(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in The Western Journal. The Persian Puzzle: Why Understanding Iran’s Ancient Identity May Hold the Key to Peace)

Since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, no Arab state has dared to confront Israel militarily. The wars have not disappeared — they’ve simply changed hands. Since 2006, Iran has taken the lead in orchestrating hostilities against Israel, not through direct confrontation, but through proxy warfare and ideological manipulation, engineering rage on the Arab street while cloaking its ambitions in sacred garb.

Iran’s Sejjil missile — its name meaning “shards hurled at the deviant” — is emblematic of a regime encased in theological obsession and ritualistic hostility. From alleyway slogans to the polished rhetoric of Tehran’s clerical elite, the Islamic Republic has built a political theology upon the bones of religious grievance. To understand Iran, one must look not just to its nuclear program or sanctions evasion schemes, but to its enduring existential mythology. A radical reorientation of this spiritual architecture — not mere regime change — is the only path to sustainable peace.

For all its strategic rationality, Iran’s foreign policy is ultimately anchored in a dualistic and apocalyptic worldview. Islamic eschatology casts Jews in a disparaging role, and the rebirth of Israel in 1948 triggered something deeper than geopolitical anxiety — it reawakened an ancient wound. Among the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam often battle for narrative dominance, but both maintain a complicated, even subconscious, struggle with Judaism. Iran’s animus toward Israel is as much metaphysical as it is material.

But to truly decode Iran, we must move even further back — beyond Islam, beyond even Zoroastrianism — into a forgotten fraternal conflict with Vedic Hinduism.

This is where the Persian puzzle begins to unravel. Zoroastrianism, long assumed to be Iran’s spiritual foundation, may in fact be a counter-narrative — an ideological reaction to Persia’s traumatic break from the Vedic world. The 4th-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus records in “Rerum Gestarum”:

“When Zoroaster had boldly made his way into the unknown regions of Upper India, he came to a certain woody retreat, of which, with its tranquil silence the Brahmins, men of sublime genius, were the possessors. From their teaching he learnt the principles of the motion of the world and of the stars, and the pure rites of sacrifice… and of what he learnt he infused some portion into the minds of the Magi.”

This account suggests what few dare to explore: that Persia’s foundational theology was not born ex nihilo, but was grafted from its Vedic cousins and reformulated through a lens of imperial ambition. Bereft of its spiritual kinship with India, Persia compensated by building an empire of priestcraft and tribal confederation, reaching east and west to forge a new spiritual identity rooted in messianism and separation.

The West’s enduring hope that fissures in Iran’s regime will somehow usher in liberal reform reveals a profound misunderstanding of Persian political theology. What we see in Iran today is not just clerical authoritarianism — it’s a civilizational mirror of India’s own sacred governance, albeit one stripped of pluralism.

Iran’s Ayatollah-led system is an anomaly in the Islamic world. It resembles more closely the Hindu tradition of the philosopher-king, where the sage, not the soldier, leads. Only the most credentialed religious scholars — those with standing in law, theology, and public service — are permitted to sit on the Guardian Council. The Supreme Leader is not a monarch but a jurist-king elected for life, in accordance with ancient notions of divine stewardship. It’s as if the soul of the Mahabharata lingers in Tehran’s corridors of power.

The Combatant Clergy Association — simultaneously pious and paramilitary — echoes the Yajurvedic archetype of the warrior-priest. Their embedded influence in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps makes them resilient to internal coups, and their financial oversight inoculates the state against oligarchic capture. The likely heirs to Khamenei’s throne all emerge from this sacred-military class.

Khomeini’s romantic ideal of a “Guardianship of Love” is institutionalized in the Basij, Iran’s youth volunteer force. Structurally and spiritually, it mirrors India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the world’s largest grassroots movement. Even Iran’s flag bears resemblance to the khanda, the Sikh emblem — a spiritual offshoot of Hinduism. That’s no coincidence: Khomeini’s ancestors migrated from India in 1834. The Indo-Persian entanglement is more than historical — it’s foundational.

Yet for all its ideological scaffolding, Iran’s theocracy is haunted by spiritual discontent. It mimics the Vedic hierarchy but lacks its inner light. Its ritualism is brittle, its orthodoxy exhausted. What remains is an ossified version of what once aspired to be transcendent.

Many Iranians tattoo the Faravahar, a Zoroastrian symbol borrowed from the Assyrian deity Ashur, as a gesture of national pride. But it is rarely a call to spiritual renewal. In post-Soviet Tajikistan — another Persianate society — Zoroastrian revivalism failed to animate the soul. It’s an identity marker, not a messianic spark.

Nietzsche confessed to his confidant Johann Heinrich Koselitz (also known by his pen name Peter Gast) that “Thus Spake Zarathustra” was, at its core, an ode to Manu — the ancient Hindu lawgiver particularly known for the Manusmriti, a foundational text on Dharma. That legacy survives in Iran, not through faith, but through yearning. Ever since its rupture from the Vedic order, Iran has been in search of its messiah, its redeemer, its ideological lodestar. One after another — Zoroaster, Khomeini, now perhaps Khamenei’s successors — Iran attaches itself to prophets, not principles.

Today, in the religious underground, serious seekers no longer look to the imams. They are turning to Buddhism. To Hinduism. To the East.

Western efforts to introduce religious streams into Iran that are disconnected from Iran’s earliest spiritual tradition remain largely symbolic. They grasp at the low-hanging fruit, not the roots.

If the United States truly hopes to break the cycle of Iran’s ideological war on Israel and the West, it must broker something far more radical: a spiritual reconciliation, not with the West, but with the East. With the civilizational family from which it once exiled itself.

Only by reawakening Iran’s kinship with its Vedic past can we redirect its vast spiritual energy away from destruction and toward renewal. Such a return may usher in a golden age of peace — or ignite a new crisis of identity. Either way, it won’t be Washington’s or Jerusalem’s war to fight.

It will be India’s.

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 first appeared on Human Events https://humanevents.com/2025/08/21/shea-bradley-farrell-trump-has-world-leaders-at-his-fingertips-in-his-fight-for-peace)

The recent White House peace summit between President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and seven key European world leaders did not just pave the way for a lasting peace settlement in the Russia-Ukraine War — it firmly established Donald Trump as the most consequential and impactful President of the United States since FDR.

Reports that the seven world leaders came as “bodyguards” to “shield” Zelensky from an “unfair and perilous settlement” are laughable. No, the leaders of Europe – NATO, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Finland – were summoned by Trump to serve his pro-peace agenda and to be instructed by him. Their presence was contingent only on his approval. “When I made the call, they came,” Trump said. “They have respect for our country again … we’ve become the hottest country anywhere in the world.”

