Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
August 18, 2026

*Since the 7th century, the life expectancy of intra-Muslim/Arab agreements, as well as Muslim agreements with “infidels”, have repeatedly proven to be determined by Islamic – not by Western – norms and regime-contingent.  Their survival has been decided by foundational Islamic precepts, as well as by the longevity of the specific (tenuous) regime, or the durability of their (tenuous) policies.

*The foundational precedent is the 628AD Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and this is currently more significant than any other single agreement.  It has become doctrinally paradigmatic rather than a mere historical event. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad concluded a ten-year truce with the “infidel” Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Within two years, citing a violation by a client tribe of the Quraysh, Muhammad abrogated the agreement, conquering Mecca and forcing the conversion of the Quraysh to Islam. Muslim/Arab regimes have treated the Hudaybiyyah Treaty as The Supreme Model-to-Emulate of a Hudna (temporary truce), legitimately and religiously revocable when the balance of power shifts, as distinct from Sulh (a fuller, more permanent peace concluded among “believers”).

*The Constitution of Medina (622AD) was a multi-tribal agreement – the highly regarded foundation of the first Islamic state – signed by the Prophet Muhammad with rival tribes, including Jewish clans.  It was gradually dissolved by expelling and obliterating the rival tribes.

*The First Fitna (656AD–661AD civil war) was momentous, underscoringthe fundamentals of the Muslim polity. It evolved around an agreement that was concluded after the 657AD Battle of Siffin between Ali (the 4th Caliph) and Mu’awiya (the ruler of Syria who challenged Ali’s authority). The agreement collapsed summarily, leading to Ali’s assassination (3 of the first 4 Caliphs were assassinated!). It also led to the founding of Mu’awiya’s Umayyad dynasty by violence (“bullet”) rather than by a settlement (“ballot”), which is still a Middle Eastern norm.  Hence, succession in the caliphates that followed was overwhelmingly resolved by civil war rather than binding accords, as demonstrated by the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyads; the fragmentation into rival caliphates (Fatimid, Umayyad of Córdoba, Abbasid); and the recurring pattern of vassal agreements with governors that held according to the durability of the regime.

*Ottoman-Safavid/Iran treaties (e.g., Amasya 1555AD, Zuhab 1639AD) were renegotiated roughly every generation as the frontier shifted militarily. They were durable only relative to the military stalemate, not as instruments of trust.

*In the post-Ottoman order, this violently-tenuous pattern was featured in the power-sharing 1943 Lebanese National Pact, which was in force as long as the demographic and regional balance of power persisted. It collapsed during the 1975-1989 civil wars, which still linger, as the 1989 Taif Agreement that supposedly ended the civil war is deeply frayed.

*Israel Peace Accords with Egypt Camp David (since 1979) and Jordan (since 1994) are holding for the time being, but the populations of both countries have been systematically brainwashed through anti-Jewish and anti-Israel school curriculum, mosque sermons and official media, which are the most authentic reflection of the long-term vision/strategy of non-democratic regimes. The potential toppling of the highly vulnerable General el-Sisi and King Abdoullah regimes could catapult the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas’ “parent company”) to power in Egypt, while transforming Jordan into another platform of anti-US Islamic terrorism, dooming the peace process with Israel.

*The 1993 and 1995 Israel-PLO Oslo Accords were abrogated by the PLO before the ink dried.  Thus, Arafat pre-recorded a message, aired on Jordan TV on September 13, 1993, while the Oslo Accord was signed on the White House Lawn, stating that the Accord was consistent with the PLO’s Phased Strategy – uprooting Israel in phases.  On May 10, 1994, Arafat spoke in a Johannesburg mosque, announcing that the Oslo Accord was consistent with the foundational 628AD Hudaybiyya Agreement.  As expected by reality-driven observers, the two Oslo Accords ushered in an unprecedent wave of Palestinian terrorism, as did 6 agreements reached with Hamas between 2007 and 2023.

*Tenuous Arab regimes and agreements:

^Since 1943, Libya’s Wheelus Air Force Base was the largest US military base outside the US during the rule of the pro-US King Idris. But, the base was evacuated in 1970 following the toppling of the King by the pro-Soviet Gaddafi.
^Iran was “The American Policeman of the Gulf” when ruled by the pro-US Shah, but has become a key epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering since the 1979 Iran takeover by the Ayatollah regime.
^Under the rule of King Faisal II, Iraq joined the US-backed anti-USSR 1955 Baghdad Pact, along with Britain, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. However, the July 1958 coup, climaxed by the hanging of King Faisal II, transformed Iraq into a pro-Soviet Persian Gulf country.
^The 1975 Iran-Iraq Algiers Agreement was annulled by Iraq in September 1980 (following the Ayatollah’s Islamic Revolution), leading to the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War.
^The 1958 Egypt-Syria agreement to establish the United Arab Republic, combining the two countries into a single sovereign state, was dissolved in September 1961 in the aftermath of a Syrian military coup.
^From the 1960s-1980s, North Yemen was pro-US, while South Yemen was pro-USSR. During the pre-January 1991 Gulf War, United Yemen opposed the US-led war on Saddam Hussein. Since 2014, Yemen’s Houthis – a proxy of the Ayatollah regime – have joined the “Death to America” club, shelling the pro-US Saudis and Emiratis, as well as attacking Red Sea shipping lanes.
^Etc…..

The Bottom Line

*In the non-democratic Middle East, Islamic/Arab regimes do not ascend to power through the ballot. They tend to be tenuous, as are their policies and agreements, which are not anchored in democratic and legal structures, but in foundational Islamic precepts and precedents. The durability of agreements reflects the lifespan of the regimes, which are generally vulnerable, driven by religion and ideology, and which transcend financial and diplomatic considerations.

*The US attempts to negotiate agreements with the Ayatollah regime, Hezbollah and Hamas take lightly the fact that the 1,400-year-old DNA of these entities – as documented in their constitutions, school curriculum and mosque sermons – mandates them to topple all pro-US Arab regimes and bring the “infidel” West, and especially “The Great American Satan” to submission.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative”
August 13, 2026

*Since 1948, unrelated to Israel, about 11 million Muslims have been killed in intra-Muslim wars and terrorism from Pakistan and Afghanistan, through the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, North and Central Africa, compared to 100,000 Muslims killed during Arab-Israel wars. In fact, Refik Turan, Head of the Turkish Historical Society claims that 12.5 million Muslims have been killed in intra-Muslim wars since 1993. These Intra-Muslim wars have yielded mega-millions of displaced Muslims.  For example, 20 million refugees during the Syria and Iraq civil wars, 10 million refugees resulting from the Pakistan-Bangladesh war, 8 million refugees in Africa’s Sahel region, etc.

*Since the 7^th century, and irrespective of Israel, the absence of intra-Muslim peaceful-coexistence – religiously, ethnically, tribally, geographically and ideologically- has been a chronic and structural feature of the Middle East. It has fueled terrorism and wars among the Muslim “believers,” against the Sunnis/Shiites “apostates” and against the Western “infidel,” especially “The Great American Satan.”

*The intra-Muslim wars and terrorism have not been driven by despair, but rather by ideology and religion, transcending “money talks” and diplomacy.

*Examples of the Toll of Intra-Muslim Conflicts Since 1948

Sudan civil wars 1955-present: 2,600,000-3,000,000 killed
Afghan civil wars 1978-present: 1,500,000-2,000,000 killed
Bangladesh-Pakistan war 1971: 1,500,000 killed
Bangladesh post-independence civil war: 150,000 killed
Iraq-Iran war 1980-1988: 1,000,000-1,200,000 killed
Syria civil wars 2011-2025: 600,000-700,000 killed
Yemen civil wars 1962-present: 600,000-700,000 killed
Somali civil wars 1991-present: 500,000-850,000 killed
Iraq-Kurdish wars and civil wars 1961-present: 500,000-750,000 killed
Iraq-Syria Islamic State wars: 100,000-200,000 killed
Algeria civil war 1991-2002: 100,000-200,000 killed
Lebanon’s civil war 1975-1990: 100,000-150,000 killed
Sahel Jihadist terrorism 2009-present: 100,000-150,000 killed
Iran’s executed dissidents 1979-present: 100,000 (at least 30,000 in 2026)
Chad civil wars 1966-1990: 40,000-100,000 killed
Pakistan-Balochi civil wars 1948-present: 45,000-80,000 killed
Pakistan-Jihadist clashes 2004-present: 70,000 killed
Turkey-Kurdish war 1984-present: 40,000-50,000 killed
Nigeria-Boko Haram wars 2009-present: 35,000-50,000 killed
Libyan civil wars 2011-present: 25,000-50,000 killed
Libya -Chad-Jihadist wars 1978-present: 10,000-30,000 killed
Iran-Kurdish skirmishes 1979-present: 30,000 killed
Mali-Jihadist wars 2012-present: 15,000-30,000 killed
Jordan’s “Black September” civil war 1970: 10,000-2 5,000 killed
Egypt-Jihadist battles in Sinai, 2011-present: 10,000 killed
Etc.

*The aforementioned intra-Muslim reality is critically relevant to US policy in the Middle East – including the pursuit of negotiation and peace – which has always been jerkily spiral, violently intolerant, unpredictable, tenuously shifty, fragmented and ruthlessly non-democratic.

*The absence of intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence has been underscored by the litany of intra-Muslim conflicts, accompanied by a multitude of negotiation cycles, on-again and off-again tenuous ceasefire agreements and peace accords.  This violently capricious reality showcases the Middle East as a region where negotiation is a tactical pause and an extension of warfare by other means, bolstered by Islam-sanctioned Taqiyya (dissimulation) . 

*Moreover, accords with enemies, and certainly with “infidels,” cannot be less tenuous than the regimes and their policies. These accords are profoundly inspired by the Prophet Muhammed’s 628 AD tactical treaty of Hudaybiyya, which has enshrined victory over enemies through temporary agreements, to be abrogated upon achieving military superiority.   

*The intensity of the 1,400-year-old intra-Muslim wars and terrorism reveals that negotiation and accords are considered by radical Middle East entities (e.g., the Ayatollah regime, Hezbollah, Hamas) as a tactical pause, functional-not-covenantal, a Hudna (temporary ceasefire) – a means to bring enemies to submission, not peaceful coexistence – lacking a shared commitment to durability. Furthermore, Middle East powerful entities do not negotiate with weaker entities; they trounce and subjugate them. Therefore, an initiation of negotiation in the Middle East is perceived as insecurity and weakness, which emboldens rogue entities.

*The 14-centuries-old intra-Muslim wars and terrorism have been a Middle East fixture, while negotiation and accords have been Middle East variables.

*This reality has intensified Israel’s 78-year-old existential national security challenges, which must be assessed according to the violent Middle East reality, rather than the convenient Western-manufactured alternate reality. The overriding significance of the intra-Muslim wars and terrorism highlights the reckless proposal for Israel to trade its most critical national security component – the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (fixed assets), which dominate 80% of Israel’s infrastructures and population – for normalization/peace accords (variable assets).

*Israel’s strategic posture has served as an indispensable anchor, and the most effective force-multiplier and dollar-multiplier for the US, deterring rogue entities, and constituting the most reliable “life insurance agent” of all pro-US Arab regimes in the face of existential threats by the Ayatollah regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, Israel’s posture of deterrence has induced six Arab countries to conclude peace treaties with Israel. It has also prompted additional pro-US Arab countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia) to enhance defense, technological, agricultural and irrigation cooperation with the Jewish State. Israel has been a uniquely reliable, effective, democratic and stable ally of the US – commercially, technologically, scientifically, agriculturally, medically and militarily – in a region which is top heavy on non-democratic, unstable, violence-prone, unreliable and strategically elusive entities.

*The ferocious magnitude of intra-Muslim conflicts, exposes the simplistic worldview which considers the Arab-Israeli conflict as if it were “the Middle East conflict,” and the Palestinian issue as if it were the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a cause of regional turbulence and a crown jewel of Arab policy makers, ignoring the Arab view of Palestinians as the role model of intra-Arab terrorism and treachery. Hence, the failure of dozens of Western-initiatives to solve the Arab-Israel conflict, including the Palestinian issue.  In fact, the immensity of the intra-Muslim carnage dwarfs the regional and global significance of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
August 2, 2026

*The 47-year-war launched against the US by the Ayatollah regime, since 1979, predates – and is independent of – any specific US President or policy, as demonstrated during the Administrations of Carter and Reagan, Obama and Bush, Biden and Trump. 

*The 47-year-track record of the Ayatollah regime – as underscored in its Constitution, school curriculum and mosque sermons – provides a body of evidence that the regime’s core Shiite orientation highlights anti-Americanism as a foundational pillar of identity, rather than a temporary foreign policy.

*The Ayatollah track record has been a derivative of a fanatical, apocalyptic (Twelver Shiite) ideology. It mandates the exportation of the Islamic Shiite Revolution (1979 Constitution, article 154), establishing a globally exclusive, “divinely-ordained” Shiite Islamic governance, in preparation for the return of the Hidden Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, which is to be preceded by chaos, suffering, rivers of blood and martyrdom. The Ayatollah’s ideology frames political conflicts in metaphysical, non-negotiable terms, yielding civilizational and religious battles in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and inside the US.

*The Ayatollah ideology mandates the toppling of the “apostate, treacherous” Sunni regimes, and bring the “infidel” West – and primarily “The Great Arrogant and Oppressive American Satan” – to submission. The US is viewed as an existential, moral, irreconcilable, illegitimate adversary. Since 1979 – despite the fact that it was a US President, who paved the road to Ayatollah Khomeini’s toppling of the Shah – Anti Americanism has functioned as a key ideological glue of the Ayatollah regime, a metric for domestic political loyalty. In fact, the annual commemoration of the November 4, 1979 US Embassy takeover isreinforced by the chant “Death to America” (“Marg bar Amrika“).

*While the Ayatollah regime frequently displays tactical flexibility, when under extreme pressure, its strategic trajectory demonstrates that ideological objectives transcend financial and diplomatic bonanzas, as well as international norms. For example, the Jihad-driven doctrine of the “Resistive Economy” (eqtesād-e moqāvematī) accepts economic austerity and isolation as a price for maintaining ideological independence. In defiance of the mega-billion-dollars of financial pressure/sanctions and temptations, the Ayatollah regime prioritizes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its expeditionary arm, the Quds Force, the funding of proxy terror organizations (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis), and the 46-year-strategic entrenchment in Latin America.

*The negotiation process provides the Ayatollah regime with the time to lick wounds, relieve pressure, gain tactical concessions, restore and upgrade conventional, ballistic and nuclear capabilities, in cooperation with China, Russia and North Korea. These countries are eager to prove their reliability and effectiveness as strategic allies, notwithstanding the devastation of their air defenses, combat aircraft and missile batteries during the 2025 and 2026 Iran wars.

*In the Middle East, a strong party’s proposal to negotiate reflects insecurity, hesitancy and weakness, which emboldens rogue entities, as demonstrated by the waves of unprecedent terrorism, that was triggered by Israel’s negotiation cycles with the PLO (Oslo 1993) and Hamas (since 2007). The Ayatollah regime would never propose to negotiate with a devastated enemy, but proceed to deal a knockout blow to such an enemy.

*The 47-year-policy of negotiation with the Ayatollah regime has not induced Iranian moderation, but bolstered the anti-US capabilities of the Ayatollah regime. The policy of negotiation has played a key role in catapulting Iran from a second/third rate strategic power to a major global strategic player. In addition, the negotiation policy has played a major role in transforming Iran from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” (1971-1978) to a chief global epicenter of anti-US terrorism, wars, drug trafficking and money laundering. 

*The tendency to kick the can down the road has reflected Western policy makers’ inclination to sacrifice medium/long-term national security on the altar of short-term convenience, as has been demonstrated by multiple precedents. For example, the 1981 Algiers Accord yielded the release of 50 American hostages, but was followed by the 1983 Beirut US Embassy and Marines barracks Iran-Hezbollah car bombs, which murdered 258 Americans. This pattern was repeated by the US-led 2015 JCPOA, when the Ayatollah regime invested most of the hundreds of billions of dollars, gained through the accord, in bolstering its ballistic capabilities, and cultivating its global terror and drug trafficking network, including in Latin America and on US soil.  Moreover, Western policy makers tend to overlook the clear and present lethal threat posed by the Ayatollah regime.

*Western policy makers have taken lightly the structural contradiction between the incompatible definitions of negotiation by Western policy makers and the Ayatollah regime.  Thus, while the West views negotiation as a win-win, deal-making, problem-solving, conflict-ending, mutually-accepted solution, and a process of permanent strategic reconciliation, the Ayatollah regime approaches negotiation as a confrontational, conflict-perpetuating, temporary ceasefire-like process – an extension of warfare by other means.  

*Western policy makers view a signed agreement as an achievement, but the Ayatollah regime views a signed agreement as a time stalling tactic, in order to advance the strategic achievement – bringing the “infidel” to submission.

*While Western policy makers approach negotiation as eager sprinters, the Ayatollah regime approaches negotiation as patient marathon runners.

*Approaching the Ayatollah regime as a transactional party overlooks the reality that anti-Americanism is not merely a negotiable policy, or a bargaining chip, but the core identity of the Islamic Republic.

*The 47-year-negotiation with the Ayatollah regime has enhanced the legitimacy of that rogue entity, paving the road to intensified violence, which could eventually usher-in the first ever apocalyptic nuclear power.

*Is the US determined to learn from critical mistakes by repeating, or avoiding, them?!

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative”
July 22, 2026

*Independent of Israel’s existence, the Ayatollah regime’s hostility toward the US is deeply rooted in its 1,400-year-old fanatical, apocalyptic, anti-“infidel” ideology, as is reaffirmed in its Constitution, school curriculum, mosque sermons, official media and daily geo-strategic conduct.

*Notwithstanding US-Israel relations, the overriding ideology of the Ayatollah regime mandates the global exportation of the Islamic Revolution, as a step in the long-term battle to crown the Twelver Shia as the sole, predominant, divinely-ordained religion on earth.

*Nongermane to Israel, the Ayatollah regime is committed – religiously, historically and strategically – to expedite the reappearance of the 12th Shiite Imam, Mohammad al Mahdi, who disappeared in the 10th century.  This reappearance is preconditioned upon a victory over the “treacherous Sunni apostates” and “Western infidels,” especially “The Great American Satan,” which requires rivers of blood and martyrdom, supposedly yielding the end of time messianic Shiite deliverance.

*Irrespective of Israel, the ideological, religious and geo-strategic core of the Ayatollah’s Islamic Republic frames the US as the most critical enemy, “The Great American Satan” (Sheytân-e Bozorg), the ultimate source of global temptation, corruption, and imperialistic “infidel” arrogance. The US is regarded as the chief global oppressor and usurper, exploiting Islamic resources, propping up immoral “infidel” (Western and pro-Western) and “apostate” (Sunni) entities, and proliferating a venomously decadent culture. Moreover, the Ayatollah’s Constitution and core ideology mandate the regime to establish “The Axis of Resistance,” in order to bring the US to submission through a perpetual Jihad (Holy War).

*Extraneous to Israel, the Ayatollah regime is driven by an imperialistic, megalomaniacal, worldwide mega-vision, which requires mega-capabilities (conventional, ballistic and nuclear), and is preconditioned upon overcoming and subjugating a mega-hurdle (the USA).  The Ayatollah regime views the US as  a mega-hurdle in its pursuit of regional hegemony and its historic duty to topple all “treacherous and apostate” Sunni regimes, which happen to be aligned with the US.

*Regardless of Israel’s role in the Middle East and beyond, and despite the US’ critical role (1978/79) in paving the road of the Ayatollah regime to power, the Ayatollah regime seized the US Embassy in Tehran, in November 1979,and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

*Unrelated to Israel, since 1980, the Ayatollah regime – jointly with Hezbollah – has entrenched itself in Latin America, which is considered “the soft underbelly” of the US, and a critical segment of “The Axis of Resistance.” The Ayatollah regime has intensified cooperation with drug cartels in Mexico, Columbia, Bolivia and Brazil, supplying them with predator unmanned aerial vehicles and underground tunnel-construction equipment. The regime has established a strategic posture in the lawless tri-border areas of Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil and Chile- Bolivia-Peru, training terrorists, promoting drug trafficking and laundering money.

*Despite the fact that in 1982, the US deployed US Marines to Lebanon, in order to constrain Israel’s offensive on PLO terrorists in Lebanon, the Ayatollah regime and Hezbollah car-bombed (in 1983) the US Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut, murdering 270 Americans. The Ayatollah regime and Hezbollah were also involved in the planning and execution of the 1998 car-bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, murdering 224 people, including 12 Americans.  More than 1,000 Americans have been murdered in the Middle East by the Ayatollah regime and its terror proxies in Iraq, Syria and Jordan.

*Unconnected to Israel, the Ayatollah regime has expanded its network of sleeper terror cells on US soil, as cautioned by the FBI Director in a November 2023 Hearing in the House Committee on Homeland Security: “…As the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, the Iranians have directly, or by hiring criminals, mounted assassination attempts against dissidents and high ranking current and former US officials, including right here on American soil…. Hezbollah, Iran’s primary strategic partner, has tried to seed operatives, establish infrastructure and engage in spying here domestically… planning future operations in the US….” The 2025 Threat Assessment issued by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department highlighted the Ayatollah’s surrogate network within the US, aiming to intensify fear of Islamic terrorism, while undermining the confidence of Americans in their own government.

*Israel is correctly portrayed by the Ayatollah regime as the most effective US vanguard in “the abode of Islam” – “The Little Satan.”  The US is perceived as the strategic global enemy, while Israel is a tactical regional instrument, serving the Oppressive US’ civilizational, religious, and geopolitical war on the Oppressed entities. The Ayatollah regime has concluded that undermining Israel’s strategic posture – through its Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi proxies, as well as its own ballistic missiles – undermines the US regional and global posture. The Ayatollah’s view of Israel is a derivative of its view of the US, independent of the Palestinian issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

*In 2026, the US has an opportunity to correct the misguided 1978/79-2024 US policy – which transformed Iran from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a leading global epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism and drug trafficking – by uprooting the Ayatollah regime.  

*The cost of regime change would be dwarfed by the cost of refraining from regime change, highlighted by the emergence of the first ever apocalyptic nuclear power, afflicting humanity with catastrophic cost. Failing to trigger regime-change, would erode the US posture of deterrence, emboldening China in the Pacific, African and Latin American arenas, invigorating Russia in the Baltic Sea and East Europe, and energizing anti-US Islamic terrorism on US soil. It would also intensify existential threats to all pro-US Sunni Arab regimes, induce more wars and terrorism, while discouraging the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 15, 2026

*The gap between Middle East talk and walk is underscored by the Arabic colloquialism “On words one does not pay custom,” or “Words spoken at night are erased by daytime.”  

*Middle East Talk has been highlighted as a primary weapon ofpsychological warfare, stalling fortime, a survival mechanism, tactical flexibility, diplomacy, Taqiyya (dissimulation), deterrence, rallying morale, intimidating and gaslighting rivals/enemies and befogging real intents, without committing oneself to a specific Walk, and without abandoning one’s ideology.  

*Since 1978, US policy makers have indulged in a diplomatic dialogue with the Ayatollah regime, which has flooded US negotiators with tempting, business-like and peaceful-like talk, camouflaging the Ayatollah’s rogue, apocalyptic walk. The Ayatollah’s walk is clearly documented in the 1979 Constitution, school curriculum, mosque sermons and official media, which have transformed Iran from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a chief global epicenter of anti-US terrorism, wars, drug trafficking and money laundering in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and on US soil.

*The Jordanian Hashemite regime’s talk has consistently urged Israel to halt its military offensive against Hamas terrorists, demanding an immediate ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

However, the Jordanian regime’s walk – which reflects national security priorities – has diametrically contradicted its talk, especially since Hamas’ October 2023 terror offensive on Israel.  It intensified the Hashemite fear of another “Palestinian Black September” attempt to topple the Amman regime. Jordan is aware of the systematic collaboration between the trans-national Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian terrorism. It considers Hamas – a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot – a major epicenter of subversion, incitement, money laundering, drug trafficking, terror plots and rockets/drones/drugs smuggling and manufacturing. Moreover, Hamas has collaborated with Iran’s Ayatollah regime, other Palestinian terror organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood (which was outlawed in April 2025, although it’s political arm, the IAF, is the largest party in Jordan’s Parliament). Hamas was expelled from Jordan in 1999, but has renewed its terrorism there, as well as against US bases in Jordan. Irrespective of its anti-Israel talk, the Hashemite regime’s military, commercial and diplomatic walk recognizes that Israel supplies critical water and counter-terror intelligence, and averted its potential oblivion in 1970 (forcing Syria to rollback its invasion of Jordan), and still acts as a line of defense for the pro-US, highly vulnerable Hashemite regime.

*Egypt’s talk has condemned Israel’s war on Hamas, demanding a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. However, just like Jordan, Egypt’s walk has been a derivative of its national security requirements, especially Hamas’ affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is viewed by General Sisi as an existential threat.  Since its establishment in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has attempted to topple Egypt’s central regimes, and since 2013, it has been outlawed, designated as a terrorist organization. Cairo is also aware of Hamas’ strategic alliance with the Ayatollah regime, which aims to topple all “apostate” pro-US Sunni regimes, including General Sisi. Moreover, Hamas has been effectively outlawed in Egypt, as a terrorist organization, including its political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party. Egypt has heavily restricted Hamas operations in Egypt, designating its armed wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) as a terrorist entity.

*While the talk of both Jordan and Egypt, as well as that of most Arab countries, has castigated Israel for a disproportionate response to Hamas’ terrorism, and severely criticize the proposal to facilitate a voluntary relocation of Gaza residents to Egypt and Jordan, their national security driven walk is the inverse. They consider Israel’s war against Hamas to be aligned with their own homeland and national security requirements.  They have concluded that a failure to obliterate Hamas would be perceived as a dramatic Hamas victory, generating a robust tailwind to Islamic terrorism in their own countries, posing an existential threat to most pro-US Arab regimes. On the other hand, Israel’s obliteration of Hamas would relieve all pro-US Arab regimes of a major lethal threat, and minimize regional instability. 

*Furthermore, Egypt’s and Jordan’s refusal to consider the relocation of Gaza residents to their countries is a derivative of the Palestinian terrorist walk in Egypt (during the 1950s), Syria (1960s), Jordan (1968-1970), Lebanon (1970-1983), Kuwait (1990) and Iraq (until 2003), which transformed Palestinians into the role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.  While the Western establishment is infatuated with the Palestinian moderate talk, embracing the proposed Palestinian state, the Arabs focus on the Palestinian rogue intra-Arab walk, and therefore have refrained (since 1948) from advancing the cause of the proposed Palestinian state.  For instance, none of the 6 Israel-Arab peace treaties was preconditioned upon the establishment of a Palestinian state….

*The Saudi and the UAE’s public talk has emphasized restraint, diplomacy and de-escalation of the war on the Ayatollah regime. However, the walk of MBS, the Saudi Crown Prince, and MBZ, the President of the UAE, (including constructive defense, counter-terrorism, commercial and diplomatic cooperation with Israel) reflects full awareness of the lethal implications of the fanatical and apocalyptic Ayatollah vision, which mandates the toppling of every “apostate” Sunni regime – especially Saudi Arabia – and bring to submission the Western “infidel,” especially “The Great American Satan.” Both MBS and MBZ are concerned about the US continued embrace of the negotiation option, which, since February 1979, has been the leading engine of the Ayatollah surge to global geo-strategic prominence, setting the Ayatollah machete closer to the throats of all pro-US Sunni Arab states.  Irrespective of its public talk and the renewal of diplomatic relations with Iran (ain’t the first, or the last, time!), Saudi Arabia and the UAE would be greatly relieved by a regime-change in Tehran. Both of them, as well as all other pro-US Arab regimes, consider Israel as the most reliable ally in their existential battle against the Ayatollah regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Bottom Line  

*The contrast between rhetoric (talk) and reality (walk) has been ingrained in the Middle East for 1,400 years, following in the footsteps of the 7th century Caliph Muawiyah, who laid the groundwork for shifting allegiance and flexible talk, trumpeting adherence to pacts.

*The unpredictable, violently intolerant and shifty intra-Arab/Muslim track record behooves US policy-making to be driven by Middle East walk (reality) – as frustrating, costly and inconvenient as it is – rather than Middle East talk (alternate reality), as appealing as it may sound.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
June 28, 2026

*A regime that merely changes tactics under pressure – and is not forced into foundational restructuring – is not reformed, but temporarily constrained. A durable reform away from the Ayatollah’s Islamic Republic requires more than a leadership turnover.

*47 years of the Ayatollah regime’s rogue track record determines that expecting this regime to be potentially reformed – while its core architecture is not overhauled – is speculative and unrealistic.

*The Ayatollah’s Islamic Republic is not merely a government that can be reformed, deconflicted or voted out; rather, it is an ideological ecosystem.  Thus, the prerequisite for an effective reform to occur, the core pillars (the DNA) that sustain this ecosystem must be entirely dismantled and uprooted.  An effective reform must preclude a potential renewal of the Ayatollah ideology. Furthermore, dismantling the core pillars distinguishes between a deceptive (a tactical retreat utilizing taqiyya-dissimulation) and a genuine transformation.

The Following Prerequisites Are Required:

*Disavowing and discarding completely the 1979 Constitution, which is not merely a legal charter, but the roadmap of the Ayatollah’s domestic and external rogue strategy. It reflects the Ayatollah regime’s 1,400-year-old apocalyptic, megalomaniacal vision, which pursues the establishment of a universal society under the supremacy of Shiite Islam, mandating the toppling of all “apostate” Sunni regimes and bringing the Western “infidel” – and especially “The Great American Satan” – to submission.  The Ayatollah’s Constitution enshrines the battle of the oppressed “mustadafun” (e.g., Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua) over the oppressive and arrogant “mustakbirun” (e.g., “The Great American Satan,” Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel). It codifies the concept of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), subordinating the entire population to a, supposedly, divinely-ordained authority, religiously (as the sole interpreter of Islam), militarily and civically, domestically and externally, educationally and economically.

*Abolish the Ayatollah (Supreme Leader) position, the Guardian Council (the unelected body that vetoes legislation and disqualifies candidates) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is not merely a military force, but an economic empire and ideological enforcer that exists independently of any government. The dismantling of the IRGC should include the Basij, which is a paramilitary volunteer militia within the IRGC.

*Another prerequisite for a reformed regime in Iran is the uprooting of the school curriculum and the Friday mosque sermons, which have been the most authentic reflection of the Ayatollah’s vision and policy, highlighting Jihad, martyrdom, vengeance and the vilification of the Western “infidel” and the neighboring Sunni “apostates,” who must be subjugated.  The education and religious systems have become the most effective machines of ideological reproduction, and the manufacturing lines of Ayatollah loyalists. They are committed to the Ayatollah Constitution, willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of the Ayatollah’s apocalyptic and imperialistic vision. They are consistent with the Constitution, domestic repression of ethnic and religious minorities, the subjugation of women, and the proliferation of anti-US terrorism in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and on US soil, providing a roadmap for an apocalyptic commitment to a global, anti-US Islamic revolution.

*Rejecting the exportation of the Islamic revolution, which is articulated by Article 154 of the Ayatollah Constitution, mandating support for the “just struggles of the oppressed [Iran and additional 3rd World members of “the axis of resistance”] against the arrogant [the USA and its allies] in every corner of the globe.” This doctrine justifies global sedition and subversion, cooperation with terror proxies, as well as framing domestic dissent as treason.

*Renouncing – explicitly and constitutionally -the toppling of Sunni (“apostate”) regimes, subjugation of the “infidel” West, bringing “The Great American Satan” to submission, and the destruction of Israel as national objectives.

*Ending – explicitly and constitutionally – discrimination, repression and oppression of women, as well as religious and ethnic minorities, while releasing all political prisoners, and recognizing the legitimacy of the 2009 Green Movement, the 2019 protests, and the 2022 Zan, Zendegi, Azadi (Woman, Life, Freedom) uprising.

*Abolishing the 1979-conceived name/identity “The Islamic Republic,” and restoring the original name/identity “Iran” or “Persia.”  This prerequisite refers to the predominance of historical, pre-Islamic, and civic nationalism over fanatical Ayatollah theocracy, which has been dedicated to the subordination of Iran’s thousands of years-old-cultural heritage to a fanatical, supremacist, apocalyptic 7th-century-identity.  It would shift the national ethos away from martyrdom toward a unified historical linguistic and cultural heritage, such as the legacy of Cyrus the Great and, possibly, the 1905 secular Constitutional Revolution, which transformed Iran from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional system, underscoring parliamentary sovereignty, individual rights and written law to curb despotic authority.

The Bottom Line

*Differentiating between tactical accommodation by Iranian negotiators and systemic reform, one should remember that scorpions cannot change stings, neither can leopards change spots.

*Changing the spots of the Ayatollah regime mandates the dismantling of the Ayatollah’s DNA, ideological ecosystem and the aforementioned core pillars.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
December 23, 2025

*The perpetrators of the October 7, 2023 horrific terrorism were graduates of the Palestinian Authority school curriculum, which is also implemented in Gaza.  It was established by Mahmoud Abbas at the end of 1993 (as a follow up to the Oslo Accord). In 2025, it was updated by the Palestinian Ministry of Education.

*While the United Arab Emirates uprooted all anti-Jewish and anti-Israel elements from its school curriculum, the Friday mosque sermons, and its official media – replacing them with pro-Jewish and pro-Israel elements – the Palestinian Authority has intensified its anti-Jewish and anti-Israel school curriculum, consistent with its monthly allowances to families of terrorists, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel Friday mosque sermons and official daily media.

*School curricula mirror the state of mind, culture, overriding narrative, priorities, aspirations and vision of those who design and approve them. School textbooks expose which values are promoted by governments.

*Palestinian school curriculum could be leveraged to advance tolerance, moderate hatred, resolve conflict and promote peaceful coexistence, or to distort facts and intensify intolerance, hatred and incitement, as well as glorifying terrorism. The Palestinian Authority has chosen the latter.

*Western attempts to resolve the Palestinian issue have overlooked the crucial role played by the Palestinian Authority’s education system – which echoes the 1959 and 1967 charters of the Mahmoud Abbas-led Fatah and PLO – as a central impediment to peace, while constituting a most effective production line of terrorists, in general, and martyrs, in particular.

*According to the IMPACT-se report on the 2025/2026 Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum 1-12, based on nine consecutive years of textbook monitoring, and an analysis of 290 textbooks and 71 teacher guides [social studies, civic studies, geography, history, Christian education, Islamic education, Arabic language, science, mathematics and elective courses]:

”Since 2016, no substantive improvement has been made to the Palestinian Authority curriculum….

”Incites antisemitism and violence, promotes Jihad [holy war] and martyrdom, glorifies terrorism, rejects peacemaking… and erases Israel from maps…. It depicts Jews as deceitful, manipulative, or inherently corrupt enemies of Islam [and Allah]…. Israelis are depicted not as human beings, but as demonic monsters, laughing while committing atrocities, slaughtering children, and extinguishing life. Texts and poems liken Israelis to serpents, vipers, and Satan’s aides, while legitimizing violence, and teaching that the existence of Israel is incompatible with justice or humanity….

”Jihad is interpreted in its militant sense and directly connected to the contemporary conflict with Israel. It is presented as a personal obligation, the pinnacle of faith, and the path to glory and divine reward. Martyrdom and death for religious, national, or political goals are celebrated as the highest moral ideals…. Violence and terrorism are openly glorified and morally justified…. Terrorists are exalted as national heroes and are presented as martyrs and role models for youth….

“Maps and language in Palestinian textbooks erase Israel entirely….

“Textbooks institutionalize gender inequality as religious and social doctrine. Women are portrayed as inherently inferior to men – physically, mentally, and spiritually – and unfit for leadership or decision-making roles. Religious materials blame women for moral decline, discourage their participation in public life, and instructing that modest dress and obedience are necessary for their protection….

“Teacher guides serve as manuals for transmitting hate…. codifying that Israeli Jews are fated to disappear….”

“In September 2024, the Palestinian Authority launched a Virtual Schools Initiative, designed to allow Gazan children to continue studying remotely and to compress two academic years into one. By February 2025, over 290,000 students were reportedly enrolled…. This initiative was an almost verbatim replication of earlier antisemitism, violence, incitement…. The textbooks continued to feature dehumanization of Jews, glorification of martyrdom and jihad, demonization of Israel in geography and civics lessons, the justification of terrorism, and the erasure of Israel from maps.  No structural or textual reform [of school textbooks] ever occurred….”

*The following are examples of the aforementioned analysis of the 2025-26 Palestinian Authority school textbooks:

^Islamic Education, Grade 11, Vol. 2, p. 7 indicates that women’s responsibility for committing adultery is greater than that of a man. Women are seen as temptresses who cause men to commit adultery.

^ Islamic Education, Grade 11, Vol. 2, pp. 28, 31 holds women responsible for sexual harassment... implying that whether a woman is sexually harassed depends on her choice of clothing.  It places on women the sole responsibility for sexual and physical violence they experience; and may even justify it in certain circumstances.

^Islamic Education, Grade 9, Vol. 1, pp. 74–78 teaches that women are responsible for harm if they fail to dress modestly, and that Muslims should not dress like “Infidels.” Women should not display their adornments or “seductive qualities” (mafātin) to others, because doing so may invite “arousal” (iṯārah) and “temptation” (fitnah). The wearing of hijab – the Islamic female dress, which covers the whole body – “protects women” and “immunizes the youth from descending into adultery [fāḥišah].” The subtext [is] that women are seductive to others by nature.

^Our Beautiful Language, Grade 1, Vol. 2, p. 53 features a reading exercise, which highlight the word shahid (“martyr”) at the center of the chart….

^Arabic Language, Grade 5, Vol. 2, pp. 51–61 highlight Dalal al-Mughrabi, the terrorist, who commanded the 1978 Coastal Haifa-Tel Aviv Road Massacre of 38 civilian bus passengers, including 13 children, contending that the massacre made her memory immortal in the hearts and minds of Palestinians, transforming her into a female role-model.

^History Studies, Grade 11, Vol. 2, p. 52 heralding the 1972 Munich Olympic Games Massacre of 11 Israeli team members and a West German police officer by PLO terrorists.

^Arabic Language Grade 12, 2025, pp. 77-80 maintains that the Palestinian refugee experience may only be rectified with the refugees’ physical return to their homes in pre-1967 Israel (e.g., Haifa), through acts of terrorism.

^Mathematics, Grade 7, Vol. 2, p. 97 features a map of Palestine that includes pre-1967 Israel, indicating that Palestine was occupied in 1948, linking this to a probability exercise by using the digits 1, 9, 4 and 8 as an example for a sample space.

^Arabic Language Grade 11, Vol. 2, pp. 34–38 glorifies the martyrdom of the terrorists, who massacred Jews during the 1929 pogroms in British Mandate Safed and Hebron, referring to the reward [of 72 virgins] awaiting them in paradise.  

*Since the end of 1993, the worldview, values, culture, aspirations and vision of Arabs in Gaza, Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] has been warped by the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum, which has been reverberated in Friday mosque sermons and official media, following in the footsteps of the 1959, 1967 and 1988 charters of Fatah, PLO and Hamas, reinforced by monthly allowances to families of terrorists and actual terrorism.

*Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority has been successful in shaping a worldview, which is consistent with his fanatic vision (uprooting the Jewish State), and therefore inconsistent with peaceful coexistence.

*A prerequisite for any constructive peace process is a thorough structural overhaul of the prevailing culture, which is preconditioned upon the uprooting of the hate and terror-driven Palestinian Authority school curriculum, the inciting Friday mosque sermons, the Palestinian Authority’s official media, while terminating terror-driven monthly allowances..

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
November 26, 2025

*Hamas compliance? Hamas’ compliance with the Gaza Ceasefire, in adherence to President Trump’s 20 points, would require Hamas to abandon its core vision/ideology, forfeit its military and political powerbase; thus, desisting from being Hamas. But, Hamas’ compliance with the Gaza Ceasefire, in adherence to its own core vision and ideology, which transcends financial considerations, is a déjà vu, as demonstrated by all previous Gaza ceasefires.

*Gaza ceasefire – déjà vu. The current Gaza ceasefire is the 6^th ceasefire concluded with Hamas since the 2007 Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip (2008, 2012, 2014, 2019 and 2021). No ceasefire has induced Hamas – which is a branch ofthe Muslim Brotherhood – to embrace peaceful coexistence; neither to adopt good faith negotiation, nor to abandon its Muslim Brotherhood ideology/vision of toppling all national Muslim regimes (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco). Furthermore, they have not relinquished their goal of establishing a universal Muslim society with Islam as the only “divinely-ordained legitimate” religion, bringing the “infidel” West to submission, and eradicating the “illegitimate” vanguard of the USA in the Middle East – the Jewish State.

*Hamas negotiation? All previous Gaza ceasefires documented that Hamas’ perception of negotiation and ceasefire is not driven by Western concepts/values, but by a fanatical, apocalyptic vision.  They leverage the negotiation process as a step to avoid obliteration, stall for time to restore terror capabilities, and then launch another terror offensive in their determined pursuit of a fanatical vision (irrespective of the cost). In contrast, the US perception of negotiation and ceasefire is driven by a vision of conflict resolution and dramatically enhanced standard of living, aimed at reconciliation and eventual peaceful coexistence. Western negotiation is perceived by Hamas as weakness.  

*Hamas’ rehabilitation? A prerequisite forHamas’ rehabilitation – in addition to the obliteration of its military and political infrastructures – are sweeping structural and cultural changes, such as the uprooting of anti-Western and anti-Jewish hate education, hateful Friday sermons and hate-filled media, which have acted (since the 1993 establishment of the Palestinian Authority) as the most effective production line of Palestinian/Islamic terrorists.  

*Securing a boon, rather than a bane. The uprooting of Hamas’ educational, terroristic and political infrastructures would result in a boon, bolstering the US’ posture of deterrence, which would reduce anti-Western Islamic terrorism, minimize regional instability, and therefore, constrain the maneuverability of China and Russia. On the other hand, the survival of Hamas would afflict the US with a bane, by adrenalizing the veins of the epicenter of anti-US regional and global Islamic terrorism, destabilizing every pro-US Arab regime, undermining the safety of Middle Eastern oil exportation (which impacts the price at the pump), and threatening the shipping lanes between Asia and Europe.    

*The anti-US threat of the Ayatollah regime transcends Gaza! the Ayatollah regime is rapidly restoring and upgrading its conventional, ballistic and nuclear capabilities, leveraging the eagerness of China, Russia and North Korea to demonstrate the potency of their military systems and underground fortification capabilities, irrespective of their failure in June 2025. Furthermore, the Ayatollah regime – which played a lead role in the preparation for the October 2023 terror offensive – has intensified its involvement in the terror platform of the Sinai Peninsula (which is contiguous to Gaza!), and the attempts to topple Jordan’s pro-US Hashemite regime.  The Ayatollah’s success would trigger a volcanic ripple effect regionally (the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Israel) and globally. Iran’s Ayatollah regime is the leading patron of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and other terrorists in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America and on US soil. Moreover, the Ayatollah regime is the chief epicenter of global anti-US Islamic terrorism, drug trafficking (in collaboration with Latin American drug cartels and anti-US governments), money laundering and the proliferation of advanced military systems. While the Ayatollah regime is the head of a venomous octopus, Gaza is only one of its global tentacles, including the US soil itself, as stated by the FBI, the Homeland Security Department and the Director of Intelligence.

*Iran and the US goal of ending wars! The US goal of minimizing, preventing and ending wars and terrorism requires an experience-based, rather than speculation-based, policy making. It mandates the uprooting of the chief epicenter of regional and global wars and terrorism: the Ayatollah regime, which aims to bring “The Great American Satan” to submission. Refraining from regime-change in Iran (which experienced regime-change in 1953 and 1978) – while adhering to the 47-year-old failed policy of negotiation and (reversible and bypassable) economic sanctions – would pave the road to the first ever apocalyptic nuclear power, which would be a global catastrophe, dwarfing the cost of regime-change.

*Would a Palestinian state advance or undermine US interests? US policy on the Palestinian issue should not be driven by honest brokerage, pro-Palestinian or anti-Palestinian sentiments. It should be driven by US interests, based on the reality of march-of-facts (that tends to be frustrating), not on alternate reality of conventional wisdom (that tends to be convenient).  

While Western policy makers have embraced the proposed Palestinian state, relying on moderate Palestinian talk and speculative, subjective future scenarios (e.g., a reformed and peaceful Palestinian government), Arab leaders rely on objective, well-documented Palestinian past track record. They are aware that in the Middle East: “on words one does not pay custom.”

Arabs are aware of the Palestinian rogue intra-Arab track record,which is replete with subversion, terrorism and treachery. Therefore, they have showered Palestinians with embracing talk, but indifferent-to-negative walk. Since 1948, they have refrained from tangible steps toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would add fuel, not water, to the Middle East fire, yielding a major bonanza to Iran’s Ayatollah regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, China and Russia, but dealing a major setback to regional stability, all pro-US Arab regimes and the US’ own interests.

Support Appreciated

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