Amid a growing rift between Israel and the White House, one foreign policy analyst says the meeting "will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation."
By Stephen Prager
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Mar-a-Lago to meet with US President Donald Trump on Monday, amid a growing rift with the president and his advisers, reports say he’ll seek to push the US back toward war with Iran.
Last week, NBC Newsreported that at the meeting, “Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Trump that Iran’s expansion of its ballistic missile program poses a threat that could necessitate swift action” and that “the Israeli leader is expected to present Trump with options for the US to join or assist in any new military operations.”
“Netanyahu plans to press Donald Trump for US backing for another round of war with Iran, now framed around Iran’s ballistic missile program,” said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Netanyahu’s pivot to missiles should therefore be read not as the discovery of a new threat, but as an effort to manufacture a replacement casus belli after the nuclear argument collapsed.”
He noted criticisms levied against Netanyahu by Yair Golan, chair of the Democrats, a center-left party in Israel, earlier this week: “How is it possible that last June, at the end of the war with Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu solemnly declared that ‘Israel had eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat and severely damaged its missile array’; and that this was a ‘historic victory’—and today, less than six months later, he is running to the president of the United States to beg for permission to attack Iran again?” Golan said.
Iran is just one of several areas the two will likely discuss on Monday. According to Israeli officials who spoke to the WashingtonPost, Netanyahu also reportedly wants Trump to “take a tougher stance on Gaza and require that Hamas disarm before Israeli troops further withdraw as part of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan.”
The chief of Israel’s armed forces suggested earlier this week that its occupation of more than half of Gaza would be permanent, but walked those comments back after reported behind-the-scenes outrage in the White House. Meanwhile, Trump—invested in his image as a peacemaker—has reportedly balked at Israel’s routine violations of the ceasefire agreement he helped to broker in October.
Near-daily strikes have resulted in the death of at least 418 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Media Office. Meanwhile, Israel’s continued blockade of humanitarian aid has left hundreds of thousands of people—displaced from homes destroyed by Israeli bombing—to languish in the cold without tents. Desperately needed fuel, food, and medicine have entered the strip at far lower numbers than the ceasefire agreement required.
As Axiosreported on Friday, Trump’s advisers increasingly fear that Netanyahu is intentionally slow-walking and undermining the peace process in hopes of resuming the war.
Netanyahu also seeks Trump’s continued backing of Israel’s territorial expansion in Syria. Earlier this month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pushed through a UN-monitored demilitarized zone between Israeli and Syrian-held positions in the Golan Heights, which Israel illegally occupies.
This push into southern Syria went against the wishes of the Trump administration, which feared it could destabilize the Western-backed government that rules in Damascus following the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel has also routinely struck Lebanon in violation of the US-brokered ceasefire it signed with Hezbollah in late 2024, with bombings becoming a near-daily occurrence in December. Last month, the UN reported that at least 127 civilians, including children, had been killed in Israeli strikes since the ceasefire began.
“Netanyahu’s visit unfolds against a backdrop of unresolved fronts, with widening disputes with Washington over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, including postwar governance, reconstruction, and Turkish involvement,” Toossi said. “At the same time, Israel is seeking greater latitude to escalate again against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an end to US accommodation of Syria’s new leadership, and firm assurances on expanded military aid.”
“Taken together, Netanyahu’s visit is less about resolving any single crisis than about postponing strategic reckoning,” he continued. “The outcome will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation, or whether this meeting marks the beginning of clearer limits on Israel’s regional strategy.”
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where... healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," the San Francisco lawmaker said.
By Stephen Prager
US Rep. Ro Khanna defended California’s proposed tax on extreme wealth Saturday after a pair of prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists threatened to launch a primary bid for his California House seat.
The proposal, which advocates are gathering signatures to place on the ballot in 2026, would impose a one-time 5% tax on those with net worths over $1 billion to recoup about $90 billion in Medicaid funds stripped from the state by this year’s Republican budget law. The roughly 200 billionaires affected would have five years to pay the tax.
While higher taxes on the superrich are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, the proposal has rankled many of California’s wealthiest residents, as well as California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this month that he’s “adamantly” against the measure.
On Friday, the New York Timesreported that two of the valley’s biggest powerbrokers—venture capitalist and top Trump administration ally Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page—were threatening to reduce their ties to California in response to the tax proposal.
This has been a common refrain from elites faced with proposed tax increases, though data suggests they rarely follow through on their threats to bail on cities and states, even when those hikes are implemented. Meanwhile, the American Prospect has pointed out that the one-time tax would still apply to those who moved out of the Golden State.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is both a member of the House’s progressive faction and a longtime darling of the tech sector, has increasingly sparred with industry leaders in recent years over their reactionary stances on labor rights, regulation, and taxation.
In a post on X, the congressman reacted with derision at the threats of billionaire flight: “Peter Thiel is leaving California if we pass a 1% tax on billionaires for five years to pay for healthcare for the working class facing steep Medicaid cuts. I echo what [former President Franklin D. Roosevelt] said with sarcasm of economic royalists when they threatened to leave, ‘I will miss them very much.’”
Casado, who donated to Khanna’s 2024 reelection campaign according to OpenSecrets, complained that “Ro has done a speed run, alienating every moderate I know who has supported him, including myself.”
“Beyond being totally out of touch with [the moderate] faction of his base, he’s devolved into an obnoxious jerk,” Casado continued. “At least that makes voting him the fuck out all the more gratifying.”
Casado’s post received a reply from another former Khanna donor, Garry Tan, the CEO of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator.
“Time to primary him,” Tan said of Khanna.
Tan, a self-described centrist Democrat, has never run for office before. But he is notorious for his social media tirades against local progressives in San Francisco and was one of the top financial backers of the corporate-led push to oust the city’s liberal former district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022.
Casado replied: “Count me in. Happy to be involved at any level.”
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball marveled that “Tech oligarchs are now openly conspiring against Ro Khanna because he dared to back a modest wealth tax.”
So far, neither Casado nor Tan has hinted at any concrete plans to challenge Khanna in 2026. If they did, defeating him would likely be a tall order—since his sophomore election in 2018, a primary challenger has never come within 30 points of unseating him.
But Khanna still felt the need to respond to the brooding tech royals. He noted that he has “supported a modest wealth tax since the day I ran in 2016,” which prompted another angry retort from Casado, who accused the congressman of “antagonizing the people who made your district the amazing place it is” with a tax on billionaires.
Khanna hit back at his critics with a lengthy defense of not just the wealth tax, but his conception of what he calls “pro-innovation progressivism.”
“My district is $18 trillion, nearly one-third of the US stock market in a 50-mile radius. We have five companies with a market cap over $1 trillion,” Khanna said. “If I can stand up for a billionaire tax, this is not a hard position for 434 other [House] members or 100 senators.”
“The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds,” Khanna continued. “Yes, we need entrepreneurs to commercialize disruptive innovation... But the idea that they would not start companies to make billions, or take advantage of an innovation cluster, if there is a 1-2% tax on their staggering wealth defies common sense and economic theory.”
“We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where 70% of Americans believe the American dream is dead and healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable,” he concluded. “What will stifle American innovation, what will make us fall behind China, is if we see further political dysfunction and social unrest, if we fail to cultivate the talent in every American and in every city and town... So, yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy.”
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
By Stephen Prager
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against “ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians.”
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday’s attack, which landed just feet away from the town’s only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, toldAl Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration’s explanation that their home is at the center of a “Christian genocide” left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria’s parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: “We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this.”
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that “since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed” by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump’s strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an “oversimplified” narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz’s overwrought claims of “Christian genocide.”
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines.”
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration’s attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a “holy war.”
“This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing,” she told Democracy Now! in November. “It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people.”
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of “taking back” that nation’s oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump’s concern for the nation’s Christians due to his administration’s denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: “I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country.”
The attacks came as Trump and Zelenskyy are expected to discuss critical questions in a Ukraine-Russia peace deal, including its territorial sovereignty, NATO protections, and control over its natural resources.
By Stephen Prager
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made his way to Florida for a pivotal set of talks this weekend with US President Donald Trump, Russia launched a barrage of drone and missile attacks on Kyiv early Saturday morning.
At least two people were killed in the Ukrainian capital during the 10-hour attack, with 44 more—including two children—injured. Hundreds of thousands of residents are left to brave near-freezing temperatures without heat following the attack, which cut off power supplies.
The attack came as Zelenskyy prepared to stop in Canada before meeting with Trump on Sunday to discuss a 20-point plan to end the nearly four-year war with Russia that has been the subject of weeks of negotiation between US and Ukrainian emissaries.
