11/18 – International News Update

The Biden administration has approved Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied weapons for long-range strikes within Russian territory, according to officials familiar with the matter. This decision represents a notable shift in the U.S. stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, as Kyiv prepares for its first deep strikes utilizing Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).

The policy change comes amid reports of Russian President Vladimir Putin reinforcing his forces with North Korean troops along Ukraine’s northern border in an effort to reclaim territory lost to Ukrainian advances. Adding to the urgency is President-elect Donald Trump’s recent election victory, which has raised questions about the future of U.S. military support, as Trump has pledged to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion.

For months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Western allies have called on the Biden administration to allow strikes deeper into Russian territory, arguing that restrictions hindered Ukraine’s ability to respond to attacks on its cities and infrastructure. While Biden’s decision aligns with these requests, it has also sparked concerns about escalating the conflict. Putin has warned that such actions could lead Moscow to supply long-range weapons to allies for strikes on Western targets, with Russian officials describing the policy shift as a major escalation.

Zelenskyy remained reserved in his response, emphasizing that Ukraine’s military strategy focuses on actions over rhetoric. “Today, many in the media are saying that we have received permission to take appropriate actions,” he stated. “But strikes are not made with words. Such things are not announced.”

The decision follows President Biden’s recent discussions with leaders from South Korea, Japan, and China at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru, where talks highlighted the deployment of North Korean troops and its implications for regional security. Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has provided over $56 billion in military aid, solidifying its role as Ukraine’s most vital ally.

This policy shift coincides with Ukraine’s plans to execute its first long-range strikes using ATACMS rockets, which have a range of up to 190 miles (306 km). These strikes are anticipated in the coming days, though operational details remain confidential for security reasons.

Opinion: 

Ukraine is focusing its efforts on defending the Kursk region, a salient it captured during a cross-border assault in August. The territory could serve as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, potentially influenced by Trump’s stance once he assumes office in January. Ukrainian forces face mounting pressure as Russia reportedly masses 50,000 troops in the area, supplemented by 11,000 North Korean soldiers.

“ATACMS missiles can hold at-risk high-value Russian and North Korean targets. This would help Ukrainian forces defend the Kursk salient, which is under pressure,” said Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Biden administration’s hesitation to approve long-range strikes mirrors previous delays in providing advanced weapons such as tanks and fighter jets. Critics argue these delays have allowed Moscow to recover and reinforce occupied territories, weakening Ukraine’s counteroffensive capabilities. Analysts note that while ATACMS strikes may bolster Ukraine’s position, they are unlikely to significantly alter the war’s trajectory.

Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, stated, “Ukraine has committed some of its best units [to Kursk], so they may be able to hold for some time if they continue to receive enough ammunition and combat replacements.”

It remains unclear how Trump’s administration will address this policy shift once he takes office. Trump has criticized the scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine and pledged to end the war quickly, although his plans remain vague. Richard Grenell, one of Trump’s closest foreign policy advisors, criticized the move, saying, “Escalating the wars before he leaves office.”

France and Britain, which have supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, have yet to indicate whether they will follow the U.S. in loosening restrictions on their use. Analysts warn that while the authorization may help Ukraine defend critical positions, it might come too late to drastically shift the conflict’s momentum.

As the situation unfolds, Kyiv faces the dual challenge of maintaining its territorial gains while navigating the evolving dynamics of international support and Russian aggression. The Biden administration’s decision reflects a delicate balancing act, weighing the risks of escalation against the need to bolster Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.

11/13 – International News Update & Story

Germany’s coalition government has collapsed, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz dismissing Finance Minister Christian Lindner on Wednesday night. The fallout is expected to lead to a snap election early next year, with voting likely scheduled for February 2025.

The “traffic light” coalition, formed in 2021 by the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, and the Free Democratic Party (FDP), has faced persistent internal discord. Initially established after prolonged negotiations, the coalition has struggled with diverging political priorities, economic turbulence, and the impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Recent surveys indicate waning public support, with 85% of Germans expressing dissatisfaction with the government, and a majority now favoring an early election.

Economic troubles remain a central issue. Germany’s GDP has stagnated, and the International Monetary Fund forecasts a modest 0.8% growth for 2025, the lowest among major developed economies. Volkswagen, the nation’s largest manufacturer, faces potential factory closures for the first time in its history, underscoring the broader economic crisis.

Tensions within the coalition peaked after a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in November 2023 deemed parts of the government’s budgetary policy unconstitutional, leaving a €60 billion shortfall. The situation worsened following the leak of Finance Minister Lindner’s proposal, which suggested cutting social spending and easing regulations, sparking fierce backlash from coalition partners who favor increased investment in social and climate initiatives. The rift led to Lindner’s dismissal, with Scholz citing his repeated obstruction of key legislation.

Chancellor Scholz has framed the upcoming election as a referendum on his cautious approach to foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine. Scholz has refused to supply Kyiv with long-range missiles, arguing that doing so could escalate the conflict with Russia. In a recent address to parliament, he defended his stance, emphasizing his role in preventing further escalation. “I am glad that I was allowed to take responsibility in these difficult times,” Scholz stated, portraying himself as a leader who prioritizes prudence and restraint in handling the crisis.

This approach stands in contrast to his main rival, Friedrich Merz of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who has taken a more aggressive stance on military aid. Merz has criticized Scholz for his reluctance to send German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, advocating for stronger support if Russia continues its attacks on civilian targets. Merz’s hawkish position has resonated with conservative voters, propelling the CDU to the lead in recent polls with 32% support. In comparison, Scholz’s SPD trails behind at 16%, just behind the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). [Politico] 

The election timing and outcome are now critical, as Scholz aims to push through essential legislation with the backing of opposition leaders before the vote. However, mounting pressure from the CDU for an earlier election suggests a turbulent campaign period ahead. Meanwhile, international dynamics could further complicate Scholz’s strategy, particularly if U.S. foreign policy shifts with a potential Trump administration threatening to reduce military aid to Ukraine.

Merz, while avoiding direct comments on Ukraine aid during his recent speech, criticized the current government’s broader policies, calling for a significant shift in Germany’s approach to migration, security, and economic matters. The forthcoming election is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Germany’s political landscape, with a likely change in leadership that could alter the country’s domestic and foreign policy trajectory.

As the campaign unfolds, Scholz continues to position himself as the “peace chancellor,” highlighting Germany’s extensive military contributions to Ukraine while underscoring his efforts to avoid direct conflict with Russia. Whether this balancing act will sway voters in his favor remains uncertain, but all signs point to a significant political shift in Germany as the snap election approaches.

Scholz said Wednesday that he will ask for a vote of confidence on December 16, paving the way for early parliamentary elections in February.

11/07 – U.S. Political Opinion Piece

Donald Trump has officially completed one of history’s most astonishing political comebacks with a presidential election victory over Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, four years after he was voted out of the White House. President-elect Trump is on track to secure 312 electoral votes, clinch all seven battleground states, and even emerge victorious in the popular vote with nearly 73 million votes—around five million more than his opponent. He is the first Republican candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years.

Trump claimed an emphatic victory this week that came out to be much more clear and sweeping in what many pollsters, media outlets, and members of the populus expected to be one of the closest presidential contests to date. In reality, Harris was unable to improve the Democratic vote share in a single county compared to Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, over 2,300 counties across America shifted red compared to 2020 while Trump made notable gains amongst most demographics, including the crucial Black and Latino vote. [NYT] 

Republicans have won the White House, the Senate, and are currently on track to win the House of Representatives as well. Around 90% of the counties in the U.S. shifted towards Donald Trump in this election. He even made significant gains in deep blue states where he still lost to Harris, however much less convincingly than in 2020. In what was touted to be a showdown for the ages where a majority of top national polling and news agencies and had it at a dead heat or even slight edge to Kamala Harris going into election day—it seems they got it all wrong. 

So, what really happened? 

One of the main stories of this election will be Latino realignment. Latino men, in scores, helped decide this election for Donald Trump. In 2020, Hispanic men favored Biden by 23 points; this year, they shifted to support Trump by ten points. [The Economist] 

It has become clear that Latinos are ditching the Democratic party. Exit polls from previous elections highlight a gradual shift among Hispanic voters. In 2016, Hillary Clinton led this group by 38 percentage points; by 2020, Joe Biden’s margin had narrowed to 33 points. According to early exit polls from CNN, Harris’s margin this year has dropped to a mere eight points—a striking decline if accurate. County-level data further underscores this trend, showing Harris gaining a significantly lower percentage of the vote than Biden in predominantly Hispanic counties, especially in Florida. [The Economist]  

Some of Kamala Harris’s clearest weaknesses occurred in Texas, specifically along the Mexican border. In Webb County, her share of the vote was 13 percentage points below what Joe Biden achieved in 2020, with similar drops in Dimmit, Starr, and Zapata Counties. In these areas, where more than five in six residents are Hispanic—a demographic traditionally at the heart of the Democratic base—support appears to have waned. Mexican voters, especially in southwest Texas, leaned heavily toward Trump in 2020. This year, counties with significant Dominican and Cuban populations appear to have moved away from the Democrats, while Puerto Rican and Mexican communities have shifted by a smaller margin. 

The swing states all went for Trump despite polls placing most at a razor thin margin. 

North Carolina once again turned out to be a deceptive prospect for Democrats, and Georgia swung back into Republican control. The Democratic ticket, led by Kamala Harris, found insufficient support in the Atlanta suburbs to secure the state of Georgia. Meanwhile, Nevada and Arizona both leaned toward Trump as more than half of their votes were counted, painting an electoral landscape that resembled 2016 more than 2020. Across the South, a stretch from North Carolina to El Paso displayed a solidly red block, while traditionally Democratic-leaning states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New Jersey saw unexpectedly close races. She lagged behind Biden’s 2020 results, especially with rural Black voters in regions like southern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, and south Georgia. 

The once-reliable “Blue Wall” of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin crumbled as Harris suffered significant losses there. Her performance in suburban areas also stagnated or even declined slightly, affecting urban areas and even liberal college counties, which underperformed by a point or two compared to Biden’s 2020 showing. Trump, on the other hand, saw increased support in rural areas across the board, gaining ground in exurban communities and border counties.

Virginia symbolized the night’s struggles for Democrats. The state’s results weren’t confirmed until 11:42 pm, four hours later than in 2020, illustrating a tighter-than-anticipated race. The delay stemmed from lower Democratic margins with voters of color and Harris’s inability to match Biden’s numbers in the Northern Virginia suburbs and exurbs. These areas, initially expected to repel the “Make America Great Again” message, supported Harris, but her leads were notably slimmer than Biden’s in 2020. [Politico]

Florida’s results offered further insight into the shifting political landscape. Although Harris was not predicted to win Florida, the scale of Trump’s success—a 13-point victory with over 1.4 million votes—was crazy. Trump flipped Pinellas County in St. Petersburg and Duval County in Jacksonville, which Biden had won in 2020, suggesting widespread dissatisfaction with the current administration’s performance.

In Florida, the expected shift among Latino voters was unmistakable. In Orange County and Osceola County—areas with significant Puerto Rican populations—Harris fell short of Biden’s 2020 margins. Trump even carried Osceola County, showing that the “island of garbage” comment from his Madison Square Garden rally had minimal impact on the local vote. In Miami-Dade County, where Cuban Americans dominate, Trump won decisively, reversing his 2016 loss to Hillary Clinton by a significant margin, securing a 10-point lead this year. [Politico]

This shift wasn’t confined to Florida. Trump gained strength in certain border counties in New Mexico, while his outreach efforts with Latino voters appeared to resonate in eastern Pennsylvania. Starr County in Texas—a 97% Latino area—also told a dramatic story. Trump had faced a massive 79-19 defeat there in 2016, only to make the race competitive in 2020. This year, he achieved a decisive victory in Starr County with a 58-42 margin.  [Politico]

The 2024 election reinforced the notion that Latino voters are a rapidly evolving swing constituency, displaying diverse preferences and an openness to Republican outreach that has gradually shifted the electoral map. For Democrats, particularly as they look to future elections, rebuilding support among Latino voters across these regions will be a complex but essential task.

The Republicans came out so victorious due to the fact that they won over such a large portion of working class and minority voters— two vital demographics that used to be at the core of the Democrats’ base. 

After ousting Biden from the ticket in late July, Kamala Harris and the Democratic party tried putting together a 15-week super campaign funded by over a billion dollars to defeat Donald Trump and clearly came up short. When analyzing their pitfalls, there are many clear reasons as to why their messaging failed to capture the sentiments of the American people. 

Kamala Harris’s campaign performance and effectiveness as a candidate require immediate accountability. She was thoroughly rejected in both the popular vote and in an electoral landslide. 

In the final stages of her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris concentrated heavily on mobilizing young female voters, a demographic already largely supportive due to her stance on abortion rights. This focus was evident in her choice of rally guests, including Beyoncé, Katy Perry, and Megan Thee Stallion, who appeal predominantly to younger female audiences. However, this strategy may have overlooked the critical need to engage other voter groups, particularly men aged 30-64, whose support was essential for securing a broader electoral base. By not diversifying her outreach efforts to include these pivotal demographics, Harris’s campaign potentially missed opportunities to garner the additional votes necessary for a successful outcome.

The recent election has highlighted a crucial lesson for the left: elections aren’t won by lecturing voters or pushing them to align with a perceived moral high ground. Framing American history as an endless series of mistakes, or dismissing half of Americans as irredeemable, has alienated a significant portion of the electorate. The elite wing of the left may have thought that dismantling historical symbols would signal a superior moral stance, but in reality, it risks erasing a shared American identity, making unity difficult to achieve in today’s neoliberal climate. Canceling aspects of history, rather than acknowledging and learning from them, does little to foster a collective American spirit.

The Democratic Party’s image as a moral, inclusive force has, for some, morphed into an air of entitlement toward certain voter groups—such as minorities, immigrants, and those who prioritize human rights. While portraying itself as the party of inclusivity and social justice, the left may have come across as patronizing, often vilifying opposing views rather than understanding them. Many voters who shifted toward Trump likely did so not out of newfound realization that they are racist and sexist, but out of frustration and disillusionment. They feel the party no longer represents their needs or aspirations, finding Democratic policies and rhetoric increasingly out of touch with their lived experiences. 

This election was not lost by the Democrats because America is racist and sexist, but rather because demography is not destiny when it comes to people’s vote. 

For Democrats, rebuilding trust with the public calls for honest self-reflection and accountability. The party must move beyond blaming external factors for its losses and begin examining its own approach, leadership, and policies. This is a moment that demands a deep, introspective reassessment—one that focuses less on labeling and more on understanding and addressing the priorities of a broader swath of Americans. 

“The elites of this country alienated voters everywhere because they didn’t want to hear what working and middle class voters were screaming for four years—focus on us and our problems, not your agenda to destroy Trump,” Kofinis said. [WSJ]  

The Democratic Party needs to dial into the center and push for a stronger focus on core issues like the economy, crime, and immigration, aiming for a more straightforward approach that resonates with a broader base of voters. They believe that centering these issues could help recapture middle-ground voters who may feel alienated by the emphasis on certain cultural topics, such as transgender rights, which many view as diverting attention from pressing, universal concerns at this point. 

And in terms of cultural impact a lot of voters likely were concerned with the state of democracy going into this election, as many exit polls showed. However, not all of those voter concerns were fueled by a fear that Trump holds the potential of a fascist leader but also the fact that Democratic party has clearly shown its own attempts to bypass democracy whenever they can. They sacked Joe Biden in a backdoor coup once it was clear that they could no longer gaslight the public on his mental condition, propelled Kamala Harris to the nomination with zero attempts at any sort of primary or electoral process of choosing a candidate, and absolutely crushed Bernie Sanders’ inherently grassroots democratic movement back in 2016 and again in 2020 to the ensure the candidate chosen by party elites would remain unchallenged.  

Aside from being a once-in-a-generation forceful and influential political figure, Donald Trump managed to become the embodiment of a cultural force. Whether purposefully or not, Trump became the candidate that personified a sweeping sense of anti-institutionalism and disillusionment with the political establishment in Washington and its completely out of touch elites. 

Voters have become preoccupied with new issues like inflation and immigration, and have run out of patience for a Democratic party whose identity for the past decade has been more focused on fighting Donald Trump than it has been addressing the real issues of its voters. The Republicans will now hold a triple majority at least for the next two years. This is not even so much an incredible victory for Donald Trump than it is an incredible defeat for the Democrats to own. The statistics are there, the numbers, the demographics. Americans have spoken and they are tired of being gaslighted. 

10/30 – International News Update

In a closely contested referendum marked by allegations of Russian interference, Moldova voted narrowly to join the European Union, with the decision hinging on only a few thousand votes.

As of last Monday, 99.9 percent of the votes had been tallied, showing a slim pro-EU win: 50.4 percent in favor of constitutional changes to pursue EU membership, compared to 49.6 percent against. 

During an intense and suspenseful night, the “no” campaign maintained an edge until near the final count. Although domestic votes leaned toward the anti-EU stance, overseas ballots ultimately tipped the scales. Around midnight, with over 90 percent of votes counted and the “yes” campaign trailing by nearly 10 points, pro-Western President Maia Sandu held an emergency press conference, attributing the early deficit to “foreign forces” attempting to sway the outcome with money and propaganda. [Politico] 

Ultimately, strong support from Moldovans living abroad, especially in Europe, the U.S., and Canada, bridged the gap.

Romanian MEP Siegfried Mureșan, who heads the parliament’s liaison committee on Moldova’s EU accession, described the referendum’s narrow passage as “a victory for the people of the Republic of Moldova and a setback for Russia.” [Politico] 

Mureșan committed to ensuring that the European Union respects Moldova’s choice and supports the country’s accession process.

Moscow has been accused of attempting to influence the vote through financial incentives and social media, aiming to stoke fears about potential conflict with Russia if Moldova joins the EU.

The referendum outcome allows Moldova to amend its constitution to prioritize EU membership and advances its accession talks, with officials aiming for membership by 2030. They have urged the EU to commit to this target date.

In a concurrent presidential election, Sandu led with around 42 percent of the vote but will now face pro-Russian candidate Alexandr Stoianoglo in a runoff, as she did not secure an outright majority.

10/28 – International News Story

Ursula von der Leyen is set to introduce stricter laws and further measures to deport rejected asylum seekers, reinforcing the European Union’s shift toward tougher migration policies as anti-immigrant parties continue to gain traction across Europe.

Over half of EU member states, including France and Germany, have called on the EU to tighten its deportation policies ahead of a meeting of 27 EU leaders last Thursday. Now, the head of the EU’s executive branch is formally endorsing these deportation efforts.

At a press conference, von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, mentioned that leaders had discussed establishing deportation centers outside the EU’s borders, which she referred to as “return hubs.” These proposals for enhancing deportation mechanisms come at a time when the number of migrants entering the EU is actually declining. In 2023, fewer than 300,000 people arrived in Europe, and this year, the EU border agency Frontex estimates only around 160,000 migrants have entered. This stands in stark contrast to 2015, when over a million people crossed into the EU during the peak of Europe’s migration crisis. [Politico]

“Currently, only 20 percent of those who are ordered to leave the European Union are actually returned to their home countries,” von der Leyen said.

She added that the concept of “return hubs” is not insignificant, though it has been under discussion for a while now. European leaders are endorsing the establishment of deportation centers, as well as deportations to Afghanistan and Syria, and supporting Poland’s move to ban asylum seekers.

To expand its deportation efforts, the EU may also reconsider its definition of a legally “safe” country.

Austria’s Chancellor, Karl Nehammer, suggested that Syria, still under the rule of Bashar Assad, and Afghanistan, governed by the Taliban, could be classified as safe countries. Italy is leading efforts to send refugees back to Syria, despite the country’s ongoing civil war, which began in 2011 and led to a severing of diplomatic ties with the EU.

At the same meeting, von der Leyen also endorsed other proposals aimed at reducing migration. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk received backing for his proposed ban on asylum seekers from Russia and Belarus, citing concerns that Moscow was deliberately sending migrants to Europe to destabilize Poland. [Politico] 

EU leaders fully supported the proposed asylum ban.

“Russia and Belarus, or any other country, cannot be allowed to exploit our values,” read the agreement signed by all leaders. “Exceptional circumstances require appropriate measures.”

A notable dissent came from Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, who framed migration as beneficial for his country’s economy.

When asked about the “return hubs” during a press conference, Sánchez expressed opposition: “We do not support such measures; they don’t solve problems and create new ones.” [Politico]

Along with Germany, Sánchez advocated for a greater focus on the EU’s landmark migration and asylum agreement, which was reached last December.

OPINION:

As the European Union takes necessary measures to tighten its migration policies, some argue that these measures are excessive or even inhumane. Yet Europe has, for years, faced an unsustainable strain on its cultural fabric, social services, and security, making stricter deportation policies a necessity rather than a choice.

President Ursula von der Leyen’s recent endorsement of tougher deportation laws is a logical step toward restoring control over Europe’s borders and addressing the deep-seated consequences of migration that resonate across the continent.

Europe’s migration policies were initially built on values of humanitarianism and solidarity, crafted during a time when migrant flows were more manageable. That vision is no longer sustainable. Even as the number of new arrivals has decreased since the 2015 crisis, past waves of migration have left lasting impacts. In countries like France, Germany, and Sweden, urban centers are struggling to integrate large numbers of newcomers, resulting in rising tensions and shifting demographics. Many of these communities have struggled to assimilate into their host countries, leading citizens to question their nation’s capacity to absorb further waves.

This pressure extends beyond cultural concerns to public services. Europe’s schools, healthcare systems, and social support programs are feeling the strain, as they work to accommodate populations that often arrive with high support needs. Integrating such numbers, especially when language and educational backgrounds vary widely, is a complex and costly endeavor. To maintain the quality of life for all residents, EU nations must draw a line, ensuring that public services aren’t eroded to the point where they are unable to serve either their citizens or new arrivals effectively.

Rising migration rates have correlated with increasing crime rates in some regions, adding a legitimate security concern. While this does not imply that all migrants are involved in crime, studies have shown that certain groups face challenges with economic hardship, cultural adjustment, and integration, leading to social issues that only heighten the need for stricter control. If Europe’s values include maintaining safe and cohesive communities, stronger migration policies are not just preferable—they’re essential.

President von der Leyen’s proposals, including “return hubs” and stricter deportation rules, address this urgent need for order within the migration system. “Return hubs” outside EU borders have faced criticism, but they provide a practical solution to manage the backlog of cases for those who don’t meet asylum requirements. The EU cannot indefinitely support those who don’t qualify, particularly as resources are stretched. This pragmatic approach doesn’t reject Europe’s values; it reaffirms them, prioritizing legitimate asylum seekers without overwhelming host societies.

Some leaders, like Austria’s Chancellor Karl Nehammer, propose defining Syria and Afghanistan as “safe” countries, acknowledging the need for a reasonable boundary despite the difficult conditions there. Supporting measures like Poland’s asylum bans from Russia and Belarus also prevents migration from being weaponized to destabilize Europe’s borders. Such policies reflect a strong stance that Europe’s migration system cannot be exploited without consequence. Europe’s core values must be protected, and tightening its borders is key to this mission.

These policies are controversial, as leaders like Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez advocate for migration’s economic benefits. But in the current climate, Europe’s stability does not align with an unchecked approach. Stricter migration policies help establish sustainable systems that benefit both citizens and legitimate migrants, preventing resentment and mistrust from eroding cohesion within communities.

As the EU confronts a shifting global landscape, where tough living conditions and political instability drive constant migration pressures, Europe’s relatively liberal migration system has proven vulnerable. Instead of primarily supporting vulnerable families, the system now sees an influx of able-bodied young men seeking economic opportunity rather than asylum. Europe must adapt to this shifting reality and recalibrate policies to protect its resources and remain a haven for those truly in need. For Europe’s long-term prosperity and unity, these policies are essential.

10/21 – International News Story

In the final months of his presidency, President Joe Biden is showing a new openness to using U.S. military aid to Israel as both an incentive and a form of pressure in its high-stakes conflict with Iran and militant groups supported by Iran. This approach deepens U.S. involvement in Israeli decision-making right before the and might be interpreted as a way of increasing this administration’s influence with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Biden’s objectives for now seem to include preventing a larger regional conflict and urging Israel to address Gaza’s worsening humanitarian crisis.

Last weekend, the Biden administration revealed plans to send approximately 100 U.S. troops and an advanced anti-missile system to Israel, a rare move prompted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s consideration of retaliating against Iran after its October 1 missile strike. [Reuters]

In addition, the administration delivered a letter to Israel on Sunday, warning it to take steps to improve Gaza’s humanitarian conditions within the next month or face possible restrictions on U.S. military aid. Publicly, U.S. officials claim these actions align with long-standing policies that aim to safeguard Israel’s defense while advocating for civilian protection in the year-long Gaza conflict.

These recent moves signal a deeper U.S. involvement in Israeli strategies, even as Biden nears the end of his term. Israel has often resisted U.S. advice over the past year, creating political challenges for the Biden administration, which faces pressure from liberal activists in the Democratic Party to use U.S. influence to curb Israel’s actions.

This both-carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy shows that the Biden administration is engaged in trying to manage this conflict, but there are certain doubts that Washington would cut any military aid if or when the conflict with Iran intensifies. If tensions escalate and Israel gets into direct military conflict with Iran, it’s hard to imagine the U.S. reducing military support.

White House spokesperson John Kirby downplayed the idea that the letter was intended as a threat, though Israeli officials are reportedly taking it seriously. Israel also acknowledged receiving the letter, which is under review by security officials. [Reuters]

On Wednesday of last week, Israel reported that 50 aid trucks had been sent to northern Gaza from Jordan, possibly in response to U.S. demands.

Biden has prioritized Israel’s defense since the war with Hamas began, refusing to halt weapons deliveries despite criticism from fellow Democrats as Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to Palestinian health authorities, led to significant casualties. 

In April, the administration pushed for better protection for civilians and aid workers, which temporarily increased aid flows into Gaza. Sunday’s letter, which outlined steps for Israel to improve conditions within 30 days, including the entry of at least 350 aid trucks daily, was the clearest ultimatum presented by the U.S. thus far.

Failure to comply could result in Israel becoming ineligible for U.S. military aid, according to John Ramming Chappell from the Center for Civilians in Conflict, marking a potential turning point in U.S. policy. Netanyahu held an emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss increasing humanitarian aid to Gaza, with aid expansion likely soon. [Reuters]

The deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) also represents a major shift. Former officials described it as a “paradigm shift” given Israel’s long-standing defense doctrine of self-reliance. This move increases U.S. involvement in the conflict, especially as the Middle East anticipates Israel’s response to Iran’s missile strike.

Biden has opposed any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear or energy sites, expressing concern about escalating tensions. Analysts like Thomas Karako from the Center for Strategic and International Studies view the THAAD deployment as a way to dissuade Israel from launching large-scale strikes.

With Biden’s 30-day deadline running past the U.S. election, Netanyahu may leverage the potential for a more favorable U.S. administration under Donald Trump if the Republican candidate wins. As Aaron David Miller noted, Netanyahu could be operating from a position of maximum leverage in the coming weeks with the presidential election coming at such a pivotal and uncertain time. 

10/18 – International News Update

Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7, 2023, assault that ignited the Gaza war and most recent leader of Hamas, was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza on Wednesday. [Reuters]

This marks another potentially significant turning point toward escalation in the conflict as Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group announced on Friday that it was entering a new, more intense stage in its conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Iran stated that “the spirit of resistance will be strengthened” after Sinwar’s death.

Western leaders viewed his death as a potential opening for peace, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted the war would persist until all Hamas-held hostages were freed. “We have delivered a blow to evil today, but our mission is not over,” Netanyahu said in a recorded statement on Thursday.  [Reuters] 

Sinwar, who took over Hamas leadership after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, had reportedly been hiding in the vast network of tunnels built by Hamas under Gaza. Israeli officials noted that soldiers, unaware they had captured their top target, killed Sinwar during a gunfight in southern Gaza on Wednesday. 

Opinion: 

Though Hamas has not officially responded, internal sources suggest that Sinwar was indeed killed by Israeli forces. Despite hopes from Western nations for a ceasefire, his death could exacerbate tensions in the region, where fears of a broader conflict are mounting. Israel has escalated its military operations in Lebanon in recent weeks and is preparing a response to an October 1 missile strike by Iran, a close ally of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran has shown no indication of altering its stance, reaffirming that the “spirit of resistance” will only grow stronger following Sinwar’s killing. Hezbollah also responded defiantly, declaring a shift into an intensified phase of conflict with Israel.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken engaged in discussions with Saudi and Qatari leaders in an effort to halt the conflict. Meanwhile, Israeli hostage families, though acknowledging the importance of Sinwar’s death, emphasized that the war would not truly end until all hostages are freed.

Sinwar, who orchestrated the 2023 attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and resulted in the capture of over 250 hostages, is seen by some as a key figure whose death could advance peace efforts. The U.S. has expressed hope that his death may pave the way for a ceasefire and hostage negotiations. U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller described Sinwar as the “primary obstacle” to peace, adding that his removal could open the door to talks, although it remains unclear if his successor would be amenable to such discussions.

When there is a significant enough movement of resistance as there is currently in Palestine against Israel, a leader can be killed but the movement itself will not be stamped out. A new leader will quickly succeed and the Hamas organization in this case will be weakened but not ready to stand down. As we have seen in recent months and in the larger scope of Israel’s regional adversaries and the extremist militias, no matter how many leaders they assassinate, another pops up and conflict resolution does not get any closer. It is doubtful that we are any closer to peace in the Middle East even though another key Hamas leader has been eliminated and they intensify their decapitation efforts against Iran’s proxy militant leadership. 

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken engaged in discussions with Saudi and Qatari leaders in an effort to halt the conflict. Meanwhile, Israeli hostage families, though acknowledging the importance of Sinwar’s death, emphasized that the war would not truly end until all hostages are freed.

10/17 – International News & Economics Story

In recent decades, both the United States and the European Union have grappled with similar economic crises, including the global financial crisis in 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet when it comes to bouncing back from these struggles, the U.S. has managed to surge ahead. When it comes to the societal factors that generate wealth such as science, innovation, and birth rate, the U.S. consistently ranks higher than Europe.

Europe’s leaders have seemingly woken up to this fact and are now trying to do something about it. Former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi was tasked with assessing the EU’s challenges and outlining potential solutions. His extensive 400-page report, delivered after a year of work, concluded that the gap between the EU and the U.S. is widening, calling for urgent and decisive action. The numbers speak for themselves. [Politico]

Americans Have Greater Wealth
Despite ongoing debates about the relationship between wealth and happiness, Americans, on average, are wealthier than Europeans—a trend that has persisted for some time. What’s more concerning for Europe is that this wealth gap is widening. In 1990, the U.S. GDP per capita was 16% higher than that of the eurozone. By 2023, this difference had grown to over 30%.

The U.S. Invests More in Knowledge
Higher wealth often translates into greater investments in science and research. Both the U.S. government and private sector allocate a larger portion of their GDP to these areas compared to Europe. The Draghi report highlights the need to boost private investment in European research and development. Currently, many European entrepreneurs seek funding from U.S. venture capitalists and choose to expand their businesses in the American market.

U.S. Innovation Is Outpacing Europe
Although it’s challenging to measure technological progress directly, the U.S. appears to be ahead. While European innovation is still competitive, the U.S. produces a larger share of scientific and technological papers in leading journals. Meanwhile, China is rapidly advancing, leaving Europe trailing behind both.

The U.S. Benefits From Energy Resources
America’s success is partly attributable to its abundant natural resources. The Permian Basin, rich in oil and natural gas, has helped the U.S. become the world’s top producer of both. This energy abundance allows American industries to benefit from cheaper electricity than in Europe, providing a competitive edge, particularly in manufacturing.

Americans Are More Productive
American workers consistently outperform their European counterparts in terms of output per hour. Although Europe had been closing the productivity gap, it has recently widened again. The U.S.’s rapid adoption of digital technology has played a key role in maintaining its lead.

U.S. Companies Dominate the Market
In 2023, Nvidia, a California-based chipmaker, became the eighth American company to surpass $1 trillion in market value. In contrast, no European company founded in the last 50 years has reached €100 billion. The majority of U.S. companies in the trillion-dollar club are tech giants, with Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway being the only exception. On a broader scale, American firms represent 73% of the top 30 global companies and more than half of the top 500.

Americans Have a Higher Birth Rate
Europe’s economic growth was historically fueled by a growing workforce, but its declining birth rate now presents a significant challenge. Europeans have fewer children per mother than Americans, which could lead to lower tax revenue and a shrinking workforce, especially as the number of retirees increases. While U.S. birth rates are also falling, the American population is expected to keep growing, partly due to immigration. In contrast, Europe’s population is forecasted to peak at 453 million in 2026

10/14 – International News Story & Updates

Israel has intensified its military presence in southern Lebanon by deploying a fourth division, following a series of heavy airstrikes in the region. The recent addition of the 146th reservist division, alongside another active division, has increased the total number of Israeli troops in the area to approximately 15,000.

This move is part of Operation Northern Arrows, initially described by Israel as a set of “limited, localized, and targeted raids” aimed at dismantling Hezbollah’s infrastructure along the contested blue line border.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had killed Hashem Safieddine, who was expected to succeed Nasrallah.

In response to the continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah’s Operations Room released a firm statement, pledging to maintain its resistance against Israeli occupation until the conflict in Gaza concludes. The statement underscored the group’s state of readiness and improved missile capabilities, warning that any further Israeli aggression would lead to a stronger retaliation.

Hezbollah emphasized that its military operations are now directed by a more robust command-and-control structure, making the group “stronger and more resilient” than before. The group also warned that ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians could lead to missile strikes on major cities like Haifa and border towns such as Kiryat Shmona and Metulla. The statement further highlighted the fierce battles ongoing in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah fighters are successfully resisting Israeli advances into border villages, demonstrating their ability to strike deep into Israeli territory beyond missiles and drones.

The deployment of four divisions, combined with evacuation orders for Lebanese villages within 20 miles of the blue line and heavy bombings in southern and eastern Lebanon, suggests that Israel may be gearing up for a larger offensive against Hezbollah.

Despite the escalation in airstrikes, Hezbollah’s acting secretary-general, Naim Qassem, gave a defiant speech, asserting that the group’s military strength remains intact. He noted that Hezbollah continues to launch daily rocket and drone attacks against Israeli settlements, even in the face of significant leadership losses.

Israeli leaders believe that the 181 ballistic missiles launched by Iran on October 1st leave them with little choice but to retaliate. The form this retaliation takes could have far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and beyond.

There are four main targets being considered. Prime Minister Netanyahu has long advocated for bombing the sites where Iran enriched uranium and conducts research for its nuclear program. However, these sites are spread out across the country and heavily fortified underground, making it difficult to cause significant damage. Successfully targeting them would require deploying numerous bunker-busting missiles from aircraft operating over 1,200km (750 miles) away. Israel’s air force, though powerful, may struggle to delay Iran’s nuclear progress by more than a few months. [The Economist] 

A more vulnerable target would be Iran’s key ports, particularly oil facilities, which are essential for its foreign currency revenue. Israeli strategists believe destroying these ports would significantly harm Iran’s already weakened economy, potentially sparking further internal unrest, with some even hoping this could lead to regime change.

A third option is to directly target Iran’s leadership, just as Israel has previously done with leaders of Iran’s allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. This, however, would be challenging, as Iran’s senior figures would likely retreat to secure locations if a strike seemed imminent, and the impact of such an attack remains unpredictable. The succession of Iran’s aging supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is already a topic of considerable debate in the country.

The most straightforward response would be a direct attack on Iran’s missile bases. This option could reduce the chances of further Iranian missile strikes. However, Netanyahu sees an opportunity to reshape the region’s political landscape, and some of his generals agree, believing Israel’s ability to withstand two major Iranian missile attacks with minimal casualties or damage proves it can handle whatever Iran might throw at it.

Those advocating for strikes on Iran’s nuclear program and economic targets argue that Israel has a rare strategic advantage, having recently neutralized much of Hezbollah’s leadership and missile arsenal, a deterrent provided by Iran to counter any attack on its nuclear infrastructure.

Despite the clear provocation, Israel has not yet retaliated two weeks after the missile attacks. Several generals advise caution, warning that Israel should not embark on such a significant operation without coordination with its key ally, the United States. However, President Joe Biden has publicly opposed an Israeli attack on Iran’s oil infrastructure, concerned that it could cause a spike in global energy prices just before American elections. He has also expressed reluctance about Israel striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Although the U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $18 billion in support this past year, and American forces played a key role in intercepting Iranian missiles, Israel has not yet shared its plans with Washington. Netanyahu even blocked a proposed visit by Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, to the U.S. to discuss potential options.

However, the United States announced on Sunday that it will deploy U.S. troops to Israel along with an advanced U.S. anti-missile system, in a rare move aimed at strengthening Israel’s air defenses after recent missile strikes by Iran. President Joe Biden stated that the deployment is intended “to defend Israel,” as the country considers retaliating against Iran, following Tehran’s launch of more than 180 missiles at Israel on October 1. [Reuters]

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, a crucial element of the U.S. military’s layered air defense, will enhance Israel’s already strong anti-missile defenses.

The United States has been quietly urging Israel to carefully manage its response to avoid sparking a wider conflict in the Middle East, according to officials. President Joe Biden has publicly expressed his opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and raised concerns about targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure.

Pentagon spokesperson Major General Patrick Ryder characterized the deployment as part of “broader adjustments the U.S. military has made in recent months” to support Israel and protect U.S. personnel from attacks by Iran and its allied groups. However, a U.S. military presence in Israel outside of joint exercises is rare, given Israel’s advanced military capabilities. In recent months, U.S. forces have assisted Israel’s defense through warships and fighter jets stationed in the Middle East during Iranian missile attacks.

Some Israeli defense officials worry that provoking a full-scale war with Iran, while Israel is still engaged with Hamas in Gaza and has launched a ground offensive against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, could dangerously stretch its resources. Certain generals caution against risking the progress already made.

However, since the October 7th, 2023 disaster, the standing of Israel’s military and intelligence leaders in opposing Netanyahu has weakened. Like the prime minister, they seem willing to gamble on a broader conflict, hoping to transform their legacy from overseeing one of Israel’s greatest crises to achieving victory in a regional war.

Opinion: 

Last week, Iran launched its largest attack ever on Israel, firing around 180 ballistic missiles at its regional adversary. Though most of these were intercepted by Israel’s defense systems, the question now is how Israel will respond. Netanyahu has already declared that Iran will pay for the attack, and Israel is carefully calculating its next move. It’s clear that Iran intended these strikes as a deterrent against Israel’s growing escalation, but it appears to have failed in achieving this goal. Israel is reportedly weighing whether to target critical infrastructure like Iran’s oil facilities or even strike its nuclear sites, a move that would undoubtedly raise the risk of full-scale war.

Iran’s ruling regime, led by the Ayatollahs, finds itself in a more precarious position than many realize. Iran’s proxies are being overwhelmed by Israeli forces, and Netanyahu seems increasingly willing to escalate, despite international calls for restraint. The Iranian government now faces a dilemma: it must avoid full-scale war with Israel while trying to project strength through deterrence. So far, this balancing act is faltering.

The regime’s challenge lies in avoiding escalation while maintaining a credible deterrent against Israel. Iran is in no position for a full-blown conflict, especially with its internal weaknesses. The country is grappling with an economic crisis, a loss of legitimacy, and the looming succession crisis of its aging Supreme Leader with no clear successor. Sanctions, particularly from the Trump era, have devastated Iran’s oil exports, which make up half of its national budget. The regime’s response—printing more money—has led to inflation and deepened poverty. Combined with the strict social and moral laws, the regime has become deeply unpopular, particularly among younger Iranians. Many oppose their government’s foreign policy, especially its ongoing support for proxy militias, while the country has suffered economically for nearly a decade.

It’s clear that Iran is not ready for a war with Israel, and the government knows it. This puts the Ayatollahs in a difficult position—they need to project political strength, yet Israel is destroying their proxy militias and decapitating the leadership of their strongest proxy forces in mere weeks. Iran fears an all-out conflict with Israel but also needs to respond to maintain legitimacy. This dilemma highlights the paradox of deterrence.

Make no mistake, Iran’s regime still despises Israel, America, and considers itself an enemy of the West. However, to preserve its power domestically, the regime is not prepared to enter an all-out war. By launching the missile barrage in response to Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon, Iran likely aimed to show its willingness to strike Israel, while also signaling to Netanyahu that it’s time to stop—placing the decision to de-escalate in his hands.

The problem for Iran is that recent developments suggest Israel is far from ready to conclude its operations, and further escalation seems inevitable. Iran’s aim to avoid military escalation while maintaining a deterrent is increasingly unrealistic.

Iran’s proxies have been severely weakened by Israeli attacks in Gaza, Lebanon, and even by the Houthis in Yemen, who are being countered with U.S. and UK support. Netanyahu likely sees this as the moment to strike, aiming to dismantle as much of Iran’s proxy network and military strength as possible. Iran, on the other hand, cannot stand by and watch this unfold, yet it must find a measured response that discourages Israel without provoking further retaliation. If this cycle of escalation continues, Iran will face a crucial decision: engage in war with Israel and its allies, or stand down and risk losing its legitimacy.

10/12 – International News & Economics Story

Since Hamas’s attack on Israel a year ago, the oil market’s primary concern has been the potential escalation into a regional conflict involving Israel and Iran, the world’s seventh-largest oil producer. 

Previously, both nations appeared eager to avoid such a scenario even amidst  rising tensions. This is why, despite the war in Gaza and missile attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea, initial fears in oil markets after the events of October 7th last year were short-lived, and oil prices remained relatively low and stable throughout most of the year.

However, last week, Iran launched around 200 missiles at Israel in retaliation for Israel’s strikes on Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed proxy groups. The world now waits anxiously for Israel’s response, with oil markets showing signs of unease. 

Crude prices surged by 10% last week, reaching $78 a barrel, marking the largest weekly increase in nearly two years. On October 7th, they spiked again before becoming volatile. The last time a major petrostate was involved in conflict, during Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, oil prices exceeded $100 a barrel. [The Economist]

If Israel retaliates by only targeting military assets, and Iran responds cautiously to ease tensions, some of the geopolitical pressure lifting oil prices might dissipate. However, if Israel escalates by choosing to strike Iran’s civilian infrastructure or oil facilities, Iran may feel compelled to retaliate strongly, potentially turning its oil industry—vital to the regime—into a target. In this case, even if oil assets are not directly attacked, global markets would still be nervous.

An attack on Iran’s oil facilities might focus on key assets such as the Abadan refinery, which supplies 13% of the country’s petrol. [The Economist]

If Israel seeks to disrupt Iran’s oil exports, it could target Kharg Island, which handles 90% of Iran’s crude shipments, or even go after oil fields. However, such moves would carry diplomatic repercussions, especially with the U.S. and China. The Biden administration would be displeased, particularly with the potential for rising gas prices just before the U.S. presidential election. China, which receives most of Iran’s oil, would also be upset. 

Despite these risks, Israel might still see the benefit in striking Kharg Island, potentially taking a significant portion of oil off the global market. Iran recently exported a record 2 million barrels per day, equivalent to nearly 2% of global supply. [The Economist]

Even then, global impacts might be limited. Unlike the situation following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, oil supply today is relatively abundant while demand remains weak. OPEC+ has more than 5 million barrels per day of spare capacity, more than enough to offset any disruptions to Iranian oil. Saudi Arabia and the UAE alone hold more than 4 million barrels per day in reserve and are likely to increase production quickly if needed. 

OPEC+ members have been eager to reverse their production cuts, with plans to boost output by 180,000 barrels per day starting in December. The group’s internal discipline is already weakening, with Iraq and Kazakhstan exceeding their supply limits for months, which could prompt other members, including Saudi Arabia, to ramp up production even more swiftly. [The Economist]

Non-OPEC production is also increasing in countries like the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Guyana. The International Energy Agency projects that non-OPEC output will grow by 1.5 million barrels per day next year, which should cover any increase in global demand. Moreover, sluggish economic growth in the U.S., China, and Europe, coupled with the shift to electric vehicles, especially in China, has slowed demand for oil. 

Before the latest escalation in the Middle East, analysts were predicting an oil surplus by 2025, with prices possibly dropping below $70 a barrel. Currently, crude inventories in OECD countries are below their five-year average, so while a strike on Kharg Island could briefly jolt markets, prices would likely stabilize at only $5-10 higher than current levels. [The Economist]

However, things could become more volatile if Iran retaliates against other Gulf states that it sees as backing Israel. Although Iran’s relations with its neighbors have been improving, as diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia were restored in 2023, there’s still a chance that Iran could target oil facilities in smaller Gulf states like Bahrain or Kuwait.

Another possibility is Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30% of the world’s seaborne crude and 20% of its liquefied natural gas pass. This move, though unlikely due to the economic consequences for Iran itself, would have devastating effects on global oil markets and would anger China, a major importer of Gulf oil. Even so, should Iran’s oil exports be severely constrained by strikes or sanctions, it’s not entirely inconceivable.

Predicting how markets might react to such events is challenging because Iran’s actions would likely trigger further responses from Israel, the U.S., and other actors. If disruptions were severe enough to cause lasting shortages, oil prices could rise to levels that reduce demand. Analysts estimate that this “demand destruction” would occur if prices hit $130 a barrel—the level seen in 2022. Should oil markets start considering such a scenario likely, those fears would begin to be reflected in current prices. 

Yet, in retrospect, the recent price increases do not appear extreme. On Monday, prices edged past $80 a barrel, not far from last year’s average of $82 or 2022’s $100. Although the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has defied many expectations, oil prices returning to triple digits would require multiple factors to go very wrong.