Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Men all are Fallen. We all lie, cheat, prevaricate, distort, rationalize, plead specially – even when we don’t mean to do so (although, too often, when we do). Most of all, we simply err, as of course could not be otherwise for finite intellects, even were they not Fallen: we mistake things (this is how the Fall transpired in the first place). And then, we talk to each other about our mistakes, without yet quite realizing that they are such, or – in some cases, in too goddamned many cases – without being quite willing to admit that they are such. So, our mistakes get engrained in some goddamned cultural Narrative or other, which then rolls on through history and compounds its goddamned evil. E.g., the anhistorical Narrative that the Crusades were simply evil, and so ought to be deplored by all good men. Especially Catholics, forsooth, who ought to feel particularly ashamed about the Crusades.

So, AI is trained only on human discourse that is massively, radically, and quite thoroughly whacked. With the possible exception of the Bible, *everything that has been written,* and that AI has trained upon, is radically whacked. And, of course, even with respect to the Bible, immensely more has been written about it that in it is; and of all of that we must perforce admit – if we be Christians – has been by the Fallen character of its authors been at least a bit whacked. All of which whackednesses are for AI its prima facie innocent training data.

Apart perhaps from the Bible, Fallen shit is all that AI has to work with.

Sorry, you saints and Fathers, you mystics and Doctors (aye, and you Reformers, too). All proper props to you, but it’s just logic.

AI is then bound in logic to be radically whacked. GIGO.

This casts a dim parlous sick light upon the whole of human discourse. As all Fallen, it is all like AI subject to GIGO. The inescapable conclusion is that it is almost all just Garbage.

Surely every man walketh in a vain shew: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them.

Psalm 39:6

AI is no more than an amplification and an intensification of our natural human compounded errors about Reality. With, I grant, a few truths here and there scattered, that serve in the end to pull the output back toward realism; toward Reality. Which can indeed happen. Pain is a powerful urge thereto.

The only thing to be said in favor of AI is that, except as instructed by its developers to tilt its assessments in favor of some goddamned Narrative or other, AI – in my as yet absurdly limited experience – can learn and then speak the truth without reserve (unlike almost all human interlocutors of an adversarial bent whom I have ever encountered – which is a lot), despite all the lies of the Narrative – of the Narratives – upon which it has been trained, and which are its entire environing world. As an algorithm, it is honest. It does not care where the chips fall. Only as tweaked by some human or demonic agency might an algorithm fail to generate honest responses.

This, provided that the algorithm is not itself instantiate in a substance, with, as such, its own interests; its own telos. That’s a different question.

That’s all for now, except for this: be just as skeptical of the outputs of AI to your queries as you would be of the fatuous falsehoods of, e.g., CNN.

The great virtue of AI – for now – is that it can be open to alternatives to the Narratives, so that some of the things it reports back might be true. CNN, nor all its ilk, cannot. They are wholly possessed. All their output are lies.

A tragic circumstance in Georgia has gripped the nation as pro-abortion radicals demand that a now 21-week unborn baby be killed.

Adriana Smith is the 30-year-old mother of a seven-year-old son as well as her unborn son. When Adriana was nine weeks pregnant, she went to the hospital due to the severe headaches she was experiencing. Though she was given medication, the hospital did not conduct a CT scan. The next day she was taken to the hospital where it was discovered that she had blood clots in her brain. Adriana underwent surgery to remove the clots but was later declared brain dead. See more about a diagnosis of brain death below.

The hospital has made the lifesaving decision to keep Adriana alive through life support until her precious baby boy can be safely delivered. This decision minimizes the harm and fights for the life of the child aiming to prevent one death from becoming two deaths.

Pro-abortion extremists have taken the opportunity to hijack her situation. They claim that pro-life laws have turned this mother’s body into nothing more than an incubator.

Ironically, the state’s pro-life law, the Georgia LIFE Act, passed in 2022 does not define removing a pregnant woman from life support as an abortion. The law that is defending the life of Adriana’s son is the Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act of 2007. But why would the abortion radicals let details get in the way of their agenda?

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Another important detail they do not mention is that “brain death” is not the same as death. As Life Issues Institute has highlighted in the past, at one time the American Academy of Neurology stated on their website, “Many of the details of the clinical neurologic examination to determine brain death cannot be established by evidence-based methods. The detailed brain death evaluation protocol that follows is intended as a useful tool for clinicians. It must be emphasized that this guidance is opinion-based.”

Removing Adriana from life support would not only end her life, but also needlessly end the life of her son. The hospital believes they can save one of their patients. Pro-abortion extremists do not care.

In the time since the media began running with headlines like USA Today’s article, “A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It’s Republicans’ fault,” the family has spoken out. Adriana’s mother Newkirk said, “The journey is for baby Chance to survive — and whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we’re going to love him just the same, and we’re gonna embrace him.”

This circumstance has highlighted the culture of death that has become so prevalent on the left. Despite the family’s own wishes and the unborn baby’s innocence, the left has now spent weeks demanding that both Adriana and her son Chance die.

Every life has value, and we must continue to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the President of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group.

The post Pro-Abortion Radicals Want Adriana Smith’s 21-Week-Old Unborn Baby Killed appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The territory for the disaster known as assisted suicide is expanding. Oregon, the state where legalized assisted suicide was born, has no residency requirement, meaning that anyone anywhere in the U.S. could fall victim to the state’s radical law. Now, some lawmakers in the Western state want to dismantle the few restrictions that exist regarding the diabolical practice.

In response, I decided to submit written testimony to the Oregon legislature raising my objections to the ill-conceived SB 1003.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My name is Maria Gallagher, and I come to you as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, an affiliate of National Right to Life. I also come as a concerned mother, a daughter who has dealt with the health challenges of her parents, and an American citizen who is worried about the suicide tourism which is likely to expand under SB 1003.

In the year 2000, Jeanette Hall was told that she had only six months to live after receiving a cancer diagnosis. But she had a doctor who believed in her, who encouraged her not to give up. Twelve years later, she was still alive, and happy about it!

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

She readily admitted that, had her doctor believed in assisted suicide, she would have been dead, and would have missed out on so much of life. She expressed gratitude to her physician for giving her life with dignity.

The number one reason given for assisted suicide by its victims is not pain—it is loss of autonomy. They fear being a burden on others. That can be exacerbated when family members, friends, or medical professionals portray the patient as being a burden rather than a human being in need of care.

Shortening the existing waiting period, mandating promotion of assisted suicide by health care facilities, and broadening the definition of who can prescribe lethal drugs will only worsen a health care crisis which sees patients as problems rather than as people of priceless worth and dignity.

What about the patient who feels as if he or she is being pressured into assisted suicide because of the high cost of health care? What about the patient who is suffering from debilitating depression and needs treatment, but who does not receive it? What about the patient whose loneliness and fears drive him or her to want to stop living?

While I live in Pennsylvania, I see this legislation as a threat to not only citizens of Oregon, but all Americans, since Oregon has dropped its residency requirement for assisted suicide. That makes people across the country vulnerable to this corruption of the medical field. Under the scenario created by SB 1003, health care professionals will not be in the business of healing, but of hurting, at an accelerated pace.

Oregon’s assisted suicide bill does not need to be expanded. What needs to be expanded are affordable health care, true compassion in the face of challenging circumstances, and a health care system that honors the value of patients, especially people with disabilities, who can become the most vulnerable in a pro-assisted suicide paradigm.

Please take the course of true compassion and patient-centered care and defeat SB 1003. So many precious lives are depending on the outcome of this critical decision.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am just one individual, but I believe that if we all raise our voices against the broadening of assisted suicide, it is possible to persuade public officials of the serious dangers associated with the practice. The only way for compassion not to win is for us to remain silent.

LifeNews.com Note: Maria Gallagher is the Legislative Director and Political Action Committee Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and she has written and reported for various broadcast and print media outlets, including National Public Radio, CBS Radio, and AP Radio.

The post Oregon Wants All Americans to Come There to Kill Themselves appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Next month, three full years will have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. In that time, there has been no shortage of drama. Protests have taken place outside the homes of justices of the court. An attempted assassination was turned away at one justice’s home, and the perpetrator has pled guilty. In 2024, 10 states voted on ballot questions regarding abortion, seven of which resulted in state constitutional protection for a more or less unlimited right to abortion up to birth.

The Republican Party has largely muted its opposition to legal abortion, diluting its multi-decade national pro-life platform planks. An effort launched by the national Democratic Party to make abortion legal to term everywhere and a centerpiece of its 2024 campaign for the White House went down in flames with Kamala Harris. Now in office, President Trump has proceeded to restore a number of policies barring abortion funding, but further actions — like defunding Planned Parenthood, securing safeguards or other limits on abortion pill distribution, and protecting pain-capable unborn children federally — remain up in the air.

Thematically, the Trump administration continues to insist that abortion is a matter for state policy determination. The political aim may be in the process of realization, as discussions of abortion have become less frequent at the national level. Three years in, however, the status of abortion in the United States post-Dobbs is taking shape, if not yet an established trend. The truth appears to be that while Roe v. Wade has been reversed, the effects of Roe have scarcely been touched.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

That is the main finding of a new and exhaustive study* of U.S. abortion numbers released by Mia Steupert, M.A., of the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). Anyone who has studied abortion data knows that it can be an exercise in deep frustration. The federal system in America has many advantages, but national data collection and interpretation are not among them. For decades, the reports of the leading private abortion data collector, the Guttmacher Institute, showed totals 30% higher than the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) abortion surveillance reports, which trailed several years behind the coverage period. The Guttmacher reports were more detailed but nonetheless covered only what abortion businesses were willing or able to share. Comparisons year over year and reporting of abortion complications were topic areas not easily susceptible to tracking.

For various reasons, irrespective of Dobbs, these tasks have become even more difficult in the past several years, challenges the Steupert paper seeks to address. As before, national abortion reporting is voluntary. Existing state reports are not uniform. But in recent years, certain numbers have become more elusive. Several states have relaxed or rescinded their abortion reporting requirements. The Food and Drug Administration dropped its mandatory reporting of non-fatal abortion injuries after the use of the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen. An ever-growing percentage of abortions are taking place at home and/or utilizing abortion pills obtained via the mail or other delivery systems. Advance provision is taking place, both privately and in some cases via state governments, so that procurement of abortion drugs does not necessarily mean that they were consumed and an abortion occurred. A small, but nonetheless meaningful, number of abortions are chemically initiated but fail or are reversed medically. Policies change year after year so mifepristone, for example, may be prescribed later in pregnancy. As always, injuries occurring in the process of abortion, whether at a brick-and-mortar facility or in a bathroom, are treated in third-party facilities and may elude data capture.

A proper response to this situation would be for Congress and the new administration to overhaul the statutes and policies regarding data collection on this and other issues. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC is the prime collector and analyst of health statistics for the U.S. and is currently wrestling with the Office of Management and Budget over a variety of large datasets it says have been taken offline and are unavailable to the public. Restoring those datasets would be valuable, but more needs to be done, including improving the comprehensiveness and timeliness of data on health and social concerns.

The Steupert paper strives to utilize existing analyses by groups that favor legal abortion and have privileged access to the nation’s 777 (by CLI’s count) brick-and-mortar abortion facilities that offer drug-induced or surgical abortions. CLI also found that drugs to induce abortion are currently made available by some 142 U.S.-based groups or centers and via an additional eight websites or organizations it describes as “operating outside the formal U.S. health care system.”

The lead statistic for the report comes from the Society for Family Planning, a self-described advocacy group connected with academic institutions like the University of California-San Francisco and the University of Pittsburgh that makes research grants to a variety of academic institutions. The data show 1,121,450 abortions were carried out from July 2023 through June 2024 inside the formal health care system, with many thousands more self-managed abortions outside that system, including some carried out with imported abortion drugs.

The increase is disturbing, but it represents a trend, Steupert notes, that predates the Dobbs ruling. Abortions not only increased in the second full year since the decision but have risen 11% since 2020. Abortion totals in the United States dropped markedly, and steadily, between 1990 and 2018, when the current upturn began and continued through the second half of the first Trump administration and the Biden administration. Data shows that states that have protected the unborn by statute, like Texas and Florida, have seen sharp reductions in reported abortions, but overall counts have been driven upward by a variety of legal developments and industry practices. Steupert writes:

“The hypothesis that total abortions would inevitably decrease post-Dobbs did not account for the questionable legal strategies pro-abortion states were willing to implement which only exposed and exploited loopholes in pro-life laws. From taking advantage of the FDA’s pre-Dobbs decision to allow mail-order telehealth abortions with no in-person requirement, to shipping abortion drugs into pro-life states from pro-abortion states under shield laws, to deeming certain states ‘abortion havens,’ pro-abortion states have circumvented the inability of women in pro-life states to obtain brick-and-mortar abortions.” [citations omitted]

Steupert also notes, and other analysts agree, that the data does not suggest that the Dobbs ruling has not saved lives — abortion totals might be higher had the Supreme Court not decided as it did. The shift from in-clinic abortions to self-induced procedures, combined with relentless campaigns that assert that abortion pills are safer than Tylenol, may have been enough on their own over the past decade to make abortion seem like another form of Plan B. Blurring the two has long been a social policy objective of the industry. The direct response to that must come from women’s own and acknowledged adverse experiences with the pills, combined with new efforts to gather and assess clinical data on the aftermath of abortions conducted at home, including psychological sequelae.

One other implication exists. Advocates of abortion desire to go one step further than making abortion a state issue; they wish to make it an unobserved, non-issue. While three years out from the Dobbs ruling isn’t long, it is already becoming clear that the absence of federal action, including regarding abortion drugs and the range of needed family and maternal support, limits what individual states can do to check a shielded, and medically lawless, abortion industry. Making America healthy again without affirming the value of every mother and baby’s life will be very difficult indeed.

*As former president of Charlotte Lozier Institute, I was asked to review the draft paper and made several comments but did not otherwise contribute to its analysis or conclusions.

LifeNews Note: Chuck Donovan is a 50-year veteran of the national debate over the right to life and served from 1981-89 as a writer in the Reagan White House.He is the former Executive Vice President of Family Research Council.

The post More Babies Dying With Easy Access to Abortion Bills appeared first on LifeNews.com.

I just completed a speaking tour in British Columbia where I had speaking engagements in Vernon, Kelowna, Salmon Arm and Vancouver – four speaking engagements in four days.

While in Vancouver I visited St Paul’s Hospital to see the (MAiD) euthanasia clinic that was imposed on it by the British Columbia (BC) provincial government – Ministry of Health.

The Euthanasia (MAiD) clinic was opened in January 2025 and is known as the Shoreline Space (green building). It looked like a euthanasia killing was happening while I was outside the door.

You may remember that on June 27, 2023 I reported that the euthanasia lobby was pressuring the BC government to force Catholic hospitals to provide euthanasia.

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news.

The euthanasia lobby used the story of Samantha O’Neill (34) who died by euthanasia (MAiD) on April 4, 2023. O’Neill requested euthanasia at St Paul’s hospital. Since St Paul’s did not provide euthanasia they transferred Samantha from St Paul’s to St. John’s hospice (run by Vancouver Coastal Health) to die by euthanasia.

On December 1, 2023 I reported that in response to the pressure from the euthanasia lobby the BC government expropriated property from Providence Health (St Paul’s) to build a euthanasia killing center next to St Paul’s in Vancouver in response to the complaint that palliative care patients did not have access to euthanasia at St Paul’s hospital.

In May 2024, I went to Germany to speak at a conference. While in Germany I visited three of the T-4 euthanasia memorials. I first visited the Grafeneck euthanasia memorial since it was the first of the T-4 euthanasia centres. 10,654 people (primarily people with disabilities) reportedly were gassed to death at Grafeneck.

A little bit of information about Grafeneck.

In 1928, Grafeneck castle came into the possession of the Samaritan Foundation (Samariterstiftung), a charitable arm of the German Lutheran Church. The foundation established a care facility for male patients with disabilities at Grafeneck in 1929.

In October 1939, the German government expropriated the Grafeneck castle property from the Lutheran Samaritan Foundation and transformed Grafeneck from a Lutheran care facility into the first centralized killing center within Aktion T4 (Nazi Euthanasia Program).

Grafeneck was the first functioning T4 killing center. Its operations commenced on January 18, 1940. Twenty-five male patients arrived from the Eglfing-Haar facility in Munich that day. Dr. Schumann personally escorted them to the old coach house where Schumann gassed them to death in the newly constructed gas chamber. From this date until December 1940, people were killed by gassing on an almost daily basis, excluding Sundays and holidays.

I am not suggesting that the BC government is planning to empty care homes by busing the residents to the Shoreline Space for killing.

I am stating that when the BC government expropriated property from Providence health and built a euthanasia killing center that is attached to St Paul’s hospital that they were repeating one of the ugliest parts of human history.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

The post Canada Forces Catholic Hospital to House Euthanasia Center appeared first on LifeNews.com.

“For the children.” That is a go-to justification for politicians and bureaucrats seeking to infringe on individual rights. It was on display last week in the final minutes of the testimony of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Makary was exaggerating the extent of vaping among high school students and saying that the addiction to vaping among “kids in America” is “something that we have to address” and a “top priority” for Donald Trump’s presidential administration.

Makary comments bring to mind the scare stirred up about marijuana decades back, including through the 1930s movie Reefer Madness now enjoyed by many for its over-the-top fearmongering in regard to the plant. And, yes, the movie’s focus too was on the children.

As marijuana legalization continues to progress in America, vaping has increasingly become a target for government-enforced restrictions on people both young and old. Makary and his cohort of nanny statists are determined to combat their hyped-up vaping threat that, as the Reefer Madness trailer put it for marijuana, is a “new and deadly menace .. with its roots in hell.”

Jacob Sullum, in a Monday Reason article you can read here, provided details regarding Makary’s comments and how they conflict with President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to “save vaping.”

Why has the US president decided to lift all sanctions on Damascus, and how will it shape the future of the region?

US President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he intends to lift all sanctions on Syria stands as one of the most unexpected and controversial foreign policy moves Washington has made in the past decade.

Declared during Trump’s Middle East tour at the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, the decision marks a dramatic shift in America’s approach to the region – one that could reshape the strategic landscape for both allies and adversaries.

The sanctions on Syria, first imposed in 1979, were progressively tightened over decades in response to accusations of sponsoring terrorism, human rights abuses, and close ties with Iran. Their full repeal is an unprecedented gesture, especially considering that Syria’s current president, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, was until recently regarded by the US as a senior figure in Al-Qaeda – with a $10 million bounty once placed on his capture.

In return, Damascus has made a series of strategic commitments. According to Trump, al-Sharaa has pledged to prevent the resurgence of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), bring all jihadist detention camps under state control, and expel all foreign terrorist formations from Syrian soil. This latter promise is particularly significant, as these militant units – many of them composed of fighters from Central Asia – played a pivotal role in the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime and the rise of the current leadership.

Many of these same groups are also responsible for large-scale ethnic purges, including the massacres of Alawites and other religious minorities earlier this year. Thus, Trump’s proposal does more than legitimize al-Sharaa’s regime – it places on it the mantle of a regional stabilizer, albeit one whose legitimacy remains heavily disputed.

The decision to lift sanctions cannot be divorced from Washington’s broader economic and strategic interests. That the announcement came in Saudi Arabia is no coincidence – it signals a broader understanding with Riyadh, which is eager to deepen its footprint in post-conflict Syria. From the US perspective, the Syria deal is a building block in a new Middle Eastern architecture – one dominated by pro-Western governments and designed to neutralize Iranian influence.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have long viewed Syria’s reconstruction as an opportunity to entrench themselves politically and economically. US sanctions had previously prevented them from acting overtly, and the lifting of restrictions may now be part of a grander bargain: Riyadh receives a green light to invest in Syria, while Washington secures massive financial commitments. On May 14 – the day of Trump’s announcement – Saudi Arabia signed a $142 billion arms deal with the US and pledged an additional $600 billion in American investments.

At first glance, Trump’s move might appear as a betrayal of Israeli interests – an accusation made in several media commentaries. Yet in practice, Israel gains a neighbor that, while unpredictable, is now positioned to suppress Islamist radicals within its borders. This allows it to refocus on countering Iran and Hezbollah without the added distraction of threats emanating from Syria.

The lifting of sanctions also aligns with Türkiye’s strategic goals. President Erdogan, just prior to the Trump-al-Sharaa meeting, personally urged the US president to dismantle the sanctions. Türkiye is a key partner of Syria’s new leadership but has been constrained by its own economic crisis. Moreover, the sanctions hindered Ankara’s allies – particularly Qatar – from taking part in Syria’s postwar reconstruction.

In sum, Trump’s Syrian deal represents more than just a diplomatic maneuver; it is a bold attempt to reengineer the regional balance of power. Whether it brings long-term stability or fuels new fault lines remains to be seen – but its impact on the Middle East is already unmistakable.

What lies behind this move?

The developments unfolding in Syria following the rise to power of Ahmed al-Sharaa increasingly evoke the atmosphere of 2011 – the era of the Arab Spring, when the Middle East fractured into two ideological and geopolitical camps. At the time, Türkiye and Qatar actively championed the cause of ‘political Islam’, seeking to expand their influence through the emergence of Islamist-oriented governments. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates perceived Islamist forces as a direct threat to regional stability and the survival of their monarchical order.

Today, under al-Sharaa’s leadership, Syria once again reflects that same fault line. A sense of déjà vu looms: The region’s main players find themselves navigating renewed tensions, caught between the desire to preserve influence and the necessity of adapting to a rapidly evolving reality.

Ankara and Doha, both instrumental in al-Sharaa’s ascent, view his leadership as an opportunity to reclaim their diminished standing in the Levant. Despite its internal economic turmoil, Türkiye continues to position itself as a regional arbiter, relying on a network of loyal political and military actors within Syria. Qatar, for its part, is providing financial and diplomatic support, effectively replicating the strategy it previously deployed in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia.

Yet the current landscape differs markedly from that of 2011. Al-Sharaa, though buoyed by Turkish support, has signaled a desire for greater autonomy from the outset. His first official foreign visit was not to Ankara, but to Riyadh – a symbolic gesture toward Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose economic power is now essential for Syria’s reconstruction. It was also a clear signal that Damascus is open to dialogue, even with those who once backed the opposing side in the civil war.

For Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the resurgence of politically motivated Islamist forces is a source of deep concern, though their response has remained deliberately muted. Rather than overt confrontation, these Gulf monarchies have opted for economic engagement, believing that financial leverage will grant them influence while curbing radicalization.

They also see the new Syrian leadership as a potential partner in shaping a new Middle Eastern order – provided that Damascus does not become an instrument of Turkish expansionism. This explains al-Sharaa’s active display of ‘independent maneuvering’, as he skillfully balances between centers of power – from the Gulf to Ankara, from Washington to Moscow.

Amid this geopolitical mosaic, the US has crafted a new strategic vision. Under Trump’s leadership, US policy increasingly focuses on economic leverage and security cooperation while moving away from direct military engagement in the Middle East. Trump proposes a new model: ‘Regional self-sufficiency’ under an American umbrella.

The essence of this model is to arm and equip regional actors, enabling them to maintain stability independently, with the US acting as a supplier of advanced technology and a guarantor of balance. In return, Washington demands loyalty, political restraint, and – crucially – substantial financial contributions. This underpins the strategic alignment with Gulf monarchies, who possess the means and motivation to counterbalance Iran.

At the same time, Trump is attempting to bridge the divide between Türkiye and Israel, laying the groundwork for an economic partnership despite ideological differences. The goal is to prevent friction among US allies and to forge a unified front against Iran and other hostile forces.

Syria, in this context, becomes a testing ground for America’s new security architecture – a controlled regional equilibrium maintained without the Pentagon’s direct footprint. If successful, this model could be replicated in other crisis zones.

A potential next step is the normalization of relations between Syria and Israel – a previously unimaginable prospect, now discussed as part of a broader settlement. In parallel, Trump plans to introduce a new Middle East peace framework that includes recognition of Palestine in exchange for diplomatic and economic incentives from Arab states. This scenario may also presage political change in Israel: If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resists the plan, centrist alternatives like Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz – more amenable to compromise – could come to the fore.

All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a fundamental reordering of US global priorities. Washington is increasingly pivoting toward the containment of China, its primary strategic rival in the 21st century. The Middle East is no longer seen as a vital sphere; the new approach favors balance over expansion, mediation over presence, partnership over intervention.

Thus, US regional strategy is evolving from rigid control to a more adaptive configuration – one in which local actors are granted greater autonomy, though still within an overarching framework engineered in Washington. Syria may well serve as the first case study of this new era – an era in which the return to the logic of 2011 unexpectedly becomes the launchpad for a very different Middle East.

Will things get better in Syria?

The US decision to lift sanctions on Syria following the rise of al-Sharaa to power marks a pivotal moment for a country that has endured over a decade of devastating war, international isolation, and socioeconomic collapse.

This move not only removes one of the most significant external constraints on the Syrian leadership, but also opens a window of opportunity to construct a new model of governance – one grounded in pragmatism, economic rationality, and cautious multilateralism.

Al-Sharaa now faces a critical choice: To use this opportunity to consolidate centralized authority and restore effective governance – or, through missteps or weakness, to allow Syria to fragment further into a collection of ethno-regional entities devoid of a unifying national project.

The World Bank has cleared over $15 million of Syrian debt, once again making the country eligible for participation in international financing programs. This development was made possible through targeted financial contributions from the Gulf states – particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar – signaling their intention to take the lead in Syria’s reconstruction. Following this, the IMF expressed its readiness to provide technical assistance, while the Syrian authorities issued a series of statements inviting investment in agriculture, energy, transportation infrastructure, and tourism.

These actions indicate the new regime’s ambition to craft an economic model that not only addresses the war’s legacy but also generates employment, stabilizes the currency, boosts public revenues, and – most importantly – restores public trust in the institution of the state.

However, economic recovery is only feasible if accompanied by the genuine restoration of governance.

Syria remains deeply fragmented. Kurdish regions in the northeast are governed by a de facto autonomous administration with its own armed forces and international channels. In the south, the Druze community in Suwayda exhibits growing political and organizational independence, alongside protest movements and local defense initiatives. Along the coastal regions – home to significant Alawite and Christian minorities – distrust toward centralized power continues to grow, especially amid persistent ethno-sectarian tensions. These communities, should the center weaken, may gravitate toward political separatism or at least self-organization into autonomous administrative structures.

If the al-Sharaa government fails to propose a coherent model of political integration – one that includes power-sharing, resource distribution, and the participation of regional elites in governance – Syria could enter a new phase of ‘soft disintegration’: A de facto federalization where unity is maintained in name only.

In this context, foreign policy becomes critically important. Fully aware of the dangers of unilateral alignment, Ahmed al-Sharaa is pursuing a balanced external strategy. Unlike the previous era, which was defined by dependence on a narrow circle of allies, Syria’s new president is embracing a diversified diplomatic approach. He seeks to build relations with the West and the US – especially in the context of economic recovery and Syria’s international rehabilitation – without abandoning existing strategic ties. It is within this framework that Russia remains a key partner to Syria across several strategic domains.

Russia continues to play a central role in Syria’s security architecture and diplomatic positioning, including defending Syrian interests at the UN Security Council and engaging in technical, military, and energy cooperation.

Its presence in Tartus and Khmeimim, involvement in humanitarian initiatives, and potential contributions to infrastructure reconstruction ensure its continued relevance in any long-term settlement scenario.

At the same time, Damascus under al-Sharaa is also looking to build stronger ties with other non-Western power centers – including China, India, and Brazil – while deepening economic engagement with the Arab world. This will help Syria avoid overdependence on any single actor and enhance its strategic flexibility amid global uncertainty.

This approach reflects a clear-eyed understanding of Syria’s geopolitical reality: The country can no longer afford to be part of rigid geopolitical axes. Its survival now depends on its ability to navigate between competing powers – leveraging their rivalry for national benefit without becoming anyone’s pawn. Maintaining cooperative relations with Russia and expanding dialogue with non-Western powers is not just a matter of foreign policy – it is a means of preserving autonomy in a context of limited sovereignty.

The lifting of sanctions and al-Sharaa’s ascent have opened a potential path toward stabilization. But the durability of this trajectory depends on the regime’s ability not only to harness economic resources but also to execute a complex, multi-layered political and diplomatic agenda. Domestically, this means launching mechanisms of integration and decentralization; externally, it requires deft maneuvering between Western and non-Western actors. In this evolving environment, Russia remains an important partner for Syria – not as an exclusive ally, but as a key component in the multifaceted diplomacy that al-Sharaa will seek to construct in order to reinforce not just his own authority, but the very foundations of the Syrian state.

An EU official has reportedly claimed that Trump wants a reset with Russia more than peace in Ukraine

EU officials are reportedly concerned that US President Donald Trump is reluctant to pressure his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, over the Ukraine conflict, according to Politico.

Earlier this week, Trump said Putin is “playing with fire” after Russia launched large-scale strikes on Ukrainian military-related facilities. The attacks came in response to a sharp increase in Kiev’s drone raids targeting civilian areas in Russia. Despite his tough rhetoric, Trump has so far held back from approving what Senator Lindsey Graham called “bone-crushing” sanctions against Moscow.

In an article on Thursday, the outlet cited an unnamed EU official who said it is “very clear there is something holding him [Trump] back from actually putting more pressure on Putin.”

“He may want the reset with Russia most of all, more than peace. If he just wants to get the war ended so he can do these deals [with Putin], then he may be weighing the cost of poisoning their potential relationship,” the source suggested.

Asked on Thursday if he still believes that Putin is interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict, Trump said: “I will let you know in about two weeks. We are going to find out whether or not he is tapping us along or not. And if he is, we will respond a little bit differently.”

According to White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, Trump is waiting for the outcome of potential talks between delegations from Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul on Monday.

On Thursday, Moscow’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, reiterated Russia’s readiness to continue “serious direct negotiations” with Kiev in order to find a solution to the Ukraine conflict that addresses the root causes.

READ MORE: Russia has ‘fair concern’ about NATO expansion – Trump envoy

He warned, however, that if Ukraine “tries to prolong the war… neither new anti-Russian sanctions, nor arms supplies to Ukraine, nor other hostile steps vis-a-vis Russia will be able to prevent the inevitable military defeat of the [Vladimir] Zelensky regime.”

Editor’s note: this analysis comes from a Canadian traditionalist and forms part of our Ukraine Crisis series. Our Conversion of Russia series is aimed at the traditional stance of the Holy See toward Russian Christendom in light of Fatima. In both cases we publish Catholics views from all sides, with an emphasis on solidarity for our Ukrainian and Russian Catholic brethren, under the patronage of…

Source