Facebook Feed

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Have rolled-back sanctions rolled-back Iran’s rogue policy?

The July 2015 nuclear agreement with the Ayatollahs of Iran is perceived by the USA as a binding, strategic agreement of peaceful coexistence with Iran.  In contrast, the Ayatollahs view it as a tenuous, tactical agreement, advancing an offensive strategy against “the arrogant, infidel American Great Satan,” to be abrogated as is the fate of agreements with “infidels” according to the Quran and the legacy of Muhammad. The Ayatollahs consider the agreement a phase in the removal of “the modern day infidel American crusader” from the Persian Gulf and the India Ocean, in order to advance Iran’s 2,500-year-old historic goal of dominating the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the globe.

Moreover, the Ayatollahs consider the agreement a reaffirmation of Western vacillation and retreat, thus intensifying their rogue conduct, as documented by their domestic, regional and global track record and
school textbooks. The latter are the most authentic reflection of the strategy, tactics, character, worldview and general direction of rogue regimes, such as the Ayatollahs, effectively producing cadres of “martyrs” (terrorists and suicide bombers). 

Reaching a constructive agreement with the Ayatollahs requires a dramatic transformation of their school textbooks, strategy and tactics. On the other hand, reaching an agreement with the Ayatollahs, while the current school textbooks, strategy and tactics are in place, could start the countdown to the first ever nuclear war (please see below on Iran’s indoctrinating curriculum).

According to
Human Rights Watch, “Iran is, again, the regional leader of executions.”  Since the signing of the 2015 nuclear agreement, and under the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, human rights standards have deteriorated.  

Bolstered by billions of dollars in cash transfers, the reclaimed $150BN of frozen assets, and the suspension of US and global sanctions, the Ayatollahs have expanded their subversive and terrorist involvement in each pro-US Arab country in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula (e.g., the oil-rich al-Hasa region in Saudi Arabia). Moreover, while the US has rolled-back its sanctions against the Ayatollahs, the latter have rolled-back most inhibitions in their strategic ties with Russia. Furthermore, pro-US Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Morocco have softened their position on Russia, in response to the dramatic erosion of the US posture of deterrence since the signing of the April 2015 nuclear agreement with the Ayatollahs, who are perceived, by the pro-US Arab regimes, as a clear and present machete at their throats.

The Ayatollahs have intensified their involvement in the civil war in Yemen, striving to control the most critical oil and military waterways of the Bab al-Mandab Straits (connecting the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean) and the Hormuz straits (connecting the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf). Meddling in Yemen also advances the Ayatollahs goal of regime-change in Saudi Arabia, which borders Yemen.

The Ayatollahs’ long-hand has reached Latin America, bolstering strategic and cultural ties with Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, deepening their presence – directly and via Hezbollah and other Islamic terror organizations – in the tri-border region of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.

Reflecting the Ayatollahs’ determination to become a nuclear power, they have tightened their nuclear and ballistic
cooperation with, and in, North Korea, which facilitates circumvention of the monitoring of the nuclear program in Iran. They have exceeded their quota for heavy water production, acquired illegal technology and have test-fired ballistic missiles, which are capable of delivering nuclear weapons, in violation of the July 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls for Iran to desist from such testing for eight years.

Relying on Western eagerness to sustain the July 2015 agreement at any price, they have repeatedly harassed US military forces in the Persian Gulf.

The rolled-back sanctions have not rolled-back the Ayatollahs’ hate-education, as
recently documented by Prof. Eldad Pardo, of the Hebrew University and the Institute of Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education, who has researched Iran’s school textbooks for the last 11 years: “In a sixth grade textbook, child martyrdom is revered (The Little Leader, grade 6, pp. 58-64)…. The martyrdom of girls has recently been introduced into the curriculum (Defense Readiness, grade 10, pp. 59-63)…. Students are instructed to join a millenarian frenzy of training and preparation, constant emergency, blind obedience and actual participation in conflicts, at home and abroad (Religion and Life, grade 12, p. 124)….

“Iranian students study about dissimulation [taqiyeh] and misleading the enemy. They learn that in times of need, dissimulation and temporary pacts—even with ‘un-Godly, idolatrous governments’—are proper, but only until such time as the balance of power should change (Religion and Life, Grade 12, pp. 103–4). We know from Khamenei’s own words, that the recent nuclear negotiations followed the pattern of a historical treaty with an ‘illegitimate’ government… which was concluded in 661 CE between Imam Hassan and Mu’awiyah – intending to gain time, build power and gradually undermine the rival dynasty, but never genuinely reconciling, leading to the fateful battle of Karbala two decades later (Religion and Life, grade 12, p. 104).

“[Iran’s curriculum stipulates] the need for Jihad, child martyrdom and inevitable sacrifices are intensively and vividly inculcated into young minds…. [Iranian students] know that a Jihad war – requiring their possible martyrdom, for which they practice from first grade – could be launched as part of an attack on countries ruled by ‘oppressive regimes….’  

“Education for child martyrdom continues, beginning with the first grade, all the way to grade 12…. Iranian girls and boys are educated to go to war at any moment, taught to see the world as overflowing with enemies of the Revolution, who resist the ‘true program of God….’ The students receive much instruction about the martyrs from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War [500,000 children who cleared the minefields for Iran’s troops]…. Children are instructed not to obey their parents in matters regarding martyrdom (Religious Rulings, grade 11, p. 14)….

According to Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad
Javad Zarif, the US is the chief target for the wrath of the Ayatollahs, because it constitutes the most effective obstacle on the Ayatollahs’ megalomaniacal road to Islamize the global order and subjugate humanity to their agenda: “We have a fundamental problem with the West and especially with America [‘the arrogant ones’]…. This is because we are claimants of a mission, with a global dimension….”

The linkage between the Ayatollahs’ curriculum and overall supremacist, global strategy behooves the US Congress – the
coequal and codetermining branch of government – to conduct a series of hearings on the merit of adherence to the July 2015 nuclear agreement, while the Ayatollahs do not roll-back their millenarian, anti-US curriculum.  


The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated






The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb