Broken Beyond Repair: The United Nations on Life Support in a Fragmented World

 

The United Nations is a relic of post-WWII idealism that now operates as little more than a stage for geopolitical theater, while the real power brokers make their moves behind closed doors. In plain terms, the veto power held by a handful of permanent Security Council members transforms the U.N. from a force for global peace into a tool of political obstruction, ensuring that meaningful change is forever beyond its grasp. 

The United Nations has long been touted as humanity's ultimate collective solution for global crises—yet today, its inability to address pressing issues renders it more like a stranded ship than a lighthouse. While world leaders paraded optimism with the adoption of a new "Pact for the Future," many observers couldn’t help but wonder if the future the U.N. envisions has already escaped its grasp. This institution, originally conceived in the aftermath of the world’s deadliest war, seems now to be on the precipice of irrelevance, its ideals slowly suffocating under the weight of political maneuvering and bureaucratic inertia.

A poignant example of this came at the most recent U.N. General Assembly. Ostensibly centered on the "Pact for the Future"—a supposed roadmap to tackle our era’s challenges—the summit was mired in controversy even before the ink was dry. Russia, determined to weaken the pact, proposed amendments that would have diluted its core objectives. However, in an act that startled many, a majority of nations, including African countries and Mexico, rejected Russia's proposal outright. Yet even with the pact passed, skepticism filled the air, with several nations expressing frustration at its vagueness. Uganda’s Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja bluntly pointed out the imbalance in responsibilities between developing and developed countries, a discrepancy that the pact simply failed to address properly.

This latest show of disunity and doubt is emblematic of the broader crisis facing the United Nations. From the civil war in Sudan to the burgeoning tensions in Gaza, and the endless suffering in Haiti, the U.N. seems powerless to offer meaningful intervention. Its peacekeeping forces in Lebanon have effectively been relegated to mere onlookers amid the current Israel-Hezbollah tensions. Even in places where it once boasted of progress, such as Haiti, chaos continues to run rampant despite Security Council-backed interventions. These examples illustrate the glaring fact that the U.N. has not been able to wield its power effectively in today’s fast-changing global landscape.

Perhaps nowhere is the U.N.'s structural dysfunction more evident than in the Security Council, that relic from 1945. With five permanent members holding veto power—China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.—it embodies a bygone era of power distribution that doesn’t reflect the realities of our modern world. These five countries represent an outdated power structure, ignoring major nations like India, Japan, and Brazil, and excluding an entire continent—Africa—from having a permanent voice. Such an arrangement has rendered the U.N. impotent in situations where it truly matters, with vetoes too often wielded to uphold national interests rather than collective good. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky articulated this inherent flaw, noting that the veto mechanism allows aggressors to effectively paralyze the U.N. from enforcing peace and justice.

The adoption of the "Pact for the Future" in September 2024 was hailed by Secretary-General António Guterres as a watershed moment. It outlined commitments to nuclear disarmament, reforming the Security Council, and establishing a "Global Digital Compact" on the governance of artificial intelligence. But lofty commitments have been made before, only to be swept aside by the tides of national self-interest. Recall the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of 2015, which promised to eradicate poverty, fight inequality, and protect the planet. Nearly a decade later, progress on these goals has largely stalled or even regressed. The U.N. Development Goals Report 2024 paints a grim picture: not only have most goals been missed, but the disparities have widened due to the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and other calamities. One is left wondering whether the "Pact for the Future" will meet a similar fate.

The flaws in the U.N.’s foundational structure are stark, and they cannot be simply patched over with new agreements. As the political scientist Samuel Huntington once argued, "The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." This vision seems more prescient than ever, as nations increasingly revert to their geopolitical blocs, forsaking collective action for regional hegemony and old grudges. China, for example, has openly critiqued nations dividing into blocs, yet simultaneously forges alliances that reflect the very divisions it decries. It has expanded its influence over regions traditionally seen as Western allies, including Africa, challenging the Western-dominated global order while complicating the United Nations' ability to navigate international relations effectively.

Furthermore, the U.N.'s legitimacy is increasingly undermined by scandal and accusations of misconduct. Peacekeepers, instead of upholding their mandate to protect civilians, have faced numerous allegations of sexual abuse, leaving a trail of broken trust and shame. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has also been accused of harboring terrorist sympathizers. These stains on the U.N.’s record serve to embolden critics and discourage countries from supporting multilateral peacekeeping missions. When combined with the disillusionment from unmet development goals and ineffective conflict resolutions, the picture of an eroding institution becomes all too clear.

The 2024 summit may have concluded with applause and some fleeting optimism, but that veneer cannot conceal the underlying disillusionment. At its heart, the United Nations was built on two conflicting tenets: idealism and moral relativism. This strange combination means that the U.N. can propose grand visions—such as global nuclear disarmament or artificial intelligence regulation—but its inability to enforce these visions makes it a mere backdrop for power politics. As Arthur Waldron of the American Enterprise Institute put it, "China’s territorial claims would likely lead to regional war if consistently enforced." This is a reminder that the world still runs on the fuel of power and might, not on resolutions passed in New York City. The U.N.'s inability to enforce global norms in the face of regional powers asserting dominance signals its diminishing influence.

In a world where leaders such as Russia's Sergey Vershinin deride U.N. resolutions as "unacceptable" yet push their agendas aggressively on the ground, the message is clear: diplomacy is for the weak, and real power lies elsewhere. The persistent conflict in Gaza, the smoldering war in Ukraine, the collapse of order in Sudan—these aren’t anomalies but symptoms of a world that no longer takes the U.N. seriously. Even during the 2024 General Assembly, the imposition of strict five-minute speech limits was a tacit admission that fewer people are willing to listen for long to the rhetoric spewed in those halls.

The United Nations’ relevance is on a slippery slope, clinging to ideals that are slowly losing resonance in a fragmented and polarized global society. Reform, though often promised, has been stonewalled by vested interests. If anything, recent events are a reminder that perhaps the U.N. isn’t just losing its way—it’s being left behind altogether. And perhaps the world, recognizing this truth, will soon stop pretending that an institution that can barely muster consensus on paper will somehow save us from real crises. As they say, "He who rides a tiger cannot dismount," and the U.N. finds itself riding a beast of bureaucracy, unable to steer or even get off—headed inexorably toward irrelevance.

Kamala Harris's Flailing Campaign: Desperation in the Final Days?

  

Kamala Harris's campaign strategy has devolved into throwing whatever it can at the wall, hoping something sticks as her lead evaporates—clear evidence of desperation. The fact that former Presidents Obama and Clinton are practically propping up Harris on stage speaks volumes—she simply can't carry this campaign on her own.

The countdown to Election Day has Kamala Harris’s campaign running on fumes—she's feeling the heat, and it's evident. The once solid lead Harris held over her rival, former President Donald Trump, has eroded to a statistical tie, and her campaign has shifted into panic mode. While polls initially showed Harris with a commanding lead after her acceptance of the Democratic nomination, recent numbers reveal a deadlock as Trump closes the gap. Harris’s approval in Pennsylvania barely edges Trump by 49% to 48%, while Trump holds a wider lead in states like Wisconsin with 57% to 39% among Catholic voters—a group he narrowly won over Joe Biden in 2020. The Catholic vote remains crucial, and this shrinking margin has sent alarm bells ringing across Harris’s camp, prompting a flurry of last-minute strategizing and campaign blitzes to counter Trump's momentum.

Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton emerging from the shadows to campaign fervently for Harris is a testament to the growing sense of desperation. Obama took to the campaign trail in Pennsylvania on October 10, 2024, and Clinton was out in Georgia, fiercely trying to turn the tide. Clinton's attempts to pin recent controversies, like the death of nursing student Laken Riley, on Trump were clear signals that the campaign is grasping at straws. Instead of rallying support, his comments backfired, providing Republicans with a gift-wrapped soundbite, casting doubts on Harris’s ability to control the narrative. Such slip-ups have highlighted the missteps that have plagued Harris's campaign, further intensifying the sense of chaos and uncertainty in her team.

Adding to the turmoil, Harris's outreach to specific voter groups, such as Black men, has also faced significant obstacles. Harris has struggled to keep Trump from peeling away key segments of Black male voters. In a recent move aimed at shoring up her support, Harris appeared on "The View" with Stephen Colbert, cracking a beer and attempting to appeal to working-class sensibilities. Yet, the gesture came off as awkward and inauthentic, unable to bridge the gap to voters who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the promises of the Democratic establishment. As polls tighten across the Midwest, Harris has also attempted to talk more about industrial policy—a topic she largely ignored in the early days of her campaign. However, this too seems to be too little, too late. Voters in battleground states like Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina appear unconvinced, and Trump has capitalized on their skepticism, focusing on issues of border security and economic concerns to bolster his standing.

The panic in Harris’s campaign is further highlighted by her recent media spree—an apparent response to criticism that she has not been accessible enough to voters. After weeks of minimal interaction with mainstream media, Harris has embarked on an aggressive series of interviews, hoping to regain control of the narrative. However, the results have been mixed at best. Facing tough questions, Harris has struggled to present a clear and compelling vision for America, and the effort has only served to further highlight the inconsistencies within her campaign. Just as her media blitz began, Trump's campaign countered by announcing a rally at Madison Square Garden, a calculated move aimed at capturing media attention and energizing his base in a traditionally liberal state. Trump’s ability to draw attention away from Harris, even as she scrambles to connect with voters, is emblematic of her campaign’s struggle to break through the noise and define the terms of the race.

Harris's difficulty in addressing criticisms and countering Trump’s messaging has resulted in her losing ground where it matters most: the swing states. The polls in critical battlegrounds show an increasingly precarious situation. Trump leads in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, while Harris is holding on to slim leads in Nevada and Pennsylvania. The narrowing margins in these states have turned what was once a comfortable lead into a fight for survival. With the odds of winning the Electoral College slipping to their lowest point yet, the pressure on Harris to make a decisive comeback is growing by the day. A recent batch of polls, including those from Emerson College, Marist College, and The New York Times, all point to a virtual tie—a situation that leaves Harris vulnerable to any late-breaking "October surprise" that could tip the election in Trump's favor.

In what appears to be a bid to salvage the situation, the Harris campaign has even rolled out a push to create a bipartisan advisory council in Arizona, signaling a pivot to a more centrist message in hopes of appealing to disillusioned Republicans. But such moves carry the risk of alienating her core Democratic supporters, many of whom feel the campaign’s messaging has already been too vague and uninspiring. The balancing act that Harris is attempting—between energizing her base and reaching across the aisle—is proving to be more of a tightrope walk without a safety net.

Perhaps most telling of the campaign’s struggles is Harris's inability to maintain momentum in what should be friendly territory. Even in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to her path to victory, her lead is wafer-thin, and Trump has been relentless in challenging her on economic issues and public safety—a tactic that resonates with many undecided voters who are increasingly concerned about inflation, crime, and the broader economic uncertainty gripping the country. Meanwhile, her repeated attempts to paint Trump as a threat to democracy seem to be losing their effectiveness as voters become more focused on their day-to-day concerns rather than grand political narratives.

The final stretch of the campaign is shaping up to be a sprint with Harris playing catch-up. Obama’s and Clinton’s involvement, intended to be an asset, is beginning to feel like a desperate move by the establishment to prop up a faltering candidate. Harris’s campaign is being forced to expend resources and energy simply to maintain the ground she had previously gained—a position no candidate wants to be in with just 20 days left until the election. The involvement of high-profile surrogates might boost her visibility temporarily, but it also risks reinforcing the image that Harris cannot win on her own merits—that she requires the heavyweights of the Democratic Party to bail her out of a tight spot.

As the campaign heads into its final weeks, one thing is clear: Kamala Harris's campaign is not where it hoped to be at this stage of the race. The mixed messages, the frantic attempts to regain lost ground, and the ever-tightening polls all point to a campaign in a state of disarray. The reality is that the enthusiasm gap between Harris’s supporters and Trump’s loyal base is growing, and unless Harris finds a way to reverse this trend, her chances of victory may slip away.

After all, as the proverb goes, "A drowning man will clutch at a straw"—and from the looks of things, Harris’s campaign is clutching at whatever it can. Whether or not these desperate measures will suffice remains to be seen, but with the clock ticking and Trump breathing down her neck, the Vice President's quest for the Oval Office looks increasingly shaky. And perhaps, as the critics say, the real "October surprise" is just how disorganized the Harris campaign has turned out to be—proof that even with all the right endorsements, the wrong strategy can still lead to disaster.

 

 

 

 

Double Standards in Action: Why the World Holds Israel Back from Its Survival Battle

 

Calls for a ceasefire are nothing but thinly veiled attempts to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to regroup and strike again. Period.

Israel’s recent military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah are more than a response—they are a battle for survival in a region where the threats are relentless, calculated, and specifically targeted at the only democracy in the Middle East. Critics often cast Israel as an aggressor, but a deeper look reveals a troubling hypocrisy, one that demands to be exposed. This ongoing conflict is not just another episode in the Israel-Palestine saga; it's a showdown orchestrated by Iran’s cold determination to crush the Jewish state while the world watches, often with selective moral outrage.

The chain of violence saw a brutal escalation on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a sudden and bloody attack, leaving over 1,200 Israelis dead and propelling the conflict to unprecedented levels of violence. Since then, Hezbollah and Iran have ramped up the pressure, with the latest salvo of 181 missiles fired by Iran raining down on Israel as recently as October 2024. If any nation faced attacks of this magnitude, the response would be unequivocal. Yet, as Israel fights for its right to exist, the Western outcry against its so-called "disproportionate response" is deafening. Do these critics truly believe that Israel should sit by idly and accept such aggression, simply because they happen to inhabit the most precarious neighborhood on Earth?

History, particularly that of the past year, teaches us that Iran is not an innocent bystander, but a dangerous player actively engaged in proxy warfare against Israel. Iranian officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard boast openly about their capabilities and their intention to see Israel fall. Hezbollah, Iran’s willing ally, has continued to launch missile barrages in coordination with Hamas, effectively keeping Israel under siege from multiple fronts. To expect Israel to hold back under such conditions is nothing less than lunacy—would Washington or London respond with anything less than full force if Tehran's rockets were landing in Times Square or Trafalgar Square?

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the stance of the state abundantly clear: “We will act at the place and time of our choosing.” Israel’s military response isn't about expansion or conquest—it’s about survival. It’s about ensuring that an attack like that of October 7 never repeats itself. It’s about stopping Hezbollah and Iran from tightening their grip around Israel’s borders. It’s about sending a message to Iran that their ambition to dominate the region through terror tactics will be met with an iron wall.

Iran’s desire to "resist" does not end at Gaza or Lebanon—it extends to the destabilization of the entire Middle East. The fact that Iran continues to expand its ballistic missile arsenal while defying the international community in its nuclear pursuits should serve as a wake-up call. Iran's ambitions are dangerous not only to Israel but to the entire region. Yet, the world seems more concerned with condemning Israel’s actions rather than addressing the root of the problem. Why do we so conveniently forget that Iran is the one pushing for instability by funding terror groups that are committed to Israel's destruction?

This irony is underlined by the world's reaction—or lack thereof—to the suffering of Israelis. When Hezbollah launches rockets into Israeli cities, the calls for restraint are almost exclusively aimed at Israel. These critics forget that no sovereign nation could tolerate being attacked from all sides without taking definitive action. Israel's military actions are necessary steps towards ensuring its future. Yet, some Western voices remain fixated on labeling these defensive actions as "excessive." Imagine for a moment if Hezbollah fired rockets into New York or Berlin—would the United States or Germany be asked to negotiate with those terrorists?

The narrative pushed by some international observers is dangerously skewed. Terrorists are painted as "freedom fighters," while Israel, the victim of unprovoked and vicious attacks, is depicted as the aggressor. This distorted narrative is not only misleading but also emboldens Iran and its allies, sending them a clear signal that the world might tolerate their actions if they dress them up as “resistance.” Israel cannot afford such misinterpretation, nor should it bow to the hypocrisy of those who can’t see past their selective outrage.

Consider the October 2024 missile attack that saw over 181 missiles raining on Israel. This was not an isolated act but a calculated escalation, designed to provoke fear, chaos, and international condemnation of Israel’s inevitable response. If the tables were turned and these missiles targeted Paris, would any government hesitate to eradicate the threat by any means necessary? Of course not. Yet, in the eyes of some Western critics, Israel must live by different rules, even as it faces coordinated attacks from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran from afar.

The double standards applied by many international leaders and observers aren’t just an insult—they’re a danger. They embolden Israel's enemies, signaling to them that attacking Israel comes with little consequence in terms of international backlash. It’s time for a reckoning of the biases that have long influenced global discourse around Israel and its right to defend itself. We must ask: Why do we demand restraint from Israel that we wouldn’t demand from ourselves?

Israel's current offensive is not merely a retaliatory strike; it's a stand for its continued existence. Iran’s proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah—act on Iran’s bidding, and their increased coordination means a greater threat to Israel’s future. As such, Israel’s actions should be understood as a strategic necessity, not an optional venture. Any nation in Israel’s position would do the same, but unlike Israel, they might not be faced with the same global criticism, which so often appears politically motivated rather than grounded in a genuine concern for peace.

And then there is the human cost—both sides feel it, but only one side has been explicitly clear about its goal: to annihilate the other. Israel's enemies want it wiped off the map, while Israel wants nothing more than to live in peace. It’s time to support Israel’s right to secure its borders without constantly questioning its morality. The argument that Israel should negotiate with groups committed to its annihilation falls apart upon any serious examination. Would America sit at the table with those explicitly plotting its destruction? History and logic say no.

Israel stands alone at a crossroads: between survival and annihilation, between self-defense and self-sacrifice. In a region where enemies lurk at every border, the strategy is straightforward: to eliminate those who threaten to erase the nation from existence. The West must wake up and understand this—not hinder Israel in its quest for security. A proverb says, "When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you." For Israel, those enemies are real, present, and as dangerous as ever. The only path to lasting security lies in their total elimination.

For those who condemn without understanding, the challenge is simple: imagine if it were your home, your children, under attack. Imagine if the rockets were falling on your cities. The reaction wouldn't be so tempered then, would it?

Mike Johnson Will Certify the 2024 Election—Even if Harris Wins!

Speaker Johnson is no puppet—whether Harris or Trump wins, he will certify the 2024 election without hesitation, shattering any fantasies of electoral rebellion.

As the rumor mill churns with speculation about Mike Johnson, the newly elected Speaker of the House, one thing stands out: he has quickly become a lightning rod for controversy. Some on the extreme left are pushing a narrative that Johnson, a staunch ally of Donald Trump, might refuse to certify the 2024 election results if Trump loses. But is there any truth to these rumors, or are they just political fearmongering?

To set the record straight, let’s start with who Speaker Johnson really is. Known for his deep religious convictions and principled stance on governance, Johnson is not the caricature that some critics are painting. While it’s true that he supported efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election, he has since made it clear that, as Speaker, he will ensure the election results are handled fairly and constitutionally, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump wins the 2024 race.

During an interview, Johnson emphasized that if the 2024 election is free, fair, and legal, he will certify the results without hesitation. His exact words were, "Of course, if we have a free, fair, and safe election, we’re going to follow the Constitution"—a clear commitment to the democratic process. This statement alone should put to rest some of the anxiety being stoked by certain media outlets and political figures, yet for many, his role in the 2020 election challenges continues to cast a long shadow.

It’s important to remember, however, that political leaders evolve, and Johnson’s track record as Speaker so far reflects a man more concerned with doing his job than with partisan theatrics. In fact, Johnson’s recent success in navigating the House to secure $61 billion in funding for Ukraine and $4 billion for Israel stands in stark contrast to Trump’s opposition to these measures. Johnson pushed these bills through without triggering a government shutdown, signaling his ability to balance competing interests—even when they conflict with Trump’s preferences. This act alone showcases a leader who is pragmatic, methodical, and capable of making independent decisions, even under pressure.

There’s no doubt that Trump views Johnson as a useful ally. But if Trump assumes that Johnson will bend to his every whim if he returns to power, he may be in for a rude awakening. Johnson is a man of faith and principles, and those principles may very well guide him in a different direction than Trump anticipates. Should Kamala Harris win, Johnson’s response might surprise Democrats as well, proving that his commitment is to the Constitution, not to any political figure.

The fear surrounding Johnson’s role in the 2024 election largely stems from the fact that he was instrumental in contesting the 2020 results. As a constitutional lawyer, he spearheaded efforts to object to Biden’s victory in several states, citing concerns about how pandemic-related voting changes were handled. However, it’s crucial to note that Johnson also condemned the violence of January 6th and has acknowledged Biden as the legitimate president, which shows a nuanced approach to the very issues that many of his critics fear.

Another point of concern has been Johnson’s close ties to the MAGA movement and his conservative views. His deep religious faith and social conservatism, which align closely with Trump’s base, fuel fears that he may prioritize partisan interests over democracy itself. Yet, for those who understand Johnson’s background, this perspective misses a key element of his character. Johnson’s faith is rooted in the idea of justice and fairness. It is highly unlikely that he would tarnish his reputation by subverting the will of the voters.

Some Democratic leaders have expressed their concerns, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reportedly speaking privately with colleagues about potential strategies for the 2024 certification process. Their worry? That Johnson, given his past, could play a pivotal role in disrupting the electoral process if the results don’t favor Trump. Yet Johnson’s assurances, combined with his recent actions in Congress, suggest otherwise. He’s proven to be more pragmatic than many initially believed, deftly handling a divided House and delivering legislative victories without bowing to hardline demands from any one faction.

As we look ahead to 2025, the question isn’t just whether Johnson will certify the election results—it’s whether the fears being stoked around him are justified or merely the result of political theater. Johnson has already shown that he can handle immense pressure without falling into partisan traps, and his track record as Speaker suggests that he will continue to act in accordance with the law, not the whims of any political group.

In the end, both Trump and Harris may find themselves caught off guard by Speaker Johnson. Trump might expect a loyal foot soldier, only to find a leader who follows his own moral compass. Harris, should she win, may anticipate resistance, but could instead encounter a man who upholds the Constitution, no matter who occupies the White House.

It’s been said that “a man of principle is a man who refuses to lie, even when the whole world would prefer him to do so.” If Johnson’s principles guide him as they have in the past, then those waiting for him to play the role of Trump’s puppet or Harris’ antagonist might be in for a surprise. After all, even in politics, not every rumor holds water. And sometimes, the quiet, methodical leaders are the ones who surprise us the most.

Critics of Israel: Conveniently Blind to Terrorist Atrocities?

 

Israel’s military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t just defensive—they are a moral obligation to secure the future of the only democracy in the Middle East. Hence the West’s criticism of Israel’s self-defense reeks of hypocrisy; they would never tolerate such violence on their own soil.

It is often said that "the best defense is a good offense," and in Israel’s case, the sentiment rings truer than ever as it grapples with relentless threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Since Hamas launched its shocking attack on October 7, 2023, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has surged to unprecedented levels of violence. Over 1,200 Israelis were brutally killed, igniting what can only be described as a war for survival. The fact that Iran and Hezbollah continue to fire missile barrages at Israel, most recently on April 13 and again on October 1, 2024, is a haunting reminder that Israel’s enemies are not relenting. The question now is whether Israel should tolerate this or seek to “finish the job” as some critics argue.

In an era where the international community is quick to condemn Israel for its military actions, it’s ironic how selective the memory of some politicians and protesters can be. These voices often paint Israel as the aggressor, conveniently omitting the massive humanitarian toll that Israel has endured at the hands of terrorist organizations. Take Iran’s brazen October 2024 missile attack on Israel, where 181 missiles rained down on Israeli cities, forcing civilians into bomb shelters and disrupting daily life. Yet, in the face of such unprovoked aggression, some corners of the West and left-wing circles seem more preoccupied with demonizing Israel's defensive efforts rather than holding its attackers accountable. Why the double standard? Could you imagine the reaction if such attacks were carried out on American or European soil?

Israel's resolve to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah stems not just from a need for national security but from an understanding of what is at stake: its survival. Iran, the puppet master behind many of these attacks, has made it clear that it will not stop its proxy war against Israel. Despite condemnation from much of the international community, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard continues to boast about its capabilities and willingness to escalate the conflict. Hezbollah, too, has ramped up its missile attacks, targeting Israeli cities in coordination with Hamas since the October 7 assault. One has to wonder if Iran and Hezbollah think Israel will simply sit back and accept their violence without retaliation. History suggests otherwise.

Israel has every right to defend itself against these threats. Any nation facing a coordinated attack from three fronts—Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran from afar—would be expected to take decisive military action. The logic is simple: if Israel does not eliminate these terrorist groups now, they will grow bolder and more dangerous. Iran, already emboldened by its close ties with these groups, will continue pushing its agenda of “resistance” until it emasculates Israel or is humbled by defeat. In this context, Israeli military actions should be seen not as acts of aggression but as necessary steps to safeguard its future. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has made it clear: “We will act at the place and time of our choosing.” The world needs to recognize that Israel’s enemies are not mere insurgents but organized, well-funded militias backed by a nation intent on Israel’s destruction.

Ironically, many of the same critics that are quick to call Israel’s actions excessive would never tolerate such attacks on their own soil. Imagine Hezbollah firing rockets at New York City or Iran launching ballistic missiles at London. There would be no debate about the morality of self-defense. Israel’s position in the Middle East has always been precarious, but its military actions are not about expansion or oppression; they are about survival in an environment where its enemies are increasingly well-armed and coordinated. After all, would the United States or any European nation negotiate with terrorist organizations openly committed to its annihilation? The answer is obvious.

The ongoing war between Israel and these terrorist factions reflects a wider battle between Israel and Iran, where the latter’s ambitions stretch beyond just Gaza and Lebanon. Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, its growing nuclear ambitions, and its persistent proxy wars throughout the region all point to a regime that is as dangerous as it is destabilizing. Israel, more than any other nation, understands that the path to peace does not involve placating Iran. The West must understand this as well. To finish the job of eliminating Hamas and Hezbollah is not just Israel’s prerogative but a necessity to prevent future bloodshed on a larger scale.

As we stand at this crossroads, where Israel faces not only military pressure but growing political isolation, it’s important to recognize one cold, hard fact: Israel’s enemies will not stop until Israel is destroyed. And in that fight, Israel should be encouraged, not demonized, for its efforts to eliminate the terrorist threats on its borders. To let these factions survive would only ensure more violence in the future. It is said, "When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you." For Israel, the enemies outside are clear and present, and their elimination is the only path to lasting security.

But, as always, the moral outrage from some quarters remains selective. Israel defends itself, and it is called a war crime. Terrorists strike Israel, and they are called freedom fighters. In a world where headlines are dominated by half-truths and misdirection, it seems the most dangerous weapons aren’t missiles, but memories. Or rather, the lack of them.

America or Europe would never allow such chaos in their own backyards, so why should Israel?

From Invader to Invaded: Ukraine's Bold Move Is Russia’s Worst Nightmare

 

Ukraine's offensive into Russia is not just a military operation—it’s poetic justice, showing the aggressor that they too are vulnerable to the devastation they’ve caused. The bottom line is clear: Holding Russian territory, even temporarily, is a game-changing tactic that positions Ukraine not as the defender, but as the conqueror, turning the tide of this conflict in ways that will haunt Moscow for years.

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive can be described as a risky, yet purposeful chess move in this modern battlefield. Ukraine is not playing checkers here; they’re playing a game of long-term strategy, each step carefully measured despite the enormity of the risk. The audacity of this operation has certainly disrupted the Russian frontlines, stirring up enough fear to make even the Kremlin’s iron resolve tremble.

Critics have been quick to cast doubt, citing Ukraine’s losses and Russia’s continued advances in places like Vugledar. But was the Kursk offensive a mistake? Absolutely not. It was a calculated gambit that shifted the war’s momentum, forcing Russia into a defensive posture and highlighting Ukraine’s ability to strike where it hurts most—inside Russian territory itself.

