Yesterday, during Turning Point USA's AmericaFest conference in Phoenix, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a speech warning that "Islamist ideology" represents the single greatest threat to American freedom and Western civilization. 

Tulsi, recently appointed to her role in the Trump administration, described Islamism as a "political ideology that seeks to create a global caliphate" governed by Sharia law, rejecting individual liberty, democracy, and the U.S. Constitution. 

She said that this ideology is completely incompatible with American values and poses a direct threat to liberty, urging vigilance against its spread within the U.S.

The audience roared with applause, particularly when Gabbard highlighted the ideology's aim to impose a global caliphate. Clearly, Americans do not want a caliphate.

She cited examples of its influence, including the cancellation of Christmas markets in Germany due to security threats and the growing presence in U.S. cities like Dearborn, Michigan (which she jokingly called "the fourth holiest city in the Muslim world"), Paterson, New Jersey, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Gabbard framed the threat as multifaceted, coming in forms such as terrorism, cultural infiltration, and ideological propagation, and called for action to prevent its entrenchment in America.

The US is certainly not alone in this….

Cue: Australia

In response to the deadly mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Sydney, which killed 15 people and injured dozens during a Hanukkah celebration, the Australian state is moving to ban the pro Palestinian slogan "globalize the intifada." 

The attack, described as ISIS inspired and antisemitic, prompted NSW Premier Chris Minns to announce tougher laws against hate speech, extremist symbols, and public displays of flags associated with groups like the Islamic State (ISIS). 

The debate is as follows: Is “globalize the Intafada” simply an innocent and peaceful statement? Or is it a much darker phrase masking a call for violence?

The slogan, often chanted by either Islamists at pro Palestinian protests or by the lesser educated and often easily manipulated leftists, is interpreted by authorities as referring to Palestinian uprisings against Israel that involved straight up terrorism…. The Intafadas in Israel were basically just a long string of terror attacks. Bus bombings, stabbings, hotel, the whole works.

Why the West would allow something like this is obviously a question.

If this is simply an act against free speech, that’s one thing. However if this is genuinely a call for violence, as we are lead to believe, then that is entirely different.

The proposed legislation would classify "globalize the intifada" as hate speech, potentially carrying penalties of up to two years in jail. Though if genuinely a call for violence, “hate speech” seems like a sub par classification.

It also includes bans on ISIS flags, other extremist symbols, and gives police greater powers to remove face coverings at protests to prevent anonymity during potentially violent gatherings. This follows similar restrictions in the UK, where police have begun arresting individuals for using the chant at demonstrations.

Since the war with Iran has supposedly ended… things have been awfully quiet. Or so it seems.

Sirens across Israel have stopped. People are back to work and fun. The tension that once filled the air is progressively thinning. There’s almost a sense of celebration, as if the danger truly passed. Even Donald Trump, boasting on social media, claims credit for “ending” the war and securing peace between Israel and Iran.

But beneath the calm, a different reality is emerging. One that needs to be addressed.

For years, Iran has posed two distinct threats against Israel and the West: One being its nuclear program and the other, its ballistic missile arsenal. 

The June conflict may have crippled Tehran’s nuclear ambitions somewhat…. Israeli intelligence believes the strike delayed Iran’s atomic progress by at least two years, as reported by The Jerusalem Post, with minimal progress made to accelerate recovery.

and even this data point is subject to immense debate amongst experts.

But one thing is certain…. The attack left Iran’s missile program largely intact. And in some ways, that second threat may prove far more dangerous.

Iran’s obsession with ballistic missiles transcends its own borders. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, the Islamic Republic and its proxies have built entire military doctrines around rockets. The war in mid 2025 proved their potential for massive damage.

When Iran launched over 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, the IDF’s Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 systems managed to intercept about 86% of them…. a staggering success by any Western standard. Yet the remaining 36 missiles still tore through Israel’s defenses, killing 28 civilians, wounding thousands, and damaging more than 13,000 homes.

Now imagine the scenario with 3,000, 5,000, or even 10,000 missiles. Even an 86% success rate would not be enough. 

That’s precisely the fact driving Netaynahu’s current calculations.

According to Israeli and Western intelligence, Iran is rebuilding its missile industry at alarming speed, reportedly with Chinese assistance. Before the June conflict, Tehran’s arsenal was estimated at around 2,500 missiles. Post war assessments suggest that number dropped maybe by half. Yet if Iran ramps up production, around 300 missiles per month, not the 3,000 falsely  claimed by NBC,  it could restore its pre war capacity within months, as critiqued by The Jerusalem Post.

The problem isn’t just the missiles. It’s perception. As well as Western reliance on Israeli intelligence….

As Jerusalem Post’s Yonah Jeremy Bob points out: exaggerated or inaccurate reports, like NBC’s inflated missile numbers, risk undermining Israel’s credibility. Nobody is checking to see whether Israel actually made those claims, or if some under-informed reporter made a mistake in the teleprompter and boom, now the world thinks Israel’s intelligence is way off base.

The world has seen this pattern before: Israeli warnings dismissed as over embellished alarmism, only to be proven true too late. But if the data appears inconsistent or overblown, allies hesitate, public opinion shifts, and deterrence erodes. 

“Come on, Iran can’t be that bad”....Or “Come on, China has no interest in helping Iran.” (They do, by the way, as their biggest buyer of oil)... This is the dismissive attitude plaguing the West.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s planned meeting with President Trump next week will likely address these very concerns. Sources in both Washington and Jerusalem suggest that Israel wants a clear red line…. a U.S. backed understanding that if Iran’s missile buildup crosses a certain threshold, Israel can strike again, with or without American participation.

Will Israel strike alone? Or will Trump join in the action this time? 

To outside observers, the optics may resemble friction between the two leaders…mainly disagreements over timing, diplomacy, or election year politics. But history has taught us that when tension surfaces publicly, it may well be masking private coordination. This was true for the last Iranian strike against the Fordow nuclear facility.

The real question now is not whether Iran will rebuild its arsenal to full capacity and beyond. It’s how long Israel will wait before acting again, and whether it will do so alone.

So, as the quiet stretches on, one may ask: Is the war truly over? Or are we simply gearing up for an even larger one?

I’m sure you've heard the story by now…..The United States has begun ramping up its enforcement of long standing sanctions by seizing Venezuelan linked oil tankers all throughout this month (December 2025). 

This operation, described by the White House as a targeted "blockade," aims to sever Venezuela's oil export lifeline, which Washington claims fuels "narco terrorism" and regional instability. 

The shift from passive sanctions to active military interventions by the US Coast Guard and Navy represents a significant escalation, drawing sharp international backlash, though so far, the evidence shows Trump is mostly correct in his actions.

The campaign builds on sanctions first imposed in 2019, now backed by Treasury designations and federal court warrants. US officials have not ruled out expanding to land based strikes if Venezuela doesn't get their act together

The buildup began in August, when the US deployed naval forces to the southern Caribbean for the purpose of anti drug operations. 

Marines conducted live fire exercises near Venezuela's coast, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggesting the maneuvers were far from routine. Analysts interpreted this as groundwork for confronting Venezuelan assets directly. Clearly something was brewing.

By October, reports surfaced of US preparations to potentially seize airfields and ports, signaling President Trump's determination to intensify pressure on Maduro.

The seizures kicked off on December 10, with the boarding of the "Skipper," a very large crude carrier (VLCC) carrying 1.9 million barrels of oil destined for Cuba and Asia. 

Operating without a flag as part of Venezuela's "shadow fleet," (the first red flag) the vessel was intercepted by Coast Guard teams supported by Navy helicopters. 

It was later offloaded in the Galveston Offshore Lightering Area near Houston on December 21. 

Venezuelan officials condemned the action as "blatant theft" and "international piracy."

From December 11 to 17, intelligence indicated more intercepts were in the works, focusing on ships tied to Venezuelan, Iranian, or Russian oil trades. 

In response, Maduro directed the Venezuelan Navy to escort tankers to the edge of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), leading to a suspension of at least three shipments totaling 6 million barrels.

On December 20, US forces captured the Panama flagged "Centuries" in international waters, which carried 1.8 million barrels of Merey crude oil supposedly bound for China. 

Though not explicitly sanctioned, the White House labeled it part of the illicit "shadow fleet" dealing in "stolen oil." 

The crew offered no resistance, and Vice President Delcy Rodríguez called it "theft and hijacking," pledging to escalate the matter to the UN. 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem released striking images of the operation largely to prove Trump’s claims that these seizures were justified.

The following day (December 21), saw the pursuit of a third "dark fleet" vessel flying a false flag in the Caribbean Sea, authorized by a judicial seizure order for "illegal sanctions evasion." 

International reactions have officially peaked today, with China's Foreign Ministry calling out the seizures as a "serious violation of international law" and defending Venezuela's trade rights. 

Iran swiftly offered comprehensive support….political, economic, and defensive, to help Caracas "confront US piracy."

Spot how quickly China and Iran are willing to jump into a fight with the US? 

We can see very clear alliances forming. 

China and Iran seem to be parallel in their stance on foreign policy, always supporting one another. 

Why? What purpose does this serve? Do they simply have a good heart and care deeply about the sanctity of foreign policy? Of course not! 

Obviously there's money on the line….Control and power on the line.

The aim is to knock the West of their pedestal while there’s still a chance.

Venezuela's oil infrastructure is vast but vulnerable: Over 70-80 tankers operate in its waters, with 30-38 designated as US-sanctioned components of the "shadow fleet," employing disguised identities and ghost operations to bypass restrictions. These networks frequently incorporate Iranian or Russian crude, bolstering ties among sanctioned nations.

Exports to China, Venezuela's top buyer, were projected at over 600,000 barrels per day in December. Following the seizures, shipments have plummeted, with vessels lingering in safe waters to evade capture. 

Public opinion remains deeply divided. Supporters of the US actions, often aligned with Trump’s sentiments, view the seizures as essential for curbing Maduro's illegal revenue, halting drug flows, and safeguarding American interests. They praise the moves as a tough stance against authoritarian regimes.

Critics, including international observers and obviously the more left leaning activists, are against the operations…Calling them outright "piracy" and violations of international law, accusing the US of imperial overreach and risking unnecessary escalation.

Neutral analysts focus on practical implications: Some highlight potential disruptions to global oil markets and question the legality of targeting unsanctioned vessels, while others note Venezuela's naval escorts as a symbolic but ultimately ineffective countermeasure beyond its territorial waters.

Overall, right leaning voices celebrate Trump's assertiveness, whereas the empathetic but often misguided left leaning and global commentators condemn it as aggressive imperialism that could spark wider conflicts.

As the blockade intensifies, several risks are exposed…. 

The seizures could provoke a direct US/Venezuela confrontation, especially with Maduro's escorts and Iran's backing, potentially evolving from maritime intercepts to potential battlefield scenarios….The same scenarios that Pete Hegseth is training the Marines for.

Economically, the US threatens Venezuela's collapse while spiking global oil prices, with China's role as a major buyer adding even more layers of geopolitical complexity.

Legally, debates rage on over whether these are valid enforcement measures or robbery.

The emerging anti US alliances…spanning Iran, China, and potentially other BRICS nations, signal a united front against Western sanctions wherever they may lie.

Domestically, Trump's strategy ties into his drug war narrative, positioning it as a win ahead of the 2026 midterms. 

On the human front, Venezuelan claims of crew disappearances and environmental hazards from potential spills underscore the broader costs.

Does Trump want a regime change in Venezuela as Pam Bondi pointed out? Is he trying to curb Chinese and Russian influence? Or is he simply trying to grab the oil?