Trump’s Crackdown Delivers Record Crime Drop in DC as Progressive Policies Fuel Urban Lawlessness Nationwide

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.

Beyond the Hype: Recent Wars Expose the Myth of Adversarial Strength and Force a U.S. Rethink on Global Threats

As global tensions sweep across headlines, American policymakers and the public alike are beginning to reevaluate what truly constitutes a threat. The Iran-Israel “Twelve-Day War” and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict have brought into sharp relief the need to recalibrate how the United States and its allies judge adversarial strength. Today, a clear reassessment is critical—one that puts aside the veils wrought by media-driven perceptions and political agendas and focuses squarely on the real capabilities of those challenging Western interests.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a bold and coordinated strike against Iranian military and nuclear facilities, a move that quickly became known as the “Twelve-Day War.” In less than two weeks, Israel decisively dismantled both Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities—a result that stunned a world conditioned to fear Iran’s perceived military prowess. Israeli operations neutralized Iranian military leadership, destroyed nuclear assets, and crippled air defenses, all while neutralizing retaliatory attacks delivered via Iran’s proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Despite initial fears, these attacks failed to alter the strategic situation. Israel’s technological superiority and the defensive cooperation from the United States overwhelmed Iran’s responses.

This outcome revealed a crucial truth: Iran’s real strength was not its direct military power, but rather its ability to finance and coordinate proxy groups throughout the region. For years, the Gulf and broader Middle East have lived under the shadow of Iran’s expanding influence, largely due to Tehran’s capacity to fund armed loyalists. The country’s reputation as a regional giant—amplified by repeated media cycles and political rhetoric—was in fact out of step with reality. Closer scrutiny of the ways Iran launders oil profits and funds its proxies could have led to a more honest assessment of its true threat level. Policymakers focusing only on Iran’s weapons arsenal risked missing the financial and diplomatic networks driving its influence.

Iran’s threat to regional stability essentially operates through relationships with its proxies. By funneling money, equipment, and training to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi groups, Iran has expanded its reach and destabilized Western interests with asymmetric tactics and gray-zone warfare. Yet, Israel’s rapid disruption of Iranian command centers exposed the vulnerability underlying this approach. The real Achilles’ heel was not just military weakness, but the fragility of Tehran’s external relationships, supply lines and financial channels. U.S. intelligence and recent analyses now highlight Iran’s strengths in missile and drone development, cyber operations, and propaganda campaigns, but suggest these tools do not represent the existential threat they are sometimes portrayed to be.

Countering Iran’s strength, therefore, means going beyond headline military assets to targeting the economic arteries sustaining its power. That includes a sharper diplomatic focus on Iraqi relations, and more aggressive pressure on oil laundering operations—the very mechanisms that fund Iran’s destabilizing activities. Western strategy must recognize that Iran’s real leverage is economic and indirect, not conventional military might.

Turning to Russia, the ongoing war with Ukraine stands as a dramatic case study in misperception versus reality. When Russia first invaded, the world largely expected Ukraine to be swiftly subjugated. Instead, as of August 2025, Ukraine continues to resist, and Russian forces have suffered extraordinary losses—U.K. MOD estimates, “approximately 1,000,000 casualties (killed and wounded). Of these, it is likely around 250,000 Russian soldiers are killed or missing.” The scale of attrition has exposed vulnerabilities that most analysts and policymakers failed to anticipate.

From the Obama era through the first Trump and Biden administrations, the U.S. saw Russia as its dominant adversary. Yet this protracted war, now stretching beyond three years, has forced a reassessment. Russia remains formidable in domains such as cyberwarfare and disinformation, but the narrative of unstoppable power has been undermined by the realities of battlefield attrition, tactical missteps, and the resilience of Ukrainian defense.

This uncertain situation also points to the importance of strategy in Western commitments. The incremental, “just enough” military aid provided to Ukraine has proved problematic: it keeps the war ongoing without ensuring victory or a swift conclusion. I have long argued that only robust support or no involvement at all would have served Western interests—a half-measure merely prolongs the suffering, with no strategic benefit.

Despite initial beliefs in their overwhelming strength, both Russia and Iran have demonstrated that their “bark” has been far more formidable than their “bite.” Their leaders—Putin and the Ayatollah—have preferred to project war through perceived rather than actual strength, investing heavily in propaganda campaigns and influence operations – something that Western mainstream-media was all too willing to follow. This approach shapes perceptions internationally even as their actual capabilities have been exposed as more limited than once feared.

For U.S. policymakers, these conflicts stress the urgent necessity to reassess threats. Real danger to America does not always come from adversaries dominating the news cycle with bold rhetoric, but from those who wield tangible capacity to disrupt security and economic stability. Greater emphasis must be placed on understanding the financial and shadow networks behind proxy wars, the vulnerabilities hidden beneath the surface, and the subtle threats—cyber, economic, diplomatic—that don’t make headlines.

As President Trump and European leaders host Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in hopes of negotiating peace, the lessons of the past year have come into stark notice: reputation and rhetoric alone do not define adversarial strength. Real assessment must be built on honest appraisal of capability and intent, not amplified fears or outdated narratives.

The world is more uncertain than ever, but recent events have helped to shatter some longstanding assumptions. Iran, once considered an unassailable regional force, saw its military infrastructure dismantled in less than two weeks. Russia, assumed to be an existential threat to American and European stability, remains embroiled in a war it cannot win easily. The common thread is clear: threats must be measured by real capabilities rather than reputation alone.

For American security, the challenge moving forward is to see through the noise, to base policy on reality rather than perception, and to ensure that future responses are built on genuine understanding. Only by doing so can the U.S. and its allies secure lasting peace, deter aggression, and shape a future that matches the gravity of the moment.

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

The Cartel of the Wretched

This paper investigates the sprawling transnational corruption network known as the Cartel of the Wretched.      

Led by Dmitry Romanovich Li, a former schoolteacher turned oligarch, whose influence has infiltrated Uzbekistan’s political, economic, and energy sectors. Described as a “puppet master,” Li heads a vertically integrated cartel that manipulates critical industries—finance, energy, mining, telecommunications, healthcare, and public procurement—under the cover of Uzbekistan’s sovereignty and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s reformist agenda.

Alongside key operatives Prime Minister Abdulla Aripov and Minister of Economy and Finance Jamshid Kuchkarov, Li’s cartel controls over $14 billion in assets, generating an estimated $3 billion annually through illicit means.

At the heart of this network lies Octobank, a financial hub facilitating money laundering, sanctions evasion, and the diversion of state resources.

The cartel’s energy sabotage strategy caps renewable capacity at 20 GW— contradicting the president’s 50% renewable energy target by 2030—and prioritizes gas power plants aligned with Russia’s 2027 gas supply plans, deepening Uzbekistan’s energy dependency from Russia. Economically, this has led to a 23% drop in energy production since 2000 and a 54% decline in per capita energy supply, exacerbating living conditions and environmental hazards.

Geopolitically, the cartel’s ties to Kremlin-backed elites and its role in evading Western sanctions threaten regional stability and expose Western investors to significant risks. Evidence of violence, including assassination attempts and mysterious deaths, underscores the cartel’s ruthless enforcement mechanisms.

We urge immediate action from the Uzbek government and the international community to dismantle this shadow empire and safeguard Uzbekistan’s future.

To read the full paper click here

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

Sheikh Nahro Al-Kasnazan Hosts Gold Institute for International Strategy Delegation in Baghdad, Meets with Prime Minister Al-Sudani

His Excellency Sheikh Nahro Al-Kasnazan, the global spiritual leader of the Kasnazan Qadiri Order, hosted a high-level delegation from the Gold Institute for International Strategy in Baghdad on Wednesday, April 23. The delegation, led by the Institute’s President Eli Gold, held an official meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al-Sudani. Prime Minister Al- Sudani warmly received the group, extending his greetings and expressing his appreciation for their visit.

During the discussions, the president of the Gold Institute underscored the strategic importance of strengthening the U.S.-Iraq relationship across key domains including security cooperation, economic development, and political engagement. Emphasizing mutual interests, he highlighted the need for deeper collaboration to ensure regional stability and prosperity.

Former U.S. Congressman Trent Franks also addressed the gathering, emphasizing Iraq’s pivotal geopolitical position within the Middle East. He noted Iraq’s potential to serve as a stabilizing force in the region, provided it pursues policies that prioritize sovereignty and national security. Franks urged the Iraqi government to distance itself from foreign proxies that threaten internal stability and complicate international relations, particularly with the United States.

Geoffrey Van Orden discussed the role of international coalitions in enhancing Iraq’s security infrastructure. He commended the progress made in improving safety and governance and stressed the importance of continued cooperation with Western allies.

Senior Fellow of the Gold Institute, Dr. Nahro Zagros, contributed valuable insights during the meeting, focusing on the evolving dynamics of regional diplomacy and internal political reforms in Iraq.

Members of the Gold Institute delegation also advocated for the expansion of economic ties between Iraq and the United States. They encouraged Prime Minister Al-Sudani to consider policies that would facilitate U.S. investment in Iraq, particularly through tariff reductions. In response, the Prime Minister expressed his intention to communicate with President Donald Trump the possibility of lowering tariffs to the minimum level of 1%, as permitted under Iraqi law, signaling a willingness to improve the commercial climate for American businesses.

Prime Minister Al-Sudani welcomed the discussion points and reiterated his government’s commitment to fostering U.S. business involvement in Iraq. On the topic of regional diplomacy, he offered his perspective on Iran’s nuclear posture, stating that in his view, Iran is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. He cited the fatwa issued by Imam Ruhollah Khomeini, the founding spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic, which prohibits the use of such weapons.

The meeting concluded with closing remarks from Sheikh Nahro Al-Kasnazan, who thanked Prime Minister Al-Sudani and the Iraqi government for their hospitality and constructive dialogue. Sheikh Nahro reaffirmed the Gold Institute’s dedication to enhancing U.S.-Iraq relations, particularly in the areas of economic cooperation and business development. He also emphasized his personal commitment to fostering peace and stability for all peoples of the region. Through his leadership and ongoing engagement with both Iraqi and international partners, Sheikh Nahro continues to champion constructive dialogue and shared growth with the United States as a cornerstone of regional progress.

President Saied Must Restore Democracy in Tunisia by July 25, 2024

Nearly three years ago, in July 2021, Tunisian President Kais Saied suspended parliament, dismissed the prime minister, and began ruling by presidential decree in what many observers called a “self-coup.” Since then, President Saied has consolidated power, rewritten the constitution to grant himself vast new authority, and delayed elections with no clear timeline for restoring democratic rule. This concerning authoritarian backslide in Tunisia, the lone success story to emerge from the Arab Spring, threatens the hard-won gains of Tunisia’s 2011 Jasmine Revolution.

Critically, President Saied has until July 25, 2024 to schedule the next presidential election, the constitutional deadline. It is imperative that he upholds the rule of law and respects the international order that expects Tunisia to hold this election by this legally mandated date. Tunisians have had two fair and transparent presidential elections in the past decade – this upcoming vote will be the third and must proceed as required.

President Saied claims his power grab was necessary to root out corruption and solve Tunisia’s many challenges. In reality, his increasingly oppressive rule has only exacerbated the country’s problems. The economy is on the brink of collapse with soaring inflation and unemployment. Foreign currency reserves are critically low, and the government is seeking an urgent IMF bailout. Meanwhile, crackdowns on political opponents, anti-corruption activists, journalists, judges, and business leaders have stifled dissent and spooked investors. Far from resolving Tunisia’s crises, President Saied’s authoritarianism only worsens them.

Even more alarming are President Saied’s recent moves toward communist ideology and alliances with China, Russia, and Iran. He has officially sided with China on Taiwan, lifted visa requirements for Iranians, and visited Iran to strengthen ties. By cozying up to these authoritarian regimes, President Saied is not only threatening Tunisia’s relationships with Western partners but also risking disruption on NATO’s southern flank. His actions could allow Tunisia to be weaponized against the West and undermine the region’s delicate agenda of peace and security.

This is a far cry from the Saied that Tunisians thought they were electing. While he came to power transparently through the ballot box, he has since pulled a “bait and switch” by morphing from a regular guy into a communist hardliner. His erratic behavior raises risks of expropriating international assets, unhooking Tunisia from its commitments to the rule of law and international norms, and setting the country on a collision course with the West and its own democratic principles.

Saied’s authoritarian pivot is a betrayal of the 2011 Jasmine Revolution that ended 23 years of dictatorship and ushered in a new era of democracy and hope. Tunisians fought hard for the right to choose their president freely, criticize their government without fear, and build an open society. While imperfect, its progressive constitution enshrined democratic freedoms and gave Tunisians a real voice in their country’s future for the first time.

Now, all that progress hangs in the balance. The 2022 constitution rammed through by President Saied guts checks and balances, erodes judicial independence, and makes him virtually impossible to remove from office. By ruling unilaterally and delaying elections, he deprives Tunisians of their fundamental right to choose their leaders democratically. 

To salvage Tunisia’s democracy, President Saied must reverse course immediately. He must urgently schedule the presidential election by the constitutional deadline of July 25, 2024. He should lift the state of emergency, restore judicial independence, free political prisoners, and allow civil society, activists, and opposition parties to operate without persecution.

Some may argue that democracy is too risky if it could result in a worse leader than President Saied. But this fear is misplaced. Tunisians have consistently rejected radicalism before and will do so again. The low turnout in Saied’s constitutional referendum, his plummeting approval ratings, and public dissatisfaction all show he lacks a true mandate. As an incumbent, he is in the minority and would struggle to win a free and fair election.

Tunisia’s vibrant political scene also offers hope, with several major parties led by trailblazing women. A democratic transition could elevate Tunisia’s first female president – an inspiring milestone for women’s leadership in the region. This potential for groundbreaking progress is yet another reason the presidential election must proceed as constitutionally required.

Only by relinquishing his exceptional powers and returning Tunisia to democratic rule can President Saied put the country back on track. Continued dictatorship will only exacerbate Tunisia’s challenges and make them harder to resolve. The only path forward is letting the Tunisian people freely choose their president again.

For the sake of democracy, the rule of law, and Tunisia’s future, President Saied must adhere to the election deadline of July 25, 2024. He should step back from his authoritarian overreach, recommit to Tunisia’s pro-Western orientation, and uphold the democratic principles at the heart of the Arab Spring’s most promising success story. Backsliding is not an option. The world is watching, and Tunisia’s courageous fight for freedom is too precious to abandon now when it matters most. President Saied must do the right thing and give Tunisians back their hard-won right to choose their own destiny.

Eli M. Gold is the President of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think tank focusing on foreign policy and defense matters. To learn more about the Gold Institute, visit www.Goldiis.org.

Support Eli Gold’s Work

The United States’ Obligation:A Robust Reaction to Algeria’s Abstention on the Houthi Assaults Resolution

The strategic significance of the Red Sea, a crucial conduit for global commerce and connectivity, cannot be overstated. The disruptive impact of Houthi attacks on shipping in this area not only poses a direct threat to regional security but also has ripple effects on international trade and commerce. The U.S. initiative to draft a resolution condemning these assaults is a testament to the collective endeavor to preserve the safety and stability of essential maritime routes. However, Algeria’s decision to abstain from this resolution represents a significant challenge, necessitating a robust U.S. response to uphold the efficacy of this vital initiative.

Algeria’s rationale for its abstention, which revolves around concerns about the situation in Gaza, invites scrutiny regarding the selective approach of its foreign policy. While the global community recognizes the imperative of addressing humanitarian crises, the focus of the Security Council’s resolution was explicitly on the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Algeria’s abstention, citing reasons disconnected from the resolution’s primary aim, suggests a misalignment between the resolution’s objectives and Algeria’s stated rationale.

The significance of addressing global humanitarian issues, including the situation in Gaza, is unquestionable. Nonetheless, the Security Council is a forum designed to tackle a multitude of global challenges, each necessitating dedicated attention. The U.S.-proposed resolution on the Houthi attacks was crafted to confront a distinct security threat. Effective multilateralism mandates that nations address individual issues while collaboratively engaging with broader humanitarian challenges. A decisive U.S. response is imperative to reinforce the principle that peripheral problems should not derail resolutions targeting specific threats.

The ongoing Houthi insurgency in Yemen has extensive implications for regional stability, especially in the strategically pivotal Red Sea. The Security Council’s resolution, aimed at condemning Houthi aggressions, aligns with the overarching objective of maintaining regional peace and security. Algeria’s abstention from this resolution not only undermines these goals but also jeopardizes efforts to ensure unfettered navigation in a critical global waterway. The United States, as a champion of international security, must respond decisively to safeguard the interests of nations dependent on secure maritime transit.

The efficacy of the United Nations Security Council hinges on its members’ commitment to confront distinct challenges with targeted resolutions. Algeria’s abstention, motivated by concerns unrelated to the resolution’s focus, sets a troubling precedent that could weaken the credibility and decision-making efficacy of the Security Council. A forceful U.S. response is crucial to underscore the seriousness of such actions and to uphold the integrity of the Security Council as an essential body for global governance.

In light of Algeria’s abstention from the U.S.-proposed resolution condemning the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, a vigorous response from the United States is warranted. The necessity to counter maritime security threats, preserve regional stability, and maintain the Security Council’s credibility calls for a firm stance. While acknowledging the complexities of regional conflicts and humanitarian crises, the United States must underscore the urgency of targeted resolutions and the importance of collective action in addressing specific challenges, without undermining the broader objectives of international cooperation and security.

We couldn’t have done it without you.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support of the work that all of us at the Gold Institute for International Strategy continue to do. Through the support of people like yourself, the Gold Institute has continued success year after year. As the year comes to a close, I would beg for your generosity one more time.

The Gold Institute for International Strategy is unlike most think tanks based in Washington. While most think tanks are based on the academic knowledge of their scholars, our Institute is based on the practical understanding of our practitioners. We understand that there is often a gap between academic and practical, implementable solutions. Over the past year, the Gold Institute has seen significant growth, and our fellows continue to see an ever-increasing request for insight.

The Gold Institute has several institutional projects that we continue to work on, including our strategic alliance program, which has been at the forefront of professionalizing the crafting and execution of U.S. national security strategy and alliance strategy. We also continue our dedicated work with regional political, religious, and military leaders to support the people of Iran while challenging the regime of the Islamic Republic. The Iran Liberation Project employs indirect yet consequential means to undermine the regime and empower the freedom-loving people of Iran, all the while working to bring security and stability to the region.

Our Senior Fellows have been deeply engaged in counter-terrorism efforts. Their work gained additional significance following the October 7 attacks, where we played a vital role in addressing emerging threats. Our expertise extends to the development of narratives and counter-narratives in response to the rhetoric and activities of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas groups worldwide.

Our fellow’s efforts have been critical in providing national security and intelligence agencies in various countries with insights and analysis on Islamist threats. This includes identifying risks posed by individuals, entities, or organizations influenced by Islamist ideologies, especially in the post-October 7th environment. Our work, grounded in factual analysis and strategic thinking, has contributed to the broader efforts of these agencies in understanding and mitigating potential threats to national and international security.

Our fellows, several of whom are sitting members of parliaments, have been leaders in supporting the policy for a democratic, free, and independent Ukraine through speeches in Parliament and beyond.

As the debate over the efficacy and future of NATO continues, our Parliamentary honorary distinguished fellows continue to debate for a strong institution as the pinnacle of Western. Additionally, our fellows have been addressing the understanding and management of cultural differences and synergies in terms of cognitive biases and moral attributes that often hinder progress in a multinational organization like NATO.

Collaborating with our experts to finalize language and policy proposals for addressing security concerns, the Gold Institute for International Strategy has advised on and drafted some of the year’s most consequential national security legislation.

While the West has, with occasional fragility, managed a reasonably united front regarding Ukraine, many of our assumed allies have taken a more nuanced approach and continue to have friendly relations with Russia and Iran. Our distinguished fellows continue to promote our relationships with vital but challenging allies such as India and others and speak on the nature of alliances in a multilateral, more transactional world.

During 2023, the Gold Institute for International Strategy (GIIS) fellows have appeared in the media more than 700 times.

Our fellows have traveled to more than 20 countries for engagements with lawmakers on some of the most essential defense and international relations issues.

We have participated in several international security conferences, including hosting a private foreign relations conference with political and defense leaders from 10 countries representing the Middle East, Europe, and Japan.

In addition to our existing work, January has the Gold Institute traveling to Bangladesh to observe the upcoming, somewhat contentious, presidential elections. While the Biden administration has called for observers in the country’s elections, the Bangladeshi election commission chose to reach out to the Gold Institute whose objectivity they felt confident in to fill that role.

Shortly thereafter, the Gold Institute will cosponsor the Rudaw Erbil Security Forum in Kurdistan Region of Iraq. At this conference, 400 to 600 security experts from across the globe will convene to discuss some of the most critical issues affecting the globe.

As we look ahead, we remain committed to advancing international strategy and security. Beginning in February, under the leadership of Mark Foley in New York, the Gold Institute’s New York staff will once again bring such consequential foreign policy and security conversations to the public. Please stay tuned for details.

None of these achievements would have been possible without your support. Please make one last contribution before the close of the year to support the vital work of the Gold Institute for International Strategy. Contributions can be made directly at https://goldiis.org/donate-to-foreign-policy-solutions-dc.

Thank you for being an integral part of the Gold Institute’s success.

Eli

Eli M. Gold
President
Gold Institute for International Strategy
444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 840
Washington, DC 20001
202.938.8893

Unmasking the Alarming Surge of Antisemitism: A Global Perspective

This article was written for the Capitol Institute and can be found https://www.thecapitolinstitute.org/2023/12/12/unmasking-the-alarming-surge-of-antisemitism-a-global-perspective/

The alarming surge of antisemitism has cast a dark shadow over societies, echoing a historical trend that has persisted since time immemorial. In February 2020, the Gold Institute for Policy Research convened a crucial briefing in the U.S. Senate, shedding light on the disturbing idea that antisemitism might be the prevailing terrorism of our time.

The catalyst for renewed concern came from the heinous and barbaric acts committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians. The unintended consequences of these actions have unveiled the true extent of the antisemitic virus that has long lingered beneath the surface of global consciousness. Antisemitism, once debatable in its scope, now stands exposed as a systemic issue within various spheres of society.

Traditionally, antisemitism on college campuses was often attributed to a fringe minority of professors and what some deemed as “enlightened” students. However, recent congressional hearings with Ivy League university presidents have made it clear that antisemitism is deeply ingrained in our higher education system.

In response to Representative Elise Stefanik’s question to Harvard’s Claudine Gay, if “calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s Code of Conduct.” “It depends on the context,” Gay said. This realization forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that this form of hate is not isolated but rather woven into the very fabric of institutions that shape future leaders.

The acknowledgment that some members of Congress harbor antisemitic sentiments is not new. Still, the shift from financial motivations to a desire for the destruction of the Jewish people is alarming. It is now clear as a climate utopian day this is no longer about the Benjamins; it’s a manifestation of a deeply rooted hatred that transcends monetary concerns. Confronting this issue goes beyond symbolic gestures like purchasing carbon credits; it demands a meticulous dismantling of the systemic biases ingrained in our society.

Optimism in the face of adversity is a powerful perspective. In the aftermath of critical events like those on October 7th, the luxury of obliviousness has been stripped away, compelling individuals to choose between supporting the violent actions of groups like Hamas or advocating for peace. The deafening noise from the pro-Hamas faction on the left should not overshadow the positive momentum within pro-Jewish groups worldwide, which are becoming more emboldened and vocal.

An anecdote shared by this author provides a glimmer of hope amid the bleak landscape. A meeting with a state official and their advisor ended with a powerful statement: “I would take a bullet for you [and your people].” Such affirmations of solidarity underscore the importance of unity in combating antisemitism at the grassroots level.

The global political landscape is shifting, with European countries witnessing movements further to the right. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, expressing concerns about Islamic migration, has seen success in recent elections, raising the possibility of becoming the next prime minister. In France, the rising prominence of Marine Le Pen signals a potential shift in leadership away from Emmanuel Macron. Meanwhile, in Argentina, the prospect of a pro-Jewish and pro-Israel leader, Javier Milei, being sworn in as president suggests a changing tide in South America.

The rise of antisemitism demands urgent attention and concerted efforts to combat its systemic roots. While the current scenario is disheartening, the emergence of solid pro-Jewish voices and shifts in political landscapes offer a ray of hope. It is crucial for individuals, communities, and nations to unite against antisemitism, recognizing that the fight against hatred requires collective action and unwavering commitment to a future free from discrimination.

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

Remembering the Beirut Barracks Bombing: 40 Years Later

(This article first appeared in the Capitol Institute: https://www.thecapitolinstitute.org/2023/10/25/remembering-the-beirut-barracks-bombing-40-years-later/)

On the morning of October 23, 1983, the world was jolted by the shocking news of a catastrophic terrorist attack that severely undermined peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East. Forty years later, the memory of the Beirut barracks bombing, which took the lives of 241 American service members and 58 French paratroopers, remains indelibly imprinted in our collective consciousness.

The attack was a calculated suicide truck bombing that targeted two barracks housing U.S. and French multinational peacekeeping troops in the heart of Beirut. The sheer magnitude of the explosion obliterated the buildings, leaving them in ruins and inflicting a severe blow to the international peacekeeping mission during the tumultuous Lebanese Civil War. Subsequent investigations attributed the attack to Hezbollah, and the calamitous aftermath resonated deeply worldwide.

This bombing marked a pivotal moment in peacekeeping endeavors in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East. In the aftermath of such profound loss, both the United States and France opted to withdraw their troops from Lebanon. The events of that fateful day emphasized the paramount importance of robust intelligence and stringent security measures in volatile regions. Furthermore, they highlighted the necessity of a swift, decisive response to any aggression against the U.S. and its allies.

On the 34th anniversary of this grievous incident, I had the privilege of hosting President Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Bud McFarlane, in my office. During our discussion, he detailed the happenings in the White House on that historic day.

Within a mere 48 hours of the attack, President Reagan had assembled his cabinet, the National Security Council principals, and presented the compelling evidence at hand. However, Secretary Weinberger sought even more definitive proof of the perpetrators. To cut a long story short, a united front comprising the U.S., the French, the Italians – all of whom had representatives in Beirut on that very day – alongside their embassies, jointly concluded with unwavering certainty that Hezbollah, with the backing of Iran, was responsible.

The delayed response was primarily attributed to internal divisions within the cabinet, particularly between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. Approximately 10 days post-incident, after the president had traveled to Asia and returned, a meeting was convened. At this juncture, Director Casey presented compelling evidence linking Hezbollah to the attack, detailing their preparations and the locations where they had rehearsed.

Despite this evidence, objections were raised by the Secretary of Defense over concerns of potential collateral damage. He emphasized that a retaliatory move would be unlikely to harm civilians. The Sixth Fleet, with resolute intent, was prepared to target the Beqaa Valley facility. However, the Secretary of Defense highlighted the broader implications, arguing that our actions could inadvertently strengthen the Arab world’s bargaining position, potentially leading to increased oil prices and deteriorating our diplomatic relations. He firmly advised against any retaliatory measures. Upon hearing the details, the President immediately made a decision, stating, “We cannot tolerate acts that harm Americans with impunity. We will pursue those responsible. Is everyone present clear on this directive?”

The consensus was unanimous, and the meeting was adjourned.

Close to midnight, as the Seventh Fleet, in collaboration with the French naval force that had the aircraft carrier Foch stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, was preparing to act, I received an unexpected call from the Situation Room. The attack had been aborted by the Secretary of Defense. I was taken aback by this development.

I promptly informed the President. It transpired that post the meeting, the Secretary of Defense had communicated with the President, raising concerns about the potential risks involved. He persuaded the President that a more cautious approach was warranted in responding to the situation. While there are more intricacies to this episode, the repercussions of that moment of hesitation persist even today.

As we grapple with the challenges posed by extremist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and state actors like Iran, it is imperative to underscore the significance of swift and decisive actions, and to acknowledge the consequences of inaction. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing stands as a solemn reminder of the sacrifices made in the pursuit of peace. As the 40th anniversary of this tragic event approaches, we pay tribute to the lives tragically taken and commit to understanding and heeding the lessons it imparted.

Eli M. Gold is the President of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a leading Washington, DC foreign policy and national security think tank.

Five Months of a Biden Foreign Policy

I have long said that foreign policy is generally a non-partisan issue. While domestic issues (i.e. taxes, education, healthcare etc) often are, foreign policy is not. That is no longer. Over the last 5 months the Biden administration has implemented a highly partisan global strategy that turned international sentiment toward the notion that the U.S. can no longer be counted on to support our allies.

At the Gold Institute, I have the opportunity to spend a great deal of time with law makers from across the globe. Recently one particular European lawmaker said to me “It is by far today more dangerous to be friend of the USA than foe. Although times in which friends of freedom automatically considered themselves friends of the USA may have passed. This administration is so alien to everything we cherished that many people around the world are wondering if it’s definitely gone, the Paradise Lost.” This view that the U.S. can no longer be counted on as the global defender of freedom and western values is growing stronger and faster abroad than possibly even at home.

The need for the Gold Institute for International Strategy is now ever more important. There are few institutes in Washington DC that work hand in hand with global leaders to not only provide solutions, but more importantly the strategic blueprint with which to implement those very policy prescriptions. Our global fellows, located throughout the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East, are the best of the best practitioners – people who have spent their time in the trenches and have reached the top in their respective fields.

The Biden administration’s Middle East policy is designed for destabilization; JCPOA 2.0, a stated timeline for removal of forces from Afghanistan, a leftist [anti-]Israel policy, hesitancy to support Egypt in negotiations regarding Ethiopia’s Renaissance Dam project and a vague Iraq policy, just to name a few examples of the Biden destabilization plan. For this reason, I am thrilled to introduce our new Senior Fellow, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Simone Ledeen. Her extensive experience in the Middle East, at DoD and the Treasury Department will provide the Institute and all those who engage with us an understanding and sustainable policy path forward.

Shortly before leaders from Israel, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain joined President Trump on the South Lawn of the White House to sign the Abraham Accords, an ambassador from an Arab country expressed to me his feeling that regional countries felt the imperative to sign the accords prior to the elections to hedge bets against a possible Biden administration pro-Iranian policy. It is now clear that the Abraham Accords are necessary to stability in the Gulf region as NATO is to Europe and North America. The Gold Institute fellows have been providing guidance to the senior policy makers across the globe on this since conception.

On the international stage our fellows are also deeply involved in matters concerning Turkey, Human Rights, Climate Change, global antisemitism, the resurgence of the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS as well a whole host of other concerns.

Other fellows have been diligently working on domestic matters to include human trafficking and a policy and proactive law enforcement response to the rise of anti-Semitism. For this reason, I am pleased to let you know that retired NYPD Detective Investigator Mark Black has joined the Institute as a senior fellow. His long-time focus in counterterrorism, intelligence division and computer crimes will undoubtedly add greatly to the Institute’s impressive roster of fellows as well as our work and influence globally.

The impact the Gold Institute for International Strategy has at home and abroad is far reaching. For this reason, I ask you to support the work of our fellows. We are a 501(c)3 tax exempt institute that truly is non-partisan and sole purpose is providing results-based education to those global leaders who impact the safety and stability of the West and its allies.

To support our work, visit www.goldiis.org/donate-to-foreign-policy-solutions-dc.