Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 27, 2025

Neither Israelis Nor The Iranian People Seem Happy With The Ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

It looks like the only people more disappointed to see Trump's Israel-Iran Ceasefire survive than the Democrats looking to impeach the President are the Iranian people:

According to this Iranian-American analyst, many Iranians feel betrayed by Israel because of promises of support. [Among X posters who identify as Iranian/Persian, about 60% agreed with Mohebbi, 30% expressed appreciation for Israel's actions, and 10% expressed mixed reactions, according to Grok - EoZ]

Accusing the Israeli government of deserting the Iranian people or of having taken advantage of them is a serious charge. However, it is important to keep in mind that Netanyahu did not promise to single-handedly liberate the Iranian people. He did, however, urge that they themseles seize the opportunity:

Just hours following Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a direct appeal to the Iranian people and said: "This is your opportunity to stand up [to the regime]."

To facilitate this, Israel targeted more than just the military in Iran:

o Israel killed several high-ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Since the IRGC is an enforcer of regime control, Israel disrupted the government's ability to maintain internal security and suppress dissent.

o  Degrading Iran’s military capabilities not only benefited Israel, it also limited the Iranian regime’s ability to maintain order during protests, as the military did during the 2022 protests.

o  Israel struck police stations in urban areas, disrupting local law enforcement operations.

o  Israel targeted facilities linked to domestic surveillance, weakening the regime’s ability to monitor and control the population.

As it turns out, the Iranian people are not the only ones disappointed by the ceasefire. Apparently, Israelis are opposed to it as well. Israel Realtime, which provides updates on news affecting Israel, conducted an online poll. They asked: "What is your view on the ceasefire plan announced by Trump?"

Israelis are not happy.

Based on these numbers:

62% of Israelis oppose the ceasefire
24% of Israelis are in favor of the ceasefire
14% of Israelis are unsure

This is far from a ringing endorsement.

One reason for the lack of enthusiasm is that the idea for a ceasefire did not come from Israel. It came from Trump, and it came out of nowhere, not long after the long-awaited US bombing of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. So, instead of taking advantage of the momentum and continuing their attack, Israel was instead warned to stand down before being able to reach all of their objectives.

When it comes to being pressured, one could argue that Trump himself was also under pressure--from the Democrats.

Once the US forces bombed Iran, multiple Democratic congressmen accused Trump of going beyond his authority and bypassing Congress. Representative Al Green (D-Texas) introduced his fifth resolution to impeach Trump, this time alleging that Trump bypassed Congress and violated the War Powers Clause. The resolution was tabled in the House by a vote of 344–79. AOC claimed that the strikes Trump authorized against Iran were grounds for impeachment because they were done without congressional approval. Even Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky also condemned the bombings as “not constitutional” because there was no imminent threat, as well as a lack of congressional involvement.

Considering there was public conjecture on the consequences of the bombing ranging from the possibility of increased regional instability to the outbreak of World War III, it is not hard to imagine that those possibilities, combined with political threats at home, pushed Trump to promote a ceasefire between Israel and Iran soon after the bombing and so depressurize the situation.

However, while Israelis in general may think that stopping the fighting hamstrings the IDF when there was more work to be done, it might have been to Israel's advantage militarily to end the fighting.

On his podcast, Call Me Back, author Dan Senor interviewed Nadav Eyal, a senior analyst at Yediot Aharonot, and Amit Segal, a senior analyst at Israel's Channel 12.

According to Eyal, even before Trump's call for a ceasefire, Netanyahu had made it clear that Israel was close to achieving its goals. Clearly, the prime minister did not want to get involved in a war of attrition in addition to the war in Gaza. Besides, "It was obvious that the Iranians were looking for a way out." But Iran's willingness to accept the deal does not automatically guarantee Israeli success. Only Iranian actions going forward will indicate the true nature of Israel's victory. It is not enough to degrade Iran's abilities, it is also important to change their behavior.

Segal also makes the point that Israel was close to running out of targets in Iran sooner than expected. So Israel was not so opposed to ending the war. In fact, Israel may have been ready to finish up within three or four days. He commented that this was the first war in which Israel did not lose a single soldier. That added to the incentive to wrap it up as soon as possible.

Senor notes that this ceasefire is not like the one with Lebanon and Hezbollah, which were negotiated first. Here, hostilities ended because Trump demanded it. Senor makes the point that one reason for the Saudi delay in joining the Abraham Accords is that they were waiting to see where the US stands. From that perspective, the ceasefire is a major plus.

Personally, I wonder if Trump's unilateral call for a ceasefire really assuages those fears or perhaps the arbitrariness with which he announced it might make the Saudis and others uneasy. And as Eyal points out, we will see what Trump expects from Israel "in return" for the ceasefire, like ending the war in Gaza.

We may be happy with the ceasefire, but questions remain.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Is aid to Gaza being secured by anti-Hamas clans?

This video has been going around, showing gunmen on many aid trucks in Gaza on Wednesday:

Many are saying that these are Hamas members stealing the aid, but I'm not so sure.

Media in Gaza indicates that these are the anti-Hamas clans in Gaza who are securing the aid.

COGAT said on Wednesday:

150 humanitarian aid trucks carrying food, baby food and formula, medical supplies and medications, were transferred to the northern Gaza Strip via the Zikim Crossing and to the southern Gaza Strip through the Kerem Shalom Crossing over the last two days (June 23-24).

This Africa News video interviews Gaza residents who are receiving aid in an orderly fashion, and they are happy that the aid is not being looted as it was before. It mentions that the clans are saying that they are protecting and helping distribute the aid.

Hiba Khalil, a mother of seven, expressed her deep gratitude: "Thanks God, that the trucks are secured and we can receive orderly better than what used to happen with the looting." Khalil noted that flour had been selling for as much as 2,000 to 3,000 shekels—nearly $900—making it unaffordable for many during the ongoing economic collapse in Gaza.

