CAIR-LA crosses a very distinct line in its attack on UCLA’s guidelines against anti-Semitism. 

Robyn Dolgin | June 2, 2026

Hussam Ayloush deserves credit for cultivating his reputation as a “moderate Muslim.”

He has proven effective at winning over audiences — including liberal Jews — all the while aiming many of his relentless anti-Israel attacks at them. His worst detractors would concede he qualifies as the educated and polished face of CAIR-LA (Council on American-Islamic Relations).

Ayloush showcased his rhetorical skill at the time he issued a “public statement” opposing UCLA’s new guidelines to Combat Antisemitism (released by Chancellor Julio Frenk and a 15-person action group). Many Jewish parents of UCLA students’ were gobsmacked by the “perverse logic” of Ayloush’s statement posted last month: The main message behind the “CAIR statement” was to oppose the university’s new guidelines to protect Jewish students from harassment, physical assault, and overt hatred, on the basis of it having a “chilling effect” on the civil rights of pro-Palestinian and Muslim students.

The tragic events behind the “Free Palestine” protests are blatantly absent from CAIR’s statement.

Ayloush fails to mention the pattern of abuse and harassment perpetrated by the protestors — which included raining blows on Jewish students and erecting “Jew-Free Zone” blockades on campus. Jewish students were not allowed to pass through the blockades without first condemning the actions of so-called “genocide” committed by Israel or agreeing to wear a symbol condemning the Jewish state.

Some would argue the real “chilling effect” could be traced to the recorded statements made by UCLA students who were on the receiving end of the April 25-May 2, 2024 attacks:

UCLA freshman Eli Tsives, who was filmed while attempting to access a campus area, said: “I deserve to go here. I pay tuition. This is our school.” He was prevented from passing through a “Jew Free Zone.”

Another student, Elinor Hess, remembers being knocked to the ground by pro-Palestinian protestors while attempting to pick up a flag. “When I was down — I was kicked a few times… dragged across the ground, and then my head started bleeding.” She lost consciousness during the attack, according to the police report.

Many Jewish parents, who feared for their children on campus, were further incensed at the statement’s shifting the culpability from the victimizers to the victims. In retrospect, CAIR offered its own version of events. “UCLA has a long history of targeting lawful student speech and activism on campus,” CAIR asserts. “It has failed time and again to take actionable steps to protect its Palestinian, Arab and Muslim student and faculty.”

Elinor Hess’ parents, undoubtedly, would take little comfort from the CAIR’s assertion that they care about the “civil rights of all students including Jewish students.” Advancing “justice for all” is part of CAIR’s theme, along with its carefully crafted acronym spelling out a sentiment many supporters of Israel would find perverse.

CAIR once enjoyed the status of the “reasonable voice” on Islamic-American relations: It became a media darling for nearly 10 years (late 1990s to early 2000s). The mainstream reporters routinely cited CAIR as the “go-to-voice” commenting on controversial issues, including Israel’s role in the Middle East.

Then the curtain was pulled back on CAIR’s criminal activities: The organization operates more than 35 chapters in the U.S., and several members were criminally charged with funneling money to terrorists. The organization was cited as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation case in 2007. Not everyone got off as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” CAIR official Ghassan Elashi was convicted in connection with the crime of assisting in financing $12 million to Hamas, and several other members of CAIR faced terrorism-related charges.

The Holy Land case gave new meaning to the popular chant, “From the River to the Sea”: It cast a dark shadow on the alleged “civil rights” group’s assertion that it protects the “oppressed around the world.”

Ayloush and his colleagues may not have been anywhere near the protestors’ blockades or handing out pepper spray to pro-Palestinian protestors. The leader’s words may have proven far more effective in stoking the anger of protesters and contributing to an atmosphere of oppression on the UCLA campus.

Iran survives by delay, deception, and deterrence games—but the moment may be coming when airpower, not diplomacy, decides how the nuclear standoff ends.

The Trump administration has bent over backward to negotiate an end to Iran’s grand plans to develop nuclear weapons—before the June 2025 bombing, afterward, and again during the follow-up diplomacy of spring 2026.

Yet Iran is unlikely ever to abandon its pursuit of the bomb voluntarily. With nuclear weapons, Tehran hopes to become the de facto hegemon of the Middle East. Only then could it effectively coerce or deter both Israel and the wealthy Arab Gulf states. And that is the charitable view, one that excludes the possibility of a messianic Shiite theocracy believing that eliminating the “one-bomb” state of Israel would forever ensure the Shiite minority permanent preeminence in the pantheon of Islamic jihadists.

