Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: analysis

Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 09, 2025

The Growing Voice of the Moderate Arab World Against Hamas (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

In 2011, during an interview, Bernard Lewis discussed the beginnings of a phenomenon that later blossomed into the Abraham Accords. In response to a question from Dan Diker about the threat of Iran, Professor Lewis responded that Iran's hostility to Israel was a very negative factor, but also a positive factor:

An increasing number of people in the Arab world are coming to the conclusion that their main danger, the main threat to their world is not Israel, but Iran. And that Israel might even be a useful ally in confronting the Iranian danger. I heard this view expressed by people in Egypt and other Arab countries, and that's an encouraging sign. You still have a very limited response, but the fact that it exists at all is quite remarkable...there are more and more people who in private conversation will tell you that they are beginning to see Israel as a positive element in the region, as an example of a smoothly functioning democracy.

Bernard Lewis was proven right when the UAE and Bahrain signed onto the Accords in 2020, followed by Sudan and Morocco. These Arab countries gain strengthened economic ties, enhanced security cooperation, and improved diplomatic relations with Israel and the US. In addition to improved relations with several Arab nations, increased trade, tourism, and diplomatic ties, Israel benefits from enhanced security cooperation and reduced regional tensions.

And then came October 7th, which was intended, in part, to derail the Abraham Accords.

October 7th has been described as the fuse that ignited events leading all the way to the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. But that day may arguably be what raised moderate Arab support for Israel up a notch.

Just one day after the Hamas massacre on October 7th, Haaretz reported, Support for Israel in Arab World No Longer Taboo. The article's subtitle suggested that the attack inspired the beginning of Arab blowback against Hamas in a way that we had not seen before:

Up until Hamas’ surprise invasion, social media in Arab countries justified what they deemed necessary in the fight for Palestinian rights. Dissenting voices are starting to ask what that fight should look like.

Haaretz quotes Arab journalist Jasem Aljuraid. Just a few hours after the attack, he posted on X:

“I am a Kuwaiti and I stand by Israel. Any Kuwaiti who forgets the treachery of the Palestinian leadership is ignorant. My solidarity is with the Palestinian and the Israeli people. We want to uproot Hamas and the PLO.”

Aljuraid continued: “These people have lost the ability to manage the interests of the Palestinians. Poverty is rife there, and their leaders have assets valued in the billions.”

He added

To some degree, the Abraham Accords and the improved Israel-Arab relations have helped pro-Israel advocates in the Arab World make their views heard. Bahraini social activist Shaheen Aljenaid appeared on X on the day of the attack and condemned Hamas in no uncertain terms:

Haaretz also quotes Saudi influencer Amjad Taha, an expert in diplomatic strategy with almost half a million followers. He tweeted in Hebrew: “In the Arab, Muslim, and free world, we support Israel and condemn the Palestinian terror attacks. As you can see in today’s videos, it is a struggle between a civilized nation and barbaric militias.”

Taha addressed Israel directly:

Be strong and respond forcefully. The world has changed, only terrorists stand with these militias. Normalization talks will continue, and other countries will join. These barbarians who are trying to stop it will not succeed.

This response from Arab moderates continued. A year later, in October 2024, MEMRI posted on their website: Arab Media Figures Slam Hamas: It Is The Real Enemy Of The Gazans

Against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Gaza, liberal Arab journalists and media figures have intensified their criticism of Hamas and its leadership on social media. In numerous posts on their personal accounts, they argued that Hamas is a terrorist organization that serves the interests of Iran while taking Gaza back to the Stone Age and bringing a catastrophe and a second Nakba upon the Palestinian people. The writers directed sharp criticism at the movement's leaders, who live in luxury hotels outside Gaza while showing indifference to the suffering of the Gazans and using them as human shields for Hamas' operatives. The writers also expressed outrage at the execution of Israeli hostages in Hamas tunnels and called on Hamas to agree to a prisoner exchange deal in order to end the war. Some of them also called on Arab countries to act against Hamas to put an end to the destruction and the tragedy in Gaza.

Among those quoted are Saudi influencer Abdullah Al‑Tawilaʽi and Palestinian journalist Ayman Khaled.

Even Qatar's Al Jazeera took notice of the condemnation of Hamas coming from the Arab Gulf states, though they made sure to quote Arab condemnations of Israel as well, reporting The Arab position on the aggression on the Gaza Strip... a new low:

[T]he UAE did not hide its anger at Hamas's behavior. Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy declared to the Security Council on November 24, 2023, in language completely uncommon in Arab literature, that Hamas's attacks on October 7 were "barbaric and heinous." She demanded the immediate release of the "hostages," and described Hamas' actions as "crimes." [translation by Google Translate]

Al Jazeera quotes American diplomat and author Dennis Ross as having spoken with Arab leaders after October 7. Those Arab leaders told him that Hamas in Gaza needed to be destroyed, and warned that if Hamas appeared victorious, it would legitimize their radical ideology.

In the context of the growing condemnations of Hamas in the media, the Haaretz article concludes on a hopeful note:

The condemnations heard in the Arab world suggest that the taboo around the nature of the Palestinian struggle has been cracked. From now on, Arab countries may take part in setting new rules for the conflict, according to which not all forms of resistance are permitted and desired.

This was on October 8, 2023.

Last week, the podcast Our Middle East touched on the issue of Arab media reporting on the growing anger in Gaza against Hamas and whether the Arab media itself was sufficiently vocal in calling for regime change in Gaza. The host of the podcast, Dan Diker, asked Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh for his thoughts. Abu Toameh replied:

I do hear many voices, Dan, on social media, on Arab TV networks, that do call for regime change, that are critical of Hamas, but I agree with you. They are not loud enough, they are not wide enough. These are limited voices here and there. And I think the reason is because many Arabs are afraid of being portrayed as being Zionists on the payroll of the Jewish Lobby, or Zionist Arabs, or of being--you know--anti-Palestinian. And you know, where most of the criticism comes from; it comes from Westerners.

If an Arab criticizes Hamas, you have all these Western people criticizing this Arab, calling him a Zionist, a traitor, a collaborator with Israel. I mean, that's the irony--that the attacks come from Westerners, people at university campuses in the US, in Canada, even in Australia. And we haven't even talked about the voices from Europe.

So there are voices. They're not enough, they're not being amplified, and I think this is the role that people like us should play, by bringing this to the attention of the Arab world, of other people. But I do hear these voices that are demanding regime change in Gaza.

Israel's success against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran may have helped to re-energize the moderates in the Arab world against Hamas. Having the outspoken Donald Trump as the president of the US certainly has not hurt either. That makes the next few weeks and the focus on a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas all the more crucial in giving that voice of the Arab world a needed push.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Bannon’s Israel Blind Spot: The Alliance He Misunderstands (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Among the right-wing republican isolationists weighing in about the Israel-Iran war is Steve Bannon, a former member of Trump's inner circle. Last week, Bannon chimed in on X to inform his followers that Israel was a protectorate--and not a very essential one at that:

BANNON: I’m pretty good at knowing where the puck’s going, and it’s going here—there’s going to be a major reset. It’s going to happen bc the American ppl demand it. Israel is not an ally. They’re a protectorate. They haven’t been involved in any alliance. When Soleimani was… pic.twitter.com/dkcKaf9mgP
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) June 26, 2025

Elder of Ziyon points out that Bannon is wide of the mark: of all the things for Bannon to hang his claim of Israel being a protectorate, he rests his case on Israel not helping the US in the assassination of Soleimani.

Bannon is wrong.

Associated Press quotes NBC News about how Israel helped the US pinpoint Soleimani's location. It also refers to Yahoo News, which reports specifically that Israel supplied the US with his cellphone numbers, so they could track him down.

This is not the only detail Bannon gets wrong. Near the beginning of the war, Bannon hosted Yoram Hazony, president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem and author of The Virtue of Nationalism and The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul, and other books. Bannon tells Hazony that Netanyahu caused Trump to detour from his stated goal to rely on negotiations with Iran:

The course he [Trump] wanted was a negotiated deal as he just said, right there, 'I'm talking to these guys. I'm on the phone. I want to negotiate a deal.' Why suddenly we have to go with where we have 12 or 13 months [till Iran goes nuclear]?

We can give Bannon the benefit of the doubt that he had not yet realized that Trump's public pushing for negotiations was a ruse. But Hazony reminds him that Trump did not limit himself to endless diplomacy.

You and I both remember President Trump in his first speech, laying out this policy. He was already saying it last December, and January, and February, when he came into the administration. President Trump, as far as I'm aware, has not budged an inch, not an inch. He must have said this a hundred times. His policy was Iran cannot get a nuclear bomb.

If we can get it by negotiation, that's what we're going to do, and if we can't get it by negotiation, then we're going to have to do it some other way. We've all heard him say this over and over and over again.

Bannon does not push the issue. Instead, he tries a different tack, hammering away on why Israel had to attack Iran so soon, on Thursday-Friday. He claims that Netanyahu pushed for the attack on Iran for the most crass political motives, and in the process destabilized the region and brought the United States into the mess.

We back Israel more than anybody. And the question still is, why did it have to go Thursday and Friday night?

And now we know it's regime change. The problem the Maga right has with this, it looks like a crass, political move by Bibi Netanyahu, who is vastly unpopular in Israel. I think his popularity is 30%.

Hazony corrects Bannon's mistake immediately:

So let's take this example that Tucker brought up, the supposed 30% popularity rating of Bibi Netanyahu. So I heard that this evening and I went and I checked it and the most recent polls put Bibi Netanyahu at 54 percent, 30 points ahead of Naftali Bennett, who is the number 2 contender for the prime ministership, a 30 point spread. By the way, if you go back a month or 2 and take a look at the same poll before the war, you'll see that it was almost exactly the same.

There's been nobody anywhere near Bibi Netanyahu in terms of popularity as far as appropriateness, to be the Prime Minister of the state of Israel for years.

This could be the poll Hazony is referring to, right after the war started:

Here is their last poll taken before the war:

Hazony continues his point. The issue is more than just election statistics:

So look, we have to get back to the point where all of us natcon, nationalist conservative people, we have different views on different things, but we've got to get back to the point where we're having a reasonable conversation where the information that we're using is information that's based on facts. That's unfortunately, not what's happening.

In response to Bannon's follow-up question as to why Haaretz is a "suboptimal" news source, Hazony responds with a brief history:

Ha'aretz represents the leftmost 5% of the Jewish population in the state of Israel. It's a newspaper with a very small circulation that has a great deal of prestige because it's read by our lefty elite classes. But look into it. Not only is Ha'aretz historically the newspaper that opposed the establishment of the state of Israel, but the Shocken family that founded it was anti-Zionist; they were against the establishment of the state of Israel. It is a newspaper that, over the years, has fought tooth and nail for what we in Israel call Post-Zionism, for the elimination of the Jewish character of the state, for the elimination of the right of return to Jews to the state of Israel, and on political issues.

This raises a "chicken or the egg" question: does the far right attack Israel because they read Haaretz, or do they read Haaretz to get their ammunition to attack Israel? Either way, Bannon's grasp of Israel is flawed.

His claim that Israel is not an ally of the United States, but is at best a protectorate, is also flawed. In a recent podcast, Ask Haviv Anything, Haviv Rettig Gur--political correspondent and senior analyst for The Times of Israel--examines the US-Israel relationship, and how it serves as an example to other countries, and as the implementation of a new US policy.

In A New Dawn In The Middle East, Gur spells out the special nature of that alliance:

What you just saw last night was the latest iteration of how the US-Israel relationship actually works. It isn't Israeli dependence on America, it is the opposite. It's Israeli independence and using that Israeli independence, I want to argue America essentially invented a new security architecture for the world, and it's the old architecture it has always had with Israel. Israel is a very different ally from Japan or Germany, or the Philippines or Taiwan or many, many other countries--South Korea,you name it--that depend on the United States.

Israel does not depend on the United States and israel's enemies need it to be dependent on the United States and constantly argue that it's dependent on the United States and mostly they argue that because of their own egos, because Israel has yet to be destroyed.

The claim that Israel is a protectorate, dependent on the US, is tied to the ideology of Arabs, Muslims, college students, and progressives who label Israel a colonial entity that must disappear. It is a claim that fails to see what is happening. In his post on X, Bannon claims "there’s going to be a major reset," and he is right--but it is very different from what he has in mind. It recognizes the strength and independence of Israel:

This is foundational to Trump's brand of isolationism. The United States can still secure the world, protect the world, and police the world without having to secure, protect, and police it.

And the basic idea is the ally does the heavy lifting. The local ally and the United States comes in to deliver the coup de grâce. That's exactly America's value-added, without all the massive cost to the American people, the American economy, American blood and treasure. And the Israelis have just demonstrated what that relationship could be and Trump was convinced by the Israelis. Not by Israeli begging, not by Israeli dependents, but by Israeli independence.

