You’ll always get lost if you only play the short game

You may remember a guest post from a few months ago by Ada Nestor.

Ada reviewed my book, The American War on Election Corruption, in her post. Let me tell you – she’s sharp as a tack and has a sense of perception second to none. Check out the piece she dropped yesterday in her newsletter, which I urge you to subscribe to:

“While You Were Watching a Lake Get Renamed“

Believe me, I’ve already heard all the second-guessing, hand-wringing, and rationalizing from so-called conservatives going on about changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America. Ada had this to say:

The same week, Lake Ontario became “Lake America.” A map with a name crossed out on Truth Social. An Oval Office signing. Canadian premiers issuing statements. Three straight news cycles arguing about whether a body of water can be renamed by executive fiat, and whether the Atlantic is next. I’ll believe the Atlantic panic when someone actually tries it.

I didn’t write a word about the lake. Not because it isn’t a story. Because I was watching two real ones.

She went on to talk about some actions President Trump took last week related to a national emergency over our power system. Give it a read and you’ll realize that she appreciates the same thing about the President that I’ve noticed for years now.

When President Trump is getting things done in a big way, he usually throws out a series of distractions for the press and Trump-deranged (often the same people) to choke on. That way, someone with an inside scoop to derail peace/trade/negotiation cannot gain the necessary leverage over people who would rather defend a communist or openly express their disdain over naming something to honor one’s own country.

Then, when the ink dries, you get something like this:

“Breaking News: The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!”

President Trump pointed out that the United States now controls 65 billion barrels (65 thousand million) of Venezuela’s oil reserves – enough to supply the petroleum and oil needs of the United States (20.6 million barrels per day) for almost nine years.

Ada’s post compelled me to produce what I believe are the three most vital takeaways for Trump’s Venezuela oil deal, along with deeper explanations for each as to how they will benefit us, the people of the United States of America.

Without further ado:

I. Hindsight Remains Golden

I remember waking up on Saturday morning, January 3, to find out that U.S. force plucked Venezuela’s then-president Nicolas Maduro right out of his bed, then flew out without losing a single service member. I mean, they yanked him like you see with one of those hooks in a cartoon ripping someone off of a stage.

Another thing the Trump-deaf don’t get is how he refers to other people, like the interim president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez. She’s a member of Maduro’s party and, I’m confident, a pretty lousy person and even worse leader. Even so, she is referred to in writing by the most powerful man on Earth as “Highly Respected.”

Rodriguez and Trump almost certainly have the same thing in mind. She will do what he says, and if she doesn’t, she will wind up getting a free ride on the same aircraft that took Maduro on an unexpected red eye across the Western Hemisphere. As long as she says “yes sir” and we turn Venezuela into a resource-rich partner in our area of influence, she is great, wonderful, and “highly respected” – and most importantly, going nowhere.

This brings me to the question of Manifest Destiny. Few of us support these endless wars that have been popular for the past 60 years. This opposition got President Trump elected twice (three times, really), and right now we are watching the rest of the world pine for the United States to do the dying in Iran. I am confident there were larger plans in place months ago, but Europe is out, and no one in the Middle East has the resources to put men on the ground needed to topple a regime that manages, above all things, to survive.

But taking care of our own backyard is hardly a concept of endless wars or never-ending conflict. Trump’s success at practically zero cost to the United States will likely spur future like-minded administrations (including Trump’s own) to take action against other pariah states on our side of the map, such as Cuba. A Latin America with de facto alignment with an America First agenda is a powerful economic force against the powers of globalism and the emergence of other-than-friendly nations, like China.

II. Axis of Evil Hardest Hit

20% of the world’s crude oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a geographical feature which lends an otherwise backward nation like Iran a major advantage against other nations in the world economy.

The constant games played by the regime, which realizes the administration is too shrewd to be baited into a ground campaign, have caused major volatility in our markets and have kept energy and gas prices sky-high. This, naturally, has political consequences (enough to tip most of the 24 decisive House races, potentially) but also strategic ones.

Trump’s deal with Venezuela locks in a guaranteed source of oil at cost for 100 years, breaking our reliance on the Middle East and opening up our options when dealing with the perpetual conflict there. Additionally, Venezuela and Iran were critical pillars in China’s operation to conquer the world by mid-century.

Right on cue, American strikes on Kharg Island have commenced. With Venezuela realigned and Iran’s energy exports business up in flames (and global economic terrorism game upended), who takes the biggest hit?

III. American Quality of Life and Affordability

Everyone is hoping this pays off for 2026 midterms, typically by hoping gasoline prices plummet. This requires a nuanced understanding of the deal. Analysts believe Venezuela is only producing 1.2 million barrels of oil per day; however, Trump the builder knows this and with a renewed focus on polishing up this investment, will heavily invest in infrastructure.

Why?

Venezuela has more oil than anyone in the world, up to six times more than the United States. We produce almost 14 million barrels of crude oil per day. That’s chump change in Venezuela at full potential. It may take some time for the fruit of this deal to become obvious, but the future of American energy dominance is now sealed, and will result in oil being so abundant without reliance on tranquility in the Middle East that a dramatic drop in all energy costs, including the cost of transportation, will follow.

Conclusion

This arrangement with Venezuela is a direct result of strong leadership, saying enough of Maduro, and finding a total workaround of a bottleneck in the Middle East no one has wanted to touch for decades. It stands to benefit our country for generations and absolutely harms China’s ambitions with great impact.

Next time you see some crazy stuff going on in the news, you should always wonder what President Trump and team are up to behind the scenes.

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in Newsmax. Will Geopolitics Render Our Dollar Replaceable?)

For most of modern history, the machinery that moves money globally has been almost invisible. You bought something. Money moved. Banks settled it.

Nobody thought much about the financial architecture making it all possible.

That era is ending.

This writer saw this transformation taking shape years ago as co-founder and CEO of the American Blockchain PAC, where our mission centered on bringing regulatory clarity to America’s emerging digital-asset industry and helping policymakers grapple with a fundamental question: What, exactly, are these new assets, and how should the United States regulate them?

At the time, much of Washington treated digital assets as a regulatory problem.

Today, they increasingly look like a geopolitical one.

Payments are becoming geopolitics.

And the next great contest for global power may not be over which currency replaces the dollar, but over something far less glamorous and potentially just as consequential: who controls the rails on which the world’s money moves.

That distinction matters.

The U.S. dollar remains overwhelmingly dominant.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, roughly 98% of stablecoin value is still denominated in dollars.

The dollar remains deeply embedded in global finance.

But countries increasingly want the ability to move money without passing through infrastructure vulnerable to American or Western control. Russia offers perhaps the most provocative example of this.

In a recent interview, PSB Bank Chairman Petr Fradkov described payments as a tool of “new warfare,” arguing that the dollar’s power extends beyond the currency itself to America’s ability to influence transactions.

You don’t have to accept Moscow’s framing, or sympathize with its motives, to recognize the larger point. Money is power.

But the ability to determine how, where and whether money moves is power too.

Consider A7A5, the ruble-backed stablecoin launched in 2025.

It has reportedly already generated nearly $140 billion in cumulative turnover, making it the world’s largest non-dollar stablecoin.

Western governments have sanctioned entities associated with A7A5, and critics argue that the broader A7 network is explicitly designed to help Russia circumvent sanctions.

But that’s precisely why Washington should be paying attention.

Sanctions work because America doesn’t merely issue the world’s dominant currency.

It also sits at the center of much of the machinery that moves money around the world.

A dollar transaction between two foreign countries can still touch correspondent banks, clearing systems and regulated financial institutions within America’s reach.

That gives Washington something enormously valuable: the ability to see transactions, block them and, in some cases, effectively shut institutions out of the global financial system.

For decades, there were few practical ways around that architecture. Now there are.

China has expanded its Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, or CIPS, which provides infrastructure for renminbi transactions. Governments around the world are experimenting with central-bank digital currencies, tokenized deposits and stablecoins. Russia is pushing A7 internationally, including into Africa.

These systems don’t have to defeat the dollar to matter.

They merely have to make Western financial infrastructure optional.

That may be the geopolitical story Washington is missing.

The debate is usually framed around “de-dollarization”: Will China replace the dollar with the yuan? Will BRICS create a common currency? Will some new digital asset knock the greenback from its throne?

Those questions may be looking in the wrong direction.

The more immediate competition is over infrastructure, not currency. Imagine the dollar remains the world’s preferred store of value, but a growing percentage of international commerce can move across settlement networks Washington cannot easily monitor, interrupt or influence.

America could retain monetary dominance while gradually losing some of the geopolitical leverage that monetary dominance once automatically provided.

And that has consequences.

Alternative payment rails can reduce American visibility into international transactions.

They can make sanctions harder to enforce.

They can weaken the network effects that make U.S.-centered financial infrastructure indispensable.

But there is another irony here.

Dollar-backed stablecoins themselves currently strengthen the dollar because their value is pegged to it, extending the dollar’s reach into the digital economy.

Nearly the entire stablecoin market is dollar-denominated, and major issuers hold enormous quantities of U.S. Treasury securities.

Digital finance, at least so far, has exported the dollar rather than displaced it.

That gives Washington an extraordinary advantage, but not necessarily a permanent one.

Countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America increasingly want what might be called financial optionality: the ability to trade globally without depending exclusively on infrastructure controlled somewhere else.

For America, the answer isn’t to stop technological competition.

It’s to win it.

That means making dollar-based digital infrastructure faster, cheaper and easier to use.

It also means regulatory clarity for American stablecoins and tokenized finance and treating payment technology as strategic infrastructure rather than an obscure corner of financial regulation.

America spent decades building the world’s most powerful financial system. Its next challenge is ensuring the rest of the world still wants to use it.

Because the battle for the future of money may not ultimately be about whose face is printed on the currency. It may be about who owns the rails – and the terrain beneath them.

Adelle Nazarian is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

Senior Fellow Seth Keshel on why there is no political middle left in America, and on the immigration, trade, war, and anti-corruption questions that admit no middle ground.

Continue reading

Ready to take effect for 2026 midterms

Potentially big news broke Saturday as the United States Postal Service provided a 95-page ruling as to how they will be handling mail-in ballots pending favorable relief from the courtroom (hence the asterisks in the title and sub-title of this article). From Reuters:

USPS said it was issuing its 95-page rule so it could take immediate effect if a court lifted its injunctions on it and be in place for the upcoming election. Under the rule, USPS would not deliver ballots in states that do not comply with the rule’s new standards.

You can also find the full document at my Telegram page in a forwarded post.

The USPS cuts right to the chase and points fingers at the ridiculous courts in this country, which are doing everything they can to get in the way of communists being thrown out of power everywhere in America. From the document:

Given injunctions currently in place in State of California v. Trump, No. 26-cv-11581 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026), and League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 26-cv-11549 (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2026), the Postal Service will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.

Essentially, the USPS tells us in the first two pages they are trying to execute the President’s executive order intended to “…reduce the risk of fraud, and help protect the integrity of federal elections.” Of course, every nation on Earth realizes the problems with mail-in balloting, which is why you can barely spin the globe without your finger landing on a nation that hasn’t already banned the practice; that is, every nation not filled with left-wing idiots jamming up the courts and praying they can threaten and blackmail themselves to some half-baked ruling from a tyrant in a robe on the enemy’s payroll that furthers their sick agendas.

This article, as I am fond of doing, will outline the Top Five Points of the USPS’s ruling for your edification and understanding:

I. Timing

The USPS is on point and getting ahead of anything new, specifically aiming these reforms with a court order in mind. The Trump administration is awaiting an emergency Supreme Court ruling on their filings pushing back against the lawsuits from states listed above. Most recently, the Supreme Court (thanks to Amy Coney Barrett) gave us the shaft by allowing states to count mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day.

It remains to be seen whether that ruling will have any impact on Trump’s USPS executive order (14399). Still, I find it promising that the USPS is bullish enough on the validity and necessity of that order to produce such a thorough document that suggests they acknowledge the vulnerabilities of the present system and the potential for fraud and abuse. Simply put, the USPS is ready and eager to implement these changes. Timing is essential, since states like Virginia and Pennsylvania will start pushing mail ballots out within the next month.

II. Federal Mail-In Ballot Portal

This is a huge piece, and the resistance of the mail-in heavy states to it is essentially a tell that they all know the system is beyond redemption. This portion requires officials to enter data for every outbound federal mail-in ballot before they are sent out. Remember, the eight states participating in Universal Mail-In Voting (CA, CO, HI, NV, OR, UT, VT, WA) send out ballots to every registrant on the rolls, no matter if that person is still living or is even a citizen (or was ever real to begin with). Other states, like Arizona, operate massive mail lists voters may enroll in, but stop short of Universal.

The states guilty of mail-in ballot rigging realize that by providing advanced notice of which registrations are receiving ballots, they are condemning themselves to being found out by federal investigators who will now be able to fully quantify how many of these ballots have no business being sent out. The lawfare is the easiest and most expected route for the rogue states.

III. Envelope Design Standards

If you’re using the federal mail service for federal elections, then we expect you to play by our rules. This portion lays out the requirements for envelopes, including specific security measures such as barcodes to guarantee authenticity of ballots and provide effective measures to quickly track and sort ballots.

Measures like these make it hard for ballots to go missing and ensure chain-of-custody for mailed ballots, which would likely have much higher rates of return once verified on an official portal ensuring only real people can receive them.

IV. Criteria for Verification and Acceptance

USPS employees will check presented mail ballots for compliance with the portal described above, and also examine the envelopes for design compliance (also listed above in point three). Non-matches with the portal and out-of-standard envelope specifications will force each non-compliant piece back to the mailing entity for reassessment.

This is another safety measure against groups seeking to deceive the postal service by mailing counterfeit ballots, and to ensure that only entries listed on the portal are receiving ballots. Additionally, insertion of large quantities of fraudulent ballots in the mail are easily spotted.

V. What It Does Not Do

This guidance does not mean that:

The USPS determines voter eligibility
The USPS examines citizenship
The USPS opens or examines ballots upon return
The USPS extends these procedures to UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act)

Conclusion

I consider it a positive sign that the USPS thinks the Trump administration will win this case promising for more security for mail-in balloting than is present today. Most bureaucratic organizations won’t lift a finger to move on anything no matter how imperative the cause is; the USPS drafting a 95-page document waiting on the word “go” to implement massive changes is hard to overlook.

Should the proper relief be granted, I consider it highly likely that we will have a midterm fiasco of mail-in-reliant states not having complied with the requirements of portal entries or envelope design because they were too busy resisting the logic and simple rationale of the executive order and expecting courts to continue to be in their pockets. This would give grounds for suing over lost House and Senate races, of which there are several in the eight Universal Mail-In Voting states and many more in other states that have hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of mail-in ballots flying around.

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

(This article was written by Maria Maalouf and appeared in The Capitol Institute. Pakistan Is Fueling the Fire in Sudan: A $1.5 Billion Arms Pipeline Raises New Questions in Washington)

The first public appearance of 100 Pakistani-made Mohafiz-V armored vehicles in a Sudanese Armed Forces military parade in Khartoum is more than another weapons delivery in a distant war. It signals a dangerous new phase in Sudan’s conflict—one in which outside powers are helping rebuild military capabilities while diplomatic efforts struggle to stop the bloodshed. The armored vehicles reportedly represent the visible edge of a much larger defense arrangement between Port Sudan and Islamabad, estimated at approximately $1.5 billion. For Washington, the question should not simply be what Pakistan is selling Sudan. The more important questions are who is financing it, what else is being delivered, and whether foreign military support is making an already catastrophic war even harder to end.

The $1.5 Billion Question

The Mohafiz-V is manufactured by Pakistan’s state-owned defense industry and designed for mobility across difficult and semi-arid terrain—the exact battlefield environment found across Darfur and Kordofan. But the armored vehicles may represent only one component of a much broader military package. Regional reports and intelligence assessments cited by the press indicate that the arrangement could include Shahpar-2 reconnaissance and attack drones, loitering munitions, spare parts for K-8 Karakorum light-attack aircraft and Chinese-origin air-defense platforms. If these systems are delivered and operationalized at scale, they could significantly reinforce the Sudanese Armed Forces’ conventional capabilities and potentially change the military balance in key areas of the country. This is not simply an arms sale. It is potentially an attempt to rebuild the conventional advantage of one of Sudan’s principal warring parties.

Washington Should Be Paying Attention

There is an uncomfortable contradiction at the center of the Sudan file. The international community says it wants negotiations, civilian protection and an end to the war, yet sophisticated military equipment continues to enter the battlefield. The United States has already determined that Sudanese government forces used chemical weapons during the conflict and imposed sanctions in response. That makes the arrival of new military capabilities even more troubling. The appropriate international response to the use of prohibited weapons should be greater accountability and pressure—not an expanding pipeline of armored vehicles, drones, munitions and air-defense technology. Every new shipment can strengthen the belief that victory remains possible through military force, and as long as Sudan’s belligerents believe they can win on the battlefield, the incentive to make meaningful compromises at the negotiating table diminishes.

Follow the Money

The financing of the reported Pakistan-Sudan arrangement may ultimately prove as important as the weapons themselves. Reports have described complicated third-party financial channels and changing calculations among regional actors, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Sudanese Armed Forces commander Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s diplomatic outreach to Riyadh has consequently attracted attention regarding the political and financial support necessary to sustain the SAF’s war effort. These claims require careful verification, and neither Riyadh nor Doha should be assigned responsibility for financing specific weapons without conclusive evidence. But that does not make the underlying question disappear: Who is financing Sudan’s expanding arsenal? A transaction reportedly worth $1.5 billion in the middle of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises cannot be treated as an ordinary bilateral defense contract. The financial architecture behind it deserves scrutiny from Washington and other governments concerned with Sudan’s future.

Pakistan Enters the Red Sea Equation

Pakistan’s involvement carries strategic implications extending far beyond Sudan. The Red Sea is one of the world’s most important maritime corridors, connecting Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and any expansion of foreign military influence around Sudan inevitably becomes part of the broader competition surrounding this strategic waterway. India is watching particularly closely. Indian security analysts have reportedly raised concerns about Pakistan expanding its military footprint near Red Sea and Indian Ocean lines of communication. The possible deployment of Pakistani drones alongside Chinese-origin technologies in an active war could also provide Islamabad with valuable operational experience and battlefield data. Sudan must not become a testing ground for foreign military technology. The combination of Pakistani platforms, Chinese technology and a prolonged African war creates risks that extend beyond the immediate confrontation between the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces.

The Proliferation Danger

Sudan is a fragmented battlefield involving armies, militias, local armed groups and competing external interests. That makes every sophisticated weapons delivery inherently dangerous. Drones, surveillance systems, ammunition and other military technologies introduced today can eventually move beyond their original recipients. Weapons proliferation rarely respects borders once states descend into prolonged conflict. The danger therefore extends toward the Horn of Africa, the Sahel and the Red Sea. Neighboring countries will ultimately bear part of the price through border insecurity, weapons trafficking, refugee movements and increased instability. Commercial interests will pay as well, as continued militarization around Sudan and the Red Sea increases uncertainty for shipping companies, insurers and investors operating along one of the global economy’s most important corridors.

Pakistan’s Internal Controversy

The reported deal is also generating criticism inside Pakistan. Baloch political groups have questioned whether foreign-currency revenues from major defense exports could strengthen Pakistan’s military establishment and ultimately increase resources available for internal security and counterinsurgency operations in Balochistan and elsewhere. Those allegations should be presented as claims by Pakistani opposition groups rather than established facts, but they highlight a legitimate broader issue: where does the money from a reported $1.5 billion defense transaction ultimately go? When weapons exports become an important source of revenue for military-linked industries, financial incentives can begin competing with diplomatic considerations. Sudan cannot afford to become collateral damage in that equation.

More Weapons, Less Diplomacy

The emerging pattern is dangerous but simple: foreign weapons increase expectations of battlefield victory; expectations of victory reduce incentives for compromise; failed negotiations then create demand for additional weapons. Sudan becomes trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle. Pakistan may view the arrangement primarily through the lens of defense exports and strategic influence, while other regional powers may see Sudan through their own security or geopolitical interests. But Sudanese civilians experience the consequences differently—through displacement, destroyed communities, hunger and another year without peace.

Washington Must Follow the Weapons—and the Money

The United States and its partners should demand greater transparency surrounding major weapons transfers into Sudan and the financial networks supporting them. Washington should examine not only who manufactures the weapons but who finances their purchase, who transports them, which intermediaries facilitate the transactions and what political arrangements accompany them. Sudan does not need another international arms race. It needs external powers to stop treating its territory as an arena for geopolitical competition, defense exports and proxy influence. Those who supply the weapons may never pull the trigger themselves. But when foreign governments and military industries knowingly provide the means for an already catastrophic war to continue, they cannot claim to be standing on the sidelines of the fire.

Maria Maalouf is a Senior Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.