Photos of the European leaders in the Oval Office certainly didn’t shout “bodyguards” – but rather whipped subordinates slumping in chairs surrounding the boss’s desk, awaiting their instructions. Power play by Trump? Yes, and these “leaders” deserve it – not one in the past three and a half years tried to negotiate peace for a war in their backyard, not once. No, instead, they enabled and encouraged the war to continue.

Under their Russia-Ukraine policies, a million and a half Europeans have died, Ukrainian infrastructure is devastated, energy crises crippled Europe’s economy, and China and Russia are stronger allies. Instead of calling for peace, these European leaders have cynically used Ukraine and the war to fuel their failing “war economy.”

Indeed, the majority came to Washington, D.C., hoping to convince Trump to continue the war (through stringent NATO security guarantees to Ukraine, unacceptable to Putin) and to encourage Zelenskyy to keep fighting. Trump was diplomatic and courteous but maintained his strong position to bring an end to the war, with a compromise on both sides. Media portrayals of European leaders’ agency in “confronting Trump” are ridiculous and contaminated with lingering Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

President Trump’s success at negotiations between Zelenskyy and Putin, though slower than desired (including by Trump himself), is historic and should be met worldwide with praise, relief, and gratitude.

Zelenskyy, who never came to D.C. before without asking for more weapons, more money, more war, actually said he now supports Trump bringing an end to the war through diplomacy. He is also willing for Trump to organize a trilateral meeting between him, Trump, and Putin, which the White House says Putin agreed to. All of these concessions were unthinkable, even a month or two ago.

Zelenskyy has even said he is open to “land swaps” to end the war, using current front-line borders (including Ukrainian territory captured by Russia since 2022) as the starting point. Amazing, considering Zelenskyy declared for more than three years that only a full Russian surrender of captured territory (including Crimea, taken in 2014) would be acceptable. Zelenskyy even seems to have given up his bid to enter NATO.

Finally, a path for peace has been forged, though it will take more time, patience, and negotiation to reach a final deal. Trump has gained the trust of both Zelenskyy and Putin, Putin having even acquiesced to meet on U.S. soil to discuss peace with Trump in Alaska, three days before the summit.

No one can predict the final outcome, but Trump’s current position is (1) Ceasefire is preferable to stop deaths, but negotiations will continue regardless. (2) The U.S. no longer is “giving anything” (having given at least $200 billion under former President Joe Biden). Still, it is selling the best military equipment on earth to Europe, to give to Ukraine as they wish. (3) Ukraine’s NATO membership is still off the table, but (4) the U.S. will back security guarantees for Ukraine (beyond the previous rare earth minerals deal) where Europe maintains “the first line of defense,” with no U.S. boots on the ground. Still to be hashed out is how close security guarantees will appear to NATO military operations (Zelenskyy wants weapons, training, intelligence, etc.), which will certainly be a sticking point for Putin. Trump sees U.S. security guarantees as necessary to “getting the deal done.”

Number (5) will be the hardest for those who still don’t understand the realities of Ukraine’s situation and what it will take to end the war: territorial concessions on both sides (including Ukraine, the non-aggressor yet “loser”) are likely. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that “both sides are going to have to give, and both sides should expect to get something.” Putin wants the “fortress belt” in the western part of Donetsk province that he failed to capture, but he is not likely to get it.

Less than one year ago, under Biden and in anticipation of a Kamala Harris presidency, the U.S. planned to support another Ukraine counteroffensive this year, having signed a commitment with Zelenskyy with fixed levels of support for ten years. Throughout the war, Biden sent more and more lethal weapons to Ukraine, escalating the war towards a worldwide disaster. No discussion of “peace negotiations,” just another American “forever war” draining America’s coffers without tangible benefit to actual American taxpayers.

Thankfully, Donald Trump has the wisdom and leadership strength to put a hard stop to anything not in America’s interest. He continues to hammer out a monument of accomplishments on a huge scale and with a rapid pace that infuriates and demoralizes the Left — all while restoring the firm foundation and hope of American greatness that the vast majority of Americans (and our allies) crave.

Dishonest portraits painted by the Left demonizing and downplaying Trump’s peace negotiations are especially ironic given that Trump had nothing to do with provoking this war; nor with former President Barack Obama giving Crimea to Russia, weakening Ukraine; nor with Biden promising Ukraine NATO membership against previous U.S. promises (which Trump warned him about); nor Biden signaling to Putin that a “minor incursion” would be acceptable. Yet as Trump said, “We wanna get it ended … we’re going to have a lasting peace.”

Trump has tirelessly worked to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and the bleeding of American taxpayer money while working to create peace in multiple international conflicts— Armenia-Azerbaijan, Cambodia-Thailand, Congo-Rwanda, India-Pakistan, Israel-Iran, and more. Even in his first eight months, Trump’s status as the World Leader is unparalleled, cementing him as an international figure of consequence and vision far beyond the years of his presidency.

But, as Trump says, speaking about the mainstream media: “the level of hatred and animosity is unbelievable … I’ve solved major wars… that have been going on for 35 and 37 [years] and a couple of quicker ones… but they don’t even write about that. No matter what I do … no matter what deal I make … they’ll say, ‘Trump was absolutely horrible.’ And I’ve lived with that for a long time.” He pauses to consider, “But I won in a landslide … so the people … are the only ones that count, ultimately.”

Over seventy-seven million people, Mr. President. Thank you for making the U.S.A. the greatest and “hottest” nation on earth, once again.

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

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Fraude y fracaso alemán)

The general degradation of politics and administration in Germany generates stupefaction even among those who have been warning for many years, for several decades, that the policy of systematic social democratic consensus between what were until recently the two great German parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), was leading irremediably to failure. Germany is today a country radically different from the one that existed from the economic miracle of the 1950s until 2015, although even then it had already been for years on the path of this misfortune.

Because it soon became apparent that the initially so celebrated Grosse Koalition, to which the Greens and the Liberals later attached themselves in various governments, led to a coordination of the interests of them all that prevented necessary reforms, generated obstinacy in maintaining mistaken policies and ended in corruption and failure. There was no opposition. And without a real opposition there is no correction of policy.

Thus unthinkable things have happened, and not only aberrant decisions in law such as approving a constitutional reform after the elections with the parliament that preceded them, because the composition of the new one had not permitted it. That kind of banana-republic manoeuvre is mixed with a runaway inefficiency in transport and in federal, state and municipal social services and with a corruption previously unthinkable.

