UNESCO at 80: 'Attacks on culture strike at the very heart of who we are'

Eight decades after its creation, the United Nations' cultural arm is fighting harder than ever to protect global heritage in a world where conflict is on the rise, and the erasure of identity has become a weapon.


Issued on: 07/11/2026 - RFI

The ancient ruins of Palmyra, central Syria, seen at sunrise in August 2025. Palmyra is one of six Syrian sites inscribed on the Unesco World Heritage List. © Omar Haj Kadour / AFP

For the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), preserving cultural heritage helps to ensure that histories and identities are not erased in conflicts such as those currently being waged in Palestine, Sudan and Yemen.

"Cultures do not necessarily exist within national borders. There have always been exchanges, interactions and mutual influences across the globe. Culture must not be used for political ends," says Krista Pikkat, director of UNESCO's Culture and Emergencies Unit.

The deliberate destruction of cultural heritage, due to its symbolic, religious and historical value, has become increasingly common over recent decades, starting with the wars of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia.

Researcher Helen Walasek, author of Bosnia and the Destruction of Cultural Heritage, speaking in 2019, said: "[We must not] view destruction in isolation, as a phenomenon curiously distinct from other atrocities. On the contrary, destruction was an inextricable part of ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War and constituted one of the main objectives of those waging the conflict."

Culture versus climate: how global heating endangers UNESCO heritage sites

'Erasing all traces'

Recent years are littered with examples of deliberate cultural destruction.

Afghanistan's Buddhas of Bamiyan, carved in the 6th century, were blown up by the Taliban in 2001. In 2003, the National Museum of Iraq in Baghdad was looted during the US invasion and the fall of Saddam Hussein.

In 2012, extremist Islamist groups including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb destroyed 14 of the 16 Unesco World Heritage-listed Sufi saint mausoleums in Timbuktu, Mali.

Irina Bokova, then director-general of Unesco, told Le Monde at the time: "When everything else is destroyed, it is culture that gives a people the strength to rebuild themselves. Those who attacked the mausoleums of Timbuktu... know exactly where to strike: at the very heart of people's identities. Beyond strategy and geopolitics, we are witnessing the deliberate destruction of a shared heritage dating back a thousand years."

In 2015, Islamic State jihadists attacked the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria, while in Ukraine, hundreds of cultural heritage sites have been targeted by Russia since the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Since 2023, the Gaza Strip has seen its heritage methodically erased by the Israeli army. Today more than 70 percent of its historical and cultural sites have been destroyed or damaged – including the Great Al-Omari Mosque in Gaza, which has in its time been an Egyptian temple, a Byzantine church, a 7th-century mosque, a Crusader cathedral and then a mosque once more.

A person walks at the ruins of al-Omari mosque, which was destroyed in the Israeli military offensive, in Gaza City on 18 October 2024. © Dawoud Abu Alkas / Reuters

In Lebanon, Israeli strikes have hit the area surrounding the Roman ruins at Baalbek, as well as Roman ruins at Tyre, an ancient Phoenician city which also preserves significant remains of medieval buildings dating from the Crusades.

Unesco placed 34 cultural sites threatened by Israeli bombing under "temporary enhanced protection" in November 2024.

Since February, Iran’s heritage too has been under attack – including the legendary Golestan Palace, which suffered significant damage from shockwaves and debris during US and Israeli airstrikes in March.

"Our culture, the heritage we carry, but also our customs and traditions, are truly at the heart of who we are," says Unesco's Pikkat.

"We are indeed seeing targeted attacks because of the cultural significance of heritage, no doubt intended to intimidate a community, weaken social ties or, perhaps even erase all traces of communities' presence on their land and in the history of that land. In a way, it is also an attack on cultural diversity. They strike at the very heart of who we are, at the heart of our identity."

Enshrined in international law

In the aftermath of the Second World War, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."

This declaration was enshrined in the preamble to the UNESCO Constitution, which came into force on 4 November 1946.

"Throughout human history, cultural heritage has been destroyed in times of war," says Pikkat. "This is also, to some extent, why Unesco adopted the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in 1954."

Under the auspices of the UN organisation, this was followed in 1972 by the World Heritage Convention.

The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention (1999) – described as the "operational arm of the Convention" – was then adopted following atrocities committed against cultural property during the armed conflicts of the 1980s and '90s.

Although not ratified by the US or Israel, it stipulates that any aggressor may be prosecuted before international courts for war crimes.

The convention also says that parties must incorporate the recommendations into their national legislation, and must instil in their armed forces a spirit of respect for the cultures and cultural property of all peoples.

UN cultural agency UNESCO selects Egypt's El-Enany as new director-general

The UN also has procedures in place to prevent destruction caused by conflicts. Protected sites are marked by signs or flags, and Unesco provides belligerents with the geographical coordinates of protected sites from the outset of a conflict.

“It is therefore truly a matter of national responsibility," says Pikkat. "By incorporating the provisions of the conventions into their legislation, states take on the responsibility of implementing concrete measures to protect their heritage, organising training and, in the event of a breach of these laws, prosecuting those responsible before national and international courts."

