🚨🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia faces ANOTHER wave of reported Houthi attacks Here's how the latest escalation has been going: -Nov. 8: 5 missiles and a drone intercepted. Falling debris damaged an Aramco building in Riyadh. -Nov. 9: Saudi Arabia's East-West oil pipeline attacked, causing a limited fire. Responsibility remains unconfirmed. -Nov. 10: 3 missiles and a drone intercepted, including 2 missiles targeting Riyadh. Resistance may be futile when you're getting bombarded on the daily. Sources: Reuters, Al Jazeera, Financial Times / Writer: Marie

Look at their faces. Remember their names. Shakila Ghasemi, 26. A Bahá’í graphic designer and artist from Kerman who spent her free time teaching autistic children how to paint. Denied university because of her faith. Arrested at home on February 2, 2026 by plainclothes agents with no warrant. Nearly 100 days in solitary. Nervous breakdowns. Tremors. No formal charges. No lawyer. Still locked away. Mahdieh Yousefi, 19. A young woman from Sabzevar with severe claustrophobia and health issues that make closed spaces a form of living hell. Taken in early February 2026 under false pretenses during the wave of arrests. Held in Sabzevar Prison. Family left in the dark. Charges unknown. Her body and mind are breaking under the isolation. Diana Taherabadi, 16. A schoolgirl from Karaj. Arrested at home on January 25, 2026 while she was still asleep. Handcuffed. Dragged to prison. Forced confessions extracted. Threatened with the death penalty under “moharebeh.” Her case moved to Tehran. A child still behind bars more than six months later.Nearly six months of complete isolation. Psychological torment. Physical deterioration. Lives hanging by a thread. No front-page headlines. No mass protests in the streets of the West. No celebrity campaigns. No selective outrage from those who claim to champion “human rights” only when it fits the narrative.This is the Islamic Republic doing what it always does: crushing the young, the female, the free-spirited — then counting on the world’s silence.Silence is not neutrality. Silence is permission. Say their names. Share their faces. Demand their immediate release. Force the world to look. #FreeShakila# #FreeMahdieh# #FreeDiana# #WomanLifeFreedom# #EndTheSilence# The regime thrives in the dark. Turn on the lights.

BREAKING: Iran is launching ballistic missiles from all over the country, in a large-scale wave. So far, Tehran, Karaj, East Azerbaijan, Urmia, West Azerbaijan, Zanjan, Shiraz, Lorestan and Khorramabad. Multiple explosions at the Muwaffaq Salti US base in Jordan minutes ago, the first target.

A Muslim country is warning Europe about Islamism. Not Christian conservatives. Not the "far right". Not anyone you can wave away as an Islamophobe. The United Arab Emirates. The UAE has spent years taking a hard line against political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, which the country classifies as a terrorist organisation. And in June 2026, the UAE's ambassador to the EU, Mohammed Ismail Al Sahlawi, sat in the European Parliament at a conference with this title: "Muslim Brotherhood: a real threat to Europe." Hard to misread. The warning was about the Brotherhood's methods. Infiltrating European societies and institutions, influencing political decisions, spreading extremist ideology. Read that again. A Muslim country is warning Europe about political Islam. And here is what matters most! Islamism is not only the man with a rifle or a suicide vest. That is the outermost, violent expression of it. Islamism can also work slowly. And politically. Through organisations, universities, religious institutions, activism, lobbying, political and institutional influence. That is exactly why it is so dangerous to look only for the man with the bomb belt. Because Islamism can arrive in a suit. It can hold a university degree. It can run an organisation. It can sit close to political decision makers. And it can learn to speak the West's own language about tolerance, rights and diversity, while working for values that collide with liberal democracy. And no. This is not just something the UAE claims. Britain's own government has investigated the Muslim Brotherhood. The British review found that Brotherhood-associated and Brotherhood-influenced groups in the UK had, at various points, held significant influence over the largest Muslim student organisation, national Muslim organisations in dialogue with the government, charities and some mosques. The same review concluded that parts of the Brotherhood's ideology and activities run counter to democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality, and mutual respect and tolerance between faiths. So this is not only about terror. It is about ideology. And now comes the part that should stop every European in their tracks. The UAE has become so concerned about Islamist radicalisation at British universities that British universities have been removed from the list of institutions where Emirati students can receive state scholarships. Young Emiratis are still free to study in Britain. With their own money. The UAE simply will not pay for it anymore. A person with direct knowledge of the discussions put it plainly to the Financial Times: "They don't want their kids to be radicalised on campus." Sit with that for a second. A Muslim, Arab country is worried about sending its Muslim young people to Britain, because it fears they will be radicalised there. If that does not trigger some soul-searching in Europe, I don't know what will. Because the UAE's point is precisely this. You make a fatal mistake if you only start caring about Islamism once someone picks up a weapon. The ideological process may have started years earlier. The UAE's foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, has said: "Daesh, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have fed off a wider current of extremist ideas." He pointed specifically at political Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which in his view have spent decades spreading those narratives. He called them "backward-looking". And said they "reject open, pluralistic societies." This is a Muslim foreign minister saying it. And there is something else I want to make very clear! THE UAE IS NOT THE WEST. It is not Europe. It is not a Western liberal democracy. It is a Muslim, Arab country with a different culture, a different form of government and different traditions. And there are aspects of the UAE's political system and human rights record that we would never accept in a Western democracy. This is not to be romanticised. But the UAE has fought political Islamism for decades, an ideology its leadership believes has undermined and destabilised the Middle East. And which they now openly warn is seeking influence in Europe and the rest of the Western world. Their foreign minister has spoken about the need to show that you can be "modern, Arab and Muslim." That distinction is one Europe desperately needs to understand. You can be a Muslim and still reject political Islam, extremism, antisemitism and religious intolerance. And notice one more thing. THE VIEW OF WOMEN IS PART OF THAT FIGHT. Abdullah bin Zayed has directly criticised Islamist ideologies for their "denigration of women's role in society." The UAE has not just talked about it. The country has made women's education, economic participation and leadership official state policy. Women are to be educated. They are to work. They are to be able to start businesses. They are to take part economically and politically. And they are to sit at the table where decisions are made. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, ruler of Dubai and the UAE's vice president and prime minister, established the UAE Gender Balance Council with the stated aim of reducing the gender gap and strengthening women's participation in leadership and decision making. And the UAE's president, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, MBZ, leads a Muslim country that has made religious coexistence part of its national story. In Abu Dhabi, a mosque, a church and a synagogue stand side by side in the Abrahamic Family House. Think about that contrast. A Muslim country is saying: Keep Islam. Fight Islamism. Let women study, work and lead. Let Christians be Christians. Let Jews be Jews. And fight the political and religious movements that want to replace pluralism with their own ideology. And yes. That includes the people who support, legitimise and clear the path for those movements while believing they are defending tolerance and diversity. Including when they end up working against the very Western values, freedom, equality, democracy and religious liberty, that gave them the opportunity to do so in the first place. History has an old term for people who end up serving an ideology whose actual goals they do not share: "Useful idiots." They do not have to be Islamists themselves. That is the whole point. They only have to be useful to those who are. And this is what Europe has to learn to separate: Islam is a religion. Islamism is a political ideology. And Islamist extremism is not "diversity". You can defend Muslims' full right to believe and practise their faith, and at the same time say a resounding NO to movements that want to use religion for political power, parallel societies, extremism, or the gradual erosion of the society that gave them the freedom to be here. Tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance until it has grown strong enough to turn on you. When a Muslim country pulls its state scholarships away from British universities out of fear of Islamist radicalisation, while parts of Europe are still afraid to even name the problem, the question is no longer whether there is a problem. The question is who understood the seriousness of it. And right now, it isn't us!