Gaza’s powerful clans say they are stepping in to ensure fair and secure distribution. Though it's unclear how much coordination has taken place with Israeli or UN officials, residents say the new approach is working better.

Ali al-Tiben, another Gaza resident, said: "Today, we are very happy that we can receive (aid) in an organized way better than the aid distribution that was looted by gangs."

The flour in the video appears to come from the World Food Programme.

This video, from the official PA Wafa news agency, show a Gaza City woman receiving a food package that, they say, was secured by clans in Gaza. The PA is not shy about accusing Hamas of stealing aid - it has done so numerous times - so when they say that this was secured by clans, it is possible that they are telling the truth.

Her aid box seems to be from the UAE Red Crescent Society.

It is possible that both are true - that Hamas is intercepting the aid, taking a cut and then giving it to locals to protect from further looting. It does not seem likely to me, though. But it is unclear exactly at what point the gunmen get on the trucks - at the Kerem Shalom and other import sites, or after the trucks are past inspections?

After the video of the gunmen came out, Israel was said to have blocked all aid for 48 hours until it could come up with a plan to keep it away from Hamas. But the clans in Gaza deny that Hamas is stealing it.

The IDF would know better than anyone, but there is political pressure in Israeli leaders not to allow aid to get into Gaza that is not protected end to end until distribution to the people. Yet the Gaza clans are the only viable way, outside of paid contractors like GHF uses, to secure aid and keep it away from Hamas. Sure they are thugs, but they generally dislike Hamas and are not interested in sacrificing Gaza lives to attack Israel.

As is seemingly always the case, not only do we not know, but we also don't know what we don't know. And anyone who claims to know is probably lying.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

A few days ago, Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda and the current chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, affirmed that Jews have a historic right to the Land of Israel and called on the Arab world and Iran to recognize Israel.

He published his letter on X but Western media seems to have largely ignored it.

It is an unprecedented statement. The Non-Aligned Movement represents 121 nations, including all of Africa and the Middle East besides Israel.

Excerpts:

Whenever I visit Iran, like when His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was President, I told them that their stand that Israel is a "transplant" in the Middle East and does not belong there legitimately, is a mistake. We told the Iranians that according to the Bible, Israel is part of that area. The Romans dispersed the Jews after Masada, who continued to suffer wherever they went in Europe, North Africa and Asia until they tried to go back to their homeland with the Zionist Movement. The habitual mistake makers, the British imperialists, in the person of some wonderful man known as Lord Balfour, in 1924, offered the Jews Uganda as a homeland!![sic] Imagine the absurdity. The Jews wisely refused the ridiculous offer and insisted on Palestine where they had a historical, legitimate claim. It was, therefore, correct that the United Nations decided to partition Palestine among the two People. It has been wrong for some of the Arabs and Iranian Islamists to refuse to recognize that historical solution.

He goes on to say that Israel made a mistake in refusing the two state solution, seemingly unaware that Zionist leaders have accepted partitions and peace plans to create a Palestinian Arab state several times from the 1930s to the 2000s.

It seems most strange that the media hasn't covered this story. But then again, it goes against the narrative of Israel being more and more isolated, so perhaps that has something to do with it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/26 Links Pt2: The new populism of the Judeocidal left; The Colonization of the American Mind; Alice Wairimu-Nderitu and the high price of honesty; CODEPINK or CODERED?

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The new populism of the Judeocidal left

Now America is facing a similar nightmare in the shape of Zohran Mamdani, whose victory over former New York governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic Party primary this week puts him in pole position to become mayor of New York. This spells a potential catastrophe for the iconic citadel of American cultural and financial power, and a security disaster for the city’s Jewish community, the largest outside Israel.

Mamdani is an extreme leftist who four years ago tweeted: “Queer liberation means defund the police.” In his campaign, he ran on taxing the rich, government-run grocery stores, free bus travel and a freeze on rent. Such policies are unworkable but offer New Yorkers what many want to hear—a program of left-wing, anti-capitalist populism.

He also has a deep hatred of Israel. He supports a boycott of the Jewish state; he has refused to condemn the Hamas-led atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023; and he has sanitized the slogan “Globalize the intifada,” which is a call to murder Jews around the world.

As a result of all this, and his charismatic and telegenic personality, he’s become an overnight rock star.

The kind of people who drape themselves in the keffiyeh and mindlessly parrot Hamas propaganda about Israel’s supposed “genocide,” young, college-educated progressives and the vacuous narcissists who people the entertainment industry are going wild for him.

The support by such people for such a man is bizarre. Mamdani isn’t just a Muslim. He is a practicing member of the Islamic Shia Twelver sect, which holds that an apocalypse will bring down to earth the Shia messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

The most prominent member of this sect is Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the genocidal fanatic whose defining slogan is “Death to America!”

Given Mamdani’s affiliation to such an uncompromising jihadi sect, one does wonder about his pledge to create an “office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs” at City Hall.

Whatever the theological legerdemain behind such contradictions, Mamdani represents the alliance between reactionary Islamism and left-wing progressivism that we have seen on the streets of Western cities. This has produced the surreal spectacle of liberals marching alongside Islamists who, should circumstances be different, would remove these liberals’ progressive heads from their shoulders.

As with Britain’s Labour Party, Mamdani represents the deeply disturbing future of progressive politics in Britain and America—a movement that has Zionism, capitalism and the West in its sights under the banner of human rights, humanitarianism and anti-racism.

While its followers demonize and dehumanize the Jewish targets of extermination, they are, astoundingly, moralizing as conscience an agenda for exterminating the Jews.

The Colonization of the American Mind

A few days before Israel began Operation Rising Lion, Facebook blocked my account. I cannot thank Mark Zuckerberg enough for that mitzvah. Instead of having to watch neo-Hellenistic Jews do anything possible to hide their Judaism and vapid “Instaporners” do everything possible to steal the spotlight, I got to witness an endless array of Iranian dissidents thanking Israel on X.

They post Persian graffiti blessing Israel, the horrific history of the 46-year-old Islamic Republic, as well as what little protests they are able to engage in. And they remain as stunned as the rest of us at the protests both here and in Europe — in favor of the sociopathic, homophobic, misogynistic regime that is stifling not just their freedom but the lives of their families.

Qatar, China, Russia and Iran have been unquestionably successful at one thing: the colonization of the American mind. Through antisemitic professors, “ethnic studies,” infiltration of leftist media (Shalom, Washington Post), and an intense disinformation campaign on social media, leftists have been fed a steady stream of lies and propaganda to the point that the protesters are ardently embracing a regime that kills women for showing their hair in public, hangs gays and considers child rape sacred.

In 2018, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff published “The Coddling of the American Mind.” They discussed how a culture of “safetyism” interferes with social, emotional and intellectual development. In retrospect, that seems to have been Stage I of what’s now called the red-green alliance.

Stage II is a complete colonization — OK, obliteration — of brain cells. Disinformation so steeped in anti-facts it makes the Soviets look like amateurs. All of which led to a cognitive dissonance so septic some protesters simultaneously hold up posters celebrating both gay pride and the mullahs who would hang them.

It also led to a mass conformity during precisely the period when most healthy teens and 20somethings rebel. There is only one word for this level of mass conformity: cult.

But for the moral inversion to be complete — for young women in the West to support the most evil patriarchy that has ever reigned — something else had to happen: a complete soullessness. Morality begins in our souls. If you choke off the soul — through a negation of spirituality, creativity, nature — you can easily be convinced to do anything and feel nothing. Thus, the increasing political violence here and in Europe.

The future of the Palestinian movement

The Palestinian movement is at a crossroads. Fatah and its foremost rival for power, Hamas, are both weakened, the former by internal divisions and unpopularity and the latter by the Israeli military. Palestinian politics are entering a transitional phase, and Palestinian political institutions are dead or decaying. The aftershocks will be felt in the Middle East and beyond.

Mahmoud Abbas turns 90 this year. Abbas is the president of the Palestinian Authority, the United States-backed entity that rules over the majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The PA was birthed by the 1990s Oslo peace process, which created a lot of process but, in the end, very little peace. Indeed, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis has documented, terrorist attacks have increased in the post-Oslo period.

The PA was established in 1994 as a result of the Israel-Palestine Liberation Organization Declaration of Principles. In exchange for Western backing and support, the Authority, then headed by PLO head Yasser Arafat, promised to renounce terrorism and to resolve outstanding problems with Israel in bilateral negotiations. Palestinians got the opportunity to have limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. But three-plus decades after its creation, the verdict is in: The PA is a failure.

The Authority never kept its promises to renounce terrorism and accept Israel. From its inception, the PA has paid tax-deductible salaries to those who murder and maim Jews, or people it believes are Jewish, such as Taylor Force, an American and U.S. Military Academy graduate who was killed in 2016 by a Palestinian terrorist. The PA’s media and educational arms praise terrorist attacks and celebrate murderers, even planting trees and bestowing awards in their honor.

Since the PA’s creation, Palestinian leaders have rejected numerous proposals for something that has never existed: a sovereign Palestinian Arab state. Arafat refused U.S. and Israeli proposals in 2000 at Camp David and in 2001 at Taba. In 2008, Abbas rejected an offer that would have given the Palestinians 93.7% of the West Bank, with Israeli territory to make up 5.8% and a corridor to Gaza for the other .5%. Abbas not only rejected the plan, but he also refused to make a counteroffer. Similarly, in 2014 and 2016, the Obama administration sought to present plans for restarting negotiations, with the 2008 offer as a starting point. Yet again, the PA refused to sit down and negotiate — a feat it would repeat when the first Trump administration sought to engage in talks.

The reasons for the refusals are simple: No Palestinian leader has ever accepted Israel’s right to exist. Going back more than eight decades, all have, without exception, rejected offers for statehood if it meant living in peace next to a Jewish state. The PA’s maps depict all of Israel as “Palestine.” Even Arafat’s pretensions during Oslo were a lie.

The PLO never amended its charter calling for Israel’s destruction. And in a May 10, 1994, speech in South Africa and in another one on Aug. 21, 1995, at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Arafat compared his decision to participate in the Oslo process to deceptions that the Prophet Muhammad engaged in against rival tribes. Its purpose was for Arafat and the PLO — severely weakened by the fall of the Soviet Union, its chief sponsor — to rebuild, consolidate, and then resume working toward Israel’s destruction. As he stated in a 1996 speech in Stockholm: “We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. … We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.”

Importantly, the PA was not meant to give Palestinian Arabs a state, as then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear. Rather, it was, to use a phrase popular at the time, a “chance for peace.” But more than three decades after the PA’s establishment, peace seems more distant than ever.

06/26 Links Pt1: Trump and Netanyahu's 2-state vision: Gaza war's end, Abraham Accords expansion; The Trump Doctrine on Nuclear Nonproliferation Is Born

From Ian:

The Trump Doctrine on Nuclear Nonproliferation Is Born

The main lessons from this week are that countries that build the bomb risk getting bombed themselves.

Pursuing nuclear arms is not a path to security, but to insecurity.

By striking Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night, President Trump did not just deal a blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also established an important new precedent.

By demonstrating that the U.S. is willing to use military force to stop the spread of the bomb, he made it much less likely that any other country will follow Iran's path and build an illegal nuclear program.

Until last week, the U.S. had never launched military strikes on the nuclear facilities of a country with which it was not at war. By bombing Iran, the U.S. has reset expectations.

If the U.S. had simply stood by and watched Iran cross the nuclear threshold, future American threats would have been perceived as a mere bluff that can safely be ignored.

Iran spent four decades and an estimated $500 billion on its nuclear program, only to have its nuclear facilities reduced to rubble. What other leader in their right mind will want to sign up for that deal?

This new reality will strengthen global nonproliferation efforts and make the world a safer place.

Richard Kemp: Arab nations should be grateful to Israel for destroying the Iranian hydra

Only those who don’t understand Middle East politics will take seriously reports that some Arab leaders and diplomats are concerned about Israel’s recent pre-emptive action against Iran. This mostly amounts to posturing for the benefit of their own populations. Many of their people are vehemently against Israel, for religious reasons but also to a large extent due to their governments’ own anti-Israel indoctrination from previous times.

It is a similar position to the one Western European governments find themselves in. Keir Starmer’s false criticisms and actions against Israel, such as arms suspension and sanctions, are surely due not to genuine concerns about Israel but the need to bolster support among Labour’s electorate, much of which is vehemently anti-Israel.

Arab leaders are well aware of the dangers they face from Iran. The ayatollahs are most vocal against Israel but they hate the Sunni Arab states just as much, if not more. This is more than mere rhetoric. Iran’s proxies have attacked the UAE and Saudi Arabia in recent years and Iran itself attacked US bases in Iraq and a few days ago in Qatar. Meanwhile Iran has for years been working to subvert Jordan and use it as a base of attack against Israel.

An Iranian nuclear capability threatened Arab countries as well as Israel. For years Israel has been understood to possess a nuclear capability. The Arabs knew that presented no threat to them. Only as the Iranian nuclear programme gained momentum did several countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, begin to seriously investigate acquiring their own nuclear capability.

With the exception of Iran itself and Syria, Israel has not attacked any country in the region and the Arabs know it will not. All of its offensive operations, in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, have been only against Iranian proxies that have attacked Israel.

Tony Badran: Iran’s Flying Monkeys

So what changed? As the past few weeks have demonstrated, the key variable—the difference between a U.S.-protected nuclear Iran that dominates the region, and the geopolitical picture we have today, with Iran cut down to size—is leadership. Any misalignment on either side, in the United States or Israel, could well have prevented the current outcome.

Had the Obama team’s campaign to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded at any point between 2021 and 2024, it seems unlikely that Netanyahu’s American-approved replacement would have been able to successfully navigate the post-Oct. 7 landscape and destroy Iran’s regional project. Likewise, had Trump lost the 2024 election or, worse still, had he not turned his head at that precise moment in Butler, Pennsylvania, the likelihood of American support for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons program drops to zero. Remove the great men of history, and everything defaults back to the Obama structural settings on the Democratic and also some of the Republican side of the aisle.

Even now, you can see it in some of the comms environment in Washington, after the U.S. strikes on Iran, where we’re hearing things from both Democrats and Republicans about the need for a “long-term settlement” with Iran, to be accompanied, no doubt, by endless new rounds of negotiations. Over what, exactly? A new and improved JCPOA, after having destroyed all their centrifuges and facilities? Why? Who cares?

President Trump put it best. When asked if he’s interested in restarting negotiations with Iran, the president was dismissive: “I’m not. … The way I look at it, they fought. The war is done. I could get a statement that they’re not going to go nuclear … but they’re not going to be doing it anyway. … I’ve asked [Secretary of State] Marco [Rubio], ‘You want to draw up a little agreement for them to sign?’ … I don’t think it’s necessary.”

The president is being praised for using military force while eschewing long-term commitments and entanglements. The corollary of that policy is, properly, for America to walk away after the strikes yet threaten to bomb again should the need arise. Everything else, whether it’s a new “deal” or the hope of “integration” for a “moderate” Iran, is static from the Obama signal.

Why the D.C. establishment, left and right, feels such an intense attachment to Iran defies any rational cost-benefit analysis related to the national interest. It therefore can only be explained by extrinsic factors that are probably best explained by a shrink who specializes in subjects like “white guilt” or “the burdens of empire”—which means I am obliged to take a pass. I can only observe that this attachment is a powerful one that must therefore signify something important to those who continue to feel its attraction, even when the United States and Iran are at war.

Fundamentally, D.C. is a pro-Iran town, where factions on the left and right have shown a core investment in ensuring that Iran has the means and the opportunity to go nuclear as part of their political programs at home. Why? Again, I can only speculate, as it so clearly defies basic calculations of the national interest. Perhaps they see Iran, as Obama did, as a useful tool in factional wars against domestic political rivals.

Luckily for the rest of us, the behavior of D.C. sewer dwellers matters far less now, thanks to President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The illusion that the D.C. establishment has maintained, hand in hand with Iran, for decades, has been shattered. The proxy armies that formed Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” are no more. We can even pinpoint the moment when Israel pulled the curtain aside: Sept. 27, 2024, the day it killed Nasrallah, whose Iranian masters turned out to be part of the same illusion that he was.

Now that the Ayatollah’s monkeys have scattered, whatever remains or does not remain of Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t much matter, even while anonymous sources in Washington do their best to put cards back into the regime’s hand by claiming that Fordow wasn’t “fully” destroyed and other such irrelevancies. The spell is broken, and the regime’s regional alignment, which was at the heart of both its threat to its neighbors and its strategy of deterrence, has been shattered beyond any hope of easy repair. Now it’s time for Washington and regional leaders alike to deal with reality.

Hezbollah Money Woes Continues As Internal Needs Cut Exports Of Copium (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Beirut, June 26 - The Islamist Shiite militia that once exercised effective control of Lebanon on behalf of its masters in Tehran continue to suffer financial woes, observers reported today, as not only have infusions of cash and equipment from Iran almost disappeared in the last year, but the organization's own revenue-generating enterprise of trafficking in the drug copium has suffered as well, given the group's desperation for a substance that will help them stay committed amidst absolute Israeli dominance of the battle space and the shattering of any illusions that they can even remain relevant in postwar Lebanon, let alone give Israel anything more than a pathetic fight.

Hezbollah's drug-selling operations have, until recently, provided significant funding tor the group's operations and "social services" to loyalists in Lebanon, as well as its violent activities targeting both Israel and Lebanese dissenters. But with the rapid collapse of Iran's proxies and the decimation of its own military and nuclear capabilities by Israel and the United States, Hezbollah - once Iran's most powerful proxy and the most serious threat to Israel until the laughably one-sided Israeli victory against them last year - must now use its own supply of copium instead of exporting it. The unavailability of copium for export deprives Hezbollah of critical revenue to fund its other existential "resistance" functions.

Hezbollah members and supporters have consumed copium in large quantities since "Operation Grim Beeper" last year when Israel detonated the group's pagers, which had been bought specifically to bypass advanced Israeli espionage tech - except that the company that sold the devices was an Israeli front. The resulting carnage crippled Hezbollah's senior and mid-level chains of command and rendered them unable to carry out any significant operations except for launching rockets at Israeli towns - and resulting eventually in a humiliating ceasefire agreement that demanded Hezbollah withdraw its forces away from regions bordering Israel. In the meantime, Israel repeatedly decapitated the organization's leadership in airstrikes and precise intelligence showcasing how thoroughly the Jewish State had penetrated it.

Hezbollah's collapse led in turn to the fall of Syrian dictator Basher Assad, another Iran client, whose successor has cracked down on Iranian supply to Hezbollah, further weakening the Shiite militia. During the most recent Iran-Israel war, Hezbollah refused an order by Tehran to attack Israel, fearing its own complete destruction. These and other disastrous developments for the Axis of Resistance - including the smashing of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip - have sent domestic demand for copium skyrocketing and leaving none for export.

Hezbollah supporters on US college campuses assured a reporter it was all part of a plan to lull Israel into complacency and destroy it, which would work this time, unlike the other thirteen times it failed.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

One of the topics that have been debated in both moral and legal theory is the concept of determinacy - the idea that every legal and ethical question has a single, correct answer.

This concept has evolved over the centuries. The tension between determinacy and indeterminacy in ethics traces back to ancient philosophy. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics recognized that ethical principles cannot achieve the precision of mathematics, introducing the concept of practical wisdom (phronesis) to navigate particular circumstances.

However, in medieval times, more thinkers started gravitating towards determinacy. Islamic law codes were written to make the law more deterministic, and this influenced Jewish and Christian theologians to do the same. Thomas Aquinas attempted to systematize moral theology through natural law theory but he still acknowledged that context matters and strict determinacy was not possible.

The secular philosophers of the Enlightenment period, possibly influenced by Newtonian science, attempted to make all moral and legal frameworks deterministic. In moral philosophy, this took the form of utilitarianism, deontology, and contract theory, each offering an elegant, rule-based approach to moral clarity. In legal theory, major thinkers started to insist that justice demands one right answer. Whether grounded in moral intuition or legal positivism, both domains converged on a singular ideal: if the system is just, it must be determinate.

Jewish law and ethics never accepted this idea.

On the surface, it appears that Jewish law is supremely deterministic - as mentioned, there are elaborate legal codes to help define and determine the law - the halachic system was always anti-deterministic. A fascinating section of the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 4:2) says that Rabbi Yannai taught that had the Torah been given in a fixed and conclusive form (chatuchah), “it could not have endured.” When Moses asked God for a definitive halachic ruling, God instead invoked the verse “after the majority you shall bend,” indicating that human deliberation - not divine finality - would guide Jewish legal interpretation. (Note that "bend" indicates flexibility.) He said that the Torah could be expounded in “49 faces of impurity and 49 faces of purity,” allowing it to remain relevant and dynamic.

There is always interpretation. Minority opinions are written down. Concepts like lifnim meshurat hadin (beyond the letter of the law), kavod habriyot (human dignity) and hora'at shaah (the rare overriding of the law in exceptional circumstances) shows that even within the halachic system, sometimes the determinate rules must be bent.

I would argue Jewish ethics is the dividing line between halachic determinacy and indeterminacy. When strict halachic determinacy would bring about an undesirable result, then the more flexible ethical concepts can enter, within the halachic system, to shade or bend halacha in a moral direction. Jewish ethics ensures that legal order remains aligned with dignity, compassion, and responsibility.

Modern ethical and legal theorists have started to recognize what Jewish law and ethics has known for two thousand years - the world is not black and white and neither deterministic or indeterministic methodologies can work on their own. Halacha's dual-layer system of deterministic law that incorporates flexible ethics offers what modern secular frameworks still struggle to construct: a method for balancing rule and context, principle and person

There is a joke about a Jewish man who spent his entire life looking for halachic loopholes to do the absolute minimum while adhering to halacha. When he passed away, he was ushered into heaven, where he was shown his new home: a bare room with nothing but a desk, a bed and a lamp. He asked incredulously, "This is heaven?" And the answer was "According to some opinions."

Strict halacha sets the floor of what is allowed, Jewish ethics raises the ceiling of what you should strive to do and who you should be.

What makes this all the more stunning is that Judaism had this flexible-deterministic system in place for millennia, yet it was systematically ignored or dismissed by much of the Western legal and moral canon. Christian thinkers in the medieval period often engaged Jewish philosophy, especially Maimonides, but largely bypassed the halachic system’s practical genius. Where canon law systematized conflict, and Enlightenment ethics pursued determinacy, Jewish law embraced pluralism with discipline.

This omission was not merely an intellectual oversight. Antisemitic tropes, portraying Jewish law as rigid, outdated, or excessively legalistic, likely contributed to the marginalization of halacha as a viable moral or legal framework. Had the West engaged seriously with halachic thinking, it might have developed more nuanced models for handling ambiguity, moral conflict, and principled exception.

In this Jewish ethics project I have been developing, by consciously separating Jewish ethics from halacha, I have unconsciously surfaced the brilliance of both. And this is why I believe that this is the first secular ethical framework that proves that faith is not necessary to be a moral person, the key goal of secular philosophy for centuries.

My AskHillel AI bot allows us to finally recognize this moral architecture on its own terms. It does not seek to undermine halacha’s authority, but to show that alongside its structure lies an ethical system equally ancient, equally rigorous, and deeply humane. When separated, we can fully appreciate the design, the balance, and the wisdom Jewish ethical tradition has carried all along.

If the Enlightenment philosophers had engaged the Jewish halachic and ethical system on its own terms rather than sidelining it, the world might look a lot different today.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

I've been reporting about how aid workers in Gaza have been sexually abusing women, extorting sexual favors out of them in exchange for food or other aid. The UN even called that sexual abuse by aid workers could become an "epidemic." (And this pre-dates October 7.)

The UN reports on these but buries them inside much larger reports. I have seen press releases on such abuse in other countries, but in Gaza, this news must be made as inaccessible as possible.

The latest report from the UN warns that sexual abuse increases when access to food is limited. And, sure enough, buried within the report is the indication that aid workers are among the abusers, couched in language to make this seem as innocuous as possible. It says, at aid distribution points, "Aid workers, guards, or community leaders may exploit power asymmetries, demanding sex in exchange for food or access to other aid supplies."

It isn't a headline. It is practically a footnote.

This isn't the only problem with the report. It doesn't blame Palestinian men for abusing their wives and daughters. No, it is food insecurity that is the problem, and Palestinian men as just acting naturally. Look how this section is worded:

GBV [Gender-Based Violence] as a Consequence of Household-Level Food Scarcity

When households face chronic food shortages:

Tensions and conflict within the home increase, often escalating into intimate partner violence (IPV), particularly when men feel their provider role is threatened.

Women are blamed for unmet expectations of feeding children and managing household needs—despite having limited control over food access.

Economic stress reduces household resilience and may lead to coercive coping strategies, such as exchanging sex for food or money ("survival sex") and pushing young girls into marriage to reduce family size with the purpose of reducing pressure on the head of the family.

In some cases, food deprivation itself is used as a tool of control. For example, abusive partners or family members may deliberately deny women or girls access to food as a form of punishment.

Notice how it uses the passive voice to describe outrageous behavior. In reality, GBV isn't a consequence of food scarcity - it is exacerbated by it. A society that respects women would never resort to these kinds of activities no matter how bad things are - on the contrary, the men would be actively protecting their women. If it is true that obtaining aid is dangerous for women, why aren't the husbands getting the aid themselves?

The underlying theme of all UN reports that talk about gender based violence in Gaza is that the perpetrators are hardly ever to blame. It is a cultural thing.

But if Israel can somehow be blamed for Palestinian men abusing their wives and children, then the UN and media are all over it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

An Arabic-language tweet by @bararit saying that there was never a Palestinian state is roiling the Arab world

Idit Bar, a researcher on the Arab world, made a video that mentions the well-known facts that there was never an independent Palestinian state - no flag, no leader, no passports, no currency.

But she did it in Arabic. And this is upsetting a lot of people.

They tell you since you were young that the Jews stole our land, the Jews occupied Palestine, okay let me understand just how can land be stolen from someone who didn’t even have a state.. A Palestinian state? In what year? Give me just one year, who was its president? What was the name of the currency? What was the color of the passport? No, it’s just a slogan they invented in the sixties like a clothing brand but without the clothes, like the funkoush from Adel Emam’s movie..

These are the harsh facts. Palestine? Palestine was a temporary British administrative name, not a country, not Arab, and not an independent entity. There were always Jews there, from the time of the Romans, through the Turkish colonization, up until the British. Despite the restrictions, the expulsion, and the massacres, the Jews continued to exist, not as guests of the indigenous population. You want the truth, or its cousin?

Let me shock you, the Zionists tried to avoid war and agreed to the partition plan in 1947, and the Arabs refused and sent five armies to wipe out the new state, and Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha promised to exterminate the Jews of Palestine, and what happened? Whoever is crying 'Nakba' today forgets who started the war. As the saying goes: 'He who opens the door to the wind has no one to blame but himself.' In short, we did not steal the land, we returned to our land. If this hurts you, then the fault lies not with history, but with the big lie that you believed.

Egyptian businessman Naguib Sawiris called on prominent Arab historians to respond to this video, saying, “I hope that distinguished Arab historians will prepare a documented response that does not contradict any facts, if it is fair, because this point of view, although it contains some facts, also neglects and avoids historical facts.” He added: “I myself saw a currency bearing the name Palestine and a travel document bearing the name Palestine.”

Of course, the currency and passport he saw was British and included Hebrew.

Sawiris' response is having a boomerang effect - it has given Bar's video far more views than it would have had otherwise.

The video has half a million views so far, and Arabs are distraught - but cannot find arguments against it, instead posting photos of British Mandate currency, or talking about how the name Palestine is older (of course it is - but that is not a nation) or that Palestinian Arab nationalism pre-dates 1948 (yes, by merely a few decades, but only in response to Zionism, not as a true independence movement.)

CNN Arabic is reporting on this, as well as major Egyptian media.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

This week's Turkish media Jew-hatred

Once again, Turkey's media outpaces every other country's to be the world champion in antisemitism.

More than Iran. More than Jordan. More than Yemen.

Here are some of the recent lowlights.

Here was a real illustration in an Aydinlik article about how billionaire Jews are supposedly bankroling Israel:

Yeni Safak has an article that starts off with:

Zionist terrorists, who settled like a malignant tumor in the center of the Islamic world, have turned the region into a lake of blood and tears for a century. Perverted Jews have resorted to all kinds of discord and corruption throughout the geography of Europe in order to establish a state in Palestinian lands.

Yeni Akit promotes an obviously AI-generated video of Jews in Israel apologizing to Iran and begging them to stop the war.

Takvim has a new conspiracy theory:

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz; energy prices will increase, supply chains will be disrupted, and anti-inflation programs in countries like ours that are dependent on foreign energy will be shaken. Due to the fluctuations that will occur in financial markets; Zionist Jews, who hold capital worldwide , will also increase their earnings and will also take over many companies in the world . They will earn a lot of money because they will sell their goods at higher prices due to the interruptions in the supply chains. As a result of all these events; 8.5 billion people in the world will become poorer; Globalist Devils, Imperialist Cannibals, Zionist Jews will become richer.

Gazete Ipekyol curses the "God of Netanyahu:":

The God he believes in and worships has created the entire world for the Jews. All created people have been created to serve the Jews. All people are servants of the Jews.

For the Jews, all babies and women can be killed. All the massacres in Gaza are being committed for this reason. All people are killed, except the Jews.

It is permissible for them to set the world on fire together with America.

Jews are a race created to shed blood and tears....

Oh my God, only you can come soon about these Jews.

Give them what they deserve.

Anyone who supports them.

And send down a fire upon them from Your presence.

I have no idea how any Jews can still remain in Turkey.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/25 Links Pt2: Seven soldiers KIA in Gaza; The Threat of Zohran Mamdani; The toxic narcissism of Palestine Action; ‘Severe, pervasive’ Jew-hatred at MIT

From Ian:

John Podhoretz: The Threat of Zohran Mamdani

Thoughts on the staggering out-of-nowhere victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral primary—I say “out of nowhere” because six months ago literally no one in America knew who he was and I say “staggering” because last night he got 43 percent of the first-choice vote in a 9-candidate election in which more than 1 million New Yorkers participated, the highest primary turnout in 36 years.

1. What you will hear is that Mamdani ran a brilliant race, and he did—he focused on the fact that living in New York City is ridiculously expensive and he would control costs by applying socialist principles to city government, somehow finding a way to “freeze” rents and starting city-run grocery stores, among other free stuff. Andrew Cuomo came into the race intending to run as the “order” candidate, talking about cleaning up the subways and the streets in a non-partisan manner. But his team seemed to drop that entirely and instead talk about how he’d get things done, including deal with affordability, and stand up to Donald Trump. So he was playing on Mamdani’s turf rather than his own. That’s clearly because his polling and focus groups indicated his issues weren’t resonating with Democratic primary voters. He was also thrown off course by the fact that incumbent mayor Eric Adams dropped out of the primary race after his indictment on charges of accepting bribes from Turkey and his subsequent pardoning by Trump. He assumed he could run with Adams as a punching bag and instead he became the punching bag all the other candidates in the race took turns pummelling.

2. Mamdani immediately became a serious contender when it turned out he was raising oceans of money—$9 million, with matching public funding bringing his campaign to around $17 million in all. That suggested he had caught fire as a grass-roots candidate, and indeed, the results showed that. But he raised a huge amount of money before he showed grass-roots strength. Where did that money come from? His campaign says he had 18,000 donors in New York City, and those donations are the ones that got matched by public funds ($8 for every $1 raised up to $250 per donation from a city resident). But according to the website City Limits, “Mamdani received 4,494 out-of-state contributions. Cuomo: 1,030. Who are these donors? You know who they are—they’re Bernie-bro leftists and Muslim activists.

3. Next to Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, who has run and won statewide twice for attorney general, Mamdani got more votes last night in the NYC primary than any Muslim candidate has ever received in the United States. And while he ran on affordability and did not make his anti-Israel obsession (he opened a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine at Bowdoin) a centerpiece of his campaign, he didn’t hide it even though he was running in the most Jewish city in America. Why? Because it was a feature and not a bug. Because it was a significant reason, if not the most significant reason, for his grass roots support.

4. To put it simply: Mamdani won because of October 7, by which I mean, he is the encampment candidate. He is the “Free Palestine” candidate. He is the “globalize the intifada” candidate. He emerged from the pack because this was his secret sauce. He is a foreign-born Muslim who rose from the ranks of the anti-Israel movement of the 2010s that laid the groundwork for the explosion of anti-Semitism in America over the past 20 months. He’s smart and articulate and able and impressive. He is also an implicit celebrator of anti-Jewish violence and anti-Semitic evil. He said he would have Bibi Netanyahu arrested if Bibi came to New York City. He did not moderate his views or his positions as he ran for office here. That’s because they were good for him financially and electorally.

Seth Mandel: Brad Lander and the Collapse of NYC’s Jewish-Political Establishment

Lander has long been a supporter of one of the most prominent anti-Semitic activists around New York City, Linda Sarsour. When Sarsour said that a person cannot be both a Zionist and a feminist, Lander defended her. She has since been a fixture of the same progressive anti-Zionist circles in which Lander travels and campaigns.

Another former staffer of Lander’s is Shahana Hanif. When she left Lander’s employ to join the City Council, she immediately amplified a social-media post with the phrase “globalize the Intifada.” (Years later she deleted the tweet.) Soon after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre, Hanif was arrested at a Democratic Socialists of America anti-Israel protest and accused Israel—before it had commenced its counteroffensive in Gaza—of genocide. She also joined the pro-Hamas encampment at Columbia for a photo op.

This year, Hanif ran for her council seat against a Jewish challenger. In May, Lander joyfully gave Hanif his full endorsement in the race. “It has been a joy to watch her grow from a staffer and organizer in my office to a passionate elected official,” he said.

Which is all helpful background for Monday night’s Colbert show. The New York Times gushed that the two “Showcase[d] Their Unique Alliance.” Lander was more explicit: “there is something quite remarkable about a Jewish New Yorker and a Muslim New Yorker coming together to say, ‘Here’s how we protect all New Yorkers.’”

Of course, there is no such intent to protect “all” New Yorkers. But Lander receives little pushback from the Jewish-political world of city politics. Indeed, Sen. Chuck Schumer tweeted this morning how proud he was of Mamdani. When Cuomo criticized progressive anti-Semitism during the campaign, the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs criticized Cuomo for it.

Lander is part of a larger story of the collapse of New York’s Jewish-political establishment, which has forced Jews to seek representation in non-Jewish politicians who inevitably get told to mind their business when they criticize anti-Semitism. Lander has played an important role in this collapse by being a sherpa of sorts for rising Jew-baiters. Schumer kissing Mamdani’s ring is merely the capstone of this project.

Trump, post-New York primary: Mamdani ‘a 100% Communist lunatic’

U.S. President Donald Trump excoriated Zohran Mamdani, the New York state representative who came in first on Tuesday night in New York City’s ranked-choice mayoral Democratic primary, as a “Communist lunatic.”

“It’s finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line,” Trump stated. “Zohran Mamdani, a 100% Communist lunatic, has just won the Dem primary and is on his way to becoming mayor. We’ve had radical lefties before, but this is getting ridiculous.”

Mamdani, who, if elected, would be the first Muslim mayor of New York City, has made waves within the Jewish community and elsewhere with his anti-Israel rhetoric and refusal to censure the words and ideas behind “Globalize the intifada.”

“He looks terrible, his voice is grating, he’s not very smart, he’s got AOC plus-3, dummies all backing him,” Trump said, referring to progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). (It wasn’t clear who else the president was referring to; however, other members of the so-called “Squad” in Congress also supported Mamdani.)

“Even our great Palestinian senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him,” Trump said. “Yes, this is a big moment in the history of our country.”

06/25 Links Pt1: Iran Preferred to Surrender to the Great Satan; They Predicted World War III. They Were Wrong; Kohelet: Was Israel’s Strike on Iran’s State TV Legal?

From Ian:

Arsen Ostrovsky & David Harris: Netanyahu and Trump showed the kind of resolve Churchill himself would have saluted

Netanyahu and Trump seized the moment. They led – boldly and decisively.

To be clear: neither sought war. But Iran was at the nuclear precipice. The risk of military action was real. But the risk of inaction, of a nuclear-armed Iran, was far greater.

Today, many in the international community wring their hands, asking whether the strikes “destabilised” the region. But let’s be honest: what destabilises the region hasn't been the absence of a nuclear Iran – it's been the prospect of its arrival. What preserved global security wasn’t a weak and porous accord in Geneva, but the hard power of Israeli fighter jets and American B-2s over Iran.

Too many Western leaders still echo the same naïveté that once led Neville Chamberlain to declare “peace for our time.” Churchill exposed that delusion for what it was when he told Chamberlain: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

The Iranian regime is an heir apparent to the Nazis – not only in the infrastructure of death it has single-mindedly pursued, but in its oft-stated genocidal ambitions. The difference, however, is the scale of devastation it could have unleashed with nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

Netanyahu and Trump understood that inaction was not an option. Their courage may well have spared the world from catastrophe.

And now, with a ceasefire brokered by President Trump having been announced, we are reminded that such an outcome was not achieved through weakness or appeasement – but through the projection of power, strength and resolve. The kind of outcome Churchill himself would have saluted.

Ultimately, in striking Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, Netanyahu and Trump made the world a safer place. They did it not only in defence of their own countries, but in protection of the free world. Indeed, not since 1940, has so much been owed by so many to so few.

Why Trump Was Confident that Iran Was Building a Bomb

After a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, what's next is a period of negotiations. Israel wants a verifiable, ironclad agreement to prevent Iran from ever producing a nuclear weapon. Negotiators will confront this essential problem: Iran has been lying about its activities for more than 20 years. It said it wasn't trying to make a bomb even as it had its top scientists push toward weaponization. It claimed to be leveling with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the IAEA concluded last month that it wasn't.

Israeli intelligence, backed by IAEA investigations, shows that after Iran ceased its Amad weaponization program in 2003, it secretly reconstituted a new effort to pursue similar research. The Iranians moved equipment from one set of secret sites to other covert locations, covering their tracks to evade IAEA inspectors, Israel and IAEA found.

This renewed push to make a bomb - as opposed to just enriching the fuel for one - was probably the trigger for the devastating war that Israel began on June 13. Israeli intelligence on Iranian weaponization was shared with me by a source familiar with the reports. Much of it tracks IAEA reports published on June 12 with the agency's stern warning that it couldn't "provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful."

Trump has received much more detailed information from Israel, and officials say that's why he stated last week that Iran was actively seeking to build a weapon, despite a statement to the contrary in March by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Based on what I saw, I would be surprised if the House and Senate intelligence committees didn't conclude that U.S. analysts were being too cautious in preparing Gabbard's March 26 testimony that the intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon."

Iran's renewed weaponization program was called SPND, known in English as the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, according to an Israeli document. A key site at Shariati, in Tehran, "is part of Iran's concealment and deception efforts" and houses some of its technical laboratories and workshops. The site was struck by Israeli jets on June 13. Another key site, Sanjarian, near Parchin, produced detonators. It was also struck last week by Israeli jets.

Iran's weaponization infrastructure is now in ruins. Israel has destroyed the equipment - and killed the researchers - that were part of a secret bombmaking effort dating back 25 years. Any future nuclear agreement with Iran must reliably ban any restart of these activities.

Iran Preferred to Surrender to the Great Satan

Israel must ensure that Iran is not attempting a rapid breakout toward a basic nuclear weapon, such as a crude "dirty bomb" - using its remaining stockpile of 60% enriched uranium and several hundred advanced centrifuges reportedly hidden away.

As a result, Israel must now ramp up intelligence-gathering efforts in close coordination with the U.S. to verify how much high-level enriched uranium Iran still has, potentially enabling a swift nuclear breakout.

Another key focus is Iran's remaining missile capabilities. It's possible Iran also retains significant offensive capacity with cruse missiles and drones.

Negotiations over a new nuclear deal could take several months. If the results are unsatisfactory from Israel's perspective, or if Iran drags its feet, another military confrontation may be necessary.

It seems the Iranian leadership signaled their desire for a "dignified" ceasefire once they opted for a weak, pre-coordinated response to the U.S. strike.

This may not have been a traditional white-flag surrender, but Iran's move to let Washington know it sought to avoid escalation was a capitulation in all but name.

It's likely that the American strike accelerated the end of the war because surrendering to U.S. military pressure is considered more "honorable" than backing down in the face of Israeli strikes.

In the eyes of the Iranian regime, conceding to the "Great Satan" - the world's most powerful superpower - does less damage to its image and internal stability than appearing to fold before the "Little Satan," Israel.