What you should know about the Google-Wikipedia-Wikimedia collaboration - Sally Zahav

 

by Sally Zahav

How did Wikipedia shift from being a neutral encyclopedia to a social-justice driven with the objective of shaping public opinion. 

 The following text is taken from the description of the podcast included below. What you will hear in the discussion between Dave Rubin and Ashley Rindsberg is important for anyone to know who is interested in getting information from unbiased sources. 

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Ashley Rindsberg about the history of bias in the New York Times; how platforms like Wikipedia and Reddit have been captured by ideological forces and now shape public perception through ideological bias; how Wikipedia shifted from a neutral encyclopedia to a social-justice–driven project under figures like Katherine Maher; Google’s deep and secret partnership with Wikipedia and how it influences what information rises to the top; how the ideological bias that captured Wikipedia is now being used to train Ai models like ChatGPT; the danger of bots, propaganda, and foreign actors distorting political discourse; and much more. 

Sally Zahav

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpXjYiqE-Uo

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Most shocking examples of Chinese espionage uncovered by the US this year: 'Just the tip of the iceberg' - Alec Schemmel

 

by Alec Schemmel

'President Trump is not afraid of the Chinese,' says conservative China hawk 

 

 

 

 

This year has had no shortage of alarming Chinese espionage efforts targeting the United States that were uncovered by government officials.

2025 saw the conviction of a former active-duty military member accused of selling Navy secrets to Chinese intelligence, the arrests of Chinese nationals accused of trying to recruit active-duty service members as intelligence assets and smuggle dangerous toxins into the United States, the disruption of a Chinese "Hacker-for-Hire" ecosystem, and more.

"President Trump is not afraid of the Chinese," Gatestone Institute senior Fellow Gordon Chang said on Fox Business' "Mornings with Maria" following a new arms sale to Taiwan. However, Chang lamented that Trump was ambivalent to the "information war" with China, noting that "the Chinese are able to tar him and tell the rest of the world that Trump is afraid of the Chinese … but when you look at the reality, President Trump is going after China across the board," Chang argued.

EX-TRUMP DHS OFFICIAL SOUNDS ALARM OVER NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT WITHIN CRITICAL US INDUSTRY

One of the alarming Chinese espionage headlines to hit the news this year was an effort by several Chinese nationals to smuggle a pathogen described by the government as a "potential agroterrorism weapon" into the United States in 2024. A complaint against the suspects was unsealed by federal officials this year, leading the case to make headlines nationwide. 

Flag flies in front of the embassy of China in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 22, 2024. (Hannes P. Albert/dpa via AP, File)

One of those individuals complicit in the case, Yunqing Jian, 33, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and a researcher employed at the University of Michigan, was allegedly receiving money from the Chinese government for her work on the pathogen the suspects were trying to smuggle. Meanwhile, her boyfriend, who worked at a Chinese university conducting research on that same pathogen, initially lied but then admitted to smuggling it through the Detroit airport so it could be taken to the University of Michigan laboratory where his girlfriend worked.

Jian eventually pleaded guilty. She was later sentenced to time served and then deported back to China. Her boyfriend was immediately deported to China when he was caught at the Detroit airport trying to bring the toxin into the United States.  

Just this month, a separate Chinese researcher from Indiana University was also accused by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of trying to smuggle a dangerous toxin into the country, this time Escherichia coli (E. coli). The FBI identified the smuggling suspect as post-doctoral researcher Youhuang Xiang, who also allegedly made false statements to law enforcement.

FCC, STATE AGS TO JOIN FORCES IN CRACKDOWN ON CHINA-LINKED COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

Federal officials have disrupted Chinese intelligence efforts to recruit assets in the United States this year as well, according to Justice Department communications.

In July, federal officials disrupted a "Clandestine PRC Ministry of State Security Intelligence Network" that was operating in the United States and was attempting to bribe active-duty soldiers with thousands in cash to work for them as assets. 

The following month, in a separate case, a federal jury convicted a former Navy sailor, Jinchao Wei, also known as Patrick Wei, who was caught trying to sell military secrets to a Chinese intelligence officer for $12,000.

The national flags of the United States and China flutter at the Fairmont Peace Hotel on April 25, 2024, in Shanghai, China. (Wang Gang/VCG via Getty Images)

Hacking was a big part of Chinese espionage efforts in 2025, too. 

A major Chinese-linked hacking threat referred to as "Salt Typhoon" was reported this year to have launched an attack compromising at least 200 American companies as part of its broader efforts that have included gaining access to law enforcement wiretapping mechanisms and information on members of Congress, according to the top cyber chief at the FBI. Critical infrastructure manufacturers like AT&T, Verizon, Charter Communications, and others have reportedly been exposed by the group, which was first uncovered publicly in 2024 but whose efforts have dated back several years.

Earlier this year, in March, the Department of Justice also announced that federal officials had disrupted a "Hacker-for-Hire Ecosystem" operating out of China at the direction of Chinese intelligence officers as well. These malicious actors worked for private companies and as contractors in China, which was intended to hack and steal information in a way that would obscure the Chinese government's involvement, the DOJ said.

China's increasing acquisition of farmland in the United States has been of growing concern during 2025 as well, with Chinese-linked entities buying up land near military bases, including a trailer park near Missouri's Whiteman Air Force Base. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

"From smuggling crop-killing pathogens and E. Coli into the United States, to conspicuously purchasing a trailer park that shares a fence with America’s entire B-2 bomber fleet and selling ‘green’ tech devices that spread kill switches across our electrical grid, Communist China seeks to harm the American homeland," Michael Lucci, a China-hawk and the founder of State Armor Action, a conservative group with a mission to develop and enact state-level solutions to global security threats such as those emanating from China.

"Furthermore, these events are just the tip of the iceberg," Lucci continued. "Lawmakers across the country must accelerate action to shield Americans from CCP influence, espionage, and sabotage. Communist China treats the United States as an enemy, and it is past time we recognize the CCP party-state always and everywhere chooses conflict with the United States."

Fox News Digital's Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

 

Alec Schemmel 

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/most-shocking-examples-chinese-espionage-uncovered-us-year-2025-just-tip-iceberg

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinian Authority 'Help' Is a Trap for Washington: Trump Has the Opportunity to Break a Cycle of Defeat - Pierre Rehov

 

by Pierre Rehov

The Palestinian Authority does not recognize Israel and most likely has no intention whatsoever of dismantling Hamas. For the Palestinian Authority, "reconstruction" offers laundering its legitimacy, access to institutions, long-term influence, and the chance, once President Donald Trump leaves office, of being deliciously positioned to do anything it likes.

