Cyber-Espionage Through IoT Standardization in Agriculture

China’s infiltration into agricultural IoT (Internet of Things) networks represents a critical yet underexplored dimension of its global technological strategy. Through key players such as Huawei and Alibaba Cloud, Beijing has embedded IoT technologies into agricultural systems in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. These initiatives, often framed as development partnerships aimed at improving food production and supply chain resilience, concurrently enable the collection of extensive agricultural and environmental data with profound strategic and geopolitical implications.

Agricultural IoT systems are revolutionizing farming practices by collecting real-time, high-resolution data on variables such as soil moisture, nutrient levels, weather conditions, pest infestations, irrigation patterns, crop growth rates, and logistical movements. Chinese companies like Huawei and Alibaba are at the forefront of this technological advancement, designing platforms that support precision agriculture through the integration of advanced sensors, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence to optimize farm management.

In Kenya, Huawei has actively collaborated with local partners and the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization to implement smart farming solutions aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability. By deploying IoT sensors that monitor critical agricultural parameters and transmitting this data to cloud platforms where AI algorithms provide actionable insights, farmers have reportedly increased crop yields. These initiatives not only boost local agricultural productivity but also strengthen China’s presence in the region’s agricultural sector.

Similarly, in 2020, the Malaysian government entered into a strategic partnership with Alibaba Cloud to advance its Smart Agriculture Agenda, reflecting a commitment to leveraging digital technologies for agricultural transformation. For instance, in 2019, Malaysian agritech company Regaltech partnered with Alibaba Cloud to develop a smart farming platform for durian plantations. Utilizing Alibaba’s ET Agricultural Brain, an AI-powered platform that analyzes vast amounts of agricultural data, IoT devices and drones monitor crop health, optimize resource usage, and automate farming processes. These systems have shown promising results in improving yield quality and consistency while reducing labor costs due to automation.

The strategic implications of this data aggregation are profound. In Argentina—a key supplier of soybeans to China—IOT systems provide granular insights into the production of vital commodities such as soybeans and maize. In 2022, Argentina exported 4.8 million metric tons of soybeans to China, largely for use as animal feed in its burgeoning livestock industry. By analyzing longitudinal data on crop yields, climatic conditions, and supply chain dynamics, Chinese entities can gain the ability to forecast agricultural outputs, identify vulnerabilities to droughts or pest outbreaks, and strategize imports with precision. These insights not only inform economic decisions but also equip Beijing with leverage in trade negotiations with critical partners.

The geopolitical utility of such data is striking. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, IoT systems monitoring declining yields of staple crops due to drought could enable China to secure imports before market disruptions occur. In 2022, China’s agricultural machinery market was valued at over $24 billion, with significant exports to African nations incorporating IoT-enabled “smart farming” solutions underpinned by Chinese cloud infrastructure. These systems, while marketed as tools for development, create dependencies that enhance China’s influence. Data access, often governed by opaque agreements, allows Beijing to maintain strategic leverage over countries that adopt these technologies, especially in scenarios involving climate shocks or food crises.

Moreover, agricultural IoT data could be weaponized to manipulate trade dynamics. A pertinent case is Kazakhstan, where Chinese investments in agricultural infrastructure have integrated IoT systems for monitoring key crops such as wheat and soybeans. With precise yield data, Beijing can forecast shortages or surpluses, negotiate trade terms to its advantage, and adjust import strategies accordingly. Historical parallels, such as China’s imposition of tariffs on Australian barley and wine in 2020 following diplomatic tensions, underscore its willingness to leverage trade relationships for geopolitical objectives. While these actions did not involve IoT, they highlight a pattern of exploiting economic dependencies as instruments of influence.

The situation in Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) provides another revealing example. China has introduced advanced irrigation systems and IoT-based crop management technologies to modernize Pakistani agriculture. Although data-sharing agreements remain unclear, the integration of IoT systems grants China a window into wheat and cotton production trends, enabling preemptive adjustments to imports or policy recommendations that align with its broader geopolitical goals. Similarly, in Laos and Cambodia, Chinese IoT technologies embedded in agricultural systems raise concerns about data sovereignty. These systems potentially allow Beijing to identify food security vulnerabilities, influencing domestic policies and reinforcing economic reliance on Chinese infrastructure.

China’s push for global IoT standardization through initiatives like China Standards 2035 is central to its ambitions in technology and data governance. By embedding proprietary IoT protocols into international frameworks, Beijing ensures that its technologies remain indispensable to global IoT networks. Huawei and ZTE are at the forefront of exporting IoT solutions, particularly to Latin America, where Huawei’s smart agriculture platforms have gained traction. The integration of Chinese-developed encryption technologies ensures compatibility with domestic platforms, consolidating China’s control over these ecosystems and enhancing its capacity to collect and process strategic data.

This influence extends to the control of information flows. Under China’s Data Security Law, companies must share data with state authorities under specific conditions, raising the potential for Beijing to access sensitive information from regions dependent on Chinese technologies. Cross-referencing IoT agricultural data with trade and infrastructure insights could yield comprehensive, multi-layered intelligence on partner nations. Although no concrete evidence has emerged to confirm systematic exploitation of IoT data, such capabilities align with China’s data-driven strategy to extend its influence globally.

The cybersecurity risks associated with agricultural IoT also warrant attention. The 2021 cyberattack on Brazil’s JBS Foods, which disrupted global supply chains for weeks, illustrates the vulnerabilities inherent in digitized agricultural systems. If IoT networks established by Chinese companies were similarly targeted, recovery efforts could be hindered by Beijing’s potential control over critical data, complicating mitigation and policy responses. Such scenarios highlight the dual-use nature of IoT technologies as tools for both development and strategic leverage.

Despite the growing significance of agricultural IoT in China’s digital strategy, it remains an underexplored topic. Analysts and policymakers often focus on areas like telecommunications and AI, neglecting intersections with food security, climate vulnerability, and geopolitical stability. For instance, the USDA’s 2021 report on agricultural innovation failed to address strategic risks posed by foreign-controlled IoT systems. Meanwhile, Huawei continues to expand its presence in Latin America, embedding IoT technologies in a region that plays a pivotal role in global agricultural exports.

Advanced Biometric Surveillance and Behavioral Data Exploitation

Complementing its cyber-espionage activities in agriculture, China has significantly advanced its capabilities in biometric surveillance and behavioral data exploitation. This represents a critical axis of its global digital strategy, intertwining technological innovation with its broader geopolitical ambitions. State-backed enterprises such as Hikvision and Dahua, alongside AI pioneers like SenseTime and Megvii, have spearheaded the development of technologies that extend far beyond traditional facial recognition. Innovations such as gait recognition, voiceprint identification, and emotion detection systems enable unprecedented behavioral monitoring, offering granular insights that elevate surveillance capabilities to new levels.

By 2023, Chinese firms had exported biometric surveillance systems to more than 80 countries across Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. For instance, the Safe City initiative in Kenya, involving approximately 1,800 Hikvision cameras integrated into centralized police monitoring networks in Nairobi, underscores the depth of Chinese involvement. Similarly, in Lahore, Pakistan, Huawei’s surveillance infrastructure merges biometric data with urban management systems under the aegis of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Beyond hardware installations, Chinese firms embed proprietary software ecosystems and advanced machine learning algorithms into these projects, consolidating control over data pipelines and fostering dependencies on Chinese-managed platforms.

The implications of these systems extend well beyond surface-level monitoring. In Zimbabwe, Chinese surveillance cameras equipped with AI analytics have reportedly been deployed to profile political dissidents. In Serbia, a Chinese-developed Safe City system sparked controversy when facial recognition technology was used to track anti-government protesters. These deployments often come with opaque licensing agreements, debt-financed installations, and extensive service contracts, creating long-term technological and financial dependencies.

Chinese biometric surveillance technologies have achieved levels of precision previously considered theoretical. For example, Watrix, a global leader in gait recognition, claims its systems can identify individuals with 96% accuracy from distances exceeding 50 meters, even in crowded environments or when faces are obscured. Such technologies have been deployed in sensitive regions like Xinjiang, where authorities use them to monitor Uighur populations and flag “abnormal behavior.” Meanwhile, in Shanghai, hospitals employ gait recognition systems to restrict unauthorized access, highlighting the technology’s versatility across both security and civilian applications.

Emotion recognition, another frontier in Chinese AI, adds further depth to the surveillance arsenal. By analyzing micro-expressions, vocal intonations, and physiological cues, these systems can infer emotional states with applications ranging from education to law enforcement. For example, in Hangzhou’s Smart Schools initiative, cameras reportedly monitor students’ emotions to optimize classroom management—a practice raising ethical concerns about privacy and mental health. In Xinjiang, similar systems are allegedly employed to evaluate detainees’ stress levels during interrogations. These tools serve China’s broader strategy of “stability maintenance,” embedding surveillance into everyday life to ensure societal control.

Domestically, biometric surveillance underpins China’s Social Credit System, which fuses big data analytics with behavior monitoring to regulate individual and corporate conduct. In cities like Shenzhen, facial recognition cameras identify jaywalkers, publicly displaying their images to shame violators. Some systems go further, sending offenders text messages and linking penalties to their social accounts. While the system’s broader claims—such as restricting access to education or healthcare—remain contentious, its documented impacts include travel restrictions. By 2018, millions of citizens with low social credit scores were barred from purchasing airline and high-speed rail tickets, illustrating how the system enforces compliance through access limitations.

Internationally, the export of Chinese surveillance technology poses profound risks, especially in nations with weak regulatory frameworks. These countries effectively import not just the hardware but also a governance model that facilitates authoritarian practices. In Uganda, Huawei’s $126 million CCTV system, ostensibly designed for crime prevention in Kampala, has been criticized for its use in monitoring opposition figures. In Ethiopia, allegations of misuse have been compounded by reports of data breaches linked to Chinese-built infrastructure, such as the African Union headquarters. These examples illustrate the dual vulnerabilities of technological dependency and political exploitation.

The integration of Chinese standards into emerging markets’ governance infrastructures represents a strategic entrenchment of Beijing’s influence. These systems often come with opaque agreements, proprietary protocols, and maintenance requirements that bind adopters to Chinese firms, embedding surveillance into the operational fabric of public administration. Beyond operational functionality, such exports normalize invasive practices, undermining democratic norms and fostering climates of fear. For nations lacking stringent safeguards, this erosion of civil liberties not only suppresses opposition but also undermines sovereignty, creating a governance model that aligns more closely with authoritarian principles than with democratic ideals.

Integration of Strategies and Global Implications

China’s strategic integration of cyber-espionage in agricultural IoT networks and the global export of advanced biometric surveillance systems is more than a pursuit of technological advancement—it is a deliberate effort to reshape geopolitical influence through digital means. By embedding its technology into the critical infrastructures of emerging economies, Beijing gains unparalleled access to vast datasets that serve both economic and political objectives.

One emerging scenario is the potential intersection of these datasets in influencing food aid decisions during political unrest. Agricultural IoT systems could identify regions at risk of famine, while biometric data profiles assess local populations to gauge levels of dissent or compliance. By aligning aid distribution with behavioral trends, China could selectively stabilize or destabilize regions to further its strategic goals, deepening reliance on its technological and economic infrastructure.

Through proprietary standards and AI-driven insights, China embeds global dependencies that not only reduce partner nations’ autonomy but also enhance Beijing’s ability to shape international norms. This data-driven approach cements China’s influence in a new era of geopolitical power defined by digital dependencies.

Carlo J.V. Caro has a master’s degree from Columbia University and is a political and military analyst. 

When people think about the incoming Trump-Vance administration’s plans to unleash domestic energy production, they likely start with oil and gas drilling, and policies governing fracking and clean coal. Yet nuclear energy has a critical role to play in expanding our domestic energy resources, while also protecting the environment. We shouldn’t let antiquated misperceptions about nuclear production stand in the way.

Support for nuclear energy is at an all-time high in the United States—with 56% of Americans supporting it. Yet this support is lopsided with 70% of men having a favorable opinion of nuclear energy compared to just 44% of women. Women are likely skeptical of nuclear energy due to memories of Soviet-era nuclear mishaps and the notorious Three Mile Island incident, as well as modern fearmongering from the media and radical environmentalists. But nuclear energy has come a long way since then and is now among the most promising technologies in terms of efficacy, safety, and environmental impact.

The incoming Trump administration can appeal to women’s eco sensibilities by highlighting facts about nuclear power as a reliable and environmentally friendly option. Women care deeply about clean air and water conditions, and want natural resources to be stewarded responsibly.

Nuclear energy is the most efficient power source available today. 94 nuclear reactors already supply 18.6% of current U.S. electricity generation. Nuclear, like natural gas, will be essential to meet rising global electricity demand. Unlike intermittent energy sources, like wind and solar, nuclear operates nearly 24/7. It produces near zero emissions while boasting a small environmental footprint compared to utility-scale solar and wind facilities, requiring just a mere square mile of land to accommodate a 1,000 megawatt (MW) power station operating 93% of the year. By contrast, solar and wind function at a fraction of the capacity that nuclear does and require 75 and 360 times more land, respectively, to generate the equivalent amount of electricity. In other words, nuclear power is more dependable, more efficient, requires far less land, and releases negligible carbons—far outpacing renewables on all these measures.

Understandably, women are concerned about the safety protocols and safe storage of nuclear waste (or used nuclear fuel). In the last 60 years, there have only been three significant accidents at nuclear plants worldwide. American nuclear power plants are among the safest in the world and are built to minimize accidental radiation release and meltdowns. Additionally, reactor operators undergo rigorous training and must be federally licensed to supervise these plants. Our Energy Department reports that U.S. facilities pose the least harm to people and the environment due to “safety procedures, robust training programs and stringent federal regulation.”

And while fear about nuclear waste storage is understandable, today there are new and better solutions than ever before. Today, most used nuclear fuel is stored safely at on-site dry casks, and the Trump Energy Department can continue to improve here by prioritizing permanent disposal of nuclear fuel.

When Americans envision nuclear facilities, most start with giant steaming towers like those operated by Homer Simpson. Reality is quite different. In fact, among the most promising developments is the development of small modular reactors (SMRs). These reactors aren’t simply functional; they are aesthetically pleasing and modern.

During his appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, President-elect Trump said he liked nuclear power, but claimed conventional facilities are “…too big and too complex and too expensive.” That’s where SMRs can fill the void.

There are 80 SMR prototypes currently in development. SMRs are capable of producing upwards of 300 megawatts (MW) per module. Used nuclear fuel from bigger reactors is even repurposed to power them.

Two companies are expertly combining functionality with aesthetics—a surefire way to appeal to nuclear-skeptical women. Here in the U.S., the Oklo Aurora powerhouse prototype at the Idaho National Laboratory—slated to go online in 2027—has been lauded for its sky chalet design. Incoming Energy Secretary Chris Wright is a board member for Oklo, a publicly traded nuclear SMR start-up, and can lean on his expertise to get his future boss on board. And across the pond in the United Kingdom, luxury car company Rolls-Royce—unlike competitor Jaguar—is smartly diversifying its portfolio with SMRs. Their prototypes occupy about two soccer fields and are capable of powering about one million homes.

President-elect Donald J. Trump pledged to “unleash energy production from all sources”—including nuclear energy—in a second term. The first Trump administration had 11 major accomplishments pertaining to this reliable power source, including the elevation of the first (and highly qualified) woman, Dr. Rita Baranwal, to oversee the Office of Nuclear Energy.

Women will be essential to making American nuclear energy great again. Let’s hope the incoming Trump-Vance administration taps into this constituency.

Gabriella Hoffman is director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum and host of the District of Conservation podcast. Follow her on X at @Gabby_Hoffman

The United States needs a national security strategy reset. WWII ended 79 years ago, and the U.S. has engaged in some form of conflict for roughly 61 of those 79 years. The post-WWII era has been one of almost continual conflict and to what end? Republican and Democrat Administrations alike have made a practice of rushing into conflict absent decisive strategy and without achieving decisive outcomes.

The post-WWII rules-based order (RBO), centered around the United Nations and other international institutions, is often credited with having provided greater stability and peace in the world since WWII. But this is not true. It is an illusion. The world avoided large scale violent global conflict, but small-scale conflicts in the form of civil wars, border conflicts, regional wars, and terrorism have raged since 1945.

False hopes regarding the rules-based order and its effectiveness have warped the West’s view of war and its understanding of why the Allies were able to achieve a durable victory in WWII.

The Allies won WWII because they broke the will of the Axis powers through the sheer magnitude of death and destruction dealt to their civilian populations, not just to their armies. But ever since then, the United States has so feared conflicts escalating into vicious interstate wars that—perversely—it has tried over and over to fight limited wars for limited objectives, believing that such wars can either achieve our objectives or bring diplomacy into focus.

Counterintuitively, however, limited wars fail to result in long-lasting diplomatic solutions because they are limited. The U.S. fails to make war costly enough to collapse the will of our enemies and, because the U.S. is unwilling to wage war that is sufficiently violent and destructive, war doesn’t deliver decisive outcomes.

It is time for the United States to try a different tack and, by doing so, to also put itself in the position of having to use military power less frequently. With an actual framework to help guide the application of force, the U.S. would also be able to bring greater coherence to how and when it wages war and supports allies and partners.

Anna Simons, Joe McGraw, and Duane Lauchengco published a book in 2011 called, The Sovereignty Solution, which offers a framework worthy of consideration.

The Sovereignty Solution advocates for a national security strategy based on making more, not less of sovereignty. What does this mean? It means that the U.S. responds to violations of its sovereignty forcefully and overwhelmingly in order to stop the violator from engaging in more violence. What the U.S. will not do is deploy forces to reshape or rebuild whole countries and their societies. The U.S. military exists to defend U.S. sovereignty and provide security for its people, its territories, and its national interests and treaty partners. Period. This stands in stark contrast to how the U.S. has employed its military capabilities since 9/11 or how it is addressing Iran’s near constant attacks on U.S. personnel and interests now.

The goal in taking sovereignty seriously is to foster a system of mutual respect among nations. The U.S. will refrain from interfering in, or with, other countries, but where and when U.S. sovereignty is violated, the U.S. will respond forcefully against the perpetrators—and their sponsors. We expect our allies and partners to do the same and will support them when they are true partners (as described in the book).

This approach diverges from traditional strategies by focusing on reducing U.S. combat missions overseas and by insisting instead on strong accountability by states for the actions of their citizens and not just their militaries; to include supporting or providing safe havens for terrorists. The Sovereignty Solution also promotes strengthening countries’ domestic social fabric, addressing vulnerabilities like political polarization, which adversaries can exploit.

There is no better example of how fecklessly the United States currently manages conflict than the Biden Administration’s response to Israel’s current war. The Biden Administration has been bi-polar in its approach to Israel’s conflict and unforgivably submissive towards Iran.

For instance, the Administration supports Israel’s right to defend itself but does so while demanding restraint. How does this make sense when Hamas’s attack on October 7^th of 2023 was the manifestation of Iran’s stated aim of annihilating Israel? The Biden Administration has worked overtime to reign in Israel while leaving Iran and its proxies unchallenged, which in effect protects Iran.

Clearly, President Biden, members of his administration, and many leading Democrats believe that Israel has gone too far in Gaza and is now over-reaching against Hezbollah in Lebanon. They seem to believe that Israel has more than gotten even and should now prioritize finding a diplomatic solution to end the fighting. The Administration believes that only a ceasefire and well-defined road map for achieving a two-state solution will lead to long-term stability, and that this will undermine Iran’s long-term goal of destroying Israel.

But Israel’s defense of itself is not about getting even. And it is not about the Palestinians. It is about re-securing Israel’s sovereignty.

According to a sovereignty rules framework, what happened on October 7^th is that Hamas, the de facto sovereign government of Gaza, violated Israel’s sovereignty through an act of war. Israel therefore not only had the right to reciprocate with overwhelming force, but a duty to reduce Hamas’s military capability so that it can no longer present a viable threat to Israel’s security. Israel has a similar duty vis-à-vis Hezbollah. Likewise, Israel has an obligation to its citizens to strike Iran with as much force as is needed to stop Iran’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and to halt Iran’s own direct attacks on Israel.

Israel has given peace a chance. Israel has given the two-state solution a chance. Israel has long tried trusting the rules-based order to help it protect itself. Indeed, Israel has tried everything militarily possible through overt and covert means to prevent Iran from reaching its stated goal of annihilating Israel—which is the ultimate violation of sovereignty! Yet, none of these things have been sufficient to dissuade Iran or its proxies from seeking Israel’s destruction.

Disappointingly, not only has the liberal version of the rules-based order failed to work, but the United Nations—the flagship organization for that order—has itself provided diplomatic cover for Hamas via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which ignored and may have abetted Hamas in militarizing its society and indoctrinating Palestinians to liquidate the Jews.  How perverse that in his remarks at the 79^th United Nations General Assembly, President Biden said that Gazans did not ask for the war that Hamas started. Clearly, my eyes must have been lying to me when I watched footage of Gazans cheering and celebrating on October 7^th.

In a further dereliction of its duty, the UN chose to not enforce Security Council Resolution 1701, which was meant to firewall southern Lebanon from Israel and Hezbollah, and thereby prevent another war after the Second Lebanon War of 2006. Instead, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon did nothing as Hezbollah infiltrated southern Lebanon and militarized it much the same way Hamas did Gaza. 1701 was made exceedingly hollower when Iran equipped Hezbollah with sophisticated indirect fires systems and drones that could range across Israel from inside Lebanon.

Another RBO shortcoming relates to how exit strategies are conceived of these days. The idea that countries that respond to violations of their sovereignty are responsible for putting everything back together again in the violator’s territory goes hand-in-hand with the West’s fantasy that it can remake whole societies through regime change. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are proof that none of this works. Not only is it impossible to rebuild other people’s nations for them, but it is also a terrible waste of resources and time.

Equally wasteful is not destroying an entity that has attacked you, that has expressed its intent to destroy you, and that retains the capacity to destroy you.

Israel has no alternative but to give war a chance—to use sufficient force to break the back of Iran’s capability, which includes breaking the backs of Hamas and Hezbollah. Destroying them remains a work in progress given the scale of the problem. The human cost in Gaza and Lebanon is real; however, this war must be waged if peace is ever to have a chance.

People want to believe that modern countries can achieve their military goals without civilian casualties. People think that modern militaries with exquisite targeting capabilities, like those demonstrated by the Israeli Defense Forces, can defeat their enemies through selective targeting, but frequently this isn’t true. When an adversary’s entire society has been indoctrinated and mobilized, selective targeting is insufficient—by definition. Also, selective targeting can’t spare civilians when an enemy has burrowed into the civilian infrastructure as Hamas and Hezbollah have—with civilian complicity.

The West has yet to come to grips with the fact that few of its adversaries share the West’s sensibilities. Nor does the West seem to recognize that adversaries will mold their methods to take advantage of Western sensibilities. Case in point, Hamas and Hezbollah are both more than willing to use civilians as human shields and, even more barbarously, they set up civilians to be killed in order to make Israel look bad.

During WWII, the Allies couldn’t bomb accurately enough to avoid civilian casualties. This inadvertently worked to the allies’ advantage because it necessitated total war that exhausted Germany and Japan to the point that both countries acceded to unconditional surrender. How ironic that in an era when we can target with precision and when we have come to revile total war as an option, we not only fail to exhaust our enemies, but our enemies resort to tactics and strategies that deliberately put their own populations at risk. They do so because they know that they can offset our targeting capabilities by using our sensibilities against us.

Hamas and Hezbollah have backed Israel into an unwinnable IO war by developing strategies that make it impossible for Israel to decisively crush them and extirpate them without also killing thousands of civilians. The slaughter of civilians is the doing of Hamas and Hezbollah. The only way out of this for Israel requires that Western leaders adjust their sensibilities to this fact.

Unfortunately, another reason Israel’s campaign against Hamas has been so fraught is because crushing Hamas is impossible to square with freeing the hostages. The only way Israel can get its hostages back is by letting Hamas cut a deal for a ceasefire. But Israel cutting a deal with Hamas is antithetical to Israel’s destruction of Hamas’s ability to function as a movement that will continue to pose a long-term threat to Israel’s security.

Many have speculated that Prime Minister Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza out of political self-interest. Maybe. Or perhaps Bibi Netanyahu is smart enough to recognize that Hamas is toying with the Israeli population’s emotions over the hostages to preserve its ability to live to fight another day. Many critics argue that Israel should give in and agree to a ceasefire because nothing Israel does will alter Palestinians’ animosity or lead to Hamas’s dismantlement. True, the Israelis aren’t going to be able to kill the idea behind Hamas. But they can attrit the organization and degrade its capabilities until it can no longer function as a movement.

We must remember that given the fact that Israel’s enemies are committed to Israel’s eradication, there is no accommodation to be had. Israel is fighting to restore its security now and for the future. The fact that Hamas jumped the gun before Iran was ready to join in Israel’s destruction inadvertently provides Israel a unique opportunity to confront Iran now rather than wait until Iran is better armed and better prepared in the future. We can only hope that Trump will view this moment for the opportunity that it presents.

Israel’s current fight on behalf of its sovereignty has not only exposed the Biden Administration’s strategic incoherence, but also deeper flaws in how the U.S. thinks about our national security and the security of our allies.

The U.S. says Israel has the right to defend itself, but then proceeds to try to compel Israel to do things that aren’t good for Israel. What is even crazier is that the U.S. keeps trying to urge Israel to implement methods and tactics that didn’t work for us in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Americans keep scolding the Israelis regarding their use of force, chastising them for their failure to employ a counterinsurgency strategy, and berating them for not identifying a political solution to the Palestinian problem. The Administration began calling for de-escalation and a ceasefire long before Israel had achieved any military victories against Hamas, and the Administration wanted Israel to leave Rafah untouched despite its centrality to Hamas’s smuggling infrastructure, or the fact that it was where Yahya Sinwar was hiding.

The Administration has wanted to keep the conflict from escalating regionally but has striven to do this by holding Israel to account―and not Iran. Yet, Iran is who made this a regional war by attacking Israel from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and from Iran itself.

The U.S. fails to appreciate that Hamas’s attack de-synched Iran’s strategic plans, thereby providing Israel with both the opportunity and the moral justification to thwart Iran’s long-term goal of annihilating it. The U.S. keeps pressuring Israel instead to stop short, which will only leave Iran and its hateful proxies confident that eventually they will destroy Israel because they will still possess the means to do so. This really makes no sense. But nor does it make sense given our own history with Iran.

Iran has murdered approximately 900 Americans and seized dozens of American hostages since 1979. Iranian proxies have attacked American troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan several hundred times, killed three U.S. service members, and injured scores more since October 7^th, 2023. Iranian backed Houthis repeatedly attack commercial shipping and U.S. naval assets in the Red Sea with negligible consequences. The U.S. employs what can best be called a passive defense and only occasionally responds to attacks in Syria and Iraq, all of which adds up to a weak, never-ending game of tit-for-tat.

Adopting a Sovereignty Solution approach would handle these violations of U.S. sovereignty differently. It would also lead the U.S. to stop making Israel’s war more complicated than it needs to be. The U.S. should support the legitimacy of Israel’s response, respect its decisions, and let it fight. The U.S. should also warn Iran that the next time it attacks U.S. forces directly or by proxy, the U.S. will respond with devastating force. For instance, should the Houthis fire on a U.S.-flagged vessel again, the U.S. will regard this as the act of war that it is and respond with overwhelming might.

Critics of such an approach might contend that it is overly bellicose and risks overlooking complex global interdependencies. Or they might claim that non-state actors often operate beyond state controls. However, sovereignty and security are deeply intertwined. Each reinforces the other to sustain a country’s autonomy and stability. Non-state actors wouldn’t and couldn’t exist if governments were held to account, which they would be in a sovereignty rules world as outlined in The Sovereignty Solution.

Unfortunately, the Biden Administration’s submissiveness has only invited contempt from our adversaries and enemies―and many allies too. Worse, submissiveness invites further aggression. Somehow, we have erroneously come to believe that the answer to transgressions of sovereignty resides in forever war, sanctions, and capitulation masquerading as diplomacy. But, if we don’t like war, we need to remember that the real antidote to long drawn-out conflict is to accept the need for short, sharp, definitive military action when sovereignty is violated.

Ideally, President-elect Trump won’t just see the use of force this way but will prove to be the right leader at the right time to break with increasingly outdated dysfunctional post WWII conventions about the use of force. Ideally, he will implement a national security framework that approaches conflicts and security threats around the world with greater common sense, to include Iran’s threat to Israel.

J.B. Books is an experienced expert in the region and on military matters.

Check out the Book titled “The Sovereignty Solution.”

For years, and especially in more recent history, various lies from Palestinians and other leftists about their “victories” in disputes with Israel have been accepted by people in the Middle East.

And often, the statements are acted on.

But that’s now at an end, according to Bassam Tawil, a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East who writes for the Gatestone Institute.

Now, he said, people no longer are accepting the claims from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Those are Iran-sponsored proxies for violence against Israel in Gaza and Lebanon.

Tawil explained in his column that, “many Arabs are no longer fooled by the lies and propaganda of Iran’s terror proxies in the Middle East. Over the past 14 months, Hamas and Hezbollah have dragged the Palestinians and Lebanese into wars that have claimed the lives of thousands of people — all to serve their patrons in Iran. Instead of admitting their defeat, both in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the terrorists, at the behest of Iran’s mullahs, are continuing to sell imaginary victories to the Arabs to encourage them to join the Jihad (holy war) against Israel. The good news is that many Arabs are evidently aware of the lies and deceptions of Hamas and Hezbollah.”

He explained, “After the recent ceasefire deal with Israel, supporters of the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah claimed ‘victory.’ Some celebrated the alleged victory by firing guns into the air and flashing V signs. Many Arabs, however, saying that Hezbollah had lost hundreds of its members, including top leaders, and caused significant damage to Lebanese homes and the country’s economy, have been mocking the terrorist group.”

He said the claims were like those from Hamas. “After earlier rounds of fighting with Israel that severely damaged the Gaza Strip’s civilian and military infrastructure, Hamas commanders would typically emerge from the debris and proclaim ‘victory.'”

But Tawil noted the responses of late, from Egyptian political analyst Abdul Latif Al-Manawi, who wrote, “I was not surprised when [Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal] announced Hamas’s victory in the Gaza war. He said: ‘Our losses are tactical, our enemy’s losses are strategic, and victory is coming.’ Is this how Mashaal sums up a whole year of devastation inflicted on the Palestinian people? If Mashaal means what he says, we have to ask him: Do the tactical losses he refers to include the war victims who have reached more than 42,000 Palestinians? Do they include more than 80,000 [Palestinians] who were injured? Do they include more than 90% of the Gaza Strip’s population who have been displaced from their homes and neighborhoods that were razed to the ground? Victory, Khaled Mashaal, is not like this.”

The column noted Hezbollah already has agreed “to disconnect itself from the war in the Gaza Strip and to withdraw its men from the border with Israel.”

“This reversal is precisely why many Arabs cannot understand Hezbollah’s claim of ‘victory,’ especially in light of the elimination of most of the group’s top political and military leaders, including Hassan Nasrallah, killed by an Israeli airstrike on his bunker in Beirut last September,” he explained.

The column also noted prominent Lebanese journalist Nabil Bou Monsef scoffed at Hezbollah’s false victory.

“He accused Hezbollah of engaging in self-delusion, linking Lebanon to regional arenas (the Gaza Strip) and ‘throwing Lebanon into a catastrophic massacre.'” His demand? “Where is the victory?”

Other responses included:

Tunisian philosopher Khaled Mansour: “Hezbollah’s claim of victory over Israel is a farce and a mockery of the minds of the Lebanese and a ‘political shamelessness’ that is both laughable and disgusting!”

Lebanese lawyer Omar El-Yafi: “This is the text of Hezbollah’s surrender that the Lebanese state agreed to, which stipulated that there would be no weapons on Lebanese territory except in the hands of the Lebanese army, in addition to other conditions, including the withdrawal of Hezbollah elements to the north of the Litani River. Where is the divine victory that these victors celebrate?”

Lebanese social media activist Fouad Tarabay: “Despite the killing of [Hassan] Nasrallah and most of the leaders of Hezbollah, 3,500 dead, 20 billion in material losses, 1.5 million displaced, and 46,000 housing units destroyed, they (Hezbollah) still say ‘we won.’ They fire their guns in celebration and raise the victory sign after the humiliating ceasefire agreement. What a complete farce and deception.”

Social media user Abu Al-Ahrar: “What kind of victory are you talking about? This is considered a defeat. Hezbollah rose up to support Gaza and said it will not stop until the siege on Gaza is lifted. How is this victory when Israel has eliminated all the leadership of Hezbollah? This is not called victory, but defeat.”

Yemeni politician Ali Albukhaiti: “Hezbollah has surrendered, yet there are those who call it a victory!”

U.S. and European energy policies toward Russia are marked by striking inconsistencies. On the one hand, the Biden administration, flanked by its NATO counterparts, dispatches hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine and trumpets sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy. Yet, on the other hand, these same nations continue to procure Russian oil, gas, and LNG, thereby replenishing the very coffers they claim to be emptying. This hypocrisy is compounded by President Biden’s own domestic energy policies, which curtail American production at precisely the moment when Europe is floundering in its quest to disentangle itself from dependence on Russian energy.

In this context, the incoming Trump administration’s “energy dominance” agenda represents a necessary and impactful realignment. By expanding U.S. oil and gas production, Trump proposes a strategy that aligns America’s energy policy with its geopolitical imperatives. Such a framework not only enhances transatlantic energy security but also positions Trump to negotiate from strength in his pledged pursuit of a peace accord with Russia. This plan, ambitious as it is pragmatic, deserves nothing less than priority attention — both for its immediate utility and for its potential to reintroduce coherence into a realm where it has been sorely lacking.

One is struck, observing the dispensation of billions by NATO nations to Ukraine, while they simultaneously underwrite the Kremlin’s war machine through energy purchases, by the sheer absurdity of this double-dealing. This is no mere bureaucratic oversight but rather an absence of grand strategy. The sanctions ostensibly designed to hobble Russia’s economy are rendered impotent when Europe turns around and replenishes Moscow’s coffers through both direct and backdoor energy trade.

Ostensibly barred from European markets, Russian crude oil finds sanctuary in third-party nations — chiefly in Central and East Asia — where it is shuffled, refined, and, with an air of plausible deniability, sold back to Europe at an agreeable markup. Consider India: once a negligible player in Russian oil imports, now suddenly the beneficiary of nearly 40% of Moscow’s exports. Indian refiners transform this crude oil into diesel and other derivatives, only to export them back to Europe. It is, in essence, a tidy laundering operation — one that ensures a steady flow of revenue to Russia while Europe pays handsomely for its pretense of self-righteous isolation. The irony would be amusing were the stakes not so high.

Meanwhile, President Biden’s tenure has been marked by an almost doctrinaire aversion to reliable energy development in the United States, a legacy that seems less a matter of policy and more a point of pride. His intentions were made clear as early as 2020, when he campaigned under the banner of “ban fracking,” a slogan as reductive as it was revealing. On his very first day in office, Biden summarily canceled the final phase of Keystone XL pipeline project, a critical artery for North American energy connectivity. By the end of his first week, he had frozen all public land oil and gas lease applications and saddled existing leases with an additional layer of bureaucratic review.

Biden then doubled down, championing new climate legislation aimed at regulating methane emissions, a tribute to Barack Obama’s unvarnished ambition to strangle fossil fuel production via the regulatory apparatus. Perhaps most offensive to European allies seeking alternatives to Russian energy, Biden paused permitting for LNG export activities in January 2024. At a moment when American energy resources could have provided a bulwark against both economic instability and geopolitical vulnerability, Biden chose instead to indulge the ideological imperatives of his political base.

While it is true that US LNG exports to Europe surged to historic highs since the war began in 2022, it must be understood that this was a market response and happened despite, not because of, Biden’s energy policies. Biden’s priority was always to use the government to hamper natural gas development, even while European allies faced a crisis of supply curtailment and uncertainty.

The contrast between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on energy policy is a study in antitheses. Trump’s rallying cry of “drill, baby, drill,” encapsulates a vision of “energy dominance” that is unapologetically ambitious, unabashedly pro-development, and unmistakably American. In his first term, Trump fast-tracked approvals for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, cut through the bureaucratic thicket to expedite oil and gas leases, and presided over a remarkable quadrupling of LNG exports.

Now, with billions of dollars of capital hanging precariously in limbo, the energy sector eagerly anticipates a return to this ethos of decisive action. The permitting backlog, an albatross of the Biden administration’s making, has left projects stalled for months, even years, as Washington dithers. Under Trump, the energy industry flourished not by the watchful bean-counting of the government, but by its liberation from it. With Chris Wright and Doug Burgum selected for secretaries of Energy and Interior, respectively, one can safely assume that the new administration will once again unleash the free and creative forces that drive American industry.

There are some in Europe, as well, who look forward to Trump leading in a new direction on energy and foreign policy. Friend and political ally, Viktor Orban, has stood against the European status quo in pursuit of a negotiated end of violence in Ukraine. Orban’s Hungary imports nearly 100% of their natural gas, used for home heating, power-generation, and industrial production, from Russia. Orban is roundly criticized across the West for this realpolitik approach of maintaining normal relations with the sole provider of an indispensable resource, for which his landlocked country has no current alternative. But even European Commision President Ursula Von der Leyen, who has been a vocal critic of both Trump and Orban, has recently changed her tune, expressing enthusiasm for a new Trumpian energy policy.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election triumph, dialogue between Trump and von der Leyen turned swiftly to matters of strategic substance, including a proposal to expand the U.S. LNG exports to Europe. “LNG is one of the topics that we touched upon,” Von der Leyen remarked. “We still get a whole lot of LNG via Russia. And why not replace it with American LNG, which is cheaper and brings down our energy prices?” Politico analysis concludes this is merely postering for upcoming tariff negotiations, a face-saving suggestion to import more LNG to rebalance trade deficits that Von der Leyen can’t actually enforce. It is a completely plausible interpretation, yet there is another pending negotiation directly impacted by the topic, a Russian Ukraine peace deal.

Energy, after all, is never merely a micro-economic matter, limited to its own industry concerns; it is the sine qua non of the modern economy. As such, it is an integral factor in state security and social stability. By recalibrating Europe’s energy reliance toward American LNG, Trump wields an instrument not only of economic leverage but of geopolitical realignment, one that could prove indispensable in shaping the contours of peace. In this context, the LNG discussion is not merely transactional but emblematic of a larger, more consequential strategy.

To suggest that energy trade alone could bring Russia to heel would be to indulge unwarranted optimism. Yet, as a bargaining tool, it is not without merit. Even if Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal for increased LNG trade is little more than rhetorical flourish, it nonetheless serves a tactical purpose: it signals the kind of seriousness that compels attention and tilts the negotiation table in favor of the United States. Negotiation, after all, is an intricate ballet of feints, insinuations, and veiled threats — each calculated to unsettle the adversary and recalibrate the balance of power.

With 1 million dead or injured, Russia’s recent liberalization of nuclear doctrine, and battlefield deployment of a new nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, the stakes have never been higher nor the cause for de-escalation and peace more clear. When engaged in a proxy war against a “gas station masquerading as a country,” as John McCain famously characterized Russia, energy policy really matters. In Trump’s vision, one glimpses not merely a transactional play but a reaffirmation of the principle of strength, both economic and military, that is the linchpin of effective diplomacy.

Matthew Roy is an energy industry professional with over a decade of experience in corporate management and strategy. He is currently the Visiting Research Fellow for the Budapest Fellowship Program at the Danube Institute, focusing on energy policy. 

Despite the F-35 program’s hefty price tag, recent events have shown just how potent the platform is against America’s adversaries.

National and subnational actors have long looked to whether there is a US aircraft carrier in the region as a signal of Western intent or resolve. But that dynamic could be set to change. Given the F-35’s capabilities, as recently proven against Iranian ground defenses, ground-based F-35 fleets hold a similar deterrent status as their carrier-parked counterparts.

With wars raging in the Middle East and Europe, and the potential for great-power conflict this decade in Asia, one of the unmistakable signs of American power and support for allies in those regions has been the aircraft carrier.

According to the latest publicly available data, the United States Navy currently has two amphibious ready groups and an aircraft carrier stationed in the Pacific and other assets throughout the Middle East, the Atlantic, and the West Coast.

Adversaries have long looked to whether there is a U.S. aircraft carrier in the region as a signal of America’s resolve to back up allies with force if necessary.

The aircraft carrier remains a potent signal of American intentions — but it is not the only asset at the United States’ disposal to project hard power, should it be called on.

Recent events in the Middle East demonstrate that the F-35s deployed abroad are arguably just as, if not more important, than the capital ships on which they deploy.

And given the F-35’s capabilities, the aircraft’s presence alone should be interpreted as a signal of American fixity of purpose on par with that of the aircraft carrier.

Proven, Tested Capabilities
From a purely military perspective, Israel’s recent strikes against Iran were an unmitigated success.

Flying a mix of aircraft in three waves against targets in Iran, over 100 Israeli aircraft initially struck high-value air defense targets in Syria and Iraq – including the much-vaunted S-300, a Soviet-designed air defense system.

Two subsequent waves hit military targets and weapon production facilities deep inside Iranian territory, degrading Tehran’s missile production capabilities, particularly of the solid fuel needed for long-range munitions. The strikes leave Iran exposed and highly vulnerable to future strikes by Israel.

Much ink has been spilled on the Israeli operation’s details, particularly the success enjoyed by the F-35. However, one under-appreciated aspect of the operation has been what that Israeli mission’s success means for the American — and allied — F-35 presence worldwide.

Given the F-35’s recent, real-world testing and success against what were considered formidable air defense assets, F-35 groupings stationed at bases worldwide offer policymakers a unique deterrence opportunity in Asia, the Middle East, or Europe.

And, when considering the F-35 fleets of nations allied with the United States, the deterrent effect grows significantly, a factor that alters the calculus of hostile nation’s decision-making.

The China Factor
The Chinese’ steady progress vis-à-vis their anti-ship missile capabilities in recent years should not be taken lightly. And it is precisely this threat that a regional, land-based F-35 strategy would address.

Regional gangsters like Iran and its allies Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis pose a significantly smaller threat to the aircraft carrier than the likes of China, which benefits from a much more robust and increasingly more sophisticated anti-ship capability.

That raises the question worth considering: how can the United States, and allies across the globe, best preserve their F-35 fleets? A partial solution may be found in a highly dispersed air-basing strategy on the ground instead of at more densely concentrated formations on aircraft carriers out at sea.

A Numbers Game
How to best preserve America’s naval airpower through a widely dispersed basing strategy or via another solution or mix of solutions is best left to those in the Navy and Pentagon with the requisite experience and expertise to take a clear-eyed view of the situation.

However, what is becoming clear from the planning and policy side of this conversation is that the F-35 stealth platform is a unique, extremely capable asset with a modest but increasingly demonstrable track record against formidable air defense assets.

The world we live in today is increasingly fractured and violent. The potential for global conflagrations to expand and envelop the United States is also rising.

It would behoove the policymakers of the United States to make serious, sustained investments in the F-35 platform, in tandem with partners and allies, to ensure that during a time of national crisis, the F-35 program can lean into the supply chains and manufacturing requirements necessary to keep production rolling rather than to allow lines to become cold.

The F-35 has a significant — and proven — technological edge that vastly outclasses every other fighter today. Let us not hubristically rely on that fact alone but invest in sustainment for a time in which the platform may be called upon to defend the interest of the United States and our allies.

Caleb Larson is a Berlin-based journalist, formerly with Politico. He has spent more than seven months reporting from Ukraine at the front and elsewhere throughout the country.

Why were people surprised? He lied to us about the “laptop from Hell” not belonging to his son Hunter. He lied to us about never withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. Why should we have not anticipated Joe Biden would lie to us about not pardoning Hunter?

There are those who will rationalize that the bond between a loving father and a son is such to warrant, should the father be in a position of power to impact the ultimate punishment of a son who has violated certain rules of conduct applicable to all, he would do so.

While this rationalization may be acceptable to some, it should never be acceptable within the public realm – for it runs the risk of fostering division. Those who are occupying such decision-making positions, whether within government or the military, do so imbued with a level of trust never to be violated. A personal family experience underscored this lesson for me more than a half-century ago.

During the Vietnam war, my brother, Elmo, commanded a swift boat. His tour was challenging, not only due to the dangers posed by a cunning North Vietnamese enemy but because he fell under the command of our father, Vice Adm. E. R. Zumwalt Jr.

As U.S. intelligence reports indicated the enemy was not sending supply craft down a river in neighboring Cambodia, the swift boats were under orders not to operate there despite the belief by some “swiftees” such intel was flawed. Accordingly, one night, Elmo chose to ignore those orders, crossing just over the border into Cambodia to set up an ambush.

Civilians were warned not to travel the rivers at night, so when Elmo’s crew heard activity coming toward them on the river and then saw the outline of a convoy, they knew these were enemy boats. These boats were taken under fire, and all were destroyed. Diving on the wrecks, Elmo and his crew recovered a wide range of weaponry. Since Elmo’s actions triggered an intel reassessment, his commander put him and his crew in for medals – my brother specifically for a Silver Star.

However, when the report of the action reached my father, he did what any responsible leader would do. While proud of Elmo’s courage, nonetheless, he had violated orders. My father referred the matter to his immediate senior commander (who at that time was Adm. John McCain – the father of a son with the same name who was a POW and would later become a U.S. senator) for disciplinary action. Weighing heavily on McCain’s decision was the contribution Elmo’s actions made to our intelligence assessment; however, since Elmo had indeed violated orders, McCain reduced the recommended medal to a Bronze Star as the only disciplinary action to take.

I could not help but reflect on this incident upon learning that President Biden granted his son a pardon for various criminal acts he had performed during an 11-year period. Although Biden had promised us earlier he would not pardon Hunter, he perhaps forewarned us it was inevitable when, before his son’s conviction on gun-related charges, he said, “I am president but I am also a dad.”

A loving dad as well, my father recognized he was also a military leader who had an undeniable responsibility to those under his command – one transcending bloodlines. For him personally to sanction my brother’s disobedience to orders would open a door that would only weaken military authority.

While some might question McCain’s ultimate decision, there was a major difference between my brother’s actions in violating orders and Hunter’s actions in violating the law – the former ultimately furthered U.S. interests, the latter did nothing of the kind. In fact, what is most telling about Biden’s pardon on behalf of his son is that he had to ensure it covered any and all criminal acts Hunter committed over an 11-year period – back to the Obama administration when Joe was vice president. Thus, criminal acts performed during 30% of Hunter’s adult life are being forgiven.

Concerning charges against Hunter for failing to pay taxes, Biden told a half truth. He claimed the taxes for the enormous windfall in income Hunter earned by leveraging access to his father were eventually paid. They were, but not by Hunter; they were paid by his “sugar brother,” lawyer Kevin Morris. Thus, Hunter spent millions of dollars without paying a cent in taxes. (It will be up to the IRS to determine whether payment of Hunter’s back taxes by Morris accrues as additional income to Hunter.)

Explaining his pardon, Biden now tries to convince us that Hunter was “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” – a charge to which special counsel David Weiss, who prosecuted Hunter, responded saying there was no such evidence of “selective or vindictive prosecution.” Weiss also pointed out that several judges – some even appointed by Biden – have made similar findings as were dealt against Hunter. Furthermore, concerning Hunter’s tax charges, he even admitted in his book that he filed “false tax returns when he had just become drunk.” And lastly, Hunter voluntarily pleaded guilty to nine counts concerning his unpaid taxes after being convicted earlier on three federal gun charges.

Biden justifies the pardon on the basis that his own Justice Department is effectively broken and “infected” with politics. So, intriguingly, he apparently chooses to fix it with the single act of granting his son a pardon. It will be interesting to see if he abuses the system further to pardon other members of the Biden family who may have committed crimes linked to Hunter’s activities. A 630-page report, supported by 2,020 footnotes, published by a watchdog group that analyzed Hunter’s laptop claims to document at least 459 crimes committed by Hunter and the Biden family. Indications are Biden is also considering pardons for others who have proven not to be Trump-friendly, including Elizabeth Cheney, Adam Schiff and even Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The judge who oversaw Hunter’s tax evasion case excoriated Biden for attempting to “rewrite history” concerning his son’s criminal charges. He noted, “Nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority” to do so.

CNN correspondent Jeff Zeleny revealed startling insights about the motivation behind President Biden’s recent blanket pardon of Hunter, suggesting it was a preemptive move against potential future investigations by Trump, perhaps to protect Biden himself.

The pardon will probably prevent an investigation that undoubtedly would have been launched into Hunter’s relationship with CEFC China Energy. CEFC is an intelligence front company involved in China’s “elite capture” program. This is an effort to identify and gain control over people in target countries who could help China achieve its objectives. It played an important role in funneling millions of dollars to the Biden family using a network of shell companies to complicate tracing payments.

The pardon, which covers the period from 2014 to present, encompasses various allegations including influence peddling, prostitution involvement and Hunter’s role in managing family finances. Even other Democrats are calling foul, noting that the pardon will erode Americans’ faith in democracy and the rule of law. Frustratingly, while Hunter’s 11 years of bad behavior goes unpunished, we see people have gone to jail just for silently praying in an abortion clinic.

Most ironically, at the time Democrats are supporting the “No Kings Act” in the aftermath of a U.S. Supreme Court decision giving presidential immunity to certain prosecution, their party leader abuses the pardon system to benefit a son who has violated laws repeatedly without fear of legal retribution. Despite Majority Leader Chuck Schumer claiming it was the Founding Fathers’ intention that “no man in America shall be king,” Biden exercises the power of a king to benefit a son with nothing but contempt for the law.

Additionally, it is reported Biden is considering a pre-emptive pardon for Gen. Mark Milley for having made secret phone calls to China as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a statement reminiscent of the infamous claim by O.J. Simpson after he dodged a murder charge in 1995 (although he was ultimately found civilly liable) that he would dedicate the rest of his life to finding his ex-wife’s real killer but failed to ever undertake such a search, Hunter said, “I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.” Such a statement from one who spent years doing drugs and engaging prostitutes rings hollow.

While Biden’s pardon enables Hunter to escape federal prosecution, hopefully a thorough analysis will be conducted to determine if he is still open to state prosecutions.

Nor does the pardon protect him from potential civil claims, which clearly reflect Hunter dealt with others with a high sense of entitlement.

As first son, Hunter repeatedly rented expensive homes without paying his landlords – in amounts exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars. One landlord reported Hunter failed to pay rent for over a year, trying later “to pay w/art made from his own feces. Absolute s—bag.” Hunter also made collection issues impossible as he “changed the locks and used Secret Service to enforce. We had no access to the property.” Despite being “totally disrespectful” of the property, Hunter was not sued by the landlord as he said the Bidens are “kind of a scary family to go after.”

As I reflect upon my brother –a patriot who volunteered to go into harm’s way in Vietnam on behalf of his country and ultimately lost his life due to Agent Orange exposure – and also reflect upon my father who, loving him dearly, recognized the responsibility not to interfere in Elmo’s accountability for his combat actions – I hold nothing but absolute disdain for both Bidens.

Here are the links to watch the Elizabeth Farah Show interviews on other platforms:

Elizabeth Farah on X
WND on X
WND on Rumble
WND on YouTube
WND on Facebook

Russia’s longtime foreign minister describes the war with the United States and how to end it.

(0:00) Is the US at War With Russia?
(12:56) Russia’s Message to the West Through Hypersonic Weapons
(17:47) Is There Conversation Happening Between Russia and the US?
(23:18) How Many… pic.twitter.com/0UkkNjAkhw

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 5, 2024

After a surprising insurgent offensive by rebels last week, Syria’s northern city of Aleppo was captured. The offensive marked the first attack on the city by opposition forces since 2016.

Having overtaken the central city of Hama Dec. 5, rebel forces are approximately 115 miles from Damascus, which is a serious concern to President Bashar al-Assad. Reversing an earlier claim denying that rebels had entered the city, the Syrian army says it is redeploying its forces “to preserve civilian lives and prevent urban combat.” Assad may soon be forced to confront a serious threat to Syria’s capitol of Damascus.

WorldNetDaily spoke to Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst at the Capital Research Center who has focused on Syria and the Middle East for over 20 years. Describing the Middle Eastern country as “a mosh pit of jihadi groups,” he says distinguishing between the ruling regime and the rebels is a near-impossibility.

“There are so many different factions on each side that are fighting an external enemy, while at the same time, they are fighting with each other,” he explained.

For this reason, Mauro considers it hard to speak in generalizations, but does say flatly that “the rebels that are taking territory in Syria are jihadists.” At the same time, he pointed out that the Assad regime is essentially part of an Islamist Iranian regime. Considering this, he said, “you’re basically trading one jihadi for the next.”

From the perspective of the West and Israel, Mauro questions whether it is better to have “a stable and arguably less fanatical enemy” to the north – that is, if Assad were to prevail and reclaim land – or rebels and other terrorist organizations who will be consumed with fighting each other.

“There are pluses and minuses to each scenario,” he concedes.

“If Assad wins, it would be like having Iran on your border. But if the rebels win, it would be like having Somalia on your border,” he offered. With that in mind, Mauro speculates that it may actually be better for Assad to fall.

Interestingly, he speculated as to how the powers-that-be in the region could have prepared.

For stability in the region, Mauro said, “What should have been happening for a very, very long time is [their] backing the Kurdish elements to the hilt, while also backing the more secular oriented Syrian rebel elements that have been somewhat allied with the Kurds,” he said. Most importantly, the process would have involved working with as many secular, democratic political forces as possible, avoiding those that are theocratic or genocidal.

The battle for control of Syria is a situation the United States has largely avoided, Mauro pointed out. “At critical junctures, the U.S. has chosen [to support] Turkey at the expense of the Syrian Democratic Forces – the Kurds, Arabs and Christian coalition – that has been our most important partner on the ground and is the only non-Islamist option in Syria right now.”

The United States would be hurt during future pandemics if it submits to a global health governance ideology because that would give more credence to groups like the World Health Organization, which is “dissembling and incompetent,” according to Congress.

“While a new pandemic, prevention, preparedness, and response treaty seems like a good idea in theory, on paper it falls short,” according to the recently released report from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

A report in the Washington Stand explained that while Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been promoting the theory of global governance on health issues, a proposed pandemic agreement not only would not prevent future pandemics but would harm public health.

The report noted the WHO’s World Health Assembly several years ago positioned itself to support “An intergovernmental negotiating body … to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

WHO, of course, wanted the rules to be binding, but it later backed off based on the warning that such a controversial concept never would gain the approval of the U.S. Senate, which is required for treaties.

In fact, the report argues that the failings of the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic, which apparently came out of a Chinese lab where experiments were being done on making viruses more transmissible and more lethal and killed millions worldwide, suggests the international body actually should be allowed less power.

“WHO did nothing as the People’s Republic of China violated numerous existing WHO rules, known as International Health Regulations (IHR), the report noted. China violated Article 6 of the IHR, which says that ‘[e]ach State Party shall notify WHO … within 24 hours … of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern,’ the report states. The CCP also broke Article 7 of the IHR, which mandates that if a ‘State Party has evidence of an unexpected or unusual public health event … it shall provide to WHO all relevant public health information,'” the congressional report found.

Cited were the catastrophic results when the WHO refused to hold China accountable for its health code violations.

“The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure,” the Washington Stand explained the report said. “During the pandemic, the WHO repeatedly relied on false information from the CCP.”

The review warned that while the WHO was claiming there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission,” that conclusion was the simple result of Chinese authorities “jailing any doctor that disseminated any information about COVID-19 that was not first cleared through state-run media.”

The WHO chief, Tedros Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia, in fact, praised China’s non-existent “transparency” during COVID.

China also precluded U.S. scientists from a review of its COVID-19 activities, and WHO also has limited input into its proposed plan by operating behind closed doors on many issues.

The report said, “The World Health Organization’s draft ‘Pandemic Treaty’ does not solve the organization’s underlying problems and may affirmatively harm the United States.”

American organizations concerned about the global agenda have warned the plan could set up “freedom-strangling” mandates that could be switched on to create a “turnkey totalitarian state.”

JERUSALEM – The hits from international organizations keep on coming at Israel; the latest iteration in the form of a nearly 300-page report from the supposed human rights organization Amnesty International, which accused the Jewish state of committing genocide in Gaza.

Amnesty International pulled no punches, titling its report, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza” on the organization’s website under the headline: “Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.” Amnesty said Israel sought to deliberately destroy Palestinians by mounting deadly attacks, demolishing vital infrastructure and preventing the delivery of food, medicine and other aid.

The report grudgingly admitted Hamas committed atrocities, the brutal murders of some 1,200 civilians of Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, although it was quick to denounce Israel, and claimed the response to the onslaught could not be justified.

However, this fails to take into consideration a number of factors. There was a ceasefire at 6:28 on Oct. 7, which Hamas, and the thousands of Gazans who poured through the gaps in the border fence, obliterated in their videoed campaign of murder, pillage, rape, and destruction, as the terrorist group orchestrated the largest single most deadly massacre of Jews in some 80 years. It also ignores Hamas leaders’ own words, when they exclaimed repeatedly that given half a chance they would gladly and willingly carry out further atrocities. Israel has pointed out it was Hamas’ actions and intentions which should be described as genocide, not the war it has fought to dismantle Gaza’s terrorist infrastructure.

Amnesty said the United States and other allies of Israel could be complicit in genocide, and called on them to halt arms shipments.

“Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: this is genocide. It must stop now,” Amnesty International chief Agnès Callamard said in the report. Callamard was previously the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the former director of the Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression project. Given both of these two institutions’ animus toward the Jewish state, it should come as no surprise she has given her name to a report such as this.

.@amnesty international literally redefined the legal term of genocide to suit their accusation, stripping the term of its actual meaning in the process. The craziest part? They admit this in their report, correctly assuming that most people won’t read all the way to p. 101: https://t.co/lqJYrjkidU

— Mark Goldfeder (@MarkGoldfeder) December 5, 2024

The report makes multiple suggestions for how the international community should heap pressure on Israel, yet it makes no mention of the 100 hostages still held in Hamas captivity. It is thought only about 50 of them are still alive; and the fate of the youngest of them – Kfir Bibas – who was only nine-months old when abducted is still unknown.

Amnesty International said it reviewed over 100 statements by Israeli government and military officials and others since the start of the war that “dehumanized Palestinians, called for or justified genocidal acts or other crimes against them,” as part of its self-appointed remit to investigate the genocide claims. It clearly solicited information and data from workers – likely Hamas-aligned on the ground in Gaza – yet it did not interview or seek comment from those on Israel’s side.

Predictably, the backlash has been swift against the organization, with even the Israel branch of the group, a locally registered non-profit which is legally independent from the parent organization, distancing itself from the findings. It did concede the IDF’s actions in Gaza “establish suspicions of widespread violations of international law and may amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing,” but it quite explicitly stopped short of described the conduct of the war as tantamount to genocide.

It echoed what many commenters on the X platform noted, namely that Amnesty International needed to alter the accepted definition of the term genocide to be able to make the claims of genocide. “Our careful analysis does not accept the findings meet the definition of genocide, as carefully formulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” it added. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear Amnesty International even consulted with Amnesty Israel over any of its so-called findings.

אמנסטי אינטרנשיונל הוציאה הלילה דו”ח שמאשים את ישראל בג’נוסייד. הסניף הישראלי אינו מקבל את הטענה כי הוכח שמתבצע בעזה ג’נוסייד, אולם מתבצעים פשעים חמורים.
יש לציין שמיעוט מחברי אמנסטי ישראל סבורים שניתן לקבוע כי ישראל מבצעת או ביצעה ג’נוסייד.
קראו עוד >> https://t.co/MwIYO7qBEx pic.twitter.com/OiasLG9apJ

— Amnesty Israel (@AmnestyIsrael) December 5, 2024

Israel’s Foreign Ministry excoriated the report labeling the group “deplorable and fanatical.” It accused the organization of producing a “fabricated report that is entirely false and based on lies.”

Here is our official response to @amnesty’s recent report:

The deplorable and fanatical organization Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated report that is entirely false and based on lies. The genocidal massacre on October 7, 2023, was carried out by the… pic.twitter.com/GXsRJn5kVn

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) December 5, 2024

NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based institute that works to hold organizations such as Amnesty International to account, called the report “a sham,” and labeled it an “immoral attack” and “blatant genocide inversion.” It alleged even some of Amnesty’s own employees admitted the research was highly questionable and that it was effectively attempting to shoehorn an “investigation” into a conclusion it had already drawn.

“The allegation that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip is unfounded and the process of writing the report has been flawed.”

Even employees from @amnesty admit that the report’s “research” is a sham, with conclusions fabricated in advance to push an anti-Israel… https://t.co/y8k7sYs0Tc pic.twitter.com/9CtYE87CYS

— NGO Monitor (@NGOmonitor) December 5, 2024

Middle East/Israel:

IDF recovers body of murdered hostage Itay Svirsky

His mother is buried on the right,
On the left is his father.
Itay will be buried in the middle, between them.

An entire family brutally murdered by Hamas, the Svirsky family pic.twitter.com/ERbTDgha6V

— נועה מגיד | Noa magid (@NoaMagid) December 4, 2024

Israeli security forces have recovered the body of Itay Svirsky, 38, after 425 days in Gaza. He was kidnapped from Kibbutz Be’eri on October 7, the same day his parents were killed in the Hamas attack. The recovery comes after confirmation of his death in January alongside fellow hostage Yossi Sharabi after 99 days in Hamas captivity.

Forces loyal to Assad driven from key hub of Hama; prior to potential last stand in Homs

If the reports that Assad’s forces have retreated from Hama, handing it the rebels, are true, they will be retreating to mount a last stand at Homs.

If the rebels capture the Homs area, it is all over for Assad. His Alawite coastal heartland and all the ports (circled in pink)… pic.twitter.com/VDWM9WJLSx

— Saul Sadka (@Saul_Sadka) December 5, 2024

Syrian rebels ousted pro-government forces from Hama on Thursday, bringing the insurgents a major new victory after a lightning advance across northern Syria and dealing a new blow to President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies .

The Syrian army said it was redeploying outside the city “to preserve civilians lives and prevent urban combat” after what it called intense clashes.

Hamas terrorists likely executed 6 Israeli hostages as troops drew near

IDF Investigation reveals that six former hostages:
-Alex Dancyg, 75
-Yagev Buchshtav, 35
-Chaim Peri, 79
-Yoram Metzger, 80
-Nadav Popplewell, 51
-Avraham Munder 78

Were all executed by “Palestinians”. pic.twitter.com/HKJ7kIfXZz

— Mosab Hassan Yousef (@MosabHasanYOSEF) December 4, 2024

Hamas terrorists likely executed the six Israeli hostages whose bodies were recovered from southern Gaza on Aug. 20, the Israel Defense Forces said on Wednesday following a comprehensive probe.

While the military said it was not possible to determine with absolute certainty how Yagev Buchshtab, Alexander Dancyg, Yoram Metzger, Avraham Munder, Haim Peri and Nadav Popplewell were killed, their bodies were found with gunshot wounds, unlike their six guards, who are believed to have died in an Israeli Air Force strike in the area.

Report: Trump wants hostage deal before inauguration

I was really impressed by this latest nomination.

A newly created role – no US President has done it before – which underscores Trump’s commitment to securing the return of hostages taken during the October 7th attacks, a serious and focused approach to the crisis.
Adam Boehler… pic.twitter.com/ndB3X1n6MS

— miha schwartzenberg (@mihaschw) December 5, 2024

Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy has traveled to Qatar and Israel to kickstart the U.S. president-elect’s diplomatic push to help reach a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal before he takes office on Jan. 20.

Steve Witkoff, who will officially take up the position under Trump’s administration, met separately in late November with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, according to a source.

Amnesty International publishes report accusing Israel of ‘genocide’ in Gaza

.@amnesty international literally redefined the legal term of genocide to suit their accusation, stripping the term of its actual meaning in the process. The craziest part? They admit this in their report, correctly assuming that most people won’t read all the way to p. 101: https://t.co/lqJYrjkidU

— Mark Goldfeder (@MarkGoldfeder) December 5, 2024

Amnesty International says Israel is “committing genocide” against Palestinians in Gaza, in a new report that it calls a “wake-up call” for the international community.

The London-based rights organization says its findings are based on “dehumanizing and genocidal statements by Israeli government and military officials,” satellite images documenting devastation, fieldwork and ground reports from Gazans. It did not, however, go to Gaza itself, or interview any serving or former IDF soldiers to get a more balanced view. Indeed, the Israeli branch rejected the parent group’s accusation.

Hamas threatens to ‘neutralize’ hostages if IDF makes additional rescue attempts

BREAKING: HAMAS ISSUES HOSTAGE THREAT OVER RESCUE PLANS

Hamas has warned it will “neutralize” hostages if Israel tries a rescue mission similar to one carried out in Gaza’s Nuseirat camp in June.

In a statement dated Nov. 22 and seen by Reuters, Hamas claimed to have… pic.twitter.com/sQ7Kpi5Tfd

— Yisrael official (@YisraelOfficial) December 5, 2024

Hamas leaders ordered the organization’s operatives to “neutralize the hostages” if Israel launches a rescue operation to free them,

A report cites an “\internal document” in which Hamas leaders ordered operatives holding the Israeli hostages to “neutralize them,” after Hamas leaders claimed that “information has been received that Israel is planning an operation to rescue the hostages.”

U.S. claims Hezbollah already ‘trying to rebuild’ after IDF onslaught massively denuded weapons reserves

US intel: Hezbollah looking to rebuild after losing half of its weapons stockpiles https://t.co/HMR6BPVwvE

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) December 5, 2024

Hezbollah is trying to restore its power and rebuild the stockpiles lost to Israel over the course of Operation Northern Arrows.

An American official, an Israeli source, and two American Congress members who were exposed to the information confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies assessed in recent weeks that Hezbollah, even during the operation, acted to recruit new terrorists and attempted to find creative ways to acquire new weapons – including local production and smuggling of materials from Syria.

British chief of defense staff says Israel set Iranian missile production back by a year; world entering ‘third nuclear age’

Israel’s successful retaliation against the mullah terror entity :
took down the mullah air defence system
destroyed ballistic missile production for a year
demonstrated exquisite targeting and extraordinary intelligence
– Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (photo: BBC) pic.twitter.com/LMzUrKoFSW

— Avi Kaner ابراهيم אבי (@AviKaner) December 5, 2024

“Global power is shifting and a third nuclear age is upon us,” said Britain’s Chief of the Defense Staff, Adm. Sir Tony Radakin. “The era of state competition primarily through geo-economics has shifted to a resurgence of geo-politics. And it will last decades.”

U.N. resolution demands Israel return Golan Heights to Syria’s Assad

Today’s reminder that the UN exists on another planet comes in the form of a resolution demanding that Israel hand the Golan Heights over to Syria, a country rapidly being taken over by jihadist rebels.

It passed, of course, with 97 in favor, 8 against, and 64 abstentions. pic.twitter.com/rq3SAWwCpQ

— Avi Mayer אבי מאיר (@AviMayer) December 4, 2024

At the same time as Sunni jihadist rebels are battling Iranian client Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, the U.N.G.A. called on Israel to “desist from … its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan.”

The United Nations estimates that the Syrian civil war has claimed the lives of over 300,000 civilians since it began in 2011. The annual resolution, which does not consider the fate civilians in the Golan would face under Assad, passed with 97 countries in favor, eight against, and 64 abstentions.

O.E.C.D. cuts Israel’s growth forecast as war costs continue to mount

OECD cuts Israel growth forecast as costs of war expected to continue to mount https://t.co/ceX6MxunOY

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) December 4, 2024

The O.E.C.D. significantly downgraded its growth projections for Israel, forecasting a mere 0.6% GDP growth in 2024 – a sharp reduction from the 1.9% previously estimated in May – and 2.4% growth forecast in 2025, down from the earlier projection of 4.6%. These figures imply negative per capita growth in 2024, with the economic outlook bleak amid inflationary pressures, fiscal imbalances and geopolitical instability. Inflation expectations have been revised upward, reaching 3.1% for 2024 and 3.6% for 2025, well above the government’s target range.

IDF spokesperson R.Adm. Hagari in hot water after criticizing bill that could protect intel leakers

IDF SPOKESPERSON SCOLDED FOR SLAMMING CONTROVERSIAL SECURITY BILL

Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the IDF spokesperson, is in hot water after calling the Feldstein Law “very dangerous,” warning it could let anyone with clearance leak classified info without consequences.

The… pic.twitter.com/krEJDBgx5K

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) December 4, 2024

Israel Defense Forces spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari drew widespread backlash on Wednesday when he criticized a law being advanced by the government that would shield members of the defense establishment from prosecution should they give classified intelligence to the prime minister or defense minister without authorization.

During a press briefing, Hagari said the bill would be “very dangerous for the IDF and national security” should it become law.

Qatari emir given royal treatment after he lands for state visit

BREAKING: The Emir of Qatar has landed in the UK on a state visit. Somehow, Israeli leaders are not welcome, but the people who have hosted Hamas for decades are.

The moral bankruptcy of the West has never been clearer. pic.twitter.com/OlCNmdOxdR

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) December 3, 2024

After rolling out the red carpet for Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Tamim Al Thani, the U.K. government announced plans to double joint U.K.-Qatar humanitarian assistance with a $100 million fund intended to “tackle key global challenges” in Gaza, Syria, Somalia, and beyond.

The humanitarian pledge was the first initiative announced during Al Thani’s two-day state visit to Britain, which kicked off with pomp and circumstance on December 3. Prince William and Princess Catherine greeted the emir and his wife before King Charles III formally welcomed the Qatari couple along London’s Horse Guards Parade.

Nearly one-third of Jewish Ontario doctors considering emigration over vertiginous spike in antisemitic incidents

Almost ONE-THIRD of Jewish medical professionals in Ontario are considering leaving the country. Due to the shocking rise in antisemitism.

Important thread and important for @JustinTrudeau to see just how badly he and his government have failed the Jews. https://t.co/hXJ8EJ5ztM

— The Mossad: Satirical and Awesome (@TheMossadIL) December 5, 2024

Nearly one third of Jewish medical practitioners in Ontario are considering leaving the country in response to rising antisemitism, according to a new survey that found that doctors across Canada are worried about what’s happening to their profession.

The data released by the Jewish Medical Association of Ontario (JMAO) on Wednesday reveal widespread concerns of antisemitism among health-care practitioners across Canada.

IDF eliminates senior Hezbollah representative to Syrian army in targeted airstrike

Hezbollah’s representative to the Syrian Military, Salman Nemer Jamaa, was eliminated in an intelligence-based strike.

Jamaa, a senior Hezbollah terrorist, has held various positions in the Hezbollah terrorist organization over the past years, especially in the Syrian arena.… pic.twitter.com/RQxk4sgSY7

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) December 3, 2024

The Israeli Air Force recently announced the elimination of the Hezbollah terrorist Salman Nemer Jama’a who represented Iran’s Lebanese proxy in the group’s dealings with the Syrian Army. He held various positions in the terrorist organization over the past several years, particularly those involving links to the Syrian military.

“Jama’a was a key figure in the terrorist group which supported these operations,” the IDF said. “The Syrian regime has actively supported Hezbollah, allowing the smuggling of weapons into Lebanon and endangering Syrian and Lebanese civilians.”

JERUSALEM – The United Nations, which has found ways – almost daily – to cover itself in ignominy, succeeded yet again when it passed three recent non-binding resolutions related to Israel, highlighting again it has an unhealthy obsession with the Jewish state.

On December 3, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. In doing so, it perfectly mirrored maximalist Palestinian demands… short of getting rid of the whole of the State of Israel entirely. The resolution also implemented the establishment of a June 2025 conference, whose sole purpose is to “urgently chart an irreversible path toward” a Palestinian state.

It’s been more than a year since toddlers hugged their fathers.

More than a year since mothers embraced their daughters.

Is it not time the #UNGA held #Hamas accountable? pic.twitter.com/XsgZUQIkLL

— Reut Shapir Ben-Naftaly (@ReutSBN) December 3, 2024

Reut Shapir Ben-Naftaly, Israel’s U.N. political coordinator, called the measures a “reckless disregard for the truth” and declared that “the U.N.’s entrenched anti-Israeli bias has been laid bare for all to see,” according to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In addition to this resolution, the UNGA also decreed Israel has no business being on the Golan Heights and passed a motion saying it should withdraw. There is much about this resolution that is truly astonishing. The U.N. estimates Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is currently fighting a rearguard action – along with his Russian and Iranian backers – to repel the advance of Sunni Muslim jihadists – has killed some 300,000 people in the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011. Other estimates put the more likely figure at double that; it is interesting to note the U.N. will accept inflated casualty figures from the Gaza Health Ministry, i.e. Hamas, about allegedly entirely non-combatants “indiscriminately killed by a genocidal army,” but will massively underplay the number of deaths when Israel is not involved. Additionally, the war has displaced – both internally and externally – approximately half of Syria’s pre-war population of 20 million people.

Furthermore, this ignores returning U.S. President Donald Trump’s unilateral acknowledgement of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in March 2019, which the country seized in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which it annexed in 1981, and which was won at an extremely high cost in terms of men and materiel. Israel only has control of about seven percent of the Golan Heights’ area; Syria still controls the vast majority – although not the part where they would be able to more easily fire directly into Israel’s Galilee, including the fertile Jezreel Valley. Considering the instability sweeping throughout Syria, the UNGA’s decision seems irrational at best, unless one takes the view it would like to either a) prop up the Assad regime and/or b) allow jihadists easier access to Israeli targets.

WATCH: Trump formally recognizes Israel’s annexation of Golan Heights

The third and final piece of this puzzle was the move to fund a division dedicated to pushing the Palestinian agenda. The division oversees the International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People, which has featured speakers at U.N. events calling for the elimination of Israel, and UNISPAL, a body dedicated to disseminating pro-Palestinian information.

There is also a deep irony that on Wednesday, the United Nations unveiled a new photographic exhibit that includes entries from so-called journalists who embedded themselves with Hamas fighters who broke into Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and witnessed some of the worst of the massacres. It would be one thing if they were merely recording events for posterity, however, one has to question a tweet, which crowed, “We have sex slaves,” followed by a laughing emoji.

OUTRAGE: UN headquarters today inaugurated an anti-Israel photo exhibit featuring the work of @hamda_mahmoud, who laughed about Hamas kidnapping “sabayas” (sex slaves) on October 7th. https://t.co/yMxvCBfNAm pic.twitter.com/ME0XRqmk3l

— UN Watch (@UNWatch) December 4, 2024

We’re back in Moscow. Here’s why. pic.twitter.com/7FfBhcaIUu

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 3, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at his Mar-A-Lago estate in West Palm Beach on Friday.

The dinner, which was not previously announced on Trudeau’s public itinerary, comes amidst Trump’s decision to impose a 25% tariff on all products from Canada and Mexico in response to the “illegal alien invasion.”

In a statement made on Truth Social, Trump declared that these tariffs would remain in effect “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”

He emphasized that both neighboring nations have the power to address the issue, demanding immediate action to resolve the “long simmering problem.”

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders. This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump said on Truth Social on Monday.

“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!” Trump said on Truth Social on Monday evening,” Trump added.

The announcement has sent shockwaves through Ottawa, with Trudeau’s liberal government scrambling to respond to what they view as an existential threat to Canada’s already fragile economy.

Just two hours after Trump posted the tariff threats, Trudeau called Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate, and the two spoke about trade and security at the border.

Not satisfied, desperate Trudeau boarded a plane to Florida for a face-to-face discussion.

The meeting, described as “productive” by Trump, centered on America’s demand for decisive action from its northern neighbor.

“I just had a very productive meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, where we discussed many important topics that will require both Countries to work together to address, like the Fentanyl and Drug Crisis that has decimated so many lives as a result of Illegal Immigration, Fair Trade Deals that do not jeopardize American Workers, and the massive Trade Deficit the U.S. has with Canada,” Trump said on Truth Social on Saturday.

“I made it very clear that the United States will no longer sit idly by as our Citizens become victims to the scourge of this Drug Epidemic, caused mainly by the Drug Cartels, and Fentanyl pouring in from China. Too much death and hardship! Prime Minister Trudeau has made a commitment to work with us to end this terrible devastation of U.S. Families. We also spoke about many other important topics like Energy, Trade, and the Arctic. All are vital issues that I will be addressing on my first days back in Office, and before,” Trump added.

The meeting took a lighter turn when, according to Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, Trump humorously suggested that if Canada cannot sustain its economy without what he claimed was a $100 billion annual exploitation of the U.S., perhaps it should consider becoming the 51st state.

This comment reportedly came after Trudeau expressed concerns about the detrimental impact of new tariffs on the Canadian economy.

Doocy reported on Fox News:

“Tonight we’re getting some new details about that Trump-Trudeau dinner from two people who were at the table. We’re told that when Trudeau told President-elect Trump that new tariffs would kill the Canadian economy, Trump joked to him that if Canada can’t survive without ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion per year, then maybe Canada should become the 51st state, and Trudeau can become its governor.”

WATCH:

This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com.