03/09 Links Pt2: Is October 7 the Exemplar of the ‘Palestinian Cause?’ The Western Left Says Yes; Australian PM Will Grant Iranian Women’s Soccer Players Asylum

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Is October 7 the Exemplar of the ‘Palestinian Cause?’ The Western Left Says Yes

Duwaji and the Times both speak like any Western leftist about the conflict. But the larger question is whether they are correct. Is it true that, as the Times reports, the Palestinian cause is what Hamas and hundreds of other Gazans did on October 7?

Again, the Hamas apologists who brand child murder as “resistance” seem to think they’re helping the Palestinians somehow. But this euphemism game has exactly the opposite effect: In the public’s mind, it connects the Palestinians to the worst actions of their worst representatives.

Many people would support the “Palestinian cause” if it were defined as self-determination in the areas currently governed by Palestinian institutions. Fewer would support the “Palestinian cause” as the Times describes it: unfiltered bloodletting.

For example: Palestinians kidnapped a baby, then killed him with their own hands and mutilated his corpse to hide their work. Hamas soldiers then put the remains in a coffin and danced around with it in a public ceremony.

Is this the Palestinian cause, or is it an aberration? Is it the rule or the exception? The Palestinians’ so-called supporters in the West say it is the cause in its purest expression.

Jared Kushner, who represents the Trump administration, doesn’t believe that. Nor do most Israelis (and certainly they did not before October 7). Which is to say: The parties who are supposedly irredeemably biased against the Palestinians would never talk about them in the kind of harsh, dehumanizing terms that their champions use.

Which tells us much about these champions. Whatever the Palestinians might consider their “cause,” the pro-Palestine movement in the West lustily describes it as a nightmarish, phantasmagoric horror show. And they absolutely cannot get enough of it.

They might be wrong about the Palestinians—that is, Palestinians themselves may still believe in a cause with more noble ambitions. But we are not wrong about these Western activists: They have traded human decency for a life of fetishized and demented violence, especially against Jews. They have become something truly monstrous, and they want us all to know it.

The Architecture of Unseeing

How Ireland's Anti-Israel Obsession Became a Case Study in Collective Intellectual Dishonesty

I. The Mechanics of Collective Delusion
As used in popular psychology, “gaslighting” describes a form of coercive control whereby the perpetrator manipulates the victim into questioning his or her own sanity, memory, or perception of reality, adding up over time to a profound assault on that person’s sense of self. Most frequently noted in abusive domestic relationships, gaslighting is also prominent in the workplace, where targeted employees are manipulated into an alternate reality where they can do nothing right and are blamed for everything that goes wrong, which erodes their competency, confidence, and productivity.

Gaslighting can be traumatic on an individual level, but when scaled up from the personal to the political, it can become a powerful sociological weapon. Political polarization, now prevalent across the West, has metastasized into a system of collective gaslighting that ever more aggressively demands a culture of intellectual dishonesty, requires people to “unsee” what is plainly visible, and ultimately degrades the critical faculties and moral clarity of an entire society. The phenomenon has mutated far beyond differences of policy to become a clash of manufactured realities, to the point where belonging to a polarized tribe necessitates wholesale denial of factual evidence and observable truth.

Living in Ireland, I have become acutely aware of this dynamic as it has shaped our current obsessive discourse regarding Israel. Especially since October 7, 2023, this Middle Eastern conflict has become for the Irish an epistemological and ontological fracture that forces people to ignore history, marginalize a minority community, and court profound political and economic self-harm, all while claiming the moral high ground. What has unfolded in Ireland over the past two and a half years is not merely a foreign policy disagreement; it is the wholesale capture of a national consciousness by a single, simplifying narrative so totalizing in its grip that it has begun to corrode the very institutions (diplomatic, cultural, sporting, economic) upon which the country’s international standing rests.

What makes Ireland’s case particularly instructive, and particularly poignant, is the size of its Jewish community. Numbering around 2,500 to 3,000 people, Irish Jews have watched with growing alarm as a political consensus has hardened around them, transforming the country they call home into what Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs has characterized as one of the most hostile environments for Jewish life in Europe. That a nation of five million people, fond of proclaiming its historical empathy for the oppressed, could so comprehensively fail to see what it is doing to its own smallest minority is the central paradox of this post. It is a paradox sustained by the architecture of unseeing.

Read More

03/09 Links Pt1: Gulf states have a stark choice — and Trump must make them face it; Benny Morris: Iran’s Risky Gamble; NATO downs second Iranian missile over Turkey; Iran may be activating sleeper cells

From Ian:

"Revolutions Are Impossible Before They Happen and Inevitable After They Happen"

Prof. Ali M. Ansari, 58, is a historian at Scotland's University of St. Andrews, where he directs the Institute for Iranian Studies. He says, "I'm a firm believer in what Hannah Arendt says: Revolutions are impossible before they happen and inevitable after they happen."

Inside Iran, "the vast majority of people are struggling. The political system is hated. The economic system isn't delivering." Salaries "no longer meet the basic needs of life. There's an environmental crisis - they've drained the water table. And now, they have an international crisis."

"People tell me, 'Oh, but it's strong and stable.' Well, it can't be that strong and stable because people are rebelling every few years, and on a scale the regime deems existential." Regime supporters, whom Ansari pegs at 10-20% of the population, "are convinced they are going to defeat the U.S. in this war. They are not going to do it."

In January, "the regime carried out such a mass slaughter that it actually proved counterproductive. If they had suppressed it with, say, 'only' the 3,117 dead that they claim, it might have succeeded." But having killed "10,000, 15,000, 20,000 of your own in the random manner that they did, and shooting people in hospital beds, it creates an anger that is difficult to suppress."

Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-13), auditing bodies were dismantled and many state assets transferred to the IRGC. By one assessment, $800 billion in revenue went missing. "A lot of them in the IRGC made a lot of money and they don't want to lose it all." That's now a stronger motivation to fight than old revolutionary fervor.

When Iran's economy is in shambles, the reflex is to blame U.S. sanctions. "That doesn't explain why the Iranians have mismanaged their water. It doesn't tell you why, well before the real sanctions arrived in 2011-12, they were never able to get any foreign direct investment into the country....It's the corruption, the kleptocracy, the short-termism, the opaqueness, the lack of accountability, the uncertainty." Sanctions didn't befall Iran. They were a consequence of the regime's behavior.

Gulf states have a stark choice — and Trump must make them face it

Gulf leaders now face a stark choice, and Trump must frame it that way.

They can continue absorbing blows and hope Iran eventually runs out of missiles — or they can help shorten the war.

That means more than quiet coordination: It means building a formal, defense-focused regional security architecture that integrates air and missile defense with shared intelligence.

The Gulf states should have joined such a framework long ago.

In fact, the basic architecture already exists.

In 2024, when US CENTCOM guided an international defense effort to thwart Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Israel, multiple Arab states joined in.

Now, Washington should turn that ad-hoc cooperation into a permanent regional shield — linking Gulf radar networks, air defenses and early-warning systems with American and Israeli assets in the region.

That means real-time intelligence on Iranian launches, integrated air and missile defense coverage across Gulf airspace, and joint command centers capable of intercepting threats.

The payoff would be immediate.

It would turn today’s patchwork of national defenses into a single protective umbrella over the Gulf, freeing American forces now defending Gulf skies to focus on the source of the danger.

It would send Tehran a message that the Gulf is part of a coordinated security bloc that won’t be intimidated by missile terror.

And if Iran continues to rain missiles and drones on Gulf cities, those same states may decide that defense is not enough — and that helping shut down the launchers is the fastest way to restore security.

Some Gulf leaders will hesitate, worrying that overt alignment with Washington or Jerusalem will spark domestic backlash and paint a target on their backs.

But last week proves equivocation doesn’t buy immunity.

The choice here is between a short, decisive confrontation and a prolonged cycle of bombardment that erodes stability.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Trump should make this clear to his Arab partners: Iran has chosen to target you.

The path to security is not to distance yourself from Washington, but coordinated action that eliminates the common threat.

Mark Dubowitz: Israel Didn't Drag the U.S. into War with Iran - They Enabled Us to Fight It Smarter and Faster

A dangerous lie has taken hold in Washington: that Israel somehow pressured the U.S. into war with Iran. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio have said this is wrong. Rubio said the U.S. faced "a threat that was untenable."

Iran has spent years building nuclear weapons, developing long-range ballistic missiles, and encircling Israel with a terror army stretching from Lebanon to Gaza to Yemen. It has fired ballistic missiles directly at Israeli civilians. No Israeli government could ignore that. Jerusalem's decision to join a combined American-Israeli operation targeting Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities drew near-universal support across Israel's political spectrum. It was a national security imperative.

When Netanyahu met Trump at Mar-a-Lago last December, the president had already green-lighted an Israeli strike on Iran's missile infrastructure. When they met again at the White House, Washington knew exactly what was coming and decided to lead the war. The claim that Israel pressured the U.S. president into war is not just factually hollow - it veers dangerously close to antisemitic fringe narratives.

But the bigger point that keeps getting buried is that Iran's missiles and nuclear program and terror are America's problem. They are being fired right now at U.S. forces, American bases, our embassies, and our Gulf Arab allies. Iran is actively developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could one day reach the American homeland. Dismantling that regime's nuclear, missile, and terror infrastructure is core American national security.

Israel didn't drag us into this war. It enabled us to fight it smarter, faster, and at far less cost than we ever could have alone.

To Defend the Abraham Accords, Trump Must First Defend the UAE

The Trump administration needs to pay close attention: The UAE is not merely another Gulf monarchy, another energy partner. It is one of the clearest examples in the Arab world of a country that deliberately chose modernization over ideological stagnation and development over the old politics of grievance.... This choice is precisely what makes it so important — and precisely what makes it so threatening to the forces that thrive on disorder.

The UAE... demonstrated that sovereignty can be defended without fanaticism, and that prosperity can be built through peace rather than perpetual war. This is why attacks on the UAE are not merely attacks on a country. They are attacks on a model for peace.

President Donald Trump no doubt sees this with clarity: his extraordinary Abraham Accords remain one of the defining strategic achievements not only of the century but of history.

Defending the UAE, therefore, is entirely consistent with a hard-headed American strategy. America did not help broker the Abraham Accords only to watch their boldest Arab partner become an exposed target. A serious policy... requires seriousness: tighter intelligence coordination, stronger integrated air and missile defense, firmer deterrence against Iranian aggression and proxy warfare, and unmistakable public clarity that the United States forcefully stands by the states that choose peace over terror and an alliance with the US over revolutionary blackmail. That is not charity toward Abu Dhabi. It is a defense of American interests, and a regional balance that works in America's favor.

Read More

03/08 Links: International Law Is Becoming a Suicide Pact for Western Democracies; 7th US service member dies in Operation Epic Fury; Israel's Secret Weapon

From Ian:

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg International Law Is Becoming a Suicide Pact for Western Democracies

Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth argued in the Guardian on March 1 that joint American-Israeli strikes against the Tehran regime constitute an illegal "act of aggression." He claims that, according to the law of armed conflict, the use of force is illegitimate unless it responds to an attack that has already occurred and is acknowledged by the UN Security Council.

His simple theory is dangerously removed from the real world. Roth condemns the U.S.-Israeli decision as though it was taken totally out of the blue, and not a necessary response to aggression. He conveniently omits the central fact that, for decades, the Islamic Republic has been waging a violent war against the U.S. (the Big Satan), Israel (the Little Satan), and many of its Arab neighbors. The regime's fingerprints are on the missile arsenals targeting Israeli cities, on proxy terror militias embedded across Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, and on terror plots around the world. When an adversary arms, funds, and directs forces committed to the destruction of a neighboring state - and increasingly to the intimidation of the West - this is not peace. It is war.

The moral and legal question is whether, in the real world, states have the right - indeed the obligation - to defend their citizens against a fanatical regime that clearly proclaims its intentions to wipe out its opponents and builds rockets and centrifuges for making nuclear weapons for doing this.

Iran's own forces and proxies have launched or facilitated hundreds of lethal strikes against Israeli civilians in recent years. No international law or principle of justice requires a nation to absorb such heinous attacks while waiting for some UN body to authorize defensive action. Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms the inherent right of self-defense.

A regime that calls for the elimination of another UN member state cannot reasonably expect that state (i.e., Israel) to treat its march toward nuclear capability as a routine matter of sovereign discretion. In a world of precision missiles and nuclear breakout timelines measured in weeks, not years, waiting for the mass slaughter of a mushroom cloud is not prudence; it is abdication. The war against Iranian tyranny is not the result of lust for conflict in Washington or Jerusalem. It comes because Tehran has made the status quo untenable.

Faced with Diplomatic Impotence, War Against Iran Is Legitimate

When rogue states like Iran or terrorist organizations such as Hizbullah or Hamas sow terror, blatantly disregard signed agreements, and pursue their nuclear program, international law is rendered irrelevant and sidelined by force of arms, the only means to impose the diplomatic agenda.

How can we admit and tolerate that for more than five decades the Islamic revolution has been responsible for the majority of acts of terror and terrorist attacks around the world and that its spiritual leader has the blood of many innocent people, women, children and old people on his hands?

Western powers have tried several approaches to negotiate with the Iranian regime, including appeasement, negotiations, and sanctions. Yet the Iranian government has not been deterred or convinced to end its nuclear program, whose primary objective is the destruction of the Jewish state.

French President Macron rushed to convene the Security Council, citing the risks of renewed conflict, instead of showing solidarity with the American fight against the Axis of Evil. Macron remained completely silent on the victims of Iranian ballistic missiles targeting the Israeli civilian population, some of whom are French citizens.

During this war, we observe that the residents of Tehran can move about freely on foot and by car, aware that Israeli strikes are precise and surgical, unlike their missiles launched indiscriminately against innocent people, that only target the civilian population.

7th US service member dies in Operation Epic Fury

A US service member wounded in an Iranian attack against US troops in Saudi Arabia has succumbed to their injuries — the seventh American soldier to have died during Operation Epic Fury.

The unidentified soldier was “seriously wounded” in the March 1 attack as Iran launched missiles and drones at US installations across the Middle East at the start of the conflict, according to CENTCOM.

“Last night, a U.S. service member passed away from injuries received during the Iranian regime’s initial attacks across the Middle East,” CENTCOM wrote on X on Sunday afternoon.

“The service member was seriously wounded at the scene of an attack on U.S. troops in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on March 1.”

CENTCOM said it is withholding releasing the identity of the slain servicemember for 24 hours pending next-of-kin notification.

The news comes a day after NYPD Officer and decorated Army veteran Sorffly Davius died during a health crisis while deployed in Kuwait with the National Guard.

On Saturday, President Trump flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where the bodies of six Army Reserve members were flown to after they died when an Iranian drone struck a US facility in Kuwait.

Israel's Secret Weapon

The human element of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is our true secret weapon. Technology is only a force multiplier; it is the spirit behind it that gives it power.

Both men and women, in regular service and the reserves, are determined, committed, and deeply patriotic. Nowhere else do 18-year-olds routinely take on life-risking missions as a national duty.

In moments of crisis, volunteers emerge everywhere, caring for displaced families and assisting soldiers at the front and on the home front. An entire nation mobilizes.

Israel's air defense units operate around the clock, with nearly half of the soldiers being women.

Since Oct. 7, Israel has been living through two years of continuous war, painful losses, thousands of wounded, families shattered, and entire communities displaced. Yet Israeli society's resilience has become even more visible.

Citizens follow life-saving instructions, adapt to emergency conditions, support the war effort, and continue to function as a society, even under constant threat.

The Israeli public understands that defending the country is not only the army's responsibility; it is a collective national effort.

Read More

03/07 Links: Day 7 of the U.S.–Israel War: The Strategy Appears to Be Working, and Iran Is Losing; Mehdi Hasan Claims American Sailors Are Worse Than Nazis; Anti-Iranian regime protester pummeled at deluded vigil for Ayatollah

From Ian:

John Spencer: Day 7 of the U.S.–Israel War: The Strategy Appears to Be Working, and Iran Is Losing

None of these possibilities need to occur in order to create strategic pressure.

Their mere plausibility forces Iranian decision-makers to confront multiple simultaneous dilemmas.

A ground invasion of Iran would be one of the most complex military operations in modern history. Iran is geographically vast, mountainous, and home to nearly ninety million people.

The United States appears to be pursuing a strategy designed to achieve political objectives without committing to that form of war, while ensuring that Iranian leadership cannot assume such an option is impossible.

Seven days into the conflict, the military balance clearly favors the United States and Israel.

Iran’s attacks against Israel and other regional states have been significantly reduced. Its missile and drone forces are being systematically degraded. Its naval capabilities are being destroyed. Its leadership structure is under continuous pressure.

The Islamic regime in Iran is no longer shaping this war. It is reacting to it.

Just as importantly, the United States, our forces, and our interests are already safer today than they were seven days ago. The regime’s ability to secretly pursue a nuclear weapon, threaten American troops in the region, intimidate neighboring states, and hold global commerce hostage through missile and naval coercion is being steadily degraded.

None of this guarantees the final outcome of the war.

No one can say with certainty whether the Iranian regime will abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, agree to intrusive international inspections, surrender its stockpile of roughly 400 kilograms of sixty percent enriched uranium, dismantle its expanding ballistic missile program, stop using the Strait of Hormuz as a coercive threat against the global economy, or end its decades-long investment in proxy militias and terrorist organizations.

And yes, President Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender” is consistent with the political objectives stated from the beginning of the war. It does not necessarily mean the surrender of the Iranian state. It means the unconditional end of the behaviors that caused the conflict. The regime must abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, dismantle its missile program, end its support for terrorism across the region, and stop threatening the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and global commerce. In strategic terms, it is a demand that Iran accept the political outcome this war is designed to achieve.

But what can be evaluated now is the strategy.

The use of force appears to be systematically reducing the regime’s capabilities across multiple domains. Nuclear facilities continue to be targeted. Missile forces are being degraded. Naval assets are being destroyed. Leadership within the regime’s military and security apparatus is being eliminated.

The measure of strategy is not noise, destruction, or headlines. It is whether force is bending the enemy toward your political objective.

Seven days into the war, the evidence suggests that is exactly what is happening. One example is the Iranian president publicly apologizing for attacks on neighboring countries, an early signal that the regime may already be recalculating its behavior, though such statements must ultimately be judged by actions rather than words.

A final caution is necessary.

In the information age, analysis is everywhere. But not all analysis is equal.

Just as a reader should examine the biography of an author before purchasing a serious book, it is wise to examine the background of anyone claiming expertise on this war. Review their professional and academic history. Examine their previous commentary on military operations. Look at their social media posts and past analysis.

If someone has a long record of purely political commentary, whether anti-Trump, anti-American, anti-Israel, or driven by ideological positions, it becomes difficult for that individual to separate political preference from objective strategic analysis.

War demands clear thinking.

The coming days will reveal whether Iran chooses escalation, endurance, or negotiation. For now, the strategic duel continues.

Jonathan Sacerdoti: Is the US preparing for a long war against Iran?

The war in the Middle East shows no sign of slowing. Instead, there were heavy air strikes inside Iran and missile barrages across the region over the last 24 hours, with indications that the United States is preparing for a longer and potentially wider conflict.

Israeli fighter jets carried out a major new wave of attacks on Iranian military infrastructure overnight, striking targets in Tehran and central Iran. According to Israeli military statements, more than 80 Israeli Air Force aircraft took part in the operation, guided by intelligence that identified key Revolutionary Guard facilities.

Earlier in the day, 50 Israeli aircraft also struck a vast underground bunker beneath the regime’s leadership compound in central Tehran, a command complex spanning several city blocks with numerous entrances and meeting rooms used by senior Iranian officials. The facility was designed to serve as an emergency wartime command centre for Iran’s Supreme Leader. The bunker was hit with around 100 munitions, according to the IDF spokesperson.

They also struck the Imam Hossein University, the main military university of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Israel said was being used to assemble officers and military assets during the campaign. Other targets included missile storage sites containing underground bunkers and launch infrastructure, as well as additional launch locations across western and central Iran in an effort to reduce the scale of Iranian missile fire against Israel.

The strikes are part of a rapidly expanding military campaign. US Central Command said American forces have already hit more than 3,000 targets during the first week of the operation, known as Operation Epic Fury, and signalled that the pace of attacks will continue.

Jonathan Sacerdoti: Is this Iran’s first climbdown?

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has announced that the country’s temporary leadership council has approved the suspension of attacks against neighbouring countries unless those countries launch attacks on Iran themselves. He said that the council decided the day before that Iran will stop attacking surrounding states unless attacks on Iran originate from those territories. The statement was delivered publicly as the war in the region continues to intensify, and while Iran continues to launch attacks in the region in response to the US-Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic.

This new Iranian position comes after just one week of intense military action carried out by Israel and the United States against the Islamic regime.

In that single week, a carefully planned and determined campaign has inflicted major damage on Iran’s military infrastructure and leadership networks. Despite implementing its so-called mosaic defence strategy – a decentralised approach which gives individual commanders autonomy to keep fighting when cut off from leadership structures – the speed with which Tehran has now adjusted its posture toward neighbouring states shows the degree of pressure the regime is already under.

At the beginning of the war, the Iranian leadership attempted to widen the conflict across the region. Iranian missiles and drones were launched not only toward Israel but toward surrounding Gulf and Arab countries. With the help of its regional proxies, Iran spread the extent of its attacks from Cyprus all the way to the coast of Sri Lanka, including an attack on Nato member Turkey (which Iran denies), a European Union country, Gulf states, Israel and altogether 12 different nations.

Iran not only targeted military facilities, but also civilian locations. Hotels and other civilian sites have been struck alongside military bases and airports. The regime attempted to expand the battlefield across the region in the hope that neighbouring states would distance themselves from Israel and the United States and pressure them to halt the campaign. Instead, the opposite has happened.

The Iranian attacks on Gulf and Arab countries have reinforced the alignment between those states, Israel and the United States. Israeli planes and other defence mechanisms have actively been protecting Arab countries – something once unimaginable.

This dynamic represents a real-world demonstration of a strategic idea pursued for years by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump through the Abraham Accords. The central concept was that shared security threats from the Iranian regime would gradually produce deeper cooperation between Israel and Arab states. The events of the past week show that this logic works in practice. These Arab states did not distance themselves from Israel. The Islamic Republic attacks strengthened their alignment with Israel and the United States.

The Iranian leadership now clearly sees this reality. Continuing those strikes would only strengthen the coalition already confronting the regime.

Read More

03/06 Links Pt2: If pro-Israel Democrats become extinct, what will liberal Jews do?; Argentina seek indictments of 10 suspects in 1994 AMIA bombing; Tucker Carlson’s War on Truth

From Ian:

Israel is helping save the West from China.

Collapse the Islamic Republic, and you remove the single-greatest drain on American strategic bandwidth, expose the fragility of every client relationship Beijing has built from Tehran outward, and free the United States to concentrate on the Pacific with a credibility that twenty years of pivot talk never produced.

That outcome, however, requires following through.

The Trump Administration has already rejected the negotiated settlement that would leave the clandestine arsenal operational and the Chinese-built surveillance state in place. What remains is to use the convergence of military pressure, regime fragility, and allied momentum to finish what the opening act began. The Venezuela playbook offers a template: Recognize a legitimate transitional authority, marshal international support around the transition, and let the regime’s own fragility do most of the work while American pressure forecloses Beijing’s ability to reconstitute what has been broken.

The nature of the threat makes the harder course not just preferable but necessary. Tehran’s deterrent has never rested solely on its nuclear program. In January 2024, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles from shipping containers aboard a converted cargo vessel purchased for less than 20 million dollars — a fraction of what a warship costs, yet merchant hulls are far harder to sink than frigates, as decades of naval experience have shown.

Iran now possesses a mobile, survivable, and largely undetectable strike platform that can operate from any port or shipping lane, hitting from vectors no existing defense plan anticipates. A state that can threaten American carriers from unmarked hulls in any ocean cannot be managed through arms control. Its total removal from the board changes the geometry of great-power competition entirely.

None of this would be possible without the groundwork already laid. What much of the Western conversation has missed, consumed as it has been by debates over proportionality and narratives of supposed “Israeli aggression,” is that Israel has been the actor most consistently performing the strategic work that American interests require. Israel broke the Iranian-led axis, dismantled the command structures of Hezbollah and Hamas, and proved that the entire edifice could be shattered by force.

The fashionable framework that reduces the Middle East to a morality tale of Israeli excess has been strategically blind, obscuring the fact that the most consequential campaign against Chinese regional infrastructure in this century was fought not by the United States, but by its closest Middle Eastern ally, acting largely alone and under relentless international censure. In this sense, Operation Epic Fury picks up where Israel left off, escalating from proxy destruction to direct confrontation with the hub itself.

Beijing’s response confirms the diagnosis. Chinese satellites provided Tehran with real-time intelligence on American force deployments, including detection of F-35A, F-15E, A-10C, and THAAD system arrivals at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

And the desperation runs in both directions. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit last year, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian begged Xi to treat Iran as “a friendly and determined ally.” Beijing is obliging, because the collapse of the Islamic Republic under American pressure would sever China’s corridors. No comparable opportunity to inflict this kind of strategic damage on Chinese positioning has presented itself since the end of the Cold War.

It bears repeating: The Iran question was never about Iran. Remove the Islamic Republic from the equation and China loses its pawns for a Taiwan contingency. Leave it in place and the Middle East remains what Beijing designed it to be: a second front that Washington can never afford to leave and can never afford to stay in. Trump’s strikes are the first move by an American president who appears to understand that the road to the Pacific runs through Tehran.

Argentine prosecutor seeks indictments of 10 suspects in 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires

More than three decades after the 1994 bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentine prosecutors are seeking indictments against 10 suspects, including Ahmad Vahidi, who was recently appointed the new leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Federal prosecutor Sebastián Basso requested the indictments, the Buenos Aires Herald reported on March 5, in connection with the bombing that killed 85 people and wounded more than 300 on July 18, 1994. The attack remains the deadliest terrorist incident in Argentina’s history.

Argentine investigators concluded that the bombing was carried out by the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah with support and direction from the Iranian government.

Among the suspects is Vahidi, who served as commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1994. Argentine authorities say he played a role in planning the attack, and he remains the subject of an Interpol red notice issued at Argentina’s request.

The 10 suspects—seven Iranians and three Lebanese nationals—have long been considered fugitives. Argentina has issued international arrest warrants and sought their extradition from Iran and Lebanon, but none have been handed over to face trial.

Basso said he hopes to hold a trial “in absentia as soon as possible, and show society the evidence gathered by the Argentine State over the last thirty years.”

The American Jewish Committee stated that Vahidi “has been widely identified as one of the key figures behind the deadliest terrorist attack against Jews until Oct. 7.”

“Ever since that heinous 1994 terror attack, AJC has called for justice for the 85 people murdered. Now, one of the main perpetrators is in control of the Iranian regime’s terror arm,” the group stated.

Indonesia says it will leave Board of Peace if Trump-led body doesn’t help Palestinians

Prabowo Subianto, the president of Indonesia, told local Muslim groups on Thursday evening that he would withdraw the country from the Board of Peace if the organization, which U.S. President Donald Trump leads, does not help Palestinians sufficiently, according to an Indonesian government statement on Friday.

Indonesia’s participation in the board, and its commitment in particular to contribute significant troops to the international stabilization force in Gaza, was seen as a sign that moderate Muslim countries, even those without diplomatic ties to Israel, could play a constructive role in securing peace in Gaza.

Indonesia was slated to join Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania in contributing troops to the international stabilization force and was supposed to lead the way, with an announced commitment of 8,000 troops for June.

Subianto met with Muslim leaders on Thursday to explain his reasoning, for which he has drawn criticism in the country.

The Indonesian foreign minister said that Board of Peace discussions are on hold during the war against Iran. A U.S. State Department official disputed that and told JNS that board activities continue in earnest.

Jonathan Tobin: If pro-Israel Democrats become extinct, what will liberal Jews do?

The Trump factor
Trump has proven time and again to be the most pro-Israel president to sit in the White House since the founding of the modern-day Jewish state in 1948. That belief, rooted in many of the decisions in his first term, such as moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and the 2020 Abraham Accords, has been reinforced by his recent stand on Iran. His willingness to use force to defend both the Jewish state and Americans from the nuclear and terrorist threat that Obama sought to appease has again earned him the gratitude of the pro-Israel community.

The issue for AIPAC and Jewish voters isn’t so much what Trump is actually doing. Nor is it the way anti-Israel and antisemitic voices on the right, such as former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, are opposing the president. Rather, it is the wholesale collapse of pro-Israel sentiment among Democrats and the way tropes of Jew-hatred have become normalized in the party. Carlson and even more hateful right-wingers represent a loud minority in the GOP with minimal support among officeholders and party activists. Still, as has become painfully obvious, hostility to Israel and Zionism, coupled with a willingness to treat those who call for Jewish genocide as both reasonable and idealistic, is now the view of a majority of Democrats.

It was one thing when Harris and former President Joe Biden were treating Jew-haters with kid gloves in a futile attempt to win them over without fully embracing their positions. But these days, mainstream Democrats like Newsom are doubling down on the Israel-bashing and even matching the invective of those who were widely thought of as extremists only a few years ago.

A test for Jews
For those Jews who are themselves abandoning Israel, this won’t be much of a dilemma. Indeed, many left-wing Jews and publications that appeal to them, such as The Forward, are claiming it is only understandable. Some have themselves bought into the campaign of pro-Hamas propaganda, including blood libels about Israel committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. As a result, those who feel this way now seem to think that Zionism is incompatible with their skewed concept of liberalism or their misguided notions about Judaism that strip it of Jewish peoplehood and the religious importance of the land of Israel.

But the majority of liberal Jews who still say they care about Israel, even if they aren’t fans of its current government, will soon face a profound test of their principles. They may still detest Trump and the GOP. Yet are they ready to vote for Democrats, like Newsom, who are prepared to demonize the Jewish state and treat mainstream politically neutral advocates for it, like AIPAC, as if it were a hate group? If so, then they will be sending a message that their ties to left-wing allies and traditional hostility to Republicans are more important to them than Israel’s survival at a time of war and surging antisemitism.

Under these circumstances, it’s going to be harder and harder for pro-Israel Democrats to hold their ground within the party, let alone aspire to lead it. It will be equally difficult for AIPAC to find Democrats to support. Stalwarts, like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who are prepared to stand behind Israel and support efforts to defeat those who seek its destruction, were once commonplace in the party. Now they are outliers. Soon, like pro-life Democrats, they may be altogether extinct.

Read More

03/06 Links Pt1: The Iran War has exposed the anti-imperialism of fools; Trump and Netanyahu Have the Law, and the Facts, on Their Side; Four men arrested for helping Iran spy on Jews in London

From Ian:

Brendan O'Neill: The Iran War has exposed the anti-imperialism of fools

Strikingly, some left-wing voices have shared Fuentes’ rant about the Zionist ‘occupation’ of America. This is a literal anti-Semite who has said Jews ‘have no place in Western civilisation’. The left has gone from saying it’s racist for a white dude to wear his hair in dreadlocks to cosying up with a lowlife Jew-hater who once called the Holocaust a ‘Jewish bedtime story’. The cult of Israelophobia has made bedfellows of hard-right braggarts and blue-haired losers.

It actually makes sense that Fuentes’ hysteria about a ‘Zionist Occupied Government’ – or ‘ZOG’ – would get leftists hot under the collar, for it is of a piece with their own foolish ‘anti-imperialism’. For years now, the supposedly anti-war left has been myopically obsessed with the Jewish State and its nefarious mastery of the minds and armies of the Western world. ‘End Zionist control of UK politics’, their banners cry. They view the Jewish nation as uniquely evil, as madly bloodthirsty, as ‘the pigs of the Earth’. Jews as pigs? You can call that anti-imperialism if you like – I call it something else.

The woke left, like the crank right, has been upping the ante since the war with Iran started. Witness the speed with which the Jewish nation was blamed for the horrendous bombing of the girls’ school in Minab. The effluent of Israelophobia bubbled up across social media, as hotheads insisted this was an ‘intentional’ attack by a demented state that slaughtered kids in Gaza and now longs to slaughter them in Iran. Yet it seems, according to analysis by the New York Times, that the strike was a terrible accident by the US military. Still, why let anything as pesky as the truth get in the way of breathing life back into the medieval libel that says Jews love butchering innocent kids?

The treatment of Zionism as the moral rot of humanity is hatred masquerading as pacifism. It’s the staggering back to life of an ancient animus for Jews, thinly disguised in the rags of ‘anti-imperialism’. It is anti-intellectualism of the most brutish variety. As one observer says, depicting America as a ‘mindless golem animated by its supposed masters in Jerusalem’ is not ‘serious geopolitical analysis’ – ‘it’s the stuff of fever swamps’. It wilfully overlooks the geopolitical drivers of America’s action in Iran – not least in relation to China – in preference for damning the Jews as the eternal wreckers of peace and decency.

In the early 20th century, we had the ‘socialism of fools’. That was a term used by principled leftists to describe the tendency of socialism to descend into the barbarous belief that the Jews were the hidden hand behind capitalism. Now we have the anti-imperialism of fools, the equally rancid idea that the Jewish State is the secret force behind war and instability. You expect us to believe it is coincidental that all the things fascists once said about the Jewish people – all-controlling, toxic, bloodthirsty – are now said about the Jewish nation? Sorry, I’m not buying it. To me, it feels like old, lethal hatreds have simply found a new costume to put on.

Is there a serious discussion to be had about the West’s actions in Iran? Unquestionably. This is a dangerous moment, calling for calm heads and cool analysis. But instead we see the old, wheezing sickness of Jew-baiting in the mask of anti-imperialism. This hatred on the homefront requires our urgent attention.

Kurt Schlichter: Iran Is Merely a Chess Piece in a Much Bigger Game

Trump is not playing any of that. While the convoluted explanations and fake moralizing that attempt to justify hobbling the United States and preventing it from exercising its full power in the defense of its interest may appeal to the elite, normal Americans – of whom Trump is an avatar – don’t buy it, especially nearly a century after World War II ended when we nuked Japan (have you noticed how mad they get that we used that power to save hundreds of thousands of American lives?).

We took out Venezuela because it has been an enemy for a couple of decades and a thorn in our side, cooperating with our other enemies. We will soon take out Cuba for the same reason. No, they did not launch an overt attack at us lately for the same reason Iran didn’t. They are weak, and we are strong. So, what better time to attack? The usual suspects are making hilarious arguments that it’s wrong for us to attack weaker countries, as if this were some playground where we’re trying to steal their lunch money. Only an idiot fights fair; hitting them while they are weak, before they fix their defense systems, replenish their missile stocks, and build a hot rock is the best time to hit them.

It's another made-up “norm” that no one ever voted on that exists solely to restrain the United States from leveraging its power to promote its interests. When Iran goes, that deprives Russia of a key arms partner and lets us get our hands around China’s throat because the CCP’s oil comes largely through Iran. If you want peace, support regime change in Iran so we can control the fossil fuel spigot. China can’t invade Taiwan as long as we can turn off the gas.

Imagine the world that Donald Trump and his team imagine. The Europeans will start paying their own checks; maybe getting their allowance cut off will encourage them to get serious about preserving their culture. Even if they don’t, the fact that Trump did not even bother inviting them into the Iran fight shows they are totally irrelevant as far as actual power goes. We will have the Americas free of communist subversion for the first time since JFK shamefully wussed out at the Bay of Pigs, which additionally helps us domestically on drugs and immigration, while providing new markets for what we manufacture. In the Middle East, the regime that is the main force for destabilization in the region will be replaced by people who do not chant “Death to America!” and we can finally end the ‘forever wars” we hear so much tiresome whining about. We will never face a coterie of seventh-century savages with The Bomb atop a ballistic missile that can reach Kansas City – could you imagine that, because it was in the cards if the “adults in the room” had their way?. And Russia and China will have the military option taken off the table – no oil, no war. Then, when the delusion of conquest has dissipated, we can build a peaceful relationship.

Trump loves peace. That’s why he has gone to war. But more than that, he has totally rejected the perpetual cycle of failure and defeat that allows our enemies to persist for decades when we could have brushed them off our shoulders like dandruff. If you want peace, support Donald Trump and this war. If you want war, support the pinkos, traitors, half-wit podcast bros, and libertarians who support “peace.”

Douglas Murray: Unlike past presidents, Trump kept and delivered his promise to eliminate our enemies

Perhaps we forgot what it’s like when politicians act on their promises.

Perhaps our enemies forgot as well.

For decades, American presidents — Democratic and Republican — have said the theocratic dictatorship in Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

For decades, those same administrations were strung along by the ayatollahs.

American negotiators — like their European counterparts — sat through years of negotiations.

And every time, the revolutionary government in Iran got closer to the bomb.

Well, not this time.

As Trump envoy Steve Witkoff described in an interview with Fox News this week, even during last month’s negotiations, the Iranians were playing their old games.

The Iranian team sat down opposite Witkoff and Jared Kushner and boasted about how much enriched uranium they had.

The Iranian team wanted America to know they had the capacity to make at least 11 nuclear bombs in a matter of days.

Perhaps the Iranians had become used to weak and ineffectual foreign governments.

Perhaps they thought this administration was like all its predecessors.

Perhaps they imagined this administration in Washington is like all those governments in Paris and London that said they were against crazed fanatics having nuclear weapons but never intended to do anything about it — apart from sitting around another conference table in Geneva.

Read More

03/05 Links Pt2: Hamas's Oct. 7 Attack Launched a Historic Reordering in the Middle East; Trump kicks Tucker Carlson out of MAGA movement; Israel’s Unfinished Business in Lebanon

From Ian:

Palestine’s draft constitution is a manifesto for permanent war

In a sane world, human-rights organisations would be incandescent. A constitution that makes Sharia a primary legislative source, sidelines women’s genuine equality, erases gay rights and rewards terrorism ought to trigger every alarm bell. But these NGOs have long ago abandoned moral principles in favour of a hierarchy of oppression. To them, Palestinians are sacred victims and Israel is the eternal villain. They are blind to the authoritarianism and festering anti-Semitism of Palestinian society, reserving their outrage instead for the Jewish State, which dares to defend itself against this. Peace and human dignity come secondary to the goal of seeing the Middle East’s only democracy dismantled.

Put simply, the PA’s constitution is a manifesto for permanent war. By codifying the total rejection of Israeli legitimacy, it has ensured that a peace deal based on mutual recognition is an impossibility. For any future Palestinian leader, recognising Israel would now be, quite literally, a violation of the state’s supreme law.

The silence from the British government following the release of this document is a tacit endorsement of its principles. If Starmer is so determined to recognise Palestine, he should at least have the courage to tell the public what kind of state he is backing. Why is he prepared to endorse a framework that prioritises Sharia over secular rights, canonises martyrdom, erases Jewish history and perpetuates the conflict by legal means? Is this really the ‘better future’ he was hoping for in the Middle East?

If Britain continues to recognise Palestinian statehood without demanding fundamental constitutional change, it can no longer do so under the pretence of advancing peace. The PA does not care about peace. For the UK to endorse it is not diplomacy, but a moral abdication.

Hamas's Oct. 7 Attack Launched a Historic Reordering in the Middle East

In 2023, from a tunnel beneath Gaza, Yahya Sinwar gave an order that sent thousands of Hamas fighters through the fence separating the territory from Israel. That green light has reordered the Middle East on a scale comparable to the Arab Spring or the carving up of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century - but not remotely in the ways Sinwar had in mind. 29 months later, the Middle East is almost unrecognizable. Israel stands indisputably as the military hegemon, its enemies demolished or decapitated. Sinwar is dead and the network he hoped would ride to his rescue is in ruins.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was blown up in a joint U.S.-Israeli airstrike on Saturday. The regime that bankrolled and armed the "axis of resistance" for four decades is on the edge of collapse - perhaps taking with it Hamas, Hizbullah and the Houthis. Tehran is making enemies of the entire region - firing drones and missiles haphazardly, and often including civilian targets.

On Oct. 6, 2023, it was all different. Iran's proxy network was at the peak of its power. Hamas governed Gaza. Hizbullah held Lebanon hostage with 100,000 rockets. Assad sat in Damascus, reintegrating into the Arab League after years of isolation. The Houthis controlled the Yemeni coast and menaced shipping lanes with near-impunity.

Behind them all stood Iran, with a nuclear program viewed as an imminent threat in Jerusalem and the West, backed by a missile arsenal regarded as a strong deterrent against direct Israeli or American attack. Gulf nations were quietly reestablishing ties with the Islamic republic. "Two years later, none of those pillars are standing, and the Islamic republic is never going to be the same," said Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group.

What Sinwar set off was an unraveling of everything he and his sponsors yearned for - a defeated Israel, Palestinian hopes for statehood, a Middle East rid of Western influence. "Talk about a colossal miscalculation leading to catastrophic consequences," said Bilal Saab, a Chatham House fellow and former Pentagon official. "That cataclysmic event single-handedly changed the face of the Middle East."

Since Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has neutralized every major threat on its borders. A former senior Israel Defense Forces official said, "There is still war, but I can tell you that no one but the biggest dreamers ever thought we would be in the position we are in now. Israel is not untouchable, but we have made it very expensive to touch us."

AIJAC welcomes decision to list Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) welcomes the decision to list Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group under the new legislation introduced following the Bondi terror attack. AIJAC has long called for Hizb ut-Tahrir to be formally proscribed, given its well-documented record of extreme Islamist ideology, antisemitic incitement and hostility to Australia’s democratic values.

This designation, the first of its kind under the new hate group legislation, is an important and necessary step in confronting the spread of extremist ideology that threatens social cohesion, public safety and the fundamental values of Australian society. Under the listing, individuals who are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, recruit for it, or provide training, funding or material support to the organisation, will now be in breach of the law.

By formally designating Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate group, authorities are sending a clear message that organisations which promote intolerance, division and extremism have no place in Australia.

AIJAC commends the Government and law-enforcement authorities for taking this important step and urges continued vigilance to ensure that extremist groups and those who support them are held fully accountable under the law.

Actress asks 'where are the college campuses' protesting Iranian regime

British Iranian actress Nazanin Boniadi called out progressive activists for their lack of outrage over the regime's human rights violations before President Donald Trump conducted military strikes against the nation.