 

• The Palestinian Authority is not a neutral Muslim-majority entity seeking peace. Its doctrine has, for decades, blended conventional diplomacy with asymmetric warfare — using terrorism as an instrument of policy. In the last decade, this double game has not disappeared. It has merely learned to speak the language of Western guilt. Countries in the West have actually rewarded its terrorism, both by continuing lavishly to fund it and by climbing over one another to recognize a fictitious, nonexistent "Palestinian State."

• Palestinians in Gaza might be tired of Hamas, but that does not mean they are ready to live peacefully side-by-side with Israel.

• Just imagine the Palestinian Authority inside Gaza's reconstruction ecosystem, with access to donor funds, humanitarian logistics, and institutional channels. Reconstruction money is not neutral. It creates influence, dependency, and leverage. The Palestinian Authority understands this better than anyone.

• The Palestinian Authority does not recognize Israel and most likely has no intention whatsoever of dismantling Hamas. For the Palestinian Authority, "reconstruction" offers laundering its legitimacy, access to institutions, long-term influence, and the chance, once President Donald Trump leaves office, of being deliciously positioned to do anything it likes.

• For Israel, this scenario is existentially dangerous. Israel would be expected to tolerate a hostile foreign security architecture on its southern border while remaining ultimately responsible for the consequences of its failure. Any future escalation — rocket fire, tunnel reconstruction, arms smuggling — would place Israel in an impossible position: to act militarily and be accused of attacking "the forces for peace " or refrain and absorb the threat. Either choice is unacceptable.

• For Washington, the trap is more subtle but equally severe. Once the United States endorses a framework, it becomes politically and financially invested in its survival. Billions of dollars in aid, contracts, and diplomatic capital follow. At that point, acknowledging failure becomes almost impossible. The priority shifts from solving the problem to preserving the framework — even as security deteriorates.

• A post-war Gaza that is not fully demilitarized -- and remains that way -- will not stay quiet. Hostility will mutate.... Reconstruction will become camouflage. And the international presence meant to stabilize the situation will end up institutionalizing the very forces it was supposed to eliminate.

• That is why this "Palestinian Authority solution" is a terrible idea for Israel — and a strategic trap for Washington: It offers the appearance of control while in fact hollowing out any real security.

• Trump's instinct to reject endless wars and failed orthodoxies is sound. Both Gaza and Ukraine are littered with the wreckage of peace processes divorced from security realities, aid policies disconnected from accountability, and diplomatic frameworks that rewarded rejection.

• Trump's real challenge is to resist the temptation to confuse participation with solution. The Middle East is full of actors eager to "participate" in Gaza — not to neutralize the threat it presents, but to shape its outcome to their advantage. The Palestinian Authority's interest in Gaza should be understood not as an act of goodwill, but as a bid for expanded power in a conflict that resonates across the Islamic world.

• Accepting such a compromised "solution" will create a familiar pattern: the United States funds, legitimizes and protects bad actors, while constraining Israel and empowering hostile intermediaries. When the stabilization force then inevitably collapses, Washington will be told that the failure was due to insufficient patience, insufficient funding, or insufficient engagement — never to the flawed premise itself. Trump has an opportunity to break this cycle.

• The opportunity requires drawing a clear red line that reconstruction comes only after demilitarization, not the reverse. Stability is the outcome of security, not a substitute for it. Legitimacy therefore cannot be granted to any actors whose strategic culture depends on permanent confrontation with Israel.

• The Middle East does not need another "grand framework" built on diplomatic wishful thinking. It needs fewer illusions, fewer intermediaries, and clearer consequences -- ones that are actually implemented.

• If Trump listens to the siren songs that promise order without disarmament, he will inherit the failures of his predecessors. If he refuses — and insists on realities rather than rituals — he may yet reshape the post-war equation.

The Palestinian Authority is not a neutral Muslim-majority entity seeking peace. Its doctrine has, for decades, blended conventional diplomacy with asymmetric warfare — using terrorism as an instrument of policy. Pictured: On July 23, 2018, at a ceremony honoring Palestinian terrorists and justifying his government's official payments to them in exchange for murdering Jews, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said: "We will neither reduce nor withhold the allowances of the families of martyrs, prisoners, and released prisoners... if we had one single penny left, we would spend it on the families of the martyrs and the prisoners." (Image source: MEMRI)

In Washington, there is a recurring temptation: when a crisis becomes exhausting, any actor offering "help" starts to look like a partner. The reconstruction of Gaza has reached that stage. The rubble is real. The humanitarian pressure is real.

The Palestinian Authority is not a neutral Muslim-majority entity seeking peace. Its doctrine has, for decades, blended conventional diplomacy with asymmetric warfare — using terrorism as an instrument of policy. In the last decade, this double game has not disappeared. It has merely learned to speak the language of Western guilt. Countries in the West have actually rewarded its terrorism, both by continuing lavishly to fund it and by climbing over one another to recognize a fictitious, nonexistent "Palestinian State."

Terrorism had become a tool of statecraft, shielded by its many funders, including the European Union (here, here and here) and European governments, as well as protestors in the West. As the American scholar Victor Davis Hanson notes:

"[L]egions of campus protestors never disown the slogan, 'Palestine will be free from the river to the sea' — a call to destroy the current state of Israel and everyone in it — because they either all believe in it or assume their clueless followers have no idea what it means."

The result is a form of stealth blackmail. This is not an accident. It is a system.

The Palestinian Authority does not seek stability in the traditional sense. It seeks managed instability: enough chaos to retain relevance, extract concessions, coax funding and insert itself as an unavoidable intermediary whenever crises erupt.

Exporting this model into Gaza would be catastrophic. A culture built on incitement to violence, terrorism, and an ideological determination that Israel should not exist is fundamentally incompatible with long-term peace.

A Long Record of Terror Infrastructure

The West has long tolerated the Palestinian Authority's rhetorical condemnation of terrorism while ignoring the ecosystem that has flourished on and around it: teaching hate and rewarding terror.

Sadly, the Palestinian Authority cannot be treated as a trustworthy security actor in sensitive theaters where counterterrorism credibility is non-negotiable.

Pressure to change works — but only while it is applied. Once relieved, the underlying strategic culture remains unchanged. Palestinians in Gaza might be tired of Hamas, but that does not mean they are ready to live peacefully side-by-side with Israel. Compliance to a new set of requirements may be tactical, not doctrinal.

Gaza Reconstruction as Strategic Infiltration

Just imagine the Palestinian Authority inside Gaza's reconstruction ecosystem, with access to donor funds, humanitarian logistics, and institutional channels. Reconstruction money is not neutral. It creates influence, dependency, and leverage. The Palestinian Authority understands this better than anyone.

The Palestinian Authority does not recognize Israel and most likely has no intention whatsoever of dismantling Hamas. For the Palestinian Authority, "reconstruction" offers laundering its legitimacy, access to institutions, long-term influence, and the chance, once President Donald Trump leaves office, of being deliciously positioned to do anything it likes.

By presenting itself as an ostensible contributor to stabilization, the Palestinian Authority seeks to recast its global image — from problem to partner — and go on to shape Gaza's political future however it likes. By aligning with other Islamist diplomatic narratives, a new regime will reinforce the extremist axis that treats Israel's legitimacy as negotiable. This is not humanitarian; it is maneuvering.

A Terrible Idea for Israel — and a Trap for Washington

The idea of involving the Palestinian Authority — or any ideologically hostile Muslim power, such as Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan or Iran — in Gaza's post-war stabilization is not merely naïve or simplistic. It is structurally dangerous. It rests on a recurring Western illusion: that parties, neutral only on paper, can reshape realities on the ground without becoming hostages to them. History suggests the opposite.

Even supposedly neutral peacekeepers or stabilization forces, from southern Lebanon to Afghanistan, from UNIFIL to ISAF, lack both ideological clarity and coercive authority and tend to ossify into inflexible presences. Rather than dismantle local power structures, they monitor, report, negotiate — and adapt to and often actually enable them. Even armed factions learn to coexist with these local guardians, to bypass them, or to instrumentalize them. It is far easier to accommodate militants than to confront them. Gaza, with its dense urban terrain, fortified terrorist networks, and radicalized social fabric, would accelerate this dynamic.

Any group that is unwilling or unable to dismantle Hamas — or its successor entities — does not neutralize the threat. It freezes it. Worse: it creates a protective buffer around it. Terrorists do not need to defeat those trying to contain them; they only need to outlast them. Time, in asymmetric warfare, is a weapon.

For Israel, this scenario is existentially dangerous. Israel would be expected to tolerate a hostile foreign security architecture on its southern border while remaining ultimately responsible for the consequences of its failure. Any future escalation — rocket fire, tunnel reconstruction, arms smuggling — would place Israel in an impossible position: to act militarily and be accused of attacking "the forces for peace " or refrain and absorb the threat. Either choice is unacceptable.

For Washington, the trap is more subtle but equally severe. Once the United States endorses a framework, it becomes politically and financially invested in its survival. Billions of dollars in aid, contracts, and diplomatic capital follow. At that point, acknowledging failure becomes almost impossible. The priority shifts from solving the problem to preserving the framework — even as security deteriorates. This is how illusions perpetuate themselves.

Introducing actors such as the Palestinian Authority -- or a countries with an Islamist stance -- into this environment compounds the risk. The Palestinian Authority's strategy is not one of disarmament and finality, but of operating in a gray zone: denying formal responsibility while tolerating or enabling actors beneath the threshold of open conflict. Gaza does not need another operative skilled in ambiguity. Gaza needs clarity.

A post-war Gaza that is not fully demilitarized -- and remains that way -- will not stay quiet. Hostility will mutate. Groups will fragment, rebrand, and infiltrate civilian structures. Aid flows will become leverage. Reconstruction will become camouflage. And the international presence meant to stabilize the situation will end up institutionalizing the very forces it was supposed to eliminate.

That is why this "Palestinian Authority solution" is a terrible idea for Israel — and a strategic trap for Washington: It offers the appearance of control while in fact hollowing out any real security.

Trump's Challenge

Trump faces a familiar dilemma — one he has encountered before in different forms: how to cut through inherited illusions without creating new ones.

Trump's instinct to reject endless wars and failed orthodoxies is sound. Both Gaza and Ukraine are littered with the wreckage of peace processes divorced from security realities, aid policies disconnected from accountability, and diplomatic frameworks that rewarded rejection.

Gaza, however, also presents a unique risk for a leader who values deal-making and burden-sharing.

The offers now circulating — a multinational stabilization force, Palestinian "legitimacy," shared reconstruction responsibilities — are seductive precisely because they promise to reduce direct American exposure. They suggest that others can carry the load, manage the problem, and absorb the political cost. This promise is largely illusory.

The United States cannot outsource strategic responsibility without losing strategic control. Any framework that excludes the decisive dismantling of Hamas's military and ideological infrastructure merely prolongs the conflict and favors the most radical actors.

Trump's real challenge is to resist the temptation to confuse participation with solution. The Middle East is full of actors eager to "participate" in Gaza — not to neutralize the threat it presents, but to shape its outcome to their advantage. The Palestinian Authority's interest in Gaza should be understood not as an act of goodwill, but as a bid for expanded power in a conflict that resonates across the Islamic world.

Accepting such a compromised "solution" will create a familiar pattern: the United States funds, legitimizes and protects bad actors, while constraining Israel and empowering hostile intermediaries. When the stabilization force then inevitably collapses, Washington will be told that the failure was due to insufficient patience, insufficient funding, or insufficient engagement — never to the flawed premise itself. Trump has an opportunity to break this cycle.

The opportunity requires drawing a clear red line that reconstruction comes only after demilitarization, not the reverse. Stability is the outcome of security, not a substitute for it. Legitimacy therefore cannot be granted to any actors whose strategic culture depends on permanent confrontation with Israel.

The Middle East does not need another "grand framework" built on diplomatic wishful thinking. It needs fewer illusions, fewer intermediaries, and clearer consequences -- ones that are actually implemented.

If Trump listens to the siren songs that promise order without disarmament, he will inherit the failures of his predecessors. If he refuses — and insists on realities rather than rituals — he may yet reshape the post-war equation.

The choice is his. As are the consequences.

Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", " The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France.As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22152/palestinian-authority-trap-gaza

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Role of Qatar in Promoting Jihad through the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas - Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi

 

by Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi

Qatar is not a neutral mediator but rather a state that provided Hamas with political sanctuary, financial lifelines, ideological reinforcement, and global reach.

