Somaliland and the ‘Greater Israel’ project
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 7, 2026
More than a simple recognition of Somaliland, “Israel” is hatching a scheme alongside its Emirati allies aimed at a regional expansion agenda. For the so-called “Greater Israel” vision to come alive, dominance must be secured not only across West Asia and North Africa, but also throughout the Horn of Africa.
The recent decision by the occupying entity in “Tel Aviv” to recognize Somaliland as a State has triggered outrage across Africa and much of the Islamic World, while drawing condemnations from most Arab capitals, with the notable exception of Abu Dhabi.
For the most part, analysts have pointed to “Israel’s” desire to use Somaliland as a staging ground for aggression against Yemen as a primary motivation behind the move. Some have further noted that officials of the Zionist regime have expressed interest in ethnically cleansing Gaza’s people and forcibly transferring them to Somaliland. While these factors evidently inform Israeli decision-making, they do not exhaust its strategic calculus; yet the conspiracy goes much deeper.
On November 24, 2025, the influential Israeli think-tank Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) released a report detailing both the benefits and drawbacks of recognizing Somaliland. While the report acknowledged multiple strategic incentives for such a move, it ultimately advised against proceeding before the United States had done so.
The INSS had advocated against the move, hedging that such a declaration would further isolate “Israel” within the framework of the so-called “Abraham Accords”, triggering backlash on the international stage regarding the issue of Palestinian statehood.
So what changed since the Israeli think tank report?
Understanding the Israeli thinking here, such a move would not be made if they saw it as a net negative. Instead, the recognition was offered in a very public and brazen manner. In order to make sense, we therefore have to look at the broader picture.
To begin with, the normalization drive [“Abraham Accords”] has clearly stalled, at least in terms of any major developments in this regard. The last country to enter into the fold of the broader Trump administration-led normalization movement was Kazakhstan. For context, Astana already normalized ties with the Zionist regime back in 1992.
Although US President Donald Trump announced Kazakhstan’s declaration as a development of great significance, the move was clearly seen as a weak attempt at keeping the normalization project alive amid the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia. In parallel, an increasingly desperate Israeli entity has launched what it calls the “Isaac Accords”, a separate normalization project with Latin American nations that are client regimes of the US.
In other words, the Israelis were not actually in a position where they necessarily viewed recognition of Somaliland as an impediment to their normalization agenda. In fact, through projecting power in the Horn of Africa, they may even see it as an advancement of this project, especially given that some 6 million people who identify as belonging ethnically to Somaliland are Muslims.
Another element of the move is to assert their dominance and to lash out internationally over the wave of recognition, last September, for the state of Palestine.
In addition, the elephant in the room here is that the Israelis are currently pursuing a joint agenda with the United Arab Emirates, particularly in both the Horn of Africa and Northern Africa. This alliance seeks to co-opt sectarian movements, separatist groups, and to weaponize warlords in order to reshape the continent as a whole.
The Emirati and Israeli agendas are one in this regard. They are inseparable and connected on almost every conceivable level, this is to the point that the de facto head of intelligence operations for the UAE has long been a man named Mohammed Dahlan, well known for his alleged involvement with Mossad and the CIA; particularly in Africa.
The UAE’s proxy in Yemen, the Southern Transitional Council (STC), seized the Hadhramaut and al-Mahra provinces from Saudi-backed forces in early December, bringing around 80% of Yemen’s oil resources under their control. The STC’s militants have even been trained by “Israel”. The UAE’s move, which would not have come without Zionist backing, now threatens the stability of the Arabian Peninsula and triggered major backlash from Riyadh.
While “Israel” is reportedly seeking to build up a military presence near the strategically located port of Berbera in Somalia’s Somaliland, the UAE began constructing the Berbera airbase as early as 2017, securing access to it for a period of 25 years. Similarly, the UAE–Israeli alliance has extended to the establishment of a joint military presence on Yemen’s strategically located island of Socotra.
It is speculated that the Emirati-backed STC, in southern Yemen, may launch an offensive aimed at capturing the Ansar Allah-controlled port city of Hodeidah, likely receiving Israeli aerial support. The coastline of Somaliland lies only 300 to 500 kilometers from Ansar Allah-controlled lands, making such an air campaign much more manageable than launching strikes from occupied Palestine.
Furthermore, turning to “Israel’s” agenda in Somalia itself, it is clear that this is a calculated move that targets Türkiye. Ankara maintains enormous influence in Somalia and remains a strong proponent of the “One Somalia” agenda. Therefore, at a time of heightened regional tensions, especially in Syria, where both Turkish and Israeli forces are seeking to carve out zones of influence and establish red lines, “Tel Aviv’s” move appears to be another attempt to land a strategic blow on Ankara.
Together, the Emiratis and Israelis are adamant about combating the Muslim Brotherhood and any Islamic governments or groups that voice their concerns for the Palestinians, which is why they are lobbying Western governments so hard on these issues and running non-stop propaganda campaigns against so-called “radical Islam”.
In reality, the Israeli-UAE-backed militias in Yemen are riddled with al-Qaeda-linked fighters and hardline Takfiri Salafists. The STC’s toughest fighting force, known as the Southern Giants Brigades, is reportedly led by the core of experienced militants who are former al-Qaeda fighters. In Gaza, meanwhile, the UAE and the Zionist Entity are also backing five separate proxy militias with alleged links to ISIS.
The Emiratis and Israelis are huge fans of these Salafist militants, who are totally obedient to them and adopt a mass Takfir doctrine that they use to justify the mass slaughter of Muslims. This was the same exact strategy adopted inside Syria by the Zionists, using Wahhabi extremists to do their bidding, while dividing the Muslim World and paving the way for their expansionist agenda.
If the Zionist Entity is to achieve “Greater Israel”, the common misconception is that they wish to directly occupy the entire region between the River Nile and the Euphrates. According to the Zionist vision, they would rule as an empire instead, whereby they enter into formal alliances with countries broken up into ethno-regimes and sectarian rump States. Divide and conquer.
So, dividing Somalia, in order to help the Emirati proxy-militias secure a southern Yemeni State, is precisely in line with the Zionist agenda. They will attempt to rule these territories through proxy support, using their puppets to destroy the Palestinian cause. In the case of Somaliland, if they are to succeed, they would also certainly attempt to ethnically cleanse the population of Gaza there. In other words, Somaliland recognition isn’t a small, isolated move; it is a piece being strategically positioned on their wider chessboard.
Pakistan, the Gulf, and the high cost of Zionist alignment
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | January 6, 2026
Geopolitics is most dangerous not when it erupts, but when it reorganises quietly — when the ground shifts beneath familiar alliances while elites continue to speak the language of yesterday. The Gulf today is in precisely such a moment. What once masqueraded as a coherent bloc has fractured into rival power models, incompatible strategic visions, and diverging relationships to empire, Israel, and popular legitimacy. And Pakistan, true to form, is responding not with strategic intelligence but with institutional reflex — confusing obedience with balance and habit with foresight.
The rift between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is no longer a matter of speculation or diplomatic gossip. It is an open contradiction — political, military, and infrastructural. Yemen has exposed it. Israel has radicalised it. The United States, particularly under Trumpism, has weaponised it. And Pakistan’s ruling elite — military and civilian alike — has chosen to drift toward the most toxic pole of this fracture while reassuring itself that it is merely being “pragmatic.” It is not. It is being complicit.
Two Gulf projects, one moral abyss
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are still lazily grouped together by analysts who mistake shared authoritarianism for shared strategy. This is intellectual malpractice. The two monarchies are pursuing fundamentally different regional projects.
Saudi Arabia’s current posture — hardly virtuous, often cynical, and deeply reactionary — nevertheless reflects a begrudging recognition of reality. After years of disastrous interventionism, Riyadh wants consolidation. It wants borders quieted, fires contained, and regional fragmentation slowed. Its outreach to Iran, cautious engagement with the
Houthis, and growing hostility to separatist militias are not gestures of enlightenment but acts of self-preservation. Endless chaos undermines Saudi ambitions at home.
The Emirati project is the opposite — and far more dangerous. Abu Dhabi does not seek order through states; it seeks domination through fragments. Ports, islands, militias, mercenaries, logistics corridors, surveillance hubs — these are its tools. Sovereignty is irrelevant. Fragmentation is not a failure; it is a business model.
If Saudi Arabia is a reactionary status-quo power, the UAE is a hyperactive destabiliser — an empire of nodes, happy to burn regions so long as trade flows and leverage compounds.
Yemen: Where the lie finally died
Yemen is where the fiction of Gulf unity collapsed beyond repair. What began as a joint intervention has devolved into a struggle over whether Yemen will exist at all as a state. The House of Saud — bloodied, embarrassed, and exposed — now insists on a unified Yemeni authority capable of enforcing borders and agreements. The UAE has invested
instead in carving out a southern enclave: separatist militias, port control, island bases, and economic chokeholds.
For Riyadh, this is existential. A fragmented Yemen exports instability directly into Saudi territory and sabotages any negotiated settlement with the Houthis. For Abu Dhabi, fragmentation is leverage — control of chokepoints matters more than Yemen’s survival as a polity.
That Saudi Arabia has now openly bombed weapons shipments linked to UAE-backed forces and issued public warnings is extraordinary. Gulf disputes are traditionally smothered in silence. When they go kinetic and public, it signals not a spat but a structural rupture. Pakistan’s establishment sees this — and chooses denial.
Israel: The cancer at the core
To understand the Emirati recklessness, one must confront the real axis around which it revolves: Apartheid, genocidal Israel.
The Abraham Accords were not peace agreements; they were an integration pact into Zionist regional supremacy. Israel does not merely occupy Palestine; it exports a model — militarised impunity, surveillance capitalism, permanent war dressed as security. The UAE did not normalize with Israel reluctantly. It embraced Israel as a force multiplier.
Israel provides Abu Dhabi with access to Washington’s coercive machinery, advanced surveillance, cyberwarfare, and a propaganda ecosystem that converts mass death into “stability.” In return, the UAE provides geography, ports, islands, mercenaries, and political insulation — doing Israel’s dirty work where Tel Aviv prefers not to appear.
Sudan. Somaliland. Socotra. Cyprus. The Red Sea. These are not isolated projects; they are components of a Zionist–Emirati expansion strategy designed to insulate Israel from economic pressure and accountability while strangling any resistance corridor before it matures.
Israel is the disease. The UAE is its most enthusiastic carrier.
Pakistan’s elite: Zionism in uniform and suits
Pakistan’s tragedy is not that it lacks options. It is that its ruling elite lacks dignity.
Rather than reassess its position amid this fracture, Pakistan’s military–civilian elite clings to the rhetoric of “balance” while deepening structural entanglement with the Emirati–Israeli axis. Ports, airports, logistics terminals, military-linked corporations — these are not neutral investments. They are instruments of alignment.
Pakistan’s generals and their civilian accessories imagine they are playing geopolitics. In reality, they are being used as infrastructure — cheap, deniable, disposable. Their behaviour is not naïveté. It is covert Zionism: collaboration without confession, obedience without ideological honesty. They mouth solidarity with Palestine while embedding Pakistan’s economy and security apparatus deeper into a regional order built to protect Israel from consequences. This is not pragmatism. It is moral and strategic bankruptcy.
Venezuela: When empire drops the mask
The illusion that empire prefers subtlety should have died long ago. Venezuela put the lie to it.
When sanctions failed and proxy pressure proved insufficient, the United States escalated —directly. US special forces were involved in a scandalous operation that culminated in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This was not deniable proxy warfare. It was naked imperial contempt for sovereignty.
And what happens if Washington’s decapitation move fails at complete regime change in Caracas? Silence. Zero accountability. Empire simply moves on.
This is the future Pakistan’s elite is courting. When alignment fails to deliver stability, the costs will not be borne by Washington, Tel Aviv, or Abu Dhabi. They will be borne by Pakistan. Empire does not protect collaborators. It discards them.
Saudi Arabia: A lesser evil, still an evil
Saudi Arabia deserves no absolution. The House of Saud remains a reactionary monarchy, structurally hostile to popular sovereignty and deeply entangled with empire. Its version of “stability” is still oppression — merely quieter than the Emirati inferno.
Yet the difference matters. Saudi Arabia understands that Zionist expansionism generates perpetual instability. The UAE celebrates it. Riyadh conceals its servitude; Abu Dhabi flaunts it.
Pakistan’s elite has chosen to tilt slightly more towards the louder master.
Trumpism: Empire without shame
Hovering over this landscape is Trumpism — the ideological nakedness of empire. Trump dispenses with liberal hypocrisy entirely. Loyalty is transactional. Morality is a joke. Strongmen are preferred to institutions. Israel is sacred. Everyone else is expendable.
The UAE fits this worldview perfectly: ruthless, efficient, unburdened by public opinion. Pakistan’s rulers mistake proximity to this axis for relevance. In truth, it entrenches their subordination.
When things go wrong — as they inevitably will — Trumpism will shrug. Pakistan will bleed.
The reckoning Pakistan is avoiding
The Gulf is not merely fracturing; it is sorting. States will be forced to choose — between sovereignty and fragmentation, between justice and normalisation, between dignity and managed submission.
Pakistan’s establishment has already chosen. It just lacks the courage to admit it. History will not judge Pakistan for failing to be the Mafia Don of West Asia. It will judge it for failing to recognise a moral and strategic crossroads when it stood directly upon it.
The UAE will continue to burn regions in service of Zionism. Israel will continue its genocidal project. The United States will continue to kidnap, sanction, and discard. Saudi Arabia will continue to pretend restraint equals virtue.
And Pakistan — unless it breaks from habit — will continue confusing servitude for strategy.
Real Counter to US Nabbing Maduro: Quit Buying American Arms
Sputnik – 06.01.2026
On January 3, the US launched a massive attack on Venezuela, capturing Maduro and his wife and taking them to New York. US President Donald Trump announced that Maduro and Flores would face trial for allegedly being involved in “narco-terrorism” and posing a threat, including to the US.
The Global Majority in Latin America, Africa, and Asia should hold the United States to account by stopping purchases of US weapons, including F-16s, F-35s, and halting collaboration with companies like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Raytheon, former UN independent expert Alfred de Zayas told Sputnik.
“US businesses are vulnerable,” he explained.
De Zayas was shocked by “the brazenness” of the US kidnapping Nicolas Maduro, which comes “in total impunity, and I do not see the ‘good guys’—Canada, the UK, the Europeans—coming out in defense of Venezuela and international law,” the ex-UN expert stressed.
He condemned the abduction of Maduro as a US “assault on civilization” and “retrogression in the idea of international peace and security.”
De Zayas pointed to an array of precedents pertaining to the US “assault on international law,” including the fact that George H.W. Bush bombed Panama in 1989 and “had President Noriega arrested and subjected to a show trial.”
Also, Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, destroying the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, while George W. Bush and the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq in 2003, which led to the death of about one million Iraqis.
Additionally, Barack Obama orchestrated the 2014 coup against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the expert recalled.
“No one was ever held accountable” for these actions, de Zayas concluded.
Israel and the politics of fragmentation: The hidden hand behind secessionist projects in Yemen, Somalia, and Libya
By Ahmed Asmar | MEMO | January 3, 2026
Israel’s malicious, meddling role in the Arab countries has long extended beyond direct military confrontation, as seen in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. For long, Tel Aviv has pursued a quieter yet dangerous strategy of encouraging fragmentation, weakening central states, and cultivating ties with separatist actors in fragile and war-torn countries. Today, this pattern is increasingly clear and visible in Yemen, Somalia, and Libya; three countries that suffer from prolonged conflicts, administrative collapse, and foreign interference. In each case, Israel’s footprint is not accidental; it serves a broader strategic doctrine aimed at dividing Arab countries, controlling critical waterways, and reshaping the regional balance of power to its advantage and dominance.
Yemen: secession as a gateway to normalisation
In Yemen, Israel’s indirect involvement surfaces through its alignment with the so-called Southern Transitional Council (STC), a secessionist entity seeking to reestablish an independent state in southern Yemen. While the Yemeni conflict is often framed as a regional proxy war, the STC’s leader, Aidarous al-Zubaidi, has openly, and on several occasions, signaled willingness to normalize relations with Israel. He publicly declared that recognizing Israel is not an obstacle if southern Yemen’s independence is achieved; an extraordinary statement that was slammed by many Yemeni public figures and politicians.
This declaration is not merely rhetorical. Yemen’s southern geography grants access to some of the most sensitive maritime corridors in the world, particularly near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. For Israel, influence over forces operating near this chokepoint aligns with its long-standing objective of securing Red Sea navigation and countering its perceived regional adversaries. Supporting or encouraging secessionist forces in southern Yemen offers Israel a strategic foothold without formal military deployment, turning internal Yemeni fragmentation into a geopolitical asset, and posing a direct threat against the Arab countries, especially the littoral countries of the Red Sea – Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Somalia: Somaliland and the militarisation of recognition
Somalia presents an even clearer case of Israel exploiting separatism for strategic gain. The self-declared Republic of Somaliland, unrecognised by the international community, has actively sought foreign backing to legitimise its secession. Israel’s contacts and recognition of Somaliland’s de-facto authorities mark a dangerous precedent in international relations, and against the international law and the UN charter.
The strategic motivation is transparent. Somaliland’s coastline also overlooks the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden, one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors. Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud warned of the Israeli malicious plan behind such recognition, where he said that Israel seeks from recognising Somaliland to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, who experienced a two-year genocide, and most importantly, to host an Israeli military or intelligence base. These plans are added to the dangers of undermining Somalia’s territorial integrity and encouraging further fragmentations across the Horn of Africa.
Israel’s move to recognize a secessionist entity reflects how Israel exploits weak entities and divided states to move ahead with its expansionist and dominance strategies at the expense of the region and its people.
Libya: Haftar and the normalisation through the back door
Not far from the examples in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya, Israel’s role is more discreet but visible too. General Khalifa Haftar, who controls eastern Libya and has long sought international legitimacy, reportedly maintained contacts with Israeli officials as part of efforts to secure external backing. These interactions fit within a wider pattern of covert normalization between Israel and authoritarian or factional actors seeking foreign support in exchange for political concessions.
Libya’s fragmentation has turned it into fertile ground for foreign manipulation. Israel’s engagement with Haftar is surely not about peace or stability, but about influence, leverage, and having a close foot near its surrounding Arab countries.
Fragmentation as a strategic doctrine
Altogether, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya illustrate a consistent Israeli strategy: exploiting internal conflicts to advance a regional agenda based on fragmentation. This approach intersects with Israel’s ongoing territorial expansion and military aggression, from its occupation of Palestinian land to its violations of sovereignty in Syria and Lebanon. Fragmented Arab states are less capable of resisting Israeli policies and more exposed to normalization under opportunistic conditions.
Israel’s encouragement of secessionist movements is not about supporting self-determination; it is about redrawing the region into weaker, smaller entities incapable of collective action. This strategy directly threatens Arab national security as a whole, adding a new dimension to Israel’s expansionism.
At a time when the Arab world faces unprecedented challenges, recognising and confronting this hidden hand of fragmentation is essential. While ignoring Israel’s role in these secessionist projects risks allowing instability to become permanent, solely in favor of Israel in the region and beyond.
Cover-Up Is an Indispensable Chronicle of American Overreach
A new documentary about the journalist Seymour Hersh uncovers the pathologies of U.S. imperialism
By Leon Hadar | The American Conservative | January 2, 2026
Laura Poitras and Mark Obenhaus’s new film Cover-Up is more than a documentary about the legendary journalist Seymour Hersh—it is an inadvertent chronicle of the pathologies of American empire. As a foreign policy analyst who has long advocated for realist restraint in U.S. international engagement, I find this film both vindicating and deeply troubling. It documents, through one journalist’s extraordinary career, the pattern of deception, overreach, and institutional rot that has characterized American power projection for over half a century.
What makes Hersh’s reporting invaluable from a realist perspective is that it consistently exposed the gap between stated intentions and actual policy outcomes. CIA domestic surveillance, the My Lai massacre, the secret bombing of Cambodia, Abu Ghraib—each revelation demonstrated what realists have long understood: that idealistic rhetoric about spreading democracy and protecting human rights often masks cruder calculations of power, and that unchecked executive authority in foreign affairs inevitably leads to abuse.
The documentary’s treatment of Hersh’s Cambodia reporting is particularly instructive. Here was a case where the American government conducted a massive bombing campaign against a neutral country, killing tens of thousands of civilians, while lying to Congress and the public. This wasn’t an aberration, but the logical consequence of what happens when a superpower faces no effective constraints on its use of force abroad. In exposing the scandal, Hersh also documented how empire actually functions when stripped of its legitimating myths.
Where Cover-Up excels is in revealing the architecture of official deception. Watching archival footage of government officials denying what later became undeniable, one sees the machinery of the national security state at work. These weren’t rogue actors—they were operating within institutional incentives that reward secrecy, punish dissent, and systematically mislead democratic oversight.
From a realist standpoint, this raises fundamental questions about American foreign policy. If our interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere were justified through systematic deception, what does this tell us about the nature of these enterprises? Realism suggests that states act according to their interests, but when those interests must be concealed from the public through elaborate cover-ups, we must question whether these policies serve genuine national interests or merely the institutional imperatives of the national security bureaucracy.
The film’s examination of Hersh’s Abu Ghraib investigation is devastating. What began as a story about individual soldiers torturing prisoners became, through Hersh’s reporting, an indictment of a policy apparatus that had systematically authorized abuse. The documentary shows how torture wasn’t an accident of war. Rather, it was deliberate policy, approved at the highest levels and then denied when exposed.
This validates a core realist insight: hegemonic projects, particularly those involving regime change and nation-building, create perverse incentives that corrupt institutions and individuals. The George W. Bush administration’s Iraq war, launched on false pretenses and executed with imperial hubris, produced precisely the kind of moral catastrophes that realists warned against.
The documentary is less successful in addressing the legitimate controversies surrounding Hersh’s later work, particularly his reporting on Syria and the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. As someone who believes the U.S. should be far less involved in Middle Eastern affairs, I’m sympathetic to questioning official narratives. However, the epistemological challenges of relying on anonymous sources while contradicting extensive documented evidence deserve more rigorous examination than this film provides.
This isn’t to dismiss Hersh’s skepticism toward official accounts—realists should always question the state’s narratives about its foreign adventures. But the documentary would have been strengthened by a more thorough engagement with these critiques. Even iconoclasts must be subject to scrutiny, especially when their reporting has significant geopolitical implications.
What Cover-Up illuminates, perhaps unintentionally, is the deterioration of the institutional ecosystem that made Hersh’s journalism possible. The New Yorker’s willingness to support lengthy investigations, to back reporters against government pressure, and to publish material that angered powerful interests—these conditions were products of a specific historical moment. Today’s fragmented media landscape, where institutional backing has weakened and partisan sorting has intensified, makes such work increasingly difficult.
This matters because realist foreign policy critique depends on investigative journalism to pierce official narratives. Without reporters like Hersh, the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes easier to maintain. The decline of this form of journalism coincides with—and perhaps enables—the persistence of failed policies in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and beyond.
The most powerful moments in Cover-Up are the intimate ones: Hersh describing meetings with sources who risked their careers and freedom to expose wrongdoing, the personal toll of challenging the national security establishment, the isolation that comes with being proven right in ways the powerful never forgive. These moments humanize what could otherwise be an abstract discussion of policy failures.
But they also highlight something crucial: Individual courage, while necessary, isn’t sufficient. Hersh exposed My Lai, yet the war continued for years. He revealed CIA abuses, yet the agency faced minimal accountability. He documented Abu Ghraib, yet the architects of the Iraq war faced no consequences. This pattern suggests systemic dysfunction that transcends individual malfeasance.
From a realist perspective, Cover-Up offers a sobering lesson: American foreign policy has been consistently characterized by overreach justified through deception. Whether in Vietnam, Iraq, or countless covert operations, U.S. policymakers have systematically misled the public about the nature, costs, and outcomes of military interventions.
This isn’t a partisan critique—the pattern spans administrations of both parties. It reflects structural features of how American power operates: an imperial presidency with minimal congressional oversight, a national security bureaucracy with institutional interests in threat inflation, and a foreign policy establishment committed to global primacy regardless of costs or consequences.
Hersh’s greatest contribution, documented powerfully in this film, was in providing the empirical record that supports a realist critique of American foreign policy. His reporting demonstrated that idealistic justifications for intervention—spreading democracy, protecting human rights, combating terrorism—often mask more cynical calculations and catastrophic failures.
Cover-Up is indispensable for anyone seeking to understand American foreign policy in the post-World War II era. It’s not a perfect documentary—the pacing occasionally lags, and it’s insufficiently critical of some of Hersh’s more controversial recent work—but its core achievement is significant: It documents how one journalist, through dogged investigation and institutional support, repeatedly exposed truths that powerful interests desperately wanted hidden.
For realists who have long argued for restraint in American foreign policy, this film provides historical validation. The pattern Hersh documented—overreach, deception, failure, cover-up—has repeated itself with depressing regularity. The question is whether contemporary institutions still possess the capacity to hold power accountable in the way that Hersh’s reporting once did.
In an era when American foreign policy debates remain dominated by interventionist assumptions, Cover-Up serves as a crucial reminder of where such thinking leads. It deserves the widest possible audience, particularly among those who shape and influence U.S. foreign policy. The lessons it documents remain urgent and, tragically, largely unlearned.
Proxy Regime: Understanding the UAE-Israeli Conspiracy in Yemen, Saudi Arabia
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 2, 2026
The reason why the recent feud between the UAE and Saudi Arabia in Yemen is important is that it paves the way to a totally different reality on the ground.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia were once viewed as a unified power in Yemen; any semblance of such an alliance is now crumbling. As Riyadh and Abu Dhabi remain at loggerheads, it is clear that Tel Aviv is a key driver of the escalation across Yemeni territory.
Saudi Arabia had recently released a sternly worded statement condemning their Gulf neighbors in the United Arab Emirates, following the armed takeover of the Hadramaut and al-Mahra provinces by the Emirati-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) forces. Saudi airstrikes were also launched, largely on soft targets as a warning, which prompted the UAE to announce the withdrawal of all its forces from the country.
The war in Yemen is one of the most underreported and misrepresented conflicts in the region, which often makes it difficult to decipher what is truly transpiring. What is important to understand here is that Abu Dhabi’s role inside Yemen is in large part driven by Israeli interests, which will not only potentially lead to blowback against the UAE itself, but also aims to destabilize the entire Arabian Peninsula. This is part and parcel of forging a way forward toward the “Greater Israel Project”.
The reason why the recent feud between the UAE and Saudi Arabia in Yemen is important is that it paves the way to a totally different reality on the ground. In 2015, the Ansarallah movement took over the Yemeni capital of Sana’a and received the backing of roughly two-thirds of the nation’s armed forces in doing so.
As a revolutionary Islamic movement, Ansarallah’s seizure of power was interpreted as an immediate challenge to the rulers across Arabia. Considering the long history of violence between Yemen and Saudi Arabia in particular, it was no surprise that tensions immediately rose. Yet, the Saudi-led coalition that initiated the war on Yemen to overthrow the newly ushered in Ansarallah leadership (often incorrectly referred to as “the Houthis”), was not driven by its own interests alone.
In fact, the US, UK, and Israel were in the picture from the very start and it was former American President Barack Obama who gave the green light for the war, which eventually resulted in the deaths of around 400,000 people. Saudi Arabia, for its part, decided to back the deposed president of Yemen, Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, using his position and control over what is called the “internationally recognized government” of Yemen as its excuse for legitimacy for action inside the country.
The United Arab Emirates had instead thrown its weight behind southern separatists in Yemen’s south, with the goal of securing the strategic port city of Aden. Prior to 1990, Yemen was divided between north and south, yet there has always been the presence of separatist elements there. Without delving into the nation’s long history, the British had strategically occupied southern Yemen, utilizing the strategic port of Aden as a tool of empire; the UAE clearly sees the geostrategic weight of this location also.
After years of horrifying war, mass starvation due to the Saudi-US-imposed blockade, and a situation that began to come to a stalemate, by early 2022 Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government had not only established a strong, rooted rule, but the Yemeni Armed Forces under its command had clearly made breakthroughs in military technology. It had launched devastating long-range drone and missile attacks against not only Saudi Arabia, but also the UAE, even making a point of striking the Emiratis while Israeli President Isaac Herzog visited.
It wasn’t long until a ceasefire was reached, brokered by the United Nations, one that has largely held until now. Following the ceasefire, in April of 2022, the Saudi government created what is known as the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC). The PLC’s leader, sometimes referred to as the internationally recognized president of Yemen, is a man named Rashad al-Alimi, presiding over an eight-member council that is not elected by the Yemeni people.
The PLC, or “internationally recognized government,” was then based in Aden, and three of its seats were granted to members of the Emirati proxy group called the STC, the separatist militia that Abu Dhabi backed to seize Aden. Despite promising prosperity to the people in southern Yemen and not being under the same sanctions as Ansarallah’s government in Sana’a, the living conditions in the south continued to deteriorate and have since led to countless protests and even riots.
In early December, the STC suddenly swept over the eastern provinces of al-Mahra and Hadramaut, even forcing some Saudi-backed PLC officials to flee Aden. The Emirati proxy separatists have since openly declared their intent to divide Yemen and separate southern Yemen from the north, which is controlled by Ansarallah. This takeover meant that some 80% of the country’s oil resources fell into the hands of the Emirati-backed STC.
The takeover of these provinces also proved a massive threat to both Saudi and Omani security in the eyes of their leadership. The primary armed faction that fights for the southern separatist cause is called the “Southern Giants Brigades”, a large element of which are Salafist extremists, with former Al-Qaeda fighters forming the most experienced core of the militant organization.
Just as the UAE has been backing ISIS-linked gangs in the Gaza Strip to fight Hamas, it utilizes Salafist extremists in Yemen to fight its battles for it also. Evidently, such a powerful militia force is viewed rightly as a threat to regional stability.
Riyadh saw these recent developments as a major challenge to its regional project and stability. Not only because of the potential issues along its border, but also the birth of a new reality on the ground inside Yemen that will further weaken the “internationally recognized government” that they back.
If the UAE’s proxy forces succeed, despite the Emiratis withdrawing their own forces, then the STC will push for separation and undermine the Saudis’ role entirely. There is also a good chance that the Emirati proxy forces will launch an offensive aimed at seizing the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah from Ansarallah. Israel was seeking this outcome in early 2025, when it convinced the Trump administration to fight Ansarallah on its behalf, an attack which resulted in a resounding failure.
The Israelis not only maintain close ties with the Emirati-backed STC but have also directly participated in training their forces. Israel and the UAE have also established joint military positions in areas of Yemen, like the island of Socotra.
Recently, Israel became the first country to recognize Somaliland as a nation. Little attention has been paid to the fact that the UAE has quietly recognized Somaliland also; in fact, the UAE-Israeli cooperation and support for the separatist movement in Somalia goes well beyond recognition.
The Somaliland connection is key here. Some analysts have mentioned the value of the Berbera Port area to Israel and focused on the Israeli desire to build a military presence there for the sake of attacking Yemen. While this is true, it was actually the UAE that began to build the Berbera airbase in Somaliland back in 2017 and has invested greatly in establishing a military foothold there.
The UAE-Israeli alliance to establish dominance in North Africa and the Horn of Africa is directly tied to Yemen. So much so that the Emiratis used militants from Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—who are currently carrying out genocidal acts against the people of their own country—to fight in Yemen against Ansarallah.
All of this being said, if the UAE proxy forces succeed, it will certainly prove a major issue and lead to enormous bloodshed, yet the STC will not likely defeat Ansarallah, even with high-altitude air support provided by Israel. In fact, once Saudi Arabia is effectively out of the picture, Ansarallah will have one primary enemy to confront with full force: the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE, unlike Saudi Arabia, is a tiny country that is primarily made up of immigrants and foreign workers; it does not have a capable military, despite its Hollywood-style parades that it uses to try and demonstrate this. A sustained missile and drone attack campaign from the Yemeni Armed Forces will very likely be enough to force the UAE to wave the white flag.
Even if some kind of agreement is eventually reached as a result of the UAE being battered into submission—one that does not bring about an Ansarallah takeover that unifies the country—the Saudis will end up having to sign an agreement with Sana’a to properly end the conflict.
Riyadh understood this all well, which is why it quickly acted to draw red lines. It is more in Saudi Arabia’s interests to keep the status quo for now, because the UAE’s moves could end up creating a nightmare situation for it in the future. Saudi Arabia does not want a strong, unified Yemen under the control of Ansarallah; it will only accept a Yemeni leadership that bows to it, and like past Yemeni governments, bows to the West, while refusing to utilize the nation’s immense resource wealth and harness the power of its location.
Israel, on the other hand, most certainly will not accept a united Yemen under Ansarallah’s rule, but is adamant about “making them pay” for daring to impose a Red Sea blockade and fight in defense of Gaza. Therefore, the Israelis are willing to work with the UAE to totally destabilize the region in order to take a stab at dealing a major blow to Ansarallah and asserting their dominance.
It is unclear where exactly this is all heading, but it is possible that we may eventually see a drastic change in the situation on the ground, one which will perhaps lead to Saudi Arabia adopting a different posture toward the UAE altogether. It also appears that Tel Aviv is angry about Riyadh refusing to normalize ties, which could well have factored into this latest move. It is important to consider that the Emiratis will not move a fingernail without Israeli approval in this regard; they are, in essence, a proxy regime of Tel Aviv at this point.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
An Israeli role in the Trump-Epstein files controversy?
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 2, 2026
Given the gravity of the newly emerging evidence about US President Donald Trump’s connections to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, many questions are now being posed about the implications of this case on the American leader’s conduct. Of specific concern is whether the Israelis have any hand in influencing Washington in this matter.
Although the recent groundbreaking revelations, proving Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with the Israeli regime, have been completely ignored by the Western corporate media, the facts are the facts. Long branded nothing more than “conspiracy theories”, leaked documents, first obtained by the Handala hacker group, prove that amongst other affiliations, the infamous child sex trafficker and financer had made efforts to help former Israeli Premier, Ehud Barak, to overthrow the then Syrian government.
These documents, reported upon only in the independent media, should raise alarm bells about just how far the Israeli rabbit hole goes. It is clear by now that Epstein himself was a staunch supporter of the Israeli regime, maintained close ties to it and its officials, even going as far as helping to draft op-eds for a former Israeli Prime Minister.
On the other hand, as more information emerges about Donald Trump’s relationship with the infamous pedophile financier, the potential implications for his role grow increasingly serious. Trump, for his part, has throughout this year decided to shrug off the Epstein Files issue, arguing that it is a “hoax” and snapping at reporters when the issue is brought up. The American President has also claimed that it is mainly Democrats who were guilty in this case, an allegation he makes when he isn’t labelling it a “Democrat hoax”.
Trump’s usual antics of pivoting to blame “the Democrats” aren’t paying off for him in this instance however, as his base quarrel with the facts that continue to emerge. For example, back in 2024, Trump had claimed that “I was never on Epstein’s plane”, only for this to be disproven later. More recently, it was revealed that he had been on board the child sex trafficker’s plane far more times than previously believed.
Evidently, there is not enough evidence to deem the US President actually guilty and lock him in jail, but the documents do indeed beg further questions to say the least. For example, a letter was recently released, handwritten by Epstein and addressed to convicted child molester Larry Nassar, in which he wrote of Trump that he ‘shares our love for young, nubile girls’.
There was even a document alleging that Trump and Epstein had raped a girl. Although the Department Of Justice (DOJ) has downplayed the claim, said to date back decades, the allegation is made more disturbing by reports that the alleged victim was later found dead. While there is no way to substantiate this accusation, it doesn’t exactly look good for the President.
There are currently countless theories being spread about the Trump-Epstein case, one of the most popular is that the US President was caught up in a blackmail scheme. For this specific allegation, there is no documented evidence. Yet, it is certainly a natural conclusion to come to.
At the very least, it would certainly suit Israeli interests to leverage the negative press surrounding the Epstein Files to push the President into conceding to further demands, or even use the issue as media coverage for their own aggressive actions.
Although this theory is currently unproven, if the Israeli intelligence or even US intelligence, had any knowledge of the Epstein Files, or had managed to collect incriminating material from the pro-Israeli child sex trafficker, they could certainly be willing to use that information to their benefit. The worst-case scenario here would be that the theories regarding Epstein being a Mossad agent, used to secure blackmail on power people, is true, then that would certainly mean that the US is in for a world of trouble.
Unproven theories aside, the evidence is certainly shocking and it is clear that Epstein did indeed have ties to Israelis, while Trump’s campaign was bankrolled by a who’s who of Zionist Billionaire’s, including the infamous Miriam Adelson. In less than a year, Trump had already bombed Iran, fought a small war against Yemen, cracked down on his own people’s First Amendment rights, while implementing a vision for Gaza that makes him the de facto dictator there and uses US forces to do the dirty work of the Israelis.
If anything, Donald Trump has shown himself to be an extremely weak President, one that is easily bullied into submission, so even without the Epstein Files, he has been willing to toss the American Constitution and International Law in the bin. All of this does beg the question as to whether the Israelis will be able to effectively weaponize the Epstein debacle to their favor and extract their demands.
Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | December 30, 2025
With Tel Aviv openly rejecting withdrawal and insisting on disarmament, the “ceasefire” risks sliding into either renewed mass killing or a slow-motion attempt to impose control and displacement.
Debate rages on over what Phase Two of the Gaza Ceasefire will look like, as US President Donald Trump demands the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance. Meanwhile, Gaza refuses to hand over its weapons. Most analyses are, however, missing the mark when it comes to reading Tel Aviv’s calculations.
The so-called Gaza Ceasefire has proven itself to be little more than an extended pause in the mass slaughter of civilians. While it is still described as a ceasefire, there were three major changes to the predicament on the ground that took hold during “Phase One,” as the war continued to rage on.
The first major change, perhaps the most notable, was that the Israelis committed to no longer killing an average of around 100 civilians on a daily basis. The second was that more aid entered Gaza, although nowhere near the amount required or agreed to. The third was a mutual prisoner exchange.
Assessing the strength and direction of the ceasefire in its first phase is important to reading what the second phase may have in store, if it is even reached.
To the Israelis, the benefits of the partial implementation of Phase One were numerous. To begin with, the least consequential element, they relieved themselves of the burden of releasing their captives. This was important for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in that he managed to clear the topic of returning the captives, especially as he heads into a new election cycle.
Then we have the other benefits for the Israelis. Gaza exited the international headlines, as daily killings appeared too low to even register as a major issue in the biased Western press. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers were able to continue doing the exact same work inside Gaza that has constituted the majority of its military operations throughout the genocide: building demolition work.
These demolition missions, for which a privatized Israeli workforce has been employed to operate alongside the occupation army’s engineering units, have constituted the vast majority of the military’s efforts on the ground. Face-to-face combat on the ground has never been a notable feature of the Israeli genocide; they simply refused to actually fight the Palestinian resistance groups.
One thing that troubled the Israelis was that this demolition work, which sometimes included destroying entrances to tunnels, came with a high risk of running into armed ambushes. The Palestinian fighters would prepare traps and set up ambush operations for their forces, especially when Israel would invade or reinvade any new area they had not retained a permanent presence in.
Phase One of the Gaza Ceasefire agreement, therefore, guaranteed that soldiers were not going to be subjected to the same dangers as before, as the Palestinian resistance groups would halt all operations against the invading army.
It is important that this reality is established when analyzing Israel’s decision-making, because what is being done to Gaza is a genocide, not a conventional war. Israel’s intent is to wipe out Gaza, ensuring that it becomes totally uninhabitable, with the intention of mass expulsion in mind. This is also why they rarely targeted the armed wings of the Palestinian factions, focusing on maximum damage to the civilian population instead.
Any other way of framing this issue is misleading and whitewashes what the Israeli regime has committed since October 7, 2023. It also robs any analyst of his or her ability to assess Israel’s calculations critically.
With this in mind, consider that the Israelis have now had over two months where their armed forces have still been working, but have had a break from any fighting or the fear of being ambushed. Israeli tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other equipment were also being repaired, as the decision-makers in Tel Aviv and Washington designed new plans for their fronts against Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon.
They also needed fewer soldiers for security reasons, as a so-called Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) took over in monitoring the situation and helping shape the realities imposed on the ground. Every country involved in the CMCC was therefore made complicit in the genocide.
This phase came with the additional benefit for the Israelis that they now had the space to experiment with new approaches, conjure up more conspiracies, and seek to find a way to ensure the ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip occurs. As Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has explicitly stated, his army has no intention of withdrawing from the besieged coastal territory.
Phase Two and What It Will Show Us
If we establish the fact that the Israelis are adamant on achieving ethnic cleansing, that their military operations have always sought to achieve this goal, and that they are continuing to conspire to achieve this, then we have arrived at the starting point from which to assess the implementation of a so-called Phase Two.
During the first phase, the groundwork was laid for a new set of conspiracies against the people of Gaza. The population was subjected to countless pressures, which the criminal CMCC oversaw, including the deprivation of sustainable living conditions, with only a handful of its nongovernmental organizations even raising issues about it.
Despite the best efforts of the Hamas-affiliated government security forces to restore order, they were dealing with an impossible situation. Over a million people live in tents that are unstable or susceptible to dire weather conditions, a lack of adequate medical supplies, sanitary supplies, and many food items are even restricted. Amid this, most people don’t have jobs, few have adequate salaries coming in, and even for those in a better economic standing, they remain traumatized and unable to return to their homes. Inevitably, this leads to social issues that no regular security force can fully repel.
Meanwhile, the Israelis expand the so-called Yellow Line, behind which they were supposed to remain, instead using this line to execute anyone who comes within a few hundred meters of it, thus deterring them from returning to their own homes or land, where they could possibly plant small crops. Behind this ever-expanding occupying line, the Israeli military and private contractors destroy more and more infrastructure. All of this is monitored by the US-Israeli-led CMCC.
The plan is rather overt in its goals, but still vague in its precise stages of implementation. Both US and Israeli officials have made it crystal clear that they seek reconstruction only inside the Israeli-controlled portion of the Gaza Strip, where five ISIS-linked death squads are being strengthened by Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The UN’s most shameful Resolution 2803, passed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in November, makes it apparent that the goal is to implement a “Board of Peace” (BoP) and International Stabilization Force (ISF). The BoP makes Donald Trump the de facto ruler of Gaza, and the ISF is set to be a multinational invasion force tasked with fighting the Palestinian resistance factions.
This Monday, the new spokesperson for the Qassam Brigades of Hamas, who has also taken on the alias Abu Obeida, announced a staunch opposition to disarmament, instead calling on the Israelis to disarm, as they are the ones responsible for committing a genocide. All the Palestinian factions, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), are united on this issue.
The PA is in favor of Donald Trump’s plan for him to rule the Gaza Strip and disarm the resistance by force, but it is irrelevant in terms of representing Palestinians. This authority only continues to exist because it is propped up by the Israelis, Americans, Saudis, and Europeans, and its popularity, beyond its base of employees, is in the single digits among the Palestinian people. It does not even represent the sentiments of the majority of Fatah supporters anymore.
All of this is to say that if any Phase Two is going to be implemented, neither side is going to be in agreement about it. Netanyahu’s government demands disarmament, while the Palestinian factions demand Gaza’s self-governance and will only disarm by handing over their weapons to a newly established Palestinian state. Hamas is clear that it would allow a technocratic administration to take over Gaza and is not demanding that it remain as the government of Gaza.
Considering that neither side can agree upon the basis on which a Phase Two can begin, keeping in mind that Israel and the US are the sides with military dominance, there are three ways that this will unfold:
The US and Israel will proceed with aggressively implementing their plan, as laid out in the shameful UNSC Resolution 2803. They will begin deploying a regime change force and attempt to implement a number of schemes to start a slow ethnic cleansing of the territory amid this.
Israel will restart its full-scale genocide.
The shaky ceasefire will continue, but remain in limbo. This will mean periodic spats of violence, as the Israelis and the US attempt to slowly and partially implement the ISF-BoP agenda. This will be a process during which the people of Gaza will be subjected to more pressure, but not enough to collapse the agreement altogether.
An Aggressive Phase Two?
The first means of implementing the next phase of the Gaza Ceasefire initiative would likely buckle under the immense pressures destined to befall it. If we look at the ISF alone, it is a recipe for total disaster.
Forcing the “International Stabilization Force” aggressively on the people of Gaza means that it will start going after Palestinian resistance factions. Two major issues will immediately pop up. The resistance will certainly kill some of these foreign soldiers, who will return to their home nations in body bags and cause domestic chaos. A heavy-handed approach here would also likely result in civilians being killed, another major debacle in its own right.
The Israelis are adamant that Türkiye, Qatar, and other Muslim-majority nations they take issue with cannot deploy their armed forces in Gaza. Whether they get their way or not, consider that this armed force would mean gathering a few hundred soldiers from one country, a few thousand from another, and so on.
If this kind of ISF was sent into Gaza aggressively, considering that so far there has been no agreement concerning how to implement this invasion initiative or which countries will participate, it will be thrust into a complex urban warfare environment. They all speak different languages, work off different military doctrines, are ill-prepared, likely ill-equipped for their tasks, and, according to reports, will only number in the tens of thousands.
Donald Trump recently boasted that the nations which, he says, are participating in his so-called “peace plan” will work to destroy Hamas if it refuses to disarm, even bragging that Israel would not be required to act and that foreign invading forces would do all the work for them.
In order to conduct a regime change operation of this nature, the ISF would have to be at least 250,000 men strong. Bear in mind that mobilizing a multinational invasion force of this kind would take many months, an enormous amount of funding, and the key feature would be that it actually fights, unlike the Israeli army, which refused to go after the Palestinian resistance factions on the ground.
If an ISF that numbers only in the tens of thousands is going to try and defeat the Palestinian resistance, it will suffer heavier casualties than the Israeli military did. Any Arab or Muslim-majority nation deploying forces could experience mass protests or rebellions against their role in the genocide. Without going into the fine details, it makes no sense and if it is tried, it will quickly fail. Even the Egyptians, who along with Israel will be the guarantors of the strategy, have been advocating for a force equivalent to Lebanon’s UNIFIL to enter Gaza, which is not what UNSC Resolution 2803 approved.
Israel Collapses the Ceasefire
The next way this can go is that Benjamin Netanyahu decides to collapse the ceasefire altogether. Some argue this wouldn’t happen because the US is committed to its “peace plan.” This is not a serious argument. Donald Trump has demonstrated that he will go along with whatever the Israelis choose. He isn’t a strong leader on this question and clearly possesses a level of knowledge about the region that you would expect of a public high school student who took history and didn’t really bother to listen.
There are only two circumstances under which the Israelis will collapse the ceasefire in its entirety. They no longer believe that any of the schemes they sought to implement under the so-called ceasefire will work, and there is some kind of political benefit to returning to all-out combat. The second reason is that they are scared that the Palestinian resistance may launch some kind of offensive while the Israeli army is also battling Hezbollah and Iran.
Collapsing the ceasefire demonstrates that the Israelis are without any direction and lack a coherent plan to actually end the fighting on the Gaza front. It means that they are simply reverting to all-out genocide, with the hope that eventually an opportunity arises which will allow a mass ethnic cleansing event, or a slow process of ethnic cleansing as they exterminate tens of thousands more civilians.
Stuck Between Phase One and Phase Two
Another option is for the Israelis and Americans to stall the collapse of the ceasefire. It would mean placing the situation in limbo, not allowing its total collapse, but undergoing a process of trial and error, whereby it slowly attempts to force elements of “Phase Two” into reality.
This is a very likely outcome, designed to keep the Gaza front closed while focusing more on Iran, Lebanon, and perhaps even Yemen. We could therefore expect to see the ISF deployed in a less meaningful capacity than is currently envisaged in Washington, disastrous plots implemented involving private military contractors and aid distribution, and attempts to ethnically cleanse the population slowly here and there. All of these schemes will fall flat on their faces, but not without inflicting suffering on the civilian population of Gaza.
In the meantime, the US-Israeli alliance will have Tehran in its sights. The thinking behind this would be to squeeze the civilian population of Gaza, while prioritizing Iran and Hezbollah as their major strategic threats.
Israel’s Failure Hedges against Iran and Hezbollah
The conspiracies of Washington and Tel Aviv against Gaza can be defeated, but this hinges upon Hezbollah and Iran for the most part. If Iran and Hezbollah manage to deal enormous blows to the Israelis, refusing to play their game of fighting short defensive conflicts, then Israel will be dragged into deep waters.
All that is required of Hezbollah and Iran is that they don’t stop firing, no matter the degree of carnage exacted against their people. If Hezbollah drags the Israeli military into Lebanese lands and refuses the calls for a ceasefire, instead forcing the Israelis into a war that it intends to fight for many months, and Iran does the same, the Israelis will be in a major crisis.
The details of such conflicts are a topic for different pieces and many outcomes could occur, yet it suffices to say that major moves from Lebanon and Iran could put the Israelis in a very weak position, one that even enables major action from Gaza also.
If Iran and Hezbollah are either defeated or taken out of the picture for an even longer period after agreeing to meaningless ceasefires, after short rounds of fighting, also suffering the assassinations of major figures, this is the most favorable outcome for Benjamin Netanyahu. Victories in these arenas will open the door to ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip, even if slowly rather than in a stampede into the Sinai Peninsula. This is, of course, assuming there are no other major fronts which suddenly open to preoccupy them.
As things stand, the Israelis are in a very weak position, having failed to defeat any of their enemies. The only exception is the fall of the previous Syrian regime, which was not directly fighting Israel, but was a major land bridge for the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance. For now, Syria can be considered a victim of Israel, but poses no immediate threat.
Ultimately, Israel has fought for over two years and failed to defeat the Palestinian resistance, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, Iran, or any of its other adversaries, even after dealing varying degrees of blows against each of them. Netanyahu’s long-sought-after “total victory” does not appear likely, yet he still continues to double down on attempting to achieve this goal. The primary reason for this is the refusal of the people of Gaza, and also Lebanon, to give up.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Israeli-UAE Aggression In Yemen Could Backfire Enormously
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle |December 26, 2025
Although the Yemeni Armed Forces have halted their ballistic missile and drone attacks against Israel, adhering to the Gaza ceasefire, officials in Tel Aviv are continuing to insist that their front against Sana’a is not over.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) has been busy seizing territory from Saudi-backed forces and signalling an intent to declare southern Yemen’s independence. Far from simply domestic disputes between armed groups, these developments will have major regional implications.
On December 3, the STC seized Hadramout province from forces aligned with Saudi Arabia, followed by a takeover of al-Mahra province. The UAE-backed separatists even went a step further, with a number of officials declaring their intent to break away and declare southern Yemen an independent state.
For context here, the UAE and Saudi proxies in Yemen were operating a joint governing body out of southern Yemen’s port city of Aden. For years, the Saudi-led coalition had attempted to prop up deposed Yemeni President, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, with the backing of the US, UK, and Israel. Hadi was therefore referred to as the “internationally recognised” leader of the Yemeni State, when in reality he had no such power.
Despite the glaringly obvious fact that Ansarallah had set up and was operating a government in the nation’s capital, enjoying a lot of popular support, the United Nations continued to play along with the West’s demands to recognise Saudi’s puppet proxy regime. In 2022, Riyadh then created what is known as the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), which was endowed with the powers of the Presidency and serves as the “internationally recognised government”.
The head of the PLC is a man named Rashad al-Alimi, who is an unelected leader and is part of the eight-member body. As of May 2023, three of the eight seats in the PLC were handed to officials belonging to the UAE-backed STC, which recently ran Saudi-backed officials out of Aden.
The STC’s recent territorial gains have posed an active security threat to Saudi Arabia and Oman, deepening the ongoing feud between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh. The UAE, for its part, also appears to have been sizing up an offensive campaign against Ansarallah at some stage, as it acts in coordination with the Israelis.
The recent developments in Yemen have triggered anxiety amongst Zionist analysts in Washington, as they see a UAE-Saudi conflict in Yemen between their proxies as detrimental to the fight against Ansarallah in Sana’a. In line with this way of thinking, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) recently published a Policy Analysis piece arguing that such a UAE-Saudi conflict should be avoided and instead both should focus on Ansarallah.
It is clear that the primary goal of the Israelis is to see their Emirati allies use the STC to try and seize the port city of Hodeidah, thus securing dominance over the Red Sea. This is important to Tel Aviv as it means weakening the Yemeni Armed Forces and preventing them from being able to effectively impose a blockade on their ships. Israel even pushed the Trump administration to launch a war in Yemen for over a month in an attempt to break the blockade in the Red Sea, which resulted in resounding failure.
The Zionist think-tank WINEP has warned that any conflict between Saudi proxies and Emirati proxies could open the door for Ansarallah’s forces to seize the oil-rich region of Marib, a major catastrophe for the Israelis and Americans. Yet, so far, no UAE-Saudi understandings appear to have come about to find any solution to their competition in Yemen.
Instead, the major agreement that was just brokered came between the Yemeni government in Sana’a and Saudi Arabia, the largest prisoner exchange deal since the beginning of the war. This meant agreeing upon the release of 1,700 Ansarallah detainees in exchange for 1,200 opposition prisoners.
Another important clarification is that the Ansarallah government is often labelled “the Houthis” in the Western media, and the Saudi proxy opposition is called the “Yemeni government”. This can sometimes get confusing, but it is important to point out that this propagandistic rhetoric is used to shape the conflict in a way that reflects Western bias, not the objective reality on the ground.
Some will try to argue that the Saudi proxy opposition is the “internationally recognised government” according to the United Nations, which is true, but again, this has little bearing on the reality on the ground. There simply aren’t enough powerful States or even smaller nations that are willing to bat for recognising the government in Sana’a, therefore the West and their Arab allies have managed to prevent any reflection of reality reaching the United Nations or even the international media.
At this phase, the UAE’s STC appears to be in control of the majority of opposition-held territory in Yemen, greatly undermining Saudi Arabia’s role. However, the STC is not exactly a movement with the popular support to sustain and operate a lasting, or stable, southern Yemeni State. The STC has faced countless protests against their rule, after failing to deliver even basic services to the people living under its control. Blatant corruption, combined with criminal activities and a lack of basic governing skills, has left people with very little. Even in the Hadramout and al-Mahra provinces, there is significant opposition that could lead to their swift overthrow.
Amidst this, if the STC decides to commit to offensives against the Yemeni Armed Forces of Ansarallah, the strategy to defeat the UAE-proxy forces is rather simple. Ansarallah will not only most likely batter these armed militants on the ground, but need only direct drone and missile fire towards the real headquarters of the STC, Dubai. If ballistic and cruise missiles, along with drones, flood Dubai and Abu Dhabi, the Emirati plot will quickly collapse.
When it comes to Saudi Arabia, it is a much larger nation and has the capacity to endure a lot more than the much smaller Emirates, making Riyadh a more formidable foe than Abu Dhabi. If the STC proxy forces become the main opposition and Saudi Arabia can no longer maintain any significant foothold in Yemen, the recipe for Yemeni unification becomes much simpler.
A war between Ansarallah and the STC has a very easy solution: flooding the UAE with missiles and drones for a sustained period, which will force them to give up and depart from Yemen. If this happens, Riyadh will have no choice but to reach a broader agreement with Sana’a, effectively ending the war altogether.
In the eyes of the Israelis and the United States, this outcome would be a catastrophe. If Ansarallah, even under a power-sharing styled agreement, reigned supreme over all of Yemen and became its officially recognised leadership, it would significantly increase its power and pose an even greater threat to Israel. In Tel Aviv’s eyes, this would be Iran 2.0 in the Arab World, an Islamic government that is openly hostile to Israel and a staunch supporter of the Palestinian resistance.
No matter which way you slice it, the US and Israel have no answer for the predicament they face in Yemen. The only option is to try and keep the nation in perpetual war, tightening the sanctions and ensuring immense suffering amongst its civilian population, all to avoid the inevitable rise of an Ansarallah-controlled Yemeni State, equipped with a military arsenal that will continue to develop.
Israeli military superiority undermines US interests: Report
Al Mayadeen | December 23, 2025
When US President Donald Trump announced in November 2025 that he would approve selling advanced F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately sought assurances from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The US was quick to affirm an unwavering commitment to preserving “Israel’s qualitative military edge” over all countries in West Asia.
And this commitment is not merely political; it’s the law. According to an analysis by Josh Paul, a former State Department director who spent over 11 years in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs before resigning over Gaza policy in 2023, this legal requirement is producing outcomes that directly contradict US strategic interests in the region.
Writing in Responsible Statecraft, Paul draws on his insider experience to argue that what was intended as a tool for maintaining regional order aligned with American interests may now be fueling instability.
Cold war era policy
The concept of “Israel’s” “qualitative military edge” (QME) emerged in the 1970s as a mechanism to ensure a regional balance of power favorable to US interests by guaranteeing Israeli military superiority. Paul traces how this informal policy became codified in 2008 legislation that defines QME as “Israel’s” ability to “counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties.”
The law requires the State Department to assess every major US arms transfer to West Asian and North African countries, from Morocco to Iran, to ensure it doesn’t threaten “Israel’s” military dominance. In practice, since Iran has not purchased US weapons since 1979, this applies exclusively to Arab states, effectively institutionalizing a regional hierarchy with “Israel” at its apex.
Paul describes a classified process involving multiple agencies and Israeli input: “At the annual Department of Defense Joint Political Military Group meeting, the Israelis typically make a presentation that includes a list of systems they deem threatening to their QME.”
Three options, three problems
When Arab countries seek advanced US weapons, Paul explains, the US government is faced with three choices, each with significant drawbacks.
The first is compensating “Israel” with superior technology. When the Obama administration proposed selling F-16s to the UAE in 2013, it had to simultaneously offer “Israel” advanced radars to detect those very aircraft. But this approach, Paul argues, directly fuels regional arms races, potentially violating other US laws that explicitly aim to “discourage arms races.”
The second option involves limiting sales through quantity restrictions, geographical constraints, or technological downgrades. But these limitations, Paul notes, can strain relationships with Arab partners who face genuine security threats.
The third option, denying sales outright to preserve “Israel’s” edge, may produce what Paul calls “perverse incentives.” Arab governments denied US weapons often turn to China, Russia, or France instead, reducing US influence over their defense capabilities and potentially introducing systems Washington cannot monitor or constrain.
This shift threatens the very regional order the QME policy was designed to maintain, as it allows competing powers to establish military footholds in West Asia.
The diplomatic cost of military dominance
Beyond arms sales logistics, Paul identifies a more fundamental problem: guaranteed military superiority may discourage Israeli affairs. “Because Israel remains assured that the United States will help it retain military superiority over the entire region, Tel Aviv may feel able to rely on such superiority rather than engaging in diplomacy,” he writes.
He argues that “Israel’s” recurring reliance on military force “arguably contributes to instability across the Middle East as a whole,” creating a paradox where the policy designed to enhance Israeli security and maintain a “stable” regional order may actually generate the very threats it aims to prevent.
An outdated framework?
Paul questions whether the QME framework still makes sense given recent diplomatic developments. Israeli officials themselves argued during the 2020 F-35 sale to the UAE that the country had become “an ally in confronting Iran” and the sale wouldn’t violate US commitments. Yet Paul notes from his government experience that pro-“Israel” advocacy groups like AIPAC continued opposing such sales “behind closed doors,” regardless of intensifying normalization efforts between Arab states and the entity.
More fundamentally, Paul argues that military technology is evolving in ways that may make the QME unsustainable. Military analysts increasingly suggest the world faces a revolution characterized by “low-cost weapons systems capable of overcoming high-tech capabilities,” a shift that could render “Israel’s” technological edge less decisive and the entire framework obsolete.
Paul concludes that US and Israeli policymakers should explore alternatives to what he calls “Israeli military hegemony and the inherent fragility that it brings to the region.” He argues that “diplomacy and compromise, including the need for real progress on Palestinian self-determination, promises the only real exit from the isolation that the QME has allowed Israel to impose on itself.”
For Paul, who left his State Department career over these very contradictions, the message is clear: a policy conceived to ensure a regional order favorable to US interests through military dominance may now be achieving the opposite, undermining both regional peace and American strategic influence in the process.
UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
The Cradle | December 18, 2025
The UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) has reached out to Tel Aviv and pledged to recognize Israel in the event that its goal of an independent, secessionist state in south Yemen is achieved, Hebrew media reported.
According to Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN), the STC has called on Israel to support “independence” in southern Yemen, and that this would enhance a common agenda between the two sides.
A diplomatic source close to the STC was cited as saying by KAN that Israeli support for the secessionist cause in southern Yemen could contribute to “protecting maritime routes in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab, in addition to combating the smuggling of Iranian weapons to Ansarallah and the terrorist cells affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood that cooperate with Sanaa.”
The source added that the STC needs Israeli backing in military, security, and economic fields in order to form a “new state,” stressing that the two share “common enemies.”
The STC announced on 15 December the start of a new military operation in the southern Yemeni province of Abyan, tightening its grip on the south.
In recent weeks, UAE-backed STC forces have captured the provinces of Hadhramaut and Al-Mahra, and have seized the presidential palace in the southern city of Aden – where both the STC and the Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) have been based for the past several years.
This prompted Saudi military forces to withdraw from Aden. Riyadh has since called for an immediate withdrawal of the STC from the areas it has captured – a demand which was rejected by the Emirati-backed group during negotiations last week.
The STC now controls practically all the territory that makes up the secessionist state it aspires to form along the borders of the pre-1990 southern Democratic Republic of Yemen.
The country will “never be unified again,” the STC has told western diplomats, according to a report by The Times from last week.
The report also revealed that the STC has sent delegates to meet with Israeli officials recently and discussed their “common cause” with Tel Aviv. The KAN report was not the first to reveal contact between Israel and the STC.
In December 2023, Hebrew media cited a source close to STC as saying that Israel will earn itself a partner in the fight against Ansarallah if it recognizes the secessionist aspirations of the STC.
The UAE was a major partner in the Saudi-led war launched against Yemen and the Ansarallah-led government in Sanaa, which began in 2015.
Despite this, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have been embroiled in a rivalry for control and influence in Yemen over the past few years. Critics accuse both countries of seeking to divide Yemen to control its natural resources and strategic ports within their respective spheres of influence.
Since the start of the war, the UAE and Israel have established a joint occupation of the islands surrounding Yemen.
In 2023, Saudi Arabia and the Ansarallah-led government in Sanaa were close to reaching a peace deal. The agreement was never finalized or implemented, and the Saudi military continues to shell Saada and other border areas.
Despite this, the peace process halted a major Ansarallah and Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) offensive against Marib province, which would have brought Sanaa’s forces to the borders of Hadhramaut and Shabwa.
The STC reportedly took a firm stance against the peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Ansarallah at the time.
After the start of the STC advance across Yemen several weeks ago, Saudi-backed tribal forces called for “all forms of resistance” against the UAE-backed militia.
According to The Guardian, up to 20,000 Saudi-backed troops are gathering on the border. Forces backed by the kingdom are also reportedly withdrawing from their positions in Aden and redeploying elsewhere.
Riyadh supports a tribal alliance of armed factions known as the Hadhramaut Protection Forces. It also backs the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islah Party and the forces of Yemen’s internationally-backed government – the PLC.
While the PLC and STC are at odds with one another, the two are closely linked. Aidarous al-Zubaidi, the deputy head of the PLC, also serves as the president of the STC.
“We hope this can be resolved peacefully, but what happened in Hadhramaut is a dangerous development and negatively impacts the legitimate state institutions. Irregular forces not under state control have invaded stable and secure governorates throwing everything into chaos. Saudi Arabia is determined that these forces must leave and return to their own places. The legitimate government is being fragmented, and the only beneficiary of these intensified divisions will be the Houthis,” said Islah Party Secretary-General Abdulrazak al-Hijri, adding that Ansarallah “[does] not see Yemenis as people” but rather as “slaves.”
His comments contradicted reports from last year that Sanaa and the Islah Party improved their relations after Ansarallah began pro-Palestine operations against Israel.
Featured Video
Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Guaido’s true colors: “President” to fix Venezuelan relations with Israel
By Jim Carey | Geopolitics Alert | February 13, 2019
Caracas – In an interview over the weekend, “interim President” of Venezuela Juan Guaido promised he would work on restoring relations with Israel.
Despite not actually having a government or being in any type of official position of power within Venezuela Juan Guaido is still somehow making big promises. Last week it was the promise to sell oil he doesn’t control to the US and this week he is setting foreign policy for a state, a military, and a diplomatic core that he doesn’t have.
Regardless of Juan Guaido’s material position, Israel has been more than willing to indulge in the US fantasy in Venezuela and was one of the early states to recognize the fraud as “interim President.” Now it seems Guaido is more than willing to repay the favor should he ever actually hold office.
Guaido made this promise in a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper where he told the interviewer that he was “very happy to announce that the process of stabilizing relations with Israel is in full swing.” While what exactly that means when you’re a President with no power is rather ambiguous, for some reason Guaido has said restoring relations “is very important for us.”
Regardless of all these factors, there are still several reasons the new President has made this a high priority. Even without any actual diplomatic staff recognized by the state, Guaidó has still been in contact with Israel and has even discussed opening a new Venezuelan embassy in Israel, saying it “is one of the subjects we are talking about.”
Another reason Guaidó claims he wants to restore relations with the Zionists is due to the fact that there “are many Venezuelans in Israel and many Jews in Venezuela.”
According to Guaidó, this Venezuelan Jewish community “is very active and prosperous”… continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co… loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina…
Aletho News- Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report
- Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
- Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza?
- Hamas: Netanyahu’s inclusion in ‘peace council’ threatens justice
- Report warns that ‘Jewish terrorism is out of control’ and could lead to major security escalation
- Lebanese Resistance will inevitably triumph: Former President Lahoud
- Iran: The Eurasian Lock
- Russian gas exports to China soar – data
- France seizes tanker ‘coming from Russia’
- European leaders’ shift in their Davos addresses exposes Europe’s strategic anxiety
- If Americans Knew
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- Brutal Beatings, Arson, and Impunity: A Palestinian Plant Nursery Becomes a Target for Settler Pogroms
- On Iran’s protests, Israeli hypocrisy knows no limits
- A Cease-fire for Israelis and a War for Palestinians
- ‘When will Baba come back?’ Gaza’s widows and orphans struggle to survive
- Genocide research institute levels accusations against Germany for denying Israel’s genocide against Palestinians
- Over 1,200 Israeli truce violations in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 102
- Trump has created a monster: Gaza Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 101
- As world leaders squabble over controlling Gaza, another baby freezes to death – Not a ceasefire Day 100
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
Aletho News 