RSS
The Subtle War: Radical Ideologies in US Universities
A student protester parades a Palestinian flag outside the entrance to Hamilton Hall on the campus of Columbia University, in New York, U.S., April 30, 2024. Photo: Mary Altaffer/Pool via REUTERS
In the complex landscape of US higher education, a critical issue that often goes unexamined is the influence of radical ideologies on the academic and social environments. American students and some faculty advocates display a concerning naivety towards the ideologies they endorse, frequently lacking a comprehensive understanding of radical Islamic terrorism, fanaticism, Khomeinism, Shiite terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the extensive networks of transnational terrorism. This lack of awareness fosters an environment ripe for the spread of these harmful ideologies, which have been deeply rooted in American universities for decades.
The roots of this ideological infiltration trace back to the 1960s and 1970s, when Marxist-Leninist and Islamic leftists mounted significant protests against the Shah of Iran, then America’s steadfast ally in the Middle East, among others. These events marked a critical and consequential shift in international relations and Iran’s internal policies, notably when President Jimmy Carter initially praised Khomeini.
The tumultuous events of 1979 transformed Iran from a nation celebrated for its 7,000-year-old civilization into one subjected to religious and political Islamic tyranny. This shift endangered not only Iran’s cultural heritage and populace, but also destabilized the Middle East and escalated threats to global security. A severe miscalculation in Washington was the assumption that radical Islam could serve as a strategic countermeasure against the Soviet Union — a naive belief that overlooked the existing collaborations between various Islamic terrorist groups and Soviet interests, including those led by figures like Yasser Arafat.
This underestimation allowed radical ideologies, especially Khomeinism, empowered by Western miscalculations, to proliferate globally. Ironically, the Khomeini regime began its international engagement with an act of aggression — hostage-taking — which sharply contradicted the supportive expectations of figures like Carter.
Within the United States, several academics and students actively propagated these ideologies, sowing seeds of discord and demonstrating a profound ignorance of the destructive nature of the doctrines they espoused.
Over the past four and a half decades, the repercussions of these ideologies have been severe. Wars, chaos, and political instability have increased, supplanting what were once opportunities for peace and cooperation. Educational institutions, which should be bastions of learning and enlightenment, have at times devolved into platforms for promoting and defending reactionary and destructive ideologies. This has not only compromised the academic integrity of these institutions but also endangered the future of many young Americans, who remain largely unaware of the true nature of the forces shaping their perceptions.
Today, the regime of Iran’s dictator, Ayatollah Khamenei, continues to exploit these ideological vulnerabilities. His regime’s brutality and suppression of dissent find a perverse reflection in the turmoil apparent in American universities. The recent protests in Iran, resulting in the deaths of 700 individuals and the severe injury or imprisonment of hundreds more, starkly demonstrate the regime’s ruthless tactics. Alarmingly, these actions resonate with certain American student groups that unwittingly champion the causes of such a tyrannical regime.
This phenomenon raises pressing questions: Do these students truly understand the forces they support? Are they aware of the consequences of their actions? The support for entities like Hamas and the display of Hezbollah flags not only contravenes US policy, which categorically rejects terrorism, but also threatens the very principles of American democracy.
The infiltration of radical ideology into US and European educational and cultural institutions is not just widespread, but deeply ingrained. These entities are active not only in universities but also permeate the media, lobbying groups, research centers, think tanks, and even religious institutions. This deep-seated engagement poses a severe risk to the democratic fabric of American society, a risk that is compounded by the widespread nature of this infiltration and the subtlety with which it operates.
Moreover, the role of international media in educating the public about these dangers is often compromised, as it falls prey to the same propaganda it should be critiquing.
Furthermore, the ideological battle between Iran and the West is not confined to military or physical confrontations; it is a deeper, more pervasive war that seeks to undermine social norms, cultural heritage, and historical narratives. The youth in America, influenced by these sinister forces, are often caught up in disturbances that threaten not only their future but also the stability and security of the nation they call home.
For the youth of America, and indeed to all who value democracy and freedom, it is imperative to scrutinize the lessons history offers. Iran, once a beacon of culture and prosperity, now lies in ruins — a stark testament to the destructive power of radical ideologies. The Iranian people endure perpetual turmoil, with their resources squandered on sustaining terrorist activities that bring them nothing but suffering and despair.
Reflecting on these developments, it is clear that the challenges we face are not just about combating overt acts of terrorism, but involve recognizing and countering the subtle, pervasive spread of an ideology that seeks to destroy from within. It is about standing firm against propaganda, recognizing the true nature of our enemies, and ensuring that the values of liberty and democracy are upheld. The struggle is daunting but essential for the preservation of our way of life and the protection of future generations.
In this critical moment, let us recall the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and strive to protect the principles they established. Observing the misuse of these freedoms to promote terrorism and radical ideologies, particularly in educational institutions like Princeton where Hezbollah flags have been seen, is deeply troubling. These actions betray the principles upon which our nation was founded and on which it must continue to stand.
Erfan Fard is a counterterrorism analyst and Middle East Studies researcher based in Washington, DC. Twitter@EQFARD.
The post The Subtle War: Radical Ideologies in US Universities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Conservative Pro-Israel Advocate Charlie Kirk Assassinated at University Event in Utah
Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist credited with amassing youth support for the Republican Party, speaking at the inauguration of Donald Trump in January. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect
Conservative activist and staunch pro-Israel advocate Charlie Kirk died on Wednesday after being shot during an event at Utah Valley University, according to a statement by US President Donald Trump posted to the Truth Social media platform. He was 31 years old.
“The great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead,” Trump wrote. “No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family.”
He added, “Charlie we love you!”
Kirk — founder of the Turning Point USA nonprofit, which is credited for drawing masses of young people, typically a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, to the Republican Party — was answering audience questions when a gunman fired off the fatal shot which impacted his neck, causing him to become limp and bleed profusely.
Since the advent of his career, Kirk has been a faithful supporter of Israel, taking on activists of both the far left and far right who promoted rising antisemitism and sought to undermine the US-Israel alliance.
“There’s a dark Jew hate out there, and see it, and I see it,” Kirk told a student during a podcast episode which aired earlier this year. “Don’t get yourself involved in that. I’m telling you it will rot your brain. It’s bad for your soul. It’s bad. It’s evil. I think it’s demonic.”
Born on Oct. 14, 1993, in Arlington Heights, Illinois, Kirk formally entered the political arena in 2012, five months before the reelection of former President Barack Obama, to found Turning Point USA (TPUSA) — which served as a bellwether of declining youth support for the progressive consensus on race, free speech, and economics that took hold in American college campuses in the 1960s.
TPUSA grew rapidly, challenging campus primacy of the College Republicans organization and exuding confidence in conservative ideas at a moment when political scientists and other experts speculated that the Republican Party would decline to the point that the Democratic Party would achieve long-standing majorities in local and federal government.
Following news of Kirk’s death, the Jewish community deluged social media with tributes to Kirk and prayers for his family and friends.
“Please stop what you’re doing and pray for our friend Charlie Kirk. Many in the Jewish community are reciting chapters from the Book of Psalms, and I ask you do the same,” Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Jewish civil rights advocate, tweeted. “Something is deeply broken in America. The political violence must END. GOD HELP AMERICA.”
“We have no words,” StopAntisemitism, a Jewish civil rights advocacy group, tweeted.
Meanwhile, Jewish conservative influencer Emily Austin said, “With deep pain and sorrow, we mourn the passing of Charlie Kirk. May he rest in peace, and may God welcome him into His eternal care. This is a profound loss for the world — Charlie was a truly blessed soul whose impact will never be forgotten.”
Kirk is survived by his wife, Erika, and his two young children.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Lebanon’s Army to Disarm Hezbollah Near Israeli Border Within 3 Months in First Step to Restore State Control
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and members of the cabinet stand as they attend a cabinet session to discuss the army’s plan to disarm Hezbollah, at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, Lebanon, Sept. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Lebanon’s army plans to fully disarm Hezbollah near the Israeli border within three months, the first step in the Lebanese government’s plan to restore authority and curb the influence of the Iran-backed terror group within the country.
On Tuesday, Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi confirmed to AFP that the government received a five-stage plan last week from the military to enforce a policy placing all weapons under state control.
The move follows Lebanese authorities’ approval last month of a US-backed initiative to disarm Hezbollah in exchange for a halt to Israeli military operations in the country’s south.
Amid mounting international pressure to disarm the terrorist group, Lebanon’s cabinet tasked the army with developing a strategy to establish a state monopoly on arms.
For years, Israel has demanded that Hezbollah be barred from carrying out activities south of the Litani, located roughly 15 miles from the Israeli border.
However, Hezbollah has pushed back against any government efforts, insisting that negotiations to dismantle its arsenal would be a serious misstep while Israel continues airstrikes in the country’s south.
The terrorist group has even threatened protests and civil unrest if the government tries to enforce control over its weapons.
But as Hezbollah emerged weakened from a yearlong conflict with Israel, calls for the Islamist group’s disarmament have gained new momentum, reshaping a power balance it had long controlled in Lebanon.
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
RSS
Israeli Military Expert: Doha Strike Was Backed by US and Qatar Coup, Will Bring Hostage Deal Closer
A damaged building, following an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, according to an Israeli official, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Israel’s unprecedented strike on Hamas leaders in Doha this week was not a rogue act of military aggression, but rather the outcome of quiet coordination between Qatar and the US that could bring a hostage deal closer, Israeli intelligence expert Eyal Pinko said on Wednesday.
The strike, which officials have said was planned months ago, came a day after 10 Israelis were killed by Hamas in Gaza and Jerusalem. Four were soldiers who died in an attack on an Israeli tank in northern Gaza. The separate shooting attack in Jerusalem, in which six Israelis were killed and several more wounded, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” Pinko, a national security expert who served in Israeli intelligence for more than three decades, said in a press briefing.
Pinko contended that while Qatar publicly condemned the attacks, it also enabled them. “I am sure they were involved and the attack was coordinated with the [Qataris],” Pinko later told The Algemeiner.
The most recent round of negotiations to secure a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal were nothing more than a “deception” by the US and Israel designed to gather Hamas leaders in one place “in order to set the timing to eliminate them,” he said.
Pinko said the strike should also be seen in light of US President Donald Trump’s impatience with the stalled hostage talks, arguing it showed Trump was on board with assassinations of Hamas leaders despite public declarations that he was “very unhappy” with the attack. He also pointed to Trump’s comments from last month, in which the US president predicted the Gaza conflict would reach a “conclusive ending” within two or three weeks.
Qatar, which has long hosted Hamas’s exiled leadership, benefits strategically from replacing the terrorist group’s leaders loyal to Iran with figures it can trust, Pinko maintained. Doha holds billions of dollars belonging to Hamas officials and has no interest in letting Ankara or Tehran displace it as the group’s patron. The timing of the attack is also significant, Pinko said, coming in the wake of Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear program over the summer. “Iran is in a very bad situation. Qatar can easily overcome Iran,” he said.
Pinko further argued that the strike may serve to bring forward the release of the Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza since Hamas itself was no longer a coherent negotiating partner. The terrorist group operating in Gaza had become fragmented, “divided into five families that are fighting each other” and sometimes giving the impression that “they hate each other more than they hate Israel,” Pinko said. Recent talks proved “there was no longer a decisionmaker in Hamas,” and this disarray had allowed Hamas leaders to drag out the process with unrealistic demands. Removing those figures, he argued, would leave room for Qatar to install leaders who could cut a deal. “This will make the negotiation process much faster,” he said.
Pinko’s assessment stands in stark contrast to the fears of some of the families of the remaining 48 hostages held in Gaza, who said in a statement they had “grave fear” the Doha strike could sabotage the chances of bringing their loved ones home.
He placed the operation in a wider context, linking it to the revival of the Abraham Accords and US efforts to build a trade corridor from India through the Gulf to Israel and Europe as a counterweight to China’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road initiative, ending with Gaza as a key trade hub. “Trump is very serious in making the northern part of the Gaza Strip as [having] US autonomy. That will be the end of the American belt and road initiative to compete with the Chinese,” he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday called on Qatar, which “gives safe haven [and] harbors terrorists,” to expel them or bring them to justice, adding that if they don’t, “we will.”
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, for his part said his country would retaliate over the strike, and accused Netanyahu of “wasting” Qatar’s time in negotiations and “leading the Middle East to chaos.”
Pinko called out Doha for its “duplicity” in pretending to be a peacemaker on the one hand, while “fueling Hamas and hatred” in the US and Europe, on the other.
“They are against Israel in their DNA. They don’t want Israel to exist,” he said. “So Gaza and Hamas are a very important asset for them.”
Some critics have denounced the Doha strike as a violation of international law, but international law experts note that Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes a state’s inherent right to self-defense and that this right is not confined by geography if attacks are directed from outside its borders. The so-called “unwilling or unable” doctrine holds that if a host country does not act against militants on its soil, the victim state may use proportionate force.
The US relied on this doctrine when it killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in a 2011 operation that was widely hailed by Western governments and the UN, whose then secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said at the time that he was “very much relieved by news that justice has been done” and called it “a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism.”