Enabling the Enemy: A new era of foreign policy?

President Obama came into office promising a new era of American foreign policy in the Middle East. He said he’d restore America’s standing in the world, but after 6 years has he made any progress? Or is he repeating the exact same mistakes America has made in the past by enabling the enemy of our enemy?

TheBlaze's Jason Buttrill and Dan Andros explain:

Dan: Hey, Dan Andros, head writer here at TheBlaze again with you with Jason Buttrill. He’s chief researcher here, and he’s also former military intelligence. We’re going through all of the foreign policy blunders that this administration and previous administrations have made in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria with ISIS. When we last picked it up, it was our mistakes that led to helping and aiding the creation of ISIS, which they later migrated into Syria and then invaded back into Iraq.

Now America is presented with a choice: We can either help the Kurds, who are the good guys, or we can once again make the same mistakes we make over and over again. So, what do we choose?

Jason: If you ask Obama what our strategy is, he’ll tell you like he told the rest of the country. He said the Pentagon hadn’t given him a strategy yet. He basically said there is no strategy. We’re spending billions and billions of dollars on airstrikes and training. That’s got to be part of a strategy. If not, we’re just wasting a ton of money.

The real thing is that Obama doesn’t want you to know what the strategy is because we’re making the same mistakes that we’ve always made. His strategy is the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Wrong. We should not be playing that game. If that’s his strategy, which that is the strategy where we’ve basically laid that out, that is their strategy, he should just own up to it and say that’s our strategy, instead of trying to mislead the public into something else.

The current airstrikes are part of an operation called Inherent Resolve. Inherent Resolve is doing airstrikes in both Syria and Iraq. Now, if you look at those airstrikes, there’s a three to one ratio. Most of the airstrikes are happening in towns in Iraq versus in Syria. Well, the capital of the caliphate is in Syria, in Raqqah. Most of their supply lines run from Syria into Iraq. Now, why aren’t we bombing all those supply lines? Why are we not shocking and awing Raqqah?

Dan: Right. That’d be cutting out the heart.

Jason: Exactly. That’s what we did in the first Iraq war, and we were able to bring the Iraqi army to their knees by doing that strategy. It’s the same people. Why don’t we do the same strategy? Let’s do it again. It’ll work. We’re not doing that.

Dan: So, why aren’t we? What are they doing?

Jason: The French Foreign Minister said not too long ago, he kind of let it slip. He said that we cannot have a stable Iraq without a political transition first in Syria. I think that was a huge mistake, and I think that shows what they’re trying to do. Now, they’re not destroying those supply lines. They’re leaving those supply lines from Syria to Iraq open that ISIS is using. I think they’re leaving those open and with more airstrikes in Iraq because they’re trying to push ISIS back into Syria. Again, the enemy of my enemy is our friend. They want ISIS not to attack the Iraqi government which still is making screw-ups over there. They want them attacking someone that everyone can agree is an enemy, Assad in Syria. That’s what they want.

Dan: But that’s not what they want to do. That’s not what the bad guys want to do. They’re going back from where they came from.

Jason: First of all, who are these Iraqi units they we’re providing airstrikes for? It’s not American troops. It’s very rarely the Kurds, although sometimes it is the Kurds in the north, and they’ve made gains off of that, admittedly, but it’s usually in support of Iraqi Shia militias that are backed by Iran. They’re called the PMU, and these guys, the Kurds have a name for them. They called them the Shiite Islamic State because they are just as bad as ISIS.

We are providing close air support for them. It’s true. We’re providing close air support for them. These are the same militias that were killing our troops back in the Iraq war, the exact same guys.

Dan: And now we’re helping them.

Jason: Now we’re helping them. Some of their big personalities, there’s one called Abu Azrael. That translates into the Angel of Death.

Dan: Follow him on Facebook. It’s quite an entertaining follow.

Jason: At TheBlaze, we call him the king of selfies because that’s basically all he’s good for. You’ll see him holding an ax and an M4 but never really shooting it actually at anybody. Abu Azrael brags on social media, and he brags on YouTube. There’s video of him doing this, saying that they got training in both Lebanon and Iran. The head of the PMU, he was just photographed with the President Rouhani in Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq. They’re not even trying to hide it.

These are the guys that they are now in bed with, and we’re enabling that. It makes no sense. Just last month we announced at a new airbase, the Taqaddum Airbase, we were adding in another 450 advisors to continue to train these tribes. Well, it’s funny because a couple of months ago, another base that we already do this at, they reported that they hadn’t had one new recruit in months, up to six months, not one new recruit.

So, who are we training? It’s a big PR stunt. We sent in 450 advisors, our own boys, our own men, to go in there as a big PR stunt. We’re putting them in a base that Iranian backed Shia militias also bunk at. These are the guys that were killing us a decade ago, and now they’re sharing the same base. Their barracks are across from each other.

In light of all this, now that we know all this, we have to transition from enabling the enemy to propping up people that actually makes sense. Talk about the tragedy of the Kurds, the Kurdish people have been gassed, bombed, brought to the brink of genocide for as long as I can remember. Now they’re denying all of that. Bring us all of the people that have been run out of their homes and villages by ISIS. We’ll take them all in. We’ll not only shelter them, clothe them, and feed them, but we’ll protect them with our own soldiers. They don’t care if they’re Sunni, they’re Shia, they’re Christian. They don’t care what they are. They don’t care what tribe they come from, if their Arab, Kurd, whatever. They’re just taking them all in because they believe all lives matter.

Now, why aren’t we arming them to the teeth? Why are we not training them? Why is not all of our money going to these people? They’ve earned it.

Dan: It especially makes no sense when you realize we’ve got a great option there. We can support the Kurds, the guys who are doing the right thing, share the same values that we share as Americans, but once again, we are making the same mistake we’ve made throughout history, and we’re enabling our enemy by making the enemy of our enemy our friend—same foreign policy mistakes, different year.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.