The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

February 20, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 72)

The Hague, 20 February 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

GUEST EDITORIAL | EPSTEIN MEETS DAVOS NATION NORWAY

By Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
19 February 2026

Why are Norwegian political elites disproportionately represented in the Epstein files?

Several news outlets worldwide report surprise in this small Scandinavian country, known for high public trust in government.

How did this happen?

The root of the issue lies in a de-nationalised political elite that has disconnected from the public.
Norway aims to be an international humanitarian superpower by investing billions in aid.
While the country’s focus on international humanitarianism might seem commendable, a closer look reveals it is not entirely as positive as it appears.

A wealthy small nation can cultivate an elite with global ambitions, sometimes believing they can save the world.

With abundant resources, elites establish bureaucracies, forge networks, and profit.
Unlike monarchs who claim divine rights, modern aristocrats justify their authority through humanitarianism and globalism.
When driven by virtue, dissent becomes heretical, granting immunity.

This exposes a flaw in international humanitarianism: its emphasis on virtue often restricts criticism, transparency, and accountability.

Norway and “Davos Man”

Samuel Huntington coined “Davos Man” for global elites connected to the WEF in Davos, Switzerland. He argued these cosmopolitan elites have little loyalty to their nations, seeing borders as irrelevant and national governments as tools to advance international careers and global initiatives.

Unsurprisingly, Børge Brende, President and CEO of the WEF in Davos and former Norwegian foreign minister, holds this role and this view.
In 2018, Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, emailed Brende, suggesting Davos could 'really replace the UN,' to which Brende replied, 'Exactly — we need a new global architecture.'

Clearly, debates about shifting authority from the United Nations to elite networks are not openly held within national parliaments.

Norway’s reputation as a peace-loving nation began with the Oslo Accords in 1993. The process faced criticism for not establishing an independent Palestinian state and inconsistent terms. Norwegian diplomats, including Terje Rød-Larsen and Mona Juul, facilitated the secret negotiations. Epstein files reveal Epstein and Rød-Larsen had a long-standing relationship, with Epstein planning to leave $5 million each to Rød-Larsen and Juul’s children—totaling $10 million.

Rød-Larsen used the think tank International Peace Institute to facilitate women's trafficking at Epstein’s request. Young women with no skills for think tank work came for brief internships, and their photos were sent to Epstein1. The Norwegian foreign minister Ine Eriksen Søreide was informed of this suspicious activity, but no action was taken. Søreide is a close friend of Mona Juul, Rød-Larsen’s wife. Even after the Epstein scandal and these decisions came to light, Søreide was elected leader of a major Norwegian political party. As George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”

Aid as NGO’s, Think Tanks, and Elite Networks

The term “aid” can be misleading because billions of taxpayer dollars aren’t directly spent on feeding the poor. Instead, funds go through NGOs, think tanks, and other groups. Politicians often hold prestigious roles, pursue careers in international bodies, or receive kickbacks from these organizations. Power and legitimacy intertwine, benefiting everyone while celebrating efforts to improve the world.

Norwegian political elites were inclined to support influence networks like the Clinton and Gates Foundations, often using taxpayers’ funds to act as global statesmen. This raises the question: is their goal humanitarianism or enriching elites? The Clinton Foundation peaked in 2016 during Hillary Clinton's potential run, but funding dropped 75 % by 2020.2. It also wasn't surprising that Norwegian elites were attracted to influence peddlers like Jeffrey Epstein.

National interests recede as self-interested political elites gain legitimacy through vague global concerns. American cables described Espen Barth Eide, Norwegian Ministry of Defense State Secretary, as acting in ways that may not align with Norwegian interests but boost his international reputation3.

With billions in aid and limited transparency, Norwegian elites are vulnerable to pay-to-play schemes. The 2014 New York Times report said “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks,' revealing how American research groups, after receiving Norwegian funds, lobbied in Washington to support Norway’s NATO role, Arctic oil expansion, and climate agenda. The Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution noted that access to US politicians and bureaucrats often requires payment, with some think tanks openly serving only foreign government funders.

Within the “aid” budget, the government can pursue policies that evade public scrutiny. Although Norwegian leaders claimed to support democracy in Ukraine, they funded the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, a “non-governmental organization' that, in 2019, pressured Zelensky to give up his peace mandate, supported by 73% of Ukrainians.

Journalists often interview experts from government-funded NGOs aligned with policies supporting regime change and conflicting with Russia. As an academic criticizing the government’s war narrative, I faced attacks from the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, a government-funded NGO. They published negative articles, launched a smear campaign, tried to revoke my speaking invitations, contacted my university, and posted a photo of my house online as intimidation. While governments must act civilly, these NGOs can be ruthless and operate under different rules. Criticism of them is often met with claims of undermining “civil society.”

A Few Bad Apples or a Systemic Rot?

In the coming weeks and months, the issue will likely be attributed to a few corrupt individuals rather than a systemic failure of the international humanitarian industry. The government may try to regain trust by punishing some offenders, but elites will continue to use "aid" funds to consolidate power.

Political elites will justify and likely celebrate their accountability, then label any ongoing concerns as attempts to undermine the state. Criticism will be likened to MAGA's “draining the swamp" rhetoric, seen by elites as dangerous populism. By implying some might seek to undermine trust in the government for foreign interests, dissent is framed as treasonous and criminal.

Media efforts to connect Epstein to Russiagate include claims that he was a Russian agent, conveniently portraying corrupt Norwegian political elites as victims. Additionally, a Norwegian newspaper humorously suggests that the Epstein files might have been planted as a conspiracy against Norway to undermine trust in government and political leaders.

If the root cause of the scandal is not addressed, corruption will worsen and deepen the divide between elites and the public. Samuel Huntington predicted in 2004 this gap would grow. In "Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite," Huntington said citizens focus on protecting traditional values, national identity, culture, and manufacturing jobs as essential for unity.

Meanwhile, contrasts exist:

For many elites, these concerns are secondary to a) participating in the global economy, b) supporting international trade and migration, c) strengthening international institutions, d. promoting American values abroad, e) and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home.
The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.7

Click here for Part 1

Editorial | Lots of Talk, One Big Bluff, Trumpian Style

We’re heading to an inevitable Trump showdown with a characteristic Trumpian Confucianada. The Iranians are itching to fight. They’re ready, willing, and heavily armed. President Trump knows that. Iran is no Venezuela. Israel is no US. Without the US, Israel won’t get what it wants: regime change in Iran. President Trump will not allow the US to lose face with Iran. He’s facing mid-term elections in November 2026. How will President Trump wiggle out of this conundrum?

Of course, I could be wrong. The EU-US/NATO (including Israel) might attack, invade, kill, steal, and destroy Iran by the end of this week. I don’t see it happening. The US and Israeli forces cannot hold Iran’s firepower in the form of thousands of missiles and drones. Trump is not stupid.

On another note ...

I’m expecting some back-channel communiques between the chumps – Donald, Vlado, and Xi. Neither wants a nuclear crater in anybody’s backyard. But there is something about President Donald J. Trump that eclipses his song and dance acts, which I quote directly from Mr. Trump’s speech, I submitted to Oslo as our basis for his Peace Prize Nomination:

“In the end, nation-builders wrecked more nations than they built, and interventionists intervened in complex societies they didn't understand. They told you how to do it but had no idea how to do it themselves,” Trump said.

Peace, prosperity, and progress ultimately come from embracing your heritage and traditions, not rejecting them.

“Before our eyes,” he said, “a new generation of leaders is overcoming old conflicts, shaping a future where the Middle East is characterized by commerce instead of chaos. It exports technology rather than terrorism, with diverse peoples collaboratively building cities instead of destroying each other.

The global community should recognize that this transformation didn't come from Western interventionists or NGOs building landmarks in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, or from efforts in Kabul and Baghdad, which failed despite trillions spent.

“The people of the region have contributed to creating a modern Middle East. These lifelong residents are building sovereign countries, following their visions and shaping their futures," Trump stated.

It was a blow to the stomach, a declaration of war, and a challenge to European and Israeli dominance, altering the geopolitical landscape. Trump seems to spin everyone into a centrifuge of ambiguities.

Mr. Trump’s pivotal speech in Saudi Arabia, along with President Putin’s speeches in Berlin (2001) and Munich (2007), foreshadow today’s multipolar world order, notwithstanding President Xi Jinping's speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on 1 September 2025, “To Improve Global Governance.”

The Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague, nominated Presidents Trump, Jinping, and Putin to share the Nobel Peace Prize, alluding to the idea that it pays to destroy your enemies by becoming friends and, to ‘join them’ if you ‘can’t beat them.’ I’ll fill you in next week. This week, I’ve been under the weather. So, for now, I’ll leave it at that.

One quick point, if my Trump Bluff Big Talk turns out more true than false, I’ve made my point. Iran’s defenses will deter the EU-US/NATO-Israel combined forces. Mutual deterrence demands diplomacy. Let’s encourage our modern Three Musketeers to build – not burn – bridges.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

TRUMP SETS DEADLINE FOR IRAN DEAL

The US president hinted at possible military action during his Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ inaugural speech

US President Donald Trump. © Murat Gok / Anadolu via Getty Images

HomeWorld News
19 February 2026

US President Donald Trump has given Iran ten days to reach a nuclear deal, warning failure could lead to decisive actions. This comes as the US increases its troop levels in the Middle East.

During the inaugural meeting of his Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ on Thursday, Trump stated:

Negotiations with Tehran were “good” but historically difficult, and reiterated that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

“We have to make a meaningful deal. Otherwise, bad things happen,” he said. “Maybe we’re going to make a deal. You’re going to be finding out over the next, probably, ten days,” Trump added.

READ MORE: Trump’s Middle East buildup and Iran talks: How close is war?

The warning follows Omani-mediated Geneva talks, seen as positive but no breakthrough occurred. Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi reaffirmed Iran’s "inherent, non-negotiable, and legally binding" right to enrich uranium for civilian use.

Various media outlets reported Trump was briefed on the US military's readiness for a potential strike as early as Saturday. The Wall Street Journal, citing US and international officials, says Trump is considering attacking the Iranian leadership to provoke regime change. Other options include targeting nuclear and missile facilities.

American forces have increased their presence in the Middle East, deploying two aircraft carrier strike groups, more bombers, and 13 destroyers. The WSJ calls this the largest buildup since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

During the 12-day Israel-Iran air conflict in June 2025, the US targeted Iran’s nuclear sites. Tehran responded that the attack wouldn't halt its nuclear efforts, emphasizing their peaceful nature and dismissing Washington’s demand for zero uranium enrichment.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that the US is "playing with fire" and said attacking Iran’s nuclear sites could lead to a nuclear disaster. In an interview with Al Arabiya, Lavrov stated Moscow supports Tehran’s right to peaceful nuclear enrichment. He also noted tensions arise from the US abandoning the 2015 Iran nuclear deal during Trump’s first term.

TRUMP WON’T DESTROY IRAN – KHAMENEI

US warships deployed to the Persian Gulf will not intimidate Tehran and could ultimately sink, the supreme leader has warned

© Getty Images / Anadolu / Iranian Leader Press Office

HomeWorld News
17 February 2026

"A warship is certainly a dangerous weapon,
but even more dangerous is the weapon capable of sinking it..."

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned US President Donald Trump’s remarks on "regime change" in Tehran, emphasizing that Trump will not succeed in destroying Iran, as previous presidents failed.

While the US urges Iran to abandon its nuclear program and adopt a "zero enrichment" policy, Tehran claims such activities are a fundamental right.

Last week, Trump said regime change in Iran “would be the best thing that could happen,” amid a large US military presence in the Persian Gulf.

During a televised Tuesday speech, while Washington and Tehran representatives held nuclear talks in Geneva, Khamenei said the US won't succeed in destroying the country.

