Story by Kasra Aarabi, Saeid Golkar

Jul 03 • 4 min read • Updated 1d ago

The Iranian regime’s oligarchic clans are at war with each other – and this conflict may soon spiral beyond control.

This fight is not over ideology or the future direction of the Islamic Republic: all the oligarchic clans are Islamist; some wear turbans, others wear military uniforms, and some wear suits.

In other words, they all subscribe to the core tenets of Shia Islamism in Iran: the forceful imposition of Sharia law domestically, support for the so-called Axis of Resistance militia network, anti-Americanism, and the goal of eradicating the Israel (driven by innate anti-Semitism).

But they are competing to protect and advance their power and economic interests amid the vacuum that emerged after the elimination of Ali Khamenei, the former supreme leader, who had operated as the godfather of these clans.

The latest manifestation of this infighting has erupted in the most unlikely of places: the Assembly of Experts – a body of 88 clerics who, in theory, appoint and oversee the authority of the supreme leader.

Last week, 73 members of the normally silent assembly made an unusual public intervention in the form of a statement on the ongoing negotiations with the United States and the recently-signed Memorandum of Understanding

The statement de facto criticised Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) over its conduct of the negotiations with Washington, suggesting the officials had moved beyond the “red lines” of the supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

It said in Farsi: “All officials should respect that, in the system of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), the opinion and directives of the Supreme Leader are decisive. Once informed of the Leader’s definitive view, no official may act contrary to it.”

After its publication, Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Busheri, chairman of the Assembly of Experts’ secretariat and spokesperson, immediately stated that he was completely unaware of the statement and that, while he did not oppose its content, its signatories had broken convention and published it without coordination with him.

Remarkably, however, senior members of the secretariat – including Ayatollah Movahedi Kermani, Ayatollah Arafi, Ayatollah Araki and Ayatollah Rajavi – were amongst the signatories of the statement. In fact, only three members of the secretariat had not signed the statement, including Hosseini Busheri.

The very fact that such elite infighting is now unfolding openly within the regime’s most important clerical body is particularly telling.

The Assembly of Experts is effectively representative of the regime’s clerical class. First and foremost, it shields and advances the interests of the clergy, which have long been guaranteed by the supremacy of the position of the supreme leader.

When Ali Khamenei was alive, this power was beyond dispute. But the same cannot be said of Mojtaba, his son and successor, in charge.

Not only is it clear that the new supreme leader no longer holds the same authority as his father, but Mojtaba’s complete public absence has only deepened the power vacuum that has emerged after his predecessor’s death.

This has heightened the anxiety of the Assembly of Experts, which fears its political and economic interests would be at risk should the supreme leader’s position be undermined.

Their statement therefore reveals not only in-fighting between the different oligarch clans of the Islamist regime, but also that the clerical class is scrambling to preserve its political and economic privileges in the face of an increasingly uncertain succession.

For now, these divisions over power and money have been managed and contained in the name of Mojtaba.

His name still serves as a form of political glue. Even in his absence, different factions can invoke his authority to discipline rivals, justify decisions, and avoid a more open confrontation over the regime’s leadership.

But this arrangement is fragile because authority that is not visibly embodied cannot hold for long, particularly in a regime where the leader’s personal presence has historically been central to elite management.

HomeBuddy·Sponsored

Cost to Cover 150 feet of Gutter

If Mojtaba fails to appear at his father’s funeral, it will dramatically intensify speculation about his physical condition and could accelerate factional efforts to prepare for a second succession crisis.

Such a moment would not merely raise questions about one man’s fate.

It could expose the deeper structural crisis facing the Islamic Republic: that a regime built around the absolute authority of one man may no longer have a leader capable of imposing order on the very factions that depend on his authority for their own survival.

The Assembly of Experts’ intervention is therefore more than an isolated episode; it is a sign that the Islamic Republic’s internal balance of power is shifting.

The clerical class, the IRGC-linked networks, the security bureaucracy, and political-economic factions are all manoeuvring to protect their interests in a system whose central source of authority has been weakened.

While these rivalries may remain contained in the short term, the post-Ali Khamenei order is increasingly vulnerable to open elite conflict.

What appears today as a dispute over negotiations may soon become a broader struggle over who truly rules the Islamic Republic.

Kasra Aarabi is director of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) research at United Against Nuclear Iran

Saeid Golkar is senior adviser at United Against Nuclear Iran and UC Foundation Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

There’s nothing like a heatwave to shine a light on the medieval lunacy of eco-alarmism. The minute the thermometer spikes, all the bourgeois doomsayers are on their soapboxes haranguing humankind. This is ‘hell on Earth’, they cry. It’s ‘global boiling’, they wail. A ‘hound from hell’ is dragging the heat of the ‘Underworld’ into our world, say media scribes, like absolute nutters, blissfully unaware of what faux-priestly, pre-modern fools they sound to the rest of us.

And of course – you already know this – it’s all our fault. We brought this hell upon ourselves by flying and driving and existing. We are reaping the scorched harvest of our own sinful endeavours. As the UN’s climate chief says, it’s our ‘addiction to burning coal, oil and gas’ that is making the crimson sun blare so brightly and causing ‘climate change [to] run rampant’. Your modern living is ‘boiling the planet’ and ‘wrecking our world’, nagged a Guardian writer this week. Repent! Sweat!