This strategic strength of Israel is what convinced Trump to send in the B-2s. Israel was not a distraction from Trump's isolationist policy--it spearheaded it:

The Israeli willingness to go it alone, the Israeli willingness to deliver massive strategic successes--that's what brought Trump in. If the Israelis had hobbled along and tried to strike, but hundreds of missiles had hit the Israeli civilian front and Israel had failed to take out launchers, failed to strike a great many of the nuclear sites, failed to decapitate half of the regime's leadership, Trump would not have joined. Trump would have pressured Israel to stop.

This posture by the Israelis, this willingness to go it alone, to do things that don't fit the calculations of others is what first created the American strategic support for Israel.

This paradigm of the special US-Israeli relationship is a model to other countries and can usher in a "reset" far beyond what Bannon thinks he sees.

If I were Taiwan today, I would double and triple down in the Taiwanese capability to face down China. You want America behind you? Make sure it isn't too much American blood on the line, when the war comes. Ditto, Japan. Ditto South Korea. The way you hold America is, by being able to defend yourself. America will come in and deliver its grand strategic element that it can add to your strategy, because it has that scale, because it has that technology. America doesn't put boots on the ground anymore, and America is not going to bleed for anybody. And I don't blame it.

Trump may be on the verge of expanding the Abraham Accords, but there is more here. It is an isolationist policy that does not leave the door open to China, Russia--or even Iran to do as they please. And it does not abandon allies either. But it will require those allies to stand up for themselves, to show some independence. Like Israel.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

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

By Daled Amos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israelis are not happy.

Based on these numbers:

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

This is far from a ringing endorsement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Iran Tries To Save Face In Trump's Ceasefire (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Israel's attack on Iran caught everyone by surprise.
Later, the US bombing of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan caught people by surprise, too.

So maybe it makes sense that Trump's announcement of a ceasefire was also a surprise:

After the podcasts started to sink their teeth into the implications of Operation Midnight Hammer, delving into questions such as the future of Iran's nuclear program, the stability of the region, and whether Israel had an exit ramp--Trump was again one step ahead, and announced a timetable for the end of hostilities by both sides.

Of course, in the Middle East, ceasefires are not easy to come by. Just look at Gaza. And there is the underlying suspicion that a ceasefire is just a hudna--an opportunity to rest, rearm, and resume hostilities at a more fortuitous moment.

But has Iran even agreed to a ceasefire?

It's not as if Iran was in a rush to admit to the implied weakness of agreeing.

Back in 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini referred to the decision to agree to a ceasefire to end the 8-year-long Iran-Iraq War as "a chalice of poison." Ayatollah Khamenei cannot be feeling any better agreeing to a ceasefire ending a war that lasted 12 days.

That explains some of the face-saving claims on social media.

Monday night, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, denied there was any ceasefire:

But that didn't stop him from posting just 15 minutes later:

That was quite a turnaround.

MEMRI shared something similar with a video of Iranian General Ebrahim Jabbari, advisor to the IRGC Chief. On Iran State TV. He proclaimed the need to "chop off Trump's hand...slit Netanyahu's throat...annihilate Israel."

But Jabbari went much further than that, led by the woman interviewing him. She refers to what she claims are the over 1,000 casualties suffered in Israel:

Not to be outdone, the general goes on to brag that every single Iranian missile penetrates Israel's defenses:

The interviewer is not finished. She goes on to claim that the whole world supports Iran:

She then goes on to claim unanimous world support not only for Iran to have a nuclear program, but also for Iran to have a nuclear bomb:

Watch the whole video on MEMRI.

Iran is going into propaganda overdrive to save face as it agrees to Trump's ceasefire, similar to the missiles it fired at the US army base in Qatar--after giving advance warning.

We are only at the very beginning stages of this ceasefire, but considering the numerous benefits not only to Israel but to the region as a whole, Iran's neighbors can afford to be generous and allow its face-saving measures. Once the agreement takes hold, the focus can turn to Hamas and its hostages.

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)

Israel and its Arab Gulf Allies Are Still On The Same Page (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The New York Times is at it again.

If the paper is to be believed, Israel Further Alienates Would-Be Arab Allies in Attacking Iran. In other words, by attacking the world's primary supporter of international terrorism, Israel has isolated itself from supportive Arab Gulf states even more. The article claims to have uncovered a reversal in the progress in the dynamic between Israel and the Arab Gulf states:

Gulf governments that were once warming to Israel — seen as a potential ally in their battle to contain Iran — have decided that courting Iran with diplomacy is more pragmatic.