After three months of intermittent war, we are now better acquainted with Iran’s intentions and the realities of the conflict.

The Iranian regime has never viewed “negotiations” as a path leading to an ultimate “deal.” At best, the regime’s supposedly “elected” government plays good cop, while the bad cop theocratic henchmen periodically violate whatever understandings have been reached. Accordingly, talks remain perpetually fluid, punctuated by delays, pauses, and renewed demands. The regime’s art of “dealing” is not aimed at resolution but at gaining strategic advantage by postponing any military effort that leads to their demise. The regime’s mere survival is broadcast as victory, whatever the damage to the country.

As a result, Iran does not necessarily regard overwhelming military defeat on the battlefield as a strategic loss. The regime believes its own advantage lies in the long term and beyond the battlefield itself. For nearly half a century, this wicked regime has survived through propaganda, bloodcurdling threats, slaughtering civilians.

The Iranian regime has never viewed “negotiations” as a path leading to an ultimate “deal.” At best, the regime’s supposedly “elected” government plays good cop, while the bad cop theocratic henchmen periodically violate whatever understandings have been reached. Accordingly, talks remain perpetually fluid, punctuated by delays, pauses, and renewed demands. The regime’s art of “dealing” is not aimed at resolution but at gaining strategic advantage by postponing any military effort that leads to their demise. The regime’s mere survival is broadcast as victory, whatever the damage to the country.

As a result, Iran does not necessarily regard overwhelming military defeat on the battlefield as a strategic loss. The regime believes its own advantage lies in the long term and beyond the battlefield itself. For nearly half a century, this wicked regime has survived through propaganda, bloodcurdling threats, slaughtering civilians at home and abroad, terrorist proxies and clients, and mastery of both global politics and the internal politics of its adversaries, especially in the U.S. and Europe.

Its strategy is also to feign detachment from reality and appear capable of doing anything to anyone anywhere at any time. Iran’s leaders are like the crazy assailant on the subway who feels he can do anything he wishes, since most people either fear his antics or don’t wish to stoop to his level to stop him.

All threats, ultimatums, and vows are also not credible. They are designed to bluff or mislead opponents into miscalculations. The more left-leaning American presidents, whether Clinton, Obama, or Biden, reached out to dialogue and normalize with Iran, the more the Iranians loathed these presidents for being weak.

They view Europe and the U.S. not as nations, but as various successive governments and administrations that, to various degrees, can be manipulated. And they have utter contempt for perceived Western appeasement. Magnanimity they interpret as weakness to be exploited, never as kindness to be reciprocated.

This Iran war is unlike our past conflicts in the Middle East. So far, there is no American use of ground troops. The bombing (and thus the war itself) has been historically short, lasting only around 38 days—unlike the two Iraq wars, Afghanistan, Libya, and Serbia.

In terms of size, population, resources, wealth, and military strength, Iran has been the most formidable adversary the United States has faced in the Middle East. Yet our losses in this war so far have been historically low, while the damage to the Iranian industrial, nuclear, and military infrastructure has been immense and unprecedented.

Unlike past conflicts, where combatants often struggled to distinguish friend from foe in places such as the streets of Fallujah, the villages of Helmand Province, or the rice paddies of South Vietnam, this war has been uniquely suited to overwhelming American airpower. The United States has clearly won the shooting war, though it has yet to secure the peace.

One problem is the scarcity of accurate information. We have only rumors and spotty regime-fed reports of what is actually going on inside Iran, given there are neither American ground troops nor embedded Western reporters there.

What comes out of Iran is the chronic form of lying associated with “Baghdad Bob” during the Second Gulf War. No one yet knows the full extent of the damage to the regime or the viability of the Iranian resistance. The result is that Iran is likely to be in far worse shape than it lets on.

Even so, a militarily weakened Iran seems to hope that escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz will raise gas prices, at home and worldwide, and cost Trump the midterms, before American sanctions, blockades, and freezing assets will bankrupt the country.

The United States is now weighing two choices. One is to end the war and get some sort of deal, assured that it has already done close to a decade’s worth of damage to Iran, and perhaps more if sanctions persist.

