U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, acknowledged Monday that Israel is blocking humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza, which is a war crime under international law, including the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute.
In a video posted to social media, Huckabee, who once said Palestinians don’t really exist, said the “real pressure” belongs on Hamas to sign “an agreement” to release hostages first.
A @WHO official called upon me to put pressure on Israel to bring more humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. How about we put the pressure where it really belongs – on Hamas. pic.twitter.com/5AAv5Q63DD — Ambassador Mike Huckabee (@USAmbIsrael) April 21, 2025
The ambassador’s statement came after direct pressure from the World Health Organization to end the almost two-month blockade. Additionally, multiple heads of United Nations agencies released a joint statement earlier in the month, saying “with the tightened Israeli blockade on Gaza now in its second month, we appeal to world leaders to act – firmly, urgently and decisively – to ensure the basic principles of international humanitarian law are upheld.”
Indeed, most aid agencies have ended operations in the strip, and agency officials have reported that children are suffering from severe malnutrition, often eating only one meal a day.
“This action would further aggravate conditions of life calculated to destroy the Palestinian population of Gaza. No one benefits from this—not the Palestinians, not the Israelis, not the North Americans—none of us. Together, we can stop this monstrosity,” said Francesca Albanese, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in her response. She also reminded the ambassador that blocking humanitarian aid was a war crime.
“This is a flagrant violation of both international law and American law. It is atrocious that an American diplomat would express full-throated support for such an atrocity,” commented the Quincy Institute’s Annelle Sheline.
The cease-fire agreements and proposals on the table have never conditioned aid upon the release of all hostages. In fact, Hamas has offered the release of all hostages under different proposals. Additionally, Benjamin Netanyahu has thwarted the process itself with new demands.
“They (Netanyahu’s government) are not interested in reaching a deal, so no 'pressure' on Hamas is going to change their thinking,” said Sheline.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Photo: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee attends a ceremony marking the construction of a new housing complex in the Israeli settlement of Efrat in the occupied West Bank August 1, 2018. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
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.
Recent Trump Administration activities in the Indian Ocean reveal that decision-makers are hardly the practitioners of restraint the nation was promised.
Reported plans to rekindle what was a very bloody civil war in Yemen and the discreet deployment of bombers to Diego Garcia to threaten Iran is a waste of precious time and scarce resources at the expense of other more important America First priorities.
If America First is to truly entail the prudent exercise of power, then it should be considered in service of national interests in another ocean completely — the Arctic.
Manifrost destiny
Given its inaccessibility, regional stakeholders have long tacitly agreed to minimize confrontation there: "Arctic exceptionalism" and "High North, Low Tension" have been historic bywords to describe the region.
As warming opens up greater access to the region, commercial ventures will become increasingly feasible. The principal opportunities encompass logistics, fisheries, tourism, and, most prominently, resource extraction.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey of 2008, the region may contain an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 46 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, approximately 13 percent and 30 percent of undiscovered global reserves, respectively.
Diminishing sea ice coverage also translates into opportunities for maritime transportation routes that would significantly shorten travel times and reduce fuel requirements. Moreover, Arctic waters are relatively "safer" when compared to five of the world's eight primary waterways that are subject to risks arising from conflict or terrorism.
According to a December 2024 analysis of Arctic states' investments (excluding China), the total amount of financing — public and private — has averaged an estimated $107 billion annually between 2017 and 2021. Russian investments constituted the preponderance (61.6 percent) while the U.S. represented the second most (14.4 percent). Investments by the other six states comprised the remaining 24 percent.
Unfortunately, the opening of new trade routes has historically transformed once sleepy backwaters into arenas for competition and the Arctic is no different.
The last Cold War
Russia has made the Arctic Ocean a security priority. It has re-established its military infrastructure along its northern coastline — three major bases, 13 airfields, 10 radar stations, as well as border and emergency rescue stations.
The Russian icebreaker fleet now totals 41 ships, dwarfing that of the American and allied fleets combined. Russia possesses seven nuclear icebreakers; the United States and allies possess none.
More ominously, Russia has introduced its low-intensity warfare playbook to the region; provocative actions since 2020 have included air incursions, military exercises, GPS interference, electronic warfare, and underwater sabotage.
The PRC similarly deems the Arctic a national interest and has implemented a comprehensive approach along diplomatic, economic, technological, and military vectors. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” state and, as of 2023, has invested over $90 billion in the region over the past decade. The PRC Navy has already surpassed the American fleet and is procuring icebreakers. China also participates in joint naval, aerial, and coast guard exercises and patrols with Russia.
In sum, the historically peaceful region is now the only region in which the U.S. directly encounters both Russia and China.
Favorable home field
Fortunately, unlike the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the Arctic region lies within the jurisdiction of well-functioning regional multilateral institutions.
The main intergovernmental forum, the Arctic Council, consists of eight permanent member countries (six of which are U.S. NATO allies). Founded in 1996, the council has succeeded in maintaining critical multilateral cooperation on areas such as emergency response, environmental regulations, and maritime access. (To protest Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. and other permanent members announced in March 2022 that they would temporarily suspend their participation on the council for the remaining term of Russia's two-year chairmanship. Council activities resumed upon Norway's assumption of chairmanship in May 2023.)
Furthermore, the U.S. is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which processes contested maritime claims. The U.S. contends membership would limit its sovereignty but in practice its absence puts the country’s claims at a disadvantage, depriving them of legitimacy in the eyes of other signatories as well as a timely resolution. Upon ratification, states have up to ten years to map and submit proposed limits of its maritime claim.
The convention may be far from perfect but it has been successful in processing council members’ disputed territorial claims, such as those between Russia and Canada in 2010.
Next steps
First, President Trump's diplomacy toward Canada and Denmark has defied logic. The exploration of a closer association with Canada and acquisition of Greenland could have been a bold visionary enterprise for America First. Instead, the president needlessly alienated two allies at a critical juncture in regional security.
To ensure continued effective multilateral governance, the president must immediately reverse course and explore confidence-building measures to repair the unforced errors of the past three months. To this end, the United States should signal its readiness to join the UNCLOS. The convention is far from perfect but the benefits arising from redeeming these two relationships and reinforcing global norms in favor of conflict resolution via diplomacy outweigh the costs.
Whether the administration's bid to normalize relations with Russia could result in diminishing the "no limits” partnership with China is debatable. Opponents assert no amount of enticements would lure Russia away from China. Proponents counter Russia's standing as the junior partner is a latent fault line that would become a source of discord if relations with the U.S. even improved marginally.
Two factors will influence the durability of their relationship — the degree to which both states mutually benefit and the extent to which the Arctic economy diversifies. If the economy does not diversify beyond energy, then Russia will remain a coequal by virtue of geography. If the economy does diversify beyond energy, then China may conclude Russian provocations undermine regional stability and will pursue greater economic linkages with the other Arctic states. Such outcomes are confined to the long term and require continuous monitoring.
In the interim, one option entails capitalizing on its importance to the Russian economy. The Arctic comprises about 20% of Russian exports and ten percent of its GDP; its development will be essential to unlocking the enormous potential of Siberia. Accordingly, the U.S. could offer lifting sanctions on the projects in the Arctic or guaranteeing Western investments if Russia cooperated on Ukraine.
At a minimum, the U.S. could engage Russia on objectively important matters, such as recovering radioactive material accidentally released during the Cold War and establishing multilateral mechanisms to prevent incidents from needlessly escalating. Vis-a-vis China, the U.S. could mount a diplomatic campaign via two traditional tools — competitive shaming ("China is a poor environmental steward") and outbidding ("America is committed to sharing green technology.").
Lastly, the U.S. should cultivate opportunities with two observer states -- India and Japan.
India emphasizes collaborating with all stakeholders in the Arctic, and the U.S. should ensure Russia does not monopolize the relationship. Japan is a “near-Arctic” state also and possesses a formidable navy that can help ensure the freedom of navigation as new routes open up.
In his second inaugural address, President Trump heralded a new golden age — golden ages are achieved when nations overcome the challenges presented by a new frontier. The Arctic Ocean is that frontier.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
Keys to the Kingdom
John Phelan, freshly-minted as secretary of the Navy on March 25, has no experience building ships. Or, for that matter, in the military. So when he recently tried to figure out how smartly the sea service buys stuff, he turned to something he does know: real estate. “I see numbers on things that are eye-opening to me. … I see a barracks that costs $2.5 million a key [per room],” he said April 9, after two weeks on the job. “My old firm, we built the finest hotel in Hawaii … for $800,000 a key, and that has some pretty nice marble and some pretty nice things in it, and I’m trying to understand how we can get to those numbers.” His audience of Navy officials and contractors tittered nervously.
The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier was delivered incomplete and 32 months late in 2017. The second Ford-class carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy, is facing “critical challenges” that will likely delay its planned July delivery date. The next in line, the USS Enterprise, will be 28 months behind schedule if delivered as planned in 2030. And prices aren’t falling: The JFK is now projected to cost $12.9 billion, the Enterprise $13.5 billion, and the Doris Miller, the fourth carrier in the class slated for delivery in 2032, $14 billion (planes not included).
The lead boat in the Columbia class of nuclear-armed submarines, the most critical leg of the nation’s nuclear triad, is facing a delivery delay of up to 18 months.
Only 10% of the lead frigate in the new Constellation class is finished, almost five years after the Navy awarded the contract for its construction. It is based on a European warship. The Navy hoped its version would share 85% of that vessel’s design. But it now has only 15%. Delivery of the first ship has slipped from 2026 to 2029, and its cost has ballooned from $1 billion to $1.4 billion.
Phelan said the Navy’s “gold-plated requirements” and other procurement pathologies fuel such fiascos. “I understand the Navy has its own ways of doing things, steeped in tradition and often inflexible,” he said. “Those ways, when they are dysfunctional, must be confronted daily and relentlessly in order to change.”
Only one thing missing, Lauren C. Williams at Defense Onenoted: “Phelan didn’t say how he would curb shipbuilding cost overruns and delays.”
You can bet top Navy officers will surely sound “Battle stations!” over Phelan’s offensive against how they do business. But whether they end up as his allies or his adversaries remains an unknown “bogey” on the Navy’s institutional radar screen.
World’s costliest chopping block
On April 9, the White House gave the Pentagon 90 days to come up with a list of weapons programs that are at least 15% over budget or behind schedule for potential termination. You know, because we’re getting too little bang for our bucks. That came two days after President Trump said his administration has approved a $1 trillion defense budget for 2026, which represents a 18% boost over its current $850 billion level. “We are very cost conscious,” he said, “but the military is something that we have to build and we have to be strong because you have a lot of bad forces out there now.”
That’s kind of like telling your kids to tighten their belts while you’re boosting their allowance. Needless to say, this isn’t how human nature — in the Defense Department, or anywhere else — actually works. But when you’ve a bureaucracy as hidebound and lethargic as the Pentagon, maybe you have to force-feed and starve it at the same time.
A White House fact sheet accompanying the order cited nine — nine! — Navy ship-building programs and the Air Force’s new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile as poor performers. There are dozens of other programs that also qualify for the ax.
The Bunker, like others, cheers Trump’s push to buy weapons better. But while we’ve covered a lot of wars, we’ve covered even more Pentagon and presidential pushes for smarter procurement. Unfortunately, his marching order basically reads like he wants to spend more, on more of the same things, more quickly. “Given all the money we spend on the Pentagon,” Trump said, “it’s unacceptable that we would ever run out of ammunition or be unable to quickly produce the weapons needed.”
Aha! Now that gets to the heart of the matter. Until the nation demands simpler and cheaper ammo and weapons, it will never have enough of either.
Antipersonnel landmines return
Bad things come in threes. So if nuclear proliferation is on the rise, and the U.S. is pushing to deploy weapons in space, it should come as no surprise that antipersonnel landmines are making a comeback. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is leading front-line NATO states Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to abandon a 1997 convention banning them.
Moscow has seeded millions of landmines inside Ukraine, making it the world’s most-mined nation. Such weapons, designed to kill troops, too often shred innocent civilians during conflicts and long after those conflicts are over. While 164 nations have signed the treaty, Russia — like China, India, Pakistan, and the U.S. — has not. The Trump administrationis weakening demining operations by cutting foreign aid. Nonetheless, the pact has eliminated more than 40 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines and sharply reduced their production and use.
Even so, the treaty withdrawals do present ominous opportunities. A Finnish company has said it is ready to resume mine production to help defend Finland’s 830-mile border with Russia. And it no doubt will mean more work for Ronin and his fellow African giant pouched rats. Guinness World Records declared Cambodian-based Ronin the most successful rat mine-finder of all time on April 4 — International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, as well as World Rat Day.
Rah-rah Ronin the Rodent!
In these grim times, we’ll take our good news wherever we can find it.
Ex-Air Force boss Frank Kendall questions the Pentagon’s recent decision to make the Boeing F-47 the nation’s first sixth-generation fighter in Defense News April 9.
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.