Monday, March 17, 2025

It’s time to revise Israel's military doctrine - opinion - Efraim Inbar

 

by Efraim Inbar

Today, Israel is paying a staggering price for its delay in mounting a strong military response to previous provocations, which would have instilled fear in its enemies.

 

IDF SOLDIERS operate in Beit Lahiya, in the northern Gaza Strip, in November.  (photo credit: Oren Cohen/Flash90)
IDF SOLDIERS operate in Beit Lahiya, in the northern Gaza Strip, in November.
(photo credit: Oren Cohen/Flash90)

Israel’s original military doctrine, formulated by David Ben-Gurion, emphasized three elements: deterrence, early warning, and decisive victory. 

Yet, Israel has experienced deterrence and intelligence failures at least twice, in October 1973 and October 2023. In both cases, the IDF did not deter its opponents, and Israel’s intelligence apparatus failed to warn about its consequence – an impending attack. The recurrence of these failures questions their centrality in Israel’s strategic doctrine.

Deterrence assumes that enemies will refrain from attacking out of fear of severe retaliation, but it is largely an elusive and problematic psychological concept. Military superiority and threats of retaliation are not always successful in preventing an adversary from attacking. Even if the threats are credible, the opponent may decide to pay the cost to achieve the expected utility.

For Hamas, the perceived benefits of challenging Israel outweighed the costs of potential punishment because their religious commitments dominated the rational deterrence logic. Israel underestimated Hamas’s resolve to destroy Israel and its conviction that this could be attained. Similarly, Israel did not realize that its containment policy, carried out for two decades, has eroded its deterrence. 

Even if deterrence works during a certain period, it may only be temporary due to a variety of factors that affect the strategic calculus of an opponent. Over time, enemies may test the limits of deterrence due to a change in circumstances, reassessing the risk involved in offensive actions. Surprise attacks are generally seen as awarding military advantages to the initiating side, and success in achieving a surprise undermines the effectiveness of deterrence. 

 IDF troops operate in the Gaza Strip. February 7, 2025. (credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)Enlrage image
IDF troops operate in the Gaza Strip. February 7, 2025. (credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

Following the 1973 intelligence debacle, the IDF significantly expanded its intelligence corps and also honed its capabilities by adopting advanced technologies. For example, it could tell exactly which lorry in a convoy traveling from Iraq toward Lebanon carried arms for Hezbollah. 

It provided the most exact data for executing numerous successful targeted killings of terrorists with minimal collateral damage. Yet, on October 7, 2023, it failed to provide a warning despite the many signals detected, and Israel was surprised once more.

Intelligence failures occur due to several key factors. In the Israeli case, analysts fell prey to confirmation bias, overlooking evidence that did not support existing theories. Indeed, the Hamas attack, “the Jericho Wall plan,” was in the hands of the Israeli intelligence but not properly communicated to decision-makers in the right context. It misread signals and intentions.

There is growing evidence that the IDF over-relied on technological means of collecting intelligence at the expense of human intelligence. Similarly, the use of the Devil’s Advocate function became a ritual rather than a crucial method for checking reality by imagining unlikely scenarios. Overconfidence and the illusion of control also beleaguered Israeli intelligence in 2023.

It all boils down to the fact that human beings are fallible. We cannot expect to receive early warning about the corrosion of deterrence and about an imminent attack. Therefore, these error-prone elements – neither the neglect of intelligence nor the necessary steps to enhance deterrence – cannot serve as the cornerstones of Israel’s national security doctrine. 

A revision of military policies is needed

Yet, instead of relying on early warning and deterrence, Israel has no choice but to build a better defensive posture, particularly since it may face a multifront scenario again. It needs a larger standing army that can better protect Israel’s land borders, as well as larger reserve units in the settlements along the border. Israel has to deploy a larger and stronger military able to parry the enemy attacks and to move on the offensive at least on two fronts simultaneously. 

A larger army is also called for to attain a decisive victory as quickly as possible, which in turn delays the next round of violence.

Shortening the compulsory military period, which reduces the size of the standing army, is no longer an option, and increasing the pool of available conscripts is necessary. All efforts should be made to tap the manpower found in the ultra-Orthodox community.

In addition, the reserve corps should be expanded by ending the lenient discharge policy. In contrast to the past, the reserve units need better training and equipment, with upgraded maintenance. The widespread belief within the IDF brass before the war that reserve units no longer have a central role in waging modern war proved patently wrong.

A larger army costs more money. Moreover, those serving in the regular army and in the reserves need to be better compensated for their time and patriotism. Therefore, a larger defense budget is imperative, even at the expense of social services. 

Israel must also abandon the policy of containment/restraint, which was intended primarily to extend the periods of quiet along the border and to save blood and treasure. It proved counterproductive. 

Exercising containment over time conveys weakness, while the aversion to military confrontation in a region with a political culture that values the use of force is part and parcel of the rules of the game. After all, fear is the best political currency in the Middle East.

Moreover, an erosion of deterrence brings the next round of violence closer. Containment in Gaza also caused complacency that led to a calamitous strategic surprise. 

Israel was satisfied with the formula of “quiet for quiet” in Gaza. Although this spared the Israeli population from missile attacks, it gave Hamas time to buttress its regime and build up its forces without interference, creating a greater future risk to Israel, as the Hamas attack of October 7 indicated. 

Similarly, Jerusalem has allowed Hezbollah to acquire a huge missile arsenal over the years, acting as a deterrent for Israel. Hezbollah’s missiles did not “rust,” as former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon predicted at the turn of the millennium, and they caused enormous damage in the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

Moreover, the policy of restraint normalizes the use of force by Israel’s adversaries. The world got used to missiles raining down on Israel’s population, and Israel’s success in intercepting them undermined the legitimacy to respond. 

Restraint allows the “acceptable” doses of violence against Israel to increase incrementally. Hamas gradually extended the range of its missiles, putting an increasing number of Israelis on alert and making their lives miserable. The payload of their warheads also increased.

Israel does not have the luxury of dispensing with the use of preemptive strikes, which were a core element of its original military doctrine. There is considerable strategic sense to such operations, despite the inherent risks involved. 

Today, Israel is paying a staggering price for its delay in mounting a strong military response to previous provocations, which would have instilled fear in its enemies. 

In the wake of the events of October 7, it appears that Israel over-relied on containment; a better balance between this policy and the preventive use of force must be reestablished. Kicking the can down the road is rarely a prudent course of action.


Efraim Inbar
is a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and head of the Strategy, Diplomacy, and Security Program at the Shalem Academic Center.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-846232

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Egypt’s Gaza strategy: Ceasefire talks and a bold reconstruction plan - opinion - Neville Teller

 

by Neville Teller

Egypt has a central role in the Gaza conflict and has hosted many rounds of ceasefire and prisoner exchange negotiations.

 

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi greets Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas at an emergency Arab summit in Cairo on Tuesday. The Egyptian plan on rebuilding Gaza threatens Israel’s security, strengthens Hamas, and undermines US strategic interests, the writer maintains. (photo credit: Egyptian Presidency/Reuters)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi greets Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas at an emergency Arab summit in Cairo on Tuesday. The Egyptian plan on rebuilding Gaza threatens Israel’s security, strengthens Hamas, and undermines US strategic interests, the writer maintains.
(photo credit: Egyptian Presidency/Reuters)

Egypt is currently playing a crucial role in two of the most significant efforts related to the Gaza conflict.

As a mediator, along with the US and Qatar, of the arms-length discussions between Israel and Hamas, Egypt has hosted many rounds of ceasefire and prisoner exchange negotiations. Now, strengthened by its central role in the ceasefire talks, it has masterminded a detailed $53 billion reconstruction initiative for Gaza, which has received strong backing from Arab nations, Western governments, and the UN. 

It has provided a credible alternative to President Donald Trump’s “Riviera of the Mediterranean” concept, which proposed the displacement of most of Gaza’s Palestinian population into neighboring Arab states.

In late 2023, Egypt did allow the immigration into Egypt, via the Rafah crossing, of a limited number of foreign nationals, dual citizens, and wounded Palestinians. Subsequently, however, it has strongly opposed extending this program, holding firmly to the belief that Gazan citizens should not be displaced from their homeland. 

Early in February, Israel accused Egypt of expanding its military presence near the border, perhaps to guard against an influx of refugees from Gaza. Egypt said its soldiers were there to fight extremists, who are certainly active in the Sinai peninsula.

 Egyptian FM Badr Abdelatty (R) and PA PM Mohammad Mustafa (L) at a joint press conference in Cairo, March 1, 2025. (credit: SCREENSHOT/FACEBOOK/VIA SECTION 27A OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT)Enlrage image
Egyptian FM Badr Abdelatty (R) and PA PM Mohammad Mustafa (L) at a joint press conference in Cairo, March 1, 2025. (credit: SCREENSHOT/FACEBOOK/VIA SECTION 27A OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT)

Total rejection of the idea of displacing large numbers of Gazan citizens lies at the heart of Egypt’s proposals for post-war Gaza. Egypt is shaping the region’s response to the crisis and positioning itself at the forefront of regional diplomacy, making it a central actor in shaping the future of Gaza and broader Middle East stability.

Egypt’s initiative would carry real conviction if it emanated from an economically flourishing nation-state, but Egypt is not flying high on the domestic front. It is one of the world’s most indebted emerging markets. It is a major burden to service its debts, especially to the International Monetary Fund and Gulf states arising from previous financial rescue packages.

As a condition of accepting these loans, Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, was obliged to restrict public spending and impose heavier taxes. This resulted in soaring inflation and the persistent depreciation of Egypt’s currency. This, at least, Sisi has been attempting, with some success, to remedy.

Egypt's economy

Egypt’s annual inflation rate in 2020 was about 5.4%. By 2023, it had surged to some 34%, and in September 2024 it peaked at 38%, plunging large parts of the population into severe poverty. Since then, it has been brought under control, and is now declining.

A Reuters poll projects that the inflation rate in February will have fallen to 14.5% – much too high for comfort but on the correct trajectory.

As for the Egyptian pound, in 2022 its trading rate was about E£16 to the dollar. In 2023, it traded at around E£31. By the end of 2024, the Egyptian pound had devalued to E£50.64 per US dollar.

Sisi, however, is succeeding in reversing the downward economic spiral. As of March 2025, Egypt’s economic indicators show definite signs of improvement. Its GDP growth rate was recorded at 3.5% in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2024/2025, reflecting the positive impact of economic reform policies. 

Looking ahead, the ratings organization Moody’s Analytics forecasts a 5% growth for Egypt’s economy by the fiscal year 2025/2026, with average inflation expected to fall to 16% in the next fiscal year, before further decreasing to 13% by 2026.

Sisi's political standing at home, at a particularly low ebb during the worst of the economic hardship, has not yet shown much sign of improvement. Egypt’s enhanced international standing, following acceptance by the Arab world and the UN of its plan for Gaza’s future, may start to turn the popularity ratings in Sisi’s favor.

Vision 2030

What could effect a sea change in both Sisi’s and Egypt’s standing would be if its economic development program, Egypt’s Vision 2030, achieves some of its goals in the next five years.

Saudi Vision 2030, the ambitious program to revolutionize Saudi Arabia economically and socially, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has received a fair degree of publicity. 

Egypt’s Vision 2030, about which much less has appeared in the media, is no pale copy. On the contrary, it was launched in February 2016, two months before bin Salman announced his plan for Saudi Arabia.

Egypt’s Vision 2030 is a long-term economic development program aimed at achieving sustainable growth and improving the country’s global competitiveness. It focuses on key areas such as economic diversification, infrastructure development, education, healthcare, and environmental sustainability.

The plan aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and aims to position Egypt as a leading economy in the region by enhancing investment and digital transformation.

Despite Egypt’s economic difficulties in recent years, the program has achieved a degree of success. With a population of 115 million, Egypt has been capitalizing on its skilled workforce, prime location, and rich resources to strengthen its position as a key economic hub within Africa.

A key component of Vision 2030 is the Digital Egypt strategy, focusing on fostering artificial intelligence and digital innovation. In 2024, Egypt’s tech sector recorded a 16.8% year-on-year growth. Central to the program is Egypt’s construction sector, growing at an annual rate of 7.4%. 

Vision 2030 has driven several ambitious projects, including New Alamein City, the high-speed rail and urban railway networks, critical seaport and road infrastructure, and the $45 billion New Administrative Capital. 

This massive urban development project, intended to house some 6.5 million people eventually, is designed to ease congestion in Cairo and serve as the country’s new government and financial hub. Estimated to cost over $58 billion, it was started in 2015. 

Government offices began to relocate there in 2024, while the designated business district, which contains Africa’s tallest skyscraper, the Iconic Tower, is growing rapidly. A new rail and monorail system connects it to Cairo, and an international airport is under construction.

Vision 2030 envisages 42% of Egypt’s energy coming from renewable sources by 2030. By prioritizing wind, solar, and green hydrogen production, the country is expanding its renewable capacity to 45,000 megawatts from projects already under construction.

In 2024, Egypt attracted 15.7 million tourists, breaking its record for the second consecutive year. Tourism and Antiquities Minister Sherif Fathy projects that Egypt is on track to reach 30 million tourists by 2030.

With its multi-million development program showing every sign of succeeding, Egypt is particularly well-placed to mastermind an international effort to reconstruct Gaza. Its plan has been widely endorsed. Will that be enough to see it launched?


Neville Teller is the Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His latest book is Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020. Follow him at www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-846247

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

I like Mike. If you do too, tell that to everyone - Douglas Altabef

 

by Douglas Altabef

A message to sane American Jews and to non-Jewish friends in America: Israelis really want to see Mike Huckabee become the new Ambassador. Opinion.

 

Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee                                                                                                     Photo: INN

One of the most exhilarating developments arising from the newly re-elected President Trump was his announcement that he was naming former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to be the US Ambassador to Israel.

In Israel the news was greeted with a massive, close to unanimous, cheer. Here is a man who not only knows and loves Israel but also has the strategic depth and understanding to serve as an influential advisor to his President, and a trusted interlocutor to Israeli leaders.

Mike Huckabee is the personification of the appreciation of the US Christian Zionist community, some 50 million strong, for the State and People of Israel. That appreciation is not ambivalent, conditional nor ambiguous.

Rather, it is full throated, unapologetic and admiring for the amazing country we have created and continue to nurture.

Recently, however, we hear of possible difficulties in steering his nomination successfully through the Senate. His confirmation hearing has now been postponed again, this time to March 25th,

In a sane world, this would be a joke, a meme, a ridiculous tease.

Sadly, though it is not, and even sadder the driving force for trying to derail Huckabee’s nomination is coming from clueless Jews.

Led by J Street and the Reform Religious Action Center (RAC), they see in Huckabee the personification for the rejection of the delusional “two state solution.” Huckabee not only sees Judea and Samaria as part of Israel. He even – gasp – supports applying Israeli sovereignty to them in whole or in part.

Forget the fact that some 80% of Israelis also believe that there is no viable two state solution. Forget that a growing consensus favors at a minimum applying sovereignty to the Jordan Valley as a means of protecting our longest and most vulnerable border.

What the Progressive lovers of a delusional construct of a peace that has no chance of taking hold are really saying is that they are prioritizing their Progressive and woke sensibilities over the realities of protecting, defending and nurturing the Land of their brethren in Israel.

How these people could continue, post October 7th to hold on to these delusional fantasies is bad enough. But that they would actively subvert the nomination of one Israel’s most stalwart friends in America is another thing.

What the RAC and J Street are saying to the American People is that Israel is not that important to Jews, if it cannot be brought into line as the Progressives would have it. Better to have no friends on our side than friends who do not hew to the Progressive mantra.

Here is a message to sane American Jews and to non-Jewish friends in America: Israelis really want to see Mike Huckabee become the new Ambassador.

Israelis trust Huckabee, and know that he is on our side, that he gets us, and he will bend over backwards to make sure that our needs and desires are correctly conveyed to the President and his advisors.

Mike Huckabee has traveled extensively throughout Israel, met countless Israelis and has seen the highs and lows of this country close up. He is not an uncritical man; quite the contrary, he is thoughtful and discerning.

But what makes Mike Huckabee an inspired choice to be America’s ambassador here is that he profoundly empathizes with us. He is not without his own opinions, not all of which we will all see eye to eye. And he puts America first, as he should.

However, whatever the issue is, know that Mike Huckabee will approach it from the perspective of how it can benefit Israel its strategic position, its existential condition.

Huckabee has a deep and abiding love for Israel. That is far more than one could say about his detractors.

I call on all Americans, Jewish and Christian, to express support for this inspired choice. Let your Senators know that this is an important issue for you. Let your Jewish friends, especially your Reform Jewish friends, know how important and beneficial is this nomination.

And let’s thank our Christian friends for helping to nurture a Mike Huckabee and for their friendship and support for our beloved nation.

 

Douglas Altabef  is the Chairman of the Board of Im Tirtzu and a Director of the Israel Independence Fund

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/405462

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US airstrike eliminates Houthi leader's security chief in Yemen - report - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

Overnight, US Central Command continued to carry out strikes on the Iran-backed terror group.

 

A fighter jet takes off to carry out strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. January 11, 2024. (photo credit: MoD Crown Copyright via Getty Images)
A fighter jet takes off to carry out strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. January 11, 2024.
(photo credit: MoD Crown Copyright via Getty Images)

The chief of the Houthi leader's security detail was reportedly killed during a US strike on Houthi targets in Yemen, Saudi media outlet Asharq reported Monday.

Overnight, US Central Command (CENTCOM) continued to carry out strikes on the Iran-backed terror group. The US agency announced via X overnight that attacks would continue.

The Houthis claimed 53 people have been killed as a result of the strikes, which began on Saturday.

Speaking with ABC on Monday, White House national security adviser Mike Waltz said the US strikes "took out" several Houthi leaders.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that the United States would conduct "unrelenting" strikes against the Houthis in Yemen until the terrorist group ceases their military actions targeting US assets and global shipping.

On Sunday, the Houthis claimed they struck the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier in addition to other US naval ships deployed in the area of the Red Sea. The US said it downed 11 Houthi drones, following the Iran-backed group's claim it had attempted to attack the aircraft carrier. 

A message to Iran

On Saturday, a US official told The Jerusalem Post that the strikes were a message to Iran at a time when the administration is proposing to open negotiations on its nuclear program.

A US official told Reuters the strikes could last "days, possibly weeks."

While Iran champions the Houthis, the Houthis deny being puppets of Tehran, and experts on Yemen say they are motivated primarily by a domestic agenda.

Reuters contributed to this report.


Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-846356

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

PM’s showdown with Shin Bet: A risky move during wartime - analysis - Herb Keinon

 

by Herb Keinon

As Netanyahu moves to oust Ronen Bar, the Shin Bet chief pushes back, vowing to stay until key investigations, including 'Qatargate,' are completed.

 

Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Ronen Bar during a situational assessment in Jenin. January 22, 2025. (photo credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)
Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Ronen Bar during a situational assessment in Jenin. January 22, 2025.
(photo credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement on Sunday that he will fire Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) director Ronen Bar – and Bar’s response that he will not leave until sensitive investigations inside the Prime Minister’s Office are concluded – dramatically escalates the ongoing confrontation between Netanyahu and the Shin Bet even as Israel remains at war.

This move – coming amid ongoing security challenges, the hostage negotiations, and a Shin Bet investigation into Netanyahu’s office in the so-called Qatargate affair – raises serious concerns about the politicization of Israel’s security apparatus at perhaps the most inopportune moment.

It also places Netanyahu on a collision course with Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, whom he is also reportedly seeking to replace. Baharav-Miara has said she was not aware of the decision to fire Bar, and that she should have been consulted beforehand.

In a video announcement explaining his decision, Netanyahu said: “At all times, but especially during such an existential war, there must be complete trust between the prime minister and the head of the Shin Bet. Unfortunately, the opposite is true: I do not have such trust. I have an ongoing lack of trust in the head of the Shin Bet, which has intensified with time.”

If Bar is ultimately fired – an outcome surely to face a challenge in the High Court of Justice – it would mean that the defense minister, the IDF chief of staff, and the Shin Bet director, all of whom were in charge during the October 7 massacre, would have left their positions, while Netanyahu, the head of the pyramid at that time, remains in place.

 Former head of Shin Bet security service Nadav Argaman, Benjamin Netanyahu (illustration) (credit: Getty Images/Flash90)Enlrage image
Former head of Shin Bet security service Nadav Argaman, Benjamin Netanyahu (illustration) (credit: Getty Images/Flash90)

This is unlikely to enhance public trust in Netanyahu or the government at such a tumultuous time; instead, it risks distracting from the nation’s unity and security at a moment of crisis, leading to questions about how this move serves the country’s interests.

The decision to dismiss Bar follows a series of public confrontations, including a stunning interview given last Thursday by former Shin Bet director Nadav Argaman on Channel 12. Argaman, who led the agency from 2016-2021, openly declared he had damaging information on Netanyahu and would expose it if the prime minister crossed a redline that Argaman, as the self-appointed supreme gatekeeper, would define.

Argaman also warned that firing Bar and appointing a new Shin Bet director would politicize the organization and threaten Israel’s democracy.

Argaman’s comments sounded less like those of a former security chief and more like a crime boss, leading Netanyahu to condemn his remarks as “extortion.” He accused Argaman of engaging in mafia-style threats and called for a police investigation, which the Israel Police decided on Sunday to pursue.

This move likely preempted any possibility that Argaman would deem the firing of Bar as crossing his redline, something that would prompt him to reveal what he claimed to know about Netanyahu.

Argaman’s comments set a dangerous precedent. While he emphasized the need for a transparent working relationship between the prime minister and the Shin Bet chief, he also made clear that he would reveal information if he deemed it necessary. This could irreparably damage future prime ministers’ trust in their Shin Bet chiefs.

If Argaman is willing to break confidentiality at his discretion, every future prime minister might fear that a Shin Bet head could do the same, making it nearly impossible to maintain a secure and candid working relationship.

Bar, recognizing the potential long-term damage Argaman’s comments could cause to relations between future prime ministers and their security heads, disassociated himself from the remarks on Friday. In a letter to former Shin Bet staff, Bar clarified that Argaman had misspoken.

“A state body and its head do not use their power for purposes other than fulfilling their mission,” he wrote. “I distance myself from discourse that is not statesmanlike and does not align with our values and actions.”

The die was already cast, however, and Netanyahu’s decision to fire Bar – something reportedly in the works for months – was not related to Argaman’s interview.

Frustration at Bar's refusal to resign

In his response to Argaman’s remarks, Netanyahu also took aim at Bar.

“This [Argaman’s]  crime joins an entire campaign of extortion through media briefings in recent days, led by current Shin Bet head Ronen Bar,” he said. “The sole aim is to prevent me from making the necessary decisions to rehabilitate the Shin Bet after its severe failure on October 7.”

With the country still officially at war, and the possibility of the IDF fighting intensively inside Gaza again, these public clashes between Netanyahu and the Shin Bet’s past and present leadership do little to serve national security. On the contrary, they undermine public confidence at a critical moment.

Netanyahu’s anger at Bar stems from his refusal to resign and the ongoing Qatargate investigation. Netanyahu had asked Bar to step down, claiming Bar resisted because he sought to prevent Netanyahu from restructuring the Shin Bet.

But as critics have long pointed out – and as will likely be emphasized even more following Sunday night’s dramatic developments – Netanyahu’s real motive may be to make Bar and the agency scapegoats for the failures of October 7.

The Shin Bet has already taken responsibility for the failures on October 7, and Bar has pledged to resign after the remaining hostages are freed and a state commission of inquiry is established. Netanyahu has made no such commitment.

In the midst of the ongoing war, the dramatic firing of Bar is hardly without consequence – surely to distract and likely to affect the performance of this critical organization at a time of multiple challenges.

National security is being tested not only by external threats but also by political battles – a feud that only weakens Israel at a time when it most needs to project strength.


Herb Keinon

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-846327

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Who is Ronen Bar, the Shin Bet chief PM Netanyahu is seeking to fire? - explainer - Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob

Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar’s rise from Sayeret Matkal to leading Israel’s security agency, navigating political shifts and key operations.

 

Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar. (photo credit: CHAIM GOLDBEG/FLASH90, SHUTTERSTOCK)
Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar.
(photo credit: CHAIM GOLDBEG/FLASH90, SHUTTERSTOCK)

Ronen Bar beat out the most recent former deputy Shin Bet chief before him, known as “R,” in the mainly two-way race in October 2021. 

Prior to June 2021, during Benjamin Netanyahu's former term as prime minister (the Bennet-Yair Lapid government displaced him June 2021- December 2022), former senior Shin Bet official and Netanyahu's national security council chief Meir Ben-Shabbat had been the favorite. 

However, then-prime minister Naftali Bennett never seriously considered him for the position due to his closeness with Netanyahu and objections to his candidacy from within portions of the Shin Bet itself. 

Bar had a university degree in political science and philosophy from Tel Aviv University and a master’s degree in public management from Harvard University.

Bar served in the IDF as part of the elite Sayeret Matkal Reconnaissance Special Forces unit.

Bar's other senior Shin Bet positions

In 2011, Bar was appointed head of the Shin Bet’s operations.

Then, in 2016, he was promoted to be the head of Shin Bet headquarters, the number three post responsible for force buildup.

In 2018, he replaced the other R as deputy chief of the agency.

Bar was born in Rehovot in 1965.

He holds a degree in political science with honors from Tel Aviv University, and a degree in public administration from Harvard University.

James Genn contributed to this report


Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-846323

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Syria claims Hezbollah kidnapped, executed three Syrian soldiers, responds with shelling - report - Yuval Barnea

 

by Yuval Barnea

The Syrian army has clashed with Hezbollah several times since the overthrow of the Assad regime.

 

Syrian interim-President Ahmad al-Sharaa in front of the Syrian and Hezbollah flags (illustrative). (photo credit: REUTERS/KHALIL ASHAWI/FILE PHOTO, SHUTTERSTOCK)
Syrian interim-President Ahmad al-Sharaa in front of the Syrian and Hezbollah flags (illustrative).
(photo credit: REUTERS/KHALIL ASHAWI/FILE PHOTO, SHUTTERSTOCK)

Hezbollah “ambushed and kidnapped three members of the Syrian Arab Army on the Syrian-Lebanese border near the Zeita Dam, west of Homs, before taking them to Lebanese territory and executing them on the spot,” the Syrian Defense Ministry told state media.

It continued, “We will take all necessary measures after this dangerous escalation by Hezbollah militias,” SANA reported.

Following Sunday’s announcement, Lebanese media reported that the Syrian Army had begun shelling Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, a Hezbollah stronghold.

During the shelling, the terror group denied any responsibility for the kidnapping and murder of the soldiers, telling pro-Hezbollah media, “We reiterate what we have previously announced repeatedly: Hezbollah has no connection to any events taking place within Syrian territory.”

Hezbollah-aligned media reported that one person had been killed in the clashes.

Riyadh’s Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath said one Syrian army member was killed and two journalists were wounded by a Hezbollah missile on the Syrian border.

Lebanese media reported following the clashes, “The Lebanese Army handed over, via the Lebanese Red Cross, the bodies of three Syrian fighters at a border crossing with Syria.”

Assad regime collapse fallout

Many analysts pointed to Israel’s victory over the Iranian proxy during the 2024 invasion of Lebanon as a key factor in the eventual collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.

Hezbollah was a key pillar of the Assad regime, and Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has vowed to prevent the return of Iranian influence.

The Syrian Army has clashed with Hezbollah several times since the Assad regime was overthrown in December.

Most of the fighting has been concentrated near the border town of Al Qusayr, which served as a key smuggling point for Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah.


Yuval Barnea

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-846347

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What Are the Left’s Solutions for the Problems They Created? - Victor Davis Hanson

 

by Victor Davis Hanson

The U.S. faces mounting trade deficits, immigration crises, and endless foreign wars, while critics of Trump's policies offer no viable alternatives to Biden-era failures.

 

 

The Wall Street Journal has consistently criticized Trump’s economic policies, particularly his ongoing “trade war” with Canada, over the past several weeks. And certainly, the tensions are regrettable. Trump’s trolling of the insufferable Justin Trudeau, with talk of Canada becoming the “51st state,” perhaps only galvanized the Canadian left. It unfortunately may ensure that the only real hope for a Canadian return to normality, the election of Pierre Poilievre, may be lost.

That said, does the WSJ truly believe that the current $1.7 trillion budget deficit stacked on top of $36 trillion in national debt and an annual $1 trillion trade deficit are sustainable in any fashion? Do they believe any Republican president would have survived the midterms if he cut or “reformed” Social Security? If so, consult the fate of the recommendations of left-wing Barack Obama’s 2010 Simpson-Bowles commission (“The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform”).

DOGE, the effort to demand either symmetrical or no tariffs, closing the border, the rare minerals agreement, etc., are all controversial, even desperate efforts to stave off insolvency.

NAFTA was sold on the promise of trade equilibriums, eventually leading to no tariffs and rough parity. Yet Canada currently runs a $60 billion surplus largely because of its energy sales and selective tariffs on U.S. agriculture and some manufactured goods. That sum might be tolerable from a friend and not worth the acrimony, even with the present massive trade and budget deficits—if it had occurred in isolation.

But it did not. The Canadian surplus is force multiplied by its chronic refusal to spend a measly 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Canada could have easily offered a partnership with the U.S. to explore joint missile defense or shared Arctic Ocean naval patrols with a new fleet of Canadian and American icebreakers.

But it did nothing of the sort.

Worse still, no Canadian leader can offer any defense of their policies, such as: “We believe a $60 billion surplus with our free-trade American partner is justified, and we also believe we are further correct in not spending our promised 2 percent of GDP on defense.” Their veritable retort of “Trump is a monster” is no defense at all.

And there is wider context still. Mexico currently siphons off $63 billion in remittances from the U.S. economy, most of it from illegal aliens. Most of them enjoy some sort of subsidy from the American local, state, and federal governments.

Its trade surplus has ballooned to over $170 billion, largely because of opportunistic partnering with the Chinese to avoid US duties on imported Chinese-produced goods.

No one truly knows the full cost of an open border paid in American blood and treasure to Mexican cartels—70,000 lives and $20 billion annually?

Add up our northern and southern neighbors’ various surpluses and one could argue that $300 billion flows out of the U.S. to our so-called best friends and supposed partners in a so-called free-trade agreement supposedly designed to promote “free,” if not truly “fair,” trade.

Did any of the appeasements from the prior somnolent Biden administration—printing money, open borders, kindred socialist and green programs, USAID reckless generosity, and no concern over massive trade deficits—have any effect on either Canada or Mexico?

Or was Biden’s appeasement interpreted as weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated?

All Mexico has to do is promise to reduce its surpluses down to say $20-30 billion, patrol its side of the border, and bar the importation of raw fentanyl product from China. It could also stop its citizens from swarming the border and accept a 20 percent U.S. tax on remittances. But once reciprocity is lost, any attempt to restore balance is often mischaracterized as aggression, allowing the former victimizer to recast themselves as the blameless victim.

We are also currently watching massive demonstrations in New York to protest the ongoing deportation effort of Mahmoud Khalil. He is not a U.S. citizen, currently residing in the U.S. as a green card holder/former student visa resident alien.

He has led protests, often turning violent, at Columbia and in New York on behalf of radical Palestinian groups, including Hamas, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Surely, he knew that, as a guest on American soil, he has no inalienable right to enter and remain in the U.S., especially if the State Department believes there is “a reasonable ground to believe that [his] presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

It would be difficult to imagine a more anti-American group than Hamas, which currently holds several U.S. hostages and openly boasts of the mass murders it carried out on October 7, 2023. That awful date sparked mass protests from both Americans and Middle Eastern students in support of Hamas killers. The slaughter and, along with Israel’s response to it, ignited the worst epidemic of anti-Semitism in a hundred years, predominantly driven by American campuses and, in particular, tens of thousands of guest students from the Middle East.

When the ACLU and liberal congressional representatives protest and work on behalf of Khalil, what is their rationale? Are they at all worried that Hamas murdered American hostages and still holds several? Is it really in the U.S.’s best interest to welcome students from radical, anti-American countries, such as Syria, Iran, or Gaza, to American campuses, to see them champion anti-American terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and help fuel a climate of anti-Semitism and attacks on Jewish-Americans? Does the ACLU realize that our elite universities are fanning the worst anti-Semitic outbursts in memory? If black students were targeted in the same manner as Jews, would it remain similarly silent?

So, is this really what the left is fighting for? Why doesn’t the new Democratic Party and its street brigades simply be honest and say, “We support the efforts of radical Palestinian foreign students even when they openly champion Hamas and intimidate Jews, and so welcome their constructive presence and protests on American campuses”?

There are many problems with leftist-inspired immigration protests. The foremost is hypocrisy, usually couched in anti-Americanism. In places like Los Angeles, protestors burned the flags of the country they demanded to remain in while waving the flags of countries to which they seemingly refuse to return.

If America is such an intolerable place, why did 12 million knowingly break the law to enter it? The entire theme of today’s ethnic studies programs on U.S. campuses is a story of how awful America is, was, and will always be. And yet these are the very university loci that are the most strident about welcoming into the U.S. illegal aliens. Should they not be down at the border warning of the white toxicity that awaits any illegal migrant?

There is another sort of hypocrisy at work.

Left-wing elites in Washington, on campuses, in the media, and among the foundations and NGOs are rarely subject to the consequences of their own open-borders philosophies. It is one thing to virtue signal a world without borders that welcomes in millions of its impoverished, but quite another to help feed and house them when they show up in Martha’s Vineyard or Malibu rather than in the Rio Grande Valley, the San Joaquin Valley or the inner city.

The latter places do not traffic in cheap rhetoric but deal with swamped healthcare faculties, housing shortages, insolvent social service budgets, spiking crime, overcrowded schools, increased gang activity, and overtaxed infrastructure—issues one would expect with the sudden addition of 12 new San Franciscos in just four years under Biden.

Finally, regarding Ukraine, Trump is receiving a lot of criticism for the hot-cold treatment of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. He used both verbal and policy leverage in hopes of forcing Ukraine and Russia towards negotiations—a task that has historically proven to be impossible without U.S. coercion. One can easily criticize Trump for being overly naive about Vladimir Putin’s ultimate intentions or any strategic resolution of the war that only Trump seems to wish to end.

But again, what is the alternative to his efforts?

Is to keep feeding the ongoing current Stalingrad desolation where 1.5 million dead, wounded, and missing Ukrainians and Russians have fought for three years without any end in sight? Do we really want an endless war that has created a new alignment of anti-Western Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and, at times, a number of Middle Eastern, South American, and Asian opportunists?

What is the European alternative plan to Trump’s?

The old Biden notion “as long as it takes”—as if the Europeans may finally mobilize and send two million soldiers the way the U.S. did in 1917-18 to break up the deadlock of the World War I Western Front?

Do Ukrainians have a secret reserve of manpower to send another 10 divisions to the front?

A new wave of 5,000 drones to hit Moscow and do the sort of damage it is now suffering?

Non-U.S. NATO fighter aircraft number around 2,000. So, is it the plan of France and the UK to spearhead some 1,000 European jets and send them to Ukrainian bases, where they will fly ground support missions and conduct strategic attacks on Russian infrastructure to stop the stasis?

The answer is no.

There is no other plan but the current one of a 500-million-person proximate Europe screaming at the 335-million-person distant U.S. for not doing more to aid the now 30-million-person Ukraine fighting against the 145-million-person Russia.

Before one can fault the herky-jerky, art-of-the-deal Trump effort to find a stable peace and stop the slaughter, his critics must at least chart a plan for victory, explain the cost in lives and treasure, and outline exactly the eventual goals of reclaiming all the 2022 borders or the 2014 borders. Instead, we hear only ‘this won’t work,’ ‘that can’t work,’ ‘this is stupid,’ ‘that is naïve,’ but never a comprehensive defense of the EU/Biden/Zelenskyy policy or some enlightened replacement for it.

On matters of trade, immigration, and foreign policy, we are witnessing a counter-revolutionary effort to erase the madness of the Biden revolutionary years. Then unnamed and largely unknown radicals, under the veneer of a waxen effigy president, hijacked the country and imposed upon it the most radical and nihilist agenda in the past century.

The current correctives are not easy or pretty. But the alternative to the prior status quo was not the status quo at all, but a Jacobin nihilism that had led only to insolvency, civil strife, the destruction of the southern border, at least two theater-wide wars abroad, and the end of the U.S. as we once knew it.


Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004, and is the 2023 Giles O'Malley Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and the Bradley Prize in 2008. Hanson is also a farmer (growing almonds on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author of the just released New York Times best seller, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, published by Basic Books on May 7, 2024, as well as the recent  The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump, and The Dying Citizen.  

Photo: US President Joe Biden meets with US President-elect Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2024. Trump thanked Biden for pledging a smooth transfer of power as the victorious Republican made a historic return visit to the White House on Wednesday. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP)

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/17/what-are-the-lefts-solutions-for-the-problems-they-created/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump and the Economy: Opportunities and Risks - Steve Cortes

 

by Steve Cortes

A poll shows voters back Trump on the economy but see risks ahead, as his team pushes deregulation, trade reform, and deportations to revive growth and undo Biden-era policies.

 

 

Polling shows that Americans remain understandably frustrated by an economy that has stolen their prosperity and sapped their spirits, especially citizens of modest means. Of course, that very frustration largely propelled President Donald Trump back into office for a second term, with a national-mandate win that rejected the managed decline of Bidenomics and yearns for a return to MAGAnomics prosperity.

Concurrently, that restlessness creates risks for the new administration, which needs to deliver substantive accomplishments, and quickly. Moreover, the Trump economic plan and all attendant achievements must be delivered via the most effective messaging possible, to convince a naturally weary and skeptical citizenry.

Thankfully, this national survey of over 1,700 voters reveals that those hard-working citizens now prefer Trump’s GOP as the “party of workers” over the Democrats, a tectonic shift vs. the political alignments of the past. Those voters also prioritize the economy, by a massive margin. When asked to name the two most important agenda items for the new White House, inflation is far and away the top issue, named by 58% of respondents, with reducing taxes second at 27% and immigration/border control third at 26%.

This poll was conducted by TIPP Insights for the League of American Workers and used a sample universe that broke down by Trump +2 points over Harris for the 2024 vote choice. It found voters look back with material derision at the Biden presidency, giving him a job approval/disapproval ratio of only 37/53% overall, with a scant 28% of independents approving of Biden’s performance in his single term.

Still, the numbers also reveal real potential pitfalls for the current Congress and administration. For example, voters were asked about high food prices: “If grocery prices stay the same or rise into summer, who would you hold responsible?” In response, 45% would blame Trump, 26% Biden, and 19% would blame both, with 10% unsure.

These data points should not produce alarm, of course, but rather a steely focus on the task ahead. The primary and foundational goal of the new White House must reach for a golden era of broadly dispersed Main Street success, combined with a laser-focused communication machine to sell that agenda and then celebrate the wins.

So, given these realities, and cognizant of the overall grim mood of the people after four years of Biden’s madness on immigration and inflation, what are the tangible steps toward healing the economic wounds and lifting the national spirit?

First, serious, dispassionate economic addresses from President Trump and all other pertinent senior officials make sense. Lay out the fact-based reasons why the economic handoff from Joe Biden was so troublesome. Specifically, use kitchen-table metrics like housing affordability, which hit the worst levels ever under Biden, per Goldman Sachs.

Once that baseline is established, move on to the forward plan: Trump did not make this mess, but he is the perfect entrepreneur president to fix it. How do we rebuild buying power and restore spirits?

First, convey to the people in plain terms that the transition from mass offshoring and endless public sector spending can be tumultuous. In the near term, markets and some businesses resist the new model, but eventually patriotic economic populist nationalism will usher in a new age of success.

Then, on policy, insist on American sovereignty once again, in both trade and migration. As President Trump promised in his Inaugural Address, an External Revenue Service agenda has begun, and countries around the world can no longer abuse American workers with predatory trade practices that are neither fair nor reciprocal.

Whether friend or foe, the companies and nations of the world must realize that they cannot exploit our markets unjustly from abroad. But even more importantly, through abundant energy and aggressive deregulation, America can create the most attractive conditions possible for those firms to produce their wares here, in the United States, for unfettered access to the crown jewel consumer market of the world.

In addition, the workers of America must not face unjust and illegal competition in the labor market from hordes of foreigners invited into our homeland by Biden and Harris. This national poll also shows widespread support for Trump’s deportation agenda, with a massive 79% of voters approving of deportations of all illegal aliens with criminal records.

Looking internally, a foundational part of making America fertile ground for enterprise success means moving toward fiscal sanity again. With $36 trillion in outstanding bonds, and debt service costs now consuming more of the federal budget than defense or Medicare, returning to pre-COVID spending levels becomes an imperative, even if that goal must be realized in the coming months rather than immediately.

Unfortunately, far too many power brokers in Washington remain perfectly comfortable with the economic status quo, which works well for the connected Beltway cabal. But regular Americans know all too well the anxiety and pain of making ends meet, because of the very inflation that Permanent Washington fuels through profligate policies. For example, serious auto loan delinquencies just rose to an all-time high, eclipsing even the worst extremes of the 2008-09 Great Financial Crisis.

Those regular Americans elected President Trump because they remember the success they enjoyed in his first term, and they rightly believe in his ability to lift America out of Biden’s created quagmire. Now, the country needs all of Washington, from the White House to DOGE to Congress, to embrace this economic mission with the highest possible urgency.

***

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

 


Steve Cortes is the founder of the League of American Workers. He formerly served as a senior advisor to President Trump, and a broadcaster with Fox News, CNBC, and CNN. 

Photo: WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 05: U.S. President Donald Trump waves after signing the "No Men in Women's Sports" executive order in the East Room of the White House on February 5, 2025 in Washington, DC. The executive order, which Trump signed on National Girls and Women in Sports Day, prohibits transgender women from competing in women's sports and is the third order he has signed that targets transgender people. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/17/trump-and-the-economy-opportunities-and-risks/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

California stands in way of EPA’s effort to end electric vehicle mandate - Kevin Killough

 

by Kevin Killough

To fully end the de facto EV mandate, the Trump administration will have to deal with the third prong of former President Joe Biden’s war on gas-powered cars — the EPA waiver for California’s state-specific Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations, said Kenny Stein, vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research.

 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin laid waste Wednesday to the Biden Administration’s climate agenda, in line with Donald Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order. 

“We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” Zeldin said in an announcement that the EPA would be reviewing dozens of EPA rules and findings.

Among the rules being targeted for review are those that created what many call the electric vehicle mandate. While the Trump administration could review and overturn those rules, Kenny Stein, vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), warns that, to fully end the de facto EV mandate, the administration has to deal with the third prong of former President Joe Biden’s war on gas-powered cars: his EPA's waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations

As California goes...

The rule allowed California to ban gas cars. Because 17 states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s regulations, and because manufacturers understand that California is the largest market for new cars by far, California’s EV mandate will likely be the law of the land if it’s not blocked. Stein said the most effective way to deal with it is an act of Congress. 

“What happens in California doesn't stay in California. If California puts a bunch of mandates that make vehicles more expensive, everybody pays higher prices for those vehicles, not just people in California,” Stein told Just the News

The Biden administration never had the authority to ban the sale of gas-powered cars, so it used another mechanism to produce the same result. 

The EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which is also being reviewed, determined that greenhouse gas emissions posed a threat to health and safety and created a framework under the Clean Air Act for the EPA to regulate them, including emissions from vehicles. 

The Biden administration passed two regulations that create the de facto EV mandate. The tailpipe emission standards, which sets limits on emissions from vehicles, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which limits emissions across fleets of vehicles. 

The only way for automakers  to comply with these standards as they are phased in over the next 15 years is with electric vehicles. 

California, however, can and did ban the sale of gas-powered cars. In 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) regulations, which required 100% of new vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission models by 2035.

To adopt emissions requirements independent of the federal government, California needed a waiver. California was granted a waiver for its Advanced Clean Cars. Trump rescinded that waiver, and Biden reinstated it before courts heard arguments for legal challenges to Trump’s canceling of the waiver. 

A group of states led by Ohio, along with fuel industry entities, challenged the reinstatement of the waiver, arguing that it’s unconstitutional. The IER partnered with 23 other groups to file an amicus brief in that case. 

“We think it's unconstitutional that California should have this special dispensation,” Stein said. 

Impact of California’s second waiver

In its last weeks, the Biden administration also granted California its waiver request for the 2022 Advanced Clean Cars II Act. “Today’s actions follow through on EPA’s commitment to partner with states to reduce emissions and act on the threat of climate change,” former EPA administrator Michael Regan said in a statement. 

Automakers will spend one to three years bringing vehicle lines from concept to production, and it can take billions of dollars in capital investment for each product line. With so many states following California’s ban on gas-powered vehicle sales over the next 10 to 15 years, the IER's Stein explained, automakers will be forced to go mostly electric. “It’s the number of states that are following California that really drives automaker decisions,” Stein said. 

If the Trump administration were to revoke the waiver for the ACCII as it did for the earlier regulation, it would again face lengthy legal challenges. Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom set up a $25 million fund for the sole purpose of suing the Trump administration. Stein said legal challenges to the waiver could last a decade before it’s all sorted out. 

Automakers would likely be hesitant to allocate billions of dollars on vehicle lines that could become illegal in 10 years. If the California waiver stands, Stein said, Americans’ options to buy gas-powered vehicles could be very limited. 

“If California is still allowed to mandate or ban internal combustion engine vehicles, the U.S. car market is still going to face the disruptions and increased costs that that Biden EV mandate was trying to impose,” Stein said. 

Congressional Review Act

Stein said that the best way to revoke California’s waiver in a way that can withstand legal challenges is for Congress to pass a Congressional Review Act blocking it. 

The Congressional Review Act has highly limited options for judicial review. So if the House and Senate passed such a measure and the president signed it, which he would almost certainly do, then the waiver would likely be dead, although it is quite possible that eco-activists and the "green energy" lobby may try to delay or derail it in the judicial process.

Should the waiver stand, nearly half of all states will have restrictions on the sales of gas-powered vehicles. Considering that automakers are losing so much money on their EV lines, it’s possible that they’ll ship their profitable models to the states that allow them. This might lead to the situation seen in “dry counties” where people drive long distances to buy alcohol. New car purchases might require a road trip to neighboring states. 

Besides the cost to consumers of these mandates and assault on their choices, Stein said that there’s a principle to be considered in revoking California’s waiver. It’s allowed one state to set highly impactful policies for the rest of the country. 

 “It makes a mockery of the constitutional system,” he said. 

 
Kevin Killough

Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/ending-ev-mandate-has-california-problem-which-epa-alone-cant-solve-expert

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sunday, March 16, 2025

US Defense Secretary Hegseth vows 'unrelenting' strikes against Houthis until they back down - Reuters Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Reuters Jerusalem Post Staff

Hegseth warns Iran to “back off” as US airstrikes on Houthis ramp up in response to Red Sea attacks.

 

US secretary of defense nominee Pete Hegseth (photo credit: AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that the United States would conduct "unrelenting" strikes against the Houthis in Yemen until the militant group ceases their military actions targeting US assets and global shipping.

Speaking on Fox News on Sunday, hours after the Trump administration launched strikes against the Iran-backed Yemeni terror group, Hegseth said the campaign was a response to the scores of attacks the Houthis have launched on ships since November 2023 and served as a warning to Iran to stop backing the group.

"This will continue until you say 'We're done shooting at ships. We're done shooting at assets,'" Hegseth said, adding that the US had no interest in the Yemeni Civil War. 

“We don’t want a long, limited war in the Middle East," he continued. "This is about stopping the shooting at assets in that critical waterway to reopen freedom of navigation, which is a core national interest of the United States."

He ended his response with a direct message for the Islamic Republic. 

"Iran has been enabling the Houthis for far too long. They better back off."

'Iran better back off'

In response, Hossein Salami, the top commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, said the Houthis took their own decisions.

"We warn our enemies that Iran will respond decisively and destructively if they carry out their threats," he told state media.

However, according to reporting from The Jerusalem Post, there is reason to believe that Iran is backing away from its terror proxy group. 

Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter


Protesters, mainly Houthi supporters, rally to show support to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Sanaa, Yemen December 20, 2024 (credit: REUTERS/KHALED ABDULLAH)
Protesters, mainly Houthi supporters, rally to show support to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Sanaa, Yemen December 20, 2024 (credit: REUTERS/KHALED ABDULLAH)

Iranian state media reported on March 16 that “the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami said that Yemen’s Houthi “resistance movement makes its decisions independently.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio countered Salami's assertions in a Sunday interview with CBS News's Face the Nation.

"There's no way the... Houthis would have the ability to do this kind of thing unless they had support from Iran. And so this was a message to Iran: don't keep supporting them, because then you will also be responsible for what they are doing in attacking Navy ships and attacking global shipping."

The Houthis reintroduced a threat to attack all Israeli ships on March 12. 

The terrorist organization also said that US attacks on Yemen posed a more real threat to international shipping in the Red Sea.

Seth J. Frantzman contributed to this report.  


Reuters Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-846293

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter