This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A large flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is seen flying near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 14 December, 2023. [Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images]
The death toll from Saturday’s Houthi attack on King Khalid International Airport in Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh rose to 13 after an Indian national succumbed to his injuries on Sunday, the Indian Embassy said, Anadolu reports.
In a statement on Facebook, the embassy said an Indian citizen injured in the Oct. 10 attack “has unfortunately lost his life today.”
The embassy expressed condolences to the victim’s family and said it was in contact with them.
It also pledged full support to ensure the prompt repatriation of his remains to India.
Saudi authorities said earlier that the attack on the airport had killed 12 people and injured 309 others.
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says Sundown Syndrome is a dead givaway and he wishes someone would Lock Him Up
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A view of the vessels passing through Strait of Hormuz following the two-week temporary ceasefire reached between the United States and Iran on the condition that the strait be reopened, seen in Oman on April 08, 2026. [Shadi J. H. Alassar – Anadolu Agency]
Tehran says Washington has accepted some of its 7 conditions but must clarify unresolved issues
Iran considers Washington’s response to its seven conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz “insufficient,” a senior Iranian official said, according to the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said the US had accepted some of Tehran’s conditions, while others remained unclear.
Rezaei said Washington had approached Tehran over the past two months through three channels — Pakistan, Qatar and Iraq — asking Iran to submit its proposals.
About two weeks ago, Iran conveyed seven conditions to the US, explicitly stating that the Strait of Hormuz would not reopen to Washington and no negotiations would take place until those conditions were met, he said.
Rezaei said Tehran was no longer in the process of responding to Washington because the US had already submitted its response, which Iran considered “insufficient.”
“They must clarify the issues that remain ambiguous to us,” he said.
The report did not detail all seven conditions or specify which ones Washington had accepted.
Rezaei also said the Gulf could not be secure without Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz, describing control over the waterway as an “immense source of national wealth and a major national asset.”
He said Iran’s interests extended beyond closing the passage and collecting transit fees.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in late September that Tehran could reopen the strategic waterway within seven days if Washington accepted a proposal conveyed through Qatari mediation.
Under the plan, the US would be expected to take agreed steps during the first four or five days, allowing normal navigation through the strait to resume on the sixth day and negotiations on a final agreement to begin on the seventh.
Tehran’s demands include an end to hostilities, the release of frozen Iranian assets, the lifting of restrictions on Iranian oil exports and an end to the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Iran has kept the Strait of Hormuz restricted while demanding that Washington fulfill commitments under a June memorandum of understanding.
Tehran has said the waterway will not fully reopen until its conditions are met and US commitments are implemented.
The US and Israel launched a war against Iran on Feb. 28. Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks across the region and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, while Washington later imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Washington and Tehran subsequently signed a memorandum of understanding in June concerning freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, but implementation stalled over disagreements related to security in the strategic waterway.
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says Sundown Syndrome is a dead givaway and he wishes someone would Lock Him Up
A look at a Compliant Technologies Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter (GLOVE) at Omaha Police Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, on August 14, 2026. (Nikos Frazier/Omaha World-Herald via Getty Images)
“Everyone should be alarmed that ICE is preparing to deploy a tool designed to inflict, at best, intense pain,” said one watchdog.
When US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ordered 6,000 pairs of shock gloves this summer, the agency knew that they could cause such “intense pain” that victims stopped fighting immediately and became fearful of more shocks.
That’s according to The Associated Press, which on Tuesday revealed the existence of a US Army study on the gloves. ICE put in a $17 million order for the product, known as the Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter (GLOVE), in August.
In October 2024, the GLOVE was tested on Army employees at the military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to see if it could be incorporated into their practices to move noncompliant prisoners between cells.
According to the AP:
The shocks had a profound impact on Army employees who played the role of combative prisoners during the exercise… The participants, several of whom were large-statured men, stopped resisting seconds after officers applied shocks by touching gloves to their skin, and were left with “fatigue, soreness and excessive apprehensiveness to being shocked again,” the study found.
After experiencing the effects of the GLOVE, … [“]participants stated just seeing the GLOVE was enough to make them want to comply,” the authors wrote.
The report later noted that unlike a taser, which is designed to cause the body of a noncompliant person to freeze, the GLOVE is meant to elicit pain. It “works by overloading the peripheral nerve endings,” the study said. It also noted that participants with water or oil on their skin experienced more severe shocks and that one was left in pain for 30 minutes afterward.
The full report has not yet been released to the public; however, a four-page memo from the Department of the Army’s Office of the Project Manager for Close Combat Systems summarizing its findings can be found on the website of the GLOVE’s manufacturer, Compliant Technologies.
This isn't going to become some anomalous method of arresting people. They will be shocking people like this as a matter of course. pic.twitter.com/U9SuvaMTvu
ICE has described the shock gloves as a tool to “de-escalate” conflicts in the street with targets of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, as well as protesters against the policy—it has said the gloves would be used to subdue those “actively or passively resisting” agents’ commands.
In the wake of several fatal shootings by agents that lacked clear justification, the agency has described the gloves as a “low-impact tool” that will allow agents to avoid escalating to more extreme uses of force.
When politicians have called to restrict access to the gloves, ICE’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accused them of trying to deprive federal officers of “safety equipment.”
The user manual of the GLOVE notes that the “pain stimulus” it delivers can produce psychological changes associated with sudden death, including increased blood pressure, heart rate, and adrenaline, as well as changes in blood chemistry and heart rhythm. It also notes that those shocked with the gloves could face serious injuries from falling after suddenly losing control of their extremities.
The manual recommends that the gloves not be used against older people, small children, people who are pregnant, and people with certain disabilities.
As Reagan Williams, a researcher at Human Rights Watch’s Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division, noted in August, agency operations have regularly targeted these groups.
“Electric shock devices have long been abusively deployed around the globe, including as a method of torture and other ill-treatment. Given these risks, the European Union has implementedtrade restrictions on these devices,” Williams said. “The scale of this technology’s potential harm in the hands of ICE, an abusive agency whose recruits are deployed with minimal training, could be considerable.”
Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, which provided the report to the AP, noted that while the Army report concluded the gloves were effective, it said little about their safety.
“The military assessment in ICE’s own files shows that these gloves can cause ‘intense pain’ and force compliance. It does not establish that they are safe,” Chukwu said. “Everyone should be alarmed that ICE is preparing to deploy a tool designed to inflict, at best, intense pain, without showing that it is safe for the people who will be subjected to it.”
While tasers can leave severe burns and welts on subjects, the shock gloves being adopted by ICE can deliver a painful shock without leaving a mark, making it much harder to prove their use. For law enforcement agencies, this is one of their most alluring features.
“I highly recommend these gloves to anybody that’s looking for a utility they can use that is conducive to not leading to lawsuits,” said Bob Couey, chief deputy of the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia, in a promotional video posted by Compliant Technologies in 2024 and resurfaced in August by Mother Jones.
ICE just spent $16.7 million arming agents with shock gloves—wearable devices that deliver a painful electric shock. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International say the gloves “could be readily misused for torture.”
Even a former ICE acting director, John Sandweg, has warned that because the gloves are so easy to use, agents might feel compelled to deploy them haphazardly.
“It’s too easy for this to get misused, against a population that doesn’t pose a threat,” Sandweg, who led the agency for about six months during the Obama administration, told MS NOW in August.
The gloves have drawn substantial criticism from Democratic members of Congress. In late August, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) led a group of 49 members of the US House of Representatives to demand the contract be canceled.
“Introducing low-visibility electric shock weapons into our immigration enforcement system is an unacceptable escalation that prioritizes physical intimidation and unaccountable force over human safety and administrative accountability,” they said in a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
ICE, meanwhile, has been less than forthcoming about what guardrails will govern the use of the shock gloves. In late August, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and 15 other Democratic senators asked the agency to answer questions about how the gloves will be used, who they’ll be used against, and whether it has conducted safety evaluations.
Cortez Masto told the AP that over a month later, the agency has not answered her and her colleagues’ questions.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
US President Donald Trump gestures as he walks on stage to speak during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center in Grand Island, Nebraska, on October 5, 2026. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images)
“The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” said the mayor of Los Angeles.
“Keep our city out of your reckless war talk,” said San Diego’s mayor, Todd Gloria, Monday night after President Donald Trump’s rambling speech at a rally in Nebraska included a particularly violent mention of the California city.
Gloria was among several Democratic political leaders who were incensed after Trump—moments after predicted the Republican Party would see a “tremendous victory” in the November 3 midterm elections—suggested that he would not object to an Iranian military or nuclear attack on San Diego and Los Angeles.
The president said that soaring prices for gas, groceries, and other essentials are a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe—keeping our country safe.”
Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay pic.twitter.com/Fc4BcjVDKj
He warned that Iran could “take out a city,” before adding that he would “let them” attack the two deep-blue cities—home to a collective 5.2 million people, with more than 20 million residents in the surrounding areas
“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,” Trump said at the rally in Grand Island. “This is a very small price to pay… It’s gonna be over very soon.”
The crowd responded to Trump’s comments with laughter and cheers. The president has frequently made Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, Chicago, and his own hometown of New York City the targets of rhetorical attacks. He has also targeted those cities with the deployment of armed federal agents as part of his mass deportation agenda.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, condemned Trump’s remarks as “deranged and dangerous.”
“After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego,” said Newsom, who later criticized Trump’s vice president and secretary of state for not speaking out against the comments.
Gloria added that San Diego, which is home to major military installations, “is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a ‘small price to pay.’”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused Trump of compromising the safety of the nation’s second-largest city.
“The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” said Bass. “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”
Jim Desmond, a Republican running for Congress in California’s 48th District, which lies in San Diego, was also quick to distance himself from the president’s comments.
Some observers claimed the president had simply been speaking in an “especially confusing style,” as journalist Daniel Dale suggested, and did not intend to suggest that the two cities could be acceptable collateral damage.
“Of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out,” he added.
Trump’s comments came days after it was reported that the Pentagon is prepared to send thousands more troops and a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, as talks between the US and Iran remain stalled. Gas prices remain elevated, at $4.36 per gallon on average, and nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press poll in June said they disapproved of how Trump had handled the war, which he joined Israel in starting in February without congressional approval.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) had a succinct response to Trump’s remarks, referring to the constitutional amendment that allows members of a president’s Cabinet to remove him from office on the ground that they cannot fulfill the duties of the president.
Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says he wishes someone would lock him up, small Orca speaks bluntly.Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.
Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay pic.twitter.com/Fc4BcjVDKj
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The United States Capitol building is seen in Washington DC, United States on April 22, 2026, [Celal Güneş – Anadolu Agency]
Foreign policy is rarely the principal factor shaping how Americans vote in congressional primaries or midterm elections. The 2026 cycle, however, appears to be different, as crises abroad increasingly spill over into concerns at home. The issues emphasised by Republican and Democratic candidates, the results of the primaries and shifts in public opinion suggest that Iran and the Palestinian question have emerged as additional factors in the domestic political contest. Iran has entered the electoral calculus through the economic costs of the war and majority opposition to military action, while the Palestinian issue has gained salience amid a discernible shift in American attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians. These developments could influence the outcome of November’s midterms, against a backdrop of falling approval of the administration’s foreign policy and a growing Democratic lead in congressional polling.
The war with Iran shows this most clearly. Its repercussions have spread beyond foreign policy into the economy and the cost of living, the issues that weigh most heavily on American voters. The effects of the US-Israeli war on Iran have fed through into energy prices, inflation and interest rates in the United States, while consumer confidence has fallen to its lowest level. Public opposition is also substantial: 60 per cent of voters opposed US military action against Iran in a Quinnipiac poll conducted in July, and only 29 per cent approved of Trump’s handling of Iran in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in June.
Attitudes towards Israelis and Palestinians point to a notable shift in American public opinion, one that is increasingly reflected in the positions of the candidates of both parties and in the electoral mood. For nearly two decades, Gallup polling showed a wide and persistent sympathy gap in favour of the Israelis, exceeding 40 percentage points in many years and averaging 43 points between 2001 and 2018.
That gap had begun to narrow even before 7 October 2023, particularly among Democrats and younger Americans. In February 2023, Gallup found that, for the first time, Democrats sympathised more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis. The war in Gaza, however, accelerated and deepened that trend. The change has not been confined to Democrats. Movement within the Republican electorate, historically the constituency most sympathetic to Israel, has also contributed to the broader evolution of American opinion. Republicans still sympathise overwhelmingly with the Israelis, but that advantage has begun to erode. Gallup found that Republican sympathy for the Israelis had fallen by 10 percentage points since 2024, to its lowest level. More striking still is the emerging generational divide: among Republicans under 30, Pew found favourable views of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples almost evenly matched, at 42 and 40 per cent respectively. The most consequential movement, however, has come among independents. In 2025, they sympathised more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians by 42 to 34 per cent; a year later, that balance had reversed to 41 per cent for the Palestinians and 30 for the Israelis, a swing Gallup identifies as the principal driver of the latest change in public opinion. The trajectory across the three political groups underscores how far this realignment broadened during the war.
