One shouldn't be surprised to find Erik Prince popping up amid the chaos of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Or, that he is trying to profit from it.
Reports today indicate that he is offering to fly stranded people from the Kabul airport on his private plane for $6,500 — for extra, he will extricate people who are cannot get to the airport.
There are few details in the Wall Street Journal article and no sense where this nugget came from, or what kind of resources he has. A former Navy Seal, Prince is the founder of Blackwater, a private security company infamous for its work on behalf of the U.S. government in the early years of the 9/11 wars. He has had his hand in several incarnations and a litany of privateering schemes since then. Most recently he was accused (but has denied) of violating the arms embargo in Libya in a plot to arm militant Gen. Khalifa Haftar so he could overthrow the transitional government there. He has also been connected to a proposal to build a private army for Ukraine against the Russians. He has been tied to the UAE, Somalia and the Chinese government. In fact, his last company Frontier Services Group, co-founded in 2014, reportedly had a contract to train Chinese police in Beijing and build a training center in Xinjiang, home to the imprisoned minority Uighurs.
At any given time, Prince has had access to more than guns. He's had planes and even ships to battle pirates on the high seas. Most of his gun-for-hire proposals never pan out, and his multi-billion-dollar salad days with the federal government seem to be behind him. Maybe even his primo access to Capitol Hill (his connections to Trump put him in the hot seat during the Russiagate period, and his sister Betsy DeVos is no longer the education secretary) is gone too.
But that doesn't mean he's out of the game. Clearly, where there is human misery and conflict, Prince is around, nibbling at the edges of opportunity. Kind of like the "Howling Man," in that Twilight Zone episode:
Wherever there was sin. Wherever there was strife. Wherever there was corruption. And persecution. There he was also. Sometimes he was only a spectator, a face in the crowd. But, always, he was there.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft.
Erik Prince arrives New York Young Republican Club Gala at The Yale Club of New York City in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., November 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
Top image credit: TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speak during a Ukraine security meeting at the 6th European Political Community summit on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS
The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.
The statement by the E3, signed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron, following similar statements by the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and its high representative for foreign affairs Kaja Kallas, perfectly encapsulates this surrender.
The European trio affirmed their support for the security of Israel — and only Israel, as if other nations in the Middle East weren’t entitled to security. They repeated the rhetoric that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon” and endorsed the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities despite the numerous conclusions of both the IAEA and the U.S. intelligence community (IC) that Iran is presently, or at least before Saturday’s attack, not working on weaponizing its nuclear program.
In truly Orwellian fashion, the E3 called on Tehran to “engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program” — despite the fact that Iran was literally engaged in those very negotiations with the E3’s foreign ministers on Friday, the day before the U.S. strike — as it was preparing to continue negotiations with the U.S. in Oman before Israel launched the war a week before. In fact, Israel’s brazen decision to sabotage U.S.–Iranian diplomacy is precisely the evidence that, contrary to what the E3 now imply, Iran has engaged in talks seriously enough to make the prospect of concluding a new deal realistic.
The timing of the U.S. strikes — coming after diplomatic efforts by E3 and Iran — makes a mockery of the E3’s assertions that the onus is now on Tehran for renewing the talks. It prompted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to ask: “how can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up”?
Even more damning is the EU’s refusal to acknowledge what former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt forthrightly stated: the U.S. attack was a clear-cut violation of international law. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense against an imminent attack or with Security Council authorization — neither of which applied in this case. Yet the current EU leadership, so vocal in condemning Russia’s breaches of Ukraine’s sovereignty, remains conspicuously mute when Washington or Jerusalem does the same.
This hypocrisy does more than expose EU moral posturing — it actively erodes the foundations of international law and the much-vaunted “rules-based international order.” By legitimizing the "right of the mighty" to wage preventive wars, the EU fatally undermines Ukraine’s cause and sets a precedent that its adversaries are certain to exploit. If preventive strikes are permissible for the U.S. and Israel, why not for Russia, China, or any other power claiming a "threat"? Why should nations of the Global South rally behind Kyiv’s appeals to the U.N. Charter when Europe itself excuses blatant breaches by Western powers?
Worse, this vassalization of Europe is proving strategically useless. No evidence that the Trump administration even bothered to warn its European "allies" in advance of its attack on Iran has yet come to light, a damning indication, if borne out, of the contempt the Trump administration holds for its main European NATO allies which then rush willy-nilly to defend Washington’s flagrant violations of international law.
The timing couldn’t be more conspicuous. Days before a critical NATO summit, this episode confirms what sober observers already knew: Europe’s servility earns neither respect nor reciprocity from Washington. The Trump administration’s apparent failure to consult the E3 — despite their ongoing diplomatic engagement with Iran — proves that U.S. policymakers view Europe not as partners, but as lackeys to be ignored at will. This dynamic poisons the atmosphere ahead of NATO’s meeting, where European leaders will once again appeal for “transatlantic unity” while accepting their role as Washington’s junior subordinates.
But the deeper tragedy is that Europe’s leaders have internalized their own subordination. They betray international law not for tangible gains, but out of reflexive obedience — a habit that weakens Europe’s global standing while emboldening Washington’s and Jerusalem’s worst impulses. This is one of the big differences with the run-up to the last big U.S. war of choice. Back then, leaders of France and Germany had the backbone and foresight to oppose George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Fast forward to 2025, and Germany’s neoconservative chancellor Merz enthusiastically endorses Israel’s illegal attacks on Iran as the necessary “dirty work” performed on behalf of the “West.”
The expanding war in the Middle East should be a wake-up call: given Europe’s geographical proximity to the Middle East, the spillover effects in terms of possible new migration flows, terrorist threats, and energy shocks that would be massively destabilizing for Europe. Given the stakes, if Europe won’t assert its interests now, when will it? When Washington and Jerusalem unilaterally drag it into another endless Middle Eastern war? When the next illegal strike hits a third country? Vassalage doesn’t pay — it only degrades.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit:A man reads a newspaper at a newsstand, amid the Israel-Iran conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 22, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The United States has finally entered Israel’s escalating war against Iran, launching targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to obliterate Tehran’s nuclear threat, a goal once more effectively achieved through the 2015 Iran deal.
President Trump warned Iran that there will be peace or a tragedy far greater than what Iran has witnessed in recent days, signaling that there were “other targets” if Iran wished to escalate.
Yet even this one-ended strike may not fully eradicate Iran’s indigenous nuclear capabilities. It certainly hasn’t ended Iran’s attacks on Israel, and now opens up risks to American troops and assets in the region. In fact, Iran’s possible responses from here on are varied and unpredictable. But we know the costs — particularly economic — are escalating, and could be devastating for all parties involved and worldwide.
Israel is already bearing massive economic costs. Estimates suggest that a month-long war could cost Israel around $12 billion, with daily military expenses averaging $725 million. If Iran targets more civilian infrastructure, these costs could escalate sharply.
Over 5,000 Israelis have already been evacuated from their homes due to missile strikes. Labor shortages are worsening as tens of thousands of reservists, many from critical high-tech and industrial sectors, are mobilized. By the end of 2024, the Gaza war had already drained Israel of over $67.5 billion, excluding significant civilian and infrastructure damages and broader economic losses, which remain difficult to quantify.
A swift military victory might mitigate some economic impacts, but a prolonged war could severely impair Israel’s economic growth, strain fiscal stability, and potentially harm its international credit rating.
Even before the Israel strikes, Iran faced a daunting infrastructure crisis, urgently needing over $500 billion in investments to address critical economic shortfalls exacerbated by U.S. sanctions. Israeli attacks have deepened this crisis, destroying vital civilian and energy infrastructure. The direct costs of reconstruction alone could reach tens of billions of dollars, adding enormous strain to Iran’s already battered economy and limited fiscal resources.
My estimate draws on the latest 2023 Iranian household expenditure survey, revealing that over 80% of Iranians fail to meet the 2,100-calorie daily requirement and suffer from food insecurity. A prolonged war would only exacerbate this humanitarian crisis, pushing the country toward a potential national catastrophe.
Iran could retaliate by launching cyberattacks on critical U.S. infrastructure, such as power grids, water systems, pipelines, financial networks, and other essential services. The economic consequences of such cyber retaliation could range from hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollars.
Further, if Iran targets energy infrastructure in the Gulf states or blocks the Strait of Hormuz, it could disrupt over 20% of global oil and LNG supplies, potentially driving oil prices to as high as $150 per barrel. A Bloomberg analysis warns that sustained prices at this level could shrink global GDP by nearly $1 trillion annually, fueling global stagflation. For the United States, this would severely undermine efforts to control inflation and economic stability.
Netanyahu’s ambition to topple Iran’s regime is unlikely to succeed without direct U.S. involvement, including the deployment of hundreds of thousands of ground troops. If Washington intervenes in this way, it risks plunging itself into yet another open-ended war, requiring another $2 trillion to $3 trillion and thousands of lives lost.
Even if Israel achieves its immediate military aims by decapitating Iranian leadership, neutralizing military capabilities, and potentially fracturing Iran without Tehran’s painful retaliation, such a victory would likely prove hollow. The resulting chaos would unleash waves of insurgency, refugee crises, and regional instability surpassing the turmoil that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Given the decentralized nature of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), even a fragmented Iran could remain a persistent threat. Remaining IRGC forces and proxies could continue attacks against Western and Arab economic targets across the region, imposing ongoing risks to American interests and causing substantial losses for U.S. allies.
The regional economic fallout could be existential for Gulf allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. Due to rising tensions, the IMF has already revised its 2025 economic growth forecast for the region from 4% down to 2.6%. A sustained two-to-three-year decline in growth, coupled with vanished foreign direct investment and delayed mega-projects critical to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, could cost these economies anywhere between $730 billion and $1 trillion.
As one Gulf official noted, a prolonged conflict could erase years of economic progress by disrupting national development strategies and severely damaging investor confidence. The appearance of a fragmented Iran might seem advantageous at first glance, but the ripple effects would ultimately burden U.S. taxpayers and businesses, drawing America into an extended regional quagmire.
If Israel’s military campaign fails, Tehran will likely emerge emboldened, not weakened. Already, Israeli attacks appear to have fueled Iranian public support for nuclear armament, potentially paving Iran’s path toward a nuclear weapon.
Despite its heavy cost, Iran retains the right under Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to withdraw, allowing it to restart its nuclear program without oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Such a scenario would likely trigger a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation across the region and beyond, from Berlin and Warsaw to Ankara, and from Riyadh to Seoul and Tokyo, unraveling decades of non-proliferation efforts.
Imagine a nuclear-armed Middle East, with European and East Asian nations scrambling to develop their own deterrents. What began as a targeted Israeli strike could spiral into a global security nightmare. The economic implications would be staggering: higher energy prices, soaring insurance premiums, investor uncertainty, and massive military build-ups, all severely undermining American strategic and economic interests.
A new arms race extending from the Gulf to the Pacific could destabilize the global economy and dramatically weaken America’s strategic posture. No American president, not even during the Cold War, has ever had to confront the simultaneous unraveling of the global nuclear order across multiple continents. President Trump would inevitably be the first.
It is unclear whether the Trump Administration could even restart the talks after this weekend’s strikes. But rather than sinking billions into another costly war, Washington could offer sanctions relief and regional economic engagement in exchange for Iran returning to strict compliance at lower levels of enrichment than those prescribed by the 2015 JCPOA or even denuclearization. Such a deal could expand it into a de facto non-aggression pact between Iran and Israel, something that was previously unthinkable.
My recent research highlights that the U.S. can indeed secure a stronger and more comprehensive deal through licensing bilateral trade up to $25 billion annually and providing avenues for American companies to access Iran’s largely untapped $4 trillion investment market by 2040. Such an agreement could stabilize the region through mutual economic engagement rather than military escalation.
The alternative is unspeakable: a trillion-dollar regional disaster, a shattered nuclear agreement, a nuclear-armed Iran, and the disintegration of alliance networks that have historically underpinned U.S. dominance in the Middle East.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: A man on an e-scooter passes a giant billboard, where U.S. President Donald Trump appears, in Tel Aviv, Israel, June 22, 2025. REUTERS/Violeta Santos Moura
With the decision to bomb three of Iran’s nuclear sites, President Trump has put the United States on a reckless path that risks another Middle East war — precisely the kind he repeatedly promised to avoid.
Even if the strikes achieved short-term tactical success, they have turned a challenge that could have been managed diplomatically into a military crisis. Hitting a few facilities will not dismantle Iran’s nuclear program; it will only push it further underground and harden Tehran’s resolve, closing the door on a negotiated agreement with monitoring mechanisms like those in the JCPOA —the deal Trump abandoned after taking office the first time.
The likely outcome is a reconstituted nuclear program pursued with greater determination to build a weapon. Rather than halting Iran’s progress, these so-called “precision” strikes could very well spiral into a much broader, possibly regime change-driven war.
Vice President J.D. Vance has claimed that the U.S. is “not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.” But even if that distinction is intended, launching strikes on Iran in coordination with Israel right in the middle of fragile nuclear negotiations that were only given two months to succeed, when meaningful diplomacy would require far longer, will be understood in Tehran as a broader act of aggression.
Coupled with incendiary rhetoric from some Israeli officials, it risks being interpreted not as a limited operation, but as a declaration of intent to dismantle the regime. President Trump’s praise of U.S.-Israeli teamwork in announcing the strikes makes Washington appear complicit in Israel’s wider strategy, including its ongoing assassination campaigns, and will only reinforce Iran’s belief that regime change is the end goal.
This escalation has endangered U.S. troops and diplomatic posts in the region — particularly in Iraq and Syria. The administration is once again mistaking short-term military impact for long-term strategic success, repeating the same hubris that followed the early weeks of the Iraq War and President George W. Bush’s ill-fated “Mission Accomplished” moment.
President Trump was not acting in a vacuum; he was warned by lawmakers and even thought leaders within his own movement about the consequences. Yet, his White House is diving into another volatile conflict without a plan for what comes next. This is not the end of a crisis — it is the beginning of something far more dangerous.
Lawmakers like Speaker Mike Johnson may insist that the U.S. was facing “imminent danger,” but the facts tell a different story. Both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, concluded that Iran was not actively racing toward a nuclear weapon. The narrative of an urgent threat from weapons of mass destruction echoes so clearly the lead-up to the Iraq War that the parallels are impossible to dismiss.
This isn’t a tired cliché — it’s a grim chorus of history repeating itself, not as farce, but as another willful march toward unnecessary war.
The lesson for the Iranian government, whether it is too late or not, will be that they should have pursued a nuclear capability faster and more secretly, a lesson that will be observed by other regimes around the world. This should be a chilling realization for the international community.
Some analysts may mistakenly believe that this strike, alongside past actions like the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, adds credibility to President Trump’s future threats and strengthens his hand in nuclear negotiations with Iran. But that view ignores a fundamental reality: like all countries, Iran has domestic politics. If its leadership is seen as capitulating to U.S. and Israeli aggression, it risks internal collapse.
By boxing Iran into a corner, Trump hasn’t increased diplomatic leverage — he’s made meaningful negotiation nearly impossible. He may celebrate this as a show of strength, but it’s shortsighted. Iran was already at the negotiating table, and now, the message to other adversaries may not be to concede under pressure — but rather to develop credible deterrents to avoid becoming the next target.
The deeper tragedy is that President Trump had a real opportunity to broker a strong nuclear agreement with Iran. As a second-term president, he had both the political freedom and even some bipartisan support to pursue a broader, long-term deal — one that might have eventually laid the groundwork for normalized relations.
Instead, he chose confrontation over diplomacy, goaded on by interventionist lawmakers like Ted Cruz and those who have long pushed for regime change far beyond the nuclear issue. What could have been a landmark diplomatic achievement has now become just another step toward prolonged conflict.
It is, of course, not too late to change course, though recent U.S. actions have made diplomacy far more difficult, and Iranian retaliation is almost certain. Still, making clear that a negotiated deal remains on the table is better than not offering one at all.
The problem, however, is that Iran now has little reason to trust the United States, many incentives to pursue a nuclear deterrent — which it likely still can — and few motivations to agree to any new deal. Worse, the calls for regime change may only grow louder as a result leading to a war that is even more destabilizing than the Iraq war.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.