Nine days after Iran warned the West, Israel in particular, that any further attacks on Beirut would result in Iran retaliating against Israel, Israel hit the Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh. The attack on Sunday afternoon sent plumes of smoke rising over the suburb, with strikes targeting two apartments in two buildings. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office announced the attack in the Dahiyeh district, saying it was in retaliation for an earlier Hezbollah strike on Israel. At least two people were killed and 11 wounded in the strike on the densely populated civilian neighborhood, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency.
Iran, as promised, wasted little time in responding and launched 20 missiles in five waves at Israel. Donald Trump called Bibi Netanyahu, telling him to hold off in retaliating against Iran because he anticipated signing a peace deal with Iran. Trump also reportedly told Netanyahu that if Israel decided to retaliate the Israelis would not have US support. What did Netanyahu do? He launched a retaliatory strike using 11 missiles against Iran.
As I write this, Iran is responding with a larger missile launch against Israel and there are visible impacts in Israel despite Israeli claims that the IDF intercepted the missiles. Not to be left on the sidelines, the Houthis joined in by launching a missile at Israel. Media reports blamed the Houthis for also striking the Prince Saud Airbase in Saudi Arabia, but there is no independent confirmation to substantiate that claim. In addition, the Houthis announced they are closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which is certain to roil the financial markets. Finally,Hezbollah stepped up its engagement of Israeli targets and launched more missiles and drones into northern Israel.
The IRGC has officially announced the beginning of the ‘Nasr‘ military operation against two major Israeli airbases: Tel Nof and Nevatim. This is retaliation for Israel’s strike on radar facilities in Iran. If successful, these Iranian strikes will do significant damage to two critical air fields and could hamper Israel’s ability to carry out further strikes on Iran.
I believe that the Israeli decision to attack Beirut had one objective… force the Iranian hand in launching an attack on Israel in hopes of bringing the US back into the war and sabotaging any chance for Trump to sign a Pakistani peace deal with Iran. So far, the Israelis have failed. Donald Trump is staying on the sidelines for now, which has sparked mass hysteria among the neo-cons and Zionist fanatics.
Trump appears genuinely sincere in wanting to sign on to the Pakistani deal. It is possible he could do so while letting Israel and Iran fight it out. Alternatively, Trump will come under intense pressure from the Zionist crowd to re-enter the war. It is a fluid situation and I hope to have an update by noon Monday about Pakistan’s view of the situation.
If Trump stands firm and refuses to re-enter the war to assist Israel, the situation could evolve along the lines of the 12-day war last June… i.e., when Israel begged the US to convince Iran to stop bombarding Israel with missiles. Times have changed, however, and I do not think Iran will agree to another orchestrated end to the conflict. Instead, Iran will hold out and demand that Israel withdraw from Lebanon and withdraw from Gaza… otherwise, Iran will continue hitting Israel with missiles until it is forced to surrender. We are in new territory and Iran is in a better position to carry out a war of attrition with Israel.
The magnitude of what just happened may take some time to sink in.
This is the first time Iran has struck Israel after Israel struck another country’s territory (that is, not Iran).
This means that the battle lines have been moved.
Iran’s deterrence had already been restored in the sense that Israel knew that any strike on it would be responded to.
But now, Iran has proven that it will also respond to Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
This is the first time in decades that a regional power has the means, capacity, and willingness to put hard power against Israeli military maneuvers or aggression against a third party.
Trump reportedly told Israeli journalist Barak Ravid that “Hopefully Israel is not going to retaliate. If Bibi strikes them back it’s just gonna keep going like the last 47 years, or the last 3000 years.” Trump also added: “We are very close to a final deal with Iran. It is going to be a good deal. I don’t want it to blow up because of what is happening now.”
Whether this would extend to Palestine is uncertain, but if it does, it may prove a game-changer.
Israel has been able to annex territory, commit genocide and war crimes without any real consequences because the West has refused to, and no regional power has had the hard power to impose costs on Israel.
If this equation changes, the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likely take a significant turn.
Which is why Israel will do everything it can to disallow any shift.
From a US perspective, supporting Israel at this point recommits the US to its decades-long policy of seeking to sustain a balance in the region that allows for near-complete Israeli dominance.
That policy has been extremely costly to US interests, has destabilized the region, and enabled the Israelis to get increasingly aggressive and reckless (since they face no consequences for it).
However problematic it has been, it will become far more challenging and destabilizing going forward since sustaining Israel’s dominance will necessitate continued war with Iran. This clearly contradicts US interests.
If US interests were at the center of US policy, getting out of the Middle East and its regional rivalries would be a no-brainer.