Between 2023 and 2026, Gallup recorded an increase in sympathy for the Palestinians from 49 to 65 per cent among Democrats, from 32 to 41 per cent among independents and, more modestly, from 11 to 13 per cent among Republicans.
The scale of the movement varied considerably across the partisan spectrum, but its consistent direction suggests that the war marked an important inflection point in a process already under way. Taken together, these trends indicate that the latest change is neither sudden nor transitory, but part of a deeper and more gradual realignment in American public opinion attitudes. Against this backdrop, Gallup’s finding in February this year that 41 per cent of Americans sympathised more with the Palestinians, compared with 36 per cent who sympathised more with the Israelis, appears less an isolated polling result than the culmination of a longer-term trend cutting across the country’s partisan divide.
The change is not confined to sympathy. It is increasingly extending to the terms of the US relationship with Israel itself, and particularly to whether American military and financial support should remain as extensive and as largely unconditional as it has traditionally been. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted between 18 and 22 June found that 48 per cent of registered voters considered the United States too supportive of Israel, the highest proportion since the question was first asked in 2017. That sentiment has begun to find expression in Congress. In April, 40 of the 47 members of the Senate Democratic caucus voted to block a $295 million sale of bulldozers to Israel, while 36 opposed a $151.8 million sale of 1,000-pound bombs. The votes marked a significant expansion of Democratic support for placing limits on arms transfers to Israel and reflected a widening gap between the two parties over the terms of US support. Within the Republican coalition, the change is more limited, but potentially significant. Support for Israel remains dominant within the party, yet an increasingly visible America First current on the right has begun to question whether extensive US military commitments to Israel serve American interests.
Tucker Carlson has become one of the most prominent voices articulating that argument, accusing the Republican establishment of placing Israel’s security ahead of America’s. Such arguments remain far from commanding the Republican mainstream, but their growing visibility, particularly alongside weakening support for Israel among younger Republicans, suggests that a debate once concentrated largely within the Democratic Party is beginning to reach parts of the American right as well.
The 2026 congressional primaries offer an early indication of how these shifts may play out in November, both in the issues candidates chose to emphasise and in the results themselves. According to Ballotpedia, 2,497 candidates ran in congressional primaries covering 468 seats: all 435 in the House of Representatives and 33 in the Senate. With two special Senate elections in Ohio and Florida, 470 congressional seats are being contested this year. Of those running, 2,232 sought House seats, the highest number since 2014, while 265 competed for the Senate, the third-highest figure over the same period. The cycle also featured 547 competitive primaries: 272 Democratic, 209 Republican and 66 conducted under the “top-two” system, in which parties do not hold separate primaries. Instead, all candidates appear on a single ballot, and the two who receive the highest votes advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation.
In the 2024 congressional primaries, the MAGA wing accounted for 43 per cent of Republican winners, compared with 40 per cent for traditional conservatives and 11 per cent for moderates, according to Brookings. On the Democratic side, the mainstream wing, the party’s dominant force, accounted for 67 per cent of winners, while progressives made up 30 per cent and democratic socialists remained marginal.
With no comprehensive breakdown of the balance of forces within either party yet available following the primaries, concluded in mid-September 2026, Brookings offers partial results that allow for a comparison between the two cycles. Its analysis is confined to the most competitive contests in 33 House districts and 10 Senate races, covering a total of 300 candidates.
Among Republicans, MAGA candidates won only around 26.7 per cent of the competitive races, while more than 92 per cent of Trump-endorsed candidates prevailed. Around half of those endorsed by Trump, however, were incumbents, giving them an inherent advantage in seeking re-election. Even with that qualification, Trump-backed candidates recorded a markedly higher success rate than MAGA candidates across these swing races.
Among Democrats, progressives won only 17.8 per cent of competitive races, while democratic socialists remained marginal, broadly in line with their showing in 2024. Yet other analyses suggest that progressives’ success rates were close to those of previous cycles, and that more progressive candidates won. The wing also registered notable victories, among them those of candidates endorsed by Zohran Mamdani in New York. An important caveat is that the 2026 figures measure each faction’s success rate in competitive races, rather than its share of all winners, as the 2024 figures do. They therefore offer an indication of the broader direction of travel, not a definitive numerical comparison between the two cycles.
These results point to a pattern among Democratic winners whose campaigns centred on issues of particular concern to their constituencies, rather than necessarily signalling an ideological shift to the left. More broadly, across the most competitive districts and states in 2026, the outcomes in both parties show an advantage for their mainstream, less ideological wings, reflecting the premium placed on general-election viability and the ability to reach voters beyond each party’s ideological core.
The issues on which the winners of the latest primaries campaigned offer an important measure of each party’s voter priorities, as well as a guide to what may matter most in the coming midterms. Republican candidates were more supportive of Israel than their Democratic counterparts, and less so of military and economic assistance to Ukraine.
Among Republicans, immigration, security and the border featured more prominently. Only 23.5 per cent of those running in swing or contested states defended the administration’s record on the economy and the cost of living, while none acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of these issues. Healthcare went unaddressed by roughly half of the party’s candidates, and most of those who did discuss it focused on containing spending. In competitive races in swing states, success was associated with a combination of Trump’s endorsement, electability and the avoidance of ideological positions that might narrow a candidate’s broader electoral appeal.
Among Democrats, the economy and the cost of living came to the fore, with affordability emerging as the overriding economic concern. Around 56 per cent of Democratic candidates addressed inflation, most using it to criticise the Trump administration’s record, while 94 per cent made healthcare an issue in their campaigns. In competitive districts, no candidate embraced an “open borders” policy or called for defunding the police, and many steered clear of more divisive positions, including on transgender issues. On immigration, the small number who took more conservative stances performed well. In safe Democratic seats with competitive primaries, progressive candidates backed by Zohran Mamdani defeated their rivals with a more left-wing message centred on economic inequality, immigration, the Palestinian question and higher taxes on the wealthy. The results underscored how the issues that decide a party primary can vary with the electoral character of the district.
Trump’s endorsement emerged as a powerful factor in Republican candidates’ performance, while the economy, the cost of living and healthcare featured prominently in Democratic messaging. Across both parties, candidates in competitive races sought to balance the issues that mobilise their party base with the need to appeal to swing voters.
Pew polling in 2026 shows a clear divide between Republican and Democratic priorities on illegal immigration, security and crime. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this month, 79 per cent of Republicans approved of Trump’s handling of immigration, revealing a marked gap between the Republican base and the public at large. Among Americans overall, only 36 per cent approved of his immigration policy and 55 per cent disapproved. Democratic priorities, according to Pew, are more heavily concentrated on the cost of living, healthcare, gun violence and climate, while only 17 per cent of Democrats regarded illegal immigration as a very big problem. Yet the economy, the cost of living and healthcare are concerns that extend well beyond Democratic voters. On healthcare policy, Democrats held a clear advantage over Republicans, 42 per cent to 28 per cent, and also led on climate, abortion and education, positions that broadly align with public opinion. Republicans, by contrast, led clearly on crime and more narrowly on immigration.
This alignment may help explain the broader electoral mood, which in recent months has tilted towards the Democratic Party ahead of the midterms. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in the middle of this month put Democrats at 44 per cent, against 37 per cent for Republicans. In 37 swing House districts, a Cook Political Report poll conducted in September found Democrats ahead by 49 per cent to 47 per cent. Trump had carried these districts collectively in 2024. In a separate poll, his approval rating fell to 32 per cent.
The seven Senate races rated Toss Up by the Cook Political Report are in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas, with Republicans currently holding five of those seats. The balance of the Senate stands at 53 Republicans and 45 Democrats, alongside two independents who caucus with the Democrats. This leaves Republicans defending more of the most competitive seats at a time when late-September polling shows Democrats ahead in several swing races. The battle for the Senate has therefore become more competitive, although current polling is not sufficient to determine which party will hold the chamber after the elections.
Domestic concerns nevertheless continue to carry greater electoral weight. Seventy per cent of voters said the cost of living was important to their vote in House elections, compared with 59 per cent for healthcare, 57 per cent for immigration and 41 per cent for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll released on 24 June 2026.
The polling therefore does not suggest that foreign policy has displaced the economy as a principal determinant of electoral outcomes. It does, however, show that Iran and the Palestinian question have become factors whose impact on these elections can no longer be overlooked.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Orcas discuss rotting brain, front Orca says he wishes someone would lock him up, small Orca speaks bluntly.
Donald Trump sings and dances, says that it’s fun to kill everyone … unless he gets distracted or falls asleep.Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.
