Modern alliances can look contradictory when viewed in isolation. Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained a relationship with Vladimir Putin even as Russia built close relationships with Iran and, more recently, Hamas. His government cultivated relationships with nationalist and populist political parties in Europe despite antisemitism within parts of the European far right. And before October 7, Israeli governments permitted Qatari money to flow into Hamas-controlled Gaza, a policy Netanyahu’s critics—including former senior Israeli security officials—argued helped preserve Hamas as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority.

None of this means these actors secretly share the same ideology.

It means states and political movements routinely cooperate with people they dislike when their interests temporarily align.

And that pattern is hardly new.

Subscribe now

The history of Poland, Russia, European Jewry and eventually Israel is filled with exactly these kinds of alliances: revolutionaries working with nationalists, nationalists working with Zionists, Zionists dealing with fascists and communists, and great powers supporting movements they would later regard as enemies.

The story begins centuries before the Holocaust.

The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Its Jews

Jews had lived in Poland for centuries before Adolf Hitler came to power.

The Kingdom of Poland and later the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth became one of Europe’s most important centers of Jewish life. At various points, Jews fleeing persecution elsewhere in Europe found considerably greater religious and economic freedom there.

The Statute of Kalisz, issued in 1264 and later expanded, granted important protections to Jewish communities. The Warsaw Confederation of 1573 became another landmark in the Commonwealth’s unusually broad tradition of religious toleration.

But tolerance did not mean equality in the modern sense.

The Commonwealth operated through a complicated feudal hierarchy. Jewish merchants, administrators, and leaseholders sometimes occupied an intermediary position between powerful landowners and overwhelmingly Christian peasant populations.

That arrangement could be economically advantageous while also making Jewish communities vulnerable.

When peasants rebelled against Polish magnates, resentment could be directed not only toward the aristocracy but toward the Jewish administrators associated with it.

Those tensions became particularly explosive during the seventeenth-century Cossack uprisings and would leave historical memories that survived for generations.

Yet Polish-Jewish history cannot be reduced to hostility.

Jews also participated in Polish struggles against Russian imperial rule.

Jewish volunteers joined the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794, and Jews participated in later Polish independence movements, including the January Uprising of 1863.

There was even an American connection.

Kościuszko had fought alongside the Americans during the Revolutionary War before returning to Europe to fight for Polish independence. Meanwhile, Haym Salomon, a Jewish financier born in Leszno in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, became an important financier of the American revolutionary cause and died penniless.

In Warsaw in 1861, Jewish student Michał Landy was killed by Russian troops during a Polish patriotic demonstration. Landy’s death became a powerful symbol of Polish-Jewish solidarity against Russian rule.

That solidarity mattered because Poland itself had disappeared from the map.

Between 1772 and 1795, Russia, Prussia and Austria partitioned the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, eliminating an independent Polish state for 123 years.

The result was generations of revolutionaries plotting against the empires that had divided their homeland.

Revolution Comes to the Russian Empire

The revolutionary underground was not confined to Poland.

In December 1825, Russian officers and aristocrats launched the failed Decembrist Revolt against the imperial government.

One of their most radical leaders, Colonel Pavel Pestel, negotiated with members of the Polish Patriotic Society as the conspirators explored cooperation against the tsarist regime.

The revolt failed.

But the revolutionary movement didn’t disappear.

It became more radical.

And in 1881, it finally killed the tsar.

The Polish Noble Who Assassinated Alexander II

Ignacy Hryniewiecki was born in 1856 into a Polish Catholic noble family in territory that is now Belarus.

He joined Narodnaya Volya—People’s Will, the revolutionary organization determined to destroy the Russian autocracy.

On March 13, 1881, Hryniewiecki threw the bomb that mortally wounded Tsar Alexander II.

Hryniewiecki himself died from the explosion.

The assassination did not produce the revolution its perpetrators hoped for.

It produced repression.

And it was followed by something even more destructive: a wave of anti-Jewish violence across the Russian Empire.

One of the Narodnaya Volya revolutionaries involved in a later plot to assassinate Alexander III in 1887 was Alexander Ulyanov.

He was executed.

His younger brother was:

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov—Lenin.

Pogroms and the Politics of Divide and Conquer

After Alexander II’s assassination, more than 200 anti-Jewish disturbances occurred across the Russian Empire in 1881–82, particularly in territories that today include Ukraine and Poland.

Some became major pogroms.

Kiev.

Odessa.

Warsaw.

The Warsaw episode is particularly revealing.

On Christmas Day 1881, someone shouted a false warning of fire inside Warsaw’s crowded Holy Cross Church. The resulting stampede killed 29 people.

Rumors then spread that Jewish pickpockets were responsible.

The result was a pogrom.

Two people were killed, dozens injured and Jewish businesses and homes were devastated.

Prominent Polish intellectuals—including Eliza Orzeszkowa and Bolesław Prus—condemned the violence.

More importantly, historians have debated whether Russian authorities or provocateurs helped inflame the unrest in an effort to fracture Polish-Jewish cooperation.

Whatever responsibility Russian officials bore for particular pogroms, the broader political tactic is well documented.

The tsarist secret police—the Okhrana—became extraordinarily sophisticated at infiltrating opposition movements, manufacturing disinformation and encouraging divisions among the government’s enemies.

Share

A later CIA historical study described the strategy explicitly as divide and conquer.

One of the most notorious figures was Pyotr Rachkovsky, head of the Okhrana’s Foreign Bureau.

The CIA study describes Rachkovsky as an early practitioner of techniques we would now recognize as active measures and perception management. It also discusses allegations connecting him or his milieu to the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Most strikingly, the study observes that the political exploitation of antisemitism did not disappear with the tsars.

Similar tactics resurfaced during the Soviet era since the NKVD were previously Okhrana members.

That is an important thread running through this entire story:

Turn different groups against each other, and the state has fewer unified opponents to confront.

Revolution, Civil War and the White Émigrés

Then came 1917.

The Russian Revolution destroyed the Romanov monarchy. The subsequent civil war produced atrocities on an enormous scale and sent waves of anti-Bolshevik Russians into exile.

Many White émigrés interpreted Bolshevism through an explicitly antisemitic lens.

The prominence of Jewish revolutionaries such as Leon Trotsky was transformed into a conspiracy theory portraying communism itself as a Jewish project—even though the revolutionary movement contained people from numerous ethnic and religious backgrounds and the Soviet state would later conduct its own antisemitic campaigns.

That mythology migrated west with the émigrés.

And according to historian Michael Kellogg, it became one of the ideological currents feeding the emerging German radical right.

The Russian Roots of Nazism?

Kellogg’s The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945 challenges the idea that Nazism developed entirely within Germany.

His argument is more specific than saying that White Russians simply “created Nazism.”

Kellogg documents extensive cooperation between radical German nationalists and anti-Bolshevik White émigrés.

One important organization was Aufbau, a conspiratorial German–White Russian network that cooperated with Adolf Hitler and the early Nazi movement during the crucial years of 1920–23.

White émigrés contributed money, political contacts, military experience and ideological material to Germany’s radical right.

The significance is not that Nazism was secretly Russian.

It is that extremist movements rarely develop inside neat national boxes.

Ideas, money, propaganda and political grievances cross borders.

That pattern would repeat itself.

Poland’s Surprising Alliance With Zionism

By the 1930s, relations between Poles and Jews had deteriorated substantially.

Antisemitism was increasingly visible in Polish politics and society. Jewish communities faced discrimination and growing separation from the Christian majority.

Yet at precisely this moment, another seemingly contradictory alliance developed.

The Polish government cooperated with Revisionist Zionists.

For Warsaw, Zionism offered a potential outlet for Jewish emigration while also serving Polish geopolitical objectives.

For Revisionist Zionists, Poland offered something extremely valuable:

military training.

Polish institutions helped train members of the Irgun and the Revisionist youth movement Betar.

Uniformed Betar members appeared at Polish public ceremonies. Polish military officers provided weapons instruction. Future Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, himself born in Brest, even urged Betar members to defend Poland if war came.

It is one of history’s stranger political arrangements:

A Polish nationalist government containing powerful antisemitic currents was simultaneously helping train Jewish nationalists who wanted to establish a state in Palestine.

The contradiction disappears once you look at interests rather than ideology.

Both sides thought they could use the relationship to achieve their own objectives.

Britain, Palestine and the Suez Canal

Britain added another layer to the equation.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 announced British support for establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

British policy reflected multiple motivations—wartime diplomacy, domestic politics, religious and ideological sympathies, and imperial strategy.

Palestine also sat beside one of the British Empire’s most important strategic arteries:

the Suez Canal.

But British support for Zionism eventually collided with Britain’s need to maintain stability across its Arab territories.

As Jewish immigration increased and conflict between Jewish and Arab communities intensified, London progressively restricted immigration.

The relationship between Britain and militant Zionism deteriorated dramatically.

And once again, yesterday’s partner became today’s enemy.

Zionism’s Alliances With the Great Powers

The struggle for a Jewish state produced alliances that look astonishing in retrospect.

Some Zionist activists negotiated with authoritarian European governments to facilitate Jewish emigration.

By the 1940s, underground organizations such as the Irgun and Lehi were fighting the British themselves.

And then came an even stranger partner:

Joseph Stalin.

Why Stalin Helped Israel

In 1947–48, the Soviet Union supported the partition of Palestine and permitted communist-controlled Czechoslovakia to become a crucial arms supplier to the emerging Israeli state.

The timeline matters.

June 1947: Jewish Agency and Haganah representatives were already pursuing Czechoslovak weapons.

January 1948: A major contract was signed covering rifles, MG-34 machine guns and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition.

February 25: Communist leader Klement Gottwald completed his seizure of power in Czechoslovakia.

March 10: Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk—the last remaining non-communist with ties to the British—died after falling from a window at the Foreign Ministry. A death that remains historically controversial.

March 31: A major clandestine weapons shipment reached Palestine as part of what became Operation Balak.

May 14: Israel declared independence.

By that point, the Czechoslovak arms pipeline was already operating.

The weapons, aircraft and training supplied through Czechoslovakia became critically important to Israel during the 1948 war.

So why would Stalin help create Israel?

Because Stalin wasn’t necessarily helping Zionism.

He was pursuing Soviet strategy.

A new Jewish state could weaken Britain’s position in Palestine, accelerate Britain’s retreat from the Middle East, disrupt existing Western relationships with Arab governments and potentially create an opening for Soviet influence.

Czechoslovakia was the perfect intermediary.

It possessed a sophisticated arms industry while rapidly falling under Moscow’s political control.

Once again, ideology took a back seat to geopolitics.

Israel’s War Against Britain

Meanwhile, the Zionist underground was escalating its campaign against British rule.

The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, killing 91 people.

The more radical Lehi, commonly known as the Stern Gang, also conducted assassinations and attacks against British officials and even sent a letter bomb to President Harry Truman in 1947.

The result was an extraordinary geopolitical reversal.

Britain had issued the Balfour Declaration.

Three decades later, Jewish underground organizations were violently fighting Britain while weapons from Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe flowed into Palestine.

Enter Robert Maxwell

One of the more mysterious figures appearing around the Czechoslovak-Israeli story is Robert Maxwell.

Authors John Loftus and Mark Aarons, in The Secret War Against the Jews, claimed that Maxwell used his Czechoslovak contacts to help Israel obtain weapons and aircraft components during the 1948 conflict.

His publishing empire secured lucrative rights to distribute Soviet scientific and technical publications in the West.

He developed remarkable access behind the Iron Curtain.

Later allegations connected him variously to British intelligence, Soviet intelligence and—most famously—Israel’s Mossad.

Whether every intelligence allegation about Maxwell is true is almost beside the larger point.

His career illustrates a recurring feature of the Cold War:

Certain businessmen could move between worlds that were supposedly mortal enemies.

Armand Hammer: Capitalist, Kremlin Insider—and Israel

Few people embodied that contradiction better than Armand Hammer.

Hammer’s relationship with Moscow stretched all the way back to Lenin.

He conducted business with successive generations of Soviet leaders and enjoyed a degree of Kremlin access almost unimaginable for an American capitalist.

That produced decades of suspicion about what Hammer actually was.

Businessman?

Unofficial diplomat?

Soviet asset?

Intelligence intermediary?

Edward Jay Epstein’s 1996 biography Dossier portrayed Hammer as effectively functioning as a Soviet operative whose commercial activities overlapped with Moscow’s and Tel Aviv’s political and intelligence interests. Other observers were more skeptical. One former Soviet intelligence figure argued that Hammer ultimately worked for one person above all others:

himself.

But Hammer’s Israel connections make the story even more interesting.

Despite extensive business relationships in the Arab world, Hammer quietly maintained relationships with senior Israeli leaders.

He served as an intermediary carrying messages between Israeli officials and Moscow.

Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres publicly acknowledged Hammer’s unusual role in the 1980s.

Hammer also invested heavily in Israeli energy exploration and used his Soviet connections to intervene on behalf of Soviet Jewish dissidents, including helping secure the departure of prominent refuseniks.

Here again was a man operating simultaneously across supposedly incompatible political systems:

American capitalism.

Soviet communism.

Arab oil.

Israel.

The Soviet-Israeli Relationship Turns

The Soviet opening toward Israel didn’t last.

By late 1948, American diplomatic reporting was already detecting restrictions on Czechoslovak assistance.

Moscow’s strategic calculations were changing.

Israel was not becoming the socialist Soviet-aligned foothold some in Moscow may have hoped for. Meanwhile, Arab nationalism presented the Kremlin with much larger geopolitical opportunities.

Over the following decades, the Soviet Union increasingly backed Arab governments while publicly claiming relations with Israel deteriorated.

The backchannels between Zionists and the Soviets remained open.

Stalin wasn’t a Zionist, but weakening Britain mattered more.

The Pattern Behind the History

That brings us back to the present.

Ideology alone is a terrible guide to understanding geopolitical behavior.

Israel could cooperate with states and movements whose ideologies appeared fundamentally incompatible with its own.

The connecting thread isn’t ideological consistency.

It is strategic utility.

Governments, intelligence services, political movements and wealthy intermediaries repeatedly make temporary alliances with people they distrust because those relationships serve an immediate purpose.

Then the strategic environment changes.

Yesterday’s ally becomes tomorrow’s enemy.

And sometimes tomorrow’s enemy becomes useful again.

That is why the most important question in geopolitics is often not:

“Whose side are they on?”

It is:

“What do they need from each other right now?”

That question helps explain Stalin’s support for Israel in 1948.

It helps explain Poland’s cooperation with Revisionist Zionists in the 1930s.

How businessmen such as Maxwell and Hammer moved between hostile political systems.

And it provides a more useful framework for examining the strange alliances of the present.

Because history is rarely a battle between two permanent teams.

More often, it is a constantly shifting network of interests, and the alliances only look inexplicable when we assume the teams never change.

—D.C.

The Wirecard scandal is usually remembered as one of the largest accounting frauds in modern European history: €1.9 billion supposedly sitting in trustee accounts did not exist, the company collapsed in June 2020, and COO Jan Marsalek disappeared.

But the missing money may be only the beginning of the story.

Subscribe now

Follow the relationships surrounding Wirecard and a much stranger network emerges—one spanning Vienna, Ukrainian oligarchs, Russian organized-crime allegations, European banks, political influence firms, private intelligence companies, Brexit, Cambridge Analytica and eventually some of the personalities dominating today’s alternative-media ecosystem.

One name repeatedly appears near the center of these overlapping circles:

Dmytro Firtash.

Following Firtash leads in two seemingly different directions. One runs through Raiffeisen and eventually Wirecard. The other passes through investor Vincent Tchenguiz into the financial ecosystem surrounding SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica and Black Cube.

The interesting question is why their networks intersect so often.

Dmytro Firtash: The Ukrainian Gas Middleman

Firtash built much of his fortune in the opaque world of post-Soviet natural-gas trading.

He became co-owner of RosUkrEnergo, the controversial intermediary that handled enormous volumes of Russian gas flowing into Ukraine. He later accumulated major interests in Ukraine’s chemical and titanium industries and considerable political influence.

Hovering around the RosUkrEnergo story was another name: Semion Mogilevich, one of the world’s most notorious alleged Russian organized-crime figures.

In 2005, Ukrainian Security Service chief Oleksandr Turchynov told the Financial Times and the Global Witness that the SBU had investigated alleged connections between Mogilevich and RosUkrEnergo, which operated in Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

Then came an extraordinary disclosure.

According to a U.S. diplomatic cable later made public, Firtash told U.S. Ambassador William Taylor in 2008 that he had needed Mogilevich’s permission to conduct business during the chaotic Ukrainian economy of the 1990s.

Firtash later denied making the remarks, and the relevant parties denied improper connections.

But another institution had already examined the issue: Raiffeisen.

A February 2006 U.S. Embassy Vienna cable, 06VIENNA350, “RAIFFEISEN ON UKRAINE-RUSSIAN GAS DEAL,” documented a meeting with Raiffeisen International chairman Herbert Stepic and the bank’s legal counsel, Friedrich Sommer.

During the meeting, Stepic confirmed that Raiffeisen Investment AG (RIAG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Raiffeisen Zentralbank (RZB), held a 50 percent interest in RosUkrEnergo through Centragas Holding AG, placing the Austrian banking group directly within the ownership structure of the controversial intermediary at the center of the Russia–Ukraine gas trade.

As scrutiny intensified over the ownership of RosUkrEnergo and alleged links between Firtash and Mogilevich, the American risk consulting firm Kroll conducted due-diligence investigations that revealed no derogatory information or links to criminal activity.

A later analysis of those hearings summarizes Dr. Wolfgang Putschek's testimony as saying that Raiffeisen commissioned Kroll to conduct the investigation and that obtaining a positive result was a precondition for Raiffeisen accepting the trusteeship.

That becomes important because Raiffeisen eventually appears on the other side of this story—in Wirecard’s financial and commercial ecosystem.

Raiffeisen’s Wirecard Exposure Predated 2020

Raiffeisen Bank International and Wirecard announced an extensive partnership on February 19, 2020.

The companies planned to provide payment and banking services across 13 Central and Eastern European countries. In non-EU markets including Ukraine and Serbia, Raiffeisen would act as the card-acquiring partner while transactions moved through Wirecard’s platform.

