Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 24, 2025

*Is Syria’s Abu Muhammad al-Julani (Ahmed al-Sharaa) a terrorist in a Western suit, dissimulating Western policy makers, who are frustrated by the well-documented Middle East reality of 1,400-year-old ideology and religion-driven intra-Muslim and intra-Arab wars and terrorism, and are eager to replace it with a speculative alternate reality of money-driven peaceful coexistence, undermining Western interests?  Or, is he a reformed terrorist, an ideologue-turned-pragmatist, who is attempting to stabilize the highly fragmented Syria, and advance domestic and regional peaceful coexistence, advancing Western interests?

*The state-of-mind and vision of non-democratic Middle East leaders, such as al-Sharaa, the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas and the Ayatollah regime are most authentically represented by their school curriculum, Friday sermons in the mosques, official media and (positive or negative) interaction with domestic and external terrorist entities.

*Therefore, Western policy makers should precondition any gestures toward al-Sharaa (e.g., suspension of economic sanctions and renewal of diplomatic relations) upon uprooting anti-“infidel,” anti-“apostate,” anti-Western and anti-Israel hate education, hate sermons and hate media, as well as the termination of all ties with domestic and global terror entities. Western gestures should also be preconditioned upon an official public disavowal of the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s ideology of toppling all national Muslim regimes, bringing the Western “infidel” to submission, and establishing Islam as the only legitimate and divinely-ordained religion in the world.

*Western expectations would be more realistic upon studying precedents of Middle East dissimulations, which have misguided Western policy makers into self-destructive policies. For example:

<In July 2000, Bashar al-Assad became Syria’s leader, charming the West by his soft rhetoric and his background as a London-based ophthalmologist, married to a Britain-born Syrian woman, president of the Syrian Internet Association and speaking a few foreign languages. He was welcomed by the US State Department, the British Foreign Office and France’s Quai d’Orsay as a potential reformer, aiming to liberalize Syria and defuse Middle East violence.  Bashar Assad befriended Senator John Kerry and a few additional US legislators and managed to launch intelligence cooperation with some European countries. In 2008, he was invited by French President Sarkozy as a guest of honour at the official Bastille Day military parade on the Champs Elysees.   Contrary to the Western alternate reality, Bashar revealed himself to be more demonic than his ruthless father, triggering a civil war, in 2011, which claimed over 500,000 casualties, 7 million refugees and a similar number of domestically displace people.

<In 1978, Ayatollah Khomeini surrounded himself with young, bright and eloquent Iranian graduates of Western universities, who spoke a number of foreign languages, instructing them to brief the State Department, the CIA, the US “elite” media and the US embassies in Tehran and Paris, showering these target audiences with (dis)information on Khomeini’s anti-Soviet and pro-US worldview, preoccupation with freedom for the Iranian people, limiting the planned Islamic Revolution to the boundaries of Iran, and commitment to peaceful co-existence with Iran’s Sunni neighbors. The White House, State Department and the CIA were coaxed into brutally pressuring the anti-Khomeini Iranian military to facilitate Khomeini’s toppling of the Shah, and concluding that “Khomeini would be preoccupied with tractors, not tanks,” and that “Khomeini would be an Iranian edition of Gandhi.”  Refuting Western alternate reality-driven expectations, the fanatic ideology-driven Khomeini proceeded to execute a significant number of top military officers, and then took over the US Embassy, holding 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. Already in 1979, he transformed Iran from “The US Policeman of the Gulf” to the leading epicenter of anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the proliferation of advanced military systems.

<In 1993, Arafat issued peaceful statements – to Western, not Arab, audiences – which bamboozled an Israeli government and the Western foreign policy establishment, leading an arch-terrorist to the Nobel Prize for Peace.  It, also, led Tom Friedman to describe Arafat as a reformed-terrorist transformed into a peace-pursuing statesman, consistent with his reference to Arafat (while serving as the N.Y. Times Bureau Chief in Lebanon, 1984-1988) as a “Teflon Guerrilla”, “Gipper” and a “Rock Star.”  While the Western foreign policy establishment tend to sacrifice Middle East reality on the altar of alternate reality, embracing the proposed Palestinian state, all pro-US Arab regimes are entrenched in Middle East reality, aware of the Palestinian track record, which has transformed them into a role model of intra Arab subversion, terrorism and treachery.  Therefore, since 1948, they have refrained from flexing critical muscles on behalf of the proposed Palestinian state.

<The transnational Muslim Brotherhood – which has evolved into the world’s largest Sunni terror organization – considers Al Sharaa’s ascension to power as an inspiration for similar development in all other Arab countries. Since its establishment in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has been skillful in obfuscating the State Department and most other Western policy makers, through dissimulation.  They have employed a multi-pronged operation: the religious, educational, social and political “screensavers,” while perpetrating subversion and terrorism.  In fact, the ideology-driven Muslim Brotherhood has been dedicated to the toppling of every national Muslim regime, establishing a universal society, committed to Islam as the only legitimate, divinely-ordained religion and to the subjugation of the “infidel” West. While the Western foreign policy establishment does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization, all pro-US Arab regimes have the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist machete at their throats.

*The bottom line: while Al-Sharaa may be a reformed terrorist and an ideologue-turned-pragmatist, Western policy makers are advised to study the following observations by Sir John Jenkins, a top specialist on the Moslem Brotherhood and the Middle East, before rushing to a final verdict on Al-Sharaa:  “[The West] should resist the temptation to seek to understand the [Middle East] through our own cultural or epistemological [knowledge] categories…. Some may still be tempted to hope that when a malign or otherwise unsatisfactory regime is overthrown the subsequent trajectory must be progressive. [Middle East] experience suggests the reverse…. Authoritarianism is not weakened in such circumstances: it recurs….”

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiatives”
December 16, 2024

*The success of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) terrorists to topple the Assad regime is traumatizing all pro-US Arab regimes, which, for decades, have had the machetes of Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats.

*Contrary to some Western policy makers, journalists and academics, the pro-US Arab leaders do not take HTS’ moderate statements at face value. They are aware of the fanatic, religious vision, which has guided the HTS, and are familiar with the Middle Eastern gap between the talk and the walk, and with the Islamic tactic of Taqiyya (dissimulation).  Taqiyya was also employed by Bashar Assad upon assuming power in 2000, when his moderate talk led US legislators (e.g., Senator John Kerry), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and NYT’s Tom Friedman to view him as a potentially peaceful leader. It was used by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978/79, ahead of assuming power in Iran, convincing President Carter and the State Department that he would be “an Iranian edition of Ghandi…. preoccupied with tractors, not tanks.”  The Houthis issued moderate pronouncements that led to their delisting from the list of terror organizations in 2021 by President Biden.  Also, Arafat issued peaceful statements upon concluding the Oslo Accord, which won him the Nobel Prize for Peace, and led Tom Friedman to wonder: “Who’s Arafat? Is he Nelson Mandela or Willie Nelson?”). Etc.    

*The vision of the HTS is not limited to Syria. It aims to topple all national Islamic regimes, and establish a universal Islamic entity, as prescribed by the precepts of the Moslem Brotherhood, which has pursued its goals through politics, education, social welfare and affiliates, splinters and offshoots that engage in terrorism.

*The initial strategy of HTS, as suggested by their name (al-Sham = the Levant) is to “liberate” the Levant, which was “Greater Syria” (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Cyprus and Turkey’s Hatay province), then the entire Middle East, the “Abode of Islam,” and finally the “Abode of the Infidel,” preferably via peaceful means, or militarily, if resisted by the “infidel.”

*The Moslem Brotherhood is inspired by the HTS’ success in Syria, to be replicated in additional Moslem countries.  Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and other Moslem countries have congratulated HTS for achieving the first goal of the Sunni Islamic revolution, expecting a robust tailwind to bringing down additional national Moslem regimes.

*HTS considers the toppling of Jordan’s pro-US Hashemite regime as a top priority, as does a chief enemy of HTS, Iran’s Ayatollahs. Both have intensified subversion, terrorism and drug trafficking in Jordan, leveraging the presence – in Jordan – of 2 million refugees from Syria and Iraq, a solid operational foundation of the Moslem Brotherhood, the presence of Palestinian terror organizations, and the intra-Bedouin animosity.

*The HTS’ success in Syria is inspiring the Moslem Brotherhood in its attempts to topple the pro-US  General Sisi regime in Egypt, which is the 1928 birth site of the Moslem Brotherhood. In 1949, the Moslem Brotherhood assassinated Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud Nuqrashi; in 1954, the Moslem Brotherhood failed in its attempt to murder Egyptian President Nasser; in 1981, the Moslem Brotherhood’s offshoot, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, murdered Egyptian President Sadat. The Islamic Jihad merged with Al Qaeda. 

*Prof. Albert Hourani, a leading Middle East historian, Oxford University’s St. Anthony’s College, noted the following tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood (A History of the Arab Peoples, pp. 445-446): “A total rejection of all forms of society except the wholly Islamic one…. The true Islamic society…regarded the Quran as the source of all guidance for human life…. All other societies were societies of Jahiliyya (ignorance of religious truth), whether they were communist, capitalist, nationalist, [followers of] false religions, or claimed to be Muslim but did not obey the Sharia…. The leadership of Western man in the human world is coming to an end… The turn of Islam has come….Those who accepted [the Muslim Brotherhood] program would form a vanguard of dedicated fighters, using every means, including Jihad… The struggle should aim at creating a universal Muslim society…. The Western age is finished…. Only Islam offered hope to the world…. [The Muslim Brotherhood] were prepared for violence and martyrdom.”

*The Muslim Brotherhood, just like the HTS, have been very skillful in obfuscating the West through Taqiyya and a two-pronged operation: the religious, educational, social and political screensavers, as well as the operational (subversive and terroristic) modes.  In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood poses the following proposition: Submission to Allah and the Koran, or else…!

*Before embracing the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s moderate talk, Western policy makers are advised to study the following observations by Sir John Jenkins, a top specialist on the Moslem Brotherhood and the Middle East, and former Executive Director of the British International Institute for Strategic Studies – Middle East branch:

“[The West] should resist the temptation to seek to understand the Muslim Brotherhood through our own cultural or epistemological [knowledge] categories…. [The Muslim Brotherhood] continues to threaten the constitutive basis of most contemporary Muslim majority states…. Some may still be tempted to hope that when a malign or otherwise unsatisfactory regime is overthrown the subsequent trajectory must be progressive. [Middle East] experience suggests the reverse…. Authoritarianism is not weakened in such circumstances: it recurs….

“[Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood] urged his followers to scorn life; claimed that ultimate martyrdom could only be attained through death in the service of the divine; articulated a doctrine of armed physical force…. The writings of Sayyid Qutb – its most significant and protean ideologue [who was executed in Egypt in 1966] – remain central to Brotherhood thinking everywhere and continue to be used to justify multiple forms of Islamist violence….”

“The Brotherhood… gives little space to tolerance, choice and individual freedoms…. no commitment to democratic choice…. It is constitutively antisemitic and homophobic….”

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
December 10, 2024

*The unpredictable eruption of the Syrian volcano – which could emit molten lava well beyond Syria and the Middle East – sheds light on the following 1,400-year-old features of the radical/fundamentalist segment of the complicated, brutal and frustrating inter Arab/Moslem reality, which are currently menacing every pro-US Arab regime:

<Violent unpredictability;
<Ruthless despotism;
<Tenuous/shifty regimes, and therefore tenuous policies and accords;
<Violent clannish, ethnic, religious and ideological fragmentation, yielding a volatile balance of power;
<Superiority of local – over national – loyalty;
<Fanatical ideologies – which mandates destruction of enemies/rivals – transcend financial benefits and diplomatic agreements;
<Fanatical ideologies defy peaceful coexistence;
<Fanatical ideologies are enshrined in mosque sermons and school textbooks;
<Ideology – not despair – driven terrorism against “apostates” and “infidels.”
<Aiming to bring the “infidel” West to Islam or to submission.
<Western gestures perceived as weakness, whetting terrorists’ appetite;
<Dissimulation employed to mislead and overcome the “infidel” West;
<Deal-making as a means to advance fanatical ideology, not peaceful coexistence.
<Posture of deterrence is the key component of national security/survival.

*Against the backdrop of these Middle East features, and Israel’s pre-1967 9-15 mile waistline, Israel’s defensible borders must not be based on a state-of-peace, but rather be capable of withstanding unpredictable eruptions of lava (e.g., an abrupt military violation of a state-of-peace, or a recurrence of the October 7 horrific terrorism on three fronts). Israel’s defensible borders should be able to withstand the worst-case – not the best-case – scenarios in the most violent region in the world.

*The eruption of the Syrian volcano, and the victory of Islamic terrorists, will impact regional stability, emboldening epicenters of global Islamic terrorism, and undermining the stability of all pro-US Arab regimes and homeland security in Europe and the USA. The impact of the fall of the Assad regime may resemble the impact of the fall of the central regimes in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Yemen (2010 and before), which transformed these countries into a chaotic arena of civil wars and global Sunni (e.g., Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Moslem Brotherhood) and Shiite (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs) terrorism.

*The toppling of the pro-US Hashemite regime in Jordan – which is perceived by Syria to be its southern province – is high on the agenda of the Islamic terrorists, who toppled the Assad regime, and are committed to liberate (at least) the Levant, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Hatay in Turkey and Cyprus. The Islamic terrorists’ success in Syria is bolstering the on-going effort to oust the Hashemites, which is led by Iran’s Ayatollahs, as well as by ISIS and Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic terrorists, the Moslem Brotherhood and Palestinian terror organizations. The downfall of the pro-US Hashemites would transform Jordan into another platform of Islamic terrorism, posing a clear and present threat to the Pro-US Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman, as well as Israel, energizing global terrorism, jeopardizing Europe-Asia trade and – potentially – awarding control over 48% of global oil reserves to anti-Western Shiite and Sunni terrorists.

*Some Western policy makers have been impressed by the Dr. Jekyll-like  talk, expressed by Mr. Hyde-like Islamic terrorists, who effectively leverage the Islamic art of “Taqqiya” (dissimulation). These terrorists follow in the footsteps of Bashar Assad, whose soft rhetoric induced then Senator John Kerry to suggest that Bashar Assad was a partner in stabilizing the region. They also imitate Yemen’s Houthi terrorists, who overwhelmed US diplomats with moderate statements in the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential election, which led to their delisting from the US list of terror organizations in February 2021 by Tony Blinken, the incoming Secretary of State.  The Syria-based Islamic terrorists have also adopted the tactics of Ayatollah Khomeini, who flooded President Carter with moderate messages from his exile in Paris, in order to induce the US President to pressure the Iranian military (which was loyal to the Shah) to refrain from undermining the toppling of the pro-US Shah by the anti-US Khomeini. President Carter took the bait, facilitating the rise of the Ayatollahs to power. However, contrary to his commitments, Khomeini executed a significant number of pro-US military leaders, and proceeded to take over the US Embassy, holding 50 Americans hostage for 444 days, and transforming Iran from “The US Policeman of the Gulf” to the leading epicenter of anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the proliferation of advanced military systems.

*This was one of several milestones, which have demonstrated that terrorists bite the hand that feeds them.

*A prerequisite for ending/minimizing terror and war – which is President Trump’s arch goal – is the elimination of the head of the poisonous octopus in Tehran. Negotiation with Iran’s Ayatollahs accords legitimacy to a ruthless, oppressive, terroristic regime. Any agreement concluded with – and any sanctions levied on – the Ayatollahs are reversible, as was demonstrated by Presidents Trump in 2018 (withdrawing from the JCPOA) and Biden in 2021 (suspending severe sanctions), and will not induce the Ayatollahs to abandon their anti-US rogue vision.

*Prof. P.J. Vatikiotis (Arab and Regional Politics in the Middle East), who was – along with Professors Elie Kedourie and Bernard Lewis – a game-changing historian of the Middle East sheds light on Middle East reality, warning Western policy makers against addiction to a self-destructive alternate reality:

“The present political map of the Arab Middle East may not be a permanent one (p. 94)…. Inter-Arab relations cannot be placed on a spectrum of linear development, moving from hell to paradise or vice versa.  Rather, their course is partly cyclical, partly jerkily spiral, and always resting occasionally at some ‘grey’ area. American choices must be made on the assumption that what the Arabs want or desire is not always – if ever – what Americans desire.  In fact, the two desires may be diametrically opposed and radically different (p. 115)…. Even without the Arab-Israel conflict, the Arab Middle East would have been a conflict-ridden and conflict-generating area (p. 77)…. Islam remained a source of legitimacy for all power.  Other man-made institutions were secondary (p. 136)…. In practice, there has been no single or uniform Islamic understanding or explanation of phenomena (p. 137)…. No government or regime in power believes in, or allows for, the idea of an alternative government.  It holds power until it is overthrown by a successful conspiracy, by subversion (p. 141)….”

*In order to avoid the systematic failure of the State Department’s Middle East policy, President Trump is advised to benefit from the experience of the late Prof. Vatikiotis, and refrain from subordinating Middle East reality – as frustrating as it is – to a more convenient alternate reality.

Support Appreciated

It has been suggested that the next Prime Minister of Israel will be proscribed from annexing parts of Judea and Samaria – for the next three years – due to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s personal commitment to President Trump to refrain from annexation.  This ostensible commitment was never ratified by Israel’s Legislature.

Does a personal commitment by an Israeli prime minister to a US president tie the hands of succeeding Israeli prime ministers?

Not according to the tradition of democratic societies, which aims to avoid Executive tyranny, limiting the power of presidents and prime ministers through a system of checks and balance.

For example, international accords reached by US presidents require ratification by two thirds of the Senate.  Therefore, in 2018, President Trump was able to withdraw from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Accord (JCPOA), since it was never ratified by the Senate.  Moreover, the US is not committed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was signed in 1999 by President Clinton, but has yet to be ratified by the Senate.

Furthermore, the 1975 assurance of President Ford to Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin “to give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights,” did not commit any of the succeeding presidents, since it was not ratified by the Senate. A similar fate met President Eisenhower’s 1957 non-ratified assurance issued to Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol, which implied US willingness to deploy its military in the face of Egyptian violations of agreements in the Red Sea and the Sinai Peninsula (which triggered the 1967 War).

On June 19, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six Day War, Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol and his Cabinet offered “to conclude peace agreements with Egypt and Syria, based on the pre-1967 lines with due consideration to Israel’s security requirements.” Egypt and Syria rebuffed Israel’s unprecedented lavish offer. However, this generous Israeli proposal did not preclude Israeli Prime Minister Begin – who was a member of the 1967 Cabinet – from applying Israeli law to the topographically and geographically overpowering Golan Heights in 1981.

Should future Israeli prime ministers be constrained by the equally- reckless proposals, submitted by four previous Israeli prime ministers, who offered a sweeping retreat from the Golan Heights? Do past Israeli careless peace proposals – which were rejected by Syria – carry more weight than Israeli law and Middle East reality, which has highlighted the erratic, unpredictable, violent and tenuous nature of the Middle East, in general, and Syria, in particular?

In the 2000/2001 Camp David and Taba Summits, Prime Minister Ehud Barak – the shortest term-serving Israeli prime minister – overwhelmed President Clinton and Yasser Arafat by offering to withdraw from 97% of Judea and Samaria, re-divide Jerusalem, transfer some parts of pre-1967 Israel to the Palestinian Authority, and negotiate a return of some Palestinian refugees. That incredible offer – which would have returned Israel back to the pre-1967 nine to fifteen-mile sliver dominated by the mountains of Judea and Samaria – was rejected by the Palestinians.

In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert’s equally reckless peace proposal was rejected by Mahmoud Abbas.

Should future Israeli prime ministers sacrifice Israel’s existential national security requirements – in the volcanic Middle East, which has yet to experience intra Arab peaceful coexistence – on the altar of past foolhardy non-ratified Israeli proposals?

Rather than refraining from the annexation of the Jordan Valley and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which constitute Israel’s most critical line of defense and the cradle of Jewish history, religion and culture – future Israeli prime ministers are advised to follow in the footsteps of Prime Minister Begin.   Prime Minister Begin applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights in 1981, despite his own support of the aforementioned 1967 peace proposal, and in defiance of brutal pressure from President Reagan, including the suspension of a promising defense cooperation agreement. Begin’s defiance triggered short-term friction and acrimony with the US, but yielded long term appreciation for Israel’s posture of deterrence and enhanced Israel’s national security.

“Israel Hayom“

In 1993, 1995 and 2005, Israel retreated from 40% of the Judea and Samaria mountain ridges (West Bank) and the entire Gaza Strip. It transformed these regions into platforms of unprecedented Palestinian terrorism and missile launches, supported by Iran, Turkey and North Korea. Moreover, it has intensified lethal threats to all pro-US Arab regimes, bolstering their security ties with Israel, which they perceived to be the most credible “life insurance agent” in the region. As expected, gestures to rogue regimes and terrorists fuel further violence.

According to Prof. Itamar Rabinovich, former Israeli Ambassador to the US and Chief Negotiator with Syria (The Brink of Peace, 1999, pp. 164-167): “In November 1994, the peace process had seemed to be in full swing…. [But], an organized campaign began in the US against the idea of stationing US troops on the Golan Heights as ‘peace keepers’, in the event of an Israel-Syria [peace] agreement. The campaign was orchestrated by right-wing organizations and individuals in the Jewish community, with occasional participation of visitors from Israel… [such as] the former Minister for Congressional Affairs in our Washington Embassy, Yoram Ettinger…. The organizers conveyed the message that sending US troops as peacekeepers to the Golan was bad for the US [and that the Syrian armored mechanized divisions stationed between the Golan Heights and Damascus would be deployed to the border with Jordan, aiming to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime]…. The US could lose the lives of its soldiers and become entangled in a dangerous foreign arena…. That would no doubt lead to a rise in anti-Semitism in the US…. Senator Jesse Helms, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations [a friend of Bobby Jacobs] was openly critical of the Assad regime…. The Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, Benjamin Gilman, was under pressure from voters in his own constituency…. This Congressional opposition had at least some negative impact on Assad’s motivation to move forward in his peacemaking with Israel….”

Since 1967, Israel’s control of the strategically-commanding Golan Heights – over-towering northern Israel – has constrained and monitored the Russian, Iranian, North Korean, ISIS and Turkish strategic profile in Syria.  Furthermore, the Israeli posture of deterrence has bolstered the national security of Jordan’s Hashemite regime and all other pro-US Arab regimes (hence the unprecedented cooperation between Israel and these regimes). For instance, the September 1970 pro-Soviet Syrian invasion of the pro-US Jordan was rolled back, primarily, due to Israel’s deployment of troops to the Golan Heights, 37 miles from Damascus. The Syrian invasion aimed at toppling the Hashemite regime and producing a pro-Soviet domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula, at a time when the US was heavily dependent upon Persian Gulf oil.  Thus, Israel’s control of the Golan Heights spared the US the need to deploy its own troops, in order to save its Jordanian ally, while preventing a potential super-power confrontation, and denying the USSR a geo-strategic bonanza.

The significance of Israel’s control of the Golan Heights for the national security of the US has been intensified due to the following phenomena:

*The raging civil war in Syria which erupted in 2011;
*The escalation of Iran’s involvement in Syria and Lebanon, aspiring to extend its dominance to the Mediterranean and Europe;
*The entrenchment of ISIS cells in Syria, irrespective of their recent setbacks;
*The growing involvement in Syria by Turkey’s Erdogan, who aims to resurrect the Ottoman Empire;
*The inherent Russia-Syria alliance, with Russia expanding its presence in the Mediterranean and throughout the Middle East.
*Since the 1960s, North Korea has been a leading ally of Syria, engaged in illicit military and technology cooperation, including ballistic missiles and chemical warfare. Pyongyang facilitated the construction of a Syrian nuclear reactor that was destroyed, by Israel, in 2007.

In November 2019, the explosive potential of Syria transcends the boundaries of the Middle East, triggering ripple effects throughout the globe. Since 2010, it has been exacerbated by the Arab Tsunami, which has further destabilized the inherently unpredictable and violent Syria and the Middle East. Thus, the pro-Russia, pro-Iran, pro-North Korea and anti-US Damascus – which provided safe haven to Nazi war criminals – has become a global epicenter of proliferation of anti-US global terrorism and drug trafficking.

The endemically turbulent reality of Syria, in particular, and the Middle East, in general, highlight the self-destructive nature of the attempts to get Israel off the Golan Heights, the potential damage to US interests, and the prospective setback to the survival of the pro-US Arab regimes.

An agreement concluded with Damascus can be no less tenuous than the policies of the transient, rogue regime which signs them (would you buy a used car from Assad?!).

The politically-correct assumptions that “a state of peace was the best security arrangement…. the end of occupation would eliminate the motivation to wage wars, and Syria’s record of keeping its commitments was excellent…. (ibid. page 169)” clash with reality, ignoring the rogue and non-compliant nature of Syria as demonstrated by its systematic violation of agreements, domestically and regionally.

For example, since 1953, Syria has violated all water supply agreements with Jordan (from the Yarmouk River).  Notwithstanding the official state of peace with Jordan, Syria invaded Jordan in 1970, threatened to invade again in 1980 and 1989, and periodically supports anti-Hashemite subversion and terrorism.

For 30 years (1976-2006), Syria has violated a series of international and intra-Arab commitments to evacuate Lebanon, until it was forced to withdraw by domestic and international factors.

In 1973, Syria violated the 1967 armistice agreement with Israel, as well as the 1974 Disengagement Agreement with Israel, terrorizing Israel through Palestinian and Shiite terrorists in Jordan and Lebanon.

Israel’s control of the Golan Heights, just like its control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, has bolstered Israel’s posture of deterrence, extending the strategic hand of the US, with no need for additional US soldiers.  Israel’s retreat from the Golan Heights would erode its posture of deterrence, relegating the Jewish State from a national security producer/asset to a national security consumer/liability, to the detriment of the US.

In 2019, the inherently unpredictable and violent Middle East has driven all pro-US Arab regimes – which face domestic and external lethal threats – to expand their strategic cooperation with Israel.

The substantial US-Israel strategic common denominator, the growing role of Israel as a unique geo-strategic ally of the US, and the enhanced mutually-beneficial nature of US-Israel and Israel-Arab cooperation, have been a by-product of the following critical developments:

*The recent Iranian offensive as demonstrated by the June 2019 attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, and the May 2019 assaults on vessels in the Persian Gulf port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates;

*The mushrooming anti-US, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, imperialistic Turkish military buildup in Iraq, Syria, Qatar and Somalia (the largest since the 1922 demise of the Ottoman Empire);

*The proliferation of Shiite (Iran-related) and Sunni (Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.) terrorism and subversion;

*The Iranian military, terroristic and subversive entrenchment in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, the Al-Hasa oil region in Saudi Arabia, etc.

*The intensified regional, military profile of Erdogan’s anti-US Turkey, which pursues imperialistic aspirations, while charging the batteries of Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*The transformation of the “Arab Spring” illusion of democracy into the “Arab Tsunami” reality of despotic regimes, as evidenced by the intensification of intra-Arab/Muslim and inter-Arab/Muslim conflicts, which threaten every pro-US Arab regime.

*Israel’s systematic track record of democracy, unconditional alliance with the US, military and commercial effectiveness, game-changing technological innovation and second-to-none optimism, patriotism and attachment to roots.

The precarious state of the Middle East, and the top challenges facing pro-US Arab regimes – all of whom resoundingly opposed the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, in particular, and President Obama’s Middle East policy, in general – were articulated on June 18, 2019 by the Arab League Secretary General and former Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit: “The crisis with Iran and Turkey has aggravated to the point that holding a dialogue with them has become futile…. We see today the threats Iran and its wings are posing to Arab and global security as regards safety of global navigation and commercial routs…. Iran considers the Arab region an open ‘terra nullius’ [‘nobody’s land’ available for occupation] for its own expansion, and gives itself the right to interfere [via subversion and terrorism] in the crises of some Arab countries [e.g., Iraq, Syria, Yemen]…. Turkey seeks to promote its own ideologies and political Islam, giving itself the right to [invade/access] neighboring countries [Iraq, Syria, Qatar and Somalia] on the pretext of protecting its own national security, without any consideration to other countries’ sovereignty. Both Turkey and Iran see ongoing crises in the region as a chance for more expansion….”

According to the June 18, 2019 Saudi daily, A-Sharq al-Awsat, which reflects the worldview of the House of Saud, the US has approved Israel’s systematic bombings of Iranian military sites in Syria – in defiance of the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile operated by Syria – considering the Israeli raids an effective tool to constrain the Ayatollahs’ regional expansion. Attesting to Israel’s rising geo-strategic role, Iran’s military presence in Syria will be featured during next week’s unprecedented meeting, in Jerusalem, between the national security advisors of the US, Russia and Israel.

Contrary to conventional Western wisdom, the growing concern about Iran’s Ayatollahs and other critical regional challenges, increasingly overshadow the Palestinian issue, as was evidenced in the February 2019 Warsaw-hosted 60 country summit on Iran with no Palestinian presence.  Furthermore, Israel’s relations with all pro-US Arab countries have improved substantially, irrespective of the paralysis on the Palestinian front.

According to the Atlantic Magazine, the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, “like many Arab leaders, has tired of the Palestinians,” while considering Israel a key member in the regional alliance against the “triangle of evil,” which consists of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunni terrorist organizations.

In the words of Jamal al-Suwaidi, the founder of the United Arab Emirates Center for Strategic Studies: “The Palestinian cause is no longer at the forefront of Arab interests…. It has sharply lost priority in light of the challenges, threats and problems that face countries of the region.”

In fact, the Arab attitude toward the Palestinians has been consistent since 1949 – when Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea & Samaria and Gaza and did not transfer the regions to the Palestinians; during 1982/83 – no Arab support when Israel devastated PLO terror headquarters in Lebanon, expelling the PLO leadership from Beirut; and 1991 – no Arab outcry when Kuwait expelled some 300,000 PLO-affiliated Palestinians in response to Palestinian collaboration with Saddam Hussein’s destruction of Kuwait; through 2008, 2012 and 2014 – no Arab support during Israel’s wars against Palestinian terrorism in Gaza.

According to The Guardian, intelligence, counter-terrorism, military and commercial cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain has been routine since the mid-1990s, switching to a higher gear in recent years – a reflection of intensified lethal threats, on the one hand, and Israel’s posture of deterrence and reliable capabilities, on the other hand.

Hence, Israel’s existence in the Middle East has extended the strategic hand of the US, bolstering the national and homeland security of US’ Arab allies in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East, producing an effective headwind to Iran’s megalomaniacal aspirations, and enhancing the war on Islamic terrorism. This has spared the need to expand US military bases in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Mediterranean and the Middle East at-large, and the necessity to dispatch additional US military divisions and aircraft carriers to the region, which would cost the US taxpayer mega-billion dollars annually.

“Israel Hayom”

While US recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights bolsters the national security of the Jewish State, it also yields major strategic benefits for the US.

Thus, President Trump’s endorsement of Israeli sovereignty over the strategically commanding Golan Heights – which may be reinforced by a Congressional resolution – highlights the synergy between the national security of the US and Israel.  It underlines the mutually-beneficial, two-way-street strategic coordination and cooperation between the US and Israel.

This endorsement enhances the posture of deterrence of Israel – a systematic, unwavering, effective beachhead of the US in the Middle East – and therefore extends the strategic hand of the US, without the need to deploy additional US forces to the region.

In fact, Israel’s upgraded strategic profile has been a most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East.

For example, in 1970, pro-Soviet Syria invaded pro-US Jordan, aiming to topple the Hashemite regime and trigger an anti-US ripple effect into the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf.  It could have toppled the pro-US oil-producing regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrein and Oman, granting the USSR a global bonanza, and dealing a major blow to the economy and national security of the US (when the US was heavily dependent upon Persian Gulf oil), during the Vietnam quagmire, which precluded a dispatch of US troops to Jordan.

President Nixon called Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, who reinforced Israel’s military presence on the Golan Heights – the joint frontier between Israel, Syria and Jordan – delivering a clear warning to Damascus, which is located 37 miles from the Golan Heights. Israel’s posture of deterrence triggered a swift rollback of the Syrian invasion (within 48 hours), with no exchange of fire between the two military forces.

Thus, in 1970, Israel’s control of the Golan Heights – with no need for US military involvement – minimized regional violence and instability, secured the survival of key pro-US Arab regimes, prevented a major anti-US domino-effect in the Middle East with its drastic financial and military consequences, and spared the globe a potential super-powers confrontation.

In 2019, the control of the Golan Heights enables Israel to play a key role in constraining Iran’s expansion into Syria and Lebanon, restraining the flow of lava emitted by the potential Syrian volcano, securing Jordan’s Hashemite regime and removing the anti-US machetes from the throats of every pro-US regime.

In 2019, the potential contribution by Israel’s control of the Golan Heights to vital US interests, is bolstered against the backdrop of the following Middle East reality: Iran’s entrenchment in Syria and the megalomaniacal Ayatollahs, who consider the US their major hurdle on the way to regional and global domination; the 14-centuries-old Middle East unpredictability, intolerance and violence; the Arab Tsunami (erroneously branded as “Arab Spring”) which erupted in 2010 and is still raging; the historical role played by Damascus in fomenting intra-Arab and intra-Muslim confrontations, narcoterrorism (facilitating supply of heroine to the US’ inner cities) and anti-US international terrorism (e.g., PanAm-103, the US Embassy and US Marine headquarters in Beirut); the operation of a multitude of Islamic terrorist organizations in Syria; and the systematic alignment of Syria with enemies and adversaries of the US (e.g., the USSR, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela).

In 2019, the Israeli “life insurance agent” is increasingly more critical for the survival of Jordan’s pro-US Hashemite regime, which is more vulnerable than it was in 1970. Israel’s posture of deterrence has been enhanced in value in view of the Iranian Ayatollahs’ entrenchment in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; the potentially explosive 1.5 million Syrian refugees in northern Syria; the Palestinian majority in Jordan and its subversive track record; the high domestic profile of the subversive, terroristic Muslim Brotherhood; and the intensifying fragmentation among Jordan’s Bedouin tribes, some of which consider the Hashemite family “carpetbaggers” from the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel’s retreat from the Golan Heights would have severely eroded Israel’s posture of deterrence, transforming the Jewish State from a national security producer/asset – for the US – to a national security consumer/liability. This would have generated a tailwind to rogue Arab/Muslim regimes, taxing vital US national security interests, bringing Islamic terrorism closer to the US shores and rewarding enemies and adversaries of the US.

On June 29, 1967, the late General Earl Wheeler, then the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, handed President Johnson a map of Israel’s minimal security requirements, which included the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.  General Wheeler was aware that Israel’s sovereignty on the Golan Heights secures Israel’s survival, while advancing vital US interests in the tectonic Middle East.

A realistic evaluation of the key elements which have shaped US-Israel relations, should not focus on the relatively secondary role – regionally and globally – played by the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian issue and domestic US politics.

The substantial amplification of the mutually-beneficial US-Israel cooperation – militarily, intelligence-wise, technologically and commercially – has been driven by Israel’s operational, innovative and industrial capabilities, regional (Middle East) and global American interests as well as the rising threat of Islamic terrorism to the US homeland security.

US-Israel relations have been transformed dramatically since 1948, when the State Department, Pentagon and CIA opposed the founding of the Jewish State and prevented the delivery of military supplies to the newly-born state. They claimed that a Jewish state would join the Soviet Bloc, would be wrecked demographically by an eventual Arab majority, would be decimated by the surrounding Arab armies, and would undermine vital US interests in the Middle East. These claims have been demolished by Middle East reality.

US-Israel relations have been reshaped substantially since 1956, in the aftermath of the Sinai Campaign – which was triggered by the sustained campaign of Arab terrorism from Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula – when the US Administration brutally pressured Israel, forcing the full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Sinai.

US-Israel cooperation has been revolutionized since 1967 – before the preemptive Six Day War – when the US Administration threatened Israel, which was besieged by a newly-established Egypt-Syria-Jordan unified military command, trumpeting the mission to destroy Israel. The US warning to Israel was: “Israel will not be alone, unless it decides to go alone [preempt]….”

The 1967 Six Day War was a game-changer, leading the US to recognize Israel’s enhanced military posture of deterrence in the face of Arab threats, in general, and the Soviet Union and its Arab proxies (Egypt and Syria), in particular. For example, Israel’s 1967 victory destroyed the regional military posture of the pro-Soviet Syrian President Hafiz Assad, who constituted a clear and present threat to then pro-US Turkey as well as to Jordan’s Hashemite regime. Moreover, Israel devastated the military base of Egyptian President Nasser, whose ground forces were fighting in Yemen, attempting to surge into Saudi Arabia. Israel intercepted Nasser’s attempt to assume Pan Arab leadership from Egypt, Syria and Jordan to the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf; to topple all pro-US Arab regimes; to threaten the pro-US regime of the Shah of Iran; to ravage US interests throughout the Middle East, the Indian Ocean and the eastern Mediterranean; and, to accord the USSR a rare geo-strategic bonus.

Post-1967 Israel – controlling the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria, which are the “Golan Heights” of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport – has emerged as a unique strategic asset, producing significant dividends to the US, contrary to the pre-1967 Israel, which was deemed a strategic burden/liability.

The 1970 Syrian invasion of Jordan – while the US was preoccupied with Southeast Asia – underlined the convergence of US and Israeli strategic interests. Thus, Israel extended the strategic hand of the US in the strategically significant Middle East, by deploying its own military force to the joint Israel-Syria-Jordan frontier (on the Golan Heights), triggering a Syrian retreat without firing a single bullet, and with no US troops involved.

The 1976 Entebbe Operation exposed Israel’s unique capabilities in the areas of intelligence and counter-terrorism, which has emerged as the top threat to the homeland security of the Western World.

The 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor has reinforced Israel’s regional and global posture of deterrence, sparing the US and the Free World a confrontation with a nuclearized Saddam Hussein following his 1990 occupation of Kuwait.

In 1982, the US deployed troops to Lebanon, aiming to block Israel’s campaign against PLO terrorists in Lebanon. In spite of the anti-Israel US deployment, Islamic car bombs hit the US Embassy (April 1983) and the US military barracks (October 1983) in Beirut, murdering 260 Americans, which led to the establishment of the US-Israel Joint Political Military Group in November 1983. In 1987, Israel was granted the status of A Major Non-NATO Ally.

Contrary to the superficial assumption that US-Israel strategic cooperation was relevant as long as there was a Soviet threat, the US-Israel strategic compatibility has been reinforced since the 1991 demise of the USSR. Hence, the collapse of the Soviet empire transformed the bipolar globe (the USA vs. the USSR) into a much more fractured, unpredictable, explosive, violent and dramatically uncontrollable, intolerant and unstable multipolar world, which has confronted the US with the wrath of megalomaniacal non-super power rogue regimes such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Iran’s Ayatollahs. While Israel had a limited role in confronting the USSR, it has become the US’s most effective ally in the face of such regional threats.

The 2010 eruption of the Arab Tsunami, which is still raging, has further exposed the similarity of US-Israel strategic challenges and threats, leveraging Israel’s 70-year old do-or-die military and intelligence experience. The Arab Tsunami threatens the existence of all pro-US Arab regimes from North Africa (e.g., Morocco), through Egypt and Jordan to the Persian Gulf (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and down to the Indian Ocean (e.g., Oman).

In 2019, the US and Israel share identical national and homeland security concerns in the Middle East and beyond: the megalomaniacal vision of Iran’s Ayatollahs (who consider the US as the major hurdle on the road to domination of the Persian Gulf), the clear and present threat of Sunni and Shiite Islamic terrorism, and the critical security requirements of all highly vulnerable pro-US Arab regimes.

Contrary to the State Department establishment’s traditional claim that the US must choose between strategic cooperation with Israel or Saudi Arabia – as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issues remain unsolved – Israel’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states has surged unprecedentedly, irrespective of the Palestinian issue. In fact, US-Israel and US-Arab relations complement – not contradict – one another.

The pro-US Arab countries have realized that when smothered by lethal sandstorms (e.g., the Ayatollahs, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood), drivers must not be sidetracked by the tumbleweeds on the road (the Palestinian issue).

US interests in the Middle East and beyond are well-served by a strategically constrained Syria. Historically, Syria has been a tectonic, volatile platform of violent, intolerant and unpredictable Arab/Islamic regional aspirations of grandeur, totally unrelated to Israel’s existence and policies.

During the modern era, Syria has been a major arena of anti-US hate-education and incitement, Islamic and international terrorism (e.g., the blowing up of the US Embassy and Marines Headquarters in Beirut and PanAm-103), narco-terrorism (featuring ties with Latin American drug cartels), a mega-billion dollar counterfeiting of $100 bills and the abuse of human rights.

Syria represents a clear, present and lethal threat to all pro-US Arab regimes. It has been a systematic violator of agreements (with Lebanon, Turkey, the Arab League, the US and Israel), advancing the geo-strategic interests of the Ayatollahs of Iran, Russia and China, benefitting from North Korean conventional and non-conventional military technologies and hardware (chemical, biological and nuclear), while maintaining close ties with anti-US Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

A withdrawal of Israel’s military from the mountain ridges of the 500sqm Golan Heights – located 34 miles from Damascus – would severely injure Israel’s posture of deterrence, reducing its capabilities to extend the strategic hand of the US; thus, making Syria dramatically more explosive.

While Syria is currently preoccupied with domestic upheaval, its potential destabilizing regional and global ripple effects should be assessed in view of the inherent Middle East volatility. It should also be observed against the background of Syria’s multi-century key role in the tumultuous fourteen-century Islamic history. It should also be examined against the backdrop of its current deep strategic ties with Russia, the megalomaniacal Ayatollahs of Iran, and transnational ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and additional Islamic terror organizations, which aim to erase the current borders among Arab states.

Syria’s imperialistic aspirations and potential explosive regional impact, under an Alawite or a Sunni regime (the French Mandate designated an Alawite State in 1920), transcend the narrow context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are a derivative of the unique role played by Syria (a-Sham) – the home of the early Caliphs – in Islamic history. Therefore, the current Syrian powder keg has drawn an unprecedented number of Islamic terror organizations and Jihad (Holy War)-driven fighters/terrorists from the Middle East, Europe, Africa and Asia.

An Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights would not quench – but inflame – Damascus’ long-term historical aspirations to solidify control of Syria, reclaim Greater Syria (including Jordan, Lebanon and Israel) and dominate the Arab World, which entails the toppling of all pro-US Arab regimes.

Just like Iran’s Ayatollahs, so would any future ruler of Syria – Alawite or Sunni – view the US presence in the Middle East as the major obstacle on the way of reaching its megalomaniacal strategic goal, considering Israel to be a most effective and inhibiting US outpost. Hence, Syria’s deep strategic alliance with Russia – since 1966 – which has provided a tailwind to Moscow’s influence in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Horn of Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. For example, Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Tartus, Syria.

In 1970, the militarily superior USSR-supported Syria invaded the militarily inferior US-supported Jordan, which was involved in a civil war against Palestinian terrorists, while the US was bogged down in Southeast Asia, severely constrained as far as extending additional deployment of its troops. Attempting to avoid a confrontation with the USSR, the US requested Israel to mobilize the Israel Defense Forces to the joint Israel-Syria-Jordan frontier. Israel’s prompt mobilization triggered an immediate Syrian withdrawal from Jordan, bolstering Israel’s and the US’ posture of deterrence, injuring the geo-strategic posture of both Syria and the USSR, sparing the US a mega-billion dollar mobilization and a bruising public debate, while assisting the US with Israel’s own manpower, military bases and supply lines.

The Israeli deployment may have ensured the survival of the pro-US Hashemite regime, preventing a Syrian occupation of Jordan, with a potential spillover into the militarily much weaker pro-US Saudi Arabia and the pro-US Gulf States, which would have accorded Moscow a dramatic gain, while dealing the US a major economic and geo-strategic setback.

A Golan-less Israel would be unable to provide the US with such a cost-effective, dramatic benefit.

The inherent unpredictability, volatility and violence in the Middle East suggests that similar scenarios could plague the region in the future – especially in view of Jordan’s growing vulnerability to external and domestic upheaval – requiring the enhancement of US-Israel strategic coordination. However, without the Golan Heights – which dominates northern Israel and the joint Syria-Jordan-Israel border – Israel would be transformed from a unique national security producer, and a regional enforcer for the US, to another national security consumer.

On June 29, 1967, General Earl Wheeler, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, submitted to President Lyndon Johnson a map of Israel’s minimum security requirements. The map was based on the General’s own assessment of US interests, Middle East reality and Israel’s security requirements – the map included Israel’s control of the Golan Heights.