A Western Michigan player's jersey is grabbing the attention of fans instead of his play after the college football kickoff last weekend.
A rivalry game between Michigan State University and Western Michigan University saw the Spartans win 23-6 at home, but one Broncos player stood out among the crowd in the losing effort.
'This is still America right.'
Along with wearing the somewhat unique No. 0, it was not Mustafi Al-Garawi's two tackles that viewers took note of, but rather that the nameplate on his jersey was written in Arabic.
An East Tennessee State transfer, the senior defensive tackle submitted a request to Western Michigan in the summer asking if he could play his final season with Arabic writing on the back of his jersey.
According to Detroit News, Al-Garawi was born in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, after his father was granted U.S. citizenship for rebelling against his own country (Iraq) during Saddam Hussein's rule. Rashid Al-Garawi allegedly assisted U.S. forces in the Second Gulf War.
RELATED: Are MLB umpires getting worse? Fans say yes, but the stats might disagree
Western Michigan head coach Lance Taylor and school officials approved the Arabic writing, seemingly following an NCAA rule that allows players to "celebrate or memorialize people, events or other causes, subject to school and/or conference approval," according to CBS Sports in 2020.
The messages can vary from player to player.
After a college football fan page with 150,000 followers posted an image of Al-Garawi's jersey, it was met with mostly negative reactions from fans.
"That's awful," one Texan wrote on X.
"Why is that cool. This is America. Nobody can read it," another user said.
"This is still America right," another fan replied.
At least a half-dozen X users called for Al-Garawi's deportation, while some other fans even called the writing "gay."
REALTED: English alone won’t cut it in a global economy
While this may be the first time a player name has been written in Arabic in an NCAA football game, there have already been two players who have had their names written in Chinese.
First, Arizona State University's He Peizhang, aka Jackson He, had his name written in Chinese in 2020. He came to the U.S. from Guangdong, China, at 17 years old, according to South China Morning Post.
In 2025, Charles Du of Notre Dame grabbed headlines and social media attention when he had his name written in Chinese during the Sugar Bowl on January 2.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
What passes for intellectual heft at the Atlantic is any criticism of President Donald Trump. In the Atlantic’s pages and its digital fare, you can read the now-discredited musings of David Frum, who helped bring us the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the inane foreign policy arguments of Max Boot; the interventionist prescriptions of Anne Applebaum; and now, the democracy promotion of political science professor Brian Klaas, who, in a recent article, blames President Trump for killing “American democracy promotion.”
If Klaas is correct, that is one more reason that Americans need to thank President Trump.
Klaas’ first priority is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights.
One would have thought that the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq would have humbled our nation’s democracy promoters — but they haven’t. One would have thought that the failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter would have humbled those who wish to make “human rights” the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy — but it didn’t. One would have thought that the chaos facilitated by the so-called “Arab Spring” would engender prudence and introspection among the democracy promoters — but it is not so.
Professor Klaas wants the world to become democratic and for U.S. foreign policy to lead the effort in bringing the globe to the promised land.
The Trump administration, Klaas writes, has “turn[ed] against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion.”
Perhaps Klaas has never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy based solely on the nation’s interests. Or perhaps he missed John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address, in which he cautioned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and reminded his listeners that America is the well-wisher of freedom to all but the champion only of her own.
Perhaps Klaas believes that Wilsonianism is a “long-standing” American tradition, but in reality, it is mostly limited to starry-eyed liberal internationalists and neoconservatives.
Klaas mentions the “democracy boom” under President Bill Clinton, which was nothing more than a temporary consequence of America’s victory in the Cold War. Yet Klaas thinks it was the beginning of “shifting international norms” where freedom and democracy triumphed in “the ideological battle against rival models of governance” and “had become an inexorable force.”
Here, Klaas is likely referring to Francis Fukuyama’s discredited theory of the “end of history.” We have since discovered, however, that history didn’t die and that democracy is fragile, especially in places and among civilizations that have little democratic experience.
Fukuyama was wrong, but Samuel Huntington was right when he wrote about the coming “clash of civilizations.” One wonders if Klaas has read Huntington or Toynbee — or Spengler for that matter. Or, even more recently, Robert Kaplan’s “The Tragic Mind.”
Klaas criticizes Trump for praising dictators, but President Woodrow Wilson praised Lenin and President Franklin Roosevelt praised Stalin. Klaas says that Trump is indifferent to democracy and human rights. No, Trump simply refuses to make them the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, which is a “long-standing” tradition that stretches back long before Wilson to our founding fathers.
However, neither Wilson nor FDR wanted America to right every wrong in the world, as Klaas does. Klaas wants his “human rights” and democracy agenda “backed by weapons.” He laments that authoritarian regimes no longer need to fear the “condemnation” and the “bombs” of the American president.
Klaas’ leftism is revealed when he condemns the United States for helping to replace Mossaddegh with the pro-American shah of Iran, overthrowing the Marxist regime of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, helping to overthrow Allende in Chile, and cozying up to other authoritarian regimes.
RELATED: Vance makes one thing abundantly clear ahead of Trump's big ceasefire meeting with Putin
The professor also might want to read Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards” to learn that sometimes doing these things is in America’s national interests. Klaas’ leftism jumps off the page when he refers to the illegal aliens removed by the Trump administration — many with criminal records — as “foreign pilgrims.”
Some of those “foreign pilgrims” raped and killed Americans. But Klaas’ first priority is not America or its citizens; it is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights. He is anti-Trump precisely because Trump’s foreign policy is America First. Let’s hope Klaas’ style of democracy promotion is dead.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was asked in a recent interview about joining the military in the wake of 9/11 and her 2004 deployment to Iraq.
After reflecting on her friend's slaying by an IED and on the terrible prices paid by some of her other fellow service members, Gabbard told Miranda Devine, host of "Pod Force One," that their "memories, their service, their sacrifice, the sacrifices of their families motivates the work that we do every day to make sure that the president has the best, most objective, relevant intelligence so that he can make the best-informed decisions."
The DNI noted that she knows firsthand from the Iraq War "what the implications are when you have intelligence weaponized and in that case manufactured ... to start a regime-change war that I served in and that so many of my friends served in and too many of my friends and too many Americans lost their lives in."
'James Clapper was on the team that created that manufactured intelligence assessment that led to the Iraq War — about the WMDs.'
Gabbard identified one of the individuals responsible for the deceit that greased America's way into Iraq: former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Before Clapper settled into former President Barack Obama's inner circle, he served as former President George W. Bush's director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon unit responsible for analyzing spy-satellite photos as well as other technically gathered intelligence, including soil samples.
Bush established the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2004 to investigate the intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq.
The commission's March 2005 report to the former president stated:
On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.
When assigning blame, the report noted that it was partly a "failure on the part of those who collect intelligence — CIA's and the Defense Intelligence Agency's spies, the National Security Agency's eavesdroppers, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's imagery experts."
Clapper readily admitted in 2018, "My fingerprints are on the infamous national intelligence assessment of October 2002" that set the stage for the American invasion.
He told CNN's Dana Bash in 2018 that the intelligence community "built a case in our own minds, a house of cards, it turned out, that led us to the conclusion with pretty high confidence that they were there, and it turns out they weren’t."
RELATED: If no one goes to jail, the coup was a success
The commission's report noted that much of the intelligence that these agencies collected was "either worthless or misleading."
That misleading data set the stage for a 20-year conflict that claimed the lives of 4,599 American service members, over 3,650 American contractors, 15 Pentagon civilian personnel, 52,337 Iraqi national military and police, 324 allied troops, roughly 210,038 civilians, 282 journalists, and 64 humanitarian workers, according to the Watson School of International and Public Affairs.
'You see someone who has no problem whatsoever politicizing, and manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.'
"James Clapper was on the team that created that manufactured intelligence assessment that led to the Iraq War — about the WMDs," Gabbard told Devine. "He writes about it in his book, saying that he and his team of intelligence analysts created something that was not there."
"When you look at his actions then and you look at his actions in 2016 as Obama's director of national intelligence, you see someone who has no problem whatsoever politicizing, and manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome," added Gabbard.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently declassified the appendix from the 2023 Durham report, which Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) promptly released to the public.
The appendix revealed that Clapper was one of a handful of top Obama officials briefed at the White House on Aug. 3, 2016, regarding credible intelligence that the Clinton campaign planned to smear Trump, falsely link him to Russia, then have law enforcement and the intelligence community carry the ball down the field.
Ratcliffe both named Clapper as one of the intelligence officials who "pushed the known fake Steele dossier into intelligence community assessments and as the basis for Crossfire Hurricane and all that," and accused the former DNI of manipulating intelligence "to get Trump."
Although cognizant of a possible Clinton plot to push the Russia hoax, Clapper published the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which served to legitimize the false narrative.
According to the House Intelligence Committee majority staff report recently published by Gabbard, the ICA was a work of fiction comprising misquotes, unreliable reports, lies of omission, and straight-out falsehoods.
Clapper's fingerprints aren't just on the false pretext for a 20-year war and the Russia collusion hoax. He was one of the 51 signatories of the infamous Oct. 19, 2020, "intel" letter that suggested the news concerning the Hunter Biden laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
After it became clear in recent weeks that the Trump administration is serious about bringing those involved in what Gabbard characterized as an alleged "treasonous conspiracy" to account, Clapper indicated that he would "lawyer up."
Blaze News was unable to reach Clapper for comment
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Is Donald Trump a warmonger? It’s a simple question, and yet an increasingly popular accusation from corners of the political class and commentariat that once saw him as the clearest alternative to globalist foreign adventurism. But such an accusation also defies the record. Whatever else one might say about Trump, he has been — consistently and vocally — against needless foreign entanglements.
To suggest that he has suddenly pivoted toward militarism is to misunderstand either the man himself or the moment we are in. Trump is not easily swayed from his core convictions. Trade protectionism and anti-interventionism have always been part of his political DNA. On tariffs, he is unbending. And when it comes to war, he has long argued that America must stop serving as the world’s policeman.
Is Iran another Iraq, or is it more like Poland in 1980?
So when people today accuse Trump of abandoning his anti-interventionist principles, we must ask: What evidence do we have that he has changed? And if he has, does that mean he was misleading us all along — or is something else happening?
If you’ve lost your trust in him, fine. Fair enough. But then the question becomes: Who do you trust? Who else has stood on stage, risked his life, and remained — at least in conviction — largely unchanged?
I’m not arguing for blind trust. In fact, I strongly advise against it. Reagan had it right when he quoted a Russian proverb during nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.” Trust must be earned daily — and verified constantly. But trust, or the absence of it, is central to what we’re facing.
The West is being pulled in two directions: one toward chaos, the other toward renewal. Trust is essential to renewal. Chaos thrives when people lose confidence — in leaders, in systems, in one another.
We are in a moment when clarity is difficult but necessary. And clarity requires asking harder questions than whether someone is “for or against war.”
Too many Americans today fall into four broad categories when it comes to foreign conflict.
First are the trolls — those who aren’t arguing in good faith, but revel in provocation, division, and distrust. Their goal isn’t clarity. It’s chaos.
Second are those who, understandably, want to avoid war but won’t acknowledge the dangers posed by radical Islamist ideology. Out of fear or fatigue, they have chosen willful blindness. This has been a costly mistake in the past.
Third are those who, like me, do not want war but understand that certain ideologies — particularly those of Iran’s theocratic rulers — cannot be ignored or wished away. We study history. We remember 1979. We understand what the “Twelvers” believe.
Twelversare a sect of Shia Islam whose clerics believe the return of the 12th Imam, their messianic figure, can only be ushered in by global conflict and bloodshed. Iran is the only nation in the world to make Twelver Shia its official state religion. The 12th Imam is not a metaphor. It’s doctrine, and it matters.
Finally, there are the hawks. They cheer for conflict. They seek to project American power, often reflexively. And they carry the swagger of certainty, even as history offers them little vindication.
The last few decades have offered sobering lessons. Regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria — none produced flourishing democracies or stable allies. While America is capable of toppling regimes, we’re not so good at manufacturing civil societies. Real liberty requires real leadership on the ground. It requires heroes — people willing to suffer and die not for power, but for principle.
That’s what was missing in Kabul, Baghdad, and Tripoli. We never saw a Washington or a Jefferson emerge. Brave individuals assisted us, but no figures rose to power with whom nations could coalesce.
That is why I ask whether Iran is simply the next chapter in a tired and tragic book — or something altogether different.
Is Iran another Iraq? Or is it more like Poland in 1980? It’s not an easy question, but it’s one we must ask.
During the Cold War, we saw what it looked like when people yearned for freedom. In Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, dissidents risked everything for a chance to escape tyranny. There was a moral clarity. You could hear it in their music, see it in their marches, feel it in the energy that eventually tore down the Berlin Wall.
Is that spirit alive in Iran?
RELATED: Mark Levin sounds alarm: Stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions before it’s too late
We know that millions of Iranians have protested. We know many have disappeared for it. The Persian people are among the best educated in the region. They are culturally rich, historically sophisticated, and far more inclined toward Western ideals than the mullahs who rule them.
But we know Iran’s mullahs are not rational actors.
So again, we must ask: If the people of Iran are capable of throwing off their theocratic oppressors, should the United States support them? If so, how — and what would it cost us?
I am not calling for war. I do not support U.S. military intervention in Iran. But I do support asking better questions. Is it in our national interest to act? Is there a moral imperative we cannot ignore? And do we trust the institutions advising us?
I no longer trust the intelligence agencies. I no longer trust the think tanks that sold us the Iraq War. I certainly don’t trust the foreign policy establishment in Washington that has consistently failed upward.
But I do trust the American people to engage these questions honestly — if they’re willing to think.
I believe we may be entering the first chapter of a final, spiritual conflict — what Scripture calls the last battle. It may take decades to unfold, but the ideological lines are being drawn.
And whether you are for Trump or against him, whether you see Iran as a threat or a distraction, whether you want peace or fear it’s no longer possible — ask the tougher questions.
Because what comes next won’t be determined by slogans. It will be determined by what we truly believe.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Republican candidates have not fared well lately in key races in one of the most important swing states in the country: Michigan. Rep. John James (R) of Michigan did not mince words when talking to Blaze News about their lackluster performances, insisting that they demonstrate why he should be the party's nominee for the open governor race in 2026.
James, 43, rose to national prominence in 2018, when he unsuccessfully attempted to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has since retired. Two years later, James lost another Senate race, this time to incumbent Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.
In January, Peters unexpectedly announced that he would not seek another term, prompting some to speculate that James, who was elected in 2022 to represent the 10th Congressional District of Michigan and re-elected in 2024, might make another run for the Senate.
However, James made a surprise move of his own, announcing in early April that he would make a bid for Michigan governor instead.
'Michigan's a state that deserves to have a leader who's been knocked down a couple times and refuses to give up.'
Last week, James sat down with Blaze News and explained that his breadth of experience in the business world and in combat has prepared him for executive leadership.
"The time that I've had as a legislator, as a lawmaker, as a representative has actually been the longest period of my life that I haven't been in an executive role," he stated.
"I'm a combat veteran, and I led two Apache platoons," continued James, a Ranger-qualified aviation officer who served in operations in Iraq from 2007 to 2009, according to his congressional website.
"I understand what it takes to keep Americans safe because I've done it before."
James also noted that in the last several years, Republican candidates in Michigan have lost winnable races. To demonstrate, he referred to then-Attorney General Bill Schuette's failed gubernatorial bid against former state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) in 2018, followed by Tudor Dixon's loss to Whitmer in 2022 despite Whitmer's questionable track record regarding COVID lockdowns and nursing home deaths.
James warned that if that "circular firing squad" continues among Michigan Republicans, a leftist could succeed Whitmer next year.
"We can be cute, we can talk, but if you can't win, what are we even talking about?" James asked rhetorically. "If we're not going to put the strongest candidate at the top of the ticket, what are we even talking about?"
Schuette and the Michigan Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.
RELATED: Mike Rogers launches Senate campaign to replace retiring Democrat
Tudor Dixon, who has teased another run for governor as well as a possible Senate bid, quickly fired back against James' provocative remarks.
"It's interesting to see a declared candidate lashing out at someone who has not even announced a run for office yet," Dixon said in a statement to Blaze News. "I will not comment on his two statewide failures, but instead recommend he start to share his plans about how to make people's lives here in Michigan better."
When Blaze News pressed James about his failed senatorial bids, he explained that unseating an incumbent is particularly challenging. Since Whitmer is term-limited, he believes he has a good shot of winning the governorship, especially after eight years of her radical policies.
He also admitted to Blaze News that he learned some valuable lessons from those disappointing electoral losses. "Number one, don't run during a global pandemic," he said, referring to the 2020 race against Peters.
James added that even though he didn't win, those two U.S. Senate races did provide some unforeseen benefits: statewide name recognition as well as the opportunity to demonstrate to voters his fortitude and toughness.
"Michigan's a state that deserves to have a leader who's been knocked down a couple times and refuses to give up," he said.
For now, James has much in his favor. Though state Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt (R-Lawton), who has also announced his candidacy for governor, is likewise a well-known name and may give him fits in the Republican primary, at the moment, much of the state media attention has been focused on the campaign missteps of Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.
RELATED: 16 noncitizens apparently voted in Michigan in 2024 — and liberals are cheering about it
James also pointed out that he has long-standing ties to President Donald Trump, who carried Michigan handily in the 2024 presidential election and who endorsed James in his previous runs for Senate and Congress. However, at least one Michigan-based Republican communications operative disputed the strength of James' current relationship with Trump, suggesting to Blaze News that it has been "shaky" recently.
So far, Trump has not weighed in on the upcoming gubernatorial race in Michigan. When Blaze News asked James whether he has discussed the topic of endorsement with Trump lately, James deftly changed the subject to his current focus of helping the president pass the "big, beautiful bill" in the House.
"We as Republicans, we have the best ideas. We have the best policies — and they work," he said.
"But none of it makes a lick of difference if ... we don't elect the candidate who can win."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
If President Trump truly believes in 'no more stupid wars,' now is the time to prove it.
www.theblaze.com