To date, no state has ever been brought to trial for the destruction and looting of heritage, despite accountability for attacks on heritage being part of the mandate of the International Criminal Court.

"The obstacle is jurisdictional competence and political will," Bijan Rouhani, a researcher with the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project, told the BBC last October.

Fleeing Iraqis walk past the heavily damaged al-Nuri mosque in the city of Mosul in northern Iraq, 4 July 2017. The mosque, famous for its 12th-century leaning minaret, was destroyed by Islamic State and has been a focal point of Unesco's restoration efforts since 2020. © AP - Felipe Dana

Today, the protection of cultural heritage is increasingly regarded as a human right, and preserving humanity’s heritage also means helping to rebuild a community torn apart by war.

"In Mosul, for example, we saw that to rehabilitate a city, it was not enough simply to restore buildings, mosques, churches or historic houses," says Pikkat.

"We also had to restore the spirit. Buildings without the communities that have a connection to that heritage are empty cities."

This article has been adapted from the original version in French by Anne Bernas.

US Voters Care About The Rent, Not The War – Analysis

November 8, 2026

Arab News

By Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed

Key Takeaways:

The 2026 US midterm results are attributed primarily to economic pressures—rising costs of living, food, fuel, housing, insurance and healthcare—rather than the Iran war alone, with a CNN survey finding 88 percent of voters citing the cost of living as decisive and Trump’s approval at a nearly two-decade low.

The outcome aligns with historical midterm shifts in 1946, 1994 and 2006, when inflation, policy failures or competence concerns punished the party in power, and parallels European youth protests over similar affordability and public-service strains.

Core pillars of the Saudi-US partnership in defence, energy and investment are expected to endure, though a Democratic Congress may add greater scrutiny of human-rights and governance conditions.

US midterm elections have long served as a referendum on the party in power and, more fundamentally, on the material conditions of daily life. The 2026 results fit this established pattern. Republican Party members have scrambled to explain their losses, while the White House has searched for a scapegoat.

Vice President J.D. Vance’s assertion that “the reason we lost is the war” oversimplifies a more immediate electoral reality. Multiple polls, including a CNN survey in which 88 percent of voters identified the rising cost of living as decisive, show economic pressure as the dominant factor. By election day, President Donald Trump’s approval rating had fallen to its lowest level in nearly two decades, driven by complaints over food, fuel, housing, and insurance costs rather than foreign policy alone.


Average voters do not primarily cast ballots for abstract strategic outcomes or distant conflicts; they vote to keep the lights on and the rent paid. This article examines the economic drivers of the 2026 outcome, situates them within historical midterm patterns, notes parallel grievances among young Europeans, and considers the implications for the enduring Saudi-US strategic partnership.

The evidence points consistently to household finances. The end of key Affordable Care Act protections produced sharply higher premiums, leaving more than a million Americans without coverage and projecting further losses in the months ahead. Cuts to student aid, school funding in low-income areas, and university budgets further eroded confidence among working families who depend on accessible education and training. Housing, a necessity, now absorbs entire paychecks in many markets as rents continue to rise faster than wages. These developments occurred against a background of elevated prices for food and fuel, compounding the squeeze in purchasing power.

The Iran conflict raised fuel prices, adding to the strain, yet it remained secondary to the broader depletion of household budgets. Democrats won in swing states amid what the Associated Press described as voter “anger” and “resentment” — a reaction to these hardships more than a sudden conversion to Democratic ideology. Restoring purchasing power, not reassigning blame for one war, is therefore likely to shape the next electoral cycle.


Reports that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is considering resigning and positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run against Vance illustrate the political scramble inside the administration. The irony is plain: Individuals who helped carry the administration’s political baggage now seek to distance themselves from it. Jumping from a sinking ship does not erase participation in the decisions that steered it. Such maneuvers, however, do not alter the underlying economic calculus that voters applied.

The 2026 outcome is consistent with earlier midterms in which economic distress or perceived governmental failure produced large shifts in control of Congress.

In 1946, Republicans secured majorities in both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1928, ending 14 years of Democratic control that began under Franklin Roosevelt. These were the first elections after the Second World War. The country struggled with the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy; inflation soared to record levels and shortages of essential goods, including meat, were severe. About 5 million workers participated in the largest wave of labor strikes in American history, across the automotive, mining, and railroad sectors, paralyzing key parts of the economy and weakening President Harry Truman’s position. Republicans adopted the simple yet effective slogan “Had Enough?” The voters’ answer was a resounding yes.

In 1994, Republicans seized control of both chambers in what became known as the “Republican Revolution,” the first time they had done so in 40 years. They achieved a net gain of 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Newt Gingrich spearheaded a unified national strategy in which candidates signed the “Contract with America,” pledging fiscal reform, tax cuts, and a reduction in the size of government. The campaign successfully turned the election into a referendum on the first two years of President Bill Clinton’s administration, focusing on the failed attempt to reform the healthcare system and framing it as a return to “big government” policies. After decades of controlling the House since 1955, Democrats had grown politically complacent; voters perceived Washington as disconnected from their own realities.


