Tag: israel

The Iran Fiasco’s Silver Lining: Trump, Bibi, and the Neocons Got Their Clocks Cleaned

If you don’t think the Donald inhabits an alternative universe – just set your mandibles loose to chomp on his most recent missive. According to history’s most gifted practitioner of the Art of the Deal, only one thing really counts with respect to his Paperless Invite for Iran to join yet another round of negotiations: Namely, making good on their pledge to “never, ever” get a nuke, which they never, ever, ever actually had or had even pursued:

Trump: “This agreement is about one thing — that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never ever ever. The rest of it is irrelevant, frankly.”

And just in case anyone missed the point, he further insisted that the real bad stuff that supposedly provoked the US/Israel attack in the first place – the 420 kilograms of 60% HEUs – and which the Donald had been on the verge sending in ground troops and Caterpillar earth-movers to retrieve, doesn’t matter so much any more, either!

Trump is backing away from getting Iran’s enriched material: “You could make the case, why even bother? It’s not very valuable stuff.”

That’s right. It is plain as day that the Donald is laying the ground work for a final “deal” with Iran that contains nothing more than a notional “No Nukes” pledge, gussied up by some variation of JCPOA Light.

That is, an agreement about:

  • the length in months and years of a moratorium on Iran’s fuel grade (3.67%) enrichment operations in support of its civilian nuclear power plant.
  • the scale of these civilian enrichment operations in terms of facilities and numbers and types of permitted centrifuges once they restart.
  • the intrusiveness of a renewed IAEA inspection regime.
  • the “snap-back” mechanisms designed to keep the mullahs on the straight and narrow of the overall Peace Plan.

Needless to say, the Obama folks will be proven to have done a far better job the first time around during their arduous negotiations of 2013-2015 than whatever cockamamie version emerges from a final deal that the Donald must and will sign in the shadows of the upcoming November Congressional elections.

Keep reading

When the Iran War Is Over: The West Bank May Be Netanyahu’s Next Front

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing perhaps the most precarious moment of his political career. He knows it. His allies know it. And his rivals – both within his coalition and across Israel’s political spectrum – are preparing to capitalize on his growing weakness.

Former Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who also served as deputy prime minister between 2007 and 2009, is among the latest Israeli political figures to join a growing chorus of criticism directed at Netanyahu.

“In the final result,” Ramon said in an interview with Radio Galey, cited by the Israeli outlet Srugim, “we did not win.” He then broke down that failure in blunt terms: “We did not win in Lebanon, we did not win in Iran, and we did not win against Hamas.”

Another prominent critic is former Israeli army chief Gadi Eisenkot, who joined Netanyahu’s emergency war government following the events of October 7, 2023, before resigning with Benny Gantz in June 2024.

Beyond accusing Netanyahu of failing to protect Israel on October 7, Eisenkot argues that the prime minister has effectively surrendered Israel’s political decision-making to US President Donald Trump, thereby strategically weakening Israel.

Ironically, Netanyahu’s coalition partners have often been even more opportunistic than the opposition.

Since the formation of the current coalition government on December 29, 2022 – widely regarded as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history – figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have repeatedly used Netanyahu’s political vulnerability to expand their own influence. Whenever Netanyahu needed political support to remain in power, they demanded concessions in return.

For Israel’s far-right extremists, Netanyahu’s inability to secure decisive strategic victories has often translated into opportunities to advance their own agendas. Every setback on the battlefield became an opening for greater settlement expansion, harsher measures against Palestinians, and deeper entrenchment of extremist policies.

Unable to deliver ‘victory’, Netanyahu turned perpetual war into a political strategy in its own right. The result has been a genocidal war in Gaza, widespread devastation in Lebanon, and a dangerous confrontation with Iran that has repeatedly brought the region to the brink of a wider catastrophe.

For a time, this formula proved politically sustainable. Netanyahu successfully enlisted unwavering US support to keep the fires of war burning. At the same time, the failure of Europe and much of the international community to hold a wanted war criminal accountable provided him with the political space necessary to continue his bloody calculations.

Yet that formula may be nearing its limits. While this possibility may appear encouraging, it comes with a serious warning. If Netanyahu can no longer sustain the wars that have prolonged his political life for nearly three years, he may escalate where resistance is weakest: the occupied West Bank.

Regarding Iran, there is growing recognition that the current confrontation is unsustainable indefinitely and that some form of arrangement will eventually emerge. Likewise, regardless of whether Lebanon is formally included in any future agreement, Israel’s ambition of permanently occupying parts of Lebanese territory remains untenable.

Historically, when Israel fails to secure a strategic breakthrough on one front, it seeks compensation on another – typically where Palestinians are most vulnerable and where international scrutiny is weakest.

As Israeli elections approach, it is therefore reasonable to fear a further escalation of the genocide in Gaza, pushing both the death toll and the level of destruction to new heights. According to Gaza health authorities, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was announced in October, bringing the overall death toll of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to 73,000 Palestinians.

Though Israel’s war has already failed to break Palestinian steadfastness, the broader objective remains unchanged: the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the transformation of the Strip into a space that can no longer sustain Palestinian life.

The West Bank, however, presents a different challenge.

Keep reading

Gaza’s “Board of Peace” holds zero dollars despite billions pledged

In a stark revelation that underscores the paralysis of international reconstruction efforts, the World Bank-administered fund established for President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Gaza officially contains zero dollars. This finding comes despite approximately $17 billion in pledges from various nations, raising serious questions about the viability of the administration’s signature post-conflict initiative.

The board, personally chaired by Trump, was conceived to oversee the rebuilding of the devastated Palestinian enclave, but it remains a financial shell, stalled by legal uncertainty and disputes over transparency.

The empty vault: Where did the pledges go?

The core issue is a fundamental disconnect between promises and disbursement. A senior congressional aide confirmed that none of the pledged money has reached the Board of Peace. The Department of State has indicated there is no intention to route those funds through the board’s official channels. Instead of using the transparent, World Bank-administered account, the board has reportedly directed some donations into a private account at JPMorgan Chase.

This arrangement bypasses independent oversight and standard aid protocols, leaving donors and the public with limited visibility into how any funds are spent.

A king’s court or a UN-like agency?

The board’s unconventional structure has also drawn sharp criticism. Unlike traditional multilateral bodies, the Board of Peace is personally led by Trump, who retains final authority indefinitely. The charter requires countries to pay a one-billion-dollar fee for a permanent seat, a price tag that has deterred major European allies. Sen. Brian Schatz highlighted the tension between the State Department’s portrayal of the board as a standard UN-like agency and Trump’s characterization of it as a “king’s court.” Key powers like France and Britain have refused to pay the entry fee, leaving the board’s membership thin and its financial base weak.

No contracts, no construction: A stalled operation

The board has awarded no contracts for actual reconstruction projects, as it is not yet operating inside Gaza. The primary obstacle is Hamas’ refusal to disarm. Trump has linked all reconstruction aid to full demilitarization, creating a classic deadlock: the board cannot operate in Gaza without security, but security cannot be achieved without reconstruction funding. The Palestinian technocratic committee, formed to assume governance, remains unable to execute any work due to a total lack of funding. Even modest sums from Morocco and the UAE have been used primarily for staff salaries, not infrastructure.

Keep reading

The $300 Billion Mirage: How the U.S.-Iran Deal is destined to fail because Israel won’t stop the bloodshed in Lebanon

Vice President JD Vance told CBS News that Iran “could have access” to a $300 billion reconstruction fund, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, provided they “honor their end of the obligation.” Trump immediately denounced reports of a $300 billion payment as “Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats,” writing on Truth Social that “Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon!”

This contradiction between the administration’s messaging and the reality of the deal raises serious concerns. The fund, as described by Vance, would be a massive financial injection into an Iranian economy that has been crippled by sanctions, a move that critics argue could free up resources for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump insists the deal is about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but the timing is suspicious. Commercial oil inventories are already 7 million barrels below the early 2022 trough and declining at a weekly rate of 11 million barrels, according to Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh.

With the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve releases structured as loans rather than supply additions, the Trump Administration’s energy policies have left the country vulnerable. Now Trump appears to be negotiating from a position of weakness, offering financial lifelines to a regime that has repeatedly violated international agreements.

Israel’s rejection: The most dangerous wildcard

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked his political future on his relationship with Trump, but that relationship is now a liability. The U.S.-Iran deal leaves the Islamic Republic intact, an unpalatable prospect for Israelis across the political spectrum. Netanyahu, facing an election this fall, must contend with an agreement that effectively legitimizes Iran’s regional influence.

Israeli officials have already declared that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” and troops will remain in southern Lebanon despite Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi demanding a full Israeli withdrawal as part of the deal. The situation is dangerously volatile: Iran has linked the deal’s survival to Israeli compliance, while Israel has made clear it will pursue its own security interests.

If Netanyahu feels cornered politically, a preemptive strike against Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities could trigger the exact scenario the deal is supposed to prevent. Iran has shore batteries on the islands of Hormuz and Abu Musa, missile launchers in Bandar Abbas and Jask, and the capability to block the strait within hours. The Houthis have already demonstrated in the Red Sea how easily a determined adversary can disrupt global shipping with relatively primitive weapons. Iran’s arsenal is far more sophisticated, including seaborne drones and missiles that could sink any ship attempting to navigate through. History shows that these people refuse to capitulate to one another, and years of resentment and distrust and the war in 2026 have only renewed the hatred toward one another. The U.S. Iran Deal seeks a  buyout to keep the peace, but the deal will be temporary like all the others that followed it.

Keep reading

Israel And Hezbollah Trade Fire In Southern Lebanon, Deaths On Both Sides, Israeli Media Goes After Trump, Vance Cancels Swiss Iranian Negotiation Trip As Violence Rages, Iran Says Deal In Jeopardy

Hezbollah fired missiles into Northern Israel yesterday, which were intercepted by Israeli missile systems. Israeli leadership responded angrily to the U.S.-Iran peace deal as the IDF continued operations in Southern Lebanon. Multiple Israeli soldiers were killed south of Beirut as Israeli forces continue to consolidate positions and go after Shia proxy army targets in the south. The IDF continues to be challenged by FPV drones, which are effective against armor and infantry in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rages on Israeli TV:

“Nobody can tell us what to do, and we’ve proven it. The entire first line of Lebanese villages has been destroyed.  We are destroying all the houses. The residents will never see them standing before their eyes again.

“In Lebanon, the 200,000 residents who lived in the “security zone” are not returning.  Not one of them is returning.

“We are fighting there. We do not need al-Julani. Al-Julani, the terrorist in a suit, does not need to come and help us. We know Syria well. He is not going to help us in Lebanon. He should stay in Syria, not interfere with us, and not make us interfere with him.

“Do you know what really hurts the jihadists? Maybe it hurts them when you kill them personally, but they don’t care as much about that.  What really hurts them is when you take territory from them and destroy their homes—and that’s what we did.

“You remember the raids? They would go in and come out.  We go in, destroy, and do not leave. That’s what we’re doing now in Lebanon

“The IDF must be on the other side of the border, beyond the border, defending the State of Israel against jihadist organizations in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Gaza. We will not move from the “security zones”—not in Syria, not in Gaza, and not in Lebanon.

“Why are we on the other side in Syria?  Because we need to be there to protect ourselves against what we see in Syria.

“We are already in more than 60% of Gaza, and all of it is destroyed. It is destroyed above ground and underground. That is the difference in the approach we introduced.”

Keep reading

Israeli Desperation Leading to Enormous Sums for Lobbying, Media Manipulation

Things aren’t going so well these days for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. While his partner President Trump is working actively to end the war with Iran by inking a memorandum of understanding to halt the fighting, American public opinion of Israel continues to plummet. That is no surprise — Israel’s war on Gaza has now killed over 73,000 Palestinians (at least), the Gaza Strip is largely rubble, and Israel has moved to do the same in south Lebanon.

Netanyahu blames the loss of support on TikTok and social media writ large (not his government’s own policies) and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue media management and pro-Israel advocacy in the U.S. On a parallel track, Israel is seeking unprecedented integration with the U.S. military and its intelligence agencies — which would mean co-production on weapons, technology and sharing of sensitive intel. Experts say this is why Israel has been insisting it doesn’t “need” the 10-year agreement that provides Israel $3.8 billion annually in military aid. This would shift that aid to the places that don’t require the same oversight and overt American buy-in.

My colleagues Ben Freeman and Nick Cleveland-Stout, who form up the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, have been digging away at these Israel efforts on myriad fronts. Ben has been writing about the integration legislation on both the military and intel sides, now making their way through Congress. Nick has been sifting through Foreign Agent Registration Act and other public efforts to expose the millions that have been going to former Trump campaign guy Brad Parscale to push pro-Israel messaging through conservative media platforms, text campaigns, manipulating ChatGPT, and more.

Both talk to me this week about how all of these efforts have ramped up as Israel is more keenly aware that it has lost the thread with the American people and that powerful lobbying forces like AIPAC are not enough.

Keep reading

The US-Israel Wars on Iran: Follow the Money

Like most of America’s wars in West Asia, the current joint U.S.-Israel attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran is about securing control over the region’s energy resources and preserving oil currency policies; practices that have fueled its expansive economy since the end of the Second World War.

Ultimately, this conflict, which has sent shockwaves through the global economy, boils down to who will reign in West Asia, control the world’s energy lifeline, and dictate the rules of global finance.

Beneath the veneer of geopolitical diplomacy and rhetoric about global order, the true catalyst for U.S. wars in the Persian Gulf – from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the current Iran war – has always been monetary supremacy, “money.” They have been rooted in oil revenue, debt leverage, and the staggering economic stakes of global energy and currency dominance.

Washington’s hardline stance, economic strangulation and military interventions  have been designed to enforce compliance. Countries, like Iran, that resist U.S. hegemony face severe financial and military pressures, because their defiance challenges America’s regional security architecture and unipolar dominance over the global financial system.

Since the 1970s, the “petrodollar system” has been the invisible engine of American prosperity and power.  However, the economic scaffolding that has buoyed its global hegemony is fraying, as geopolitical shifts and de-dollarization trends gradually erode the U.S. dollar’s absolute grip on global energy markets.

To make sense of how we reached this point, it is important to consider how the U.S. dollar achieved its global dominance and shaped our current economic reality.

In June 1974, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark economic and military cooperation agreement, establishing what has come to be known as the “petrodollar system.”

This consequential bargain was born in an era of political and economic uncertainty – inflation, Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. With the U.S. economy in a nosedive, then-President Richard Nixon, anxious to maintain the global demand for dollars, persuaded the Saudi government to finance America’s debt with its petroleum wealth.  He convinced them to price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars and to invest their surplus oil profits in U.S. Treasury bonds.  In exchange, Washington agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons and protection.  By 1975, all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were pricing their oil in dollars.

The Saudi policy of pricing crude exclusively in U.S. dollars compelled all purchasing nations to convert their native currencies before making purchases.  Increased international demand for the dollar made it the world’s singular reserve currency and preferred medium of exchange.  To meet the increased need, Washington simply fired up the printing presses.

Over the years, Washington’s staunch support of the repressive Saudi regime has been driven by a strategic imperative: to ensure that its client state remains committed to the 1974 bargain.

This favorable pricing and trading arrangement has allowed Washington to entail massive deficits, to borrow and spend with abandon without triggering financial collapse. It has financed America’s numerous military adventures and provided the tools to wield economic sanctions and enforce its foreign policy.

Although a web of motives have fueled Washington’s interventions in West Asia, punishing currency dissenters was prominent in its past wars in Iraq and Libya.

Keep reading

Israeli foreign agent took over The Charlie Kirk Show days after his killing

The Charlie Kirk Show is now distributed by a federally registered agent of Israel tasked with seeding American media with Zionist propaganda. It is part of a whopping $46 million dollar annual contract between the Israeli government and Brad Parscale, the former chief of staff for Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign. This may be the largest lobbying contract in the history of foreign influence operations in the US.

On September 10, 2025, Kirk was assassinated during the first stop on his American Comeback Tour at Utah Valley State University. Eight days later, Parscale registered as a foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assuming responsibility for a propaganda blitz “tailored to Gen Z audiences across platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, podcasts, and other relevant digital and broadcast outlets.”

The deal meant that the Charlie Kirk Show, which had been distributed by the Salem Media Network since 2020, was placed under the control of a foreign agent for Israel, with Parscale assuming a role as Salem’s Chief Strategy Officer. According to the terms of the contract, Parscale’s Clock Tower would “integrate its pro-Israel messaging into Salem Media Network properties.”

According to a December 2025 report by Radio Ink, The Charlie Kirk Show “will continue as a podcast on the Salem Podcast Network, as Salem Media ‘will maintain its close professional and personal relationship with Turning Point USA.’”

“Salem has been so gracious through this process and even encouraged us to continue broadcasting the show on the Salem Radio Network,” said Andrew Kolvet, the TPUSA spokesman and host of The Charlie Kirk Show.

Since Kirk’s killing, his successors have done their best to bury his vehement opposition to war on Iran, as well as his public fits of disgust with Netanyahu and his army of lobbyists in the US. Kirk’s widow and replacement as TPUSA CEO, Erika Kirk, now insists that she and her husband never wavered in their support for Israel. She has also been unwilling to state what her late husband would have thought about the war the US and Israel waged on Iran this year.

“My husband isn’t here to say whether or not we should be at war with Iran,” Erika Kirk said in response to a question at a May 2026 TPUSA event. “I would love for him to be here right now and tell us if we should or should not.”

Keep reading

Sanders Says ‘We Must’ Strip Section on US-Israeli Military Integration From Pentagon Budget

US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to strike a highly controversial provision from next year’s military spending authorization bill that is aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli armed forces under the guise of reducing aid.

A provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 originally titled Section 224 but now renumbered Section 219 would establish a formal “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” requiring the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology collaboration.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – has called the section his personal plan.

“Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing? Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. “We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget.”

Earlier this month, members of the House Armed Services Committee from both parties rejected an amendment introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove the integration provision from the 2027 NDAA. The committee then advanced the broader defense package. The Senate Armed Services Committee subsequently voted to advance the proposed NDAA.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) – an anti-interventionist libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump – said Sunday that he and Khanna have submitted an amendment to strip Section 219 from the proposed NDAA. Massie’s measure requires the assent of seven of the House Rules Committee’s 13 members to get a vote.

Keep reading

UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism

In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.

The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”

Keep reading