While the gold card initiative could attract substantial foreign capital, some investors have reservations.

US President Donald Trump has unveiled a high-priced residency program that’s already turning heads among wealthy Arab investors. Dubbed the “gold card” visa, this $5 million initiative aims to offer economic stability, US market access, and a prestigious residency status—all while helping to reduce the national deficit.

With Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia successfully running their own golden visa schemes, this move positions the US as a top contender for high-net-worth individuals looking for a new home for their wealth and business ventures.

A Gateway for Arab Investors

Salman Al-Ansari, a geopolitical analyst and former investor in the US, sees this as an opportunity to strengthen economic ties between the US and the Arab world—especially Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi investors have always been eager to expand into the US market, particularly in technology, real estate, and energy sectors,” Al-Ansari told Arab News. “A more accessible visa process could encourage even greater collaboration and economic integration.”

Trump’s program is set to replace the EB-5 visa, which since 1990 has granted green cards to investors who put in around $1 million into US businesses that create or sustain at least 10 full-time American jobs. The new initiative, Trump argues, will not only bring in revenue but also generate jobs as wealthy individuals set up businesses and expand existing ventures in the US.

“A lot of people are going to want to be in this country,” Trump said in an Oval Office announcement. “And they’ll be able to work, provide jobs, and build companies. It’ll be people with money.”

What Makes the US Offer Unique?

Despite increasing competition from other countries with similar golden visa programs, the US remains a highly attractive destination. Julien Hawari, CEO of UAE-based Million, believes the American market offers unparalleled advantages.

“The speed, depth, and range of opportunities in the US are exceptional,” Hawari noted. “Under a Trump administration, the country could become even more attractive, with key decision-makers coming from the private sector—people like Elon Musk, for example.”

Trump described the initiative as a “green card-plus,” highlighting its potential as a path to citizenship. The plan is expected to launch within weeks, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick calling it a direct replacement for the “fraud-ridden” EB-5 program.

America First—But With a Luxury Twist

For many observers, the gold card visa represents a shift in US immigration policy, focusing more on financial investment rather than traditional employment-based or family-sponsored immigration.

Al-Ansari views this as an extension of Trump’s “America First” philosophy. “This initiative prioritizes quality over quantity,” he said. “The US has always been a magnet for immigrants, and this policy ensures that those entering contribute meaningfully to the economy.”

Countries like Portugal, Canada, and Australia offer similar programs, but the US scheme’s hefty price tag positions it as an elite option for the ultra-wealthy. Hawari sees lessons in the success of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) golden visas, suggesting the US program could have a comparable impact.

“Look at the GCC—their programs have transformed economies,” he explained. “The influx of ultra-high-net-worth individuals has driven real estate, investment, and economic growth. The US program could have a similar effect.”

Will the High Cost Deter Investors?

While the gold card initiative could attract substantial foreign capital, some investors have reservations.

Al-Ansari pointed out a key concern: taxation. “I’m not sure investors, including myself, would want permanent residency, as it comes with global tax obligations under FATCA,” he said. “It would be more attractive if the golden visa were a standalone option rather than bundled with a green card.”

If structured correctly, the initiative could spur an influx of high-net-worth individuals moving their businesses and assets to the US, benefiting key industries such as tourism, manufacturing, and services.

Hawari agreed, predicting that sectors like real estate, technology, hospitality, and finance would likely see the biggest gains. “Almost every industry in the GCC benefited from their programs. I expect the same in the US, especially in high-growth sectors.”

GCC’s Success Stories in Golden Residency

Saudi Arabia launched its permanent residency program—commonly known as the Saudi Green Card—in 2019 as part of its Vision 2030 plan. For SR800,000 ($213,000), investors can gain permanent residency, while an annually renewable option is available for SR100,000. The program has successfully attracted skilled expatriates and investors, driving economic diversification.

Similarly, the UAE’s Golden Visa, launched in 2019, offers renewable 5- to 10-year residency permits for investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals in key fields. Qatar has also opened up its property market, granting foreign investors expanded ownership rights through its Investment Residence Program.

These initiatives have boosted real estate, hospitality, and other key sectors in the region—an impact the US hopes to replicate with its gold card program.

What’s Next?

As more details emerge, Trump’s new visa initiative is expected to attract global attention. The coming weeks will determine whether this program will be a game-changer for wealthy investors—or just another luxury option in an already competitive market. Either way, America’s golden visa era is about to begin.

She will be the first woman to head the International Organization for Migration.

Pope currently serves as the deputy of Director General Antonio Vitorino, a former Portuguese government minister, and ran against him in Monday’s election.

The IOM said member states elected Pope to lead the Geneva-based agency at a special session. She will start her five-year term on Oct. 1

Some experts consider the pain of ordinary people to be a time bomb that the Iranian government ultimately has no power to neutralize

In today’s Iranian society, rising prices, unemployment, a sharp decline in the value of the currency, government corruption, protests by retirees, teachers, workers, and farmers, and long queues to buy food can clearly be seen. Many experts say the economic and living conditions of Iranians cannot easily be measured and calculated by the usual classic criteria, and the danger of the collapse of the Iranian economy sparking an explosion of fury from the distressed people will be seen in the near future.

Afshin Kolahy, a private sector activist, told the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA)  on March 22, 2021: “Even with the JCPOA agreement,” an extraordinary event “will not happen in Iran, and by the end of 2021 Iran will experience 65% inflation and a dollar equivalency above 35,000 Tomans… In the last few years, we have had a lot of setbacks.”

The supreme leader Khamenei is constantly running to the scene to control the situation. Speaking on March 21^st, 2021 about the country’s production in the past year, he said: “To be fair, there was progress in important sectors of production. In some cases, we could even call it a jump in production, in others, even though there is no jump,  there is definitely progress in production.”

He continued: “Automobile tires, aluminum, petrochemicals, steel, commodities like these, have had progress and growth”.

Khamenei, of course, refers to industries such as the production and distribution of drugs, production, and exploitation of metal and nonmetal mines, the oil, petrochemical, gasoline, diesel, and steel industries, and agro-industrial companies, etc., which are exclusively in the hands of the Supreme Leader  Khamenei and the IRGC affiliated mafia whose profits have skyrocketed at the expense of the closure of hundreds of factories and bankruptcy of small workshops.

Mohsen Dehnavi a member of parliament told the Khane Mellat state-run newspaper on September 8, 2020, that “more than 45,000 industrial and production units are located in industrial parks, of which 21% have been completely shut down,” meaning that about 9,450 production units in industrial parks have been closed.

Tasnim News Agency wrote on January 13, 2021, “More than 2,000 production units have been repossessed and closed by banks.”

One of the consequences of the closure of this number of factories and workshops and the disappearance of many side jobs of these work units is further the impoverishment of the poor and the disappearance of the middle class as they join the deprived classes (Hamdeli State-run newspaper July 15, 2020). This same newspaper on July 18, 2020, quoting Javad Hosseinzadegan, head of the Statistics Center of Iran wrote: “The increase in population of people living in city outskirts, the budget deficit of households, the slipping of the middle class into the poor and even the evaporation of this class are among the thousand and one other harms that feed on poverty.”.

Shargh newspaper, June 24, 2020 wrote, “Households, step by step, are going down from every level of income and we are clearly facing an increase in population of people in city outskirts living in dilapidated structures.”

Ibtekar Newspaper on July 6, 2020, wrote “The collapse of the middle class will have many consequences for the regime. The set of logic governing economic conditions in Iran …. has increased the class distance and removed the middle layer from the top to the bottom of society.”.

The result of such an economy is an increase in popular discontent, which led to protests in 200 cities in November 2019 and continues. During February and March 2021, protests peaked in Saravan, Balochestan, Gonbad Kavus, and Zahedan and led to the setting fire of security forces vehicles making them flee the scene. Government officials, however, resorted to crackdowns, intimidation, and censorship of the Internet, shooting protesters, and arresting and hanging popular young people, such as Navid Afkari, the Iranian wrestling hero, and Ruhollah Zam, an Iranian journalist.

Some experts consider the pain of ordinary people to be a time bomb that the Iranian government ultimately has no power to neutralize. In such circumstances, the Iranian regime is significantly weak and incapable of protecting and securing its interests. Government newspapers now report the smuggling of weapons into Iranian cities on a daily basis..

On March 1, 2021, the Deputy Commander of Khuzestan Police announced the discovery of more than 4,800 illegal weapons in the province since the beginning of the year.

On February 22, 2021, the police commander of West Azerbaijan announced the discovery of weapons and ammunition and the arrest of two members of a gang carrying weapons and ammunition on the Urmia-Tabriz road.

However, with Biden coming to the White House, Iran’s currency rose against the dollar by 20%. Many Iranian officials had hoped that Biden’s victory would mean a return to the 2015 JCPOA but despite Washington’s soft policy toward Tehran, Iran enhanced its nuclear ambitions. When the US foreign minister said we have a long way to go before rejoining the JCPOA, the dollar climbed again against Iran’s currency.

Global condemnation of Iran increased in 2020 as a result of the regime handling of the November 2019 uprising. At the United Nations, Canada proposed a resolution condemning the regime’s human rights record that was successfully passed.

In a letter to Biden, 158 members of Congress condemned the Iranian government’s crackdown on the November 2019 Iranian protests and other human rights abuses and called for a firm policy against the regime.

On March 25, 2021, 43 senators from both parties also wrote to Biden reminding him of the need to use all the tools of Washington’s diplomatic and economic power to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and furthering its destabilizing activities in the region.

All these difficulties highlight the basic and inevitable reality for Iran in 2021, a fact that Iranians have highlighted on social media. It shows the prospect of a severe economic crisis, with dried-up trade and collapsed industry, effectively a country in international isolation.

Hassan Mahmoudi is a Europe-based social analyst, researcher, independent observer, and commentator of Middle Eastern and Iranian Politics. He tweets under @hassan_mahmou1. 

Countering the narrative of political Islam across the region should be a major strand of American Middle East policy…

The Obama Administration’s outlook on the Middle East was to blame past American mistakes, rather than hard-line Islamists for the regions woes. It is an error of perspective that has borne very real consequences today. His presidency was essentially to engage with America’s foes, as seen with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mullahs in Iran. The price of this was eschewing close relations with traditional U.S. allies in the region and generating greater instability.

Today the Trump administration have been struggling to find a solution to these deep-rooted problems. This has especially proven the case in Syria, where American abandonment of the Kurds left them exposed to Turkish aggression. However, despite a number of missteps, the prospect of stability across the region looks rosier than when he stepped into office just under 4 years ago.

The normalisation deals between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel has created a more stable platform for the region’s like-minded countries to cooperate against Iranian and Turkish backed aggression, in the form of violent proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Whereas Obama cooled relations with these long-standing allies, Trump has recognised that an America less involved in the region needs these nations to band together.

However, the next administration, whoever is at the helm, has some major Middle East issues in the intray that must be dealt with and can help further the slow march to stability breaking out across the region.

Firstly the Kurdish issue. Understandably, they feel let down by American actions last year, however there is still the potential to foster a close alliance with them. America must play carrot and stick, offering greater support for the Self Administration but demand they cut all links and ties to the PKK. A stable, unified and autonomous Kurdish nation is potentially a silver lining of the very dark cloud of violence in Iraq and Syria over the past decade.

An independent Kurdistan would act as a bulwark against Turkish and the Iranian regime, likely forming close parntership with the alliance already blossoming between the Gulf and Israel. Simultaneously the new administration would be able to also curb Russian inflience in the region without a large American troop presence in the region through a strong Kurdish state.

Secondly, countering the narrative of political Islam across the region should be a major strand of American Middle East policy. Obama sought an accommodation with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, failing to recognise the harder line, undemocratic societies they sought to implement.

Trump has gone some way to rectify this, however his admiration of the increasing Islamist Erdogan shows there is a considerable way to go. Biden or Trump should therefore make repudiating the damaging impacts of Islamism a top priortiy of their Middle East policy.

In this respect, Biden arguably recognises the threat Erdogan and his ideology poses better than his opponent, who has shown a penchant for courting autocratic leaders. The former has labelled him an autocrat and called on them to recommit to their NATO commitments in light of closer partnership with Russia and aggression in the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya.

The difficulty in assessing which candidate is best placed to take the opportunity of building a more stable Middle East which rejects the violent ideology of Islamism is that foreign policy has barely featured in the race for the White House. The two debates we’ve had between the candidates have been dominated by name-calling and mud-slinging. In Biden concerns are that his foreign policy team doesn’t get the true nature of the Islamist threat, given the approach the previous administration took. Conversely Trump’s mistreatment of the Kurds and apparent cozyness with President Erdogan is also an impediment.

Whatever the outcome, America and the West have a golden opportunity to build a coalition of stability in the Middle East, between like-minded allies. The cost of failing to do so and reverting to the mistakes of the past will be seen in a harder line, more Turkish/Iranian influenced and violent Middle East.

Image credits: GrrrGraphics.com.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Joe Biden has spent nearly 50 years on the political stage. In that time, he has repeatedly proven that he is no ally to Israel. The Biden platform is a delicate balance of establishment Democratic talk points when it comes to Israel. It is rare you get a candidate with this extensive of a political record; it would be criminal to ignore it.

American voters must look past the campaign and focus on Biden’s time in the Senate and as vice president.  In 1982, prime minister Menachem Begin testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then-senator Biden told Begin that US aid to Israel could be cut off if actions in the West Bank did not cease. 

Begin responded, “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.” Biden slammed on the dais, clearly angry with what Begin was saying.

Begin continued, “This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three-thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.”  

All American Jews and those claiming to be allies of Israel should know of this exchange. When Biden states he will not threaten Israeli aid, this moment should be brought up every time. To those who wish to ignore this hearing due to its age, you do not get to choose when Biden’s career began. Biden was already in his second term in the Senate when he attacked Begin. He was not ignorant of the issue; he was a senator in 1973 when Richard Nixon green-lighted Operation Nickel Grass to helped Israel in the Yom Kippur War.  

Biden’s career as vice president was not any better for Israel. The Obama administration oversaw the lowest point in the US-Israel relations since Israel’s establishment in 1948. Biden was party to regular leaks of Israeli intelligence and political attacks targeting Israel on the global stage. In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US to mend relations. The prime minister was taken in and out of the White House through a side door with no official media related to the visit. 

Biden also worked to pass the Iran nuclear deal, which Israel heavily opposed. There are reports that in a 2014 meeting, Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli fighter jets should they target facilities in Iran.

Biden does not get to run on the Obama-Biden record and play coy to these events. It is no coincidence that a month before Netanyahu addressed the House of Representatives, the Obama administration decided to declassify a 386-page report on Israeli nuclear capabilities. The report left details on France, Italy and other NATO nations’ programs blacked out.

During Netanyahu’s stay in Washington to address Congress, the White House declined to meet with Netanyahu. The White House claimed this was standard policy due to Netanyahu nearing an election. During the same period, Biden and secretary of state John Kerry traveled to Munich to meet with Labor leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s opponent in the election. 

To paint a clear picture of how Biden sees Israel, he once gave a speech on how Israel was damaging peace negotiations in the region hours after a terrorist killed 21 people in a Jerusalem bus bombing. Biden views Israel as a prop; he has no real care for the country or its security. If he did care, he would not have sat by as the Obama administration pursued policies the Israelis warned would put their safety in danger. 

We should reject Biden’s rhetoric and look at his record. With nearly 50 years to reflect on, Biden does not get to tell us what a Biden administration would look like; we have already seen it.

Judah Waxelbaum is the western regional vice chair for the College Republican National Committee. He tweets under @JudahWaxelbaum.

Michael Arizanti

Obama-era mistakes will only compound the difficulties the region already faces.

Middle East policy has shifted up the U.S. Presidential Election agenda ahead of Novembers ballot, thanks in large part to the remarkable normalisation deals between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain. At the start of the year, following the Soleimani assassination, it seemed likely to be high on the agenda, before the pandemic took over all our lives. It belongs firmly in the debate, as America’s actions have major consequences in the Middle East, and under Obama those were largely negative.

Beneath all the bluster and rhetoric, is there actually a considerable amount of difference between the two candidates. It’s true that there would be obvious differences under Biden, not least in seeking a return to the Iran deal in some form, although hopefully he will avoid repeated the error of shunning input from the region’s powers. But the notion that we might see a wide-reaching return to Obama-era accommodation with Islamist forces in the Middle East is far less plausible. Quite simply, the sands have shifted.

It is perhaps the most fatal flaw in President Obama’s approach to the Middle East that he sought to build relations with Islamist groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. His description of them as ‘an unsavoury but inevitable by-product of democracy’ was a basic failure to understand an organisation that views the creation of an Islamic caliphate intolerant of non-believers as it’s raison d’etre.

This shift in approach not only enabled a destabilising, hard-line organisation but simultaneously saw a cooler approach to America’s traditional allies in the region. Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others all increasingly saw their advice as states on the frontline of regional problems fall on deaf ears. The consequence was greater regional instability, greater resource for violent proxies and an emboldening of Islamist forces manifesting themselves in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and beyond.

Despite this bleaker picture, the past four years (and indeed the past two months), we have seen an historic realignment in the Middle East. Recent peace deals between Arab nations and Israel are no PR stunt; they are a formal recognition of shared core interests and a realisation of longstanding cooperation in combating extremism across the region. Israel along with its partners in the Gulf – all of them US allies – now form a bulwark against the Islamist ideology that the last administration turned a blind eye too.

Turkey, meanwhile, has emerged as the preeminent author of instability in the region. President Erdogan’s aggressive foreign policy in Libya, Syria and in the Eastern Mediterranean pits it against US allies across the board. Countering his neo-Ottoman ambitions and the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned ideology he propagates is a key challenge for the next president.

In order to meet that challenge, both candidates must recognise how this situation arose in the first place. Obama-era mistakes will only compound the difficulties the region already faces. America is undoubtedly seeking to pull back from the region in a military sense. However, recent weeks have shown the positive diplomatic impact the U.S. can have in terms of building alliances, improving stability and challenging the forces of divisive Islamism.

Whoever sits in the Oval Office in January should view promoting the growing unity among the United States’ allies as a priority, listen to their allies and reject Islamist thinking. Winding back the clock is not an option.

Article first published on Times Of Israel’s Blog section.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.