In 2006, Democrats wrested majorities in both chambers from the Republicans for the first time in 12 years, gaining 31 seats in the House, with Nancy Pelosi becoming the first woman to serve as speaker, and six in the Senate. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were central; American voters had grown weary of human and material losses, and support for President George W. Bush’s handling of the conflict had declined. The evident administrative failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina dealt a further blow to the image of governmental competence. Corruption scandals in the Republican-controlled Congress and the historical “six-year itch” — the tendency for voters to punish the president’s party during a second term — reinforced the shift. Bush himself described the results as a “thumping” for his party.

These cases demonstrate that midterms punish the party in power when living standards fall or competence is called into question. Foreign wars can matter, as in 2006, but economic conditions have repeatedly proven decisive when they directly affect household budgets. The 2026 election marks the fourth occasion on which the party opposing Trump has gained control of both chambers of Congress, underscoring the durability of this pattern.

Similar economic pressures have fueled widespread protests among young people — Generation Z in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium. Rising inflation has eroded purchasing power and driven up the prices of essential goods and fuel, placing a heavy burden on young people and their families. An acute housing crisis has made living independently an impossibility for a large segment of the youth, as rents soar and affordable options remain scarce. Deterioration in educational services budget cuts, teacher shortages, declining quality, and limited job opportunities for graduates has intensified discontent. A pervasive sense of economic uncertainty, rising unemployment among graduates, and a widening generational gap have produced anxiety about the future. Protesters have also rejected government policies that prioritize military spending at the expense of public services.


These European developments do not determine US electoral outcomes, but they illustrate a broader phenomenon: When the cost of living rises sharply and public services weaken, younger cohorts mobilize against the status quo regardless of national context. The American midterm results and the European protests thus reflect parallel responses to the same underlying pressures of eroded purchasing power and constrained opportunity.

Democratic gains produced several notable firsts that reflect the coalition’s demographic reach. In Georgia, Keisha Lance Bottoms was elected, becoming the first Black woman to hold the relevant statewide office. In New Mexico, Deb Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo tribe, became the first Native American woman to hold a high-ranking executive position in the state. In Minnesota, Peggy Flanagan achieved a milestone by becoming the first Native American woman to serve in the state senate; she had previously held the position of lieutenant governor. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, associated with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, declared victory, while Representative Ilhan Omar secured a resounding win, ensuring her continued representation of the state’s fifth congressional district.

The scale of the blue wave extended beyond Congress and state offices. Democratic-socialist mayors are set to run the two largest US cities and the nation’s capital following Tuesday’s results. These municipal victories in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington underscore the breadth of Democratic gains in urban centers where cost-of-living pressures, particularly housing and affordability, have been especially acute. While the results highlight progressive strength in major cities, they remain consistent with the broader pattern: Voters responded primarily to economic strain rather than to a wholesale ideological realignment.


A Democratic majority in Congress, and the prospect of Democratic control of the executive branch in future cycles, is unlikely to dismantle the core pillars of the Saudi-US partnership. The relationship is anchored in long-term interests: the protection of regional security, the exchange of expertise in training and intelligence, and the strengthening of economic ties particularly in the energy and investment sectors. Defense and security arrangements, including training programs, intelligence sharing, and collaboration against cross-border threats, are expected to continue. Energy, investments, and technical partnerships remain key areas for cooperation. While political approaches may vary between administrations, the fundamental drivers of the relationship appear enduring.

At the same time, a Democratic-led Congress or administration can be expected to place greater emphasis on political and human rights considerations, potentially conditioning certain aspects of cooperation on specific, stated criteria. There may be increased scrutiny regarding certain operational aspects, with greater focus on adherence to standards concerning human rights and the field application of military equipment. Regional issues are likely to be approached with a stronger preference for diplomatic de-escalation and the management of escalation through political channels, accompanied by heightened attention to governance and the protection of civilians. In the economic sphere, existing deals need not be canceled, but monitoring mechanisms may incorporate additional environmental, social, and governance standards in project design and implementation.

The most anticipated shift therefore lies in the approach to managing conditions and obligations, rather than a fundamental change in the nature of the partnership itself. To maintain a stable relationship and mitigate the impact of any political differences, several steps are advisable. Operational channels for defense and security cooperation should be secured and insulated from the fluctuations of political rhetoric. Monitoring mechanisms for any conditions linked to political or human rights issues should be clear, with well-defined temporal and practical scopes. Institutional communication between relevant authorities should be strengthened to ensure a shared understanding of priorities and implementation outcomes.

Saudi Arabia’s prudent course is to avoid unnecessary escalation while remaining firm and clear in its positions. Establishing a specialized body focused on international law to manage all legal cases brought against the Kingdom on the international stage would provide a consistent, professional mechanism for addressing legal challenges without subordinating core interests to transient political cycles.

The 2026 midterm elections reaffirm a durable lesson of American politics: When household budgets are strained by rising costs for food, fuel, housing, healthcare, and education, voters punish the party in power. Historical precedents from 1946, 1994, and 2006 demonstrate that economic distress and perceptions of governmental failure repeatedly outweigh other considerations, even when foreign conflicts are salient. Parallel protests among European youth underscore that these pressures are not unique to the US.