Is anyone else tiring of this? Has anyone else had a gutful of the fact that we can’t even enjoy a hot day without being accused of planetary genocide by posh twats in haircloths? Is anyone else sick of those weather maps where the hot countries are Merlot coloured to drive home the crank idea that Cerberus himself has risen from the abyss to put his fiery ass-crack on our planet? I’m not even a fan of heatwaves – being Irish – yet I cannot abide this weaponisation of weather to bully the public.

It’s going to get worse – the heat and the hectoring. Another heatwave is coming. London might even reach 29C, cries the BBC, alongside a blood-red map of our scorched capital. Am I allowed to say that Londoners frequently fly overseas to lounge around in weather hotter than that, or will I be accused of ‘heat-stress denial’? That’s the latest species of ‘denialism’, according to mad old George Monbiot, who says the ‘billionaire press’ has ‘hit rock bottom’ with its denial of the ‘impacts of the heatwave’. We could strap them to the stake for their blasphemous speech, but apparently we’re all on the stake now – we’ve ‘[set] fire to the planet’, says Monbiot. Witches burn themselves these days.

No one is ‘denying’ the impact of the heatwave, of course. Certainly not me. I had to flee a London bus last week. It was a sweatbox on wheels, a rolling tomb of flushed bodies. If only we had air conditioning. But green hysterics, including Monbiot’s own paper, have been wringing their untoiled hands over AC for years. ‘It’s destroying the planet’, said the Guardian during last year’s heatwave. It’s ‘philosophically problematic’, apparently. Nothing – and I mean nothing – better captures the supercilious indifference of our eco-overlords than this vision of a well-fed Guardianista telling the sun-baked masses that it’s ‘philosophically problematic’ to cool your home in a heatwave.

It’s the cruelty of the heatwave hysterics that most startles. For years the climate-change cult has warned us that Earth will shortly be consumed by a hellfire of Man’s own making. Yet anyone who said ‘Let’s get air-con, then’ was damned as a devilish contributor to these End Times fires. The Wall St Journal asked an apt question this week: ‘Europe is hot as hell – why doesn’t it want air-conditioning?’ It reported on the hospitals of our Old World where the ill and elderly are ‘forced to endure… heatwaves’ because their well-fanned rulers have decreed that air-con is an ‘energy-hungry technology’ that undermines ‘the fight against climate change’. The fantasy cause of ‘saving the planet’ takes precedence over the earthly cause of saving the sick from heat.

Air-con is ‘not the solution’, says Time. I don’t know, it’s the solution to my sweating. More importantly, it’s the solution to the sweltering discomfort of elderly folk forced to live in heat-trapping homes and poorly people crammed on to roasting wards because society now fears a fictional apocalypse more than disease. There will be excess deaths this summer, and that’s awful. But it’s far more the fault of the eco-preaching classes than it is of the polluting masses. A hill I’ll die on: the climate-change ideology is a worse killer than climate change itself. I mean, it isn’t Mother Nature going into people’s homes and ripping out the air-con.

This is the story of our times: the elite panic about modernity is far deadlier than modernity. The truth, as Bjorn Lomborg says, is that deaths from climate-related disasters have plummeted in the era of industry. In the 1920s, half-a-million souls perished each year in storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves. In 2020, it was just 14,000. Global annual deaths from climate madness fell by 96 per cent. It is those who libel modernity as a uniquely murderous phenomenon who are signing the death warrant of humankind, for they seek to roll back the very developments that have insulated us from the violent whims of nature. Which includes air-con. To agitate against AC even in a heatwave is to exhibit a staggering misanthropic disregard for one’s fellow humans, especially the vulnerable ones.

And yet still they come, the heatwave hysterics, demonising the very tech that defends us from the heat and wind and water of amoral Nature. ‘[It] seems like End Times – and it’s our own damned fault’, said a green-leaning writer of recent heatwaves. The 2023 heatwave was christened Cerberus, after the hound from hell who rips sinners apart. How fitting. ‘Cerberus’s inferno’, newspapers cried. Even Greta Thunberg, the most celebrated hysteric of our age, has taken a break from berating the Jewish State to say, basically, ‘Fuck, it’s hot’. I guess that’s one upside of the hot weather – it will drag the attention of the idle pricks of the activist class away from the Jews and back to the ‘climate emergency’. Breathe easy, Israel – they’re wanging on about weather, again.

I’m sick of all this luxury apocalypticism. Its medieval strain is undeniable now. Just like our forebears, these fruitcakes see all weather – rain, storm, heat, hail – as a punishment from God / Gaia for our wicked ways. Though at least our ancestors had the excuse of being uneducated. Nature isn’t punishing us. We’re punishing ourselves. The greatest threat to humanity is not the weather but an elite that feverishly seeks to appease the gods of weather by winding back modernity. They’re the reason you’re baking. Rage against them, not the eye of heaven.

Brendan O’Neill

President Donald Trump’s plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz appears to be working, as transits show the strongest signs yet of returning to normal operations.

Commercial shipping is steadily increasing under the 60-day U.S.-Iran ceasefire, easing fears of prolonged global oil supply disruptions and driving crude prices lower.

New maritime data shows vessel traffic through the strategic waterway has more than quadrupled over the past week as shipping companies cautiously resume voyages through the Persian Gulf.

According to maritime intelligence platform Signal, the number of traceable daily voyages entering and leaving the Gulf increased from just one or two ships during most of the conflict to eight vessels by July 1, based on a seven-day moving average.

But the number of ships moving through with their transponders off is believed to be considerably higher. One study estimated that as many as 40 ships a day transited the strait over the past week.

While still well below prewar traffic levels, the rebound marks a significant improvement in confidence among commercial operators.

Before the conflict erupted, approximately 135 vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz each day, carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil and liquefied natural gas.

The increase in shipping is already having a measurable impact on global energy markets.

Brent crude oil has fallen back to roughly its prewar levels for the first time since fighting began, as traders increasingly believe the worst-case supply disruptions may have been avoided.

The decline reflects growing confidence that Gulf producers — including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Kuwait — will once again be able to move oil to international markets with fewer interruptions.

Several major shipping companies confirmed the improvement.

German container giant Hapag-Lloyd said four vessels previously stranded inside the Gulf have now exited safely, while Danish shipping leader Maersk reported two of its ships successfully transited the Strait during the past week.

Much of the recent traffic has consisted of oil tankers.

According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, total vessel movements — including so-called “dark voyages,” in which ships disable GPS tracking to reduce the risk of being targeted — rose to 258 transits during the week ending June 28.

That compares with just 41 voyages during the opening week of the crisis in March.

Many outbound tankers are carrying crude that had been loaded before the war and stored offshore while operators waited for safer conditions.

Iran has also accelerated exports.

Iranian chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran has exported approximately 40 million barrels of oil since the U.S. lifted its naval blockade, claiming the country has been able to sell its crude at prices roughly 20% above prewar levels.

More than 60 of the recent tanker voyages have reportedly involved Iranian oil exports, taking advantage of temporary sanctions relief granted under the ceasefire agreement.

Exports from neighboring Gulf producers are also recovering.

Several Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (ADNOC) tankers successfully transited the Strait this week using a southern shipping corridor that hugs Oman’s coastline under air-defense protection reportedly provided by U.S. and Omani forces.

Despite the improving outlook, significant dangers remain.

The International Maritime Organization estimates Iran laid approximately 80 naval mines in the Strait during the conflict. Those mines have yet to be cleared, preventing the two principal international shipping lanes from fully reopening.

Instead, commercial vessels are relying on alternative routes.

Some ships are using a route designated by Iran that requires approval from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, while others are sailing closer to Oman’s territorial waters under enhanced security.

Industry officials caution that today’s increased traffic reflects not only improving security but also economic necessity.

“It’s really difficult to say whether it’s growing confidence or whether it’s risk takers,” Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at the global shipowners’ association BIMCO, told the Financial Times. “At some point shipowners are willing to take that extra risk to get their ship out.”

The improving security picture is also reducing transportation costs.

Spot charter rates for very large crude carriers on the Hormuz route, which surged to nearly $500,000 per day on June 23 amid peak uncertainty, have since fallen to approximately $294,000 per day as more vessels become available and operators regain confidence.

Marine insurance costs have also declined dramatically.

According to insurance broker WTW, war-risk premiums have fallen to roughly 2% of a vessel’s value, down from about 7% immediately after the ceasefire took effect, significantly lowering the cost of transporting oil through the Gulf.

For energy markets, the reopening of the Strait represents a major psychological shift.

Just weeks ago, investors feared a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could choke off nearly 20% of global oil supplies, potentially sending crude prices well above $100 per barrel and reigniting inflation worldwide.

Instead, increasing tanker traffic, recovering Gulf exports, declining shipping costs, and lower insurance premiums are restoring confidence that one of the world’s most important energy corridors is gradually returning to business.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Coming to [Christ] as to a living stone” (1 Pet. 2:4).

Jesus is the only source of eternal life and the foundation upon which the church is built.

Peter’s description of Christ as “a living stone” is paradoxical because stones aren’t alive. In fact, we sometimes speak of something being “stone dead.” Yet Peter’s symbolism is profound because it beautifully incorporates three realities about Christ.

First, Jesus is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. The Old Testament referred to the Messiah as a stone, and Peter incorporated those texts into His description of Jesus in 1 Peter 2:6-8: “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed” (Isa. 28:16); “The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very cornerstone” (Ps. 118:22); and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (Isa. 8:14). The parallel is obvious and would be especially meaningful to Peter’s Jewish readers. The expectations of pious Jews throughout history were realized in Christ. God had kept His promise to send the Messiah!

Second, Jesus is a stone in that He is the focal point of His spiritual house, the church. The Greek word translated “stone” in verse 4 sometimes referred to the stones used in building projects. They were cut and chiseled to fit perfectly into a specific location, and were practically immovable. Not only is Jesus a stone; He is the cornerstone, which is the most important stone in the entire building. From Him the church draws its spiritual symmetry.

Finally, Jesus is living. That’s an appropriate description because everything Peter said in this epistle is based on the fact that Jesus is alive. That’s the believer’s hope and the basis for every spiritual privilege you have. You “have been born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3, emphasis added).

Interestingly, the literal rendering of 1 Peter 2:4 is, “Coming to Him as to living stone.” Christ is a unique stone—the stone that possesses life. All who come to Him receive eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:11).

Suggestions for Prayer

-Praise the Lord for His unchangeable character and irrevocable promises.

For Further Study

-Read Acts 2:22-47.

-What was the central point in Peter’s sermon?

-How did the people respond to his preaching?

-How many people were baptized?

-What were some of the activities of the early church?

John MacArthur, Grace Lutheran Church

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” That Bible verse, found in Proverbs 14:34, is not a political slogan. It is a moral law of history. Nations rise when justice, truth, humility, courage, and reverence for God shape their public life. They decline when sin becomes normalized, truth is considered subjective, and liberty is severed from biblical virtue.

The founders of America understood this better than we realize.

After the Revolutionary War, George Washington wrote to the governors of the thirteen states and prayed that God would dispose Americans “to do justice, to love mercy,” and to imitate the charity, humility, and peaceable spirit of “the Divine Author of our blessed Religion.” Without that, Washington said, “we can never hope to be a happy nation.”[1]

In his first inaugural address, Washington acknowledged “the Invisible Hand” that had guided the United States. He warned that “the propitious smiles of Heaven” could never be expected to shine on a nation that disregarded “the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained”—referring to the Bible.[2]

John Adams made the same point in different words. He believed the Bible contained “the most perfect morality” and was the only system capable of preserving a republic.[3]

Long before Washington and Adams, a Puritan pastor named Thomas Hooker helped shape America’s political imagination. In 1633, Hooker became pastor of a congregation near Cambridge, Massachusetts, and later helped establish Hartford, Connecticut. Studying Deuteronomy 1:13, where Moses instructed Israel to choose wise and understanding leaders, Hooker concluded that civil leaders should be chosen by the people. “The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance,” he preached. “The foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people.”[4]

Those ideas created the climate that led to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, often regarded as the first written constitution in the American colonies with a democratic tone. It is one reason Connecticut is still known as the Constitution State.

Another biblical text shaped the debate over liberty and authority—Romans 13:1, which teaches that governing authorities are instituted by God. On January 30, 1750, Jonathan Mayhew preached a sermon based on this verse titled A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the High Powers. He taught that government is accountable to God. When rulers fulfill their God-given role, they deserve respect and obedience. But when they become tyrants and oppressors, they violate the purpose for which government exists.[5]

John Adams later called Mayhew’s sermon “the catechism of the Revolution.” It gave many colonists a biblical framework for understanding resistance to tyranny.

Then came prayer. In September 1774, delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the First Continental Congress. Before beginning their work, they agreed to open in prayer and invited Jacob Duché, an Anglican pastor, to lead them. The previous evening, a frightening rumor had spread that British forces were shelling Boston. As Washington, Adams, Hancock, Henry, and others gathered in Carpenter’s Hall, Duché read the appointed Scripture reading for the day—Psalm 35: “Plead my cause, O LORD, with those who strive with me; fight against those who fight against me.”

John Adams later wrote to Abigail that he had never heard a better prayer. It seemed, he said, as though Heaven had ordained that Psalm for that morning.[6]

The American Revolution was not only fought on battlefields. It was also interpreted from pulpits. After the shots at Lexington and Concord, Pastor Jonas Clark looked to Joel 3, where God condemns the shedding of innocent blood. Seven members of his congregation had died near the church at Lexington. Their blood, he believed, testified to the seriousness of the hour. Clark reminded his people that however dark events appeared, God still ruled over nations. “An all-wise God is seated on the throne,” he said. That conviction steadied Americans through perilous days.[7]

When victory came at Yorktown, another biblical text came to the forefront. On October 20, 1781, the day after Cornwallis surrendered, chaplain Israel Evans preached to the American troops from 1 Samuel 7:12: “Hitherto the LORD has helped us.” Like Samuel raising his Ebenezer stone after victory, Evans called the army to remember that their help had come from God. America, he said, should learn her happiness as a nation from dependence on Almighty God.[8]

Winning independence was one thing. Framing a government was another. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia seemed near collapse. At that moment, Benjamin Franklin, then eighty-one, rose and asked why they had not sought the help of “the Father of Lights.”

“I have lived, sir, a long time,” Franklin said, “and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men.” He cited Psalm 127:1: “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”[9]

His motion for prayer did not formally pass, but the words hung over the convention. A few days later, Washington led delegates to a prayer service. Eventually, the Constitution emerged with its opening words: “We the People.”

James Madison later reflected that it was impossible for a thoughtful believer not to perceive in those events “a finger of that Almighty Hand.”[10]

Proverbs 14:34 contains both promise and warning: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” That truth applies to nations, but it also applies to individuals. Perhaps that is why my final story belongs not to a battlefield or convention hall, but to a deathbed. Alexander Hamilton, mortally wounded in his duel with Aaron Burr, asked for Christian counsel and communion. Presbyterian pastor John Mason spoke to him of Christ, quoting Acts 4:12: “There is salvation in no one else.”

Hamilton replied, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Before receiving communion from Bishop Benjamin Moore, Hamilton renounced his sins and embraced Christ his Savior. His last words to his wife were, “Remember, my Eliza, you are a Christian.”[11]

America’s hope has never rested ultimately in presidents, armies, constitutions, courts, or elections. These are not enough. The deeper question is moral and spiritual. Can a people remain free without righteousness? Can liberty endure without virtue? Can any nation disregard God’s eternal rules of order and right and still expect the smiles of Heaven?

Let me go back to my opening verse: “Righteousness exalts a nation. Sin is a reproach to any people.” No matter how advanced we may feel we are, we can never escape the truth of that ancient proverb.

Pastor Robert Morgan

Europeans are divided over whether the EU should move closer to the United States or to China, according to new polling shared exclusively with POLITICO that highlights how Donald Trump’s second presidency has upended long-standing geopolitical loyalties.

In a survey conducted in June by pollster Public First across 24 EU countries, respondents in eight countries leaned toward stronger relations with China, nine favored the U.S. and seven were effectively split between the two.

In 14 countries, the single most common response was “I don’t know” — with more people giving that answer than backing either Washington or Beijing.

The responses underscore the difficult situation facing the bloc, as political and trade tensions strain relations with the two global superpowers — its two largest trading partners.

Brussels is implementing a one-sided trade deal with the Trump administration, while it faces progressive deindustrialization driven by a surge of Chinese exports including electric vehicles.

“Europeans see distance from America as achievable and, in some countries, already the majority preference. They see reliance on China as more of a necessity, and efforts to mitigate it as wishful thinking,” said Seb Wride, head of opinion research at Public First.

“It would be poor timing for Trump’s actions to set up a choice between the U.S. and China — for many Europeans the U.S. is optional, and China essential,” he added.

What the data makes clear is that in Western Europe, the U.S. is no longer seen as a reliable ally.

Italy and Spain, for example, are in the China camp, the latter solidly so. Other heavy hitters France and Germany were uncertain, with a majority answering that they didn’t know who to choose between the two. 

Donald Trump has made his disdain of Europe’s leadership a recurring theme of his presidency. He’s insulted them, imposed unilateral tariffs on the bloc, withdrawn U.S. troops from the continent, and even threatened to annex Greenland, a Danish sovereign territory. 

Several EU leaders — from Spain’s Pedro Sánchez to Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen — have seen their popularity rise after confronting the U.S. president, underscoring how unpopular he is abroad. Even traditional allies, like Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, are moving away from him. 

The trend isn’t continent-wide: Respondents in Eastern Europe, which has long clung to the U.S. as a guarantor of the post-Cold War order, continue to see America favorably. Poland, Lithuania and Estonia, for example, are all solidly in Washington’s camp.

Beijing doesn’t offer a straightforward alternative to the historical U.S. relationship.

Roaring Chinese imports are undermining traditional European manufacturing, from chemicals to carmaking. Earlier this week, the European Commission said that it was in talks with China to try and find a more balanced trade arrangement; it wants progress on the issue by October.

The polling data suggests that EU citizens view Europe’s trade ties with China as a matter of fact, rather than choice.

Across the 24 countries in the survey, 38 percent of respondents said that, while reducing reliance on China sounded good, it was an unrealistic idea. That was the most common view in all countries except Sweden and Denmark, where similar shares thought the bloc should try to reverse the EU’s dependence on China.

Across the bloc, just 26 percent agreed that it would be both doable and desirable to do so; while another 19 percent said the bloc shouldn’t be trying to cut its reliance on China anyway.

What’s more — Europeans see China, and not the U.S., as the future. In the poll, 43 percent of respondents said they expected China to be Europe’s most important trading partner in 10 years. Just 27 percent picked the U.S.

By country, more people in 23 of the 24 countries covered said they expect China to be Europe’s top trade partner in a decade’s time. Only Lithuanians clearly favored the U.S.

By Reuters

LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) – Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that racism and intolerance had worsened in Britain over the past decade, warning it was ​damaging social cohesion and deterring people from public life.

He spoke ‌a day after a Reuters report found some Britons of colour fear a resurgence of racism linked to anti-migrant rhetoric and a political focus on crime, following recent unrest ​including protests in Southampton after the murder of Henry Nowak and rioting ​in Belfast after a stabbing attack.

Get a look at the day ahead in European and global markets with the Morning Bid Europe newsletter. Sign up here.

Facing questions in parliament, Starmer said “racism ⁠and intolerance is permeating everywhere.”

The British leader was responding to a lawmaker ​who said he was worried that racism and the incitement of violence linked ​to it were being normalised, including by some politicians.

“We have to deal with it, because it’s tearing our societies apart,” Starmer said, adding that “it should be called out ​by every single person who is a politician at any level in ​this country.”

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

https://a9878929fbeeb93aa056ab7638636888.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

Starmer recalled the 2016 death of Labour lawmaker Jo Cox, an active supporter of ‌immigration ⁠and social cohesion, who was killed by a far-right extremist days before the Brexit referendum.

He said that when reflecting recently upon her death he felt things had got worse, not better, in the intervening decade.

Tuesday’s Reuters report ​cited warnings from ​trade unions and ⁠professional bodies about rising racist abuse in workplaces and public life, alongside heightened tensions following the unrest across the ​United Kingdom.

Nigel Farage, the leader of populist party Reform ​UK, has ⁠accused British institutions of discriminating against white people, arguing they were biased by policies aimed at supporting ethnic minorities. Starmer has rejected those claims.

Addressing the tone ⁠of ​political debate, Starmer said: “That’s on us to ​fix – every single member of this house, whatever their party is and anybody who inflames it ​should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.”

Reporting by Sam Tabahriti, Editing by William Maclean

While it looks a lot like the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is running the show in Iran right now, it’s also very likely that the mullahs are still wielding a lot of influence, even from whatever rocks they are hiding under. Iran’s supposed civil government, or what’s left of it, is still talking about a possible peace deal, but the IRGC is still trying to hit shipping in the Strait of Hormuz as well as tossing whatever they have left at neighboring nations.

Now, at least one group of the 7th-century barbarians who have been in power in Iran since 1979 has surfaced, to call for the assassinations of America’s President Donald Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran’s most senior clerics have called for the assassinations of President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declaring the leaders mahdour al-dam — or deserving of death.

The 88-member Assembly of Experts issued a 10-point statement in which they said killing “the wicked prime minister of the Zionist regime” and “the criminal American president” was a religious duty that must be carried out “under any circumstances.”

The clerics — who are constitutionally tasked with choosing and supervising the supreme leader — wrote that the call for their assassinations that avenging the death of supreme leader Ali Khamenei was of “paramount” importance.

Speaking of that supreme leader, we still have no indication, no evidence that the new supreme leader is still carrying out metabolic functions. But the mullahs aren’t the only ones talking tough.

Meanwhile, Iranian newspaper Hamshahri ran a front-page story featuring Trump’s face in the crosshairs of a rifle scope with a banner headline reading “Revenge is certain.”

Now, while Iran in general has a habit of having their mouths write checks their butts can’t cash, this isn’t a warning that should be taken too lightly.

Remember, we have seen three assassination attempts against President Trump: Two during the campaign and one during his second term. These were attempts by amateurs, and yet one of them almost succeeded; the president escaped a fatal shot by a literal hair’s breadth.

Any such attempt by a nation-state, with the resources of even a failed nation-state like Iran, would be very different; the attempt would be made by trained people, well-equipped, well-prepared, almost certainly working in a team of 2-3, possibly – likely – with more than one shooter. Iran has people like that, just as we do, just as any nation-state would.

There are, right now, between 20,000 and 30,000 Iranian nationals in the country illegally, having entered, mostly, across the southern border and again, mostly, during the four years of the Biden administration’s non-enforcement of the border. If one percent of those are some kind of operative, infiltrated into the United States while the border was wide open, then that makes up 200-300 possible hostile operators.

That’s enough to cause a lot of trouble. That’s a reinforced company of infantry, more or less. This is a threat that the Secret Service, as well as PM Netanyahu’s security detail, should be taking seriously. What the mullahs don’t understand is that, should they succeed in this, and should they be able to establish that Iranian operatives successfully carried out an attack on the President of the United States, the likely outcome would be a rain of hellfire upon their country, the likes of which only the United States can deliver.

It doesn’t seem likely that would deter them from the attempt, though. These are, after all, people who see death as some kind of sick reward. We should remember that, too.

What makes a nation wealthy?  It’s not just arable lands surrounded by other lands filled with water, timber, coal, gas, oil, metals, and minerals.  It’s the farmer who knows best how to cultivate those lands in order to maximize food production.  It’s the woodsman, miner, fisherman, and oilman who can extract nature’s bounty and provide the raw materials for every kind of manufacturer. 

Producing things requires knowledge and skill.  Competition between producers creates an incentive to innovate.  This motor of discovery — in which human ingenuity uses established knowledge and long-harnessed skills as inputs for creating new forms of knowledge and skill — generates increasing efficiencies in production.  Costs go down; prices go down; producers produce more; consumers consume more.  Economic freedom, therefore, is a wealth-generating feedback loop that benefits all of society.

A nation that can do all of these things on its own is a self-sufficient nation.  A nation that is capable of producing more than it consumes is an exporting nation.  A nation that exports more than it imports is a nation whose people become increasingly wealthy.  The rest of the world pays that nation for its way of life.  The world pays that nation simply for existing.

Anyone who says that a nation’s culture is irrelevant to a nation’s standard of living is a liar.  Productive cultures generate national wealth.  Lazy, reckless, or destructive cultures ensure lasting poverty.  There’s an adage so old and universally embraced that numerous cultures claim authorship: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.  People generally acknowledge these truths.  Whether you are a ninth-century Viking raider or a twenty-first-century welfare queen, if you cannot produce for yourself, you cannot feed yourself without taking from others.  Whether a Somali pirate or a Somali “l-e-a-r-i-n-g” center fraudster, you are dependent on theft from others because self-sufficiency is out of reach.

What might a nation do to encourage wealth creation?  Just as a good farmer cultivates the land to maximize a harvest, good national leaders cultivate social values that maximize personal production.  A culture that values knowledge, skill, and hard work encourages members of society to learn and labor in pursuit of productive innovation.  A legal system that prioritizes protections for private property and personal liberty encourages increased production and wealth creation.  A society that takes pride in building and manufacturing new things fosters a spirit of entrepreneurship.  An entrepreneurial society encourages a self-sufficient society.  A self-sufficient society produces a self-sufficient nation.  Therefore, the cultivation of virtue within society simultaneously cultivates a wealthy nation.

These aren’t difficult concepts to understand. 

Why, then, do most Western nations reject the proven path toward national wealth?  Why do Western politicians celebrate “multiculturalism” over the historically productive virtues of Western culture?  Why do Western pundits disparage knowledge, skill, and hard work as attributes of “white supremacy”?  Why do Western lawmakers make it more difficult for Western citizens to own land and personal property?  Why do Western bureaucrats churn out rules and regulations that limit what can be built and manufactured?  Why do Western governments make it difficult for small businesses to thrive?  Why do Western news media claim that only foreign migrants are willing to perform blue-collar jobs?  Why do Western bankers claim that only foreign slave laborers are capable of manufacturing critical goods?  Why do Western professors spend more time lecturing about racism and oppression than how to critically think, invent, and build new things?  Why do Western NGOs support open borders, “climate change” regulations, and economy-killing taxes?  Why do religious leaders praise the criminal and not the faithful Christian?  Why do cultural leaders encourage citizens and foreigners alike to become dependent on social welfare?  Why do pop culture leaders extol frivolous excess over hard work and discipline?  Why do Westerners celebrate gay “pride” for at least a month each year instead of encouraging all citizens to take pride in what they build, learn, and accomplish?  Why do Wall Street and the City of London work so hard to deprive the United States and the United Kingdom of economies that benefit Main Street businesses as much as multinational conglomerates?

Reading through the above questions should lead a rational person toward a reasonable conclusion: The people who currently maintain economic and political power in the West have no interest in making the nations that they ostensibly call “home” wealthy.  The United Kingdom and the European Union cannot produce wealth if their manufacturers are forced to use windmill-generated energy that has been exponentially outpowered by coal and steam for four centuries.  Germany cannot produce wealth if it subsidizes Chinese automakers while bankrupting its own with “green energy” regulations.  Canada cannot produce wealth if it refuses to use its abundant natural resources while importing most manufactured goods from Asia.  

Western nations that refuse to use hydrocarbon and nuclear energies are nations dependent on foreign powers for manufacturing.  Western nations that refuse to allow their farmers to grow crops and produce meat and dairy supplies for their home populations are nations dependent on foreign powers for food.  Western nations whose people lack the knowledge and skills to repair everything from small appliances to entire electric grids are nations dependent on foreign powers during crises.  Western nations that lack the cultural will to be self-sufficient are nations stuck in a permanent state of dependency.  If you hand out food stamps liberally and look down on people who insist on providing for their families without government assistance, then you will produce a nation of pirates and fraudsters who make, grow, and build nothing.

How does the United Kingdom survive when it produces next to nothing?  Right now it generates most of its revenue by acting as the economic middleman for most of the globe.  Even though its empire has collapsed and its navy has disappeared, the City of London’s army of bankers, consultants, and lawyers still take a nice cut of every economic transaction around the planet.  They collect insurance fees, regulatory fees, and investment fees like an absentee landlord still bilking old colonies with “rules-based” trade agreements that put money in the pockets of English lords who create nothing.  The Bank of England and the Secret Intelligence Service work together to game the international economy by stirring up regional conflicts and using insider knowledge to bet on the eventual market winners.  Britain’s central bank has ensured that the wealthiest members of society profit from market manipulation while the rest of society suffers from currency depreciation.  This is an economic model engineered to benefit a small cabal of “noble elites” while impoverishing the larger nation.

Ever since some of Britain’s nobles succeeded in convincing some of America’s nobles to erect a Federal Reserve central bank in the Bank of England’s image back in 1913, this funny money con game has drained America’s wealth, too.  Although Americans’ can-do spirit has buoyed economic liberty and growth, the parasitic structure of central banking has steadily deprived the United States of its once unparalleled self-sufficiency.  The gradual debasement of the U.S. dollar has led to the decoupling from the gold standard, the creation of a petrodollar dependent on forever-wars and foreign entanglements, the offshoring of industry and manufacturing, and international trade “deals” that make America more dependent on foreign powers while kicking back “service” fees to Wall Street and City of London bankers.

This is what globalization really produces: dependency.  

For the United States to be wealthy and strong, we must return to an American system that mines, grows, and builds everything.  Our people must embrace both personal and national self-sufficiency.  We must reject Europe’s economic suicide.

Image via Pxhere.