Zelenskyy is seeking to maintain Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty without having to surrender territory—namely, the eastern Donbass region that is largely occupied by Russian forces. He also hopes that any agreement to end the war will come with a long-term security guarantee reminiscent of NATO.
On Friday, Zelenskyy told reporters that the peace deal was 90% complete. But Trump retorted that Zelenskyy “doesn’t have anything until I approve it.”
Trump has expressed hostility toward Zelenskyy throughout his presidency. In February, before berating him in a now-infamous Oval Office meeting, Trump insisted falsely that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for starting the war in 2022.
Zelenskyy’s latest peace proposal was issued in response to Trump’s proposal last month, which was heavily weighted in Russia’s favor.
It called for Ukraine to recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and cede the entirety of the Donbass, about 2,500 square miles of territory, to Russia, including territory not yet captured. Trump’s plan puts a cap of 600,000 personnel on Ukraine’s military and calls for Ukraine to add a measure in its constitution banning it from ever joining NATO.
Earlier this year, Trump demanded that Ukraine give up $500 billion worth of its mineral wealth in what he said was “repayment” for US military support during the war (even though that support has only totalled about $175 billion).
In his latest proposal, Trump has pared down his demands to the creation of a “Ukraine Development Fund” that would include the “extraction of minerals and natural resources” as part of a joint US-Ukraine reconstruction effort.
While those terms appear less exploitative, the reconstruction program is expected to be financed by US loans from firms like BlackRock, which have been heavily involved in the diplomatic process.
“The infrastructure rebuilt with these loans—ports, rail lines, power grid—won’t be Ukrainian in any meaningful sense. It’ll be owned by international consortiums, operated for profit, with revenues flowing out to service the debt,” wrote the Irish geopolitical commentator Deaglan O’Mulrooney on Tuesday. “In other words, Ukraine will be gutted.”
Despite the criticism, Zelenskyy has signaled support in principle for the US reconstruction proposal as an alternative to direct expropriation.
The “red lines” for Zelenskyy heading into his talk with Trump are related to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. He has said he will not recognize Russian control of the Donbass, or the Zaporizhzhianuclear power plant, the largest nuclear facility in Europe, which Russia currently controls. He has also demanded that all terms of a peace agreement come up for a referendum among the Ukrainian people, which is strongly against territorial concessions.
At the same time, however, he insisted Saturday that “Ukraine is willing to do whatever it takes to stop this war.”
"I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that," said Imran Ahmed, one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration.
By Jessica Corbett
After a US judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from detaining one of the European anti-disinformation advocates hit with a travel ban earlier this week, Imran Ahmed suggested that he is being targeted because artificial intelligence and social media companies “are increasingly under pressure as a result of organizations like mine.”
Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The 47-year-old Brit lives in Washington, DC with his wife and infant daughter, who are both US citizens. While the Trump administration on Tuesday also singled out Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of HateAid, and Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who helped craft the Digital Services Act, Ahmed is reportedly the only one currently in the United States.
On Wednesday, Ahmed, who is a legal permanent resident, sued top Trump officials including US Attorney General Pam Bondi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
“Rather than disguise its retaliatory motive, the federal government was clear that Mr. Ahmed is being ‘SANCTIONED’ as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs,” the complaint states. “In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights.”
“The government’s actions are the latest in a string of escalating and unjustifiable assaults on the First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny,” the filing continues. “Simply put, immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration.”
Just a day later, Judge Vernon Broderick, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration from arresting or detaining Ahmed. The judge also scheduled a conference for Monday afternoon.
The US Department of State said Thursday that “the Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here.”
Ahmed’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that “the federal government can’t deport a green-card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn’t like what he has to say.”
In the complaint and interviews published Friday, Ahmed pointed to his group’s interactions with Elon Musk, a former member of the Trump and administration and the richest person on Earth. He also controls the social media platform X, which sued CCDH in 2023.
“We were sued by Elon Musk a couple of years ago, unsuccessfully; a court found that he was trying to impinge on our First Amendment rights to free speech by using law to try and silence our accountability work,” Ahmed told the BBC.
Months after a federal judge in California threw out that case last year, Musk publicly declared “war” on the watchdog.
“What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable,” Ahmed told the Guardian. “There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference, and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people.”
Ahmed explained that he spent Christmas away from his wife and daughter because of the Trump administration’s track record of quickly sending targeted green-card holders far away from their families. He said: “I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that. My family understands that.”
The British newspaper noted that when asked whether he thought UK politicians should use X, the former Labour Party adviser told the Press Association, “Politicians have to make decisions for themselves, but every time they post on X, they are putting a buck in Mr. Musk’s pocket and I think they need to question their own consciences and ask themselves whether or not they think they can carry on doing that.”
Ahmed also said that it was “telling that Mr. Musk was one of the first and most vociferous in celebrating the press release” about the sanctions against him and the others.
“He said it was great, and it is great, but not for the reasons that he thinks,” the campaigner said. “Because what it has actually done is give a chance for the system to show that the advocacy that we do is both important and protected by the First Amendment.”
"We won't forget him nor the 360+ health workers Israel has abducted from Gaza since October 2023," said CodePink.
By Brett Wilkins
Ahead of Saturday’s one-year anniversary of Israel abducting Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya from the Gaza hospital he ran, advocates demanded the release the scores of health workers still imprisoned by Israeli occupation forces.
“One year ago, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya was abducted by the Israeli military along with dozens of other medical staff during a horrific raid on the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza,” Dr. Yipeng Ge, a member of Doctors Against Genocide, said Friday on social media. “Free Hussam Abu Safiya. Free them all.”
Activist Petra Schurenhofer said on X: “It’s been a year since Israel abducted and illegally detained Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. And since then he has been languishing in an Israeli jail, being subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. Don’t forget him. And don’t stop calling for his release.”
Abu Safiya, the 52-year-old director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, was seized on December 27, 2024 as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops continued their yearlong siege and raids on the facility in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza. The IDF claimed without evidence that Kamal Adwan—the last major functioning hospital in northern Gaza at the time—was a Hamas command center.
During a previous Israeli attack on Kamal Adwan, Abu Safiya’s 15-year-old son was killed in a drone strike. Abu Safiya was seriously wounded in a separate drone attack that left six pieces of shrapnel in his leg.
After his capture, Abu Safiya was first jailed at the notorious Sde Teiman prison in Israel’s Negev Desert—where dozens of detainees have died and where torture, rape, and other abuses have been reported—and then Ofer Prison in the illegally occupied West Bank.
Abu Safiya said he has endured torture by his captors—including beatings with batons and electric shocks—and suffered severe weight loss, broken ribs, and other injuries, for which he was allegedly denied adequate medical care.
Israeli authorities deny these accusations. However, there have been many documented and otherwise credible reports of health and medical workers being tortured by Israeli forces—sometimes fatally, as in the case of Dr. Adnan al-Bursh, who headed the orthopedic department at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
Abu Safiya remains in Israeli custody, despite having not been charged with any crimes. Israeli courts have extended his detention multiple times under so-called “unlawful combatant” legal provisions.
In January, Abu Safiya’s mother died of a heart attack that MedGlobal, the Illinois-based nonprofit for which Abu Safiya worked as lead Gaza physician, attributed to “severe sadness” over her son’s plight.
According to United Nations agencies and other experts, Israeli forces have destroyed or damaged nearly all of Gaza’s hospitals in hundreds of attacks since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. More than 1,500 Palestinian health workers have been killed.
Last year, an independent United Nations commission found that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system as part of a broader assault on Gaza, committing war crimes and the crime against humanity of extermination with relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities.”
Albina Abu Safiya, the imprisoned doctor’s wife, pleaded last week: “Save my husband before it is too late. His only ‘crime’ was saving the wounded and tending to the wounds of children.”
JOIN THE MOVEMENT
As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future.
Time after time, fact-checkers and news outlets have pointed out that contrary to Trump and Vance’s claims, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) did not eliminate taxes on Social Security.
An AI-generated video posted on social media on February 25, 2025 by US President Donald Trump showed a Trump hotel in Gaza.
(Photo: screenshot/ Truth Social)
If the first 25 years of the 21st century have proved anything, it is that America was emotionally, morally, and intellectually incapable of acting as a global leader.
By David Hearst
It is tempting to distill all the chaos, hatred, and blood spilled in 2025 into the small frame of one man: Donald Trump.
It is true that Trump richly deserves the accolade of being the worst, but also the most consequential president in modern US history.
Three months after unveiling his “big beautiful peace plan,” a reality is established on the ground in Gaza that is its parametrical opposite—an ugly, petty recipe for war without end.
