Editorial Flashback: It's an e-mail scam, not a "Nigerian scam"....

Editor-in-Chief

Imagine my surprise when I turned to the consumer page of the Attorney General of the State of Washington to find that a whole people, in this case citizens of Nigeria, had been painted with a wide brush (see former website content below in italics). Regarding the latter, I am talking about the much talked about e-mail scams or advance fee fraud, many believe originated from that West African nation.

"E-mail Scams - Advance fee and counterfeit check/Nigerian scams: If you suffered a financial loss you can file a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center at www.ic3.gov"

To better understand this issue, it will be prudent to give a brief overview of the most populous country on the African continent, a nation that has disbursed so much good to much of humanity, with some bad mixed in (show me a perfect country or people).

Nigeria gained its independence from Britain on October 1st, 1960. Since then, the country has experienced a civil war (that lasted for three years 1967-1970 and killed 1 million of its citizens) while also enjoying a long spell of economic prosperity and boom from the 70s to the late-80s (much from oil and other natural resources she has been blessed with).

Lately, beginning in the 1990s, the country's infrastructure, image and over-all national reputation has taking a beating, mainly as a result of defective leadership laced with unbecoming greed and avarice.

The general climate of corruption (not quite different from what you would find in most countries but quite overt in Nigeria) has led to an expected societal breakdown, where law, order and common decency became an exception and not the norm.

For all of its struggles with corruption and the systematic destruction of its storied institutions and culture, much of this by its own military, with the acquiescence of the West (the latter mostly concerned with taking its resources by any means), the country has re-set itself back on course, with democratic elections in 1999 and has never looked back since.

The descent into "white collar crime" with the e-mail scams and other forms of criminal activity (by a very marginal minority) does NOT define the nature and character of Nigerians (over 200 million people), with many Nigerians contributing as physicians, scientists, technology experts and business executives in much of the world, particularly Africa, Europe and the United States (with a well established immigrant population in the Puget Sound as well).

While the e-mail/advance fee scam has generally been portrayed as a "Nigerian Scam", recent investigations by the Nigerian State Security Service (SSS) (working in conjunction with the FBI and Interpol) have shown that most of these crimes (e-mail/advance fee scams) have actually been committed by citizens of other West African countries, namely Ghana, the Sierra Leone and Liberia (due to the wars and extreme poverty in the latter two).

The interesting spin to the preceding information is that America's next door neighbor, Canada, has become a notorious breeding ground as well for a large proportion of these e-mail and other transactional scams. Witness the Canadian "lottery winner" e-mails as well as the offer to send you a "cashiers check" when you try to sell your car on Craigslist.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), a body recently set up by Nigeria's democratically elected government, has also been very aggressive in pursuing the perpetrators of ALL financial crimes, within the Nigerian state.

While it is true that the Nigerian government "needs to do more" to ensure that this menace is curtailed (at least within its borders), one can say that the US government also needs to do more, by advising its citizens not to reply to e-mail solicitations to receive money from "relatives", they never had in Nigeria or anywhere else in the first place.

The advance fee fraud and e-mail scam developed a life of its own by the default of enablement. The greed and avarice in the United States (particularly on Wall Street) is there for all to see, but I am yet to see any Attorney General websites or newspapers refer to those as "American scam" or even worse still, label the scam on Wall Street with an ethnic delineation.

I am grateful to the deputy Chief-of-Staff of the Washington AG at the time for heeding my call and that of other well-meaning and hardworking Nigerians to remove the "Nigerian" label on this disgraceful activity.

One would hope that the likes of Sean Robinson (Staff Writer at the Tacoma News Tribune) might also learn something and understand that much like the criminals on Wall Street and those on the corners of the worst neighborhoods of Tacoma and indeed America who murder (serial killers et al), rape, pillage, molest and commit countless heinous crimes, are not branded with an American or other ethnic-American brush, it would be fool-hardy to do the same to others.

In leaked audio, Atiku allegedly admits to setting up channels for corruption

CC™ Politico

The former presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and stalwart of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has been accused of complicity regarding bribery and misappropriation of public funds.

This came to light in a viral audio shared by Atiku’s former aide, Michael Achimugu, where the former vice-president allegedly admitted to having collected N100 million bribe from Mr Joshua Dariye, a former Plateau State governor, which was paid directly to Marine Float, one of the three firms he registered.Play audio 

In the audio recording which Achimugu claimed was with Atiku, the former Vice President is heard explaining how he set up an ‘SPV -Special Purpose Vehicle’ to receive monies from corruption-related dealings.

During his tenure as governor from 1999 to 2007, Dariye was found to have stolen N2 billion in public funds. He was found guilty of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.

“When the governor sent donations, he sent it to Marine Float. It stayed in Marine Float. One of the subscribers of Marine Float was Otunba Fasawe. That was where the N100 million went to. It did not go to Atiku Abubakar. It went to Marine Float. Marine Float was a special-purpose vehicle,” Atiku revealed in the YouTube phone recording.

Atiku said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had afterwards “very thoroughly” investigated Marine Float accounts but had still not “discovered anything” connecting him to the company’s fraudulent practices.

The former vice president also described how he was in charge of establishing onshore shell companies to operate as a conduit for taking large sums of money from public works contracts for himself and former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

He said, “What happened was when we came into office and I advised the president against open corruption.

“I told him to give me three people you trust and I will prepare three companies in which they will be subscribers or rather the directors.

“So that if there is any contract that we give they will act like consultants and they are given a fee. That fee is what we use to fund the party.”

Atiku was accused by Nigerian senators in 2007 of misusing more than $100 million (£51 million) in taxpayer money for personal gain.

A Senate investigation suggested that Atiku be prosecuted for diverting funds to businesses he was associated with.

After the then-president, Obasanjo, transmitted accusations made against Atiku by Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency, the Senate opened the investigation.

The investigative panel acknowledged in a report given to the Senate that it concurred with the conclusion that Atiku had abetted in the transfer of $145 million from Nigerian government accounts to banks.

The panel’s research and conclusions, though, had no effect.

FRANCE AND ITS PERMANENT COLONIES: It ruined Haiti, the first black country to become independent in 1804 • It is on course to ruin all its former African colonies

CC™ FeatureSpective

By Toyin Falola

It is no coincidence that the recent spate of coups in Africa has manifested in former French African colonies (so-called Francophone Africa), once again redirecting the global spotlight on France’s activities in the region.

And that the commentaries, especially among Africans, have been most critical of France and its continued interference in the region.

This is coming against the backdrop of France’s continuous meddling in the economic and political affairs of “independent” Francophone countries, an involvement that has seen it embroiled, both directly and indirectly, in a series of unrests, corruption controversies, and assassinations that have bedevilled the region since independence.

Unlike Britain and other European countries with colonial possessions in Africa, France never left—at least not in the sense of the traditional distance observed since independence by the other erstwhile colonial overlords.

Instead, it has, under the cover of a policy of coopération within the framework of an extended “French Community,” continued to maintain a perceptible cultural, economic, political, and military presence in Africa.

On the surface, the promise of cooperation between France and its former colonies in Africa—which presupposes a relationship of mutual benefit between politically independent nations—where the former would, through the provision of technical and military assistance, lead the development and advancement of its erstwhile colonial “family—is both commendable and perhaps even worthy of emulation.

However, when this carefully scripted façade is juxtaposed with the reality that has unfolded over the decades, what is revealed is an extensive conspiracy involving individuals at the highest levels of the French government.

Along with other influential business interests—also domiciled in France—they have worked with a select African elite to orchestrate the most extensive and heinous crimes against the people of today’s Francophone Africa.

A people who, even today, continue to strain under the weight of France’s insatiable greed.

The greed and covetousness that drove the European nations to abandon trade for colonialization in Africa are as alive today as they were in the 1950s and 1980s.

The decision to give in to African demands for independence was not the outcome of any benevolence or civilised reason on the part of Europe, but for economic and political expedience.

Thus, when the then President of France, Charles de Gaulle—who nurtured an ambition to see France maintain its status as a world power—agreed to independence for its African colonies, it was only a pre-emptive measure to check the further loss of French influence on the continent.

In other words, the political liberation offered “on a platter of gold” was a means to avoid the development of other costly wars of independence, which, after World War II depleted France, was already fighting in Indochina and Algeria.

Independence was, thus, only the first step in ensuring the survival of French interests in Africa and, more importantly, their prioritisation.

Pursuant to this objective, De Gaulle also proposed a “French Community”—delivered on the same “golden platter”—as a caveat to continued French patronage.

As such, the over ninety-eight percent of its colonies that agreed to be part of this community were roped into signing cooperation accords—covering economic, political, military, and cultural sectors—by Jacques Foccart, a former intelligence member of the French Resistance in the Second World War, handpicked by De Gaulle.

This signing of cooperation accords between France and the colonies, which opted to be part of its post-independence French Community, marked the beginning of France’s neo-colonial regime in Africa, where Africans got teachers and despotic leaders in exchange for their natural resources and French military installations.

Commonly referred to as Françafrique—a pejorative derivation from Felix Houphouet Boigny’s “France-Afrique,” describing the close ties between France and Africa—France’s neo-colonial footprint in Africa has been characterised by allegations of corruption and other covert activities perpetrated through various Franco-African economic, political, and military networks.

An essential feature of France is the crookish mafia-like relations between French leaders and their African counterparts, which were reinforced by a dense web of personal networks.

On the French side, African ties, which had been the French presidents’ domaine réservé (sole responsibility) since 1958, were run by an “African cell” founded and managed by Jacques Foccart.

Comprising French presidents, powerful and influential members of the French business community, and the French secret service, this cell operated outside the purview of the French parliament, its civil society organisations, and non-governmental organisations.

This created a window for corruption as politicians and state officials took part in business arrangements, which amounted to state racketeering.

Whereas pro-French sentiments in Africa and elsewhere still argue for France’s continuous presence and contributions, particularly in the area of military intervention and economic aid, which they say have been critical to security, political stability, and economic survival in the region, such arguments intentionally play down the historical consequences of French interests in the region.

Enjoying a free reign in the region—backed mainly by the United States and Britain since the Cold War—France used the opportunity to strengthen its hold on its former colonies.

This translated into the development of a franc zone—a restrictive monetary policy tying the economies of Francophone countries to France—as well as the adoption of an active interventionist approach, which has produced over 120 military interventions across fourteen dependent states between 1960 and the 1990s.

These interventions, which were either to rescue stranded French citizens, put down rebellions, prevent coups, restore order, or uphold French-favoured regimes, have rarely been about improving the fortunes of the general population of Francophone Africa.

French interventions have maintained undemocratic regimes in Cameroun, Senegal, Chad, Gabon, and Niger.

At the same time, its joint military action in Libya was responsible for unleashing Islamic terrorism that threatened to engulf countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Nigeria.

In pursuit of its interests in Africa, France has made little secret of its contempt for all independent and populist reasons while upholding puppet regimes. In Guinea in 1958, De Gaulle embarked on a ruthless agenda to undermine the government of Ahmed Sékou Touré—destroying infrastructure and flooding the economy with fake currency—for voting to stay out of the French Community.

This behaviour was again replicated in Togo, where that country’s first president, Sylvio Olympio, was overthrown and gruesomely murdered for daring to establish a central bank for the country outside the Franc CFA Zone.

Subsequently, his killer, Gnassingbé Eyadema, assumed office and ruled from 1967 until his death in 2005, after which he was succeeded by his son, who still rules. In Gabon, you had the Bongo family, who ran a regime of corruption and oppression with the open support of France throughout 56 years of unproductive rule.

As for Cameroun’s most promising pan-Africanist pro-independence leader, Felix Moumie, he died under mysterious circumstances in Switzerland, paving the way for the likes of Paul Biya, who has been president since 1982.

France also backs a Senegalese government, which today holds over 1500 political prisoners and singlehandedly installed Alhassan Ouattara as president of Cote d’Ivoire.

Therefore, the widespread anti-France sentiment spreading through the populations of Francophone Africa and beyond is not unfounded, as it has become apparent to all and sundry that these countries have not fared well under the shadow of France.

In Niger, where France carried out one of the bloodiest campaigns of colonial pacification in Africa—murdering and pillaging entire villages—and which is France’s most important source of uranium, the income per capita was 59 percent lower in 2022 than it was in 1965.

In Cote d’Ivoire, the largest producer of cocoa in the world, the income per capita was 25 percent lower in 2022 than in 1975.

Outside the rampant unemployment, systematic disenfranchisement, and infrastructural deficits that characterise these Francophone countries, there’s also the frustration and anger of sitting back and watching helplessly.

In contrast, the wealth of your country is being carted away to nations whose people feed fat on your birthright and then turn around to make judgements and other disparaging comments on your humanity and condition of existence.

The people are tired of being poor, helpless, and judged as third-world citizens! France is a dangerous country.

It is indeed overdue for France to cut its losses—whatever it envisages they are—and step back from its permanent colonies to allow the people of Francophone Africa to decide on their preferred path to the future.

After nearly 200 years of occupation, the people have had good reasons to say France should leave.

The restlessness and coups that have become commonplace in the region are symptoms of deeper underlying social, economic, and political problems, including weak institutions, systematic disenfranchisement, poverty, corruption, and/or misappropriation of national wealth.

And as we call on France to do the honourable thing and withdraw, we should also rebuke Africa’s leaders, who have not only put their interests above those of their people but have also turned the instruments of regional intervention and development (like the AU and ECOWAS) into tools for ensuring their political survival.

SOURCE: NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

Sound advice from Mark Cuban on the best investment you can make.

CC™ PersPective

BY MARCEL SCHWANTES

When it comes to building a successful career, few principles are as powerful—or overlooked—as the habit of self-improvement. Mark Cuban, billionaire entrepreneur and investor, credits much of his success to one simple but profound idea: Invest in yourself.

“Some of the best investments I ever made were investing in myself, first and foremost. When you’re first starting—you may or may not have a job, you don’t have any money, you’re [uncertain] about your career. What I learned early on is that if I put in the effort, I can learn almost anything.

It may take me a long time, but by putting in the effort, I taught myself technology. I taught myself to program. It was time-consuming—painfully so—but that investment in myself has paid dividends for the rest of my life.

The fact that I recognized that learning was truly a skill, and that by continuing to learn to this day, I’m able to compete, keep up, and get ahead of most people—because the reality is, most people don’t put in the time to keep up and learn. And that’s always given me a competitive advantage.”

Here are five practical reasons why investing in yourself as a leader is one of the smartest moves you can make to succeed in business:

1. You become your own competitive advantage.

In business, when you invest in learning—whether it’s public speaking, data analysis, AI, leadership, or emotional intelligence—you equip yourself with tools others may lack. Over time, to Cuban’s point, that edge compounds.

2. You build confidence and clarity. 

When you sharpen your abilities, you don’t just get smarter—you feel more capable. That confidence shows up in meetings, negotiations, and tough decisions. It also helps you stay clear on your goals, set boundaries, and lead your people with conviction.

3. Your team mirrors your growth. 

As a leader, your mindset sets the tone for the entire company. When you prioritize your own growth, you model what continuous improvement looks like. That inspires your team to do the same—and over time, it creates a culture of learning and accountability.

4. It sharpens your decision making.

The higher up you go, the fewer people are willing to challenge your thinking. Investing in coaching, training, reading, or peer networks gives you fresh perspectives and helps you make better, faster, and more strategic decisions—especially under pressure.

5. It protects you from burnout and blind spots. 

Leading a company is high-stakes and emotionally demanding. Investing in your mental, emotional, and physical well-being isn’t indulgent—it’s essential. When you’re self-aware and grounded, you’re less reactive and more resilient, which makes you a more effective leader for others.

In the end, your business can only grow as fast and as far as you do. Investing in yourself isn’t optional—it’s foundational. As Mark Cuban said, the effort you put into learning and evolving pays dividends for life. It’s the one investment no market crash or competitor can take away.

SOURCE - INC.COM

Barbarians at the gate - How America mortgaged its future on the altar of MAGA

CC™ Editor’s Review

By Editor-in-Chief

The administration of Donald J. Trump has predicated its policies on ‘cleaning the swamp’. 

Here are the facts:

1) 8 of Trump’s cabinet picks donated almost half-a-billion dollars to his (Trump’s) re-election campaign. While the influence of large campaign donors on policy making is a recurring concern across administrations, the scale of these donations with regard to the incoming Trump administration, raises valid concerns about cronyism and how these relationships might shape policymaking. 

2) Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

The establishment of the DOGE with figures like Elon Musk (and Vivek Ramaswamy at the onset), underscores broader concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Tesla’s historical receipt of government funds to innovate in clean energy contrasts with any policy that undermines competitors like Rivian. Canceling Biden-era funding for Rivian, as Ramaswamy had intimated, could:

•Stifle competition in the EV market, undermining innovation.

•Harm Georgia’s economy if the promised 8,000 jobs fail to materialize.

•Reinforce perceptions of favoritism, potentially benefiting Tesla.

3) Regulation Rollbacks

A loosening of regulatory oversight, particularly in critical sectors like healthcare and aviation, could indeed have far-reaching consequences. Historical examples suggest that deregulation:

•May increase corporate profits but often at the expense of public safety or service quality.

•Risks weakening consumer protections, as seen in sectors like banking and energy following similar moves in the past.

4)  Broader Implications

My concern (and that of many well-meaning folks) is about how concentrated wealth and political influence can blur the lines between public service and personal gain. While Trump’s policies have long championed deregulation as a driver of economic growth, the balance between efficiency and accountability will ultimately define public perception of his governance.

Policy Implications for the EV Industry as a result of the possible actions of DOGE and the impact of deregulation, using the Healthcare and Aviation industries as test cases:

Policy Implications for the EV Industry

The competition between Tesla and newer players like Rivian is central to understanding the potential effects of DOGE’s decisions. Here are the key points:

1. Market Competition and Innovation

•Favoritism Risks: If Rivian loses the $6 billion promised by the Biden administration while Tesla continues benefiting from previous subsidies, the playing field could tilt significantly in Tesla’s favor. This reduces competition, which is vital for innovation and cost reduction in the EV market.

•Job Loss and Economic Impact: The proposed Rivian factory in Georgia would generate around 8,000 jobs, directly boosting the local economy. Its cancellation could harm not only the state’s workforce but also U.S. efforts to expand domestic EV manufacturing capacity.

2. Global Leadership in EVs

•Policies favoring one company over others may hinder the U.S.’s ability to compete globally, especially with countries like China, which dominates the EV supply chain and production. A diverse domestic EV ecosystem is critical to achieving energy independence and global competitiveness.

3. Public Perception and Policy Credibility

•Rolling back Rivian’s funding while Tesla remains dominant could spark accusations of bias or corruption, undermining public trust in government energy policies.

Impact of Deregulation

Deregulation in sectors like healthcare and aviation often has mixed results, with both short-term gains for businesses and long-term risks for consumers and workers.

1. Healthcare

•Impact on Safety Standards: Deregulation could loosen controls on drug approvals, hospital standards, and medical device quality. While this might accelerate innovation and reduce costs for companies, it risks patient safety if oversight is weakened.

•Access and Affordability: If deregulation leads to the consolidation of insurance companies or healthcare providers, patients may face fewer options and higher prices in the long run.

2. Aviation

•Safety Concerns: The aviation industry is highly regulated to ensure passenger safety. Reduced oversight could increase the risk of accidents or mechanical failures, as was seen in the aftermath of deregulation in the 1980s. We have already seen that with the tragic air mishaps in Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. 

•Cost vs. Quality Trade-offs: While deregulation might lower ticket prices, it often comes at the cost of service quality (e.g., reduced legroom, increased fees, or overbooked flights).

With no guard rails in place for the incoming Trump administration, balancing efficiency and oversight will be a tall order as Trump will not be favorably disposed to the concept of independent watchdogs. 

Furthermore, policies that support fair competition, especially in the EV industry, through the encouragement of a diverse marketplace that engenders innovation across multiple players, will be abandoned for archaic and authoritarian policies that promote favoritism and stifle competition.

The basic premise for the creation of DOGE was to promote  transparency around funding and policy decisions. It was supposed to help rebuild trust and reduce perceptions of corruption.

Under Trump, with Musk as the main anchor, realizing that aforementioned noble premise will be at best, an illusion. 

America and Americans are in for a long and painful ride. 

Why a war with Iran would not be the best course of action for the United States

Image: Reuters

by Ted Galen Carpenter

Kenneth Adelman, a former assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a prominent figure in the U.S. foreign policy community, famously predicted in 2002 that a war to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be a “cakewalk.” President Donald Trump apparently learned nothing from Adelman’s hubris and rosy optimism. Although he aborted a planned airstrike on Iran at the last minute, Trump later warned Iranian leaders that the military option was still very much on the table. He added that if the United States used force against Iran, Washington would not put boots on the ground but would wage the conflict entirely with America’s vast air and naval power. There was no doubt in his mind about the outcome. He asserted that such a war “wouldn’t last very long,” and that it would mean the “obliteration” of Iran.

But history is littered with examples of wars that political leaders and the general public erroneously believed would be quick and easy. When Abraham Lincoln opted to confront the secession of the Southern states with force, his initial troop request was merely for90-day enlistments. People in Washington, DC, were so confident that the Union army would crush the upstart rebels at the impending battle of Manassas that hundreds drove out in carriages to view the likely battlefield. They treated it like a spectator event, in some cases complete with picnic baskets. Four years later, more than 500,000 American soldiers were dead.

Leaders and populations in the major European capitals in 1914 exuded optimism that the new war would be over in a matter of months—with their side winning a glorious victory, of course. Once again, the situation did not turn out as planned. The projected quick and relatively bloodless conflict became a prolonged, horrific slaughter consuming millions of young lives, toppling established political systems in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, and ushering in the plagues of fascism and communism. 

A common thread in the various blunders was the assumption that the initial phase of a conflict would be utterly decisive. That was Adelman’s error. Washington’s military encounter with Saddam’s forces was fairly close to being a cakewalk. The decrepit Iraqi army was no match for the U.S.-led invaders. When Saddam fell from power, President George W. Bush flew to a U.S. aircraft carrier that displayed a huge (later infamous) “Mission Accomplished” banner.

However, the initial military victory proved to be just the beginning of a giant headache for the United States. Within months, an insurgency arose against the U.S. occupation force, and political instability bordering on civil war plagued Iraq, paving the way for the rise of ISIS. At last count, more than 4,400 American troops have perished pursuing the Iraq mission, and the United States has spent well over a trillion dollars. Not exactly a cakewalk.

That is what makes President Trump’s cavalier attitude about a war with Iran so worrisome. He implicitly assumes that the United States has control over the twin processes of retaliation and escalation. U.S. officials made that same faulty assumption in Iraq—and decades earlier in Vietnam. But even adversaries that are inferior in terms of conventional military capabilities may have numerous options to wage asymmetric warfare. And that strategy can become a war of attrition that inflicts serious damage on the militarily superior United States.

Iran may be especially effective if it adopts that course. Indeed, just in the narrow military sense, Iranian capabilities are far from trivial. Retired Admiral James Stavridis notes that Iran has “exceptionally strong asymmetric warfare capability” in several areas. “Cyber [attacks], swarm small-boat tactics, diesel submarines, special forces and surface-to-surface cruise missiles are all high-level assets,” Stavridis stated. “They are also very experienced at employing them in the demanding environment of the Middle East.”

Beyond utilizing its direct military capabilities, Tehran might well call upon its network of Shia political and military allies in the Middle East to create havoc for the United States. Iran maintains very close ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon and several Shia militias in Iraq. The residual U.S. force deployed in the latter country could be especially vulnerable to harassment and lethal attacks. And one should not ignore or discount the potential role of the angry, oppressed Shia majority in Bahrain. If their seething discontent at the Sunni-controlled regime that Washington backs explodes into outright conflict, the Trump administration could find it increasingly difficult to continue basing the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

Going to war against Iran would be no minor matter, and President Trump is irresponsible to act in such a flippant manner. Attacking Iran could trigger a prolonged, costly nightmare in both treasure and blood. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a Democratic presidential candidate, likely is prophetic that a war against Iran would make the Iraq War look like a cakewalk. Tehran certainly has a multitude of ways to retaliate for U.S. aggression and to escalate the bilateral confrontation. U.S. leaders would be wise not to venture farther down that perilous path.

Source: The National Interest