June 2025 ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, June 23, 2025

06/23 Links Pt2: Tyrannical Regimes and the Westerners Who Love Them; ‘Jew hatred is a form of ideological brain worms’; Israeli economy defies war fears as Tel Aviv stocks surge to record highs

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Tyrannical Regimes and the Westerners Who Love Them

Iranian actress and activist Nazanin Boniadi has issued a heartfelt plea to the Western protest class that I fear will fall on deaf ears. Just as the Palestinians who have made it out of Gaza and can speak freely tried, in vain, to convince the anti-Zionist demonstrators to not lionize Hamas, so are Iranian democracy activists learning about the Western fascination and identification with tyrannical regimes.

The Iranian regime “unleashes its fury, first and foremost, on its own people,” Boniadi told PBS’s Newshour. The regime has shut down Internet access across Iran and has been arresting dissidents to ensure that those who want freedom cannot organize against the government while it is weak. Therefore “we have to separate the Islamic Republic from Iran because most of the Iranian people believe [the regime] is an occupying force.”

She closed with a plea: “I urge Westerners, please, if you want to stand for Iran and the Iranian people and their sovereignty, please don’t conflate that with the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty, they are two different things. Do not raise the Islamic Republic’s flag in your rallies. That is a slap in the face to every dissident, every Iranian who has risked everything for freedom.”

Yet of course this weekend there were those very Islamic Republic of Iran flags on the streets of New York City. The flags of Hamas and Hezbollah—which are also, by the way, Islamic Republic of Iran flags, technically—were replaced by the logo of a tyrannical regime in Tehran. In London, where Boniadi grew up, Islamic Republic flags intermingled with large signs displaying the face of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the words “choose the right side of history.”

To the protesters in the West, the “right side of history” is the unrelenting oppression and repression of the Iranian people.

Just how upside-down is the world of campus-style activism can be seen in another sign going around the world of “pro-Palestinian” activism. Students for Justice in Palestine, the overarching organizing arm of the Hamas support network on campus, has been promoting a new line: “The Empire Will Fall: From Gaza to Tehran.”

This is meant to evoke both places as graveyards of Western capitalist and militarist “imperialism,” but I had to pause for a moment to make sure I was reading it right. Because the empire that runs from Gaza to Tehran (or the reverse) is falling. But it’s certainly not an American one.

Brendan O'Neill: The ‘Forever War’ we should really be worried about

The absolution of Iran by both leftists and rightists speaks to the wholesale evacuation of moral principle from the ‘anti-war’ position. What poses as ‘anti-imperialism’ today is often just anti-Westernism: a politics of grating historical guilt and showy self-loathing that views the wicked West as the author of every global calamity and nations like Iran as the hapless NPCs of world affairs. Ironically, there’s the pungent whiff of racial infantilism in these hot takes. Non-Western nations are reduced to child-like entities, so morally primitive that they lack the capacity to take responsibility for what they do. There is nothing ‘progressive’ in this imperious paternalism that feverishly demonises the nations of the West and acquits the Jew-killers of the East.

Handwringing abounds over Trump’s strikes on Iran and the possibility that this is yet another ‘Forever War’. It remains to be seen whether America’s strikes turn into something bigger, something more destabilising. But what worries me right now is the blindness of political actors across the West to the true Forever War, the Forever War that started this current war. That is, the war of Iran against the Jewish nation; the war of Islamism against the Jews; the war of tyrannical theocracy against democracy.

For the 46 years of its existence, the Islamic Republic has been devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State. Its military policy, education system and annual Quds Day are infused with this grim dream of annihilating the ‘Zionist regime’. Iranian children are taught to hate Israel. The Israeli flag is set alight on official parades. The proxies of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are funded and trained to the end of attacking Israel and slaughtering its people. Iran backed Hamas throughout the Second Intifada when it vaporised young Israelis in discotheques and pizza restaurants, and in the run-up to 7 October when it visited such fascist horrors upon southern Israel. There’s your Forever War – not Trump’s 18-hour mission against Iran’s nuclear sites but Iran’s almost 50-year mission to lay apocalyptic waste to the world’s only Jewish nation.

It’s not clear whether America’s strikes will temper hostilities in the Middle East or destabilise things further. But, at this moment, there are other morally pressing questions to ask. Why do so many in the West fail to take seriously the threat posed by Iranian tyranny? Why are they so blasé about the ceaseless targeting of Israel by Jew-hating militias? Why do so many of our educated seem to sympathise more with the bigots of Tehran than with the Jews of those kibbutzim decimated by Tehran’s barbarous emissaries? That some in the West have shed more tears over the destruction of Iranian infrastructure than they did over the destruction of the 70-year-old Jew Ofra Kedar shines the harshest light on our moral crisis.

Gad Saad: ‘Jew hatred is a form of ideological brain worms’

Since 7 October 2023, anti-Semitism has exploded across the West. Violent attacks on synagogues and ‘hate marches’ against Israel are now a feature of life in every Western capital. The well educated and woke in the cultural elite seem especially vulnerable to this dangerous way of thinking. New life has been breathed into the oldest hatred.

Gad Saad – evolutionary psychologist and author of The Parasitic Mind – witnessed a similar surge in anti-Semitism when he grew up in Lebanon in the 1970s. He sat down with spiked’s Fraser Myers to discuss what’s gone wrong in the West and how we can confront the mindset that produces this poison. You can watch the full conversation here.

Fraser Myers: What resonances are there between your upbringing in Lebanon and what we’re experiencing in the West today?

Gad Saad: I was among the last remaining Jews in Lebanon in the mid-1970s. Most of my extended family had already left – maybe they read the writing on the wall better than my parents did. Or maybe my parents read the writing on the wall and chose to ignore it.

It was a brutally nasty civil war, where former neighbours became arch enemies. During the first year, we saw things that no human being should see or experience. My parents took several return trips to Lebanon after we had emigrated to Canada, and on one of them, they were kidnapped by Fatah. So many of the things that we see today – the kidnapping of hostages and so on – are things that I lived through in my childhood.

Myers: When you were younger, one of the boys you were at school with said he wanted to be a ‘Jew killer’ when he grew up.

Saad: That’s right. In The Parasitic Mind, I’m trying to demonstrate that Jew hatred is not something that just arose as part of the civil war. When I was five years old, the president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, died. The people were lamenting in the streets in Beirut, screaming, ‘Death to Jews, death to Jews’. When I turned to my mother to ask why, she said, ‘Keep your head down’. That was the first time I saw what endemic Jew hatred looked like.

06/23 Links Pt1: Trump announces Israel-Iran ceasefire; Iran Brought This On Itself; True stories of espionage, sabotage—and Divine Providence.

From Ian:

Jake Wallis Simons: Trump has just secured the best chance for global peace

Thank God somebody hasn’t forgotten their courage. In civil society, meanwhile, we were yesterday treated to the embarrassing spectacle of crowds protesting in London in support of the Ayatollah. Women who enjoyed equal rights and men who took free expression for granted raised placards showing the face of the tyrant, along with the slogan, “choose the right side of history”. It is tempting to conclude that Britain is lost.

As I wrote in these pages last week, this is Israel’s century. The countries that will not only survive but thrive will be those with conviction in their values and the courage and resilience to defend them. Now is the time to rouse ourselves from the post-Cold War torpor of identity politics and self-hatred. Yet our bankrupt leaders refuse to release us. Israel and the United States can hold their heads high today, while we must hang ours in shame.

How must the airmen of the RAF feel as they watch this great victory unfold from the sidelines? What about all the decent Britons? Oh, for the chance to feel proud of our country again. So much for us. This morning, however, we should spare a thought for the Israeli people.

Over the last one-and-a-half years, they have suffered trauma, fear, uncertainty and bereavement, not to mention the hatred of the world. Hundreds of thousands of men from all walks of life have served on the frontlines and many have failed to return home. The propaganda against them has been overwhelming. Yet the country has refused to be defeated.

Even after more than 600 days of war in Gaza, when Netanyahu ordered the attacks on Iran, public support stood at more than 90 per cent, despite knowing that life would be horribly disrupted, missiles would fall on their homes and some of their people would die.

While European leaders wagged their fingers and quivered in their beds, the citizens of the Middle East’s only democracy demonstrated what may be achieved in a country that has not discarded its old loves of flag, faith and family, as we have done. This is a lesson for the West either to learn or to ignore. As the Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky put it: “We were not created in order to teach morals and manners to our enemies.”

For our own sakes, however, and for those of our children, we must learn this lesson fast. The centrist fundamentalism that has so disfigured our societies since the Cold War has run its course. Those who persist in pursuing it – Starmer, Macron and the rest – have been outstripped by history, even if they do not yet know it. Israel’s pride is our shame. This is Jerusalem’s century and we must decide where to plant our feet.

Eli Lake: What Happens If Iran’s Regime Collapses?

Mariam Memarsadeghi, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the founder and director of the Cyrus Forum for Iran’s Future, also sees very little hope in a democratic transition as Israel wages war in Iran. “The opposition, unfortunately, is not ready,” she said. “I don’t like saying that but it’s the truth. Pahlavi talks about having a plan to maintain security and stability, but I just don’t see how that can be possible. At the very least, he is going to need foreign help.”

That foreign help will not be coming from America. Despite the president’s MIGA post, there is no serious conversation inside the Trump administration about another nation-building war in the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday told reporters that America’s war aims did not include “regime change.” As one Trump administration official told me, “There is no chance we go in for nation-building when this thing is done.”

For different reasons, Israel will also not be stabilizing a post-Khamenei Iran. Israel would welcome a democratic Iran but will settle for a weakened one. The Jewish state is far too small—with a population of just over 10 million—to put significant boots on the ground in a country of more than 90 million people if Khamenei was deposed. Nonetheless, its intelligence service, Mossad, has cultivated networks now being used for targeting nuclear and military sites and other kinds of sabotage. Two former U.S. national security officials who worked closely with Israel while in government said those networks can be repurposed to support an Iranian uprising should the need arise.

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Free Press, “What is going to get Iranians back to the streets in great numbers will be support from the West; that means Israel. The security apparatus is weakened. There is an internet blackout. It’s early days. I think the opportunity is there.”

Dave Wurmser, a former national security council staffer in Trump’s first term who also worked at the Pentagon and State Department under George W. Bush, said Israeli war planners were aware that a byproduct of the campaign could “destabilize the regime to the point where it could fall.”

Some former U.S. intelligence analysts, however, see the prospects of a democratic uprising in the near term to be slim. Jonathan Panikoff, the former deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East, told me that even if Iran’s supreme leader was taken out, the regime may not collapse. “I would love nothing more than democracy in Iran, but it’s much more likely that you get IRGC-istan,” he said, a reference to the Revolutionary Guard Corps that has amassed extraordinary domestic power over the last 25 years. “At the end of the day, guns trump words. We’ve seen that play out in 2009, in 2017 in the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. It’s more likely it’s a different kind of authoritarian state, a military junta with a fig leaf government, a Pakistan on steroids.”

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iranian targets officer for the CIA, also said he was not expecting a democratic transition in Iran in the near term. “I would expect some form of anarchy; that is always the case in Iran when the central government goes down,” he said. One of the problems for the internal opposition is that “the regime has done an excellent job of locating individuals who have charisma and neutralizing them. The opposition is there, but it’s not cohesive,” Gerecht added. That said, he stressed that there were too many factors that were unknown to really predict what would come next if Khamenei was toppled.

The most salient factor that will determine if a democratic transition in Iran is possible is how many mid-level officers in the internal security agencies of the state, like the Basij militia and the intelligence ministry, are willing to break ranks with their superiors and refuse to fire on protesters.

Gerecht said that the apparatus that arrested and killed demonstrators in the Woman, Life, Freedom demonstrations in 2022 and 2023 will likely carry out such orders. Sazegara, the former deputy prime minister, is optimistic that at least some of them can be turned. “Our strategy is, as much as possible, to support dissidents inside the IRGC and the army and the intelligence services to join the people,” he said. But any chance for such an uprising will have to wait until the war is over.

Seth Mandel: Iran Brought This On Itself

On January 28, 2024, Iran killed three American soldiers on a base in Jordan, injuring more than 40. On October 19, 2023, an Iranian militia in Yemen engaged the USS Carney destroyer in what the Wall Street Journal described as “the most intense combat a U.S. Navy warship had seen in the better part of a century, shooting down more than a dozen drones and four fast-flying cruise missiles.”

That “10-hour engagement” came, of course, just 12 days after Iran’s militia in Gaza invaded Israel, murdering 1,200—of which 41 were Americans.

Lost in Iran’s modern slaughter was the fact that October 2023 coincided with the 40th anniversary of a kind of villainous origin story for Tehran: the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemembers. In the intervening decades, that killing continued. But the bookends of 1983 and 2023 served as fitting brackets for a period of history run red with the blood of Americans. Iran’s attacks—as noted above—didn’t end. But Tehran had overplayed its hand and set in motion a great American backlash, leading to President Trump’s history-making order to strike at the heart of the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.

The Iranian threat, in other words, has not subsided. American civilians and soldiers live in a world made more dangerous by Iran’s constant plotting to harm them.

And so the idea that bombing a facility in Iran that had been evacuated of people but not of weaponizable nuclear material was an “escalation” is risible. More absurd still is the belief, apparently held by a growing number of Democratic politicians and an endless supply of Republican social-media jugheads, that Trump is hereby solely responsible for future Iranian militia threats to Americans abroad.

“Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,” announced Hakeem Jeffries, the highest ranking Democrat in the House.

Jeffries is therefore predicting Iranian violence against Americans while at the same time freeing Iran from culpability for that violence. This man intends to be the next speaker of the House.

Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, had this to say: “The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous and that threatens the safety and security of the United States, Israel, and ultimately the world.”

That statement is somewhat more reasonable than Jeffries’s, but again—this is the path Iran has chosen. Additionally, it will not make the world a more dangerous place than it would have been with a nuclear-armed Iran. Lastly, the presumptuousness to lecture Israelis on their own safety, especially in this case when they are telling us overwhelmingly the opposite of what Smith says, is poor form—as is, of course, blaming America for Iran’s aggression.

True stories of espionage, sabotage—and Divine Providence.

In the aftermath of yet another stunning Israeli operation inside Iran, many are wondering: how does the Mossad keep pulling this off?

How does a tiny nation, roughly the size of New Jersey and under constant existential threat, manage to penetrate the most hostile regime in the world time and again—slipping past the Revolutionary Guard, sabotaging nuclear ambitions, and rescuing lives in ways that would make a Hollywood screenwriter blush, or seem too far-fetched even for the big screen?

Of course, the professionalism, ingenuity, and sheer courage of Israel’s agents—combined with the cutting-edge innovation of the Startup Nation—play a central role. But from a Jewish perspective, there’s another truth too essential to ignore: hashgacha pratit, Divine providence—the belief that God guides history not only in sweeping arcs but also through intimate, hidden threads. And sometimes, the outcomes are so precise, so improbable, that we’re left with no plausible explanation—at least not one that leaves God out of the story.

Much of what we know about this shadow war comes from The Secret War with Iran by veteran Israeli journalist and intelligence expert Ronen Bergman. Drawing on hundreds of sources and interviews, his research offers a rare window into the secret victories that shaped the last four decades.

Below are five real-life operations, stretching from the Islamic Revolution in 1979 to the nuclear age, that show the fingerprints of both human brilliance and something greater. 1. The Escape from Iran (1979–1981): Smuggling a Community to Safety
After the fall of the Shah in 1979, Iran’s Jews faced a terrifying new reality. The Islamic regime labeled Zionism a capital offense, executed Jewish leader Habib Elghanian, and sowed fear among the country’s ancient Jewish community.

In response, Israeli intelligence launched a quiet, high-stakes operation to help Jews flee. Agents and collaborators smuggled thousands across borders using forged documents, bribes, and covert routes through Pakistan and Turkey. In one case, a rescuer even posed as a senior Pakistani official to escort families to safety.

Roughly 10,000 Jews escaped through these clandestine efforts, while tens of thousands more fled via informal means. To protect those still inside Iran, Israel kept its role secret.

It wasn’t just a logistical feat—it was a modern-day Exodus. In a time of chaos and persecution, Jewish lives were saved by a mix of courage, ingenuity, and, perhaps, something greater moving quietly behind the scenes.

Stupid statistic of the day: @SKWAWKBOX claims "377,000 Gazans murdered, half children!"

Sqwawkbox, a British left wing news site that brags about how trustworthy it is, has a scoop!

Wow! 377,000 killed, and half of them kids! And these are Israel's own figures!

This is something!

The proof it brings comes from here:

Yaakov Garb’s report for Harvard Dataverse has analysed the Israeli military’s own data and combined these with careful spatial mapping to reveal a demographic horror story: almost 400,000 people – at least 377,000 – have disappeared from Gaza’s pre-genocide population of 2.227 million, reducing it to 1.85 million when measured for the study.

Does that report say what the authors are so breathlessly claiming?

Not at all.

The report discusses the GHF attempt to feed Gazans. it doesn't mention demographics or deaths or missing people or anything like that at all.

But it has a map that shows what it says are Israel's estimates of how many Gazans are in three concentrated areas of Gaza:

The morons at Sqwawkbox took the three grey areas, added them up, subtracted them from some estimate of Gaza's pre-war population that they claim says it was 2.27 million people, and voila! 377,000 people are missing and therefore must have been murdered, and half of them must be kids because, you know, Israel kills Gazans randomly!

Where to begin with this stupidity?

First of all, the three areas don't represent all of Gaza's population. Plenty of people refuse to move to the areas Israel wants them to move to - there are lots of articles in Arab media about their "steadfastness" in refusing to move. Assuming that the estimates here are accurate, they are only of the people inside the areas, not all of Gaza. We have no idea how many tens of thousands of Gazans live outside those three areas.

Secondly, the estimate of a pre-war Gaza population of 2.27 million is a bit suspect. According to CIA Factbook, the estimated population in Gaza in 2023 was less than 2.1 million. Poof! There go 127,000 dead people.

Thirdly, in the months before the Rafah crossing was closed, according to Palestinian estimates, some 100,000 Gazans managed to escape to Egypt (by paying exorbitant fees.) There go another 100,000 supposed victims.

I just resurrected over 110,000 children. No need to thank me.

This is the dumbest reporting I have ever seen in Western media, and that is saying something. But when you hate Jews (I'm sorry, ,"Zionists,") an excuse to exaggerate their evil is a righteous cause.

Where are all of these dead bodies, according to the geniuses of Sqwawkbox?

The Gaza health ministry only counts bodies recovered and brought to a hospital. Victims buried under rubble or blown apart with their few remains gathered into plastic bags are not included.

Except that - they are. The Gaza health ministry puts out an online survey where Gazans can register their missing and presumed dead relatives, and it counts them in its total.

Maybe Sqwawkbox believes that Israel uses ray guns that vaporize thousands of Gazans, leaving no trace? Because that is what officials from Hamas and from Gaza's much heralded Health Ministry - lovingly quoted by mainstream media - have claimed.

They'll believe anything that can be twisted to demonize Israel. Because that is what "trustworthy" journalists apparently do.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Israeli media occasionally reports on the arrests of citizens of Israel who are suspected Iranian spies.

These stories are concerning and important. Why would an Israeli citizen choose to spy for Iran?

No doubt, some are motivated by money, or the sense of self-importance, or simply the thought that what they are doing is pretty much public information anyway, so there is not much moral hazard in doing so. It seems unlikely that too many Israeli citizens either hate Israel or love Iran so much to have an ideology where they want to see an Islamist state destroy Israel.

But part of the reason Israel's airstrikes in Tehran and elsewhere are so effective is because their intelligence is superb. A major reason for that is that there are plenty of Iranians who want to see their regime replaced.

Even this morning Israel is pounding specific sites in Tehran. Even today Israel is assassinating major IRGC figures, people who know they are targets and are no doubt taking precautions or hiding - and still being targeted successfully.

Some of this is because Israel has excellent signals intelligence, following cell phones around; part of it is because Israel has great artificial intelligence capabilities that allow it to take millions of data points that by themselves are of little value but in the aggregate indicate with a high degree of certainty where specific people are. Also Israel has done an incredible job integrating all aspects of its security apparatus so that new intelligence information becomes actionable within seconds or minutes, not weeks.

But a great deal comes from ordinary Iranians on the ground who are feeding these data points to Israel, who see several people enter an apartment who look unfamiliar, who recognize unusual activity where they live, or even those who are integral parts of the Iranian security establishment who have direct knowledge of what is going on.

Iran has a competent spy agency. No doubt they have hacked into some Israeli systems and almost certainly they have access to street and doorbell cameras. But human intelligence is the most important, especially during wartime when decisions must be made quickly, and Israel's advantage in human intelligence is in no small part because Iranians do not want to live under their current regime.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Aleksandr Dugin, the Russian ultranationalist often dubbed "Putin’s philosopher," is not just a dangerous ideologue. He is also a conspiracy-minded antisemite obsessed with Israel, and his ravings reflect a recurring truth: that Jews and the Jewish state are seen as existential threats to totalitarian ideologies – precisely because Jewish values stand in moral opposition to them.

The New York Times introduced its readers to Dugin in 2022, describing him as “Putin’s philosopher” who has been a leading advocate for conquest of Ukraine.

His thinking builds on ideas of “Eurasianism,” that Russia is a distinct civilization that should forge a continent-spanning state along the lines of its former empire but without the Communist ideology of the Soviet Union. Jane Burbank, an emeritus history professor at New York University, has written that in Mr. Dugin’s view, after the Soviet Union’s “sellout” to the West in the 1990s, “Russia could revive in the next phase of global combat and become a ‘world empire.’”

It turns out that "Putin's philosopher" is an antisemite who seems obsessed with the idea that Israel is run by crazed messianic Jews who are hellbent on creating a Greater Israel.

In a recent podcast, he said, "Half of Israel is pure liberal trash. The other half are cheerful Zionists who want to blow up Al-Aqsa."

His insistence that Israel will blow up Al Aqsa is a recurrent theme in his writings - see, for example, this article from December where he is certain that Ben Gvir will blow up the mosque to create a Greater Israel.

After Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, Dugin not only said that this was a precursor to Israel's destruction of Al Aqsa but also he threw in a theory where Jews throughout the world form a network to ensure Israel's ultimate victory:

Israel, thanks to the support of the collective West and using its latest technological tools (and they have been and remain pioneers in the field of digital technologies), operates very effectively, precisely, and cohesively. And it is very difficult to imagine how one could respond to this, especially considering that many people from various countries, who are at the forefront of high-tech processes, could at any moment turn out to be Israeli citizens and, together with their codes and technologies, head to Israel.

In other words, Israel relies on a vast network of supporters, people who share the principles of political and religious Zionism in all countries of the world. This gives Israel a major advantage as a networked structure, not just a state.

It is difficult to miss the echo of the “Elders of Zion” hoax in Dugin’s fantasy of a worldwide network of Jews, controlling global tech and politics to ensure messianic supremacy.

Now, according to Arab media, Dugin thinks Israel might use the conflict with Iran as the excuse it has been looking for (for over a century!) to finally destroy Al Aqsa. “I don’t rule out that the Zionist leadership’s debauchery could reach the point where they blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque and then claim that an Iranian missile hit the mosque by mistake,” he said.

Given that Dugin believes that the Russian Federation’s destiny is to become a holy empire along tsarist lines, he views Jews and Israel as implacable obstacles to the fulfillment of his dream.

Dugin’s apocalyptic vision isn’t just about Israel, but about what Israel represents: a stubborn, moral, covenantal civilization that refuses to bow to imperial destiny. That’s why antisemites of every political persuasion, from Marx to Hitler to Dugin, always converge on the idea that Jews are the problem. Because when your ideology depends on domination, Jews are always in the way.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The flip side of consequentialism: A response to Peter Beinart

Peter Beinart criticizes the US strike on Iran's nuclear program in terms of the US not considering the long term consequences of its actions:

Let's say the US does set back the Iranian nuclear program by a long way, and Iran is just too afraid or too weak to really do much in response. So it's a success, right? But over what time frame? I mean you could have said that the US had a big success when it overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in the fifties, because he was going to nationalize oil industry and do things that America didn't like, and it might have been for years after that it looked like a good idea. But you were laying the groundwork for a politics in Iran that was ultimately going to lead decades later to the overthrow of a pro-American leader, and the emergence of a militant anti-American leadership. The point, is, when you do things, you produce political consequences that play out over long, long periods of time and you don't know what the long term consequences are going to be.

I've mentioned a number of times that Beinart is a master propagandist, and this is yet another example of how he uses propaganda techniques brilliantly to promote a completely wrong and immoral anti-Israel and anti-American position.

After all, he has a point: there could be very bad long term consequences of any action by the US, or Israel, that could be worse than short term gains.

This actually is true of every decision we make, big or small, international or personal. Beinart gives examples of decisions in the Middle East that may have caused bad long term consequences. So, everything must be done with caution, and Beinart says that the US did not use the proper amount of caution.

There are three problems with his argument, and they are difficult to see without realizing that Beinart always frames his arguments to preclude serious disagreement.

The first one is simple: yes, sometimes the consequences are bad. And sometimes they are good. Israel decimating Hezbollah last year resulted in Hezbollah not raining down tens of thousands of missiles on Israel, today. That is a pretty good consequence! Similarly, Israel's destruction of Syria's clandestine nuclear program cannot be regarded as anything but a success. So consequentialism goes both ways, and there is no way for Beinart to know the long term consequences any more than anyone else - whether they would be good or bad. So should no one ever make any decision because we cannot know every possible consequence? That is absurd, but if we accept Beinart's logic, that is the result.

In the real world, you make the best decisions you can based on the information you have now. You don't stay paralyzed because you might make the wrong decision. Beinart knows this, but he doesn't want you to think about it.

Secondly, Beinart describes possible downsides of military action. But he ignores, completely, not only the possible upsides or action, but the the potential negative consequences of inaction. Iran clearly was hiding a secret nuclear program that is only compatible with weaponization. No one can seriously doubt it. What are the consequences of a nation that is the world's biggest sponsor of terror, that funds terror groups worldwide, having a stockpile of nuclear weapons? Beinart frames his argument in terms of actions, not inactions, so the casual consumer of his ideas does not realize that Beinart is creating a straitjacket in his argument that does not allow the thinking outside the box that Beinart deliberately constructs.

The third problem is when Beinart says:

I think Jewish tradition, like most other moral traditions, has some version of the idea of “what goes around comes around.” In Hebrew, it’s, “midah k'neged midah.”

Guess what? Jewish ethics is not consequentialist. In Jewish ethics, the top priority is preserving life, your own and your nation's before your enemies. Iran's actions that clearly point towards building a nuclear weapon, plus its genocidal rhetoric against Israel that goes back to 1979, all point to the fact that Iran intends to destroy Israel - either with nuclear weapons or by using the threat of nuclear weapons to attack with impunity without fear of, yes, consequences.. This is not morally acceptable under Jewish ethics. Beinart's argument here indicates that he does not give a damn about the survival of the Jewish state or the Jewish people who live there.

So when Beinart tries to use a Jewish ethical argument that Iran's nuclear weapons program must not be attacked, he is not only being deceptive. He is tacitly supporting the idea that Israel should not have the right to defend itself.

And it is hard to think of something more immoral than that.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/22 Links: Why Israel Had to Act; Operation Midnight Hammer: The strike that shattered Iran's nuclear ambitions; IDF recovers bodies of three hostages from Gaza

From Ian:

John Podhoretz: Trump Changes History With Iran Strike

It’s a dangerous moment; the Iranian regime has terrorist assets we might not know about and work to hurt us and the Israelis still more. On the other hand, Iran is a thousand times weaker today than it was just 11 days ago, and so many of its strategic assets and strategic thinkers have been destroyed in that time it’s not clear what capability the regime still might possess. So vigilance is called for, and we shouldn’t celebrate just yet, but neither should we panic.

It turns out that in the case of the Middle East what Trump said about himself is true. He said he doesn’t start wars. Trump said he ends wars. And what happened last night was Trump ending this evil war of Iran’s, either right now or after more pain causes the mullahs to cry uncle. For Israel didn’t start this war either. It was launched, by Iran and its catamites, on October 7.

As I write, it’s only a few hours since the U.S. strike. Its impact is potentially so enormous, and so world-historic, we needn’t rush into interpreting its larger meaning. But consider the words he spoke in concluding his short speech to the nation: “I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America.”

Trump has said since the assassination attempt in Butler, Pa., that he believes God spared him for a reason.

And now, so do I.

This was—is—the reason.

WSJ Editorial: The U.S. Bombs Three Nuclear Sites to Spare the World from an Intolerable Risk

President Trump's decision to strike Iran's three most significant nuclear sites on Saturday helped rid the world of a grave nuclear threat and was a large step toward restoring U.S. deterrence. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. The regime flouted his 60-day deadline to make a deal.

Then Israel attacked, destroying much of the nuclear program and achieving air supremacy, and still the president gave Iran another chance to come to terms. But the regime wouldn't abandon domestic uranium enrichment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace.

Iran and its Iraqi proxies have threatened U.S. regional bases with missile fire, but if the regime values self-preservation, it will give up its nuclear ambitions and stand down. Much of the press has fixated on the idea that Trump has now joined or even started a conflict. But Iran has been waging regional and terrorist war for decades. It's as likely that he has helped end the conflict.

U.S. presidents have been known to kick the can down the road. To his credit, Trump didn't, hitting the Fordow enrichment site as well as Natanz and Isfahan. The president wanted to leave no doubt about Iran's nuclear program and take it all down. He had to act to stop the threat in front of him to protect America.

The Israelis, who proved their strategic value as an ally, would like to complete the mission by destroying what remains of Iran's missile infrastructure. They deserve a green light, especially as those missiles are threatening U.S. bases. Critics had counseled that the world had to bow to Iranian intimidation. The best we could hope for was a flimsy deal that bribed Iran with billions and left open its path to a bomb. They were wrong.

Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin: Why Israel Had to Act

44 years ago I sat in the cockpit on the Israeli air force mission that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. In 2007, when I was serving as Israel's chief of defense intelligence, we destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria built with North Korea's help.

Today the challenge of Iran's advanced, deeply fortified, multisite nuclear program is far more complex. Yet, a successful Israeli campaign holds the potential not only to neutralize a grave threat but also to reshape the strategic landscape of the Middle East and make the region profoundly safer.

Israel and the U.S. have a rare strategic opening. What has for years been a reactive approach can now be transformed into a proactive vision that curbs Iran's malign ambitions and efforts, stabilizes Gaza, and lays the foundation for a new order built on security, integration and peaceful relations.

The operation in Iran offers decision makers a foundation to leverage military action into a broader diplomatic initiative that aims for a strong, enforceable agreement rolling back Iran's nuclear program. It must also prevent Tehran from enriching uranium for military use, block its path to a nuclear weapon, and impose meaningful constraints on its missile arsenal, which poses a threat to the entire region. Together with crippling Iran's proxy network, these steps would significantly decrease the threat to most of America's regional partners.

John Spencer: Operation Midnight Hammer: The strike that shattered Iran's nuclear ambitions

This was not about starting a war. It is about ending one by pushing the Islamic regime closer to realizing it must give up their nuclear program, which remains the single clear objective of the war, to end decades of failed diplomatic and economic measures to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. The United States had to assist Israel with capabilities like the GBU-57 to destroy Iranian infrastructure and push toward the only real solution: Iran giving up their nuclear program. Now it is up to Iran’s leadership, but President Trump has ensured that Iran will not be able to achieve a nuclear weapon during his tenure.

We now await full battle damage assessments of the three sites struck, especially Fordow, which lies buried deep beneath a mountain. But without a doubt, the United States did what no other country could in damaging Iran’s nuclear program deep underground. This action joins Israel’s historic operations that include the elimination of over 14 high-ranking nuclear scientists and many parts of Iran’s nuclear weapon pursuit, from missile assembly to uranium and plutonium enrichment sites. The combined effect is a massive strategic blow to Iran’s long-running efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

The first ever use of the 30,000-pound GBU-57 weapon has been used in war. This was the largest B-2 stealth bomber operational strike in history and the second longest B-2 bomber flight ever flown, only second to those following 9/11.

The United States is not at war with Iran. The United States has not declared war on Iran. The United States did use military force to assist Israel in achieving a limited goal to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. A few voices have criticized President Trump for not getting congressional authorization before attacking Iran, but they are overlooking the historical record that since World War II, 99% of the time US presidents have used military force it was without explicit prior approval from Congress.

Last night was not just a military achievement. It was a strategic message written in steel, silence, and sky. The era of delay and denial is over. The world has changed. Iran’s path to the bomb has been shattered, and the consequences of rebuilding it will now come at a cost they can no longer afford.

For four hundred years, philosophers have tried to create a universal, secular, scalable, and workable system of ethics.

They have made important contributions—but none have produced a system that ordinary people can trust, use, and scale across cultures and domains. Most remain in the realm of theory, not practice.

The major attempts - utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Rawlsian justice, and others - may be elegant on paper, but they fall apart in the real world. At best, they’re useful for niche domains like medical ethics. But they can’t handle everyday moral dilemmas. They don’t scale from personal dilemmas to international conflict. Most importantly, their conclusions often feel obviously wrong to normal people with a functioning moral compass.

That’s why these systems remain trapped in the ivory tower of academia. Real people can’t use them. An ethical system that real people can’t use is, by definition, useless.

But what if such a system did exist - one that combines the clarity of principles with the flexibility of real-world judgment?

What if there were a moral framework that was secular (and therefore universal), scalable, and workable in the real world? What if it were also accessible, transparent, and auditable, so anyone could see how it reaches its conclusions, and test them against their own conscience?

As many of my readers know, I’ve created such a system. It avoids the fatal flaws of prior secular philosophies, while preserving their best intentions. It reframes the ethical conversation from “What does the world owe me?” to “What are my obligations - to myself, my family, my community, my nation, and the world?”

To illustrate: Imagine a common moral dilemma, like a government negotiating to release 50 hostages, but only by freeing 100 convicted terrorists. Utilitarianism might say yes (more lives saved); deontology might say no (never release murderers). My system weighs competing obligations: to save life, to protect future victims, and to uphold justice. It doesn’t give an instant answer: it gives a structured moral triage to weigh priorities transparently and traceably. Small details might sway the decision: have previous such swaps resulted in more deaths? How do we weigh definitely saving lives immediately with potentially saving more in the future? All these factors can and must be weighed, but using a common framework of values and priorities. That’s the difference.

It’s built on the Jewish concept of brit - covenant. A network of promises and mutual obligations, not rights and entitlements. And while it’s inspired by the Jewish ethical system that has worked for thousands of years, it requires no belief in God to use. It is a secular system—but not a secularization of relativism. It is morally grounded, coherent, and human-centered.

This may be the first secular ethical system that proves morality without God is not just possible, but operationalizable, self-correcting, and morally superior to Enlightenment-derived rights frameworks.

Even as I've been working on this project, I've noticed that my own political thinking has changed. My tendency to trust others - even commentors I respect - has lessened, as I have a methodology and a tool to ask and help answer the real question: is this moral? Which is really the only question that we should be asking, about everything.

What follows is a high-level overview of the implications of such a framework being widely accepted. I’ve explored its structure in detail elsewhere, but here I want to focus on what changes when a system like this becomes popular.

What Would Change if This Were Widely Adopted?

Politics would be transformed.
Today, too many people outsource their moral thinking to political tribes. But with this framework, anyone could test a political proposal, not by asking “what does my side say?” but “is this the right thing to do?”

Politicians would face new accountability.
If they violated this shared ethical framework, they would be seen as acting immorally: not just “wrong” in the partisan sense, but wrong in a deeper, more enduring way. Arguments wouldn’t disappear, but they’d be grounded in shared moral language, not empty slogans.

Education would improve.
Schools would teach ethics alongside literacy and math. Not as abstract theory, but as a practical method for decision-making. Because the framework draws on values shared across cultures, it wouldn’t alienate anyone: it would unify. And it would raise a generation of thoughtful, reflective, morally grounded young people.

Business would change.
Corporations could still pursue profit, but they'd be expected to explain their actions in moral terms. If they exploited workers or harmed the public, they’d face moral backlash, not just PR problems. Ethical accountability would become a baseline expectation.

Even conflict would be elevated.
Nations and communities would still struggle over scarce resources. But instead of zero-sum battles or cynical diplomacy, there could be a common framework for dialogue. One that asks not “how do we win?” but “how do we win without violating our values?” and "is there a way that we can both get what we want?"

Of course, ethical systems already exist - religious traditions, human rights declarations, philosophical ideals. But they rarely function as systems in the lives of individuals. They offer values, but not structures. Or they offer laws, but not triage. My framework bridges this gap: it is morally grounded, but also operational. It doesn’t require belief, only integrity.

This wouldn’t be a utopia. But it would be a better world - more sane, more just, more fulfilling.

And it could all start with a single shift in perspective:

From “what does the world owe me?”
To “what is the best thing for me to do?”

You don’t have to take my word for it. You can test this system for yourself at AskHillel.com. It’s open, transparent, and ready to be challenged.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Is It So Surprising That The US Took Action Against Its Long-Time Enemy In Iran? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Israel's motivation in attacking Iran if pretty clear, even if people forget just how far back it goes and how long Israel has been expected to live with the threat of a nuclear Iran:

That's 20 years of the Iranian threat of nuclear annihilation.

But how about the US?

What justification does it have for getting involved?

There are suggestions that this is not America's fight and the US is just doing Israel's bidding.

Here are some reminders of why this is America's fight too:

o Iran Hostage Crisis (November 4, 1979 – January 20, 1981)

Backed by the Iranian government, Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days. This was in violation of international law regarding diplomatic immunity.

o Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983)

The Islamic Jihad Organization (not to be confused with the group Islamic Jihad), a precursor to Iran's proxy Hezbollah, conducted a suicide bombing on the US Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen. This was part of Iran’s support for proxy groups targeting U.S. forces during the Lebanese Civil War. The US State Department designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984.

o Kidnapping and Murder of CIA Station Chief William Buckley (March 16, 1984)

The Islamic Jihad Organization, with Iranian backing, kidnapped and tortured CIA station chief William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. He was killed after 15 months in captivity. This was part of a series of hostage takings targeting US personnel.

o Khobar Towers Bombing (June 25, 1996)

Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hejaz carried out a truck bombing at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and injuring 498 others. The attack targeted U.S. military personnel stationed in the region.

o Kidnapping of FBI Agent Robert Levinson (March 9, 2007)

Robert Levinson was kidnapped on Kish Island, Iran. Iran denied responsibility, but evidence suggests Iranian intelligence was involved.

o Support for IED Attacks in Iraq (2003–2011)

EFPs, attributed to Iran’s Quds Force led by Qassem Soleimani, killed 196 U.S. troops and injured 861 between 2005 and 2011. It notes the sophistication of EFPs, requiring precise machining, and their use by Iranian-backed militias like Kataib Hezbollah.

o Attempted Assassination Plot on U.S. Soil (October 2011)

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in Washington, D.C., using a bomb at a restaurant. The plot was foiled by U.S. authorities.

o Capture of U.S. Sailors in the Persian Gulf (January 12, 2016)

Iranian forces detained 10 U.S. Navy sailors after their boats drifted into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. The sailors were released after 15 hours, but the incident was seen as a provocative act.

o Attacks on U.S. Bases in Iraq and Syria (October 2023 – February 2024)

Iran-backed militias conducted over 200 drone and rocket attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria, protesting U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza conflict. These attacks caused injuries but no U.S. fatalities.

For decades, Iran has been chanting, "Death to America!"

Maybe Iran should not be so surprised that the US took Iran seriously and finally did something about it.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

You have to be an idiot or an antisemite to believe Iran had no nuclear weapons program. Here's SOME of the evidence.

Some people like to claim that there is "no evidence" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But while there might not be a smoking gun available to the West, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming that only the willfully blind - or those who share Iran's desire to wipe out Israel - can say something like that.

Here's a summary:

The fortified Natanz and Fordow underground enrichment sites were not declared by Iran to the IAEA. Iran was required to reveal them under existing regulations and did not. They only allowed inspections after the IAEA found out about them from intelligence sources.

Fordow's size is inconsistent with civilian nuclear energy purposes.

In January 2023, IAEA inspectors found uranium particles enriched to 83.7% at Fordow, dangerously close to the 90% threshold for weapons-grade uranium. Iran didn't declare it as it was supposed to have. There is no reason for this to exist in a peaceful civilian research or nuclear program.

Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% level was up to 408.6 kg by May 2025. The IAEA notes that 60% enrichment has no credible civilian use, as nuclear power plants typically require 3-5% enrichment, and research reactors rarely need more than 20%.

Iran has limited IAEA access to sites since 2021, and it removed remote monitoring equipment in 2022.

The IAEA had found man-made uranium particles at three undeclared sites, and Iran refused to provide a credible explanation.

In 2021, the IAEA confirmed that Iran has begun producing uranium metal, which has no civilian use.

Iran's development and deployment of advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium much faster than older models has pretty much no reason besides the capability of quickly producing nuclear weapons.

The Sanjarian site, which was known to have been used for nuclear weapons research in the early 2000s, was re-activated in recent years. The IAEA never visited Sanjarian. (Israel bombed it at least twice.)

The IAEA found a large steel chamber at Parchin that it suspected was used for weaponization research, but Iran heavily restricted its access to the site and engaged in clean-up activities before allowing inspectors under their direct supervision. Even so, the IAEA found evidence of man made uranium there.

Also in the Parchin complex, there was evidence that Iran hid critical flash X-ray testing equipment in Taleghan, which Israel bombed last October. Reports and satellite imagery seem to confirm its clandestine nuclear weapons use.

In 2018, Israel accused Iran of hiding a secret nuclear site at Turquzabad. The IAEA said only two weeks ago that Iran refused to give any “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Turquzabad, Varamin, and Marivan (where intelligence indicated high explosives tests in 2011).

In 2019, Israel identified Abadeh as a suspected nuclear weapons development site. Satellite imagery showed cleanup efforts, including the destruction of buildings, shortly afterwards.

Iran's ballistic missiles appear to be designed specifically to carry nuclear warheads. For example, Iran’s Ghadr and Emad missiles feature triconic (tapered, conical) warhead designs, which are a requirement for nuclear warheads to survive atmospheric reentry, unlike blunt-nosed warheads typically used for conventional explosives.

I'm probably missing some.

If only one or two of these were true, then perhaps some people could reasonably think that there are credible explanations for them that Iran, for whatever reason, cannot provide. But when you see them all together, and consider that Israel and other countries have additional intelligence beyond these widely known facts, it is absurd to think that Iran has not been actively working on a nuclear weapon.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Harper's canonizes a Hamas terrorist

The June issue of Harper's Magazine features the posthumous letter of "Palestinian journalist" Hossam Shabat, where he says "I believe this land is ours, and it has been the highest honor of my life to die defending it."

Seen after Shabat's death in March, the IDF released documentation that they did indeed target him, just like Shabat predicted - but it was because he was a sniper for Hamas, not because he worked for Al Jazeera. And they released the Hamas document they uncovered last October that proved it.

Harper's could have mentioned that little fact. It chose not to.

It seems unlikely that the magazine was unaware of this. They just wanted to ensure that their readers were unaware of it.

Most of media bias is what is not reported.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/21 Links: Trump confirms US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites; Iran: the cradle of Islamo-leftism; Emmanuel the egregious

From Ian:

Trump confirms US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites

The US conducted airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, namely Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, US President Donald Trump confirmed on Truth Social on Saturday night.

"All planes are now outside of Iran's airspace. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home," Trump wrote.

"We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this," he added.

"NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!" he concluded.

Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the strikes, a White House official confirmed.

US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers were involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Trump then retweeted a social media post by an open-source intelligence analyst claiming that "Fordow is gone."

Trump also added that he will give a public address at the White House "regarding our very successful military operation in Iran" at 10 p.m. adding that "This is a historic moment for the United States, Israel and the world."

"Iran must now agree to end this war," Trump's post on Truth Social concluded.

Trump expressed hope that the strikes would push the Iranian regime into negotiation, and "doesn’t currently plan additional US actions inside," sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Additionally, the US reached out to Iran to say that it would not plan regime change efforts, CBS reported.

Iran confirmed Fordow war struck
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps denied the strikes occurred, stating that "no evidence has been released so far to confirm Trump’s claim," adding "it is possible that his statement is merely a media show."

The three nuclear facilities have been evacuated, Iranian national television confirmed.

Iran had been expecting attacks on Fordow for several nights, the facility had been evacuated before the airstrikes occurred, and did not suffer irreversible damage, according to an advisor to Iran's Parliament Speaker.

"Two things are certain: 1. Knowledge cannot be bombed. 2. This time, the gambler will definitely lose," the advisor added.

Three senior Iranian officials anonymously told The New York Times that they believed the strikes were conducted at around 2.30 a.m. in Iran.