For Saudi Arabia, the practical implication is continuity of the strategic partnership in its core pillars defense, energy, and the economy accompanied by a likely increase in US attention to political and human rights standards under Democratic majorities. Managing this relationship requires insulating operational cooperation from political cycles, clarifying the scope of any conditions, and institutionalizing legal capacity to address international cases. Voters on both sides of the Atlantic ultimately prioritize the conditions of daily life; policymakers who recognize this reality will be better positioned to sustain long-term partnerships grounded in shared interests rather than shifting political rhetoric.

Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed is an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture, Life & Environmental Sciences, in the Department of Biosystems Engineering. He is the author of ‘Agricultural Development Strategies: The Saudi Experience.’


About Arab News
Arab News is Saudi Arabia's first English-language newspaper. It was founded in 1975 by Hisham and Mohammed Ali Hafiz. Today, it is one of 29 publications produced by Saudi Research & Publishing Company (SRPC), a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG).
View all posts by Arab News →

ANTI-VAXXERS

Gunmen kill policemen guarding polio vaccinators in Pakistan

03.11.2026

Photo: -/PPI via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa

Gunmen shot and killed two policemen deployed on security detail for polio vaccinators near the Afghan border on Tuesday as health workers carry out a door-to-door vaccination drive in Pakistan.

The attack occurred in the Mohmand district of the north-western province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, police official Shakeel Khan said.

“At least two policemen were killed and another was wounded in the attack,” Khan said. The health workers remained unharmed, but drive has been halted temporarily.

Meanwhile in a separate incident, at least four health workers on vaccination duty went missing from Tank district of the province.

The latest attacks come on the second day of a sub-national polio vaccination campaign that aims to protect around 24 million children in 97 high-risk districts across the country.

The Health Ministry said that the vaccination campaign will be “implemented simultaneously in Pakistan and Afghanistan – the last two endemic countries in the world for wild poliovirus – and supported by strong cross-border coordination."

On Sunday, the country reported the eighth polio case of the year.
Officials say thousands of children miss their vaccination due to the surge in violence, which has resulted in a resurgence of the crippling disease.

Militants linked with al-Qaeda often attack health workers. Dozens of vaccine handlers and security officials have been killed by Taliban militants in the past.
The militants accuse the health workers of acting as spies and claim the polio vaccine is intended to make Muslim children sterile.

Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan are among the few countries in the world where new polio cases still surface.

(c) 2026 dpa Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH

 

Pakistan pins its Afghan border war on India

Islamabad's chief military spokesman has threatened Kabul with serious consequences and cast the TTP and BLA as Indian proxies, folding two hostile frontiers into one. / Mohammad Hussaini - Unsplash\

By Mark Buckton in New Taipei November 2, 2026

Pakistan's army has accused Afghanistan's Taliban of sheltering militants and warned it of serious consequences, while alleging that India is behind the violence.

Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, who heads Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military's media wing, made the threat in an interview with an unnamed foreign outlet, Dunya News reported on November 1. He called India the biggest sponsor of terrorism inside Pakistan, cast the Taliban administration as New Delhi's proxy and described both Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as Indian instruments.

Islamabad had a single demand, he said: that Kabul stop backing the militants who operate on Pakistani soil. If it did not, serious consequences would follow. His warning to the Taliban accused Kabul of sheltering TTP leader Noor Wali Mehsud along with Bashir Zeb and Gul Bahadur, and of letting fighters and weapons flow across the border. Pakistan's forces could handle any threat from Afghanistan, drones included, he added.

By merging the western frontier with the eastern rivalry, the generals are telling audiences at home and abroad that the Afghan conflict is India's war fought by other means. That account turns every bombing in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan into proof of a foreign hand rather than a failure of Pakistani policy. For now, New Delhi has rejected earlier accusations that it arms anti-Pakistan groups, and Islamabad has put no public evidence on the table.

The two armies traded fire along the Durand Line in October 2025, in the same week that the Taliban's foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, was in New Delhi, where India said it would turn its Kabul mission into a full embassy. A ceasefire was followed by talks in Istanbul that broke up without a deal.

"Regrettably, the Afghan side gave no assurances, kept deviating from the core issue and resorted to blame game, deflection and ruses," said Information Minister Attaullah Tarar after the first round.

Pakistan then shut the crossings, cutting bilateral trade to below $1bn a year, and business groups put the cost to Pakistan at more than $4.5bn by December. Open war came on February 26, when Afghan forces attacked border posts along the 2,600 km frontier and Islamabad launched Operation Ghazab lil-Haq. In March Kabul said a Pakistani strike on a drug rehabilitation centre in the capital had killed about 400 people, which Islamabad denied. Mediation by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar bought only a pause for Eid.

Rounds of talks in Doha, Istanbul, Riyadh and Urumqi never produced the written guarantees Islamabad wanted, and in June Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said the security talks had collapsed. He put the number of Pakistani soldiers and civilians killed in militant attacks since 2022 at more than 4,300. Pakistani aircraft struck eastern Afghanistan twice that month, and the UN mission in the country counted at least 28 civilians dead in the second raid. Washington backed Pakistan's right to self-defence all the same.

