The U.S. Border Patrol is encountering thousands of Chinese illegal immigrants. Between last October and April this year, the Border Patrol has encountered over 27,000 Chinese nationals. Perhaps these are farmers sent here to find more agricultural land to grow soybeans. China already owns about 384,000 acres of U.S. soil, a 30% increase since 2019. China bought real estate assets near U.S. military bases. According to a recent Defense Department report, China has 46 military firms and subsidiaries operating within U.S. borders disguised as civilian entities. These developments are part of an obvious strategic plan: The Chinese Communist Party’s “military-civil fusion” program requires Chinese companies to share all technologies with the Chinese army. Huawei Technologies secretly funds cutting-edge research at U.S. colleges and universities, gaining access to new data on biomedical diagnostics and lasers. And the Chinese army controls Huawei. While influencing students, China also exerts its influence across various media platforms. In medicine, Chinese pharmaceutical companies supply 97% of U.S. antibiotics. About 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used to make drugs in the U.S. come from China or countries that rely on Chinese production. Too many American leaders are soft on China, partly because toeing the Communist Party line can be lucrative. Between 2019 and 2023, China spent more than $330 million on lobbyists. According to one national security expert, “China’s lobbying roster reads like a ‘who’s who’ of Washington insiders.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged a “new era” strategic partnership as rivals of the United States, “an aggressive Cold War hegemon sowing discord across the world.” Mr. Xi, in his third term in power, and Mr. Putin, starting his fifth term in power, challenged the U.S.-led global order. Mr. Xi spoke of “pushing forward with changes that have not happened in 100 years.” Mr. Putin has persuaded China to be Russia’s economic lifeline after Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the global condemnation and sanctions that ensued. Although Russia is heavily sanctioned for its invasion of Ukraine, trade with China has increased exponentially, up more than 64% since 2021. China provides Russia with cars, clothing, raw materials and other products. Of special concern are the dual-use products China provides to Russia for its war in Ukraine: machine tools and microelectronics, to the tune of about $300 million per month. Hopefully, textbooks in China will accurately document for their students the role the U.S. had ? and continues to have ? in China’s economic development since 1978, the tense relationship China had with the Soviet Union, and China’s strategic cooperation with the U.S. that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The irony for many, aware of this contemporary history of U.S.-China relations, is that China is now aligned with a revanchist Russian Federation. Yes, geopolitical issues between the U.S. and China must be discussed and resolved, like the tension in the South China Sea. Hopefully, China will realize that cooperating with and enabling Russia, which is a pariah state, is not in China’s interest.

China said the meeting was “positive, pragmatic and constructive. The two sides agreed that a stable U.S.-China military-to-military relationship is important.” What detracted from China’s economic and political outreach to Europe, Japan and South Korea, and the constructive meeting of Mr. Austin with Mr. Dong was China’s reaction to the May 20 inauguration of Taiwan’s new president, Lai Ching-te. On May 23, China conducted a large-scale military exercise saying it “served as strong punishment for separatist acts of Taiwan independence forces and a strong message against the interference and provocation by external forces.” This was China’s third military exercise encircling and attempting to intimidate Taiwan. Working with the Chinese navy, coast guard vessels from Fujian province appear to be preparing for a potential quarantine, blockade or invasion. China’s support for Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, military exercises around Taiwan, and bullying of the Philippines in the South China Sea detract from China’s efforts to garner greater support from the Global South and other nonaligned nations. Indeed, Mr. Xi’s outreach to Europe and Mr. Li’s summit with South Korea and Japan were designed to present China in a more favorable light. The trilateral summit with China, South Korea and Japan did produce an opportunity for these three countries to work together again, as they did in the Six-Party Talks, to bring regional peace and stability with the eventual denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This is an opportunity for China, an ally of North Korea, to use its influence and persuade North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to return to negotiations.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang’s May 26-28 summit ― the first since 2019 ― with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida focused on trade and security issues and enhancing three-way cooperation. Mr. Li urged Japan and South Korea to reject “protectionism” and embrace free trade while clearly stating China’s geopolitical objective with this diplomatic outreach: “We need to promote multipolarity in the world and oppose the formation of blocs or camps.” Mr. Li clearly was referring to the United States and the establishment of AUKUS (Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S.), the Quad (Australia, Japan, India and the U.S.), the Washington Declaration (South Korea and the U.S.) and the Camp David Agreement (South Korea, Japan and the U.S.). An interesting and positive development was what China, South Korea and Japan said in the Joint Declaration of the summit: “We affirmed that maintaining peace, stability, and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia serves our common interest and is our common responsibility. We reiterated positions on regional peace and stability, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the abductions issue, respectively.” North Korea immediately responded, condemning China, Japan and South Korea for discussing denuclearization of the peninsula, calling their joint declaration a “grave political provocation” that violates North Korea’s sovereignty. This was a rare criticism of China from North Korea; China is its only ally and its economic lifeline. On May 31, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had a 75-minute meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Defense Minister Dong Jun, in Singapore.

Brexit further complicated Britain’s economic outlook. While proponents argued that leaving the European Union would enable Britain to regain control over its laws and borders, critics warned of the economic consequences of leaving the world’s largest single market. The prolonged uncertainty surrounding Brexit negotiations and the poor execution of the eventual departure from the EU disrupted trade and investment, further dampening economic growth. The COVID-19 pandemic dealt a severe blow to the British economy and many others, causing widespread disruption and uncertainty. The lockdown measures, being unnecessarily severe and implemented to contain the virus, led to a sharp contraction in economic activity, with millions of jobs lost and businesses shuttered. Like the U.S. and most other major countries, Britain suffers from too much government spending, regulation, and taxation. Government debt is more than 100% of gross domestic product (which is also true of the U.S., Japan, Italy, France, and many other countries), causing increasing interest payments to crowd out other government spending programs. Britain could obtain short-term economic relief by again engaging in massive regulatory reduction and allowing fracking for gas and oil. In recent years, huge amounts of now recoverable gas and oil have been discovered both on the island of Britain and again in the North Sea. Britain has been going through an energy crisis because “the Greens” pressured the government to kill much power production from coal, to stop the renewal of the nuclear plants, and not to develop new shale gas (under a mistaken belief that it is environmentally unfriendly).

They surpassed Britain in terms of technological innovation and efficiency in manufacturing. This was partly because of Britain’s slowness to invest in new technologies and its adherence to traditional industries, such as coal and textiles, that became less important on the global stage. The two world wars inflicted significant damage on the British economy. The cost of the wars drained the nation’s resources and left much of its infrastructure in ruins. Once a source of wealth and power, the British Empire unraveled after World War II as colonies gained independence and Britain struggled to adapt to its new role in the world order. Britain lost access to valuable markets and resources, and its influence in international trade diminished. The rise of protectionist policies in other countries further restricted British exports, exacerbating the decline of its manufacturing sector. Domestic factors also played a role in Britain’s economic decline. Labor relations hindered innovation and productivity growth. Decades of underinvestment in infrastructure also took their toll on the economy, making it less competitive in the global marketplace. The discovery of North Sea oil in the 1970s temporarily boosted the British economy, but it also masked underlying structural weaknesses. The reliance on oil revenue led to neglect of other sectors, and when oil prices declined in the 1980s, the economy suffered. The Thatcher era brought about significant economic reforms to revitalize the British economy. Thatcher’s policies of deregulation, privatization, and trade union reform aimed to increase efficiency and competitiveness. While these reforms succeeded in modernizing the economy, her successors were less resolute.

The British Conservative Party has been in power for the last 14 years but seems on the verge of losing in a big way. At one point, particularly after Margaret Thatcher won in 1979, the Conservatives seemed to have principles they believed in. Thatcherism worked, and most of the public lined up and voted for her. Shortly before she stood for her second term, I was in a London cab, and I asked the driver what he thought of Thatcher. He said: “I don’t like her. I come from the working class, and we have always voted Labour. But I will vote for her because Britain needs her.” The wisdom of the common man. The current crop of Conservative politicians have serious disagreements as to what they believe in and the will to fight for whatever beliefs they still have. In sum, they have given the British public little reason to vote for them. Some observers even believe this could be the end of the party. But it is probably most unlikely that the Conservative Party will die given that it has recovered from several near-death experiences since it was formed in 1830. The British economy was once the powerhouse of the world, particularly at the height of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Its early adoption of mechanized production techniques, extensive colonial empire, and global trading networks propelled it to unprecedented economic dominance. As the 20th century progressed, however, several factors contributed to its relative decline. One was the erosion of its comparative advantage in manufacturing. While Britain led the world in industrialization in the 19th century, other nations, particularly Germany, the United States and Japan, caught up.

