The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
The measures, which the Treasury Secretary first teased last week, are designed to punish “enablers” of Iran that purchase its oil and facilitate financial flows.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on Monday a
new raft of sanctions targeting the Iranian regime dubbed “Operation
Economic Outcast,” which he compared to the historic D-Day landings
during World War II.
“Iran now faces a very clear choice, with only two paths
before them: complete global isolation and a subsistence economy, or a
path back to normalcy with an opportunity to rejoin the global economy,”
Bessent told reporters at a 1:00 PM press conference.
These new measures are designed to ramp up pressure on
Iran’s "enablers," which Bessent has called out for purchasing Iran’s
petroleum products, allowing their financial systems and banks to
facilitate transfers of Iranian funds, and allowing Iran’s shadow fleet
to transfer oil products in their territorial waters. Bessent and
President Donald Trump indicated last week that the United States
planned to shift to a comprehensive economic blockade of the Islamic
Republic, hoping to strangle the regime by cutting off its economic
lifelines.
“We are enforcing a zero leakage approach. There will be no
minimal breathing space for the regime to rebuild its capacity to
inflict terror against America and the world,” the secretary said. “The
final refuge of this regime is the mistaken conclusion of nations that
still finance the Iranian threat in the hopes of evading it. It is no
longer acceptable to operate in the gray spaces of this conflict.
Countries cannot claim they are blind to enabling this activity.”
The sanctions, Bessent said, are designed to target five of
Iran’s lifelines during the conflict: “digital assets, technology,
gold, aviation, and shipping.”
The Treasury Department will sanction “over 60 entities,
individuals, and vessels” globally that officials believe enable Iran to
purchase nuclear and missile technology, carry out cyber operations,
and allow it to generate oil revenue.
Bessent said that President Trump is currently calling
world leaders with American expectations that they act to cut off Iran’s
lifelines, however, the secretary said that the names of leaders and
countries the president has approached will remain secret during
negotiations. China, one of Iran’s largest trading partners and
purchasers of Iranian oil before the conflict, would likely face action
from the Treasury’s new sanctions.
China has purchased the vast majority of Iranian oil for
years, even while its exports are under international sanctions. Chinese
banks and front companies help Iran with oil transactions
to avoid the sanctions and operate ships in a shadow fleet to transport
the sanctioned oil, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission. China has also sold Iran the technology and inputs
required to construct its fleet of attack drones and missiles.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Bessent on Thursday urged
Beijing to “get with the program” and support the United States’ planned
economic blockade.
The U.S. Treasury secretary described the campaign as “the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary.”
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with Secretary of Treasury Scott
Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles
on board Marine One at Hardy Barracks in Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 27, 2025.
Credit: Daniel Torok/White House.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday night that the
Trump administration’s “economic D-Day” against Iran would begin at
dawn, aimed at severing “every economic lifeline” sustaining the Islamic
Republic.
Bessent described the campaign, announced
by U.S. President Donald Trump last week, as “the single greatest
financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary,” saying the
president had created the conditions to use every available federal
agency and authority against Tehran. He also said that U.S. military
action had destroyed nearly all of Iran’s military factories and buried
its nuclear program.
The administration is expected to unveil new
sanctions targeting Iran’s remaining sources of foreign trade, including
countries that continue doing business with Tehran. Iran has warned
countries against joining the U.S. campaign and threatened to further
restrict oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday night that the Trump administration’s “economic D-Day” against Iran would begin at dawn, aimed at severing “every economic lifeline” sustaining the Islamic Republic.
Bessent described the campaign, announced by U.S. President Donald Trump last week, as “the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary,” saying the president had created the conditions to use every available federal agency and authority against Tehran. He also said that U.S. military action had destroyed nearly all of Iran’s military factories and buried its nuclear program.
The administration is expected to unveil new sanctions targeting Iran’s remaining sources of foreign trade, including countries that continue doing business with Tehran. Iran has warned countries against joining the U.S. campaign and threatened to further restrict oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran warned on Saturday that countries joining the US economic campaign against Tehran will be treated as enemies.
“We
declare to all countries ... do not join the economic war waged by the
United States. Any country participating in the imposition of economic
restrictions against us is considered an enemy,” Mohsen Rezaei, head of
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.
Trump on Sunday posted a graphic labeling the Strait of Hormuz “New U.S. Territory,” five days after posting the same image on Truth Social.
Trump
previously said the United States had “total control” over the
strategic waterway and suggested he would declare it U.S. territory
after defeating Iran.
Iran is fighting a “full-scale economic,
military and security war,” but remains steadfast in its defiance,
President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday.
Speaking at a ceremony
pledging loyalty to the ideals of Islamic Republic founder Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, Pezeshkian said, “The enemies imagined that with
their pressure and actions Iran would collapse. Not only did this not
happen, but the power and unity of the Iranian nation amazed the world,”
according to the government-sponsored Mehr News Agency.
On Aug. 19, Trump announced the coming “economic D-Day” campaign.
The
Iranian “navy is gone, their air force is destroyed, their military
factories are now rubble, their currency is worthless and their country
is hanging by a thread,” he wrote on Truth Social.
No one has given the Iranian regime a better chance to make a deal than he, Trump wrote.
“Tragically,
for them, they have failed to take it. Therefore, today, I am
announcing the most crushing economic operation ever taken against any
country,” he continued.
The president threatened “tremendous
economic consequences” for any country that lets its “financial
institutions, businesses, airports or government entities to provide any
type of lifeline to Iran.
“Oil smuggling, swap lines, cash
transfers, exchange houses, ship registries, front companies—it all
needs to stop now,” he stated. “You know who you are. This will be an
economic D-Day.”
He called on all U.S. allies to “isolate and defeat the Iran threat.
“These
maniacs are on the ropes,” he said. “These historic measures will
cripple them and their ability to project terror worldwide. Iran will
never have a nuclear weapon.”
Iranian attacks and threats to shipping have already stopped most traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, largely shutting down a waterway that once carried around a fifth of global energy.
FILE PHOTO: People walk on the beach, with vessels in the
Strait of Hormuz visible near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, May 22,
2026.(photo credit: MAJID ASGARIPOUR/WANA/REUTERS)
US
threats to impose "the toughest sanctions in history" to force Iran to
buckle to its demands after nearly six months of war have raised the
prospect of a new round of escalation in the Gulf.
How could Iran respond to the economic pressure?
Can Iran stop more oil from leaving the Middle East?
Mohsen
Rezaei, the former Revolutionary Guards chief and secretary of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council, has already threatened to shut down
oil exports — one of Tehran's main strategic approaches since the war
began on February 28.
"If the economic war continues, not a single drop of oil will be exported, neither through the Strait of Hormuz nor from anywhere in the Persian Gulf," he said.
Iranian attacks and threats to shipping have already stopped most traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, largely shutting down a waterway that carried around a fifth of global energy before the conflict.
Vessels near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, August 24, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/STRINGER)
Although
some oil tankers have been moving through the strait in recent weeks,
volumes remain very low and on Sunday Iran blacklisted 45 tankers it
says failed to comply with the rules it wants to impose on Hormuz
shipping.
Missile,
drone or speedboat attacks on tankers trying to leave the Gulf have
repeatedly pushed up oil prices during the six months of the conflict.
Meanwhile,
Tehran's Houthi allies have restricted Red Sea shipping with attacks
and threats to blockade all Saudi Arabian shipping, which carries crude
to Asia through the Bab el-Mandeb strait past the group's Yemeni
stronghold.
While
the attacks initially stopped only some vessels, with more than half
still getting through in mid-August, the situation is difficult for
shippers, and Chinese shipping companies are now rerouting away from Bab
el-Mandeb, according to industry sources.
Further
attacks, such as the one that targeted a vessel off the main Saudi Red
Sea oil terminal at Yanbu on Monday or a drone strike near the Suez
Canal in early August, could raise oil market anxiety levels and crude
oil prices.
Are Gulf states still at risk of an Iranian attack?
Iran
has threatened to retaliate against any neighbors who take part in US
efforts to strangle the country's economy with "earthquake" force.
It
has targeted Gulf states and Jordan repeatedly during the war, mostly
focusing on US bases but also hitting energy infrastructure and other
targets.
Any intensified attacks on upstream oil or gas facilities could further drive up energy prices in ways that inflict political damage on the Trump administration and may be harder to reverse than attacks on shipping.
Targeting
power and water desalination plants in the hot, parched region would
also pose a major risk to US-aligned Gulf monarchies that function as
significant financial hubs for the global economy.
Can Iran attack Western countries directly?
While
Western countries are beyond the range of Iran's main munitions, the
Revolutionary Guards have historically been willing to find alternative
ways of attack.
Western
security services have also accused Iran of recruiting local people to
stage attacks or attempt assassinations in the West. Iran has denied
that.
Is this really what Washington and its Western allies want? Are Western governments once again entertaining the fantasy that Islamist terrorist organizations can be transformed into legitimate political parties?
Why should Egypt be searching
for a formula that would facilitate Hamas's return to Palestinian
politics? Should Egypt and the rest of the international community not
instead be demanding that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad surrender
their weapons, dismantle their military structures, and disappear from
Palestinian political life?
This new Palestinian "unity" alliance being planned would mean
that instead of producing new and moderate Palestinian leaders, the
election could result in a parliament in which Hamas, PIJ, and other
rejectionist groups become major political power brokers and
representatives of the Palestinians.
Is this really what Washington and its Western allies want? Are
Western governments once again entertaining the fantasy that Islamist
terrorist organizations can be transformed into legitimate political
parties?
Hamas members can remove their military uniforms and put on
suits. PIJ operatives can replace their rifles with election posters.
They can talk about democracy, elections, and political partnership.
None of that necessarily changes what they plan.
A "Western-driven disaster" could be developing in which
accountability for Hamas is replaced by efforts to rescue the
organization politically. "Hamas must never again be trusted with
Palestinian politics. It should face the kind of post-defeat reckoning
that Nazi Germany faced after World War Two or that the Baathist regimes
of Iraq and Syria faced after their collapse. Why would a defeated
terror organization that inflicted immense damage on its own people, its
neighbors, and the entire region be offered an exit strategy or a
political off-ramp? What possible campaign promise could Hamas present
that makes it worthy of consideration in Palestinian elections? More war
and jihad (holy war)? More governance failures? More corruption
and theft of aid? Hamas is a spent force, a used and discarded object, a
wrecked entity that cannot be repaired or repurposed." — Ahmed Fouad
Alkhatib, a Palestinian-American analyst from Gaza, X. August 21, 2026.
"Western governments, elites, and observers continue to display
remarkable naivete about the Middle East, Arab political culture, and
ideologically driven movements. Democracy is not simply voting at a
booth. It is the creation of a democratic tradition, a free society, an
open media environment, and a civic ethos that is not driven by
ideology, religion, or extremism. The United States, under a Republican
administration twenty years ago, made a grave mistake by insisting on
elections that included Hamas. Will the Trump administration repeat the
same error once again?" — Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, X, August 21, 2026.
The problem with the Western approach then was the assumption
that participation in elections would moderate Hamas. Instead, Hamas
used elections to gain legitimacy and power while retaining its weapons,
ideology, and terrorist infrastructure.
There is no reason to believe that things would be different now.
Hamas and PIJ might even accept cleverly-worded conditions to enable
them to participate. They might go as far as saying they accept a
Palestinian state alongside Israel. They will say whatever is necessary
to get through the political door.
The real questions should be simpler: Will Hamas, PIJ and other
Palestinian terrorist organizations recognize Israel's right to exist?
Will they renounce terrorism? Will they surrender all their weapons?
Will they dismantle their military wings? Will they abandon jihad as a means of eliminating Israel?
Unless the answer to all these questions is unequivocally yes,
terrorists should have no role in elections, government, or Palestinian
decision-making.
After October 7, 2023, the international community should be
discussing how to remove Hamas and PIJ from Palestinian political and
military life – not how to help them have seats in parliament.
Why should Egypt be searching for a formula that would
facilitate Hamas's return to Palestinian politics? Should Egypt and the
rest of the international community not instead be demanding that Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad surrender their weapons, dismantle their
military structures, and disappear from Palestinian political life?
Pictured: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists congratulate
each other on their murderous atrocities, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza
Strip, on November 28, 2023. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)
A new Palestinian political alliance
now taking shape should serve as a warning to the United States,
Europe, and anyone hoping to see a moderate and peaceful Palestinian
leadership emerge after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led massacre in
Israel.
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Mohammed Dahlan's "Reformist
Current" in Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
(PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and
other Palestinian factions have been discussing the formation of a broad joint list
to contest the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council of the
Palestinian Authority (PA), scheduled for November 28, 2026.
This new list is being marketed
as Palestinian "national unity." It would be more accurate to describe
it as an attempt to bring terrorist organizations back into Palestinian
political life through the ballot box.
The factions participating in the discussions say they support a "broad national alliance" that would participate in the elections. They claim
that the elections represent an opportunity to achieve "national
unity," end Palestinian divisions, and reorganize PA institutions on the
basis of partnership and consensus.
Unity with whom?
Hamas and PIJ are Islamist terrorist organizations that reject
Israel's right to exist. Hamas was responsible, together with other
Palestinians, for the October 7 atrocities. PIJ, an Iran-backed
terrorist organization, has participated in countless terrorist attacks
against Israel. These organizations are now apparently being invited to
reinvent themselves as political parties.
The most striking development is PIJ's reported decision, in principle, to participate in the alliance. PIJ has never before participated in PA parliamentary elections. It has nevertheless been preparing for the possibility of instructing its cadres and members to register or update their electoral records.
Has Palestinian Islamic Jihad suddenly transformed itself into a
peaceful political organization? Hardly. A senior PIJ source explicitly emphasized
that the organization has not even abandoned its opposition to the Oslo
Accords signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993 and 1995. PIJ
therefore appears interested in participating in elections without
changing the ideology that has defined it since its founding 45 years
ago.
The surprise, however, is not that Hamas and PIJ are seeking
political legitimacy. Terrorist organizations have long understood that
elections and political institutions can be used as instruments for
achieving objectives they have failed to attain through terrorism.
The bigger surprise is Mohammed Dahlan.
Dahlan, a former Palestinian Authority security commander and senior
Fatah official who is based in Abu Dhabi, has for years been portrayed
by some Westerners and Arabs as a "pragmatic" and "moderate" Palestinian
figure. His name has repeatedly surfaced as a possible successor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas and, more recently, in discussions about who might play a role in the future administration of the Gaza Strip.
Now Dahlan's faction is discussing
running in an electoral alliance with Hamas and PIJ. There is an old
saying: Show me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are.
Those who are promoting Dahlan as a moderate alternative to Abbas
might want to ask why a supposedly pragmatic Palestinian figure would be
prepared to form an electoral partnership with Islamist terrorist
organizations. They might also want to ask whether this is the person
they envision helping administer the Gaza Strip.
There is another troubling aspect to the story: Egypt's role. The
discussions have been taking place in Cairo under Egyptian auspices as
part of efforts to promote Palestinian "national unity." Egyptian
sources have said that Cairo is also seeking to arrange
discussions between Abbas's Fatah faction and Hamas to reach a
"consensus formula" concerning the elections, including a new formula
regarding Hamas's participation.
Why should Egypt be searching for a formula that would facilitate
Hamas's return to Palestinian politics? Should Egypt and the rest of the
international community not instead be demanding that Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad surrender their weapons, dismantle their
military structures, and disappear from Palestinian political life?
If this is what Palestinian "national unity" looks like, Palestinians would be better off without it.
There should be no political role for those responsible for the
October 7 massacre. There should be no political reward for
organizations that have brought death and destruction on both Israelis
and Palestinians. There should be no parliamentary power or
rehabilitation for Iran-backed terrorist groups.
The danger is that the proposed alliance could perform well enough in
the upcoming elections to become a dominant force in the next
Palestinian Legislative Council.
Palestinian political analyst Hilal Nassar, writing
about the emerging alliance, pointed out that it could develop into
something far larger than a temporary electoral arrangement. He
described a potential bloc incorporating Islamist, leftist, nationalist
and independent forces that could change the existing Palestinian
political establishment and perhaps eventually present itself as an
alternative to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO):
"The alliance is considered a single political bloc that
includes all Palestinians with all their colors, spectrums, and beliefs
under a common name, and may be an alternative to the Palestine
Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, which have failed
to unify the Palestinian ranks for many years.
"It is possible, and indeed certain, that the alliance aims to
restructure the political landscape and participate in shaping the
political vision and national decision. The alliance could lead to a
historic transformation in the Palestinian system."
This new Palestinian "unity" alliance being planned would mean that
instead of producing new and moderate Palestinian leaders, the election
could result in a parliament in which Hamas, PIJ, and other rejectionist
groups become major political power brokers and representatives of the
Palestinians.
Is this really what Washington and its Western allies want? Are
Western governments once again entertaining the fantasy that Islamist
terrorist organizations can be transformed into legitimate political
parties?
Hamas members can remove their military uniforms and put on suits.
PIJ operatives can replace their rifles with election posters. They can
talk about democracy, elections, and political partnership. None of that
necessarily changes what they plan.
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a respected Palestinian-American analyst from Gaza and outspoken opponent of Hamas, has warned of precisely such a political rehabilitation.
"Is Hamas already getting a political makeover?" he asked, warning
that a "Western-driven disaster" could be developing in which
accountability for Hamas is replaced by efforts to rescue the
organization politically. "Hamas must never again be trusted with
Palestinian politics," Alkhatib wrote.
"It should face the kind of post-defeat reckoning that
Nazi Germany faced after World War Two or that the Baathist regimes of
Iraq and Syria faced after their collapse. Why would a defeated terror
organization that inflicted immense damage on its own people, its
neighbors, and the entire region be offered an exit strategy or a
political off-ramp? What possible campaign promise could Hamas present
that makes it worthy of consideration in Palestinian elections? More war
and jihad (holy war)? More governance failures? More corruption
and theft of aid? Hamas is a spent force, a used and discarded object, a
wrecked entity that cannot be repaired or repurposed."
Alkhatib argued
that Palestinian politics need "deradicalization and a new framework
that learns from past failures," rather than empowering factions
responsible for repeated catastrophes.
"Western governments, elites, and observers continue to
display remarkable naivete about the Middle East, Arab political
culture, and ideologically driven movements. Democracy is not simply
voting at a booth. It is the creation of a democratic tradition, a free
society, an open media environment, and a civic ethos that is not driven
by ideology, religion, or extremism. The United States, under a
Republican administration twenty years ago, made a grave mistake by
insisting on elections that included Hamas. Will the Trump
administration repeat the same error once again?"
The United States should know better.
In 2006, Hamas was allowed to participate unconditionally in the
Palestinian Legislative Council election and won 74 of the 132 seats. A
year later, Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza Strip from the
Palestinian Authority.
The mistake of 2006 must not be repeated. The problem with the
Western approach then was the assumption that participation in elections
would moderate Hamas. Instead, Hamas used elections to gain legitimacy
and power while retaining its weapons, ideology, and terrorist
infrastructure.
There is no reason to believe that things would be different now.
Hamas and PIJ might even accept cleverly-worded conditions to enable
them to participate. They might go as far as saying they accept a
Palestinian state alongside Israel. They will say whatever is necessary
to get through the political door.
The real questions should be simpler: Will Hamas, PIJ and other
Palestinian terrorist organizations recognize Israel's right to exist?
Will they renounce terrorism? Will they surrender all their weapons?
Will they dismantle their military wings? Will they abandon jihad as a means of eliminating Israel?
Unless the answer to all these questions is unequivocally yes,
terrorists should have no role in elections, government, or Palestinian
decision-making.
After October 7, 2023, the international community should be
discussing how to remove Hamas and PIJ from Palestinian political and
military life – not how to help them have seats in parliament.
The coalition's president, Kenneth Roldan, said the case will be based on antitrust and predatory pricing.
A coalition representing immigrant-owned grocers filed a lawsuit over
democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani's plan to open government-run
grocery stores in New York City.
The coalition, which filed its lawsuit Monday morning, had sought
unsuccessfully to find a solution out of court. The lawsuit argues that
the plan violates New York civil rights laws and the New York
Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and it asks the courts to
permanently block the grocery stores, Fox News reported.
The Multicultural Business Coalition, which is composed of 50
chambers of commerce representing ethnically diverse businesses, made a
final attempt to avoid litigation in a letter to City Hall on Wednesday,
the New York Post reported.
The coalition's president, Kenneth Roldan, said the case will be
based on antitrust and predatory pricing. "The state cause of action
will be tortuous interference and possibly discriminatory practices by
the administration," he told the Post.
The coalition represents Asian, African, Caribbean, Hispanic, Middle Eastern and Jewish-owned businesses in New York.
The draft rule the agency published Monday would apply to individuals hired within the U.S., Bloomberg reported, and it would be added to all petitions for H-1B workers.
The Department of Homeland Security is proposing a $103,265 fee on the H-1B visa program.
The draft rule the agency published Monday would apply to individuals hired within the U.S., Bloomberg reported, and it would be added to all petitions for H-1B workers.
President Donald Trump had issued a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa
holders hired from outside the country, which disrupted hiring plans for
many businesses. Because it relied on presidential authority to
restrict entry into the U.S., it didn't include recent graduates or
those H-1B visa holders currently living in the U.S.
A federal judge in Boston vacated the fee, ruling that it imposed an
unlawful tax without approval from Congress. The Trump administration
appealed the ruling, and the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
denied an emergency request to block it.
Trump's proclamation applied to new H-1B hires by universities,
hospitals and research-based institutions, but the DHS proposal excludes
those categories.
The H-1B program is limited to 85,000 visa slots each year by a
statutory cap, including 20,000 reserved for advance degree holders.
Ambassador Tom Barrack clarified his comments regarding Israeli control of the strategic plateau after drawing rebukes from Jerusalem and Capitol Hill.
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Thomas Barrack attends a meeting with
President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Iraq Ali al-Zaidi in the
Oval Office of the White House on July 14, 2026. Photo by Andrew
Harnik/Getty Images.
Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack on
Sunday walked back comments describing Israel’s control of the Golan
Heights as an occupation, saying he had been referring to the
territory’s historical status.
“United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged,” Barrack said in a statement to TheAssociated Press.
He said his remarks were “not an endorsement of the United Nations’
position” on the territory, which Israel captured during the 1967
Six-Day War and extended sovereignty over in 1981.
Barrack had
said on Friday that Israel “still occupies” the Golan Heights, prompting
Defense Minister Israel Katz to note he was contradicting the U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty there.
Katz
said that Barrack’s remarks were “riddled with inaccuracies and
positions that contradict those of U.S. President Trump himself
regarding the status of the Golan Heights.”
Barrack’s comments
also drew backlash in Washington. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) wrote on X
that the ambassador appeared to have “forgotten” Trump’s recognition of
Israeli sovereignty over the territory.
On March 25, 2019, Trump signed Proclamation 9852 recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the strategic plateau. On Aug. 10, 2026, Colombia’s Foreign Ministry announced
Bogota’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,
becoming the second country to officially endorse Jerusalem’s claim to
the territory.
Netanyahu uses incident to illustrate dangers of civil war; Ben Gvir likens himself to Irgun leader Begin at separate press event
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks from the Israeli coast about
the locating of the 1948 vessel Altalena, August 24, 2026. (GPO
screenshot)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reveled on Monday in the discovery of the wreck of the Altalena cargo ship,
which was sunk amid a deadly 1948 confrontation between Israel’s
nascent army and the right-wing Irgun militia, and criticized Israel’s
first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, for ordering the military to
attack the vessel.
The Altalena affair was the most prominent incident of violent
conflict between Jews during Israel’s War of Independence, and almost
pulled the fledgling state into a civil war.
Netanyahu, in his pre-recorded video statement shot on the Tel Aviv
promenade overlooking the beach, chose to reopen the bitter wound over
Ben-Gurion’s decision to fire on the ship, while simultaneously using
the incident to illustrate the dangers of civil war.
Although he was preaching unity, the prime minister also took the
opportunity to denigrate his political opponents, and irritated allies
by deciding to record a video rather than appear alongside National
Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir at a live press conference on the
discovery.
Summarizing the deadly violence in his own words, Netanyahu said that
Ben-Gurion had made a “tragic decision to open fire” on the ship while
it was “bringing essential weapons to our fighters in the War of
Independence.”
“Instead of letting it unload,” he lamented, “the Haganah men on the beach opened fire.”
The Altalena was brought to Israel by Menachem Begin’s right-wing
Irgun militia during the country’s War of Independence in June 1948.
With the state and its military only a few weeks old, Ben-Gurion, who
was at bitter odds with Begin, demanded that the ship and cargo be
turned over to the newly formed IDF, sparking an armed confrontation.
As the ship reached the coast and then ran aground on a sandbank, a
standoff ensued that ended in a shootout between Irgun members aboard
and IDF and Palmach soldiers on the shore, who were ordered to destroy
the vessel. The ship was set ablaze by artillery fire by the forces on
the shore under the command of a young Yitzhak Rabin, later the IDF
chief of staff and prime minister.
Sixteen Irgun members and three IDF soldiers were killed during the sinking of the Altalena.
The husk of the ship remained visible off the shore for about a year, until it was dragged out to sea and sunk in 1949.
While it is generally accepted that a sovereign state cannot tolerate
an independent militia, such as the Irgun, running its own arms supply,
the cost of imposing that principle — the death toll, the loss of vital
weaponry and the act of Jews fighting and killing Jews — has remained
immensely controversial, especially given the left-right political
divide that has continued throughout modern Israeli history.
The incident on the shore of Tel Aviv is viewed by many on Israel’s
right as an injustice and has become a rallying cry — both about the
dangers of internal conflict and violence, and about the ostensible
perfidy of the political left.
“Brothers killed brothers” off the coast of Tel Aviv when “the
Altalena went up in flames,” Netanyahu lamented, recounting how Begin
“stopped the fight” and pledged that “we are not going to have civil
war.”
“That’s the lesson of the Altalena,” Netanyahu said.
The Altalena ship burns after being shelled near Tel Aviv, June 22, 1948. (Hans Pinn/GPO)
The ship was located by divers early on Monday following a yearslong
effort funded by the government. The discovery was announced by Ben Gvir
and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, a member of his ultranationalist
Otzma Yehudit party.
Netanyahu said he would order the ship raised from the water and turned into a monument.
“For me, and I am certain for you as well, citizens of Israel, this
is an emotional moment, a defining moment,” he said. The ship “will be a
tangible symbol for our generation and generations to come.”
Experts have said raising the ship will be difficult and costly, and may prove impossible.
The prime minister praised the Irgun fighters for not escalating the
fight to a civil war, and for going on to fight in the War of
Independence.
The Irgun would later be absorbed into the Israel Defense Forces, and
Begin, who went on to found Netanyahu’s Likud party, said of the affair
that his “greatest accomplishment was not retaliating and causing civil
war.”
Netanyahu noted that he attends the yearly ceremony commemorating the
Altalena’s victims at the site of its destruction, and criticized his
opponents for protesting the event over the years.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the unveiling of a new
monument to the victims of the 1948 Altalena incident, at Nahalat
Yitzhak cemetery in Tel Aviv, October 27, 2016. (Miriam Alster/Flash90)
“In recent years something absurd has happened,” he said. “During the
ceremony, I hear cries of incitement against us from political rivals
standing outside and simply desecrating this sacred ceremony. Have they
not learned its lesson?”
“This is the lesson, and it’s very simple,” he declared. “We are
brothers. Political rivals, yes, but we are brothers. We are of one
nation, one future, one fate.”
Toward the end of his video, Netanyahu asserted that he was acting in
the spirit of that lesson, and repeated his campaign pledge to
establish a “broad national government” following the October 27
election.
Ben Gvir was forced to delay the start of his press conference as a
result of Netanyahu issuing his video. Like Netanyahu, he highlighted
the left-right divide present in Israeli society, saying the discovery
of the ship closed the “bleeding wound” of what he said was the
marginalization of the Israeli right.
The far-right minister spoke at the Etzel Museum — named for the
Irgun’s Hebrew acronym — on the beach near Jaffa. He sported a pin in
the shape of a noose on the lapel of his suit, in an allusion to his
efforts to institute death by hanging for Palestinians convicted of
terrorism against Jews.
National Security Minister Itamar
Ben Gvir holds a press conference at the Etzel Museum in Tel Aviv
following the announcement that the wreck of the Altalena had been
located, August 24, 2026. (Avshalom Sassoni/FLASH90)
“For decades they’ve tried to hide this wound, to silence this
story,” Ben Gvir said, without specifying who he was referring to.
The Altalena, he said, is “a symbol of the national camp, led by Menachem Begin.”
“In the face of all the prosecution, Menachem Begin held to his
truth, with one very clear belief: We are brothers, the entire House of
Israel — it doesn’t matter what our origins, color or ethnicity are, or
what party we vote for. There will never be a civil war,” Ben Gvir said.
“Against our enemies, we must not hesitate, be confused or show
compassion. But with our brothers, we need to be together.”
He then appeared to present himself as the modern-day Begin, lamenting that Begin was “familiar with boycott.”
“He knew, intimately, what it tastes like when others don’t want to
be photographed with you on the same stage,” said Ben Gvir, who himself
was long a pariah in Israeli politics because of his close association
with slain extremist rabbi Meir Kahane. The comparison appeared to be a
jab at Netanyahu over his decision to stay away from the Otzma Yehudit
leader’s press conference.
Sources close to Ben Gvir were cited in Hebrew media as saying that
Netanyahu decided to split off from Ben Gvir at the last moment “to
avoid contact and a joint photograph.”
The premier’s decision to distance himself from his far-right ally in
the run-up to the election was reminiscent of an incident ahead of the
last election, in late 2022, when he refused to share a stage with Ben Gvir at a holiday event in Kfar Chabad.
While Netanyahu made no effort to distance himself from Ben Gvir or
his views over the past four years in government, Likud under Begin
maintained a strict boycott of Kahane, Ben Gvir’s rabbi.
The teachers are part-owners of the company that Weingarten and the AFT are trying to damage over politics.
The California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) is the
largest teachers-only public pension system in the country, with more
than $400 billion in assets under management. As of December 31, 2024,
CalSTRS directly held three-quarters of a million shares of
Target Corporation, worth more than $100 million. If one were to add in
the Target holdings of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and the
New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (the second and third-largest
teachers-only plans in the country, respectively), then the total value
of shares owned would jump by another $60-plus million. Add in the
remaining state teacher retirement systems, plus the city systems of
Chicago, Denver, Kansas City (Missouri), New York City, St. Louis, and
St. Paul, and the total value of Target shares directly held by teacher pensions is well into the multiple hundreds of millions, at the very least. Add in the value of indirect
shares held through various index funds and ETFs, and teacher
retirement plans hold literally billions of dollars’ worth of Target
stock. Given all this, it’s more than fair to say that Target is a key
component of teachers’ pension portfolios and, as a result, the
company’s long-term success is directly linked to American teachers’
retirement security.
And yet…
This past weekend, the American Federation of Teachers, the
second-largest teachers’ union in the country and likely the most
prominent, launched a new campaign urging parents and students to
boycott Target for back-to-school supplies and clothes. Randi
Weingarten, the politically active and politically connected president
of the AFT, released a video
detailing the boycott and explaining why it is, in her eyes, an
absolute moral imperative to teach Target a lesson. According to an AFT press release,
“The ‘Shop Smart, Support Working Families’ campaign was created in
response to Target’s refusal to condemn the unlawful Immigration and
Customs Enforcement activity that continues to roil communities around
the country.” Weingarten herself complained that “We gave Target ample
time to stand with the communities in which they operate and help their
neighbors, but its silence about federal immigration abuses has been
deafening.”
The AFT is angry at Target because Target and its executives didn’t do what the union wanted: make its political fight their fight. And it’s actively trying to damage the company because of that refusal.
Taken together, these two facts—teachers’ pensions hold considerable
equity in Target, while teachers’ unions are purposefully trying to harm
the company—say quite a bit about the state of markets and politics in
the country at the moment and suggest a handful of lessons that can and
should be learned by outside observers.
The first thing this strange confluence of circumstances tells us is
that people, in general, neither understand what a publicly traded
corporation is nor fully grasp its purpose. Corporations are, as a rule,
portrayed in our popular media and perceived by most average Americans
as far-off, distant, heartless organizations run by and for rich people.
In truth, publicly traded corporations like Target are owned by their
shareholders, the overwhelming majority of whom are just ordinary
folks—like teachers—who are trying to save for their retirement. Public
pension plans, 401(k)s, IRAs, etc., are the primary savings vehicles for
most “investors.” The perception of investors as a bunch of “fat cats”
on Wall Street who own everything and manipulate everything
for their benefit is largely a myth, and it has been for decades. You,
your spouse, your kids, your mom and pop, and their small business are
the majority of investors and, by extension, the majority of owners of
most corporations.
There is no doubt that a significant disconnect exists between the
owners of corporations (principals) and those who run them on the
owners’ behalf (agents). This is a longstanding concern that has
prompted much discussion, consternation, and even confrontation over the
decades. Moreover, with so many owners—literally millions of
people—many opinions on how best to run the company exist, and those
opinions often and passionately conflict with one another. Given this,
basic rules governing the conduct of the agents exist and are updated
constantly. This is what’s known as “governance.” The most famous
description of foundational principles of governance, designed to secure
the interests of all shareholders, was provided by the economist Milton
Friedman:
In a free-enterprise, private-property
system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the
business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That
responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their
desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while
conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in
law and those embodied in ethical custom.
That’s it. That’s what corporate executives are supposed to do.
That’s how they are meant to treat their shareholders—by providing them a
return on their investment. That’s the fundamental principle of
governance: produce returns for all investors.
Unfortunately, some people think that their opinions, wants, and desires are more important than other people’s right
to earn a return on their investment. They think that corporations
exist to serve their ends and to accommodate their political beliefs and
ambitions. Even more unfortunately, many of these people have been
encouraged to think this by the very corporate “agents” who know better
and who have moral and legal obligations to the contrary.
In August 2019, for example, the Business Roundtable (BRT)—a
nonprofit organization whose members are the CEOs of the largest
corporations in the United States—issued a declaration called a
“Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.” In it, the 181 signatories
proclaimed that they and their corporations were dedicated to being less
focused on shareholders and more focused on stakeholders. The chairman
of the Roundtable at the time was Jamie Dimon, the CEO and chairman of
the largest bank in the world (by market cap). “The American dream is
alive,” Dimon lamented, “but fraying.” He implied that only the
executives of the world’s biggest companies (the agents to their tens of
millions of principals) could save the American Dream. More to the
point, he implied that they could only do so by redefining the purpose
of a corporation. “These modernized principles reflect the business
community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy
that serves all Americans.”
Every CEO who signed that document alongside Dimon (and Larry Fink
from BlackRock, Tim Buckley from Vanguard, Brian Moynihan from Bank of
America, Michael Corbat from Citigroup, Jeff Bezos from Amazon, etc.,
etc., ad nauseam) is responsible for sowing confusion among the
people, for encouraging people like Randi Weingarten to think of Target
as a tool to accomplish her goals. These CEOs may not fully agree with
this declaration they issued seven years ago, and they may wish they
hadn’t signed the BRT’s now-infamous statement, but that doesn’t change
the fact that they did sign it and that by doing so they gave Weingarten
and countless others the impression that corporations were the
appropriate vehicle for their political aspirations.
Ironically, one of the signatories of that document was a man named
Brian Cornell, who was then the CEO of Target. Cornell retired from the
CEO role earlier this year but remains the company’s executive chair.
Even more ironically, Cornell was hardly the first of Target’s
executives to play politics with the company’s resources and reputation.
As I have noted elsewhere,
Target has a long history of getting involved in matters that are
beyond its business purview. Indeed, Target has a well-earned reputation
as a social-justice-compliant company—which is probably why Weingarten
is so upset that it has resisted her entreaties. The lesson here is that
“no good deed goes unpunished” (no matter how broadly one defines the
word “good”). Once you decide to ride the social-justice wave, it can be
nigh on impossible to bail on that wave before wiping out. The folks at
Target are undoubtedly learning this lesson the hard way.
The nation’s teachers are learning that lesson the hard way as well,
whether they realize it or not. They are part-owners of the company that
Weingarten and the AFT are trying to damage over politics. Indeed, it’s
almost certainly the case that Weingarten herself is a part-owner of
Target and, as such, is damaging her own pension returns. Of course, the
catch here is that as an individual shareholder, Weingarten is free to
make her own investment decision for whatever reasons she sees fit. As
the president of a teachers’ union, however, she has certain
obligations. She is not legally a fiduciary steward of her constituents’
pension funds, but she does have tremendous influence over those who
are fiduciaries. The AFT’s Trustee Council openly concedes that it has more than 50 members on 27 different pension boards.
Additionally, the union produces a variety of materials meant to
influence fiduciaries on their responsibilities to union members and
beneficiaries. Randi Weingarten’s hands may be legally clean, but her
house is a mess. She’s harnessed the power of her union and of teachers
more generally to fight against a company of which they are all
part-owners. That is the very definition of self-defeating.
In the end, this is what happens when people forget—or ignore—the
nature of capital markets and publicly traded corporations. No one, it
seems—not the AFT, not the BRT, not the massive asset management firms
that control more than $25 trillion in other people’s money—thinks of
corporations as what they really are: the collected savings of tens of
millions of ordinary people. They think of corporations as the means to
their ends, not the ends of their true owners.
Photo: Target Quarterly Sales Down Amid
Backlash Over Pride Month Products
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - AUGUST 16: Customers shop at a Target store on
August 16, 2023 in Chicago, Illinois. Target’s quarterly sales fell for
the first time in six years which is being attributed in part to
consumer backlash from the sale of Pride Month merchandise. (Photo by
Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Stephan R. Soukup is the Director of The Political Forum Institute and the author of The Dictatorship of Woke Capital (Encounter, 2021, 2023)
The Trump administration plans to escalate its strategy to economically isolate the Islamic Republic by targeting its international enablers and financial networks, and sends a warning shot to Beijing.
As the conflict with Iran nears its six-month anniversary,
President Donald Trump has traded bombs for a comprehensive economic
blockade of the Islamic Republic, hoping to strangle the regime by
cutting off its economic lifelines.
This week, the president — frustrated with the Iranian
leaders’ failure to agree to a deal to settle the conflict that includes
ending the country’s illicit nuclear program — vowed to significantly
ramp up the United States’ campaign to crush the Iranian economy.
Trump: "Tremendous economic circumstances"
On Wednesday, Trump announced the "most crushing economic
operation ever taken" against the Iranian regime that would target
Iranian enablers, or any country “that allows its financial
institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide
any type of lifeline to Iran.”
“Those countries will face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences,” the president said in a post to Truth Social.
“Oil smuggling, swap lines, cash transfers, exchange houses, ship
registries, front companies — It all needs to stop NOW. You know who you
are,” Trump warned.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent elaborated further on the president’s goal. “[W]e are going to collapse this regime,” he said on Thursday in an interview with CNBC.
Strangling Iran
Victoria Coates, Vice President of Heritage’s Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
at the Heritage Foundation, told Just the News that the
president’s self-described “Economic D-Day” strategy began to take shape
in April, when he first imposed a naval blockade on Iran’s ports and in
the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to strip Iran of smuggled oil revenues it
was using to fund its fight against the U.S. military.
“There was a major shift in April when the president
decided, you know what, we're going to blockade them. We're not going to
let them hold us hostage over the Strait of Hormuz. We're going to hold
the Strait of Hormuz hostage. We're going to see who comes in and
out,” Victoria Coates told the Just the News, No Noise TV show.
“And Iran wasn't prepared for that. So, they were expecting
they could still get out about 750,000 barrels [of oil] a day, they
could still get in their critical imports, and that's really important.
Most people don't appreciate this because Iran hasn't invested anything
in their own economy. They're heavily dependent on imports. We cut all
that off, and so slowly over the summer, … we're just strangling them,”
Coates said.
UAE cuts trade with Iran
The president’s latest announcement outlines a plan to go
even further by targeting the countries that are supplying so-called
lifelines to Iran. Just a day before the president’s announcement, the
United Arab Emirates announced that it would suspend all trade and financial transactions
with Iran after the regime allegedly fired a missile at the UAE. The
United States has for weeks been encouraging the UAE, which is a close
ally, to crack down on the Iranian finance networks in the country.
Tehran has long used the UAE as a conduit for financial and trading
networks designed to circumvent international sanctions.
“The big move [...]by the UAE to cut them off from Dubai,
from any kind of commerce with the international financial markets, is
huge, and I think that's just going to continue on, and nature will take
its course,” Coates said.
Aside from being a major trade partner of Iran before the war, the UAE has served as an intermediary
for Iranian exports and financial exchanges in the global market, to
which Iran’s access has been heavily restricted under sanctions regimes.
U.S. government sanctions on Iranian regime-linked targets
frequently include individuals based in Dubai, the UAE’s largest city.
For example, the U.S. sanctioned companies and individuals in the UAE
for their roles in a petroleum smuggling network linked to the
Yemen-based Iranian proxy group, the Houthis.
Widespread effects of "Economic D-Day"
In June, the U.S. Treasury Department unveiled sanctions
on the personal banker of Iran's new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei,
targeting his network of assets abroad that benefit the country's most
senior leadership, Just the News previously reported. The
banker, Ali Ansari, is an Iranian national who lives abroad in Dubai,
where he has used his ties to the Iranian regime to embezzle government
funds and amass "a global network of investment properties and financial
holdings," according to the U.S. government.
China, Iran’s largest trading partner, would also face
actions from the United States if President Trump imposes his “Economic
D-Day.” China has purchased the vast majority of Iranian oil for years,
even while its exports are under international sanctions. Chinese banks
and front companies help Iran with oil transactions
to avoid the sanctions and operate ships in a shadow fleet to transport
the sanctioned oil, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission. China has also sold Iran the technology and inputs
required to construct its fleet of attack drones and missiles.
China Treasury Secretary Bessent on Thursday urged Beijing
to “get with the program” and support the United States’ planned
economic blockade. He cited China’s dependence on Middle East oil
imports as a reason to get behind ending the conflict, indicating that
the Chinese could face consequences if they continue to back Tehran. The
issue of Beijing’s support for Iran during the war remains sensitive
ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s planned visit to the United
States in September.
China not taking the bait
However, Chinese foreign policy experts believe that the
Trump administration’s threats are empty. “This threat reveals how
desperate the Trump administration has become on the issue of Iran,” Wu
Xinbo, an American studies scholar at Fudan University in Shanghai and
who serves as an advisor to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told The New York Times. “They issue this threat, not because they think it is workable, but because they have no other options.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said on Friday
that “sanctions and pressure” will not bring the conflict to an end.
“China calls on all relevant parties to take responsible measures and
resolve the problem through political and diplomatic means,” he said.
“China opposes illegal unilateral sanctions that have no
basis in international law and are not authorized by the UN Security
Council,” Lin added.
President Trump's plans to ramp up economic pressure on
Tehran stem from the belief that Iran’s beleaguered economy cannot take
many more hits before the regime's internal system begins to break down,
but it remains to be seen just how much pressure the country can
withstand. Iran’s economy was already in dire straits before the initial
U.S. strikes in February.
Iran’s economy was suffering from persistently high inflation, the collapse of its currency, and declining agricultural production after years of drought, Just the News
previously reported. The economic instability fueled the largest round
of anti-regime protests in recent Iranian history which brought the
Islamic Republic to the brink of political collapse. Only a violent
crackdown by loyal security forces ended the wave of demonstrations.
More recent reporting
indicates that unemployment in the country is soaring, inflation is
still running out of control, and those that do work are struggling to
afford necessities like food and medicine in the midst of the conflict
with the United States.