From the beginning, this was not just an offensive; it was a message. By launching an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region on August 6, Ukraine sent a clear signal: this war will not be confined to Ukrainian soil alone. Russian forces were caught off guard, and the subsequent panic in Moscow was palpable. Volodymyr Zelensky’s government aimed to weaken Russia’s focus on the Eastern front, diverting their military attention and rattling their confidence. In this, Ukraine succeeded with flying colors. The offensive didn’t just disrupt Russian troop movements; it shattered the illusion that Russia’s own borders were impenetrable.

This incursion was the largest foreign military operation on Russian soil since World War II—a fact that should not be glossed over. Ukraine’s audacity shook Moscow to its core. Beyond the physical territory gained, Ukraine captured the minds of millions who saw their nation’s armed forces pour into Russia, reversing the roles of predator and prey. This was psychological warfare at its finest. One soldier, brimming with pride, remarked, “Russia, which invaded our country, will feel the same as us and will see what war is.” In other words, Ukraine made sure Russia understood that war is no longer a distant enterprise—it’s knocking on their door.

And let’s not ignore the strategic importance of Kursk. It was never just about seizing land. The operation was designed to shift the dynamics of the conflict, forcing Russia to redeploy tens of thousands of troops to defend its own territory. This depletion of forces from the critical eastern frontlines is what Ukraine needed to buy time and reconstitute its own defenses. Reports indicate that as of September, Moscow redeployed over 50,000 troops to counter Ukraine’s push into Kursk. Such a large-scale mobilization is no small victory for Kyiv. It is, in fact, a clear indication that the Kursk offensive has had a tangible impact on Russian military logistics and strategy.

However, this audacious operation is not without its risks. Some Ukrainian military experts, including soldiers, have voiced concerns that a long-term campaign in Kursk could deplete Ukraine’s already strained resources. It’s a valid worry, but that’s the nature of bold gambits. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. As of now, the course Ukraine must follow is clear: capitalize on the pressure it has created. Zelensky’s government must evolve its tactics, leveraging this success into a relentless force that Russia simply cannot withstand.

There is no time for hesitation. While some may call for caution, slowing down would be the true mistake. Wars are not won by the timid, and Ukraine cannot afford to lose the strategic advantage it has painstakingly gained. Moscow’s increasing military pressure in the east shows that Russia is determined to capitalize on any sign of Ukrainian hesitation. Ukraine must continue to push deeper into Russian territory, intensifying the offensive before Russia can regroup. Any delay could give Moscow the opportunity it needs to reclaim its footing and redirect its military might back into Ukraine.

This bold incursion has also shown the world—and perhaps more importantly, Ukraine’s Western allies—that Ukraine can stand toe-to-toe with Russian forces on Russian soil. With elections looming in the United States, and the specter of Ukraine-skeptic leaders like Donald Trump potentially returning to power, Kyiv needs every ounce of leverage it can get. Holding a portion of Russian territory could prove invaluable if negotiations ever come into play, giving Ukraine the upper hand in any potential peace talks.

But there is no peace on the horizon for now, and that’s just fine. Ukraine is far from finished with this war. The Kursk offensive has only scratched the surface of what could be an even more aggressive push into Russian territory. As Ukrainian forces continue to hold positions inside Russia, the fear in Moscow only grows. Putin has responded by increasing his military forces, raising the number of active servicemen to 1.5 million, a desperate move that signals his anxiety. And yet, even with these reinforcements, Russia’s long-term prospects are grim. Their offensive might be accelerating in places, but at a massive cost of human lives and resources. The sheer volume of Russian losses—thousands of men sacrificed for minimal gains—shows the fragility of their position.

Ukraine’s next steps must be swift and decisive. The Kursk offensive has proven that Ukrainian forces can strike at the heart of Russia, but now is the time to ramp up the pressure. Military history is littered with examples of bold, strategic gambits that changed the course of wars. The Kursk operation has the potential to be one of those defining moments—if Ukraine seizes the moment. As the saying goes, “Strike while the iron is hot.”

Some may argue that this entire endeavor is too risky, too dangerous. But playing it safe won’t win Ukraine the war. They must go all-in, with the Kursk offensive being just the beginning of a broader, more ambitious campaign. After all, history favors the bold—and Ukraine is proving that it’s willing to take the necessary risks to not just survive, but to win. As the saying goes, “He who hesitates is lost,” and Ukraine cannot afford to hesitate now. Besides, if Russia wanted peace, they could’ve stayed at home—preferably far away from Ukraine’s borders.

And as for Putin? Well, it seems his chess game just took a checkmate from a country he never expected to fight back so fiercely.

Bonuses: The Corporate Poison Pill That's Killing Workplace Culture

 

Bonuses are the Trojan Horse of corporate greed—promising rewards but delivering chaos, fraud, and unethical behavior. In plain English, financial incentives fuel corruption and deceit—just look at Wells Fargo, where bonuses led to widespread fraud and a $3 billion scandal.