“In one of his recent speeches, the US president said that for 47 years America has not succeeded in destroying the Islamic Republic… I tell you: You will not succeed either,” Khamenei stated.

READ MORE: The Iranian dilemma: What risks does a military operation against Iran pose for Israel and the US?

The supreme leader warned that intimidation won't work and added that Washington's additional naval forces could also be targeted.

"A warship is certainly a dangerous weapon, but even more dangerous is the weapon capable of sinking it," he stated.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated since last June, after the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites during a 12-day Israel-Iran conflict. Additional US naval and air forces, including a second aircraft carrier, are now in the Middle East. US officials have threatened Iran with military strikes and supported violent protests in late December and early January, caused by a devaluing currency and inflation.

Meanwhile, Iran and the US have held indirect talks in Oman, which Iran called a "good start."

Iran’s officials say they want a "fair and equitable deal" on nuclear issues, willing to reduce enrichment and stockpiles for sanctions relief. Washington, however, insists Iran must fully dismantle its nuclear program.

SEYED M. MARANDI: READY FOR WAR - IRAN'S MAJOR RETALIATION

The interview emphasizes the complexity of Iran-U.S. relations, linking military readiness, diplomacy, public opinion, and the media. Iran stresses sovereignty and regional solutions, noting that shifting perceptions and trust influence tensions. However, threats of conflict persist amid geopolitical uncertainties.

Iran rejects U.S. demands to disarm and warns that any military action will face severe retaliation on bases, naval units, and economic assets. Iran’s military can disrupt oil trade routes with anti-ship missiles and underground facilities, risking a global crisis. Allies in Iraq, Yemen, and Hezbollah could be involved, while U.S. Gulf allies are fragile and at risk.
Prof. Marandi highlights the oil trade's strategic importance and describes U.S. plans to seize Iranian tankers as a pressure tactic, similar to actions against Venezuela. Iran has responded by detaining Western-linked tankers, risking maritime escalation. Despite long-standing sanctions, Iran's economy appears more resilient than that of U.S. allies, suggesting it could withstand a prolonged conflict better.
Prof. Glenn Diesen’s discussion with Prof. Seyed M. Marandi highlights the uncertainty and fragmentation in U.S. discussions about Iran, with conflicting claims on regime change, nuclear issues, and human rights. It criticizes the Western media’s unified portrayal of protests, suggesting coordinated misinformation to justify intervention.
The decline of soft power and waning trust in Western governments challenge narrative control and policy consistency.
The release of the Epstein files and scandals has damaged Western elites' credibility, possibly influencing future policies.

Watch the Video Here (53 minutes, 12 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
13 February 2025

Iran-U.S. Tensions: Perspectives and Analysis – Insights from Seyd Mohamed Marandi on the Risk of Conflict

Welcome back. Today, we are joined by Seyd Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former advisor to Iran's nuclear negotiation team, to discuss the possibility of an impending conflict between Iran and the United States.

Thank you very much for inviting me, Glenn. It's always an honor to be on this show.

Escalating Tensions and Military Buildup

The U.S. is expanding military forces and negotiating with Iran, possibly to pressure Iran into favorable terms or prepare for a strike while using talks as cover.

Iranian forces enhance readiness with new capabilities and underground bases for potential conflict, while Iranians remain calm and continue their daily lives.

Public Sentiment and National Solidarity

Despite tensions, Iranians stay resilient. On February 11th, for the revolution anniversary, large crowds demonstrated unity and strength, signaling they remain unshaken by external threats or Western narratives.

The government stays committed to negotiations, respecting Iranian sovereignty. Iran insists on control over its alliances, military, and peaceful nuclear enrichment without compromise.

Nuclear Negotiations and Technological Progress

Iran is open to a nuclear deal like the 2015 JCPOA, promising peaceable nuclear work. However, a new agreement likely won't replicate the JCPOA because of Iran’s technological progress and years of sanctions. Iran is hesitant to surrender its scientists' gains.

Given U.S. policy's unpredictability and frequent shifts, signed agreements may not last. Iran prepares for possible conflict, emphasizing the importance of military strength for deterrence and survival.