 

Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. (Official Photo/The Amiri Diwan)

 

Table of Contents

1. Qatar and Hamas: Political Shelter and Strategic Depth
2. Long-term Planning for Israel’s Destruction
3. Genocidal Ideology and Post-Israel Governance Planning
4. Qatar-Backed Clerical Networks and Religious Legitimization
5. Hamas-Affiliated Scholars and Incitement
6. A Comprehensive Religious Charter Endorsing October 7
7. Hamas-Directed Terrorism in Europe
8. Charities, Aid Diversion, and Hamas Governance
9. Palestinian Authority Objections
10. UNRWA Funding and Militant Penetration
11. Overall Picture

Summary

• Qatar as Hamas’s primary external enabler: Over two decades, Qatar provided Hamas with political sanctuary, legitimacy, funding channels, and diplomatic cover, hosting its leadership and enabling strategic planning despite public denials of supporting terrorism.
• Strategic and military preparation for Israel’s destruction: From at least 2014 onward, Hamas leadership developed a long-term, genocidal strategy aimed at eliminating Israel, expanding military capabilities and planning a multi-front assault that closely resembled the October 7, 2023 attack.
• Ideological and religious legitimization of violence: Qatar-hosted and Qatar-supported clerical networks linked to the Muslim Brotherhood framed jihad against Israel as a religious obligation, endorsed mass violence against Jewish civilians, and later issued charters justifying October 7 and calling for global mobilization.
• Aid diversion and institutional entrenchment of Hamas: Qatari-funded charities, cash assistance, and support for UNRWA in Gaza simultaneously provide humanitarian aid while reinforcing Hamas’s governance, military infrastructure, and control over civilian institutions.
• Globalization of Hamas’s terrorist activity: Intelligence claims Hamas leadership based in Qatar directed or facilitated terrorist infrastructure beyond Gaza, including in Europe, underscoring Qatar’s role in enabling Hamas’s regional and international reach rather than acting as a neutral mediator.

Qatar has served as a central political, financial, and ideological enabler of Hamas over the past two decades, despite repeatedly denying that it supports Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure. Hamas leadership regarded Qatar as its most reliable regional ally—more dependable than Egypt—because Doha provided sustained access, legitimacy, funding channels, and diplomatic cover even as Hamas openly planned a war aimed at eliminating the State of Israel.

Qatar and Hamas: Political Shelter and Strategic Depth

Hamas leaders operated for years from Qatar, which hosted the movement’s political leadership and facilitated its external activity. This presence was publicly justified by Qatari officials as a mediation role allegedly requested by the United States, intended to maintain communication with a non-state actor to facilitate ceasefires, humanitarian access, and hostage negotiations. Qatar maintains that all aid sent to Gaza was transparent and coordinated with Israel and international actors, and that no Qatari funds were directed to Hamas’s military wing.

However, intelligence material cited here asserts that Qatar was uniquely positioned as the only actor with influence over both Hamas’s political leadership abroad and its military command in Gaza. From this vantage point, Hamas leadership allegedly used Qatar as a base for strategic deliberations, long-term military planning, and coordination with Iran and its regional proxy network.

Long-term Planning for Israel’s Destruction

As early as 2014, Hamas leadership articulated a comprehensive plan known as the “Promise of the Hereafter Battle,” framed as a final confrontation intended to destroy Israel and reshape the Middle East. This concept was accompanied by ideological preparation, institutional development, and detailed military planning. Hamas leaders openly described the conflict as existential and religious in nature, not territorial or negotiable.

By 2016, senior Hamas figures—both from Gaza and from the external leadership—were reportedly convening to formalize a “Liberation Strategy” that envisioned the elimination of Israel within a defined timeframe. These discussions coincided with a period in which Hamas dramatically expanded its military capabilities: establishing a domestic weapons manufacturing industry, constructing hundreds of kilometers of tunnels, training elite assault units, and preparing for a large-scale, multi-front attack.

Israeli leaders later publicly described Hamas’s operational concept in detail: massive rocket fire on Israeli cities; simultaneous infiltration by land, sea, air, and tunnel; the use of elite forces to seize Israeli communities; and mass hostage-taking to shatter Israeli morale. This operational blueprint closely matched the tactics ultimately employed on October 7, 2023.

Genocidal Ideology and Post-Israel Governance Planning

Hamas leaders and allied figures framed the “Promise of the Hereafter” not merely as a military campaign, but as a civilizational project. Conferences and public statements discussed governance structures, land redistribution, and property transfer in a future Palestine from which Israel would no longer exist. Jewish presence in the land was depicted as temporary and illegitimate, with some Hamas-aligned figures predicting or advocating for mass Jewish flight, expulsion, or evacuation during or after the conflict.

This rhetoric, grounded in selective religious and historical claims, presented the removal of Israel as both inevitable and divinely sanctioned. Violence against Jewish civilians was framed not as collateral damage but as an integral component of liberation.

Qatar-Backed Clerical Networks and Religious Legitimization

Beyond its relationship with Hamas directly, Qatar has long supported or hosted influential Islamist clerical bodies, most prominently the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), founded in Doha and historically led by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. This organization, aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, brought together senior Sunni religious figures with broad spiritual authority across the Islamic world.

IUMS and affiliated bodies repeatedly issued statements framing jihad against Israel as a religious obligation, rejecting peace agreements, normalization, or any prohibition on armed struggle. Financial support for “resistance” was defined as a form of religious duty. After October 7, 2023, these organizations praised the attackers as heroic “mujahideen” and called on Muslim governments, clerics, media, academics, and private donors to support the fight through material, political, and informational means.

Subsequent religious rulings expanded this position, declaring that Muslim states were obligated to wage jihad against Israel and to provide weapons, intelligence, and logistical support to armed groups. These declarations were accompanied by repeated high-level engagement between Qatari officials and the leadership of these clerical bodies, reinforcing the perception of state tolerance or endorsement.

Hamas-Affiliated Scholars and Incitement

Hamas-linked religious organizations—including the Palestine Scholars Association and the League of Palestinian Scholars—operated in close coordination with the clerical networks based in Doha. Their leaders issued statements portraying all of Palestine as Islamic land “until the Day of Judgment,” defining Jews and other non-Muslims residing there as combatants by default.

Following the October 7 attack, senior Hamas-affiliated clerics publicly called for mass violence against Jews in Israel and abroad, urging Muslims to attack wherever possible and to treat normalization with Israel as a legitimate target. These statements framed the conflict as global, not confined to Gaza or Israel.

A Comprehensive Religious Charter Endorsing October 7

In 2025, a coalition of clerics associated with Hamas and the broader Muslim Brotherhood ecosystem issued a detailed charter providing religious legitimacy for the October 7 attack and outlining obligations for Muslims worldwide. The charter declared Israel illegitimate, rejected international law and peace agreements, and described armed jihad as an unconditional duty.

The document characterized the October 7 attack as defensive jihad that required no approval from rulers and justified the enormous civilian toll in Gaza as a righteous and divinely rewarded sacrifice. It condemned any calls to disarm Hamas as treason against God and instructed societies to prepare future generations for jihad through education, media, lawfare, and financial support.

Hamas-Directed Terrorism in Europe

Information attributed to Israeli intelligence services asserts that Hamas leadership based in Qatar was involved in authorizing or facilitating terrorist infrastructure in Europe. One case cited involved the discovery of weapons and explosives in Vienna, allegedly linked to a Hamas operative with close familial and organizational ties to senior Hamas leaders abroad. Meetings in Qatar were described as evidence of centralized direction rather than rogue activity, contradicting Hamas’s public denials.

Charities, Aid Diversion, and Hamas Governance

Qatari-funded charitable organizations operating in Gaza are depicted as playing a dual role: providing genuine humanitarian assistance while simultaneously serving Hamas’s governance and military apparatus. Internal Hamas documents are cited as evidence that funds and resources from charities were redirected to support fighters, compensate operatives, finance infrastructure, and sustain logistical operations.

Publicly, these charities emphasized Qatar’s generosity, highlighting housing projects, food distribution, mosque construction, cemeteries, and cash assistance. Privately, according to the documents presented, Hamas leveraged its control over Gaza’s institutions to channel resources toward its military wing.

Palestinian Authority Objections

The Palestinian Authority formally objected to Qatar’s cash assistance program in Gaza, arguing that coordination with Hamas-run ministries legitimized Hamas’s rule and deepened Palestinian political division. The PA warned that such arrangements effectively amounted to cooperation with Hamas and helped entrench its control over Gaza’s civilian administration, which Hamas itself acknowledged was instrumental in building its military power.

UNRWA Funding and Militant Penetration

Qatar is a major donor to UNRWA, transferring roughly $200 million over several years. UNRWA is portrayed here as deeply compromised by Hamas influence in Gaza. Reports describe Hamas operatives employed by UNRWA, the use of UNRWA facilities for weapons storage, command centers, and tunnel infrastructure, and participation by some UNRWA staff in the October 7 attack.

Israeli military operations after October 7 uncovered extensive evidence of Hamas exploitation of UNRWA schools, clinics, and headquarters, including tunnels, weapons caches, intelligence equipment, and active combat operations conducted from or near humanitarian sites. Intelligence assessments further alleged that a significant portion of UNRWA’s Gaza workforce had direct or familial ties to terrorist organizations.

Overall Picture

Qatar is not a neutral mediator but rather a state that provided Hamas with political sanctuary, financial lifelines, ideological reinforcement, and global reach. Through hosting Hamas leadership, sustaining aid flows that bolstered Hamas governance, and supporting clerical networks that sanctified violence and genocide, Qatar enabled Hamas’s transformation into a heavily armed, ideologically driven organization capable of carrying out the October 7 attack and seeking to expand its terror campaign beyond the region. 

Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi

Source: https://jcfa.org/the-role-of-qatar-in-promoting-jihad-through-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-hamas/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump-Netanyahu Meeting Is Crucial for the Future of the Middle East - Freddy Eytan

 

by Freddy Eytan

The Prime Minister will have to make certain concessions on the condition that he does not endanger our security interests and obtain from Trump a formal commitment to demilitarize the Gaza Strip by all means and at all costs before even rebuilding this territory.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump. (White House Photo)

This article originally appeared in Israel Hayom on December 25, 2025.

Faced with regional instability and the new Iranian threat, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Donald Trump is crucial for coordinating the course of action in Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. The peaceful and pleasant setting of the Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida is undoubtedly an ideal diplomatic venue for initiating frank discussions and sincere exchanges, despite the complexity of the issues and the difficulty of resolving all the ongoing problems.

Several factors make this meeting crucial, and the Iranian threat is undoubtedly the most serious. Iran is rebuilding its nuclear capabilities and, above all, its ballistic missiles. Since the Israeli airstrikes and the American attacks on various nuclear sites just six months ago, the ayatollahs have relentlessly pursued their nuclear program and significantly improved their ballistic missile arsenal, capable of reaching all strategic targets within Israeli territory.

It seems that President Trump does not want another war against the Ayatollahs and, for the time being, refuses to allow Israel to attack Iran. Faced with this refusal, Netanyahu will have to present Trump with a comprehensive dossier from the intelligence services, Mossad and Aman, and obtain American approval in the event of an imminent and existential threat that would constitute a true casus belli.

Trump is a man in a hurry and wants to conclude peace agreements quickly and hastily sign economic and trade deals. However, he will not hesitate to launch raids if American soldiers are threatened or attacked, as he did recently in Syria against ISIS terrorist cells.

The instability of the Syrian regime and Trump’s support for Ahmed al-Charaa, a former terrorist leader, should also worry Americans.

We deplore their haste in recognizing this new regime and lifting the robust sanctions imposed on Syria without preconditions. Netanyahu must be firm on this issue and demand the continued presence of the IDF on Mount Hermon in Syria and effective protection for the Druze minority in the south of the country.

Regarding South Lebanon, it is essential to disarm Hezbollah, particularly through the use of an international force, and to fully implement the UN Security Council resolutions, including the one adopted in 2006 following the Second Lebanon War. This resolution notably required the establishment of a buffer zone between the Blue Line border and the Litani River. In August 2025, Resolution 2790 also renewed the mandate of UNIFIL until December 31, 2026.

In this context, Netanyahu will have to ask Trump to allow the IDF to launch targeted raids against each Hezbollah ceasefire violation and forcefully demand the dismantling of the Shiite militia’s military arsenal.

Implementing the second phase of the Gaza conflict resolution is obviously the most complicated, as Hamas not only refuses to lay down its arms but is also slowly but surely regaining control of the Gaza Strip. This is all the true given that Qatar and Turkey continue to support Hamas and are eager to join the Peace Council, of which Trump is also the chairman.

While the IDF controls a significant portion of Palestinian territory, an Israeli troop withdrawal is out of the question as long as Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. Consequently, the IDF’s indefinite presence in the Gaza Strip also complicates the establishment of an international force and a peace council.

To break the deadlock and avoid straining relations with the American administration, Netanyahu will first have to muzzle his ministers and teach them to keep quiet, rather than speak carelessly. “Speech is silver and silence is golden.” This saying from our Talmudic sages is especially valid in diplomatic relations.

The Prime Minister will also have to make certain concessions on the condition that he does not endanger our security interests and obtain from Trump a formal commitment to demilitarize the Gaza Strip by all means and at all costs before even rebuilding this territory.

Without a doubt, expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia or Indonesia would be a crucial step towards reconciliation with the Arab and Muslim world, but it cannot come at the expense of the Jewish state. We reject an illusory peace.

 

Amb. Freddy Eytan, a former Foreign Ministry senior advisor who served in Israel’s embassies in Paris and Brussels, was Israel’s first Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. He was also the spokesman of the Israeli delegation in the peace process with the Palestinians. Since 2007, he heads the Israel-Europe Project at the Jerusalem Center, which focuses on analyzing Israeli relations with the countries of Europe and seeks to develop ties and avenues of bilateral cooperation. He is also the director of Le Cape, the Jerusalem Center website in French. Amb. Eytan has written 25 books about the Israeli-Arab conflict and the policy of France in the Middle East, including La Poudriere (The Powder Keg) and Le double jeu (the Double Game). He has also published biographies of Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and a book, The 18 Who Built Israel.

Source: https://jcfa.org/trump-netanyahu-meeting-is-crucial-for-the-future-of-the-middle-east/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tariff policies expected in the new year - Just the News

 

by Just the News

The Supreme Court has not yet issued its ruling, but legal experts expect a decision as early as January 2026. the ruling will address challenges to President Trump’s tariff program.

 

The Supreme Court is preparing to decide one of the most consequential trade law cases in decades: a challenge to President Donald J. Trump’s sweeping tariff program, which has reshaped global trade and raised fundamental questions about executive power.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Historically, major tariff decisions have flowed through legislation. But at the start of his second term, President Trump bypassed the traditional legislative process and issued a series of executive orders imposing broad tariffs. Congress also has frequently delegated to the President much of this responsibility. 

The relevant statute authorizes: "[T]he President to enter into bilateral trade agreements where such agreements would better serve U.S. economic interests than agreements undertaken on a multilateral basis," and "Directs the President to seek reform of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (or through negotiation of other agreements) to establish principles promoting the development of an open, nondiscriminatory and fair world economic system."

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November of this year, in the case which is captioned Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump.

Trafficking Tariffs 

The first set of measures, announced in early February, are known as the “trafficking tariffs.” These tariffs targeted imports from Canada, Mexico, and China on the ground that those countries had failed to adequately curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

A second and more expansive round followed on April 2, 2025—a date that President Trump dubbed “Liberation Day.” Via Executive Order 14257, the administration imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff on imports from nearly every country in the world, with higher rates ranging from 11 to 50 percent for dozens of nations. The President cited large and persistent trade deficits as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” 

As legal justification for the tariffs, President Trump declared a national emergency related to the trade deficit and invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. The statute, rarely used in the trade context, grants the president authority to “regulate [...] importation” in response to extraordinary foreign threats. But the law does not explicitly mention tariffs or duties.

Initial Legal Challenges

The President’s tariffs quickly sparked a wave of lawsuits. Dozens of small and medium-sized businesses as well as coalitions of states and industry groups filed challenges. They argued that the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s constitutional role.

In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the administration had overstepped the bounds of the IEEPA. The court explained that long-standing trade imbalances and foreign manufacturing practices did not constitute the kind of emergency the statute was designed to address.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision, concluding that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate importation” did not clearly empower the president to impose sweeping tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The appeals court emphasized that actions of such “vast economic and political significance” require unmistakable authorization from Congress.

Meanwhile, in a different case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to unilaterally impose tariffs and granted the challengers a preliminary injunction. That ruling was appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

The Case Before SCOTUS

Before the D.C. Circuit could rule on the merits, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review the President’s tariffs. It consolidated the two related cases and set an expedited briefing schedule. In their forthcoming decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the justices will decide several significant legal questions.

First, the Court will examine whether IEEPA—a decades-old statute traditionally used for targeted sanctions—can lawfully justify President Trump’s tariffs. While IEEPA permits the president to regulate imports during a national emergency, it does not explicitly mention tariffs.

If the Court finds that IEEPA does authorize the tariffs, it may also consider whether granting the president unilateral authority in this way constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

The Court might further address whether the D.C. District Court was the proper venue for the challenge. Under federal law, the Court of International Trade has “exclusive jurisdiction” over civil actions against the government that arise from U.S. laws concerning “tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on importation for reasons other than revenue raising” or matters related to their enforcement. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B) and (D). The government argues that the D.C. District Court was not the correct forum.

Oral arguments were heard on November 5, and the outcome remains uncertain. Several justices —including some appointed by President Trump — expressed skepticism about the administration’s broad interpretation of executive authority.

Potential Consequences 

A ruling against the government could have sweeping economic implications. While the tariffs remain in effect during the litigation, a decision declaring them unlawful could trigger massive refund claims by importers. Analysts estimate that duties collected since 2025 could total anywhere from hundreds of billions to more than a trillion dollars.

Businesses have already restructured supply chains, cut costs, and shifted production in response to the tariffs. Critics describe the measures as an “unexpected tax” on small businesses, while supporters warn that invalidating them could destabilize the economy and undermine national security.

Politically, the case highlights ongoing tensions over executive authority in trade policy. A decision upholding the tariffs would significantly expand presidential power, setting a powerful precedent for future crises. A ruling against the administration would reinforce congressional primacy in trade measures and curb executive reach.

Tariffs are likely here to stay 

Whether the President wins or loses, tariffs might be here to stay. For months, senior administration figures have downplayed the possibility of losing at the Supreme Court. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said the administration could reimpose similar measures under alternative statutory authorities, such as Sections 301, 232, or 122 of various trade laws. 

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett echoed that sentiment, saying the White House has “backup plans” if the current tariffs are struck down. “We’re going to win either way. The American people are going to win either way,” Hassett said.

Early critics warned that President Trump’s tariffs would lead to soaring inflation. But several months later, the prices of goods and services across the United States have remained relatively stable. 

Inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which tracks the prices consumers pay for a broad array of goods and services, has slowed significantly, rising about 2.7 percent over the 12 months ending in November 2025. That pace is below what many economists and market forecasts had expected, and it represents one of the lowest annual inflation readings in years, particularly compared with the double-digit jumps seen during the pandemic era.

President Trump said in a post on Truth Social, that markets and retirement accounts had reached record highs while “Inflation, Prices and Taxes are DOWN,” and urging the justices to “do the right thing for America.” 

The Supreme Court has not yet issued its ruling, but legal experts expect a decision as early as January 2026. 

Just the News

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/supreme-court-ruling-trumps-tariff-policies-expected-new-year

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘Full-fledged war’ with US, Israel, Europe, Iranian president says - JNS

 

by JNS

Masoud Pezeshkian told an official Iranian news site that "they do not want our country to stand on its feet."

 

Masoud Pezeshkian, Iranian president, in December 2025. Source: Islamic Republic official publication.

 

Masoud Pezeshkian, the Iranian president, told an official publication of the Islamic Republic that his country is at war against the West.

“In my opinion, we are in a full-fledged war with America, Israel and Europe. They do not want our country to stand on its feet,” he told the publication. “This war is worse than Iraq’s war against us.”

“If one understands it well, this war is far more complex and difficult than that war. In the war with Iraq, the situation was clear. They fired missiles, and I also knew where to hit,” he said. “Here, they are besieging us from every aspect. They are putting us in difficulty and constraint, creating problems—in terms of livelihood, culturally, politically and security-wise—while raising society’s expectations.”

“On one side, they block our sales, our exchanges, our trade and on the other side, expectations in society have risen,” he said.

Later in the interview, the Iranian president claimed that “our dear military forces are doing their job with power.”

“Despite all the problems we face, we are now, in terms of both equipment and personnel, far stronger than we were during their previous attacks,” he said. “Therefore, if they choose to strike, they will naturally face a more decisive response.” 

JNS

Source: https://www.jns.org/full-fledged-war-with-us-israel-europe-iranian-president-says/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Yasser Hadaya Asadi appointed first Arab-Muslim Border Police battalion commander - Fraidy Moser

 

by Fraidy Moser

Asadi has been appointed as the new commander of the “Adomim” Battalion, one of the three Border Police battalions in the Jerusalem envelope.

 

Yasser Hadaya Asadi graduated as thew first ever Arab-Muslim Battalion Commander of the Israeli Border Police. Asadi, 52, was the only Muslim from 107 graduates, Ynet reported on Sunday.

(photo credit: ISRAEL POLICE SPOKESPERSON"S UNIT)

 

Yasser Hadaya Asadi graduated as the first Arab-Muslim Battalion Commander of the Israeli Border Police. Asadi, 52, was the only Muslim among 107 graduates.

Asadi has been appointed as the new commander of the “Adumim” Battalion, one of the three Border Police battalions in the Jerusalem envelope.

Asadi, a married father of three, two of whom serve in the Israel Prison Service, will begin his new role this week.  Speaking to Ynet, he described the position as a challenging one but expressed confidence in his preparedness for the job.

Asadi brings extensive operational experience to the role, having served in the West Bank and along the seam line in the Jerusalem envelope. He emphasized his focus on preventing the infiltration of illegal Palestinian entrants into Israel and ensuring the security of residents in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Reflecting on the historic achievement as the first Arab Muslim to be appointed as a Border Police battalion commander, Asadi described it as the fulfillment of a dream and a personal milestone.

Israeli security forces stand guard in front of the Damascus Gate near the Old City of Jerusalem (credit: AFP PHOTO)

He told Ynet that his appointment sends a message to the younger generation of the Arab sector, highlighting that opportunities are available for those who choose to contribute to Israeli society.

'A dream come true'

"For me, this is a dream come true," he said. "Breaking the glass ceiling of the Arab-Muslim boy who came out of Deir al-Assad and was one of the few in the village who enlisted in the Border Guard. For me, this is a mission, and the fact that I reached the position of battalion commander is something that sends a message to our younger generation in the Arab sector: Any glass ceiling can be shattered if you have faith in yourself and if you just choose the path of contributing to the society in which you live," Asadi told Ynet. 

The ceremony marking his new rank was attended by his family, including his wife Jihan and their three children. His wife expressed her pride in his achievement, while Asadi acknowledged her support in raising their children during his years of service in combat roles.

Asadi also paid tribute to his late brother, Sgt. Maj. Hassan al Hadiya Asadi, a Border Police combatant who was killed in the Tyre disaster during the First Lebanon War in 1983. Asadi cited his brother’s service as a key inspiration for his own career in the Border Police.

"When Hassan enlisted in the IDF and from there transferred to the Border Guard, he was among the few Arab-Muslims who did so. It was a real breakthrough in our village and in Arab society in general. I always remembered how he would come home wearing a uniform, his pride and that of all the family members in being a Border Guard soldier. When I turned 18, I had no doubt about two things: that I was enlisting and that I would continue his path in the Border Guard. To this day, after 34 years, every morning when I put on my Border Guard uniform, I am filled with pride."

In his years of service, Asadi has encouraged enlistment within the Arab sector, viewing it as an important step toward integration into Israeli society. He pointed to his own children, two of whom have joined the Prison Service, as an example of the changing attitudes toward military and police service in the Arab community.

"Conscription into the IDF and Border Guard is the best route to integration into Israeli society," he explained. "I try to convey to our young people the desire to contribute to society through recruitment. It is much better than the alternative - to walk on the margins of society and often to degenerate into crime, a phenomenon that is unfortunately increasing in the Arab sector," he told Ynet.

Looking to the future, Asadi stated that he plans to continue advancing in his career within the Border Police, with aspirations to contribute over the next decade.

Fraidy Moser

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-881556

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Did the Iranian Regime Play a Role in Australia’s Chanukah Massacre? - Dr. Dan Diker

 

by Dr. Dan Diker

While definitive attribution of operational control for the Bondi Beach massacre remains pending, the cumulative evidence strongly suggests a conducive environment shaped by Iranian ideology and strategic retaliation.

 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with officials and state executives. (Office of the Supreme Leader)

 

Table of Contents 

1. Ideological Incitement and Diplomatic Proximity
2. Iran’s Subversive Footprint and Antisemitic Violence in Australia
3. Warnings Ignored: A Pattern of Strategic Neglect
4. Iran and Sunni Jihadists: Tactical Cooperation, Strategic Purpose
5. Strategic Context: Retaliation and Global Asymmetric Warfare
6. Policy Implications and Recommendations

 Summary

The Islamist terror attack against Jewish celebrants at Australia’s Bondi Beach in New South Wales raises urgent questions about the role of state-sponsored involvement by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Within hours of the attack, both Australian and Israeli intelligence assessments pointed to the regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

A convergence of indicators supports the accusation, including senior regime involvement in prior antisemitic violence in Australia, ideological incitement linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s past cooperation with Sunni jihadist actors when strategically expedient—warrants intelligence and policy scrutiny.

The Bondi massacre, far from an isolated terror attack, was yet another warning signal of the Iranian regime’s “octopus” extending its terror tentacles worldwide, as it has for more than 42 years of similar shadow terror actions, beginning with the bombing of 243 American military peacekeepers in Lebanon in 1983.

Ideological Incitement and Diplomatic Proximity

Hours before the Bondi Beach attack, Ahmad Ghadiri Abyaneh—the son of Mohammad-Hassan Ghadiri Abyaneh, a former Iranian ambassador to Australia—posted a cryptic message on X condemning Jewish Chanukah celebrations as a “satanic ritual.”¹ His post framed Jewish religious observance as a threat requiring “societal defense,” explicitly citing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s longstanding doctrine of “mobilized civil resistance” against perceived enemies of Islam.

This was not an abstract theological statement. It echoed the Iranian regime’s systematic use of religious language to legitimize violence against Jewish and Western targets. The proximity in timing, messaging, and ideological framing raises the possibility of foreknowledge or, at least, ideological grooming. While Abyaneh holds no official diplomatic post, his familial ties to Iran’s diplomatic corps and his invocation of Khamenei’s language raise red flags.

Iran’s Subversive Footprint and Antisemitic Violence in Australia

The December 14, 2025, Bondi Beach mass murder also may have been an IRGC-coordinated “payback” directed at Australia following the national government’s designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity on November 27, 2025.²

The Australian terror proscription of the IRGC followed its “persona non grata” expulsion (PNG) of Ambassador Ahmad Sadeghi in August 2025. A highly embarrassing incident for Tehran, it marked the only time since World War II that Australia expelled a foreign ambassador, plummeting bilateral relations with Iran to a historic low. In total, four Iranian diplomats, including the ambassador, were declared persona non grata. For Tehran, the diplomatic humiliation was severe and, in the regime’s logic, may have demanded retaliation.

Australia’s expulsion of Iranian diplomats followed intelligence revelations that implicated Iranian embassy personnel in antisemitic violence. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) determined that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operatives embedded within the embassy were responsible for sponsoring or facilitating at least two violent incidents: the December 2024 firebombing of Melbourne’s Adass Israel Synagogue and earlier, vandalism of a Jewish business in Sydney.

Warnings Ignored: A Pattern of Strategic Neglect

Israeli and Australian intelligence and Jewish organizations had long warned Canberra of escalating antisemitism and jihadist radicalization. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government of ignoring intelligence warnings regarding a Sydney-based Islamic State cell believed to have carried out the Bondi attack.

These concerns were echoed by Ambassador Dani Dayan, Chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust commemoration center, who warned Australian authorities in November that “the window is closing” for effective preventive action. In meetings with the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales, Dayan cautioned that failure to confront rising public antisemitism would normalize hatred and could culminate in “unspeakable atrocities.”³

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) issued similar alerts. Chairman Alex Ryvchin told CNN that “the writing was on the wall,” suggesting the massacre was foreseeable given the unchecked surge in antisemitic incidents. Ryvchin further implied that political considerations—not lack of intelligence—delayed decisive government action.⁴

Iran and Sunni Jihadists: Tactical Cooperation, Strategic Purpose

At one time, cooperation between Shiite Iran and Sunni Islamic State operatives would have appeared counterintuitive. However, since, the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Iranian cooperation with Sunni extremists has been documented. U.S. intelligence assessments have recorded Iran’s facilitation of safe passage for al-Qaeda operatives before and following 9/11. Tehran’s pragmatic calculus is that attacking shared enemies—Israel, the United States, and the West—overrides adversarial sectarian divides between Sunni and Shiite ideology.

In this context, the Bondi Beach massacre may be an IRGC-enabled or inspired operation designed to achieve multiple goals: punish Australia for designating the IRGC a terrorist organization, retaliate for the expulsion of Iranian diplomats, and project deterrence by demonstrating Iran’s reach far beyond the Middle East.

Strategic Context: Retaliation and Global Asymmetric Warfare

Iran currently faces mounting strategic pressure. Israel’s successful intelligence, cyber, and kinetic operations have significantly degraded elements of Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Tehran’s response has increasingly relied on global asymmetric tactics—proxy attacks, ideological incitement, and plausible deniability operations abroad.

From Latin America to Europe and now Australia, Iran has demonstrated a pattern of weaponizing diaspora communities, diplomatic cover, and radical networks to strike soft targets. Jewish communities, in particular, serve as both symbolic and operationally accessible targets within Iran’s broader confrontation with Israel and the West.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

Failure to confront public antisemitism and foreign incitement—whether in Australia, Europe, or the United States—will invite further atrocities. The toleration of public antisemitic acts is certain to encourage more Bondi Beach scenarios, normalizing violence as a tool of geopolitical signaling.

While definitive attribution of operational control for the Bondi Beach massacre remains pending, the cumulative evidence strongly suggests a conducive environment shaped by Iranian ideology and strategic retaliation. The attack should be understood not merely as domestic terrorism, but as part of a global campaign of intimidation linked to state-sponsored extremist doctrine.

To fight and prevent these events in the future, Western states must integrate counter-antisemitism enforcement, foreign intelligence monitoring, and diplomatic accountability into a unified security doctrine. Iran’s global asymmetric warfare model depends on hesitation. Deterrence begins with clarity, exposure, and decisive action.

* * *

Notes

1. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-880323↩︎

2. https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-listed-state-sponsor-terrorism↩︎

3. https://www.yadvashem.org/press-release/22-december-2024-12-59.html https://www.jwire.com.au/messages/↩︎

4. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5648635-antisemitism-australia-hanukkah-shooting/↩︎

  

Dr. Dan Diker, President of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, is the longtime Director of its Counter-Political Warfare Project. He is former Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress and a Research Fellow of the International Institute for Counter Terrorism at Reichman University (formerly IDC, Herzliya). He has written six books exposing the “apartheid antisemitism” phenomenon in North America, and has authored studies on Iran’s race for regional supremacy and Israel’s need for defensible borders.

Source: https://jcfa.org/did-the-iranian-regime-play-a-role-in-australias-chanukah-massacre/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter