Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs Is the U.S. Involved in Israel’s War on Lebanon? The public deserves clarity and accountability on the use of American assets. (Photo by Adri Salido/Getty Images) The Trump administration’s interventions in both Iran and Venezuela have centered war powers at the heart of congressional and public scrutiny. For Venezuela, war powers resolutions narrowly failed in both chambers. Repeated congressional efforts to rein in the war in Iran fell short until just last night, when the House narrowly passed a resolution limiting President Donald Trump’s authority to continue military action without congressional authorization (although the effort will almost certainly fail in the Senate). Nevertheless, the fight has succeeded in making the American public more attuned to the constitutional and legal questions surrounding warfare and congressional authority. Now it is Lebanon’s turn. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) has successfully forced a vote in the House on a War Powers Resolution for Lebanon. Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Lebanon, over 3,400 people have been killed; 1.2 million people have been displaced from their homes in Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in the country’s south. The Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly stated that the IDF intended to “accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes in the border villages … in accordance with the Beit Hanoun and Rafah model in Gaza.” In the conventional sense, war powers are typically invoked when U.S. armed forces are actively involved in hostilities, such as combat missions or refueling jet planes during operations within a conflict. It is for that reason that there are lawmakers who are hesitant to say that the United States is actively involved in Lebanon. But, while the American public may not see American troops in southern Lebanon, that does not mean the U.S. is not involved. Some suspect that the United States is actively engaged in intelligence-sharing with the Israel Defense Forces in ways that enable gross human rights abuses and violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, which was signed by 11 other Democratic Senators,  wrote a letter to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) by asking: Have any personnel under your command shared intelligence with the Israeli government that could be used to support the creation, enforcement, or targeting of evacuation zones in Lebanon and/or Iran? Has anyone under your command analyzed whether such sharing would violate the terms of any intelligence sharing agreements with regards to the use of any U.S.-provided intelligence in operations that might violate international law, U.S. law, and the laws of armed conflict? While there has yet to be public clarity from CENTCOM, Drop Site News documented a major escalation in Israeli military operations in Lebanon, including what Israeli officials reportedly described as one of the largest coordinated strike campaigns in recent months. Per Drop Site, Israeli officials claimed the operation was “greenlit” by Washington for a “surgical and targeted strike.”  Furthermore, an April 2026 report from Middle East Eye highlighted how a British MQ-9B Protector surveillance drone reportedly operated over Lebanon before, during, and after a deadly Israeli strike near the Lebanese village of Baalbek. The MQ-9B Protector is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor General Atomics and relies on American satellite communications, command-and-control systems, and interoperable intelligence systems designed for integration with U.S. and NATO operations. Considering that both the United States and United Kingdom are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, this report raises serious questions regarding whether British intelligence assets were conducting intelligence operations in conjunction with U.S. intelligence to support Israeli military operations. These examples underscore the precise relevance of the War Powers Resolution in the context of Lebanon. Sections 8(a) and 8(c) make clear that Congress’s constitutional and statutory oversight obligations are not limited solely to instances of direct U.S. combat operations. Rather, the resolution is also implicated when U.S. forces are introduced into situations involving the “imminent involvement in hostilities,” or when such forces are assigned to “command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany” foreign military forces engaged in active hostilities. Thus, at a minimum, lawmakers should immediately demand full transparency regarding any intelligence-sharing, surveillance coordination, targeting assistance, or operational support connected to Israeli military operations in Lebanon. Congress should also determine whether such activities trigger the reporting requirements contained in Section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution. The Trump administration ran on the promise of removing America from endless wars. It has instead inserted the United States deeper into conflicts across the globe, despite growing economic strain at home. Covert U.S. support for Israel’s campaign in southern Lebanon would highlight the lawlessness, strategic incoherence, and lack of accountability that have increasingly defined modern American foreign policy. If Congress fails to assert its constitutional authority now, it will further normalize a dangerous precedent in which administrations can involve the United States in foreign conflicts through intelligence sharing, operational coordination, and proxy support while avoiding both congressional authorization and public scrutiny. The War Powers Resolution was specifically designed to prevent this exact erosion of democratic oversight. Congress must therefore decide whether it still intends to exercise its constitutional war-making authority—or whether that authority will continue to be quietly delegated to the executive branch through undeclared and increasingly opaque foreign entanglements. The post Is the U.S. Involved in Israel’s War on Lebanon? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Expanding the Abraham Accords Would Help Netanyahu, not America The agreements were flawed from the start. U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu participate in a joint news conference at the East Room of the White House, February 15, 2017. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) Whether President Donald Trump believed his persistently fallacious claims about the Iran War, or simply expected his supporters to believe them, is unclear. In any case, most Americans recognize that his campaign—illegal aggression that misfired badly, failing to break the Tehran regime while disrupting global energy markets and destabilizing the Middle East—has been a disaster. Indeed, Iran proved what many had long suspected, that it could block the Strait of Hormuz and thereby hold its U.S.-backed neighbors and much of the industrialized world hostage. The president’s maximalist demands exceed his minimalist achievements, frustrating his attempt to negotiate an end to the conflict. Unhelpful is his choice of chief negotiators, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who are not only beholden to Israel, but also ignorant of Iran, nuclear issues, and diplomacy. Thus, despite Trump’s repeated claims that Tehran’s surrender is near, the conflict, and resulting economic damage, continue. Yet rather than drop his demand that the new, more nationalistic and hardline Iranian leadership welcome him as a de facto conqueror, Trump has continued to issue maximalist demands, effectively sustaining the conflict. Last week he expanded his ambitions even further, suggesting that he would make peace only if a gaggle of Muslim states recognized Israel. “If they don’t sign to join Abraham Accords, I’m not sure we should make the deal,” he said. In addition to the Gulf kingdoms, which he had long pressured to legitimize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government, he named Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey (even though the latter three already recognize Israel). Nothing was expected of Israel, which would continue to receive U.S. arms and money to occupy Palestinian lands and kill Palestinian and other Arab civilians. His latest expostulations were not well received. He believes that “those countries owe it to us,” but they feel very differently. Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argued that the Gulf states are disappointed in Washington and especially the administration: “While they’re careful not to say it explicitly, they feel the United States was very motivated to protect Israel and not very motivated to protect them.” Apparently, they only just noticed what has long been obvious. To some of them, Israel’s murderous campaign to dominate the region looks at least as dangerous as Iran’s ambitions. In fact, the so-called Abraham Accords, long touted as a major achievement from Trump’s first term, are a pious fraud. Though depicted as a kind of peace deal, they have nothing to do with peace, since none of the participants—so far Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates (Sudan signed on but fell into civil war before ratifying the agreement)—have been at war with Israel. Nor has the lack of Israeli embassies across the Persian Gulf and North Africa prevented any nation from engaging in back-channel security cooperation. To the contrary, fear of Iran proved to be a powerful glue, linking nations publicly at odds. Several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, which has long been expected to join, have collaborated informally with Israel on the basis of a shared antagonism to the Islamic Republic. Kuwait and Qatar have also not been on the verge of conflict with Israel. Ironically, forcing relations into the open would likely increase domestic public opposition to Israeli ties within these Arab countries, given the Netanyahu government’s recent depredations. Thus, Trump’s purposes were not peace, but something much more sinister. The first was to effectively force Arab states to drop their commitment to a Palestinian state. In 2002, members of the Arab League adopted the Arab Peace Initiative. Proposed by Riyadh, the measure offered recognition to Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. The Abraham Accords require the former while dropping the latter demand, leaving Palestinians akin to Helots in ancient Sparta. Of course, professed concern by Arab elites over Palestinians living under a violent and brutal occupation is often pro forma. However, public opinion forces even the most cynical authoritarians in such nations to act as if they care about the victims of Israel’s increasingly repressive policy. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who not only murders but dismembers his critics, explained that 95 percent of his people opposed accepting Israel. Trump expects Riyadh and other states to abandon even the pretense that Palestinians are human beings who deserve the same respect as others. Moreover, expanding the Abraham Accords would act as a Hail Mary political pass to Netanyahu, who faces a difficult reelection campaign. It would both offer a dramatic success to the Israeli prime minister and act as a de facto endorsement by the American president. Indeed, Trump appears to believe his ability to shift votes is as great in Israel as in U.S. primary contests. Even Arab governments that were willing to covertly cooperate with Israel in the past are reluctant to do so today, let alone publicly embrace the radical and violent ethno-religious coalition that controls Israel. The Netanyahu government is ostentatiously seeking regional hegemony, devastating Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, striking Hamas figures in Qatar, an American ally, and wrecking Iran. Joining the Abraham Accords would be seen as an endorsement of such activities or, even worse, submission to Israel. The only good news is that Trump was bluffing. Despite his dictatorial tone, he apparently has moved on, presumably realizing that none of the governments will comply. They see little benefit in risking public unrest to fulfill Trump’s fantasies. Indeed, prolonging the war to pressure disparate Muslim states to embrace Israel could risk the survival of the Gulf states, which would almost certainly find their energy facilities and other civilian operations, such as desalination plants, under fire by Iran. Moreover, continued international instability and higher energy prices would fuel antagonism toward the administration. Despite his claim to be indifferent to the upcoming midterm elections, Trump presumably is more concerned about his future than that of Netanyahu. Nevertheless, merely raising the issue increased uncertainty about his intentions, thereby undermining the administration’s efforts to end the war. His bizarre demand further erodes confidence in Washington, and especially the White House. Expanding the Abraham Accords provides no meaningful benefit to America. Instead of working to enhance Netanyahu’s prestige, Trump should focus on ending his disastrous war on Iran. Any America First policy should begin with disengaging politically and especially militarily from the Middle East. The post Expanding the Abraham Accords Would Help Netanyahu, not America appeared first on The American Conservative.

Takimag The Democrats’ Bottomless Weaponization Fund Republicans have finally drawn the line at the worst possible time. TakiMag (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) Of all the appalling things President Donald Trump has done recently, from slapping his name on the Kennedy Center, to starting a disastrous war that has accomplished nothing other than drive his approval ratings into the dirt, Republicans have finally drawn the line at the worst possible time. They’re furious at the Department of Justice’s announcement that it intended to settle Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS by establishing a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate victims of politically motivated government abuse. The objection is that the fund would seem to include the 1,600 defendants criminally prosecuted in connection with the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack, possibly benefiting those who attacked law enforcement officers. Couldn’t that obvious point have been added as a codicil? In any event, now the fund has been jettisoned. Really wish you guys had shown this manliness over the Iran War, GOP. I’ve been living in America for the past few years, so let me give you some background. About six months before January 6, leftist rioters erupted in an orgy of violence in response to the death of George Floyd, a meth addict and career criminal with a bad heart who died as a result of resisting arrest after passing a bad check in Minneapolis. The BLM Mostly Peaceful Protests were the costliest civil unrest in U.S. history. January 6 was more like a takeover of the dean’s office. In the first two weeks of BLM insanity, the protesters violently attacked not dozens of law enforcement officers, as on January 6—but thousands. Police were shot, smashed with baseball bats, hit with Molotov cocktails, fireworks, poles and rocks. Nearly 2,000 officers were injured—300 in New York City, 130 in Chicago and 100 in Washington, DC. Over the next several weeks, officers protecting a single federal courthouse in Portland, OR sustained 277 injuries, including eye trauma from lasers. The January 6 assaults on officers were appalling and can ever be excused. But what happened to them pales in comparison to what happened to thousands of their fellow officers, day after day, for months on end in 2020. The most inflated estimates of officers injured on January 6 puts the number at 140, though I have my doubts when the media count suicides weeks and months after the attack as being caused by the rioters. The only person who actually died at the Capitol that day was an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, shot and killed in cold blood by a black officer, who has since been canonized. Not one officer was shot. Maybe that’s not much to brag about—but it’s a feat that couldn’t be pulled off by the left’s revolutionaries. In the first week after Floyd’s death, 29-year-old Officer Shay Mikalonis was shot in the head at a Las Vegas BLM protest. He remains paralyzed from the neck down to this day. Four police officers were shot at the Chicago BLM protest . A retired St. Louis police captain was shot and killed, trying to protect his city during the riots. (BLM so loved black people, they killed one!) Hundreds of January 6 protesters committed no violence at all, but were pursued to the ends of the earth, as if Biden’s DOJ were conducting the Nuremberg Trials. Combined, the January 6 defendants have been sentenced to 1,200 years in prison and ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution. Far more violent and numerous antifa and BLM rioters were released immediately and then given millions of dollars. Republicans don’t want anyone who assaulted a peace officer to be compensated? Do they have any idea what’s been going on in the blue states? As with the government funding NGOs, “advocacy” organizations, NPR, Legal Aid, public sector unions and so on, the left always finds a way to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to their activists. Progressive mayors not only ensured that leftist thugs would suffer no consequences for their attacks on law enforcement—but then “settled” BLM protestors’ complaints against the police for having the audacity to enforce the law. Democratic cities used public funds to pay the rioters, helping fund any future anarchic brawls. (Explosives, baseball bats, daggers, batons, bear spray, poles, fireworks, bricks, AR-15s, and other instruments of peaceful protest don’t grow on trees, you know.) In all, Antifa and other violent psychopaths have raked in more than $80 million. In Philadelphia, for example, protesters illegally blocked traffic on Interstate 676 by marching their bony white asses into the middle of this major artery. (Few black people participated.) Attempting to liberate the 100,000 commuters who take the 676 daily, the police fired tear gas and pepper spray into the assembled idiots. These nonlethal chemical agents are the preferred method for dispersing crowds because they temporarily burn the nose, eyes and mouth but cause no lasting harm. Still, the little darlings sued the city for not allowing them to block the freeway—which it turns out, is illegal. Philadelphia’s Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney announced that the city would pay them $9.25 million. This, he said, would “continue the healing process.” Without debate, the all-Democratic Denver City Council gave $4.7 million to a few hundred protesters arrested for violating the curfew imposed during the riots. (Some violators were jailed for up to TWO HOURS!) The council also unanimously approved a $1.7 million payout to progressive activists who claimed to have been injured by police. In Cincinnati, after the Peaceful Protests erupted into looting, burning and thieving, the Democratic mayor imposed a curfew of 10 p.m., unaware that attempting to interfere with the destruction of his city was racist. All charges for violating curfew were dismissed. Nonetheless, the all-Democratic City Council “settled” with curfew violators for $8.1 million. New York City paid $14 million to more than 1000 protesters who complained about the police arresting them and, instead of giving them a juice box and participation trophy, employed zip ties, batons and pepper spray. Seattle paid $10 million to about 50 BLM protesters, or $200,000 for each Noble Agent of Change. (Home to as many as dozens of black people, the death a black drug addict in a city 1,656 miles away hit that city hard.) And on and on and on. There’s no reason to believe any of the January 6 protesters who attacked police would have gotten anything from the Trump compensation fund, anyway. But if that’s the objection, Republicans are late to the party. COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTERDISTRIBUTED BY IMPOLITE DEBATES The post The Democrats’ Bottomless Weaponization Fund appeared first on The American Conservative.

Our Enemies Lie