Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact Reshapes Middle Eastern Geopolitics

Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact Reshapes Middle Eastern Geopolitics

    Wednesday, September 17, 2025   No comments

In a move that has sent seismic waves across the international community, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have formally signed a mutual defense pact. The announcement, coming in the immediate aftermath of a devastating Israeli attack on Qatar, signals a dramatic and potentially dangerous realignment of power in a region already on a knife's edge.

This agreement, far more than a simple reaffirmation of longstanding ties, represents a fundamental shift in the strategic calculus of the Middle East and South Asia, with implications for global security, energy markets, and the future of conflict in the region.

From Strategic Partnership to Ironclad Guarantee

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan share a deep, decades-long relationship built on a foundation of economic support, religious solidarity, and security cooperation. Riyadh has long been a financial benefactor to Islamabad, while Pakistan has provided the Kingdom with military trainers and troops for its defense. However, this new pact elevates that relationship to an entirely new level.

The core tenet of the agreement, as stated by the Pakistani prime minister’s office, is that "any aggression against either country will be treated as aggression against both." This transforms a friendly understanding into a legally binding, ironclad security guarantee. For Saudi Arabia, a nation rich in wealth and oil but with a relatively small population, this pact effectively places it under the umbrella of Pakistan's formidable military—the world’s sixth-largest—and, most significantly, its nuclear arsenal.

The Qatar Catalyst: A Region on the Brink

The timing of the announcement is impossible to ignore. The pact was finalized during emergency talks in Riyadh between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, held just days after Israel's unprecedented attack on Qatar.

This context is crucial. The strike on Qatar, a nation that also hosts a major U.S. military base, demonstrated a terrifying escalation in the ongoing regional proxy wars. For Saudi Arabia, a longstanding rival of Qatar, the attack was likely seen not just as an strike against a neighbor, but as a harbinger of unchecked aggression that could one day be directed at Riyadh itself. The message from the Saudi leadership is clear: the traditional security architecture, heavily reliant on the United States, is no longer seen as dependable. They are seeking new, more immediate guarantees for their survival.

By aligning directly with a nuclear-armed power, Saudi Arabia is sending a powerful deterrent message to all regional adversaries, primarily Israel and Iran: an attack on the Kingdom will now carry an incalculable and existential risk.

Iran's Calculated Response: Diplomatic Outreach in a Shifting Landscape

This development comes as Iran's security leadership has initiated a regional outreach, seeking to capitalize on the chaos to advance its own vision for a new security architecture. In a highly significant move, Ali Larijani, a senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader and former Parliament Speaker, was dispatched to Saudi Arabia.

Larijani’s mission is multifaceted:

• Testing the Waters: Iran is likely probing Saudi Arabia's commitment to its new partnership with Pakistan and gauging its level of anxiety post-Qatar.

• Offering an Alternative: Tehran is positioning itself as a necessary partner for regional stability, arguing that a collective security agreement that includes Iran is preferable to a polarized arms race.

• Exploiting Divisions: Iran may see an opportunity to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and its traditional allies by presenting itself as a more reliable, or at least inevitable, neighbor in a post-American era.

The Larijani mission underscores that while the Saudi-Pakistan pact is a Sunni-centric bloc, Iran is not remaining idle. It is responding with its own diplomatic offensive, recognizing that the regional order is up for grabs.

The Nuclear Question: A Delicate Balance

The most profound element of the pact is Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power. This agreement implicitly, though not explicitly, introduces a nuclear dimension into the heart of Middle Eastern security.

• Deterrence or Provocation? From Saudi Arabia's perspective, this is the ultimate deterrent. It hopes the mere existence of this pact will prevent any future aggression. However, from the perspective of Israel and Iran, it represents a massive escalation, potentially forcing them to recalibrate their own military and strategic doctrines.

• The "Sunni Shield" Narrative: The pact solidifies a powerful bloc of Sunni Muslim nations, with Pakistan’s bomb acting as a counterweight to Shiite Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. This risks hardening the sectarian and geopolitical fault lines in the region, moving from a cold war to a much more volatile standoff.

Global Repercussions and Shifting Alliances

The ramifications of this defense pact extend far beyond the Middle East:

1. A Challenge to U.S. Influence: This is a stark indication of Riyadh’s desire to diversify its security partnerships away from Washington. While not a full break, it shows Saudi Arabia is willing to build an independent security infrastructure, reducing its reliance on the U.S. military umbrella.

2. A Dilemma for Washington: The United States now faces a complex challenge. Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally, while Saudi Arabia remains a critical energy partner. However, a mutual defense pact that could potentially draw a nuclear-armed Pakistan into a Middle Eastern conflict is a nightmare scenario for U.S. strategists.
   

3. 
   India's Strategic Anxiety: For India, Pakistan’s arch-rival, this is deeply troubling news. It formalizes the military alliance between its two adversaries—Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s close ally, China. India must now consider the possibility that a future crisis with Pakistan could, in the worst case, involve a much broader coalition or divert Pakistani resources and attention westward.

4. Iran's Isolation and Response: For Iran, the pact is the consolidation of a hostile, US-backed, and now nuclear-linked alliance on its flanks. The Larijani mission shows its strategy is two-fold: resist this consolidation through diplomacy while likely accelerating its own military and nuclear programs as an ultimate guarantee.  Being aware of what Iran represents for Shia Muslims, and recognizing that Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim community, steps are being taken to signal that this pact is not intended to threaten Iran or exclude Shia Muslims. To this end, on September 18, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia called his Iranian counterpart, not details of the call was made available. And on September 19, the Saudi Minister of Defense called his Iranian counterpart to inform "Iran of the details of the Saudi-Pakistani mutual defense treaty, and provided a document with information." Iran's DM thanked the Saudi Defense Ministry for its briefing, and offered its good wishes for the success of this alliance and Islamic nations in general, stating that "we will always support initiatives that seek to strengthen the mutual cooperation between Islamic nations." said Iran's Minister of Defense Aziz Nasirzadeh.
   

A New, More Dangerous Era

The Saudi-Pakistan mutual defense pact is not merely a signed document; it is a symptom of a world order fracturing and reorganizing itself. It is born from a moment of extreme crisis and has triggered a swift and calculated response from Iran, as seen in the Larijani mission.

While intended to create stability through deterrence, the pact risks creating a more brittle and dangerous landscape. By explicitly tying the fate of the Arabian Peninsula to the nuclear calculus of South Asia, it has created a tripwire that, if ever crossed, could escalate a regional conflict into a global catastrophe overnight. The world is now witnessing a high-stakes diplomatic chess game where the moves are bold, the players are nervous, and the consequences are unimaginable. The world will be watching this new axis of power with bated breath and profound concern.

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

    Sunday, June 29, 2025   No comments

The recent 12-day war between Israel, US, and Iran has not only reshaped Middle Eastern dynamics but also sent ripples across South Asia—particularly impacting Iran's complex but evolving relationship with Pakistan. Although the two neighbors have shared a history of cautious cooperation punctuated by periods of distrust, the latest conflict appears to be accelerating a strategic convergence between Tehran and Islamabad. Just over a year ago, in January 2024, relations between Iran and Pakistan nearly derailed after a rare exchange of cross-border missile strikes. Iran targeted what it claimed were hideouts of the Sunni militant group "Jaish al-Adl" in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Islamabad responded with airstrikes on Iranian territory, claiming to hit Baloch separatists threatening Pakistani sovereignty.

Despite this alarming escalation, diplomacy prevailed. A pivotal visit by then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in April 2024 helped cool tensions. The two countries agreed to treat their border as a “marketplace, not a battlefield,” leading to unprecedented cooperation—including intelligence sharing and a joint security operation in Balochistan. This pragmatic rapprochement was further reinforced in July and November 2024, when both nations coordinated the arrest and extradition of militants operating on either side of the border.

The 12-day war launched by Israel on Iran has reignited fears of regional destabilization. For Pakistan, the risk is not just ideological alignment with a fellow Muslim-majority state under siege; it's deeply strategic. Iran’s internal security vulnerabilities—exposed by Israeli strikes—create a vacuum that could empower militant groups like Jaish al-Adl, which have already carried out dozens of deadly attacks in Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province. Pakistan fears that a weakened Iranian state would allow these groups to spill over into Pakistani territory, intensifying separatist violence in its own Balochistan province.

Moreover, the war has created space for greater alignment against perceived Israeli and Western aggression. Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif publicly condemned Israel, warning that Islamic nations could face similar fates if they remain divided. At the United Nations, Pakistan’s envoy described Israel's actions as a threat to the entire region and expressed full solidarity with the Iranian people.

General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful Army Chief, visited Washington mid-June—his first official trip since 2001. There, he cautioned U.S. officials, including former President Donald Trump, against supporting the Israeli offensive. Munir argued that toppling Iran’s regime would lead to chaos across Balochistan and empower groups like Jaish al-Adl, which Washington itself classifies as a terrorist organization.

In private discussions, Munir also warned of the precedent that bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might set. Although Israel has historically remained silent on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Islamabad remains sensitive to parallels drawn with its own facilities.

Despite its public support for Iran, Pakistan remains interested in preserving its long-standing but strained relationship with the U.S.—particularly in light of renewed American interest sparked by the Iran conflict. Pakistan’s hope is to use this geopolitical moment to negotiate economic and strategic concessions from both Washington and Beijing.

Over the past decade, Pakistan has leaned heavily into its strategic partnership with China, especially through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Yet Islamabad understands that overdependence on China is risky, particularly amid growing U.S.-China rivalry. Diversifying economic partners while aligning diplomatically with both superpowers offers Islamabad a path to stability and leverage.

The 12-day war has likely accelerated the slow-burning strategic realignment between Iran and Pakistan. Historically divided by sectarian suspicions and divergent foreign policy priorities, the two nations now find themselves driven together by shared security concerns, declining Western engagement, and expanding Chinese influence.

This doesn’t mean a full-fledged alliance is inevitable. Deep mistrust lingers—especially over past proxy support and sectarian competition. However, as both nations face a common threat from Israeli aggression, cross-border militancy, and marginalization by Western powers, their overlapping interests may now outweigh historical grievances.

The war has made one thing clear: Iran and Pakistan can no longer afford ambiguity in their relationship. Whether driven by fear, necessity, or opportunity, they appear to be moving—cautiously but decisively—toward a more robust partnership.

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan agreed in a trilateral meeting in Beijing to formally extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan, strengthening regional connectivity under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The foreign ministers emphasized deeper cooperation in trade, infrastructure, and security, reaffirming their commitment to counterterrorism and regional stability. 

The next trilateral meeting will be held in Kabul. The talks took place during Deputy PM Ishaq Dar’s visit to China, which also addressed the recent Pakistan-India tensions and reaffirmed the strong China-Pakistan partnership.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, and the West

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, and the West

    Friday, April 25, 2025   No comments

Journalist prefaced her question to Pakistani official by stating that Pakistan has a lonh g history of supporting terrorism. In response, the Pakistani Minister of Defense replied:

"We have been doing this dirty work for the United States and the West — including Britain — for about three decades."

He is referencing Pakistan's role in training the "mujahideen" of Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, who later, under al-Qaeda leadership, one of the Mujahideen groups, attacked US on 9/11, and that started the war on terror, which Pakistan joined again, under the request of the West. 

The crisis in Kashmir has been just one element that created the alliance between Saudi Arabia, United States, and Pakistan to "radicalize", which means, to wahhabitize Muslims, to fight the "good" war against the Soviet Union, and Pakistan hoped that it can use them to control all of Kashmir, too. It turned out that using religion for political gains did not work well for all three partners in the long run.

 

Islamic D-8: can this intergovernmental organization help stabilize Southwest Asia and North Africa?

Islamic D-8: can this intergovernmental organization help stabilize Southwest Asia and North Africa?

    Tuesday, December 17, 2024   No comments

Cairo will host the 11th edition of the D8 Summit on Thursday, 19-12-2024, which will discuss ways to confront successive global economic and political changes. The summit will be held under the slogan "Investing in Youth and Supporting Small and Medium Enterprises: Shaping Tomorrow's Economy."

Egypt chairs the current edition of the summit, having assumed the presidency of the group last May and will continue to lead its work until the end of next year.

Several summits and bilateral meetings are scheduled to be held on the sidelines of the D8 Summit in Cairo, whether at the level of presidents or delegations participating in the conference.

The meeting of the foreign ministers of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Bangladesh will be held tomorrow, Wednesday.

Several heads of state will be attending this summit this year, including Iran's president.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian plans to attend the summit of the Developing Eight (D8) Islamic countries in Egypt on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tuesday. This is the first visit by an Iranian president to Egypt in more than a decade.

Relations between Egypt and Iran have generally been tense in recent decades, but the two countries have intensified high-level diplomatic contacts since the Gaza war broke out last year, in which Egypt has tried to mediate. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi traveled to Egypt in October to discuss regional issues with Egyptian officials, and his Egyptian counterpart Badr Abdel Aty traveled to Tehran in July to attend Pezeshkian’s inauguration.

Indonesian president will attend D-8

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto will travel to Egypt on Tuesday to attend meetings of a group of eight major Muslim nations known as the Developing Eight (D8) Economic Cooperation Organization, the government said.

Prabowo will attend meetings, including a D8 summit on Thursday, and accept the group’s chairmanship for a two-year term starting on Jan. 1, 2026, Foreign Ministry spokesman Roy Soemirat told reporters on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan will participate tomorrow, Wednesday, in the 21st meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers Council, which will be held in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, within the framework of the D8 Summit.

According to diplomatic sources in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, the meeting will address developments in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and other regional issues.

During the meeting, Fidan is expected to call for an immediate end to the genocide committed by Israel in Palestine and its measures aimed at turning the war into a regional conflict.

He is also expected to point out the importance of advancing efforts to implement the two-state solution in conjunction with reaching an immediate ceasefire.

Fidan will highlight the importance of providing urgent humanitarian aid to Gaza and increasing support for the efforts of the workers of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

The meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council comes within the framework of preparing for the summit hosted by Cairo next Thursday, with the participation of delegations from the group's countries: Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh.

The summit is scheduled to be held under the theme “Investing in Youth and Supporting SMEs: Shaping Tomorrow’s Economy.”

Attendance of the D-8 Summit in Cairo

The Indonesian government announced that President Prabowo Subianto will travel to Egypt today, Tuesday, to attend the group's meetings and the upcoming summit next Thursday, and will accept the group's presidency for a year.

In addition, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei announced that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian will participate in the G8 Summit in Egypt.

The Pakistani Embassy in Cairo also confirmed that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will pay an official visit to Egypt from December 18 to 20 to participate in the summit's activities.

President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi handed the Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati an invitation to participate in the summit's activities, as the Lebanese Prime Minister received the invitation from the Egyptian Ambassador Alaa Moussa, during his reception on December 9 at the Grand Serail.

The Middle East Eye website also reported that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will participate in the group's meeting and will hold meetings related to current developments in Syria.

About the D-8: the Developing Eight

The G8, also known as the Developing Eight, is a development cooperation system between the following member states: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey. This system also adds a new dimension aimed at strengthening economic relations and social ties among its members.

The G8 was officially established at the Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Istanbul on June 15, 1997 (Istanbul Declaration), following the "Cooperation for Development" Conference held on October 22, 1996 and a series of preparatory meetings.

The G8 aims to:

Improving the position of developing countries in the global economy.

Creating new opportunities in trade relations.

Enhancing the participation of developing countries in international decision-making.

Achieving better living standards.

The most important features of the G8:

It is a global system, not a regional one, as is clearly evident in its founding members.

Its membership is open to other developing countries that share the objectives and principles of the Group and are linked by common ties with it.

It is a forum that has no adverse effect on the bilateral and international obligations of its member states towards its membership and towards international organizations.

The Problem is not Netanyahu, it is Israel's next generation of leaders like Bezalel Smotrich

The Problem is not Netanyahu, it is Israel's next generation of leaders like Bezalel Smotrich

    Monday, September 09, 2024   No comments

Hundreds of thousands protest weekly in Israel these days, wanting to bring down Netanyahu and his government, accusing the former of being an obstacle to making a deal that would end the war in Gaza, and saying that he is doing so for purely personal reasons--fear of being charged and convicted with crimes. If that is true, that would make him less dangerous to the region than other members of his government who are against any deals, not for personal reasons, but for ideological and religious reasons. And the future of Israel will be in the hands of people like Bezalel Smotrich, who hold the belief that Israel will be secure only when Palestinians are erased.

“I believe that the village of Hawara should be wiped out, and I believe that the State of Israel should do it, and not, God forbid, private individuals.” These words escaped the lips of Bezalel Smotrich, Minister of Finance and Minister of Civil Affairs in the Ministry of Defense in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, during a conference organized in Tel Aviv in March 2023 by the Israeli economic newspaper The Marker. 

The minister, who heads the “Religious Zionism” party and is known to be a licensed lawyer and carefully calculates his words, did not expect, in the context of his comment on the settlers’ barbaric campaign against homes and property in the village of Hawara, south of Nablus, (in revenge for the killing of settlers by Palestinians), that this statement would bring upon him the wrath of the US State Department, whose officials called for a boycott of him. The US ambassador to Tel Aviv, Tom Nides, went on to call Smotrich “stupid,” prompting the latter to try to minimize the damage during a televised news program, saying, “Whoever can attribute to me the intention of wiping out the village, that is up to their obsessive mind. The intention is to be more proactive and aggressive in the war against terrorism, because people are being killed here… Perhaps this was said during a fit of emotion… I stumbled over my tongue.” 

But "the cat's out of the bag", and Smotrich’s words and actions, past and present, have come under scrutiny, given that he has been the third pillar of the ruling coalition in Israel since December 2022, after Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and the guardian of settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, in its new form.

Smotrich is not an outlier who represents no one in Israel, he has been elected consistently for years. Smotrich entered the Israeli political arena after being elected to the Knesset in March 2015, and was re-elected for five subsequent terms. With the formation of Netanyahu’s sixth government at the end of 2022, Smotrich was given the Finance Minister portfolio, which was previously held by Avigdor Lieberman, controlling the budgets of ministries and state institutions, including the army, in addition to controlling the movement of funds received by the Palestinian Authority under the 1994 Paris Agreement, especially the tax funds that must be handed over to the Authority, known as the clearance revenue, which is considered the backbone of public revenues in Palestine. In addition to this important and sensitive portfolio, another portfolio was added, the Ministry of Civil Affairs within the Ministry of Defense. In addition to the two portfolios, the leader of the Religious Zionism Party, Orit Struck, was appointed Minister of Settlement.

Smotrich first ran for the 18th Knesset in 2009, coming in ninth place on the National Union list. According to the Knesset Elections Law, he was exempted from serving in the IDF for three months, after which he returned to complete his service. At first, Smotrich opposed entering politics, but he did so on the instructions of his elders - headed by Rabbi Haim Druckman - who decided that this was a necessary step.

On June 23, 2019, he was appointed Minister of Transportation and a member of the Political-Security Cabinet in the transitional government.

Ahead of the 24th Knesset elections, he split from the Yamina list, according to him, against the backdrop of Naftali Bennett's willingness to enter the government in cooperation with left-wing parties. Smotrich ran as head of the "Religious Zionism" list in the technical bloc of the National Union parties: "Takuma", "Otzma Yehudit" and "Noam". The list won 6 seats in the elections, 4 of which went to Smotrich's party.

Where did this settler, haunted by the doctrine of "religious Zionism", come from?

His biography published on social media platforms says that he was born in 1980 in the settlement of "Haspin", built on the ruins of the village of "Khasfin" in the southern occupied Syrian Golan, to a Ukrainian family of religious nationalist zealots. In the settlement of "Beit El" north of Ramallah, he grew up in schools that combine the Jewish religion and Zionist thought.

Smotrich is the son of a settlement rabbi. He was born in one settlement, raised in another, married and lived in a third, from the Golan Heights to Hebron in Kiryat Arba, and then to Kedumim near Nablus. When he was 28, Smotrich volunteered in the Israeli army, and served for a year and a half in the central square in the operations department of the General Staff, a special period of service for religious people.

A leader for the future who is putting roots settlements he is determined to expand

Although he holds a bachelor’s degree in law and is licensed to practice law, Smotrich does not believe in international law, peace agreements with neighboring countries, or any Israeli laws that contradict the “Greater Israel” doctrine that aims to impose sovereignty over all of the Palestinian territories and parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

The man currently lives with his settler wife and seven children in the Kedumim settlement, built on Nablus land in the northern West Bank, after he seized private Palestinian land and built his home on it without a permit even from the occupation authorities.

The Israeli investigative website "Shomrim" revealed some features of the doctrine of "religious Zionism" and its impact on Smotrich's statements and speeches, in a report published by the Arabic version of the "Madar" website on September 4, 2023.

The report says: Regarding the conflict with the Palestinians, Smotrich often repeats phrases: There is no such thing as "two states for two peoples" and "The land of Israel is ours, and what is ours cannot be stolen," and another refrain that clearly reflects his quest for a single state or the implementation of a transfer. In 2015, he said in a speech he gave before the Knesset General Assembly: "There is only one state here, a Jewish state, and there will never be a Palestinian state alongside it. Whoever wants to live with us is welcome, but whoever does not want to either leave or we will see him in the crosshairs" (rifle aim). A year later, Smotrich wrote on Twitter (then X now): “All that remains now is to move from words to deeds: turn off the lights in the Palestinian Authority, impose sovereignty, and do everything that any self-respecting independent state would do.” As for the idea of ​​voluntary transfer, Smotrich calls it “encouraging immigration,” explaining that “those who do not want or cannot put aside their national aspirations will receive assistance from us to immigrate to an Arab country or to any other destination in the world.” This is not immigration on rickety boats, but rather the modern phenomenon of immigration on a plane to an organized future. 

Smotrich: My life’s mission is to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state

Smotrich has declared just this week that his life mission is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism party, made these remarks via social media, further emphasizing his commitment to expanding Israeli control over the occupied West Bank.

Smotrich stated, “My life’s mission is to build the Land of Israel and thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the State of Israel.” He framed this goal as not merely political but “national and existential,” highlighting the deep ideological commitment that drives his agenda.

Smotrich also highlighted his policies to entrench Israeli control in the occupied West Bank. “This is why, in addition to my role as Finance Minister, I took on the responsibility for civilian affairs in Judea and Samaria (the Israeli biblical name for the West Bank),” he added, reinforcing his intent to expand and support illegal settlements.

Smotrich’s rhetoric, which explicitly rejects Palestinian statehood, further highlights the ongoing challenges Palestinians face under Israeli occupation. His pledge to protect the “half a million settlers on the frontline, under fire,” is seen as a direct message to Palestinians threatening of subjecting them to ethnic cleansing.

Recently, Israeli settlers in the West Bank have escalated their violent attacks on native Palestinians, emboldened by Israeli leaders like Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

Senior Israeli military officials have even accused Smotrich and Ben Gvir of fueling unrest and “provoking a regional war.” According to reports in Israeli media, their extreme policies are seen as the “direct cause” of what is described as an increase in Palestinian resistance across the West Bank.

Smotrich also said that while the Israeli political leadership aims to control the aid entering Gaza, the Israeli military refuses to take responsibility for managing it.

The minister’s insistence on Israeli control over aid comes at a time when the besieged Gaza Strip is suffering from an Israeli-made famine and humanitarian crisis.

 Smotrich's Messianic "Revolution"

“A few weeks ago, I met with one of the settler leaders in the West Bank, a Likudman. I asked him what grade he would give Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The man said, ‘I’m disappointed with Ben-Gvir. He talks more than he does. I’m very satisfied with Smotrich,’” Yedioth Ahronoth political analyst Nahum Barnea wrote in his report on the radical changes that Finance Minister and Defense Minister Smotrich have brought about in the West Bank. Although the report did not provide anything new in this regard, it explained, in some detail, how the extremist minister, founder of the Regavim movement, was able to bring about a qualitative shift in the settlement project in the West Bank towards actually annexing the latter to Israel, which enabled him to obtain the “mark” he deserved. 

According to Israeli law, the army is the supreme authority or sovereign in the West Bank, “but in reality, Israel’s sovereignty in Judea and Samaria was handed over to a closed, extremist political sect, which obeys the command of one person and advances according to one messianic plan,” according to Barnea, who adds that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “supports that sect or does not obstruct it. What it currently lacks is completed by the government revolution within the Green Line, with weak opposition from the army.” 

The writer explains that Smotrich took control of the West Bank using a pincer tactic, the first jaw of which is represented by his position as Minister of Finance, and the second by his powers derived from his position as Minister of Defense, adding that “the goal he set in the decisive plan he published in 2017 has not changed: to cause the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and present the seven million Arabs living between the Jordan River and the sea with one of these options: death in battle, emigrate abroad, or remain second-class citizens forever.” In this context, Smotrich froze or delayed the transfer of clearance revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority from customs and taxes, in order to pay the salaries of its employees. 

Not only that, but he also activated “Article B of the Terror Victims Compensation Law,” which was approved last June at the behest of Justice Minister Yariv Levin and the chairman of the Constitution and Law Committee, Simcha Rothman. It stipulates that “any person injured in a terrorist act who sustains a permanent disability is entitled to compensation of up to five million shekels,” which is the money that Israel deducts from the clearance revenues, and is equivalent to the allocations that the Palestinian Authority pays to the families of Palestinian martyrs and prisoners. 

According to the new law, Israel can deduct it twice. Also, since October 7, the issuance of work permits within the Green Line has been suspended; Barnea points out here that “the Shin Bet, which feared the consequences of the economic crisis and its impact on the escalation of resistance operations, prepared a plan for the supervised entry of a portion of the workers into permanent workplaces,” while “the army supported this plan, but Smotrich and his colleagues exerted pressure that led to its rejection, and the Palestinian population was left with no choice but to rely on foreign aid, including money sent by Iran to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements.”

The second arm of the “Smotrich empire” is Hillel Rot from the Yitzhar settlement, who, after being appointed deputy head of the Civil Administration for Civil Affairs by Smotrich, became the de facto governor of the West Bank. In this context, Barnea quotes Professor Dan Turner, a settler in the Kfar Adumim settlement on the Jerusalem-Jericho road, as saying that “all the powers of the head of the Civil Administration were given to Rot, who is subordinate to the Settlement Administration, a political body in Smotrich’s ministry in the Ministry of Defense.” 

Among these powers is the appointment of department heads in the Civil Administration; Rot “appoints activists in the Religious Zionism Party to it, and thus an engineer from the Revava settlement was recently appointed director of the planning office in the Civil Administration, which is the highest authority in the field of planning and construction (in the West Bank).” The “Smotrich revolution” also affected the “legal advisor for Judea and Samaria,” who is subordinate to the military prosecution; He was fired and his department was closed, while “Smotrich appointed more than 20 lawyers whose mission is to quickly change the regulations to allow the development of the area for Jews only,” according to Turner, who explains that “everything is managed by civilian officials, politicians. Civilizing services is one of Smotrich’s means of freeing himself from the control of the army and implementing de facto annexation.” 

He explains that “over the past year and a half, there has been no planning for the 300,000 Palestinians living in Area C, and they have not been granted a single building permit, while demolitions, including the demolition of water wells and schools, have become routine.” In contrast, the declaration of lands as “state land” has quadrupled, as have building permits, and the establishment of unauthorized outposts has accelerated. According to Turner, “There are more than 100 small outposts and farms on Palestinian pastures. 

Unauthorized construction by Jews is not enforced, with Smotrich’s encouragement.” For its part, the “Judea and Samaria Police are acting in accordance with the policy of (National Security Minister Itamar) Ben-Gvir; they refrain from stopping Jewish violence and terrorism. If a settler is arrested, he is immediately released.” In fact, all of the above “will not help us in the court hearings against us in The Hague,” according to Turner, which intersects with what Barnea reported from Israeli security officials, who expressed their fear of “the impact of Kahanist measures (terrorism derived from the doctrine of Rav Meir Kahane, founder of the terrorist Kach movement) in the West Bank on the escalation of terrorism (resistance operations), and of a ruling that may be issued by the two international courts in The Hague.” 

According to Barnea, what is happening in the West Bank “seems to be a convenient pretext for issuing arrest warrants for government ministers, including its prime minister,” and “the American administration is concerned about the changes taking place in the West Bank, no less than it is concerned about the stagnation in Gaza. What happens in the West Bank does not stay in the West Bank.” Yesterday, Smotrich renewed his defense of what he is doing in the West Bank in a post on X, saying that “my life’s mission is to build the Land of Israel and thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the State of Israel. 

This is not political, but rather national and existential. That is why I have taken upon myself, in addition to my position as Minister of Finance, responsibility for civil affairs in Judea and Samaria.” He added, “(I) will continue to work with all my might so that the half a million settlers living on the front lines and under fire enjoy the rights of every citizen of Israel, and to establish facts that prevent the establishment of a Palestinian terrorist state, which will be (…) an Iranian forward base for the next massacre in Kfar Saba, Raanana and the entire center of the country.”

...

  These are not the views of an outlier, Israel's leaders are elected, and Bezalel Smotrich was not elected once or twice, he was elected many times and he, like leaders of other Zionist parties, represent a majority of the Israeli society, which means it represents the popular view of Israel. When Western governments, and Arab leaders address the place of Hamas and other religious groups in Palestinian societies, they often say, Hamas does not represent the Palestinians. The problem for Western leaders, is, what do you say about the Israeli Hamas-like, based on Western reasoning, like the groups that elect Bezalel Smotrich, who represent the majority of society, and are calling for genocide, forced population transfer, and ethnic cleansing? Does their being elected make them less subject to the principles of justice upon which the Palestinian claim to statehood is based?

  

Media review, compiled by Ali Hafez, B. Hamoud et al.