Four months later, Wirecard collapsed.

The timing was remarkable, but the relationship did not begin in 2020.

In 2018, Wirecard arranged a €1.75 billion syndicated revolving credit facility. Raiffeisen entities participated among the lenders.

By Wirecard’s collapse, reported Raiffeisen-group exposure included approximately €60 million from Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien, €45 million from Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberösterreich and roughly €20 million associated with a Salzburg Raiffeisen institution.

Contemporary reporting separated different entities within the decentralized Raiffeisen system, and RBI claimed it had no direct credit exposure.

Either way, the relationship went considerably deeper than a partnership suddenly announced months before Wirecard’s collapse.

And this is where Firtash re-enters the story.

From Raiffeisen to Wirecard

By 2019, Firtash was living in Vienna while fighting extradition to the United States.

At roughly the same time, his banking arrangements were changing.

According to Austrian reporting, Firtash’s relationship with RBI was reportedly wound down amid regulatory scrutiny; companies associated with him began opening accounts at Wirecard Bank.

The man reportedly helping make that connection was Jan Marsalek.

Marsalek allegedly personally recommended Wirecard Bank to Firtash.

Meanwhile, the broader Raiffeisen group was already among Wirecard’s creditors.

Then came the February 2020 RBI-Wirecard partnership.

Four months later, Wirecard was gone.

Marsalek’s Russian Network

The connection becomes more significant when placed against Marsalek’s history.

Marsalek reportedly traveled to Russia for years before Wirecard collapsed, with his visits increasing after he became COO in 2010.

By the mid-2010s, those trips were accelerating while Marsalek developed relationships that subsequent investigations would associate with individuals linked to Russian intelligence.

That chronology matters.

Marsalek’s Russian connections did not suddenly emerge when Wirecard failed.

They were developing while he was running Wirecard’s international operations.

Then investigators discovered that Wirecard’s €1.9 billion apparently never existed.

Marsalek disappeared.

What had begun as an accounting scandal was becoming an intelligence story.

But Firtash opens another door entirely.

The Cambridge Analytica Connection

Firtash has also been linked to the ownership network surrounding SCL Group, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica.

The documentary Active Measures went further, describing Firtash as having a partial interest in SCL—and therefore indirectly in Cambridge Analytica—through shell companies. But the underlying corporate trail is more complicated than that description suggests.

The key figure connecting the two worlds is British-Iranian property investor Vincent Tchenguiz, one of SCL’s most important early investors and, until 2015, its largest shareholder.

Tchenguiz’s SCL investment ran through Wheddon Limited. Importantly, Wheddon was not incorporated in Britain but in the British Virgin Islands, which is why there is no ordinary UK Companies House page for the company itself.

An official Hong Kong Stock Exchange filing provides a clearer picture. On page 85, Wheddon is identified as a BVI-incorporated investment-holding company whose shareholder was Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd, acting as trustee of the Tchenguiz Family Trust.

HKEX filing — see page 85

A separate UK primary record reinforces the connection. A March 15, 2007, notice in The London Gazette states that Vincent Tchenguiz transferred all of his interest in the Englefield Affiliates Fund LP to Wheddon Limited.

For the SCL connection, therefore, the important evidence is not a Companies House registration for Wheddon. It is SCL’s historical shareholder filings, where Wheddon appears as an SCL shareholder.

The documentary trail can be summarized as:

SCL filings → Wheddon held SCL shares → Wheddon was incorporated in the BVI → HKEX records identify the Tchenguiz Family Trust behind Wheddon → the London Gazette independently documents Vincent Tchenguiz transferring an investment to Wheddon.

But the trail doesn’t end with SCL.

Tchenguiz was also an investor in Zander Group Ltd., another privately held British company. His investment initially ran through Vantania Holdings, whose Zander shares were later transferred to Wheddon.

And this is where the Firtash connection becomes much more concrete.

From 2006 to 2011, Zander’s largest single shareholder was reportedly Spadi Trading, a Cyprus-registered company associated with Dmytro Firtash’s Group DF network, holding approximately 28 percent of Zander.

There were personnel connections as well.

The UK Parliament’s Register of Lords’ Interests recorded Raymond Asquith, Earl of Oxford and Asquith, as executive chairman of Zander Group while simultaneously listing him as a non-executive director of Group DF.

UK Parliament Register of Lords’ Interests — see page 286

Another Group DF figure, British businessman Robert Shetler-Jones, joined Zander’s board in 2007. Shetler-Jones was closely associated with Firtash and served in senior roles within his business network.

His political connections were notable as well. In 2008, The Guardian described Shetler-Jones as a British businessman representing a Ukrainian oligarch while reporting on political donations made through Scythian Ltd to Conservative MPs and Conservative Party headquarters.

The corporate overlap therefore looks less like a direct line from Firtash to Cambridge Analytica and more like two investment networks intersecting around Tchenguiz:

Tchenguiz → Wheddon → SCL Group → Cambridge Analytica

while simultaneously:

Tchenguiz/Wheddon → Zander Group ← Spadi Trading/Group DF ← Firtash

with additional personnel links between Zander and Group DF.

The evidence does not establish that Firtash financed Cambridge Analytica or secretly owned it.

What it does show is that one of SCL’s most important investors operated through corporate structures that also intersected with Firtash’s business network and that the overlap included not only shareholders but directors and executives.

And Tchenguiz leads somewhere else entirely:

Black Cube.

Enter Black Cube

Tchenguiz reportedly also played an important role in the early financing of Black Cube, the Israeli private intelligence company founded in 2011 by former Israeli intelligence personnel. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan served as honorary president of its board.

Black Cube later became notorious for controversial private intelligence operations involving everyone from political figures to Harvey Weinstein and hired by NSO Pegasus spyware.

That produces another unusual intersection.

One of SCL’s most important investors was also financially connected to the creation of a private intelligence company heavily staffed by former intelligence officers.

There were even allegations of operational overlap.

Former Cambridge Analytica research director Christopher Wylie told a British parliamentary committee that Black Cube participated in election-related hacking connected to an SCL-linked Nigerian operation.

But that allegation requires a major caveat: Wylie later withdrew the specific claim during U.S. Senate testimony, while Black Cube and former Cambridge Analytica executive Brittany Kaiser denied it.

The financial overlap through Tchenguiz is the stronger connection than an operational Cambridge Analytica–Black Cube relationship.

And Cambridge Analytica leads toward another political network.

From Cambridge Analytica to Parler

The Mercer family was one of the most important financial forces behind Cambridge Analytica.

Rebekah Mercer later became a major financial backer of Parler.

And in May 2021, George Farmer, husband of Candace Owens, became Parler’s CEO after previously serving as its chief operating officer.

Farmer had already moved through British conservative and Eurosceptic politics. He chaired Turning Point UK and stood unsuccessfully as a Brexit Party candidate in the 2019 European Parliament election.

Using the same bank, sharing acquaintances or moving through overlapping financial circles does not demonstrate coordination or wrongdoing.

But the recurrence of the same institutions makes the network worth mapping.

The Farmer Family and Brexit

George Farmer’s father adds another dimension.

Michael Farmer, Baron Farmer, built his fortune trading metals and earned the nickname “Mr. Copper.” He became a major Conservative donor, served as party co-treasurer from 2011 to 2015 and entered the House of Lords in 2014.

He was also a prominent Brexit supporter.

Lord Farmer donated £300,000 to Vote Leave and publicly described leaving the European Union as a potential “bright new beginning” for Britain.

Two years after the Brexit vote in 2016, it was revealed that AggregateIQ, previously known as SCL Canada, had been paid £3.5 million by four pro-Brexit campaigning groups—Vote Leave, BeLeave, Veterans for Britain, and Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party—to design software aimed at aggregating personal data and influencing voters through messaging on social media.

His son subsequently carried that political project into electoral politics by standing for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019.

Brexit was therefore hardly peripheral to the Farmer family.

And viewed purely through geopolitics, it creates an interesting parallel with ideas promoted decades earlier by Russian nationalist theorist Alexander Dugin.

The Dugin Parallel

In the 1997 Foundations of Geopolitics, Alexander Dugin envisioned competition between a Russian-centered Eurasian order and the American-led Atlantic system.

His broader strategy called for weakening Western cohesion through political division, geopolitical pressure, alliances and subversion.

Britain occupied an important position in this worldview because of its relationship with the United States and continental Europe. Separating Britain’s strategic trajectory from Europe could weaken European cohesion and complicate the Atlantic alliance.

The evidence presented here isn’t that George Farmer or Lord Michael Farmer were actively coordinating with Russia.

In Tradecraft, Tactics, and Dirty Tricks, Sean M. Wiswesser discusses the concept of “useful idiots”—people who advance Russian objectives without necessarily being formal intelligence agents. The distinction matters because someone who repeats Russian narratives, promotes Russian interests, makes useful introductions, or assists an influence operation is not automatically a recruited asset.

From Moscow’s perspective, however, formal recruitment may be less important than practical utility: if a person’s ideology, ego, financial interests, grievances, political ambitions, or personal relationships make them useful, Russian intelligence can potentially exploit those motivations without ever recruiting or controlling them in the traditional sense.

The interesting point is the convergence of geopolitical outcomes.

Dugin wanted to weaken Atlantic cohesion and separate Britain from continental Europe.

British Eurosceptics wanted Brexit for their own constitutional, economic and political reasons.

Different motivations can produce overlapping geopolitical outcomes.

Cambridge Analytica Wasn’t Just Selling Facebook Data

Cambridge Analytica is remembered primarily for Facebook data.

But undercover recordings made by Britain’s Channel 4 revealed a darker side to how company executives marketed their capabilities.

CEO Alexander Nix was secretly recorded discussing methods for compromising political candidates—including sending Ukrainian women to a candidate’s home or offering politicians money while secretly recording the encounter.

The recordings were made between November 2017 and January 2018 while an undercover Channel 4 reporter posed as a representative of a wealthy client seeking help influencing elections in Sri Lanka.

The basic concept was familiar from intelligence tradecraft:

manufacture or capture compromising material, then weaponize it.

One of the most memorable sections of Tradecraft, Tactics, and Dirty Tricks concerns sexual-entrapment operations.

Wiswesser discusses the Russian/KGB concept of lastochki (ласточки), or “swallows,” associated with what Western audiences generally call honey traps.

A target may be placed into a compromising situation and then photographed, recorded, observed, or otherwise documented. The resulting material becomes kompromat—compromising material that can potentially be used to embarrass, pressure, recruit, discredit, or blackmail someone.

An especially important concept behind this form of tradecraft is that compromising material can be more valuable while it remains secret.

Whatever label one applies to those tactics, they went far beyond ordinary Facebook advertising.

They resembled techniques more commonly associated with private intelligence and political influence operations.

Another Unusual Echo

Candace Owens later interviewed and defended Harvey Weinstein—the same Hollywood producer who had previously hired Black Cube and Kroll while attempting to stop allegations about his conduct from becoming public.

Previously, Kroll was hired by Raiffeisen to conduct an investigation into RosUkrEnergo and found no criminal links to Semion Mogilevich.

Share

Then there is Andrew Tate.

Following Andrew and Tristan Tate’s arrest in the United States, British authorities are seeking the brothers’ extradition on a dramatically expanded indictment. Andrew Tate now faces additional allegations that include rape, facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation, assault causing actual bodily harm, and numerous offenses involving indecent images of children and extreme pornography. Tristan Tate also faces new rape and sexual assault charges.

The brothers have been referred to the U.K.’s Counter Terrorism Police after visiting Russia and taking part in military training.

George Farmer has publicly said:

“I’ve known Andrew for many, many years. I’ve known Andrew since before Andrew was Andrew…”

Reporting has described the two as friends, and Owens has said her connection to Tate came through her husband. Owens and Farmer later traveled to Romania to interview him.

That relationship becomes noteworthy in the context of this network because Andrew Tate’s brother has a Raiffeisen banking account and used Wirecard’s payment processor Paxum for his adult webcam business.

Look at the Network, Not Just the Companies

None of this proves that Wirecard, Cambridge Analytica, Black Cube, Raiffeisen, Firtash or Russian intelligence were components of one coordinated operation.

But mapping the relationships produces a striking picture.

Dmytro Firtash occupied the intersection of Ukrainian politics, Russian gas, Vienna’s financial world and corporate structures shared with a major SCL investor.

Vincent Tchenguiz financed SCL while also playing an important early financial role with Black Cube.

Raiffeisen entities had longstanding connections to Firtash’s business world and later financial exposure to Wirecard.

Jan Marsalek reportedly helped move Firtash-linked banking business toward Wirecard while cultivating relationships in Russia.

And just months before Wirecard collapsed, Wirecard and RBI announced an ambitious partnership targeting Central and Eastern Europe.

Put the relationships on a timeline:

Firtash → RosUkrEnergo → Raiffeisen

Firtash → Tchenguiz investment overlap → SCL/Cambridge Analytica

Tchenguiz → Black Cube

SCL/Cambridge Analytica → Brexit referendum

Raiffeisen group → Wirecard financing

Firtash → Marsalek → Wirecard Bank

Marsalek → Russian network

Raiffeisen + Wirecard → Central and Eastern European expansion

Then:

June 2020 → Wirecard collapses → Marsalek disappears

The point is that examining each scandal in isolation may obscure the more revealing story: the network connecting them.

When oligarchs, banks, payment processors, political-influence companies, private intelligence firms and intelligence-linked individuals repeatedly cross paths, the most useful questions aren’t simply Who owned what?

They’re:

Who introduced whom?

Who financed whom?

Who moved the money?

Who gathered the intelligence?

And perhaps most importantly:

Where did those relationships go next?

—D.C.

Subscribe now

Just four months earlier, Owens released her Bride of Charlie series, targeting Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk. Throughout the series, Owens examines Erika Kirk’s mother’s Pentagon contracts, Turning Point USA’s ties to the U.S. military, and Erika’s volunteer work with Romanian Angels near Romania’s Mihail Kogălniceanu (MK) Air Base.

One episode in particular stood out.

Why 2011?

In Episode 6, Bride of Charlie: What Happened in Romania?, Owens devotes significant attention to events occurring in 2011. According to the episode listing, the program covers Romania, gambling, the Frantzve connection, an updated 2011–2012 timeline, TPUSA and mass shootings, before concluding with viewer comments.

One of the visual centerpieces of the episode is an old Reno Gazette-Journal newspaper clipping titled “6 Reno Marines training eastern European militaries,” written by Ben Miller in May 2011.

At first glance, it appears to be an obscure local newspaper article.

But why focus on that specific deployment?

The answer becomes more interesting when viewed in the broader geopolitical context of what was happening in Romania during 2011.

The Black Sea Rotational Force

The Reno Marines featured in the article were part of Black Sea Rotational Force 11 (BSRF-11), a U.S. Marine Corps deployment operating in Romania from April through September 2011.

Marine Corps records place BSRF-11 at Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, where the unit arrived in April and later held its closing ceremony in September.

The Marines also trained extensively at the Babadag Training Area, where Romanian military records independently identify BSRF-11 as a multinational exercise involving regional partners.

Their mission extended well beyond ceremonial cooperation.

Marine Corps documentation shows BSRF-11 training Romanian and other Eastern European forces in:

• Counterinsurgency

• Peacekeeping operations

• Weapons proficiency

• Airborne operations

• Small-unit tactics

• Security cooperation across the Black Sea region

In other words, this was part of NATO’s effort to deepen military integration with Eastern European partners.

Another Project Was Taking Shape

While those Marines were training across Romania, another strategic project was quietly moving forward.

In May 2011, the United States and Romania publicly announced that Deveselu Air Base had been selected as the future location of the U.S. Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Only a few months later, on September 13, 2011, Washington and Bucharest signed the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement, establishing the legal framework for the installation.

Importantly, the agreement specifically states that U.S. and Romanian forces would cooperate in providing physical security for the missile-defense facility.

Share

Construction began in October 2013, and by May 2016, Aegis Ashore became operational.

The Timeline Matters

Viewed chronologically, the overlap is impossible to ignore.

• April–September 2011: Black Sea Rotational Force 11 operates throughout Romania, including Mihail Kogălniceanu and Babadag.

• May 2011: Romania is publicly selected as the future home of Aegis Ashore.

• September 2011: The U.S. and Romania sign the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement, including provisions for security cooperation.

• October 2013: Construction begins at Deveselu.

• May 2016: The missile-defense system becomes operational.

This does not mean the Marine deployment existed solely to secure Deveselu.

The evidence indicates these were two separate U.S.–Romanian security initiatives occurring simultaneously.

However, they were unfolding within the same broader strategic effort to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank in the Black Sea.

Marine Corps records confirm BSRF-11 was operating from Mihail Kogălniceanu and Babadag during the very months the missile-defense agreement was being negotiated and finalized.

That temporal overlap is a documented historical fact.

Why Would Russia Care?

From Moscow’s perspective, 2011 marked a turning point.

The establishment of a permanent U.S. missile-defense presence in Romania became one of Russia’s longest-running security objections. Russian officials repeatedly argued that Aegis Ashore threatened Russia’s strategic deterrent, while NATO maintained the system was designed to defend against ballistic missile threats from outside the alliance.

Whether or not one accepts Russia’s characterization, Romania’s growing role within NATO undeniably elevated its strategic importance.

That makes Owens’ decision to emphasize this particular period noteworthy.

The question is not whether the Reno Marines were secretly building Deveselu—they were not.

The more interesting question is why an episode centered on Erika Kirk spends considerable time highlighting a Marine deployment that coincided with one of the most consequential NATO infrastructure projects in Eastern Europe.

The Andrew Tate Timeline

The Romania timeline becomes even more intriguing when viewed alongside Andrew Tate’s rise in the country.

According to reporting by The Independent, Tate’s adult webcam business did not begin until 2012. That same year, he became widely known following the circulation of a video showing him striking a 15-year-old girl with a belt, which ultimately contributed to his removal from the television program Big Brother.

Less than a year after construction began at Deveselu, Andrew and Tristan Tate reportedly met with Romanian organized crime figure Mihăiță Doroftei, also known as “Polonezu” (”The Pole”), in 2014.

After Aegis Ashore was operational in 2017, the brothers relocated permanently to Bucharest, establishing themselves in a heavily fortified compound reported to be in Pipera, Voluntari, near Bucharest. While Andrew Tate publicly claimed Britain had “gone downhill,” the U.S. Embassy is also located in the Băneasa/Pipera area of northern Bucharest.

Separately, leaked banking records reportedly indicate the Tate brothers used Paxum, a payment processor previously associated with Wirecard’s ecosystem and widely used within the adult entertainment industry.

Wirecard’s former chief operating officer, Jan Marsalek, later emerged as one of Europe’s most wanted fugitives. British prosecutors have alleged Marsalek directed a Bulgarian spy network that conducted surveillance operations across Europe, including activities targeting journalists, dissidents, and Ukrainian military personnel.

These events involve different actors, different investigations, and different allegations. They do not establish operational links between the Tate brothers and Marsalek. They do, however, illustrate how Russia has repeatedly appeared in investigations involving organized crime, financial networks, and kompromat operations.

Romania’s More Recent Russian Connection

Romania’s strategic importance did not end with Deveselu.

In 2025, Romanian authorities detained six people accused of participating in an alleged coup plot with Russian support.

Romania’s anti-organized crime agency, DIICOT, said the group had been formed in 2023 and maintained links to Russia. Investigators alleged that two members traveled to Moscow in January 2025, where they met individuals who supported the organization’s efforts to seize state power.

The case serves as another reminder that Romania continues to occupy a critical position on NATO’s eastern flank and remains a focal point for both Western security cooperation and alleged Russian influence operations.

Final thoughts

None of this proves that the Reno Marines were connected to a possible kompromat operation, Andrew Tate specifically moved to Romania because of a U.S. missile defense system that came online, or that Candace Owens’ documentary advances Russian objectives.

What the historical record does show is that she chose to spotlight a very specific moment in Romania’s history, then attended the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) just months later. Andrew and Tristan Tate’s leaked banking records were tied to Paxum, an offshore adult entertainment bank that was Wirecard’s payment processor until 2020.

Owens highlighted a historical moment when U.S. Marines were expanding security cooperation across the Black Sea at the same time the United States and Romania were laying the foundation for one of NATO’s most strategically significant missile-defense installations.

Whether that focus was simply narrative framing or intended to draw attention to a broader geopolitical theme Russia opposed is ultimately a question for readers to consider.

—D.C.

One is an internet celebrity facing human trafficking and rape charges. Another was Europe’s largest accounting fraud. One is an encrypted messaging platform. Another became one of the biggest payment processors for the online pornography industry. Jeffrey Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell years ago.

Subscribe now

Yet when you stop following the headlines and start following the money, many of the same names, offshore banks, payment processors, intelligence figures, and financial institutions begin appearing again and again.

Does that prove a coordinated network?

No. At least not until the Tate brothers go to trial in the UK.

But it does raise questions worth asking.

And those questions begin with Andrew Tate.

The Criminal Case Is Only the Beginning

Andrew and Tristan Tate once built an online empire selling wealth, masculinity, and influence.

Today, they are fighting criminal cases on two continents.

Following their arrest in the United States, British authorities announced they intend to seek the brothers’ extradition on a dramatically expanded indictment. Andrew Tate now faces additional allegations that include rape, facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation, assault causing actual bodily harm, and numerous offenses involving indecent images of children and extreme pornography. Tristan Tate also faces new rape and sexual assault charges. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has argued Andrew should remain in custody, describing him as both a flight risk and a danger to the community.

Despite the growing number of allegations, Tate’s supporters continue to insist he is simply being persecuted for his political views.

Prosecutors point to something else entirely.

His own words.

“If you behaved, I wouldn’t have to hit you.”

“I created a system that allowed me to retain 100% control of a girl’s income.”

“I know how to make sure the girl can’t run away.”

Whether those statements ultimately become evidence at trial will be decided in court.

But they are only one part of a much larger story.

Follow the Money

The criminal allegations are the headlines.

The financial network behind them may be the real story.

That trail leads to a little-known offshore financial institution called Paxum.

Most people have never heard of it.

Investigative journalists have.

Leaked banking records obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) showed Tristan Tate received approximately $2.6 million through Paxum between 2017 and 2024. Most of those payments reportedly originated from MFCXY Inc., a company operating an adult webcam platform, alongside transfers associated with OnlyFans and other adult-content businesses. The records also show funds moving from Paxum into Tristan’s accounts held at Raiffeisen Bank Romania, HSBC, and Santander UK.

Importantly, the ICIJ stated the leaked records do not establish whether those payments are connected to either the Romanian criminal prosecution or the British investigation.

But they do reveal the financial infrastructure surrounding the Tate brothers.

The Bank Behind the Adult Industry

Paxum occupies a unique niche in international finance.

Headquartered in Dominica while operating through offshore corporate structures, the bank built its business around industries that many traditional financial institutions avoid because of elevated risks involving fraud, exploitation, pornography, and human trafficking.

When PayPal cut ties with Pornhub in 2019, Paxum stepped in as one of the platform’s primary payment processors.

Its ownership has also attracted scrutiny.

Paxum is owned by Anton Postolnikov, a Russian-American businessman identified in media reports as the nephew of a former senior Kremlin official. Postolnikov later became an investor in Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC), the special purpose acquisition company that merged with Trump Media & Technology Group. Reporting has also highlighted an $8 million loan reportedly extended to Trump Media through a trust linked to Postolnikov and an account at Paxum.

Paxum’s CEO Octav Moise publicly promoted efforts to transport Ukrainian women fleeing the Russian invasion into Romania while offering accommodation. Paxum continued to service OnlyFans payments inside Russia even after the invasion.

Critics questioned whether those arrangements could expose already vulnerable women to further exploitation in a country long criticized for human trafficking problems.

Whether those events are connected is a separate question.

The more immediate one is this:

How does a financial institution specializing in high-risk industries continue moving millions of dollars through the global banking system?

The Story Gets Stranger

Paxum doesn’t exist in isolation.

It was the payment processor for one of Europe’s biggest financial scandals.

Wirecard.

For years, Wirecard presented itself as Germany’s fintech success story.

Behind the scenes, investigators allege it was hiding a multibillion-euro accounting fraud.

When the scandal finally collapsed in 2020, one executive disappeared.

His name was Jan Marsalek.

Unlike most corporate fugitives, Marsalek allegedly didn’t just vanish.

European investigators believe he resurfaced inside Russian intelligence networks.

From Financier to Russian Spy

According to investigators, Marsalek’s world extended far beyond corporate fraud because of the company’s reported links to intelligence services, oligarchs, and transnational financial networks.

He reportedly cultivated relationships with politicians, intelligence officials, oligarchs, and security services across Europe.

The story becomes even more interesting when it intersects with one of Europe’s largest financial scandals.

Wirecard collapsed in 2020 after investigators uncovered a multibillion-dollar fraud. Former executive Jan Marsalek fled Europe and has since been accused of operating on behalf of Russian intelligence while cultivating relationships across intelligence and political circles.

The story highlights several reported connections involving Marsalek, including meetings with political figures, alleged assistance from Austrian intelligence officials, and broader espionage investigations spanning multiple European countries. It also notes that several banks associated with Wirecard were later fined for anti-money-laundering failures.

The Telegraph reported that Germany’s foreign intelligence service (BND) used Wirecard’s payment services, while former Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek cultivated relationships with individuals connected to Russian and Israeli intelligence circles. Critics have questioned why German authorities did not move more aggressively against Wirecard until after allegations emerged that the company had been used in a kompromat operation targeting Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA).

Marsalek’s connections have fueled further speculation. In 2018, he reportedly met with former BND coordinator Bernd Schmidbauer after allegedly boasting in London that he possessed the formula for the Novichok nerve agent used in the Salisbury poisoning. Despite becoming one of Europe’s most wanted fugitives following Wirecard’s collapse, Marsalek has never been arrested.

His network also reached into European political and business circles. In 2017, Marsalek reportedly had lunch with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The following year, Sarkozy was indicted in an unrelated corruption investigation. Marsalek was also linked to Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, who was residing in Vienna while fighting extradition to the United States.

According to Austrian prosecutors, Martin Weiss, the former head of Austrian intelligence operations, and former intelligence officer Egisto Ott helped facilitate Marsalek’s escape after the Wirecard collapse. Both men have since been indicted. British and U.S. intelligence agencies had previously warned that Ott was allegedly acting as a Russian mole inside Austria’s intelligence service, passing sensitive information to Moscow.

The financial institutions connected to Wirecard also faced regulatory consequences. Several banks that processed transactions for Wirecard or maintained relationships with the company were later fined by regulators for failures in their anti-money laundering controls, highlighting broader weaknesses in the financial system that allowed suspicious transactions to move across borders.

The Wirecard scandal increasingly became less about missing money...

...and more about espionage and kompromat.

Share

Several financial institutions connected to Wirecard were later fined over anti-money laundering failures, illustrating how billions of dollars moved through mainstream banking despite repeated warning signs.

Then Telegram Appears

Another name keeps resurfacing.

Telegram.

On August 25, 2024, Andrew Tate posted on X that he had met Telegram founder Pavel Durov in Dubai roughly two weeks before Tate’s arrest in Romania in 2022.

One day earlier, French authorities had arrested Durov after his private jet landed in France. Prosecutors alleged Telegram failed to adequately moderate criminal activity, including terrorist propaganda, child sexual abuse material, and illicit trafficking networks. Telegram was also one of the platforms extensively used by Andrew Tate’s War Room.

Telegram also appears prominently in the Marsalek story.

British prosecutors alleged that Bulgarian spy cells directed by Marsalek relied extensively on Telegram to receive operational instructions. Messages exchanged over the platform became key evidence in the prosecution of Orlin Roussev and his associates, who were convicted for conducting espionage on behalf of Russia. Investigators alleged Marsalek continued directing intelligence operations remotely from Russia through Telegram after fleeing Europe. The two men had reportedly been in regular contact since 2015, with emails and messages reviewed by The Telegraph indicating that Roussev supplied Marsalek with sophisticated surveillance equipment over several years. The communications also suggest the pair frequented the same BDSM clubs in London, which would be a prime target for kompromat operations.

The same encrypted platform appears in both organized crime investigations and European counterintelligence cases.

Whether that overlap is meaningful is for investigators and courts to determine.

Why Does the Epstein Network Keep Appearing?

The story doesn’t end with Wirecard.

Or Telegram.

Or Paxum.

Another familiar name continues appearing around the edges.

Jeffrey Epstein.

The overlap is not direct.

Instead, it consists of shared lawyers, political operatives, financial relationships, and overlapping business circles.

Among the connections discussed are:

Individuals and institutions that appear in both Andrew Tate’s orbit and Jeffrey Epstein’s broader network:

• Ghislaine Maxwell paid Jacob Wohl $25,000 to smear Epstein victims. In 2019, Wohl was also a member of Andrew Tate’s War Room.

• The Tate brothers’ decision to retain attorneys who previously represented Jeffrey Epstein and NXIVM founder Keith Raniere.

• Connections involving Peter Thiel, Valar Ventures, Raiffeisen Bank, BitPanda, and other financial platforms discussed in the context of international money flows.

• Andrew Tate’s close relationship with Candace Owens and George Farmer, who invested in GloriFi with Peter Thiel.

• Candace Owens worked with Steve Bannon, who tried to launder Epstein’s image.

• Candace Owens and the Tate Brothers visiting Moscow, along with Jeffrey Epstein’s documented relationship with Vladimir Putin.

Raiffeisen Bank not only worked with Wirecard, but their customers were able to use BitPanda’s service via the in-house platform. Thiel’s Valar Ventures and Yuri Milner’s (a Russian-Israeli) DST Global invested in the same retail crypto brokerage platforms BitPanda and Nubank. Last year, Nubank suspended its own crypto coin because it was part of a $9.7 billion crypto laundering scheme. It seems that these crypto platforms are being used to move money between Eastern Europe and the United States.

Jeffrey Epstein invested $40 million dollars in Peter Thiel’s Valar Ventures right around the time he was meeting with Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and Ehud Barak.

Whether these events are directly connected to the Tate investigation remains unproven. These associations are presented as relationships or shared professional connections. They do not, by themselves, establish coordinated criminal activity.

However, they demonstrate how financial infrastructure, intelligence operations, and organized crime can overlap within the same international banking ecosystem.

None of those relationships, standing alone, establish criminal coordination.

But they illustrate how elite financial, political, and legal networks frequently intersect.

The Bigger Picture

Investigations rarely begin with complete answers.

They begin with fragments.

An offshore bank.

A payment processor.

A fugitive executive.

An encrypted messaging platform.

A trafficking investigation.

An intelligence operation.

None of those pieces, standing alone, prove a larger network.

But history has repeatedly shown that organized crime, financial crime, and intelligence services often operate in the same gray spaces—using the same offshore jurisdictions, shell companies, payment processors, encrypted communications, and financial institutions.

Whether the Tate investigations ultimately expose something larger remains to be seen.

What is already clear is that this story extends far beyond one controversial influencer.

It touches offshore finance, international banking, adult-content payment systems, anti-money laundering enforcement, Russian kompromat operations, and the hidden infrastructure that allows money—and influence—to move across borders.

Because in the end, the most revealing evidence is rarely found in a viral video or a social media post.

It’s found in the money trail.

—D.C.

Subscribe now

As Europe seeks new energy suppliers, as India–Middle East–Europe connectivity projects expand, and as Africa becomes increasingly integrated into global markets, the western Mediterranean is becoming one of the most strategically important regions in the world.

And at the center of that transformation is Morocco.

Ceuta Was More Than a Border Crisis

Yesterday’s invasion of the Spanish enclave in North Africa is not the first time Morocco used immigration as a weapon. When migrants entered Ceuta in 2021, international coverage largely focused on another migration emergency.

But Ceuta represents something larger.

It demonstrated how migration flows, border controls, and civilian movement can become tools of geopolitical pressure.

The June 2021 crisis unfolded shortly after Spain allowed Brahim Ghali, the leader of the Polisario Front, to receive medical treatment for COVID-19.

Madrid described the decision as humanitarian.

Rabat viewed it as a diplomatic insult.

Ghali, one of Morocco’s most prominent rivals over the Western Sahara dispute, was admitted to a hospital in Logroño, Spain, in April 2021 after becoming seriously ill.

Morocco responded by relaxing border controls, allowing thousands of migrants to cross into Ceuta. Approximately 8,000 people entered, including around 2,000 minors.

By November 1st, Algeria ended a 25-year transit agreement and shut its gas pipeline to Morocco entirely, cutting a supply line that had run since the 1990s. Initially, Algeria stopped sending gas north through Morocco, but Morocco began operating the pipeline in reverse — importing regasified LNG from Spain and re-injecting it into its network. Algeria’s Sonatrach announced a partnership with Russia’s Gazprom just three months later.

Whether the Cueta crisis was interpreted as coercive diplomacy, migration pressure, or a combination of factors, the episode revealed a new reality:

Migration had become leverage.

Morocco’s ability to influence European borders gave Rabat a powerful negotiating tool—not only with Spain, but with the European Union and NATO.

The Legacy of the Green March

Morocco’s use of civilian mobilization to advance strategic objectives has historical precedent.

In 1975, approximately 350,000 Moroccan civilians crossed into Spanish-controlled Western Sahara during what became known as the Green March.

The timing was significant.

Spain was in the final days of Francisco Franco’s rule, and the massive civilian demonstration placed enormous political pressure on Madrid.

Soon afterward, Spain withdrew from the territory, and Morocco assumed control over much of Western Sahara.

The sovereignty dispute remains unresolved today, with Morocco controlling most of the territory while the Polisario Front continues to claim independence for the region.

Although the Green March and the Ceuta migration crisis occurred under very different circumstances, both demonstrate how demographic pressure and civilian mobilization can shape diplomatic outcomes without traditional military confrontation.

Vernon Walters, Morocco, and the Cold War Connection

The Green March also intersected with the broader geopolitical competition of the Cold War. The Polisario Front was backed by Algeria, Cuba, and Libya (under Gaddafi), and supplied with Soviet arms.

The New York Times later examined the role of Vernon A. Walters, a United States Army officer, diplomat, and former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

“After leaving Government in 1976, Mr. Walters became a consultant and included among his clients an American company interested in the arms market in Morocco, where Mr. Walters has many friends from his World War II days.”

Walters had longstanding ties to Morocco’s monarchy when he met a young Prince Hassan after the Allied landings in Morocco.

Writing in 1978, Walters described the relationship:

“Thus began a friendship which was to endure until the present.”

Investigative journalist Bob Woodward later wrote about Walters’ relationship with the Moroccan monarchy, noting that their connection became so close that Walters was “almost considered the King’s case officer” during his time as deputy director of the CIA.

Walters later became involved in efforts connected to Morocco, including a controversial consulting role related to arms sales.

The episode illustrates how Morocco’s strategic importance extended far beyond North Africa—it was a country viewed by Washington as a key partner during the Cold War struggle for influence.

Western Sahara, Algeria, and Iran’s Expanding Shadow

The Western Sahara dispute is no longer only a conflict between U.S. backed Morocco and the Polisario Front.

It has become part of a broader regional competition involving Algeria, Iran, and competing geopolitical networks.

Morocco has accused Iran and Hezbollah of supporting the Polisario Front.

In 2018, Rabat severed diplomatic relations with Tehran, alleging that Hezbollah had provided military assistance and training to Polisario through Iranian networks operating from Algeria.

Just two months after October 7th, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea if Israel didn’t cease its attack on Hamas.

A 2025 investigation by The Washington Post reported that Iran’s regional network in Syria included Polisario fighters who had trained alongside Tehran-backed militias during the Syrian conflict.

The reporting described these links as part of Iran’s broader effort to expand influence beyond the Middle East and into North Africa.

For Morocco, the Western Sahara issue is therefore not simply a territorial dispute.

It is increasingly viewed through the lens of regional power competition.

Spain’s Strategic Dilemma: Between Washington, Beijing, Algiers, and Rabat

The geopolitical importance of Gibraltar becomes even clearer when examining Spain’s position.

Spain sits at the crossroads of competing interests.

It is a NATO member.

It maintains close economic ties with China.

It depends heavily on energy relationships with pro-Russia Algeria.

And it shares a complicated security relationship with Morocco.

Algeria remains one of Spain’s most important natural gas suppliers, including through underwater pipeline connections. It is also Russia’s largest arms customer.

Share

At the same time, China has expanded its economic presence across Europe, while Beijing continues purchasing energy from U.S. sanctioned markets.

These competing relationships have complicated Madrid’s foreign policy decisions.

During recent tensions involving Iran, Spain restricted certain U.S. military activities connected to facilities at Rota and Morón, highlighting the challenges Washington faces when allied countries balance domestic politics, energy security, and international commitments.

Gibraltar: The West’s Maritime Gateway

Unlike the Strait of Hormuz, Gibraltar does not control the flow of oil production.

Instead, it controls the movement of trade.

Ships traveling from the Persian Gulf through the Suez Canal toward Europe must eventually pass through Gibraltar before reaching the Atlantic.

The same applies to many routes connecting Asia, Europe, and North America.

A disruption in Gibraltar would not necessarily stop energy production.

It would disrupt distribution.

That distinction makes the strait increasingly important in a world where supply chains have become instruments of geopolitical competition.

Just as the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal shape global commerce, Gibraltar represents another critical gateway.

Morocco’s Transformation into a Global Hub

For decades, Morocco was primarily discussed through the lens of migration and Western Sahara.

That is changing.

Morocco is becoming:

• A logistics hub.

• An energy hub.

• A manufacturing center.

• A bridge between Europe and Africa.

The expansion of Tanger Med has transformed Morocco into one of the Mediterranean’s most important container ports.

The country has also invested heavily in renewable energy, electricity connections, green hydrogen projects, and future LNG infrastructure.

Morocco’s strategy is clear:

Use geography as an economic advantage.

Europe needs reliable partners.

Africa has growing energy potential.

And Morocco sits between them.

Geography gave Morocco importance.

Infrastructure is turning that importance into influence.

The Atlantic Energy Corridor

The most ambitious example of Morocco’s transformation may be the proposed Nigeria–Morocco Gas Pipeline.

Stretching approximately 6,000 kilometers along Africa’s Atlantic coastline, the project would connect Nigerian natural gas reserves with Morocco before linking into infrastructure serving Spain and the wider European market.

If completed, it would represent far more than an energy pipeline.

It would create an Atlantic economic corridor connecting West Africa with Europe.

It would also provide Europe with another potential energy source at a time when governments are seeking alternatives to dependence on vulnerable supply routes.

The project demonstrates a broader trend:

The future of energy security will not be based on a single supplier.

It will depend on networks.

Where IMEC Meets the Atlantic

At first glance, the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor and the Nigeria–Morocco pipeline appear unrelated.

One begins in India.

The other begins in West Africa.

But strategically, they represent the same transformation.

The world is moving toward interconnected trade and energy networks designed to reduce dependence on vulnerable chokepoints.

IMEC is often discussed as an eastern corridor:

India → Middle East → Europe.

But its success ultimately depends on what happens farther west.

Goods entering Europe through Mediterranean ports must still connect to Atlantic trade routes.

Energy corridors must eventually reach global markets.

That makes Morocco a potential western anchor of a much larger connectivity network.

From India to the Arabian Peninsula.

From Israel to Europe.

From West Africa to the Atlantic.

The Strait of Gibraltar sits at the intersection.

The New Great Game Reaches Gibraltar

The Ceuta crisis was not simply about migration.

The Green March was not simply about Western Sahara.

Morocco’s infrastructure investments are not simply about economic development.

Each reflects a larger geopolitical reality.

The competition of the twenty-first century is increasingly about controlling connectivity.

Who controls energy routes?

Who controls ports?

Who controls maritime chokepoints?

Who controls the infrastructure that connects continents?

The New Great Game is no longer confined to Eastern Europe, the Persian Gulf, or the South China Sea.

It now stretches from the ports of India to the Atlantic coast of Morocco.

And standing between Europe, Africa, and the global economy is a narrow passage of water only eight miles wide:

The Strait of Gibraltar.

It may become one of the defining geopolitical gateways of the century.

—D.C.

During the twentieth century, it shifted toward controlling energy.

Today, the competition has evolved once again.

The world’s major powers are increasingly competing to control connectivity—the ports, railways, pipelines, digital networks, shipping lanes, and supply chains that will determine how global commerce flows throughout the twenty-first century.

Subscribe now

The IMEC corridor sits squarely at the center of that competition.

But it is not the only vision for Eurasia’s future.

China Moves First

Years before IMEC was announced, China had already begun implementing its own ambitious vision.

In 2013, President Xi Jinping unveiled the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global infrastructure strategy stretching across Asia, Africa, Europe, and beyond.

The initiative financed ports, railways, highways, industrial parks, pipelines, and digital infrastructure across dozens of countries.

For Beijing, the objective was never simply economic development.

It was geopolitical influence.

By financing critical infrastructure, China positioned itself as an indispensable economic partner throughout much of the developing world while reducing its own vulnerability to maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca.

The Belt and Road Initiative fundamentally altered the strategic landscape.

Washington and its allies now faced a new challenge.

How could they offer an alternative?

Russia’s Northern Strategy

At the same time, Russia was pursuing its own trade corridor.

As Arctic sea ice gradually receded, Moscow invested heavily in developing the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s Arctic coastline.

The route promises significantly shorter shipping times between Europe and Asia compared with the traditional voyage through the Suez Canal.

Russia also expanded rail links connecting Europe with Asia while strengthening energy exports through pipelines stretching toward both Europe and China.

The war in Ukraine accelerated these changes.

Western sanctions pushed Moscow to deepen economic ties with China, India, and other non-Western markets, while encouraging new transportation routes that bypassed Europe altogether.

Instead of one dominant trade network, Eurasia was becoming home to several competing corridors.

The Middle Corridor Emerges

A third alternative also began gaining momentum.

Known as the Middle Corridor, or the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, it connects China to Europe through Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Türkiye before reaching European markets.

Unlike Russia’s northern route, the Middle Corridor avoids Russian territory entirely.

That distinction became increasingly attractive after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

European governments began investing more heavily in transportation links that reduced dependence on Russian infrastructure while strengthening economic partnerships across Central Asia and the Caucasus.

The competition was no longer about choosing one route.

It was about creating resilience through multiple options.

The Abraham Accords Changed the Equation

For decades, one obstacle made an ambitious Middle Eastern trade corridor nearly impossible.

Politics.

Many of the region’s most important states simply did not recognize one another diplomatically.

That began to change in 2020 with the Abraham Accords.

Share

The normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states fundamentally altered regional geopolitics.

For the first time, policymakers could realistically envision infrastructure linking Gulf ports with Israel’s Mediterranean coast.

Railways that had once existed only on maps suddenly appeared politically achievable.

Trade corridors that would have been dismissed as fantasy only a decade earlier became serious strategic proposals.

Without the Abraham Accords, IMEC would likely have remained an idea rather than a viable project.

Saudi Arabia’s Transformation

Equally important has been Saudi Arabia’s own transformation.

For decades, the Kingdom’s economic model revolved almost entirely around oil exports.

Vision 2030 seeks to change that.

Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in logistics, manufacturing, tourism, artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and transportation infrastructure.

Mega-projects such as NEOM are intended not only to diversify the Saudi economy but also to position the Kingdom as one of the world’s premier logistics hubs.

IMEC aligns naturally with those ambitions.

Instead of merely exporting oil, Saudi Arabia could become a central crossroads connecting Asia, Europe, and Africa.

The Kingdom’s geography, long viewed primarily through the lens of petroleum, is increasingly becoming one of its greatest strategic assets.

Iran: The Missing Link or the Main Obstacle?

No discussion of IMEC is complete without Iran.

Geographically, Iran occupies one of the most advantageous positions in Eurasia.

Historically, many east-west trade routes passed through Persian territory.

In theory, Iran could serve as one of the world’s most efficient transit hubs.

In practice, decades of sanctions, regional tensions, and strategic rivalry have pushed many countries to develop alternative routes.

Rather than moving through Iran, IMEC bypasses it entirely.

That choice is not accidental.

It reflects the broader geopolitical reality that many governments seek greater supply-chain resilience while reducing exposure to political instability and sanctions risk.

Whether future diplomatic breakthroughs could eventually alter that equation remains uncertain.

For now, IMEC represents an effort to create connectivity without relying on Iran as the central transit state.

Trump’s Return to the Middle East

President Donald Trump’s return to office has added a new dimension to these regional developments.

His administration has emphasized expanding economic partnerships, strengthening ties with Gulf allies, and encouraging greater regional integration.

Trump’s meetings with the new leadership in Syria and Iraq signaled an interest in reshaping relationships that had been strained for years.

At the same time, renewed military pressure on Iran has reinforced the strategic importance of alternative trade and energy routes that avoid potential conflict zones.

Whether viewed through the lens of diplomacy or deterrence, infrastructure has become an increasingly important instrument of statecraft.

Trade corridors are no longer separate from foreign policy.

They are foreign policy.

The Israel-Saudi Question

Perhaps the single most consequential variable for IMEC remains the possibility of formal normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Such an agreement would represent far more than a diplomatic breakthrough.

It would transform the economics of regional transportation.

Rail links connecting Gulf ports to Israel’s Mediterranean coast could dramatically shorten shipping times between India and Europe.

Energy infrastructure—including electricity transmission, hydrogen exports, and future pipeline projects—could become commercially viable on an entirely new scale.

Although significant political obstacles remain, normalization would fundamentally strengthen IMEC’s strategic and economic rationale.

The corridor’s long-term success may ultimately depend as much on diplomacy as on engineering.

Beyond Oil

One of the biggest misconceptions about IMEC is that it is simply another energy project.

It is much broader than that.

The corridor envisions integrated transportation networks.

Digital infrastructure.

Fiber-optic communications.

Electricity interconnections.

Hydrogen exports.

Critical mineral supply chains.

Artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Secure data flows.

In many ways, IMEC represents an attempt to build the physical backbone of the next global economy.

Oil may have launched the geopolitical competition of the twentieth century.

Data, technology, and resilient supply chains are increasingly defining the twenty-first.

A New Map Is Being Drawn

History rarely moves in straight lines.

The geopolitical theories of Mackinder.

The rise of petroleum.

The world wars.

The Cold War.

The collapse of the Soviet Union.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Russia’s Arctic ambitions.

The Abraham Accords.

Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation.

The conflict with Iran.

Each represents a chapter in a much larger story.

IMEC is not the beginning of that story.

It is its latest evolution.

Whether the corridor ultimately fulfills its promise remains uncertain.

Infrastructure projects of this scale take years—sometimes decades—to complete.

Political shifts, regional conflicts, economic downturns, and technological change could all reshape its trajectory.

But one thing is already clear.

The struggle over the future of Eurasia is no longer defined solely by armies or oil fields.

It is increasingly defined by who builds the roads, ports, railways, pipelines, fiber-optic cables, and digital networks that connect the world’s fastest-growing economies.

Energy security remains national security.

But in the twenty-first century, connectivity has become strategy.

And the race to shape that future has only just begun.

—DC

By the beginning of the twentieth century, policymakers understood that whoever controlled the world’s energy resources and the routes connecting them would possess enormous economic and military advantages.

The decades that followed only reinforced that lesson.

Two world wars, the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of globalization all revolved, in one way or another, around access to energy, transportation corridors, and strategic geography.

Subscribe now

The IMEC corridor did not emerge from a vacuum.

It is the latest chapter in a geopolitical story that has been unfolding for more than a century.

Oil Becomes the Currency of Power

The twentieth century proved what early strategists had only begun to suspect.

Oil wasn’t simply another commodity.

It became the foundation of industrial civilization.

Historian Daniel Yergin chronicles this transformation in The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power, arguing that petroleum reshaped the global economy, altered military strategy, and permanently changed international politics. Oil replaced coal as the dominant source of energy, fueling automobiles, aircraft, navies, electricity generation, and modern industry. Nations that secured reliable access to oil gained decisive economic and military advantages.

Governments increasingly stopped viewing oil as a commercial product and began treating it as a strategic asset.

That shift fundamentally changed foreign policy.

Instead of simply competing over territory, great powers competed over oil fields, shipping lanes, pipelines, and the governments that controlled them.

Energy security had become national security.

The Middle East Moves to the Center of the World

As massive petroleum reserves were discovered across Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East became the epicenter of global energy production. What had once been viewed largely through the lens of imperial competition was now recognized as indispensable to the industrialized world.

Following the Second World War, Western economies became increasingly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The United States strengthened relationships with regional partners while European powers sought to preserve their own economic interests.

The creation of OPEC dramatically altered this balance.

For the first time, oil-producing nations possessed the collective ability to influence global markets and international politics.

Share

The 1973 oil embargo demonstrated that energy itself could be weaponized.

Oil was no longer merely fueling economies.

It was shaping diplomacy, military planning, and the global balance of power.

The Cold War Was Also a Contest Over Geography

Although the Cold War is often remembered as an ideological struggle between capitalism and communism, geography remained central to the competition.

The Soviet Union controlled much of Mackinder’s Heartland, stretching across Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia.

The United States responded by building alliances around Eurasia’s periphery—from NATO in Europe to security partnerships in the Middle East and Asia—to prevent any single rival from dominating the Eurasian landmass.

Energy resources made this competition even more significant.

Control over oil and natural gas production increasingly translated into geopolitical leverage.

As pipelines expanded across Eurasia, they became strategic assets every bit as important as military bases.

Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski offered one of the most influential frameworks for understanding America’s strategic position.

In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski argued that Eurasia remained the world’s geopolitical center of gravity.

It contained the majority of the global population, industrial capacity, economic activity, and natural resources. No rival power, he argued, should be allowed to dominate this vast region because doing so could threaten America’s global position.

On page 47, Brzezinski writes:

“An independent Azerbaijan, linked to Western markets by pipelines that do not pass through Russian-controlled territory, also becomes a major avenue of access from the advanced and energy-consuming economies to the energy-rich Central Asian republics.”

His analysis emphasized several enduring realities.

• Central Asia and the Caspian Basin contained enormous oil and natural gas reserves.

• Pipeline routes mattered almost as much as the resources themselves.

• Ukraine occupied a uniquely important geopolitical position.

• China’s economic rise would reshape the strategic landscape.

• Russia, although weakened after the Soviet collapse, would remain a major geopolitical actor.

Looking back nearly three decades later, many of these observations appear remarkably prescient.

The war in Ukraine, competition over Central Asian energy, and the emergence of rival trade corridors all reflect themes Brzezinski identified long before they dominated today’s headlines.

Rethinking the Middle East

During the 1990s, another debate emerged among policymakers focused on the future of the Middle East.

One of the most discussed documents was the 1996 policy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a group of American and Israeli strategists led by Richard Perle.

The report argued that Israel should adopt a more assertive regional strategy while reducing the influence of hostile neighboring governments. It also questioned elements of the Oslo peace process and discussed alternatives to the existing regional order.

The document later became controversial because several of its authors joined the George W. Bush administration after the September 11 attacks.

Critics argued that aspects of its strategic thinking foreshadowed later efforts toward regime change in Iraq and broader regional transformation.

Supporters countered that it represented one contribution to an ongoing policy debate rather than a blueprint that directly dictated U.S. foreign policy.

Regardless of where one stands in that debate, A Clean Break illustrates an important point: long before IMEC, policymakers were already envisioning a fundamentally different Middle East—one shaped by new alliances, changing security relationships, and economic integration.

From Oil Fields to Corridors

For most of the twentieth century, geopolitical competition centered on controlling oil production.

Today, the competition increasingly focuses on controlling how energy moves.

Pipelines.

Railroads.

Fiber-optic cables.

Deep-water ports.

Artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Critical mineral supply chains.

The twenty-first century rewards nations that can connect markets as efficiently as they can produce resources.

That evolution helps explain why projects such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Russia’s Northern Sea Route, the Trans-Caspian Middle Corridor, and IMEC have become strategic priorities rather than simple infrastructure projects.

These are not merely transportation networks.

They are competing visions of how global commerce will function for decades to come.

The New Great Game

The original Great Game was fought over empires.

The Cold War was fought over ideology.

Today’s competition is increasingly fought over connectivity.

The question is no longer simply who controls the oil.

It is who controls the routes through which energy, technology, data, and trade flow.

That is why IMEC matters.

It is not simply another infrastructure project.

It is one of several competing efforts to redraw the economic map of Eurasia.

And it arrives at a moment when the Middle East itself is undergoing one of its most significant geopolitical realignments in decades.

Coming in Part Three

We’ll examine how the Abraham Accords, Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Russia’s Northern Route, the Trans-Caspian Middle Corridor, the conflict with Iran, and President Trump’s renewed regional diplomacy are converging to shape the future of global trade—and why IMEC may ultimately become one of the defining geopolitical projects of the twenty-first century.

—DC

It didn’t.

2005: India’s ‘Look West’ policy to improve relations with Gulf nations and Israel.

2020: Abraham Accords to pave the way for further integration.

2022: Creation of the I2U2 grouping (precursor to IMEC).

Sep 9, 2023: IMEC announced during the G20 Summit.

Subscribe now

The G20 announcement may have introduced the project to the world. Still, the ideas behind IMEC stretch back more than a century—to an era when railroads were transforming empires, and oil was becoming the world’s most valuable resource. Strategists began asking a question that still shapes global politics today:

Who controls the routes that connect Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

The answer has driven world wars, shaped alliances, toppled governments, and fueled competition between great powers for generations.

Today, that same question lies at the heart of IMEC.

On paper, IMEC is a trade corridor linking India, the Gulf, Israel, and Europe through ports, railways, digital infrastructure, and energy networks. But beneath the engineering plans is something much larger: a strategic effort to reshape the geography of global commerce and reduce dependence on vulnerable maritime chokepoints and rival powers.

To understand why IMEC matters—and why the conflict with Iran, the competition with China, and the renewed focus on Middle Eastern diplomacy have become so intertwined—we have to go back to the beginning.

The Original Great Game

Long before pipelines crossed deserts or container ships sailed through the Suez Canal, British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder introduced an idea that would become one of the most influential theories in modern geopolitics.

Writing in 1904, Mackinder argued that geography—not ideology or economics—would determine which nations became global powers. His famous Heartland Theory proposed that whoever controlled the vast Eurasian interior would possess extraordinary strategic advantages because railroads had begun reducing the historic dominance of sea power.

His famous maxim became one of the defining ideas of twentieth-century strategic thought:

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island.
Who rules the World-Island commands the world.”

Interestingly, oil played almost no role in Mackinder’s original argument.

But history soon changed that.

When Oil Changed Everything

As the twentieth century unfolded, petroleum transformed the strategic value of Eurasia.

Major discoveries in Persia, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, and later Central Asia turned regions that had once been valued primarily for geography into the center of the world’s emerging energy economy. Suddenly, controlling territory also meant influencing access to the fuel that powered navies, industries, and eventually modern economies.

The Heartland was no longer just a geographic concept.

It had become an energy prize.

This transformation reshaped the calculations of every major power.

America’s First Energy Strategy

Contrary to popular belief, the United States was not initially seeking to dominate the Middle East.

At the turn of the twentieth century, America was already the world’s largest oil producer. Fields in Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, and California supplied enormous quantities of petroleum, giving the country a level of energy independence that few nations could match.

Instead of pursuing colonies like Britain or Russia, Washington adopted what became known as the ‘Open Door’ approach.

Share

Rather than monopolizing foreign resources, the United States argued that American companies should enjoy equal access to overseas oil concessions. Diplomacy—not empire—became Washington’s primary tool for expanding its energy interests abroad.

That philosophy would shape U.S. policy for decades.

Persia Changes the Balance

Everything changed in 1908.

The discovery of massive oil reserves in Persia transformed the Middle East almost overnight.

Britain moved quickly, securing influence through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, recognizing that oil would soon become essential to naval power. American policymakers watched with growing concern as London appeared poised to dominate one of the world’s richest petroleum regions.

Meanwhile, Germany was pursuing another vision of connectivity: the Berlin–Baghdad Railway.

The competing projects illustrated a lesson that remains true today.

Infrastructure has never been just about transportation.

It is about power.

Energy Security Becomes National Security

By the outbreak of World War I, oil had become indispensable.

Navies shifted from coal to petroleum. Mechanized armies required fuel. Industrial economies depended on reliable energy supplies. Governments increasingly viewed access to oil not as an economic issue but as a matter of national survival.

The connection between energy and national security that emerged during this period has never disappeared.

It simply evolved.

Today, that evolution is visible in projects like IMEC.

Coming in Part Two

The story doesn’t end with the First World War.

Instead, it accelerates.

Next, we’ll explore how oil became the centerpiece of global strategy through the Cold War, how books like The Prize and The Grand Chessboard influenced strategic thinking, and why competing visions for reshaping the Middle East eventually laid the groundwork for today’s battle over trade corridors, pipelines, and geopolitical influence.

—DC

The Democratic Party is no longer simply divided between moderates and progressives. It is increasingly engaged in a struggle over its future as establishment Democrats clash with an insurgent pro-China, Russia, and Iran democratic socialist movement that is reshaping primaries, attracting new activists, and drawing attention from some unexpected corners—including figures on the populist right.

An Unlikely Political Convergence

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s rise has intensified concerns among centrist Democrats. While Republicans have frequently portrayed Mamdani as emblematic of the Democratic Party’s leftward shift, resistance from within the party has become just as significant.

Former New York Attorney General Letitia James recently expressed frustration with Mamdani’s efforts to reshape the party through endorsements of Democratic Socialist candidates.

“All of us are a little frustrated with the Democratic Party. But you don’t blow it up. That’s what MAGA has done.”

Her comments reflect growing anxiety among Democratic leaders who fear the party is embracing ideological positions that could alienate moderate voters, donors, and elected officials.

Trump’s Curious Relationship with Mamdani

The political picture becomes even more unusual when President Donald Trump’s interactions with Mamdani are taken into account.

Subscribe now

Trump has previously spoken favorably about the New York mayor, even giving him a public mention during a State of the Union address. Following Mamdani’s election victory, Trump and the mayor met at the White House on multiple occasions, where photographs showed the two shaking hands and smiling despite their obvious ideological differences.

At the same time, Trump has sharply criticized the broader movement surrounding Mamdani. Following New York’s Democratic primary, he posted on Truth Social:

“America the Beautiful will NEVER be a Communist Country!!!”

The contrast between Trump’s cordial relationship with Mamdani and his attacks on the broader democratic socialist movement illustrates the increasingly unconventional political alignments emerging in American politics.

The “Democratic” Socialist Network

Mamdani’s endorsements have already reshaped New York politics.

Among the candidates backed by his political network are Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, along with several successful State Senate and Assembly candidates. Their victories demonstrate that democratic socialist organizations now possess significant influence within Democratic primaries.

Avila Chevalier has also faced scrutiny over social media posts she made between 2018 and 2022. Those posts included criticism of Democratic leaders, support for abolishing prisons, police, and borders, advocacy for social ownership of the means of production, and controversial comments regarding a French origin of COVID-19 and opposition to interracial relationships.

She criticized mainstream Democrats, calling Joe Biden “a rapist” in 2020, although she later said she voted for him in that year’s presidential election. In 2021, she tweeted, “Fuck Kamala Harris,” after Harris delivered a speech discouraging migration to the United States.

In 2022, Avila Chevalier tweeted that the United States was involved in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because “the Cold War ended and we’ve been bullying Russia ever since.”

It was only during her campaign that she apologized for several of those statements, saying many reflected her political frustrations at the time they were written.

Activist Networks and Foreign Policy

Questions have also been raised about activist organizations connected to candidates within the broader democratic socialist movement.

On October 8, 2023, Avila Chevalier attended a pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square organized by Eugene Puryear and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The demonstration drew criticism from New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and then-New York City Councilman Brad Lander.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation has been reported to receive financial support from pro-China and pro-Russia businessman Neville Roy Singham, whose funding of various left-wing activist organizations has drawn increasing public attention.

Singham has also supported Code Pink, the anti-war organization co-founded by Medea Benjamin, whose activism has focused heavily on a favorable U.S. foreign policy toward Russia, China, Cuba, and other countries.

Political commentator Hasan Piker has likewise become influential among younger progressive voters and has campaigned for several Democratic Socialist candidates.

He has also appeared alongside prominent progressive figures while maintaining connections through his uncle, Cenk Uygur, who was interviewed by Tucker Carlson.

In May, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control served administrative subpoenas to Hasan Piker and Medea Benjamin as part of a sanctions inquiry tied to the Nuestra América Convoy in Cuba.

Back in April, Piker campaigned for Cori Bush in Missouri. Bush was originally recruited to run for office in 2015 by Lavoy “Zaki” Baruti Reed and Omali Yeshitela of the African People’s Socialist Party.

In September 2024, Yeshitela was convicted of conspiring to act as an agent of the Russian government.

Piker’s foreign policy views have also drawn scrutiny. Both The Atlantic and The Dispatch have characterized him as sympathetic toward left-wing authoritarian governments, citing statements in which he expressed admiration for China as his preferred model of socialism, referred to Uyghur detention facilities as “re-education camps,” described Mao Zedong as “one of the great leaders of this world,” and called the collapse of the Soviet Union “one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century.” Both publications concluded that Piker’s worldview reflects “broad sympathy for China, Cuba, Russia, and authoritarianism in general.”

Strange Political Bedfellows

Perhaps the most unusual aspect of today’s political landscape is the extent to which ideological extremes occasionally amplify one another.

Tucker Carlson has interviewed or spoken favorably about several figures associated with the anti-establishment left, including Cornell West.

Independent presidential candidate Jill Stein, who served as West’s 2024 campaign manager, has long attracted controversy over concerns about Russian influence. Senate Intelligence Committee reports concluded that Russian-linked social media operations amplified Stein’s campaigns during previous election cycles. Her appearance alongside Vladimir Putin and Michael Flynn at a 2015 Moscow event has remained a recurring point of criticism.

Share

Carlson has also appeared on Alex Jones’ program while suggesting that his political future may lie outside the traditional Republican Party. He has expressed support for fellow Rockbridge Network member JD Vance as a future presidential contender.

The overlap extends into newer media circles. Graham Platner was interviewed on the Valhalla VFT podcast, while Valhalla VFT host Nate Cornacchia has appeared on both the Alex Jones and Jake Shields podcasts.

Platner has been described as a populist progressive who is critical of the Democratic Party establishment and is challenging pro-Ukraine establishment Republican Senator Susan Collins.

These overlapping media ecosystems do not necessarily indicate ideological agreement. Rather, they illustrate how anti-establishment and pro-Russia and China voices on both the far left and far right can amplify one another when opposing common institutions, whether those institutions are mainstream political parties, corporate media, or the national security establishment.

Final Thoughts

For establishment Democrats, the central question is no longer simply how to defeat Republicans. It is whether an increasingly organized insurgent socialist movement, that aligns with autocratic regimes, will fundamentally transform the Democratic Party from within.

For establishment Republicans, the challenge is more complicated. While many continue to attack socialism rhetorically, some on the far right find the socialist anti-establishment messaging useful to attack Democrats during elections.

The result is a political landscape in which traditional left-right distinctions have become less predictable, and the proponents of the horseshoe theory have been vindicated.

The far left and far right both support the enemies of the United States and the West. It’s the political moderates and centrists in both parties that’s their target.

—D.C.

Across Europe, migration has become more than a policy debate. It has evolved into a powerful political weapon—one increasingly exploited by extremist movements, criminal networks, and, according to numerous security analysts, Russia’s broader hybrid warfare strategy.

The objective is not simply to influence immigration policy. It is to deepen social divisions, weaken democratic institutions, undermine support for Ukraine, and strengthen political forces that challenge European unity.

Recent events across the United Kingdom and Italy illustrate how migration-related tensions can rapidly escalate into violence, political radicalization, and opportunities for organized crime.

Belfast: When Violence Becomes Political Fuel

On June 9, 2026, riots erupted across Belfast following a stabbing attack allegedly committed by a Sudanese man the previous evening.

Subscribe now

What began as public outrage quickly transformed into something far more alarming. Homes, businesses, and vehicles were set on fire. Rioters reportedly went door-to-door attempting to identify residences occupied by immigrants. Families were forced from their homes as entire neighborhoods became targets.

Observers described the violence in stark terms. The unrest spread beyond Northern Ireland, inspiring demonstrations and disturbances in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Southampton.

The speed with which local violence became a national political issue highlights a recurring pattern seen across Europe: isolated criminal incidents are rapidly amplified through social media networks, activist groups, and political influencers, often transforming public anger into broader anti-immigration mobilization.

Questions have also emerged about the role of prominent far-right figures like Tommy Robinson and Elon Musk in coordinating and amplifying these protests, raising concerns about how domestic grievances can be leveraged for wider political objectives.

Italy’s “Remigration” Movement Moves into the Mainstream

Just days after Belfast descended into chaos, tens of thousands of demonstrators filled the streets of Rome.

At the center of the demonstrations was a citizens’ initiative called “Remigration and Reconquest,” which collected enough signatures to force a parliamentary debate on sweeping anti-migration proposals.

The concept of “remigration”—once confined to extremist political circles—has increasingly entered mainstream European discourse.

Supporters argue for stronger deportation policies and incentives for migrants to leave. Critics warn that such proposals blur the distinction between undocumented migrants, legal residents, naturalized citizens, and even descendants of immigrant families.

The demonstrations revealed the growing polarization surrounding migration in Europe. While anti-migration protesters marched under nationalist slogans, opponents argued that the proposals violate constitutional protections and international anti-discrimination principles.

The timing was significant. The protests occurred just as the European Union’s new Migration and Asylum Pact came into force, a long-awaited reform intended to address years of political conflict over migration management.

Yet rather than settling the debate, the new framework appears to have intensified it.

Violence From Both Directions

Migration-related tensions are often framed through the lens of extremist politics. However, recent events in Italy reveal a more complex and disturbing reality.

In May, a man drove his vehicle into pedestrians in Modena, injuring eight people, several critically. Authorities identified the suspect as an Italian citizen of Moroccan origin with a documented history of severe mental health issues.

The attack immediately became political ammunition for anti-immigration voices despite the suspect’s Italian citizenship and the apparent role of mental illness.

Italy’s far-right Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who leads the anti-immigrant League party and has ties to Moscow, named the suspect on Musk’s X social media platform as Salim El Koudri. He falsely described him as a “second-generation criminal” even though the suspect doesn’t have a criminal record.

Only weeks later, another tragedy exposed a different side of the migration crisis.

In the ‘Ndrangheta stronghold of Calabria, four migrant workers from Afghanistan and Pakistan were burned alive inside a vehicle after allegedly demanding wages they were owed. Prosecutors allege that the victims had been exploited through Italy’s illegal labor brokerage system known as “caporalato.”

Investigators say the suspects are linked to drug trafficking networks and organized crime.

The case highlighted a reality often overlooked in political debates: migrants themselves frequently become victims of exploitation, violence, and criminal coercion.

The Criminal Dimension: Organized Crime and Russian Weaponized Migration

The Calabria murders also drew renewed attention to the influence of the ‘Ndrangheta, one of the world’s most powerful organized crime organizations.

Based in Calabria but operating globally, the ‘Ndrangheta has long been involved in drug trafficking, labor exploitation, money laundering, and international financial networks.

Share

Investigators and anti-mafia researchers have documented historical connections between Italian organized crime groups and criminal organizations that emerged in post-Soviet Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The opening of new markets in the 1990s created opportunities for cooperation involving arms trafficking, money laundering, and illicit financial flows.

These networks demonstrate how migration, labor exploitation, organized crime, and international influence operations can intersect in unexpected ways. If organized crime networks are acting on behalf of hostile foreign governments, then Europe should follow the United States’ lead and designate them as terrorist organizations.

Russia’s Long Game

For years, European intelligence agencies have warned that Russia uses migration-related tensions as part of a broader hybrid warfare strategy.

Rather than direct military confrontation, hybrid warfare seeks to exploit existing social fractures. Migration provides fertile ground because it combines economic anxiety, cultural concerns, security fears, and identity politics.

The goal is often not to convince people of a specific position but to amplify conflict itself.

This strategy becomes particularly effective when migration debates intersect with political movements sympathetic to Moscow.

In Italy, scrutiny has repeatedly focused on figures within the League party and their historical connections to Russia. Investigative reporting on the leaked recordings of Gianluca Savoini, a close aide to Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, held talks to funnel Russian oil money to his party. It has fueled allegations regarding contacts between League party representatives and the Kremlin.

While many of these controversies remain politically contested, they illustrate the broader concern facing European governments: foreign influence campaigns do not operate in isolation. They frequently overlap with domestic political movements, online disinformation networks, and organized criminal structures.

A New Political Landscape

The emergence of new far-right movements across Europe reflects the growing power of migration as a defining political issue.

In Italy, the rise of Futuro Nazionale and its leader Roberto Vannacci has introduced another pro-Russia voice into an already fragmented political landscape. It shows that the very politicians claiming to fight mass migration are in bed with the Russian perpetrators.

Meanwhile, anti-migration rhetoric continues gaining traction across multiple European countries, often fueled by viral incidents, social media campaigns, and public frustration with existing migration policies.

The result is a volatile environment where legitimate concerns about border security, criminality, integration, labor exploitation, and social cohesion increasingly coexist with political extremism, foreign influence operations, and organized crime.

Final Thoughts

The European migration debate can no longer be understood solely as a question of borders or asylum policy.

It has become a battleground where geopolitical competition, hybrid warfare, organized crime, disinformation campaigns, and domestic political movements intersect.

The riots in Belfast, the demonstrations in Rome, the murders in Calabria, the attack in Modena, and the rise of increasingly radical political movements are not isolated stories. They are connected symptoms of a larger struggle over Europe’s future.

Whether Europe can address legitimate migration challenges without allowing extremists, criminal organizations, or foreign adversaries to exploit them is the defining political question of our time.

—D.C.

Subscribe now

Nicolas Maduro — one of Beijing’s key allies in the Western Hemisphere — has been arrested. Venezuela’s oil sector is slipping out of China’s orbit and Delcy Rodriguez handed over their enriched uranium. Pressure campaigns against Cuba are back on the table to prevent Russia and China from turning the island into a forward operating base 90 miles from Florida. Even Iran, despite remaining a difficult front, is being squeezed in ways that indirectly hit Beijing by disrupting Chinese access to discounted Iranian energy.

Meanwhile, China suddenly sounds a lot more interested in buying American.

• Texas oil

• American soybeans

• Expanded access for U.S. companies operating inside China (we’ll see if that actually comes to fruition)

The administration is already touting “double-digit billions” in future agricultural purchases after the Xi-Trump summit.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is what Trump reportedly said during the summit itself.

Trump argued it was beneficial for the United States to host roughly 500,000 Chinese students (ahem spies) and continue allowing Chinese purchases of American farmland because, in his words, universities and land values would otherwise collapse.

Share

That comment reveals a contradiction at the heart of the administration’s China policy.

If American universities cannot survive without massive dependence on foreign tuition pipelines, then maybe it’s a market correction waiting to happen. The same applies to farmland prices artificially inflated by foreign capital flows. And it’s not as if concerns about Chinese influence are theoretical anymore. Over the past several years, lawmakers across multiple states have introduced legislation targeting Chinese ownership of farmland near sensitive infrastructure and military installations due to national security fears.

The broader concern isn’t simply about students or land purchases in isolation.

It’s about the cumulative pattern:

• Illegal biolabs

• Smuggling undeclared biological material into the U.S.

• Fentanyl money laundering networks

• Working with the Mexican cartels to weaponize migration

• Unofficial overseas “police stations” to pressure dissidents

• Intellectual property theft

• Farmland acquisitions near military bases.

• CCP spies in American politics

You can’t spend years arguing that China is the greatest strategic threat facing the United States then suddenly revert to “globalization is good” logic the moment universities and asset prices feel pressure.

Which raises the obvious question:

Where was Secretary Marco Rubio during these negotiations? What’s the point of having a Cuban anti-communist neocon if he isn’t going to be a China hawk on vital national security issues?

If the administration is serious about confronting the Chinese Communist Party, then someone in the room should be drawing hard lines on issues like strategic land ownership, influence networks, dependency on foreign capital, and importing foreign spies into our universities.

Otherwise, what exactly is the doctrine here?

—DC

The last time the world faced a true oil shock, it broke the United States.

During the 1979 Oil Crisis, soaring prices and supply disruptions helped cripple the U.S. economy. Back then, America was dangerously exposed to its dependence on foreign oil, vulnerable to chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, and unable to produce enough energy to sustain itself.

Subscribe now

That world no longer exists.

Today, the United States isn’t just energy independent—it’s dominant. It is the largest producer of oil, natural gas, and refined products on Earth, and the world’s top exporter of LNG.

That flips the entire geopolitical script.

High Oil Prices Are No Longer a Threat

In a global shortage, the U.S. doesn’t collapse—it profits. Capital flows don’t flee the dollar—they reinforce it. The old pattern—oil up, dollar down, gold up—is breaking. Even China has turned to the United States to fulfill its energy needs.

Energy scarcity used to weaken America. Now it strengthens it.

The Ukraine War Was the Inflection Point

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the shift became undeniable.

The U.S. rapidly became Europe’s primary energy supplier, shifting from a marginal player to the dominant source of LNG, oil, and even coal exports. In a matter of years, America went from supplying a fraction of Europe’s needs to becoming its energy backbone.

That wasn’t accidental.

It was structural.

The Real Driver of U.S. Foreign Policy

There’s a persistent narrative—especially in alternative media—that U.S. policy in the Middle East is dictated by Israel or personal influence over leaders like Donald Trump.

That framing misses the bigger picture.

The strategic architecture was already in motion under Joe Biden, particularly through the proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, designed as a counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Share

Energy, trade routes, and chokepoints—not personalities—are driving decisions.

Private capital reinforces that direction. U.S. energy expansion, Gulf state investment (including ADNOC’s moves into American LNG), and Chevron’s development deals in Israel, Syria, Greece, and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean all point toward the same outcome:

A fully integrated, U.S.-aligned energy corridor linking the Middle East to Europe.

Follow the Infrastructure, Not the Headlines

Look at the map, not the rhetoric.

• The Port of Haifa is positioned as a Mediterranean gateway

• A permanent U.S. military base in Gaza to oversee it all

• Expanding Eastern Mediterranean energy projects involving companies like Chevron

• Defense agreements across key maritime chokepoints from North Africa to Southeast Asia

This isn’t improvisation but careful planning.

What the U.S. Actually Gains

Strip away the noise, and the strategic objectives become clear:

• A direct energy corridor supplying Europe outside Russian influence

• Redundant routes that reduce reliance on the Strait of Hormuz

• Expanded control over global maritime chokepoints

• Integration of energy, data, and defense infrastructure across allied regions

• U.S. control over Iranian oil prevents China from invading Taiwan

In that context, energy isn’t just a commodity.

It’s leverage.

The Bigger Picture

There are legitimate criticisms of Israel to be made—about surveillance exports of Pegasus spyware, regional alliances with Russia and China, connections to the QAnon psychological operation targeting Americans, and the behavior of leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu. Those concerns don’t disappear.

But they exist alongside a harder reality:

U.S. policy is being shaped by long-term strategic positioning and national security interests, not short-term ideology.

The End of Multipolar Illusions

For years, thinkers like Alexander Dugin have argued that a multipolar world would replace American dominance.

That moment hasn’t arrived. If anything, recent events suggest the opposite:

The U.S. isn’t retreating from global power.

It’s reorganizing it around energy, infrastructure, and control of the world’s most critical systems and maritime chokepoints.

Bottom line:
The era where oil shocks weakened America is over.

Now, they work in its favor

—D.C.

When the Trump–Iran conflict escalated, the world’s attention immediately focused on missiles, drones, and the possibility of regime change in Tehran.

But something much larger may be unfolding beneath the surface.

The real strategic shift isn’t happening in Iran. It’s happening in Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure. For decades, the global oil market has depended on one narrow maritime chokepoint: the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through that waterway. And Iran’s greatest geopolitical leverage has always been the same: the ability to threaten it. Now that leverage may be quietly eroding. Because Saudi Arabia has spent the past several years building the infrastructure to bypass it.

Subscribe now

Pipelines, port expansions, and industrial hubs that were once Vision 2030 ambitions are now a strategic reality, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and undercutting Iran’s leverage over global oil. What looks like a crisis may be the making of a new energy order.

Vision 2030 and the Shift West

Long before the current crisis, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman launched Saudi Vision 2030, an ambitious plan to diversify the Saudi economy and transform the kingdom into a global logistics hub.

Most commentary focuses on megaprojects like NEOM.

But some of the most important work has been happening far from the spotlight:

Oil infrastructure along the Red Sea coast.

Beginning around 2019, Saudi Arabia began:

• Expanding west-coast industrial capacity

• Modernizing Red Sea ports

• Upgrading cross-country pipelines

At the time, these projects looked like economic development.

Today they look like strategic insurance.

The Pipeline That Changes Everything

Saudi Arabia already possesses one of the most important pieces of energy infrastructure in the world: the East–West Pipeline (Petroline).

It stretches roughly 1,200 kilometers across the kingdom, linking eastern oil fields with the Red Sea.

Key capabilities:

• Normal capacity: ~5 million barrels per day

• Emergency capacity: ~7 million barrels per day

The pipeline terminates at Yanbu, a major industrial and export hub on Saudi Arabia’s west coast.

And recently, something notable happened. Saudi shipments through Yanbu doubled. By early 2026, exports from the port reached roughly:

2.2 million barrels per day.

Saudi Aramco has already asked some buyers to prepare for crude loadings from Yanbu rather than Gulf terminals if Hormuz disruptions intensify.

The Real Bottleneck Isn’t the Pipeline

The Petroline can move more oil than Yanbu can currently export.

Current estimates suggest:

• Pipeline capacity: up to 7 million barrels/day

• Yanbu loading capacity: roughly 4–4.5 million barrels/day

That means the port itself—not the pipeline—is now the constraint.

Which helps explain why Saudi Arabia has been rapidly expanding the industrial ecosystem around Yanbu.

Major developments include:

• Expansion of the SAMREF refinery with ExxonMobil

• Petrochemical upgrades at the YASREF refinery with Sinopec

These projects convert more crude into higher-value products and anchor a major industrial complex on the Red Sea.

In other words, Saudi Arabia isn’t just exporting oil from the west coast.

It’s building an entire energy economy there.

The May 2025 Meeting

On May 14, 2025, Saudi leadership met with U.S. officials and major American companies to deepen industrial partnerships tied to Vision 2030.

Among the agreements:

• Collaboration with Nvidia to build AI and robotics infrastructure

• Digital transformation projects with Amazon Web Services

• Industrial network development with Qualcomm

Aramco also expanded relationships with major U.S. energy suppliers:

• SLB

• Baker Hughes

• GE Vernova

• Honeywell

On the financial side, agreements were struck with asset managers including:

• BlackRock

• Goldman Sachs

• Morgan Stanley

• PIMCO

Aramco also announced $3.4 billion to expand the Motiva refinery, the largest refinery in North America.

The message was clear.

Saudi Arabia is using its oil company as a vehicle not just for energy exports but for industrial modernization and global financial integration.

A Second Hormuz Bypass?

Energy analysts have long speculated about something even more ambitious:

A second Saudi pipeline terminating near the Gulf of Aqaba, close to NEOM.

Such a project would create two west-coast export corridors:

1. Yanbu in the central Red Sea

2. A northern outlet near NEOM

The strategic implications would be enormous.

A pipeline ending near Aqaba would allow tankers to load oil south of the Strait of Tiran, completely bypassing Persian Gulf shipping lanes.

And it would place Saudi exports within reach of an older—but strategically fascinating—energy corridor.

The Forgotten Precedent: The Eilat–Ashkelon Pipeline

In the late 1960s, Israel and Iran under the Shah built a pipeline connecting:

• Eilat

• Ashkelon

Share

The Eilat–Ashkelon Pipeline allowed oil to move from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean without passing through the Suez Canal.

At its peak it moved around 600,000 barrels per day. This pipeline effectively turned Israel into a land bridge for global oil trade.

Today, Saudi Arabia’s NEOM project sits only about 200 km south of Eilat.

The geography is striking.

The Emerging Network of Hormuz Bypass Routes

Over the past 15 years, several Middle Eastern countries have quietly built infrastructure designed to reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz.

One example is the UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline.

Key facts:

• Length: ~370 km

• Capacity: ~1.5–1.8 million barrels/day

• Route: from Habshan oil fields to Fujairah

Because Fujairah sits outside the Strait of Hormuz, tankers can load crude without entering the Persian Gulf. The UAE has since turned Fujairah into one of the world’s largest oil storage and bunkering hubs.

The Big Strategic Question

This raises a question almost nobody is asking.

What if the primary objective of the current confrontation with Iran isn’t regime change?

What if the long-term goal is something simpler:

Removing Iran’s ability to threaten global oil trade.

For decades, Tehran’s influence has rested on a single pressure point. The Strait of Hormuz. But if enough pipelines, ports, and overland corridors exist to move oil around it…

That leverage begins to disappear.

And suddenly the global energy map looks very different.

From Crisis to Opportunity

Whether by design or coincidence, the Trump–Iran conflict is accelerating changes that Saudi Arabia began years ago.

• Red Sea ports are expanding.

• Cross-country pipelines are operating near capacity.

• Industrial complexes are rising along the western coast.

• And the kingdom’s Vision 2030 strategy is moving faster than expected.

In geopolitics, infrastructure often matters more than headlines. Missiles dominate the news cycle, but pipelines shape the world for decades. And the quiet rise of the Red Sea oil corridor may prove to be one of the most important geopolitical shifts of the decade.

Final Thoughts

President Trump’s hardline strategy toward Iran — including sustained strikes on Iranian military and naval assets — has produced one of the most consequential disruptions to global energy markets in decades. Tehran has responded by mining the Strait of Hormuz, effectively halting commercial tanker traffic and cutting off roughly one‑fifth of the world’s oil flows.

In traditional geopolitical calculus, this is exactly the kind of leverage Iran has long wielded: threaten the chokepoint, and you drive up prices, create panic, and force global actors to the negotiating table.

Trump’s pressure on Iran has done something far more structurally transformative.

Rather than bending Gulf producers to Tehran’s will, the crisis has accelerated Riyadh’s long‑planned westward pivot — a pivot that upends Iran’s leverage.

Saudi Arabia isn’t merely coping with disruptions; it’s operationalizing an alternative export architecture that was once a Vision 2030 ambition but is now becoming a strategic reality. With Aramco asking buyers to shift nominations to Yanbu and Red Sea loading points, Saudi crude exports are already being rerouted around the Gulf chokepoint.

Trump’s Iran policy may profess regime change as its immediate goal. But at a deeper level, its contingency plan appears to be already unfolding: an energy plan in which global oil flows no longer hinge on a narrow strait that one actor can shut down at will.

As the Red Sea corridor transitions from contingency route to core artery, Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 — once a long‑range economic blueprint — is gaining renewed geopolitical purpose.

—DC

Recent reporting shows Iran’s new supreme leader acquired £35 million London apartments just yards from the Israeli embassy—purchased via Ali Ansari, an Iranian banker sanctioned by the UK for financing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Ansari’s assets are frozen, his travel banned, yet the properties remain a reminder of Iran’s financial entanglements in the heart of the City of London.

Subscribe now

This isn’t just about real estate. It’s about how global finance, insurance, and intelligence have long shaped Tehran’s oil exports and why Trump’s current approach to Iran could ripple through London’s maritime markets.

City of London: Iran’s Financial Shadow

Ansari’s story highlights a hidden web:

• Offshore passports & jurisdictions: Cyprus, St. Kitts, Nevis.

• British legal continuity: These countries’ common-law systems remain attractive for international finance.

• The offshore ecosystem: Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Jersey—London sits at the center of this network.

In practice: a company registers in Nevis, London lawyers move the money, and global banks clear transactions. This is how London historically embedded itself in Iranian finance and continues to do so in subtler ways today.

How London Shapes Global Oil Without Firing a Shot

The City of London built a system that links insurance, trade finance, and maritime intelligence. Together, they influence whether tankers sail, how expensive voyages become, and which routes are considered safe.

Share

1. Insurance: Controlling Ships from the Shore

• Lloyd’s of London became the backbone of maritime insurance.

• Insurers could slow or stop shipping by raising premiums or refusing coverage.

• Shipping routes and financing hinged on London underwriting.

2. Trade Finance: London Banks Move Oil

• Letters of credit, commodity trading finance, currency clearing—London handled it all.

• Historically, companies like Anglo-Persian Oil Company relied on these channels to export Iranian oil for the British Navy.

3. Intelligence: Risk Data Shaped Premiums

• Maritime insurers needed real-time info on war zones, piracy, or blockades.

• London’s networks combined private intelligence, naval reporting, and diplomatic channels.

• This wasn’t just business—it was geopolitical influence without guns.

4. Oil Chokepoints = Financial Leverage

• Strait of Hormuz, Suez, Strait of Malacca—routes where London’s financial muscle could control shipping.

• Rising premiums or withdrawn coverage could disrupt global oil flows without a single naval ship deployed.

Iran Today: Why London Still Cares

About 20% of global oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Even minor incidents spike war-risk insurance, reroute shipping, and drive oil prices up. For London insurers: instability is profitable—but too much risk, and profits vanish.

Short-Term: Conflict = Revenue Spike

• War-risk premiums for Gulf tankers can jump from 0.25% → 3% of vessel value.

• A $250M tanker could pay millions per voyage in insurance.

Medium-Term: Stability Cuts Leverage

• A pro-Western Iranian government normalizes trade.

• Sanctions lift, premiums drop, and London’s indirect control over shipping diminishes.

Long-Term: The Real Threat—U.S. Government Insurance

• The U.S. may provide $20B tanker reinsurance, naval escorts, and state-backed guarantees.

• This could shift the center of maritime insurance away from London, weakening centuries of financial influence.

Final Thoughts

The City of London doesn’t control ships—it controls the cost and risk of sailing them. This soft power has shaped global oil flows for over a century.

Trump’s military and regime-change gambles in Iran interact directly with this system:

• Short-term instability → Lloyd’s profits spike.

• Medium-term stability → insurance leverage drops.

• Long-term → U.S. entry into the market could eclipse London’s role entirely.

Understanding the geopolitical and financial mechanics at play doesn’t mean I endorse the initial strikes on Iran—it simply means acknowledging that sanctions can only be effective if major financial centers, like the City of London, aren’t serving as de facto conduits for funds and transactions for terrorist proxy groups that undermine them.

—DC

U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets have already triggered retaliation across the region, including missile and drone attacks tied to Iranian forces and allied militias. Some U.S. officials have warned that American defenses may not be able to intercept every incoming drone or missile if attacks intensify.

That’s the strategic backdrop to the legal fight in Washington.

When critics say Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran were “illegal under the War Powers Act,” they’re making a claim that sounds definitive.

But legally speaking, it’s not that simple.

Subscribe now

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restrain presidential war-making after Vietnam. Yet fifty years later, it has rarely stopped a president from using military force without congressional approval.

Trump’s strikes on Iran — like many military actions ordered by presidents before him — sit squarely inside that gray area.

Here’s what the law actually says, and why the debate keeps resurfacing every time a president orders military action.

What the War Powers Resolution Actually Requires

The War Powers Resolution attempts to balance two constitutional authorities:

• Congress’s power to declare war (Article I)

• The president’s authority as commander in chief (Article II)

Under the law, presidents must:

• Consult Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities
• Notify Congress within 48 hours after forces are deployed into combat situations
• End hostilities within 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) unless Congress authorizes continued action

In theory, this gives Congress oversight.

In practice, the law has functioned more like a reporting requirement than a true barrier to presidential action.

Trump’s Legal Justification

When Trump ordered strikes on Iranian targets — including attacks on nuclear infrastructure and earlier operations such as the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani — the administration relied on a familiar legal framework used by presidents of both parties.

The arguments typically include:

1. Commander-in-Chief Authority

Article II gives the president independent authority to use military force to defend U.S. interests.

2. National Self-Defense

Administrations frequently argue that strikes are necessary to deter or preempt threats.

3. Compliance With Reporting Requirements

Instead of seeking approval beforehand, presidents report the action to Congress within the 48-hour window required by the War Powers Resolution.

What Trump did not seek was a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress, which is the formal mechanism usually used to approve sustained military campaigns.

Why Critics Say This Circumvents Congress

Opponents argue that these legal justifications stretch presidential authority too far.

Their criticisms generally fall into three areas.

1. Notification After the Fact

Many lawmakers argue the administration briefed Congress only after strikes were launched, undermining the spirit of the law’s consultation requirement.

2. Expanding Executive Power

Relying on broad interpretations of commander-in-chief authority effectively allows presidents to initiate hostilities first and debate legality later.

3. Congressional Inaction

Even when lawmakers object, stopping military operations requires passing legislation that can survive a presidential veto — something Congress rarely manages.

The result is a familiar pattern: military action first, constitutional debate later.

This Isn’t Unique to Trump

Presidents of both parties have used the same playbook for decades.

Military actions launched without prior congressional authorization include:

• Korea (Truman)

• Kosovo (Clinton)

• Libya (Obama)

• Syria strikes (Trump and Biden)

Each relied on similar arguments:

• commander-in-chief authority
• national security necessity
• post-action reporting to Congress

The debate over war powers has therefore persisted for more than half a century.

What the Supreme Court Actually Says

One reason the issue remains unresolved is that the Supreme Court has never squarely ruled on the War Powers Resolution itself.

The Court has never decided:

• Whether presidents must obtain advance authorization for limited strikes

• Whether the War Powers Resolution is fully constitutional

• Whether courts can force a president to withdraw troops

When members of Congress have sued presidents over military operations, federal courts typically dismiss the cases as “political questions” better resolved by the elected branches.

The Key Case: Youngstown (1952)

The most important precedent for presidential power is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

Justice Robert Jackson’s famous framework divides executive authority into three categories:

1. President acting with Congress → strongest authority

2. Congress silent → a “zone of twilight”

3. President acting against Congress’s explicit will → weakest authority

Most modern military strikes fall into Category 2, where Congress has not clearly approved but also has not definitively prohibited the action.

That ambiguity gives presidents considerable room to maneuver.

The Real Problem: The Law Is Vague

Another reason presidents repeatedly push the boundaries is that the War Powers Resolution itself contains deliberately vague language.

“Hostilities” Is Never Defined

The law requires reporting when U.S. forces enter “hostilities.”

But what counts as hostilities?

Presidents have argued that:

• limited airstrikes

• drone operations

• short-duration missions

do not trigger the law’s full restrictions.

The Obama administration made exactly this argument during the 2011 Libya intervention, claiming U.S. participation in NATO air operations did not constitute sustained “hostilities.”

“Consultation” Is Also Undefined

The law requires consultation with Congress “in every possible instance.”

But it doesn’t explain:

• how many members must be consulted

• whether consultation must occur before action

• what qualifies as meaningful consultation

Presidents often interpret this as briefing congressional leaders shortly before — or even after — military action.

The 60-Day Limit Is Hard to Enforce

Even if the clock begins, Congress must pass legislation to stop an operation — which the president can veto.

Courts have never directly enforced the deadline.

That makes the limit more political than judicial.

Could the Iran Strikes Lead to Impeachment?

Another political risk hanging over the Iran strikes is the possibility — however remote right now — of a third impeachment of Donald Trump.

Share

Some Democratic lawmakers and constitutional scholars have already argued that launching military action against Iran without congressional authorization could qualify as an abuse of presidential power, particularly if it leads to a prolonged conflict.

But in the current political landscape, impeachment remains unlikely at least for now.

Republicans currently control Congress, making it extremely difficult for impeachment proceedings to move forward. Even critics inside the Democratic Party acknowledge that launching another impeachment effort without majority control of the House would be politically unrealistic.

And recent votes show the divide clearly: the Senate recently blocked a resolution aimed at restricting Trump’s military authority against Iran, with most Republicans supporting the president’s actions.

The 2026 Midterm Wildcard

That calculus could change after the 2026 midterm elections.

Early forecasts suggest Democrats have a realistic chance of flipping the House, even if the Senate remains more competitive.

If that happens — and if the Iran conflict expands or produces heavy U.S. casualties — the political pressure for investigations could grow rapidly.

That doesn’t guarantee impeachment would succeed. Removal would still require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, an extremely high bar in today’s polarized politics.

But politically, the stakes are clear.

The Political Risk for Trump

Presidents often receive a short-term rally effect when military operations begin. But if wars drag on or fail to achieve clear objectives, public opinion can shift quickly.

For Trump, the strategic risk is straightforward:

If the strikes on Iran successfully enacts regime change and deters retaliation, the operation could strengthen his political standing heading into the midterms.

If the conflict spirals into a prolonged regional war, produces U.S. casualties, or destabilizes global energy markets, it could become a major political liability.

And in that scenario, the constitutional debate over war powers might transform from a legal argument into a central issue of the 2026 election.

The Uncomfortable Truth About the War Powers Act

There’s another reason the War Powers Resolution rarely stops presidents from launching military action.

Congress often prefers it that way.

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, when lawmakers wanted to reassert their constitutional authority after years of escalating conflict.

But the law’s vague language — especially terms like “hostilities” and “consultation” — created a system where responsibility for military action is often politically shared but legally blurred.

That ambiguity can benefit both branches of government.

Presidents gain the ability to act quickly during crises.
Congress retains the power to criticize, investigate, or support military action depending on how events unfold.

In other words, lawmakers can claim oversight without always taking ownership of the decision to go to war.

And history shows this dynamic repeatedly:

• Congress authorized broad military force after the September 11 attacks through the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Presidents from both parties later used that authorization to justify operations in multiple countries far beyond the original conflict in Afghanistan.

• Even when lawmakers objected, Congress rarely passed binding legislation strong enough to force a withdrawal.

The result is a system where presidents initiate military action, Congress debates it, and the courts largely stay out of it.

Which brings the debate back to the present.

When critics say a president has “violated” the War Powers Resolution, they are often pointing to a deeper reality:

The law was designed to restrain presidential war-making.

But over time, it has evolved into something closer to a political framework for managing it without Congress paying a political price with voters.

Final Thoughts

The War Powers Resolution is not ignored so much as interpreted aggressively.

Its vague terms — especially “hostilities,” “consultation,” and what triggers the 60-day limit — are why it has rarely stopped a president from initiating military action. Congress also tends to prefer it this way for political cover for unpopular wars. The truth is voters like winners even if they don’t agree with the war. Trump is playing a high-stakes gamble that could end his presidency if he fails to deliver in Iran within the 4-5 week timeframe.

—DC

Subscribe now

Energy Before Escalation

Just days before the Iran strike, President Trump received a briefing in Corpus Christi, Texas, focused on U.S. energy production. Corpus Christi isn’t just a campaign backdrop; it’s one of the most important energy export hubs in the country. In geopolitics, timing matters. Ensuring domestic production strength before kinetic action abroad isn’t symbolism. It’s strategy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, roughly 84% of the oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 went to Asia.

Iranian crude trades at an $8–$10 discount to global benchmarks, and an estimated 80% of it is sold to China. Roughly 13–14% of China’s oil imports come from Iran, revenue Tehran uses to fund proxy groups, cyber operations, and advanced weapons systems.

Energy is not just economics. It’s leverage.

The China–Russia–Iran Triangle

Iran is not operating alone.

It sits inside an alignment with China and Russia, an axis defined less by ideology and more by shared opposition to U.S. influence.

If U.S. military objectives were to result in regime change in Tehran, the ripple effects would extend far beyond the Middle East.

• Beijing’s energy security would take a hit, which benefits Taiwan.

• Moscow would lose a key sanctions-era partner.

• Iranian-made Shahed drones supplied to Russia for use in Ukraine could be disrupted.

• Tehran’s support network for groups like the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah would be strained.

Strategically, Iran sits at the center of a growing anti-Western alignment. Disrupting that axis alters global balance calculations, shifting them from Eastern Europe to the Indo-Pacific.

But the inverse is just as true.

If the U.S. fails to achieve its objectives, hardline elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could consolidate power. That scenario likely means more asymmetric warfare, expanded terror activity, and an emboldened anti-U.S. coalition.

High reward. High risk.

The Cyber Front: Iran’s Digital Battlefield

While missiles dominate headlines, Tehran has long invested in asymmetric tools — especially cyber warfare.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated cyber units have been tied to operations targeting U.S. financial institutions, energy infrastructure, defense contractors, and state and local governments.

Groups commonly linked to Tehran include:

• APT33 – Associated with attacks on U.S. aviation and energy sectors.

• APT34 (OilRig) – Known for spear-phishing and infrastructure intrusion campaigns.

• APT35 (Charming Kitten) – Focused on intelligence collection and influence operations.

Past operations attributed to Iranian actors have included distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on major U.S. banks, ransomware campaigns, and attempts to access industrial control systems.

Cyber retaliation offers Tehran advantages:

• Plausible deniability

• Lower escalation thresholds

• Domestic disruption without conventional confrontation

• Psychological impact

If missile exchanges continue, cyber activity is the most probable escalation vector. Power grids. Water systems. Hospitals. Financial exchanges.

Modern warfare does not require troops crossing borders.

And unlike missiles, cyber strikes don’t need to cross borders physically.

The Financial Front: Following the Money

Military action is only one theater. Financial warfare is another.

On February 26, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposed a rule to sever MBaer Merchant Bank AG’s access to the U.S. financial system for allegedly funneling over $100 million on behalf of illicit actors tied to Iran and Russia. If finalized, U.S. financial institutions would be barred from maintaining correspondent accounts for the bank.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the U.S. would use the “full force” of its authorities to protect the integrity of the financial system.

The allegations are significant: enabling corruption linked to Russian money laundering, facilitating terrorist financing for Iran-aligned organizations, including the IRGC and its Quds Force, and acting as a key node for illicit access to the U.S. dollar.

Simultaneously, Luxembourg prosecutors reportedly raided the local offices of Swiss lender EFG Bank over suspected anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism violations tied to Russia and Iran.

This is a financial containment strategy in action. Sanctions. Correspondent banking restrictions. AML enforcement.

The goal: choke access to the global dollar system.

Missiles degrade physical infrastructure.

Sanctions degrade regime liquidity.

Both are pressure points.

Hybrid Warfare at Home?

Just weeks ago, a pro-Shah rally advocating regime change in Iran was held at the Texas Capitol in Austin. Then a mass shooting occurred at Buford’s on West 6th, reportedly drawing FBI attention due to concerns about possible terrorism.

Reports indicated the suspect was a Senegalese naturalized citizen, who was wearing clothing referencing Islam and the Iranian flag.

Share

Correlation is not causation. But hybrid warfare doctrine explicitly blends kinetic, cyber, financial, and influence operations often designed to create chaos, polarization, and sow fear inside adversary nations.

The timing — concurrent with U.S.–Iran missile exchanges — underscores the reality of modern conflict: domestic stability becomes part of the battlefield.

Unrestricted warfare blends:

• Kinetic strikes

• Cyber operations

• Financial disruption

• Information warfare

• Proxy violence

• Social destabilization

The goal isn’t always territorial gain.

Sometimes it’s chaos.

The Bigger Picture

This moment is bigger than partisan politics. It sits at the intersection of:

• Energy security

• Great power competition

• Cyber warfare

• Financial sanctions enforcement

• Proxy conflict

• Domestic resilience

Whether you support or oppose the strikes, one reality remains: failure carries consequences that extend well beyond a single battlefield.

And success would reshape the geopolitical chessboard.

When geopolitics escalates in the 21st century, it doesn’t stay “over there.” It moves through oil markets, financial networks, and American critical infrastructure. Success could cement a midterm victory for the Republican Party, and failure could result in another impeachment of Donald Trump.

—DC

Jeffrey Epstein is usually talked about through the lens of sex trafficking and elite corruption. But there’s another facet of Epstein’s legacy that has flown under the radar: his funding of advanced biological research. And that matters because the technologies emerging from genetics and gene editing aren’t just medically transformative; they’re potentially dual-use in ways national security officials have explicitly warned about.

Subscribe now

After the Church Committee exposed illegal CIA human experimentation under MKUltra, Congress attempted to rein in the intelligence community in the 1970s. But by the 1980s, a new model emerged: outsourcing.

During the Reagan era, networks like the Safari Club and the Iran-Contra ecosystem, in which Epstein was involved, demonstrated how sensitive operations could be pushed into the private sphere. It also created plausible deniability for governments while keeping the machinery running.

Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to elite finance, intelligence-adjacent circles, and figures like the Safari Club arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi raise an unsettling question:

Did the U.S. national security world increasingly rely on private money and private institutions to explore ethically forbidden frontiers in biotechnology?

Epstein Didn’t Just Collect Politicians — He Cultivated Scientists

Epstein wasn’t a conventional philanthropist. Among his many ventures, he poured money into elite academic institutions, including Harvard.

In 2003, his foundation pledged $30 million to help create Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED), a research center for mathematical and biological evolutionary modeling, though the university ultimately received about $6.5 million specifically for PED.

Epstein’s name was even toasted in the preface of a textbook by the program’s director, Harvard professor Martin Nowak, thanking Epstein for “ideas and for letting me participate in his passionate pursuit of knowledge.”

Internal Harvard reviews later revealed that Epstein maintained an office and campus access at PED long after his 2008 conviction on sex-offense charges, meeting with visitors there more than 40 times between 2010 and 2018 — a revelation that led Harvard to close the program and sanction Nowak.

This wasn’t happenstance. Epstein’s financial and social access to a high-level scientific network — years before the explosive rise of CRISPR — shows he was pursuing relationships with scientists working on fundamental biological systems long before the world fully appreciated how disruptive those fields would become.

CRISPR and Genome Editing: Medicine’s Frontier and a National Security Concern

In the 2010s, a new set of tools emerged that changed everything: CRISPR gene editing and related genome editing technologies.

CRISPR allows scientists to cut, modify, and rewrite DNA sequences with unprecedented precision and low cost. It has sparked a revolution in medicine, agriculture, and basic biology, and also triggered serious warnings from security officials.

In the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment submitted by U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to the U.S. Senate, genome editing was explicitly flagged among weapons of mass destruction and proliferation threats.

Clapper’s report stated that genome editing’s broad distribution, low cost, and rapid pace of development make it a technology that increases the risk of potentially harmful biological agents with implications for national security.

That puts CRISPR and similar tools in the same sentence, in an official threat framework, as nuclear weapons and missile systems — not because they are imminently easy to weaponize, but because the barriers to manipulating life at a genetic level have dropped faster than global governance systems can adapt.

Gene Drives: Population-Scale Engineering

The next frontier of WMD threat is not nuclear enrichment or chemical stockpiles. It is biology that spreads itself.

Germline gene editing and gene drives represent a fundamental shift in the strategic landscape: the ability to alter living systems in ways that are permanent, heritable, and potentially uncontrollable. Unlike conventional weapons, these technologies do not merely destroy targets. They can rewrite them.

That is what makes them uniquely destabilizing.

One of the most powerful and controversial extensions of genome editing is gene drive technology — mechanisms designed to ensure a genetic change spreads through an entire wild population.

Proponents see humanitarian benefits: suppressing malaria by altering mosquito populations or removing invasive pests. But gene drives also carry irreversible ecological risk. If improperly released, a gene drive could:

• fundamentally alter an ecosystem

• spread unpredictable genetic changes beyond the target species

• become essentially impossible to reverse once established

Biosecurity analysts have flagged these tools as “dual-use”: valuable for public health if governed well, but dangerous if misused or uncontrolled.

Unlike traditional biological threats, where a lab accident or malicious release might be contained, gene drives operate at the level of species and ecosystems, which amplifies risk and raises stakes far beyond an individual pathogen.

The Risk of Germline Editing

Germline editing refers to genetic modifications made in sperm, eggs, or embryos. These are changes that are passed down to future generations. While often framed as a medical breakthrough, germline editing introduces a new category of threat: biological interventions that persist beyond the individual and propagate through time.

From an intelligence and counterproliferation standpoint, the danger is not “designer babies.” The danger is that heredity itself becomes a domain of strategic competition. A hostile actor does not need mass casualties immediately. The more profound risk is intergenerational disruption: demographic manipulation, engineered vulnerabilities, coercive programs, and irreversible population-level consequences.

The First Self-Propagating Weapon Class

Gene drives are even more alarming. They exploit CRISPR-based inheritance mechanisms to ensure a genetic trait is passed on at rates far beyond normal probability. In effect, a gene drive is not just an edit — it is an edit designed to spread.

This makes gene drives something rare in WMD space: a self-propagating system.

A nuclear weapon does not replicate. Chemical agents dissipate. A gene drive, once released, can move autonomously through ecosystems, crossing borders, and persisting without further human input. That creates an entirely different threat model: ecological warfare, agricultural collapse, or disruption of critical species.

Security experts have warned about scenarios involving:

• engineered insects spreading disease

• ecological sabotage targeting crops

• irreversible alterations to the biosphere

Once deployed, such tools could function as a form of biological warfare without a traditional battlefield.

Where This Fits the WMD Framework

The defining feature of WMD is not simply body count. It is strategic-scale disruption: mass destabilization, psychological terror, political coercion, and containment failure.

Germline editing and gene drives check multiple boxes:

• low barriers relative to nuclear programs

• dual-use research with weak oversight

• plausible deniability and attribution problems

• irreversible effects once deployed

• potential for systemic collapse rather than localized attack

The greatest danger is the democratization of powerful tools across uneven regulatory environments, where accidents, escalation, or covert programs become inevitable.

In the 20th century, WMD meant explosive force. In the 21st, it may mean self-replicating biology. Once a genetic intervention spreads, there is no recall button.

Rapid Countermeasure Platforms

When biosecurity experts talk about rapid countermeasure platforms, they mean technologies and systems that let you respond to a new biological threat before it spreads uncontrollably. Think of it like a “fire department” for engineered or emergent pathogens, gene drives, or other WMD-class biological interventions.

Key Characteristics of “Rapid Countermeasure Platforms”

• Modular & adaptable: Can switch targets quickly once a new threat is detected.

• Scalable production: Can produce large quantities quickly.

• Delivery systems ready: Not just the drug or vaccine, but how it gets to the population or ecosystem.

• Pre-tested regulatory paths: Platforms are ideally already approved for safety, so deployment isn’t delayed by new regulatory hurdles.

Here’s a breakdown of the countermeasures:

1. mRNA Vaccine Platforms

• Why rapid: Once you know the genetic sequence of a pathogen (or engineered trait), mRNA vaccines can be designed and manufactured in weeks instead of months.

• Real-world example: COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and BioNTech were designed within days of the virus sequence being published.

• WMD relevance: If someone engineered a virus or bacterial agent, these platforms could provide the fastest route to population-level protection.

2. CRISPR-based Antiviral Systems

• Mechanism: CRISPR can be repurposed to target viral genomes in infected cells, effectively destroying them.

• Rapid response angle: Once the sequence of a new virus is known, guide RNAs can be designed to target it specifically.

• Challenges: Delivery into humans is still experimental, but in principle, CRISPR therapeutics could counteract engineered pathogens.

3. Broad-Spectrum Antivirals and Biologics

• What it is: Drugs or antibodies that target a wide range of pathogens, not just one strain.

• Rapid benefit: Can slow or blunt an outbreak while more specific measures are developed.

• Example: Monoclonal antibody libraries designed for multiple viral families; antiviral small molecules that inhibit key viral enzymes.

4. Synthetic Biology & Modular Vaccine Factories

• Concept: Pre-established labs capable of “plug-and-play” design for vaccines or therapeutics.

• How it works: You feed in the genetic sequence of the threat, the factory churns out vaccine candidates or engineered antibodies quickly.

• WMD advantage: Centralized rapid-response infrastructure can cut months off development times.

5. Ecological and Agricultural Countermeasures for Gene Drives

• Not human-targeted, but essential: If a gene drive threatens a crop or ecosystem:

  • “Reversal drives” (gene drives designed to overwrite previous drives)

  • Biocontrol interventions (introduce competing species or engineered pathogens to neutralize the effect)

  • Chemical or environmental containment measures

• Challenge: Self-propagating gene drives can be hard to fully stop once released, so the platforms need to act faster than natural spread.

In short: these platforms are the “insurance policies” for 21st-century biological WMDs, letting governments or international agencies respond to emerging engineered threats before they become catastrophic.

The Biological Arms Race: China and the Strategic Future of Genetics

This is where the conversation becomes geopolitical. Unlike nuclear weapons, biotechnology does not require rare uranium or massive industrial facilities. It advances through:

• universities

• startups

• state-linked labs

• private funding ecosystems

• international scientific collaboration

And the U.S. is not the only actor watching this space closely.

China has made biotechnology a strategic priority, investing heavily in genomics, AI-driven drug development, and military-adjacent biomedical research.

Many analysts increasingly describe this as a coming biological arms race — not necessarily in the sense of cartoonish superweapons, but in competitive state capacity to engineer resilience, pathogens, population-level interventions, and bio-industrial dominance.

The He Jiankui Affair: The Moment the Future Arrived

Nothing crystallized this risk more than the 2018 scandal involving Chinese researcher He Jiankui.

He announced that he had used CRISPR to edit human embryos, resulting in the birth of twin girls. It’s the first known case of germline-edited babies brought to term. The global scientific community reacted with immediate outrage. He was widely condemned for violating ethical norms and exposing future generations to unknown risks.

The He Jiankui affair was a turning point because it demonstrated something terrifyingly simple:

The technology had outrun the rules.

What was once theoretical had become real, and it happened outside Western regulatory frameworks.

This is exactly the kind of event that accelerates arms-race logic:

• If one country pushes the boundary, others fear falling behind

• Ethical restraint becomes strategically costly

• Scientific competition turns into security competition

Rethinking Bill Gates

In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bill Gates and top officials from the Gates Foundation were reportedly in regular contact with Jeffrey Epstein, exploring ways to bankroll and build a global pandemic preparedness and vaccination network.

Share

These interactions came to light with the release of the “Epstein Files” on January 30th, made public by the U.S. Department of Justice following last year’s passage of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The revelations raise startling questions: Was Gates targeted by Russian honeypots because of his role in funding rapid-response measures against biological threats? And could these connections shed new light on the origins and early response to COVID-19?

Final Thoughts

The Epstein connection does raise critical structural questions:

• Who gets early access to technologies that can rewrite life?

• What norms govern their development and deployment?

• How do we ensure transparency, oversight, and ethical governance in a domain that moves faster than regulation?

The combination of dual-use biotechnology, private influence, and global innovation networks is not inherently nefarious, but it is a genuine biosecurity challenge that demands public awareness and serious policy attention.

What are the rules of engagement for hybrid warfare by China and other hostile actors that comprise threats against the security of the United States?

How do you fight an unrestricted war under the confines of the U.S. Constitution that limits a proper response? That might explain the era of privatization in intelligence and biotechnology.

—DC

Subscribe now

Why did the Biden administration remove Jeffrey Epstein associate Francisco D’Agostino from the OFAC sanctions list on January 13, 2025—just days before Trump was sworn in for his second term?

Was it simply bureaucratic cleanup? Or was it part of a broader negotiation in removing Nicolás Maduro that would play out later in the year?

And more importantly: why does Jeffrey Epstein’s name keep surfacing in Venezuela’s oil corruption ecosystem?

A Sanctions Mystery in the Final Days

On January 24, 2021, the Miami Herald published an article titled U.S. sanctions Venezuelan oil man close to Maduro and opposition. The framing made it seem like the Biden administration had imposed sanctions on D’Agostino, and the story didn’t mention his close Epstein connections.

In reality, the sanctions were issued in the final days of the first Trump administration and removed before Biden left office on January 20, 2025.

Treasury officials accused Venezuelan businessman Francisco D’Agostino of helping Maduro’s regime evade U.S. restrictions on Venezuela’s oil exports. His U.S. assets were frozen, Americans were barred from doing business with him, and the Treasury Department alleged he served as a broker inside a sanctions-busting oil network tied to PDVSA.

The case attracted attention for one key reason: D’Agostino was also the brother-in-law of Venezuelan opposition leader Henry Ramos Allup—an awkward connection rivals quickly exploited.

The Alex Saab Network

According to U.S. officials, D’Agostino worked with Colombian businessman Alex Saab and other figures—Joaquin Leal Jimenez, Alessandro Bazzoni, and Philipp Paul Vartan Apikian—to coordinate the sale of Venezuelan crude through a Mexican network designed to bypass sanctions.

Saab himself was accused of laundering hundreds of millions of dollars from embezzled Venezuelan funds. In 2023, Saab was returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange that saw ten Americans released.

The sanctions story, then, is not isolated. It is part of a much larger corruption architecture surrounding Venezuela’s oil economy.

Enter Derwick Associates into Epstein’s Orbit

Federal investigators have also been probing figures connected to Derwick Associates, a firm that secured billions in energy contracts from the Venezuelan government.

Two names stand out:

• Alejandro Betancourt

• Francisco Convit

Both were partners in Derwick, and both became targets of Miami prosecutors and Homeland Security Investigations. Convit is the only one of the three indicted in Miami federal court.

This is where Epstein enters the picture.

Subscribe now

By the early 2010s, Jeffrey Epstein was corresponding directly with Francisco D’Agostino to discuss travel, meetings, and introductions to Venezuela’s most powerful political and financial actors.

Epstein Plans a Caracas Trip

On October 22, 2012, Epstein emailed D’Agostino about visiting Caracas:

“could you give me a rough idea of one night two days itinerary for caracas…”

D’Agostino’s response was remarkable. He proposed that Epstein meet the most influential “movers and shakers” in Venezuela—spanning PDVSA, opposition leadership, banking, telecom, military finance, and even Chinese government representatives.

Among the suggested introductions:

• Baldo Sanso, financial advisor to PDVSA

• Henry Ramos Allup, opposition leader

• Alejandro Betancourt, Derwick executive with billions in government contracts

• Oswaldo Cisneros, one of Venezuela’s wealthiest telecom magnates

• General Alejandro Andrade, head of Venezuela’s treasury and Chávez insider

• Yuchi Cen, China’s representative overseeing bilateral agreements

D’Agostino even emphasized his father’s political influence and control over Venezuela’s internet hosting infrastructure.

Epstein was not meeting minor businessmen. He was being offered access to the core of the Venezuelan state.

A Growing Relationship

An email from November 7, 2012 referenced a planned lunch meeting between Epstein, D’Agostino, and Betancourt on November 19.

Around the same time, Epstein’s pilot Larry Visoski, was asked to confirm flight times between St. Thomas and Caracas:

“St. Thomas – Caracas Venezuela, is 1+20min…”

These are not abstract connections. They are logistical preparations for real travel and real meetings. Not only were they interested in Chávez, but the transition to the Maduro regime as well.

Share

2014 Meeting with Senior U.S. Diplomat

In 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that William Burns, then serving as a senior U.S. diplomat, held three scheduled meetings with Jeffrey Epstein in 2014.

Makes one wonder if they discussed Epstein’s adventures in Venezuela.

On January 11, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Burns as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee after Senator Ted Cruz lifted a hold on the nomination. Burns was sworn in as CIA Director the following day, March 19th.

The CIA director might not personally decide who gets added or removed from the OFAC sanctions list. That authority sits with the U.S. Treasury Department, specifically the Office of Foreign Assets Control, under powers delegated from the President.

But… CIA Director Burns might have influenced the decision to remove Francisco D’Agostino from the list.

Final Thoughts

So why does any of this matter now?

Francisco D’Agostino was sanctioned as part of a major U.S. crackdown on Venezuela’s oil sanctions evasion, and then quietly removed from the OFAC list in January 2025. Just shy of a year later, Donald Trump arrested Maduro.

Epstein’s documented communications show he was cultivating relationships with Venezuelan elites tied to PDVSA, Derwick, Chávez-era financial networks, and Maduro opposition figures.

And because the overlap between intelligence, diplomacy, sanctions policy, and Epstein’s private access raises questions that remain unanswered.

I don’t know exactly what Epstein was doing in Venezuela, but there’s more to the story than we’re being told. More than a decade later, major figures from his network were still moving through the highest levels of U.S. foreign policy.

—DC

That mission has taken on renewed urgency amid growing warnings from U.S. counterterrorism officials about vetting failures following the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal and the four years of open borders during the Biden administration.

During a recent Congressional hearing on global threats, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent raised alarms about 18,000 individuals who entered the country through resettlement pathways but have known and suspected ties to jihadist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda.

The concern, Kent argued, is not necessarily another 9/11-scale plot, but smaller “targets of opportunity,” the kind of attack that can be carried out by a single radicalized actor inside the homeland.

So, the question becomes: how do you identify tens of thousands of suspected extremists, cartel affiliates, and hostile operatives who blend into civilian life?

Have the operatives identify themselves.

Unrest as Exposure

When violent actors come into the open — throwing bricks, coordinating online, traveling across state lines, or linking up with extremist organizers — they make the job of mapping networks far easier than when they remain underground.

The unsettling reality is that riots not only test the state’s capacity to maintain order. They also expose the very people the state has been trying to find.

Subscribe now

When people show up in the streets, networks become visible, affiliations emerge, and funding pipelines intersect. The same crowds that chant slogans also generate digital footprints: faces, phones, vehicles, social media coordination, and travel patterns.

Groups such as Indivisible, the 50501 movement, and more radical organizations like the Beijing-backed Party for Socialism and Liberation, ANSWER Coalition, Code Pink, and The People’s Forum often overlap in these protest ecosystems, creating dense webs of activist coordination.

For federal investigators, that environment is not just chaos.

It’s data.

The Surveillance Reality

Modern immigration enforcement does not operate in a vacuum. ICE and Border Patrol increasingly rely on tools like:

• facial recognition systems

• social media analysis

• license plate tracking

• device metadata

• location data

• financial record subpoenas

• network-mapping platforms

Companies like Clearview AI (facial recognition) and Palantir have been reported as part of this broader surveillance architecture. Law enforcement has learned, especially since January 6th, that mass events provide an enormous pool of identifiers.

Covering your face may not even be enough. Investigators now employ behavioral biometrics — including gait recognition — to identify individuals even when traditional markers are obscured.

The Intelligence Value of Mass Events

Large demonstrations, riots, and flash-mob style protest activity generate what intelligence professionals call exposure.

When individuals mobilize in public space, networks that are normally opaque become observable. Protest environments create:

• interpersonal clustering

• logistical coordination

• communications traffic

• financial and organizational linkages

• travel patterns and support infrastructure

Even when the majority of participants are engaged in lawful political expression, mass unrest provides opportunities for violent actors, extremist organizers, and outside agitators to surface.

From a counterterrorism perspective, these events function as “collection environments,” in which security services can identify previously unknown nodes within broader networks.

January 6th Case Study

The January 6th investigation provides a clear example of how the federal government exploits mass events for identification and network mapping.

Following the Capitol breach, investigators used a layered approach that included:

• extensive review of open-source video and social media

• facial recognition and biometric matching

• geolocation fencing and device-based location data

• subpoenas for telecommunications and platform records

• financial tracing of travel, lodging, and coordination

• network analysis linking individuals across groups and regions

In other words, January 6th became a massive intelligence exercise in reconstructing affiliations, command-and-control relationships, and extremist overlap. Many individuals who might otherwise have remained anonymous were identified precisely because they entered a high-density surveillance environment.

The lesson for federal agencies was straightforward: mass disorder produces data.

Modern Enforcement and Data Fusion

Contemporary homeland security investigations rely less on informants and more on data fusion, the integration of multiple streams of information.

The practical reality is that anonymity is increasingly difficult in mass public events. Even basic operational security measures (masks, covered faces, burner accounts, etc.) are often insufficient against layered biometric and behavioral identification techniques.

Civil disorder creates a wealth of information that makes these tools more effective. From an intelligence standpoint, unrest can act as a filtering mechanism.

Individuals willing to engage in violence against federal officers, coordinate with radical networks, or exploit chaotic environments may reveal themselves more readily than they would in normal conditions.

Civil unrest is not merely a political challenge. It is an operational environment where:

• extremist travel networks can be mapped

• facilitators can be identified

• repeat offenders can be tracked

• foreign-linked agitators can be detected

• criminal and ideological overlaps become clearer

According to reporting from Tech Crunch, the Department of Homeland Security has increasingly relied on administrative subpoenas to identify people behind anonymous Instagram accounts that post about ICE raids in their communities, as well as individuals who have criticized Trump officials or protested federal policies.

Although these subpoenas cannot access the actual contents of emails, search histories, or precise location data, they can compel companies to provide revealing account details—such as login times, devices used, IP-related access points, and the email addresses or other identifying information connected to an account. Because administrative subpoenas do not require judicial approval, compliance often depends largely on whether a company chooses to cooperate.

Bloomberg reported last week that DHS sought to unmask the operator of an anonymous Instagram account, @montocowatch, which shares resources aimed at protecting immigrant rights and due process in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The subpoena to Meta was reportedly justified by a claim made by a non-DHS employee that ICE agents were being stalked because of the anonymous account.

Share

Final Thoughts

Seen through this lens, anti-ICE riots and protests are not simply political flashpoints; they are also operational environments.

Just as January 6th demonstrated how rapidly federal agencies can reconstruct networks from public disorder, similar unrest directed at immigration enforcement inevitably produces comparable intelligence opportunities. Violent participants generate identifiers, organizers leave digital trails, support infrastructures become visible and repeat actors can be tracked across jurisdictions.

For agencies tasked with counterterrorism and counterintelligence — especially amid concerns about cartel penetration, foreign-linked agitation, and extremist exploitation — these events function as high-density collection moments.

The modern surveillance and investigative apparatus is built to capitalize on exposure when it occurs, turning chaos into mapping, attribution, and, ultimately, enforcement.

-DC

Subscribe now

Consider the language coming from the left. Soros-backed Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner recently vowed to “hunt down” ICE agents once Trump leaves office, invoking comparisons to the decades-long pursuit of Nazis.

“There will be accountability after Trump is out of office. If we have to hunt you down the way they hunted down Nazis for decades, we will find your identities, we will find you.”

This kind of rhetoric doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Alex Pretti and Renee Good didn’t just die at the hands of ICE agents. They also died in a political climate deliberately inflamed by Democratic leaders and activist networks. The riots in Minnesota were not organic. They were primed, framed, and fueled.

Fomenting Insurrection

One of the most underreported figures in this story is Maria Stephan of the Horizons Project, who has been linked to activist organizing around the Minnesota unrest and was promoted by Stephen Colbert just last week. That connection alone deserves scrutiny. But it goes deeper.

Just one month before the George Floyd riots—which caused an estimated $2 billion in damage—Stephan produced a video for the U.S. Institute of Peace promoting “peaceful protest.”

The video leaned heavily on the work of Gene Sharp, whose writings outline how “nonviolent” movements can be used to destabilize and overthrow governments. What often gets left out is that in 1968, DARPA funded Sharp’s research into precisely these methods.

Fast forward to today. BBC-verified footage of Alex Pretti’s shows him spitting at ICE officers and kicking out a taillight while armed. While Minnesota law allows concealed carry during protests, it does not permit resisting arrest, impeding federal immigration enforcement, or doing either while armed. When Stephan spoke in her video about protesters’ “risk tolerance,” is this what she meant?

That raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Is there legal liability for the people harmed by protests backed by activist networks that explicitly rely on manuals designed to overthrow governments?

Trump Adds Fuel to the Fire

If the left truly believes it is fighting fascism, then the behavior of Renee Good and Alex Pretti—while not justified—becomes understandable within that worldview. When opponents are framed as Nazis, escalation is inevitable.

But responsibility doesn’t stop there. The Trump administration also bears blame for pouring gasoline on an already volatile situation. Elon Musk and Steve Bannon making Nazi salutes doesn’t help anyone’s cause.

Share

It hands Democrats exactly what they want: visual fuel to radicalize their base and justify increasingly extreme responses.

And if Trump were genuinely serious about mass deportations, there are far more effective levers he could pull. Why not withhold federal funds until E-Verify is mandatory nationwide? Why not prosecute Big Agriculture CEOs and hotel owners who systematically violate labor laws and enable human trafficking?

According to the New York Times, Trump privately instructed aides to remain “conscious of the business community” when pursuing deportations, directing enforcement toward criminals while avoiding work sites. That tells you everything you need to know.

Mass Migration and the Consequences of the 2030 Census

Likewise, the most plausible explanation for Joe Biden opening the border to an estimated 10–12 million migrants isn’t compassion…it’s math. As the 2030 census looms large, House seats and Electoral College votes are at stake. Trump’s current enforcement posture disproportionately targets blue states already projected to lose political power in 2030.

In that context, the Democrats’ border policy and Trump’s fear-based messaging suddenly make strategic sense.

Never underestimate politicians’ willingness to sacrifice stability and lives for power. Democrats don’t oppose deportations because they care about migrants. They oppose them because they care about seats.

Final Thoughts

Both parties are selling fantasies. Democrats who talk about nullifying federal immigration enforcement ignore the very real national security risks posed by terror networks, cartels, and other non-state actors. Republicans who promise mass deportations ignore reality just as badly: removing 50 million people would implode the housing market, cripple entire industries, and push Social Security toward bankruptcy.

A country cannot function with open borders, and it cannot survive an economic self-inflicted wound of that scale. Serious policy starts with rejecting extremes and confronting the trade-offs neither side wants to admit.

As the country barrels toward the high-stakes 2026 midterm elections, political fatigue is hardening into rejection. A Gallup poll conducted throughout 2025 found that a record-high 45% of Americans now identify as political independents—a clear rebuke of the behavior, rhetoric, and hypocrisy of both parties.

-DeAnna Calderón

As always, if you have any tips, you know where to hit me up on X (@DCinTejas) or message me on Substack.