Media review: Israeli Airstrike on Qatar Shakes Gulf States' Confidence in US Protection, Report Says

Media review: Israeli Airstrike on Qatar Shakes Gulf States' Confidence in US Protection, Report Says

    Friday, September 12, 2025   No comments

A recent Israeli military strike on Qatar’s capital has triggered a significant crisis of confidence among Gulf Arab states, casting serious doubt on the reliability of American security guarantees, according to a report by The Washington Post.

The attack, which targeted Doha, has reportedly fueled deep-seated anger and a sense of insecurity across the Persian Gulf. Analysts suggest that Israel’s apparent ease in carrying out the strike led many regional powers to a stark conclusion: if a U.S. partner like Qatar can be attacked, then no neighboring American ally is truly safe.

At the core of the growing disillusionment is the perception that the United States was either unable or unwilling to restrain its close ally, Israel, even when its actions directly threatened another American partner. This has fundamentally shaken the long-standing pillar of Gulf security, which has heavily relied on U.S. military and diplomatic backing for decades.

One researcher from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) noted that the uniquely close relationship between Washington and Jerusalem made this strike "qualitatively different" from previous conflicts. Rather than acting as a deterrent, the U.S. response was perceived as weak, often limited to "pro-forma expressions of dissatisfaction" without imposing any concrete, deterrent measures to stop what is seen as "Israel’s unrestricted military aggression in the region."

The strike has "reinforced the feeling that Washington is an unreliable security partner," the analyst stated.

This incident is not an isolated event but the latest in a years-long erosion of trust. The Post highlights that Gulf confidence in American protection has been declining through both Democratic and Republican administrations. This trend is driven by a perceived U.S. "strategic pivot" towards Asia and the diminished strategic importance of Middle Eastern oil to Washington.

Furthermore, the attack on Doha has undermined a previously held belief among some Gulf leaders that a close personal relationship with a U.S. president could directly influence policy. Hopes that such a bond with former President Donald Trump would shape American actions were decisively dashed by the bombing of Qatar.

The event signals a potential strategic inflection point, forcing Gulf nations to seriously reconsider the foundation of their security architecture and question the dependability of a partnership that has been a cornerstone of regional stability for over half a century.

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.

  

Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats visiting west bank, Palestine

Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats visiting west bank, Palestine

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Approximately one hour ago, Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats from European and Arab states who were touring Jenin in the West Bank, Palestine.

The IDF has released an official statement on the incident, claiming that the delegation 'deviated from the approved route,' leading soldiers to fire 'warning shots.' 

The delegation reportedly included 35 ambassadors, consuls, and diplomats from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Jordan, China, Russia, Japan, and others.

Italy has summoned the Israeli ambassador due to the event, and soon after, France has also summoned the Israeli ambassador for an explanation.

EU foreign policy chief states, 'Any threats to the lives of diplomats are unacceptable,' in response to the attack on diplomats by Israel in Jenin.

EU foreign policy chief states, 'Any threats to the lives of diplomats are unacceptable,' in response to the attack on diplomats by Israel in Jenin.

 

 

Morocco principled foreign policy: If you support our occupation of Sahara you can say anything you want

Morocco principled foreign policy: If you support our occupation of Sahara you can say anything you want

    Wednesday, October 30, 2024   No comments

Rewarding Macron for supporting Morocco's continued occupation of Western Sahara, Moroccan politicians applauded him when he said "Palestinian resistance is barbaric." Moroccan lawmakers applauded French President Macron after he delivered a speech in the Moroccan Parliament in which he stated: "Israel has the right to self-defense. Palestinian resistance is barbaric."

Macron does not seeem to be able to make up his mind. Previously, he called on Israeli leaders to "stop killing Gazan women and babies". He was also reported to have told Israeli's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who described his war on on Gaza and Lebanon as a "war of civilization," Macron told him that "defending civilization is not done by sowing barbarism."

Macron, who still refuses to acknowledge the crimes France committed in Africa, including the massacring of 1.5 million Algerians, sees all resistance as Barbaric. But that is the only position that could justify war crimes at the hands of colonial occupiers.

Outside the Parliament, Moroccans took to the street to protest his statements. Morocco is a good example for where the rulers are governing with no popular support. Moroccans protesting outside claimed that "those who applaud in parliament do not represent the Moroccan people, neither closely nor remotely."

Israeli Minister says US Sanctions blow to State sovereignty

Israeli Minister says US Sanctions blow to State sovereignty

    Sunday, July 21, 2024   No comments

Historically, the US government has imposed sanctions on private citizens and government officials of other countries. Recently, with the continued attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians in West Bank the US government decided to sanction some Israelis who are responsible for the violence. Last week, US media sources reported that the administration of President Joe Biden is considering imposing sanctions on Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich, due to the deterioration of the security situation in the occupied West Bank.

Reacting to the news, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has described US efforts to impose sanctions on him over settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank as a “fatal blow to Israeli sovereignty.”

“Imposing US sanctions on an elected official and a senior minister is a fatal blow to Israeli sovereignty and relations between the two countries,” said Smotrich, who heads the Religious Zionism party.

“Washington’s efforts to impose sanctions on me stem from the domestic political goals of those who claim to lead the largest democracy in the world,” he added.

Smotrich claimed that his duty was to strengthen Tel Aviv’s grip on parts of the homeland in Judea and Samaria (the biblical name for the West Bank) and prevent the establishment of a state that would endanger Israel’s existence.

Of note, this week the International Court of Justice issued a ruling that Israel's activities in West Bank and Jerusalem are illegal, must be stopped, and Palestinians harmed by these activities must be compensated.

Media review: NYT's Friedman, "Biden must push Israel to accept Hamas' demands"

Media review: NYT's Friedman, "Biden must push Israel to accept Hamas' demands"

    Tuesday, June 18, 2024   No comments

American journalist Thomas Friedman confirmed that the Israeli occupation entity is currently living in "existential danger", at a time when the axis of resistance has managed to "tighten its grip on Israel", while "the latter has no military or diplomatic response".

In an opinion piece he wrote in the American newspaper "The New York Times", Friedman warned of the danger of war with Hezbollah on "Israel", noting that the Islamic resistance in Lebanon is armed with precision missiles capable of destroying large areas of the Israeli infrastructure.

Friedman explained that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "leads Israel, while he must remain in power, in order to avoid the possibility of being sent to prison on corruption charges", at a time when the occupation faces the possibility of war breaking out on several fronts.

According to him, Netanyahu, in order to remain in power and avoid prison, "sold his soul in order to form a government with right-wing extremists, who insist that Israel must fight in Gaza until Hamas is eliminated, in order to achieve complete victory", as they claim.

Now, the Israeli "war cabinet" has collapsed, due to "Netanyahu's lack of a plan to end the war and safely withdraw from the Gaza Strip," while "extremists in his government coalition are looking forward to their next steps to reach power," according to Friedman.

While the American journalist pointed out that these extremist ministers "caused a lot of damage," he warned that "no friend (of Israel) should participate in this circus," as he described it.

In this context, Friedman stressed the need to form a new government in "Israel" and remove Netanyahu from the position of Prime Minister, through new elections.

The American journalist also expressed his support for what former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak confirmed in the American newspaper Haaretz last Thursday, which is that "Israel is facing the most serious crisis in its history."

In light of this, Friedman warned that "every American should be concerned about this matter," explaining that it represents "a recipe for dragging the United States into a war in the Middle East to help Israel."

In this context, Friedman believed that US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken "should not make another trip to the Middle East without the agreement of both Israel and Hamas on a clear plan to end the war."

While acknowledging the need for US President Joe Biden to push the occupation to submit to Hamas's conditions to stop the war, Friedman stressed that "Biden must tell Israel that it must accept Hamas's main demand: to end the war completely now, and withdraw from the Gaza Strip, in exchange for the return of all Israeli prisoners."

Friedman believed that ending the war in the Gaza Strip would "lead to reaching an agreement mediated by the US with Hezbollah, in order to calm the war on the northern border."

He added that Netanyahu's idea that some Palestinians, who do not belong to Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, will run the place for "Israel" is "a fantasy." In light of all this, the American journalist stressed that "Israel must leave Gaza," while the head of the Hamas movement in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, continues to run the Strip.

Friedman argued his point of view without even mentioning the human cost of this reckless war that civilians in Gaza have endured for more than 250 days and that may last for months more.