In October 2025, retired Blanco, Texas mayor Mike Arnold — invited by the Nigerian government itself to refute genocide allegations against Christians — reached the opposite conclusion. After five years of investigation, Arnold formally concluded that the killing of Christians in northern and middle-belt Nigeria "does indeed constitute a calculated, current and long-running genocide…without any reasonable doubt."

His broader investigation goes further: foreign fighters arriving from across the Islamic world, the world's #2 ISIS commander operating openly inside Nigeria until a May 16, 2026 U.S. strike killed him, Iran's three-million-member Khomeinist proxy expanding in 35 of Nigeria's 36 states, and Turkey's Erdoğan-aligned military contractor — whose founder publicly stated his mission is "paving the way for the long-awaited Mahdi" — now training Nigerian forces under a January 2026 bilateral agreement.

According to ACLED, over two-thirds of all Islamic State activity globally is now concentrated on the African continent in the first half of 2025, with Nigeria at its operational heart. InterSociety has documented 7,087 Christians killed in just the first 220 days of 2025.

Share

The Country at the Center of the Map

Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy, its most populous nation, and on track to become the third-largest country on earth by 2050, with a projected population north of 400 million. Roughly half of those citizens are Muslim. Twelve of Nigeria’s 36 northern states have already implemented Sharia law. Sitting atop the institutional religious structure of northern Nigeria is the Sultan of Sokoto, the hereditary spiritual head of more than 100 million Sunni Muslims across West Africa.

The Sokoto throne is not a colonial-era invention. It is the surviving institution of the Sokoto Caliphate, founded in 1804 by the Fulani scholar Usman dan Fodio. The British never conquered it. Through “indirect rule,” they preserved the Caliphate’s authority and rebranded it externally as a Sultanate. The institution — and the bloodline — has remained intact for 222 years.

ISIS’s Center of Gravity Has Moved

The Islamic State has not formally rescinded its 2014 caliphate declaration in Mosul, but its operational center has unambiguously shifted. The Soufan Center and West Point’s Modern War Institute have both documented that financial flows, propaganda output, and senior leadership presence have increasingly moved to African affiliates.

UN monitoring teams have identified the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) — a 2016 Boko Haram splinter — as one of ISIS’s most prolific propaganda producers globally. ISIS’s official weekly al-Naba has reframed African territory as the new tamkin — the divinely empowered ground for caliphate consolidation. ISWAP earns an estimated $191 million annually in taxation revenue from territory it controls in northeastern Nigeria.

Iran’s Three-Million-Member Proxy

Operating on the same Nigerian geography but from the opposite sectarian flank is the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), founded by Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has documented IMN as Iran’s flagship Khomeinist project in sub-Saharan Africa. The movement has branches in 35 of Nigeria’s 36 states, an armed wing, documented weapons caches, and a history of clashes with Nigerian security forces.

On October 14, 2024, Zakzaky met personally with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. According to Khamenei’s own readout, Iran’s Supreme Leader told Zakzaky: “The Islamic Movement is expanding in Africa, Europe and North America.” Iran’s institutional ideology — Mahdism, the doctrine that the Islamic Republic exists to hasten the return of the Hidden Imam — explicitly frames foreign Shia movements as platforms for that mission.

Turkey Enters the Equation

Three weeks after Trump’s Christmas Day strike on Sokoto, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu flew to Ankara and signed nine agreements with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — including a Military Cooperation Protocol and the launch of Turkish Islamic schools across Nigeria. Turkey pledged deeper counterterrorism cooperation and the establishment of a joint military training center.

Mike Arnold’s investigation identifies SADAT — Erdoğan’s affiliated private military contractor — as the likely staffing pool for these training operations. SADAT is a private military contractor founded by Adnan Tanrıverdi, a former chief military advisor to Erdoğan. At a 2019 Islamic Union Congress, Tanrıverdi publicly stated that his organization was working “to pave the way for the long-awaited Mahdi.” The statement was reported by MEMRI and confirmed by multiple Turkish opposition outlets.

A Texas Mayor in Abuja

Retired Blanco, Texas mayor Mike Arnold spent five years investigating the killing of Christians in Nigeria. In October 2025, ironically invited by the Nigerian government itself to refute genocide allegations, Arnold’s fact-finding delegation reached the opposite conclusion. His formal statement on October 14, 2025 concluded: “The campaign of violence and displacement in northern and middle belt Nigeria does indeed constitute a calculated, current and long-running genocide against Christian communities and other religious minorities without any reasonable doubt.” Arnold’s investigation was conducted with the knowledge of Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Chip Roy, the State Department, and the Acting U.S. Ambassador.

In a longer analytical essay published in May 2026, Arnold argues that Sunni and Shia militant movements are pursuing competing versions of the same Mahdist end-times framework, with Nigeria as a convergence point. Academic specialists differ on how central eschatology is as a driver versus political grievance, state collapse, and resource competition. But the operational facts — ISIS leadership in Nigeria, Iran’s expanding proxy, Turkey’s Mahdi-invoking military partner, and the documented killing of Christians — are not in dispute.

Washington Begins to Name It

The Trump administration’s 2026 Counterterrorism Strategy, released in May, formally identifies Islamism and Jihadism by name and lists the protection of Christians from jihadi violence in Africa as a core U.S. objective. Senator Ted Cruz has introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025. Representative Riley Moore has urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to designate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern.

The InterSociety data is grim: 125,000+ Christians killed since 2009, 19,100 churches destroyed, 12 million Christians displaced from ancestral lands. The same report names 22 separate Islamic terror groups now operating on Nigerian soil.

The Big Picture

The question is no longer whether something serious is happening in Nigeria. The world’s #2 ISIS commander does not relocate to a country by accident. Iran’s Supreme Leader does not personally receive the leader of a foreign movement representing three million followers without reason. Turkey does not sign a military training agreement and launch Islamic schools across a country of 220 million on a whim. And InterSociety’s daily count of slaughtered Christians is not, as Al Jazeera has long framed it, a climate-driven dispute over grazing land.

What is happening in Nigeria is the operational convergence of multiple Islamist projects — Sunni jihadi, Shia Khomeinist, Turkish neo-Ottoman, and Wahhabi-Salafi — on a single piece of African geography that combines a 222-year-old institutional caliphate, a hereditary throne, a collapsing security environment, and a Christian population whose annihilation is well underway. The pattern does not require accepting any one theological framing to be alarming. It requires only counting the bodies, reading the agreements, and watching where the senior commanders die.

On May 16, 2026, President Donald Trump announced what has become a pattern in his counter-terrorism record: results.

U.S. and Nigerian forces killed Abu Bilal al-Minuki, a senior commander in Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), in a joint operation targeting terrorist infrastructure in Nigeria’s Lake Chad Basin. Nigerian President Bola Tinubu confirmed Minuki’s death alongside “several of his lieutenants,” describing the operation as disrupting a network responsible for kidnappings, attacks on civilians, and the 2018 Dapchi schoolgirls abduction.

It was another data point in Trump’s consistent approach to Islamic terrorism: find them, target them, eliminate them. From Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to al-Minuki, the administration has demonstrated that jihadist leadership can be hunted down wherever they hide whether in Syrian compounds or African swamplands.

One day after announcing the operation, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared at Rededicate 250, a gathering on the National Mall that brought together Americans in prayer and reflection on the nation’s 250th anniversary. The juxtaposition wasn’t accidental, it reflected something the administration grasps that previous governments avoided: clarity about what the United States defends, and why it matters.

The ISIS Record: Promises Kept

Trump’s first term delivered what his predecessor couldn’t: the destruction of the ISIS caliphate. In October 2019, U.S. special forces killed ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a Syria raid. By early 2020, the territorial “caliphate” that once controlled populations the size of Britain had been dismantled. These weren’t symbolic victories- they were operational defeats that ended ISIS’s ability to govern territory, collect taxes, and project the image of an ascendant movement.

But ISIS, like all jihadist movements, adapted. Following its collapse in Iraq and Syria, the group reconstituted operations in sub-Saharan Africa, where approximately 90 percent of its attacks now occur. Islamic State West Africa Province emerged as one of the continent’s deadliest factions, controlling swaths of the Lake Chad Basin and terrorizing civilian populations across multiple countries.

Trump’s second-term approach recognizes this reality. Rather than declaring victory and withdrawing, the administration has pursued ISIS into Africa, partnering with regional governments, deploying intelligence assets, and conducting precision strikes. The Christmas Day 2025 operation and the May 2026 Minuki killing demonstrate strategic follow-through. When the president says ISIS will be defeated wherever it operates, he means it.

Naming What We Defend

Critics have questioned the administration’s willingness to describe attacks on Christians as attacks on Christians. On Christmas 2025, Trump announced strikes targeting ISIS militants who had been “viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians.” Hegseth stated plainly: “The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end.”

This honesty represents a departure from decades of strategic ambiguity that refused to acknowledge religious dimensions of jihadist violence. ISIS explicitly targets religious minorities — Christians, Yazidis, Shia Muslims — as part of its ideology. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make us more sophisticated; it makes us dishonest.

Are Christians the only victims of ISIS in Nigeria? No. Muslims and tribal groups suffer enormously from jihadist violence as well. But acknowledging that Christians face targeted persecution doesn’t erase Muslim suffering. It simply states a fact that matters to the United States, a nation founded on religious freedom.

When ISIS burns churches, kidnaps Christian schoolgirls, and executes believers for refusing conversion, the United States has both a moral interest and a strategic interest in stopping it. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of Western civilization. Defending it isn’t sectarian warfare, it’s defending the principle that people shouldn’t be murdered for their beliefs.

Moral Clarity, Not Theocracy

The day after announcing the Minuki operation, Hegseth appeared at Rededicate 250, an event organized to mark America’s 250th anniversary through prayer and reflection. The gathering, which brought together religious leaders and citizens, represented something increasingly rare in American public life: an unapologetic articulation of the moral and religious foundations that shaped the nation.

This isn’t theocracy. It’s acknowledgment of inheritance. The American system of ordered liberty, individual rights, and limited government didn’t emerge from nowhere— it grew from specific moral and philosophical soil, much of it Christian. Recognizing that heritage isn’t establishing a state religion. It’s historical honesty.

Hegseth has launched monthly prayer services at the Pentagon, reflecting his understanding that military service involves moral questions that secular bureaucracy can’t answer. Soldiers who risk their lives deserve to know what they’re defending. Telling them it’s merely “international norms” or “rules-based order” is insufficient. They defend something deeper: the civilization that makes freedom possible.

Strategic Seriousness

The Council on Foreign Relations noted that Nigeria operations reflect an “America First approach” focused on protecting U.S. interests. Exactly right. American interests include preventing jihadist networks from establishing safe havens, protecting populations vulnerable to religious persecution, and demonstrating that terrorism has consequences.

Nigerian officials have welcomed U.S. partnership in confronting ISWAP, describing the cooperation as necessary given the scale of the threat. When Trump says the U.S. will work with partners to dismantle terrorist networks, he’s describing coalition-building—not unilateralism.

Some observers worry that acknowledging religious dimensions of the conflict “hands ISIS a propaganda victory.” This is backwards. ISIS already believes it’s fighting a religious war. Our refusal to name that reality doesn’t confuse them—it confuses us. Moral clarity about what we’re defending strengthens resolve. Evasion weakens it.

A Record That Speaks

From the elimination of Baghdadi to the destruction of the caliphate to the ongoing pursuit of ISIS leadership in Africa, Trump has delivered measurable results against Islamic terrorism. The Minuki operation represents the latest in a series of successful strikes that have degraded jihadist networks and protected vulnerable populations.

The administration’s willingness to speak plainly about religious freedom, civilizational defense, and moral purpose doesn’t undermine counter-terrorism—it clarifies it. Americans understand what their military defends because the administration tells them. That honesty, combined with operational effectiveness, is what distinguishes this approach from the strategic drift that preceded it.

ISIS thrives in ambiguity and retreat. Trump offers the opposite: clarity, persistence, and results.

A May 2026 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom documents how China enacted three laws in less than one year that together constitute “an escalation in the CCP’s systematic, ongoing, and egregious efforts to make all religion and belief throughout China entirely subservient to CCP ideology.”

The laws—revisions to the Public Security Administration Punishments Law (June 2025), an Online Code of Conduct for Religious Professionals (September 2025), and the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law (March 2026) — create what USCIRF characterizes as a legal architecture enabling “forced ethnoreligious assimilation nationwide by all levels of government — including the military.” The enforcement mechanism is already operational: at 2:00 a.m. on October 12, 2025, Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri and 27 other leaders of Zion Church were arrested across multiple provinces, just 30 days after the internet code took effect.

Share

The USCIRF Finding: Three Laws, One System

The USCIRF report identifies the June 2025 Public Security Administration Law as the first time China included “illegal religious activities” within the scope of administrative punishments. Article 31, effective January 1, 2026, permits detention of 10 to 15 days and fines up to 2,000 RMB for organizing or inciting “illegal religious activities.” USCIRF notes this “in effect targets unregistered religious groups, such as Protestant house churches—thereby placing an additional layer of pressure on them to register and subject themselves to the authorities’ efforts to compel them to promote CCP ideology.”

The September 2025 Online Code restricted online religious activity exclusively to organizations holding government licenses. Article 13 banned livestreams, WeChat groups, and online services for unlicensed groups. Article 8 codified transnational repression, stating that “religious professionals must not collude with foreign forces through the internet.”

The March 2026 Ethnic Unity and Progress Law, adopted March 12 and effective July 1, drew particular alarm from USCIRF for its scope. Eight UN Special Rapporteurs sent a formal letter April 16, 2026, expressing concern that the law violates multiple international treaties. USCIRF highlights Article 46 as explicitly requiring religious groups to “persist in the direction of Sinicization” and Article 63 as codifying extraterritorial pursuit of critics.

Case Study: Pastor Jin and the 30-Day Timeline

USCIRF cites Pastor Ezra Jin’s arrest as direct evidence that “Chinese authorities invoked this new code” for enforcement. On October 10, 2025, police arrested Jin and 27 other Zion Church leaders across Beijing, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Chengdu, and six other cities for “illegal use of information networks”— one month after the code’s release.

The arrest violated Article 17 of the code itself, which stipulates violators should receive warnings before penalties. USCIRF notes that “authorities gave no such warning to Pastor Jin or other members of the Zion Church before their detention.” Eighteen remain formally arrested under Criminal Law Article 287-1, facing potential sentences up to three years.

Zion Church had survived previous persecution. In 2018, the church refused government demands to install 23 facial recognition cameras. Police seized the building on September 9, 2018. The church adapted through hybrid online-offline meetings, eventually reaching 5,000 members in 40 cities. The September 2025 code eliminated that survival strategy. Grace Jin Drexel testified before USCIRF in January 2026 that detainees are forced to sleep on floor mats, subjected to sleep deprivation, and denied adequate medical care despite serious health conditions.

From Regional Atrocities to National Policy

USCIRF emphasizes that the Ethnic Unity Law “marks a clear departure from past pretenses to provide for regional ‘autonomy’” by nationalizing practices previously confined to borderlands. Tibet enacted ethnic unity regulations in 2020; Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia followed in 2021. Carl Minzner at the Council on Foreign Relations describes this trajectory as originating with the 2014 Central Ethnic Work Conference.

Article 15 mandates Mandarin from preschool forward. USCIRF reports that “long prior to this law, the CCP had overseen the removal of millions of Tibetan Buddhist and Uyghur children from their homes to place them in boarding schools.” UN experts warned in February 2023 that approximately one million Tibetan children were affected by forced assimilation through residential schools. In Xinjiang, boarding enrollment increased by 382,000 between 2017 and 2019.

Article 20 prohibits parents from instilling ideas “not conducive to improving ethnic unity” in minors. USCIRF observes this “denies them the right to foster religious upbringing in their own homes and impart traditions to their own children.” Article 48 potentially legitimizes “Chinese military operations against ethnoreligious groups and religious organizations that are not in full compliance with CCP ideology.”

The Vulnerable Population

China has 44 million Christians registered in state-approved churches. “Tens of millions” more are estimated to worship in illegal house churches. The three-law system creates escalating enforcement: administrative punishment (10-15 days detention), criminal prosecution (up to 3 years), and systematic pressure to register and submit to state ideology.

Transnational Reach

Article 63 permits pursuing “legal responsibility” against individuals “outside the mainland territory” who “undermine ethnic unity.” USCIRF notes this “codifies and further entrenches the Chinese government’s already extensive engagement in transnational repression.”

Freedom House describes China as conducting “the most sophisticated, global, and comprehensive campaign of transnational repression in the world.” Safeguard Defenders documented Operation Fox Hunt in more than 50 countries. The Department of Justice convicted a Fox Hunt leader in March 2025. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists interviewed more than 100 victims in 23 countries in 2025. What was covert is now explicit statutory authority.

What happened to Uyghurs and Tibetans is now the codified framework for 1.4 billion people. Pastor Jin’s arrest 30 days after the internet code demonstrates operational readiness. The question is no longer whether China will enforce these laws. The question is whether the international community will respond before the Xinjiang model becomes the China model — for everyone.

Pope Leo XIV awarded the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor to Iran’s ambassador to the Holy See earlier this week — the same year Iranian courts sentenced 73 Christians to a combined 280 years in prison for owning Bibles, attending house churches, and celebrating Christmas. The honor, bestowed the same week President Donald Trump declared the U.S.-Iran ceasefire “on life support,” has drawn sharp criticism from religious freedom advocates and exposed a widening rift between the Vatican’s diplomatic posture and the persecution unfolding inside Iran.

Share

A Regime Ideologue at the Vatican

Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Iran’s envoy to the Vatican since December 2023, received the Knight of the Grand Cross of the Pontifical Order of Pius IX on May 8, according to a certificate signed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State. The Order of Pius IX, established in 1847, is the Holy See’s most senior active papal order, typically conferred on resident ambassadors for “strengthening diplomatic ties and serving the cause of peace and dialogue,” according to Iranian state media’s characterization of the award.

But Mokhtari’s record undermines that framing. The Hojjatoleslam — a mid-ranking Shi’a cleric — spent his career embedded in Iran’s religious and ideological apparatus. He served on the scientific committee of the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, an institution led by by hardline cleric Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, and led the University for Islamic Denominations, a regime-backed institution that signed cooperation agreements with universities in Assad-era Syria.

Demanding the Pope Defend Khamenei

In his role as ambassador, Mokhtari urged the Pope publicly defend Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei against “insults and assassination threats” from the United States, describing Khamenei as not merely a political figure but “a sacred religious authority for Shi’a Muslims” whose dignity was being violated. He authored an op-ed accusing American policymakers of “cloaking inhumane and irrational decisions in religious rhetoric” and personally delivered a plaque of Khamenei’s speeches about Jesus to Pope Francis in 2024.

Following the launch of Operation Epic Fury, Mokhtari condemned the strikes as “aggression” and a “blatant violation of territorial integrity,” invoking Iran’s “legal and legitimate right to respond.” He told the Pope it was his “moral duty” to condemn the strikes — a request the Vatican did not answer.

Awarded Mid-War, as Ceasefire Collapsed

The timing of the Vatican honor was particularly striking. The certificate awarding Mokhtari the Grand Cross was dated May 8, 2026 — just three days before Trump called Iran’s latest peace proposal “garbage” and declared the ceasefire “on life support.”

The U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had begun February 28, 2026, with nearly 900 strikes in the first 12 hours targeting Iranian missiles, air defenses, and military infrastructure. After more than five weeks of fighting that left thousands dead in Iran and Lebanon, a ceasefire was brokered April 7–8 by Pakistan. But by May, negotiations had stalled over Iranian demands for compensation, an end to the U.S. naval blockade, and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran had shut down shipping traffic carrying one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply.

Iranian state media framed the Vatican honor as closely linked to Pope Leo XIV’s condemnation of U.S.-Israeli actions and to the Iranian embassy’s efforts to “promote messages of peace, justice, and opposition to warmongering.” Yet the regime Mokhtari represents was simultaneously overseeing a dramatic escalation in the persecution of Christians.

280 Years in Prison, One Year

In 2025, Iranian courts sentenced 73 Christians to more than 280 cumulative years in prison, according to a joint report by Middle East Concern, Open Doors, Article 18, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. That figure represents a six-fold increase in imprisonment compared to 2023, when 22 Christians received a combined 43.5 years. At least 254 Christians were arrested in 2025 on charges related to their faith — nearly double the prior year’s total.

The charges used against Christians include “propaganda activity contrary to Islamic law,” “acting against national security,” and violations of Article 500 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, which criminalizes “any deviant educational or proselytizing activity that contradicts or interferes with the sacred law of Islam.” Iranian authorities increasingly characterize Christian converts as promoting “Zionist Christianity” — a deliberate effort to link evangelicals with foreign adversaries.

Pregnant Women, Spinal Fractures, and Spies

Among those sentenced in 2025: Narges Nasri, a Christian convert who was pregnant when she received a 16-year prison term for “propaganda activity contrary to Islamic law” and “membership in opposition groups.” Aida Najaflou, sentenced to 17 years for evangelism, prayer, and celebrating Christmas, suffered a spinal fracture in prison; authorities initially denied her surgery and returned her to her cell on a stretcher. At least 11 Christians received sentences of 10 years or more in 2025.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom documented denial of medical treatment for detained Christians, psychological torture, threats against families, and charges of espionage. In the aftermath of the Iran-Israel war, at least 54 Christians were arrested in a coordinated sweep across 21 cities, with state media publicly branding them as spies linked to “foreign intelligence services.”

Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

Iran’s Constitution recognizes only ethnic Armenian and Assyrian Christians as protected minorities — excluding Persian-speaking converts, who face the death penalty for apostasy under Shari’a-based rulings. Although apostasy is not codified in the Islamic Penal Code, judges apply religious law to impose capital sentences.

Pastor Hossein Soodmand, a convert from Islam, is an Iranian Christian officially executed for apostasy since the 1979 revolution — hanged in December 1990 and buried in an unmarked grave that the regime demolished in 2019. Three senior Protestant pastors were murdered in 1994, with a TIME magazine investigation concluding that “decisions to assassinate opponents at home or abroad are made at the highest level of the Iranian government,” including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The Unanswered Christmas Plea

On Christmas Eve 2025, Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi wrote to Pope Leo XIV, urging him to use diplomatic channels to speak publicly for Christians imprisoned, flogged, and threatened with execution by the Iranian regime. Pahlavi noted that in 2024 alone, Christian converts in Iran received 263 combined years in prison and 37 years in internal exile — a six-fold increase in sentencing compared to 2023.

The Vatican did not respond. Two months later, the Pope awarded the regime’s envoy the Holy See’s highest diplomatic decoration.

Qatar Charity, the Doha-funded NGO at the center of two leaked European document troves, has channeled roughly €2 million into at least six Islamic projects in Poland — including the flagship Warsaw mosque run by the Muslim League in the Republic of Poland (Liga Muzułmańska), an organization Wikipedia describes as a “branch of a worldwide Muslim Brotherhood organization.”

The disclosure, amplified this week by Visegrád 24 and grounded in the 2020 ICSR study and the Qatar Papers investigation by French journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, lands as Strasbourg’s Qatar-supported “mega-mosque” rises beside the European Parliament. The shock is not the size of the Polish sums but the strategy behind them: Doha is pre-positioning Brotherhood-linked infrastructure inside a Catholic, historically homogeneous country before its Muslim population grows large enough to defend itself politically. Poland, in other words, is being treated as the next European frontier, not the last European holdout.

A Documented European Pattern

The Chesnot–Malbrunot investigation, drawing on leaked Qatar Charity ledgers, identified roughly 140 mosque, school, and Islamic-centre projects bankrolled across Europe. The follow-on report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) at King’s College London counted at least 138 such projects, “many related to Muslim Brotherhood associated organizations.” The two French journalists argue that the goal is “to strengthen Islamic identity and help spread and entrench political Islam in Muslim communities throughout Europe.” Qatar Charity formally denies any Brotherhood affiliation.

The Polish Node: Liga Muzułmańska

The principal Qatari counterparty in Poland is the Muslim League, a body distinct from the centuries-old Lipka Tatar community that has historically represented Polish Sunni Islam. The League was founded in 2004 by Arab-immigrant doctors and led by the Kuwait-trained pediatrician Samir Ismail. Rzeczpospolita reported in 2009 that Ismail sat on a committee of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) — the federation a U.S.-based research foundation characterised as a “cover-up” that “unites the members of Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.”

The same investigation documented that Ismail’s named FIOE colleague, Walid Abu Shewarib, was simultaneously under inquiry by the Munich prosecutor’s office for “supporting the organizations listed on the EU list of terroristic organizations” via the Belgian branch of the al-Aqsa foundation. Polish authorities, Rzeczpospolita established, did not actually verify the foreign sources financing the Warsaw mosque — the Interior Ministry “does not possess or gather any data” on them.

Strasbourg as the Template

The pattern Doha is exporting eastward is most visible in Strasbourg. The Eyyub Sultan Mosque — a 2,500-capacity complex administered by the Turkish-nationalist Milli Görüş confederation — has been under construction since 2017 at a cost Wikipedia puts at €25 million.

Reporting by the Middle East Forum notes that the project drew a €2.5 million subsidy from Strasbourg’s Green-led city council alongside contributions from Qatar, Morocco, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — even as the same council dimmed the cathedral’s lights to “save energy.” Then–Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin publicly opposed the subsidy.

Why Poland, Why Now

Qatar’s Polish outlay is modest because Poland’s Muslim population still is. But Doha appears to be following the European script in advance: cultivate a Brotherhood-aligned national federation, fund a flagship cultural centre, secure a foothold in education and youth programming, then scale as demographics shift.

Poland issued more than 94,000 work permits in 2024 to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries — a meaningful inflection for a society that until recently had almost no immigrant Muslim presence outside the Tatar community. The infrastructure is being laid before the population arrives.

The Faultline

The danger to Polish civic life is not the existence of mosques, nor the presence of practicing Muslims. It is the slow capture of religious representation by a foreign-funded, ideologically distinct stratum that bypasses the established Tatar community and answers — financially and institutionally — to networks documented by French, German and British investigators.

Strasbourg’s cathedral did not go dark by accident; the city’s Green council made a choice, one subsidy and one switch at a time. Poland, for now, still has the option to refuse the same trade. Whether it does will depend on whether Warsaw treats foreign religious financing as the strategic question it is — or, as in 2009, simply admits it has no idea who is paying.

From May 26-29, Russia will host the first International Security Forum under the auspices of its Security Council — an event that transcends typical defense exhibitions to establish a comprehensive worldview casting the West as an existential threat. With delegations from over 180 countries and 26 international organizations invited, the forum represents Moscow’s most ambitious attempt yet to formalize an anti-Western ideological framework and export it to partners across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The forum’s program reveals a striking inversion of Western security narratives. Where Washington and Brussels emphasize democratic resilience and counter-disinformation, Moscow positions itself as defender of sovereignty against covert interference. A panel titled “Disinformation and Manipulation as Tools of the West’s Hybrid War against the Global Majority for Maintaining Hegemony” frames information warfare as a Western weapon, while another session on “Countering Neocolonialism as a Priority for Ensuring Security of the Global Majority Countries” elevates anti-colonial rhetoric to national security priority. The term “Global Majority,” appearing throughout the program, signals deliberate ideological alignment with the Global South against what Russia characterizes as Western hegemony.

Civil Society as Security Threat

A dedicated round table titled “NGOs as a Tool for Undermining National Security” reframes civil society, a cornerstone of Western foreign policy, as an instrument of subversion. This session sits alongside discussions of terrorism, hybrid warfare, and weapons systems, effectively placing humanitarian organizations, watchdog groups, and development actors in the same conceptual category as security threats. The message to partners in Africa and Asia is unmistakable: sovereignty requires insulation from independent actors of any kind.

The investigative collective All Eyes on Wagner has documented how Russia’s SVR-controlled organization Africa Politology has lobbied for foreign-agent laws in the Sahel and Central African Republic, with playbooks that include suppression of media and civil society voices. In the CAR, Wagner Group operatives have arrested staff from humanitarian organizations, subjecting them to hostile campaigns.

Ukraine and the Neo-Nazi Narrative

The forum places Ukraine at the center of its ideological architecture. Two sessions explicitly address “Terrorist Methods of the Kyiv regime on the Background of the Spread of neo-Nazism in Ukraine” and “War Crimes of the Kyiv regime: Recording and Systematization.” These panels are framed not as debatable interpretations but as established facts, reinforced by exhibitions featuring films from Russia Today’s documentary section and photographs from conflict zones. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will present an exhibition specifically on “War Crimes of the Kyiv regime,” suggesting the forum aims less at dialogue than at codifying a singular interpretation for international allies.

This narrative has echoed in Russian diplomatic statements, with Foreign Ministry declarations describing the “Kiev regime” as demonstrating “human-hating neo-Nazi nature” following terrorist attacks. By presenting these characterizations alongside legitimate security discussions, the forum seeks to normalize and internationalize Moscow’s framing of the conflict.

The Russian Apparatus on Display

The forum brings together a comprehensive array of Russian state agencies rarely assembled in one venue. Participating organizations include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defense, Federal Security Service (FSB), Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, EMERCOM (Emergency Situations Ministry), and Rossotrudnichestvo—the cultural agency that opens Russian cultural centers abroad and operates as a soft power arm of Russian influence.

State corporations Rostec, Rosatom, and Roscosmos will showcase defense technologies, while Rosoboronexport—Russia’s state arms export agency—will present “Russian products for the protection of the population, installations, and land.” The Patriot Park will host exhibitions of “advanced Russian weapon systems and captured equipment,” turning portions of the forum into a weapons showcase for potential buyers.

Global South Outreach

The forum explicitly targets countries outside the traditional Western alliance. Invitations have been extended to “150+ countries of the Global South and East, the CIS, CSTO, EAEU, SCO,” with bilateral and multilateral meetings planned including Russia-Central Asia sessions and Russia-ASEAN events. The forum will operate in eight languages — Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Serbian, English, French, and Spanish — with simultaneous translation, signaling serious investment in accessibility for diverse delegations.

Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu, who chairs the forum, has indicated that topics were chosen “focusing on the opinions shared by countries of the Global South,” suggesting Moscow has tailored the agenda to resonate with grievances about Western intervention and neo-colonial practices. TV BRICS International Media Network—a Russia-backed media organization with partners including state-affiliated outlets CGTN, Xinhua, and China Radio International, serves as the forum’s international media partner.

The speaker and guest lists for the event have not yet been made public.

On Monday afternoon, President Trump greeted King Charles III on the South Lawn of the White House with the usual pomp: military band, 21-gun salute, ceremonial inspection of troops. The troops, however, were unusual. Standing at attention in full Continental Army regalia; tricorn hats, blue coats with buff facings, muskets at their shoulders, were Revolutionary War reenactors. The soldiers who fought Charles’ great-great-great-great-grandfather George III were now serving as the honor guard for his descendant’s state visit.

The White House billed the visit as commemorating the 250th anniversary of American independence, which explains the historical costuming. Still, there’s something undeniably pointed about the specific choice. Other symbols were available — the current military, the flag, the Constitution under glass. Trump chose the guys in the same Revolutionary dress who beat the British Empire.

The Revolutionary War soldiers weren’t there by accident. They represented the beginning of something genuinely remarkable: the first successful implementation of Enlightenment political philosophy at the scale of an entire nation. What the philosophers of the 18th century imagined, government by consent, natural rights, separation of powers, the American revolutionaries actually built.

The achievement starts with the improbability of the military victory itself. When the Continental Army formed in 1775, it consisted primarily of farmers, merchants, and artisans with no professional military training. They faced the most powerful navy in the world and a battle-tested professional army. The colonies had no capacity to manufacture arms in quantity, no financial resources, no unified command structure. The British controlled the seas and could land troops wherever they chose.

Standard strategic analysis predicted certain American defeat. Colonial militia had never defeated British regulars in pitched battle. The resources were laughably mismatched. Yet these farmers and merchants, wearing whatever uniforms they could assemble, fought an eight-year war and won.

Then came the harder part- turning military victory into lasting government. The revolutionaries didn’t just declare independence; they created an entirely new form of political organization. Federalism divided power between states and national government. Separation of powers prevented any single branch from dominating. A written constitution, ratified by the people themselves, established the rules everyone would follow. These weren’t just innovations; they were the operating system for the first large-scale republic in modern times.

And it worked. The Constitution ratified in 1788 remains the operational framework of American government 238 years later. The same document, with amendments. The political system bent under pressure, survived a civil war, adapted to massive territorial expansion and demographic change, and kept functioning. The peaceful transfer of power between parties, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in 1801, set a precedent that has held through 46 presidencies.

The intellectual architecture matters as much as the military victory. The Founders took abstract Enlightenment principles, natural rights, popular sovereignty, limited government, and translated them into concrete institutional design. The Bill of Rights protected individual freedoms from government overreach. Federalism allowed both local autonomy and national coherence. The separation of powers created friction by design, making tyranny difficult even when attempted.

These frameworks became the template that shaped modern democracy worldwide. When other nations wrote constitutions, they studied the American model. When revolutionaries articulated their goals, they echoed the Declaration of Independence. The specific mechanisms, bicameral legislatures, judicial review, enumerated powers, spread because they proved functional at scale.

The 250-year anniversary commemorates not just independence but endurance. A quarter-millennium is substantial for any political system. The American republic has outlasted monarchies, empires, and ideological experiments that rose and fell in that span. It survived industrialization, urbanization, multiple wars, economic collapses, and profound social transformations while maintaining constitutional continuity.

This makes the Revolutionary War categorically different from a typical colonial uprising. Independence alone isn’t exceptional — many colonies achieved it. What distinguishes America is what came after: building institutions that actually worked, protecting rights that actually mattered, creating a system that could adapt without collapsing. The revolutionaries didn’t just reject British rule. They constructed something better and made it last.

When Charles addressed Congress later that day, he invoked shared heritage and “checks and balances” on executive power. Gracious words from a constitutional monarch visiting a republic that rejected monarchy as its founding principle. The moment captured something worth celebrating: two nations that went to war 250 years ago now maintain one of the world’s most important alliances, united by principles the American revolutionaries pioneered.

The Continental Army won a war everyone expected them to lose, then built a republic everyone expected to fail. Two hundred fifty years later, that republic hosted the heir to the British throne for a state dinner celebrating the anniversary of rebellion against his ancestor. The sheer improbability of that outcome, not just independence, but success, stability, and global influence, makes the Revolutionary War worth commemorating with a bit of theatrical flair. The guys in tricorn hats earned their place on the South Lawn.

A September 2025 trip by American, British, and Canadian conservative influencers to Moldova and Moscow was absorbed into a Russian information operation targeting Moldova’s parliamentary elections, according to an investigation published this week by Alliance4Europe and VSquare.

The delegation — led by Charles Bausman, founder of the pro-Kremlin outlet Russia Insider — visited Moldova from September 14-16, then traveled to Moscow through September 23. Within days, their statements appeared in “Salt and Light,” a newspaper distributed across Moldova that authorities later identified as part of “Operation Matushka,” a persistent Russian disinformation campaign.

The report does not claim the influencers knowingly participated in election interference. But the timing and amplification pattern raise questions about how religious ultra-conservatives can be instrumentalized, wittingly or not, in foreign influence operations.

The mechanics of amplification

Moldovan police raided an unauthorized printing facility on September 23, confiscating over 200,000 copies of newspapers including Salt and Light’s Romanian and Russian editions. The publications contained “propagandistic content” designed to “destabilize the information space and incite on religious grounds,” according to the Chișinău Police Department’s investigation officer.

Salt and Light newspapers included QR codes linking to Telegram and Facebook accounts that initially shared religious content such as parish activities, quizzes and then shifted toward election messaging. One post described how the foreign bloggers were “shocked by certain reports of violations of believers’ rights and plan to bring them to the attention of a broad international audience.”

The Russian Orthodox Church acknowledged facilitating the Moscow segment through its Department for External Church Relations. A press release on the church’s website confirmed the delegation met with “representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, state authorities, and public associations” and visited religious sites including the Trinity Lavra of St Sergius.

Who made the trip

The delegation included John-Henry Westen, CEO of LifeSiteNews, which joined the Pentagon press corps in October 2025 after major outlets withdrew over new access restrictions. Westen has appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast and attended a “Catholic Prayer for Trump” gala at Mar-a-Lago in 2025.

James Delingpole, former editor of Breitbart London and columnist for The Telegraph and The Spectator, also participated. Conrad Franz, co-host of the World War Now podcast who previously worked for religious-right podcaster Steve Turley, discussed the trip on the Counterflow podcast, stating: “The Orthodox Church in Moldova, which is canonically under the Moscow patriarchate, they are being heavily persecuted by the state there.”

Bausman himself fled to Russia after attending the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, leaving behind nearly $1 million in U.S. property, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has since appeared as a commentator on Tsargrad TV, owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev.

The sanctions connection

The investigation identified multiple links between delegation members and sanctioned Russian figures. Westen served on the CitizenGo Board of Trustees alongside Alexey Komov, a close associate of Malofeev who represents the World Congress of Families in Russia. Leaked emails suggest Bausman sought funding for Russia Insider from Malofeev through Komov, though Malofeev has denied financial connections.

Westen’s name appeared on a 2014 list of foreign participants in the Moscow Large Families Forum co-sponsored by Malofeev. According to leaked documents, his trip was partially funded by the Andrew the First-Called Foundation, led by sanctioned Russian oligarch Vladimir Yakunin.

The European Commission’s 2024 report on Moldova found that “religious freedom is generally respected” and identified no evidence of violations—contradicting the delegation’s central claim.

What came next

Moldova’s September 28 elections delivered the pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity a single-party majority with 50.2% of the vote. But the election occurred amid extensive interference: Moldovan authorities reported that tens of millions of dollars flowed from Russian bank Promsvyazbank to approximately 138,000 individuals — roughly 10% of the active electorate.

Operation Matushka, identified by EU DisinfoLab as connected to the larger Doppelgänger campaign run by sanctioned Russian companies Struktura and Social Design Agency, specializes in creating fake content that impersonates trusted sources. The operation has targeted 80 organizations across 10 countries and 10 languages, with activity intensifying around European elections.

After the Moscow visit, LifeSiteNews published an article describing Russia as “the leader of an ideological revolution” while “the West is sinking deeper into a spiritual crisis.” Westen gave an interview to SPAS TV, a Russian Orthodox Church-owned station sanctioned for spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda, which LifeSiteNews TV later promoted.

The pattern underneath

The case illustrates a recurring vulnerability: how genuine religious conviction can be channeled into geopolitical messaging without explicit coordination. The delegation members appear to have sincerely believed they were documenting religious persecution. The Russian Orthodox Church provided logistical support and amplification. Local networks then weaponized the resulting content in a coordinated information campaign.

None of the delegation members responded to requests for comment from investigators.

The Foreign Policy Research Institute notes that the Russian Orthodox Church “has become a central pillar of the Kremlin’s political and informational warfare strategy, shaping narratives by fusing spirituality with nationalism.” The Moldova operation demonstrates how this fusion operates across borders—turning American conservative media figures into inadvertent amplifiers of Kremlin messaging, whether or not they understand their role in the mechanism.

A new report documents an unprecedented surge in state executions around the same period Iran killed thousands of protesters in the streets. Together, they reveal the hydraulic logic of authoritarian violence.

In January 2026, security forces in Iran killed thousands of people in the streets during nationwide protests. The exact number remains contested- the government admits to 3,117 deaths, medical networks estimate over 30,000, while Opposition Media, Iran International Cited leaked documents suggesting a death toll exceeding 36,500. . Eyewitnesses described bodies transported in ice-cream trucks, mass burials in graveyards, and forensic facilities so overwhelmed they turned corpses away. The Iranian government shut down the internet on January 8th to conceal the scale of the killing.

What received far less attention is what happened quietly, behind prison walls, throughout the entire preceding year.

According to data compiled by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO) and ECPM, Iranian authorities executed at least 1,639 people in 2025- a 68% increase over 2024 and the highest annual total recorded since 1989. That’s an average of four to five executions every single day, all year long. And critically: 93% of these executions were never publicly announced. Only 113 of the 1,639 killings were acknowledged by official sources.

I’ve been trying to understand how these two phenomena, the street massacres and the hidden execution surge, fit together in a deeper way. The answer reveals something important about how regimes in crisis deploy violence: not randomly, but hydraulically, with different types of killing serving distinct strategic functions.

The Quiet Machine

The execution data shows extraordinary precision in who gets killed behind closed doors. Nearly half of those executed in 2025, 795 people, were convicted of drug-related offenses. Another 747 died under qisas laws (retribution-in-kind for murder). Security-related charges accounted for 57 executions: protesters, political prisoners, accused spies, and one person convicted of financial corruption.

But these legal categories obscure the pattern. Iran’s execution apparatus systematically targets the economically marginal and ethnically minoritized. The Baluch people represent somewhere between 2-6% of Iran’s population but accounted for 9% of all executions in 2025. Afghan nationals- foreign workers with minimal legal protection- made up 84 executions, compared to just 16 in 2022.

The drug cases are especially revealing. Of 795 people executed for drug offenses, authorities publicly announced exactly three. The rest died in secret. Many were subsistence smugglers working the mountainous borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan, the kind of dangerous, poorly-paid labor people take when they have no alternatives. The report documents brothers Gholamhossein and Ebrahim Khalilifar, executed March 1st. Ahmad Ali Mehripour, killed August 30th. Dozens more names, each representing someone whose poverty made them expendable.

What doesn’t make sense until you look at the procedural details: these weren’t careful judicial processes that happened to result in death sentences. The Revolutionary Courts- which handle national security cases and are staffed by ideologically vetted judges- issued 52% of the death sentences carried out in 2025. These courts routinely rely on confessions extracted under torture, “knowledge of the judge” (elm-e-qazi), or “sworn oaths” (qassameh) rather than material evidence. Due process violations occur not as exceptions but as standard practice, often violating even the Islamic Republic’s own laws.

Two Machines, Different Functions

Here’s the pattern that emerges when you place the street violence and prison executions side by side: the street killings are spectacular, concentrated, and directed at active resistance. The prison executions are hidden, continuous, and directed at structurally vulnerable populations.

January 2026’s massacre served an immediate suppression function. Security forces positioned on rooftops fired rifles at protesters’ heads and torsos. Videos verified by Amnesty International show systematic targeting of crowds. Medical staff reported injuries designed to maim and kill—close-range gunshots, stab wounds to eyes and genitals. One doctor, part of an informal network of 80 medical professionals who documented the violence, told The Guardian: “I am on the verge of a psychological collapse. They’ve mass murdered people. No one can imagine… I saw just blood, blood and blood.”

The executions throughout 2025 served a different purpose: maintaining baseline fear within marginalized communities, demonstrating the state’s continued capacity to kill selectively, and clearing prisons of people the regime considers socially disposable. The secrecy matters—these deaths don’t generate international headlines, but they absolutely register within families, neighborhoods, and ethnic communities who understand the targeting isn’t random.

This explains something otherwise puzzling: why execution rates would increase by 68% during a year when the regime faced mounting crises including economic collapse, renewed protests, and regional military pressure. From a strictly rational calculus, you’d expect a government under siege to minimize controversial actions. Instead, Iran averaged nearly five executions per day.

The logic becomes clearer when you understand these as complementary tools. Street massacres require international bandwidth to conceal, hence the internet shutdown, the mass burials, the refrigerated trucks moving corpses at night. You can only deploy that level of spectacular violence occasionally. Prison executions, by contrast, happen continuously with minimal international attention, especially when 93% aren’t announced. They maintain steady-state terror between the spectacular interventions.

Resistance from Inside

The most surprising element in the report is the scale of internal resistance to executions, even during this period of extreme repression. A movement called “No Death Penalty Tuesdays,” prisoners staging weekly hunger strikes on the day transfers to solitary for execution typically occur, has spread from a single prison to 56 facilities nationwide.

In October 2025, more than 1,500 prisoners on death row for drug offenses in Ghezelhesar Prison staged a six-day strike. Some sewed their mouths shut. They successfully forced authorities to temporarily halt drug-related executions at that facility. This happened while the regime was preparing for the January crackdown. While security forces planned street massacres, prisoners were organizing collective resistance behind walls.

There’s also the “forgiveness movement.” Under Sharia law, families of murder victims can choose forgiveness or accept diya (blood money) instead of execution. In 2025, IHRNGO documented 566 cases where families chose forgiveness. The most prominent involved Goli Kouhkan, a Baluch woman who had been a child bride. A sustained campaign raised 80,000 euros for blood money, and plaintiffs agreed to forgo execution.

But 2025 marked a watershed: for the first time in 11 years, the number of qisas executions (747) exceeded forgiveness cases. The machinery accelerated faster than the resistance could counter it.

What This Means for Transitions

The report arrives at a genuinely uncertain moment. The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy among most Iranians and faces external military pressure. IHRNGO Director Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam frames the stakes clearly: if the regime survives, mass executions will likely intensify as authorities reassert control. If political change occurs, the abolition of the death penalty must be central to any transition.

This isn’t abstract moralizing. The report includes a foreword by Nasrin Sotoudeh, one of Iran’s most prominent human rights lawyers, drawing direct parallels to executions following the 1979 revolution. Officials from the previous regime were killed without fair trials in what was presented as revolutionary justice. “The cycle of violence did not end,” Sotoudeh writes, “and the execution machine went on to claim the lives of others, including those who had contributed to the revolution’s victory.”

On April 1st, 2026, three weeks after writing that foreword, Sotoudeh was arrested at her home. As of this writing, she remains held incommunicado.

The execution of protesters resumed on March 19th with three people arrested during January protests. In the following days, authorities killed at least ten more: four protesters and six political prisoners from the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the most disproportionately represented political group on death row. Hundreds of detained protesters remain at risk.

Here’s what the international response has been: muted. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime maintains cooperation with Iranian drug-control agencies despite 795 people being executed for drug offenses- a 58% increase over 2024. This cooperation provides political legitimacy to institutions directly involved in the killings. A UN Fact-Finding Mission expert noted that if these executions “form part of a widespread and systemic attack against a civilian population, as a matter of policy, then those responsible—including the judges who impose capital punishment—may be held accountable for crimes against humanity.”

Iran has now demonstrated two functioning death machines: one spectacular and concentrated for moments of acute threat, one hidden and continuous for baseline control. The street massacres received international attention because they couldn’t be fully concealed despite the internet shutdown. The 1,639 executions throughout 2025 happened largely unnoticed, which was precisely the point.

The prisoners organizing hunger strikes understand something the international community apparently doesn’t: these two systems work together. You can’t address one without addressing the other. Breaking the cycle requires more than stopping street violence during protests. It requires dismantling the entire infrastructure of state killing—the one everyone sees and the one almost nobody notices.

Whether anyone is prepared to make that demand is another question entirely.

“The United States commends the Nigerian government for its strong commitment to expediting trials addressing terrorism and related crimes,” Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs Massad Boulos said in a statement on April 12. “We welcome the convictions of 386 Islamist militants in cases that had previously faced significant delays in the courts, and we recognize this as an important step toward accountability and justice.”

The statement came one day after Nigeria concluded mass trials that sentenced militants tied to Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) to terms ranging from five years to life imprisonment. Boulos emphasized that “timely and transparent legal processes are critical in confronting extremism and reinforcing public trust in judicial institutions.”

The Trials: Progress After Years of Delays

The trials, concluded Friday in Abuja, processed more than 500 cases. Nigeria’s Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi called the proceedings a breakthrough, part of a series of trials involving suspects that started in 2017 with more than 2,000 defendants.

The convictions represent a real effort to clear a backlog and demonstrate that the rule of law can function even in parts of Nigeria where jihadist groups have operated with near-impunity for years.

The Attacks: 32 Christians Killed Per Day

Yet the violence those convictions address continues at an alarming pace. Three days before the U.S. statement, Fulani militants killed 20 Christians in Mbwelle village, Plateau state, according to residents and local church leaders. On Good Friday, April 3, Fulani herdsmen killed three more Christians in Jos. The week before that, over 28 Christians died in another attack on Angwan Rukuba.

In the first 220 days of 2025 alone, more than 7,000 Christians were killed in Nigeria, according to data from the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law cited by the charity Release International. That’s roughly 32 Christians killed per day—a pace that could push the 2026 toll past 14,000 if it holds. Nigeria accounted for 72 percent of all Christian killings worldwide in 2025, according to Open Doors’ World Watch List.

Multiple Threats, Insufficient Attention

The violence comes from multiple sources. Boko Haram and ISWAP target Christians explicitly in the northeast. Fulani herdsmen—some radicalized, others simply armed and operating in a vacuum of state control—attack farming communities in the Middle Belt, burning churches and forcing entire villages off their land. A new group, Lakurawa, has emerged in the northwest with Al-Qaeda ties and advanced weaponry.

The convictions are a step toward accountability. But the scale of ongoing violence against Christians in Nigeria—and across Africa—demands far more international attention and sustained pressure than it currently receives. The 386 militants sentenced this week were arrested years ago. New attacks happen weekly, sometimes daily, and the international response remains largely confined to diplomatic statements after major breakthroughs like this week’s trials.

If the trajectory holds, Nigeria’s Christian communities face one of the deadliest years on record while the machinery of justice processes cases from half a decade ago. Progress in the courtroom matters. So does what’s happening in Plateau state right now.

When oil traders watch shipping lanes, they measure risk in nautical miles. The narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz—21 miles across—sounds manageable until the actual shipping lanes in each direction are just two miles wide, separated by a two-mile buffer zone. That’s 1.2 miles of navigable water carrying 20% of the world’s oil. A single explosive mine floating in the wrong place doesn’t just threaten one tanker; it threatens the entire flow.

Iran demonstrated this leverage last week when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatened to “set ablaze” any vessel using the strait. Within hours, hundreds of tankers came to a halt. Oil prices spiked from $69 to $119 per barrel in three days—the fastest surge since the 1970s oil shocks—before Trump’s hints of de-escalation sent them tumbling back to $90. The price spike matters, but the speed matters more: a credible threat to a 1.2-mile corridor can disrupt global energy markets faster than any policy response can contain it.

This is why arguments for reducing Middle Eastern engagement consistently stumble over basic arithmetic. Alternative routes keep appearing in policy briefs as theoretical solutions, yet the numbers reveal why they cannot substitute for an open Hormuz. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline can carry 5 million barrels per day, and the UAE’s Fujairah pipeline adds another 1.8 million. Against Hormuz’s current 20 million barrels daily—with Saudi Arabia alone exporting 5.5 million barrels through the strait—these alternatives represent supplemental capacity, not replacement infrastructure. Operating both pipelines at maximum capacity wouldn’t cover a single week of normal Hormuz traffic.

The gap between theory and reality widens further under operational scrutiny. The UAE recently upgraded refineries to process more crude domestically, meaning its bypass pipeline now runs near capacity during normal operations. Saudi Arabia increased use of its East-West route last year to circumvent Red Sea disruptions near Bab al-Mandeb. The “slack capacity” that appears in strategic assessments has already been absorbed. Building new pipelines requires 18 months minimum at costs exceeding hundreds of millions—timescales that make them irrelevant to crisis response and barely adequate for long-term hedging.

Storage constraints accelerate the cascade. Qatar’s energy minister warned that if Hormuz remains closed, Gulf producers will reach storage capacity within weeks, forcing oilfield shutdowns. Restarting a major field after shutdown takes weeks or months, not days. The temporary becomes prolonged through mechanical necessity, not political choice. A three-week closure could mean three-month supply disruptions regardless of diplomatic breakthroughs.

This physical reality explains why “letting the region sort itself out” proposals collapse under examination. When 84% of Hormuz oil flows to Asian markets—with China importing 5.4 million barrels daily through the strait—American withdrawal wouldn’t reduce U.S. exposure to price shocks. It would simply transfer control over those shocks to actors with different interests. China’s response illustrates what states do when facing irreplaceable chokepoints they cannot control: build 1.2 billion barrels of strategic stockpiles representing three to four months of buffer capacity. Stockpiling absorbs short-term disruption; it doesn’t eliminate structural vulnerability.

The United States released 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last week, dropping reserves to their lowest level since 1982. Even with reduced Gulf imports—the U.S. imported just 0.5 million barrels daily from Persian Gulf producers in 2024, only 2% of consumption—price shocks from Hormuz disruptions hit American consumers as hard as Asian ones. Oil trades globally; regional isolation doesn’t insulate from global price movements. The reserve release demonstrates this constraint: distance from physical dependence doesn’t create distance from economic exposure.

Geography determines the available moves. The Strait of Malacca carries slightly more oil—23.2 million barrels daily—but connects to alternative routes through the Sunda and Lombok straits. Hormuz has no such redundancy. Pipeline capacity exists but cannot scale to need. Some version of naval presence maintaining open shipping lanes isn’t a preference reflecting ideology; it’s a response to the fact that the global economy runs on diesel, jet fuel, and petrochemicals that flow through corridors narrow enough to close with tactical weapons.

The question isn’t whether this dependency is wise—that’s a debate for timescales measured in decades of infrastructure investment. The question is what happens when the only actor positioned to keep those corridors open decides the cost isn’t worth it. The answer arrived last week in the form of $50 price swings across three days.

Break your wife’s bones, fifteen days in prison. Force dogs to fight, five months.

That’s the penalty structure in Afghanistan’s new Taliban penal code, issued in January 2026 and leaked last month to the Afghan rights group Rawadari. The decree specifies exactly how much violence a husband can inflict before the state considers it excessive, “a broken bone,” “an open wound,” or “a black and blue wound” that appears on her body. Anything short of that threshold remains legal.

You can read a society’s values through its penalty structure. The math here is unambiguous: animal welfare rates higher than women’s bodies. Teachers who break a student’s bone lose their jobs, fathers who beat children for failing to pray face no punishment at all unless bones break. The precision isn’t accidental. It’s administrative.

Subscribe now

Building to Last

These punishments aren’t new. The Taliban has always permitted domestic violence, always restricted women’s movement, always governed through intimidation. What changed in January is that they wrote it down.

Codification matters. When practices become policy, they create precedent. They train judges in what to enforce and signal to the population what’s permanent versus provisional. The decree’s clinical specificity, distinguishing between bruises that fade and wounds that mark, serves an institutional purpose. It removes discretion, standardizes rulings, and transforms ad hoc brutality into durable legal infrastructure.

This is what settling in looks like. The Taliban isn’t just ruling by force anymore; they’re building an administrative state with formal procedures, penalty schedules, and bureaucratic distinctions. The 119-article code covers everything from theft and sodomy (both punishable by death) to insulting the Taliban leader (39 lashes plus a year in prison). It’s comprehensive, detailed, and designed for longevity.

The Legitimacy Claim

The Taliban insists all its rulings align with Islamic Sharia law and carry religious legitimacy. That claim matters strategically, both domestically and internationally. It positions the decree not as political repression but as theological obligation, something beyond negotiation or reform.

The gap between claim and reality is enormous. Many Islamic scholars reject these interpretations as distortions of Islamic jurisprudence. But the Taliban’s use of religious authority as a legitimizing mechanism makes the system harder to challenge from within. Dissent becomes heresy. The code explicitly criminalizes spreading “doctrines contrary to Islam,” with death as the potential penalty.

This weaponization of religious authority isn’t unique to the Taliban, but the formalization marks a shift. Extremist interpretations that once existed in practice are now enshrined in state law, complete with judicial procedures and enforcement mechanisms.

The Silence

The decree received minimal media coverage despite being genuinely shocking. Part of this reflects Afghanistan fatigue, the sense that the story ended when American troops withdrew in 2021. Part reflects normalization. We’ve accepted Taliban control as a fact, and facts stop generating headlines.

But the decree tells us something important about trajectory. The Taliban isn’t moderating or adapting to international pressure. It’s consolidating. The legal infrastructure being built now will outlast any particular leader or crisis. It trains the next generation of judges, normalizes these standards for the population, and makes reversal exponentially harder.

Women’s rights activist Mahbouba Seraj, speaking from Kabul, described the practical reality, “the men have the right to rule completely the women. His word is the word of law—that’s it.” Even when women meet the injury threshold, they cannot leave home without a male guardian to report abuse. Their testimony in court is worth half a man’s. The decree creates the appearance of limits while ensuring those limits can never be enforced.

The UN’s top human rights official warned that “Afghanistan is a graveyard for human rights.” The metaphor is apt. What’s being buried isn’t just rights but the mechanisms for claiming them. That’s what makes codification different from practice, and why fifteen days versus five months isn’t just cruelty.

It’s architecture.

When U.S. and Israeli warplanes began Operation Epic Fury on Saturday morning, they struck nuclear facilities in Tehran and Isfahan. But just as many bombs fell on missile production sites and launch facilities scattered across Iran. To understand why, you need a map and a compass.

The 1,200-Mile Circle

Draw a 1,200-mile radius from Iran’s missile bases. Inside that circle sits almost everything that matters in the Middle East: 40,000 U.S. troops spread across bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, and Iraq. Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure at Ras Tanura and Abqaiq. The Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of global oil passes daily. Dubai’s financial district. Every major energy chokepoint between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.

Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to hold these targets at risk. It already does, with the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 missiles, depending on whose count you trust. Most are short- and medium-range systems: Shahab-3s, Sejjils, Qadr missiles with ranges between 500 and 1,200 miles. They can’t reach Washington or even Europe. They don’t need to.

America’s Bases in the Crosshairs

Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar sits 615 miles from Iranian launch sites. It houses 10,000 American troops and serves as forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command, which is the nerve center for all American military operations in the region. When Iran retaliated for Epic Fury on Saturday afternoon, one of its first targets was Al Udeid. Qatari missile defenses intercepted the strike, but the message was clear: Iran can reach the bases that launch strikes against it.

Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, sits 500 miles away. Kuwait’s Ali Al Salem Air Base, a staging ground for combat operations: 400 miles. The UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base, which houses advanced fighter squadrons: 700 miles. Iranian missiles hit targets in at least five countries within hours of Epic Fury’s first wave. Not because Iran’s missile technology is sophisticated—many of these systems are liquid-fueled and take hours to prepare, making them vulnerable to preemptive strikes—but because the geography is unforgiving.

This explains why Operation Epic Fury prioritized missile infrastructure alongside nuclear sites. When Pentagon planners talk about Iran’s “threat radius,” they’re not being abstract. They mean the physical distance Iranian projectiles can travel, overlaid on the map of American commitments. It’s why Gulf states that host U.S. bases now face Iranian retaliation, why Saudi Arabia and the UAE (both of which allowed Epic Fury aircraft to use their airspace) issued statements about defending their territories with “all necessary measures.”

The Targets That Couldn’t Be Hit

The radius also explains decisions about what didn’t get hit. Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor, on the southern coast, survived Epic Fury intact. Not because it’s unimportant, but because Russian technicians operate it, and striking the reactor means killing Russians and creating radiological fallout that would drift across the Gulf. Every target inside that 1,200-mile circle matters to someone: American troops, Saudi oil infrastructure, Emirati ports. The reactor sits squarely in the middle of that circle, which makes it effectively untouchable despite being nuclear.

Israel understands this geography intimately. Tel Aviv sits roughly 1,000 miles from Iran’s western launch sites—just within range of Iran’s Shahab-3 and Sejjil-2 missiles. During Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Saturday, Israeli and U.S. missile defenses intercepted dozens of ballistic missiles aimed at Israeli cities. The interception worked, but the attempt demonstrated what Iranian military planners have known for years: they don’t need nuclear warheads to threaten Israel. Conventional explosives on ballistic missiles, launched in sufficient numbers, create their own form of deterrence.

The Geometry of Deterrence

This is why the phrase “Iranian nuclear capability” misses half the strategic picture. Yes, Iran was enriching uranium to 60 percent, a short technical step from weapons-grade material. Yes, dismantling that program was Operation Epic Fury’s stated objective. But the missiles matter just as much, perhaps more. A nuclear Iran with no delivery systems is a regional problem. A non-nuclear Iran with 2,000 ballistic missiles that can hit every U.S. base and oil facility in the Middle East is also a regional problem—just a different one.

The map explains why negotiations collapsed in Geneva three weeks ago, why Epic Fury targeted missile sites as aggressively as enrichment facilities, why Gulf states that allowed overflight are now facing retaliation, and why this conflict won’t end with destroyed centrifuges. Draw that 1,200-mile circle. Everything inside it is connected to everything else by Iranian missile range. That’s not speculation or analysis. That’s geometry.

At 6:59 p.m. Eastern time on June 12, 2025, a Twitter account called Pentagon Pizza Report noticed something unusual. Four pizza establishments near the Pentagon had experienced sudden surges in Google Maps “popular times” activity—the kind of late-evening spike that suggests senior officials working through dinner. Hours later, news broke of major Israeli strikes against Iran. The pizza shops had predicted a geopolitical event before cable news.

Share

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently joked on Fox News about ordering random pizzas “just to throw everybody off,” the comment drew mockery from critics who saw it as unserious trolling. But the remark reveals something more interesting: a sitting defense secretary now openly acknowledges that adversaries can monitor operational tempo through commercial data aggregation, and he’s thinking about countermeasures. This represents a remarkable shift in how institutions approach operational security—one that traces back thirty-five years to a Domino’s franchise owner who noticed something odd about late-night deliveries.

On August 1, 1990, Frank Meeks delivered twenty-one pizzas to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It was a one-night record. Hours later, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, launching what would become the Gulf War. Meeks later told the Los Angeles Times that delivery drivers operated as inadvertent intelligence collectors: “The news media doesn’t always know when something big is going to happen because they’re in bed, but our deliverers are out there at 2 in the morning.” The anecdote became Washington lore—a quirky story about how pizza orders betrayed crisis management. But it remained just that for decades, an anecdote requiring human observation and local knowledge.

