The Middle East Has a New Saudi-Led Axis

The newfound bloc has emerged as a potential winner from the Iran war.

By Anchal Vohra, a columnist at Foreign Policy

July 1, 2026

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/07/01/saudi-qatar-pakistan-turkey-egypt-uae-axis-alliance-iran-middle-east

The Iran war inflicted substantial pain on Persian Gulf states, as their exports and sense of safety declined. Yet some have emerged more resolute about cooperating together on regional politics. A new grouping outside the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has emerged, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and non-Gulf actors Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey. The United Arab Emirates is conspicuous by its absence.

Some of these states have emerged as clear winners from the war, while others are content with having built new resilience. There is a veneer of camaraderie among them, but deep divisions lie underneath regarding how best to deal with Iran and whether to pursue normalization with Israel or brace for its feared hegemonic expansion. Either way, it’s clear that the war in Iran has produced a new order in the Gulf that extends beyond to the larger Islamic world.

The new bloc is defined by two goals: containing the Iranian threat while also regaining influence in countries dominated by Iranian proxies or allies such as Syria and Lebanon; and also pushing back against Israel to define limits to its military adventurism. One regional observer said Israel’s strike on Doha last year—to hunt Hamas members—spooked Gulf nations into thinking that they could be next. It brought rivals such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey closer together. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons underpin the alliance, serving as a bulwark against Israel, under the Saudi-Pakistani defense framework.

While there is no official name for the grouping—only described as a Sunni alliance in Israeli reports or an expanding Islamic NATO—it signals realignment built on deepening mistrust between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. As both wean away from an oil-based economy, Saudis are competing with Emiratis to win over the same foreign investments.

In the post-Arab Spring phase, Saudis and Emiratis saw eye to eye on the Muslim Brotherhood as a common threat and were aligned on regional policy questions. Now interests appear to have diverged. The UAE believes normalization and peace are the way forward with Israel, while Riyadh has banded together a more Israel-critical bunch.

The grouping of five is also a Saudi bid to claim the regional leadership role. The UAE’s exit from OPEC questioned the Saudi position as the unofficial leader of the pack. Riyadh has now decided to host a regional summit between Arab states and Iran, but it is unclear when it will take place and whether the UAE will attend—but it will be circumspect of any assurance.

Saudi Arabia came under relatively fewer attacks than many of its neighbors, but its sense of security was no less shaken. Reuters reported that it even carried out numerous strikes against Iran in response. Riyadh said whatever little trust had been built with Iran as a result of the 2023 Beijing-led rapprochement was quashed.

On the economic front, Saudi Arabia benefited from the rise in demand and the price of oil. In March, even as the Strait of Hormuz remained shut, the value of Saudi exports recorded a three-year surge. Saudi oil company Aramco’s net profit jumped 26 percent for the first quarter as prices spiked from $74 to over $119 a barrel, said Hesham Alghannam, a Riyadh-based scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center. The East-West Pipeline offered an alternative export route via the Red Sea coast and operated at its full capacity of 7 million barrels.

However, Saudi GDP growth slowed to 2.8 percent from 3.7 percent because wells were shut, even as flows were rerouted, Alghannam added. Experts are divided over Saudi Arabia’s economic projections, yet the war has spurred the kingdom to strengthen its Red Sea infrastructure.

Another player in the new alliance is Qatar. In 2017, Qatar was ostracized by a quartet of Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, but now it is recognized as a diplomatic leader. During the war with Iran, Qatar’s geographical constraints, Washington’s inability to prevent Iranian strikes on the Gulf, and Doha’s comparatively warmer prewar ties with Tehran all led its leadership to conclude that diplomacy with Iran offered the best path forward.

Qatar faced the fewest Iranian strikes during the war, though attacks did target a key installation. A strike shut down its key Ras Laffan refinery—one of the world’s largest liquefied natural gas facilities—reducing its export capacity by an estimated 17 percent.

It then jumped full throttle into mediation efforts in mid-May when Pakistan’s efforts to broker peace proved insufficient. Last week, as U.S. and Iranian negotiators huddled for 18 hours at a luxury resort overlooking Lake Lucerne in Switzerland, there was reason to believe that an exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah might derail the talks, a person familiar with the events told me.

“Even as the principals sat down for talks”—referring to U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump advisors Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and chief Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—“there were tensions over Lebanon,” the person said. He complimented Qatari mediators for extinguishing last-minute fires, adding that Qatar used its channels with Iran to get Hezbollah to release a statement agreeing to a cease-fire and also encouraged the Americans to get Israel to back off.

Other members of the Saudi-led grouping also intend to gain from the war. Egypt hopes to benefit from a Saudi rush to expand its infrastructure. Riyadh has formalized plans to build a bridge to Sinai, aiming to turn Egypt’s Mediterranean coast into a gateway to Europe. Turkey hopes to boost arms sales, as apprehensions over security are unlikely to subside anytime soon. Pakistan, for its part, enjoyed some good press after years of international condemnation for supporting terrorist networks.

The UAE has also decided to improve its logistics and reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz to zero. Even during the war, it managed to export via its Fujairah port and is now looking at expanding eastern ports along the Gulf of Oman. The UAE, however, is outside the Saudi-led bloc. Alghannam of the Carnegie Middle East Center said the bloc exists “because the GCC itself is unlikely to unify on Iran” but also because for Saudi Arabia it is a “vehicle to project Arab leadership.”

Over the last few months, the mentor-protégé relationship between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Emirati President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan turned sour, largely over disagreements over Yemen and Sudan.

It is unclear whether the UAE will attend any Saudi-led Iran summit. The country endured more than 3,000 Iranian missile and drone attacks—more than the total number of attacks on the other five GCC members—and is thus more at odds with Iran. It would have preferred a longer U.S. military operation against Iran to debilitate Iranian capabilities before a cease-fire was struck.

A more divisive divergence between the two blocs, however, is over Israel. “There are two camps: one pro-Israel, and the other is an Israel-cautious camp,” a Gulf official told me over the phone.

The Emirati commitment to the Abraham Accords weathered the recent conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, whereas Saudi Arabia found it difficult to pursue normalization in such an atmosphere. The UAE reportedly received key defense equipment from Israel during the war: “an Iron Dome air defense system with troops to operate it,” Axios reported in April. That indicates an enhancement in future defense-related cooperation against Iran.

The Emiratis see Iran as a bigger threat than many of their neighbors, including those now following the Saudis’ lead. The UAE was struck by Iran with an unmatched ferocity and helped by Israel, while Saudi Arabia wants to contain both Iran and Israel. What’s clear is that the divergence over how to manage the collective security of the Gulf will define the future of the region—and that the UAE is likely to be on the outside with its own vision to break with the status quo.

The End of Neoliberalism

The virtues it extolled—cosmopolitanism and competition—led to its demise.

June 15, 2026

By Branko Milanovic, a research professor at the CUNY Graduate Center

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/06/15/neoliberalism-globalization-competition-cosmopolitanism-economics-reagan-thatcher/

If one were to define neoliberal globalization during the 40-year period from the early 1980s to around 2020, one could say it was driven by two ideas: cosmopolitanism and competition. One could also say these same features have now led to neoliberalism’s undoing.

Cosmopolitanism was an essential neoliberal idea going back to the meetings of the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1930s Paris and the early Mont Pèlerin Society. Cosmopolitanism meant that every individual in the world was to be thought of as equally important and equally capable of economic improvement if they faced optimal economic conditions—which implied security of private property, free trade, low taxes, and a “tolerable administration of justice.” Very little else, in the words of economist Adam Smith, was needed to fulfill the universal desire of all persons to “better their own condition” and for the world to attain unimagined levels of prosperity.

Cosmopolitanism was also the political idea underpinning a neoliberal world where national government as such would be out of sight and would leave individuals free to pursue their self-interest. This was, ideally, a world of small or almost invisible government. In the language of early advocates of neoliberalism, “imperium”—that is, flags, anthems, languages, and other paraphernalia of nationhood—would be left to politicians (and to voters, if citizens insisted on voting), and the more consequential world of “dominium” would consist of the movement of goods, capital, technology, and people.

For cosmopolitanism to create global wealth and prosperity, the world also had to be competitive. Not only would people be allowed to compete with (or against) one another regardless of national borders, but they also needed to be stimulated to compete by the display of all the goods that could be theirs and by the societal approval they would command if they won in that competition.

Competition produced global growth: Between 1980 and 2020-21, the average world GDP per capita more than doubled, jumping from $7,700 (in 2005 international dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity) to almost $17,000. This makes the worldwide yearly average growth rate 2.1 percent per capita, an extraordinarily high rate for a period of 40 years. (And this despite the increase of the world population from 4.4 billion in 1980 to 8.3 billion now.) The more than doubling of per capita income combined with an almost doubling of the world population means that the total amount of goods and services produced in the world quadrupled during the era of neoliberal globalization.

But this “anonymous” growth rate, realized principally thanks to the high growth rates of Asian countries and notably China, did not help neoliberals’ case in rich countries. What was politically salient was not the 2.1 percent global rate but the fact that in the United States and in most rich Western countries, much of the population registered real (adjusted for inflation) growth rates of approximately 1 percent per year, while incomes of the rich grew two to three times faster.

Moreover, the neoliberal period (dated from Ronald Reagan’s presidency onward) was not only pro-rich, in the sense that incomes of the rich increased faster than those of the middle class and the poor. It also represented a slowdown in across-the-board growth compared with the preceding period. In fact, at every point of U.S. income distribution—except at the very top—growth was slower during the neoliberal era than during the previous decade and a half.

The world, at least for a while, seemed to become uniform, divided not by borders of nation-states, race, or gender but by differences in people’s abilities, skills, and effort. It was approaching the neoliberal ideal of a borderless world full of intensively competitive individuals whose competitive juices were additionally stimulated by the ability to communicate with any part of the globe and to learn what potential competitors may do—and then to try to outdo them.

But cosmopolitanism and competition, however attractive in themselves, were an unstable combination.

Cosmopolitanism crashed against national political borders. Excessive competition created a world of greed, amorality, and commercialization of all activities, even those that used to be the most private ones. Fundamentally, it threatened to make family superfluous.

The winners of neoliberal globalization in rich countries—inspired precisely by their cosmopolitanism, which they regarded as a moral virtue (being free of poisonous nationalism)—were quick not only to treat their less fortunate compatriots’ welfare as of no greater importance as the welfare of a foreigner or a stranger but also to believe that their compatriots’ failure in such an open competition was indicative of some moral flaw. Economic success meant being virtuous, or as Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, whose rise to power coincided almost perfectly with those of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, did not deny: “To be rich is glorious.”

The political system however is organized within nation-states. The less fortunate compatriots felt forgotten and ignored, and they were resentful of the way in which they were treated. They saw the readiness, even eagerness, of the rich to invest in faraway places as callousness toward domestic workers. Promises of new jobs that would replace those lost due to cheaper imports or online work elsewhere were hard to materialize.

The resulting discontent created political turbulence in the richest democracies. The 2007-08 global financial crisis made obvious what had previously only been implicit. The rich did not care for those left behind, and when the costs of the crisis had to be paid, they made sure that the bill was not sent to them.

The malcontents who in previous times would equally replenish extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing parties, as they did during the Great Depression in the 1930s, had now much less choice. The left-wing parties were either discredited by the failure of the “real-existing socialism” or, through their accommodative third-way policies, seen as accomplices of the center-right parties in promoting the type of neoliberal globalization that so disenchanted Western working and middle classes. Indeed, the peak of neoliberal globalization was achieved under the notionally left-wing governments of Bill Clinton in the United States, Tony Blair in the U.K., and François Mitterrand in France.

So, the disappointed masses turned toward the right-wing parties that promoted national solidarity, an end to the (economically) equal treatment of the domestic population and foreigners, and even a return of industrial jobs. In the international arena, neoliberal globalization thus became increasingly replaced by neomercantilism, which used economic coercion, the seizure of foreign assets, import bans, and extravagant tariff policies to cut, or at least control, the free flow of goods and services. Free flow of labor was even easier to cut because its political popularity, even at the peak of neoliberal globalization, was small.

The second part of the neoliberal equation—competition within society and across borders and time zones—created, with the assistance of technical advances, a world where the upkeep of one’s homes and cars and even domestic chores, from cooking to elder- and childcare, were shifted precisely to the people who no longer had steady jobs and were part of the class of malcontents. The moral norms that previously held societies and families together and would have forestalled such outsourcing had become effaced by a desire to be “glorious”—that is, to be rich. That perceived amorality also helped the rise of anti-systemic right-wing parties. They grew on the promise of restoration not only of lost jobs but of self-respect among malcontents and a return to allegedly traditional values for society as a whole.

In short, neoliberalism has succumbed to its own substitution by a combination of protective barriers for foreign goods and foreign people and vain attempts to return to a more traditional world at home. As in a Greek tragedy, the very features that ensured neoliberal globalization’s success for decades produced its inevitable demise.

Iran announces deal with Oman to 'manage' Strait of Hormuz traffic

Iran’s parliament speaker told Chinese officials that the Islamic Republic will block any US ‘interference’ in the strait

News Desk

JUL 3, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-announces-deal-with-oman-to-manage-strait-of-hormuz-traffic

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Sultanate of Oman have reached an agreement on the joint management and regulation of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced on 3 July. 

The announcement was made during a meeting with Chinese officials visiting Iran to attend the funeral of late supreme leader Ali Khamenei – who was killed by a US-Israeli strike on 28 February – set to begin on Saturday.

“During my visit to Oman a few days ago, based on Article Five of the memorandum of understanding, we reached an agreement on organizing maritime traffic,” Ghalibaf said.

He added that Tehran and Muscat are “determined to implement this, and we will certainly consult with the Persian Gulf littoral states as well.”

“The Israelis are undoubtedly seeking to undermine the … understanding between Iran and the US. However, the deterrent power of … Iran in the region will prevent them from reigniting the war. At the same time, we must reduce these tensions through a well-organized strategy and careful political measures,” he went on to say. 

Ghalibaf also expressed appreciation for Beijing–Tehran relations and thanked the Chinese officials for participation in the upcoming funeral of the late leader. 

“In the Strait of Hormuz, we resolved the issues affecting the passage of Chinese vessels, as China stood by us during difficult times, ” he went on to say. 

He stressed that the Islamic Republic “will not allow any US interference in the strait.”

Talks have been ongoing between Tehran and Muscat regarding joint post-war management of the strait. 

Iranian management of the vital waterway, along with Oman and with the potential cooperation of other regional states, has been included as an official term in the Washington–Tehran memorandum of understanding (MoU).

At the end of last month, Oman had announced that it endorsed an Iranian proposal to levy maritime “service fees” on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. 

This came after the recent announcement on the activation of a US–Omani shipping corridor through Hormuz, which Tehran had considered a violation of Clause 5 of the MoU.

Tehran has repeatedly vowed that the strait will not return to its pre-war status despite an illegal US blockade on its ports and attempts to undermine Iranian control of the waterway. 

“Hormuz is defined under Iran's command, not CENTCOM,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and top negotiator Kazem Gharibabadi said in a statement on 2 July.

Weeks earlier, Tehran announced the formation of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), a new body to oversee its management of the Strait of Hormuz.

Washington accepted the inclusion of practically all of Iran’s demands in the MoU, including a full halt to war in Lebanon, asset releases, sanctions removal, a lifting of the illegal blockade, and Iranian–Omani management of Hormuz.

A 60-day period, consisting of several rounds of talks aimed at hammering out details, was scheduled to commence. 

Yet Washington continued to violate the MoU through multiple attacks on Iran, and a failure to rein in Israel’s brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing and occupation in Lebanon.

The first 30 days of talks were meant to facilitate a gradual opening of the Strait of Hormuz and end the US blockade. Washington’s attacks and threats, as well as Israel’s behavior in Lebanon, complicated the process.

Tehran has repeatedly responded to Washington’s violations of the MoU, striking US assets in the Gulf following continuous attacks on the southern Iranian coast.

New Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Outlaw Criticism of Israel and Jewish Power

Eric Striker • July 1, 2026

https://www.unz.com/estriker/new-bipartisan-bill-seeks-to-outlaw-criticism-of-israel-and-jewish-power/#comment-7677344 

Last year’s defeat of the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) by a coalition of progressive Democrats and patriotic Republicans caught the Jewish community off guard.

According to a report by Jewish Insider, Chuck Schumer and his Republican collaborator’s attempt to sneak the AAA into the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act was thwarted when a coalition of nationalist podcasters such as Tucker Carlson and various Palestine sympathetic left-wing groups called attention to its draconian provisions and drew backlash to the bill.

Rather than give up, Jewish groups reeling from the defeat have decided to launch a renewed offensive, this time attacking opposition to their Zionist agenda at its root: freedom of speech, especially on social media.

In May and June, a bipartisan coalition of 15 House Republicans and 14 Democrats formally sponsored the Jewish American Security Act (JASA), a piece of legislation that if passed would constitute one of the most sweeping attacks on the First Amendment in American history. The bill enjoys practically universal backing from Jewish non-profits and Zionist activist groups.

The new law presents four major demands: the appointment of a specialized Anti-Semitism commissar to manage the Department of Education’s campaign combating pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses, a $1 billion dollar cash injection to “secure” Zionist non-profits and Jewish houses of worship, mandatory state monitoring of online social media platforms in order to force them to censor “anti-Semitic” political speech on their platforms, and officially reorienting the mission of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterintelligence and Security Center as instruments for targeting critics of Jews and Israel as foreign enemy actors and domestic terrorists.

On the education front, JASA strengthens and makes permanent Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14188 (“Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism”), which emphasizes that Israelis are a protected class above criticism under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under executive orders signed by Joe Biden and Donald Trump, this interpretation of the law has been used to weaponize access to federal subsidies to American higher learning institutions in order to shut down pro-Palestinian and anti-war activism among students.

In addition to having an “Antisemitism Coordinator” micro-manage this ongoing war on dissent, JASA calls for a “public awareness campaign” that will plaster propaganda posters in “high-traffic public places, such as a cafeteria, gymnasium, or student center, and digital posting on 1 or more high-traffic institution web pages, such as a web page for a student services department” warning students and professors about the consequences of partaking in speech and activism that offends Jews or singles out Israel.

JASA also seeks to bump FEMA’s Nonprofit Security Grant program, which currently provides $300 million dollars meant to be shared among different houses of worship facing security threats (though Jewish groups still eat up the majority of the grants), up to $1 billion in subsidies directed for the exclusive use of Jewish organizations. This specific Jewish set-aside likely violates normative Constitutional provisions preventing government favoritism to a single religion, but this does not seem to be a concern in the legislation.

If passed, JASA would represent a militarization of American-Jewish life, which contrary to claims from Jewish grievance groups, is no more susceptible to bias or violent interference than Christian worship. In 2025, 24 people were killed in homicidal attacks targeting Christians across the nation to practically no media fanfare, including a massacre at a Mormon church in Michigan and a shooting of several Catholic children hearing mass in Minnesota.

Most concerning is JASA’s requirement that online social media companies provide mandatory reports every six months to Congress on anti-Semitic and anti-Israel opinions being shared on their platforms, outline their strategies for content removal and suppression, as well as coordinate with federal law enforcement in real time to combat what the bill’s authors judge as “extremist antisemitic calls.”

A fixation in JASA and much of the Jewish discourse around shutting down debate is the assertion that growing American antipathy to the role of Jews and Israel in Washington is a foreign conspiracy emanating from China, Russia, Qatar, and Iran. A recent State Department report trying to make people take this claim seriously was circulated among the US Congressmen, but not made public, likely to avoid scrutiny of its methodology.

In response to this supposed “foreign interference” seeking to “erode public trust in institutions,” JASA calls for action against “inauthentic amplification on digital platforms, such as bots or campaigns, and any involvement of foreign state and non-state actors.” Under the new law, federal law enforcement and intelligence services will be officially transformed into a secret police force dedicated to combating “Antisemitism” and required to create reports categorizing protected political speech as violence by featuring “(i) an overview of violent extremist ideologies that include antisemitic components; (ii) a review of the extent that actors in the United States have engaged in violent conduct in furtherance of the ideologies described in clause (i); (iii) the origins and online platforming and online activity or presence of antisemitic domestic violent extremist ideologies, groups, and individuals.”

Such a law, if passed, would treat figures as prominent as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Thomas Massie, Ana Kasparian, Ilhan Omar and Candace Owens, as well as many smaller critics that have arisen in recent years, as terrorists and enemies of the state.

Congressional backing for the Jewish American Security Act remains small for now, but the extent of support it enjoys from the organized Jewish community in conjunction with the outsized role of Jewish billionaires in financing both parties means that it is guaranteed to rapidly gain traction in the near future and become a threat. Let’s call attention to this audacious attack on our civil liberties and make sure JASA is killed in its crib.

 

Rep. Massie Introduces House Resolution to Honor the Crew of the USS Liberty Washington, D.C.-, June 30, 2026

https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395845

Washington, D.C.- Today, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced legislation to honor the men of the USS Liberty. The Massie resolution recognizes the fallen members of the USS Liberty's crew by name and urges the President to declassify and publicly release all records related to Israel's unprovoked attack on the ship.

"59 years ago, on June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the USS Liberty in international waters," said Rep. Thomas Massie."34 Americans were killed, and 174 were wounded by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during this unprovoked attack. It is long overdue for the House of Representatives to pass legislation recognizing the sacrifices made by the USS Liberty crew. I am asking the House to urge the President to declassify and publicly release all records related to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty."

Rep. Massie's resolution reads as follows:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in honoring the men of the USS Liberty, urging the declassification of all records relating to the June 8, 1967, attack, and affirming that the lives and safety of United States citizens and servicemembers shall be paramount in the conduct of United States foreign policy.

Whereas, on June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty and her crew of 294 (including 3 civilians) was operating in international waters;

Whereas, an unprovoked attack by Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats resulted in the death of 34 Americans, including one civilian, and the wounding of 174 others;

Whereas, after sending out distress calls stating the ship was under attack and required immediate assistance, the attack continued for approximately 22 minutes involving 30 to 35 sorties, and following the air attack three Israeli motor torpedo boats fired five torpedoes, one of which struck the Liberty on the starboard side resulting in the deaths of twenty-five (25) of the thirty-four (34) men killed;

Whereas the crew of the USS Liberty fought valiantly to overcome the battle damage that included severe structural damage and saved their ship, often placing themselves in extremely hazardous situations in total disregard for their personal safety, and ultimately succeeded in reaching port;

Whereas, due to the sensitive nature of USS Liberty’s equipment and documents, crew members still reeling from the attack, with some having suffered wounds during the attack, were tasked with entering the severely damaged area and recovering the bodies and body parts of their fellow shipmates;

Whereas, having suffered through the attack and subsequent recovery, the crew was informed that under penalty of arrest, fines, and imprisonment, they were forbidden to speak about the incident which further compounded the effects of Post-Traumatic Stress;

Whereas the USS Liberty is the most decorated Navy ship for a single engagement. To wit, Captain William McGonagle received the Medal of Honor, and the crew received 2 Navy Crosses (posthumously); 12 Silver Stars (3 posthumously); 26 Bronze Stars; 9 Navy Commendations; 208 Purple Hearts (34 killed in action); the Combat Action Ribbon; the Presidential Unit Citation;

Whereas, despite the valor displayed by the crew of the USS Liberty and the decorations awarded for their actions, many aspects of the attack and its aftermath remain shrouded in secrecy and controversy; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes the gallant service and sacrifice of the officers and crew of the USS Liberty in defense of their ship and fellow sailors during the attack of June 8, 1967;

(2) honors the lives, service, and memories of William B. Allenbaugh of Baltimore, Maryland; Philip McCutcheon Armstrong, Jr. of Detroit, Michigan; Gary R. Blanchard of Wichita, Kansas; Allen M. Blue of Yakima, Washington; Francis Brown of Albany, New York; Ronnie J. Campbell of Sevierville, Tennessee; Jerry L. Converse of Puyallup, Washington; Robert B. Eisenberg of St. Paul, Minnesota; Jerry L. Goss of North Vernon, Indiana; Curtis A. Graves of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan; Lawrence P. Hayden of Houston, Texas; Warren E. Hersey of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Alan Higgins of Weymouth, Massachusetts; Carl L. Hoar of Mount Vernon, Ohio; Richard W. Keene, Jr. of Batavia, New York; James L. Lenau of Washington, Missouri; Raymond E. Linn of Adamsville, Ohio; James M. Lupton of Shreveport, Louisiana; Duane R. Marggraf of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin; David W. Marlborough of Waterville, Maine; Anthony P. Mendle of Waterbury, Connecticut; Carl C. Nygren of Williamsport, Pennsylvania; James C. Pierce of Clinton, North Carolina; Jack L. Raper of Cedartown, Georgia; Edward E. Rehmeyer III of York, Pennsylvania; David Skolak of Gary, Indiana; John C. Smith, Jr. of Ithaca, New York; Melvin D. Smith of Alamance, North Carolina; John C. Spicher of Tarentum, Pennsylvania; Alexander N. Thompson, Jr. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas R. Thornton of Springfield, Ohio; Philippe C. Tiedtke of Santa Cruz, California; Stephen S. Toth of San Diego, California; Frederick J. Walton of Niagara Falls, New York who died as a result of the attack;

(3) urges the President to declassify and make publicly available all records, documents, reports, memoranda, communications, photographs, recordings, transcripts, intelligence assessments, operational records, after-action reports, investigative files, briefing materials, diplomatic communications, and internal communications of the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and any other department or agency of the United States Government relating to the June 8, 1967, attack on the USS Liberty;

(4) affirms that the lives and safety of United States citizens and servicemembers shall be held paramount in the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States and shall not be subordinated to the interests of any foreign nation; and

(5) condemns Israel for its unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty and its crew, unarmed and non-combatant members of the United States Armed Forces at the time of the attack, resulting in the deaths of 34 Americans and the wounding of 174 others.

A copy of the resolution is available at this link.

Rep. Massie has previously delivered remarks on the House floor to honor the fallen members of the USS Liberty's crew and to recognize survivors of the attack who were present in the House gallery. Video of Rep. Massie's remarks is available at this link.

Gen Z Is Tired of War

The failures of US militarism have soured the concept for many young Americans

by Ioannis Vlahos | Jun 30, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/ioannis_vlahos/2026/06/29/gen-z-is-tired-of-war/

On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order which revived the original name for the Department of Defense, “The Department of War.” While technically the name remains the Department of Defense for legal purposes (as only an act of Congress can officially change the name), the Trump administration has done everything else in its power to rebrand the institution in this regard, claiming the original name is “woke” and that the change ensures the Department’s “ability to wage war and secure what is ours.”

This name change became part of a long and ever-growing list of controversial actions undertaken by Trump during his second term as President. But for members of Gen Z, in a way, the return to the original name is a return to transparency: war is all we have ever known.

The United States was born in war, and has been engaged in conflicts with other nations for virtually its entire existence. It has become a pillar of the American ethos, the willingness to fight for the virtues of democracy and liberty. This ethos encouraged millions of American men and women to volunteer in the World Wars, and later the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The concept, that one would sacrifice the comfort of home to risk their life for mere beliefs, was normal and encouraged; which was especially noteworthy considering a foreign power has never threatened American soil directly (with the exception of the miniscule Aleutian Islands campaign in World War II).

This changed with Gen Z. Whereas previous generations had grown up in the aftermath of World War II and during the Cold War, in which America’s adversaries were objectively a threat, members of Gen Z were born and raised during the GWOT. For us, war means soldiers travelling thousands of miles overseas, to fight supposedly evil people, in countries we had no idea existed. Considering none of us remember 9/11 and thus have no firsthand emotional attachment, we were constantly reminded our involvement overseas was to “defend our freedoms.”

But when did our freedoms get all the way over there?

Millennials were the last cohort to embrace the call to war. Watching 2,000 people die horribly on live television on September 11 resulted in thousands flocking to recruitment offices. But they were also the first cohort to suffer 21st century combat. The debilitating injuries caused by IEDs, coupled with an increasing pervasiveness of post traumatic stress disorder, changed popular perception of American foreign policy: our soldiers did not bear these sufferings defending our homeland, but rather invading another, far away and under dubious circumstances.

This gradual decline of post 9/11 patriotism was experienced firsthand by Gen Z. While we were young children, we were imbued with the endless commercials and attitudes concerning the GWOT; about how we needed to “support our troops” and how terrorism was an existential threat. But another 9/11, or anything remotely similar, has never happened. As the years went on, the broken men returning with terrifying stories and injuries became more and more questionable: what was the point of their suffering?

Most of Gen Z came of age during or around the time of America’s infamous departure from Afghanistan in 2021. This event signaled the end of almost two decades of American boots on the ground in the Middle East, and also concluded a fact of life that we had all grown accustomed to. But most of all, it confirmed the failure of American militarism, which was a sentiment that had been growing alongside us.

Since the beginning of the 2020s, Gen Z has become more and more vocal in society, becoming a key factor in American politics. We have been forced to mature during a pandemic, climate change, and crises in student debt and unemployment. And most apparent with the Epstein Files, many of us hold the system to be irrevocably flawed, and as such we have the lowest amount of trust in the government and other institutions. Social media has also become our main hub of both entertainment and information; given the endless amount of content and ease of communication, it has been crucial in shaping our attitudes towards politics and society.

This is why Gen Z won’t fight Washington’s next big war–we know too much. Besides the ease of access to graphic videos from the Ukraine War of drone strikes and firefights, social media also shattered the lies created by our leaders. Interviews and videos, especially in short-form content, have enlightened younger people to the realities of things such as CIA activities, American imperialism and hegemony, and the roles of regime change and resource procurement (i.e, oil) in driving American wars. Simply put, we feel like pawns.

Growing up with failed forever conflicts undoubtedly shaped our perception of the concept of war. And since nothing seems to have changed since 2003 (quite literally another “WMD” in the Middle East currently), this disillusionment is likely here to stay. War is just one of several aspects of American society that Gen Z is approaching differently than their predecessors, and it is hopefully something that will be approached differently by our nation as a whole.

Ioannis Vlahos is an editorial assistant and writer for AntiWar.com. He studies history and journalism at George Mason University. 

GT investigates: As pillars of US economic hegemony continue to loosen, how much longer can American economic dominance endure?

Out of time

By GT staff reporters

Published: Jun 28, 2026

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202606/1364613.shtml

Editor's Note: 

For the US, which is about to celebrate its 250th birthday, the atmosphere this year is far from celebratory. The smoke of the war against Iran has not only impacted the global economy and disrupted international order but has also caused the major pillars of American economic hegemony to shake simultaneously. Scholars have noted that US economic hegemony rests on five pillars: economic strength, dollar hegemony, military hegemony, political hegemony and rule hegemony. For years, the major pillars of American economic hegemony have been steadily loosening under America's domestic and foreign policies. The war against Iran has merely thrust this structural decline into the spotlight. How much longer the US can sustain its economic hegemony has become a topic of ongoing heated discussion in global public opinion.

Dollar status and military hegemony waning

"The dollar's status is gradually waning." This is how South Korea's Hankyoreh assessed the impact of the military action against Iran on the US. In the past, whenever a global crisis struck, capital would habitually flow into dollar assets for safety, a pattern that had almost become an "iron law" of the market. However, in this conflict, that rule failed for the first time. Due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, oil exports from Middle Eastern producing countries were obstructed and revenues plummeted. Liquidity strains forced them to reduce holdings of US Treasuries. At the same time, soaring international oil prices imposed heavy fiscal burdens on oil-importing countries. To resist pressure from currency depreciation, some nations also chose to sell off US debt.

The large-scale sell-off of US Treasuries is a market reflection of the shaking of dollar hegemony, and the war against Iran has served as a catalyst for its further decline. For years, the global trend of "de-dollarization" has continued to advance. This is not due to any single unexpected event or short-term US policy misstep but the result of multiple structural factors intertwined over the long term. The US has long leveraged the dollar's status in international payments, reserves, investment and financing to exert economic pressure and impose unilateral sanctions on other countries, prompting more and more nations to actively seek to reduce their dependence on the dollar.

Meanwhile, the US government's direct interference in the Federal Reserve's decision-making independence has led the outside world to begin questioning this "anchor of dollar credibility." As doubts about the dollar's credibility spread, central banks around the world have accelerated their purchases of gold, as if quietly stockpiling for a "post-dollar era."

Dollar hegemony is only one pillar of US economic hegemony. He Weiwen, executive council member of China Association of International Trade, pointed out in an interview with the Global Times that, in addition to dollar hegemony, US economic hegemony is also built on four other pillars: economic strength, political hegemony, military hegemony and rule hegemony. Over the years, these pillars have continued to loosen.

In the dimension of economic strength, America's former advantages are steadily narrowing. The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that over the past half-century, the growth of America's economic pie has been slow. After inflation adjustment, the annual income of ordinary American households has grown by less than 1 percent per year. In 2025, the median weekly wage for full-time male workers was $1,325; after inflation adjustment, it is roughly the same as the income level in 1979.

The relative decline in economic strength is only one side of the issue. The loosening of military hegemony reveals America's difficulties from another dimension. Although the US still maintains its position as the world's largest military power, in this military operation against Iran, US forces consumed about one-third of its Tomahawk cruise missiles. The rapid depletion of precision-guided munitions has drawn external attention to its sustained combat capabilities. More critically, NATO, once seen as the world's strongest deterrent force, has shown clear internal fissures. European countries exhibit obvious distrust toward the US government. Now marking its 77th anniversary, NATO is deeply mired in a crisis of division, and the foundations of its continued existence are widely questioned.

