Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org

And the terrorists can thank Rep. Ilhan Omar. After six months of Iran using its Houthi Jihadis to impose a blockade near Yemen while defying Biden to do anything about it, the Islamic global terror state is moving on to a Somali blockade. Current reports suggest that the Houthis, an Iranian Shiite terror group, is negotiating to provide weapons to Yemen’s Al-Shabaab, a Sunni Jihadist group allied with Al Qaeda, to expand Iran’s control over shipping. While Al-Shabaab has operated using the conventional Al Qaeda playbook of rifles and IEDs, the Houthis (pictured above) can offer upgraded drones and missile technology. And best of all the Houthis can claim that the weapons were battle tested on the US Navy. When the Houthis began their naval blockade, the Biden administration had the opportunity to shut it down. Instead, a US Navy carrier group has been tied up for months with no results. The AP headlined its recent coverage as “US Navy faces its most intense combat since World War I

Biden recently visited the Holocaust Museum and delivered a speech in which he pledged an “ironclad” commitment to the “security of Israel”. On Wednesday, Biden sat down with CNN and announced an arms embargo on Israel. This is bad news for the Jewish State, but it’s also bad news for every nation to whom Biden had offered his “ironclad” commitments in the past. And that turns out to be much of the world. In March, Biden had greeted Polish President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Donald Tusk at the White House and vowed that, “America’s commitment to Poland is ironclad.” In April, ahead of a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Biden promised, “The United States defense commitments to Japan and to the Philippines are ironclad. They’re ironclad.” Then at a press conference with Prime Minister Kishida, Biden touted another, now discredited, ironclad promise. “As I told Prime Minister Netanyahu, our commitment to Israel’s security

On Saturday morning, Biden shuffled into a media scrum on the South Lawn to offer a few remarks before heading to Camp David for a weekend vacation after his Carribean vacation. 8,000 miles away voters in the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan, had just elected President ‘William’ Lai who had promised to preserve the nation’s independence from its greedy Communist superpower neighbor. “Mr. President, do you have a reaction to the Taiwan election?” a reporter asked. “We do not support independence,” Biden mumbled. He did not congratulate Taiwan’s new president-elect because that would offend China. In December, Chinese Communist dictator Xi Jinping told Biden at a San Francisco summit that the ChiComs were preparing to take Taiwan, but did not have an exact timetable yet. During the summit, China demanded that Biden issue a statement in favor of “peaceful reunification” and against the continuation of Taiwanese independence from the Communist dictatorship. Biden has given Xi half o

When globalism’s obituary is finally written, and the mourners file past in their crisp suits and pantsuits, the cause of death will almost certainly read, the People’s Republic of China. China is the most obvious offender. Even before the Wuhan Virus cut off countries from each other, the Communist oligarchy had abused the world economy with massive digital theft, even more massive counterfeiting, product dumping, and every possible form of economic warfare. That’s why any halfway serious adult on the other side supported Trump’s fight against China. Even George Soros, the uber-globalist, called Trump's trade war with China his greatest achievement. The source of Soros' opposition is the fear he expressed at Davos that the PRC's social credit system could "sound the death knell of open societies". By open societies, he meant globalism. Unlike many, Soros isn’t worried about the loss of personal freedom, but the endurance of the nation state. China, like Russia, h

Those who define the oppressors and the oppressed get to perpetrate the genocide. Whether the Jews and Arab Muslims in the Middle East, the Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka, Hispanics and Indians in South America, or the Chinese in Indonesia, decolonization is a euphemism for the majoritarian oppression of minority groups in the name of liberation. Western anti-colonialism allied with Third World nationalist tribal movements in the name of opposing imperialism and colonialism. Rather than offering equality and human rights, these movements routinely launched programs of ‘decolonization’ which defined citizenship in the newly liberated nation around the ethnicity, language and culture of the majority. Everything from access to higher education to property ownership was reserved for members of their tribe. Western leftists cheered as ‘democratic socialist’ people’s republics spread this program of ethnic, religious and racial repression across Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of t

After the Cold War, what is the biggest threat to America? The debate between Obama and Romney famously bogged down over the question of whether Russia was our biggest geopolitical foe. While Obama slammed Romney’s answer as a Cold War relic, after losing the next election, his party defines its foreign policy and domestic opposition around the fear that Russia is now more of a threat than ever. Answers by other politicians have ranged from the structural, the national debt and internal divisions, to the inanimate and absurd; Bernie Sanders’ claim that global warming is our top national security threat. But assessments that name conditions rather than threat vectors are unhelpful because even when they are right, they tell us to address a weakness or failure, rather than meeting an external threat. Being able to name and define external threats is vital for reaching informed national security decisions. The debates over border security, Syria, Afghanistan, and Russian information

For generations it was received wisdom in foreign policy circles that the United States was hated because we supported tyrants who repressed the "will of the people". The point of reception was originally the propaganda desks of Moscow. The theme was picked up and expanded on by every scribbler who hoped that if the British-backed monarchies of the Middle East fell, they would be replaced by proper Socialist republics. The kings fell, but were replaced by army officers who built their own wacky versions of Socialism. Some versions, like Gaddafi's, were wackier than others. Most were just banana republics. Despite their persecution of Communists and assorted domestic leftists, these Socialist republics had no difficulty allying with the Soviet Union. And at no point in time, at least not until the fall of the USSR, did the foreign policy experts suggest that the Soviet Union was in danger of alienating the Arab Street by supporting tyrants. But when it came to the Unit