Related Topics: Globalism

View & Add Comments7

About the Author

J.B. Shurk

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p

Advertisement

Popular Drink That’s Silently Destroying Your Brain Cells (Don’t Eat It Daily)Healthy Living Tips

The Most Stunning Bison Whiskey Decanter We’ve SeenPeoasis

Advertisement

null

Around the web

Advertisement

The Swarm at My Hummingbird House: What Happened After I Hung ItGlosrity

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)Health Weekly

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Honey: The Greatest Enemy of Memory Loss (See How to Use It)Health Weekly

This 7-Minute Morning Protocol May Support Baseline Clarity and FocusManifestation

My Neighbor’s Garden is Always Full of Hummingbirds. Here’s Whypeoasis

Taylor Swift, 34, Takes off Makeup, Leaves Us With No WordsYour Health Agent

This New Air Cooler is All The Ragepeoasis

Cardiologists: One Teaspoon Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try It!Health Weekly

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

If You Have Diabetes, Read This Before It’s Removed!Health Weekly

Trending

Advertisement

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

While Americans Use Toxic Pans, The Japanese Are Doing This InsteadPlateful

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Most ReadLast 24hrsLast 48hrsLast 7 Days

1

‘Citizen Vigilante’ is the wake-up call Western civilization needs

Joseph Ford Cotto | July 1, 2026

2

Ukraine Rains The ‘Wrath of Man’ Upon Russia

James Zumwalt | July 1, 2026

3

A Deplorable attends the birth of DEI racism

Peter Merkl | July 1, 2026

4

The elephant in the room that is fraud

Jack Hellner | July 1, 2026

5

The economics behind Mamdani’s rent freeze fantasy

Ruel Domi | July 1, 2026

Top ContributorsLast 7 DaysLast 30 Days

J.B. Shurk

Citizen Vigilante Should Terrify Western Governments

Ron Wright

The Mar-a-Lago Raid Was About Burying the Fake Russia ICA

Silvio Canto, Jr.

The Obamacare numbers don’t add up…again

Noel S. Williams

World Cup hospitality: Lawrence, Kansas vs. Seattle

Bill Ponton

The history of white flight and gentrification

SponsoredX

After 60, Knee Health Comes Down to 1 Nutrient Most Doctors Miss

Goodbye AC and Expensive Bills: This New AC Cooler Cools The Room in Seconds

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)

In Your State, He Installed This Hummingbird House. Then They Never Left

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!

Edema? (Swollen Feet): Do This Immediately (It’s Genius)

Ad Free / Commenting Login

EmailPasswordHOMEARCHIVESCARTOONSSUBMISSIONSABOUTRSS SYNDICATIONPRIVACY POLICYCONTACTDONATE

FOLLOW US ON

© American Thinker 2026null

×

Thank you for making American Thinker part of your routine

Reader support keeps American Thinker independent and accountable only to its audience. Join now and receive 25% off membership in honor of America’s 250th anniversary.

BECOME A MEMBER — Save 25%

DONATE NOW

If you are alre

Badger

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his acting spy chief has wide permission to declassify records, including any tied to the 2020 election, even though his close ally is only at the intelligence helm for a short time.

Trump appointed Bill Pulte as acting director ​of national intelligence last month, elevating a political loyalist with no national security experience at a ‌time of war and global tensions.

Following a political backlash over his pick, Trump subsequently nominated Jay Clayton, the top U.S. attorney for Manhattan. But he then abruptly postponed Clayton’s confirmation hearing in an effort to force Congress to pass a strict voter identification bill.

“Bill’s there, just, you know, for maybe a month or two months or something,” Trump told reporters as he departed Joint Base Andrews for ‌an event ​in North Dakota. “But while he’s there, I said, ‘You can declassify whatever you ⁠want’.”

Asked if that included any records related ⁠to the 2020 election, Trump added: “I told him you could do it, it’s fair. You got to ask him.”

Trump, who won a second White House term in the 2024 election after losing in 2020, long has falsely claimed widespread fraud in U.S. elections and continued to push debunked claims ahead of November’s midterm ​contests as part of his pressure campaign to pass a strict voter identification law.

His comments come as NBC News reported that a White House task force was gathering documents related to the 2020 election with the aim ⁠of declassifying some of them.

“As the most transparent president in history, ⁠President Trump is totally committed to sharing as much information with the public as possible,” ​said a White House official who requested anonymity.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the office of ​Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton did not respond to requests for comment on Trump’s remarks.

The ODNI ‌oversees the 18-agency U.S. intelligence community that includes the premier foreign spy service, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency, the massive agency that eavesdrops on foreign communications and helps defend the United States against cyberattacks.

It was not clear when lawmakers would act on Clayton’s nomination, but Trump told reporters there would be a hearing in ⁠two weeks.

A source familiar with the situation, on condition of anonymity, said Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, was “targeting” July 15.

Pulte currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency but will also remain as ODNI until Clayton is confirmed by the Senate. ⁠Pulte has reportedly already moved to cut ‌hundreds of intelligence jobs.

Trump has said legislation known as the SAVE Act would deliver ⁠his fellow Republicans a “guaranteed” win in November as they seek to maintain their ​slim control ‌of Congress. Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Trump’s low approval ratings to ​recapture at least ⁠the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Democrats and voting-rights advocates say the measure could hinder voter registration for millions of eligible Americans.

On Tuesday, Trump in a social media post said he had met with Tina Peters, a former county elections clerk in Colorado who was convicted of illegally tampering with voting machines in pursuit of Trump’s false claims over the 2020 race.

Representatives of Peters did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Jonathan Landay; editing by ​Michelle Nichols and Bill Berkrot)