There are incredible scandals such as the one that has just broken: the Federal Statistical Office now announces that it has been systematically “getting it wrong” in its quarterly GDP growth figures and that in reality things have been far worse. According to the official information, in 2023 GDP did not fall by 0.2% but by 0.9%, and in 2014 it was not 0.3% but 0.6%. We are talking about many billions of euros. The “errors” of the Federal Statistical Office have of course favoured the Government, the one of that time and the one of today.

The cosmetic treatment of the fall in GDP in 2023 favoured the parties of the previous Government ahead of the elections. And the cosmetic treatment of the 2024 result favours the present government because it will be easier for it to improve upon. In any case, the policy that Friedrich Merz of the CDU is practising in coalition with the SPD really differs in nothing from the previous Government with the Greens and the Liberals, led by the SPD with Olaf Scholz as chancellor, which ended in terrible failure and early elections. As you can see, four parties involved in various combinations in the various governments, all with the same basically social democratic policy that Angela Merkel already imposed in her 16 catastrophic years.

The basic social democratic consensus prevents anything previously done from being called into question. So with all these governments the same immigration policy has been pursued, with brutal consequences for security and quality of life, the same energy policy that has sunk the economy and impoverished society as a whole, the same labour policy that has sunk productivity and, above all, the environmental policy, converted into the ideological totem that automatically eradicates all rationality from the decisions that are taken.

Since the abyss between the reality lived by Germans and the message and the rhetoric of the consensus parties has not stopped growing, the moment has arrived in which all the parties included in it are losing support and only one party is rising, the one that is radically different and that emerged precisely to fill that vacuum left by the absence of opposition, and which according to the latest polls is already the first party, the AfD.

Once a real opposition was finally generated with the AfD, all the parties of the social democratic consensus agreed to brand it far-right and extremist in order to ignore it, to impose a cordon sanitaire, to refuse all cooperation and contact and thus to go on functioning as if that new party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), did not exist. And so they went on governing as if that opposition did not exist.

However, the AfD not only did not cease to exist but has grown without pause until today it is already the first party in Germany, two points ahead of the CDU and doubling the result of the third, which is the SPD. The logical thing would have been that, after the last elections in which the CDU came first and the AfD second, with a brutal failure for the entire left, the first two should have formed a coalition of a new type, clearly on the right, which could have carried out all the reforms of the follies committed that nobody in the CDU denies to be necessary.

But since the boycott of the AfD by all the parties of the social democratic consensus continues, and the CDU persists in keeping itself shut inside that pen with the losing left, the only possible Government after the elections was the one that is now in its death throes, having done nothing but aggravate the situation. September approaches like a black cloud for a Government that the immense majority of Germans consider incapable and already disqualified.

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. Sudan: Where the Abraham Accords Face Their Fiercest Trial)

The Abraham Accords represented a bold recalibration of Middle East diplomacy — driven by American resolve, regional pragmatism, and the Trump administration’s unapologetic prioritization of national interests over ideological dogma. Nowhere was that shift more transformative than in Sudan, where decades of hostility toward Israel were giving way to cautious engagement, economic vision, and a growing appetite for regional integration.

That momentum has since faltered. Under the Biden administration, the strategic clarity that once defined U.S. Middle East policy dissipated. Sudan has been engulfed in civil war, and Washington’s response has been incoherent — marked by ambivalence, moral grandstanding, and a misguided faith in discredited secular elites now aligned with the very forces destabilizing the country.

Roughly one-third of the way through this descent, a critical voice has emerged. In a recent article published by The Times of Israel, journalist Gavin Serkin offers the clearest account yet of how the Sudan-Israel normalization track was derailed — not by popular rejection, but by geopolitical naiveté and diplomatic short-sightedness. Serkin laid bare the contradictions at the heart of Western policy: While Sudan’s army fights to preserve the nation’s territorial integrity, it is the Rapid Support Forces — implicated in mass atrocities — that have found indirect favor through silence and strategic neglect. Among the RSF’s reported backers is the UAE, a country whose strategic interests in Sudan reflect broader efforts to contain instability — though the outcomes of such alignments now warrant scrutiny, Serkin asserted. The UAE denies supporting the RSF militarily and financially.

Notably, the UAE has also been a pioneering leader in advancing regional peace through its role in the Abraham Accords, demonstrating its broader commitment to reshaping Middle East diplomacy through normalization and economic integration. This duality — of visionary regional leadership on one hand and complex entanglements on the other — sets the stage for a most symbolic and troubling episodes Serkin explored.

Though Sudan did not ink its name alongside the UAE, Bahrain, or Morocco, its alignment with the Abraham Accords was no less historic. In 2020, under intense diplomatic pressure and with the promise of removal from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, Sudan’s transitional leaders agreed in principle to normalize relations with Israel — a bold, if tenuous, leap forward. This decision was not merely transactional; it represented a flicker of geopolitical maturity amid a fragile nation’s search for identity and integration. In early 2023, that flicker was reignited as Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen met with General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Khartoum, signaling an intent to formalize ties. But weeks later, Sudan descended into civil war. The normalization process — never codified, never ratified — was suspended in midair. Sudan’s place in the Abraham Accords now hangs between vision and void, shaped not only by international will, but by whether the world chooses to engage with the Sudan of today.

Serkin highlighted a devastating symbolic moment: the Israeli foreign minister’s visit to General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan just weeks before the war began, followed by near-total silence from Jerusalem as RSF militias ransacked communities and committed unspeakable crimes. That silence has not gone unnoticed. As former Sudanese diplomat Mekki Elmograbi notes in the piece, it felt like being “stabbed in the back.” Such optics have the power to destroy trust.

It appears that writer Serkin chose Mekki Elmograbi to express the sense of shock because Mekki was the first to openly lead a Sudanese-Israeli discussion at the Moshe Dayan Center, representing a reasonable and candid voice from Sudan.

A very important article was recently published in the Wall Street Journal by the French writer Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is well known for his support of Israel — but this time, the article came from an unexpected location: Sudan itself, during a field tour with General Al-Burhan, including counterterrorism forces base where he witnessed preparation for operations against extremists.

In the article, the philosopher and author Bernard delivered an important message from Al-Burhan: that he is willing to continue with the Abraham Accords, but emphasized that a parliament must be in place to ratify the agreement. This can only happen through cooperation with the legitimate government currently under Burhan’s leadership, especially now after appointing a civilian prime minister, Professor Kamil El-Tayeb Idris.

Bernard’s article, titled “Sudan’s Brutal, Forgotten War,” was the result of an investigative trip, reminiscent of his earlier work, including the film “The Oath of Tobruk,” based on his field visits to the uprising in Libya against Moammar Gaddafi.

The miscalculation at the heart of current Western — and to some degree, Israeli — policy is the belief that normalization can be orchestrated behind closed doors, as if Sudan were frozen in time. But Sudan is not static. Its center of gravity has shifted. The army, led by Burhan, retains legitimacy and controls vast portions of the country. Intelligence chief General Ibrahim Mufaddal is now a key counterterrorism partner for Europe. He led successful intelligence diplomacy in Europe and across the region. The reality on the ground has moved on, even as policymakers remain stuck in outdated frameworks.

Worse still is the insistence on treating normalization as a reward for ideological conformity. The fiction that only secular elites are “safe” partners has collapsed. Many of these actors sided with the RSF and lost their mandate. Meanwhile, elements within Sudan’s Islamic and traditional sectors — including some previously opposed to normalization — have grown more pragmatic. They see engagement with Israel not as a betrayal, but as a path to sovereignty and survival.

Sudan is not merely a participant in the Abraham Accords framework — it is, in many ways, their crucible. Unlike the Gulf monarchies whose normalization with Israel was driven by economic pragmatism and shared security interests, Sudan’s engagement was forged in the fires of post-revolutionary flux, where legitimacy is fragile, institutions fractured, and sovereignty contested. If normalization can endure amid Sudan’s civil war, ideological fragmentation, and regional interference, it would affirm the Accords not as a transactional detente, but as a durable architecture for peace — capable of transcending regime type and surviving the volatility of the modern Middle East.

Sudan’s successful normalization with Israel could inspire hesitant African and Arab states, like Algeria or Tunisia, to reconsider their stance, amplifying the Accords’ regional ripple effect and demonstrating that peace can thrive even in complex, post-conflict environments. But if it collapses here, it signals something far more sobering: The promise of Arab-Israeli reconciliation may be confined to boardrooms and strongmen, unable to take root where democratic pluralism or popular agency remain in play. Sudan, therefore, is not the exception — it is the proving ground.

To frame this as “Islamist vs. secularist” is to fundamentally misunderstand the stakes. The normalization process must be decoupled from regime change agendas. Peace with Israel should be a national decision, not the prize of a narrow elite. It must reflect Sudanese realities — not Western preferences.

The danger now is clear: By sidelining real actors on the ground and clinging to failed proxies, the West risks pushing Sudan deeper into chaos and driving normalization into irrelevance. Worse, it risks allowing extremism to reassert itself under the banner of betrayed nationalism.

If the Abraham Accords are to mean anything in Sudan, they must be reclaimed. That means re-engaging with Burhan and national institutions — not because they are perfect, but because they are real. It means abandoning the fantasy that peace can be imposed from abroad and, instead, empowering Sudanese voices to shape their own future — through dialogue, inclusion, and respect for sovereignty.

It was bold leadership that launched the Abraham Accords. It will take bold leadership again to rescue them in Sudan.

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

Iraq’s parliament is pushing forward a dangerous piece of legislation that would turn the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) into a permanent part of the state. The law would formalize the group’s military structure, create a dedicated academy, and promote its leader—who’s under U.S. sanctions for human rights abuses—to ministerial rank. It’s a move that would not only legitimize a powerful, Iranian-aligned armed force within Iraq’s official security system but also deepen Iran’s hold over the country’s institutions.

The PMF was originally formed in 2014 to help fight ISIS, but it has since evolved into a sprawling network of over 70 factions, including several that Washington designates as terrorist organizations. These militias have attacked U.S. forces, killed civilians, threatened religious minorities, and even launched drones at neighboring countries. Yet Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, backed by the Iran-aligned Coordination Framework, continues to support the bill—claiming it will bring the PMF under state control. In practice, it would do the opposite: protect them from oversight and further empower Tehran’s proxies.

The U.S. has every reason to be alarmed. Institutionalizing the PMF would effectively formalize Iran’s military presence inside Iraq, undermining the fragile sovereignty that Iraq still claims and throwing regional stability into further uncertainty. If this bill becomes law, Washington cannot afford to treat it as just another diplomatic concern—it must respond with clarity and force. That starts with accelerating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Arab parts of Iraq, where American forces are increasingly exposed and unwelcome.

But withdrawal alone isn’t enough. The U.S. should hit PMF-linked companies with new sanctions, publicly release intelligence documenting militia abuses, and make it clear that political and economic engagement with Baghdad will come at a cost. Prime Minister Sudani’s long-sought visit to Washington should be taken off the table. And as Iraq drifts closer to becoming a client state of Iran, the U.S. should deepen its ties with more trustworthy allies by establishing a permanent military presence in the Kurdistan Region—a place where American interests and local leadership still align.

Nahro Zagros is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC based foreign-policy and defense think-and-do-tank.

(This article first appeared in Human Events: https://humanevents.com/2025/08/05/shea-bradley-ferrell-trump-the-disruptor-secures-america-first-trade-deal-with-eu)

As Trump rebalances America’s relationship with the European Union, European leadership will be forced to correct their self-destructive policies and stop taking America for granted.

Economic “threats” and “bullying” are how the mainstream media and the allegedly “informed” foreign policy establishment describe President Donald Trump’s recent trade deal with the European Union (EU). Bullying?

I guess it doesn’t matter that U.S. companies have been burdened for decades with a multitude of tariffs, barriers, and protectionist policies that keep U.S. goods out of European markets, or that the EU has a goods trade surplus with the U.S. of $236 billion, or that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen even said herself that the deal was necessary to “rebalance trade.” President Trump continues to deliver for “America First,” and his critics can’t stand it.

Trump is rectifying what decades of former Presidents would not. After years of slashing our own tariffs and trade barriers, all while paying the price (literally) for ever-increasing foreign protections against U.S. products, Trump is finally giving U.S. companies a level playing field. Besides handicapping U.S. companies and workers, the U.S. trade policies that first focused on rebuilding Europe after WWII, then on nurturing developing countries all over the world, created a U.S. global goods trade deficit—currently valued at $1.2 trillion (2024), the highest on record. The last time the U.S. even had a trade surplus was in 1975.

The EU has a significant surplus in trade with the U.S. in goods that are also made in America—like pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and motor vehicles and parts. Did Trump get the better deal with von der Leyen? Yes, he did. The U.S. will now impose 15% tariffs on most EU goods, including cars, but U.S. tariffs on the same goods will be zero.

Early on, von der Leyen played games with Trump and threatened even higher tariffs on the U.S instead of negotiating—and it backfired on her. Von der Leyen’s moves weren’t smart: the U.S. buys more exports from the EU than any of its trading partners, and the EU desperately needs U.S. markets.

This is particularly true, especially because Europe’s economy has been in steady decline—and it’s their fault. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Europe used to be 90% of America’s GDP, ten to 15 years ago, but has declined to only about 65% of U.S. GDP. As JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon remarked, “That’s not good.”

European bureaucracy, which seeks to regulate its citizens extensively, has created a tax system that is excessively expensive and fails to protect new workers or incentivize industry and innovation. Instead of fixing these problems, EU leadership focuses on building a collective “war economy” around the Russia-Ukraine war, which aims to keep the war going indefinitely.

In addition, Europe built its economy on cheap Russian energy. Before the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia provided the EU with more than 50% of its solid fossil fuels (like coal), more than 25% of its crude oil, and 43% of its natural gas. But Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t a business partner you can count on and has repeatedly weaponized energy supplies to circumvent sanctions. In the first 9 months of the war, and even before it started, Putin strategically cut gas supplies to the EU and then shut down the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, causing a severe European energy crisis—gas prices soared, inflation crippled state economies, workers lost jobs, and industries shut down.

Remember when Trump warned the Germans against reliance on Russian energy at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2018? German officials actually snickered and laughed at him. Von der Leyen’s agreement to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy as part of the U.S.-EU trade deal is a big win for both sides, and so is her agreement to invest another $600 billion in U.S. companies.

Though some doubt their ability to do so, the EU will also purchase “hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment,” which can provide U.S. defense contractors with big business. At the same time, Europe gets the best military equipment in the world. And, perhaps it will also help them fulfill their NATO spending commitments.

Trump is challenging the global systems and disrupting the “status quo,” which blindly accepts that the U.S. will always pay higher tariffs than we impose and more than our fair share for NATO. Thanks to the disastrous policies of the Biden administration, the U.S. also, by far, bore the financial burden of the Ukraine war for three years.

As Trump rebalances America’s relationship with the European Union, European leadership will be forced to correct their self-destructive policies and stop taking America for granted. Hopefully, it will also push them toward a very serious restructuring of the EU’s economic and social welfare systems. The EU can no longer run a huge trade surplus over the U.S. while allowing its economy to be buried under bureaucracy, burdensome taxes, and woke regulations.

In the meantime, as part of the trade deal, the EU agrees to work with the U.S. to eliminate its heavy tariff and non-tariff barriers and protectionist policies, opening European markets to U.S. companies. U.S. barriers to some sectors have persisted for years “despite repeated efforts at resolution.” New markets can drive U.S. economic growth and add American jobs. Perhaps if the EU sticks to this agreement in good faith, Trump will eventually lower U.S. tariffs on EU goods.

Europe is our partner and ally, and U.S. trading goals should ultimately strengthen both Europe and our partnership. Countries like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea are eager to tear us apart, destroy Western civilization, and weaken our collaborative security. But economic security and national security are closely linked, and these countries would also welcome U.S.-EU economic fragmentation.

In only a short time, Trump has used tariffs as a great diplomatic tool that leverages American economic power. He has refocused foreign aid and is building a foreign policy on ‘Peace Through Strength and Prosperity,’ at the same time reinvesting in American companies and our hardworking middle class. Don’t let the naysayers distract you— America is indeed headed toward a ‘Golden Age.’

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. She is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based foreign policy think tank. Her latest book is Last Warning to the West. Follow her at counterpointinstititute.org or on “X” @DrShea_DC and @CounterpointDC.

I have never been a Diplomat, although at times had to be diplomatic. Even though I had interactions with the State Department during my 33 years in the U.S. Army, I really am not sure about how American diplomats are instructed to speak to or about other great powers, specifically the Russian Federation. What I hear coming out of the mouths of officials in both the Legislative and Executive Branches leads me to believe the American government has little to no standards. In my judgment, these comments are made to denigrate Russia, but they also degrade us as a nation. This is not how great powers should deal with each other. If there is a rulebook of diplomatic speech these people are following, it needs to be thrown out the window. The same is true about how we treat all other great powers. To what standard should we then hold ourselves?

Rather than proceed toward a nuclear standoff, my basic message is that all American officials must speak about and treat the Russian Federation and its President Vladimir Putin with the respect due a great power (and a nuclear power). As our nation inches toward a senseless and avoidable nuclear world war, I am willing to risk being criticized for weakness or naivety or anything else that the Deep State may choose. I don’t care.

These same forces already tried their best to destroy me when I was appointed as President Trump’s first National Security Advisor and tried to calm the waters with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. People forget now, but the Obama Administration lied about Russian hacking of the Democrat National Committee servers and the 2016 election, and unfairly expelled 35 Russian Diplomats on December 29, 2016. Among other topics I spoke with Ambassador Kislyak about was to urge him to not overreact, as a new Administration would be taking over soon. For this, I paid a heavy price. In one of our calls, the transcript reflects me telling the Ambassador, “you are not talking to a diplomat; you are talking to a soldier. I am a very practical guy. It’s all about solutions.” That is how I still feel. Perhaps that put a target on my back then, and perhaps it will now. So be it.

For the sake of reducing the risk of nuclear war, and for the sake of having decent relations with Russia, and for the sake of our children and grandchildren, this is a time for American officials to stop mouthing off at Russia like spoiled children. And, we must follow some basic rules about behaviors like not lying, cheating, and stealing. Many in Congress are probably impossible to control, but here is my effort to lay down the rules that I would urge we follow regarding how we speak about and treat the Russian Federation, its leadership, and most important, the people of Russia.

The Rules:

Rule #1. The U.S. should not lie.

I was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. I know people lie. I know governments lie. The establishment press lies and the CIA lies. However, great world power leaders cannot lie to each other. I am not saying that the White House press secretary should answer questions about military operations or the like, or be required to give away all information in response to a question, but that is an entirely different matter. Lying between great nations never accomplishes anything except breaking the trust that great nations must have in each other.

It was before my time, but I remember studying the damage done to our relationship with the Soviet Union when President Eisenhower lied about the U-2 flight by Francis Gary Powers. I was a child at the time, but from studying history, I know that relations were harmed when President Kennedy lied about U.S. involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba. By the time the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, Kennedy had turned the corner and was dealing straight with the Soviet leadership (at the time, Nikita Khrushchev). That tough, but honest, straightforward talk helped avert a World War.

Some may say that lying is part of the game. That everyone lies. Rubbish. I am reminded of the scene from the 1955 movie The Sea Chase where John Wayne played the captain of a German freighter trapped in Sydney, Australia at the outbreak of World War II. Wayne discusses strategy with the German Consul-General and tells him using his best cowboy drawl: “I won’t lie for you.” The German diplomat’s response is classic: “Of course not! I wouldn’t think of asking you to lie. You haven’t had the necessary diplomatic training.” Lies may be the currency of covert operations, but not the direct communications between great nation leaders. And these days, with much more sophisticated intelligence capabilities, our adversaries can figure out we are lying almost as soon as the lie is stated. We simply cannot lie to our adversaries.

Rule #2. The U.S. must not break its word.

In recent years, it has been proven that the U.S. promised Russia that if it allowed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we would not expand NATO eastward. Secretary of State James Baker promised in 1990 that NATO would move “not one inch eastward.” West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher repeated the assurances. But we lied. NATO expanded under President Clinton (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic); under President George W. Bush (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria); under President Obama (Albania and Croatia); and even under President Trump, two small countries (Montenegro and North Macedonia) joined NATO. Russia consistently has pointed to the U.S. breaking its word with the eastern expansion of NATO as the principal reason it viewed the Ukraine as an existential threat. How might the lives of the people of the Ukraine be different if we had kept our word and NATO had not expanded?

Rule #3. The U.S. should not insult, demean, ridicule, or threaten.

When I heard President Biden call President Putin “a pure thug,” a “murderous dictator” and a “war criminal,” I cringed. John McCain used the same terms. Even then-Senator Marco Rubio called President Putin “a gangster” and “an authoritarian thug,” although those days appear to be over in his current role. Now, Secretary of State Rubio, a man with a lot on his plate, comes across as a diplomat of the highest order. Lindsey Graham has also called President Putin a “thug.” What good does this kind of sound bite do? Perhaps Graham believes that the voters of South Carolina want to hear such nonsense, but I think soon, he will find out that South Carolina voters have had enough of his stirring the pot of war.

On July 16, 2025, for reasons no one has explained, Army General Christopher Donahue suggested that the U.S. and NATO might invade the Russian city of Kaliningrad, a small city surrounded by Lithuania and Poland. Donahue’s remarks are highly provocative and should be cause for his removal. That said, as Donahue noted, “Kaliningrad, Russia, is roughly 47 miles wide and surrounded by NATO on all sides and the Army and its allies now have the capability to ‘take that down from the ground in a timeframe that is unheard of and faster than we’ve ever been able to do…. We’ve already planned that and we’ve already developed it. The mass and momentum problem that Russia poses to us … we’ve developed the capability to make sure that we can stop that mass and momentum problem,’ Donahue said.”

Not surprisingly, Russian lawmaker Leonid Slutsky responded to the threat to invade Russian territory. “An attack on the Kaliningrad Region will mean an attack on Russia, with all due retaliatory measures, stipulated, among other things, by its nuclear doctrine. The US general should take this into account before making such statements,” Slutsky said.

What possible positive outcome Donahue thought would come from a comment about invading Russia remains unexplained. Nor is it explained why Russia should act any differently from the way Americans would react if Russia threatened a naval invasion of Alaska’s remote Aleutian Islands.

Rule #4. The U.S. should never support assassinations.

I could use Lindsey Graham for several of these points about what not to do, but after the Russians moved into the Ukraine, Graham said, “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out… You would be doing your country — and the world — a great service.” Such comments are a disgrace. Have we not had enough assassination attempts on President Trump that we still want to legitimize assassination of world leaders? President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 in 1981 banning the assassination of foreign leaders. This must be enforced.

Rule #5. The U.S. should never call for regime change.

On March 26, 2022, President Biden said in Warsaw, Poland: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Neocon and former National Security Advisor John Bolton has said, “Putin must go: Now is the time for regime change in Russia.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has called President Putin’s government “illegitimate” and accused him of “war crimes.” And, McFaul is supposed to be a trained diplomat. How would we feel if President Putin called for the downfall of President Trump? None of this is acceptable behavior.

Rule #6. The U.S. should always be willing to negotiate.

I confess with my background growing up in an Irish Catholic Democrat family in Rhode Island that I have always had great admiration for President John F. Kennedy. As I have traveled the country giving speeches, I have often referenced President Kennedy, and sometimes drew strange stares from my conservative friends as a result. However, I believe he often gave us wise counsel, including his January 1961 inaugural address when he said: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy had to work around his own appointees, particularly at the Pentagon and the CIA, to establish a direct dialogue outside of normal channels with President Khruschev to resolve the crisis. It worked, and war was averted. Thank God he was willing to negotiate. From all appearances, it seems President Trump is attempting to do the same despite great pressure from the Neocon-Right and Left.

Rule #7. The U.S. should view this dispute from the other nation’s perspective.

Perhaps the most relevant illustration of this principle is the way many in our government view what the Russian Federation calls its Special Military Operation in Ukraine. The American people have been lied to incessantly that the Russian move was an unprovoked act of aggression. However, there is another side to this story as to why the Russian Federation believes it was forced to take the action it did, provoked by Western nations, including the endless expansion of NATO. But even if they refuse to face (or admit) the fact that there is another side to the story, our leaders need to have a moment of introspection. There is always another side to the story, even if it is not as persuasive.

Again, JFK explained this point much better than I ever could, this time in his American University Commencement Speech. He said,

But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude – as individuals and as a Nation – for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward – by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home. [Emphasis added.]

Rule #8. The U.S. should never back a nuclear power into a corner.

Here I go again, with another example of John F. Kennedy’s American University Commencement Speech:

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. [Emphasis added.]

It may make us feel good to try to humiliate the leader of a great country, but it is among the worst types of mistakes we could make given Russia’s nuclear arsenal.

Rule #9. We should never assume that only the U.S. wants peace.

One last time, JFK said at American University:

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland – a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago. [Emphasis added.]

In a 2025 poll, over 80 percent of Russians say their country should seek a closer relationship with the United States. The idea that Russians are irrevocably hostile to America is simply not true.

Rule #10. The U.S. should never steal.

After the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the U.S. and its allies froze at least $300 billion in Russian assets, as well as property belonging to wealthy Russians. The G7 has proposed to use the interest earned on this money to fund the war against Russia. Is it any wonder that such treatment causes other countries not to trust us? Is it any wonder that other countries are motivated to create an alternative financial structure to avoid the West, such as BRICS? BRICS was created in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, soon joined by South Africa (the nations’ initials created the BRICS acronym). BRICS “was designed to bring together the world’s most important developing countries, to challenge the political and economic power of the wealthier nations of North America and Western Europe.” Given how much we took of what belongs to others, should we be surprised when Russia looks for more trustworthy economic partners?

Some Concluding Thoughts

As the leader of a great country, would you have confidence in dealing with a nation which violated these basic rules of diplomacy? Would you be willing to negotiate with a nation which routinely showed disrespect? It is no wonder we are moving toward a nuclear conflict with Russia, the world’s other great nuclear power.

President Kennedy’s speech at American University explained that it is nuclear weapons which force us to pursue peace with all our energy:

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.

Our nation has seen endless wars for decades, but those wars have always been “over there.” A nuclear war would not be like that. As President Kennedy explained,

[War] makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

It is time for our leaders to control their emotions. It is time to guard our tongues. It is time to show respect to our adversaries as well as our friends. If we behave with respect, perhaps then we could find a way forward with our adversaries.

So, if I were advising him now, I would urge President Trump to implement these 10 rules for the Executive Branch.

I urge the voters to reject candidates for Congress whose irresponsible rhetoric brings us closer to nuclear war.

And perhaps most importantly, I ask that all Americans pray for our elected and appointed officials, that God would give them the wisdom, the discernment, and the character required to lead our nation. For we are told to pray: “For kings and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (I Timothy 2:2.)

I pray that if we demonstrate such an act of self-control, God would honor it, bring us back from the precipice of nuclear war, and protect the United States of America.

Michael T. Flynn, LTG USA (Ret.) is the chairman of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think-and-do tank.

The US-EU Trade Deal of 2025: A Pivot Toward Resilience, But at What Cost?

The US-EU trade agreement of July 2025 is not just a recalibration of tariffs and quotas—it’s a bold acknowledgment that advanced economies are prioritizing national resilience over the dogma of unfettered globalism. In a world of weaponized supply chains and geopolitical flux, this deal reflects a pragmatic shift toward sovereignty, but its benefits and costs are unevenly distributed. For the United States, it’s a strategic win; for Europe, it’s a fragile compromise that masks deeper vulnerabilities.

A Triumph for the United States

For the US, the deal is a masterstroke of economic and geopolitical strategy. By securing increased access for energy exports—potentially worth hundreds of billions over the next decade—and attracting European investment in manufacturing and AI, the agreement bolsters key sectors. It’s not just about dollars. It’s about reversing decades of offshoring that hollowed out industrial heartlands. Towns in Ohio and Michigan stand to gain from reshored factories, supported by pro-business policies and cheap domestic energy. The deal also cements US energy dominance, with LNG exports to Europe projected to reach 25% of EU gas supply by 2030, reducing reliance on volatile suppliers.

Critics argue that tariffs risk inflation and higher consumer prices. They’re not wrong—US import prices could rise by 2–3% in the short term. But for many Americans, stable jobs and national security outweigh marginal cost increases. The working class, long sidelined by coastal elites chasing efficiency, finally sees policy aligned with their needs.

Europe’s Precarious Truce

Europe, by contrast, has secured a tactical reprieve rather than a strategic victory. By averting a tariff war, the EU protects its export-driven economies, particularly Germany’s automotive sector (€250 billion in exports annually) and Ireland’s pharmaceuticals. Zero tariffs on semiconductors and aviation preserve high-value industries, while increased US LNG imports support energy diversification, cutting reliance on Russian gas (down to 8% of EU supply in 2024). Yet these gains come at a cost. Europe’s industries face structural pressures: German manufacturers grapple with energy costs 2–3 times higher than in the US, while Central European suppliers risk losing ground to American competitors offering lower costs and subsidies.

Wealthier EU states like Germany and the Netherlands may absorb these shocks, but southern and eastern Europe—already strained by high debt (e.g., Italy’s 140% debt-to-GDP ratio) and lower wages—face growing risks. Rising living costs, with inflation at 2.5% in 2025, hit households hard, particularly in Greece and Romania, where real incomes have stagnated. The deal’s focus on large industries overlooks small and medium enterprises, which employ 60% of EU workers and struggle with trade compliance costs.

Moreover, the agreement deepens Europe’s dependence on US energy, trading one external reliance (Russia) for another. This is not sovereignty restored but deferred. The EU’s push for renewables under the European Green Deal—aiming for 45% renewable energy by 2030—offers a path to self-reliance, but progress is uneven, and the deal does little to accelerate it.

The Bigger Picture: Sovereignty, China, and Society

This deal is not about economic optimality; it’s about geopolitical realism. Tariffs and industrial policies may distort markets, but they build resilience in a world where supply chains are strategic weapons. Both the US and EU are responding to China’s dominance in critical goods like semiconductors and rare earths. A true transatlantic partnership would align on reducing China’s leverage, perhaps through joint investment in chip production or green tech.

The deal also sidesteps digital trade and data privacy, where US-EU tensions (e.g., GDPR vs. US tech giants) remain unresolved. Without progress here, the agreement misses a chance to shape the digital economy. Socially, Europe risks further fragmentation. Economic strain in southern and eastern member states could fuel populist movements, as seen in Italy and Hungary, undermining EU unity.

A Necessary but Incomplete Step

The US-EU trade deal of 2025 marks the end of naive globalism and the return of strategic pragmatism. For the US, it’s a step toward industrial revival and energy dominance. For Europe, it’s a pause that preserves stability but exposes long-term vulnerabilities. To compete, the EU must double down on self-reliance—through affordable energy, diversified supply chains, and support for SMEs—while addressing social discontent to prevent political fracturing.

Economic inefficiencies may arise, but in a world of strategic decoupling, sovereignty is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. The US has seized this moment; Europe must find the courage to do the same, lest it remain a market bloc tethered to external powers. This deal is not the final chapter but a call to action for both sides to redefine prosperity in an age of uncertainty.

Rob Roos is a distinguished fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think-and-do tank.

When Akam Rezaee talks about cinema, there’s a fire in his voice—a blend of passion, purpose, and persistence. Born in Mahabad, in the heart of Rojhelat (Eastern Kurdistan), Akam didn’t grow up with film schools, industry connections, or cutting-edge equipment. But what he did have was curiosity—and a fierce drive to tell stories. Today, he’s a VFX Supervisor and filmmaker whose credits include productions for Netflix, Apple TV, Showtime, and Paramount, as well as projects produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.

We caught up with Akam to talk about how he went from a handheld camera in the Kurdish underground music scene to contributing to some of the biggest productions in Hollywood.

No Film School? No Problem.

“There was no place to study filmmaking in my hometown,” Akam says.
“So we just started shooting.”

With borrowed camcorders and sometimes even phones, Akam began making music videos for local artists and short films with friends. His raw but inventive style quickly stood out. His work introduced storytelling, lighting, and even visual effects into a regional scene where none of that had been done before.

“I wouldn’t say I invented anything,” he says, smiling.
“But I do think I helped push our scene forward—visually, emotionally, technically.”

The Road to America Wasn’t a Red Carpet

Akam’s journey wasn’t just creative—it was political. He spent years as a refugee in Turkey before finally receiving asylum in the United States. But the dream of Hollywood wasn’t waiting with open arms.

“When I got here, I felt like I was 100 steps behind everyone else. I didn’t go to school here. I didn’t know anyone. I went to every event, messaged anyone I could—even total strangers. It was exhausting—and for a long time, it felt hopeless.”

But he didn’t stop. Instead, he looked for an edge. That’s when he found Gnomon—one of the most respected visual effects schools in the world.

A New Language: VFX

“I realized VFX was something that every film and show needed. And I already had a passion for it—but now, I wanted to master it.”

Gnomon became the turning point. Through technical discipline and sheer persistence, Akam broke into the VFX industry. He went from learning the software to delivering shots for indie films, studio features, and high-end episodic TV.

“Eventually, I got to work on some incredible projects—films produced by Spielberg, by Tom Hanks, by major streamers. It still feels surreal.”

VFX Supervisor and Storyteller

Today, Akam splits his time between supervising visual effects and pushing toward his dream of directing. His work includes everything from photoreal set extensions and car crash sequences to subtle compositing and CG integrations.

“To me, good VFX should feel invisible. If it breaks the story, it fails. But if it enhances it—emotionally, visually—that’s the magic.”

Akam has also served as a jury member for the Duhok International Film Festival, specifically in the Kurdish feature category—bringing both his technical expertise and his passion for storytelling back to his roots.

Giving Back to Kurdish Cinema

Despite his Hollywood résumé, Akam hasn’t turned his back on where it all started.

“I rarely see high-end VFX, color grading, or cinematic technique used in Kurdish cinema. Not because there’s no talent—there’s tons—but because there’s no access. That’s why I want to give back. Bring what I’ve learned here back home.”

He’s also produced films with longtime friend and collaborator Apo Bazidi, a filmmaker he credits as a major supporter.

Still a Student of Cinema

Even with years of professional experience, Akam doesn’t see himself as finished. Not yet.

“I always say I want to learn every piece of the puzzle. Every department. Because when I finally step fully into directing, I want to speak the full language of cinema. Not just the dialogue—but the camera, the rhythm, the light.”

Rahim “Mr. Kurd” Rashidi is a media fellow of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think-and-do tank.

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Trump desnuda a la bruja)

It would be funny. After all the mockery this European Commission and its president Ursula von der Leyen have directed at the US and all the insults they have hurled at its president Donald Trump, we may be given the amusing and certainly comforting paradox that it should be the greatest act of submission to Donald Trump ever seen on the international stage that finishes off this European Commission, with the lady president leading the way.

The humiliation at Canossa of the Germanic emperor Henry IV looks like a joke compared with that visit by von der Leyen to the premises of one of the golf clubs owned by Trump in Scotland, to say yes, yes, yes and yes to President Trump on every one of his demands. Some of them are impossible to fulfil and many are not remotely within the competence of the European Commission, and its president has absolutely no power to grant them.

Neither the astronomical European investments nor the purchases of North American energy fall within the competence of this lady, whom they called “the Queen of Sheba” when a year ago she made her second Commission to her own measure, with Teresa Ribera and a whole series of people with cupboards full of skeletons. But whom everyone, even those closest to her, considers more witch than queen.

Von der Leyen, who is a “doberman” in her mistreatment of all the conservative and patriotic forces that are critical of her demented ideological, environmental, economic and international-relations policies, turned in Scotland into a lapdog of the owner of the golf course, of the negotiations and of the discourse. It is clear that Trump enjoyed the run-around he gave this lady, who declared herself delighted with everything.

The 27 leaders of the member countries, who were not consulted about the steps she was taking, something very habitual with her, heard and read, some with horror and the rest with ill-disguised apprehension, the conditions that Trump enumerated with relish.

Trump has once again done the world a great favour, one more, and it has been to make clear even to the most faithful devotees of “suicidal Europeanism” that von der Leyen is a public danger, not only to democracy and freedom, which many do not care about, but to their own pockets and to their standing before their own electorates. Thus it has been shown once again that the groups to the right of von der Leyen’s People’s Party are right. And Mrs Ursula now has serious problems. As Viktor Orbán said, Trump’s heavyweight has had the featherweight for breakfast, a featherweight that is only proud, arrogant and abusive with the weak who live under her tyranny. And under her permanent abuse of power and of competences that are not her own.

On 10 July last in Strasbourg, the president of the European Commission managed to survive a motion of censure but she certainly did not emerge unscathed. The 175 votes in favour of her censure and fall, the 360 against and 18 abstentions saved her political neck, but they do not tell the whole story, because missing from them are 155 votes of deputies who, though present in Strasbourg, absented themselves so as not to vote.

Even on that day Mrs Ursula was very short of support. Today she would probably be far shorter of it, and it should no longer be surprising if, should things go a little more awry for her, she faces a much more matured and coordinated motion this autumn. With a far more uncertain outcome.

Because the agreement with Donald Trump may in fact become the final catastrophe of this German politician overrated to the point of the ridiculous. After failing resoundingly in three ministries in the German federal government, she reached the presidency of the European Commission through a manoeuvre by the ineffable Emmanuel Macron and after beheading the Spitzenkandidat, Manfred Weber, and some other candidates.

She has shown that she lacks scruples and the least empathy with the citizens of the European nations she mistreats. She has also had an instinct for power, a capacity for intrigue and arrogance more than enough to make herself strong, as she has done through a very determined use of the reins of the bureaucratic monster. But now she has crossed paths with Donald Trump and the Queen of Sheba has been left naked and utterly ridiculous. And that is the most difficult thing to survive in politics.

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.