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."
Some of the conditions reportedly included an end to U.S. sanctions, compensation for damage caused during the conflict and the withdrawal of American military forces from the region.
Iran is attempting to make the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz
conditional on the United States meeting a series of demands, raising
fresh doubts about efforts to restore commercial shipping through one of
the world's most important energy corridors.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council said the waterway would remain closed until Washington "corrects its behavior."
Some of the conditions reportedly included an end to U.S. sanctions,
compensation for damage caused during the conflict and the withdrawal of
American military forces from the region.
The demands came as negotiations involving Iran and Oman continued
over a possible arrangement governing shipping through the strait.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran and Muscat were close
to reaching an agreement on a new shipping route, but he stressed that
an agreement with Oman alone would not have been enough to reopen the
waterway.
Iran had also demanded the release of frozen Iranian assets and an
end to what it considered hostile U.S. military actions. Iranian
Revolutionary Guard officials said the strait would have been reopened
once Washington accepted Tehran's conditions.
At the same time, tensions at sea intensified.
The United Arab Emirates said Saturday that Iran had launched a
missile at a vessel affiliated with Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., or
ADNOC, while the ship was traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. No
injuries were reported in the incident.
ADNOC said more than a dozen of its vessels had been targeted by
missiles or drones since the United States and Israel began their war
against Iran in February. The company said one crew member had been
killed and 20 others wounded in those attacks.
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center separately
reported that a vessel east of Khasab, Oman, had been struck by a
projectile and caught fire. The blaze was extinguished, and the ship and
its crew were reported safe. It was not immediately clear whether the
vessel was the same ship identified by the UAE.
Only a week ago, Trump was on the verge of ordering a return to major combat operations. But in an interview with Axios, he did not make any new military threats.
President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on Friday en route to a
weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. (Photo by Eric
Lee/Getty Images)
President Trump signaled on Sunday that he's prepared to allow economic pressure on Iran to mount — as opposed to ordering a new military offensive — even as the country continues to defy the U.S.
Why it matters: Only a week ago, Trump
was on the verge of ordering a return to major combat operations. But
in an interview with Axios, he did not make any new military threats.
Trump
also didn't express any anger or frustration about the fact that Iran
has been holding up an announcement on a deal with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. On Saturday, Iran issued a new list of demands to allow shipping through the strait.
What he's saying: "We are low keying it," Trump said during a brief phone call.
"We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money."
He
stressed that Iran "is in very bad shape" economically and has no money
to pay its troops. The U.S. naval blockade has exacerbated the Iranian
regime's economic crisis, Trump said.
At the same time, Trump
said that with oil down to slightly over $75 a barrel, U.S. consumers
are feeling less pain from the war.
"It will work out. It always works out. It's like a chess game," Trump said of the back-and-forth with Iran.
Driving the news:
An agreement governing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz was negotiated
among Iran, Oman and the U.S. and has been pending for a few days now.
As
part of the new deal, Iran would be given partial control over traffic
in the strait — something it didn't have before the war.
Qatari
and Pakistani mediators were confident the deal would be announced
Wednesday, but since then its prospects have seemed to fade.
U.S.
officials also say there are growing disagreements inside the Iranian
regime. One camp, led by President Masoud Pezeshkian, is extremely
worried about an economic collapse and believes Iran needs to reach a
deal with the U.S. Another led by the commander of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmad Vahidi, rejects any concessions.
State of play: On
Saturday, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council,
Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, laid out new terms for reopening the strait —
on top of those negotiated in the Oman agreement.
Zolghadr said in a statement that in order for the strait to reopen, the U.S. must:
"[N]ever threaten nor insult Iran in any language."
"[P]ermanently end the war against Iran and Iran's allies in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and Iraq."
Lift the naval blockade and withdraw military forces from the surroundings of Iran.
He added a demand for full compensation for war damages, lifting of all sanctions and releasing all Iranian frozen funds.
Until
several weeks ago, these demands were a prerequisite for a nuclear
deal. Now, Iran is presenting them as conditions just for reopening the
strait.
A diplomat from one of the mediating countries said Zolghadr's statement reflected the political infighting within the regime.
Behind the scenes:
U.S. officials said Trump was leaning toward resuming major combat
operations against Iran a week ago but was convinced to de-escalate for
now.
One of the officials said the fighting allowed the
Iranian regime to avoid dealing with the consequences of the war, the
damage to infrastructure and the deep economic crisis that has been
created.
When Iran isn't engaged in war, it is forced to confront a grim reality with no real solutions at hand, the U.S. official said.
At
the same time, the U.S. official said, around 8 million barrels of oil
are going out of the Gulf every night through the southern lane of the
Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the U.S. military. The U.S. is
going to try and get more oil out as long as there is no deal.
What to watch:
״This thing is not over. It's obviously not at the beginning. We're in
the middle of the game, and we're applying a whole host of tools —
diplomatic, economic, military tools — to ensure that we get the best
outcome for the American people," Vice President Vance told Fox News on
Saturday.
“We can and know how to stand our ground—even against our best friends when necessary,” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu meeting in his office in Jerusalem with Nikolai Mladenov, the
Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, Jan. 11, 2026. Credit:
PMO.
“Withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning,”
Board of Peace High Representative Nikolay Mladenov stated on July 31,
referring to the release of the body’s 15-point Roadmap for Gaza and, specifically, its proposed timetable for an Israeli pullback from the Strip alongside Hamas’s disarmament.
With
those words, Mladenov underscored the widening gap between Jerusalem
and the international community over how to proceed with ending the war
sparked by the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre. Mladenov acknowledged
that “it took months of very difficult negotiations to get here. There
were several points when I did not believe we would make it.”
U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a comprehensive proposal on Sept. 29, 2025, to end the conflict. That 20-point proposal became the foundation for United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on Nov. 17, 2025.
Article
9 of Trump’s plan called for the creation of an international
transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” chaired by the U.S. president,
to oversee the process of ending the war.
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump and Vice President
JD Vance pose for a photo at the White House in Washington on July 28,
2026. Photo by Maayan Toaf/GPO.
A day before the BoP released its roadmap, Trump announced
that an agreement had been reached with Hamas on the terror group’s
complete disarmament, calling it a “major milestone in the
implementation” of his 20-point plan.
Even then, divisions were
beginning to emerge. An Israeli source told JNS immediately after the
announcement that Jerusalem continued to insist on the full
demilitarization of Gaza as a precondition for any broader political
process.
“There will be no Israeli withdrawal from the [ceasefire]
Yellow Line in the Gaza Strip before Hamas disarms,” the source said,
adding that Israel had conveyed its objections to aspects of the
proposed roadmap through the appropriate channels.
Israel’s
minister for settlement and national missions, Orit Strook, attends a
protest of the Gvura (Heroism) Forum, bereaved families and activists
outside the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem on Dec. 25, 2025. Photo
by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.
Israeli Settlements and National Missions Minister Orit
Strook told JNS in an exclusive interview on Wednesday that the
disagreement centers on the roadmap’s lack of guarantees regarding
Hamas’s disarmament, guarantees contained in Trump’s original proposal,
and its significant differences from that proposal on issues ranging
from Gaza’s governance to the prospect of establishing a Palestinian
state.
Strook emphasized that Trump’s original 20-point plan
stipulated that all weapons in the Gaza Strip would be removed or
destroyed, whereas under the Board of Peace’s new roadmap they would
instead remain in Palestinian hands.
“All the missiles, weapons,
explosives and tunnels will go to this new entity, which is meant to
govern in accordance with existing Palestinian law. It will be far worse
than the Palestinian Authority, which does not possess such an
arsenal,” she said.
“This roadmap leads to the creation of an
entity that supports killing Jews and conducting terror attacks against
Israel and is responsible for all the weapons Hamas still holds. It is
an existential threat, and it is a shame,” Strook added.
Point 13
of Trump’s 20-point plan outlines his vision for a demilitarized Gaza:
“All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels
and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt.
There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the
supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons
permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and
supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration
program all verified by the independent monitors.”
By contrast,
Clause 8 of the BoP plan outlines a potentially lengthy process “to
decommission and store heavy weapons, military production sites, depots
of weapons, and tunnels,” beginning only after the new Palestinian
technocratic governing body, the National Committee for the
Administration of Gaza, begins operating in Gaza and an International
Stabilization Force is deployed.
The “decommissioning” process
“shall be administered and implemented by NCAG in a gradual, sequential
and time-bound manner” and “shall be linked to an Israeli withdrawal, in
phases, from the areas under its control in Gaza,” according to the
roadmap.
Some undefined “Palestinian factions” are to take part in
the process, at the end of which “only NCAG shall hold, store or
control weapons in Gaza,” rather than destroying them or removing them
from the Strip, under the 15-point plan.
The BoP also links Gaza’s
demilitarization to the creation of “appropriate conditions for a
credible pathway towards achieving Palestinian self-determination and
statehood.”
JNS reached out to the Board of Peace twice for clarification, but had not received a response by press time.
Oren Ben Hakoon/Flash90
On Aug. 3, four days after Trump’s announcement and three
days after the BoP plan was released, Israeli officialdom broke its
near-uniform silence.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich posted on X
that “the proposal published by the Board of Peace is not the plan
presented to us in the [Security] Cabinet and not what we voted on,”
referring to the forum’s recent decision to allow the deployment of the
ISF in Gaza.
The published outline “does not guarantee the real
demilitarization of the Gaza Strip; it allows for an IDF withdrawal
before the demilitarization is complete; applies the P.A.’s antisemitic
laws in the Gaza Strip; changes the designation of the multinational
force so that it will, in fact, limit IDF activity; does not condition
the reconstruction of Gaza on demilitarization; and even restores the
idea of a Palestinian state as a political goal,” Smotrich wrote.
“A
blueprint that contradicts the war goals and the commitments given to
Israel cannot be promoted in Gaza. I will not allow such a plan to erase
the tremendous achievements of heroic IDF soldiers, achieved with their
blood, body and soul,” he added.
IDF
Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir (left) listens as a commander points
out positions during an operational assessment in the Gaza Strip, Aug.
5, 2026. Credit: IDF.
The same day, Israeli President Isaac Herzog made clear
that the position on disarmament was virtually uniform across the
political spectrum, saying implementation of the BoP plan would depend
on “the clear caveat and undertaking that Hamas must be disarmed.”
This,
he said, “is clearly the basis of moving forward to the next phase by
bringing in the government of technocrats,” referring to the NCAG,
directly contradicting the timeline outlined by the BoP.
The comments came hours before BoP chief Mladenov met in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Following
the encounter, the BoP released a statement trumpeting that “Israel and
the Board of Peace share a common understanding of the ultimate
objectives.
“The goal is clear and is not in question: the
complete decommissioning of weapons in the Strip and the transition away
from rule by the gun to civilian governance,” it added. “Contrary to
inaccurate reports, we note that the withdrawal of the IDF beyond the
Yellow Line will take place only once decommissioning is complete, as
Hamas committed to the mediators. This applies to light weapons, heavy
weapons and the tunnels alike.”
While the statement suggested the
sides were moving somewhat closer together, Mladenov released his own
statement acknowledging that “This is the start of the hard phase and I
have never pretended otherwise. Not much of what we do now is dramatic.
It is slow, grinding and technical work.”
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads a security assessment at the Kirya
military headquarters in Tel Aviv along with Defense Minister Israel
Katz and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, May 26, 2026. Photo by
Ma’ayan Toaf/GPO.
The next day, Aug. 4, Netanyahu broke his week-long silence on the matter in a video posted to Facebook.
“I
am standing firm on our security interests—we will not withdraw from
our current lines until Hamas is completely disarmed,” he said, adding
that IDF soldiers had been instructed “to do everything necessary to
defend themselves, to defend our territory, to defend our citizens.”
The
next day, Netanyahu took aim at another issue in the BoP plan, making
clear that Jerusalem would not agree to the establishment of a
Palestinian state. He made the remarks at a ceremony in Jerusalem
marking the reinterment of the grandparents of Theodor Herzl, the
founder of modern Zionism.
“We will not establish a Palestinian
terror state here that we know is aimed at destroying the Jewish
nation-state,” the prime minister said. “We understand that they want to
destroy us because we promote the values of progress, democracy and
freedom, which are hated by the barbarians who seek our souls.”
A
senior source told JNS on Thursday that the Cabinet never voted on
Trump’s original plan precisely because of widespread opposition to
Palestinian statehood.
Netanyahu “accepted the 20-point plan in
his personal statement alongside President [Trump],” the senior source
said. “There is no official decision by the Israeli government or the
Security Cabinet that adopted it. Because of opposition to the clause on
a path to a Palestinian state, we did not agree to such an official
Israeli decision,” he said.
Nevertheless, the mention of
Palestinian statehood in Trump’s plan was considerably more palatable to
Jerusalem, appearing only once, in the 19th clause, and framed as a
potentiality rather than a fait accompli.
“While Gaza
redevelopment advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully
carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible
pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we
recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people,” it reads.
By
contrast, the first point of the BoP’s plan explicitly identifies as an
end goal “facilitat[ing] launching a credible political path that
achieves self-determination and Statehood.”
Mahmoud
Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, delivers a speech regarding
the Middle East peace plan at P.A. headquarters in Ramallah, Jan. 28,
2020. Credit: Flash90.
Sources also pointed out to JNS that key commitments to
Israel contained in Trump’s 20-point plan do not appear in the Board of
Peace’s proposal.
For example, Point 1 of Trump’s outline states
that “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a
threat to its neighbors,” while Point 14 offers a guarantee “to ensure
that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New
Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.”
The word “terrorism” does not appear in the BoP plan, which instead repeatedly refers to “militias” and “factions.”
For
her part, Strook repeatedly emphasized the BoP document’s references to
“Palestinian law,” a term that does not appear anywhere in Trump’s
proposal. In her view, this effectively means the NCAG will be a shadow
Palestinian Authority, whose legal system she described as the most
antisemitic one since Nazi Germany.
“Palestinian law determines
that the killing of Jews is not an offense at all. More than that,
whoever kills a Jew or an Israeli gets a financial reward. It encourages
terror,” she told JNS.
“Despite that, the Board of Peace is now
creating an entity that, from the moment it starts governing, will abide
by this same law. It’s shocking, and no moral person can agree to
this,” she said.
The term appears in Point 6 of the roadmap, which
states that “NCAG shall operate in accordance with Palestinian laws,
relevant international standards and the principles of good governance.”
It is repeated in Points 7 and 9. The latter, concerning armaments,
states that “Personal weapons in Gaza shall be subject to the
regulations of relevant Palestinian laws.” Point 11 further states that
“A Social Peace Agreement shall be signed in accordance with Palestinian
norms and laws.”
Netanyahu has reiterated time and again his determined opposition to the Palestinian Authority taking over the Gaza Strip.
“I
will not allow us to replace Hamastan with Fatahstan, to replace Khan
Yunis with Jenin,” Netanyahu said in December 2023, referring to the
southern Gaza city, which was a focal point of Hamas terrorism during
the Oct. 7 massacre and ensuing war, and the Palestinian city in
northern Samaria, which is also a jihadist hotbed.
“I will not
allow the State of Israel to repeat the fateful mistake of Oslo, which
brought to the heart of our country and to Gaza the most extreme
elements in the Arab world, which are committed to the destruction of
the State of Israel and who educate their children to this end,” he
added at the time.
A Hamas terrorist in the southern Gaza Strip. Photo by Saeed Mohammed/Flash90.
Strook also noted a difference between Trump’s 20-point
plan and the roadmap with regard to the role of Hamas members in Gaza’s
post-war administration.
Point 6 of Trump’s 20-point plan states
that “Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to
decommission their weapons will be given amnesty” and that “members of
Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving
countries.” Point 13 further stipulates that “Hamas and other factions
agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly,
indirectly, or in any form.”
However, Point 7 of the roadmap
states that “all police personnel shall undergo a comprehensive vetting.
Those who do not meet the required standards of vetting shall be
offered alternative civilian roles consistent with Palestinian law. None
of those shall be deprived of their financial rights, particularly due
to political affiliation.”
The dispute over the roadmap came into
sharper focus during Thursday’s Security Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem,
where IDF Military Intelligence Research Division chief Brig. Gen. Ofir
Mizrahi Rosen warned of a Hamas deception.
“Hamas agreed to the
15-point document, but it has not abandoned its vision of destroying
Israel,” he was quoted by Israeli media as saying. “There is a clear
Hamas effort to kick the ball back to us.”
Shin Bet Director David
Zini warned in turn: “The agreement by Hamas is aimed at buying time
and ensuring we do not return to operating in Gaza before [Israel’s Oct.
27] elections. It is a strategic ambush.”
Netanyahu also
reportedly reiterated the gap between the Trump plan and the BoP
document, saying, “We have understandings from November 2025 with the
U.S. that contradict this document—the roadmap. We have submitted
amendments.”
Israel’s
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem with senior police and officers from the Israel Defense Forces
Homefront Command, April 7, 2026. Credit: Otzma Yehudit.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir told JNS
on Sunday that he welcomed growing opposition to the BoP plan, with the
immediate focus being on whether to implement a previous Security
Cabinet decision allowing the International Stabilization Force to enter
the Strip.
Finance Minister Smotrich changed his position during Thursday night’s Security Cabinet meeting and is now opposing it.
Sources
told JNS that the forum’s decision several weeks ago granted the ISF
immunity, paving the way for the force to begin operating. However, the
government secretary clarified on Thursday that the formal agreement has
not yet been signed.
The same senior officials told JNS that the
U.S. administration is pressing for the deployment of the ISF as part of
a broader move that would also include IDF withdrawals from existing
positions, and a cessation of targeted attacks on Hamas terrorists.
“Congratulations
to Minister Smotrich, who withdrew his support for the introduction of
the International Stabilization Force for Gaza and joins me in firmly
opposing this dangerous step,” Ben-Gvir told JNS.
“It was clear
from the beginning that no international force would do the job for us
in Gaza—only the State of Israel can destroy Hamas,” he added.
Later on Sunday, Netanyahu closed the circle, leaving no doubt on where Israel stands.
“Israel
rejects the [Board of Peace’s] 15-point document. The IDF will not
carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed. And when I say Hamas
must be disarmed, I mean the heavy weapons, the less heavy weapons, all
weapons. We are talking about genuine disarmament, not a fictitious
one,” the prime minister said.
Netanyahu noted that Jerusalem is
currently discussing the matter with the Americans, adding: “They have
ideas, some of which are acceptable to us and some of which are
unacceptable.”
“The existence of Israel and the security of all
Israeli citizens are nonnegotiable. We stand firm on these interests. We
don’t just talk about this in advertising offices; we actually do it on
the ground,” Netanyahu continued. “We have proven this all along—when
we entered Rafah [in southern Gaza] and secured the Philadelphia
Corridor, when we entered Lebanon and eliminated [terror chief Hassan]
Nasrallah and the rocket depot there, and when we attacked Iran twice.
“Contrary
to all those who preach to us, we do what needs to be done for Israel’s
security, and we can and know how to stand our ground—even against our
best friends when necessary.”
Originally from Casablanca, Morocco, Amelie made aliyah in 2014. She
specializes in diplomatic affairs and geopolitical analysis and serves
as a war correspondent for JNS. She has covered major international
developments, including extensive reporting on the hostage crisis in
Israel.
Even today, Trump is trying to save Hamas from extinction through his "Board of Peace," while also shielding the Lebanese Hezbollah to please Tehran and Doha.
Arabs have little reason to
denounce the US intervention, which helped prevent Israel from
translating its military victories into political gains. Even today,
Trump is trying to save Hamas from extinction through his "Board of
Peace," while also shielding the Lebanese Hezbollah to please Tehran and
Doha.
Egypt can't complain about having received almost $100 billion in
US aid through annual subsidies by signing a peace treaty with Israel.
Kuwait can't complain because the US saved it from being annexed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Arabs have little reason to denounce the US intervention,
which helped prevent Israel from translating its military victories into
political gains. Even today, Trump is trying to save Hamas from
extinction through his "Board of Peace," while also shielding the
Lebanese Hezbollah to please Tehran and Doha. Pictured: US President
Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the inaugural meeting of the
Board of Peace at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace on February
19, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
"The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and
policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died
or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side.
GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! ...."
The above was posted by President Donald J. Trump on ,
during his first term as president. The capital letters are his, as are
the inflated numbers about dollar spending and those who supposedly
died on the other side.
Notice that in his tweet, Trump gives top billing to the money spent
before mentioning the cost in human lives. Nevertheless, the Trump tweet
raised an important issue that American elites drunk on hubris were
beating the drums about easy victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What Trump didn't know at the time was that the tweet may one day be
flung back into his own face. Yet this is what some of his erstwhile
MAGA followers are doing with reference to the strange war he launched
against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump's detractors do exactly what
he did in his tweet by exaggerating the cost of the war and dismissing
its results as not worth a candle.
But what if Trump was wrong then and his critics are wrong now?
The first US "going into the Middle East" happened in August 1942, a
year after Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, toppled its Shah, and
started using its infrastructure and food resources to support the Red
Army fighting Nazi Germany.
The US sent 30,000 non-combat troops, mostly logistics,
administrative, commercial, and health experts, to reorganize the
chaotic system conjured up by Brits and Russians who took from Iranians
what they wished but paid in future-dated IOUs instead of cash.
The arrangement suited the occupiers but bankrupted Iranian businesses and led to famine in several provinces.
"What a relief," wrote Ibrahim Khajenuri, an Iranian journalist at
the time, "while Russians and the English (sic.) steal, Americans buy
with real money."
At the same time, the US paid for the upkeep of over 300,000 European
refugees, including thousands of Polish Jews who had fled to the USSR
but were pushed into Iran by Stalin. Without US financial and
administrative support, the war-shattered Iranian state would not have
been able to look after the surprise guests beyond an initial welcome.
In 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt held a summit with Saudi
King Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud aboard an American warship to seal a friendship
that has lasted to this day with benefit for both sides. The US agreed
to expanded financial and strategic assistance to Saudi Arabia, which
was used to develop the kingdom's oil resources, something that British
diplomat Lancelot Oliphant had refused when, in 1932, Saudis asked the
United Kingdom for a loan of half a million pounds sterling.
Oliphant's rejection was later portrayed as a notorious British diplomatic and commercial miscalculation, earning him the label "the diplomat who said 'No' to Saudi oil."
The Abdul-Aziz-Roosevelt meeting happened on February 14, but I doubt if either knew it was Valentine's Day.
The next US intervention was in Iran, when President Harry S. Truman
opposed Stalin's plan to annex parts of northwest Iran under Red Army
occupation in violation of a 1942 accord by Allies to withdraw at the
end of the war.
US aid through CARE and Point-IV schemes helped post-war Iran avoid
famine, introduce mass vaccination to cut child mortality by 70 percent,
and train a cadre of Iranian managers, economists and health workers.
In 1951, Truman intervened to "discourage" the Labour Party
Government in London from invading Iran to seize oilfields and
installations and undo Iranian oil nationalization.
In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower intervened to stop the Suez
War and prevent Britain and France, two moribund imperialist powers,
from gaining a new lease on life.
Next it was the turn of President John F. Kennedy, who as a US
Senator opposed France's colonial war in Algeria and as president helped
Charles De Gaulle to sell the idea of Algerian independence to his
compatriots.
The two US interventions in Lebanon in 1958 and 1982 brought that country back from the brink.
Fast forward from the mid-1960s: the US has acted as Israel's key
ally and central player in the quest for a settlement between Israel and
its Arab neighbors. Because it was able to talk to both sides, the US
succeeded in marginalizing the initial ideological-religious causes of
the conflict and redefining it in political and diplomatic terms.
Though limited, Trump's own success with the Abraham Accords is the latest example.
Trump's tweet was implicitly focused on Afghanistan and Iraq, which
the US invaded, spent a lot of money on, and sustained human losses,
though not on the scale he suggests. Even in those two nations, US
intervention wasn't as negative as some suggest.
Iraq today is still grappling with many problems, including
mafia-style proxies of Tehran and Ankara's troops in several provinces.
Corruption is also above the 40 percent the UN regards as a limit beyond
which it becomes "a way of life." Yet, no one can deny that Iraqis
today are freer, more secure and respected and generally more prosperous
than under various post-monarchy dictators.
The Afghan case is somewhat different, if only because, unlike in
Iraq, those ousted from power have returned. Even then, thanks to US
intervention in 2001, Afghans tasted two decades of relative freedom.
As a student of Afghan affairs and a frequent visitor for decades, I
am astonished by the amazing achievements of Afghans in art, culture,
literature, sport, and even business during that brief parenthesis.
Millions of Afghan girls managed to get schooling and secure a part,
albeit small, in public life. Part of that historic surge of creativity
has happened in the Afghan diaspora formed after the return of the
Taliban to power.
However, even if we don't like the Taliban, who are not likeable by
any measure, they too may have started to change because the country the
Americans left isn't what it was before they came. Right now, voices
are heard inside Afghanistan urging a review of the ban on education for
women, partly by the Taliban's own womenfolk, who somehow have caught
the American bug.
Iranians had no reason to oppose US intervention when it helped them
protect their sovereignty against the Soviets and the British. They
pushed the US into hostility by raiding its embassy in Tehran,
effectively starting a 47-year war.
It is too early to assess the current US "intervention" in Iran, and
much depends on how it ends. Arabs have little reason to denounce the US
intervention, which helped prevent Israel from translating its military
victories into political gains. Even today, Trump is trying to save
Hamas from extinction through his "Board of Peace," while also shielding
the Lebanese Hezbollah to please Tehran and Doha.
Egypt can't complain about having received almost $100 billion in US
aid through annual subsidies by signing a peace treaty with Israel.
Kuwait can't complain because the US saved it from being annexed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
All in all, US intervention in the Middle East has not been all negative, as Trump suggests.
His own behavior could tip the balance.
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan
in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable
publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He graciously serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.
According to administration officials, the website called "Fraud Ledger" is intended to give taxpayers a public view of fraud investigations, enforcement actions and fraud prevention efforts
The White House’s new fraud tracking website is spotlighting billions
of dollars in government losses prevented, with healthcare programs
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services among the
largest areas of focus.
The online “Fraud Ledger"
said the administration has uncovered nearly $230 billion in fraud and
stopped approximately $56 billion in fraudulent payments through its
efforts to identify waste, abuse and improper spending across federal
programs.
According to administration officials, the website is intended to
give taxpayers a public view of fraud investigations, enforcement
actions and fraud prevention measures carried out as part of President
Donald Trump’s broader push to combat fraud in federal benefit programs.
The White House has described the effort as a way to “root out” fraud
and recover taxpayer dollars.
Administration officials said the administration stopped $46 billion
of fraud in HHS-related programs, uncovered $96 billion and enforced
$30.5 billion in recovery actions.
The Department of Health and Human Services reported more than $90 billion identified in improper payments
"Each partner agency reported three figures to the Task Force. Fraud
uncovered represents total estimated fraud identified through data
analysis. Fraud stopped counts the dollars saved annually through
administrative actions such as provider suspensions and rule changes,"
read the website. "Fraud enforced covers dollars recovered through
indictments, settlements, and civil monetary penalties. All figures
reflect the period since January 2025."
Healthcare spending represents a major portion of the government’s fraud and improper payment problems.
HHS also reported more than $90 billion in improper payments across
its programs in its fiscal year 2025 financial report. The largest
categories included Medicare and Medicaid, with Medicaid accounting for
tens of billions of dollars in estimated improper payments.
The tracker rated Medicaid fraud as its “highest-impact” anti-fraud action since January 2025.
“CMS held states accountable for the first time for Medicaid fraud,
deferring federal financial participation of over $2 billion from
California and over $500 million from Minnesota,” read the website.
Improper payments are not automatically evidence of fraud
Federal auditors caution that improper payments are not automatically
evidence of fraud. The Government Accountability Office defines
improper payments as funds that “shouldn’t have been made or were made
in the incorrect amount,” which can include administrative errors,
eligibility mistakes or insufficient documentation.
The GAO estimated
that federal agencies made approximately $186 billion in improper
payments government-wide in fiscal year 2025, bringing the total
estimate since 2003 to roughly $3 trillion.
The Trump administration has argued that stronger data-sharing and
enforcement tools can prevent taxpayer losses before money leaves
government programs. The White House previously announced efforts to
eliminate information barriers between agencies, saying better access to
government data would help detect and prevent fraud.
HHS officials have also expanded the use of data analytics and other
screening tools to identify questionable billing patterns and payment
risks before funds are distributed, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Investigators have targeted Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes
involving false medical claims, phantom providers, unnecessary
procedures and improper billing, while watchdog agencies continue to
stress that reducing improper payments requires fixing administrative
problems in addition to fraud prevention efforts.
The White House said the new tracker will continue to be updated as
federal agencies report additional enforcement actions and taxpayer
savings.
Indeed, he exposes them more than he realizes, because despite his self-congratulatory bravery, he actually choked at the last moment.
I wrote earlier this month
about a June debate the venerable Oxford Union Society (“OUS”) held to
determine whether “This House believes the West is right to be
suspicious of Islam.” That post revolved around Aisha Khan Aziz, who
spoke against the motion, and thought she had scored a point by saying
that the only reason Tommy Robinson was allowed to speak was that the
OUS’s primarily Third World leadership protected him from the mob. It
was telling, to say the least.
Another video clip from the debate has turned up, this one of actor
Laurence Fox’s appearance. He reveals that, while Britain may no longer
have blasphemy laws on the books, Islamic blasphemy laws have now become
integrated into British society, including at Oxford itself—which, it
should be noted, is an institution founded over 900 years ago to advance
Christianity in England.
Up to a certain point, the video speaks for itself, but there are a few things that need explanation:
Best clip from the Oxford Union in a long time. A speaker suggests that he is about to display a cartoon of Muhammad to prove that Islam has a problem with free speech.
People scramble frantically to stop him: It is against the rules, unnecessary, irrelevant, disrespectful, and… pic.twitter.com/oRJ6MCXQOz
Finally, he reveals the image. It is a satirical cartoon about something else entirely. The audience breathes a sigh of relief.
In doing so, they prove his point for him:
Islam is incompatible with free speech.
Islam responds with violence.
And all the clever arguments are merely there to distract from what everyone knows.
The OUS can congratulate itself that “all’s well that ends well”
because Fox was eventually allowed to open the envelope to show a
picture that was not Mohammed. (It was Jacob Rees-Mogg, a
conservative who spoke against the motion. That is, he pish-toshed the
risk Islam poses in the UK.) However, the reality is that the clip is a
disastrous statement about today’s United Kingdom, and even Laurence
Fox proved that point by putting the lie to his self-declared bravery.
The one thing that must be corrected is Fox’s claim that almost 90%
of British Muslims believe that all British publications should be
censored to prevent them from showing pictures of Mohammed. He
exaggerates, but only slightly.
It’s probable that Fox was speaking of an April 2026 poll
conducted among Muslims in heavily populated areas (e.g., where the
most fervent live). It found that only 19% opposed criminalizing such
images. Meanwhile, 52% supported criminalizing the images and another
36% strongly supported doing so. In other
words, 81% of Britain’s loudest, most active, most densely populated
Muslim areas want blasphemy laws in Britain—Islamic blasphemy laws.
And yes, it’s true that Britain, which is still an officially
Christian country, did have blasphemy laws, both common and statutory,
going back to the 17th century. The basis for the laws was that
Christianity was regarded as an integral part of English law, meaning
that blasphemy undermined one of England’s foundations. These laws were
decidedly Christian, punishing those who:
denied any person of the Holy Trinity to be God;
asserted that there was more than one God;
denied that the Christian religion was true; or
denied the divine authority of the Old or New Testament.
By 1967, Parliament repealed the Blasphemy Act of 1697, and in 2008,
it abolished the common law crime, which had boiled down to extremely
rare prosecutions of particularly scurrilous ridicule of the Christian
faith. Notably, no one had ever been successfully prosecuted during the
Blasphemy Act’s long history. Almost from the start, it was mostly a
dead letter.
This contrasts starkly with Islamic blasphemy laws, which routinely
lead to official criminal prosecutions, mob violence, or selective
murders and other attacks. Thus, Pakistan, Iran, and Nigeria commonly execute blasphemers, while it’s still a capital offense in Afghanistan, Mauritania, Somalia, Yemen, Brunei, and our ally Saudi Arabia. Vigilante mobs in Pakistan are common. And of course, Salman Rushdie was still a target over three decades after Khomeini’s 1989 Fatwa against him for blasphemy.
Separate from that background, two things stand out in the video. The
first is what the Muslim OUS president had to say when Fox indicated
that he would show a picture of Mohammed:
Is it not enough that half the team that invited you to this debate
were Muslim women who wanted to hear out your expression and your
arguments? Is it not enough that I, as a Muslim president, have invited
you to this chamber to give your arguments? Is that not enough
justification and evidence for you to believe that we do believe in free
speech? I would not become the president of a free-speech society if
not for that.
Contrary to her summing up of her own point, the message is clear,
and it’s not that Fox, or any other person in Britain, has free speech.
Instead, it’s that the British people have only as much free speech as
Muslims grant them. In other words, “free” speech is not an inherent
right; it’s a privilege that British Muslims can give and, usually
through violence, can take away again.
The second point is that, in fact, Fox was not brave and did bow down
to blasphemy. Why? Because he didn’t show a picture of Mohammed.
He chose not to risk the fate of the staff at Charlie Hebdo in Paris,
and others who have paid a price for their “blasphemy” in countries
that had no laws prohibiting images of Mohammed. When he opened the
envelope, one could see that he had chickened out and showed another
image entirely.
So, when Fox claimed, “I will not submit; I will not bow down,” he
lied—and frankly, were I in a country without any Second Amendment
rights, I’d probably lie, too. And that’s how the bully-boys (and
girls) of Islam take over.
There will always be a land mass that once was England. I doubt that there will always be an England.
Nearly Two Centuries After Ending Public Support for Congregational Churches, Lawmakers Call for Commission to Recommend Muslims for Government Jobs
Massachusetts State Senator Jamie
Eldridge presides over an “Islamohobia” awareness forum in at Islamic
Center of Boston in Wayland in late 2024. (Dexter Van Zile)
Talk about regression. Nearly two centuries after Massachusetts
brought an end to Protestant privilege and elitism in the commonwealth
by ending
a state-imposed tax on communities used to pay the pastors of
Congregational churches in 1833, Beacon Hill lawmakers seek to establish
Muslims as a privileged class in the state.
Senate bill S.2134
would create a permanent, taxpayer-supported commission exclusively for
“people who practice Islam,” grant it the power to recommend American
Muslims for appointive government positions at every level, and charge
it with studying and combating “Islamophobia”—a term that functions as a
shield against legitimate criticism of Islamic doctrine and practice.
In short, lawmakers in a state that once rejected special religious
status for Protestants are now preparing to accord Muslims privileged
status.
Let the coddling come to an end.
Advocates for the bill argue that passage of the bill—which is likely to die in committee—is “much-needed” and “fills a gap”
without providing any proof of discrimination against Muslims in the
public square in Massachusetts. In September 2024, one of the bill’s
sponsors, Jamie Eldridge (D-Middlesex and Worcester), hosted a forum on Islamophobia awareness at the Islamic Society of Boston in Wayland that failed to deliver the goods.
As previously reported in Focus on Western Islamism (FWI),
the event offered a revealing glimpse into just how thin the evidence
for systemic anti-Muslim animus in the commonwealth actually is.
Speakers,
far from documenting exclusion or hostility in the public square,
repeatedly described a Massachusetts that has gone out of its way to
integrate Muslim citizens into civic and professional life. Subheen
Razzaqi, a social studies teacher at Newton North High School with a
graduate degree from Harvard, recounted how Newton administrators
accelerated their hiring process by three months and extended a job
offer within 24 hours once she mentioned she had accepted a position in
nearby Lexington.
Razzaqi’s primary example of “Islamophobia”?
Non-Muslim teenage boys eating large sandwiches in front of their
fasting Muslim classmates during Ramadan. The Muslim students
themselves, she acknowledged, responded with humor—“That really sucks,
but oh my God! Isn’t that funny?”—yet Razzaqi framed the episode as a
microaggression.
Leena Muntasser, then a student at
Lincoln-Sudbury High School, complained that teachers and classmates
sometimes confused her with other hijabi students, including one with a
darker complexion. She also expressed irritation that a teacher assigned
Khaled Hosseini’s novel A Thousand Splendid Suns, which depicts
the oppression of women under Islamist rule in Afghanistan, and that the
same teacher presented Western commentary on the hijab alongside
Islamic sources. “This is not a political debate,” Muntasser insisted.
“Hijab is a religious belief.” In other words, even criticism from
secular Muslims like Hosseini is off the table.
Mariam Ibrahimi of
Northborough described the fear she felt as a 19-year-old hijab-wearing
candidate for the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee in 2021. To
illustrate the hostility she faced, she read an online comment
criticizing her as a proponent of “indoctrination/social justice, BLM”
liberalism. That remark, however uncivil, said nothing about Islam. As
it turns out, the entire Northborough Select Board endorsed her
candidacy—an unprecedented step—and residents carried signs for her on
Election Day. “People were supporting a young person … a hijab-wearing
Muslim girl,” she said, “and that was incredibly exciting to see.”
These
are not the testimonies of a persecuted minority locked out of
opportunity; they are accounts of professional advancement, civic
endorsement, and the ordinary frictions of life in a pluralistic
society. The advocates of S.2134 inflate these frictions into a crisis
requiring a permanent, taxpayer-supported commission with the power to
recommend Muslims for government appointments and to police
“Islamophobia.” If the strongest case that can be made for special
status is sandwich-eating during Ramadan and the occasional—and
unintentional—misidentification of veiled students, then Massachusetts
is not witnessing an epidemic of bigotry; it is witnessing an attempt to
manufacture Muslim privilege by Eldridge and his allies.
H.L. Mencken
The reality is that “Islamophobia” is what Christopher
Hitchens rightly described as a “stupid neologism” that “aims to promote
criticism of Islam to the gallery of special offenses associated with
racism.” Whether Muslims and their allies like it or not, Islamic
beliefs and practices are subject to debate and criticism. Muslims,
ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims are going to criticize the religion’s impact
on the public square just the same way Baptists complained about
Congregationalist privilege in Massachusetts in the 1800s, just as
people like H.L. Mencken mocked Fundamentalist Protestants during and after the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.
If
H.L. Mencken were alive today, he’d be mocking Islamists seeking to
re-establish the caliphate in the modern world. He’d condemn them for
their misogynist teachings, their desire to police the public square,
and their promotion of hostility toward gays and lesbians. He’d mock
Islamist leaders for silencing dissent within the Muslim community. He
would oppose official recognition from public officials that their faith
is uniquely beyond criticism. And he’d be called an “Islamophobe” for
his work.
Predictably, the bill offers no meaningful
qualifications or safeguards to prevent the commission it creates from
being influenced or overtaken by Islamist agitators. This is a big
issue. One of the biggest boosters of the bill is Tahirah Amatul-Wadud,
an Eldridge ally who serves as executive director and chief legal
officer of the Massachusetts chapter of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), an organization whose founding national director,
Nihad Awad, met
with Hamas members in a Philadelphia hotel room in 1993—a meeting
recorded by the FBI—where he discussed portraying the Islamist campaign
to destroy Israel as a liberationist cause palatable to American
progressives and agreed to speak in support of “restor[ing] the ’48
land.”
After the October 7 massacre, Awad declared himself “happy
to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their
own land and walk free into” Israel, called Gaza a “concentration
camp,” and insisted that Israel, as an “occupying power,” had no right
to defend itself. It’s bad enough that Eldridge is allying himself with a
CAIR staffer; it’s even worse that he’s creating a pathway for the
organization to have even greater influence on public life in
Massachusetts.
This is blatantly, and embarrassingly, unconstitutional.
Karen Hurwitz
This is not the first time such legislation has appeared on Beacon Hill.
In 2023, a nearly identical bill (S.1994/H.3052) sought to create an
“American Muslim Commission” with the power to recommend Muslims for
government appointments. The Middle East Forum launched a public
campaign highlighting the measure’s constitutional problems under the
Establishment Clause. Under pressure from MEF’s reporting and grassroots
outreach, the legislation ultimately went nowhere.
Massachusetts
attorney Karen Hurvitz, counsel for Education Without Indoctrination,
put the constitutional problem with S.2134 in stark terms: “The Senators
who proposed this legislation clearly do not understand the very basic
principle, secured to all United States citizens by the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, to be free from the
merger of church and state. The First Amendment explicitly states that
the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, and it applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
This bill would create a permanent, state sanctioned commission,
supported by taxpayers, whose very purpose is to recommend Muslims for
government positions and advance legislation that prioritizes the
interests of the Muslim community. This is blatantly, and
embarrassingly, unconstitutional.”
Hurvitz added that there are numerous other constitutional objections to the bill.
“The
First Amendment requires government neutrality among religions, so a
taxpayer-funded state commission that exclusively favors one religious
group constitutes an explicit endorsement of one faith over all others,”
she sated, adding that “Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution
forbids any religious test as a qualification for public office; using a
state commission to filter or recommend applicants based on Islamic
faith directly undermines that prohibition.”
Moreover, under
standard constitutional analysis, government action must have a
primarily secular purpose, Hurvitz reports. “Yet a commission mandated
to evaluate and recommend candidates by religion serves an inherently
sectarian function. Such a body would also violate the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by treating job applicants
differently solely on the basis of religious identity.”
John
Hajjar, co-chair of the American Mideast Coalition for Democracy, was
equally direct: “Why are our lawmakers advocating for adherents of one
religion over all others and thereby discriminating against the vast
majority of Bay Staters? This is just more evidence of the Left-Green
alliance and now the shocking promotion of Islamism into the public
policy of Massachusetts. It is also proof that Massachusetts lawmakers
are way out of touch with the people they claim to represent.”
Astonishingly enough, the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which did not respond to a query from this writer when covering the previous version of this bill in 2023, has found its voice in opposition to S.2134, declaring that it violates the state’s constitution, which affirms that “no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”
Simply
put, Muslims do not need special treatment in Massachusetts or, for
that matter, anywhere else in the United States. A few years ago, Tania
Fernandes Anderson, a Muslim, was elected to the Boston City Council,
serving until she was convicted and sentenced on federal corruption
charges. Sumbul Siddiqui, a Muslim, is serving her third term as mayor
of Cambridge. New York City has a Muslim mayor, as does Dearborn,
Michigan. The city of Hamtramck, Michigan, is governed by a Muslim mayor
(and an all-male) and all-Muslim City Council.
The upshot is that
Muslims in the United States enjoy more rights and freedom than their
co-religionists do in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and
South Asia. The fact that they get pushback on how their faith is
understood and practiced in the modern era is not proof of oppression.
It is proof of America’s commitment to free expression and religious
freedom.
Enough with the infantile treatment of Muslims in
Massachusetts—and in the rest of the country. If they want to serve and
lead their fellow citizens in the U.S., let them do what everyone else
does in America—run for office, apply for posts, and let the chips fall
where they may, just as they have in Cambridge, Dearborn, Hamtramck, and
New York City. Let Muslims prove their worth to the U.S. republic not
as a protected class, but as qualified, talented—and accountable—public
officials.
Denial a Well-Known Trait Among Europe’s Political Establishment, Expert Warns
Spanish police warn that
previously deported jihadis are among the thousands who breached Ceuta’s
border, while the Interior Ministry insists the arrivals pose no
security threat—a denial one expert calls typical of Europe’s left-wing
political establishment. (Grok)
Spain’s National Police and Civil Guard have identified
several known jihadis who were previously investigated and deported
from the country among the mass influx of migrants who breached the
border and entered the Spanish enclave of Ceuta on July 30.
Denial is a well-known trait among much of the
European left-wing political establishment. It’s worth recalling that
for years, even in Italy, several left-wing politicians have been saying
that ‘terrorists don’t arrive by sea,’ only to be proven wrong by the
facts.
Giovanni Giacalone
Officials believe
the jihadis are among the approximately 5,000 migrants who remain in
Ceuta and are resisting deportation. They allegedly plan to relocate
clandestinely to mainland Spain and other European countries. Spain has arrested 196 jihadis and deported 116 since 2021.
Intelligence sources told Spanish newspaper The Objective
that cameras at the Ceuta border have been key to detecting the jihadi
infiltration. Police are also reviewing images and videos on social
media and in the news that have surfaced during the migrant crisis to
check for jihadi presence.
Some of the jihadis had been under
investigation for several months both by Moroccan and Spanish
counter-terrorism agencies, sources told the newspaper. El Español confirmed that police had identified at least a dozen jihadis who are being investigated for terrorism offenses in Spain.
Soldiers stationed in Ceuta told Periodista Digital
that the “worst” of the migrants had remained in the Spanish territory.
The news outlet also reported on claims of firearms being discovered
among the illegal aliens from Morocco. A jihadi who traveled to Syria in 2016 to join an Islamist terrorist group was arrested in Ceuta.
Interior Ministry Denies Reports of Jihadi Infiltration
Giovanni Giacalone.
Spain’s Interior Ministry, however, denied
the claims and insisted that the migrants are not an Islamist threat.
“The Spanish public and the people of Ceuta can be confident that the
arrivals on 30 July do not pose a threat to public security,” a
government spokesperson maintained.
“Denial
is a well-known trait among much of the European left-wing political
establishment. It’s worth recalling that for years, even in Italy,
several left-wing politicians have been saying that ‘terrorists don’t
arrive by sea,’ only to be proven wrong by the facts,” Giovanni
Giacalone, a terrorism expert at the International Team for the Study of
Security Verona, told Focus on Western Islamism.
“It is a
fact that irregular migration flows pose a real and proven threat not
only in relation to crime but also to jihadist terrorism. The Italian
government was therefore right to suspend the Schengen Agreement with
Spain immediately,” he emphasized, citing several examples of jihadi
attackers in recent years illegally entering Europe.
In a post
on X, Manuel Gavira, Member of the Andalusian Parliament, warned that
jihadis were “among the Ceuta invaders” and were being transported by
the mafias to the Andalusian coast. The Vox politician blamed Prime
Minister Pedro Sánchez’s “concessions to Morocco and his suicidal
immigration policies” for turning Spain’s borders “into a sieve.”
Counter-terrorism
experts have warned of an increasing presence of radicalized Muslims in
Ceuta and Melilla—Spanish enclaves on the North African coast sharing a
border with Morocco.
“The
proximity of Ceuta and Melilla to Andalucia, however, coupled with the
‘Maghreb-Andalucia’ clandestine immigration pipeline, increases the risk
of terrorist infiltration,” the report states.
Experts Warn of Islamist Encroachment
Ceuta has over 35,000
Muslim inhabitants, around out of a registered population of 86,000.
Most of the city’s foreign population, which accounts for 6 percent of
the total, is of Moroccan origin. Ceutan Muslims are recent arrivals or
trace their ancestry to Moroccans who joined Spain’s colonial army.
The Union of Islamic Communities of Ceuta (UCIDCE) controls 36 out of 40 Islamic associations in the region. It has been accused of links to the hardline Tablighi Jamaat
sect, banned by numerous Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, as
well as to al-Adlwal-Ihsan (AWI) or Justice and Charity, Morocco’s
largest Islamist movement.
“The Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and
Melilla are known for their AWI bases, which facilitate communication
between Moroccan and Spanish AWI supporters,” a report by the Washington
Institute titled al-Adlwal-Ihsan: Inside Morocco’s Islamist Challenge
warned. It noted that AWI also “shares the Spanish stage with other
Islamist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb
al-Tahrir.”
“The profile of Melilla, Ceuta and Andalucia, as
‘hosts’ to Islamist terrorist activities, demonstrates the degree to
which various terrorist groups have penetrated mainstream Spanish cities
and populations,” the Jamestown report concluded.
The “first Spanish Taliban,” Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmed, was from Ceuta.
He spent two years at Guantanamo Bay on suspicions of being an “enemy
combatant” allied to al-Qaeda.
The Interior Ministry earlier
investigated mosques sponsored by Morocco and reported its findings in a
special intelligence report. It found that the Moroccan Ministry of
Islamic Affairs office in Tetuan, Ceuta pays the salaries of the imams
and that these community leaders owe their loyalty to the Moroccan king,
whom they recognize as the most senior religious authority.
In 2015, police arrested
four jihadis in Ceuta who were preparing to launch a “Charlie Hebdo”
style terrorist attack. “There are two pairs of very radicalized
brothers who are highly trained militarily, physically and mentally and
are prepared to carry out an attack, and ready, according to police, to
blow themselves up in the act,” former Interior Minister Jorge Fernandez
Diaz said.
Links Between Jihadis and Migrant Infiltration
Several reports have established key links between jihadi organizations and migrant movements into Europe.
The Counter Terrorism Centre of Excellence’s 2022 report
states that Islamic State may have generated significant funding in
2015 by taxing human traffickers smuggling migrants through the Middle
East and Northern Africa into Europe.
In the Sahel and Northern
Africa, Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and Jama’a Nusrat Ul-Islam wa
al-Muslimin reportedly profited by taxing migrant traffickers for
vehicles and safe houses.
A 2019 INTERPOL Operation on criminal
mobility identified 827 individuals at air and land border points,
including individuals linked to terrorism. In Kenya, Al-Shabaab attacks
in the country have been attributed to the presence of Somali refugees.
Non-state
armed groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, jihadist groups in Mali and
diverse militias in Libya all benefit from migrant smuggling, a report by Cross-Border Conflict Evidence, Policy and Trends noted.