Peace Conditions and Regional Security

The United States often demands Iran abandon its civilian nuclear program, weapons, and alliances. Iran counters by separating nuclear issues from regional matters, suggesting that resolving core issues like the Palestinian state could reduce tensions.

Mutual security is better achieved by reducing threats rather than demanding surrender, but the likelihood of a full peace agreement remains uncertain.

Media Narratives and Human Rights Concerns

Critics say Zionism promotes ethno-supremacism, fueling violence in Lebanon and Gaza. Western media is accused of justifying or overlooking these actions, hampering regional peace.

Changing global attitudes, especially among young Jews and populations in Russia, China, and other regions, are putting pressure on Israel. Iran advocates for a one-state solution with Jews, Muslims, and Christians living peacefully, stating that the two-state approach is compromised by ongoing colonization.

Military Strategy and Regional Implications

Iran unlikely to relinquish military, alliances, or nuclear rights through talks. Any attack, even symbolic, will meet overwhelming force. Iran's military, including anti-ship missiles and underground bases, can disrupt oil and gas trade in West Asia and the Caucasus, risking a global economic crisis.

Iran’s allies in Iraq and Yemen, such as Hezbollah, are likely to participate in regional conflicts. Gulf allies are limited, fragile, and could quickly fall in turbulence.

Economic and Political Dynamics

The oil trade remains a key concern amid rising piracy and tanker seizures, increasing tensions. Iran has retaliated by capturing Western-linked ships and benefits from long-term sanctions, giving it an edge over American allies.

Any conflict would extend beyond Iran and the U.S., affecting the region and altering power dynamics and economics.

Political Decision-Making and Narrative Control

Uncertainty surrounds U.S. intentions amid reports of 'token strikes' and shifting rhetoric. Iran warns that any aggression will trigger full retaliation against U.S. bases, assets, and regional interests.

There is uncertainty about the coherence of Western stories due to fragmented media and government messaging. Tactics like overstating threats and managing narratives are less effective, reflecting shifts in public opinion and declining trust in political leaders.

Conclusion

The discussion highlights the complex links between military readiness, public opinion, diplomacy, and media. Iran affirms sovereignty, prepares for potential conflict, seeks regional solutions, and examines Western strategies for consistency and intent. Global shifts and perceptions may influence the future, but war remains a major concern.

Thank you, Glenn. It's an honor to be on your show and discuss these issues.

GUEST EDITORIAL | INSIDE TRUMP AND NETANYAHU’S MEETING ON IRAN

Further attacks and regime change are on the table

President Donald Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on February 11. / Photo by Avi Ohayon/GPO via Getty Images.

By Seymour Hersh
Substack.com
19 February 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Washington on February 11 without his wife Sara for a quick White House meeting with Donald Trump, indicating urgency.

Netanyahu, leading Israel’s Gaza offensive, arrived with a Genesis 18-19 citation, symbolizing accountability like God's—targeting Ayatollah Khamenei—and showing grace.

A key point from my next report is that Israelis believe Iranians smuggled up to 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium into tunnels beneath Isfahan nuclear center, after US B-2 bombers hit their sites last June.

The Israelis describe the tunnels as octopus tentacles with complex twists. If they contain uranium, a few days with suitable centrifuges could produce over 90% enrichment, enough for a bomb. It’s unclear where this info comes from, but plans reportedly exist for Sayerat Matkal — Israel’s elite unit — to infiltrate the tunnels and verify intelligence that Netanyahu and the religious Israeli military leadership want confirmed.

Trump responded to Israeli intelligence by deploying the US fleet across the Persian Gulf, eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea, saying regime change in Iran is “the best thing that could happen.” The NYT reported that “Trump has the option to launch military action against Iran as soon as this weekend,” per officials. The US and Israel plan to contact Iranian military leaders, whose forces are seen as crucial to overthrowing the regime and Loyal Guards. Iran remains affected by the Ayatollah’s crackdown on protests, with uncertain death tolls among dissenters, many young, killed by police and military.

Predicting Trump’s next move in the Middle East is difficult. Netanyahu reportedly wants the US to join a large offensive in Iran to influence US plans and eliminate Iran as a threat.

The Israeli prime minister believes Trump can be persuaded to meet Israel's demands, focusing on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, an American official says Iran “does not retain any viable nuclear attack capability," highlighting this as a mistake.

Another threat not mentioned between Trump and Netanyahu is Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal. It was one of the major targets of the US-Israeli bombing attack last June. It was wiped out last year but is currently being rebuilt at a rapid rate.

Last summer, Iran’s missiles had under a 10% chance of penetrating Israel’s defenses. Iran launched about 550 missiles at Israel, but only 45 hit. Despite small payloads, they caused significant damage in Tel Aviv and widespread panic. Since then, Israel notes Iran developing larger missiles.

I was told Iran's new missiles can reach Southeastern Europe, which has minimal or no air defenses.

The Israeli veteran said that if Netanyahu attacks Iran in late spring with Trump’s support, Israel may need to preemptively strike Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If the president and Netanyahu succeed, as they have since Trump began his second term, the future will likely bring more hell on earth.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited and annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

RICHARD WOLFF: OVEREXTENDED AMERICA VS. SUBORDINATED EUROPE

Prof. Richard Wolff explains that Trump's policies are failing, the US has overextended itself, and Europe is grappling with subordination and ongoing decline.

Watch the Video Here (59 minutes, 18 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
12 February 2025

To better understand the current European situation, it's important to look at how internal pressures add to the external challenges already discussed.

As Europe grapples with economic stagnation and a shrinking global role, social divisions are widening, especially between different generations and regions within countries.
This is evident in increasing political polarization, protests, and growing dissatisfaction with centrist parties, which find it hard to present a clear vision for Europe’s role in a growingly multipolar world.
The rise of populist and alternative parties is not just a response to economic struggles but also reflects a desire for more sovereignty and influence, especially amid perceptions of subservience to American interests.

Meanwhile, technological innovation and industrial leadership are slipping further away from European hands. Investment in research and development, as well as in digital infrastructure, lags behind that of the United States and China, exacerbating the continent’s inability to adapt quickly to shifting economic paradigms.

This technological gap is likely to become an even more critical factor in the coming years, limiting Europe’s capacity to chart an independent course and reinforcing its reliance on external powers. Unless decisive steps are taken to foster innovation and recalibrate economic policies, Europe risks entrenching its role as a peripheral player in the global arena, dependent on others for security, energy, and technological advancement.

TOP DEMOCRAT SAYS 'BILLIONAIRE EPSTEIN CLASS' PUSHING FOR U.S. WAR ON IRAN

The Massachusetts Democrat's comment shows a trend among Democrats connecting the 'Epstein class' to current issues, including policies like Iran and broader concerns.

From left, Donald Trump. Trump's future wife, Melania, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2000 at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. Credit: Davidoff Studios/Getty Images

By Ben Samuels
Washington
19 February 2026 IST

WASHINGTON – A House Democrat criticized the coming U.S.-Iran conflict, accusing "the billionaire Epstein class" of influencing Trump policies.

Rep. Jim McGovern said, "Americans don't seek war with Iran. We want lower prices, better health care, more jobs, and affordable housing." He stressed leaders should represent the people, not billionaires like Epstein.

McGovern, a respected senior Democratic lawmaker, leads the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, named after the Holocaust survivor and Congress member.

The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Lincoln in the Arabian Sea, earlier this month. Credit: AFP/HANDOUT

The Massachusetts Democrat's remark illustrates a wider Democratic trend of associating the "Epstein class" with issues from policies like Iran to concerns about oligarchy and plutocracy shaping U.S. politics.

Anand Giridharadas noted in a New York Times opinion piece that the concept of an Epstein class is useful because it shows how easy it is to be misled by the diverse group of people Mr. Epstein associated with—including politicians, business leaders, diplomats, philanthropists, healers, professors, royals, and lawyers.

While the fallout from the Epstein files has entangled former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and caused a career-ending disgrace for senior American business figures, the anti-elite rhetoric risks succumbing to classic antisemitic conspiracy theories about the connection between Jewish wealth and influence.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak (left), child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (center) and Woody Allen (right). Credit: U.S. Justice Department

Given the ongoing speculation about Israel's links to Epstein and Netanyahu's influence on Trump over Iran, McGovern's remarks suggest these issues may become more prominent soon.

Mainstream Jewish Democrats, some vocal against antisemitism, have recently used the term "Epstein class" to criticize Trump and his allies.

Sen. Jon Ossoff claimed MAGA claims to support working-class Americans but is controlled by the ultra-rich, with the wealthiest cabinet ever. He called the ruling class 'the Epstein Class.' His critical speeches on Trump have drawn attention, fueling talk of a 2028 presidential run.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a key Democrat supporter of Israel and Florida lawmaker, linked the "Epstein Class" to cost-of-living concerns, a top issue for 2026 midterms.

She stated that prices for essentials like food, clothing, housing, and healthcare are continually increasing. Meanwhile, Democrats are tirelessly working to lower costs, whereas Republicans are defending the wealthy elite.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democratic leader supporting unsealing Epstein files, told podcast host Shawn Ryan that "these people were at Davos together, financing politicians" when discussing Epstein's network. "It's all the same club. They don't want it broken."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump in Florida, in December. Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

Meanwhile, the phrasing has also been used by Republicans who are strongly critical of U.S. support for Israel and any presumed undue influence on Trump policy.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Trump critic who pushed to release Epstein documents with Khanna, said on ABC's This Week that "Donald Trump told us he'd be transparent despite dining with these individuals in NYC and West Palm Beach, but he hasn't. He remains connected to Epstein's circle. This is the Epstein administration."

Carrie Prejean Boller, a rising Catholic influencer after her removal from the White House religious freedom commission, linked "the Epstein crime files" to Israel's Gaza activities.
"Gaza was a precursor to the release of the Epstein files. Their goal: normalize and justify the torture and killing of innocent children," she posted on Instagram.
"Arrest these monsters. Drain the evil swamp. End Palestinian genocide. Defund Israel."

GUEST EDITORIAL | THE MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE 2026: MUCH HYPE, LITTLE SUBSTANCE, NO HOPE

Western Europe continues to ignore its own mistakes from the past twenty years, opting to worsen crises and placing blame elsewhere.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and France's President Emmanuel Macron at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on February 13, 2026 © Kay Nietfeld-Pool/Getty Images

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

HomeWorld News
16 February 2026

What a relief, it’s over. This year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC) has ended.

In reality, the meeting has rarely been about enhancing security. If it were, Western participants wouldn't have laughed at the warning Russian President Vladimir Putin gave there in 2007. Taking it seriously might have prevented the ongoing de facto war between the West and Russia over Ukraine, saving both the world and Ukraine from conflict.

Nearly twenty years ago, as Russia was recovering from its post-Soviet struggles, Western leaders dismissively rejected Moscow’s concerns about creating a "unipolar world." This arrogance was misplaced: such a world was never achievable, yet the Western efforts to enforce it have been remarkably damaging.

This year's MSC, titled "Under Destruction,' has an awkward, gloomy tone, possibly reflecting a willingness to confront reality about the West’s past errors. Since the Cold War, the world can't be reshaped but can be improved through foresight, fairness, and good faith, as serial dishonesty harms diplomacy.

Greed, incompetence, and arrogance dominated from Washington to London and Brussels. Post-Soviet Russia was consistently and openly treated with no reason or minimal respect, leading us to this point: 'under destruction.' Communicating this to ordinary Ukrainians is unnecessary—they know the feeling all too well. However, that was not the intended message at this year’s MSC. The West typically avoids remorse. Instead, the atmosphere at Munich was one of 'blame the others.”

