Social Media review: US Senator Chris Murphy: "Trump has lost control of this war"

Social Media review: US Senator Chris Murphy: "Trump has lost control of this war"

    Saturday, March 14, 2026   No comments

In a stark and urgently worded social media post, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) declared that former President Donald Trump "has lost control of this war," offering a sobering critique of the administration's handling of escalating tensions with Iran. Drawing on insights from closed-door briefings, Murphy outlines four interconnected crises that, in his view, reveal a dangerous miscalculation of Iran's capabilities and a lack of strategic foresight from the White House.

Murphy's central argument is that Trump fundamentally misjudged Iran's capacity and willingness to retaliate, igniting regional instability with potentially global consequences. The Connecticut senator, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, structures his warning around four critical flashpoints that collectively illustrate a conflict spiraling beyond Trump's control.

The first crisis concerns the Strait of Hormuz. Murphy contends that Trump incorrectly assumed Iran would not close this vital maritime chokepoint, through which a significant portion of the world's oil supply flows. With the Strait now closed, oil prices are spiking, and Murphy warns that a prolonged closure could trigger a global recession. He emphasizes the logistical nightmare of reopening the waterway: Iran's asymmetric tactics—using thousands of small drones, speedboats, and mines—are too dispersed and concealed to be easily neutralized. Even naval escorts for tankers, he notes, would strain U.S. naval resources and leave American ships vulnerable.

Second, Murphy highlights a shift in modern warfare that he believes the administration overlooked: the age of the drone. While U.S. forces can target Iran's missile infrastructure, they cannot eliminate the country's vast arsenal of cheap, weaponized drones. These drones, he argues, enable Iran to indefinitely threaten regional oil infrastructure, as demonstrated by a recent attack on an Omani oil depot. Compounding this vulnerability, Gulf state allies are depleting their interceptors, leaving critical energy assets increasingly exposed.

The third crisis involves the dangerous expansion of conflict beyond Iran's borders. Murphy warns that Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Iraq are actively engaging Israeli and U.S. targets, raising the specter of a broader regional war. He points to Israel's threatened ground invasion of Lebanon as a potential new flashpoint, while noting that Houthi forces in Yemen could soon re-escalate pressure in the Red Sea. In Syria, he adds, U.S. strikes on Iran risk reigniting conflict in an already fragile theater.

Finally, Murphy identifies the most profound failure: the absence of a viable endgame. Iran and its network of proxies, he argues, can sustain chaos indefinitely. The administration faces a grim choice between a catastrophic ground invasion—potentially costing thousands of American lives—or declaring a hollow victory that merely allows hardened Iranian leadership to rebuild. Murphy stresses that these outcomes were foreseeable, which is why previous presidents exercised greater caution.

Senator Murphy's post serves as a forceful intervention in the national security debate, urging a strategic pivot. He asserts that Trump's best course is to "cut his losses and end it," framing de-escalation not as retreat but as the only viable path to prevent a wider disaster. Whether one agrees with his assessment or not, Murphy's detailed breakdown underscores the high stakes of miscalculation in an era of asymmetric warfare and interconnected global systems. His warning invites policymakers and the public alike to confront a difficult question: when a conflict outpaces its architects' control, what does responsible leadership demand?

   

Hasty Peace Summit in Egypt

Hasty Peace Summit in Egypt

    Monday, October 13, 2025   No comments

Diplomatic Showmanship, War Crimes, and the Unresolved Reckoning

In a hastily convened summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, world leaders gathered under the banner of peace, hoping to forge a ceasefire agreement that might end the devastating war in Gaza. But beneath the polished veneer of diplomacy, the gathering exposed deep fractures within the international order, and the growing demand for accountability—both legal and political—for the war crimes committed over the past year.

This unexpected summit, held amid growing international outrage over the Gaza conflict, saw major power players—including Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and the United States—jockey for position, not just to broker a truce, but to shape the post-war reality in the region. Yet, one of the most dramatic developments occurred before the summit even began: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was barred from attending, following coordinated diplomatic pressure from Turkey and Iraq.

Netanyahu Blocked Amid Diplomatic Pushback

According to multiple diplomatic sources cited by Agence France-Presse, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan led efforts to block Netanyahu’s attendance, supported by Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al-Sudani. Erdoğan's plane reportedly circled over the Red Sea awaiting confirmation that Netanyahu would not be present, underscoring the intensity of regional resistance to legitimizing the Israeli leader’s role in any peace process.

The Iraqi delegation went as far as threatening to boycott the summit entirely if Netanyahu were allowed to attend. Cairo, under pressure, ultimately rescinded the invitation. Netanyahu later claimed that his absence was due to Jewish holidays—a statement seen widely as a face-saving maneuver.

This moment marks a significant political humiliation for Netanyahu, who had previously been confirmed by the Egyptian presidency to attend alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. It also signals a shift in the diplomatic atmosphere: leaders once willing to engage Netanyahu now fear the political consequences of being seen as complicit in normalizing his actions during the Gaza campaign.

A Peace Built on Diplomatic Expediency

The Sharm El-Sheikh summit, rushed and reactive, symbolizes a broader crisis in international diplomacy. While it aims to cement a ceasefire, the terms remain vague, the enforcement mechanisms uncertain, and the actors around the table deeply divided on what post-war Gaza should look like.

Earlier this year, reports emerged that the U.S. had floated a controversial plan to install former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as head of an interim administration in Gaza. The plan, which included a multinational force to secure borders and facilitate reconstruction, was met with skepticism. Most recently, President Donald Trump expressed doubts about Blair’s appointment, questioning whether the former prime minister is “acceptable to everyone”—a subtle acknowledgment of Blair's legacy in the region and the broader crisis of legitimacy facing Western interventions.

The Shadow of War Crimes and Political Reckoning

Beneath the surface of diplomatic maneuvering lies the unresolved question of war crimes. The Gaza war, which has resulted in staggering civilian casualties and widespread destruction, has pushed far beyond the bounds of international law. Human rights organizations, UN experts, and even some Western legislators have begun calling for independent investigations into potential war crimes committed by all parties, but particularly by the Israeli military under Netanyahu’s leadership.

While legal accountability through institutions like the International Criminal Court remains politically fraught and unlikely in the short term, political accountability may arrive sooner. Netanyahu’s increasing isolation—evident in his exclusion from this summit—suggests that even long-standing allies are recalibrating their alliances. The symbolism of excluding a wartime leader from a peace summit is powerful: it sends a message that diplomatic immunity is not a given for those accused of gross violations of humanitarian norms.

Looking Ahead: Fragile Peace, Uncertain Justice

The summit in Egypt may temporarily halt the violence, but it does little to address the root causes of the conflict or to lay the groundwork for sustainable peace. With Netanyahu sidelined, the question becomes: who will shape Gaza’s future, and how will justice be served?

If anything, these developments show that multiple centers of power—regional and global—are now moving to reassert control over a crisis that spiraled far beyond its original boundaries. The speed and secrecy with which this summit was arranged are telling: peace is being pursued not through transparent negotiation, but through diplomatic backchannels shaped by geopolitical interests rather than legal principles or the voices of those most affected. 

Still, for those calling for justice and accountability, this moment may be a turning point. Netanyahu’s diplomatic snub could be the beginning of a broader reckoning—not just for him, but for all leaders who believe that military force can be deployed without consequence. The world may be witnessing the birth of a fragile peace—but it is a peace haunted by the specter of unresolved war crimes and the lingering demand for justice.

Israel Used Fabricated 3D Tunnel Visuals to Justify Gaza Bombardments, Investigation Finds

Israel Used Fabricated 3D Tunnel Visuals to Justify Gaza Bombardments, Investigation Finds

    Monday, October 13, 2025   No comments

A recent journalistic investigation has revealed that the Israeli government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, presented misleading and fabricated 3D visualizations of Hamas tunnels as authentic intelligence to justify its military operations in Gaza. According to the report—published by Spanish news outlet laSexta—the Israeli military reused identical digital models to depict underground networks beneath multiple civilian sites, including hospitals and schools, despite claiming each represented unique, verified threats.

Fabricated Evidence Presented as Intelligence

The investigation found that some of the widely circulated animations were not produced by Israeli intelligence at all. Instead, they were sourced from publicly available online assets—including a 3D model originally created by a Scottish maritime museum to illustrate a ship repair workshop. These generic graphics were then repurposed and disseminated by Israeli military spokespeople as if they were classified intelligence products demonstrating Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

Notably, an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson did acknowledge on several occasions that the visuals were “illustrations only,” stating: “This is just an illustration—I repeat, we will not share the real images we have in our possession.” However, such disclaimers were often absent or downplayed in initial media briefings, leading international audiences and news organizations to treat the visuals as credible evidence.

Broader Pattern of Misrepresentation

The report further alleges that Israel employed similar deceptive visual tactics beyond Gaza. Comparable 3D recreations were reportedly used to depict alleged underground facilities in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran—countries that subsequently experienced Israeli airstrikes. This suggests a broader strategic use of digital fabrication to shape public perception and legitimize military action.

Significance and Implications

The use of falsified or misleading visual evidence carries profound ethical, legal, and geopolitical consequences. By presenting generic or repurposed animations as verified intelligence, Israeli authorities may have influenced international opinion and policy decisions during a conflict that has resulted in massive civilian casualties and widespread destruction in Gaza.

Critics argue that such tactics undermine transparency in wartime communication and erode trust in official narratives. Moreover, if these visuals were used to justify strikes on protected civilian sites—such as hospitals and schools—they could raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law, which prohibits attacks on non-military targets unless there is clear, verified evidence of their military use.

The revelations also highlight the growing role of digital media in modern warfare—not only as a tool for documentation but also as a vector for propaganda and manipulation. In an era where visual content can rapidly shape global narratives, distinguishing between evidence and illustration becomes a critical safeguard against misinformation.

This investigation underscores the urgent need for independent verification of wartime claims, especially when they rely heavily on digital reconstructions. While Israel maintains that Hamas embeds military infrastructure within civilian areas—a claim supported by some prior evidence—the deliberate use of fabricated or recycled visuals to bolster that argument risks discrediting legitimate concerns and deepening skepticism about official justifications for military force. As scrutiny over the conduct of the Gaza war intensifies, this report adds a troubling dimension to debates over accountability, truth, and the ethics of information in conflict.

The Nobel Peace Prize Award is for Politicians, Not Peacemakers

The Nobel Peace Prize Award is for Politicians, Not Peacemakers

    Friday, October 10, 2025   No comments

The announcement of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for Venezuelan opposition figure Maria Corina Machado has, once again, ignited a familiar debate. While her courage in facing a repressive regime is undeniable, the language of the Nobel Committee’s citation reveals a profound shift in the prize’s purpose—a shift that has been decades in the making. The award is no longer primarily for those who achieve peace; it is for those who promote a specific Western form of democracy, confirming that the prize has become a tool of ideological propaganda.

The Committee praised Machado for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” Notice the key terms: “democratic rights,” “transition from dictatorship to democracy.” The award is explicitly given for the promotion of a political system, not for the tangible achievement of peace. There is no ceasefire to uphold, no peace treaty she has signed, no war she has ended. The peace she is credited with is entirely hypothetical, residing in a future where her preferred political model is realized.

This exposes a core, unstated dogma of the modern Nobel Committee: peace is seen not as a state in itself, but as a direct and exclusive outcome of Western liberal democracy. Within this framework, any action that advances this model is de facto a peacemaking action, and any system that opposes it is inherently warlike. This ideological litmus test explains the prize’s most peculiar and controversial awards.

The Ghost of Prizes Past: A Pattern of Ideological Promotion

Consider the 2009 award to Barack Obama, just months into his presidency. The Committee lauded his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Yet, he was a leader of a nation engaged in two active wars. The prize was not for an achieved peace, but for the promise of a return to a multilateral, democratic-values-based world order—a sharp contrast to his predecessor’s foreign policy. It was an award for an attitude, an ideology, not a result.

This pattern illuminates why a figure like Donald Trump, who often positions himself as an anti-interventionist and brokered multiple peace agreements in the Middle East like the Abraham Accords, is anathema to the Committee. If the premise is that true peace is only possible through the spread of Western democracy, then a leader who questions the universality of that model, ends wars through realpolitik rather than democratic evangelism, and is himself labeled "authoritarian" by his critics, cannot be a true peacemaker. His peace is not the "right kind" of peace.

The award to Machado, therefore, serves a dual purpose. It champions a pro-democracy activist in a region long considered a battleground of influence, and it serves as a clear ideological shot across the bow of resurgent populism and nationalism in the West, exemplified by Trump. The message is unambiguous: you cannot be a peace president if your governance strays from the democratic ideal we espouse. No matter how many wars you end, if you do not do so under the banner of liberal democracy, your achievements are invalid.

From Peace to Politics: A Noble Prize Loses Its Way

This redefinition has profound consequences. It sidelines genuine peacemakers who operate outside this political framework. Where is the prize for the tribal elder who negotiates a lasting end to a generations-long conflict based on custom, not constitutions? Where is the recognition for the leader who achieves stability and non-aggression through non-democratic means, sparing their people the chaos of war? Under the Committee's new dogma, they are disqualified. Their peace is an illusion because it lacks the required democratic seal of approval.

The original vision of Alfred Nobel was to honor "the champion of peace," the person who did "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." This was a vision focused on the condition of peace—the absence of war and the building of fraternity.

The modern Nobel Committee has narrowed this vision dramatically. It now operates on the conviction that democracy is peace, and only through democracy can true peace be achieved. In doing so, the Nobel Peace Prize has transformed from a reward for humanity’s most cherished state into a political instrument for promoting one specific path to it. The award to Maria Corina Machado is not for what she has done for peace, but for whom she opposes and what political future she symbolizes. It is the ultimate confirmation that the prize is no longer for peacemakers; it is for democracy propagandists.

"Gates of hell opening in Gaza"

"Gates of hell opening in Gaza"

    Friday, September 05, 2025   No comments

 Israeli leaders repeat their threats saying that the "Gates of hell opening in Gaza". Defense Minister Israel Katz said on September 5, 2025, on the social platform X that the “gates of hell are opening now” in Gaza—and that they wouldn’t close until Hamas accepted Israel’s conditions for ending the war, particularly the release of hostages and disarmament. He was repeating an earlier statement that he said July 28, 2025, when he warned that if Hamas didn’t release hostages, the "gates of hell will open in Gaza."  The same rhetoric resurfaced in August 2025, when he again threatened that the gates of hell may open unless Hamas agreed to a cease-fire, release hostages, and disarm. 

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, too, used the same language on February 16, 2025, during remarks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Netanyahu declared that the "gates of hell" would open in Gaza unless Hamas returned all the hostages. 

As of early September 2025, Israel is intensifying its military offensive to take full control of Gaza City, a campaign that began in August 2025. An Israeli military spokesperson stated that forces control 40% of the city. 

As the war intensifies, more voices of protest in the US are emerging. Reports of US military veterans being arrested or removed from Capitol Hill for protesting US policy related to the conflict in Gaza have appeared in news sources.  Here are some of the reported events:

US Veterans arrested for protesting Gaza war

Senate hearing disruption (September 4, 2025): Two US military veterans, retired Green Beret Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Aguilar and former Army intelligence officer Josephine Guilbeau, were removed and handcuffed after interrupting a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The two accused the lawmakers of complicity in genocide in Gaza.

FBI arrest of army veteran (September 3, 2025): The FBI arrested former US Army sergeant Bajun "Baji" Mavalwalla II for "conspiracy to impede or injure officers" after he was involved in a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While not specifically a Gaza protest, some see the charges as a test case for prosecuting dissent under the Trump administration.

Capitol Hill sit-in (July 24, 2024): In a large protest organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, approximately 200 demonstrators were arrested in the Cannon House Office Building after a sit-in against the war in Gaza. It is not specified how many, if any, were veterans. 

Conscientious objector applications (June 23, 2024): Two active members of the US Air Force, Larry Hebert and Juan Bettancourt, have sought to become conscientious objectors due to Washington's support for the Israeli military.

Active-duty hunger strike (January 16, 2025): Senior Airman Larry Hebert went on a hunger strike outside the White House during authorized leave to protest the starvation in Gaza. He was called back to base after nine days.

Aaron Bushnell (February 26, 2024): An active-duty airman, Aaron Bushnell, self-immolated outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., in protest of the war in Gaza. 

Under military rules, active-duty service members can protest off-duty and out of uniform. However, there are limits on participating in political activities, especially in uniform or on base. 

US army veterans Anthony Aguilar and Josephine Guilbeau were forcibly removed and arrested for disrupting a Senate hearing after denouncing US complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Aguilar, a retired Green Beret and whistleblower who worked as a security guard at US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid distribution sites in Gaza, has exposed Israeli abuses at the sites.

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.