In October 2016, American humanitarian aid worker Jeff Woodke was attacked in his home in Abalak, Niger, where he'd served nomadic communities for 27 years. His guards were killed, he was beaten, stripped and hauled into the Sahara by Al-Qaeda-linked militants, and he spent the next six and a half years in chains.
▎
▎ In this interview, Jeff describes the night he was taken, daily life as a hostage, two months locked in a four-by-four-foot box, and the moment he hit rock bottom and asked his captors to end his life. He explains why love and prayer kept him going, why he chose to forgive the men who held him, and what the West gets wrong about jihadist groups in Africa. He also talks about the long road back: PTSD, triggers, therapy and learning to live again.
▎
▎ Jeff's book All the Way Home is available wherever books are sold. Learn more at jeffwoodke.com and follow his writing on Substack. Get Jeff's book at https://a.co/d/04GNsckG

Become a Supporter

As the Trump administration faces political fallout over Iran, suspected Russian cyberattacks and growing instability across Europe are raising difficult questions about American leadership and national security.

The United States is facing a troubling combination of political division at home and growing security threats abroad. In Europe, cyberattacks, aviation disruptions and continuing unrest are creating new concerns about Russia's campaign against the West, while Washington is struggling with the political consequences of its military operations against Iran.

These developments may appear unrelated, but they reveal a larger problem: Western governments are finding it increasingly difficult to respond decisively to threats that do not fit traditional definitions of warfare. Meanwhile, disagreements within the Trump administration are raising questions about whether American leaders have a coherent strategy for dealing with those threats.

Russia's War Against Europe Is Already Underway

I recently returned from Paris, where demonstrations and confrontations with police have continued to disrupt parts of the city. Although it would be inaccurate to describe Paris as a whole as a war zone, the unrest illustrates the tensions affecting several European countries and the opportunities those divisions create for hostile foreign powers.

I believe Russia is actively exploiting those divisions through a broader campaign of asymmetric warfare, including cyberattacks and other disruptive operations. During my latest broadcast, I discussed reports of refrigerated storage systems being remotely manipulated to temperatures high enough to destroy food supplies, with two Russian hacking groups reportedly claiming responsibility.

The potential consequences of these attacks extend far beyond damaged equipment or financial losses. Destroying refrigerated food supplies through a computer network can produce some of the same economic and humanitarian consequences as physically attacking a distribution center, particularly as European countries prepare for winter.

There have also been reports of widespread aviation disruptions involving bomb threats against aircraft across numerous European countries. According to information discussed during the broadcast, dozens of aircraft had reportedly been affected, with some flights diverted or escorted by military aircraft.

The attribution and full extent of these incidents still require independent confirmation, but the strategic question remains important. If a hostile government can disrupt transportation, destroy essential supplies and destabilize civilian infrastructure without deploying conventional military forces, at what point should those operations be treated as acts of war?

European countries are already conducting military readiness exercises near Russia's borders, including preparations for civilian evacuations and rapid military responses. I do not believe Russia is currently in a position to launch a successful conventional invasion of NATO territory, but that may be precisely why Moscow has an incentive to rely on less conventional methods.

Ukraine and the Contradictions of Russian Diplomacy

The continuing war in Ukraine provides another example of the gap between Moscow's diplomatic language and its military conduct. During a recent appearance in Washington, Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev publicly thanked First Lady Melania Trump for her humanitarian efforts involving civilians affected by the conflict.

I respect Melania Trump's willingness to help people caught in the fighting, but I find it difficult to accept Russia presenting itself as a humanitarian partner while its military continues attacking Ukrainian communities. Diplomatic gestures should not distract from the suffering of civilians or the conditions under which Russia is willing to negotiate.

Ukraine has also continued targeting Russian energy infrastructure, including oil refineries that support the country's economy and military operations. Those strikes are placing additional pressure on Moscow, although predictions that Russia is approaching military collapse should be treated cautiously until supported by stronger evidence.

The fundamental obstacle to peace remains Russia's negotiating position, which continues to demand concessions Ukraine is unlikely to accept. A ceasefire that merely allows Moscow to consolidate its gains without providing Ukraine with meaningful security would do little to resolve the underlying conflict.

Trump's Iran War Creates a Political Divide

Back in Washington, the political consequences of the conflict with Iran have become increasingly difficult for the administration to ignore. President Trump has acknowledged that higher energy prices associated with the war contributed to Republican electoral losses, while maintaining that confronting Iran was necessary to protect American national security.

Vice President JD Vance has taken a different approach in his public discussion of the election results, emphasizing voter frustration over the war, inflation and the cost of living. His remarks have exposed disagreements over the administration's foreign-policy priorities and the direction Republicans should take in the coming years.

I believe there is an important distinction between questioning the decision to confront Iran and questioning how that confrontation was carried out. If President Trump possessed credible intelligence indicating an urgent nuclear threat, military action may have been justified, but the administration still owes Americans a clear explanation of its objectives and the results achieved.

My concern is that the United States entered a major confrontation without establishing a sufficiently clear path toward a lasting outcome. The Iranian government remains a serious regional security threat, and any diplomatic agreement must be evaluated against the regime's record, its military capabilities and the likelihood that it will honor its commitments.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made a compelling argument about the broader consequences of allowing Iran to threaten neighboring countries and international energy infrastructure. His warnings about Tehran's support for armed groups throughout the Middle East are reminders that the issue extends beyond gasoline prices or short-term political calculations.

At the same time, political accountability cannot be avoided simply because a president believes his original decision was correct. Trump is ultimately responsible for the administration he assembled, the advisers he appointed and the strategic decisions made under his leadership.

The Danger of Political Distraction

The growing disagreements within the Republican Party come as Congress faces renewed arguments over executive authority, military operations and possible impeachment proceedings involving senior administration officials. Some of these disputes involve legitimate constitutional questions, while others risk becoming political theater that distracts from more immediate national security concerns.

Americans have every right to question the cost of foreign wars, the effectiveness of military operations and the decisions of elected leaders. Those questions should be answered with evidence and a serious examination of America's strategic interests rather than political loyalty or partisan accusations.

What concerns me most is that our adversaries are not waiting for Washington to settle its internal disagreements. Russia continues its campaign against Ukraine and is accused of disruptive operations across Europe, while Iran remains capable of threatening regional stability and international commerce.

We cannot afford to confuse political messaging with military success or diplomatic ceremonies with genuine progress toward peace. The United States needs leaders who recognize the difference, understand the threats we face and are willing to make difficult decisions while remaining accountable for the consequences.

The world is becoming more dangerous, and pretending otherwise will not make those dangers disappear.

As Washington continues military operations against Iran, a surprising announcement about Israel raises questions about American commitments, regional security and the real value of foreign aid.

President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will stop providing approximately $4 billion in annual assistance to Israel at the end of this year, saying the country is prosperous enough to manage without American support. According to Trump, the decision was discussed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly suggested that Israel should begin moving away from its dependence on U.S. assistance.

The announcement deserves serious attention, not simply because Israel is one of America's most important allies, but because the financial relationship between the two countries is considerably more complicated than most people realize. There is also a significant question about how the proposed cutoff would work, given that the existing U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding extends through 2028.

What America Gets in Return

When Americans hear that their government provides billions of dollars to another country, the understandable reaction is to ask why that money isn't being spent at home. I believe taxpayers have every right to demand accountability, but the more useful question is what the United States receives in exchange for that investment.

Much of the military assistance provided to Israel is used to purchase American-made defense equipment, supporting manufacturers, suppliers and jobs here in the United States. The arrangement also helps sustain a defense-industrial base that America depends upon for its own military readiness, meaning the benefits extend well beyond the equipment delivered to Israel.

There are strategic advantages that are harder to measure in dollars. Israel provides intelligence, military expertise and operational experience in a region where American interests are constantly threatened, while cooperation on missile defense and advanced aircraft has produced lessons valuable to both countries.

None of this means every dollar is automatically justified or that Israel should receive American assistance indefinitely. It does mean that ending the arrangement should be based on a careful assessment of what America stands to lose, rather than the assumption that eliminating foreign aid necessarily produces an equivalent financial benefit at home.

Iran Remains an Unfinished Conflict

The announcement comes as President Trump continues to describe the conflict with Iran as effectively over, despite acknowledging another American strike against Iranian air-defense infrastructure. During his recent remarks, Trump characterized the operation as relatively minor, while maintaining that the United States had already won the war.

That distinction is difficult to reconcile with the continuing military activity around the Strait of Hormuz. American forces remain engaged in operations intended to protect shipping and counter Iranian threats, and the existence of those missions suggests that the security situation remains unresolved.

Vice President JD Vance has expressed optimism about a possible negotiated settlement, emphasizing the need for verifiable assurances that Iran will not rebuild its nuclear program. Iranian officials, meanwhile, continue to issue warnings about further American military action, illustrating the considerable distance that may still separate the two sides.

I am concerned that Washington is allowing its public messaging to get ahead of the reality on the ground. A conflict does not become settled merely because political leaders prefer to describe it that way, particularly when military operations continue and the opposing government retains the ability to threaten regional security.

A Broader Question of American Leadership

The debate over Israel is part of a larger argument about America's responsibilities abroad. Similar questions arise when discussing assistance to Ukraine, where American equipment and support have contributed to Ukraine's defense while providing important information about the performance of modern weapons in combat.

I understand the frustration of Americans who are tired of expensive foreign commitments, especially when they are struggling with rising prices and uncertainty at home. But withdrawing from international partnerships also carries costs, and those costs must be weighed against any immediate savings.

Supporting an ally does not require agreeing with every decision its government makes, just as supporting an American president does not mean remaining silent when his policies deserve scrutiny. My responsibility as a journalist is to examine what is happening, question the claims being made and tell you what I believe the evidence supports, regardless of which political party is in power.

For now, Trump's announcement raises more questions than it answers. Until the administration explains how the proposed cutoff fits with the existing agreement and what arrangements would replace it, Americans should be cautious about treating the end of military assistance to Israel as a settled decision.