After further strikes on Kunar and Paktika in September, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid promised that Afghans would deliver "an appropriate response".

Inside Pakistan, the armed forces recorded 3,145 militant incidents and 819 deaths among soldiers, police and civilians between January and early August, along with 28 suicide bombings they blamed on fighters based across the border. One of those, at an anti-militant rally in Kabal in the Swat Valley on August 2, killed at least 14 people. In Balochistan, ISPR now routinely brands the separatists it fights as Fitna al-Hindustan, a label that writes India into every casualty report.

India handed the generals material when it struck targets across Pakistan during Operation Sindoor in May 2025 after a militant attack at Pahalgam in Kashmir killed 26 civilians, and the two governments were still arguing over who won that war at the UN General Assembly in September. There, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, without naming Pakistan, accused a "serial practitioner of terrorism" of distorting the record.

New Delhi has also kept its channel to Kabul open, and on October 14 it held consultations with Russia on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moscow in July 2025 became the first country to recognise the Taliban government.

Washington sounds sympathetic. Speaking in Atlanta, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said:

"Pakistan is concerned about terrorist attacks that are being sponsored from the territory of Afghanistan. They feel that the Taliban is not doing enough to constrain those attacks, and they've taken action against it."

Pakistan's Foreign Office welcomed the remarks on November 1 and said it would back sincere efforts by the US and other friendly states to broker dialogue with Kabul. It then attached a price: verifiable action against the TTP, the BLA and the other groups it says operate from Afghan soil.

The information ministry had gone further the day before, calling terrorism launched from Afghan territory a red line and reserving Pakistan's right to take whatever steps it judges necessary, within international law, to remove threats to its security.

That is the condition Kabul has refused for a year, and Chaudhry's interview makes it harder still to meet. A Taliban government that denies sheltering the TTP is unlikely to move against fighters it is now told are Indian agents, since doing so would concede Islamabad's whole case. By binding the western and eastern border flare-ups, Pakistan's generals have made any settlement with the Taliban hostage to a rivalry with New Delhi that still shows no sign of cooling.

The War in Iran Comes Home to ‘Trump Country’

The economic fallout from Trump’s war on Iran is being felt across middle-America as midterm elections approach.

by Nolan Denaro | Oct 28, 2026 | 

“It’s not tariffs… it’s the war, it’s gas prices, it’s diesel.”

In leaked audio obtained by Axios, Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee for senate in Texas, spoke candidly about what he believes are the biggest issues hurting his campaign. The Iran war, which has dragged on for almost eight months now, has put Texans – and the rest of the nation – in an economic bind, one which President Donald Trump had promised to avoid.

Crude oil prices have once again risen above $100 a barrel. The national average for gasoline is hovering above $4. With Republicans nationwide being burdened by the stench of incumbency – regardless of whether or not the individual candidate is currently in office – a return-to-power seems all but imminent for the Democrats in the House of Representatives, and maybe even the Senate as well.

This is even true in “Trump Country.”

The war itself is a topic which evokes hardline opinions on both sides. Fierce debates have been had in elite circles over the wisdom of launching the military campaign against Iran, the strategic blunders of the Trump administration, and the way in which the war has been conducted. What has been a bipartisan concern, however, is the rise in fuel prices brought upon by the war.

People en masse may not know the technical details of the raging conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, or even where to find it on a map. What they do know is that when they turn on social media or turn on the TV, the campaign ads they see coming from Democrats consistently associate the skyrocketing fuel prices with the war in Iran – attaching the Republican opponent to the White House’s unpopular war.

Meanwhile, the rebuttal from Trump isn’t an explicit denial of these accusations. Rather, he has embraced them.

“It’s a small price to pay,” Trump said at a rally in Alaska on October 14, “for stopping [Iran] from having a nuclear weapon.”

Trump’s fanbase, collectively referred to as “MAGA,” have been known for their unwavering loyalty to the president. Trump famously joked in a 2015 stump speech “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” The spirit of this has been generally correct. On most issues, Trump’s supporters have stuck with him regardless of his many contradictions – be it on the Epstein files, government spending, or the merits of various DC swamp creatures.

There has been a crackup, though. Trump’s swagger – his inability to disgust his diehard fans even if he tried – seems to be weakening.

The Iran war, while historically unpopular, isn’t the sole reason for this. Neither is his baseline hawkishness, which contradicts his dovish campaign rhetoric. The majority of Republicans were happy to support Trump’s January 2026 operation in Venezuela, and most also approved of the bombing of various small boats off the coast of Central and South America. But this war had a different effect on Trump’s coalition than the one in Iran.

For one, the Venezuela operation was relatively limited in its scale, and the same can be said for the boat strikes. The fighting in Caracas lasted mere hours and resulted in no American casualties. President Delcy Rodríguez’s regime has remained in power, and blowback – at least in terms of significant negative ramifications – has not been felt in the U.S. to this point (that doesn’t mean it won’t appear in the future, to be clear).

Most importantly, the economic impact of the operation wasn’t notable. There weren’t any immediate concerns about twenty percent of the world’s energy supply being stuck behind a missile-riddled waterway, for example.

The situation has been exactly the reverse in the Middle East.

Iranian restrictions on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz have caused oil prices to spike, leading to a direct and harsh economic impact on Americans. Unlike the in-and-out style of the Venezuela operation, the Iran war has proven to be a quagmire.

The economic pain has been felt across the country, particularly in industries like farming and trucking, which are prominent in middle-America – “Trump Country.” This has led to predictable discontent among voters, who feel that the president is focused on fighting a country across the world, and not only doesn’t care about their financial anguish, but openly says so.

“For you to pay a tiny little bit more for your gasoline,” Trump said at a rally in New York, “just remember, you’re doing it so that a very evil country cannot… have a nuclear weapon. So, remember that. When you have to pay a little bit more, your $4, it’s okay. I mean, I’ll never apologize.”

This anger is being reflected in poll after poll. In Texas, a historic electoral stronghold for the GOP, Democratic nominee James Talarico is giving his party what seems to be their best chance in years to regain one of the state’s senate seats. A recent poll from University of Houston Hobby School of Public Affairs has Talarico leading Paxton by two percent.

The Republican Party is quickly sending money to ruby red states like Kansas and South Carolina, where polling suggests the senate races may be uncharacteristically close. This is an indication of potential panic behind the scenes, as campaign funding of this sort is generally used to bolster candidates in tight battleground races, not shore up what should be landslide victories in rural, conservative states.

Amid this dire situation, some candidates have attempted to distance themselves from the war. Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee for senate in Michigan, said back in September, “the war with Iran needs to end and end quickly.”

“When it does,” Rogers continued, “energy costs will plummet. But Michigan families can’t afford to wait for that to happen. We need to do something now.”

Rogers is hardly changing his tune based on a genuine abandonment of his hawkish instincts. Back in May, Rogers parroted the party line, saying he supported the war because “it is absolutely right to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.” In this same discussion, he called it a “win-win-win.”

Rogers is making a last-minute pivot out of desperation. A recent InsiderAdvantage poll shows his Democrat opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, leading by two percent. El-Sayed has sought to appeal to Michiganders who are feeling the economic squeeze, leading the crowd at his rallies in a chant that reads “money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for all.”

Regardless of your opinion on universal healthcare or Citizens United, one candidate is confident and assertive – clearly stating what he believes. The other is insecure and timid, looking for a way to jump off the sinking ship that is the Iran war, before the financially distressed voters get the chance to punish him for having supported it.

The Democrats – at least the ones who can read the room – are making the cost-of-living issue the centerpiece of their campaigns. Whether or not their policies will work to alleviate economic pain is another question, but what is unavoidable as we approach the midterms is the momentum behind the Democrats, particularly in red and battleground states.

Meanwhile, the GOP is being crushed under the weight of their president’s war of choice.

Reprinted with permission from Nolan Denaro’s Substack.

Nolan Denaro is a political analyst, writer, and host of “The Quest For Clarity” podcast, available on YouTube and Spotify. He is a columnist at Antiwar.com, and his work has been published by Responsible Statecraft, the Libertarian Institute, The Daily Caller, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes on U.S. foreign policy, economics, and current events, with a particular focus on war and imperialism. He maintains a personal Substack blog, and you can follow him on X @nolandenaro. Nolan can be reached for correspondence at nolansdenaro@icloud.com.

 

Who Is Making Billions From the Iran War?

by Ron Paul | Oct 27, 2026 

At a campaign rally over the weekend, President Trump dismissed Americans’ concerns over high oil and gas prices, claiming that it’s a small price to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars “we” are making from these higher prices.

“We’re making a fortune,” he said. “Hundreds of billions of dollars. Trillions of dollars.”

People are paying a little bit more for gas, he explained, but it doesn’t matter because “we” are making so much money.

The question is, “Who is ‘we’?” We know it is not the American people. They are seeing wage stagnation, inflation, and more pain at the pump. An Economist/YouGov poll earlier this month found that inflation and prices are the top concern among Americans by a wide margin. And in second place were jobs and the economy.

The same poll asked Americans how they rate the state of the US economy and in first place – again by a long shot – was “poor.”

If “we” as in the American people were making hundreds of billions of dollars from the war, you would think these would not be their top two concerns.

But we understand what the President meant by “we.” He meant that part of the “private” sector directly or indirectly in bed with the government war machine. From oil companies to weapons manufacturers and everything in between, war and conflict drive up profits in well-connected corporations at the expense of the rest of us.

That is why we are in a constant state of war. Twenty years in Afghanistan and a similar length in Iraq. Endless bombing in places like Somalia. A twelve-year (and counting) proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Military bases and covert operations across the globe.

And if we find that the largest military budget in the world does not deliver enough actual weapons to win a war? Well, that’s all good too: just double military spending and accuse anyone who objects of not being patriotic!

“Private” companies with enormous political power – many of them revolving doors between government and business – “make so much money” on war, as Trump would say. Whether these wars produce US wins, loses, or stalemates, these corporations in bed with government always win. The money-printing machine makes sure the money cycles into government-favored companies, while campaign contributions are made to the politicians who support the wars.

And if you don’t support the wars? You get the Thomas Massie treatment.

Endless war produces more corporatism, where the private sector does not exist to provide goods to compete in the free market, but to serve political power and strengthen governmental control over the population. Think of it as welfare for the rich at the expense of the poor. The result is tyranny.

This is the very reason our Founders intended to make it as difficult as possible to wage war. As well-educated students of history, they understood how the concentration of war-making power in the hands of one ruler or an oligarchy would impoverish the masses and lead to a moral and financial bankruptcy. They placed war-making power in the “people’s branch” – Congress – hoping that the people would hold their representatives accountable. We have strayed very far from what they intended and if we are to survive, we must reclaim that authority and responsibility.

Ron Paul is a former Republican congressman from Texas. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president.

 

Why We Must Stand with U.S. Major Jason Watson

by Jeffrey Sterling | Oct 29, 2026

For almost two months, an Air Force officer has been sitting alone in a cell, twenty-four hours a day. When they let him out to eat or exercise, he’s still alone, according to his attorney.

His name is Major Jason Watson. He hasn’t been convicted of anything. Under military law he is presumed innocent, yet he’s still in that cell.

I know something about solitary confinement. I also know what it feels like when a government would rather silence you than answer for its transgressions. That’s why I can’t stay quiet about Major Watson. And it’s why I think we need to talk about the kind of courage this country says it admires, right up until someone actually shows it.

What Major Watson Did

On July 1, Major Watson walked up the House steps of the U.S. Capitol in uniform and stood there holding a sign that read “Impeach. Convict. Remove.” He was calling for the removal of President Trump and Vice President Vance. Capitol Police arrested him. The D.C. charges were dropped, but he was taken from the courthouse straight into Air Force custody and restricted to base. In August he went on CNN and said it again. The next day, the Air Force ordered him into pretrial confinement.

He now faces ten charges under three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): three under Article 88 for allegedly using “contemptuous words” against the president, five under Article 92 for failing to obey orders or regulations, and two under Article 133 for “conduct unbecoming an officer,” as his lawyers confirmed in a public statement.

I’m not here to argue about uniform regulations. What bothers me, and what should bother anyone paying attention, is what the Article 88 charges and that solitary cell tell us about how power handles real dissent.

Watson didn’t hide behind a fake name. He didn’t retain or leak anything classified. He put his own name and face on what he believed, in public, knowing what it would cost.

Before he took that stand, he asked himself, “What’s the highest price that I’m willing to pay?” His answer was, more or less, whatever it takes. That’s what bravery looks like. You’re still afraid. You go anyway, knowing hell is coming.

Punished Before He Is Tried

Here is what troubles me most. The military is punishing Major Watson while claiming to follow the very rules that forbid it. Article 13 of the UCMJ says no one being held for trial may be punished, and that pretrial confinement may be no “more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure his presence.” The idea is straight-forward. Someone waiting for a court-martial is presumed innocent, and the military isn’t allowed to treat him as guilty.

Locking a person alone in a cell for months is punishment by any ordinary meaning of the word. Watson’s attorney has said solitary is usually reserved for people who are violent or disobedient, and even then only for a few days or a week. At Watson’s Article 32 hearing, the hearing officer said the isolation was required because he can’t be housed with civilian inmates.

Even if you accept that explanation, it doesn’t undo what isolation does to a person’s mind. And it doesn’t answer the bigger question: why is a peaceful man whose only “offense” was speaking locked up at all? You can’t even argue that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, because officially it isn’t punishment. When the people offended by your words also get to decide what counts as a crime, and what counts as punishment, the law stops being fair or predictable.

I can tell you from experience that solitary is built to grind you down. I was thrown into solitary in prison because I wouldn’t let a guard on a power trip treat me as anything less than a human being. My punishment for standing up for my dignity was a cell less than half the size of my usual cage. No window. No sunlight. Nothing to remind me there was a world outside. No contact with anyone, including my family, who went days without hearing from me and had no idea what was happening.

That kind of isolation isn’t about safety or order or paperwork. It’s about breaking someone, and about sending a message to everyone else. Major Watson stood up against an administration he believes is trampling the Constitution. For that act of conscience, they’re trying to make him disappear.

Article 88 and the Espionage Act

Article 88 makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use “contemptuous words” against the president, the vice president, Congress, and certain other officials. It is almost never used. A CNN review found only two convictions under it since the modern military code took effect in 1950.

The military’s own Manual for Courts-Martial, as one legal analysis explains, says that criticism of an official in the course of political discussion, even strongly worded criticism, shouldn’t be charged under this article unless it is personally contemptuous. Watson put it simply at his hearing: “discomfort is not contempt.”

How the article gets used is concerning. In 2021, Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller posted videos in uniform demanding accountability from senior leaders over the Afghanistan withdrawal, at one point saying he felt “contempt” for them. He was charged under Article 88 too. With prominent supporters cheering him on, his case went to a special court-martial, the lower-level forum. He spent nine days in the brig, pleaded guilty, and walked away with a letter of reprimand and a $5,000 forfeiture of pay. Watson’s lawyers summed up the problem: “The law will not make the same word a virtue in one officer’s mouth and a felony in another’s.”

I recognize this double standard because I’ve lived it. The Espionage Act of 1917 was written to catch spies. Today it’s regularly used against whistleblowers who tell the public what the government would rather keep quiet, and defendants usually aren’t allowed to argue that their disclosures served the public interest. Groups like PEN America, the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch have warned for years that laws this broad invite selective prosecution. The cases of John Kiriakou, Reality Winner, and Thomas Drake show those warnings were right.

Look at Courtney Williams, who worked in a support role for Delta Force at Fort Bragg from 2010 to 2016. She talked to an investigative reporter about sexual harassment and discrimination inside the unit. In April, the FBI arrested her, and she now faces four Espionage Act counts, each carrying up to ten years. Prosecutors say some of what she shared was classified. The reporter she spoke with calls the case retaliation against a whistleblower. Either way, plenty of former special operators talk openly about their units on popular podcasts without ending up in handcuffs.

Article 88 and the Espionage Act are different laws, but they end up doing the same job. They’re old, broad nets that can be thrown over anyone who speaks uncomfortable truths about those in power. Whether the target is a whistleblower or an outspoken officer, the result is silence. And every time we let these tools get dusted off, we make it easier to use them on the next person.

The Oath Wasn’t to a Person

Every public servant, civilian or military, swears to support and defend the Constitution. None of them swears loyalty to a president, a party, or a movement.

There’s a difference between the enlisted and officer oaths worth knowing. Enlisted members promise to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” Officers don’t make that promise. Under the officer’s oath, they swear to support and defend the Constitution and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. That difference, as the Marine Corps itself explains, is deliberate. An officer’s final loyalty belongs to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to whoever is sitting in the Oval Office.

Watson has said his oath is exactly why he went to those Capitol steps, and that he acted out of duty, not partisanship. His point is that no leader is above the law. Yet “support and defend the Constitution” keeps getting bent into a demand for personal loyalty. People who stand on principle end up in solitary. People who look the other way get promoted.

Service and Speech

I have deep respect for the military and its traditions. The military can’t be anyone’s political tool, and service members have to follow lawful orders. The rules that keep uniforms out of partisan politics exist for good reason: they keep the military under civilian control and out of the hands of any one side. Those rules matter.

But this is about proportion. Joining the military doesn’t mean giving up your basic rights. Courts have long held that service members keep some free-speech protection, even if it is narrower than a civilian’s, as long as their speech doesn’t seriously threaten discipline or the mission.

So it’s fair to ask where the line really is. Does one peaceful protest justify criminal charges and months in solitary? A military confident enough to handle criticism from within its own ranks is stronger than one that keeps people in line through fear.

“I Was Only Following Orders”

We settled the question of blind obedience after World War II. At Nuremberg, the world rejected “just following orders” as an excuse. The principle that came out of those trials says acting on orders doesn’t relieve you of responsibility “provided a moral choice was in fact possible.” Our own military law requires service members to obey lawful orders, not unlawful ones.

We rightly honor people like Hugh Thompson, the Army helicopter pilot who landed his aircraft between American soldiers and fleeing Vietnamese civilians at My Lai in 1968. He was treated as an outcast for years. The Army didn’t award him the Soldier’s Medal until 1998, thirty years later. We can’t keep telling every generation of service members that they have a duty to refuse wrongdoing, then crush the ones who actually say so out loud.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about this from a Birmingham jail cell. We have a duty to obey just laws, he said, and an equal duty to disobey unjust ones. But “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”

That’s the tradition Major Watson acted in. He didn’t hide. He stood in the open, told his superiors where he stood, and accepted the consequences. If the right of conscience doesn’t belong to every citizen, it doesn’t really belong to anyone. And a country where no one can tell the powerful the truth isn’t a free country.

What We Owe Him

Major Watson has shown a steady, stubborn courage that’s rare anywhere, and rarer still when your career and freedom are on the line. He didn’t hide behind technicalities or double-talk. He put everything on the line for the principles he swore to uphold.

We owe him our voices, for his sake and for our own. When the government turns its full weight against someone who takes his oath seriously, we can’t just wait for politicians or courts to fix it. It takes ordinary people, standing together, to demand fairness, shine a light into those cells, and make sure the people who tell the truth don’t have to stand alone.

I encourage everyone to show support for Major Watson by spreading the word about his courage and how he is being persecuted for standing up for truth. You can also help by sending letters of support to Major Watson while he is being confined to the following address:

Jason P. Watson
Calvert County Detention Center
P.O. Box 9
Barstow, MD 20610

Reprinted with permission from Progressive Hub.

Jeffrey Sterling is a CIA whistleblower and the author of Unwanted Spy (Bold Type Books, 2019). He served two and a half years in federal prison after a conviction under the Espionage Act that he has long contested. A New York-licensed attorney, he is a Whistleblower Advocate for RootsAction and a board member of Defending Rights and Dissent. He writes and speaks on national security law, civil liberties, press freedom, and government accountability.