It seems that former Blackwater CEO, international war profiteer, and wannabe colonialist Erik Prince is eager to get back into the action, this time on American soil. Politico reported today that a group of military contractors led by Prince delivered a 26-page proposal to President Donald Trump’s team before the inauguration, detailing how the new administration could enlist the private sector to hit its deportation goals.
The plan states that a “600% increase in activity” is needed for the President to deport 12 million people before the 2026 midterms — an increase that Prince and his allies don’t believe government agencies are equipped to make.
Among the ideas laid out in the $25 billion proposal: a private fleet of 100 deportation planes, privately-run processing camps on military bases, expedited mass deportation hearings, and a “bounty program which provides a cash reward for each illegal alien held by a state or local law enforcement officer.”
Former Trump Advisor Steve Bannon (who still has strong ties to key advisors on the President’s team) expressed support for the plan to Politico. “People want this stood up quickly, and understand the government is always very slow to do things,” he said.
The proposal has clear moral, financial, and legal concerns — but that goes without saying when Erik Prince is concerned.
Prince’s Blackwater Security Consulting group carried out a highly publicized massacre of 17 civilians at Nissour Square in Baghdad in 2007, causing the group to lose its security contract with the U.S. government. Four Blackwater employees were convicted by a U.S. federal court for their involvement in the massacre and then pardoned by President Trump in his first term.
Neither the tragedy of the Nissour Square Massacre nor the embarrassment it represented for the military contracting industry dissuaded Prince, who has continued to push for more privatization and less oversight in military operations.
Fortunately, it seems that his latest pet project isn’t gaining much traction.
Bill Matthews, a co-author of the proposal, told Politico, “We have not been contacted by, nor have we had any discussions with, the government since the White Paper that we submitted months ago. There has been zero show of interest or engagement from the government and we have no reason to believe there will be.”
Gideon Pardo is a Reporting Intern at Responsible Statecraft and a senior at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. He has previously reported for the Medill Investigative Lab and for the on-campus publication North by Northwestern, where he wrote about campus related news and national politics.
Top photo credit: Erik Prince speaks with political commentator Gordon Chang at CPAC (Photo: Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto)
Top image credit: Pope Francis met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, one of the Muslim world's leading authorities on March 6, 2021 in Najaf, Iraq. (Vatican Media via REUTERS)
One of the most enduring tributes to Pope Francis, who passed away this Easter, would be the appreciation for his legacy of inter-religious diplomacy, a vision rooted in his humility, compassion, and a commitment to bridging divides — between faiths, cultures, and ideologies — from a standpoint of mutual respect and tolerance.
Among his most profound contributions is his historic meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, on March 6, 2021. What made this meeting a true landmark in inter-faith dialogue was the fact it brought together, for the first time, the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics and one of the most revered figures in Shia Islam, with influence on tens of millions of Shia Muslims globally. In a humble, yet moving ceremony, the meeting took place in al-Sistani’s modest home in Najaf. A frail al-Sistani, who rarely receives visitors and typically remains seated, stood to greet the 84-year-old Pope and held his hand, in a gesture that underscored mutual respect.
The visit to Najaf was part of a broader Vatican diplomatic outreach to the world of Islam. Pope Francis previously engaged with Sunni leaders, signing in 2019 the Document on Human Fraternity with Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb from Al-Azhar University, the pre-eminent scholar of Sunni Islam. The meeting with al-Sistani extended this outreach also to Shia Islam, the second principal branch of Islam. Najaf is a spiritual center of Shia Muslims, home to the tomb of Imam Ali, the pre-eminent saint of Shia Islam, and the Hawza seminary, led by al-Sistani.
That outreach was particularly meaningful as al-Sistani represents a community often misrepresented in Western discourse as inherently menacing through vague but sticky metaphors such as “Shia Crescent,” fueled by media sensationalism and geopolitical tensions driven, in part, by evangelical groups like Christians United for Israel who often conflate Shiism, Iran and hostility to Christians and Israel.
