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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

during an attack on Iran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, Cracker Barrel, why did you do it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Why I believe Washington, DC is still the modern world’s Capital

When I visited the US for the first time ever in my life in 1993 as a young officer for training at Fort Bliss, TX, among Americans and international officers, I was touched by the culture and civilization of a diverse nation, particularly when I met my host family, who were a World War Two veterans’ family. Through this family, I saw the ideal American strong society, which reflects the values of the USA.

Democracy, Individual Freedoms and Rights
Fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press—these values are the cornerstone of American society’s strength.

Along with technological advancement and economic growth, the U.S. is known for its cultural diversity, with people from various ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds contributing to its identity as a melting pot.

American values—liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness—are central to the American ethos. The U.S. global influence and leadership play a significant role in global politics, economics, and diplomacy. Also, the U.S. military and strategic influence maintain a strong military presence and strategic alliances around the globe.

These pillars collectively shape the identity and functioning of the modern American nation. To be honest, I found this spirit when I attended the GIIS last conference, met with leaders, ambassadors, diplomats, politicians, media, fellows from around the globe—all came to Washington DC, hoping and knowing that their voices will be heard and their thoughts will be considered. Thanks to the GIIS leadership for these achievements.

MG Mahmoud Hassanin (Egypt Army – Retired) is a distinguished fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think-and-do tank.