Read more
Deaf spiral: Highlights and low points from the Munich Security Conference

More specifically, from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s widely remarked speech to the typical statements by figures like Kaja Kallas and conference organizer Wolfgang Ischinger – to name just a few – almost everyone (except China, of course) agreed to act as if the crisis of the old post-Cold War international order is mainly caused by Russia. And please do not mention the genocide that the West has supported Israel in committing or the fact that kidnapping heads of state has become a common tool of policy.

Indeed, ongoing tensions exist between the US under President Donald Trump and the NATO-EU Europeans. Some Europeans have boldly suggested that Washington has complicated the West's efforts to appear united. Merz, in particular, has received excessive praise for stating the obvious and adding a pessimistic view to the idea that the West is "under destruction": for this serious German leader, the Western order is not just threatened but already gone. His solution: Europe should become more militarized again, with a strong Germany leading the way. However, history shows this approach has rarely been successful.

Merz also believes—although the reason remains unclear—that the US-Germany relationship can be recalibrated. He points out to Washington that it also needs allies and friends, suggesting that Americans might be open to a relationship based on equality. Historically, however, the US rarely acts this way. If it views you as a client or subordinate, that is how you will be treated. If it considers you an equal, it may respect you more but also see you as a rival to contain, besiege, subvert, and ultimately weaken. Merz should be cautious about his hopes. Unfortunately, his background as a privileged party politician and former BlackRock associate suggests he may not fully grasp these historical patterns.

There might be a way to balance the aggressive US, such as not repairing "trust" across the Atlantic — a strange, childish idea that has never influenced serious people – but instead building normal relationships with both China and Russia. However, this MSC seems to reveal that NATO-EU Europeans are still holding onto their illusions. They continue to show their admiration for Vladimir Zelensky of Ukraine and are eager to deepen their involvement in the Ukraine War. Additionally, they have shared exaggerated claims about what NATO-EU Europe can achieve independently, including reshaping and expanding their nuclear arsenals.

Read more
Putin’s 2007 Munich Conference warning finally caught up with European leaders (VIDEO)

At MSC, NATO, and EU Europe's response to a crisis was to "stay the course," reflecting stubborn resolve similar to a US president's stance during disastrous conflicts. When faced with problems caused by foolish actions, the advice is to persist, deepening misery. If you're in a hole you've dug for years, just dig deeper. How American and fitting.

The US continues on a Trumpist path, as shown by Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s overstated speech. Compared to J.D. Vance's hostile speech at Munich—another low point—Rubio’s was less aggressive but similarly uncompromising. The US offers Europeans no protection, only demands. Europeans are now third behind US policies in the Western Hemisphere and against China. Washington tells allies: You're on your own, but still serve US interests. A poor deal for America, akin to the' Turnberry of In-Security. '

The Munich Security Conference was dull. While Europeans gained confidence and expressed they could stand on their own, the US made it clear they'd shoulder more of the burden. Europeans noted they are needed too, but US reps stayed polite and unaffected.

What should have taken place at a proper security conference did not occur:

An honest evaluation of Western mistakes and failures since at least 2007
A fundamental and radical rethink of relations with Russia and China, and only then
A genuine, not rhetorical or incremental, but a decisive re-evaluation of US relations—regardless of who is in power in Washington.

The gap between these obvious needs and the ideological nonsense and wishful thinking presented reveals how distant Europe remains from resolving its worsening geopolitical issues.

As a European, I see little reason for optimism.

Tarik Cyril Amar, PhD, is a historian and expert on international politics.

He has a BA in Modern History from Oxford University, an MSc in International History from the London School of Economics, and a PhD in History from Princeton University.

Dr. Amar has held scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and directed the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the USA, and Turkey.

His book 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists' was published by Cornell University Press in 2015. A study of the political and cultural history of Cold War television spy stories is forthcoming, and he is currently working on a new book on the global response to the war in Ukraine. He has given interviews on various programs, including several on Rania Khalek Dispatches and Breakthrough News.

Dr. Tarik Cyril Amar’s website is https://www.tarikcyrilamar.com/; he is on substack under https://tarikcyrilamar.substack.com, and tweets under @TarikCyrilAmar.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION