Trump and Infantino’s corruption

Setting aside national pride and bias (after all, I am a U.S. citizen), what can be said about the scandal Trump triggered by involving FIFA? While most Americans felt a sense of national pride and an instinct to defend "our team," the Trump-FIFA affair was fundamentally a matter of political interference in an international sports governing body, FIFA’s willingness to bypass its own rules, and the detrimental consequences for the fairness of the competition.

The central issue was not whether the red card issued to Balogun was harsh; it was simply the fact that a head of state took the liberty of successfully pressuring FIFA to overturn a sanction that, according to the regulations, was not subject to appeal. That is why global football authorities reacted so strongly. For those unaware of the facts or who do not recall them: Trump personally called FIFA President Gianni Infantino to ask him to review Folarin Balogun’s red card. 

He also acted hypocritically, ignoring the fact that Balogun’s case hinged precisely on citizenship by birthright—a practice Trump vehemently denounces. In response, FIFA rescinded the automatic one-match suspension by invoking Article 27—a rarely used clause allowing for the discretionary suspension of disciplinary measures. UEFA, Belgium, former FIFA officials, and numerous players and coaches were furious; they condemned the decision, describing it as "unprecedented," "incomprehensible," and a case of a "red line being crossed." 

Critics argue that this reversal undermined the tournament's integrity and set a dangerous precedent regarding political influence over officiating and disciplinary procedures; I fully share this view. The scandal is not about Balogun (the player), but about the future of sporting fairness. Smaller footballing nations (like Belgium) lack such leverage. 

Trump demonstrated consistently disastrous judgment by following his instincts: he cast the American team in a poor light and provoked such resentment that Belgium won out of sheer anger—even though the Americans were, on paper, highly competitive. 

His intervention highlighted a two-tier system: on one side, powerful nations capable of influencing outcomes, and on the other, the rest of the world forced to accept decisions they cannot challenge. This imbalance is precisely what global sports governance is meant to prevent; this is not a matter of ordinary football politics, but a crisis of governance and a case of blatant hypocrisy. 

Ill-gotten gains never prosper!

Trump’s mental decline

After watching the aftermath of the US-Israeli war against Iran, it has become quite clear to me that Trump bit more than he could chew by attacking the Iranian and had absolutely no clue what his move would entail. 

Now, he found himself stuck with having discovered that the Iranian rulers could mess up the global oil and gas supply, considering they had won the conflict and remained much more resilient than his white-supremacist view had led him to believe.

Further, he’s also caught with what to do with a large supply of enriched uranium that he said has “buried” during his first bombing, but no one is certain about its exact current location. Finally he’s been zigzagging so much about the state of negotiation with Iran. that he’s now lost any credibility he never had to start with. 

 

To me, this erratic reasoning is a clear indication of Trump’s mental decline and it now makes him a dangerous individual on account of the US nuclear arsenal that is left at his fingertips.

The little boy goes to China

The man with the IQ of a six-year old, beginning to show some serious signs of senility, that love to demolish things first, think about the consequences afterwards and still doesn’t understand basic arithmetic, is in China to meet and negotiate with Xi Jinping.

Both men are supposed to discuss a variety of very important topics including commerce between the US and China and of course an exit ramp for that insane US-Israeli war in Iran.

Xi is likely to smile as a way to manipulate Trump, flattering him, getting exactly what he wants while showing his contempt for a man he profoundly disrespect. 

Based on that, my level of confidence in a positive outcome for the United States is very low. We could have sent any American homeless begging off a freeway ramp to the Iran quagmire, with just enough common sense and expect a better outcome. 

So, as the six-year would say: “We’ll see…”

Trump’s idea of diplomacy (Part Three)

JD Vance’s foray in diplomatic relations began when he delivered a rather controversial speech at the February 2025 Munich Security Conference setting the tone for a confrontational style. At that meeting he challenged his European allies and accusing them of ignoring democratic will, failing on immigration, and stifling dissent. 

His address, which emphasized populist perspectives, was described as a "shock" that drew condemnation from EU officials and praise from Russian media. It clearly positioned him as the antidote to salesmanship. That was the opening salvo to a series of setbacks on the International Stage that made people question his ability to communicate intelligently.

I read his book “Hillbilly Elegy” and I concluded that he learned nothing from his difficult childhood and youth. Sent to Hungary to support the incumbent Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, and subsequently to Islamabad and failed to negotiate a first round of talks with the Iranians. As the press put it, the US Vice President has, during these "Mission: Impossible"-style assignments, "drunk the poisoned chalice of Trumpist foreign policy to the very dregs." 

Vance has returned empty-handed from his two overseas missions, following the failure of talks regarding the war in Iran—held in Islamabad, Pakistan, on April 12—and the resounding defeat of Hungary’s incumbent Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, in the parliamentary elections held in Hungary on that very same day. These two successive failures constitute "major setbacks for the Vice President—widely regarded as Trump’s heir apparent—who was dispatched to the four corners of the globe last week to undertake missions where the odds of success were slim," analyzes the Financial Times. 

It is somewhat as if the American Vice President had “drained the poisoned chalice to the dregs”—all the more so since JD Vance, a convert to Catholicism, returned to Washington just in time “to witness the tug-of-war between the occupant of the White House and Pope Leo,” the British daily quips. 

Again, Vance looks tough and resolute, but this is a far cry from the perquisites for becoming an effective diplomatic negotiator. To his credit and that of Kushner and Witkoff, the three of them suffer from an eviscerated State Department after 1,300 staff were fired in 2025 to curb "bloat". Critics, including American Foreign Service Association members, argue that this reorganization, which hit key offices like Syria and human rights, has lowered morale, depleted regional expertise, and reduced the efficacy of US diplomacy. 

For the moment, Vance can simply keep suffering as he learns on the job, if he wants to go on wering a negotiator’s cap!.

Trump’s idea of diplomacy (Part Two)

Being Trump’s family and acquaintance, there was just one easy step to turn Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff from real estate guys into “international grade” negotiators. Today, the pair’s competency to conduct diplomatic negotiations is a subject of intense debate, largely split between supporters who view them as effective "dealmakers" and critics who cite a lack of traditional expertise and the failure of key initiatives.

If we begin with Jared Kushner, his job in the first Trump administration (2017–2021), was to put together the Abraham Accords, that were meant to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab nations. In the second term (2025–present), he has worked on Gaza, Russia/Ukraine, and Iran, and was appointed as a Special Envoy for Peace when Trump was still dreaming of the Nobel Prize. 

He doesn’t strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed. One key asset of Kushner is that he loves to multitask and conduct his real-estate business while negotiating diplomatically for his father in law. Obviously, his MAGA supporters think he’s a "world-class negotiator" with a deep understanding of Middle Eastern power dynamics. 

Smarter critics, however, argue his diplomatic efforts—particularly regarding Iran—have been botched due to a lack of technical expertise, resulting in increased conflict rather than peace, plus have been clouded by his extensive business ties with Persian Gulf states, from which his firm Affinity Partners received funding. Talk about turbo-charged conflicts of interest! 

As for Steve Witkoff, he’s first and foremost a New York real estate developer with no formal foreign policy or diplomatic training before 2025, Witkoff was appointed as Special Envoy to the Middle East and for Peace Missions. He was tasked with mediating the Gaza war, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and negotiations with Iran. 

Trump’s lapdog Rubio, credits him with employing innovative methods to advance US interests. He is described as a "tough" negotiator who focuses on understanding what the other side wants, similar to his business career, meaning that to him, diplomacy is just like selling houses, apartments and commercial properties. 

This is precisely what makes cleared-eye critics argue that Witkoff "mistook diplomacy for a real estate deal," citing his "amateurish" handling of complex, technical issues, such as nuclear enrichment. He is criticized for adopting pro-Russian positions in negotiations, failing to grasp diplomatic protocol, and, along with Kushner, being seen by some as "Israeli assets" influencing the US into war and unconditionally supporting Israel rather than being a neutral party. 

The pair is representative of what could be called “Transactional Diplomacy”. Both men treat high-stakes diplomacy as a business transaction, prioritizing personal relationships and "gut instinct" over traditional, bureaucratic, state-department-led negotiation methods. 

Trump supporters see their strength as their direct, trusted relationship with the President, allowing them to act with authority and speed that career diplomats cannot. But while they helped secure a 2025 ceasefire/hostage exchange in Gaza, their broader negotiations, particularly with Iran, have been linked to an escalation in regional violence. 

In a next blog, will see if JD Vance is any better for that kind of diplomatic negotiations...

Trump’s idea of diplomacy (Part One)

Before we discuss the strategy, or lack thereof in Trump’s attempts to “make deals” through high level negotiations at the international level, let’s review what’s needed in terms of qualities to negotiate effectively at the diplomatic level. It sure involves a combination of strategic intellect, deep empathy, and emotional resilience to manage complex, high-stakes relationships rather than just transactional deals. 

What follows are some common-sense rules. 

• Deep Cultural Understanding and Empathy: A top diplomat must understand the motivations, historical context, and domestic pressures driving the opposite party. This empathy enables the anticipation of arguments and the creation of "win-win" solutions that allow all sides to save face. 

 • Relentless Preparation and Analysis: Successful negotiators prepare far more than their opponents, knowing their own country's interests inside and out and analyzing all available data. 

 • Patience and Strategic Temperament: Diplomacy requires the "patience of a clockmaker". It demands an even temper and the ability to use silence, timing, and calculated pauses to advance goals without appearing impulsive. 

 • Active Listening: Effective diplomats listen more than they speak. Listening is considered a powerful tool for discovering hidden motivations, picking up non-verbal cues, and building trust, rather than just waiting for a turn to talk. 

• Integrity and Reliability: To build lasting relationships, a negotiator must display honesty and fairness, ensuring that they can be trusted to honor agreements. 

 • Flexibility and Creativity: Negotiators must be willing to compromise without sacrificing essential interests, finding creative, "outside-the-box" solutions to deadlocks. 

 • Mastery of Communication: This involves not just fluency in languages, but the ability to use precise, calculated language to convey firmness without causing offense, as well as the skill to pick up subtleties and nuances. 

 • Stamina and Courage: Diplomatic negotiations often involve 12-16 hour days under high pressure, requiring mental and physical resilience.  

In closing, a fundamental principle is that diplomacy is a long-term relationship, not a one-time, single transaction. It requires lots of patience and hard work and can’t be delegated to inexperienced individuals, no matter how “smart” they are. 

Ideally, diplomatic negotiators should draw their skills and experience from the State Department or similar foreign affairs agencies, to navigate complex international relations, institutional knowledge, and established trust with foreign counterparts. Unfortunately, and too often negotiating teams often are a mix of career professionals and political appointees that lack this critical background. 

The goal is to ensure that the negotiation outcome serves national interests and lasts, long after the immediate issue is resolved. Tomorrow we’ll see if Trump is up to that kind of mission, and if the people entrusted to do the job can do it. We’ll begin by assessing how Kushner and Witkoff are performing in view of the above criteria…

Trump and the idea of “regime change”…

Since the beginning of the Iran war, Trump has been vacillating about the many reasons he joined forces with Bibi Netanyahu to inflict pain on the Iranian regime and its people. 

After giving us a bunch of reasons, our president and his administration have drifted towards the need for “regime change”, a very tall order when you think that the Mullahs are deeply planted in the governance of their country.

In actuality, Trump and his staff should have conducted a better job of preparing the terrain, but to their credit, they had no idea where they were getting into. This is typically what happens when one is, at the same time, lazy, impatient, lying and hypocritical. 

So here we go, we will be serving regime change that’s always a dangerous and uncertain bet. The only fair question left is where this change is going to happen first, in Iran or in the United States?

Meet the “Demo Team!”

As spring get closer we all have projects to start, either around our homes or on other properties we have some interest in. But with any remodeling or improvements, there is always a hefty amount of “demo” or demolition, that’s often necessary.

Still, no one does a better job than the “Bibi”- Donald pair for breaking things. They bring their heavy equipment and hit everything in sight without worrying about any damage. From Gaza to Tehran you see both destroying any infrastructure and telling us they’ll replace ruins and rubles with a wonderful resort... 

Sure, Bibi does that to avoid losing his political immunity and end up going to jail while Donald does it to distract us from Epstein, his sinking ratings and our affordability problems. Out of personal concern and for my own safery, I wonder what this destructive duo will demolish next?

Is the World Economic Forum compromised? (Part Two)

Yesterday, we discussed the hijacking of the Davos Forum by Trump and today we’ll see what’s likely to happen following this new development. To begin with, the media spotlight has become too narrow, with coverage focusing on the most dramatic personalities and celebrities of the moment, but no longer on the substance of the sessions. 

Another development that we might see is the forum becoming a stage for political signaling, with some leaders eager to exploit what was an important global gathering to project their strength, shape their narrative, try to influence the market and hopefully reassure allies or create even more chaos in the world order. 

All these transformations will not only overshadow, but pervert the Davos forum’s intended purpose. Let’s not forget that public trust erodes when the conversation feels skewed. We all expect global forums to address global problems, but when we can easily spotlight shifts to political theatrics, it clearly feels like the institution has lost its seriousness. 

The most optimistic among us might hope (good for them!) that the underlying work (economic modeling, climate coordination, policy frameworks) will continue quietly in the background. Of course, a more useful question than just “Has the forum become irrelevant?” would be to wonder if the forum is still doing meaningful work behind the scenes, even if the public narrative is distorted? 

Perhaps and hopefully the answer will be yes, but the visibility of that work will gets drowned out by the gravitational pull of a single political figure dominating the news cycle. I’m not certain this will be the case and I’m pretty sure my view of the moment is not so far from reality as global institutions are struggling to maintain focus in an era where media attention is shaped by bullies, polarization and circus-style spectacle!

Is the World Economic Forum compromised? (Part One)

You may feel differently, but it seems to me that the World's Economic Forum has been hijacked by Trump and that his obsessions have been the sole subject debated at that venue, falling largely outside the focus of the meeting. Has this annual economic summit become tainted and irrelevant? 

I know that I’m not the only one who wonders why global gatherings sometimes feel dominated by a single political figure or a single country’s internal drama. It’s clear that large international gatherings like the World Economic Forum, G20, COP summits, or UN assemblies are extremely sensitive to whatever or whoever dominates the global media environment. 

When a political figure like Trump generates all the headlines, provokes strong reactions, shapes geopolitical uncertainty and influences markets or alliances, their presence or absence can overshadow everything else. 

Historically, highly polarizing or unpredictable leaders have often pulled the attention to themselves, even when the official agenda was something else entirely. 

The Davos Economic Forum’s stated purpose is to address global economic trends, climate and sustainability, technological change, geopolitical stability and long‑term systemic risks. But as we’ve just seen, the media ecosystem rewards conflict, personality, drama and controversy. 

So even if the official sessions cover climate, AI governance, supply chains, or global inequality, the public conversation can become dominated by someone intent on stealing Greenland. This creates a perception gap inside the forum and outside the forum with the limelight turned on the most polarizing attendee. 

That gap can make the event feel “tainted” or “off‑mission,” even if the internal agenda hasn’t changed. Has that forum become irrelevant? Not necessarily, but its public narrative has become distorted. Tomorrow will explore the consequences of that situation and where it leave all of us.

Who is poisoning humanity’s well?

Not one day goes by with my wondering if the current depressive cycle everyone seems to fall into worldwide isn’t due to the fact our world is asphyxiated by Donald Trump as he’s bullying entire Nations, occupying the whole media-sphere and being an awful menace hovering over us all. 

Many are feeling worn down, tense, or discouraged, and when a single political figure dominates headlines, conversations, and social media, it’s natural to assume that saturation is part of the emotional weight we feel. The global mood is depressed and anxious because media saturation amplifies stress when one individual dominates the news cycle, which seems to appear in every headline. 

When every controversy becomes a global conversation, social media algorithms push the most emotionally charged content, all this creates a sense of being “under siege,” even if the actual political impact varies by region. 

Most of us interpret this as a personal emotional burden, even though it’s really an information‑environment burden. 

News outlets are definitely guilty of highlighting conflicts. outrage, threats, scandals and polarization. When the coverage is only negative, people feel tense. This malaise is compounded by global uncertainty as most of us are navigating through economic instability, climate-change anxiety, rapid technological change, social fragmentation and post‑pandemic fatigue. 

As these pressures stack up, the presence of a highly polarizing public figure like Trump can feel like the final straw. This creates a real emotional contagion as the tone around us is echoed by friends that are stressed, angry negative social feeds, dramatic news and conversations that are contaminated by all this background noise. 

Again, to protect our inner world and our sanity, we can only regain balance by limiting exposure to constant news, grounding themselves with family, good friends, and our local community, focusing on meaningful, tangible actions and remembering that the world is bigger than the news cycle. We’re not imagining the heaviness of our times but we’re also not powerless in how we can respond to it!

US Dual Citizens beware! (Part Three)

Recently, I heard from Bernie Moreno, a Senator from Ohio who introduced the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” to end dual citizenship in the United States. Moreno, a member of the Republican (MAGA) Party. was born in Colombia to a family that immigrated to the United States, and he grew up in Florida. 

This bad idea is not something a person like me with dual French and American citizenship would look forward to being signed into law. The Bill, named the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” would require US citizens like me who hold another nationality to renounce one of the two or more, if applicable, within 12 months or lose their US citizenship. 

Moreno, himself a naturalized citizen originally from Colombia, argues that US citizenship should mean “sole and exclusive allegiance” to America. Not so fast, because the 14th amendment of the Constitution protects US birthright citizenship and stipulates that it can’t be revoked involuntarily. Courts have consistently ruled that citizenship is a fundamental right, and loss can only occur through voluntary renunciation or fraud in naturalization. 

Many ethnic and immigrant advocacy groups (e.g., Portuguese American Leadership Council) are mobilizing against that idea, warning it would affect millions of Americans. Fortunately, so far, the bill has not advanced beyond introduction. No hearings or votes have even been scheduled. Even if passed, enforcement would be extremely complex, requiring millions to choose between heritage and US citizenship plus a host of other sticky problems. 

In short, Senator Bernie Moreno’s proposal to ban dual citizenship is more a form of posturing to please Trump’s anti immigration policies. It remains symbolic and is unlikely to become law. The US legal framework strongly protects against involuntary loss of citizenship, and the measure faces steep political and constitutional hurdles. 

This means that I should be okay for a quite a while!

The multi-citizenship “soup” (Part Two)

As a dual citizen (French and United States) I always wonder what’s going on with that special status as I’m always hearing divergent stories about them. So here’s what I’ve been able to find out. As of today, about half the world’s countries allow dual or multiple citizenship, while others restrict or forbid it. A smaller group explicitly protects citizenship from being revoked. 

Let’s start with countries that allow dual or multiple citizenship. Most of Europe, the Americas, and many Asia-Pacific nations permit this status. For example, in Europe they include the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain (with restrictions), Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia and Turkey In the Americas there are the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay. 

Over the Asia-Pacific region, there’s Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, plus both Pakistan and South Korea with certain limits. That status is scarcer in Africa and the Middle East with only South Africa, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and Tunisia. If you’re interested in the Caribbean you’ll find Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis and St. Lucia. 

All these countries generally allow you to hold multiple passports and enjoy rights in each nation. There are however some nations that do enforce a strict single-citizenship. If you acquire another nationality, you may automatically lose your original one. For instance in Europe it’s Andorra, Austria (with exceptions), Estonia, Lithuania and Monaco. 

Asia includes China, India, Japan, Nepal, Bhutan, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. As for the Middle East we find Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain. In Africa it’s only Botswana and in the Caribbean, it’s Bahamas. In these countries, naturalizing elsewhere can mean forfeiting your original citizenship. 

Finally, there are countries where, just like the batteries in your new smartphone, citizenship can’t be removed. They include the United States where birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment cannot be revoked; only voluntary renunciation or fraud in naturalization can cause its loss. In Canada, citizens by birth cannot be stripped of nationality; only voluntary renunciation applies. 

After reform, German citizens generally cannot lose citizenship against their will, except in rare cases like for instance if they were to join foreign armed forces. As for France, citizenship is considered a fundamental right; revocation is limited to cases of fraud or terrorism but there’s no arbitrary removal. 

Tomorrow, we discover how a member of the US Congress would like to change this for Americans.

A UN passport? (Part One)

There’s one blue planets, but almost 200 man-made countries spread over it, with their own rules, government systems, borders and… passports! I like to think that I’m a citizen of the world and wonder if I could trade my pair of American and French travel documents for a light blue, UN passport? 

Nope, that’s not available. Sure, there's a UN travel document called the United Nations laissez-passer (UNLP), but it's not a passport in the traditional sense (it doesn't show nationalities). 

It identifies someone as a UN official for official business only and is available to staff, experts on mission, and high-level personnel, requiring you to be employed by the UN or related agencies and travel for work, with different colors (blue for staff, red for senior officials) offering varying benefits like functional immunity, but not even full diplomatic immunity. 

The select few who get one are the officials and employees of the UN and its specialized agencies (like ILO, IAEA, ICC). Also a few individuals designated as experts for specific UN assignments. And then there’s a special, red UN laissez-passer (like the one António Guterres uses), with more diplomatic perks for senior officials. 

So, if we aren’t part of that select list, forget about that special travel document. Tomorrow we’ll talk about those of us who claim to have more than one nationality and the rules that apply to them. So if international travel is your cup of tea, don’t miss it!

Games Putin and Trump play…

It’s hard to dissociate the push for a Trump led Ukraine peace effort from his Nobel Prize fantasy that was that primarily driven by political allies capitalizing on short-term diplomatic wins, but lacked the broad international consensus or lasting impact typically required for the award.

This said, Trump’s naivete hit a major speed-bump when he tried his rapprochement with the Russian dictator. Putin is super-smart and can tell a bully when he meets one and went tit for tat against Trump, humiliating him and showing him who “had the cards” among the two of them. 

I believe that Trump dislikes Zelensky, doesn’t want him to win and agrees to “play the time” along with Putin’s strategy. In the greater scheme of things, Putin has a plan and Trump none, preferring “knee-jerk” moves that keep his visibility high on the world scene, and he obviously fears Putin. 

With his trademark cruelty, Trump is wasting Ukraine’s precious time and is only interested at exploiting the lingering stalemate to sell arms in order to keep that war alive. If the theory you might hold is different, I’d like to hear from it...

A well-behaved Trump

Trump has never appeared so well-behaved as yesterday when he hosted President Zelensky, the NATO chief, Ursula Von der Leyen and five European heads of state.

There were his usual lies of course, like about the “six wars” he successfully terminated, but overall the man was unusually pleasant and had no nasty things to say about Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris or even George Washington, a remarkable feat in itself! 

So, I’m asking the question. Is this metamorphosis a permanent miracle or a passing mirage with Donald Trump soon reverting to his normal self overflowing with nastiness that has been in modus operandi since 2015? 

Time will tell and from Macron to Zelinski, most of the perceptive people who know a bit about our rude and uncontrolled head of state, I bet that deep inside, they know that the monster will soon raise back his ugly head. All these Monday pleasantries were just an optical illusion!

The Devil and the Fool

Trump likes to do things fast and is so self-confident that he also loves to make off-the-cuff decisions, while Putin appears to be much more subdued, smarter, super-patient and surrounds himself with experienced, nefarious characters like his foreign minister Lavrov who makes his counterpart Rubio look like an altar boy. 

The problem with this is that Putin, the criminal and devil he is, won the red carpet welcome in Anchorage, while making Trump look like a goddamn fool. Sad day indeed for America and its authoritarian leader that loves to exempt himself from painstaking work and can’t stop himself from taking shortcuts. 

Will he ever learn?

Our new, American Pope

After Pope Francis ignored the perk during his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV is at Castel Gandolfo for a break to restore his “body and spirit” as he recently said. It’s a return to a centuries-old tradition that brings the new pope to that summer residence perched at 425 meters, above Lake Albano, offering cooler air and calmer atmosphere than Rome’s summer heat.

Aside from this cool news, the new Pope has been vocal and consistent in addressing the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran since the start of his papacy in May 2025. On the War in Ukraine he condemned the war as “senseless”. He also expressed solidarity with Ukrainian Greek Catholics during a Jubilee pilgrimage, acknowledging their suffering and urging faith amid adversity. In his very first Sunday address as pope, Leo called for a ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and unrestricted humanitarian aid. 

Following US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June, Pope Leo issued a plea for peace, warning that war only “amplifies problems” and causes “deep wounds”. He’s also condemned the logic of “bullying and revenge”, urging all parties—including Israel, Iran, and the US—to pursue dialogue and diplomacy. Not much of the Papal interventions have been reported through a media that’s been largely obsessed with Trump. 

Besides these stances, Pope Leo XIV could drastically deepen his impact by leaning into the Vatican’s unique role as a neutral body and spiritual authority. He could for instance convene an Interfaith Peace Summit by bringing together senior leaders from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—especially those with influence in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and use it to condemn violence and call for ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, and negotiations. 

He could also launch a Global “Peace Pilgrimage” Campaign with interfaith partners to host synchronized events—prayers, fasts, and public forums—focused on peace in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran. Then there’s always a more active, direct engagement with political leaders challenging arms buildup and the erosion of international law. From a religious standpoint, he could also support bishops, imams, and rabbis in conflict zones with resources and platforms to counter hate speech, promote reconciliation, and protect civilians. 

Likewise, encourage interreligious councils in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran to issue joint statements and mediate local tensions. With strengths in moral clarity and global reach, it’s my belief that Pope Leo holds the power to translate his words into coordinated action, especially with other faith leaders and be instrumental in shifting the narrative from retaliation to reconciliation. 

As Pope Leo gets ready to intervene more forcefully for peace, I wish him a rejuvenating sojourn at Castel Gandolfo!

The recent Iran, Israel and USA war

“Taco” Trump, the man without a plan, wanted to show his military might and yielded once more to Netanyahu in testing the US penetrating bombs hoping to “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear program once and for all. The jury’s still out as to whether that operation succeeded, but what we know pretty much for sure is the cost to us, US taxpayers. 

Yep, it seems that “Operation Midnight Hammer” involving B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster bombs, will cost us approximately $68.84 billion, covering aircraft, weapons, material, personnel, fuel, and maintenance. Let’s hope it broke a few things and killed a few weasels instead of just drilling some big holes. 

What it did for sure, was unite some 92 million angry Iranians under their crazy religious leaders with a strong desire for revenge, in spite of a Trump-engineered cease-fire that doesn’t seem to stick too well. 

I bet that the angry Iranians will be getting even more friendly with Russia and uncle Putin will see how he can help them kick the West and the US in the rear end, perhaps with tactical or dirty nukes allegedly Iran-made, but supplied by the Kremlin. 

Hopefully, the warrior Trump who operates so well by the seat of his pants will learn something useful at the end of the day. 

I suggest he bills Bibi Netanyahu $80 billion for the holes he’s drilled to defray his taxpayers, and keeps 10 in his own pocket, but as always, I’m getting ahead of myself...

Iran, Israel and Nukes

In the current war started by Israel to eliminate Iran’s perceived nuclear threat, one question that should precede any discussion on the subject is “Why in the world, is Israel so secretive about its nuclear program and, according to the Federation of American Scientists, its estimated 90 nuclear warhead arsenal?” 

Right, why is Israel hypocritically objecting to Iran getting nuclear weapons too, while that country as never acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons? My sense is that Netanyahu needs to always be fighting a war in order to stay in power and evade prosecution, and this at US taxpayers’ expense. Just like a biker needs to keep on pedaling to stand on their bicycle. 

Some say that Israel’s implied nuclear capability acts as a last-resort deterrent against existential threats from hostile neighbors. By neither confirming nor denying its arsenal, Israel hopes to avoid escalating regional arms races while signaling it could retaliate catastrophically if attacked. Openly declaring nukes might incentivize its adversaries to strike first or justify their own programs. 

Ambiguity keeps enemies guessing. Of course, Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), avoiding inspections or obligations to disarm. This lets it maintain capability without legal scrutiny. Then, there is a host of hypocrisy, beginning with the US that tolerates Israel’s ambiguity (despite non-proliferation norms) because it aligns with shared interests in Middle East stability. 

Acknowledgment would force Washington to legally sanction Israel under the Symington Amendment (banning aid to nuclear proliferators). It’s clear that without complicity from other US allies that pretend not to know that Israel has a significant nuclear arsenal deliverable via missiles, subs, or aircraft this charade is seen as a means to avoid diplomatic crises. 

All of this confirms Israel’s hypocrisy, as it condemns Iran’s program while ignoring its own and it makes a mockery of democracy by claiming it values transparency while militarily embracing secrecy. Israel’s nuclear secrecy isn’t just about bombs—it’s a high-stakes game of psychological and geopolitical chess. 

The policy endures because it works (so far) to deter threats without triggering all-out arms races. But as the Middle East changes, so might this theory.