An Iranian official cited by Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency confirmed that part of Fordow nuclear site was attacked by "enemy airstrikes."

A commentator on Iranian state television later stated that every American civilian or military personnel in the region became a legitimate target.

Six bunker-buster bombs were used during the strike on Fordow, with 30 tomahawk missiles being used on the additional nuclear sites, according to Fox News.

Lee Smith: Trump’s Opponents Want to Humble the USA

Most of the MAGA influencers tweeting against Trump’s Iran policy don’t know that what they’re actually validating is Barack Obama’s foreign policy. They’re just parroting the messaging passed down from the higher levels, where operatives affiliated with the Koch network and its various think tanks have been avidly promoting the Iranian nuke since Obama’s first term. Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi, for instance, has no other function in Washington except to promote Iran’s nuclear program—that’s been his job for almost two decades. Now, of course, he pursues his aims as the vice president at the Koch-sponsored Quincy Institute, providing talking points not to the left but to the right, or, more specifically, its realist, or “restraintist,” school.

Realism’s leading policy intellectual is John Mearsheimer, whose theory of the Middle East is simple, though not obviously realistic. He argues that the region is volatile because of Israel, which has the bomb. Accordingly, stabilizing the Middle East means deterring Israel by getting Iran the bomb, too.

Mearsheimer’s theory is based on two assumptions: One, despite its millenarian convictions, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a rational actor; and two, despite the evidence of many thousands of years, Israel is the reason the Middle East is unstable. Is either pillar of Mearsheimer’s realist reading of the region true? To believe so, you’d have to ignore that Iran opened hostilities with Israel in the early 1980s by sending Hezbollah and other terror proxies against the Jewish state. And even if you get past that salient fact, to imagine the region would be tranquil if only Israel didn’t have the bomb, or didn’t exist, you’ll have to set aside intra-Muslim conflict dating back to the founding of Islam, as well as other sectarian fights that neither Israel, nor the Jews who lived in the region before Israel was founded, have anything to do with. The Jews, after all, are a small Middle East minority—imagine a narrative holding that the Yazidis or the Chaldeans are the villain in the millennia-long story of the Middle East. Yes, it’s nuts—and it’s exactly the obsessive focus on Israel that makes Mearsheimer’s theory appealing to people obsessed with Jews.

The crucial point is this: Israel is a U.S. ally and thus a token of American power in the Middle East. Deterring Israel means hobbling America. This was precisely the point of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He said he wanted to create “a geopolitical equilibrium” in which, as he explained, Saudi Arabia would learn to share the region with Iran. But that was misleading. Riyadh, like Jerusalem, is simply a reflection of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. Since the 1945 agreement between FDR and Ibn Saud, founder of the modern Saudi state, Riyadh’s main role in the U.S.-led postwar order is to pump cheap oil to keep the U.S. economy humming, in exchange for American protection.

For more than eight decades, the United States has been the Middle East’s main power. Aside from the George W. Bush administration’s screwup in Iraq, it’s been a remarkably successful enterprise, thanks in part to allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Balancing the Saudis and Israelis against Iran, as Obama and Mearsheimer and the restraintists want, means weakening the United States. Obama was explicit about it, from his apology tour on: His historic task was to humble America. It appears that Tucker Carlson’s obsessions have sadly led him to the same place, for his lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin justified Iran’s nuclear ambitions on the grounds that it needs the bomb to deter the country he calls home.

The self-described pro-Trump opposition to Trump’s Iran policy is just Obama in a MAGA skin suit—opposed to American exceptionalism and keen to cripple what it believes is truly the world’s most dangerous country: ours.

Iran: the cradle of Islamo-leftism

Think of theorist Judith Butler, who in 2006 said that ‘Hamas [and] Hezbollah [are] social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of the global left’. As sociologist Eva Illouz points out, Butler, alongside other US-based academics, effectively defended the theocratic, repressive nature of the Islamic Republic in 2009 on the grounds that the separation of state and religion and freedom of expression are Western norms. Supposedly, they are being used to unfairly judge and demonise the Islamic Republic.

This leftist critique of criticism of Islamism, of Islamic states and of blasphemy laws, effectively mirrors the Islamic Republic’s own self-justification – that it is engaged in a battle against the imposition of Western culture and norms. This is not just an intellectual move on the part of prominent Western left-wingers. It has practical, political consequences, too.

It allows privileged Western leftists to ignore the resistance and struggles of the Iranian people themselves. To wilfully disregard the strong strain of anti-Hamas, anti-Hezbollah feeling in Iran – ‘death to Palestine’ has been heard chanted at protests since at least 2018. It allows them to dismiss the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009, after a disputed presidential election, as just so much Western propaganda. And to downplay, in the name of anti-imperialism, the huge wave of anti-regime protests at the tail-end of 2019, which cost the lives of over a thousand protesters.

Indeed, against the background of the 2019 protests, leading American leftists, including Angela Davis, Doug Henwood and Vijay Prashad, signed a ‘Letter against US imperialism’, effectively defending the Islamic regime against US and Israeli ‘aggression’, calling for ‘political stability’ in Iran, and dismissing talk of liberal democracy and civil rights as just so much neocolonial cant.

Then there were the ‘Women, life, freedom’ protests which shook Iran in 2022. Hundreds of thousands bravely took to the streets, following the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who had been detained by the regime’s morality police for showing her hair in public. Yet the Western left seemed far happier looking the other way, as Iranians put their lives on their line in the fight for the most basic of freedoms.

What we’ve seen over the past week, as zealous ‘progressives’ happily take the side of one of the most repressive, anti-Semitic states on Earth, is hardly a surprise. It is the culmination of the Western left’s dark, cultural turn. Of the degeneration of its anti-imperialism into an all-encompassing anti-Westernism.

Writing in Le Nouvel Observateur in 1978, an Iranian feminist took issue with the Western left’s embrace of the Islamo-leftism then insurgent in Iran. She wrote that while Islam may appear as desirable to someone like Foucault, ‘many Iranians are like me, distressed and desperate about the thought of an “Islamic” government. We know what it is. Everywhere outside Iran, Islam serves as a cover for a feudal or pseudo-revolutionary oppression…’. She concluded that, ‘the left should not let itself be seduced by a cure that is perhaps worse than the disease’.

Too few Western leftists heeded her warning then. That they continue to be seduced by the ‘cure’ to Western-sickness, despite the reality of the Islamic Republic, is a sign of the left’s intellectual and moral collapse. Its descent into a form of radical reaction that the Ayatollah Khomeini himself would be proud of.