Latest Analysis and Commentary
by Con Coughlin • May 3, 2026 at 5:00 am
What would be unpardonable is if US President Donald J. Trump simply replaced a brutal Islamic dictatorship with an equally brutal non-Islamic dictatorship -- as seen in other adversaries of the West such as Russia, China, and North Korea. At the height of the violence in mid-January, Trump memorably told the Iranian protesters that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY", while calling on the anti-regime activists to "seize control of your destiny." Iran is still drawing out negotiations as it reconstructs its nuclear and missile sites. Meanwhile, concerns are growing that Trump is losing interest in the plight of ordinary Iranians. He has recently been stating that he no longer regards regime change in Iran as one of his major objectives. His message has regrettably "gone wobbly"... Such backtracking on the part of the US president -- the beacon of freedom to the world -- would leave the Iranian people at the mercy of pitiless thugs who would simply replace one form of state-sponsored repression with another, thereby denying the Iranian people their hopes of finally achieving freedom from their oppressors. The fear now, with the Trump Administration appearing to back away from its original demand of total regime change in Iran, is that... the regime's hardliners will resort to acts of extreme violence to ensure their new dictatorship's survival. As Trump has assured the hardliners that there will be no regime change, they know their power is secure -- under no threat -- so they are under no pressure to comply with Trump's demands. All they need to do is remove whatever so-called "moderates" might still be around and in their way. There are, in fact, no moderates in the Iranian government, any more than there were in Nazi Germany's government. The diplomatic standoff between the US and Iran should, at the very least, lead Trump to conclude that, so long as the IRGC and its hardline supporters have a say in the negotiations, the prospect of reaching an acceptable deal remains remote. If the American president is really serious about securing a deal, then he needs to deny the hardliners any say in Iran's destiny and, as he originally promised, to help the Iranian people achieve a true regime change. It is the only way to achieve a peace that will last.
What would be unpardonable is if US President Donald J. Trump simply replaced a brutal Islamic dictatorship with an equally brutal non-Islamic dictatorship -- as seen in other adversaries of the West such as Russia, China, and North Korea. Pictured: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un attend a military parade in Tiananmen Square, Beijing on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Kazakov/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
As the Trump administration's attempts to agree to a lasting ceasefire with Iran drag on, it is vital that the White House not lose sight of a key objective -- one originally highlighted but then abandoned in the Iran conflict -- namely that the war result in the overthrow of Iran's brutal dictatorship. What would be unpardonable is if US President Donald J. Trump simply replaced a brutal Islamic dictatorship with an equally brutal non-Islamic dictatorship -- as seen in other adversaries of the West such as Russia, China, and North Korea. From the start of the year, when Iran's security forces killed more than 36,500 civilians in attempts to crush anti-government protests, Trump had made no secret of his desire to achieve regime change in Tehran. At the height of the violence in mid-January, Trump memorably told the Iranian protesters that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY", while calling on the anti-regime activists to "seize control of your destiny."
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • May 3, 2026 at 4:00 am
However, assured by Trump that he isn't after regime change, those fighting over power in Tehran feel no need to surrender in order to survive. Most of the cash Iran has received for oil exports in decades came from brown and black markets and money laundering through two Turkish banks, an Austrian bank, an Italian bank, and financial facilities in other countries. According to the Tehran office of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, Iranian food imports account for 11 percent of domestic consumption. Iran has enough emergency reserves of food for at least six months without causing bread riots. The so-called Caspian Sea-Volga River route connects Iran to Russia, eastern, central and northern Europe. Another route connects Iran to the Black Sea via Armenia and Georgia. More important is the transit channel that Iran has been using through Turkey for decades. Echoing old Kremlinologists, the US Secretary of State talks of hawks and doves in Tehran fighting over power. That reminds one of post-Stalin Soviet Union and post-Mao Zedong China. In neither case did we have either hawks or doves. We had ravens and vultures posing as hawks and doves but quick to act as chickens when and if they faced a determined hunter. The leftover regime in Tehran knows that and is trying to coax him into a maze of pseudo- negotiations starting with confidence-building steps, proceeding with interim discrete accords and moving to modalities of implementation, as was done with seven previous US presidents.
Assured by Trump that he isn't after regime change, those fighting over power in Tehran feel no need to surrender in order to survive. Pictured: Members of the Iranian security forces stand under a billboard of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on April 9, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
When President Donald Trump triggered the current war against Iran more than 60 days ago, the assumption mostly promoted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the junior partner in the enterprise, was that the whole thing would be wrapped up within weeks by Tehran implicitly admitting defeat, as it did in an earlier episode known as the 12-day War. That was why the force deployed and the war plans provided for a short and sharp campaign with boots on the ground not considered even as a theoretical necessity. Though now proven illusory, that assumption sounded plausible at the time. What Trump didn't take into account was the fact that the only person who could have admitted defeat without risking his own life was no longer there. Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei had been assassinated in an Israeli air strike.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • May 2, 2026 at 5:00 am
Critics often frame Iranian politics as a struggle between moderates and hardliners, but this distinction has repeatedly proven disastrously misleading. Different styles may appear, but the overarching objective remains the same: preserving the Islamist regime of Iran to continue jihad (holy war). Softer rhetoric has emerged when the regime needed economic rescue or a diplomatic opening. Once the pressure recedes, the underlying strategic behavior remains unchanged. In many ways, so-called "moderates" have historically served as the most effective guardians of the system: they are able to secure concessions from the outside world while preserving the internal order. They present hope abroad while maintaining continuity and deeper control at home. Trump appears aware of this pattern but, perhaps concerned about the political pressure on him at home, has sometimes, alarmingly, looked tempted to settle for it. By maintaining pressure while demanding quick movement, Trump is turning time against Iran's regime rather than allowing the regime to use time against the United States. This reversal may be one of the most strategically important developments in US-Iran relations in years. For decades, the Iranian regime's leadership has relied on delay, patience, ambiguity, and the hope that Western governments would eventually accept half-measures in exchange for temporary calm. Trump appears determined finally to end that cycle: delay no longer guarantees survival.
Critics often frame Iranian politics as a struggle between moderates and hardliners, but this distinction has repeatedly proven disastrously misleading. Different styles may appear, but the overarching objective remains the same: preserving the Islamist regime of Iran to continue jihad (holy war). Pictured: Iranian army soldiers stand in front of a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei during a rally to support the regime in Tehran, on April 29, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
No one since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 has read the Iranian regime better than US President Donald J. Trump. Despite the criticism from commentators, the opposition party, social media voices, and members of the foreign policy establishment, no political leader has understood Tehran's methods more clearly, or acted against them with greater decisiveness. Many negotiated with Iran's regime. Many hoped it would change. Trump recognized a central truth that others have either ignored or refused to confront: the Iranian regime survives by deception, delay, and the constant purchase of time.
Continue Reading Article
by Gordon G. Chang • May 1, 2026 at 5:00 am
The Chinese regime's protection of its AI businesses raises the issue of what America must now do to protect its tech. There are two things. First, America should mirror China's actions.... Xi Jinping is determined to keep Chinese technology in China. America should be at least equally determined to keep American technology in America. Therefore, if Americans cannot buy Chinese AI companies, then China should not be allowed to buy American AI companies. Reciprocity has to be reintroduced as the fundamental basis of relations with China. America is ahead of China in AI, so interchanges will generally benefit China, on the principle that water flows downhill. Unfortunately, America's AI lead these days is measured in months, not years. Chinese criminality explains why the U.S. lead has been narrowed. The second thing America should do is not sell any advanced microchips, such as Nvidia's H200 chip, to China. "You want to sell the Chinese enough that their developers get addicted to the American technology stack," Lutnick explained last July to CNBC's Brian Sullivan. "That's the thinking." That "thinking," reasonable on its face then, no longer holds up after the reversal of the Manus deal. Xi has made it clear that he is developing his own tech universe.
The Chinese regime's protection of its AI businesses raises the issue of what America must now do to protect its tech. With China blocking Meta's deal to acquire Manus, Xi Jinping has made it clear that he is developing his own tech universe. Pictured: Illustration of Manus, an autonomous artificial intelligence agent. (Image source: Riccardo Milani/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images)
On April 27, China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced it had blocked a foreign acquisition of Manus, the Chinese AI startup. The one-line statement did not explain the NDRC's reasoning. Nor did it mention that the acquirer was Meta Platforms, which had agreed to acquire Manus for more than $2 billion. Meta had wanted to offer Manus's AI agent, a product the company offers, which can perform skilled work autonomously, across its various platforms. Manus was founded in China but migrated to Singapore. A number of Chinese startups have moved to the city-state in a technique known as "Singapore-washing" to facilitate, among other things, raising capital. The Meta-Manus deal was announced in December. In January, the NDRC said it was investigating the acquisition. In March, the two Manus co-founders were barred from leaving China. On April 27, the U.S. social media giant said the acquisition "complied fully with applicable law."
Continue Reading Article
by Bassam Tawil • April 30, 2026 at 5:00 am
Six months after the ceasefire went into effect in the Gaza Strip, Hamas remains firmly in power. Despite international promises, diplomatic initiatives, and the much-publicized "Board of Peace," the Iran-backed Islamist group has not disarmed, relinquished control, or moderated its behavior. Instead, it appears to be using the ceasefire as an opportunity to entrench its rule, regroup militarily, and tighten its grip on the Palestinian population. The persistence of Hamas rule also raises serious questions about the Trump administration's policy. Why is Hamas still in power six months after the ceasefire? Why has Trump's "Board of Peace" failed to achieve its most basic objective: forcing Hamas to hand over its weapons and relinquish control over the Gaza Strip? If anything, the ceasefire has strengthened Hamas, giving it time to rearm, reorganize, and reassert control over the population. Why is there insufficient pressure on key mediators such as Egypt and Qatar to hold Hamas accountable? What concrete steps will the Trump Administration take to ensure that Hamas does not remain the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip? Without decisive action, the current approach is legitimizing an Islamist terror regime, Hamas, committed to Israel's destruction, engaged in the systematic abuse of its own people, and, as the Trump Administration has seen with Iran, no intention whatever of giving up its rule. So long as Hamas remains in power, there can be no positive future for the Gaza Strip.
If anything, the ceasefire has strengthened Hamas, giving it time to rearm, reorganize, and reassert control over the population. Pictured: Hamas terrorists in Jabalia refugee camp, in the Gaza Strip, on December 1, 2025. (Photo by Omar Al-Qataa/AFP via Getty Images)
While much of the world's attention remains fixed on Iran and the broader regional conflict, a darker and largely ignored reality is unfolding inside the Gaza Strip: credible and deeply disturbing reports of sexual exploitation, abuse, and coercion carried out under Hamas rule. New testimonies emerging from the Gaza Strip reveal that Hamas terrorists are systematically sexually exploiting vulnerable Palestinian women -- demanding sex in exchange for basic aid, food, and shelter. The accounts describe a predatory system targeting widows, displaced mothers, and divorcees without male breadwinners, with victims threatened into silence by Hamas operatives.
Continue Reading Article
by Ahmed Charai • April 30, 2026 at 4:00 am
[P]arts of the West have become too cautious in naming the nature of the threats they face. The question is whether, at a time when the West is confronted by terrorism, tyranny, nuclear intimidation, and the suffering of innocent people, the Crown's moral voice can still remind Britain — and the world — of the principles that stand above the calculations of daily politics. It can. And it should. The Iranian regime is not a normal state pursuing normal interests. It is a revolutionary system built on coercion at home and intimidation abroad. It imprisons, tortures, executes, and kills its own citizens. It threatens dissidents beyond its borders. It arms proxies across the Middle East. It menaces Israel. It destabilizes its neighbors. It uses diplomacy when useful, violence when possible, and ideology always. Its danger is not confined to Tehran, Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, or the Gulf. It reaches into Europe. It reaches into Britain itself. This is not diplomacy. It is intimidation by another name. Peace is not silence before terror. Peace is not the avoidance of difficult truths. Peace is not asking democracies to restrain their language while tyrannies unleash violence, repression, and fear. [Britain] cannot invoke the memory of Churchill while appearing uncertain before a regime that despises liberty under law, pluralism, religious tolerance, and the dignity of the individual. Peace without justice is not peace. It is postponement. Abandonment... [s]ometimes ... arrives through diplomatic language so carefully balanced that it loses all moral meaning. Sometimes it arrives when leaders speak of stability while ignoring the victims of the system they are trying to stabilize. [Britain]cannot invoke the memory of Churchill while appearing uncertain before a regime that despises liberty under law, pluralism, religious tolerance, and [P]olicy is not merely the management of interests, but the defense of principles.
There are moments in diplomacy when ceremony is not decoration, but strategy by other means. The visit of Britain's King Charles III to Washington belonged to that category. Pictured: Charles speaks with President Donald Trump during a state arrival ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on April 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
There are moments in diplomacy when ceremony is not decoration, but strategy by other means. The visit of Britain's King Charles III to Washington belonged to that category. It came not at a quiet moment in Anglo-American relations, but at a moment of visible strain between Washington and London — above all over Iran, the Middle East, and the question of Western resolve. The state visit was therefore more than a royal occasion. It became a mirror. It revealed the enduring strength of the Atlantic alliance, but also the unease beneath it: the concern that parts of the West have become too cautious in naming the nature of the threats they face. At the White House state dinner, President Donald Trump brought Iran directly into his remarks, insisting that the regime must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Charles, by contrast, did not address Iran publicly, consistent with his constitutional role as a non-political sovereign.
Continue Reading Article
by Gerald M. Steinberg • April 29, 2026 at 5:00 am
[Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth] Roth and his chorus, including morally blind academics claiming legal expertise, promote an imaginary "rules-based international order" that paralyzes democracies while protecting despotic dictators. Under their absurd version of international law, preventive and preemptive strikes – like those carried out by the US and Israel – would be prohibited except against what they refer to as immediate, obvious, and universally acknowledged threats. In this form of unilateral disarmament reminiscent of European pacifists of the 1920s and 1930s, nothing can be done to restrain the world's malicious dictators and warmongering aggressors before they begin mass slaughter. Whether in London, Ottawa, Berlin, or even Wellington, no plausible interpretation of international law requires democracies to wait passively for such catastrophic threats to become real.
When a terror regime builds missiles, arms proxy militias, and advances toward nuclear capability while proclaiming its desire to destroy its neighbors, inaction is suicidal. Whether in London, Ottawa, Berlin, or even Wellington, no plausible interpretation of international law requires democracies to wait passively for such catastrophic threats to become real. Pictured: The International Criminal Court building in The Hague, Netherlands. (Photo by Nicolas Guyonnet/Hans Lucas//AFP via Getty Images)
Grandiose declarations by Western politicians claiming preventive force against murderous regimes is somehow illegal have become de rigueur. The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Norway and most European countries have weighed in with parallel and often identical statements on the essential importance of obeying international law while waging war against Iran and its terror proxies, such as Hezbollah. Such statements are a revealing snapshot of the shallow and dangerous Western discourse on war, law, and justice. Much of this is thanks to NGO personalities like Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, who have transformed rational conversation on human rights and the use of force in self-defense into ideological weapons. Roth and his chorus, including morally blind academics claiming legal expertise, promote an imaginary "rules-based international order" that paralyzes democracies while protecting despotic dictators and terrorist tyrants.
Continue Reading Article
by Drieu Godefridi • April 28, 2026 at 5:00 am
Europe is economically dependent on the United States, not on Russia. Russia, for its part, mainly sold hydrocarbons such as oil and gas — 85% of its oil exports to the EU before 2022 — and bought almost nothing from Europe. Europeans have therefore been in a position of unilateral dependence -- not supposed "interdependence." Most European states possess no aircraft carriers, no missile defense, and no supply fleet. Europe seems only to have funds for endless welfare benefits handed out to migrants who seem committed to transforming Europe into the extremist, third-world countries that they left. German industry is experiencing a severe depression.... The cause, however, is not the loss of Russian gas. It is 100% internal — and 100% ideological. It is Germany's suicidal decision to phase out nuclear power in 2011, then coal in 2030, without a credible alternative. The solution exists and is within reach.... Above all, stop believing that Germany's €5 trillion economy can be "decarbonized" in ten years without causing an industrial, economic, and ultimately democratic collapse. Russia is not the solution; it is part of Europe's problem. Those in Paris, Berlin, or Brussels who continue dreaming of a "Brussels–Berlin–Moscow axis" are not realists. They are dreamers.
German industry is experiencing a severe depression. The cause, however, is not the loss of Russian gas. It is 100% internal — and 100% ideological. It is Germany's suicidal decision to phase out nuclear power in 2011, then coal in 2030, without a credible alternative. Pictured: One of the cooling towers of the decommissioned Gundremmingen nuclear power plant is demolished in a controlled explosion on October 25, 2025, in Gundremmingen, Germany. (Photo by Karl-Josef Hildenbrand/AFP via Getty Images)
Some ideas refuse to die. One of these is the notion of a European "reversal of alliances" into the arms of Russia. The phrase refers to the unexpected decoupling from former allies, accompanied by an unexpected alliance with former enemies. In 1756, Austria, which had always been an ally of Great Britain, instead allied with its longtime foe, France. Meanwhile, Great Britain and its old enemy, Prussia, became allies -- resulting in the Seven Years' War. You hear it in Europe from the "new right" and the far left -- at conferences where people swoon over "multipolarity" and in the corridors of Germany's Bundestag, where desperate industrialists plead for Russia's Gazprom to reopen its taps. If this reversal of alliances was possible in 1756, why not in 2026? Europe is economically dependent on the United States, not on Russia
Continue Reading Article
by Lawrence Kadish • April 28, 2026 at 4:00 am
Nuclear fusion is yet another historic, trailblazing opportunity that Trump and his team are initiating for the race against China and for the future of America. China has already invested more than $13 billion since 2023 developing fusion energy, and has exported a tokamak (a magnetic plasma confinement reactor) to Thailand. Pictured: The HL-2M tokamak, at a research laboratory in Chengdu, China on December 4, 2020. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)
If the US is ever successfully to compete with China for global supremacy in the field of artificial intelligence and other technological advances, much of it will depend on the massive amounts of inexpensive, clean energy to generate the electricity required, helped by the two generous oceans on either side of the US that offer more than enough hydrogen for an endless supply. China, in a race to displace the US as the world's leading superpower, has already invested more than $13 billion since 2023 developing fusion energy, and has exported a tokamak (a magnetic plasma confinement reactor) to Thailand. President Donald J. Trump, farsightedly as always, and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, have seen that what is usually meant by "nuclear reactors" -- fission energy -- simply are not providing enough energy for the US to remain the world's leader in AI and technology.
Continue Reading Article
by Khaled Abu Toameh • April 27, 2026 at 5:00 am
So long as Arabs and Muslims are taught by law, religion and social pressure that contact with Israelis is forbidden, the prospects for peace and coexistence will remain out of reach. If [Lebanese President Joseph] Aoun... were to accept Trump's invitation to meet Netanyahu at the White House, he would effectively be violating Lebanon's own anti-normalization law, which prohibits all economic, professional, cultural, or social relations between Lebanese nationals and Israeli citizens and entities. Countries such as Syria and Iraq have long maintained sweeping prohibitions on contact with Israelis, with penalties that have included life imprisonment and even death. In Kuwait, similar laws – backed by parliamentary legislation and Islamic religious rulings – criminalize normalization with Israel and treat it as an act of treason. Even Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel more than four decades ago, has a law that authorizes the revocation of Egyptian citizenship if a national is "qualified as Zionist." The Egyptian government has used this law, passed in 1975, to revoke the citizenship of Egyptians who marry Israeli nationals. Another prominent Islamic body, the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), has issued a fatwa (Islamic ruling) forbidding normalization with Israel. The ruling came in response to the normalization agreement signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates more than five years ago. According to IUMS, normalization agreements are "not reconciliations or truces... rather, they are a concession of the holiest and most blessed of lands and a recognition of the legitimacy of the occupying enemy [Israel]." The purpose of these laws and religious rulings is clear: to deter, punish, and stigmatize any form of coexistence with Israel. By criminalizing people-to-people engagement, Arab and Muslim leaders and institutions send a powerful message to their populations: peace with Israel is not merely undesirable, but a crime. This message is reinforced through media campaigns, professional blacklisting, and public accusations of "treason" against those who dare to engage with Israelis. Where peace is illegal, peace is impossible. Washington has diplomatic, economic, and political leverage with many of the countries that enforce these laws. The question is whether it is willing to use it.
If Lebanese President Joseph Aoun were to accept US President Donald Trump's invitation to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, he would effectively be violating Lebanon's own anti-normalization law, which prohibits all economic, professional, cultural, or social relations between Lebanese nationals and Israeli citizens and entities. Pictured: Aoun (R) meets with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Baabda, Lebanon, on January 9, 2026. (Photo by Courtney Bonneau/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
US President Donald J. Trump recently said that he has never heard of a Lebanese law banning contact with Israel. "I never heard of that, but... I'm pretty sure that'll be ended very quickly," Trump told reporters. "I know Lebanon doesn't want that... That's crazy." Trump is right. These laws are "crazy." They are also poisonous. So long as Arabs and Muslims are taught by law, religion and social pressure that contact with Israelis is forbidden, the prospects for peace and coexistence will remain out of reach. There can be no real stability in the Middle East while anti-normalization laws and campaigns persist. Such laws and campaigns only empower extremists and terrorists who seek Israel's and the region's destruction.
Continue Reading Article
by Ahmed Charai • April 27, 2026 at 4:00 am
Kushner recognized that a younger generation of Arab leadership was increasingly focused on investment, innovation, security cooperation, connectivity, logistics, and economic diversification. In such an environment, diplomacy could no longer be conducted solely through the vocabulary of grievance and procedural delay. It had to be tied to incentives, interests, and outcomes. He was willing to challenge an entrenched orthodoxy... to produce a different outcome. And he delivered one. Washington has always known how to absorb conventional failure more comfortably than unconventional success. The American Dream — the dream of achievement — has always been renewed by generations of builders and innovators who widened the horizon of the possible. [T]he deeper compass of the American idea... success measured not only by wealth, but by contribution. In foreign policy, results matter. And so does the ability to recognize them when they appear.
Pictured: Jared Kushner speaks during the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace on February 19, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Any serious assessment — or judgment — of Jared Kushner should begin not with the controversy his political rivals now seek to place at the center of the discussion, but with the strategic question at the heart of his record: what has he actually accomplished? What, precisely, has he changed in the Middle East, and why has it mattered? These questions go to the heart of Jared Kushner's record. He did not simply take part in Middle East diplomacy — he helped change its direction by treating Arab-Israeli normalization not as the end of a process, but as the starting point for a new regional dynamic. This shift reflected a deeper reading of the region as it was becoming, rather than as many analysts still preferred to describe it. A new Middle East was already emerging: more pragmatic, more transactional, more technologically ambitious, and more attentive to power, opportunity, and national transformation than to the rhetorical comforts of inherited political language.
Continue Reading Article
by Raymond Ibrahim • April 26, 2026 at 5:00 am
"They want everyone to learn Islam, and... there are those who refuse, and they get killed." — A survivor, persecution.org, January 22, 2026, Democratic Republic of the Congo. "How can we understand that fighters have been operating freely for over two weeks in the same area, attacking village after village, without any effective response from the security forces?... The population feels abandoned to its fate, exposed to massacres while official speeches multiply without any visible action on the ground." — barnabasaid.org, January 27, 2026, Democratic Republic of the Congo. "The night I was abducted, they killed my mother and kidnapped my older sister and me. The slightest mistakes are severely punished. For women, they kill their children and throw them into a hole. They would send me to kill people on my own, and when I refused, I was whipped all over my body." — persecution.org, January 22, 2026, Democratic Republic of the Congo. "I was raped by four men successively. I couldn't handle the pain of four men abusing me successively. I was wounded terribly, my body was deformed." — Esther, age 11, persecution.org, January 22, 2026, Democratic Republic of the Congo. ADF uses abduction, forced conversion to Islam, gang rape, and child soldier recruitment as a deliberate strategy to terrorize and reduce the Christian population in eastern Congo. — persecution.org, January 22, 2026, Democratic Republic of the Congo. "Those victims did not pursue legal action, which appears to have emboldened him. He showed no hesitation before attempting to burn Morris alive." — Rakha, morningstarnews.org, January 29, 2026, Pakistan. "The girl was forced to record a statement claiming she had willingly converted to Islam and married Ahmad. She also falsely stated that she was an adult, despite official documentary evidence proving that she is a minor [13] and below the legal age of marriage under provincial child marriage laws, which prohibit the marriage of girls under 16." — Rana Abdul Hameed, lawyer for the family of Maria Shahbaz, morningstarnews.org, January 15, 2016, Pakistan. On Jan. 1, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) "released an image of one of the Christian villages in Adamawa State burning, alongside a statement saying that all Christians in Nigeria are legitimate targets, and they have an opportunity to 'spare their blood' by converting to Islam or paying the jizyah tax to ISWAP." — dailypost.ng, January 1, 2026, Nigeria. "Iran has an open secret. Persecuting Christians is a booming business in the Muslim-majority nation, and the country is earning large sums of money from arresting Christ followers." — persecution.org, January 22, 2026. There were many other attacks on churches throughout Italy in the month of January—including fecal smearing and statue beheadings.
On January 2, the Allied Democratic Forces, which is linked to the Islamic State, attacked three villages in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a Christian-majority nation, killing at least 14. Since December 2024, Islamic State terrorists have claimed the murder of more than 800 Christians in northeastern DRC. Pictured: Members of the Congolese Red Cross bury the bodies of victims of a massacre in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo at Musigiko cemetery in Bukavu on February 20, 2025. (Photo by Luis Tato/AFP via Getty Images)
The following are among the murders and abuses Muslims inflicted on Christians throughout the month of January 2026. The Muslim Slaughter of Christians Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): On Jan. 2, the Allied Democratic Forces, which is linked to the Islamic State, attacked three villages in the Christian-majority nation, killing at least 14. On Jan. 24, Islamic State fighters beheaded five Christians in the village of Musenge, Lubero District. The terrorists celebrated the killings on social media, declaring "Praise be to God [Allah]" for the beheadings of the five Christians. In the same attack, Islamic terrorists burned down a church building, a health center, and 63 homes — nearly the entire village. At least 25 civilians were murdered in the assault. A local community leader asked a question on everyone's mind:
Continue Reading Article
by Amir Taheri • April 26, 2026 at 4:00 am
With the sword sheathed by Trump, the new breed of wannabe "jihadists" moving up the ladder believe they need to establish a reputation as radical bitter-enders who are determined, in the words of Saeed Jalili, one of their gurus, to rub the Great Satan's nose in the dust. Part of [the Iranian regime's] base consists of people who have a material interest in the continuation of the system. That interest may consist of a share in the mafia network that controls over 40 percent of the economy. Many of the political and military leaders eliminated were millionaires, often with sizeable investments in Europe, Canada and the UAE. IRGC chief Major General Hossein Salami was a board member of 32 companies. The late Admiral Ali Shamkhani was one of Iran's five richest men. However, the bulk of regime supporters with material interest in its survival fall into the category of just-about-managing families, enjoying minor privileges such as access to rare commodities, cash bonuses and positive discrimination places in universities and civil service. You may be surprised that all factions within the regime wanted and still want to make a sweetheart deal with the Great Satan. The only problem is that each faction wants that privilege exclusively for itself and sabotages any deal done by a rival faction. By saying that he already has unidentified partners in Tehran and is decided to preserve the regime with them in the driving seat, Trump undermines the potential dealmakers and incites the more radical elements to stick to a rejectionist posture. A deal could be made only if it doesn't appear to tip the balance in favor of one faction in Tehran, a new challenge for the bestselling author of "The Art of the Deal."
With the sword sheathed by Trump, Iran's new breed of wannabe "jihadists" moving up the ladder believe they need to establish a reputation as radical bitter-enders who are determined, in the words of Saeed Jalili, one of their gurus, to rub the Great Satan's nose in the dust. Pictured: Women carry rifles at a pro-regime National Army Day rally on April 17, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
In his torrent of tweets, US President Donald Trump often claims that though he didn't intend to do so, he has succeeded in bringing regime change to Iran. In the new regime he says he has created, he finds unnamed reasonable people with whom he could reach a deal to end the war and make Iran great again, as he has done in America. Sometimes he even goes as far as implying that, barring a few finishing touches, the deal has already been made. I think we should take his claims seriously because they offer a clue to the mindset of a key player in a war that few people wish to see continued. But by claiming that regime change has already happened, he encourages those in Tehran who take that as an insurance policy that allows them to do whatever they like. Regime change is the only thing that frightens them enough to accept a deal to end the war.
Continue Reading Article
by Majid Rafizadeh • April 25, 2026 at 5:00 am
The narratives often suggest that the US campaign has failed and that Tehran remains firmly in control. In reality, however, US President Donald J. Trump has pursued a strategy that departs radically from decades of precedent — one that has left the Iranian regime cornered in ways not previously seen. Rather than adhering to the usual norms of the international system, Trump redefined them — combining military force, economic coercion, serious deadlines and diplomatic "off-ramps" in rapid succession — denying Iran the ability to settle into its familiar pattern of adaptation and delay. Trump met Iran's moves with countermoves that were even stronger, instead of with restraint. "Trump Time" has transformed warfare. In just two sets of days, in June 2025 then again in February 2026, Iran's core military infrastructure was almost totally obliterated, allowing the focus to shift to sustained economic pressure. Trump's "little excursion" has been one of the fastest, most effective, least costly military operations in modern history. "Trump Time" also brought negotiation techniques that departed from past practice. Historically, diplomatic engagements with Iran have been lengthy, baroque, often stretching over years to provide Iran with opportunities for delay and recalibration. Trump instituted shorter timelines sown with threats of escalation, evidently to prevent Tehran from using its favorite stalling tactic: forever-talks. A regime accustomed to orchestrating prolonged cycles of pressure and relief, now finds itself encountering a series of uncowardly, high-impact shocks. Through his unconventional statecraft, and his breaking from a long run of US failures, Trump – in a blend of military assertiveness, economic pressure and strategic unpredictability – decided to win.
US President Donald Trump's dual approach of rapid degradation of Iranian military capabilities combined with sustained economic pressure has reduced Iran's ability to project power abroad and limited its options internally by forcing it to react rather than dictate terms. Pictured: Trump sits between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at a cabinet meeting in the White House in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2026. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
If you listen to the mainstream media, you might come away with the impression that Iran is somehow prevailing — resilient, defiant, and still shaping events across the Middle East. The narratives often suggest that the US campaign has failed and that Tehran remains firmly in control. In reality, however, US President Donald J. Trump has pursued a strategy that departs radically from decades of precedent — one that has left the Iranian regime cornered in ways not previously seen.
Continue Reading Article
by Drieu Godefridi • April 24, 2026 at 5:00 am
[W]ithin Europe itself... institutions pursue the systematic dismantling of their own domestic fossil fuel capacities. The result is not environmental salvation. It is an engineered dependency that can only delight oil producers such as Russia. Households face increasingly high energy bills that contribute to widespread energy poverty. Official EU figures show that roughly 9-10% of the population, more than 40 million people, struggle to heat their homes. "[T]he only cases in which the masses have escaped from... grinding poverty... in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that." — Milton Friedman, economist, 1979. Fossil fuels are not opposed merely for their emissions; they are opposed because they underwrite prosperity, independence, and power — attributes the cultural Marxist worldview seeks to delegitimize. An affluent, independent public is harder to control. Politically, if you are poor and dependent, there is the possibility that you will keep reelecting your incompetent leaders in the hope that they will rescue you. It is in their interest just to keep dangling the promise of rescue in front of you. Europe does not lack energy resources. It lacks the political will to use them. Britain's North Sea oil and gas resources alone are a treasure trove waiting to happen. Until European policymakers confront the ideological roots of this self-defeating strategy — and prioritize the security and prosperity of their own citizens over utopian visions — the continent will continue its slide toward deindustrialization, mass hardship and strategic irrelevance.
Europe does not lack energy resources. It lacks the political will to use them. Britain's North Sea oil and gas resources alone are a treasure trove waiting to happen. Until European policymakers confront the ideological roots of this self-defeating strategy — and prioritize the security and prosperity of their own citizens over utopian visions — the continent will continue its slide toward deindustrialization, mass hardship and strategic irrelevance. Pictured: A section of the UK's Rough 47/3B Bravo gas platform in the North Sea, on June 17, 2024. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)
The European Union's energy policy has reached a level of ideological self-harm that even its harshest critics could scarcely have imagined. The global economy continues to run overwhelmingly on fossil fuels. Transportation, electricity generation, heavy industry, heating, and plastics production all depend on them. The European Commission, in a moment of geopolitical stress, finally acknowledged this truth. When tensions rise in critical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, Brussels joins international calls to keep energy flows open, implicitly conceding that modern civilization cannot function without reliable hydrocarbon supplies. On March 19, 2026, the European Council, which consists of the heads of the 27 European Union nations, issued a statement, saying:
Continue Reading Article
|