Never has so much been expected of a mind that is truly so small.
Killing Palestinians has become an Israeli national obsession.
Israel Katz, the defense minister, has just announced plans to settle northern Gaza permanently: “We are deep inside Gaza and we will never leave all of Gaza; there will be no such thing. We are here to protect and prevent what happened,” Katz said.
So much for any hope of a full withdrawal envisaged by the Trump plan.
A ‘Moral Collapse’
Bounced like a pinball between Moscow and Kyiv, Trump has been unable to secure in Ukraine in a year what he promised as a candidate to achieve within days.
When Bob Reiner, a Hollywood director and long-time critic, was killed along with his wife by his son, in a family tragedy so deep it should elicit sympathy from any parent, Trump’s bile could not contain itself.
Reiner’s death was his own fault because he had driven others “crazy” with his obsession with Donald Trump, the president declared on Truth Social.
This is the mentality of the man to whom every rich Arab state in the Middle East has paid good money and now looks to for salvation.
Never has so much been expected of a mind that is truly so small.
This is the man whom Turkey hopes will force the Kurds to join the as-yet nonexistent national armed forces of Syria; the man whom Qatar hopes will install an international stabilization force on the borders of Gaza, the man from whom Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear reactor, the man on whom the leader of Egypt—most likely the next Arab leader to fall—depends on for his very survival.
The only power that profits from this chaos is the power that is not involved: The meta story of 2025 is the confirmation of China as crown prince, as a world leader in waiting—a rise that has been handed to it on a silver plate.
More valuable to China than all its own strategic patience, planning, and thinking added together has been the moral collapse of America. All China has had to do is weather Trump’s tariff tantrums and watch the US collapse unprompted under its own weight.
Turning Victory Into Defeat
How did the US pluck defeat from the jaws of victory? Arrogance, hubris, the belief that as the last man standing, we were the only man standing, are all part of the story.
So the outgoing liberal elites of America and Europe, who have been in power for so long, are surely deluding themselves if they ascribe the chaos of 2025 to the rise of the extreme right at home and abroad.
We are not only seeing out one terrible year, but the first quarter of the century. It has been a terrible start.
The wars fought in defense of democracy destroyed all belief in the system at home.
If you compare how powerful America and the West were in Christmas 1991, when I watched the Soviet flag descend on the building of the Russian Supreme Soviet and chart a course to where they are now, you can only come to one conclusion: that when America had the chance to become the world’s uncontested leader, it blew it.
In 1991, America held the monopoly over the use of force abroad. Today, there are as many drone attacks as there are state actors or non-state actors who own them.
In 1991, Russia was on its knees. Today, its forces menace not just Ukraine but the whole of Western Europe.
In 1991, the streets of Russia were so pro-Western that there was a debate in the media as to whether they should continue using the word West, as Russia was now part of it.
Today, they are prepared to sacrifice a whole generation of Russian youth in a war that is framed in Moscow as a war with America.
Losing wars is another part of the jigsaw.
The Pentagon and NATO headquarters in Brussels should really have asked themselves a long time ago, why Western alliances “of the willing” have not won a war since Kosovo in 1998.
Interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Syria have all been defeats. Whether those interventions were declared or undeclared, whether they were led from the front or from behind closed doors, the result was the same.
The quick thrill of toppling regimes was followed in each country by the sober reality of insurgency, civil war, and ultimately military withdrawal.
Imagined Foes
Ideology also played its part. I do not mean the ideology of “radical Islam,” but the ideology that made the US and its allies such an aggressive world force.
It goes far beyond 19th-century imperialism, which, by comparison, was fairly limited in its ambitions.
It is the belief that at any one time in history, Western liberal democracy is faced by an implacable, transnational, and existential foe.
During the Cold War, it was communism. After it, al-Qaeda became a world threat. Then came Daesh, or the so-called Islamic State.
Even though these imagined foes have nothing in common with each other, they are given the same characteristics.
During the Vietnam War, it was the Domino theory, a theory that warned if the dominoes of Southeast Asia were allowed to fall to communism, Australia would be next.
This ideology preexisted major events like the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001, and helped transform what should have been a limited anti-terrorist operation into an all-out “war on terror.”
It was critical to this project that the West did not define the enemy.
Hence, Vladimir Putin’s first bloody war as prime minister and later president of Russia, the war he launched on Chechnya, was merrily folded into George W Bush’s “war on terror.”
The then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair was duly sent by Washington to invite Putin to meet Queen Elizabeth II, as the horrors of Russian counterinsurgency were tried out on the Chechens 22 years before the same techniques were applied to the Ukrainians.
But what did it matter, Western intelligence calculated. They were only Muslims.
Now, 25 years on, America seems congenitally incapable of learning from its mistakes.
Terminal Decline
When Dick Cheney, the former vice president and the architect of the war on terror, died recently, the tributes came in thick and fast.
Former President Bill Clintonextolled Cheney’s “unwavering sense of duty,” while former Vice President Kamala Harriscalled him a “devoted public servant” who gave “so much of his life to the country he loved.” CNN‘s front-page story lauded him for helping “his daughter stand up to Trump.”
They praised a man who constructed an elaborate double lie as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he had links with al-Qaeda.
We only need a real financial collapse to recreate the conditions of the 1930s.
In 2004, Cheney said: “I continue to believe, I think there’s overwhelming evidence [of a]… connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.”
There have been many attempts to assess the human cost of the Iraq war. The latest in 2023 by Brown University researchers, using United Nations data, concluded that the invasion of Iraq and related “war on terror” campaigns killed more than 4.5 million people.
This figure includes about 1 million direct deaths and 3.5 million indirect deaths. The wars also killed 7,000 US troops and 8,000 contractors, according to the study.
There is something in the psyche of an imperial power in terminal decline that blocks out the obvious truth: The wars fought in defense of democracy destroyed all belief in the system at home.
Even before a new generation of ideologues assumed power in Washington, the old regime of liberal Zionists, like Joe Biden, had armed and allowed Israel to do most of the killing in Gaza, the West Bank, south Lebanon, and Syria.
So, the collapse of moral governance is truly a bipartisan achievement. The year 2025 capped 25 years of failure.
A New Leadership
What happens next? It is alas very far from being goodbye to all that, because all of the unfinished business in the Middle East and Ukraine will keep on coming back to haunt the retreating West.
You can only keep on supporting Israel by blinding yourself to the daily reality of what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
Even if Israel changes its prime minister and slows down its settlement scheme, it will become evident that the Palestinian state recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 of the 193 UN member states is impossible to create.
It is to the West Bank, not Gaza, that all eyes should be turning in 2026.
Israel’s mission to annex the West Bank can be as clearly seen through Christian eyes as it is through Muslim ones, as Middle EastEye‘s Lubna Masarwa and Peter Oborne report on how Christians in Bethlehem face an existential threat.
The pressure on governments by their people will grow. They will do their best to outlaw demands for Palestinian justice. But the more they seek to oppress, the more of a domestic civil rights issue Palestine will become.
The real sin of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has not so much been to keep as close to Washington as possible on Israel, but to establish the infrastructure of an authoritarian government that will be fully used by his potential successor, Nigel Farage.
The late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to grant “special category status” to the 1981 Irish hunger strikers is being replicated today, even though her response led to the death of 10 men, including the MP Bobby Sands, and a government capitulation on the core demand.
No matter.
Lord Timpson, the UK’s prisons minister, is intrepidly following in Thatcher’s footsteps in the way he is dealing with the hunger strike by youths on remand for taking part in direct action on behalf of Palestine Action.
Timpson said: “We are very experienced at dealing with hunger strikes. Unfortunately, over the last five years, we have averaged over 200 hunger strike incidents every year, and the processes that we have are well-established and they work very well—with prisons working alongside our NHS [National Health Service] partners every day, making sure our systems are robust and working—and they are.”
We will see in 2026 how long that confidence in the system lasts if one of those hunger strikers dies. We will also see the divide that has opened up between Israel and the Jewish diaspora getting wider.
If 2025 was the year when the fig leaf around Israel’s true genocidal character dropped away, the first years of the next quarter of this century will be dominated by more Jews in America demanding and creating an entirely different political leadership.
This is supposed to be America’s century. If the first 25 years have proved anything, it is that America was emotionally, morally, and intellectually incapable of acting as a global leader.
At the moment that failure is leading to the rise of the extreme right all over the West and potentially the rise of fascists. We only need a real financial collapse to recreate the conditions of the 1930s.
If that, in turn, spurns a new generation of leaders capable once again of governing with authority, morality, and modesty, then it will have been a lesson worth waiting for. But at what price?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.