When History Stops Being a Warning by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff The blue wave that swept across America this week has left me deeply uncomfortable. Not because the Democrats won. That’s democracy. People go to the polls, cast their votes, and sometimes the result is one we don’t particularly like. I can live with that, even when I profoundly disagree with the political direction the voters have chosen. What I find much harder to live with is the enthusiasm surrounding the victories, the almost gleeful celebration of political developments that remind me of things I have seen before. At least five members of the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization with a caucus that openly calls itself Marxist-Leninist, are on their way to Congress, and when she won her primary in June, one of them, Claire Valdez of New York, said: “We have declared that this movement is durable.” I believe her. And I cannot help wondering whether those celebrating have any idea why people like me find this so troubling. I spent four formative years in America during the Reagan era, when communism was not some distant historical curiosity. We learned about it in school. We watched the news from Moscow and Eastern Europe. We knew about the Berlin Wall, about people risking their lives to escape communist countries, and about the fundamental difference between a society in which the individual was free and one in which the state determined the limits of that freedom. In November 1988, I stood in East Berlin. I had crossed from West Berlin into a world that could hardly have been more different, and what I saw confirmed everything I had learned. I still vividly remember bustling West Berlin, the Kurfürstendamm with its sparkling lights in the dark November nights, and then, on the other side of Checkpoint Charlie, the drabness, the grayness and the palpable despair of a destroyed society. I decided then and there that I did not want to live in a society governed by socialism. Not now, not ever. I have never forgotten that experience. Nor have I forgotten Iran. I was there during the Iranian Revolution of 1979, as a child of seven. I watched a country undergo an ideological transformation, and only years later did I learn how it had come about, with leftists and Khomeini’s followers united in their opposition to the Shah. Their common enemy brought them together, but it did not mean they shared the same vision for Iran’s future. By 1983 the Communist Tudeh party was banned and its leaders were in prison, and in 1988 — the same year I stood in East Berlin — thousands of political prisoners were executed, leftists among them. These experiences shaped my political convictions long before I had ever heard of Friedrich A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, or Murray Rothbard. When I eventually encountered their writings, I found an understanding of individual liberty that made perfect sense to me. Hayek, in particular, understood liberty as freedom from arbitrary coercion, with government constrained by the rule of law rather than empowered to direct people’s lives according to some grand political vision. Having witnessed what happens when those constraints disappear and the individual becomes subordinate to an ideology, his arguments resonated with me immediately. That is why I find the current enthusiasm so difficult to understand. America has been home to generations of people who fled communism, religious persecution, and authoritarian governments. They came because America represented something different. It offered the possibility of living without the state or a religious authority dictating every aspect of their lives. And yet I now watch Americans celebrating political ideas and alliances without asking the questions whose answers history has already taught us. I am not suggesting that every Democrat is a communist, or that every Democratic victory is a step toward totalitarianism. That would be far too simplistic. What concerns me is the growing acceptance of socialist ideas, the attraction of communism among some on the left, and the willingness to overlook fundamental ideological differences in pursuit of political power. Perhaps what troubles me most is the apparent absence of historical memory. We seem increasingly willing to judge political movements by what they promise rather than by what comparable movements have done when given power. And that brings me to the question I cannot shake. What happens when people no longer recognize the warning signs? What happens when they celebrate political developments without considering where those developments might lead? And what happens when they finally recognize the danger, only to discover that reversing course has become extraordinarily difficult? I am not angry that Americans voted differently from how I would have liked. What I feel is apprehension about what lies ahead, rooted in experiences I cannot simply set aside. Having seen East Berlin and lived through the Iranian Revolution, I know how profoundly political systems can change and how easily freedoms once taken for granted can disappear. For much of my life, America represented the place to which people could flee when freedom disappeared elsewhere. But what happens if America itself ceases to be that place? Where will people go then?

SILICON VALLEY SOUTH: Palm Beach is rapidly transforming from a retirees' playground into a booming tech and finance hub as wealthy Americans flee high-tax states like New York and California for Florida's business-friendly climate. Companies like ServiceNow, Percepto and Palantir are expanding their footprints across South Florida, while CEOs and Wall Street executives are relocating operations to take advantage of zero state income tax and year-round lifestyle perks. A decade ago, hedge funds looking for office space in the region faced limited options. Today, new commercial developments in West Palm Beach and Palm Beach Gardens have changed the equation entirely. Luxury real estate expert Margit Brandt says the transformation is only beginning, pointing to areas like Wellington and western Palm Beach County where new schools, hospitals and infrastructure could accommodate the next wave of corporate relocations and families chasing a better quality of life. Full story here ⬇️

Top Overnight News Donald Trump played down the idea of further guardrails in most advanced AI models, saying the US needs to keep its lead over China. BBG China’s spy agency has warned that AI could pose a risk to the country’s political and social security, signaling growing concern in Beijing that rapid advances in the technology could be exploited against the country. FT Oil rose as a meeting between Iran and several Gulf nations on a temporary shipping lane was postponed, while Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline remained closed, following last week’s attacks by Iraqi militants. BBG U.S. President Donald ‌Trump on Sunday called on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to stop targeting Russian diesel infrastructure, saying the attacks were causing a shortage of the fuel that is "hurting the world". RTRS A wave of long-distance Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries in recent months ⁠has reduced that country's fuel production, triggering gasoline shortages across the country. RTRS Just as Ukraine was learning how to parry Russia’s drone attacks, Moscow has moved the goal posts with a new generation of innovative jet-powered weapons. WSJ The CMBS market is being reshaped by a surge in data-center deals, forcing investors to grapple with an entirely new set of risks. BBG A year after shifting production and sourcing out of China to avoid higher U.S. tariffs, some companies are learning that replicating the country's factory ecosystem is not so easy and are bringing manufacturing back. RTRS Eurozone governments are gearing up for one of the biggest leadership reshuffles in the European Central Bank’s 28-year history, with a “grand package” over its three top roles expected to be agreed by the end of December, according to people familiar with the matter. FT The 10-year US Treasury yield surged to nearly 5% this week, reaching its highest level since October 2023. Following an above-consensus CPI print, Goldman economists expect a 25 bp hike at the FOMC meeting next week. Their rates strategists believe that the combination of rising oil prices, a repricing of the Fed path, strong economic growth, and AI investment have lifted long-term interest rates

This is the real reason the Left is uniting with Islam, and how it’s going to end “I keep wondering why the left is so obsessed with defending an ideology that would be the first to execute them. Democrats have spent decades fighting for things like women's rights, and yet they defend countries where women are banned from school, where honor killings happen, and where wives have no protection, or no legal protection from abuse. They wave pride flags at every parade, and yet they defend countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. So what then exactly does the progressive left and these Islamists have in common? Because on the surface, they agree on literally nothing, except for one thing: They share the same enemy, and that enemy is the West And the thing is, neither of them can build what they want while the West still stands. So they're kind of working together to tear it down first, and figure the rest out later. The Marxist thinks he's using the Islamists to do the heavy lifting. The useful idiots vote them in, platform them, defend them, and launder every atrocity as resistance. And what awaits them when the job is done is something history has already shown us. Iran, 1977, the Marxists and Islamists united to overthrow the Shah. The moment they won, the Islamists executed every single leftist who helped bring them to power: jailed, tortured, or gone. The left handed them the revolution and got a bullet for it” “But they can't do that here because nobody's starving. The thing about socialist revolutions is they need desperation, whether it's famine or disease, and that's not America, so they need a different strategy. Because here's what the left has been doing in the meantime. They have become a laundering service, and what I mean by that is the West won't naturally accept an ideology that is openly intolerant. We're a tolerant society, which is our weakness and our strength. So every time there's a terrorist attack, it becomes an act of resistance. Every massacre becomes a natural reaction to imperialism or colonialism or whatever. They don't defend the ideology directly, they just make the atrocity make sense to you over and over until your moral framework shifts without you noticing. KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, called this demoralization. You don't need to win a revolution if you can get people to abandon their own values first. It starts with murdering civilians is wrong. Then it becomes, were those civilians really innocent given the history of colonialism? You don't need an Islamic conquest by force when you can walk it in through the front door of compassion…. And the left will be the last to realize what they helped build right up until they're the first against the wall.” There is literally no other way this ends except exactly how this describes. It’s the same story that’s played out again and again and again And the crazy thing is, the Islamists don’t even hide this is what they’re doing, they openly say they’re using the Left until enough of them get into power We have to stop it because if we let liberals bring America down and face an Islamic Revolution, they bring us down with them

When History Stops Being a Warning The larger ramifications of the rapid advance of Democratic Socialism in the United States. by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff The blue wave that swept across America this week has left me deeply uncomfortable. Not because the Democrats won. That’s democracy. People go to the polls, cast their votes, and sometimes the result is one we don’t particularly like. I can live with that, even when I profoundly disagree with the political direction the voters have chosen. What I find much harder to live with is the enthusiasm surrounding the victories, the almost gleeful celebration of political developments that remind me of things I have seen before. At least five members of the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization with a caucus that openly calls itself Marxist-Leninist, are on their way to Congress, and when she won her primary in June, one of them, Claire Valdez of New York, said: “We have declared that this movement is durable.” I believe her. And I cannot help wondering whether those celebrating have any idea why people like me find this so troubling. I spent four formative years in America during the Reagan era, when communism was not some distant historical curiosity. We learned about it in school. We watched the news from Moscow and Eastern Europe. We knew about the Berlin Wall, about people risking their lives to escape communist countries, and about the fundamental difference between a society in which the individual was free and one in which the state determined the limits of that freedom. In November 1988, I stood in East Berlin. I had crossed from West Berlin into a world that could hardly have been more different, and what I saw confirmed everything I had learned. I still vividly remember bustling West Berlin, the Kurfürstendamm with its sparkling lights in the dark November nights, and then, on the other side of Checkpoint Charlie, the drabness, the grayness and the palpable despair of a destroyed society. I decided then and there that I did not want to live in a society governed by socialism. Not now, not ever. I have never forgotten that experience. Nor have I forgotten Iran. I was there during the Iranian Revolution of 1979, as a child of seven. I watched a country undergo an ideological transformation, and only years later did I learn how it had come about, with leftists and Khomeini’s followers united in their opposition to the Shah. Their common enemy brought them together, but it did not mean they shared the same vision for Iran’s future. By 1983 the Communist Tudeh party was banned and its leaders were in prison, and in 1988 — the same year I stood in East Berlin — thousands of political prisoners were executed, leftists among them. These experiences shaped my political convictions long before I had ever heard of Friedrich A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, or Murray Rothbard. When I eventually encountered their writings, I found an understanding of individual liberty that made perfect sense to me. Hayek, in particular, understood liberty as freedom from arbitrary coercion, with government constrained by the rule of law rather than empowered to direct people’s lives according to some grand political vision. Having witnessed what happens when those constraints disappear and the individual becomes subordinate to an ideology, his arguments resonated with me immediately. That is why I find the current enthusiasm so difficult to understand. America has been home to generations of people who fled communism, religious persecution, and authoritarian governments. They came because America represented something different. It offered the possibility of living without the state or a religious authority dictating every aspect of their lives. And yet I now watch Americans celebrating political ideas and alliances without asking the questions whose answers history has already taught us. I am not suggesting that every Democrat is a communist, or that every Democratic victory is a step toward totalitarianism. That would be far too simplistic. What concerns me is the growing acceptance of socialist ideas, the attraction of communism among some on the left, and the willingness to overlook fundamental ideological differences in pursuit of political power. Perhaps what troubles me most is the apparent absence of historical memory. We seem increasingly willing to judge political movements by what they promise rather than by what comparable movements have done when given power. And that brings me to the question I cannot shake. What happens when people no longer recognize the warning signs? What happens when they celebrate political developments without considering where those developments might lead? And what happens when they finally recognize the danger, only to discover that reversing course has become extraordinarily difficult? I am not angry that Americans voted differently from how I would have liked. What I feel is apprehension about what lies ahead, rooted in experiences I cannot simply set aside. Having seen East Berlin and lived through the Iranian Revolution, I know how profoundly political systems can change and how easily freedoms once taken for granted can disappear. For much of my life, America represented the place to which people could flee when freedom disappeared elsewhere. But what happens if America itself ceases to be that place? Where will people go then? Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian emigrant, answered that question years ago, and I have been quoting her ever since: “After America, there is no place to go!”