Political prestige slumped; technological strength weakened

At the level of political influence, America's decline is even more evident. He Weiwen noted that strong comprehensive national power has given the US enormous dominance in world affairs, compelling many small and medium-sized countries to submit to its will. British scholar Susan Strange once argued in the 1980s that America's real power stems from its central role in major international institutions and strategic alliances. This institutional hegemony once made Washington's dominant position far exceed mere material advantages. After the end of the Cold War, the US relied on multilateral institutions such as NATO, the Group of Seven and the International Monetary Fund to extend its influence globally.

However, in recent years, the US has pursued unilateralism and the "law of the jungle," making enemies everywhere and constantly clashing with its allies, resulting in a sharp decline in its political prestige. This shift toward coercive hegemony is rooted in a short-sighted international outlook. America's opportunistic and unstable image has eroded the trust of its allies.

Within the framework of international rules, following World War II, the US took the lead in establishing a host of international institutions including the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These bodies were tasked with overseeing international security and the global monetary system respectively, enabling Washington to shape the world order while maximizing its own national interests. Today, however, the US has repeatedly violated the principles of sovereign equality and the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state enshrined in the United Nations Charter on the political front, often bullying smaller nations and meddling in other countries' internal affairs.

The technological prowess and free trade policies that have underpinned US economic dominance are also being eroded. Eighty-one years ago, Vannevar Bush, science advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt during the WWII, issued a landmark report that established the strategic direction for US scientific research. The model of government-funded, academic-led research propelled the US to leadership in numerous fields. However, today, according to the US National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, federal R&D spending as a share of GDP has fallen from 1.86 percent in 1964 to roughly 0.66 percent in 2021. At the same time, the US has tightened international scientific exchanges and stepped up screening of foreign researchers, citing so-called "national security concerns" - thereby undercutting the openness and appeal that have long sustained its research ecosystem.

Is the gradual decline irreversible?

The US declared independence in 1776, but until the late 19th century, it remained a relatively marginal player on the world stage. World War I offered the first historic opportunity for the US to emerge as a major global economic power. For American corporations and the wealthy elite, the four-year catastrophe was a moment of immense financial opportunity. During the war, the US government suspended antitrust enforcement, ramped up support for scientific research and eased arms-sale restrictions - measures that, in retrospect, created institutional space for the rise of new technology industries after the war. By the war's end, the US had transformed from a debtor nation into a primary creditor to other countries, completing a dual reversal - from capital importer to exporter, and from debtor to creditor.

It was WWII that firmly entrenched America's economic supremacy. No previous event had driven wealth accumulation in the US on such an unprecedented scale and scope. According to the Securities Times, by the end of WWII, US GDP was several times greater than that of Britain, with its gold reserves hitting $20 billion, accounting for roughly two-thirds of the world's total global reserves of $33 billion. This overwhelming economic advantage laid the groundwork for the US dollar to emerge as the world's primary reserve currency. 

Between 1939 and 1945, America's economic output nearly doubled, while Western Europe's economy contracted by 18 percent. This shift in relative economic strength cemented the US' dominant position in the global economy, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"From my perspective, the US is still one of the most powerful economies in the world, but it no longer enjoys the overwhelming advantages it once did," Gavin Cooley, a 24-year-old American influencer, told the Global Times. Cooley believes that the greatest risk for the US is not competition itself, but failing to recognize how quickly the global balance is changing. "For decades, American economic leadership was treated as a permanent reality. Today, that assumption is being challenged," he said.

The US still holds a prominent leading position in the global economic landscape. In a commentator's article published by Egypt's Ahram Online in March, it was pointed out that the US accounts for roughly one-quarter of global GDP, with its economic volume exceeding $26 trillion. In the technology sector, US enterprises make up more than 70 percent of the total market value of the world's leading tech firms. Companies including Apple, Microsoft, Google and NVIDIA are not merely participants in innovation, but are shaping the technological evolution of artificial intelligence and advanced computing.

In terms of scientific research, US institutions consistently deliver a large number of globally influential research outcomes, firmly backed by an annual funding ecosystem worth hundreds of billions of US dollars, especially in artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Multiple estimates show the US leads the world in AI investment. "This is not merely a matter of scale. It is a system capable of reproducing its own dominance and shaping the architecture of the future," Ahram reported.

Yet advantage does not equal permanence. A commentary in The New York Times opens with the headline "America Is Officially an Empire in Decline." He Weiwen told the Global Times that the gradual decline of US hegemony is a certain and irreversible trend, but that this trend is a long historical process, not an abrupt change. At the same time, he noted, the decline in US political, military and rule-making influence is closely tied to its policy direction and, in particular, to who occupies the White House.

"If the US continues to rely on past advantages while other countries continue investing aggressively in the industries of the future, it risks seeing its economic influence gradually diminish over time. Whether that happens or not will depend on how successfully the country adapts to a much more competitive and multipolar world," Cooley told the Global Times.