Every approach to curtailing Iran from its threats and behavior toward Israel and other countries has failed. Diplomacy failed as Iranian “diplomats” have kept the U.S. tied up in endless talks. American negotiators have duped themselves into a baseless faith that a deal might persuade Tehran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The U.S. ― indeed the world ― has only one option left: regime change. This should be the policy of the United States and other free countries, especially those that have been subjected to terrorist attacks. The goal must be the removal of the ayatollahs ruling and ruining Iran and to make sure free and fair elections are held to replace them. As noted two years ago by Amnesty International: “Iran was rocked by an unprecedented popular uprising against the Islamic Republic system. Security forces unlawfully fired live ammunition and metal pellets to crush protests, killing hundreds of men, women and children and injuring thousands.” The last known outside regime change effort in Iran occurred during the Carter administration. President Jimmy Carter thought toppling the Shah was a good policy. Granted, the Shah was no democrat, but he kept the lid on. When he was overthrown, Iran shifted from a pro-Western country to what it is now ― the epicenter of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. There are many ways to undermine and replace the ayatollahs other than outright war. Opposition groups inside and outside Iran should be supported financially and politically. No amount of diplomacy or money will deter the mullahs from attempting to carry out what they believe is the will of their god: the destruction of all people they consider “infidels.”

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo posited several months ago that it would be within the bounds of international law for the U.S. to use military assets in Mexico to track down and destroy the cartels that are themselves international terrorists that are killing Americans every day. Given the Mexican government’s lack of operational control of swaths of its own territory, having ceded it to the cartels, the use of force would be justified. Finally, wiping out Hezbollah, the Houthis and others in an overwhelming show of force would cripple Iran’s ability to attack Israel and other Middle East interests. Western ships and planes and precision-guided munitions aren’t just paperweights. Russia and China will likely not come to the aid of terror groups even if they’re connected to their close ally. Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and others would welcome the ability to eliminate Iran’s proxies and marginalize the regime. Though President Biden has refused to do it, choking off the Iranian economy is common sense. Restoring the sanctions and the Trump-era “maximum pressure” campaign needs to happen as well. But only eliminating the proxies will begin to end the cycle of Iranian violence. Other G7 leaders are also dealing with the results of their own timidity facing both an emboldened Iran and Russia, its close ally. A surprise coordinated show of overwhelming force in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq is needed. Otherwise, Iran’s reign of terror will undoubtedly continue. Without taking out these terror groups, there will be little change in the dynamics of the Middle East.

Iran launched the largest attack using drones and missiles in the history of the Middle East recently, and it was swatted away with relative ease by the superior military technology of Israel, the U.S. and other nations. Though ultimately a humiliating display of force from the mullahs, the scale of Iran’s attack has helped change the conversation from criticism of Israel over its prosecution of the war against Hamas to one more focused on the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. That tone provides Israel, the U.S., and the West a limited opportunity to deal a crushing blow to Iran, but it will take courage, which is in short supply. Now is not the time to attack Iran directly. Iran, as a sovereign state, must be treated in accordance with international law, even if its leaders refuse to abide by those conventions. It is, however, time to finally eliminate Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iranian militias in Iraq, among other terrorists who have operated with impunity for decades. These organizations are soldiers for Iran, and the regime has bet correctly that the U.S. and the West wouldn’t have the stomach to take them out. It’s time to kill the killers. Since these well-known terror proxies of Iran are not state actors, sovereign nations like Israel and the U.S. have greater latitude to conduct military operations to eliminate them. The territory they occupy and operate from is under their control: not the control of the Yemeni or Lebanese governments, for instance. Like Hamas, these organizations have been responsible for killing countless foreign nationals as they wage their contract jihad on behalf of the Iranian government.