding: Hasina’s government “called for peace” and “recognized [that] warmongering… [was] leading to a humanitarian catastrophe. So, that was not liked by certain countries.”
Bangladesh abstained from voting on several UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Moscow over the Ukraine conflict and calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops in 2022 and 2023. The Russian embassy in Dhaka thanked Bangladesh for its stance.
Russia sees readiness from the administration of US President Donald Trump to continue dialogue but undoing the damage done to bilateral ties under Joe Biden will take significant time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
In addition to ongoing discussions on resolving the Ukraine conflict, Russia and the US held two rounds of high-level talks in Saudi Arabia and Türkiye earlier this year, dedicated to restoring the proper functioning of diplomatic missions and other forms of cooperation. A planned third round of negotiations did not take place, with Moscow saying it was canceled by the US.
In an interview with RIA Novosti on Saturday, Lavrov said there are “many irritants in Russian-American relations, inherited from the previous US administration [of Joe Biden],” adding that “it will take a long time to clear up the mess.”
After the arrival of the Trump administration in January, Moscow “sensed willingness to resume dialogue. It is happening, but not as quickly as we would like,” the foreign minister stressed.
According to Lavrov, US-Russia discussions must not solely focus on the work of diplomatic missions, but also address the issues of the return of “illegally” seized Russian diplomatic property and the restoration of air links between the two countries.
Russia and the US drastically limited the number of each other’s diplomatic staff as relations deteriorated over the past decade. In late 2016, the administration of outgoing US President Barack Obama restricted Russian diplomats’ access to residences in New York and Maryland, and later seized additional Russian properties. The suspension of flights and closure of US airspace to Russian carriers were among the sanctions imposed on Moscow by the Biden administration after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
“Our proposals regarding both diplomatic real estate and air travel have been conveyed to the US side. Working contacts are currently underway regarding the possibility of continuing dialogue,” Lavrov said.
Last month, Trump imposed sanctions on Russian oil giants Rosneft and Lukoil, citing lack of progress in peace talks on Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the “unfriendly move” would not hurt Russia’s economy, but could hamper the normalization process with Washington.
MOSCOW – The United States has informed Russia through diplomatic channels that it is considering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s idea of maintaining the restrictions laid down in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) beyond February 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Sputnik in an interview published on Sunday.
“There has been no substantive response from Washington yet. As we were told through diplomatic channels ‘the matter is under consideration,’” the minister said.
The idea of maintaining the restrictions outlined in the New START agreement beyond February 2026 is simple and does not require in-depth discussion, Lavrov added.
“The constructive initiative put forward by President Putin in the post-New START sphere speaks for itself. It has no hidden agenda and is extremely easy to understand. Its practical implementation will not require any specific additional efforts. Therefore, we see no need for in-depth discussion of our idea,” he said.
Russia is not going to persuade the US to accept Putin’s proposal, Lavrov also said.
“We are not going to persuade anyone. We believe that our act meets the interests of both parties and the entire international community. We are prepared for any developments. However, we hope that the outcome will be positive,” he said.
The initiative requires only reciprocity on the part of the US, and Russia will adhere to voluntary restrictions only if and as long as the other side does the same, the minister added.
Putin has announced that Russia was ready to continue adhering to the restrictions under the START treaty for one year after February 5, 2026. The Russian president has explained that the steps taken to comply with the START restrictions would be effective if the US reciprocated. US President Donald Trump reportedly called Putin’s proposal on the INF Treaty a good idea.
Revolutions are funny things. They start out almost imperceptible. The final straw itself may be as inconsequential as a single voice in the crowd whose words unleash a tidal wave that sweeps aside the seemingly intractable old order forever.
Even as the cracks in the Eastern Bloc began to materialize in 1989, starting in June in Hungary, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu’s Romania seemed impervious to the winds of change. They maintained a cult-like grip on power aided by the notorious and ubiquitous Securitate, the secret police.
On 21 December 1989 Ceausescu decided that the best way to quell a bubbling cauldron of unrest in Transylvania over the past several weeks was to appear, himself, with his wife Elena, above Bucharest’s Palace Square. Workers were bussed in and given red banners to wave in support of the regime. It was to be a show of force that would solidify the existing order.
After all, no one would dare challenge Ceausescu to his face.
As he confidently approached the microphone from the balcony and began mechanically repeating the tired old slogans of communism, suddenly a voice broke through with a high pitched scream, followed by an increasing din. The discordant sounds of protest rendered Ceausescu speechless and confused.
That second, when the false edifice of his rule was punctured and the impossibility of his position exposed, communist rule died in Romania.
America’s foreign policy has been a lot like the rule of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Since President Reagan opened the door to the gang of “former” Trotskyites from New York who were hell bent on worldwide revolution while being ideologically driven by their absolute devotion to the state of Israel, US foreign policy has been dominated by an equivalent of Ceausescu’s Partidul Comunist Român.
Anyone who attempted to challenge the neocon dominance over US foreign policy was drummed out of society by the equivalent of Ceausescu’s Securitate. One by one, Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, the John Birch Society, Ron Paul, and any voice raised in opposition to neocon dominance over foreign policy was brutally attacked by the likes of William F. Buckley, Jr. and his minions of enforcers in the media and the think tanks, and the corridors of power and influence.
Trotsky is reputed – perhaps apocryphally – to have said that, “to oppose the state is to die a slow starvation,” and that is certainly true for any foreign policy analyst over the past 40-plus years who has spoken out against neocon dominance. No jobs, no publications, no way to be heard or even exist.
But suddenly that Berlin Wall has fallen.
Future history may record America’s “Ceausescu Moment” as November 6th, 2025.
The same mainstream/”alt” media and conservatism-industrial-complex that has refused to acknowledge Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s sharp turn against neocon, pro-Israel foreign policy have done their best to harness and re-direct the Charlie-less TPUSA back onto the foreign policy reservation. With a doubting Charlie conveniently gone, they assumed they could ascend the “Palace Square Bucharest” balcony, grab the microphone, and return America’s conservative youth to the “wisdom” of Bill Kristol, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Mark Levin, and the rest of the blood-soaked dinosaurs.
However our own “high-pitched scream” that deflated Ceausescu came on November 6th not from a Mamdani “communist,” or from an “America-hating” Muslim, nor Hamas-devoted foreign student, nor tortured trans-genderist…or even a generic leftist.
No, it came from a corn-fed, conservative, earnest, American student at Auburn University in Alabama with the slow drawl of our great country’s 250 year history. In other words, the epitome of the Red, White, and Blue that burns in the soul of every American patriot.
The young man approached the open microphone and addressed President Trump’s son Eric and his wife Laura – ambassadors of the President’s claim to be the most pro-Israel Administration in US history – with a respectful set of questions.
I’d like to ask about your father’s relationship with Israel. He’s taken over $230 million from pro-Israel groups. In the summer even though the US advised against it, Israel attacked Iran and the US still bombed on behalf of Israel…Israel has not been a good ally to the US since the 1960s when they bombed the USS Liberty.
The crowd of CONSERVATIVE young Americans erupted into wild applause.
Israel is a nation where Christians are constantly under attack… We talk about America first and defending Christians, but how can we do this if we align ourselves with a nation that does not do that itself?
At this point the applause among TPUSA’s conservative youth was deafening.
Deer-in-the-headlights Eric Trump does a Ceaucescu, repeating the slogans of the old order and hoping their magic will still quell the restive population.
You have a nation chanting ‘death to America’ every single day on the streets of Tehran. You have a nation that will develop a nuclear weapon and that will use that nuclear weapon.
These are standard Benjamin Netanyahu talking points from 30 years ago. Laura looked like Elena. Arranging her perfect hair as the crowd remained silent at Eric Trump’s well-rehearsed applause lines. Silence. They’ve heard it all before and they have done their own research and know that these are neocon lies.
Guys: Iran wanted to destroy our way of live they wanted to hurt us they wanted to inflict real pain.
Silence. They’ve done their own research.
Eric then repeats the absurd claim that his father solved eight wars (involving countries whose names he cannot pronounce) and the silence continued. The bumper sticker slogans no longer worked with Charlie Kirk’s kids just as Ceaucescu’s slogans no longer worked with a Romania sick to death with it’s subservience to a dying Communist bloc.
This is a genie that can no longer be put back into the bottle. Toothpaste out of the tube. The same social media harnessed early on by the US “regime change” operatives seeking to fulfil the neocon project has been captured by young American conservatives who are revolting against the destructive “Israel-first” party line of their boomer forebears and no underhanded sale of TikTok to pro-Israel fanatics will change the fact.
From this point on, like Ceaucescu, Trump’s people dare not address openly the number one youth movement of their ideological base. They dare not risk stop after stop being questioned by earnest young conservatives about America’s toxic and self-destructive supplication to the state of Israel. They will go back into Nicolae Ceaucescu’s bunker. Terrified of the very “America First” movement they have launched.
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
This Thursday, US President Donald Trump announced that Kazakhstan will be joining his so-called Abraham Accords project, which seeks to bring together Arab and Muslim-majority nations in a quest to normalize ties and form a regional alliance. Yet, this move reflects desperation rather than a significant advancement.
On the Kazakhstan move, Trump took to Truth Social to explain that “We will soon announce a Signing Ceremony to make it official, and there are many more Countries trying to join this club of STRENGTH”.
The countries that Kazakhstan will join are the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.
While the Trump administration has been engaged in talks with the new Syrian leadership to bring them into the fold of the agreement, with its primary goal being the facilitation of a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the US government is now settling with a non-Arab country that will have little bearing on the overall project.
Kazakhstan’s joining the so-called Abraham Accords makes no sense, not only due to its irrelevance when it comes to regional affairs, but the Central Asian country had normalized ties with Israel back in 1992.
A far cry from Riyadh or Damascus, Astana appears like a rather desperate attempt to keep the ball rolling and demonstrate that the normalization process is ongoing.
Although Saudi Arabia appeared poised to normalize ties with Israel, as its leader, Mohammed bin Salman, even hinted at, prior to October 7 of 2023, it remains clear that achieving such a deal now will prove very difficult.
This also seems to have been a factor in Riyadh’s recent military pact with Islamabad, which could serve as protection in the event of another regional escalation between the US-Israeli-led alliance and Iran.
Contrary to Donald Trump’s framing of the “Abraham Accords” as a peace alliance, the very opposite is the truth. It was, in fact, an initiative that was born out of the desire to kill Saudi Arabia’s ‘Arab Peace Initiative’, a project which entailed the Arab and Muslim-majority nations agreeing to sign onto normalization deals in exchange for a viable Palestinian State.
Ultimately, due to the weakness of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Arab Peace Initiative served as the only remaining bargaining chip for achieving a Palestinian State inside the territories occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war.
Taking this chip off the table means the collapse of the PA’s leverage, hence putting them in the position where they must choose between two options: to disband and relaunch the liberation struggle, or to submit and accept the end of their role in the Palestinian cause.
Out of the three nations that committed themselves to the Trump normalization agenda, the only one that has seen any benefit has been the United Arab Emirates. However, even in the UAE’s case, the deal only works in favour of its rulers.
Bahrain is irrelevant and was likely only included due to Saudi Arabia’s testing of the waters, while Morocco was forced into the agreement through ultimatums.
There was not only immense pressure placed upon Rabat by the US, but also the UAE, which used all kinds of pressure points, such as port projects and the issue of Western Sahara, to force Morocco’s hand.
Similarly, following the ousting of former Sudanese President Omar Bashir, the new military leadership was blackmailed and pressured into committing itself to the accords. Sudan was stripped of its state sponsor of terrorism designation, had its sanctions removed, and offered financial relief, yet descended into a horrifying war that Israel played a role in helping to start.
Saudi Arabia knows the potential consequences of joining this alliance and that it would pit them against their neighbour Iran, in a way that sets them on the war path. The UAE is also rapidly becoming a Pariah for its role in Sudan, but also its overt collaboration with the Israelis in their genocide against the people of Gaza.
When it comes to Syria, its new leadership has attempted to reach a so-called “security agreement” with the Israelis, which, despite the best efforts of Damascus to frame it as falling short of normalization, is in essence a recognition agreement.
Yet, due to Syria’s leadership being so incredibly weak and proving incapable of running the country, the Israelis themselves have expressed doubts about the viability of such an agreement. If a deal with Tel Aviv is going to be struck, it will be on Israel’s terms and could cause enormous issues for Damascus.
Trump resorting to dragging along Kazakhstan comes off as desperate; it indicates that the Abraham Accords are far from attractive to regional countries at this time and adds no value to the strategy. More than anything, it serves as a public humiliation ritual that implicates Kazakhstan in the Gaza genocide.
Media interest in Saudi Arabian connections to the crimes of 9/11 has centered on calls for the release of the 28 missing pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry’s report. However, those calls focus on the question of hijacker financing and omit the most interesting links between the 9/11 attacks and Saudi Arabia—links that implicate powerful people in the United States. Here are twenty examples. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