The "Rings of Power" actress appeared on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper" Wednesday to discuss the ongoing war against Iran and concerns over the vacuum of leadership in the nation after the U.S. eliminated its leaders.

She agreed with concerns that an ISIS-level threat could take over the country but noted that several human rights activists and organizations did not acknowledge civilian deaths until after the U.S. targeted Iran.

"For people who care about international law as I do, I'm getting plenty of messages from colleagues in entertainment and saying, ‘I’m so sorry in this moment, what's happening to your people.' Thank you, but where were you a few weeks ago, when tens of thousands of Iranians were being killed by their own regime?" Boniadi asked. "This is a regime that has been violating international law for decades."

Tapper remarked that he also hadn't "really heard a ton" from international progressive activists regarding Iran's human rights violations, even after the nation launched hundreds of missile and drone strikes against other Muslim-majority countries in retaliation.

"I mean, if any other country did that, I think there'd be a huge hue and cry and huge marches in the streets. Iran does it, and there really isn't that result in the progressive community. What do you make of that?" Tapper asked.

"Look, in 1979, progressives world over, including in Iran, were all too willing to sacrifice women‘s rights, LGBTQ+ rights and every other basic human rights at the altar of anti-imperialism. Are we going to do the same in this moment? Are we really caring more about whose hands are on the trigger, or are we going to care about human lives, civilian lives?" Boniadi answered.

"This is a regime that has violated human rights," she continued. "International law has wreaked havoc on the region, domestic oppression, transnational repression, hostage diplomacy, destabilizing the region. And now, it's killing fellow Muslims in neighboring countries. Where is your outrage? Where are the college campuses?"

Boniadi, whose family fled Tehran for England following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has been a longtime supporter of Iranian protesters and has previously used her career to highlight atrocities conducted by the Iranian regime.

Read More

03/05 Links Pt1: Who Wants This War?; The New Israeli Rules of Engagement; Iran ‘catastrophically’ miscalculated in striking Arab countries; Israel eases wartime restrictions, offices to reopen

From Ian:

Lee Smith: Who Wants This War?

The name given to the Iran campaign, Operation Epic Fury, suggests that Donald Trump’s political trajectory may have begun with the 1979 embassy takeover. It was plain proof that America was losing, and it inspired him to turn things around. America’s defeat in Vietnam, left-wing political violence, and rampant drug use left our country sucking wind during the ’70s. But the embassy siege was a public humiliation that lasted 444 days, during which the revolutionary cadres ground our faces in excrement: “The United States has made threats and raised a great deal of noise,” said Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. “America can’t do a damn thing.” And because America didn’t do a damn thing, it acclimated itself to losing to Iran and its regional allies.

President Reagan rolled back the Soviet empire but blinked after the Iranians directed Hezbollah to kill U.S. armed forces, spies, and diplomats in Beirut. Bill Clinton admitted he was a loser. After the U.S. president spent political capital and personal prestige to bully Israel into giving up land to create a state under the Iranian revolutionaries’ old friend Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian terror master told Clinton no. “I’m a colossal failure,” Clinton told Arafat. “And you made me one.”

George W. Bush’s global war on terror turned Iran into a regional hegemon, presiding over what was for a time known as the Shiite crescent, reaching from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean. Democratizing Iraq meant ensuring power would rest with the country’s Shiite majority, whose political leaders, with few exceptions, were controlled by Tehran. Even though the administration had been warned that elections in the Palestinian territories would lead to a Hamas victory, Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for elections, which the Iranian-backed terror group won, leading to Hamas’ eventual takeover of Gaza. As if the freedom agenda hadn’t done enough harm to American regional interests, Bush stopped Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah to protect a Lebanese government the administration saw as a beacon of democracy, even if it was controlled by Hezbollah.

By withdrawing from Obama’s nuclear deal and from guarantees to protect Iran’s bomb against Israeli attacks, Trump started to roll back the losing. In January 2020, he helped initiate the terror regime’s eventual death spiral by liquidating Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, Iran’s expeditionary terror unit. “Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years,” said Trump. And what the United States did “should have been done long ago,” Trump said. “A lot of lives would have been saved.”

That is, because America had gotten used to losing, because previous presidents had neglected the normal business of protecting U.S. citizens, Americans died. Trump promised victory. “I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win,” Trump said in an April 2016 speech. “I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V.”

So why didn’t the influencers opposed to Trump’s Iran campaign hear that part, that what distinguished him from his predecessors wasn’t that he renounced violence against our enemies—far from it—but that he swore to win? Further, here’s a president who means not only to dismantle Iran’s threat to Americans but also to avenge the many thousands of Americans kidnapped, tortured, and killed by the Iranians in the past five decades. That’s epic fury revising in fire and steel 47 years of American defeat at the hands of an anti-American regime that no U.S. president dared to challenge until Trump.

For normal Americans, it’s inspiring to see a commander in chief picking up the gauntlet for the purpose of killing terrorists who target Americans. More than 80% of the president’s party thinks so. And thus there’s no question that the campaign run by Carlson, Kelly, Walsh, and the others is designed to demoralize Americans. The tell isn’t that they don’t know the history but that their accounts are congested with lies. Maybe they’re lying for clicks and views; maybe they’re being paid by foreign parties. In the end, the external drivers are irrelevant because the crucial factor is that the demoralizers are themselves demoralized.

Winning is hard and losing is easy. Now, after embracing the ethos of losing, and elevating it as a sign of personal virtue, the demoralizers find themselves very clearly on the losing end—on the side of the ayatollahs and at odds with the White House and the Pentagon’s display of military dominance in the skies over Iran. The lesson is that losers love company, even if that company wears clerical robes stained with the blood of thousands of Americans and many hundreds of thousands of innocent people throughout the Middle East. As the history of the American hard left shows, there is no way out of that kind of ugly bitterness, in part because that’s where history’s most determined losers feel most comfortable. For the rest of us, winning is preferable.

Amit Segal: The New Israeli Rules of Engagement

On Oct. 6, 2023, the Israeli defense establishment realized something was stirring in Gaza but failed to act. Officials were paralyzed by the fear of a miscalculation. Decades of containment, restraint and forbearance had made Israel slow to stir and vulnerable in appearance. Two and a half years later, Israel stands at the pinnacle of its power in the Middle East - a transformation that occurred only after it shed rules it had adopted in recent decades.

There are new rules of the game. For years, Israel shied away from targeted killings, granting terror leaders and Iranian officials the time and peace of mind to plot against the Jewish state. The IDF's new mindset is the exact opposite: If terrorists are running for their lives, they can't make plans to take ours.

Another rule is: when enemies announce their intention to destroy you, believe them. "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" aren't lip service or empty words. They are mission statements.

Ignoring small security problems invites larger ones. Israel fled Gaza to avoid improvised explosive devices and shooting attacks, only to be attacked by two commando divisions with the world's largest tunnel network at their disposal. It withdrew from Lebanon because it couldn't stomach 20 fallen soldiers a year; in exchange, Hizbullah entrenched itself on the border with a missile arsenal rivaled by few global powers.

For years, the enemy fired rockets and Israel replied with "proportional" force. This normalized the firing on civilians, kidnapping and invasion. But this changed after Oct. 7. Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah thought he was still playing by the old rules, launching a few rockets daily. It ended with his elimination, the decapitation of his organization, and the destruction of 80% of their missile stockpile.

The new rules are in effect in the operation launched on Saturday. The Jewish state can't accept the existence in Iran of production facilities and thousands of ballistic missiles, with every launch sending half of Israel into shelters and threatening mass casualties. It can't tolerate a regime that continues to fund its greatest enemies with more than a billion dollars annually.

President Trump understood that Iran is a danger to regional and world peace. Iran's attacks on peaceful Gulf states and Cyprus show what they would have done had they been allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This war will save us from the necessity of many others.

A Weakened Iran Is Already a Victory

In the war against Iran, something major has already happened. An evil and powerful regime that has destabilized the world for nearly half a century has been significantly weakened.

Aware that its fearsome reputation has crumbled and it is now in survival mode, Iran is hoping that the hundreds of missiles and drones it is launching against Israel, American bases and Gulf countries will regain some of its honor and help it survive.

But no matter what happens, something earth-shattering has already happened in the Middle East. The world's biggest sponsor of terror has lost its power to terrorize the world.

A nation that for decades has proudly trumpeted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is now worried about its own death.

A nation that threatened to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons is now worried about its own destruction.

Since 1979, the arrogant mullahs of Iran have been spreading their toxic poison and getting away with it.

This week, as we commemorate the failure of another Persian named Haman to destroy the Jews 2,500 years ago, these arrogant mullahs are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Read More

03/04 Links Pt2: Iran’s shadow in Australia’s antisemitism debate; 5 Reasons Why Paraguay Matters to Israel and the Jewish People; Newsom’s Bright Idea: Defund Allies in Wartime

From Ian:

Iran’s shadow in Australia’s antisemitism debate

The political response in Canberra over the past week found a predictable reaction from the Australian Greens, led by Senator Larissa Waters. She focused squarely on condemning the military strike itself. Waters said: “The Greens condemn these illegal, abhorrent and unilateral attacks. Australians do not want to be dragged into another US-Israeli war.” She added: “Australia’s support of Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal attack last night was disgraceful. We cannot bomb our way to peace.”

In a climate of heightened sensitivity, such statements by Larissa Waters are adding fuel to the fire of a political debate already saturated with anxiety about antisemitism, extremism and foreign influence.

For Australian Jews, this convergence of events creates a uniquely complex terrain to navigate.

On one hand, many in the Jewish community view Khamenei’s leadership as synonymous with a regime that has called for Israel’s destruction, funded armed proxies targeting Jewish civilians, and, according to Australian reporting, been linked to antisemitic criminal activity domestically. On the other hand, public mourning gatherings in Australia are being defended by organisers as religious observances rooted in Shi’a tradition rather than explicit political endorsements. I see this as a thinly veiled platform to further criticise Israel and call for Australians to “globalise the Intifada”.

Layered onto that is a polarised political environment in which anti-war rhetoric, foreign policy debates, and diaspora identities intersect in unpredictable ways. The result is not a simple story of opposing camps, but a dense and emotionally charged national moment. Expressions of grief in one community are interpreted as ideological alignment by another. Political denunciations of military action are heard by some as moral consistency, and by others as insufficiently attuned to the security fears of Jewish Australians.

As the Royal Commission gathers evidence and tests the boundaries between free expression, foreign alignment, and hate, this episode illustrates the difficulty of drawing clean lines. In an era where overseas conflicts are instantly absorbed into Australia’s domestic discourse, symbols carry weight far beyond their immediate setting. For Australian Jews, the landscape is therefore not defined by a single event but by the cumulative effect of rising incident data, geopolitical reverberations, and the knowledge that narratives formed abroad can reshape the social climate at home.

In the meantime, Australia finds itself needing to balance principles of pluralism and freedom with a pressing need for security and cohesion. For many Jewish Australians, that balance feels more delicate than it has in decades. My prayers are with the most pro-Jewish US president of my lifetime, Donald Trump, as he attempts to rid the world of the most dangerous and evil regime in the history of the world in Iran.

Seth Mandel: A 2028 Contender Bets on the Nazi Tattoo Guy

Gallego’s move was important because he is testing the waters for a possible presidential run in 2028. He’s betting that the Nazi tattoo guy is where the country’s headed.

And how does Gallego himself talk about Israel? Not great. After backing Platner, he had this to say on the Iran conflict: “So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First.” A Democratic senator with national ambitions sounding indistinguishable from woke-right podcasters is a bad sign of what’s to come.

If the party’s officeholders engage in an Israel-bashing arms race, the distinction they think they are making between anti-Semitism and spirited criticism of Israel’s government becomes functionally meaningless. Moreover, what kind of atmosphere does this create for Jews who consider themselves part of the Democratic coalition? If the party’s prominent electeds egg on the post-tentifada atmosphere in which synagogues are mobbed by violent Hamas apologists calling for an intifada, does Ruben Gallego get to wash his hands of the repercussions of his actions simply because he didn’t say “Jews have horns”?

Now imagine Ruben Gallego and Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rest assuring Jewish Democrats that they oppose hatred in all its forms including antisemitismandislamophobia. Feel better? Of course not. Recently, Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen publicly suggested AIPAC is anti-American. What’s he accomplishing besides further encouraging the anti-Semites? Nothing. They hear every dog whistle loud and clear.

What’s happening here is the creation of an environment in which anti-Semitism will grow and prosper with almost nothing to slow it down. There will be less and less room for non-closeted supporters of Israel. And that will continue until the electoral incentives in the Democratic Party change. Ruben Gallego is betting they won’t.

Students for the ayatollah

You do not have to support the US intervention in Iran to be alarmed by the students shedding tears for the ayatollah. Under his rule, Iranian authorities violently suppressed dissent. They arrested, tortured and executed those who spoke out against the Islamic Republic. Mandatory hijab-wearing is imposed by law, with security forces routinely capturing and punishing women for dress-code violations. In 2022, 22-year-old Kurd Mahsa Amini died after being detained by Iran’s morality police, sparking the Woman, Life, Freedom protests across the country. Amini had just been admitted to a university in Urmia to study biology. Yet in 2026, students at a top London university openly celebrate the regime that killed her.

When it comes to the keffiyeh-wearing tote-bag-resistance class, many of whom grew up in Kent or Surrey and know nothing of Iran, Islamism or anything else, it is easy to dismiss such ayatollah apologism as ignorance, stupidity or naivety. Indeed, the bizarre notion that Islamic extremists – from Hamas and Hezbollah to the ayatollahs – are a part of some ‘global left alliance’ has a long, shameful history among post-class ‘progressives’. Meanwhile, Britain’s Islamists, who are legion on modern campuses, understand perfectly well what they are supporting and why when they express grief for Khamenei.

Since the student vigils started garnering attention in the press, the MSC has hit back, accusing the media of trying to ‘smear Shia Muslim students’. It also claims that accusations of ‘extremism’ are ‘Islamophobic’ for focussing on a ‘fake issue’ that ‘does not exist in the UK’.

The trouble is, the embrace of Islamist fanaticism is sadly nothing new for British universities. We saw it in October 2023, when students at Oxford chanted ‘Long live the intifada’ on campus. We saw it last year, when a ‘feminist’ society at Goldsmiths held a ‘night of remembrance’ for the butchers and rapists of the 7 October pogrom. No doubt we shall see more of it tonight, when the University of Manchester holds its candlelit vigil in honour of the supreme leader’s memory.

These campus celebrations of Islamic tyranny can no longer be dismissed as simple naivety or youthful radicalism. It is now a fixture of British universities and beyond. Those weeping for the ayatollah know they are on the side of barbarism.

Read More

03/04 Links Pt1: With Iran attacking the region, Israel has the chance to step out of the villain role; The US and Israel are fighting the same war — in opposite political realities

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: With Iran attacking the region, Israel has the chance to step out of the villain role

While much of the Jewish world marked Purim yesterday, Jerusalem is celebrating it today. The reason rests within Jewish law and memory. In antiquity, Jerusalem was a walled city, so it observes Purim on Adar 15, a day later than most communities in what Jews call Shushan Purim (Purim in walled cities).

Per the Book of Esther, Jews in Persia’s capital, Shushan, fought one more day, thus celebrated one day later. Jerusalem keeps that tradition alive, as if the city insists on living within the tale’s original rhythm.

One phrase from Purim captures the holiday’s spirit better than any military briefing. It is the term v’nahafoch hu, which suggests that all on this day is the opposite, all on this day is flipped upside down.

In the megillah, the plot reverses: The threatened become the defenders, the confident become the anxious, and the power dynamics turn upside down. Jerusalem reads that line in the scroll today with costumes in the street and, this year, with a war in the background.

The war has already delivered its own v’nahafoch hu.

A War Too Logical to Explain By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.

The amnesiacs are forgetting America’s case for war on Iran not because the regime’s crimes directly caused them trauma. They’re discarding it, rather, because what’s traumatic for them is to accept that Israel, the U.S., and Donald Trump are doing the right, moral, and necessary thing—after so many administrations allowed the threat to grow.

This problem, like most of our current maladies, manifests in different versions on the left and right. To many on the left, American action abroad is by definition criminal. So, too, are the existence of Israel and Trump’s exercise of presidential power. Only the enemies of the U.S. and the Jewish state are righteous in the use of deadly force.

A smaller contingent on the right shares the left’s hostility to Israel and sees any shared goals between it and the U.S. as the deceptive product of Jewish manipulation. Alliances in general are a zero-sum trap for an America that must always shoulder the burden. Indeed, these populist right-wingers have anathematized a whole range of concepts and terms that would otherwise explain Trump’s decision to strike. Preemptive war is immediately suspect and specifically unacceptable absent an imminent threat. American military intervention becomes morally tainted if a byproduct of its success is the protection or liberation of non-Americans. And regime change is the language of madmen and fools.

For years, Trump helped to promote these anti-historical attitudes. They now permeate different parts of MAGA to varying degrees. As a result, he and his administration are at a loss to explain what they clearly now understand: that strong alliances based on shared values are the guarantors of civilization, and that the U.S.-Israel alliance is the strongest of all; that it’s better to strike one’s enemies before they pose an imminent threat; that liberation from tyranny is a rare miracle that the United States alone can facilitate in foreign lands; and that, except in wars over land, regime change is the only way that wars end.

Administration figures have instead offered thin, sometimes contradictory, justifications for Operation Epic Fury. These attempts at assuaging right-wing skeptics only stoke the populist suspicion that they’re being lied to. And they are, only not in the way they think. Trump isn’t protecting the secret agenda of an all-powerful cabal. He’s hiding the fact that he took his base for a wild ride only to return to the boring but valuable realities of establishment statecraft.

Spoiled by Peace, Again By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.

When the U.S. went to war with Iran, more Americans disapproved than approved of the decision. But two new polls, one by Fox News and the other by Politico, show the country is now split almost evenly on the question. The change isn’t surprising. American and Israeli forces have done an incredible job of targeting the regime and its weapons, and success is a sure path to popularity. But when support for a war hangs on day-to-day military fortunes, that war is only as popular as the latest developments.

If Americans were down on the war from the start, and if that’s their baseline attitude, I suspect it has a lot less to do with the logical reasons for skepticism that pundits cite and more to do with feelings toward Donald Trump and ideas about America’s general safety.

There are, of course, many Americans who are unable to support anything that Trump does. Given that the president’s popularity has taken a big hit over the past year, I doubt he’d have made much headway with the public regarding Iran even if he and his administration hadn’t offered a confusing account of its war aims and painted a very blurry portrait of victory.

But beyond the public’s feelings about Trump, there’s the matter of how Americans think about threats to the country. The fact is, it’s very hard for many of us to believe that foreign actors or countries pose a threat to the United States so great as to require military action.

There are multiple reasons for this. One is that a massive majority of living Americans have enjoyed some or all of what’s called the Long Peace—the period from the end of World War II to the present. When your life coincides with a stretch of history during which there has been no great-power conflict, you can begin to believe that’s the norm. And if your own country—the United States—is the chief cause and guarantor of that peace, you’re even more likely to believe in it.

Read More

03/03 Links Pt2: Antizionism fuels the hatred of Jews; The Politics of the 'Good Jew'; This Purim, think of the 10,000 Jews who cannot celebrate

From Ian:

The holocaust that wasn’t

Persia is now Iran, and they have been plotting to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth for decades. They built an empire of proxies across the Middle East, from Iraq and Yemen to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — planning to circle the Jewish Nation in a ring of fire that would be our ultimate destruction.

And then came October 7. For one day, the Gazan invasion brought the Holocaust to Israel. With deep understanding of history, the invasion was methodically planned to recreate the deepest Jewish horror in modern history — using fire, torture, and terror to rip families apart and not only slaughter but break the spirit of the Nation of Israel.

But we did not break.

The Nation of Israel fought back. And the nations of the world expressed horror at the death toll of the enemy who had tried to destroy us. And even some Jews joined the cries of pity for those who wished to slaughter Jewish men, women, and children.

We retrieved all of our hostages, dealt debilitating blows to all the proxies, and even struck the head of the snake — Iran.

But we were stopped before the job was completed.

And today we know that the ayatollahs of Iran are trying to reignite their ring of fire — their nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and their proxies.

And they slaughtered thousands of their own people who rebelled against the evil regime.

President Trump, like the king of ancient Persia, made decrees. He promised the demonstrators of Iran, “Help is on the way.” He told the world that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles that threaten other nations. And he built up unprecedented military might, ready to be unleashed on Iran.

But the ideologues of Iran will not — cannot — change their murderous ideology, because to do so would mean rejecting their identity. Like Haman, their one true desire is to destroy all of the Jews.

And they will never stop unless they are made to stop.

And now the world is waiting. What will President Trump decide? And what is he waiting for?

Iran is an existential threat to the Nation of Israel, a danger to the people of Iran, and the cause of enormous suffering around the world.

And now, as I write, the first siren goes off — not because there are incoming missiles, but because the attack has begun on Iran and we are to be ready for whatever might come next.

It is almost as if President Trump was waiting for Purim. Perhaps the man who writes his name in gold on towers he built knows that the stories of the Jews last longer than any building.

Happy Purim. There will be no celebrations now, but hopefully, when this is over, there will be. It is time for the horror Iran has inflicted on the world to be turned upside down and become a time of rejoicing and freedom — an opportunity for a better future for Israel, the Middle East, and the world.

Antizionism fuels the hatred of Jews

Denying Jews the rights afforded to all other peoples is not criticism, it is bigotry. Allowing Israel to be defined by libels rather than to be appraised along the same lines as all other states is not a political opinion, it is discrimination. And this discrimination is causing clear and present harm.

Indeed, the ideology responsible for this harm continues to not only be treated as legitimate political expression but applauded as brave dissent against a conspiratorial conception of Jewish power. This is how antizionism functions as a mask: by wrapping anti-Jewish hostility in the moral language of the day, it transforms prejudice into principle. As it has been throughout history, the targeting of Jews is repackaged as moral necessity.

For the overwhelming majority of Jews, Zionism is not a political position but an expression of peoplehood and self-determination – an indispensable and inextricable part of our Jewish identity. Targeting “Zionists” is a socially permissible way to target Jews, while offering plausible deniability.

Most institutions still refuse to make this connection.

Naming antizionism would require institutions to confront a belief system they have treated as morally legitimate, despite its discriminatory outcomes. Until they do, universities will continue to enforce anti-racism codes while tolerating antizionist “activism” that systematically marginalises Jewish students. Legal institutions will affirm equality before the law while permitting rhetoric that casts Jewish collective identity as inherently criminal. Politicians will condemn antisemitism in principle while remaining silent about Its contemporary permutation.

The upcoming Royal Commission has an opportunity to change this, and that must start with naming antizionism as the key driver of the anti-Jewish hostility now gripping Australia.

This “elephant in the room” will not disappear through silence. It must be named. And once named, it must be confronted. Otherwise, Jewish Australians will continue to hear solemn assurances that antisemitism is unacceptable — while watching the extremist and bigoted ideology that fuels it remain comfortably within the bounds of respectable debate.

The Politics of the 'Good Jew'

Historically, rulers could say: “I am not anti-Jewish; I employ one.” Today, movements can say: “We are not antisemitic; Jews support us.” The structure may be different, but the function looks strikingly similar. Just as in the past, this arrangement does not necessarily protect the broader Jewish community.

After the October 7th pogrom, when antisemitic incidents surged globally, it did not matter whether a Jew was Zionist, anti-Zionist, Left-wing, Right-wing, religious, or secular. Synagogues required security. Jewish schools increased guards. Students hid their Stars of David. The mob does not distinguish between court factions.

The medieval Court Jew believed that his access to power insulated him from the prejudices of the street. That turned out to be dead wrong — and deadly. The modern Jewish figure who aligns with dominant anti-Israel narratives may believe that proximity to cultural legitimacy offers similar insulation. They will learn, soon enough, that antisemitism is never that discriminating. Movements that chant “From the river to the sea” do not append footnotes clarifying which Jews are exempt. Conspiracy theories about “Zionist influence” do not pause to verify individual ideological credentials.

When Jewish identity itself is framed as structurally powerful, morally suspect, or politically malignant, internal Jewish disagreements offer little shield. There is a difficult tension here: Jewish tradition values debate, the Talmud is built on dissent, Zionism itself emerged from fierce ideological argument.

The problem is not that Jews disagree. It is that non-Jewish institutions selectively reward Jewish dissent that undermines Jewish collective security, while dismissing Jewish concerns about antisemitism as self-serving. That dynamic replicates something deeply old: Jews are most welcome when they reassure power, least welcome when they assert communal vulnerability.

One of Zionism’s central promises was the end of court politics. It would see Jewish policemen put Jewish criminals in Jewish jails. No more pleading before princes or dependence on elite favor. Sovereignty meant self-definition. Security meant self-defense. In the Diaspora, of course, Jews remain minorities. Engagement with broader society is inevitable and necessary. But the temptation to seek validation through disavowal is not new.

History shows that the court is never permanent. Legitimacy borrowed from power is conditional, and acceptance predicated on denunciation is fragile. The court will recalculate when the winds shift. The question for our moment is not whether Jews may criticize Israel, but whether Jewish identity itself is becoming contingent on ideological compliance — rewarded when it serves dominant narratives, suspect when it resists them.

We have seen this movie before, and many remakes. None have been good.

Read More