MG MAHMOUD HASSANIN: Egypt, the U.S., and Romania

MG MAHMOUD HASSANIN: Egypt, the U.S., and Romania

MG Mahmoud Hassanin, Distinguished Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Security, addresses Romanian government officials on Egypt’s strategic role as a key U.S. partner in the Middle East, the Arab world, and Africa. He highlights Egypt’s contributions to regional stability, including hosting the UN COP27 summit in Sharm el-Sheikh with U.S. support. Hassanin also underscores the interconnected interests of the United States and Europe, and the importance of strengthening Egyptian-Romanian diplomatic ties.

Trump Forges His New Alliance With Ibero-America

Map of South America with national flags

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Trump forja su nueva alianza con Iberoamérica)

While Europe threatens to fall apart, in the Americas a new organization for the defense of freedom and common security is being created.

A buoyant President Donald Trump, confident he can soon end the war in Iran with the disappearance of the planet’s largest terrorist regime, yesterday gathered twelve presidents of Ibero-America in Miami to found a new organization, the Shield of the Americas, whose objective is the all-out fight against the drug cartels and the curbing of Chinese penetration throughout the American continent.

The meeting at the Doral Golf Club, owned by the president, is unprecedented because it stems from the convergence of interests, ideology and political will of Trump and his team — led by Marco Rubio — with the increasingly numerous conservative and anti-socialist leaders of Ibero-America. And its ambitious aim is to carry out the modernizing revolution of the continent that makes possible the advance of conservative forces toward the defeat of the alliance of left-wing forces with organized crime, and very especially with the large organizations of drug production and trafficking.

The new organization has a political, moral and intellectual link with Europe through the main channel of dialogue and political collaboration between the right-wing forces of all the Americas and the European right of patriots, conservatives and sovereigntists, which is constantly growing in the European nations. This organization for the political cooperation of the two pillars of the American West fits harmoniously into the project of the three pillars of the West that is the object of the policy of the Madrid Forum, which develops the Madrid Charter promoted by the Disenso foundation under the direction of the president of Vox, Santiago Abascal. Many of those attending are signatories of the Madrid Charter, collaborators of Patriots for Europe, allies and even personal friends of Abascal.

For the first time, a front is being forged in which the U.S. and numerous solid democratic allies of Ibero-America set out to put an end to the tragic and catastrophic prominence in Ibero-America of a violent, subversive and destructive left that made rivers of blood run throughout the subcontinent since the Cuban revolution. And Cuba — its mafia-like, communist and murderous regime, the infectious focus of violent communist subversion for nearly 70 years — will be the next to fall in the advance of this general redesign in which the dictatorships fed by crime are defeated and abolished.

America is beginning to unite in the reconquest of freedom, security and justice, with a recovery of the traditional values and virtues of the West and an unambiguous victory over the communist, socialist and drug-trafficking forces. The Shield of America aims to be an organization in defense of the market economy and the rule of law, and of self-defense against attempts at penetration by totalitarian and criminal powers.

Many countries have yet to join, and three of the largest — Mexico, Brazil and Colombia — remain in the hands of a left allied with the drug cartels. But the continent’s greatest focus of crime, the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro, is being dismantled — not as quickly as many of us wish, but steadily.

Meanwhile, the European Union shows ever more signs of dissolution, with a power in Brussels — embodied by Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission — that is failed and adrift, and member states that openly reconsider their own interests in order to appease the growing rebellion of their increasingly poor, frustrated and dissatisfied citizens.

While in Europe the rulers have more differences every day in how to confront times of crisis amid the formation of a new world order — and cannot even agree on the degree of hostility toward Donald Trump — in America there are many who see the immense opportunity of a reconstruction of the West.

While the narco-socialist left throughout the West, Islamism allied with socialism, and some pathetic intellectuals weep over what they call “Anglo-Zionist imperialism,” American rulers reach agreement to advance security, freedom and prosperity.

At the Miami summit, the U.S. and twelve presidents take part. Among the leaders present are Javier Milei (Argentina), Rodrigo Paz Pereira (Bolivia), José Antonio Kast (Chile, to be sworn in this Wednesday), Rodrigo Chaves (Costa Rica), Luis Abinader (Dominican Republic), Daniel Noboa (Ecuador), Santiago Peña (Paraguay), Nayib Bukele (El Salvador), Irfaan Ali (Guyana), Nasry “Tito” Asfura (Honduras), José Raúl Mulino (Panama) and Kamla Persad-Bissessar (Trinidad and Tobago).

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

Trump’s Policies Position U.S. as Global Commodities Powerhouse

Gold commodities

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in Newsmax. Trump’s Policies Position U.S. as Global Commodities Powerhouse)

In times of market volatility and global uncertainty an old, tired and tested truth reasserts itself; when the world looks uncertain and investors are anxious, gold is still the best insurance policy.

Gold has soared to record highs, surpassing $5,500 per ounce for the first time in history on Jan. 29, 2026 and has since remained structurally elevated, reflecting sustained demand rather than a short-term panic bid.

High demand also exposed the fragility of global commodity supply chains in the form of physical bottlenecks and delays in deliveries.

Chaos and turbulence have an exceptional way of revealing which nations and leaders are prepared, and the United States is positioned to turn this moment into dominance.

President Trump has made “America First” the guiding mission of his second term.

To achieve this, our industries need to be repatriated with full control of supply chains that sit squarely in American hands.

Trump’s new economic policies have targeted U.S. competitors with tariffs while his reshoring incentives, regulatory reforms and strategic stockpiling of resources aim to build up the backbone of the American economy by securing supply chains.

A particular emphasis falls on a strong dollar supported by tangible assets like gold, alongside incentives for domestic production of physical commodities.

This is why in August 2025 President Trump announced that gold would no longer be subject to tariffs on strategic and monetary imports – a decision that was not only successful in stabilizing the market, but also sent a firm message to the world that gold is treated as a currency but the U.S.

America is positioned to emerge as the foremost hub for gold trading in the world.

Gold follows power, and power and stability are the cornerstones of the United States.

America is unmatched in its financial infrastructure, rule of law and legal certainty, and its global position backed by credible hard power in the form of the world’s strongest military. No rival can match this level of stability and security.

Free-market capitalism, America’s enduring global export (with a focus on physical assets), naturally compliments this strategy, with private companies acting as essential shock absorbers.

With their global logistics network and their own inventories, they can reliably bridge the gaps in rerouting cargoes and providing liquidity, especially when market volatility, often emanating from the fluctuation of commodities markets, restricts governments and central banks in real time.

This agility of the private sector is precisely what President Trump, drawing on his business experience, is relying on.

Leading energy and commodity trading firm BGN Group, Glencore and Trafigura are among the private actors that maintain trade flows and mitigate disruptions with its global transport, storage and financing capabilities.

For example, BGN Group holds inventories across multiple jurisdictions, chartering and operating transport fleets, and financing cargoes when traditional lenders pull back, showing the manner in which private traders can smooth disruptions that would otherwise trigger extreme price spikes or delivery failures.

Thanks to such networks, physical commodities continue to move even when political and financial channels experience pressure.

The role and influence of private trading companies, such as BGN and others, will only expand in the coming years as the global scramble for tangible assets intensifies and geopolitical competition becomes the norm.

If a mature market like gold can experience delays and premiums, less developed ones like critical minerals can undergo even greater shocks.

Trump’s forward-looking strategy is already preparing for a world in which commodities will be weaponized and used as strategic levers over other nations.

China already demonstrated this willingness in 2010 with Japan and again in late 2025 with new export restrictions on rare earths (later partially suspended, underscoring Beijing’s willingness to recalibrate tactically without abandoning the use of commodities as leverage following U.S.-led negotiations).

Trump’s policies of reclaiming U.S. sovereignty over commodities guarantees that such tactics will never again be used against the American people.

Recent market volatilities reminded us that financial systems are only as strong as the physical assets underpinning them.

Such strategic assets, including private traders, domestic producers and the robust financial system of the United States will work together to transform uncertainty into dominance in the global commodities market.

America is leading the next phase of strategic competition.

And as gold rises, so does American power.

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

Sánchez and Khamenei, Elon and the Truth

Free speech and social media

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. Sánchez y Jamenei, Elon y la verdad)

It is laughable to hear Sánchez say that his attempts to end freedom of expression are a fight against tech magnates.

It is entirely logical that Pedro Sánchez seeks pretexts to control and censor social media. Just as it is logical that the government of socialists and communists in Spain has launched a hysterical campaign against all the media that allow citizens to express their opinions freely. As logical as it is that Ayatollah Khamenei blocked all the networks on the Internet when he decided to begin massacring the population to set a bloody example that would guarantee his survival, at least until he could weigh other options.

It is laughable to hear Sánchez say that his attempts to end freedom of expression are a fight against tech magnates. When he is an obedient pet in the general seven-ring circus of beasts and dwarves run by the Soroses, Bill Gateses and so many other members of the club of social and human engineering — as regular at Davos as they are friends of China.

Sánchez is not Khamenei, if only because we are in another corner of the world where today, at least for now, there are things that no longer happen and have not happened again. But both Sánchez and Khamenei share, as rulers who fear their people, a will to persecute, blind and crush the truth without any scruple. The truth is their greatest enemy because it is what mobilizes, inspires and arms their respective peoples against their governments of lies and misery.

Social media — and especially X, the former Twitter, the only one that since Elon Musk became its owner has not allowed itself to be intimidated, bought or blackmailed by governments — are today the greatest enemy of every authoritarian, lying, abusive, criminal or openly criminal ruler. Governments that know their legitimacy is questioned or threatened know that the networks are their enemy because on them the truth flows in a way impossible to control unless they have bought or kidnapped the owners.

However much some media such as El Debate are an honorable and extremely rare example of professional dignity in journalism today, the networks combine information with the experiences, feelings and concerns of their consumers in such a fluid and fast way that it is lethal for those who try to defend a uniform lie.

In this sense — and leaving Khamenei now in his Eastern corner, watching how he negotiates his survival with Donald Trump — in Europe Pedro Sánchez is none other than the most radical and extreme of the rulers of an increasingly radicalized social democracy as a whole. It has radicalized out of the very anguish generated by its fear of losing the hegemony it has managed to maintain, in its various disguises, for more than half a century in Europe.

In Brussels, the dwindling majority that still maintains that hegemony — made up of the People’s Party, socialists, greens and communists — is bent on generating instruments of censorship and pretexts to use them. They already know they have lost the political argument, as is shown in every electoral campaign in Europe over the last two years and above all in their results. It is seen in Austria and Germany, as it will be seen today in Aragon, was seen in Extremadura, and will be seen in all the Spanish regions, as it is seen in all European countries.

Panic is spreading in what we might call the two-party system, or the single social-democratic party. And while we take it for granted that they will not use Khamenei’s methods in the streets, we can also be certain that they will go very far in administrative and legal methods while they can — judicial and police, as well as propagandistic — to try to maintain that hegemony.

To try not to be swept away by the national and anti-socialist forces that feed on the frustration and indignation over the continuous failures, the stubborn persistence in error and the permanent lies of the political power of the social-democratic consensus of Brussels and the thousand tentacles of its bureaucratic monster.

The attempts to crush freedom of expression — also on the part of those who claim to be its defenders — are part of the anguished self-defense of political forces and an ideology that are definitively failed. Freedom of the press will be the force that largely determines the speed of the changes, which would already have been much greater had Western societies had an honest journalism rather than a sectarian and militant one, with few exceptions.

The purchase of X by Elon Musk, which freed this network from the clutches of the left, was fundamental to Donald Trump’s victory. That victory has been decisive for the offensive to conquer freedoms and rights in Ibero-American countries subjugated by narco-socialism. And it has also been a deterrent to the European Union’s temptations to act with its particular Brezhnev Doctrine against conservative and national forces. Had Kamala Harris won, many in Europe would have believed the moment had come to ban parties that tend to be in the majority. That was not the case, and that is why the change of era is going to be much faster than many believe and some hope.

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

The US-Japan Alliance Keeps China From Bullying the World Into Higher Prices

US-Japan alliance

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in Blaze Media. The US-Japan alliance keeps China from bullying the world into higher prices)

China’s air and sea provocations aren’t ‘over there’ problems. They aim to dominate trade routes. Deterrence protects American consumers and American leverage.

China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific no longer comes in bursts. It has become dangerous and systematic for America.

A recent long-range patrol by Chinese forces, conducted alongside Russia, prompted Japan to scramble fighter jets. It marked the latest in a string of incidents after months of heightened Chinese military activity around the Senkaku Islands.

These shows of force don’t happen by accident. China uses them to normalize military pressure, probe red lines, and test the unity of U.S.-led alliances.

This latest episode also made one thing clear, at least: The Trump administration is watching closely.

In a visible show of solidarity with Tokyo, U.S. strategic bombers joined Japanese fighter aircraft for high-profile drills. Days earlier, Chinese military aircraft conducted takeoffs and landings inside Japan’s air defense identification zone and shadowed Japanese aircraft with their radar off near Okinawa. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s State Department expressed concern and reaffirmed its commitment to a “strong and more united” U.S.-Japan alliance.

Washington increasingly recognizes what Tokyo has understood for years: China’s behavior doesn’t just destabilize the region. It challenges the security order that has kept the Indo-Pacific from tipping into open conflict.

That reality puts a premium on reliable partnerships. No partnership matters more than the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Nowhere does that matter more than Taiwan. China’s large-scale military exercises, dubbed Justice Mission 2025, have pushed tensions in the Taiwan Strait to the highest levels in decades. Beijing aims to intimidate Taipei, warn off “external interference,” and alter the status quo through pressure rather than persuasion.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy arrived in that environment. While headlines still focus on Europe and the Middle East, the document makes the administration’s priorities clear: The Indo-Pacific remains central to U.S. strategy.

The NSS describes the Indo-Pacific as a critical economic hub that accounts for nearly half of global GDP. It commits the United States to a “free and open” Indo-Pacific by securing sea lanes and upholding international law.

That framework didn’t start in Washington. Japan first advanced the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific, and the region later adopted it through partnerships such as the Quad — the informal grouping of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia.

Rather than announcing a new direction, the NSS reinforces a familiar one: Alliances form the core of deterring China. Unlike the Trump playbook in Ukraine, the administration treats alliances as the bedrock of Indo-Pacific security against Beijing’s expanding military reach.

Japan sits at the heart of that network.

China pressures Japan across its waters and airspace, making Tokyo a frontline state. Japan also serves as the United States’ indispensable partner in the region, with basing, interoperability, and shared strategy that no other ally can match at the same scale. Under new conservative leadership, Japan has begun acting with urgency.

Japan’s defense minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, has emphasized that urgency, warning that the country now faces its most severe security environment since World War II. Japan has deepened coordination with the U.S. and other like-minded partners while strengthening its military capabilities by accelerating security reforms and easing restrictions on defense equipment transfers.

Japan has also moved up its plan to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP — from 2027 to now. That headline matters less than where the money goes.

Tokyo has prioritized capabilities suited for a long-term, high-risk environment: unmanned aerial vehicles, expanded surveillance platforms, and submarines equipped with vertical-launch missile systems.

Japan’s objective looks straightforward. It aims to become a more capable military partner that complements U.S. forces rather than relying on them by default. That shift aligns with President Trump’s demand that allies reduce dependence on American power by strengthening their own defense industries and readiness.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has also moved beyond drills and declarations toward defense-industrial cooperation. Expanded maintenance and repair coordination, along with eased export controls, have begun laying the groundwork for a durable security partnership.

This collaboration marks a shift from rhetoric to endurance. Aligning strategy with industrial capacity won’t eliminate risk. It will raise the cost of Chinese coercion and reduce the chances that Beijing miscalculates.

Koizumi has stressed that 80 years after World War II, the U.S.-Japan alliance still embodies reconciliation and remains the best instrument to deter China’s rising aggression.

If Washington and Tokyo keep strengthening this partnership — in capability, production, and resolve — they can make the Indo-Pacific more difficult for Beijing to bully and far more stable for everyone who depends on it.

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

When Rumor Becomes a Death Sentence: Bangladesh’s Crisis and the Test for Democratic Leadership

Bangladesh crisis

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in The Western Journal. When Rumor Becomes a Death Sentence: Bangladesh’s Crisis and the Test for Democratic Leadership)

The fatal beating, lynching, and burning of Bangladeshi Hindu Dipu Chandra Das, followed days later by the mob killing of fellow Hindu Amrit Mondal, was not spontaneous violence. It was a failure of the state: clear, deliberate, and lethal.

Dipu was a 25-year-old garment worker, a husband, a father, and the sole provider for his family, including two elderly parents, one disabled. Above all, he was a Hindu in a Muslim-majority country, a member of a vulnerable minority. His life mattered. And the state failed him.

On December 18, a rumor spread that Dipu had spoken negatively about Islam. There is no verified evidence that he did. What is verified is that he begged the police for protection and was instead handed over to an Islamist mob.

He was beaten to death, stripped naked, tied to a tree, and burned along the Dhaka-Mymensingh highway, in full public view. This did not happen despite the police. It happened because they allowed it.

The mob killed Dipu because they did not need proof. That is the danger of blasphemy-driven violence: When rumor replaces evidence, fear replaces law.

Days later, Amrit Mondal was beaten to death. Authorities rushed to downplay communal motives, but pattern matters more than intent. Two Hindu men. Two public killings. Two mobs. Two state failures.

That is not a coincidence. It is a trajectory.

There is no confirmed evidence that Dipu’s and Amrit’s killers were formal members of a single political organization, and that distinction matters legally.

But it does not erase reality. Both killings bear the hallmarks of Islamist mob violence: the weaponization of accusation, the targeting of minorities, and the social permission to kill without consequence.

This is how plausible deniability works. Leaders remain insulated while mobs do the dirty work.

Bangladesh has seen this before. In 1971, at least 2.8 million Hindus were massacred by the Pakistani Army and allied Islamist forces in less than a year.

That trauma never fully healed. It merely went dormant, resurfacing whenever political authority weakens and extremist actors sense opportunity.

In 2022, the U.S. Congress introduced House Resolution 1430, “Recognizing the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971,” a resolution seeking to formally recognize those atrocities as genocide and crimes against humanity. The effort that stalled legislatively, even as international genocide scholars officially affirmed that designation in 2023. That opportunity is now visible.

The return of Tarique Rahman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party after roughly 16 years in exile is not a neutral political development. It signals the reactivation of old power networks at a moment of institutional fragility.

His arrival ahead of the upcoming elections coincides not with stabilization, but with a surge in street-level intimidation, communal violence, and state paralysis. And it brings with it the likelihood that Bangladesh will soon be run by the radical Jamaat-e-Islami, which means no minorities will be safe.

Even if the BNP gains ground, Tarique Rahman’s leadership from exile leaves him ill-positioned to govern or unify the country.

That weakness creates an opening for Jamaat-e-Islami to gain outsized influence through coalition politics, advancing Islamist priorities without winning outright.

The danger is not a sudden takeover, but the quiet erosion of Bangladesh’s secular foundations from within the government.

Fear is the factor that shapes elections in fragile democracies. When minorities are publicly brutalized, and the state hesitates, a message is sent about who is protected and who is expendable.

For India, this is not merely a human-rights crisis. It is a strategic warning. Bangladesh sits on India’s eastern flank, and when the rule of law collapses there, India feels it first through instability, radicalization, and refugee pressure.

Anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh does not exist in isolation. It feeds directly into India’s internal security calculus, particularly in border regions already vulnerable to extremist Islamist influence.

For years, New Delhi invested heavily in a stable, secular Bangladesh as a regional partner, one that stood in contrast to Pakistan’s chronic instability and Afghanistan’s descent into Islamist rule.

The ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina placed that assumption in jeopardy. What India is now witnessing is not simply a political transition, but the early signs of a dangerous drift toward religious majoritarianism, institutional erosion, and extremist accommodation.

In a recent interview with New India Abroad, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina underscored why her leadership had helped make Bangladesh a more stable and prosperous nation.

Reflecting on her departure amid escalating unrest, she stated, “My instinct has always been to protect our country and our citizens, and it was not an easy decision to leave while my country erupted into lawlessness. I regret that I was compelled to leave, but it was a decision I took to minimize any further loss of life, and to ensure the safety of people around me.”

She went on to outline the conditions necessary for her return, emphasizing that legitimacy must rest on law, not force.

“For me to return, Bangladesh must restore constitutional governance and the rule of law,” she wrote. “This means lifting the unlawful ban on the Awami League, releasing political prisoners detained on fabricated charges, and holding genuinely free elections. You cannot claim democratic legitimacy while banning the party elected nine times by the people.”

The killings of Dipu Chandra Das and Amrit Mondal are not isolated crimes. They are indicators. With elections approaching and authority fragmented, Islamist street power is testing how far it can go. And the answer they are giving is far enough.

That erosion of trust places responsibility on the United States as well. On Dec. 28, the U.S. State Department issued a statement condemning the killings and urging Bangladesh to protect religious minorities and uphold the rule of law.

The statement was necessary. It was correct. And it now requires tangible follow-through.

For generations, America has claimed the mantle of democracy, pluralism, and freedom of belief. Those ideals only retain meaning when defended under pressure. Jamaat-e-Islami and groups associated with them must be actioned accordingly.

Instability does not begin with coups or wars, but with the normalization of violence against the defenseless.

When mobs replace courts, democracy becomes theater. When the state fails to protect its weakest citizens, it signals to extremists that the cost of violence is low.

These were not random deaths. They were warnings.

India is watching because it must. The United States is watching because it still has the capacity and the responsibility to stand for justice at a moment when the meaning of human rights is being challenged and steadily eroded.

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

Floating Vanity: The Gaza Flotilla and the Performance of Moral Narcissism

There are moments in international affairs when moral theatre overtakes moral substance, when the currency of outrage outpaces the discipline of diplomacy, and when performance, rather than principle, dictates the tempo of political action. We live in a time in which visibility has become the new virtue, and self-exposure the principal tool of advocacy. In such an environment, it was perhaps inevitable that a group of itinerant moralists would cast themselves adrift -quite literally- on the tides of global suffering in search not of resolution, but of relevance.

Such was the spectacle of the so-called Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a vainglorious maritime procession of self-anointed humanitarians led by that indefatigable paragon of climate sanctimony, Greta Thunberg, and accompanied by a cast of activist dilettantes and virtue entrepreneurs. The vessel ‘Madleen’ embarked on what can only be described as a pilgrimage not to Gaza, but to the self.

To the discerning observer, the affair resembled less an act of international solidarity than a floating Instagram feed. The stated objective -to deliver a parcel of humanitarian aid- was drowned beneath a deluge of photographic posing, social media agitation, and moral theatre. The cargo manifest, laughably meagre in both weight and consequence, included approximately 100 kilograms of flour, some rice, baby formula, and prosthetics. One is tempted to ask whether this was a charity mission or an especially sentimentalised picnic.

The geopolitical theatre surrounding Gaza is grave. Since 2007, Israel has maintained a maritime blockade, a policy rendered legally defensible by international law under the San Remo Manual when applied in the context of ongoing armed conflict. That blockade has been subject to scrutiny, yes, but it has also been acknowledged by serious legal scholars as a permissible, if harsh, security measure given the region’s entanglement with non-state militant actors. To challenge such a blockade is to wade into a contested legal and strategic space. Yet one must be equipped with more than hashtags and hemp sandals to do so credibly.

The flotilla participants, by contrast, arrived not as diplomats, aid professionals, or conflict mediators, but as preening avatars of moral exhibitionism. Their mission was not to change the facts on the ground, but to become facts themselves: visible, clickable, shareable. To watch them, one was reminded of Oscar Wilde’s caution that “charity creates a multitude of sins”, chief among them the self-congratulatory impulse to posture over the suffering of others, all while accomplishing precisely nothing.

The history of humanitarian intervention is replete with examples of quiet, dignified sacrifice, from Raoul Wallenberg’s forged passports in Hungary, to the International Committee of the Red Cross’s discrete wartime negotiations. The Gaza flotilla, by contrast, was constructed not in the spirit of discretion or sacrifice, but as a pageant. It was, as one commentator aptly put it, “an exquisitely curated tableau of moral vanity.”

Indeed, one cannot fail to notice that the flotilla’s cargo held more media personnel than medical kits. The ratio of cameras to crutches was inversely proportional to the utility of the voyage. The humanitarian value of the mission, if measured by weight or need, was effectively nil. It was political theatre, low in substance, high in symbolism, but tragically bereft of strategic foresight.

And what of risk? Much has been made of the alleged peril faced by the flotilla participants as Israeli naval forces intercepted the vessel in international waters. Yet these were not freedom fighters or clandestine resisters; they were activists with European passports, confident in the knowledge that they would be detained politely, processed bureaucratically, and released promptly. Risk, for them, was as curated as their Instagram captions. They ventured into a conflict they neither understand nor endure. Theirs was not solidarity; it was safari.

It would be bad enough if this were merely an act of misguided idealism. But the flotilla represents something more insidious: the transformation of activism into performance art. The spectacle is the point. Gone are the days of moral seriousness, of strategic clarity and consequence. In their place we find the “activist-influencer” hybrid, a creature of the postmodern moment, always ready with a slogan, always ready for their close-up.

There is, too, a deeper harm inflicted by such frivolity. By reducing grave geopolitical dilemmas to emotive photo opportunities, these activists corrode the very notion of humanitarianism. They render aid indistinct from advertisement. They feed off the moral capital of true suffering to elevate their own brands. And in doing so, they exhaust the public’s patience for genuine, painstaking diplomacy and relief work.

To call this escapade a “humanitarian gesture” is to do violence to the English language. Humanitarianism requires humility, endurance, and practical efficacy. It is not a costume one dons for relevance, nor a stage upon which to strut one’s superior morality. The flotilla participants claimed the moral high ground while contributing nothing to the relief of those whose suffering they appropriated. Their moral indignation was matched only by their logistical incompetence.

That anyone still mistakes this grotesque charade for bravery is a testament to how thoroughly our political discourse has been colonised by aesthetics. Appearances now precede consequences. Gestures supplant results. Feeling good is confused with doing good.

What is left, then, is the bitter spectacle of Western privilege masquerading as empathy. The voyage to Gaza was not about Gaza. It was about the pilgrims’ own need to be seen doing something about Gaza, preferably in high-definition, with captions pre-written. It was less Florence Nightingale, more Narcissus afloat.

Strategy must be informed by outcomes, not optics. This flotilla served no strategic function. It alleviated no suffering, opened no political channels, secured no negotiation, and delivered no material good. It did, however, secure headlines, trigger diplomatic protests, and provide an all-too-perfect case study in 21st-century narcissism masquerading as internationalism.

In an age starved of seriousness, perhaps the greatest tragedy is not that this flotilla failed, but that it succeeded; succeeded, that is, in distracting attention, distorting reality, and degrading the dignity of true humanitarian work.

Let us, then, learn the correct lesson. The suffering of Gaza’s civilians is real. The complexity of Middle Eastern geopolitics is immense. And the pursuit of international justice demands more than selfies on a sailboat.

It demands knowledge. It demands seriousness. It demands, above all, that we stop mistaking moral theatre for moral action.

Yvonne Marie Antonoglou is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy.

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

New Book “Iran’s Terrorism Machine” by Maria Maalouf Reveals the True Nature of the Tehran Regime

(Washington, DC) – (https://amzn.to/3tig4Va) Renowned author Maria Maalouf has released a groundbreaking book titled “Iran’s Terrorism Machine,” shedding light on the covert activities and the true nature of the Iranian regime. This compelling work exposes the extent of Iran’s malign influence and presents a roadmap for change. With glowing recommendations from Ambassador John Bolton and Senator Joseph Lieberman and many others, this book promises to be an essential read for those seeking to understand and address the challenges posed by Iran.

Ambassador John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump, remarked, “Many in America and the West generally still do not realize how truly malign the Tehran regime is. Maria Maalouf not only details the reality but explains how to change it. Don’t miss it!” Ambassador Bolton’s endorsement underscores the importance of this book in providing valuable insights into the complex dynamics of Iran’s regime.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, a seasoned politician and former U.S. Senator, also expressed his support for Maria Maalouf’s work. He commented, “In this important book that looks ahead with hope for the people of Iran, Maria Maalouf convincingly argues that tyranny and terrorism will cause the downfall of the current Iranian regime.” Senator Lieberman’s endorsement highlights the book’s optimistic perspective, emphasizing the potential for change and a brighter future for Iran.

“Iran’s Terrorism Machine” explores the covert tactics employed by the Iranian government to further its agenda, including its support for terrorism and destabilizing activities in the Middle East and beyond. Maria Maalouf provides a comprehensive analysis of the regime’s actions and their implications, making this book an invaluable resource for policymakers, scholars, and anyone interested in global security and diplomacy.

In addition to exposing the true nature of the Tehran regime, Maria Maalouf’s book offers concrete strategies for addressing the challenges posed by Iran. Through meticulous research and insightful analysis, the author presents a roadmap for change and a vision of a more stable and prosperous future for the Iranian people.

“Iran’s Terrorism Machine” by Maria Maalouf is available now in bookstores and online retailers. Don’t miss the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the Iranian regime’s tactics and the potential for positive change in the region.

For media inquiries, interviews, or review copies of the book, please contact: Media@Goldiis.org

###

About Maria Maalouf:

Maria Maalouf is a respected author and expert in Middle Eastern affairs. With a background in international relations and a deep understanding of the region’s politics, she has contributed extensively to the discourse on Iran’s role in global geopolitics. “Iran’s Terrorism Machine” is her latest work, offering valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by the Tehran regime.

WHY AN EU ARMY IS A BAD IDEA – WE DON’T NEED A POLITICAL BLOC OF THE UNWILLING

This paper originally appeared in the New Direction, The European Journal at https://newdirection.online/the-european-journal/article/why_an_eu_army_is_a_bad_idea_we_dont_need_a_political_bloc_of_the_unwilling)

By: Geoffrey Van Orden CBE, Distinguished Fellow

The re-election of president Macron will give a further boost to the idea of an “EU Army”. Over the centuries there have been many attempts to put together a multi-national European army, always under the leadership of one nation and for military purposes. Wellington’s army at Waterloo had more German-speaking soldiers than English. It also included Dutch, Belgians, and many other nationalities. But the current idea of an EU Army is an entirely different project. It has little military value. Its purpose is essentially political – to further European political integration. Far from being a multi-national coalition it is intended to absorb national capabilities into a single Defence Union under the auspices of Brussels. The idea of a European Army without American involvement has been a French obsession since the 1950s. To provide some additional justification,  President Macron developed the terms “European sovereignty” and  “EU strategic autonomy”- two essentially meaningless but inevitably divisive concepts that can only please Moscow.

You might argue that it can only be a good thing if the Europeans step up their defence arrangements. But this has little to do with increasing military muscle. It is not the answer to the plea by successive US presidents for the Europeans to do more on defence. NATO is well established, well proven and credible. 27 of its 30 member countries are European, including 21 that also happen to be EU countries. So why create another structure? 

Any EU force would have to draw on the same limited military resources and would be a duplicative, divisive distraction. EU ambitions already intrude into NATO where coordination structures between the two organisations have now been set up, in spite of the fact that their membership is largely the same. The EU wants to become the European leg of NATO – so where would that leave key non-EU European members of NATO such as the UK, Norway and Turkey? In any case, the EU countries can’t even agree among themselves. Many pay lip service to the idea of CSDP while refusing to participate in any meaningful way. Even the arch-federalist European Parliament, in its most recent report on EU defence, noted that “in over 15 years of existence EU battlegroups have never been used, in particular due to the lack of political consensus among Member States and the complexity of implementation and funding…”

At NATO HQ in the early ‘90s, the French were already pushing for European military capabilities separate from NATO. When the Bosnian crisis began they demanded that the matter should be discussed not at NATO but ‘in another place’ – by which they meant the Western European Union (WEU), a purely European group whose headquarters was just down the road in central Brussels. As a consequence, nonsensically, two allied navies operated in the Adriatic and Mediterranean, one under NATO command and the other under WEU, with more or less the same ships rotating between the two. Once the Bosnian military operations got more serious, even France gave up on this farce and backed the NATO option.

And imagine if the fate of the Ukraine had been left to the EU leadership in Brussels or the French or German governments with their ambivalent relationships with Moscow. Less than a month ago Berlin was refusing to send heavy armour to support the Ukrainians, while both France and Germany were found to have been supplying some €300 million of military equipment to Russia. It has taken the example of the UK, along with front-line nations such as Poland and the Czech Republic, to set an example by providing desperately needed military aid to Ukraine.

There may well be occasions when the US might not wish to get involved in some particular crisis but the best military and civil response should be discussed around the table with all NATO allies. In recognition of this and in order to encourage greater effort by the continental Europeans, the idea of a “separable but not separate” European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) was floated at the NATO Ministerial in Berlin in 1996. At this time France was not part of NATO’s integrated military structure (which it left in 1966) but it remained a member of the NATO alliance and of the crucial North Atlantic Council where it continued to demand flattery of its vanities. It even retained a seat on NATO’s top-level Military Committee, albeit as an ‘observer’. It insisted that ESDI was inadequate and somehow managed to get its way. Nothing short of a separate military capability under EU political control would suffice. The WEU was soon absorbed into the EU.

Arguments are made that limited European resources would be more effective if integrated. This has become one of the EU’s main selling points for EU defence. It sounds plausible – but if you add up the defence budgets of 26 EU countries (Denmark has opted out of EU defence) you arrive at a figure of approximately $200 billion (2020) or 1.5% of the accumulated GDPs of these countries. The US spent about $800 billion, which is some 3.7% of GDP. And you certainly do not need EU involvement to create joint forces with allies. The history of purposeful coalitions goes back centuries. In recent times, under NATO, we have had the 14-nation ACE Mobile Force, the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force, and the German/Dutch Corps as examples of closely aligned national formations. All this has worked perfectly well. There is no need for EU involvement – unless of course your motives are political rather than military.

But wouldn’t it make sense to seize the advantages of economies of scale and procure military equipment together? Again, that happens anyway for a variety of reasons.  You don’t need the EU to get involved. There are examples of both successful and failed collaborations. “Successes” might include the Anglo-French Jaguar and the Tornado and Typhoon fighter projects. Most spending on defence equipment in Europe has been by just five countries, most notably the UK, but the UK, of course, is not now an EU country. Collaboration is usually inefficient but it opens the way to a bigger defence market. That’s the key. But many in the EU would like to close off their defence market from outsiders. That would rapidly run foul of those countries who want to buy US or British or other equipment. Even Germany has just announced its intention to buy US F-35A  fighters.

The most profound case against a single EU Army comes back to the degree to which the nations of Europe wish to retain their national independence. You cannot get closer to the bone of national sovereignty than over the status of national armed forces. I doubt that the citizens of many EU countries would be willing to see decisions about conscription, about the deployment and use of their troops, about fighting on or surrendering, indeed about life and death –  handed over to Brussels. Remember, a highly significant distinction between NATO and the EU is that NATO decisions are inter-governmental, they are taken consensually by representatives of the governments of the NATO members. The EU is a hybrid organisation where governments have handed over certain powers to the EU Commission. At this moment EU defence and military matters are still largely in the hands of member country governments who can exercise a veto. But there is now strong pressure for such military decisions to be taken by a majority vote. If this were to be conceded then Brussels would rapidly be in the driving seat and national capitals would be increasingly side-lined. Certainly the European powers need to increase their spending on defence. But this does not mean handing over strategic decision-making and their military to the EU. What is needed is a revitalised and reinforced NATO, an enhanced coalition of the capable, resilient and willing, not a political bloc of the unwilling.

Geoffrey Van Orden is a Distinguished Fellow of the Gold Institute for International Strategy, former British Conservative Leader and Defence Spokesman in the European Parliament and Founding President of New Direction. As a former senior military officer he was a counter-terrorism specialist, served in the front-line of the Cold War including 5 years in Berlin, and at NATO headquarters.