A story broadcast and posted by WPLN, Louisville Public Media, claims Tennessee’s black bear population is being threatened by climate change. Data show this is false. Bear populations are growing along with improved conditions for black bears to flourish. The biggest threat to black bears is conflict with humans, which is being driven by population growth, both bears and humans, urban expansion into bear habitat, and poor garbage storage.
The problem with Eggers story is that its headline and lead sentence are woefully misleading. Most of the story’s details are pretty accurate. She notes that before large-scale European occupation and widespread forest clearing, black bears were common across Tennessee. After a sharp decline, bears populations have made a big comeback with an estimated 6,000 bears across the state.
Bear populations are doing so well, they are increasingly being seen in edge communities being developed in formerly wild areas and even in urban areas.
Black bear encounters with people are on the rise in Tennessee, and they are not always […] idyllic […]” writes Eggers. “Bears scrounge through trash, cars and sometimes even homes for an easy source of calories.
“The furry creatures arguably have the best noses in the animal kingdom, 300 times better than people,” Eggers continued. “The trend is, in part, driven by convenience for the bears. They are opportunistic feeders.”
So far, so good, but then the story begins to go off the rails. Eggers notes that rainfall from Hurricane Helene in 2024 caused flooding, knocking down a lot of trees, and then leapt to discuss a current drought in the Great Smoky Mountain national park. Yet neither of these events are historically unique or historically unusual. Flooding and drought, while never the norm, have been common throughout Tennessee’s history, and there is no evidence in the data that hurricanes, droughts, and floods have become more common or severe over time in Tennessee, or in general elsewhere in the United States, as detailed in various Climate at a Glance posts, here, here, and here, for example.
For Tennessee specifically, while rainfall amounts vary regionally across the state, data show no increasing trend in drought numbers or severity since 1895, but rather a modest increase in precipitation. (see the figure, below)
Temperatures in Tennessee have increased very modestly, about 0.5℉ over the past century. This is significantly below the national average rise in temperature and is likely due in large part to the Urban Heat Island effect from the growth of Tennessee’s large and midsized cities. In fact, Tennessee’s maximum high temperature was set and matched on two dates in 1930, more than 90 years of climate change ago.
Concerning forests, the data are clear that urban development and agriculture have replaced forests in some areas. But overall, the amount of forested lands has increased from lows set after initial European settlement, when many forests were cleared for small scale farming and grazing. In fact, forests cover approximately 52 percent of Tennessee, with rebounding coverage over the past 100 years. Natural forest coverage has doubled over the last century from 25 percent.
What’s more, connected forest cover and better precipitation has produced improved ecosystem conditions for bears, including increased animal and plant food sources, which largely explain Tennessee’s growing bear population.
Since modest warming over the past hasn’t made habitat and ecological conditions worse for bears in Tennessee, but rather has improved such conditions, contributing to a growing population, climate change can’t be “threatening” bear survival, as Eggers claims in her WPLN story.
Had Eggers not tried to drag climate change into her WPLN story about problems some Tennesseans are having with bears, she might have written a valuable and interesting story. She could have explained the dangers bears face due to urban expansion, some people’s propensity to think of bears as cute and feeding them, and poor garbage storage – all of which have led to problem bears and human/bear conflicts. Instead, she opened with a misleading, but perhaps attention-grabbing headline, and then wandered off the trail in an effort to feed the narrative popular with the media that “climate change causes everything bad.” In this case, that climate change is harming bears—despite clear evidence the black bear population is flourishing amid climate change. There is no trend or evidence, none at all, suggesting this will change in the foreseeable future.
Iran has fired a missile barrage at Israel in retaliation for its continuing campaign in Lebanon against the Hezbollah militant group.
The attack occurred late on Sunday, following days of bombing and ground operations in southern Lebanon by the IDF, including intensive aerial bombardment of the capital, Beirut. The Israeli onslaught has continued despite the truce declared more than six weeks ago, with the attacks intensifying over the past week. Tehran has repeatedly demanded that West Jerusalem stop, making its own negotiations with the US conditional on a working ceasefire in Lebanon.
The IDF said that it identified multiple incoming projectiles and activated anti-aircraft defenses at multiple locations. Footage circulating online purports to show Iranian missiles soaring over eastern Lebanon, while some projectiles were observed from the Lebanese capital.
Iran stated that the attack was merely a “warning” to Israel and more “crushing blows” would follow should it continue with the attacks on Lebanon.
“If it expands its attacks in that region or responds to Iran’s action, it will be met with even more crushing and regrettable blows, and devastating attacks will be launched against the regime and its supporters,” Iran’s Khatim Al-Anbiya operational headquarters said in a statement circulated by local media.
Multiple media reports indicated Israel scrambled to retaliate for the attack, with some outlets suggesting it has sought greenlight from the US to strike Iran’s energy facilities. While no official reaction to the development has been provided, multiple senior Israeli officials have vowed revenge for the strikes.
“Tonight Tehran must burn!” Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir wrote on X.
US President Donald Trump has called on both sides to show restraint, telling Fox News that the Israeli attacks on Beirut were not coordinated with Washington. At the same time, he urged Tehran to stop and get back to negotiations and to strike a “deal.”
Axios reporter Barak Ravid said on X that Trump told him he was calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “right now and telling him not to attack Iran in response.”
Earlier in the day, Israel struck Beirut’s southern suburbs without the warning usually issued by the IDF prior to attacking densely populated areas. At least two people were killed and 20 wounded in the strike on a residential building, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry.
A fragile arrangement had been reached in Lebanon. Iran had made clear that if Israel continued to strike Lebanon, it would strike at Israel.
The US/Israeli side says that overnight, Hezbollah killed 15 Israeli soldiers. A violation of the arrangement in their view, and a sign that Iran either didn’t or couldn’t control Hezbollah.
At the same time, Israel knew that renewed attacks on Beirut, particularly Dahieh, would either force Tehran to attack or back down, while having the added benefit of further weakening US-Iran diplomacy.
Iran did not back down. An attack on Dahieh, according to the Iranians, is designed to kill as many senior Hezbollah and Iranian officials as possible. So a response was inevitable, in their view.
By now, four waves of missiles have been fired at northern Israel, Haifa, and other areas. Some of the missiles are of higher quality than the ones Iran used during the war.
Israel will strike Iran within the next few hours, and the Iranians don’t have any other expectation.
Whether the US enters the fighting actively as well, or only provides support for Israel, is the big question mark right now.
The US side is deeply frustrated that the MOU has not been signed yet and accuses the Iranians of either playing for time, overnegotiating, or being incapable of getting to yes.
The Iranians, in turn, accuse the US of constantly changing the parameters while being unwilling to release a portion of Iran’s frozen assets at the outset of the MOU as a way to prove their seriousness.
If Trump doesn’t enter the war, he will be accused of abandoning Israel. If he enters the war, he will validate that Israel has an effective veto on the negotiations and on whether the US is at war or not.
A true America First policy would have worked to extricate the US from the Israeli-Iranian rivalry.
Now more than ever, it should be clear why such an exit serves US interest.
After losing the most expensive primary race in American history last month, largely thanks to pro-Israel figures and groups spending millions to defeat him (according to the Federal Election Commission, Massie received donations from 1,119 individuals actually living in Kentucky, compared to only 98 for his opponent Ed Gallrein), Massie announced just days later, “I filed with FEC for the 2028 House race.”
He explained, “This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position as a current office holder and as a potential candidate for federal office.”
A run for the White House isn’t out of the question. “I haven’t made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run,” Massie teased.
As one of the most antiwar congressional Republicans in history this side of Ron Paul, Massie has offered consistent and vocal opposition to foreign aid including to Israel. His opposition to U.S. backing and participation in Israel’s wars in Gaza and Iran was seen as a significant factor in why he lost his primary, angering President Donald Trump and, of course, one of the country’s most powerful foreign lobbying groups.
Rather than backing down, Massie is calling these people out more than ever.
On Sunday, after the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition boasted of the $5 million his group had spent to unseat Massie, the Kentucky congressman replied, “Matt Brooks bragging that the Republican Jewish Coalition spent millions to buy a congressional seat in Kentucky… but if you observe the same thing, you’re antisemitic.”
Massie was noting that any opposition to—or mere acknowledgement of—Israel’s outsized influence in American politics is almost always labeled as antisemitism by pro-Israel advocates. Yet here was Brooks openly touting it. Neoconservative veteran John Podhoretz even celebrated the role of “Jewish money” in defeating Massie.
When Axiosreported this week that Trump had reportedly unloaded on Netanyahu in an expletive-laden call, Massie weighed in with his own reality check, writing,
It’s all talk. Just withhold foreign aid to Israel for a month and they’ll stop bombing their neighbors—instant peace, the Strait of Hormuz can be opened, and gas drops $2 a gallon. Israel has been, and continues to be, the biggest welfare recipient from American tax payers.
The libertarian-leaning Kentuckian added on Tuesday, “The more Netanyahu prevents the war with Iran from ending, the more obvious it becomes that he convinced Trump to start it.”
Massie isn’t the only prominent conservative who has stuck his neck out by vocally opposing the Iran War. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh launched a tirade against it this week, writing on Monday, “This whole sh—show has been an enormous waste of time and resources and our country has not benefited from it at all.”
Of course, the Daily Wire is home to Ben Shapiro, one of the most pro-Israel voices on the American right. Replying to Walsh, Massie chimed in, “I hope you get to keep your job after this post.”
When talk host and rabid Zionist Mark Levin insisted on Sunday, “I make NO apologies for my support of Israel, the Persian people, Ukraine, and Taiwan! Period!”, America First Massie had this response: “Great! Write a personal check. Americans are tired of sending them tax dollars while our own infrastructure crumbles and prices soar.”
This kind of banter with neocons is nothing new for Massie, but there does seem to be something extra in his standard fearlessness now, including with regard to his efforts to declassify the controversial files of the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, files which the administration would strongly prefer to bury. The president, under intense pressure, signed off on their release in November.
After the podcaster and former Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked podcaster Shawn Ryan what “core MAGA” was now, Ryan replied, “I have no idea. Pedophiles Supporting Israeli Lobby?”
Massie shared that clip, asking “What’s MAGA now?”
He’s not just striking a new pose online. After Responsible Statecraft last Friday revealed a shocking plan to integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries, Massie and his frequent Democratic ally Rep. Ro Khanna of California pounced. Massie posted, “If the provision in the NDAA to integrate/synchronize the U.S. and Israeli militaries (section 224) makes it out of committee, I’ll offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor.”
“We are a sovereign country,” Massie insisted.
Khanna shared Massie’s post, writing, “And I will be offering an amendment in the committee itself to strip section 224 out.” The California congressman added, “Trump can’t kill the Massie/Khanna partnership no matter how much he posts on Truth Social.”
Two weeks since a Trump-endorsed and AIPAC-backed candidate defeated Massie, the president still seems obsessed with him—and with former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Tucker Carlson, and other America Firsters—something that could get even more interesting given that Massie still has seven more months in office. Greene was pressured out of her Georgia House seat by the president, but in retirement has remained a force in politics, arguably even a greater one than she was in office.
Massie, for his part, is using his remaining time in Congress to advance an America First agenda. He even introduced legislation to block U.S. bombs from being sent to Israel. “Israel has used American-supplied munitions to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians,” Massie observed. “America is morally obligated to end support of Israel’s devastation of Gaza and its people. I’m cosponsoring the Block the Bombs Act to limit the transfer of offensive weapons to Israel.”
As if that wasn’t enough, on Wednesday Massie again broke party ranks, along with three other Republicans, by joining Democrats to pass the Iran War Powers Resolution, which he cosponsored. “The People’s House is sending a message: end this war,” he wrote.
The hits keep coming. On Thursday, Massie announced that he will address a controversial attack by Israeli forces on an American ship on the event’s 59th anniversary. Massie wrote, “On June 8, 2026, I’ll speak on the floor of the House to honor and memorialize the brave crew of the USS Liberty who died and were wounded in an unprovoked attack by Israel on June 8, 1967.”
He’s obviously not cowering or giving an inch to the figures and groups that worked so hard and spent so much to beat him.
Megyn Kelly has reported that an estimated $30 million was spent by pro-Israel forces to defeat Massie. What dollar amount would that lobby be willing to cough up should Massie decide to run for president?
Again, Thomas Massie doesn’t look or talk like someone who just lost. He acts more like someone who’s just getting started.
Sen. Ron Johnson convened physicians and researchers for a hearing on possible links between COVID mRNA injections, cancer, and scientific censorship. The testimony raised explosive questions about immune suppression, oncogenes, and why some of the most urgent safety concerns are still being pushed to the margins.
SpaceX will soon go public, in an offering that will value the company at over a trillion dollars. Anthropic and OpenAI are Artificial Intelligence companies, who also plan megacap IPO’s for later in the year. Recent changes to indexing rules will compel massive share buys into these companies by retirement and pension plans, and by passive ETF’s and mutual funds. In the past, new companies were required to wait until insiders sold most of the shares after the lockup periods before being added to investment indices. Companies also needed to show a strong history of growth and sound financial practices.
The Israel government has done a lot to earn dislike through bringing death and destruction on a vast scale. People are seeing Israel’s attacks in the last few years on Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and beyond as using destructive force that is not just defensive and focused on military targets. General annihilation is seen as a clear objective.
Americans have had special reason to become aware of reasons to dislike Israel given that the United States government has been working as a coconspirator, funding and otherwise assisting Israel’s mayhem. Indeed, a new Pew Research Center poll of the views of people across 36 countries found that in America 60 percent of queried individuals have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion of Israel, while only 37 percent have a somewhat or very favorable opinion of Israel.
Still, Americans, compared with other people questioned across the world, come in as less critical of Israel than most. The figures for median views of people in the 36 surveyed countries came in at a 67 percent unfavorable view of Israel and a 25 percent favorable view.
In each of the 36 surveyed countries where people were questioned, the opinion regarding Israel tilted negative except for in India and three African nations — Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria — where the positive opinion regarding Israel came in on top.
How will the Trump years in office play out in the history books? Recently, a number of unthinkable scenarios have taken place which will mark Trump and 2026 out as a seismic watershed moment in America’s history which will change the country’s identity and standing in the world forever. The decision by Trump to strike Iran on February 28th was remarkable in that it was a decision that Trump more or less took while disregarding his chief of staff and most of the cabal of decision makers around him, in preference for what Israel was insisting was a quick, winnable weekend war.
If we are to believe the explosive expletives though which were delivered by Trump to Netanyahu in a telephone call, it would appear that the greatest nightmare the world has about America – that it is run entirely these days by Israel – has come true. The anger and frustration by Trump might be real, even though what was reported might have been exaggerated for political purposes but the reality is that Israel is blocking any deal that Trump might believe he can pull off with Iran. And worse than just blocking it, based on Netanyahu’s statement about Lebanon, Bibi has not “turned back” IDF troops from making the south of Lebanon a new Gaza. The killing goes on, the systematic destruction of property and the war with Hezbollah has not been halted which puts Trump in an even tighter corner than he might have imagined he was in just a couple of weeks ago. He himself is unable to strike Iran as GCC partners have critically denied his military the support it would need, but in reality those governments and their elites – in particular MbS of Saudi Arabia – have played the safety lever role on Trump’s madness that Washington couldn’t pull off itself. Trump’s firing of all chiefs of staff from Biden’s days and surrounding himself with under qualified yes men has resulted in Trump himself being able to cultivate the maddest ideas and it is only leaders of the middle east who can tell him no. Enough is enough.
Presently, what we are witnessing in the region is the division of GCC countries – those who are allied to Israel via the Abraham Accords – and those who have formed a new anti Israel alliance with its own nuclear deterrent, a group made up of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which doesn’t have a name but is now an informal pact.
And in the middle of all this madness, comes more. Now we are hearing plans for Israel to move ahead with plans which would guarantee its annual 3.8 bn USD military gift from the U.S. for the next 20 years, shrouded in even more secrecy through a bill in congress which would essentially merge the Israeli government with the Washington apparatus making the IDF one with the U.S. military.
This fusion of the IDF and U.S. forces comes when Israel is sensing that future governments and congress will demand more accountability of how the annual defence gratuity is spent and Israel’s intentions in future wars. It also comes when public opinion seems to be against America’s support for Israel and its regional goals.
For example, according to Al Jazeera, a survey this month from The New York Times and Siena College found that 57 percent of U.S. voters opposed providing Israel with additional economic and military support.
Moreover, 62 percent said they disapproved of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza, which started in 2023, has killed more than 75,000 people, prompting widespread condemnation, Al Jazeera claims.
There is some kickback from both houses against the so called Section 244 although those who have opposed it have predictably been called ‘anti semitic’.
But the very fact that Israel is using its leverage with congressmen which it has on its payroll to push through a bill which would ‘co-ordinate’ all military action that both the U.S. and Israel are involved in shows just how advanced Israel is with its absolute control of Washington. We’ve reached a new high-water mark of servility and it’s the Trump second term which has been a catalyst to this new world order which is going to make any deal with Iran even harder – first of all to get signed, but more importantly to implement, which of course the Iranians know, which explains their lethargic pace in the negotiations compared to Trump’s panicky buffoonery.
To Trump’s credit, he at least presented some resistance to U.S. forces being sent to their deaths when Israel turned up the heat and insisted on getting dug into a longer, drawn out deeper conflict with Iran. Sceptics rush to point out that Israel will only use a closer union to sell on the open market all of America’s military secrets, the bigger point is being over looked. If this article 244 gets through, it will only be a matter of time before an Israeli PM can simply order U.S. troops to fight any battle it wants. The days of heated arguments, threats or even blackmail will be looked back upon almost nostalgically as a golden era where a U.S. president still had the final call on whether to send in American troops. Netanyahu’s identity for three decades has been built on him bragging that he and Israel have been running America but the claim has been largely uncontested until now. Are we now about to enter a new phase?
“He’ll do whatever I want him to do,” Donald Trump declared recently about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The statement may be one of the most revealing statements Trump has ever made—not for what it says about Netanyahu, but for what it reveals about Trump’s psychology. It was intended as a display of strength. Instead, it exposed the opposite.
Trump has built a political persona around hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, and declarations of superiority to cover up for an oversized inferiority complex, he only knows its extent. When he insists that Netanyahu is acting at his command, he is projecting an authority he does not possess. The louder the boast, the more apparent the insecurity beneath it.
If there is one lesson since the election of Trump, it is that Netanyahu, not Trump, has consistently dictated the pace of America’s wars in the Middle East. Trump may occupy the White House, issue ultimatums, and proclaim himself the master negotiator, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. Again and again, Netanyahu acts, and Trump adjusts.
For years, Netanyahu worked relentlessly to pull the U. S. into another made-for-Israel war, this time against Iran. Successive administrations, despite their deference to Israel, stopped short of falling for the scheme. Trump, however, proved far more susceptible to the influence of his Israel-first donors and to Netanyahu’s chicanery. Yet he continues to portray himself as the one calling the shots.
This week, Trump proudly recounted a phone call in which he supposedly instructed Netanyahu to halt a planned Israeli attack on Beirut. It took little time after Trump’s statement for Israel’s defense minister to announce that military operations “will continue under all circumstances.” True to that pledge, Israel launched fresh attacks on hospitals and villages in southern Lebanon, killing and wounding civilians despite the so-called Trump’s war cessation.
Two days later, on Wednesday June 3rd, Lebanese and Israeli delegations meeting in Washington announced another ceasefire. The third such extension since last April. One day after reaching the agreement, Israel resumed strikes on South Lebanon and said it would neither withdraw nor allow Lebanese civilians back to their homes in the south.
It is almost certain, when the Lebanese resistance eventually counters the repeated Israeli violations, Trump—as he has done before—will condemn the retaliation rather than the provocation. To save face and avoid appearing weak before Netanyahu, he will once again blame the Lebanese side while ignoring the Israeli occupation and military actions that triggered the response.
The same pattern is evident in the negotiations with Iran. For months, Trump’s stated objective was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—a framework which aligns with Tehran’s declared position. But nuclear-armed Israel, which never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran did, has different goals entirely. Netanyahu’s government will not be satisfied with anything short of the destruction of knowledge and the reduction of Iran to a failed state, precisely the fate that befell Iraq and Libya after both countries agreed to surrender their nuclear ambitions.
For Israel, a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran, may be far less desirable than the continuation of regional turmoil. For its objective is the preservation of a strategic environment that sustains military and geopolitical dominance. Zionism has long viewed the emergence of democratic, technologically advanced, and self-reliant neighboring states as a threat. Fragmentation and disorder in surrounding countries serve that objective by limiting the rise of independent regional powers that could one day, potentially challenge Israeli primacy. In this case, Israel may be unique among nations: it derives strategic advantage not from a stable and prosperous region, but from entropy, and has built a regional doctrine whose success depends on propagating chaos.
The cost to ordinary Americans is tangible, and personal. They feel it every time they fuel their cars, pay inflated prices for goods, or watch Congress cut healthcare or financial student aid for Americans in order to finance another military aid package for Israel.
Americans are not only financing Israel’s wars through tax dollars and weapons transfers. They are also paying what amounts to an Israeli surcharge tax at the pump.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been trying for weeks to assure consumers that gas will hover around $3 a gallon between June and September, as if it is acceptable for Americans to pay elevated prices until Netanyahu deigns to approve a ceasefire, especially when Trump boasts that America is a net oil exporter.
Gaza is another front in Israel’s endless wars. Trump personally signed the ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2025, chirping “we have peace in the Middle East.” He had since watched in silence as Israel systematically dismantled every commitment it had made. During the “ceasefire,” it maintained a starvation diet blockade, murdered more than 800 and wounded thousands.
Under Phase One of the agreement, Israeli forces were required to withdraw to approximately 53 percent of Gaza. Phase two stipulated further withdrawal. Instead, Netanyahu ordered the seizure of an additional 32 percent, increasing total Israeli military occupation to 70 percent of the besieged territory, confining 2.3 million Palestinians to 30 percent, or roughly 50,000 human beings per each square mile of rubble.
On all fronts, Trump did not merely follow Netanyahu’s lead. He enabled it, funded it, armed it, and defended it diplomatically. Then, standing before television cameras, he attempted to compensate for this reality by insisting that he was the one in control.
To that end, and following recent Republican primary elections, lame-duck Republican members of Congress have already begun treating the Trump administration as a lame-duck presidency, long before the midterm elections. The recent congressional vote to limit presidential war powers is a telling sign that Trump’s political capital is eroding far sooner than expected.
Nevertheless, Americans may be witnessing a historic inflection point in the decades-long power of Israel-first Zionist influence over American political life. It is clear the political landscape is shifting, and the assumptions that long governed Washington’s relationship with Israel no longer appear as immutable as they once did. From growing dissent within the Democratic Party—and among Republican influencers—to deepening unease across the Washington Beltway, genuine cracks are appearing in a system that for generations treated Israel as a sacred cow. Eight decades of unquestioned manipulation and political leverage over American leaders is now facing resistance from constituencies that were once among its most reliable friends.
Hence, no amount of presidential bravado or social-media posturing can obscure what has become undeniable: under Donald Trump, American foreign policy has served Netanyahu’s Israel-first agenda, not America’s. And when the history of this era is written, this odd couple may be remembered for ushering in the sunset of Israel-first Zionist dominance over the U.S. government.
Netanyahu and Trump are conditioning the end of the war in Iran on the condition that all countries in the region sign the Abraham Accords, a tacit submission to Israel. Drawing on Daniel Levy, Omer Bartov, and the Pew Survey, I address the reasons, the urgency, and the limits of Netanyahu’s simultaneous battles on several fronts in the quest for a Greater Israel project.
When Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich talks about expanding Israel’s reach “to Damascus,” or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expresses personal attachment to broad territorial ambitions or Israel being not only a “regional superpower” but “in some respects, a global superpower,” these are not just messianic daydreams. They reflect a deliberate, and deeply destabilizing strategic doctrine. For years, the idea of Greater Israel was dismissed by Western analysts as the rhetoric of a few Israeli hardliners. Sustaining this dismissive position is no longer possible.
Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and now head of the U.S./Middle East Project, offers a sharp analytical lens for understanding today’s events. He suggests that Greater Israel isn’t just about land—it’s about Israel aiming to establish itself as the dominant hard-power player across the Middle East. As Levy puts it, this is about seeing how far Israel can extend its reach and consolidate its role as the region’s unrivaled hegemon.
Territorial control—occupying the Golan, reasserting presence in southern Lebanon, pushing forward with West Bank annexation, and the continuation of the genocide in Gaza—is only the most visible layer. The deeper game is about forging new regional alliances, as the one with the UAE, systematically weakening rival states, and building webs of hard-power dependency that lock neighboring governments into Israel’s orbit.
The ideological consolidation of this project was the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Basic Law, which constitutionally defined Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people.” For many, including the PLO’s Saeb Erekat, this law was the moment when a Zionist aspiration became a formal legal reality, and for critics, a codification of a system of apartheid. What was once an ambition is now written into the legal foundations of the state.
Omer Bartov, a leading scholar on genocide and Israeli history, traces this shift with a heavy sense of loss. In his book Israel: What Went Wrong?, he shows how Zionism, once rooted in the humanitarian ideals of 19th-century Jewish emancipation, has been transformed into a state project of ethno-nationalism, exclusion, and, in the end, violence. As Bartov puts it, what began as a struggle for Jewish liberation has become a machinery for dominating Palestinians, with all the tragedy that implies.
The Logic of Urgency
The pace and simultaneity of Israeli military operations in recent years demand careful analysis. In just two years, Israel has bombed Gaza, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar and Yemen; it has occupied the Golan Heights, Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of southern Lebanon. Israel even succeeded in drawing the United States into a direct conflict with Iran, a move that, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio accidentally admitted, was driven more by Israeli rather than American priorities. As for Netanyahu, this is a posture of someone convinced that the window for reshaping the region is closing fast, and determined to act before it closes.
Levy describes the current moment as the “Pax Greater Israel” era, a time when the old constraints of American power, the so-called Pax Americana, have faded. With a more pliable U.S. administration, Israel’s room to maneuver has expanded. Iran still hasn’t rebuilt the deterrence it once had before Israel and America struck last year. The region’s strategic balance is more fluid—and more precarious—than it’s been in a generation.
While there’s international outrage over Israel’s actions in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon, Israel has not suffered any punishment. The European Union, which heralds itself as the guardian of morals and Western values, has seen these values undermined by Israel, yet no single action has been taken. Netanyahu, who has piloted Israeli politics for nearly two decades, is unlikely to let an opportunity like this slip by.
Netanyahu’s sense of urgency isn’t just strategic. It is also deeply personal and political. He faces criminal charges, widespread public disapproval (polls showed most Israelis wanted him out even before the Gaza war), and an election looming in 2026. His personal survival and his political project are now intertwined. History teaches us that war often delays accountability, and Netanyahu knows that he has survived through wars.
By keeping the nation in a constant state of crisis, Netanyahu postpones his own reckoning while pushing forward his broader regional ambitions. There is always a danger when embattled leaders manipulate the machinery of state.
The Collapse of the Impunity Consensus
For decades, Israel benefited from an unspoken Western consensus that gave it extraordinary complacency on international law. UN resolutions could be swept aside, settlements could expand, human rights abuses against Palestinians could be perpetrated, and the memory of the Holocaust—too often used as a diplomatic shield—offered a kind of moral immunity no other state enjoyed. That consensus is now breaking down, even if its institutional traces remain stubbornly in place.
The visibility of the Gaza war and its horrendous violence has triggered a generational break like never before and a breakdown of this consensus. According to an April 2026 Pew survey, 60% of Americans have unfavorable views of Israel and 37% favorable ones. This becomes more important, as it is the first in history. The same survey also showed Netanyahu’s administration with 27% approval and 59% disapproval. In the last Global Country Perceptions Survey, Israel ranked in the last position, several points behind North Korea and Afghanistan.
The generational divide is even sharper among young people, many of whom reject any complicity in what prominent scholars, including Bartov, now formally call genocide. Netanyahu’s act of tearing up the UN Charter at the General Assembly, followed by a mass walkout, was more than symbolism. It marked the end of an era for both Netanyahu and Israel. Criticism of Israel or Zionism is no longer quickly conflated with antisemitism, especially among the younger generations.
And yet the institutional lag is severe. The European Union, bound by Article 2 of its Association Agreement with Israel, which explicitly conditions the relationship on respect for human rights, has consistently refused to act on its own legal framework. The cost of this cowardice is not merely moral. The EU, having lost industrial competitiveness, seeks its international influence as a regulatory and normative superpower. This claim rests on credibility. A bloc that intends to police the digital practices of technology companies but cannot enforce a human rights clause in its own trade agreement with a small state faces difficulties in imposing itself as a normative power, and the Global South has drawn that conclusion because of the lack of moral authority and double standard.
The pro-Israel lobby in the United States, sensing the tide turning, has responded by intensifying rather than moderating. More money is being spent, more countries are being pressured, more political careers are being threatened or terminated, as was the case with Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and more communication and online platforms are being acquired; censorship is being imposed, especially on platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, and algorithms are being “re-educated,” as Mr. Larry Ellison said when he acquired TikTok. The main lobby, AIPAC, has, in great measure, turned into a politically toxic brand, according to The Intercept.
But Levy is right to note the structural limits of this approach. Lobbying is most effective when it moves with the current of public opinion or when it operates in the dark. It is least effective when it operates openly against an overwhelming public majority, against a country’s perceived national interest, and against the values of the rising generation. The lobby is fighting a rearguard action — powerful, well-resourced, and increasingly desperate.
The Next Iran and the Regional Order
It’s no accident that Israeli security officials—from Naftali Bennett to the current establishment—have started designating Türkiye as “the next Iran.” This isn’t just rhetoric; it is also part of “Greater Israel” strategy. Three decades ago, Israel argued that Iran was the existential threat that had to be contained before it led the region. Now, the same logic and language are applied to Türkiye: any regional power capable of building a new security order outside Israeli influence is seen as a threat to be isolated or confronted before it can consolidate.
But Türkiye is a different kind of challenge. As a NATO member with the largest NATO army in Europe, a strong economy, and the anchor of a coalition with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, Türkiye is not easily marginalized. Recent agreements point to a regional bloc that aims to build security frameworks explicitly outside Israeli (and, by extension, Western) dominance. This coalition news has not pleased Israel and soon reached the EU, with Ursula von der Leyen declaring, “We do not want to live under the influence of China, Russia, or Türkiye.”
The regional threat map has changed. For much of the Arab world and for Türkiye’s Erdoğan, Israel—not Iran—is now seen as the chief destabilizer. This shift in perception has real geopolitical consequences, and it’s not something American air power can easily undo.
Are we at the point of no return? In some ways, yes. The two-state solution, no matter how often it’s invoked in diplomatic statements, is functionally dead. It wasn’t killed by a single act, but by decades of illegal settlements, legal discrimination, disproportionate violence, and the systematic fragmentation of Palestinian territory. The ethnostate is already a reality on the ground. Bartov’s assessment is sobering but direct: unless there is sustained, structural pressure and actions from the international community, a real course correction is unlikely, and so far, that pressure hasn’t materialized.
But in another sense, we’re not quite past the point of no return for Netanyahu’s grand project. The conditions that have enabled the Greater Israel strategy are starting to slip away. American public opinion is shifting faster than the country’s political leaders; the support for Palestine is now higher than the support for Israel. A new regional bloc—with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt—offers a real counterweight. Iran, for all its setbacks, still possesses significant strategic resources and has the backing of China and Russia. And inside Israel, recent polling shows that a large majority (71%) support replacing the current Basic Laws with a formal constitution. Beneath the surface noise of hardline politics, there’s evidence that Israeli society hasn’t wholly given in to the ethnonationalist vision Bartov describes.
One thing is clear: this current trajectory of forever war and continued violence and humiliation of Palestinians can’t last forever. As Levy notes, Netanyahu is playing a high-stakes game of “use it or lose it.” The real question isn’t whether this moment will end — sure it will — but what the aftermath will look like. Will the region be forcibly remade in the image of Greater Israel, or will a new order, forged through painful resistance, emerge in its place? The stakes for Israelis, Palestinians, and the broader Middle East couldn’t be higher.
Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 