For decades, one principle defined the U.S.–Israel alliance: Israel’s qualitative military edge was sacred. Washington promised that no regional power would ever receive hardware that could challenge Israel’s supremacy. That commitment is now being cracked open. The decision to sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia is not just another arms deal. It is the first real breach in a security doctrine that shaped the Middle East for half a century. The F-35 is not simply a fighter jet. It is the core of Israel’s deterrence architecture, the system that guarantees freedom of action from Tehran to Damascus. And suddenly, the same platform is being handed to a rival state whose long-term intentions remain unpredictable. This is not a symbolic shift. It is a strategic recalibration by Washington that signals Israel’s guaranteed military advantage is no longer untouchable. For the first time, the United States is treating Israel’s edge as a negotiable asset. And that change will alter the balance of power in the region.

When Pan-Islamists dismiss my admiration for the West by calling me a “colonial product” or an “Uncle Tom of the West,” I find the accusation laughable, because Islam itself is one of the most successful colonial projects in human history. From the 7th century onward, Arab armies exploded out of the Arabian peninsula, permanently Arabized North Africa, erased the Coptic and Berber civilizations of Egypt and the Maghreb, wiped out Zoroastrian Persia, and reduced the Christian Middle East to a persecuted remnant. They didn’t stop there: they swept into the Indian subcontinent, where for centuries Muslim rulers demolished temples, imposed the jizya, and carried out forced conversions and massacres that dwarf anything the British ever did. The Turks, whom so many Muslims still revere as heroic ghazis, conquered Anatolia, turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque, and ran the Devshirme system—kidnapping hundreds of thousands of Christian boys, converting them by force, and turning them into Janissaries who would later slaughter their own people. The Mughals you celebrate built their glittering palaces on the taxes squeezed from Hindu peasants and on the ruins of countless temples. The Ottomans you admire enslaved the Balkans for half a millennium. Yet today the same Muslims who lionize the Arab conquerors, who name their children after Umar and Uthman, who boast about the “golden age” of Cordoba and Baghdad, who hang portraits of Ertuğrul and Salahuddin in their living rooms, turn around and lecture me for admiring Shakespeare, Beethoven, Michelangelo, Locke, or Jefferson. They cheer for the empires that colonized half the world in the name of Allah, but clutch their pearls if a brown or black person dares to love the British, the Germans, the French, or the Americans—the very civilizations that ended slavery in most of the world (a practice, by the way, that Islamic states kept legal until the 20th century, and some still tolerate in disguised forms). There is no moral difference between you taking pride in the Abbasid caliphs or the Mughal emperors and me taking pride in Newton, Goethe, or the U.S. Constitution. You love the art of Persian miniatures and the architecture of Sinan; I love Gothic cathedrals and Renaissance painting. You revere the military victories of Khalid ibn al-Walid and Tariq ibn Ziyad; I respect the legacy of Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, or the Allied soldiers who liberated Europe from tyranny. You consume the fruits of centuries of Islamic imperialism without apology, yet you demand that I apologize for admiring the civilization that produced modern science, human rights, and individual liberty.

Allow me to introduce myself! I'm from Brevard County, Florida. For fun, I like to hang with my husband and our two cats, experiment in the kitchen, and poke massive holes in the fallacies of Democrats!

Is it true that the IDF found a stash of stolen baby formula? If yes, then why is this not all over the news?

The most dangerous lie of the 21st century was that all cultures are interchangeable. Sweden is the irrefutable proof that they are not. As an Iranian who watched my own country fall to extremism, the tragedy unfolding in Scandinavia feels like a recurring nightmare. I have seen a civilization commit suicide before, and the symptoms are always the same: a fatal tolerance for those who explicitly wish to dismantle your way of life. We are witnessing the total collapse of a utopian fantasy. Sweden now rivals nations like Mexico in bombing frequency for a country not officially at war. This is not merely a crime wave. It is the sound of a society fracturing under the weight of imported conflict. It echoes the silence that eventually fell over my own homeland when the vibrancy of culture was traded for the rigidity of dogma. Sweden is the canary in the coal mine. It demonstrates that tolerance cannot extend to the intolerant.