Is Popular Regime Change in Iran a Myth? - Nima Gholam Ali Pour

 

by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

The one scenario that is completely unrealistic, and has never happened, is that unarmed Iranian civilians, without any military support, could overthrow a regime that can even bring in militias from Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen to crush an uprising.

 

• A successful popular uprising without external support is not possible in Iran: The mullahs have repeatedly shown that they are willing to kill as many people as necessary to stay in power.

• During the Twelve-Day War, when Iran's regime was forced to confront an armed adversary, the enforcers who usually beat and abuse unarmed Iranians went into hiding. Their commanders went into hiding. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei went into hiding. This is what the beginning of regime change looks like.

• The one scenario that is completely unrealistic, and has never happened, is that unarmed Iranian civilians, without any military support, could overthrow a regime that can even bring in militias from Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen to crush an uprising. When unarmed people confront armed forces, the armed forces win.... There is nothing wrong with overthrowing tyranny with the help of external support, especially when a tyrannical regime is spreading war and chaos throughout the region.

• During the Twelve-Day War, Iran's regime came closer to collapse than ever before. What was missing was an active agent to carry out the regime change. Iran's ruling mullahs will never become pro-Western or peaceful.... Countries such as the United States and Israel have a crucial role to play in planning for a successful regime change and mobilizing countries that support such a goal....

A successful popular uprising without external support is not possible in Iran: The mullahs have repeatedly shown that they are willing to kill as many people as necessary to stay in power. Pictured: Iranian policemen chase anti-regime protestors and beat them with batons in Tehran, on September 19, 2022. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

The Twelve-Day War between Iran and Israel is a wake-up call for everyone who has finally had enough of the Iranian regime.

Until now, the Iranian opposition-in-exile and all those hoping for regime change have been waiting for some form of popular uprising from the Iranian people. Such waves of protests have taken place in past years, but each time, the mullahs' regime has become more adept at crushing these revolts, regardless of how much support they received from the international community.

There will be no regime change in Iran without direct external pressure, and the Israeli-American attack on the Iranian regime's structure demonstrated, perhaps for the first time, that this regime can fall.

The idea that unarmed Iranians should go up against the armed Basij militia or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was hopeless from the start. Those who imagine a repeat of Iran's 1979 revolution should remember that the monarchy was overthrown by popular protests because Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was unwilling to order a massacre to stay in power. While the Shah's armed forces were used only against the population in extreme circumstances, the mullahs who rule the Islamic Republic of Iran have made it the norm to deploy various armed forces against their own people.

Unarmed Iranians can never overcome the regime's armed enforcers. This regime will not step down voluntarily. They have no respect for human life. A successful popular uprising without external support is not possible in Iran: The mullahs have repeatedly shown that they are willing to kill as many people as necessary to stay in power.

During the Twelve-Day War, when Iran's regime was forced to confront an armed adversary, the enforcers who usually beat and abuse unarmed Iranians went into hiding. Their commanders went into hiding. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei went into hiding. This is what the beginning of regime change looks like.

There are also several other reasons why regime change did not occur in Iran. There were no ground forces to finish the job, either from the US, Israel, the Iranian opposition, or from separatist groups. Had the war continued longer and the regime's vulnerability been further exposed, there was a small possibility that parts of the regular Iranian army might have rebelled. Some parts of the Iranian opposition believe that one path to regime change is for segments of the regime's security apparatus, outside the IRGC and Basij, to lose confidence in the mullahs and turn against the regime.

Historically speaking, "assisted regime change" is more realistic than expecting a popular uprising to overthrow the regime. Even the 1979 revolution in Iran is considered to have succeeded only after the Iranian army declared itself neutral in the political conflict between the Shah's last government and the government appointed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

A revolt from parts of the Iranian military would not come as a surprise. Despite Iran's vast resources and the regime's heavy investment in the military, the Twelve-Day War was a total disaster for Iran. The only institution within the armed forces that benefits financially from this regime is the IRGC. Iran's regular armed forces have been deprioritized in every possible way. In a chaotic situation where it is unclear who is actually running the country or whether the political leadership is even capable of defending it, regime change with the support of the regular armed forces becomes a serious alternative.

The one scenario that is completely unrealistic, and has never happened, is that unarmed Iranian civilians, without any military support, could overthrow a regime that can even bring in militias from Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen to crush an uprising. When unarmed people confront armed forces, the armed forces win. In the Revolutionary War, Americans had support from the French military to throw off the yoke of the British king. There is nothing wrong with overthrowing tyranny with the help of external support, especially when a tyrannical regime is spreading war and chaos throughout the region.

Iran's regime is weak. The time to act for regime change is now. Regime change can happen if all the necessary conditions are in place. This means Middle East-based exiled Iranian opposition groups that wish to remain relevant must be prepared to move into Iran when armed intervention is needed to aid in regime change. It also means that the countries in the region that want regime change in Iran must facilitate the movement of Iranian opposition groups within and across their borders, and enable them to be armed and trained for such a mission.

The next time Iran is in a war like the recent conflict, Iranian opposition groups must be on the ground, armed and ready to support regime change and exploit the vulnerabilities that emerge in the wake of airstrikes.

It is unlikely that the US, Israel or any other country would deploy ground forces in Iran to fight such a war on behalf of the Iranian people. First, it would be cost dearly in blood and treasure. Second, it is now clear that the MAGA movement and a large part of the American public are unwilling to support politicians who want to send boots-on-the-ground to liberate other countries. This political dynamic has already begun to shape U.S. foreign policy. Third, Iran's mullahs would not be able to rally the country behind them if it is their own people who fighting for regime change on the ground, even if this happens with American or Israeli support.

During the Twelve-Day War, Iran's regime came closer to collapse than ever before. What was missing was an active agent to carry out the regime change. Iran's ruling mullahs will never become pro-Western or peaceful. More wars will come, and with each one, the regime will grow weaker until it finally falls. Countries such as the United States and Israel have a crucial role to play in planning for a successful regime change and mobilizing countries that support such a goal, as well as parts of the Iranian opposition-in-exile that are truly prepared to fight for democracy and freedom in Iran.

• Follow Nima Gholam Ali Pour on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook 

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is a Member of the Swedish Parliament.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21820/iran-popular-regime-change

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Legal watchdog may seek sanctions against DOJ over hidden Russiagate documents - Charlotte Hazard

 

by Charlotte Hazard

In 2019, Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on behalf of Just the News CEO John Solomon that sought information on whether the Steele Dossier was implemented into the intelligence community assessment that concluded that Russia was trying to help Trump win the election.

 

Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) President Kimberly Hermann said that they may potentially seek sanctions against the Department of Justice for hiding documents related to the Russiagate scandal.

"Absolutely," Hermann said on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show when asked if sanctions were a possibility. "We're going to go back to the courtroom and then also refer these out to whatever agencies we need to, whether it's the bar admissions, or whether we're talking to Congress and let them do whatever it is that they can do there to hold these bad actors accountable." The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), under which the 2019 suit was brought, also allows successful plaintiff's to recover attorney's fees in some instances.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard last month issued a press release stating that her office had “revealed overwhelming evidence that demonstrates how, after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.”

The record — bolstered by newly-declassified documents — shows that Obama was a central figure at key points throughout the Russiagate saga. Documents show Obama was personally briefed on the “Clinton Plan intelligence” in which Clinton sought to falsely link Trump to Russia, likely to distract from her own classified email server scandal. 

The report released by Gabbard also alleges the December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment "glossed over" evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin may have instead favored (or at least fully expected) a Hillary Clinton victory nine years ago.

DOJ claimed there were only two pages related to Steele Dossier

In 2019, Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of Just the News CEO John Solomon that sought documents pertaining to whether the Steele Dossier was implemented into the intelligence community assessment that concluded that Russia was trying to help Trump win the election.

"We asked for any of these communications where they were talking about the Steele Dossier, between the CIA, between the DNI, between the FBI, and we were told that only two pages existed," Hermann said. "We now know in this recent release that not only did they exist, but it's very suspect as to whether or not they were intentionally hidden from us."

Hermann said the foundation would continue to investigate and look into the matter to determine how much was hidden when the DOJ responded to the FOIA suit. Given Gabbard's declassification of ICA documents, it would appear that the DOJ's response was untruthful. 

"These people need to be held accountable," she said. "The people who are behind Russiagate, the people who created these falsehoods [who] then hid them from the American public."

Hermann said this is similar to when former President Bill Clinton was held accountable after he prevaricated over having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

"Like we did back in the Bill Clinton days when he lied under oath, we continue to see this all the way through to the end, and get not only the truth out, but hold the people who have hidden that from us accountable, because we need people to stop doing this, and until punishment happens, they're going to keep doing it," she said.

Charlotte Hazard

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/southeastern-legal-foundation-potentially-seek-sanctions-against-doj-over-russiagate

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran's Regime Is Plotting Its Comeback — Do Not Let It Happen - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

Iran's regime is built on the belief that it must export its revolutionary Islamist vision, overthrow secular governments, and unify the Muslim world under a single Shiite Islamist state. This project is its purpose.

 

• Iran's regime is built on the belief that it must export its revolutionary Islamist vision, overthrow secular governments, and unify the Muslim world under a single Shiite Islamist state. This project is its purpose. It is what gives the Islamic Republic of Iran its identity. Its constitution enshrines that vision, and its institutions — from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to its intelligence services — are structured around advancing this goal.

• A regime built on these foundations does not abandon its mission when it suffers setbacks. It adapts, regroups and strikes again when the world is distracted or divided. It is important not misread its current weakness as evidence of defeat.

• This danger is not limited to the Middle East. It is now reaching deep into Europe and North America. Recently, the United States, joined by thirteen NATO members and Austria, issued a joint statement accusing Iran of carrying out a growing number of plots on Western soil.... The goal is clear: to silence critics, spread fear and expand Iran's ability to operate with impunity on foreign soil.

• Iran is not a normal country acting in pursuit of its people's national interest. It is a fundamentalist theocratic regime committed to conquest. It thrives on conflict. Every dollar that flows into its coffers is a dollar that funds terrorism. Every embassy it maintains abroad is a potential command post for espionage and assassination. Every day the West relaxes its vigilance is a day the Iranian regime uses to regroup and retaliate. That is why the international community must stay united and focused — not just on holding Iran to account for past behavior, but on thwarting its future plots.

• Iran must not be allowed to rearm under this regime. It must not be allowed to continue its campaign of terror. This objective means keeping "maximum pressure" in place. It means cutting off Iran's oil exports. It means denying it access to the global economy. It means shutting down its diplomatic outposts, which serve as centers of espionage. It means reimposing UN sanctions and enforcing them without compromise.

• The world cannot afford another mirage of Iranian "reform" or "moderation." Iran is rebuilding its war machine. The mission to stop it must continue, relentlessly and without apology.

Iran's regime is built on the belief that it must export its revolutionary Islamist vision, overthrow secular governments, and unify the Muslim world under a single Shiite Islamist state. Its constitution enshrines that vision, and its institutions are structured around advancing this goal. Pictured: Khamenei gives a speech on November 1, 2023, televised on Iran's Channel 1. (Image source: MEMRI)

The Iranian regime does not think in terms of four-year election cycles or short-term political wins. It thinks in decades and acts on long-term strategic objectives. Its leadership, unelected, is essentially permanent. Iran is ruled by a Supreme Leader, who occupies the office for life, and by a military and clerical elite who are driven not by pragmatism but by an Islamist revolutionary ideology.

Over the past 46 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has become a primary source of instability in the Middle East, a hub of global terrorism, and a headache for Western democracies. The Iranian regime's survival has been the result of relentless ideological focus, brutal repression, and an ability to exploit the weaknesses and short-term thinking of its adversaries.

Recently, the regime suffered a significant blow. Israeli and American strikes hit Iran's nuclear infrastructure and proxy leadership networks with devastating precision. Iran's leadership is bruised and its capabilities degraded, but this circumstance should not lull us into a false sense of security.

The damage, while significant, is not permanent. The West must resist the temptation to see this as the beginning of the end for Iran's radical regime. Rather than force the mullahs into submission, the damage is likely to fuel a desire for revenge. The regime responds to perceived humiliations with long-term, carefully-planned vengeance. This revenge may not come tomorrow or next month — it will be calculated, methodical and likely deadlier than anything seen before, including the murderous October 7, 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel, the downing of civilian airliners, or the murder of hundreds of U.S. soldiers by Iran-backed militias in Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.

To believe that the Iranian regime has learned its lesson is to engage in wishful thinking — just a Western psychological projection that mistakes tactical restraint for ideological reform. Iran's regime is built on the belief that it must export its revolutionary Islamist vision, overthrow secular governments, and unify the Muslim world under a single Shiite Islamist state. This project is its purpose. It is what gives the Islamic Republic of Iran its identity. Its constitution enshrines that vision, and its institutions — from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to its intelligence services — are structured around advancing this goal.

A regime built on these foundations does not abandon its mission when it suffers setbacks. It adapts, regroups and strikes again when the world is distracted or divided. It is important not misread its current weakness as evidence of defeat. It is more likely a prelude to escalation.

This danger is not limited to the Middle East. It is now reaching deep into Europe and North America. Recently, the United States, joined by thirteen NATO members and Austria, issued a joint statement accusing Iran of carrying out a growing number of plots on Western soil. The statement condemned Iran's intelligence agencies for attempting to kill, kidnap and harass individuals in Europe and North America, in direct violation of national sovereignty. The statement warned that Iranian operatives are cooperating with transnational criminal organizations to carry out acts of violence and intimidation. The targets are not only Iranian dissidents and exiled political activists, but also journalists, Jewish citizens, and even former and current officials. The goal is clear: to silence critics, spread fear and expand Iran's ability to operate with impunity on foreign soil.

The Iranian regime's growing campaign of terror is a sharp reminder that it does not recognize limits — not national borders, not international law, and not diplomacy. The regime continues to run its embassies and consulates abroad like outposts for intelligence operations. Its diplomats, in many instances, are nothing more than agents facilitating the regime's foreign operations. Those undoubtedly include tracking and monitoring dissidents, plotting assassinations, and organizing campaigns of propaganda and money-laundering. Western intelligence agencies have already thwarted countless plots in countries such as France. Each successful disruption, however, is also a signal of the scale of the threat. If even a fraction of these plots were to succeed, the consequences would be devastating. This is no time to become complacent.

In response to the growing threat, under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the United States has rightly reimposed and expanded its "maximum pressure" campaign: sweeping new sanctions aimed at crippling the Iran's financial and military capabilities. One of the most significant moves came on July 30, 2025, when the U.S. Treasury imposed the largest single package of sanctions against Iran since 2018. This round of sanctions targeted more than 115 vessels, companies and individuals, involved in an elaborate oil-smuggling network run by Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, a senior regime insider. That network has played a key role in exporting oil to China and laundering billions of dollars back to Tehran— funds that are then used to fund the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other terrorists and proxy militias across the region.

The effort to bring Iran's oil exports down to zero must continue with full force. The regime's lifeline is oil; China remains its most important customer. While it may be difficult to get Beijing to cooperate fully, targeted diplomatic and economic pressure on Chinese firms and shipping companies, and especially secondary sanctions on countries that do business with them, can significantly curtail the flow of Iranian crude. The Trump administration proved during its first term that when sanctions are enforced strictly and secondary sanctions used effectively, even countries such as China will reduce their purchases. What is needed now is the political will to deny Iran access to global energy markets, seize illicit oil shipments, and penalize any country or company that facilitates Iran's oil exports.

Europe, too, has a critical role to play. European countries have long maintained diplomatic and economic relations with Iran, which uses its embassies as command centers for espionage and terrorism. If Europe is serious about defending its citizens and its sovereignty, it needs finally to take decisive action. This means suspending diplomatic relations, expelling Iranian diplomats, and shutting down all front organizations tied to the Iran. It also means ending trade: it only benefits Iran's military and intelligence sectors.

One of the most important tools for the international community is the United Nations mechanism of "snapback" sanctions. That provision, embedded in the original 2015 "nuclear deal" (JCPOA), allows for the automatic reimposition of all UN sanctions if Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments. This mechanism is set to expire on October 18, 2025, and Iran is racing to outlast the deadline. If snapback sanctions are not reimposed now, Iran will have succeeded in outmaneuvering the international community once again. European powers must act by triggering the mechanism.

Iran is not a normal country acting in pursuit of its people's national interest. It is a fundamentalist theocratic regime committed to conquest. It thrives on conflict. Every dollar that flows into its coffers is a dollar that funds terrorism. Every embassy it maintains abroad is a potential command post for espionage and assassination. Every day the West relaxes its vigilance is a day the Iranian regime uses to regroup and retaliate. That is why the international community must stay united and focused — not just on holding Iran to account for past behavior, but on thwarting its future plots.

Iran must not be allowed to rearm under this regime. It must not be allowed to continue its campaign of terror. This objective means keeping "maximum pressure" in place. It means cutting off Iran's oil exports. It means denying it access to the global economy. It means shutting down its diplomatic outposts, which serve as centers of espionage. It means reimposing UN sanctions and enforcing them without compromise.

The world cannot afford another mirage of Iranian "reform" or "moderation." Iran is rebuilding its war machine. The mission to stop it must continue, relentlessly and without apology.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on X (formerly Twitter)

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on the US foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21821/iran-plotting-comeback

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Rubio: Talks with Hamas broke down when Macron backed Palestinian state - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

The U.S. secretary of state noted that as a result, Hamas concluded, “let's not do a ceasefire because we can be rewarded. We can claim it as a victory."

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio at Blair House in Washington, July 7, 2025. Photo by Avi Ohayon/GPO.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed on Friday that talks to secure a hostages-for-ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas broke down when President Emmanuel Macron announced France would recognize a Palestinian state.

“Talks with Hamas fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognize the Palestinian state. And then you have other people come forward, other countries say, ‘Well, if there’s not a ceasefire by September, we’re [also] going to recognize a Palestinian state,’” Rubio said.

He noted that as a consequence, Hamas concluded, “let’s not do a ceasefire because we can be rewarded. We can claim it as a victory.

“So those messages [about statehood] … actually have made it harder to get peace and harder to achieve a deal with Hamas,” Rubio said.

 

"Talks with Hamas fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognize the Palestinian state ... So those messages, while largely symbolic in their minds, actually have made it harder to get peace and harder to achieve a deal with Hamas. " —… pic.twitter.com/Xt74bu7umF

— Department of State (@StateDept) August 8, 2025

Macron announced on July 24 that “consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” Paris intends to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations.

“I will make this solemn announcement before the U.N. General Assembly this coming September,” he said. “The urgent priority today is to end the war in Gaza and to bring relief to the civilian population.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “strongly” condemned Macron’s decision “to recognize a Palestinian state next to Tel Aviv in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre” by Hamas terrorists.

“Such a move rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became,” Netanyahu said. “A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel—not to live in peace beside it. Let’s be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel. They seek a state instead of Israel.”

Days later, Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, said that London also intends to recognize a Palestinian state in September, “unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza,” agrees to a ceasefire and commits to “a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.”

Canada and Malta followed suit shortly thereafter.

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/rubio-talks-with-hamas-broke-down-when-macron-backed-palestinian-state/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

On the Strategic Triangulation of Communist China - Thaddeus G. McCotter

 

by Thaddeus G. McCotter

To checkmate China, the U.S. must revive Nixon’s grand strategy—this time triangulating with India and even a wayward Russia to avoid being the odd superpower out.

 

 

Recognizing a split in the fractious relationship between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its junior partner in the communist bloc, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in 1972, President Richard Nixon visited the PRC with the goal of luring it into America’s strategic orbit. Nixon succeeded, for better and for worse. Ultimately, for this and numerous other reasons, by the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Union had gone into the dustbin of history, but by the beginning of the 21st century, the PRC had become the successor to the Soviets as America’s greatest strategic threat and rival model of governance.

Exacerbating matters, the failure of the two Bush administrations and the Clinton administration to properly address the domestic and foreign policy challenges confronting a Russia newly freed from the communist yoke has restored and, in fact, strengthened the partnership between the PRC and the Russian Federation, leaving the United States as the odd nation out.

What is to be done?

First, under successive, bipartisan administrations, the United States had been nurturing a relationship with another emerging player on the international stage, one expected to eventually surpass the PRC in population and economic prospects and prowess, and one, like America, that is a former British colony turned democracy: India.

While its relations with America continue to blossom, India’s past and present relations with the other two major international actors are a mixed bag. Despite initially warm relations, India and the PRC have a decidedly cold relationship, intermittently pocked with recriminations and military confrontations. Alternately, in part due to the earlier disputes between the former U.S.S.R. and Mao’s PRC, India has warm relations with Russia. To date, despite the invasion of Ukraine, U.S. policymakers have sagely not allowed India’s longstanding ties to Russia to impair our bilateral relations. There has been a mature recognition that in the developing relationship between the U.S. and India, both nations are not looking for a spouse, but a lover, free of the concrete dictates and duties of a “permanent” alliance.

This instructs the next step: determining which of the two strategic competitors the U.S. should seek to bring into a realistic, if not a complete, alignment of interests—or at least, into a benevolent neutrality?

The relationship in the 20th century between the USSR and the PRC has been turned on its head in the 21st century Russian Federation. Five decades ago, the USSR was the senior partner of the PRC; there was a border crisis between the two nations that risked war between the two communist allies; and it was the PRC in need of U.S. and Western economic engagement.

Today, the Russian Federation is the junior partner to the PRC; the border crisis is between Russia and Ukraine and, hence, the West; and it is Russia in need of U.S. and Western economic aid and sanctions relief. It cannot be overemphasized that President Trump considers economic power to be “hard power,” which perfectly suits this situation. For instance, consider how much economic benefit could accrue to a more pacific Russia from the U.S. and the West decoupling its supply chain from the PRC.

Moreover, given India’s new relations with the U.S. and its continuing relations with Russia, the latter has a friendly interlocutor to facilitate a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. In sum, Russia has these and many more practical reasons for aligning itself with the U.S. and the West than does the PRC.

Importantly, too, as the past is precedent, we have seen how the PRC has reciprocated with the U.S. and the West for its economic and diplomatic outreach: belligerency and unrestricted warfare across the board to destroy America and the international rules-based order it helped found and defend. If anything, however, the PRC’s acceptance of Western investment, especially providing the first link in the global supply chain, renders it susceptible to Western economic leverage, which is why the PRC vehemently opposes any linkage of issues, especially regarding its predatory trade practices.

Obviously, the elephant in the room is Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. It has been a boon to the PRC’s alliance with Russia, as it has necessarily deepened Russian dependence upon it for military, diplomatic, and economic ties. It has also played into the hands of those in the U.S. political and policymaking elites who, for economic reasons, have allowed them to grandstand in their hatred of Russia while ignoring the unrestricted warfare the PRC is presently waging upon America; moreover, it has formed a welcomed distraction for their strategic mistakes in helping to precipitate the current Ukraine crisis. It is into this Ukraine maelstrom of competing international and domestic pressures President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio must navigate to help facilitate both an immediate ceasefire and a just and enduring peace between the victim, Ukraine, and the clear aggressor, Russia—and to do so bearing in mind the momentous stakes involved in the overarching grand strategy of triangulating communist China.

Should the India-Russia-U.S. alliance come to pass, as mentioned previously, it should not be formed as a traditional alliance, whereby one superpower anchors an allied bloc in opposition to another superpower with a similar complement of allies. What is needed is not merely a reprise of the Cold War, which is not possible in the first place.

Nor would it be a “multi-polar” world with tentpole powers lording over a specific region of the world. The very idea of pretending a “pole” can be created by diplomatic fiat in an arbitrary area of the globe is inane. A nation is either powerful in a naturally evolved region or it is not.

No, what would hopefully emerge is an alliance of already powerful nations voluntarily working where there is a common convergence of interests; and, even in such instances where two of the three pursue common interests at the potential expense of the other, the consequences will be mitigated—or the joint action cancelled—for the sake of the third party and, most importantly, for the preservation and perpetuation of the alliance. Such an alliance would profoundly vitiate the prospects of military engagements on behalf of the alliance, as no nation would be bound to defend the other in a particular scenario, à la NATO. And, in fact, even the PRC may become a member should it cease its provocative, martial aggressions, unrestricted warfare, and mercantilist trade policies.

To use an admittedly inelegant sports analogy, a new alliance between the U.S., India, and Russia would not be a 1970s Wilt Chamberlain-style NBA basketball team dominated by a center surrounded with subordinate passers and shooters. It would be more akin to a 2020s Steph Curry-style collection of coequal shooters and passers firing up threes or dishing out assists to others to do so as circumstances dictate.

As one who has long warned of a revanchist Russia, it is not easy to recognize and address the reality that President Nixon faced: which of our adversaries can we, and should, ally with so we are not the odd one out?

Long after he had left office, in 1992, elder statesman Richard Nixon explained the stakes for the U.S. and the free world in the future of post-communist Russia. It bears quoting:

Russia at the present time is at a crossroads. It is often said that the Cold War is over and that the West has won it. That’s only half true, because what has happened is that the Communists have been defeated, but the ideas of freedom now are on trial. If they don’t work, there will be a reversion to not communism, which has failed, but to what I call a new despotism, which would pose a mortal danger to the rest of the world because it would have been infected with the virus of Russian imperialism, which of course has been a characteristic of Russian foreign policy for centuries. We begin with that.

Therefore, the West—the United States—and all those who want peace and freedom in the world have a great stake in freedom succeeding in Russia. If it succeeds, it will be an example for others to follow. It will be for China, an example to follow. For the other communist states, the few that remain.

If it fails [in Russia], it means that the hardliners in China will get a new life. They will say, ‘It failed there. There’s no reason for us to turn to democracy.’ That’s part of what is at stake here. The other point that we have to have in mind is that it’s vitally important that it succeed because it means that Russia, which for seventy years has been exporting or trying to export the ideas of Communism to the world, will now be exporting the ideas of freedom, the ideas of democracy—the goods of freedom. It means that Russia, for example, will be able to export goods [and] that’ll be a huge export market for the United States and other countries.

So, I would simply sum it up to say… we have here a potential ally joining with the United States and other free countries…

Sadly, Mr. Nixon’s hopes for a truly free, democratic Russia did not come to pass. But the stakes remain for the U.S. and the free world, even if the prospects for freedom in the former Soviet Union remain elusive. Thus, as in the first Cold War, we are faced with allying with the lesser of two evils. Yet, such is the nature of statecraft in defense of America and the free world.

On my part, like Mr. Nixon, I am fervently anti-communist, for it is anathema to human dignity, and I am also a realist. Presently, Russia is a revanchist authoritarian regime. But there is currently only one genocidal communist country openly and admittedly engaged in unrestricted warfare against the United States and the free world—it is the People’s Republic of China.

Let America’s strategic triangulation of the PRC continue with all due alacrity until it reaches its just conclusion.

***

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003–2012. He served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and as a member of the Financial Services, Joint Economic, Budget, Small Business, and International Relations Committees. Not a lobbyist, he is also a contributor to Chronicles, a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars, and a co-host of “John Batchelor: Eye on the World” on CBS radio, among sundry media appearances.

Thaddeus G. McCotter

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/08/09/on-the-strategic-triangulation-of-communist-china/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Montreal: Jewish man attacked in broad daylight with children at his side - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

The victim, dressed in Orthodox Jewish attire, was seen lying on the ground as the assailant punches him several times.

 

Canadian Women Against Antisemitism hold a rally in Toronto on March 25, 2024. Credit: Canadian FSWC.

 

A Jewish man was attacked on Friday with his two young daughters at his side in Montreal, in the borough of Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension.

Montreal police launched a probe into the incident, after responding to a 911 call about a physical confrontation at the corner of l’Épée and Beaumont avenues at 2:45 p.m., CBC News cited police spokesperson Constable Caroline Chèvrefils as saying.

The assailant fled before police officers arrived at the scene. No arrests have been made.

Another violent act on Canadian streets—this time in Montreal.

As we head into the Sabbath, our community is shaken. An unprovoked attack on a Jewish father, in front of his own children, must not go unanswered.

No more 'thoughts and prayers.' Authorities must hold the attacker… https://t.co/lB8L0otu7y

— CIJA (@CIJAinfo) August 8, 2025

Chèvrefils confirmed that a video circulating online shows a 28-second portion of the attack. It starts with the victim, 32, laying on the ground as the attacker strikes him several times with his fists. The attacker then stands up and walks away, grabbing several of what are apparently his belongings, after which he tossed the Jewish man’s kippah into a shallow fountain.

One of the Jewish man’s girls is seen clinging to him as he gets up on his knees.

The motivation for the assault was not yet known, the police spokesperson added, according to the report.

The victim suffered non-life-threatening injuries, she relayed.

“This is beyond deplorable—it is an outrage against basic human decency,” said Jeremy Levi, the mayor of Hampstead, a suburb on the Island of Montreal bordering the city of Montreal.

“In the heart of Montreal, a Jewish father is savagely beaten in front of his children. This is the Canada that [Prime Minister] Mark Carney has allowed to fester—a place where weakness in leadership has emboldened brutality,” the mayor continued.

“Hampstead made a different choice long ago. We refused to bow to complacency. We increased our Public Security budget by 50%, ensuring we are ready, capable, and unwilling to depend on politicians who lack the courage to protect their own citizens. We will defend our people—every time, without apology,” Levi added.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) responded to the incident, condemning the “violent act on Canadian streets—this time in Montreal. As we head into the Sabbath, our community is shaken. An unprovoked attack on a Jewish father, in front of his own children, must not go unanswered. No more ‘thoughts and prayers.’ Authorities must hold the attacker accountable, and leaders at all levels of government must confront this dangerous escalation.”

In 2024, Canadian authorities opened an investigation after Beth Tikvah, a Modern Orthodox synagogue in Montreal, as well as a Jewish community center in the city’s suburbs, were targeted with firebombs on Dec. 18, 2024, in the second such attack on the congregation since the Hamas-led terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

According to the Montreal Gazette, police were called to the synagogue on West Park Boulevard around 3 a.m. after receiving a report of a fire at the building, which houses several Jewish institutions.

Véronique Dubuc, a spokesperson for the Montreal City Police Service, said witnesses had seen a suspicious individual at the site, adding that CCTV footage was being examined in an effort to identify a suspect in the case.

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/montreal-jewish-man-attacked-in-broad-daylight-with-children-at-his-side/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House Oversight wants to gather evidence that could overturn Biden’s pardons, executive orders - Steven Richards

 

by Steven Richards

Chairman Comer said the evidence his probe has uncovered could lead to questions about the validity of Joe Biden’s pardons, executive orders.

 

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer says his investigation into Joe Biden's mental decline as president could be used as evidence to overturn some of his pardons or executive orders because his senior staff have failed to prove he knew what he was signing amid accusations of mental decline. 

“It's questionable whether or not it's legal to use an autopen on a legal document, but what's not questionable is if the President of the United States had no idea what was being signed with using the autopen in his name,” Comer told the Just the News, No Noise TV show on Friday. “Then, you know, that's not legal.” 

Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said he believes the evidence his investigation uncovers can be used to also call into question the validity of some of the former president’s clemency acts, especially after the disastrous summer 2024 presidential debate in which Biden’s poor performance gave rise to questions about his mental capacity. 

“I think at the end of the day, our investigation … could be used as evidence in trying to overturn some of those pardons and some of the executive orders, because the autopen was used so frequently … after that debate,” said Comer. 

Former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz told Just the News in March that challenges to Biden’s autopen use would certainly end up before the courts. 

"They will end up in court, and there are going to be two issues. One, the nature of what was signed – was it a pardon, or was it a bill from Congress, for example. And second, the nature of the autopen," he said. 

"First, the nature of what's signed. If it was a bill, here's what the Constitution says: 'If he approves, he shall sign it.' So it says, 'sign it.' Sign it. So an autopen would raise a real problem if he signed it by autopen, which is not a real signature,” Dershowitz said of bill signed by the president. 

Of pardons, the legal scholar said the Constitution does not require a signature, but “it will still raise the issue: Did he actually pardon? Or did somebody else just write the signature without really getting approval from President Biden? You know, we know there were mental health issues there. So there the issue will be: Did he approve the pardon?” 

Biden emerged on stage at the first presidential debate of the 2024 campaign season and delivered a halting and “disoriented” performance, raising concerns among allies that the president was not up to the task of another term. 

He stumbled through his opening remarks and appeared at times to struggle for the right words. And though he seemed to find his footing as the night went on, Biden also made several incorrect statements including that he is the only U.S. president this decade who doesn't have any troops dying anywhere in the world, Just the News reported at the time. 

“I think there was a sense of shock actually, how he came out at the beginning of this debate," David Axelrod, a former top adviser to former President Barack Obama, said on CNN after the debate. "He seemed a little disoriented. He did get stronger as the debate went on. By that time, I think the panic had set in and I think ... there are gonna be discussions about whether he should continue." 

Just one month later, Biden would drop out of the race and endorse his vice president, Kamala Harris, to run in his stead. 

Biden had already been plagued by questions surrounding his mental capacity for years, mostly from Republicans. The administration largely kept the president behind closed doors and heavily restricted his access to the press. His public appearances, characterized by fumbling speech and poor memory, were embarrassing for the administration. 

A Department of Justice Special Counsel tasked with investigating Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after his vice presidency delivered a scathing assessment of the president’s mental acuity in his final report, which was released by the department in February. 

Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report cited several factors contributing to his decision to decline filing any charges against Biden. One reason Hur provided: Biden’s poor memory. 

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote. 

Hur cited moments in the interview in which the president failed to recall the years he was vice president and forgot the year that son Beau Biden passed away after a battle with brain cancer. 

After Biden left office, Comer launched an investigation into the former administration, to uncover how senior officials worked to cover up the president’s mental condition and into the use of an autopen to sign various presidential documents, from executive orders to pardons, during his final months in office. 

Comer said what his committee has uncovered so far may be enough to call into question the executive orders and pardons that Biden issued in those final months. 

“The evidence, it shows at the least, that Joe Biden really didn't know what was being done with those executive orders. He admitted to the New York Times that he didn't look, himself, at all those pardons, that he delegated that to staff. Well, that implicated himself,” Comer told Just the News. 

“And I think that you know, at the end of the day, these Biden inner circle people haven't been able to prove that Joe Biden knew what was being signed with his autopen,” he continued.

Neera Tanden, the former director of Biden's Domestic Policy Council, told the committee that she directed the use of the autopen, but without knowing who in the president’s inner circle was giving ultimate approval for the acts. 

"Ms. Tanden testified that she had minimal interaction with President Biden, despite wielding tremendous authority," Comer said of the interview, which took place in late June. 

"She explained that to obtain approval for autopen signatures, she would send decision memos to members of the president’s inner circle and had no visibility of what occurred between sending the memo and receiving it back with approval. Her testimony raises serious questions about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House amid the president’s obvious decline,” Comer continued. 

Comer also subpoenaed and conducted further closed-door interviews with several of Biden’s other closest aides, including the White House physician, his former chief of staff, and senior policy advisers. But, so far, many have refused to answer the committee’s questions about the president’s health, which could shed light on whether Biden was able to approve the use of the autopen for signatures. 

Biden has defended the use of the autopen since leaving office, telling the New York Times that he “made every decision.”

Biden granted an extensive interview to the paper last month. He also shed light on how he and his aides decided on pardons at the close of his administration and on how he approved them. The former president insisted that he made every decision when it came to the pardons, however, he noted that in some cases, like Biden’s categorical pardons, his aides did not read off individual names. 

The paper also reported that Biden “did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people, he and aides confirmed,” citing administration sources. 

Dr. Kevin O’Conner, who cared for the president while he was in office, invoked his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer any of the committee’s questions. Annie Tomasini, former deputy chief of staff, and Anthony Bernal, former first lady Jill Biden’s chief of staff, also both invoked the Fifth. 

“These Biden inner circle people haven't been able to prove that Joe Biden knew what was being signed with his autopen,” Comer said. “Remember, about half the people we brought in have pled the Fifth and again … when you asked Dr O'Connor, the White House physician, a question, the very first question, were you ever told to lie about President Joe Biden's health? And he can't answer that. He has to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.

“I think that's pretty damning evidence that we had a president that wasn't at the top of his game, to say the least.” 

Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/house-oversight-wants-gather-evidence-could-overturn-bidens-pardons

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The caliphate will be televised, and the West will fall - Catherine Perez Shakdam

 

by Catherine Perez Shakdam

In attacking Israel, Europe has quite possibly mortgaged its own future in a breathtaking form of self-sabotage.

 

PEOPLE MOURN in front of the Bataclan concert hall following a series of deadly attacks in Paris in 2015. The memory of such events lasts just long enough for the hashtags to fade, the writer laments.

(photo credit: CHRISTIAN HARTMANN/REUTERS)

 

There are some ideas so unthinkable, so preposterous, that they are dismissed with a chuckle and a wave of the hand. That is, until they happen. 

One such notion: the declaration of a caliphate, not in the dusty expanses of the Middle East, but here – amid the boulevards and bookshops of Europe. A preposterous idea, surely. Like a bishop moonlighting as a nightclub bouncer. And yet, here we are.

 Antisemitism is at a record high. We're keeping our eyes on it >>

One suspects that, should such a proclamation occur, say, in a London suburb or the 18th arrondissement of Paris – it would be greeted by the chattering classes not with alarm but with a panel discussion on Channel 4. 

“Should we be celebrating this expression of cultural identity?” someone would ask, sipping an oat milk flat white.

Others would nod solemnly. The word Islamophobia will be uttered before the tea is cold.

People hold signs and Palestinian flags during a protest in support of Palestinians in Gaza to mark the 77th anniversary of the ''Nakba'', or ''catastrophe'', in Dublin, Ireland, May 17, 2025. (credit: Clodagh Kilcoyn/Reuters)

But behind the irony lies something deeply, unsettlingly real.

History repeats itsself 

Europe is repeating itself. Not precisely, as the continent rarely repeats itself precisely; it prefers, as it were, to rhyme. And this latest stanza is composed of a rather disturbing set of notes.

The Jewish people, as ever, are at the center of the narrative, not by choice but by consequence. A small minority – numerically irrelevant, politically marginal, and, one would think, wholly non-threatening. Yet, they have become the convenient scapegoat once more. “Ah, but it’s not Jews we oppose,” the mob insists. “It’s Zionists.” A distinction, I fear, honored only in rhetoric, not reality.

And when Jewish schoolchildren must conceal their identities, when kosher butchers require security, and when university campuses treat Jewish students like radioactive hazards, one cannot help but notice that the so-called distinction has all the usefulness of a chocolate teapot.

As Jews are hounded out of European cities, Israel – their spiritual and historic refuge – becomes the world’s designated villain. Never mind its democracy, its ceaseless existential threats, or the hostages still in Hamas captivity in Gaza. Western leaders line up to condemn it with the fervor of a Twitter mob who’ve just discovered a 12-year-old offensive joke.

LET’S CONSIDER this quietly terrifying idea: In attacking Israel, Europe has quite possibly mortgaged its own future. The self-sabotage is breathtaking.

Instead of standing with a pluralistic, free society beset by jihadist terror, our cultural and political institutions have chosen to co-sign the talking points of radicals whose idea of governance makes Orwell look like an optimist.

The West, which once boasted of reason, liberty, and the rule of law, now finds itself parroting the lexicon of its enemies: “Resistance,” “colonialism,” “liberation.” Words once weighty with history have been flung into the linguistic blender of modern activism and come out as performative pap.

What was once called a terrorist is now a “militant.” 

What was once hostage-taking is now “armed struggle.” 

What was once mass rape is “resistance.”

And Europe, good old Europe, hears these lies, nods politely, and drafts a resolution.

It is difficult to know whether to cry or laugh. I suspect Voltaire would do both, and then write something scathing.

Let us be clear: The caliphate in Europe will not arrive on horseback with fluttering banners. 

No, it will arrive at a town council meeting with a motion on “community representation.”

It will be presented as a celebration of multiculturalism – until women’s rights vanish under a niqab, until schools teach theology instead of biology, until satire is banned and dissent criminalized.

It will be ushered in, not by fire and sword, but by bureaucratic consent, moral cowardice, and a political class too afraid of being called names.

And the Jews? Well, by then they’ll have gone. Packed up, moved to safer shores, perhaps to Israel, the very country Europe has spent years demonizing. 

And here comes the punchline: When they go, they will take with them the last vestiges of Europe’s moral backbone, leaving behind a continent diminished and softened, rather like a sponge cake left out in the rain.

Europe will miss its Jews once they’re gone.

The signs were all there. 

Salman Rushdie told us, long before it was fashionable. 

There was the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the attack at the Bataclan concert venue, the endless roll call of violence, intimidation, and censorship. Yet Europe tutted and marched and then carried on appeasing. The memory of these events lasted just long enough for the hashtags to fade.

Meanwhile, imams in European cities preach sermons that would make Torquemada blush, and politicians fawn over communities whose leaders refuse to condemn kidnapping and murder. This, mind you, while dragging Israel through a kangaroo court of public opinion every time it defends itself.

THE MESSAGE is clear: If you kill Jews in the name of radical Islam, Europe may very well invite you to a human rights forum.

The supreme irony is this: Europe, in its hatred of Jews, thought it was advancing a moral cause. In truth, it was simply chiseling away at its own foundation.

In turning on Israel, it did not become more moral – it became more vulnerable. In refusing to name Islamism as a threat, it did not become more tolerant – it became less free. In alienating the Jews, it did not become more inclusive – it became more ignorant. And the caliphate, if it is declared, will not weep over Europe’s museums and libraries. It will thank them for their silence.

Is it too late? Possibly not, but it is dreadfully late. 

The West must remember who it is. Not just what it is against, but what it is for. It must defend Israel, not as a favor to Jews, but as a defense of the civilized world. It must defend Jews, not because they are perfect, but because they are targeted. It must confront Islamism, not with fury or fear, but with honesty and moral clarity.

Because if we don’t, we may one day find ourselves living under a system we never voted for, governed by laws we never read, and yearning for freedoms we once took for granted – back when we thought the caliphate was a joke.

Catherine Perez Shakdam is executive director of We Believe In Israel.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-863607

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The gap between air and ground personnel that created an operational dispute - Yaakov Lappin

 

by Yaakov Lappin

  A reported clash between IDF ground and air force commanders in Gaza highlights a deep cultural and moral divide between those who fight in the air and on the ground.

 

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir (center) holds a situational assessment in the Gaza Strip, Aug. 1, 2025. Credit: IDF.

A recently reported argument between the Commanding Officer of Southern Command in the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Yaniv Asor, who is responsible for Gaza ground operations, and the Israeli Air Force Commander, Maj. Gen. Tomer Bar, during a video call, has offered a rare glimpse into the immense internal pressure produced by the war against Hamas. 

According to a recent Ynet report, the confrontation erupted during a heated operational discussion over the provision of close air support to ground troops. The argument reportedly centered on objections by Bar to firepower requests from IDF Southern Command that allegedly led to the deaths of noncombatants.

Asor reportedly asked Bar to cease objecting to such firepower requests and accused him of being disconnected from the harsh ground combat realities. 

On Thursday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir framed such debates as part of a healthy command culture regarding life-and-death issues. 

Col. (ret.) Amit Assa, a former senior member of the Shin Bet with over 30 years of experience, told JNS that before analyzing the substance of the argument, it is critical to understand that the leak itself is a significant failure.

Most Popular

NJ Chabad rabbi, family escape fire that destroys synagogue and TorahsAug. 8, 2025

University of California says Trump admin’s $1b settlement offer would ‘completely devastate’ itAug. 8, 2025

US mission warns Americans to avoid Jewish, Israeli sites in Abu DhabiAug. 8, 2025

He stressed, however, that the discussion is taking place within the IDF’s accepted rules of engagement framework.

“There is a flaw in something that has occurred throughout the war, in a process that is getting worse because the whole world is open to media, especially social media,” Assa said. “There are operational discussions and interactions that should not be shared publicly. It is not the public’s ‘right to know.’ There are only drawbacks to this, and it can create the opposite situation.”

Assa warned that this level of exposure could create a situation where commanders could make a decision “not based on professional grounds, but on how it will look in the media. And that is the biggest danger.”

He argued that for Israel’s enemies, such reports are a significant motivational boost. “Our enemy is looking for the disintegration of society and an inability to continue this war,” he stated. “When the enemy sees an event like this, it serves it. The enemy says, ‘Great, another nail in the coffin.’”

Beyond the leak, Assa said the argument stems from the vastly different realities of air crews overhead and field units on the ground. He referenced the ground commander’s reported frustration, yelling, “You are sitting there in the Kirya [IDF headquarters] and you are detached from the field.”

“At the base of this comment, we hear something much deeper. And what is deep here is the disconnect, the emotional disconnect, that exists between a pilot and even the simplest combat soldier,” Assa explained. “A pilot performing his most complicated and physically difficult mission … does not see the enemy with his own eyes. Even a helicopter pilot who fires a missile and hits a terrorist’s vehicle now does not see the terrorist’s face before the missile hits him. There is an emotional detachment that creates a situation where the ground soldier has emotional mechanisms that operate beyond the basic rational.”

This visceral connection to the battlefield, Assa argued, creates a completely different moral framework for decision-making.

“The very fact that you live in the field, you know what it smells like—not just what it looks like. What does a terrorist smell like? What is the smell of a terrorist’s burnt corpse lying beneath a soldier?” he asked. “I emphasize this intentionally because pilots do not have this. And the moment they don’t have it, their system of considerations is a different moral system. Why is it morally different? Because you do not see the evil, the cruelty, and the inhumanity of your real enemy. This is something that only a soldier in the field can experience, because he experiences it on his own flesh.”

This gap, he said, leads to flare-ups when a commander in a sterile command bunker, concerned with legal directives, denies a request from a commander on the ground who has just seen his soldiers fired upon by a terrorist who then fled into a building. For the ground soldier who “smelled it in his nose and saw it with his eyes,” there is no moral question about striking the building. For the disconnected commander, the moral calculus is different.

Assa also pointed to the immense physical and mental fatigue, or “wear and tear,” on ground commanders as a contributing factor. “He, unlike the Air Force commander, does not finish his workday and gets into the shower and a warm bed. He doesn’t get a proper meal in the senior officers’ dining room at the Kirya. He is eating dust and sand, and this affects him in terms of attrition more than the Air Force commander,” Assa said. “So when he reaches his breaking point, it’s easy to understand why the fuse is short.”

Assa suggested that senior IAF commanders, such as those who command the force’s control center, are brought to the field to directly experience the tribulations of ground combat. This would also boost their credibility among the field units when they challenge firepower requests, he said.

On Aug. 7, at the conclusion of a multi-front situation assessment 22 months into the war, Zamir addressed the issue of internal debates directly. He framed them not as a sign of weakness, but as an essential component of the IDF’s strength.

“The culture of dispute is an inseparable part of the history of the people of Israel, and it constitutes a vital component of the IDF’s organizational culture—both internally and externally,” Zamir stated. “We will continue to express our position without fear—in a substantive, independent, and professional manner. This is how we also expect our subordinates to act. The responsibility is here, on this table.”

He added, “We are not dealing with theory. We are dealing with matters of life and death, with the defense of the state, and we do so while looking our soldiers and the citizens of the country in the eye. We will continue to act with responsibility, integrity and determination—with only the good of the state and its security before our eyes.”

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He is the in-house analyst at the Miryam Institute; a research associate at the Alma Research and Education Center; and a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. He is a frequent guest commentator on international television news networks, including Sky News and i24 News. Lappin is the author of Virtual Caliphate: Exposing the Islamist State on the Internet. Follow him at: www.patreon.com/yaakovlappin.

Source: https://www.jns.org/the-gap-between-air-and-ground-personnel-that-created-an-operational-dispute/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter