Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

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

4 weeks ago

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

Russian invasion relevance to US policy on Iran

(More on Iran)

Does the US realize the relevance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to its current negotiations with Iran’s Ayatollahs, or does it ignore the Russia-Iran connection?

For example:

*The Russian invasion of Ukraine exposes the substantial gap between the norms, logic and state-of-mind of the democratic US and the despotic, ruthless Russia (e.g., the willingness to sustain economic cost, in order to advance deeply-rooted rogue vision), as it is between the US and the fanatically religious, despotic, ruthless and megalomaniacal Iran’s Ayatollahs.

*The Russian invasion sheds light on the dramatic gap between global reality and Western conventional wisdom, as also demonstrated by the gap between the Iranian reality and US policy toward Iran, which failed to assess the nature of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the consequences of the 2015 JCPOA (which intensified, rather than moderated, regional and global Iranian subversion, terrorism, drug trafficking and proliferation of advanced military technologies and systems).

*The Russian invasion wakes up US policy makers and public opinion molders to the fragile, unpredictable and explosive reality of the world, contrary to the misperception of a relatively-peaceful “new world order” free of major wars and ground invasions, which has recently dominated US conventional wisdom and attitude toward the rogue regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran.

*The Russian invasion exposes the unrealistic assumption that the diplomatic option supersedes the military option in the struggle between global democracies and rogue regimes and organizations, such as the negotiation with Iran’s Ayatollahs.

*The Russian invasion underscores the quixotic nature of the assumption – which is at the foundation of the negotiation with Iran’s Ayatollahs – that most of the globe is amenable to Western values of peaceful-coexistence, democracy, human rights and good-faith negotiation. Iran and other rogue regimes have demonstrated that they are not!

*The Russian invasion reveals the contradiction-in-terms between the track record of rogue regimes – such as Iran’s Ayatollahs – and the assumption that they could be good-faith negotiators.

*The Russian invasion accentuates the centrality of a military posture of deterrence in the face of rogue entities – such as Iran’s – which adhere to a deeply-rooted fanatic vision, as demonstrated by their systematic anti-Western school curriculum, religious sermons, domestic and external track record.

*The Russian invasion underlines the fallacy of the US assumption that the waiving of the military option (e.g., against Iran’s Ayatollahs) prevents military escalation; while in fact it erodes the US’ posture of deterrence, thus whetting the appetite of rogue regimes, and therefore intensifying military escalation.

*The Russian invasion emphasizes the critical role played by history in coalescing national ethos, vision and policies.  It is also evident in the rogue conduct of Iran’s Shiite Ayatollahs, which is a derivative of a series of historical milestones, such as the 1,400-year-old ferocious Sunni-Shiite confrontation; the 680 AD Battle of Karbala which is the “big bang” of the Sunni-Shiite conflict and the role model for the Shiite spirit of revolution, revenge, sacrifice and martyrdom; the 1501 AD declaration of Shiism as Iran’s official religion; and the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which was driven by the aforementioned milestones.  The Islamic Revolution has been the chief inspiration for Iran’s daily rogue conduct from the Persian Gulf through Africa and Latin America, all the way to the US-Mexico border.

*The Russian invasion forewarns the West to be wary of rogue regimes, which adhere to the policy of subjugation and submission in Eastern Europe, as well as in the Middle East, where Iran’s Ayatollahs have systematically and proactively attempted to topple every “apostate” Sunni Muslim regime (especially Saudi Arabia), and to bring to submission the “non-believer” West (especially “the Great American Satan”).

*The Russian invasion is a reminder that leopards don’t change spots, only tactics.

Ignoring the relevance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the US’ negotiations with Iran’s Ayatollahs would be tantamount to ignoring the lesson of the US/Spanish philosopher, George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it!”

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

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