Pope Francis took a different approach: he went to Najaf not to proselytize, not to hold theological debates, and not to issue political demands, but to engage in conversation marked by shared concern over the humanity’s future, peace, justice and dignity for all people. Francis, as a Jesuit with a history of activism against the fascist dictatorship in his own home country, Argentina (1976-1983), was particularly well-suited for this role. His meeting with al-Sistani sent a bold message: in a world scarred by conflict and bloodshed, leaders of faith should unite to reject violence and promote co-existence.
The context of that visit was particularly significant as it also sent an equally strong political message: it took place in Iraq, a nation ravaged by war, particularly the U.S. invasion in 2003, driven by neoconservative fantasies of turning the Middle East into a paragon of liberal democracy, subsequent sectarian strife and rise of ISIS which treated both Shiites and Christians as enemies and apostates.
By choosing to go to Najaf, Francis showed respect for the Shia community, and challenged the narratives that portray Shias as implacable adversaries of the West. Instead of ceaseless demand and condemnation, so prevalent in the attitude of many Western leaders to Iraq, the Pope honored the figure, al-Sistani, who used his enormous influence to advocate for a civil state in Iraq, one that respected rights and equality before the law of all religious communities, including Christians. It was a far more effective gesture of support to Iraq’s decimated Christian community (which has dwindled from 1.5 million in 2003, before the U.S. invasion, to approximately 250,000 – 300,000 in 2021) than self-righteous posturing from the comfort of far-away Western legislatures.
At the time, Francis’ choice to visit Najaf was seen by some observers as a subtle rebuke to the Iranian theocracy, by privileging the so-called “quietist” school of Shia Islam, embodied by al-Sistani. That may or may not have been the Vatican’s intention, but Francis’ message resonated positively among Shia clerics in Iran too. Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has engaged in significant correspondence with the Pope to promote dialogue between Islam and Christianity. In 2016, he sent a letter to the Pope expressing appreciation for Francis’ stance that “Islam is not equal to terrorism.”
Makarem Shirazi emphasized that what Tehran calls “Takfiri groups” (i.e. ISIS, al-Qaida) indeed do not represent Islam. Pope Francis responded via an official letter sent through the Iranian embassy in the Vatican. He expressed gratitude for the ayatollah’s outreach and joined him in condemning violence in the name of religion as an insult to God and a grave injustice.
That exchange marked a contrast with criticisms Makarem Shirazi delivered to Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benefict XVI, for comments perceived as anti-Islamic. Of course, Makarem Shirazi’s stances are not purely faith-based, but also reflect the geopolitical orientation of the Islamic Republic, like in his implication that the “takfiri groups” prosper thanks to the support of the “arrogant powers” (read the U.S.). Overall, however, his outreach to Francis, and the Pope’s response, can be seen as a useful attempt to promote inter-religious dialogue between Christianity and Shia Islam.
Pope Francis’ efforts to engage with Muslim clerics, both Sunni and Shia, transcended religious boundaries, fostered dialogue and co-existence in a world scarred by conflict. While his visit to Najaf in particular set a powerful precedent, the sustainability of these initiatives depends on his successors’ willingness to build on his efforts. May they continue to walk this path of dialogue, proving that even the deepest divides can be bridged through vision, courage, and faith.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit : File photo dated June 28, 2019 of US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrive for a meeting on "World Economy" at the G20 Osaka Summit in Osaka, Japan. Photo by Eliot Blondet/ABACAPRESS.COM
The Trump administration is reportedly pursuing a deal with Saudi Arabia that would be a pathway to developing a commercial nuclear power industry in the desert kingdom and maybe even lead to the enrichment of uranium on Saudi soil.
U.S. pursuit of this deal should be scrapped because the United States would bear all the increased commitments, costs, and risks with very little in return.
In the Abraham Accords of 2020 and early 2021, the first Trump administration brokered bilateral agreements between Israel and the Middle Eastern countries of Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan to normalize diplomatic relations. The administration also attempted to get Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and open similar relations, to no avail.
The Biden administration carried the torch in this regard but it became even more difficult to get Riyadh on board after the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel and ensuing war in Gaza. The rising civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis led to an elevation of the Palestinian cause and engendered region-wide animosity toward Israel. The Saudis demanded at that point that Israel commit to meaningful steps toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state before any normalization would occur.
That continued into this year as the Saudi government denied President Donald Trump’s assertion that it had dropped its demand for a Palestinian state in order to normalize relations with Israel.
Even though efforts aimed at ending the war in Gaza have been unsuccessful, the second Trump administration is seemingly now reviving its efforts toward brokering an Israel-Saudi rapprochement, albeit beginning with a new U.S.-Saudi agreement first, as hinted by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright.
The problem is that all the countries would benefit from such a grand bargain except the one brokering it — the United States, which would also absorb all of the costs. Israel and Saudi Arabia would gain the most. The Saudis have desperately wanted a nuclear power deal for some time. Meanwhile, if there is eventual normalization, Israel would neutralize what is now a powerful Arab rival and likely even gain a new ally in its quest to counter Iran (but it had better do it fast as Riyadh and Tehran have been approaching some level of detente for some time now).
Yet, with a $37 trillion national debt, why would the United States take on another ward that doesn’t pay its fair share for security (a common Trump gripe about other U.S. allies)? With fracking, the United States is no longer running out of oil, as FDR assumed would be the case, and is again the world’s largest oil producer. A formal defense pact with Saudi Arabia would incur yet more costs, further entrench the U.S. in the region, and put our own troops in harm’s way if Washington is expected to defend and bail out Riyadh in any military dispute with its neighbors.
In addition, what could go wrong if Saudi Arabia was given a nuclear program? Talks on an Israel-Saudi agreement previously faltered when the Saudis opposed restrictions that would have prevented them from using a commercial nuclear program to build nuclear weapons (to counter any Iranian nuclear capability), or to assist other countries in obtaining them.
The truth is, the Saudis have wanted to be able to enrich uranium — perhaps to bomb-grade levels — on their own soil rather than import uranium already enriched only to a level capable of generating commercial energy, for some time.
Some in the United States insist that the Saudis could get nuclear technology from other nations like Russia or China, but if they resist safeguards to prevent them from getting a weapon, then it wouldn’t matter who gave them the technology that would allow them to do it.
Thus, the Trump administration should desist in reaching any such agreement with the Saudis in its (right now) futile quest for Israel-Saudi grand rapprochement. Normalization of relations between the two countries would be a fine aspiration for the region (if it is not merely to isolate and poke Iran), but the United States meeting the Saudis’ exorbitant demands to achieve it would come at too great a cost.
After all, bilateral normalization should be in the interest of both countries, so they should negotiate it on their own without being coddled by the United States.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: A U.S. Army soldier watches bottled water that had gone bad burn in a burn-pit at Forward Operating Base Azzizulah in Maiwand District, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, February 4, 2013. REUTERS/Andrew Burton
For over four decades, Afghanistan has been trapped in a relentless cycle of war and destruction.
While much of the world’s attention has focused on the political and security dimensions of this conflict, another crisis has unfolded — one that will haunt the country for generations. Afghanistan’s environment has suffered profound devastation, and the consequences for its people are dire.
From poisoned water sources to barren lands, the natural world has become another casualty of war, with the most vulnerable communities bearing the brunt of this catastrophe.
Every war in Afghanistan’s modern history has left an ecological footprint that will endure long after the last bullets have been fired. The use of depleted uranium munitions has left behind radioactive waste. The destruction of irrigation networks has crippled agriculture. Rising respiratory diseases and cancer rates, linked to exposure to hazardous materials, are only beginning to be understood.
Even back in 2017, reports indicated that many Afghans increasingly viewed toxic pollution as a graver threatthan the Taliban. And, all warring parties bear responsibility for this destruction.
According to Richard Bennett, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Afghanistan, environmental degradation caused by war is a human rights issue that has been largely ignored. He argues that it must take center stage, as its implications are vast. Bennett is advocating for mechanisms to explore transitional justice, including possible reparations for the environmental impact on affected communities.
“The water, soil and air of Afghanistan are polluted due to decades of explosive substances that have not been cleaned up, affecting public health, particularly child health. All parties to the conflict are responsible,” he said. “While we have only scratched the surface, scientific research on the impact is starting to emerge.”
Leading these research efforts at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, Afghan scholar Dr. Haroun Rahimi is working alongside Bennett and U.N. Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, Dr. Marcos Orellana, who is compiling a report for the U.N. General Assembly on the impact on populations of toxics after military interventions. In February, they co-hosted a webinar with the Environmental Law Institute in Washington D.C., aiming to push the crisis to the forefront of global discourse on Afghanistan.
“International law offers limited avenues for holding powerful states accountable, and domestic courts often struggle with the challenge of sovereign immunity,” says Rahimi. “Moreover, states credibly accused of serious violations frequently deflect accountability by offering humanitarian assistance as a symbolic substitute, thus avoiding genuine responsibility. Our most viable path forward lies in strategic litigation and leveraging the rule of law within some of the accused states to secure a measure of justice for affected communities. But for such litigation to succeed, we must first lay the groundwork through rigorous advocacy and scientific research.”
Mass displacement
The roots of Afghanistan’s environmental crisis stretch back well before the Soviet invasion in 1979, with earlier episodes of ecological harm tied to colonial and Cold War interventions.
During colonial wars, serious acts of environmental destruction were committed — for instance, in the last Anglo-Afghan War, the nascent Air Force of British India bombed Kabul and Nangarhar, leaving long-term ecological and social scars. Even before the Soviet invasion, both the United States and the Soviet Union sought to industrialize Afghan agriculture during the Cold War, often with disastrous consequences.
By the early 1980s, nearly 4.3 million Afghans had sought refuge in Pakistan and Iran, abandoning entire villages and leaving once-fertile farmlands to deteriorate. The displacement of communities disrupted traditional land-use patterns, straining resources in areas where refugees resettled.
In the wake of the Soviet withdrawal, the Mujahedeen civil war — particularly the intense fighting in Kabul during the early 1990s — further decimated the urban environment and infrastructure. The capital was turned into rubble, with forests in nearby provinces stripped for firewood and water systems damaged beyond repair.
Afghanistan’s forests have been another casualty. In the 1970s, the country had extensive woodlands, particularly in the eastern provinces. Today, only 2 percent of that forest cover remains. Years of conflict accelerated deforestation as communities turned to logging for survival, either to sell timber or to use it for heating and cooking. Insurgent groups and warlords further exploited the country’s forests, smuggling vast quantities of timber across borders. The consequences have been severe; soil erosion, desertification and flash flooding, making it even harder for displaced communities to return and rebuild.
Poisoned lives
Afghanistan’s water crisis is not just about scarcity — it is about contamination. Bombings and industrial-scale military operations have introduced hazardous chemicals into rivers and groundwater.
During the Battle of Jalalabad in 1989, the government of Mohammad Najibullah reportedly used Soviet-made Scud-B missiles, which left behind toxic residues that continue to pollute the environment. Moreover, more recent reports indicate that the Taliban have incorporated toxic chemicals into their suicide bombs, further exacerbating the contamination of water and soil.
In urban areas, the collapse of sanitation systems has further polluted water supplies, leading to outbreaks of waterborne diseases.
Air pollution is another crisis, with war playing a direct role. During the U.S. military presence, the widespread use of burn pits released toxic fumes into the air, exposing both soldiers and civilians to hazardous chemicals. Reports have linked these emissions to chronic respiratory illnesses and a surge in cancer rates. Women and children are disproportionately affected, as they are often the most exposed to unsafe water, poor sanitation, and indoor air pollution from burning wood and other fuels.
According to UNICEF, more than 160,000 acute respiratory infections cases were reported at the start of last year across Afghanistan, “largely due to severe weather conditions and air pollution,” with children under five making up 62 percent of the cases.
Perhaps the most insidious environmental consequence of war is soil contamination. For instance, Pakistan’s nuclear tests conducted in Baluchistan, near Afghanistan’s Helmand and Kandahar provinces, have led to significant soil contamination and a rise in cancer cases in bordering Afghan communities — an alarming example of cross-border environmental consequences.Also, the use of depleted uranium in missile strikes has left behind radioactive waste, seeping into the land and water. Farmers unknowingly cultivate crops in contaminated soil, while children play in areas littered with toxic remnants of past battles. Adding to this danger, landmines and other unexploded battlefield detritus contaminate at least 724 million square meters of land in Afghanistan, with only two out of 29 provinces believed to be free of landmines, according to Human Rights Watch, and the Trump administration's funding cuts along with the USAID shutdown are expected to impact mine clearance operations. The long-term public health consequences — including birth defects and rising cancer rates — are only beginning to be fully understood.
In one of the most extreme examples of modern military firepower, the United States dropped the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast — commonly known as “the mother of all Bombs” — in Nangarhar province in 2017. The bomb, the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat, devastated large swaths of mountainous terrain, raising serious concerns about soil toxicity, unexploded ordnance and ecological disruption in one of Afghanistan’s most biodiverse regions.
War has not only ravaged Afghanistan’s environment but also its infrastructure. Roads, bridges and irrigation systems — essential for agriculture and economic stability — have been systematically destroyed. In a country where 70 percent of the population depends on farming, the destruction of irrigation networks has rendered vast areas of land unusable, exacerbating food insecurity. Since 2008, U.S. and NATO-equipped Afghan Armed Forces regularly employed heavy aerial bombardments in efforts to repel Taliban offensives. These sustained military campaigns significantly contributed to soil degradation and the contamination of water sources. The economic toll of environmental destruction has made post-war recovery even more difficult, trapping communities in deeper poverty.
A call for justice
The environmental consequences of war are not abstract — they manifest in the lives of Afghan civilians. This crisis is not an inevitable byproduct of conflict — it is a preventable disaster that demands urgent global attention. Just as the international community invested in military operations, it has a moral and legal obligation to assist in environmental recovery.
“It is unacceptable for the parties to the conflict to simply walk away from the environmental damage they have caused. They are obliged to make genuine efforts to repair and restore the environment as well as to pay compensation to affected communities,” says Bennett.
Reforestation programs, water purification initiatives and infrastructure rebuilding efforts must be prioritized. Additionally, there must be accountability for the environmental damage caused by war, including compensation and remediation efforts by those responsible.
“In particular, children and future generations must not be left to address the legacy of a degraded environment which they have played no role in creating. The time to deal with this is now and all parties to the conflict need to be held accountable for their joint responsibility to clean it up,” says Bennett.
Yet, a critical challenge remains: how can reparations be delivered without benefiting the Taliban, which now controls Afghanistan? Is there a way to bypass the de facto authorities while still supporting the affected Afghan people?
Dr. Rahimi believes it is possible. “It can be done through a victim-centered approach. There are examples of this being done through the criminal law system, as in Australia, or through the tort system, as in the Netherlands,” he explains.
For Afghans, the war may have ended, but the battle for a livable environment — and for justice that acknowledges and repairs the ecological and human damage — has only just begun. Without urgent action toward transitioning to a future of accountability and restorative justice, the scars of conflict will not only mark the land — they will shape the fate of generations to come.
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.