(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Embaucamiento suicida)

Half a century from now, if there still exist countries in which it is possible to research, write and debate freely about history, about politics and about the past, people will study with astonishment and disbelief the colossal operation of deception of the whole of the West that we are witnessing. And which yesterday was symbolised by that mass walkout of delegates from the UN Assembly when the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke.

The head of government of a tiny democracy surrounded by bloody despotisms was the object of an affront delivered no longer only by that majority of tyrannies and sinister dictatorships that always wanted to destroy it. Joining in the insult were also the delegates of many Western countries that until recently defended Israel, some of whom even claim to go on doing so, but which with few exceptions have aligned themselves, some in radical and obscene fashion and others more discreetly, with all the forces and countries whose objective is the disappearance of that tiny country from the map.

The UN General Assembly was the ideal place for a piece of villainy of this kind, because there is no place on the globe with a greater concentration of moral filth and totalitarian grime. That is what the UN is for, the organisation corrupt to the marrow that the West pays for in order to destroy the West. The only good thing that could come out of the UN is its dissolution, that noble project of the last century having already been irredeemably perverted until it became an implacable machinery for the promotion of lies and the imposition of criminal policies of social engineering and socialist despotism hostile to Western civilisation, to freedom and to truth. Let us hope that Donald Trump or whoever succeeds him will at some point take the decision to stop paying thieves and tyrants with their armies of functionaries devoted to plans to enslave the last corner of the planet.

This deception of the entire West through the globalisation of the propaganda of a terrorist organisation, one of the most monstrously murderous in the world, could in future be considered the beginning of the main phase of the dismantling of the West as a community of countries based on the cult of common virtues and values grounded in rationality, respect for truth and the freedom of the human being, sacred in his dignity, created in the image and likeness of God, grounded in this Christendom that only Donald Trump recalled in a tribute to the only genocide that is real today, the one perpetrated by the Islamists against Christians in Africa and which interests nobody. They are all focused on a genocide that does not exist and which they have created as the fallacious slogan of that propaganda of total effectiveness which all the media vomit out every day at every hour in every country.

Never has there been a propaganda spell of such dimensions, one whose global reach and political effectiveness makes the enchantment of German national socialism, of fascism or of the communist fever of the soviets look like a clumsy exercise in local entertainment, and which is happening right now to the point of leading the most efficient, best informed and most prosperous societies to self-mutilation, to defencelessness, and to preparing their own destruction from within and from without.

The politicians and rulers of Western countries are in their vast majority mediocre tightrope walkers balancing on the moods of voters. And that within democracies eroded by the permanent invasion of people hostile to freedom and to respect for the human being and who are moreover brothers in the fanaticism of their destructive religious ideology to the terrorists of Hamas, who among them all have become the scriptwriters of the farce. By now they have almost managed to get every Western country to say Hamas is entirely right.

And so they also say the same, that they are right, to the Muslim mobs which every day with greater insolence occupy the public space in the streets of the towns and cities of Western countries. Perfectly organised and motivated in this operation of deception, they have taken the streets to proclaim that the streets are theirs. And in fact they already control more and more neighbourhoods, where they use violence and intimidation whenever they think it necessary, confident of their impunity.

It is no longer a matter of foolishness such as the pressure for the two states they want to impose. When there are no Palestinians who want two states. However much the corrupt figures of the Palestinian Authority may claim otherwise, living as they do off it, and being the authority with the least authority in the world, which without Israel’s protection would be devoured within days by Hamas and other groups, which are the ones that will capitalise on these days of shame in New York. It is a matter of the fact that the arm-wrestle they want to win against Israel is one they are winning against the West. And some of us now trust only that Israel will hold out and win this war as it has to win it, annihilating Hamas as Nazism was annihilated, with all the pain caused by the deaths of German civilians and the destroyed cities. That Israel may win and that Western nations may react and rid themselves of the corrupt, cowardly, weak and foolish people who govern them and begin to learn to defend themselves against the same threat Israel faces, because the existence of those European and American nations of the south, the centre and the north, of the whole West, is as much at stake as the existence of the small Mediterranean democracy.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in The Western Journal. Op-Ed: Trump’s Crypto Critics Are Missing the Bigger Picture – The GENIUS Act and America’s Next Frontier)

When history is written, America’s greatest leaps forward are rarely remembered for the critics who doubted them, but for the visionaries who built anyway.

From the steel tracks that bound a continent, to the silicon chips that ignited a digital revolution, progress has always come when rules were clear, opportunities abundant, and the entrepreneurial spirit unshackled.

Today, the frontier is digital finance — and once again, America stands at a crossroads.

As co-founder and former CEO of the American Blockchain PAC, I have long argued that the United States needed a strong, coherent regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and digital assets — one that would unify the conflicting interpretations of our alphabet soup of agencies. Without clarity, innovation would wither, investment would flee, and America’s global leadership would erode.

That is why I view the mainstream media’s reflexive attacks on President Trump’s cryptocurrency agenda as dangerously shortsighted. By dismissing his reforms as a handout to insiders, they ignore the deeper truth: this administration has delivered what no prior government dared to — a comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins through the GENIUS Act.

The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act), signed into law this summer, is the most consequential piece of crypto legislation in American history. For the first time, it provides a uniform federal standard for stablecoins, mandates 1:1 reserve backing with U.S. dollars and Treasuries, and ensures transparency, consumer protections, and fair competition.

Just as importantly, it removes the cloud of uncertainty that has long hung over developers, investors, and entrepreneurs — declaring, at last, that America welcomes innovation in digital finance.

This clarity is not theoretical. It is transformational.

Consider Immaculata Living in Chicago. What was once a long-neglected school building owned by the American Islamic College is being reborn as a thriving community hub: 235 modern apartments for young professionals and a 22-story residential tower for seniors, complete with wellness services, intergenerational mentoring, and new small business opportunities.

But what makes it historic is not the architecture — it is the financing model. With support from Neem Capital and Nexera, Immaculata Living is poised to become the largest real estate development in the world funded entirely by cryptocurrency. Accredited investors are converting digital assets into property stakes, while community members are purchasing fractional ownership shares in exchange for course credits from the college. It is a living, breathing demonstration of how blockchain can marry financial innovation with tangible community uplift.

Under the old, fragmented regulatory regime, such a project would have been nearly impossible. The risk of being arbitrarily classified as an unregistered security — or shut down by one of several competing regulators — would have smothered it in the crib. But under the GENIUS Act’s framework, stablecoins used in this project are recognized as legitimate, regulated instruments — no longer a legal gray area, but a building block of community development.

This is the bigger picture President Trump’s critics refuse to see.

The GENIUS Act is not about lining pockets — it is about laying foundations. It ensures that stablecoin issuers can innovate responsibly while protecting consumers. It strengthens the U.S. dollar’s dominance by tying digital finance directly to America’s financial system. And most importantly, it creates space for projects like Immaculata Living to flourish — not just in Chicago, but in underserved communities nationwide.

Think about what this means: new jobs, new tax revenues, affordable housing, and generational bridges — all powered by crypto tied to real-world value. For neighborhoods long ignored by traditional finance, this is nothing short of revolutionary.

America has always led when the rules were fair, the vision was bold, and the spirit of enterprise was free to soar. The GENIUS Act is our railroad, our telegraph, our silicon chip moment in the digital age. It is proof that cryptocurrency is not a speculative sideshow but the next great engine of American prosperity.

The lesson is simple: when we regulate with clarity instead of fear, we unlock possibility. President Trump has declared his ambition to make the United States the crypto capital of the world. The GENIUS Act is the scaffolding that makes this vision real. Projects like Immaculata Living are the proof. And the communities they uplift will be the legacy.

The media may prefer to sneer at token prices and hypothetical scams. But the truth is there for anyone willing to see it: With the GENIUS Act, America has reclaimed the mantle of leadership in the digital age. And for the millions of Americans waiting to be included in the prosperity of tomorrow, this is just the beginning.

This is not just a crypto story. It is an American story — of ingenuity, resilience, inclusion, and economic renewal. The GENIUS Act is the scaffolding. Immaculata Living is the proof. And the communities uplifted by these innovations will be the legacy.

When the rules are clear, America leads. We always have. And thanks to the GENIUS Act, we will again, this time on the digital frontier.

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

(This article was written by Shea Bradley-Farrell and appeared in Human Events. Foreign adversaries are exploiting Charlie Kirk’s assassination to divide America)

America’s foreign adversaries – like the Russian government, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the Islamic Republic of Iran – will use every opportunity to exploit a crisis to advance their agendas – overtly, covertly, and clandestinely. Always.

“Asymmetric warfare” by our adversaries uses unconventional tactics to gain advantages over the United States. It includes “influence,” “information,” or “psychological operations,” with the aim to shape public opinion, exacerbate societal divisions, undermine democratic institutions, and advance geopolitical objectives without direct military engagement. Why fight the enemy (at great financial and human cost) when you can collapse them from within?

During the week following conservative leader Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a “tremendous amount of disinformation” was tracked from adversarial nations that exploited Kirk’s death by weaponizing social media platforms and official foreign state media. Over 6,000 mentions of “Charlie Kirk” across state media in Russia, China and Iran were documented, recognized as being messaged for differing audiences – Russia mocked Trump supporters, pushed conspiracy theories, and blamed Zelensky (and Trump) for the assassination, Iran blamed Israel’s Mossad, and China sought to denigrate U.S. reputation and image globally, by portraying the United States as divided and violent.

Worse – anti-Western social media campaigns from Russia-aligned and CCP-supported accounts, including by bots from China, Russia, and all over the world (some of which pose as Americans), were posted to clearly deceive and incite hate, rage, division, and violence among Americans, and to portray the U.S. as a dysfunctional country in decline.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the subsequent hate-filled response by Leftists in the public eye (such as late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel) indicate that psychological operations against America are having an effect.

Other pertinent indications: two assassination attempts in 2024 against President Donald Trump; the rise and cultural/political acceptance of militant, often violent groups like Antifa and BLM; the rise and acceptance of “protestors” chanting “Intifada” on U.S. college campuses in support of the terrorist organization Hamas; the whitewashing of “thousands of often violent” anti-ICE rioters in Los Angeles, deemed “mostly peaceful” by Leftist media and politicians. It is sobering to note that both the anti-ICE and pro-Hamas protests were also backed by foreign state media pushing “narratives of American hypocrisy, instability and decline…”

Since Kirk’s death, Russia-backed groups, including a “disinformation project,” have posted tens of thousands of fake news reports, celebrity quotes, and images “with the intent (of) inflaming passions” between conservatives and the LGBT community, and encouraging discourse about a potential civil war in the United States. Posts have been “widespread” with “high levels of engagement.”

“X” accounts run by the Chinese Communist Party, including a member of its own Propaganda Bureau with over 200,000 followers, posted negative and misleading information about the FBI’s investigation into the assassination. One called Kirk a “radical” and his assassin both “innocent” and “ruthless.” Another (with over 400,000 combined followers) called Kirk a “Nazi scumbag.” Another (with almost 200,000 followers) posted that the U.S. is a “violent country since its founding.” And another (with 82,000 followers) falsely claimed Kirk’s assassin is a “white Christian, conservative, Republican male who even donated to Trump.”

Is this where Kimmel got the idea to mock the conservative movement’s grief over the brutal shooting death of Charlie Kirk, and claim that his assassin was part of “the MAGA gang”?

Foreign influence operations against Americans exploit the open architecture of global online platforms (made more complicated by Obama’s “modernization” of the Smith-Mundt Act) to infiltrate and disrupt target societies. This phenomenon has intensified with the rise of digital technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), to enable scalable, low-cost campaigns that blur the lines between authentic discourse and state-sponsored propaganda. In fact, it’s easy: fake videos, images, graphics, voiceovers, documents, and accounts can all be used to fool, shape, and incite the American public.

The Active Measures Working Group, a U.S. government interagency organization established during the Reagan administration, was tasked with countering Soviet disinformation. The group altered the perception of disinformation within the national security community. Once thought “inconsequential,” Soviet disinformation was revealed as a real threat to U.S. foreign and domestic interests and to our success in foreign diplomatic conflicts. By exposing Soviet covert operations against the U.S., the working group effectively “raised the political cost [to disseminating disinformation] … by sensitizing foreign and domestic audiences to how they were being duped.”

Ultimately, the working group “negated” much of the Soviet Union’s multi-billion-dollar disinformation efforts, “at little cost to the United States,” helping to bankrupt Russia. A case study of the working group’s effectiveness by the U.S. National Defense University argues for a “dedicated counter-disinformation effort” in the U.S. government today. This is particularly true in the need to counteract foreign information operations that utilize easily accessible and vast online information streams.

Americans should not be ignorant – but aware – of the ongoing unconventional tactics used to undermine the goodness and strength of America and its citizens. The threat and detrimental effects of asymmetric warfare do not stop at deceiving the public, or the spread of public “disinformation” or “false claims.” Our opponents’ full strategic campaign includes destruction – by inflaming division, influencing public opinion, and enraging the minds of American citizens against their government, families, friends, traditions, values, and our founding principles. This is what destroys a civilization. We see this happening all around us, now.

Whatever side of the political aisle you’re on, you are being manipulated. The ubiquitous influence of social media has made the manipulation of Westerners by our adversaries far more effective, all with the intent of undermining the U.S. and pushing its citizens to anger and violent action. Foreign sources of asymmetric warfare against the United States want you to believe their actions are “inconsequential.”

According to reports, the U.S. Departments of State, War, Justice, and Homeland Security all have agencies or task forces combating foreign influence; however, a unified strategy appears to be lacking. Current U.S. initiatives are fragmented, reactive, and lack the singular focus of the Active Measures Working Group from the Reagan era. There must be stronger efforts from U.S. national security leaders to combat foreign influence operations and deceptive communications. Additionally, U.S. agencies must collaborate with tech companies to identify and remove accounts and posts associated with nefarious foreign-state influence groups.

This is critical: The Trump administration needs its own version of the Reagan-era Active Measures Working Group as part of U.S. national security strategy, with the sole purpose of identifying, exposing, countering, and nullifying (read “defeat”) foreign disinformation campaigns that influence American citizens and our current events.

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

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Los peligros en la ilusión)

Anyone who has followed the Spanish media, the television channels, the radio stations and the newspapers after the murder of the conservative youth leader Charlie Kirk will have remembered how ETA’s victims were slandered after being gunned down by the gunmen of terror. Some may not remember those victims killed by terrorists who today enjoy freedom, respect when not admiration from their neighbours, and often salaries from the public purse as politicians or pampered civil servants.

Afterwards others took charge of insulting and discrediting the dead man so that nobody would dare defend him and condemn the murder. Since Wednesday night we have seen once again what ETA used to do with rumours about the victims, spread by its organisations, by its newspaper Egin and by its banners and pamphlets, all of it orchestrated by those who today are partners, allies and close collaborators of the head of the government. ETA is part of the government in every sense. It is Sánchez’s most faithful ally. But beyond that it has imposed its way of treating dissenters on every outlet the government controls, which is nearly all of them.

But now we see and hear it in almost every media outlet in the country, all of them obedient because dependent on the government, public and private alike. Suddenly we realise that, with few exceptions, an immense majority of Spanish media today are what EGIN once was, outlets determined to defend what had never been defended by media considered civilised, namely that a victim is so contemptible that they end up being presented as deserving of and guilty for their own death.

It is clear that if the left reaches the conclusion that it has to kill again in Spain because things are going against it, and kills one, three or ten of us who are considered ultras or fascists by the socialist government’s apparatus, we will be duly slandered and criminalised until at least parts of society are brought to feel relief that we have disappeared.

So that the population reaches the essential conclusion they are after: that the political situation, call it hardship, misery, abuses, tension, far-right threat or polarisation, improves with the disappearance of certain protagonists. It is the small tragedy that brings great relief. It is a shame that he died, but it brings us much peace that it happened to him.

After all, that is what it is about, as TVE, the SER and so many others have told us these past days: it is a shame that someone has to resort to such methods, but the victim had done everything to deserve that it be him and not somebody else. And of course, deploring the violence, life goes on and it will be better without people who are far-right, fascist, misogynist, transphobic, Zionist, homophobic or white supremacist.

One has to go back to the communist and national-socialist press of the past to find this clear determination to explain, justify and legitimise the annihilation, the death, of political adversaries. In Spain it already seems normalised. And not only in Spain. In the United States we are seeing abominable reactions of celebration and even enthusiasm at the death of a man who has been caricatured to implausible extremes.

Those who hate Kirk and do not know Kirk hate someone who has nothing to do with the Kirk they have just murdered. But in any case they are pleased because he is dead. The world is facing a change of era that makes many people dizzy. Above all those who have controlled the last 70 years of discourse, power and privilege. We know that those who are afraid of losing what they believed they would hold forever are capable of anything. Many of them, our head of government included, if only to escape prison for the crimes committed by his gang.

That is why we must start from the certainty that, along with the hope of profound change so that Spaniards and all Western nations recover their rights, their freedom and their sense of promise, there comes an imminent danger from a left that believed it did not need to kill much in Spain and that may now reconsider in the light of those expectations.

Nor will it be only here. There have been attacks on Trump, on Villavicencio, on Fico, on Babis, on Kirk, on Uribe, on Bolsonaro. In Germany alone, 95 percent of the assaults on politicians have as their victims the so-called ultras of the Alternative for Germany. They call them extremists and they assault nobody, yet they are assaulted more than anyone. Political violence today is exercised exclusively from the left.

This change of era generates immense hopes, but nobody should conceal the risks it brings with it, because those who have killed in order to win in politics, ETA and the PSOE in Spain as the FARC or the cartels across the Americas, are going to want to kill again because their discourse does not catch on, the young are fleeing them, their failure is obvious and the ideological left is succumbing. That is why we must accept that in many places there will be blood.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in RealClearDefense. Is There a Strategic Nuclear Arms Race?)

Yes, there is a nuclear arms race. But the U.S. is not in it and has not been since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. On the contrary, the U.S. has significantly reduced both its reliance on nuclear weapons and its inventory of nuclear forces by over 90%.

Two major countries engaged in an accelerating nuclear arms race are Russia and China. Trouble remains as while thankfully, the U.S. has now taken critical steps to modernize its strategic nuclear forces, replacing its aging forces on a one-for one basis—the U.S. remains from 2.5 to 6 times worse off in the nuclear production business as the United States is racing only to stay in place.

Russia has not only modernized its strategic nuclear forces, (over 90% completed) they have also significantly increased the number of nuclear warheads they can deliver, replacing, for example the single warhead Topol ICBMs with multiwarhead Yars ICBMs, creating a warhead count potentially far in excess of New Start Treaty limits.

Russia currently has 168 Yars ICBMs (24 silo, 144 mobile), each carrying 4-6 RVs, 36 Yars-S each carrying three heavy re-entry vehicles (RVs); 46 SS-18 ICBMs each carrying 10 RVs, being replaced by the Sarmat each carrying up to 15-20 light (90-150 kt) RVs. The SS-19s are largely retired except for eighteen carrying the Avangard hypersonic vehicle. Current total ICBM warheads are between 1916-2190 if fully uploaded.

Russia has 5 Delta-IV SSBNs each carrying 16 Layner SLBMs and each capable of carrying 8-12 RVs. Russia also has 8 Borei SSBNs with two more under construction and two to four more planned after that. Each Borei caries 16 Bulava SLBMs, each SLBM carries 6 RVs for a total of 1312-1632 warheads. Votinsk, the production plant, can produce Yars and Bulava missiles at a rate of ~40/year.

Russia’s bomber force is rapidly decaying—The ~52 Tu-95 Bears were to be modernized with new engines and avionics, but that program is moving slowly due to sanctions, and the same is true for the 13 Tu-160 Blackjack bombers to be modernized to the Tu-160 M2 standard. Russia planned on building fifty additional Tu-160M2s, but that program is also delayed, as is Russia’s new stealth bomber the PAK-DA. Total current bomber weapon numbers are 964 bringing total Russian strategic nuclear force totals to 4192-4786 warheads.

China’s rapid nuclear build up has been characterized as “breath-taking” by U.S. officials. Although China continues to claim a minimum deterrent posture retaliatory only in nature, their forces as deployed enable them to execute any policy/strategy they wish.

China has 96 DF-31 mobile ICBMs each with 1-3 RVs; 84 DF-41 ICBMs with 2-10 RVs; 40 DF-5 B/C liquid fuel silo based ICBMs with 10 RVs (DF-5C); 320-360 silo based DF-31/41 in three ICBM fields. China recently show-cased the new DF-61 ICBM, close in size to the DF-41 and more technologically advanced. A recent DIA report stated that China would have 700 ICBMs by 2035, some 75% greater than the United States.

China’s sea leg of their nuclear TRIAD consists of 6 Type 094 Jin class SSBN, each with 12 JL-3 SLBMs with 1-3 RVs for a total of between 72-216 SLBM warheads. Another 6-8 Type 096 SSBNs are expected to be deployed by 2035, each carrying 16-20 JL-3 or new class SLBMs. Total current SLBM warhead count is 216, but the new 096 SSBN would add another 288-480 warheads.

China’s air leg of the TRIAD consists of 90-100 H-6K bombers carrying 6-7 CJ-20 cruise missiles (2000 km range) as well as 20-30 H-6N carrying one new JL-1 nuclear missile revealed in the recent military parade. China can produce 15-20 H-6 bombers/year, but H-6 production will likely be replaced by production of the H-20 stealth bomber. China’s stealth bomber is expected first flight in 2025/26 and will have a range of 8,500 km and be capable of carrying 10-16 weapons. Current total bomber weapon count is 630 warheads.

China current total strategic nuclear weapons count is 4846 if fully uploaded. This is in stark contrast to the U.S. Intelligence Community statement that China only has ~ 600 strategic nuclear weapons. However simple math shows that if you take the current Russian and Chinese missile numbers stated by FAS and the Intelligence community and multiply by the estimated WH carriage capability you produce far more WH numbers than 600.

The strategic nuclear modernization and build-up programs of China and Russia are largely completed, with Russia completing deployment of at least 46 Sarmat ICBMs with 15-20 RVs as well as the Arcturus SSBN with a 2035 IOC, and eventually the PAK-DA bomber.

China’s strategic nuclear force is forecast to continue to grow to 700 ICBMs by 2035 as well as the addition of the Type 096 SSBN, additional H-6 bombers and a new H-20 stealth bomber.

In contrast, the U.S. is only modernizing its TRIAD, not increasing its force size or capabilities, replacing ageing systems on a one-for-one basis with no increase in deployed nuclear warheads—in no way can these modernization actions be viewed as “Arms Racing.”

The Sentinel ICBM with one warhead will replace the existing 450 MM III ICBM which are 55 years old and armed with one warhead starting in the 2030’s and completed by 2040’s. The Columbia SSBN, with 16 D-5 SLBMs (Currently armed with ~4 RVs) will replace the OHIO SSBN with 20 D-5 SLBMs on a one-for-one basis starting in 2030-2 and completed by 2042. D-5 SLBMs from Ohio D-5 SSBNs will go into the Columbia SSBNs. The U.S. sea leg of the TRIAD could have 1536 warheads if fully uploaded w/8 RVs/SLBM.

The B-21 dual role conventional/nuclear bomber will enter the force in 2027 at a rate of 7-10/year for a total of 100 bombers. They can carry B-61 bombs or eight nuclear AGM-181 Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missiles. They will replace the 45 B-1 conventional bomber and the 20 B-2 bombers. The 76 strong B-52 force will be modernized into the B-52J configuration with new engines and avionics and fly until ~ 2070, when it will be 100 years old. The B-52J will be capable of carrying up to 20 long range strike options or cruise missiles.

In summary, while China, Russia and North Kores have been “Arms Racing” since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been a side-line observer, and the current long delayed U.S. strategic force modernization program is replacing systems ageing out on a one-for-one basis.

without increasing capability while Russia, China and North Korea have not only modernized their force they have also significantly increased capabilities. The U.S. is facing a two-peer deterrence dilemma—a Russia with as many as 4786 strategic nuclear warheads; China with potentially upwards of 4846 strategic nuclear weapons for a combined force of 9632 strategic nuclear warheads.

The U.S. will have 3010 strategic nuclear weapons and approximately 200 theater weapons if we upload all our missiles. As stated by the U.S. Strategic Posture Commission as well as a growing number of U.S. officials, the U.S. will have to increase its nuclear forces—but how and how fast?

2025-2045 Annual Production & C&R/U.S. Ratio

	United States	Russia	China	C&R/U.S. Ratio
SLBM Missiles/yr	10	19	34	5.3/1
ICBM Missiles/yr	20	13	35	2.651
Nuclear Bombers/yr	3	3.3	5	2.8/1
Cruise Missiles/Brs	28	40	34	2.6/1
SNDV/yr Total	61	105	108	3.5/1
Strategic Nuclear WH/yr	80	235	235	5.9/1

*The chart represents the average annual production rate for three alternative nuclear forces if built over twenty years from 2025-45 based on projected force structures planned by the United States and in part planned and announced by Russia and China.

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

A month and a half after the end of the “12-Day War” between Iran and Israel, the consequences of that conflict have become increasingly clear. Both sides are now mobilizing forces and allies, and in both Tehran and Jerusalem, talk of renewed confrontation is growing louder. Multiple indicators suggest a high likelihood of a large-scale Israeli strike against Iran in the coming months, particularly from mid-September to October 2025. Israel’s strategic imperatives, the Islamic Republic’s defensive mobilization, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s political calculations all reinforce this trajectory, forming part of a phased campaign aimed at weakening Iran’s regional military network.

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly declared its intention to resume uranium enrichment. Abbas Araghchi, in a recent state television interview, confirmed that American and Israeli attacks had damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities, calling the strikes “the greatest violation of international law” and an “unforgivable crime.” On the other side, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that these attacks prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and thereby averted a broader war in the Middle East. He warned that if Iran restarted its nuclear program, Washington would strike again. Trump added that while Iran had long been a source of instability and hatred in the region, he believed its trajectory would change in the coming years.

Several strategic imperatives strengthen the likelihood of Israeli military action against Iran. First is the dismantling of Iran’s regional military network. Israel’s ongoing operations in Gaza and its persistent pressure on Hezbollah in Lebanon form part of a broader strategy to reduce multi-front threats ahead of a direct confrontation with Tehran. This weakening of proxy forces gives Israel the ability to focus resources and planning on a decisive strike against the Islamic Republic without facing overwhelming retaliatory fire from its regional allies.

Second, Israel views Iran’s internal fractures as an exploitable opportunity. Divisions between the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the army, as well as tensions between the IRGC and the Supreme Leader’s advisory council, could hinder Tehran’s ability to mount a unified response, complicating command and control in the crucial first hours of any assault.

Third, timing carries political weight. Netanyahu may seek to act before October 2025 to bolster his domestic position, reaffirm Israel’s deterrence capabilities, and influence Washington’s strategic narrative.

Meanwhile, Mossad has intensified its intelligence-gathering and covert operations inside Iran, including target identification and asset placement. Recent drone strikes inside Iranian territory that eliminated senior military commanders are considered part of the preparatory phase for a coordinated campaign of special forces, airpower, and cyberattacks. The primary aim of these measures is to disable radar systems, command centers, and ballistic missile launch infrastructure before full-scale hostilities begin. Israel’s military posture also reflects rebuilding: rotating units out for rest despite political pressure for continued operations in Gaza, while training for long-range strikes and high-tempo air campaigns.

In response, the Islamic Republic has created a “Defense Council” under Ali Larijani and merged 13 security agencies into three super-structures to prepare for a wider confrontation. However, such rapid restructuring risks administrative frictions, potentially creating exploitable vulnerabilities in the opening hours of an Israeli offensive.

The role of the United States, particularly Donald Trump, remains vital to Israel’s calculations. Netanyahu seeks political backing or at least cover from Washington to minimize global backlash and widen his operational window. Through pro-Israel lobbying in the U.S., he aims to counter Trump’s isolationist tendencies, while simultaneously engaging in transactional diplomacy with Russia, Ukraine, and the South Caucasus to reduce geopolitical obstacles and secure maneuvering space. This triangular diplomatic effort could limit the likelihood of a multi-front conflict erupting

during an attack on Iran.

According to Israel’s military doctrine, the probability of a multidimensional operation is extremely high—combining precision air and missile strikes with cyber sabotage, and potentially including preemptive or simultaneous strikes on Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces. Neutralizing Iran’s proxies is seen as essential to shielding Israel and its regional allies from disruption during the main operation. Israel has also demonstrated its readiness to absorb casualties and reputational costs, underscoring its political and military resolve to act decisively before the strategic window closes.

Nevertheless, serious risks persist: the uncertainty of U.S. politics and Trump’s inclination to avoid new wars; the threat of powerful Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the PMF; and the possibility of a preemptive Iranian move through cyber or missile strikes. Still, Israel’s plan rests on the assumption that a powerful first strike combined with Iran’s slower decision-making processes will secure the advantage.

Taken together, the convergence of strategic imperatives, operational readiness, and political opportunity makes the likelihood of a major Israeli strike against Iran before year’s end very high. The operation would aim to exploit Iran’s internal divisions, blunt proxy responses, and destroy missile, nuclear, and command infrastructure. Such a strike would dramatically escalate direct confrontation between Tehran and Jerusalem and test Israel’s missile defense capabilities against Iran’s retaliation. Operational indicators—including increased Israeli reconnaissance flights over Iraq and Syria, redeployment of missile defense systems such as Iron Dome, and heightened diplomatic maneuvering in Washington, Moscow, and across the region—point to the approach of a decisive phase.

Aso Qader is a media associate of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC based think-and-do tank.

(This article originally appeared at https://humanevents.com/2025/09/05/shea-bradley-farrell-go-woke-go-broke-is-not-just-a-slogan-its-a-fact#google_vignette)

President Donald Trump is aggressively cutting “woke” programs, funding, and hiring practices in the United States, including in corporate America, dealing a death blow to the creeping globalist agenda of Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF).

Under a Trump executive order, U.S. government agencies are identifying companies that violate federal discrimination laws, including those related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. DEI policies entail disparate treatment in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment if based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics –a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In practice, the rigid orthodoxy of DEI stifles hiring and employee morale, undermines hard work and unity, and strangles freedom and innovation.

DEI policies are “exclusive,” overlooking merit-based achievement by requiring hiring quotas of certain racial or other identity groups or giving preference to DEI-aligned suppliers. DEI policies divide employees into identity subgroups and place subgroup interests over the interests of the whole, such as elevating transgender bathroom choices over the privacy of other employees.

Feeling the pressure of Trump’s anti-woke agenda, companies such as Walmart, JPMorgan, Tractor Supply Co., Harley-Davidson, John Deere, Lowe’s, Ford, and even McDonald’s are walking back or eliminating their previous DEI and ESG policies. ESG or Environmental, Social, and Governance, promotes radical environmental policy and is like DEI in that it includes discriminatory programs like critical race theory in human resource practices and hiring policies based on race, sex, or other identity groups. They are also burdensome and costly to implement.

In 2019, unbeknownst to most Americans, close to 200 CEOs from America’s top companies chose to adopt the “stakeholder capitalism” of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum. In a single statement, the purpose of American corporations was redefined with a globalist economic model, and American businesses became subject to the WEF practice of rating corporations based on ESG “performance” metrics.

Stakeholder capitalism (in reality, having very little to do with capitalism) is a theory promoted by Schwab since the early 1970s. It asserts that the corporate purpose is not to maximize profits for shareholders, but to maximize value for all stakeholders —including government agencies, community members, activist groups, non-profits, and companies.

This may sound like a lofty goal, but the practice of stakeholder capitalism is far from adequate, prosperous, or even fair. Asset management firms (like the infamous BlackRock) direct investment funds to companies with high ESG and DEI scores, ultimately using companies to shape society in the Leftist ideology of the elite echelon. Instead of acting in the interest of investors, employees, consumers, or shareholders, businesses are at the mercy of “stakeholder activism” to promote woke programming, products, and advertising.

This was a shockingly bad decision by Corporate America, considering that for generations American capitalism had “produced superior stock market returns and broad-based societal gains,” raising living standards for generations of Americans. Europe’s economies, primarily based on stakeholder capitalism for decades, and buried under bureaucracy, burdensome taxes, and extreme woke regulation, have been “largely stagnant” for about the last 15 years. Interestingly, Germany’s economy, which is firmly oriented on stakeholder governance, has only grown by 1% over the past 8 years, while the U.S. economy has grown by 19%.

Millions of Americans, too, are fed up with paying for the so-called “progressive” causes of powerful, out-of-touch corporate elites. Outraged consumers boycott and publicly lash out against companies that go off the woke deep-end, causing many to backtrack their woke ways.

Social media responses against Jaguar, which recently unveiled a bizarre rebranding that included “gender-fluid” models and a shift to all-electric vehicles (and a 97.5% collapse in European sales), were scathing and abundant. Not long before, Jaguar’s brand strategist had proudly announced the establishment of “more than 15 DEI groups” and a “transitioning at work” policy. President Trump called Jaguar’s public embarrassment “a total disaster;” others labelled it “Bud Light 2.0.”

Who could forget the disastrous fall of Bud Light, a company formerly catering to red-blooded Americans that actually believed a guy in a dress, makeup, and pearls could attract beer-drinking customers? Unsurprisingly, Bud Light’s transgender ad led to a boycott of America’s best-selling beer, resulting in a loss of billions of dollars in shareholder value and a 30% drop in sales and customers.

Recently, Target’s CEO stepped down, amid plummeting sales and years of ideological instability. Remember Target’s Pride Month 2023 display, with infant LGBTQ onesies and genitalia-tucking bikini bottoms for boys? Target’s CFO admitted that its “Pride assortment” impacted their bottom line, resulting in a $14 billion loss in Target stock at the time. Sales continue to be flat or falling.

Woke is under attack, and especially where it hurts most –right in the pocketbook. Yet, some companies refuse to learn.

This year, Disney laid off hundreds of employees after the release of its woke version of the movie Snow White, and an “underwhelming box office performance.” In 2023, Disney already laid off 7,000 employees after establishing an “openly gay agenda” in movies and theme parks, including a lesbian kissing scene in the supposedly family-friendly movie Lightyear. This year, Disney is also retreating from its extensive DEI agenda.

For millions of Americans, Cracker Barrel symbolizes Americana, family, goodness, and the essence of comfort food – one of the last remaining reflections of a purer time. But Cracker Barrel’s recent rebranding seemed to reject American cultural heritage, making customers angry. And Cracker Barrel, too, had jumped on the DEI bandwagon with LGBTQ Policies and a dedicated “Pride” website page (now deleted).

Oh, Cracker Barrel, why did you do it?

Corporate executives and leftist media are quick to assure the public that failures of woke companies are due to market shifts or “rapid” transformation of industry –but the timing and public outrage are hard to ignore. American consumers are angry about being told what to believe and how to think, especially when all they want (Starbucks) is just a freakin’ cup of coffee, not a sermon about a self-serving political agenda.

Woke corporatism can be a money-making racket for non-profits and activists. Big money is allocated to “evaluate” the “woke” levels of corporations using metrics based on DEI and ESG performance measurements. Corporations that choose not to comply receive a poor score and public embarrassment. Those that do comply are publicly praised and obtain a perfect “woke” score.

For example, each year at the World Economic Forum, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) reveals its Corporate Equality Index (CEI), a made-up, needless measurement of “corporate America’s roadmap for LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion.” Based on an annual survey, the report gauges “policies, practices and benefits pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) employees.” HRC is funded by organizations such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and by businesses including Amazon, American Airlines, The Walt Disney Company, Apple, and many others.

HRC compels and pressures corporations into compliance to achieve a “perfect” index score. An impressive 1500 companies participated in this year’s CEI 2025. Major companies that earned a 100% score include Amtrak, Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Food Lion, PetSmart, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Starbucks, McDonald’s, Visa, CareFirst Inc., and many others.

Fortunately, the great “anti-woke pushback” has gained momentum in the United States, thanks to commonsense Americans and fueled by the leadership and anti-woke agenda of the Trump administration. This year, a “lengthy list” of companies, including the global fast-food giant McDonald’s, pledged to withdraw from the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index. Major companies are rolling back DEI, and investment in ESG is on a steep decline in the U.S. and in Europe.

Finally, after years of ideological posturing and consumer blackmail, corporate elites are finding that “Go Woke, Go Broke” is not just a slogan.

Shea Bradley-Farrell, Ph.D. is a strategist in national security and foreign policy in Washington, D.C. and president of Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research and Education and a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, D.C. based think-and-do tank.. Her latest book is Last Warning to the West. Follow her at counterpointinstititute.org or “X” @DrShea_DC and @CounterpointDC.

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. No basta con hundir ese barco)

A young Iraqi man comes up from behind a 16-year-old girl standing on the platform waiting for her train. Suddenly he pushes her and sends her falling onto the tracks just as a freight train was passing. Just like that, for no reason. It happened 15 days ago. It has only become known now. Because for two weeks the local authorities and the state police tried by every possible means to prevent the fact from becoming known. They attributed the girl’s death to an accident. And they stubbornly denied that anyone had been involved, least of all an immigrant. They went on denying the truth until two days ago, with the police and the other authorities covering up the crime to the very end against all the proof and evidence gathered by the journalists who have revealed the scandal.

That is already happening all across Europe, but in Spain, star pupils that we are, with even greater cynicism if such a thing is possible. In Spain the authorship of crimes and serious offences is being denied. And blame is also being turned back onto the victims in order to cover up the perpetrators for the mere fact of their being immigrants. Also concealed or denied are the offences of those, Spaniards and foreigners alike, who run the highly lucrative business of bringing in illegal immigrants in supposedly legal fashion under the cloak of humanitarian action and rescue. Which is as false as the German police’s versions in the case of the girl in Göttingen. Neither humanitarian action nor rescue. We are talking about a regulated traffic that they bring in systematically with appointments arranged by traffickers on both sides.

Now a great many frauds have thrown their hands up over Santiago Abascal’s very graphic and accurate phrase that the slavers’ ship must be “confiscated and sunk”, in reference to the best known of Spain’s freebooting human-trafficking vessels, the Open Arms. Abascal has said nothing he has not been saying for almost a decade. Before, there were few of us saying it. Today we are already millions and soon we will be a majority holding that certainty. The criminals who are sinking Spain by encouraging an invasion that endangers all Spaniards and the nation itself must be sunk.

It is delightful to see how the talk-show panellists, so smugly conventional, all of them of both sexes, have worked themselves into a fury because Abascal wants to sink a ship full of refugees. No, you manipulating horde, Abascal did not say that. Abascal said that the ship must be confiscated and afterwards sunk. “That slavers’ ship must be confiscated and sunk”.

And he did not say it, but it is certainly his intention, because it is the intention of everyone who wants to restore respect for the borders and for Spanish law, that audits will have to be demanded not only of Open Arms but of all these organisations that are at this moment collecting fortunes in public money to house and maintain those whom their colleagues bring in. There are many people here becoming multimillionaires. Not only by trafficking in Venezuelan oil and all manner of things through the Dominican Republic. With the refugee industry, the immigrant industry, the unaccompanied-minor industry, with delirious invoicing paid by their friends in the administration. Abascal is once again entirely right. The sinking of the Open Arms will be a fine ceremony to mark the end of the era of contempt for borders and of incentivised invasion.

To benefit this industry, society must be kept from seeing the dramas this invasion generates daily across the whole of Spain. And there exists an express will, not only in the PSOE and its communist and separatist partners but also in the PP, to protect criminals and their acts with silence or concealment because they are immigrants. Denying it makes no less clear the will to protect the traffickers of illegal immigration, especially that link in the chain which is financed by the administrations and which are the special troops of the left and the far left known as NGOs.

They are called, in what is already an act of cover-up, Non-Governmental Organisations when they are exactly the opposite: they are fully governmental organisations, financed in large part, some of them entirely, with public money.

The NGOs devote themselves to what governments want but cannot do officially and publicly. Among other things, maintaining with public money an immense network of cadres wholly identified with their leftist ideology.

Germany, as this sad case in Göttingen once again exposes, has been the pioneer in these concealments, ever since those mass rapes and assaults in Cologne under Merkel which they tried to deny even when there were hundreds of victims and witnesses. The German authorities’ will to cover up is permanent and absolute. As it has been in thousands of cases in these past years, some of them known, others not. In Germany the security that was one of the treasures of the Federal Republic since the war has collapsed. The person chiefly responsible for Germans no longer being able to live as they did before is, of course, Angela Merkel, who in September 2015, with her total opening of the borders and the colossal pull effect of her proclamation that Germany would take in everyone in need, broke the balance of German society forever.

Today many believe that all of it formed part of a plan by a Merkel who had joined the CDU after the fall of the Berlin Wall without having genuinely abjured her communist militancy, and that her opening of the borders was really an act against the German nation. She never concealed her rejection of national symbols and ceremonies, and the image in which she contemptuously removes a German flag that had slipped into the photograph after an electoral victory is famous. Among those convinced of this is the man who was her head of the secret services at the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans Georg Maassen, whom she dismissed because he debunked a journalists’ hoax about a pogrom by far-right extremists in Dresden that Merkel had made her own. Merkel did not forgive Maassen for proclaiming the truth before the media. There had been no far-right crime, which is the kind the social-democratic two-party system goes looking for. What there has been in Dresden ever since is an unceasing series of deaths of Germans at the hands of immigrants. And that the media do not trumpet as they did with the false pogrom.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in RealClearDefense. Mutual Assured Destruction Doesn’t Deter Escalate to Win)

Mutual assured destruction or MAD is not an American doctrine or military strategy. Those who believe MAD is how America deters nuclear armed adversaries assume that any use of nuclear weapons by the United States will be massive. And that any alternative such as the limited initial use of nuclear force, will quickly escalate to a full scale nuclear conflict with both attacker and retaliatory nation being destroyed. Given such assumptions, it is considered logical to assume U.S. deterrent strategy is fixed on massive retaliation and destroying most of the industry and population of our adversaries as that is the only possible use of such weapons.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, a MAD strategy was indeed considered but jettisoned by the United States some 65 years ago. For example, President Kennedy noted an all or nothing strategy made no sense: “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or of a collective death-wish for the world.” Kennedy succeeded in adopting a strategy far short of all-out retaliation that came to be known as “flexible response” which in 1974 was fully developed by James Schlesinger and eventually codified in a 1980 PDD or Presidential Defense Directive 59.

Whether the United States has 10,000 or 1500 strategic nuclear weapons, our forces were designed to have a secure retaliatory capability at any level of conflict. The objective was to end any conflict as soon as possible and at the lowest level of destruction. But the U.S. goal was not to burn an adversaries cities to the ground. U.S. deterrent strategy was to hold at risk what our adversary valued—an adversary’s leadership, security forces that keep the leadership in power, key war supporting industries and the key weapons used to propel aggression.

Critics of current U.S. deterrent strategy assume that no nuclear armed adversary of the United States believes in “fighting” a nuclear war, so the U.S. should drop its long held deterrent strategy and go “back to MAD” or something like it. But at the same time, many of these same critics join the abolitionists to support a minimal number of nuclear weapons but only to “deter” but not engage in “warfighting.” If conflict breaks out and these weapons will not be used even in retaliation. This takes our nuclear deterrent off the table and reduced to only a bluff.

What then of the multiple nuclear threats by Russia over Ukraine? Such threats are often dismissed as mere bluff. Many may find this idea comforting. After all, if no nuclear armed nation has plans for the limited use of nuclear weapons, and everyone has adopted MAD, the United States need not be concerned with the nuclear balance.

Thus, the mistaken notion that the U.S. has a MAD strategy plays into the hands of Russia and China. These two nations both seek to be able to escalate or threaten to escalate in a crisis or conflict with a limited use of nuclear weapons. The objective is to get the United States to stand down and not come to the defense of her allies, a restraint to give Russia and China a strategic advantage.

Unfortunately, much of the current commentary on nuclear threats still assumes the U.S. and its adversaries maintain a mutual assured destruction strategy as the best means to avoid any use of nuclear weapons. Annie Jacobson’s recent book “On Nuclear War: A Scenario” describes mutual assured destruction strategy—which she assumes the U.S. maintains—as simply MAD or crazy. She posits that any initial use of nuclear weapons would almost automatically result in the all-out use of such weapons, leading to nuclear winter and killing billions. And as such, she calls for the entirety of American nuclear deterrence to be jettisoned.

What Jacobson ignores is that our adversaries of the West have sought military advantage through enhanced nuclear weapons. The Soviets sought to put nuclear weapons in space; then built a huge first strike missile force; then deployed thousands of medium range SS-20s to intimidate and split NATO; and most recently built a theater strike capability to keep the United States and NATO from coming to the robust defense of its allies.

The U.S. nuclear deterrent was never a one size fits all and automatically “fit for purpose.” For example, the U.S. and NATO faced a huge conventional military threat from the USSR from the beginning of the Cold War on the plains of central Europe. The Warsaw Pact tank armies were not matched by U.S. conventional forces whose cost would have bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. The alternative was an extended nuclear “umbrella” over Europe, primarily aimed at Soviet tank armies. Thus, in the initial Cold War period, the U.S. assumed a nuclear conflict would most probably grow out of an initial conventional war.

As technology improved, however, a new threat emerged: a potential Soviet pre-emptive first strike seeking to eliminate much of the U.S. nuclear extended deterrent, followed up by a subsequent conventional invasion of Europe.

In 1963, the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent consisted of 6000 nuclear warheads while the Russians had 600 warheads. As President Kennedy remarked, this strength and particularly the newly deployed Minuteman missiles were as he said, “my ace in the hole,” that gave the United States the strategic advantage that peacefully ended the Cuban missile crisis.

However, by the time the next decade ended, the 1972 SALT “arms control” treaty process allowed the USSR to deploy 7800 warheads compared to the U.S. force of 8700 warheads, (revealed by a 1983 DoD Net Assessment.) Most worrisome were 3000 highly accurate SS-18 missile warheads, with the overall Soviet nuclear force projected to grow to over 24,000 warheads by 1993. As Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird told Congress in 1974, “the Soviets are going for a first strike force and there is no doubt about it.” The SS-18 eventually did indeed hold at risk the entirety of the U.S. land-based ICBMs, the only highly accurate U.S. deterrent force, leaving the U.S. without the ability to hold at risk key Soviet assets.

This perceived imbalance was known as the “window of vulnerability” and leave U.S. leaders exactly where President Kennedy had previously worried would be the case. The U.S. solved the strategic equation of the window of vulnerability—the USSR empire was brought down. The U.S. deployed the accurate D-5 submarine launched missile and Peacekeeper land based ICBM to its deterrent, the Soviet SS-20s were banned by treaty, SDI was initiated, and the START arms control process brought Russian warheads down to under 2000, a near 80% reduction.

In April 1999 Russia’s President Yeltsin decreed that Moscow develop highly accurate, small, low yield, battlefield useful nuclear weapons. And as former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Hyten warned decades ago, these nuclear weapons were designed precisely to “escalate to win” a conventional conflict or crisis between Moscow and Washington.

Putin thinks the U.S. will not want to risk escalation and the possible massive use of nuclear weapons. That is why Putin has made exactly these threats over NATO’s intervention in the war against Ukraine. The previous administration stood down and did not provide Ukraine the needed military capability to effectively take the fight to Moscow. In addition, Russia assumes the relative weak U.S. theater nuclear forces cannot deter escalatory threats from Moscow. This point was emphasized by the 2023 Strategic Posture Commission report in laying out the opening of what could be described as a new window of vulnerability.

The U.S. is indeed now developing a greater theater nuclear deterrent to close the technology gap. However, simply improving conventional deterrent would not be sufficient. As the U.S. military has repeatedly emphasized, if adversarial nuclear forces are introduced into a conventional conflict, the assumed U.S. advantage “does not hold.” In short, the U.S. conventional military advantage disappears.

In conclusion, the central tenets of mutual assured destruction no longer apply as MAD itself has long been jettisoned. More importantly, our adversaries believe the actual first use of nuclear weapons must no longer be assumed to be taboo. That is the new threat that must be deterred by the U.S. and its allies. The dilemma is that the U.S. needs time to resolve this theater deterrent shortfall but the aggression calendar of our adversaries may not necessarily wait until completed.

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

Let me be clear, I have firm views on illegal immigration. In cases where illegal immigrants are convicted of serious violent crimes such as murder or rape, I believe the penalties should be as severe as possible, including the death penalty. For non-violent offenses, taxpayers should not have to shoulder the cost of long-term incarceration—swift deportation is the better and more practical solution. My concerns about sanctuary cities, however, are less about immigration status and far more about the policies that govern criminal justice. The real threat to public safety is both in how these cities manage offenders—by releasing repeat and violent criminals regardless of status—and in the reality that many among the undocumented population do add to criminality and recidivism. While some migrants seek a better life, data from federal agencies shows that thousands of illegals are arrested or convicted each year for a range of offenses, including serious crimes such as assault, weapons violations, and homicide. With criminal aliens representing a substantial share of ICE removals, their presence and the criminal acts of a subset within this group are pressing concerns when it comes to urban safety.

In practice, the cities most affected by rising crime and recidivism are those led predominantly by Democratic state and local governments. Policy changes—including the removal of California’s Three Strikes law, the abandonment of Broken Windows policing in New York, the reduction or outright elimination of Qualified Immunity for police, and the implementation of cashless bail—have dramatically weakened accountability. Habitual and violent offenders, including those here illegally, know the consequences for repeated offenses are now much less severe. The withdrawal from Broken Windows policing, once credited with the steep drop in New York’s violent crime throughout the 1990s, has instead allowed an environment in which lower-level crimes are ignored, often opening the door to more major criminal acts. Cashless bail policies compounded the issue by creating a revolving door for repeat offenders—many with extensive criminal records—who are arrested and released within hours, only to offend again. Poorly conceived policies in Democrat-run states have enabled rising rates of recidivism, undermining progress made in reducing crime.

The role of governmental policy is directly matched by the impact of the criminal element within the undocumented population. Federal data for 2025 confirms that a meaningful percentage of illegal aliens have been arrested or convicted for more serious crimes, and these numbers are felt most strongly in the urban centers where law enforcement practices are most constrained by progressive policies. Even as some studies show that immigrants overall may not commit more crimes than native-born Americans, the criminal activity of a subset of migrants remains a stubborn reality in shaping the frequency and severity of recidivism.

This dynamic is best seen in New York City, where the mayoral race is being shaped by policy proposals widely considered radical. Frontrunner Zohran Mamdani, supported by progressive groups and running on a Democratic Socialist platform, has publicly pledged to abolish punishments for misdemeanors altogether, stating the city’s police should not waste resources on enforcing minor crimes like theft or shoplifting under $1,000, drug possession, assault without weapons, or drunk driving. According to the New York Post, Mamdani declared, “While police play a vital role, we are currently depending on them to address the shortcomings of our social safety net, which hinders their ability to perform their actual duties”. Local critics warned his proposals would operate as “an E-ZPass for criminals,” encouraging repeated offending while eroding the fundamental sense of order for law-abiding residents. New Yorkers like Chelsea resident Alexander Kaplan have responded, to the New York Post with disbelief: “It’s just difficult to imagine how adults in their right mind could come up with it. I’m not exaggerating, I’m completely serious,” he said. “We’re already suffering from terrible crime. This is going to make it a thousand times worse. And perception matters – just the notion of this would embolden criminals.” If elected, Mamdani could instruct the NYPD to deprioritize such arrests or pressure district attorneys to refrain from prosecuting certain cases, echoing controversial strategies employed in other cities.

While some urban areas struggle with these progressive policy experiments, President Trump’s recent takeover of Washington, DC’s public safety response and the expanded role of the National Guard have produced striking results in the fight against urban crime. By assuming control of the city’s police department and deploying 800 National Guard members, Trump announced, “I am announcing a historic initiative to save our nation’s capital from crime, chaos, disorder, and destitution”. Since federal intervention, the city recorded an unprecedented streak—13 days without a murder—an achievement widely hailed as a historic turnaround for a city previously plagued by gun violence and high homicide rates. According to The Hill, between August 14 and August 26, 2025, Washington, DC saw zero homicides, with just two murders documented since Trump’s assumption of police control on August 11, underscoring the impact of federal oversight and enhanced security protocols.

The broader impact includes a 22% drop in overall violent crime since the National Guard’s arrival, with robberies down by 46%, carjackings down 83%, and car thefts by 21%. Trump’s repeated emphasis has been clear: “We are witnessing a situation of utter lawlessness … this is liberation day in D.C., and we will reclaim our capital”. He has hinted at plans to expand this model to other cities, arguing, “Consider the murder rate in D.C.; it compares with some of the most dangerous cities globally. … In just ten days, crime has decreased by over 35 percent in the capital, thanks to Donald J. Trump’s actions”.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro has strongly endorsed these aggressive measures. On Fox News, Pirro said, “We’re not going to tolerate crime that is out of control in the nation’s capital … This is the shining city on the hill that our forefathers talked about … and in the end, it is an incredibly violent area”. Pirro dismissed official narratives that crime is down, pointing to the real victims and their families, and said, “You tell the mother of the intern who was shot going out for McDonald’s near the Washington Convention Center, ‘Oh, crime is down’”. She advocated for tough city and youth sentencing laws to ensure dangerous offenders are properly removed from the streets.

President Trump’s initiative in Washington, DC stands as a rare example of federal action producing rapid and significant reductions in violent crime. As national debates rage over lenient policies, cashless bail, and proposals to decriminalize misdemeanors—like those advanced by New York City mayoral frontrunner Mamdani—the dramatic improvements in DC offer a glimpse of what robust enforcement and expanded law enforcement roles can achieve for public safety. The lessons are clear: poorly constructed policies by Democrat-led state and city governments, paired with the documented criminal element among illegal entrants—and advocates pushing for even greater leniency—remain central reasons for persistent recidivism and the rise of crime in America’s urban centers, while strong deterrence and accountability are crucial for reversing these trends.

Eli M. Gold is the president of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC based think-and-do tank.