The transformation from amusing anecdote to systematic intelligence collection happened gradually through the datafication of everything. Google Maps began aggregating anonymous location data to show users when restaurants were crowded. Delivery apps tracked order patterns to optimize driver routes. What companies designed for consumer convenience became exploitable for operational intelligence. In August 2024, an X account launched to systematically monitor this data—no longer requiring a chatty Domino’s owner, just algorithmic observation of publicly available commercial information. The Pentagon Pizza Report’s June 12 prediction wasn’t luck; it was pattern recognition applied to metadata exhaust.

The pizza problem represents a single thread in a much larger fabric. In 2018, a fitness tracking app called Strava revealed the locations and internal layouts of secret military bases worldwide because soldiers jogged with GPS-enabled devices. The company’s heat map, intended to showcase global athletic activity, lit up forward operating bases in Afghanistan and Syria like beacons against empty desert. Analysts identified troop movements, mapped facility perimeters, and even spotted a lone cyclist at Area 51. A 2023 investigation purchased individually identified health and financial data about active-duty military personnel from data brokers with minimal vetting—using Singapore-based servers to demonstrate how easily foreign actors could do the same.

More recently, journalists tracked more than 3 billion mobile phone location signals near U.S. military installations in Germany, mapping personnel movements from barracks to bars and identifying devices inside Büchel Air Base, where nuclear weapons are reportedly stored. They bought this data legally from American brokers—the same brokers who sell to anyone with money and minimal questions. The reporters weren’t Russian GRU officers or Chinese Ministry of State Security operatives, but they easily could have been.

What makes this particularly vexing is that even aggregated data poses security risks. A foreign adversary doesn’t need to identify specific individuals if they’re simply looking for peak and low activity periods at sensitive facilities. Parking lot satellite imagery analyzed by hedge funds to predict retail earnings can just as easily reveal when defense contractors are working overtime before weapons system deliveries. HVAC power consumption patterns, cell tower activity near government buildings, delivery app traffic—all of it generates metadata trails that sophisticated actors can analyze to understand operational tempo without ever penetrating classified networks.

The Defense Department’s 2018 policy restricting wearable fitness trackers in deployed settings represented early recognition of this problem, but it addresses only the most obvious vulnerability. Preventing soldiers from wearing Fitbits in combat zones does nothing about the dozens of apps on their phones that continuously broadcast location data, or about Google’s aggregate traffic information showing when Pentagon parking lots fill up, or about food delivery platforms revealing late-night work sessions. The practical solution cannot be “leave your phone at home” for everyone handling sensitive information—modern operations require connectivity.

This is where Hegseth’s pizza joke becomes more than a quip. His comment demonstrates awareness that traditional operational security—keeping information classified, limiting access, securing communications—no longer suffices when commercial surveillance capitalism generates exploitable intelligence as a byproduct of normal activity. The countermeasure he describes, ordering decoy pizzas to introduce noise that degrades signal quality, reflects actual information security tradecraft for the digital age. It’s the same logic behind why intelligence agencies sometimes conduct random equipment movements or vary routine schedules—not paranoia, but recognition that adversaries systematically monitor patterns.

The challenge facing defense institutions is genuinely difficult. Democracies operating in open societies will always generate more observable metadata than authoritarian regimes that control commercial data flows and restrict civilian technology. Chinese military facilities don’t light up on Strava because Chinese citizens don’t have the same app ecosystem generating constant location broadcasts. Russian intelligence exploits open-source intelligence about U.S. operations while maintaining opacity around their own activities. This asymmetry creates a structural disadvantage.

Yet the alternative—comprehensive data controls that would prevent Google from aggregating location information or ban delivery apps from sharing traffic patterns—conflicts with both commercial interests and democratic norms around information freedom. Recent bipartisan legislation like the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act represents early attempts to address these tensions, but comprehensive solutions remain elusive. The problem keeps expanding faster than policy can respond.

What’s striking about the evolution from Frank Meeks’ 1990 observation to Hegseth’s 2026 comment is the timeline itself. It took thirty-five years for the defense establishment to move from unaware to publicly joking about countermeasures. That progression—from ignorance to recognition to active mitigation—suggests institutions are learning to operate in an environment where every Domino’s order potentially broadcasts intentions. Whether decoy pizzas actually work matters less than the acknowledgment that operational security now requires thinking about commercial metadata the same way previous generations thought about encrypted communications.

The impossibility isn’t the task itself but rather maintaining the pretense that secrets can be kept the old way. When Google Maps aggregate data predicts airstrikes and journalists can legally purchase troop movement patterns, the traditional boundaries between classified and open-source intelligence have collapsed. Hegseth’s joke, intentionally or not, signals that someone is paying attention to this new reality.

When Anthropic disclosed yesterday that DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax ran roughly 16 million fraudulent Claude queries to extract capabilities, most coverage treated it like another skirmish in the AI arms race. That framing is too polite. If Anthropic’s account is accurate, this was not normal benchmarking, not curiosity, not the messy edge of open science. It was industrial-scale appropriation of a competitor’s work through fraud, at a scale large enough to look less like a one-off violation and more like a business process.

Share

The labs are the headline. The real story is the shadow infrastructure that made it possible, the commercial proxy services Anthropic mentions almost in passing. They are the brokers who turn restricted access into a product, and who make capability extraction cheap enough to repeat until it works.

The Mechanics of a Hydra

“Hydra cluster architectures” is Anthropic’s label for what it observed. The name fits because these networks are built to survive account bans through redundancy and churn. Cut off one head and the traffic simply reroutes through the next.

The playbook is straightforward. A proxy service assembles access to frontier model APIs through hundreds or thousands of accounts. Those accounts can be created with fake identities, stolen payment instruments, or abused verification pathways that were designed for students and startups. Once the accounts exist, the proxy service sits between the client and the model provider. The client never touches the real gatekeeper. The broker does.

A normal API customer is easy to profile. Requests arrive from a consistent account with stable metadata and a coherent usage pattern. Hydra traffic is the opposite. Requests are sprayed across a large account pool, mixed across multiple clients, and shaped to resemble the noise of ordinary usage. To the platform, it looks like a crowd. In reality it is a single machine.

This structure is not only about evasion. It is also about throughput. Anthropic describes synchronized traffic patterns, with similar prompts arriving in staggered bursts across many accounts. That is load balancing, the same logic that makes a content delivery network efficient. The point is to move a lot of data without triggering alarms.

If you are trying to distill a model, you do not need one dramatic breach. You need a pipeline. Hydra provides the pipeline.

This Is a Market, Not a Hack

The proxy operators are not building models. They are selling access. Their product is plausible legitimacy at scale.

For clients facing geographic and policy restrictions on Claude access, the economic logic is brutal. Training from scratch is expensive and slow. It demands compute, expertise, and iteration. Buying access to a frontier model through an intermediary can be faster and cheaper, especially when the intermediary is willing to absorb the operational risk of bans and rebuild the account pool as needed.

In that sense, the hydra is not a side character. It is the enabling technology for capability extraction. It turns what should be a high-friction act into a routine expense line item.

And this is where the China angle stops being an abstract geopolitical mood and becomes a concrete operating reality. The PRC’s strategic posture treats AI capability as national leverage. When leading labs operate in an ecosystem that rewards rapid catch-up and tolerates corner-cutting, the incentives tilt toward extraction. The proxies supply the means. The labs supply the demand. The system supplies the justification.

The Coordination Trap

Why does this continue to work? Because no single actor can shut it down.

Anthropic can ban accounts, harden verification, and build detection systems. It can do all of that and still face a hydra that simply shifts routes. Tighten direct access and traffic migrates to a reseller channel. Close one loophole and a broker exploits another. The proxy service is platform agnostic. Its only loyalty is to continuity of access.

Cloud platforms are part of the trap. They serve an ocean of legitimate users and cannot treat every unusual pattern as malicious without breaking real businesses. The same features that make cloud computing useful, fast account creation, programmatic access, flexible billing, are the same features that make abuse scalable.

This is not a morality play about a single bad actor. It is a structural weakness in the way frontier model access is commercialized. It is also a strategic vulnerability when the most motivated abusers operate in jurisdictions with limited enforcement pressure and strong incentives to close the capability gap quickly.

What Changes If We Call It What It Is

The industry’s language matters. “Distillation” is a technical term and a euphemism. It makes an industrial extraction campaign sound like a clever optimization trick. If Anthropic’s evidence holds, a more accurate description is capability laundering through fraud.

That shift in language pushes the conversation toward the real questions.

Who are the proxy operators. Where are they registered. Which payment rails do they use. Which cloud providers and resellers are repeatedly implicated. What signals can be shared across companies without turning the entire AI stack into a private surveillance regime.

The practical response is coordination that does not yet exist. Shared indicators of compromise across model providers. Standardized identity and reseller controls. Stronger friction for bulk access patterns that look like automated harvesting. Clear consequences for brokers that exist primarily to circumvent restrictions at scale.

Until that ecosystem forms, the hydra will keep feeding.

And China’s most aggressive labs will keep buying. If you can copy your competitor’s expensive capabilities through a brokered fraud pipeline, then the temptation is not to innovate. It is to extract, strip the safeguards, and ship the product as if the hard work was yours.

Subscribe now