The United States would seek to negotiate an exit that lowers oil prices and staves off political catastrophe in the November midterms. America’s anxious Gulf allies might support—or even now insist upon—such a negotiated settlement, assuming that Iran has been sufficiently defanged in the short term, that their vulnerable oil infrastructure remains secure for the time being, that anti-Iran sentiment in the Arab world remains strong, and that the Iranian people will grow increasingly restive if the regime continues to ignore their poverty and instead chooses to rebuild its shattered arsenals and revive its bankrupt Arab terrorist proxies abroad.

Yet the long-term limitations of such a limited and transitory victory are twofold. First, Iran’s regime would likely consolidate its hold on power, claiming that its reputation abroad has grown, and that its mere survival should be seen as an incredible victory.

Secondly, Iran would likely rebuild and wait to go nuclear until the arrival of a president akin to Obama or Biden, convinced then that there would be no danger of another American intervention and that the new American Left sympathizes with Iran’s anti-Israel agenda and therefore its nuclear aspirations. The regime has good reason, given the current new Socialist-Islamist Democrat Party, that a future Democrat president would revive Obama’s bankrupt visions of empowering a Shia crescent from Tehran to Yemen to “balance” Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

An alternative course is a riskier one that could involve greater casualties and Iranian missile and drone strikes against Israel and the Gulf states. It would begin with issuing a final one-week deadline for Iran to concede to U.S. demands to denuclearize, hand over all its enriched uranium, dismantle its remaining missile forces, cease subsidizing Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and stop interfering with international traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Otherwise, for a week or so, the U.S. would strike the remaining regime grandees who believe they are still in charge of the government, along with dual-use bridges, subterranean nuclear depots, power plants, island ports and docks, weapons arsenals and factories, and the remnants of the Iranian mosquito navy. It would then open the Strait of Hormuz, leave a guardian force to keep it navigable, declare victory, go home, and pivot to the economy.

The point would be to inflict enough damage on the Iranian theocracy and its appendages to end the current off-and-on war. Either such Iranian concessions or such destruction would humiliate the regime, neuter its military, and halt its nuclear aspirations for decades, leaving it ripe for internal uprising—and reminding the world there is a limit to unpredictable U.S. patience and placidity.

Victor Davis Hanson

A new poll indicates a striking picture of loyalty forged in shared values and proven leadership. 

Joseph Ford Cotto | June 1, 2026

In the thick of another high-stakes election year, GOP voters are sending a clear message that cuts through the noise of legacy media chatter. It even transcends far more serious pocketbook worries.

A new national survey reveals that Republicans are firmly commited to President Donald J. Trump, rooted in his record on issues that reach beyond dollars and cents. This data was gathered by the Democracy Institute in partnership with me, as host of the current events show News Sight and author of the finance newsletter Dr. Cotto’s Digest.

The poll spotlights a GOP base that stands rock-solid even as broader national surveys show massive economic frustration.

The numbers paint a striking picture of loyalty forged in shared values and proven leadership. When asked if Trump’s performance on non-economic issues outweighs his handling of the economy, a resounding 79 percent of self-identified Republican likely voters said yes. Only 21 percent disagreed.

That is not a lukewarm endorsement. It is a powerful declaration that principles like immigration control, law and order, America-first foreign policy, and combating woke terror carry more weight for these voters than any single economic snapshot.

Dig deeper, and the picture sharpens.

Fully 88 percent affirmed that, when focusing solely on Trump’s actions outside the economy, he remains worthy of their support. Just 12 percent said no. These figures reveal a core truth. Trump’s appeal rests on a foundation that economic headwinds cannot easily erode. Voters see his strength on judicial appointments, national sovereignty, and pushing back against elite institutions that have scorned normal Americans.

This is the kind of steadfastness that wins elections when the pundits least expect it.

Even more telling for November’s midterms, 86 percent declared they would likely vote based mostly on Trump’s non-economic record, even if the economy does not surge before Election Day. A mere 14 percent would not.

n the thick of another high-stakes election year, GOP voters are sending a clear message that cuts through the noise of legacy media chatter. It even transcends far more serious pocketbook worries.

A new national survey reveals that Republicans are firmly commited to President Donald J. Trump, rooted in his record on issues that reach beyond dollars and cents. This data was gathered by the Democracy Institute in partnership with me, as host of the current events show News Sight and author of the finance newsletter Dr. Cotto’s Digest.

The poll spotlights a GOP base that stands rock-solid even as broader national surveys show massive economic frustration.

The numbers paint a striking picture of loyalty forged in shared values and proven leadership. When asked if Trump’s performance on non-economic issues outweighs his handling of the economy, a resounding 79 percent of self-identified Republican likely voters said yes. Only 21 percent disagreed.

That is not a lukewarm endorsement. It is a powerful declaration that principles like immigration control, law and order, America-first foreign policy, and combating woke terror carry more weight for these voters than any single economic snapshot.

Dig deeper, and the picture sharpens.

Fully 88 percent affirmed that, when focusing solely on Trump’s actions outside the economy, he remains worthy of their support. Just 12 percent said no. These figures reveal a core truth. Trump’s appeal rests on a foundation that economic headwinds cannot easily erode. Voters see his strength on judicial appointments, national sovereignty, and pushing back against elite institutions that have scorned normal Americans.

This is the kind of steadfastness that wins elections when the pundits least expect it.

Even more telling for November’s midterms, 86 percent declared they would likely vote based mostly on Trump’s non-economic record, even if the economy does not surge before Election Day. A mere 14 percent would not.

American Thinker

Names on a memorial poster for four relatives and in-laws of Ali Khamenei offer a rare snapshot of how family ties link Iran’s ruling household to parliament, elite universities and the Supreme Leader’s office.

The poster, announcing a memorial ceremony at the Abdol-Azim shrine in Rey, south of Tehran, lists Zahra Sadat Haddad-Adel, Boshra Hosseini Khamenei, Mesbah al-Hoda Bagheri and Zahra Mohammadi Golpayegani as among the dead.

Each name connects the Khamenei household to one of the families or institutions that have shaped the Islamic Republic’s political, cultural and administrative elite for decades: the parliament, the Supreme Leader’s office, the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, Imam Sadegh University and the network of institutions around the leader’s office.

The ceremony itself is religious and familial. But the names on the poster point to something larger: a closed circle of family relationships through which access, influence and institutional power have long moved inside the Islamic Republic.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has submitted an official letter of resignation to the Office of the Supreme Leader, a source familiar with the matter told Iran International.

In the letter sent on Sunday, Pezeshkian stressed that the president and the government have effectively been excluded from major and vital decision-making processes in the country, and that the vacuum created by this situation has enabled hardline factions within the IRGC to take control of affairs, the source said.

Pezeshkian added that under such circumstances he is unable to run the government and carry out his legal responsibilities, and for that reason has requested to step down immediately.

It is not yet clear whether Mojtaba Khamenei will accept the president’s resignation, but the contents of the letter point to a deep and unprecedented rift at the highest levels of power.

This comes after months of tensions between the government and the Islamic Republic’s military-security institutions. Iran International previously reported that the IRGC had gradually restricted many presidential powers and effectively taken control of key parts of the government.

According to informed sources, the situation has left Pezeshkian’s administration trapped in a political and executive deadlock, preventing diplomatic negotiations from moving forward and the completion and implementation of desired changes to the cabinet structure.

London’s role in Iran’s financial networks — and why it matters now

With the US and Israel now at war with Iran, attention is turning to how the country’s ruling elite has been able to move and park its wealth in the West, including here in the UK. 

Transparency International UK has been collecting information on the UK’s exposure to illicit wealth linked to Iran’s elites and associated money laundering networks. Consistently appearing as one of the world’s most corrupt countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, what we have found connected to Iran is troubling. Investigations by journalists, combined with recent sanctions by the UK and US governments, paint a picture of Iranian regime figures and their proxies using London property, UK-registered companies, and regulated financial institutions to launder wealth and maintain access to the global financial system. 

Over £200 million in London property 

In total, we have identified over £200 million worth of UK property bought by figures linked to the regime in Iran. The owners include sanctioned individuals and those accused of running money laundering operations on the regime’s behalf. 

The most striking example is that of Iran’s newly-announced Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. In January 2026, Bloomberg reported that Khamenei had built a global property empire worth hundreds of millions of pounds, with London at its centre. He is alleged to have amassed around £150 million in London property by investing through a proxy, the Iranian banker Ali Ansari, such that Khamenei’s name appears on none of the relevant documents. Ansari denies any financial relationship with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or with Motjaba Khamenei. 

A property on The Bishops Avenue in London, listed as being owned by a company called Birch Ventures. Photo: Google Maps

The portfolio includes a £73 million collection of derelict mansions on Bishops Avenue, purchased through an Isle of Man company called Birch Ventures Limited, a £33 million mansion on the same street bought in Ansari’s own name, and two apartments overlooking the Israeli embassy purchased in 2014 and 2016 for £16.7 million and £19 million respectively. 

Ansari assembled this property portfolio with the help of a UK-regulated, Iranian-born lawyer. The scale and nature of these acquisitions raise serious questions about how the UK’s anti-money laundering framework allowed this to happen over a period of many years. 

Crypto exchanges with a fictional CEO 

London property is only part of the story. A recent investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) found that two UK-registered crypto exchanges, Zedcex and Zedxion, allegedly formed a key channel for laundering billions in digital assets on behalf of Iranian interests linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

The supposed CEO of these exchanges, “Elizabeth Newman,” presented as a Dominican businesswoman in her 40s, appears not to exist. Marketing materials used a stock-footage model from Shutterstock, and images of other “staff” were also stock clips. Despite being declared dormant in UK Companies House filings, US authorities allege one of the platforms handled around $94 billion in total transactions, with approximately $1 billion linked to the IRGC. 

The network is tied to Iranian financier Babak Morteza Zanjani, previously sentenced to death in Iran for embezzling oil revenues, whose sentence was later commuted, and who has since been sanctioned by both the US and UK for generating funds and support for the IRGC. 

The UK’s corporate framework provided a veneer of legitimacy which allowed these exchanges to operate in plain sight. 

A hedge fund in Knightsbridge 

Another Bloomberg investigation uncovered how Hossein Shamkhani, son of the late Ali Shamkhani, a former top advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader, had established a money laundering network using London-based finance firms as a key node. Shamkhani has previously denied involvement in the commodity industry, but has since been sanctioned by the UK, US and EU. 

At the centre of this was Ocean Leonid Investments, a hedge fund operating from 180 Brompton Road in Knightsbridge, close to Harrods. Bloomberg described the fund as a central cog in the Shamkhani network, which handles Iranian and Russian crude flows and related trades. London, in other words, was functioning as part of this network’s command-and-control infrastructure. 

Offshore secrecy 

Iranian money laundering and sanctions evasion networks have also made use of opaque corporate structures in Britain’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated British Virgin Islands (BVI) companies as part of Iran’s illicit oil trade networks. Our own research has found that figures close to the regime have used BVI companies to invest in UK property. The Ansari properties, as noted above, made use of an Isle of Man company. 

Transparency InternationaI UK has long campaigned for greater corporate transparency in the UK’s offshore network. These cases show exactly why it matters. 

What needs to happen 

The cases outlined here are not historical curiosities. They represent live vulnerabilities in the UK’s defences against illicit finance. Iranian regime figures and their proxies have been able to use UK property, companies, and financial institutions with apparent ease. 

At a time when the geopolitical stakes around Iran could not be higher, the UK government needs to act. The global summit on Illicit Finance to be hosted here in June provides an ideal opportunity for the UK to show leadership in galvanising worldwide measures to tackle money laundering. This should include strong commitments to crack down on professional enablers who assist corrupt regimes in laundering funds through financial systems and property markets, as well as action to be taken on opening up company ownership information in opaque jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man. 

Four years ago, as Russian tanks rolled towards Kyiv, time was finally called on London serving as a safe haven for the dirty money of corrupt regimes. Yet even now, we still have a lot of cleaning up to do. 

Transparency International UK

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has taken the ax to over $22 billion in environmental-justice and DEI grants and contracts in order to help reprioritize the agency’s commitment to protecting human health and the environment, rather than allowing it and its mission to be co-opted by progressives who use them to further its own socialist agenda.

While former President Joe Biden was in office, his administration handed out billions of taxpayer dollars to a number of activist organizations that placed their ideological agenda ahead of taking action to legitimately provide solutions for environmental issues impacting communities across the United States. One of the most famous examples of this is failed Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.

Abrams was handed $2 billion by the Biden administration’s EPA to buy green energy appliances for Americans. “Stacey Abrams linked Power Forward Communities received $2 billion in tax dollars in 2024 after reporting just $100 in revenue the year before. They were so unqualified that the grant agreement required the NGO to complete ‘How to Develop a Budget’ training within 90 days,” Zeldin said in an interview with Fox News.

“$2 billion in hard earned tax dollars should not have been doled out to this organization for many reasons, especially if they don’t even know how to put together a budget. The Biden EPA ‘gold bars’ scheme is riddled with self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unnecessary middlemen, unqualified recipients, and massively reduced government oversight. The funds are currently frozen, and the DOJ and FBI are investigating,” he explained, according to the report.

“One Biden EPA staffer described the agency’s frantic multibillion-dollar spending spree at the end of the administration’s term as ‘tossing gold bars off the Titanic,’” Zeldin said in a piece he penned for The New York Post. “Those ‘gold bars’ were awarded to just eight pass-through nongovernmental organizations — including one tied to Georgia activist Stacey Abrams.”

Zeldin noted that this amount was, staggeringly, 20 million times more than Abrams’ group’s 2023 reported income, which was only $100. Later in the piece, Zeldin detailed his approach to the EPA and its mission, saying, “Instead of handing off the responsibility of environmental stewardship to unqualified NGOs, or prescribing every last solution from behind a desk in Washington, DC, I am visiting communities across our country, working with our state and local partners on the ground and meeting with Americans to understand the issues they face.”

He then wrote, “Nationwide, we need federal funding to advance that core mission: for new water infrastructure to ensure safe waterways and drinking water, air monitoring to ensure clean air, Superfund and brownfield remediation to protect community health and emergency responses to help rebuild in the face of unthinkable disaster.”

Concluding his piece, he spoke about President Trump and his promise of bringing the country into a new golden age, explaining that such a goal isn’t just for the elite, but for everyone. “When President Trump speaks about a golden age for America, it is for everyone. Under this administration, EPA is serving all Americans with equal dignity and respect — and providing real environmental solutions, not false.

American Tribune

 Sapping the will of Americans to remain dominant in world affairs will inevitably lead to a torpor at home, breeding depression and mass failure. 

William R. Hawkins | June 1, 2026

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated on May 29, “We gain concessions not through dialogue, but with missiles…. The winner of any agreement is whoever is better prepared for war the day after it.” This is not a new insight but a cold historical truth about the conduct of diplomacy between adversaries. As Prussia’s Frederick the Great put it some three centuries ago, “Diplomacy without arms is like a concert without instruments.” On the surface, this implies that outcomes reflect the balance of power. But the key element in Ghalibaf’s concept of “better prepared” is the willingness to go to war, as Iran is not better prepared in terms of military capability after having been pounded by U.S. and Israeli airpower. Yet, Tehran presents an iron will to fight on, counting on domestic politics to derail America’s vastly superior war effort. There are alarming signs that the Iranian Shiite theocrats may be correct.

Consider the media’s attempt to highlight every Iranian action as a victory, making the U.S. effort appear to be a lost cause. Headlines matter in a society with short attention spans and a weakness for sensationalism. On May 20, The Mirror proclaimed, “Report finds that Iran downed 42 U.S. fighter jets as war costs top $29 billion.” When one reads “fighter jets,” what comes to mind are the highly capable fighter-bombers of the U.S. Air Force and Navy. But when one reads the actual Congressional Research Service report cited, over half of these losses (25) are merely drones. Only five of the aircraft lost were manned fighter-bombers actually shot down, and three of these were ‘friendly fire” from Kuwaiti air defenses that mistook our aircraft for Iranian weapons. Iran “downed” only two USAF aircraft, an F-15 on April 5 and an A-10 on April 6 with all aircrew rescued. Given that we conducted at that point over 15,000 air attacks on Iranian targets, that is an amazing testimony as to the capability of American forces to overcome what was an extensive Iranian air defense network; one based on Russian and Chinese systems, which did not prove at all effective.

Two MC-130 transport planes were self-destructed when they became stuck and could not take off during the rescue operations of an F-15 crewman. One KC-135 refueling tanker was lost in a midair accident during which another KC-135 was damaged. Five more KC-135s were damaged, along with an E-3 warning and control aircraft on the ground at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, during an Iranian missile and drone attack. An F-35 was also damaged by Iranian ground fire but returned to base. So the details make the headline an outright lie, and the motive is obvious. As for the $29 billion price tag for the war — compare it to the $124.7 billion New York City budget for 2027 that Socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani released on May 12 ($16 billion of which is a line item for “fringe benefits”).

Mamdani’s antisemitism is well known and reflects his Democratic Socialists of America party. On Oct 7, 2023, the day Iran-backed Hamas terrorists slaughtered over 2,000 Israeli civilians and took hundreds more captive (most of whom died), the DSA claimed the terror attack was “not unprovoked” and “As socialists, we must act” to prevent Israeli from retaliating. When the air campaign to disarm the Tehran regime was launched, Ahmed Husain, a Shiite immigrant from Bahrain who sits on the DSA National Political Committee, conducted a video call to 1,000 activists demanding “hands off Iran” and “ending the U.S. empire.”  

The Democratic Party has been veering in the direction of the DSA for years. With the single exception of Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Senate Democrats have voted in lockstep to enact Husain’s agenda to end the war so the Tehran regime can survive with its nuclear ambitions intact. Digging deeper, the Orwellian-named “progressive” wing of the party has since Oct. 7 taken a more hostile stand toward both American influence in the Middle East and the very existence of Israel. Jacobin magazine, an avowed Marxist publication that has taken its name from the pre-Marxian Terror of the French Revolution (thus embracing domestic political violence), has made the nonsense claim that the Democrats lost the 2024 presidential election because they did not make the accusation of Israeli “genocide” in Gaza a more central part of their campaign!

There is nothing like those proclaiming to be the last champions of democracy turning on Israel, the only democracy in the region, when it is under existential attack by the minions of a dictatorship as brutal as the Tehran regime. But the Left is never really about democracy, as the system it wants to impose is based on force and oppression. The hostility against Israel is because it is part of the Judeo-Christian civilization of the West, led now by the United States. A civilization whose success in creating the modern world cannot be doubted, but can be discredited and overthrown by propaganda and mob violence. It is not at all surprising to see among the rioters demanding the release of criminal aliens from an I.C.E. detention center in New Jersey people dressed in Palestinian garb. Crime in the streets is a revolutionary tactic as it breaks down order and spreads fear.

The Left has always preyed on children, whose innocence is seen as ignorance, and whose “open minds” can be filled with what Rush Limbaugh politely called “mush” when a nastier term originating from where the sun don’t shine is more accurate. Control of the schools has thus long been their central strategy. Children are the future, a phrase well known to our enemies. Consider DSA member Deb Cesualdo, the newly elected vice president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association — an affiliate of the National Education Association teachers union. She has called for an uprising against the “fascist” United States and has accused Israel of “genocide” while trying to exclude material about the Nazi Holocaust from classrooms. She has denounced national borders as a “construct of colonizers.” A fine message for the 250th anniversary of when our colonizing forefathers declared independence so they would have more freedom to expand and build America into history’s greatest example of true progress and human achievement, the envy of the world. No wonder feelings of patriotism among the young decline while in public schools. Fortunately, it recovers with maturity and experience in the real world.

Yet, we are still at a disadvantage when our enemies run loose amongst us. We have given various generations letters like X and Z, but in China they have Generation N, for Nationalism. Chinese youth have the same anxieties as American kids. Growing up is difficult, but the work ethic is crucial to getting it done. Few would doubt there is a gap in this regard across the Pacific. Beijing drums patriotism into its students, but in this case, state propaganda is based on truth. Chinese students know that they are not likely to succeed if the country they live in fails. Growth and the power to shape the future create opportunity. One can debate (and should) what policies produce the best results, but the principle cannot be disputed.

Interestingly, as historian Victor David Hanson has noted, “increasingly popular on the left and among the hate-Trump crowd on the right — is that the communist colossus will be forever ascendant… In this pessimistic view, China will soon replace America as the world’s predominant power.” But on the Left, is this a pessimistic view or an optimistic one since the decline of America is their goal? Sapping the will of Americans to remain dominant in world affairs will inevitably lead to a torpor at home, breeding depression and mass failure. The collapse of great nations starts from within before they succumb to external threats. We are in a testing time for America’s resolution and self-confidence.

William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who has worked for several Washington think tanks and on the staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications including for the Army War College, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the National Defense University, among others. 

Catherine Salgado

Over a thousand faculty and staff for the University of California have signed an open letter, begging the university to reinstate standardized testing requirements for incoming science and mathematics majors.

The letter reveals that up to a third of first semester calculus students in the California university system bombed their math diagnostic tests, as just one example of the disturbing numbers the letter highlighted to make the case for reinstating SAT and ACT requirements. UC eliminated its requirement for standardized test scores for applicants back in 2020, during the educationally disastrous COVID-19 lockdowns, and it has been all downhill since then. The SAT and ACT are hardly the gold standards of academic rigor nowadays, but they are at least a bare minimum threshold, which numerous UC students simply cannot meet.

UC STEM professors and staff are dealing with a motley assortment of students with wildly differing competency levels. “Basic mathematical fluency is analogous to literacy,” and success at a university in STEM classes is “structurally unattainable for students” who don’t have it, the UC letter — last updated May 30 — explains. “We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics, and other quantitatively demanding fields.” 

Nor is the huge range of skill levels fair to students who are prepared. Meanwhile, UC professors predict yet longer times to achieve degrees and fewer people completing STEM majors. UC students need to spend less time protesting for “Palestine” and more time with the multiplication table.

Read Also: The Palestinian Principal Named Hitler and Jihadis’ Love of Nazism

The letter provides some data:

The UC San Diego Senate-Administration Workgroup on Admissions report documents this crisis in stark terms: in the last five years, the number of students whose mathematics skills fall below high school level increased nearly thirtyfold; moreover, 70% of those students fall below middle school levels, reaching roughly one in twelve members of the entering cohort. These findings are corroborated by data across our campuses. For example, for three consecutive years, 20-30% of UC Berkeley first-semester calculus students who participated in mathematical diagnostic testing displayed severe preparation deficits.

While complimenting UC on helping what they called underresourced students pick up the slack in math, they also emphasize that there are only so many students who can receive university resources this way. And as my personal note, if you can’t meet the basic qualifications for entering college, which are lower now than almost any other time in history, you shouldn’t be in college. Part of the problem with our modern system is that loads of jobs require college degrees that don’t really need them. And huge numbers of American youth attend university for little more reason than to get an extremely expensive job qualification or because it gives them four more years to put off adulthood.

I think the unfortunate conclusion of all this is that leftist Commies set out to turn our education system into little more than a political and sexual indoctrination system, teaching little if anything useful and academic, and they were all too successful.

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at PJ Media, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

The digital euro ranks among the most ambitious projects within the political architecture of the European Union. 

Thomas Kolbe | June 1, 2026

Cyber dollars represent a major innovation within blockchain technology. In particular, they enable real-time transfers, operate without banking holidays, and provide access outside the traditional SWIFT system for anyone with an internet connection.

Users essentially need nothing more than a smartphone and an installed wallet app — no traditional bank account required. Another advantage lies in potentially lower fees and, in some cases, higher yields, since providers avoid the bloated administrative structures of traditional banks. Stablecoins undoubtedly represent a major increase in individual sovereignty — at least until issuers, possibly under government pressure, decide to freeze access to users’ holdings.

The fact that the eurozone has so far neither agreed on a digital CBDC control standard nor trapped citizens inside such a digital financial prison stems from several factors. One is technological. The threat posed by quantum computing dramatically intensifies the risks involved. A centralized digital financial system such as the euro-CBDC would face massive hacking attempts and manipulation from the moment of its launch. This is the classic weakness of centralized systems: they provide attackers with one clearly defined point of attack. Moreover, the European Union and the Eurosystem together form an overbureaucratized and fully centralized power structure that inevitably lags behind current technological standards.

For precisely this reason, decentralized financial ecosystems such as the Bitcoin network are technologically superior. Bitcoin is secured by a decentralized network of independent miners and node operators. Every participant defends the structure out of direct self-interest. With well over 100 million Bitcoin holders worldwide and tens of thousands of miners, an almost impenetrable protective wall emerges. Contrary to Nagel’s remarks in the interview, the commercial banking sector is obviously also resisting the centralization of the financial system in the hands of the ECB. The reason is simple: a full rollout of the digital euro would make the traditional banking business model — accounts, savings products, and transfer services — largely obsolete.

But the real reason there has so far been relative calm on the CBDC front inside the Eurosystem becomes obvious once one observes the speed at which global capital flees crisis zones. The introduction of a CBDC would signal that the ECB intends to build in a mechanism for capital controls, possibly in anticipation of a full-scale financial or sovereign debt crisis in the euro area. A dramatic surge in interest rates triggered by a selloff in European bonds would once again force the ECB to intervene as lender of last resort, on a scale potentially far greater than anything seen during the financial and sovereign debt crises of the past decade and a half. Such intervention would inevitably raise fundamental questions about the long-term stability of the euro itself.

That the eurozone will eventually face another debt crisis is hardly in doubt. The only uncertainty is timing — namely, when bond markets, confronted with Europe’s relentless debt binge, in which even Germany is now enthusiastically participating, will finally give the thumbs down.

American Thinker

HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD: Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are FACTS.

Up until the 1980’s, Social Security cards expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the “NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION” message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in brackets.

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary [No longer voluntary],

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program [Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year [No longer tax deductible]

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent]

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed].

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following.

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

AND MY FAVORITE:

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!

The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, though.

Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so but it’s worth a try.

How many people can YOU send this to?

X