Workplace bonuses: the carrot dangled to boost productivity or the dynamite that blows up in a manager’s face? Incentive systems, while seemingly a no-brainer to encourage better performance, can often have counterproductive effects. Like a poorly crafted joke that falls flat, misguided bonus structures are more likely to backfire than boost morale. Sometimes, a dumb incentive system begets dumb outcomes.

Consider Wells Fargo, a shining example of how disastrous poorly designed bonuses can be. The bank, which once boasted a solid reputation, found itself entangled in scandal when employees, pressured by impossible cross-selling targets, resorted to opening unauthorized deposit accounts and issuing unwanted debit cards. The incentive? Achieve the sales goals, or face the consequences. What resulted was a public relations disaster and a hefty $3 billion settlement—a massive price for trying to get employees to hit arbitrary numbers. The incentives were clear, but the behavior they encouraged was far from desirable.

This misalignment between incentive structures and desired outcomes isn’t a one-off event. History offers plenty of other examples, from Soviet factories producing uselessly large nails to meet tonnage quotas to healthcare systems around the world incentivizing unnecessary procedures. In Britain, the National Health Service’s payment structure led to patients receiving less dental care than needed, all because of misaligned financial incentives. Similarly, in Iran, financial incentives led to an alarming spike in C-sections, as doctors were rewarded more for surgical births than natural ones. These perverse outcomes show that, quite often, if you create a dumb system, the results will be just as dumb.

Recent studies underscore the backfiring nature of bonuses when applied thoughtlessly. In Germany, an experiment tested the effect of offering apprentice workers attendance bonuses at a retailer. The result? Instead of reducing absenteeism, the monetary incentive *increased* it by 50%. Employees, perceiving attendance as a reward-worthy achievement, began to feel less guilty about skipping work, ultimately resulting in higher absenteeism even after the incentive was removed. Such outcomes highlight how the framing of incentives can shift employees’ perceptions of what counts as acceptable behavior. A similar pattern unfolded in an East Asian R&D center where helping colleagues became a formal job requirement. Once the act of cooperation was tied to performance appraisals, the quality of assistance plummeted. Employees performed more surface-level tasks to gain recognition, but the depth of their collaboration suffered, reflecting an intrinsic-to-extrinsic motivation shift.

Charlie Munger's famous quip—"If you have a dumb incentive system, you get dumb outcomes"—has never been more relevant. Even in fields as critical as finance, healthcare, and research, poorly conceived incentives have undermined long-term goals. Studies from Harvard Business School reveal that performance bonuses for loan officers contributed to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging risky, short-term decisions that led to massive defaults. When people are incentivized to prioritize short-term gains over long-term stability, entire economies can collapse, proving that bonuses, rather than aligning interests, can mislead even the brightest minds in high-stakes industries.

Moreover, financial incentives aren’t always the silver bullet they appear to be. Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor at Stanford, argues that the lure of quick financial fixes through bonuses and pay structures can blind organizations to deeper, more effective strategies. It's far easier to change a bonus system than to reshape company culture, but the latter is what truly influences behavior and long-term success. When companies lean too heavily on financial rewards, they often overlook the need to build trust, invest in employees’ skill development, and foster genuine collaboration. A quick monetary incentive may feel like an easy win, but it’s a band-aid solution to more systemic issues that require meaningful engagement.

Interestingly, research has found that the wrong incentive systems can breed selfishness and even collusion. In a study at the University of California, Berkeley, when participants were rewarded based on relative performance, those with selfish tendencies often found ways to game the system, reducing their effort to pocket more rewards. Far from motivating individuals to excel, these relative incentive schemes encouraged teams to do less, all in the name of maximizing their take-home pay. This type of behavior—where employees are motivated to cheat or do the bare minimum—reflects the darker side of poorly constructed reward systems.

Incentive structures need to be approached with caution. If we fail to consider the broader social and organizational dynamics at play, we end up promoting behavior that harms both the individual and the organization. As with the German attendance bonus study, what started as an effort to reduce absenteeism instead normalized it. Similarly, Wells Fargo’s profit-driven incentives ended up unraveling a trusted banking brand. When financial gain is dangled as the only carrot, employees can and will find shortcuts to reach it—shortcuts that may lead to scandals, inefficiencies, or even long-term damage to the company's reputation.

The problem isn’t that bonuses are inherently bad; it’s that they're often implemented without enough consideration of their unintended consequences. Like trying to fix a leak with duct tape, bonuses might seem to work in the short term, but the underlying issues will soon resurface, often more severe than before. A robust organizational culture that promotes intrinsic motivation—pride in work, mutual respect, and shared values—is far more likely to produce sustainable success than a slapdash bonus system designed to hit arbitrary targets.

So, next time your manager dangles a shiny new bonus structure in front of you, ask yourself: Is this going to drive meaningful change, or is it just another dumb system that’ll lead to dumb results? After all, when the promise of money clouds judgment, it's only a matter of time before someone, somewhere, presses the wrong button, accidentally—or not.