Connect with us

INTERNACIONAL

Billionaires boomed in Biden era as Fed became ‘engine of income inequality’ powered by COVID policies: expert

Published

on


The nation’s wealthiest residents saw their billions grow even larger in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic due to policies from the Federal Reserve that have deepened the chasm of income inequality, economic experts report. 

«If you look at the amount of federal regulation, the amount of federal taxes, if anything… the economy has gotten less friendly toward big business, and toward rich people,» economist Peter St. Onge told Fox News Digital in a May phone interview. «What’s actually been happening is that the Fed has been driving income inequality. And, I think for a long time, Republicans were sort of in denial – not just Republicans, but sort of free market types were in denial – and they didn’t want to talk about income equality.» 

Advertisement

«I think they should absolutely talk about it, because what’s causing it is not free markets,» he said. «It’s something that I think everybody should oppose, which is government manipulation of the monetary system.»

St. Onge was reacting to data showing that billionaires’ share of the GDP increased from 14.1% in 2020 to 21.1% in 2025, as reported by Johns Hopkins University economic professor Steve Hanke. 

JPMorgan Chase’s private bank estimated that the number of billionaires in the U.S. increased from 1,400 in 2021 to nearly 2,000 as of 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported in April. 

Advertisement

DOGE SHOULD ‘DEFINITELY’ LOOK AT FEDERAL RESERVE COSTS, ELON MUSK SAYS

President Donald Trump, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and former President Joe Biden (Getty Images)

The Federal Reserve is America’s central bank, which sets monetary policies and oversees banks. It acts independently, meaning it does not require approval from the president or Congress when enacting policies. 

Advertisement

St. Onge explained to Fox News Digital that «debt is a rich man’s game» and that billionaires have benefited financially since the pandemic as the Fed worked to «manipulate interest rates» down below market value, which subsidized loans. 

«During COVID, you could get a mortgage for, you know, three, three and a half percent, when inflation was running higher than that,» he explained. «You were literally being paid to borrow money, which is not a free market outcome.… So it makes loans cheap and the rich overwhelmingly borrow money.» 

ELON MUSK WARNS FEDERAL RESERVE MAY FACE DOGE AUDIT

Advertisement

The average debt for the top 5% of Americans sits at about $600,000, he said, while the average debt for the vast majority of Americans is roughly $74,000. 

«That’s about a nine times difference,» he said of the data. «So if you make loans too cheap, you are giving nine times more money to rich people.… If you make loans cheap, you’re functionally giving $9 to rich people for every $1 to give everybody else.» 

Assets are even more skewed, he explained, with the top 5% of Americans holding $7.8 million in assets compared to the average American’s $62,000 – notching 130 times the difference between the two demographics, he said. 

Advertisement

«The value of a stock or even a house are based on the future stream of income, and those are all discounted by the interest rate,» he said. «And so pretty close to mechanically, if you cut interest rates in half – long-term interest rates – you are doubling the value of stocks.»

Federal Reserve

The nation’s wealthiest residents saw their billions grow even larger in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic due to policies from the Federal Reserve that have deepened the chasm of income inequality, economic experts report. (Jason Reed/File Photo/Reuters)

St. Onge pointed to the American economy in the 1970s and the early 2000s, outlining that growth «took a big step down» in the 2000s while asset values, such as housing prices and the stock market, skyrocketed. 

«The reason is because, since the 1970s, the Fed has very aggressively held rates low, and so this has caused all those assets to go up. So stocks have gone up, housing has gone up. And again, those are rich men’s games. Overwhelmingly, people who own stocks are rich. Housing is even more skewed.»

Advertisement

«So if you’ve got a nine times difference on loans between the bottom 50% and the top 5%, and then you’ve got 130 times on assets, then the Fed manipulating rates down – they’re not doing it to make rich people rich, hopefully – but that’s sort of the consequence of doing that,» he said. «Holding long-term interest rates low is to shower money on rich people and to shower it in proportion to which they’re rich, right? So the most extreme version of that is going to be billionaires.» 

FEDERAL RESERVE HOLDS KEY INTEREST RATE STEADY AMID ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY

Economist Steve Hanke discussed how the Federal Reserve has fanned the flame of income inequality through its policies at a conference earlier in 2025 at the Mises Institute, an economics-focused think tank based out of Alabama.  

Advertisement

«In 2020, billionaires’ share of GDP was 14.1%. Now, it’s 21.1%. The Fed increased the money supply, asset prices went up, & guess who owns the assets? Billionaires. By ignoring the money supply, the Fed is an ENGINE OF INCOME INEQUALITY,» he posted to X in April of his findings. 

Trump in Philadelphia

The Federal Reserve acts independently, meaning it does not require approval from President Donald Trump or Congress when enacting policies. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)

«Take the Federal Reserve’s excessive money printing during the pandemic,» Hanke said in an interview published by the think tank in April. «The transmission mechanism of monetary policy roughly dictates that changes in the money supply are followed by changes in asset prices in 1–9 months’ time, changes in real economic activity in 6–18 months’ time, and finally changes in the price level in 12–24 months’ time.»

«Thanks to the Fed’s helicopter money drops beginning with COVID, the annual growth rate of the US broad money supply peaked at 18.1% per year in May 2021,» he added. «Lo and behold, the transmission mechanism followed – the S&P 500 reached a local maximum in December 2021 (6 months later), and inflation peaked at 9.1% per year in July 2022 (14 months later).»  

Advertisement

US JOB GROWTH COOLED IN APRIL AMID ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY

A sign says "masks required" in California during the COVID-19 pandemic

«During COVID, you could get a mortgage for, you know, three, three and a half percent, when inflation was running higher than that,» economist Peter St. Onge noted. (Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images)

The result, he said, was skyrocketing wealth inequality to the tune of billionaires increasing their share of the GDP by 7.6 percentage points in just four years. 

St. Onge said the Fed’s policies have been political in nature, while remarking he would welcome «naive» Democrats who bang the proverbial campaign drum of income inequality to jump onto the «end the Fed bandwagon.»

Advertisement

«They have a naive argument where they look at rich people and they say, ‘Hey, this is so terrible. We live in this dog-eat-dog jungle of an economy,’» St. Onge said of Democrats who campaign on income inequality. «And that is inaccurate,» he added, citing Federal Reserve policies that have amplified income inequality. 

On the opposite side of the political coin, Vice President JD Vance has railed against the Biden administration and «Wall Street barons» for policies he said have hurt the working class. During his acceptance speech after officially becoming the vice presidential nominee in July, Vance said an affordability crisis is strangling the working class, while touting that the Trump administration would end economic «catering to Wall Street.»

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

«Wall Street barons crashed the economy and American builders went out of business,» Vance said from Milwaukee in summer 2024. «As tradesmen scrambled for jobs, houses stopped being built. The lack of good jobs, of course, led to stagnant wages. And then the Democrats flooded this country with millions of illegal aliens. So citizens had to compete – with people who shouldn’t even be here – for precious housing. Joe Biden’s inflation crisis, my friends, is really an affordability crisis.» 

The Federal Reserve Board declined comment when approached by Fox Digital regarding St. Onge’s and Hanke’s remarks. 

White House,Economic Policy,Economy,Federal Reserve

Advertisement

INTERNACIONAL

Modern Love: Un apagón hizo que lo nuestro fuera posible

Published

on



Cuando estaba penosamente soltero entre los 20 y los 30 años y vivía en un garage reconvertido en Chicago, me preocupaba la primera impresión que una posible pareja se llevaría de mí.

La puerta trasera de la cochera era mi puerta principal, lo que significaba que tenía que guiar a la persona con la que tenía una cita por el callejón, pasar junto a los contenedores de basura y atravesar el olor a podrido para llegar a mi casa.

Advertisement

En verano, los olores a veces incluso nos seguían al interior.

Durante un tiempo después de mudarme, la gente llamaba a mi puerta pensando que yo era el inquilino anterior, que al parecer había sido un traficante de drogas local.

No fue exactamente el nuevo comienzo romántico que había imaginado tras una ruptura.

Advertisement

Soy artista y profesor, y la primera habitación de la cochera era mi estudio, lleno de obras en curso, lo que he llegado a considerar un tipo diferente de basura, una muestra visual de mis inseguridades y tendencias neuróticas.

Una metáfora viviente de todo lo que se agitaba en mi mundo privado.

Cuando traía a casa a una cita, siempre me apresuraba a atravesar esa primera habitación para llegar a la segunda, a fin de evitar preguntas innecesarias o posibles retrocesos antes de desvestirme y poner manos a la obra.

Advertisement

Kevin fue uno de los primeros hombres a los que permití entrar en mi espacio.

Era un analista de datos bienintencionado que realmente quería saber a qué me dedicaba.

Cuando echó un vistazo a mi estudio, frunció el ceño.

Advertisement

“¿Este es tu trabajo?”, me preguntó.

“¿Esto es lo que haces todo el día cuando la mayoría de la gente está trabajando?”.

Me reí, pero me morí un poco por dentro.

Advertisement

Durante mucho tiempo, luché con el temor de que si alguien solo veía el callejón, la basura y lo extraño del espacio, asumiría que yo era un perdedor.

Un tipo de unos 30 años que vivía en una cochera reconvertida detrás de un contenedor de basura.

No tenía un trabajo ascendente.

Advertisement

No tenía una narrativa limpia.

Hablo mucho de esto con mis alumnos, de cómo ser artista puede resultar genial a los 20 años, pero a medida que envejeces, el encanto desaparece.

La gente deja de preguntarte por tu proceso y empieza a preguntarse si has fracasado.

Advertisement

Si te quedas el tiempo suficiente, empiezan a darte premios por resistencia, por sobrevivir al estilo de vida.

Pero aún así: ¿por qué alguien que roza los 50, como yo, elegiría vivir en un callejón?

Tardé años en comprender cuál era el ímpetu por el que hacía arte, y para quién.

Advertisement

Cuando era estudiante de posgrado en la Escuela del Instituto de Arte de Chicago, en una presentación de grupo el primer día, todo el mundo pronunciaba sus pulidas frases iniciales.

“Mi obra explora las estructuras posmodernas de la identidad feminista” o “Me interesan las implicaciones del espacio minimalista en el paisaje”.

Cuando llegó mi turno, dije:

Advertisement

“Hago arte porque quiero gustarle a la gente”.

Mi instructor hizo una pausa y dijo:

“Esa es la primera respuesta sincera a esa pregunta”.

Advertisement

Ese anhelo —gustar, no necesariamente ser comprendido— nunca me abandonó del todo.

Sobre todo en lo que respecta a las citas.

El anhelo de aceptación incondicional no se desvanece en el plano personal solo porque el profesional empiece a tener mejor aspecto.

Advertisement

Con el paso de los años, a través de una serie de contactos perdidos y malas citas, arraigó un miedo más silencioso:

Demasiado intenso. Demasiado, bueno, demasiado yo.

En distintos momentos, intenté dar sentido a mi ansia de amor y a mi necesidad creativa de soledad mirando a los demás.

Advertisement

Busqué refugio en mi tía Katie, mi madrina y monja ursulina, que hablaba del empoderamiento y la liberación que se encuentran en el celibato.

Había consuelo en su devoción, en la sensación de que la soledad podía ser sagrada, no vergonzosa.

Pero somos humanos; yo era humano.

Advertisement

Y también cachondo, aunque anhelaba algo más que una conexión rápida.

Al mismo tiempo, mi terapeuta me dio algunos consejos que me acompañaron durante mis citas y mis largos períodos de soledad.

No todo tiene por qué ser perfecto con la persona con la que sales.

Advertisement

Puedes notar las imperfecciones.

Lo que hacemos en las relaciones es practicar, ensayar e incluso sanar nuestras desconexiones anteriores.

Estar en una relación significa que dos personas siguen apareciendo.

Advertisement

Cuando una persona decide no aparecer, es cuando todo se desvanece.

Así que me dije a mí mismo:

Cuando conocí a Ed, realmente quería que funcionara.

Advertisement

Lo que significaba que temía aún más llevarlo a casa.

Si leía las señales demasiado rápido —el callejón de la basura, sin muebles, virutas de lápices de colores bajo mis uñas—, podría pensar que no tenía mi vida resuelta.

Ed era diez años mayor que yo.

Advertisement

Al principio, supuse que se trataba de una situación de amistad.

Era cálido pero comedido.

Puse su nombre en mi teléfono como “Ed, el banquero”.

Advertisement

La falta de apellido lo mantenía informal.

Lo poco que había en juego facilitaba la gestión de mis sentimientos.

La noche que lo llevé a casa, Ed cumplía 50 años.

Advertisement

No había planeado cargar con ese tipo de presión tan pronto, pero se acercaba Halloween y pensé:

¿Por qué no ponerme un disfraz y fingir que era lo bastante adulto para mantener una relación adulta?

Sugirió que fuéramos a comer tacos a su chacinería favorita de Pilsen.

Advertisement

Al parecer, le regalé un poema hablado como regalo de cumpleaños; me carcome la vergüenza al pensar en lo que pude haber dicho.

Cuando nos acercábamos a mi casa, le conté lo de siempre.

El callejón, la cochera reconvertida, el contenedor y el descargo de responsabilidad:

Advertisement

Estos sitios son difíciles de encontrar, ¿sabes? Porque este tipo me gustaba de verdad. Y estaba esperando que me juzgara.

No obstante, esa noche hubo un apagón en todo Chicago. Intenté utilizarlo como pretexto —quizá deberíamos dejarlo para otro día—, pero él dijo que no le importaba.

Nos abrimos paso por el callejón en la oscuridad, y bromeó: “No vas a matarme, ¿verdad?”.

Advertisement

Aquella noche, en la oscuridad, algo cambió.

Sin luces, sin el resplandor de ser observado por alguien nuevo, no me sentí expuesto.

Entramos a trompicones en mi casa y nos acomodamos sin rituales, sin preguntas sobre el arte ni cumplidos forzados por su parte, ni explicaciones a medias sobre por qué vivía así.

Advertisement

Solo había oscuridad y tranquilidad.

Aquella noche ocurrió algo que no esperaba:

En la tranquilidad, en la oscuridad, con alguien a quien de repente no creía tener que impresionar, sentí algo que nunca antes había asociado con el amor.

Advertisement

Tardé años en comprender que los pensamientos acelerados, las vueltas de estómago y la necesidad de actuar que solía interpretar como amor eran en realidad mi cuerpo intentando avisarme.

Era mi sistema nervioso que gritaba:

Recordé los largos viajes en tren a casa durante mis años en Brooklyn, llorando tras una pelea con mi primer amante.

Advertisement

En esos momentos me preguntaba:

¿Por qué no era yo suficiente?

Más tarde pasó a mi siguiente y breve relación.

Advertisement

También aspirante a artista, me señalaba las manchas en los pantalones de jean de una pincelada accidental cuando salíamos a cenar, y sugería que aquel desastre no era encantador, ni presentable.

Seguía confundiendo la ansiedad con mariposas.

La intensidad me resultaba familiar.

Advertisement

La confusión parecía magnética.

Sin embargo, Ed no me confundía.

No me emocionó con distanciamiento ni me mantuvo adivinando.

Advertisement

Escuchaba, se quedaba, respondía con prontitud a mis mensajes de texto.

Se acomodó en el espacio sin empequeñecerlo.

Por eso todo se volvió tan real.

Advertisement

No fueron los tacos, ni el sexo, ni la luz de las velas.

Era estar con alguien que no hacía que mi cuerpo quisiera salir disparado.

Nos protegíamos el uno al otro.

Advertisement

Por la mañana, cuando volvió la luz, nada había cambiado en mi estudio.

Era el mismo desastre, el mismo yo, ahora totalmente visible.

Pero Ed se quedó, y lleva volviendo a mí más de 10 años.

Advertisement

Sigue habiendo demasiado desorden.

Los dibujos cubren el suelo y las paredes.

Apenas hay una línea entre donde acaba el trabajo y donde vivo.

Advertisement

Pero algo en mí ha cambiado.

Los contenedores de basura siguen delante de mi puerta.

Pero ya no me preocupo por eso ni me disculpo por mi vida, o al menos no tanto.

Advertisement

He aprendido que no se trata de arreglar las cosas.

No se trata de ocultar el desorden ni de alisar los bordes.

Se trata de dejar que todo conviva.

Advertisement

Creo que así es el amor.

No es una actuación ni un espectáculo.

Simplemente es estar con alguien que te hace sentir seguro en la luz y en la oscuridad.

Advertisement

c.2026 The New York Times Company

Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Pope Leo says he ‘can’t comment’ on 20-year sentence of Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pope Leo XIV this week said he «can’t» comment on the 20-year sentence imposed on a democracy activist in Hong Kong. 

Advertisement

«I can’t comment,» the American-born Leo told EWTN News, which covers Catholic news globally, while speaking to reporters in Italy. 

He added, «Let’s pray for less hatred and more peace and work for authentic dialogue. God bless you all.» 

Hong Kong publisher and democracy activist Jimmy Lai, who is a converted Catholic, was sentenced to 20 years by Beijing last month for violating their 2020 national security law, which U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called «unjust and tragic.»

Advertisement

Pope Leo XIV this week said he «can’t» comment on the 20-year sentence imposed on a democracy activist in Hong Kong.  (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images; Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)

«The conviction shows the world that Beijing will go to extraordinary lengths to silence those who advocate fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong,» Rubio said in a statement. «The United States urges the authorities to grant Mr. Lai humanitarian parole.»

The 78-year-old founded the now-closed Hong Kong-based Apple Daily in 1995, while the island was still under British rule. 

Advertisement

Lai’s sentence closed one of the country’s most consequential national security cases since Beijing imposed the sweeping new law in 2020 in the wake of months-long anti-Chinese Communist Party protests in 2019, which were sparked by fears Beijing was eroding Hong Kong’s promised autonomy. 

Jimmy Lai resting his chin on his hands

Lai has already been in custody since 2020.  (Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images)

They were followed by a sweeping security crackdown that criminalized dissent and reshaped the city’s legal system.

CHINA PHONY CONVICTION OF JIMMY LAI IS A WARNING

Advertisement

Lai had been arrested several times during the 2019 protests, and he was detained at his home in 2020. His newspaper was also raided at the time and closed. 

He was found guilty in December of attempting to undermine national security. 

Free Jimmy posters in LA

Jimmy Lai supporters in Los Angeles last month.  (Apu Gomes/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump said in December that he had personally urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to release Lai. 

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

«I spoke to President Xi about it, and I asked to consider his release,» Trump said. «He’s not well, he’s an older man, and he’s not well, so I did put that request out. We’ll see what happens.»

Advertisement

Related Article

Jimmy Lai is risking everything for democracy. We can't ignore what China is doing



pope leo xiv,china,world,hong kong

Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

After the strikes, how would the US secure Iran’s enriched uranium?

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

When War Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked recently whether U.S. forces would ever move to secure enriched uranium reportedly stored at Iran’s Isfahan nuclear complex, he declined to say, citing operational security.

Advertisement

The exchange highlighted a question the U.S. and Israel’s air campaign alone cannot answer: even if U.S. strikes degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, who would physically secure the enriched uranium, and how?

Iran is believed to possess a significant stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, near weapons-grade. That material could theoretically be used in multiple nuclear devices if further refined. 

Moving from 60% to weapons-grade 90% enrichment requires additional processing, and weaponization would involve further technical steps. But analysts say the more immediate issue is physical control of the material itself.

Advertisement

«If the U.S. wants to secure Iran’s nuclear materials, it’s going to require a massive ground operation,» Kelsey Davenport, director of nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, told Fox News Digital.

Davenport said the highly enriched uranium believed to be stored at Isfahan appears to be deeply buried and contained in relatively mobile canisters. Securing it would likely require locating the full stockpile, accessing underground facilities and safely extracting or downblending the material.

Satellite imagery taken on Jan. 30, 2026 shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at the Natanz nuclear site. (2026 PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters)

Advertisement

«It’s not even clear the United States knows where all of the uranium is,» she said, noting that the mobility of storage containers raises the possibility that some material could be moved or dispersed.

The administration repeatedly has said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remains a central objective of Operation Epic Fury.

«Ultimately, this issue of Iran’s nuclear pursuit and their unwillingness through negotiations to stop it is something President Trump has said for a long time needs to be dealt with,» Hegseth said.

Advertisement

Senior administration officials have argued that Iran sought to build up its ballistic missile arsenal in part to create a deterrent shield — enabling Tehran to continue advancing its nuclear program while discouraging outside intervention.

So far, however, the bulk of U.S. strikes have focused on degrading missile launchers, air defenses and other conventional military targets.

Experts note that dismantling missile systems may reduce Iran’s ability to shield a potential nuclear breakout. But physically controlling enriched uranium itself presents a separate and more complex challenge.

Advertisement
Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility before it was hit with US and Israeli strikes.

This photo released on Nov. 5, 2019, by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran shows centrifuge machines in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.  (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran via AP, File)

Airstrikes versus physical control

Defense officials have acknowledged that degrading nuclear infrastructure from the air is different from safely managing or securing nuclear material. 

Airstrikes can destroy centrifuges, power systems and support buildings. But enriched uranium stored underground may remain intact unless it is physically secured, removed or verifiably downblended.

Striking or extracting nuclear material also carries safety risks that military planners must weigh. 

Advertisement

If storage casks containing uranium hexafluoride gas were compromised, the material could pose chemical toxicity risks to personnel entering the site without proper protective equipment. Analysts say a conventional strike is unlikely to trigger a nuclear detonation, but dispersal of material could create localized hazards and complicate recovery efforts.

Chuck DeVore, a former Reagan-era defense official who worked on nuclear issues, argued that directly targeting the stockpile may not be a priority under current battlefield conditions.

«You don’t want to release the material into the surrounding areas and cause radioactive contamination,» DeVore said, adding that deeply buried facilities are difficult to reach from the air. 

Advertisement

DeVore also downplayed the immediacy of a breakout scenario, arguing that further enrichment, weaponization and delivery would be difficult to execute undetected amid sustained U.S. air operations.

Even if Iran were able to further enrich uranium, he said, assembling a deliverable weapon under active military pressure would present significant technical and operational hurdles.

A map shows nuclear sites in Iran that were struck by the United States during Operation Midnight Hammer.

Trump said that the United States completed a «very successful» strike against Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, saying that Iran’s nuclear enrichment installations have been «obliterated.»  (Fox News)

Still, DeVore acknowledged that long-term control of the uranium would ultimately require a political resolution inside Iran and some form of outside oversight.

Advertisement

What would securing it require?

Nonproliferation experts say securing enriched uranium generally involves more than military force. It requires verified accounting of the material, sustained access to storage sites and either removal or downblending to lower enrichment levels suitable for civilian use.

Davenport said internationally monitored downblending would be the safest option if political conditions allow.

«The IAEA remains the best place to go back into Iran to monitor the sites, to try to track down and account for the enriched uranium,» she said, describing downblending as a relatively straightforward technical process compared to attempting to extract and transport highly enriched material in a contested environment.

Advertisement

Both pathways — physical seizure or internationally monitored reduction — depend on conditions that do not currently exist.

Administration officials argue that dismantling Iran’s missile network weakens Iran’s ability to shield a nuclear breakout and reduces the immediate threat to U.S. forces and regional allies.

But suppressing missiles and controlling enriched uranium are separate challenges.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Destroying infrastructure can slow or disrupt a program. Physically locating, accounting for and securing nuclear material requires sustained access, reliable intelligence and — ultimately — political conditions that allow it.

For now, the administration maintains that Iran will not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. How the enriched uranium itself would be secured remains a question without a public answer.

Advertisement

Related Article

Iran’s shadowy chemical weapons program draws scrutiny as reports allege use against protesters

war with iran,iran,nuclear proliferation,nuclear disasters

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tendencias