And of course, this is true to an extent--from the beginning. Courting Iran with diplomacy is the pragmatic course for the Gulf states to take, and it is not surprising that the Saudis, for example, would hedge their bets. Consider when Biden publicly called Saudi Arabia a pariah during the Democratic presidential debates :

I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them. We were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are. There's very little social redeeming value of in the present government in Saudi Arabia, and I would also as pointed out I would end the subsidies that we have and the sale of material to the Saudis, where they're going in and murdering children. And they're murdering innocent people, and so they have to be held accountable.

That kind of talk did not endear the US to the Saudis. That comment, along with the Biden administration's clear disinterest in the Abraham Accords, added to the distance between the Biden Administration and Saudi Arabia. The Washington Free Beacon reported in June 2021 that the Biden State Department discouraged referring to the agreement by name, and when asked in May 2021, Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters:

We are not following the tactics of the prior administration. Aside from putting together a peace proposal that was dead on arrival, we don’t think [the previous administration] did anything constructive to really bring an end to the longstanding conflict in the Middle East.

It was not surprising when, in March 2023 (months before October 7th), the Saudis, Iran, and China announced an agreement to resume diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Carnegie Endowment explained:

For Saudi Arabia, the China-brokered deal is a pragmatic security choice that goes beyond hedging and balancing against Washington.

The European Council on Foreign Relations published a piece on their website in September 2024 about Iran's Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE), which was intended to serve as an alternative to the Abraham Accords. Saudi participation signaled its lack of confidence in the Biden administration:

The Iranian HOPE initiative was never seen as credible in Riyadh. The kingdom was also unprepared to accept the initiative’s ultimate aim of accelerating the US retrenchment from the region, which would further solidify Iran’s military influence in the Gulf. At the same time, the fragility of US security guarantees, as well as the risk of an Iranian backlash, left Riyadh hesitant to fully embrace the Abraham Accords.

The point is that the Gulf hedging strategy and openness to maintaining "friendly" relations with Iran today are not some new policy in response to Israel defending itself from the Iranian threat. It is part of a cautious approach in that area of the region.

When it pursues its point using the UAE as an example of a growing distance between it and Israel, the article is no more believable:

Yet despite the Emirati government’s deep distrust of Iran, to many in the country there is only one party to blame for the escalating violence: Israel, which launched a devastating attack on Iran last week, igniting the fiercest conflagration in the history of the Israeli-Iranian conflict.

After the New York Times makes this simplistic claim, it then undercuts itself just two paragraphs later with the acknowledgement that "depending on how the war ends, some Gulf countries may gradually put partnership with Israel back on the table."

Even with the Saudis' public "strong condemnation and denunciation of the blatant Israeli aggressions against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran," one has to wonder if those public expressions mirror what the Kingdom and the other Gulf states believe privately.

According to Egyptian-American writer Hussein Aboubakr Mansour,

While many of those who understand the evils of the Islamic Republic of Iran have responded with euphoria and talk of a “new Middle East,” prudence demands caution. Enthusiasm obscures deeper complexities, and transformative moments rarely unfold according to our most optimistic visions.

Gulf states are very much caught between a rock and a hard place. [While] they are quietly applauding the further weakening of Iran, they face real risks and have to play their cards carefully.

The New York Times comes close to acknowledging this dilemma and the complexity of the situation the Gulf states find themselves in:

While some in the Gulf are cheering on the bombing of Iran, the events of the past week have reinforced a belief that Israel is a rogue actor operating outside the international system and that Western powers have allowed it to do so.

The remark that "some in the Gulf are cheering on the bombing of Iran" links to a comment by journalist Saleh al-Fahid on X in response to a post by Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the former Emir of Qatar. Al Thani posted:

...We must emphasize here that it is not in the interest of the Gulf states to see their large neighbor, Iran, collapse. Such a development would inevitably lead to a devastating destabilization of our region, with dire consequences for all. To avoid this, the Gulf states must announce a clear and explicit position through their decision-making centers to immediately halt this madness initiated by Israel, the full extent of whose impact on the region has yet to be fully understood...[translated from the Arabic by Google Translate.]

Al Fahid responds

Your Excellency, the former Minister, what you expressed in this tweet reflects Qatar's well-known position on the Iranian regime, but not all Gulf states necessarily agree with you. You cannot claim to know the Gulf's interests better than they do.

Beyond the official positions of Gulf governments, many Gulf citizens believe that Iran is a greater threat to them than Israel, that the overthrow of the mullahs' regime is in the Gulf states' best interests, and that the price of this regime's demise, however painful, harsh, and costly, is far less than the state of attrition that this regime has been practicing against the Gulf states for four decades.

The truth is that some Gulf states view the mullahs' regime as a guarantee for regional balance. Other Gulf states view the mullahs' regime as a long-term existential threat. [translated from the Arabic by Google Translate.]

Pity that the New York Times article did not quote al-Fahid outright--it would have provided the much-needed balance that the article so sorely lacks.

The enmity that The New York Times claims now exists between the Gulf states and Israel is more clearly understood as a more nuanced and complex dynamic. And it is not an issue of rejection of Israel, as the New York Times is so eager to claim.

Mansour suggests that, from Israel's perspective, Iran's defeat will have a mixed result:

...Many pundits responded almost immediately to the Israeli attacks with hopeful predictions of a new era of Arab-Israeli amity. Unfortunately, such predictions are premature. It is much more likely that, despite private admiration and cooperation, public acknowledgment and overt alignment with Israel will remain restrained...

...Of all the Middle East’s leaders, the Gulf monarchs are most likely to put ideology second to practical and achievable goals. Their admiration for Israel, therefore, won’t translate into an enthusiastic embrace born of gratitude or generosity. On the contrary, the removal of the Iranian threat reduces, rather than increases, their incentive to make meaningful concessions to Israel.

Indeed, the Gulf states may quietly reach out to the now weakened Iranian regime. With their archenemy crippled, vulnerable, and desperate, these countries have a rare opportunity to extend a lifeline, albeit conditionally. In exchange for clear, enforceable guarantees that Tehran abandon its aggressive regional ambitions, they might decide that it’s possible to rehabilitate Iran as a subordinate regional actor. This move would enable them to leverage their newfound advantage, enhancing their strategic weight against Israel and the United States, and their standing on the world stage. Such maneuvers, blending quiet collaboration with Israel alongside a cautious and conditional outreach to Iran, reflect a longstanding desire to maintain the regional balance of power, which in this case means making sure that neither Israel nor Iran become dominant.

Whether the Middle East would have been different if Trump had won his second term in 2020 is a moot point. A key component of the Abraham Accords and the improved Israel-Arab relations was based on Israel's military strength vis-a-vis Iran, and not just the economic opportunities it could bring to the table. With the opportunity to cut Iran down to size, the Gulf states will want to maintain stability in the region. Whatever they decide, Israel will be included in the picture.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

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

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The Developing Picture As Israel Preemptively Attacks Iran (Daled Amos)

It is Thursday night, and Israel has attacked Iran.Joe Truzman, FDD senior research analyst, posted on X:

The goal of the operation is to neutralize the nuclear threat from Iran to the degree that such a thing is possible. But in order to accomplish this, more than just the infrastructure is being targeted. Already, Iran has announced the names of various military leaders killed in Israel's initial attack.

Iran had crossed the line from the theoretical to a genuine threat:

Intelligence assessments showed the regime had enriched enough uranium to produce approximately 15 nuclear warheads and was actively conducting tests. The pace, the scope, and the intent had changed. What had once been described in abstract terms—potential, capability, intent—had now become operational reality.

This is only the beginning. There is more to come. But already there are hints--or hopes--for what may be coming.

Israel's goal is not to bring down the Iranian regime and free its people, but some have already expressed that hope.

(read the whole thing)

An Iranian Jew and advocate for the restoration of the Iranian monarchy posted

And there may be some basis to that:

On the other hand, there will be backlash on the streets in support of Iran, just as we saw after the massacre on October 7th.

Already, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has come out condemning Israel:

Israel’s attack on Iran, clearly intended to scuttle the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.

Similarly, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a member of the Armed Services Committee, criticized Israel.

Israel’s alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence. These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians, but the stability of the entire Middle East.

It is only a matter of time before the more radical members of the Democratic Party follow suit and claim that Israel is the one creating tensions in the region.

We will have to wait to see what Trump's response will be and if he will take a position similar to Biden, helping Israel shoot down the rockets Iran will continue to fire in retaliation.

It is too early to say whether Israel has actually accomplished against Iran a strike comparable to what it did against Hezbollah, taking them out of the picture to a large degree, or comparable to Syria, where Israel weakened Assad to the point that he could be overthrown.

In the meantime, not the entire Arab world will be supporting Israel: