Arabs do not go beyond lip service to Gazans

The issue of why many Arab governments seem to offer only "lip service" in support of Gaza is complex and rooted in a mix of political, economic, and geopolitical factors. Let us explore the likely reasons.

Geopolitical Constraints

US Influence:

Many Arab nations, especially those with close ties to the West (like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan), rely heavily on the US support that include aid, security, and diplomatic backing. Directly confronting Israel — a key US ally — risks straining these relationships.

Normalization Deals:

Countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have signed normalization agreements with Israel (the Abraham Accords). These agreements are tied to economic and strategic benefits, making it costly to take aggressive action against Israel.

Iran Factor:

Some Arab governments, especially Sunni-majority have been brain washed to see Iran — which supports Hamas and Hezbollah — as a bigger regional threat than Israel. This complicates their stance on Gaza.

Mutual Interests

Economic Dependence:

Many Arab economies are tightly integrated with Western financial systems or rely on international trade and investments that could suffer if they provoke Israel’s allies.

Internal Stability:

Countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon — which have large Palestinian refugee populations — are already facing economic hardship. Escalating tensions could lead to social unrest, which their governments are eager to avoid.

Regime Survival

Authoritarian Control:

Many Arab leaders prioritize regime survival over regional solidarity. Supporting Gaza too aggressively could embolden opposition groups within their own countries — especially Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, which many Arab governments suppress.

Government Policy:

While Arab populations broadly support Palestine, authoritarian governments often control protests, media narratives, and activism to prevent mass uprisings. They may issue strong statements to appease the public but avoid substantive actions.

Egypt-Gaza Dynamic

Rafah Border:

Egypt controls the only non-Israeli border with Gaza. While Egypt has expressed solidarity, it's wary of fully opening the Rafah crossing due to: 1) security concerns (fear of extremist infiltration), 2) pressure from Israel and the US to control the flow of people and goods and 3) Hamas ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt’s government opposes.

Breaking Status quo

For Arab governments to go beyond rhetoric, they need: 1) stronger, unified regional leadership — which is currently fractured, 2) a major shift in global alliances, reduced US influence or developing better and dependable relations with other super powers like China and Russia and 3) internal pressures that become uncontainable — widespread, sustained protests or leadership changes driven by popular demands.

 

Israeli Plan for Full Reoccupation of Gaza

Israel has formulated a new plan to fully reoccupy the Gaza Strip, according to a report published Monday by the Financial Times, citing senior Israeli officials. If implemented, this would mark the first time Israel reasserts full control over Gaza since its 2005 unilateral withdrawal.

The proposed strategy, developed by IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, reportedly calls for the mobilization of multiple IDF combat divisions to enter the Strip with the aim of decisively dismantling Hamas and restoring security control. The report indicates that the plan has backing from members of Israel’s security leadership and political right, but has not yet been approved by the security cabinet.

Two Israeli officials noted that the return of Donald Trump to White House was a key factor in reviving such a bold plan. The current US administration has given stronger public support for Israel’s military objectives, signaling a window of opportunity for Israel to reshape Gaza’s future governance.

In addition to regaining military control, Israel would reportedly assume full authority over humanitarian aid distribution within the Strip. This would include managing aid flows and monitoring nutritional requirements part of a broader plan to ensure that civilians receive assistance while Hamas is denied access to resources.

Hamas, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, continues to operate within civilian infrastructure and impede aid access. Israel’s plan to oversee aid directly is intended to sever the terror group’s ability to manipulate humanitarian efforts.

 

Undeclared US-Iran war and role of Israel

The tension between the United States and Iranian clerics — especially the ruling ones — is rooted in a mix of historical events, ideological differences, and geopolitical conflicts. To understand the prevailing situation one has to peep into the history.

Iranian Revolution of 1979

Let us begin with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The US had a strong alliance with Iran’s Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), who promoted Western-friendly policies. After Shah was overthrown, Ayatollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic, rejecting Western influence and terming the US the "Great Satan." During the US embassy hostage crisis (1979-1981), 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days.

Ideological Clash

The Western media is never tired of claiming that Iran’s clerical leadership promotes anti-Western, anti-imperialist, and anti-Israel sentiments. This is termed directly challenging the US hegemony in the region.

The US supports secular governance and democracy, while Iran's leadership is based on Velayat-e Faqih (rule of the Islamic jurist), blending religion and politics in a way that challenges Western norms.

Regional Power Struggle

The United States considers Iran the biggest challenger of its hegemony in the MENA. The US classifies the axis of resistance as terrorist organizations and alleges that Iran supports militant groups like Hezbollah and Houthi rebels. Over the years the US has been playing the mantra, “Iran is a bigger threat for Saudi Arabia as compared to Iran” and promoting animosity among the two countries. This enabled the US to sell lethal weapons worth billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia.

Nuclear Tensions

Despite Iran’s repeated assurances that its nuclear program is peaceful, the US has been propagating that Iran is busy in developing nuclear weapons to destabilize the region. The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) temporarily eased tensions, but Trump withdrew from it in 2018, leading to renewed sanctions and hostilities.

Human Rights and Freedom

The US has been persistently accusing Iran’s clerical leadership for suppressing protests, women’s rights violations, censorship, and political imprisonments — especially after events like the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests.

In short, the US sees Iranian clerics as anti-Western, oppressive, and destabilizing, while the clerics view the US as imperialist and morally corrupt. It is believed that after the US Embassy debacle, the world super power decided not enter into direct confrontation with Iran. The US, found a proxy, Israel.

Strategic Partnership with Israel

The US sees Israel as its closest ally in the Middle East — a stable, technologically advanced, and militarily strong partner in a region filled with rival powers. Israel shares the US goal of curbing Iranian influence, especially because Iran funds groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which directly threaten Israel.

Iran as a Regional Threat

The US and Israel both view Iran’s leadership as destabilizing due to Iranian support for militant proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria). Anti-Israel rhetoric — Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which both nations see as a potential existential threat to Israel and a power-shifting game changer in the region.

Covert Israeli Operations

Israel often conducts covert strikes on Iranian targets — like the assassination of nuclear scientists or cyberattacks. This allows the US to distance itself publicly while still supporting Israeli actions behind the scenes (financial aid, intelligence sharing, advanced weaponry).

 Funding and Military Aid

The US provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in military aid, ensuring Israel maintains a "Qualitative Military Edge" over regional adversaries, particularly Iran. This enables Israel to act as a forward line of defense without direct US military involvement.

Avoiding a Full-Scale War

Direct US conflict with Iran could escalate into a massive regional war — something the US wants to avoid after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. By using Israel and occasionally other regional allies to contain Iran, the US avoids deploying troops while still advancing its strategic goals.

Balancing Regional Power

Iran’s influence stretches from Tehran to Beirut (the so-called "Shia Crescent"). The US and Israel work to disrupt this expansion, particularly in Syria (where Iran supported Assad) and Lebanon (via Hezbollah). Recent airstrikes on Iranian arms shipments and proxy bases — often attributed to Israel — are part of this containment strategy.

The Conclusion

The US doesn’t officially call Israel a proxy, but the relationship functions that way in practice. Israel handles the dirty work, and the US provides diplomatic cover, weapons, and money. This setup gives the US strategic flexibility without the cost and backlash of another Middle Eastern war.

Drawing a parallel between US supplying arms to Israel and Iran supplying arms to Houthis

This morning I sat down to explore a parallel between US supplying arms to Israel and Iran supplying arms to Houthis. My gut feeling is, though the situations are complex and have key differences, the outcome depends on the analyst if he/ she is a friend of United States.

The Parallel:

Proxy Support:
The Western analysts, without any hesitation say both Iranian support for the Houthis and the US support for Israel involve supplying advanced weapons to allied groups or nations engaged in regional conflicts. Over the years Western analysis have been saying, Iran backs the Houthis to extend its influence against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, while the US supports Israel as a key strategic ally in the Middle East.

Strategic Goals:
The mantra of Western analysts is, Iran aims to challenge Western-aligned powers (like Saudi Arabia and Israel), while the US supports Israel to maintain a balance of power favorable to its interests in the region.

Impact on Conflicts:
They also say, both arms supplies prolong conflicts. Iranian weapons bolster Houthi resilience in Yemen’s civil war, while US arms help Israel maintain its military edge in Gaza and against regional threats like Hezbollah.

Key Differences:

Legitimacy and International Recognition:
God Fathers of genocide in Gaza say, Israel is a recognized sovereign state, whereas the Houthis are a rebel group (though they control significant territory in Yemen). This affects how international law and diplomacy perceive the arms transfers.

Military Capabilities:
The reality is, the US arms to Israel include advanced fighter jets, missile defense systems, and intelligence support — a level of military aid far beyond the drones, missiles, and small arms Iran provides to the Houthis.

Transparency and Alliances:
The funniest argument is, the US military aid to Israel is largely public, subject to congressional oversight, and part of formal agreements. Iran’s support for the Houthis is clandestine, violating UN arms embargoes.

Global Perception:
The dishonest Western media go to the extent of saying, the US positions its support as aiding a democracy for self-defense, while Iran’s aid to the Houthis is widely seen as destabilizing and fueling a humanitarian crisis.

 

US lifts bounties on senior Taliban figures

According to various media reports, the United States has lifted bounties on three senior Taliban officials, including Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, who also leads the Haqqani network, a group long blamed for deadly attacks against Afghanistan’s former Western-backed government.

Haqqani, who previously admitted to orchestrating the 2008 attack on Kabul’s Serena Hotel that killed six people, including American citizen Thor David Hesla, no longer appears on the US State Department’s Rewards for Justice Website.

According to Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Mateen Qani, the US government revoked the bounties on Sirajuddin Haqqani, Abdul Aziz Haqqani, and Yahya Haqqani. “These three individuals are two brothers and one paternal cousin,” he told The Associated Press.

The Haqqani network, originally founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, rose to prominence as one of the most lethal arms of the Taliban following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The group has been linked to a series of high-profile attacks on the Indian and US embassies, the Afghan presidency, and other targets, and has also been accused of engaging in extortion, kidnappings, and other criminal activities.

Zakir Jalaly, a Foreign Ministry official in Kabul, said the US decision to lift the bounties — coming just days after the release of American prisoner George Glezmann — signaled a thaw in bilateral relations.

“Both sides are moving beyond the effects of the wartime phase and taking constructive steps to pave the way for progress,” Jalaly said. “The recent developments in Afghanistan-US relations are a good example of pragmatic and realistic engagement.”

Shafi Azam, another official, welcomed the move as the beginning of normalization, noting the Taliban’s recent assertion of control over Afghanistan’s embassy in Norway as further evidence of diplomatic progress.

Since taking power in August 2021, the Taliban have struggled with global isolation, worsened by their sweeping restrictions on women and girls.

Only a few countries, including China and Qatar, have formally or informally engaged with the Taliban diplomatically. The US has also maintained indirect channels of communication.

Despite being under United Nations sanctions since 2007, Sirajuddin Haqqani has traveled internationally in the past year. These trips, made with UN clearance, were his first abroad since the Taliban’s return to power.

Haqqani has also voiced rare public criticism of the Taliban’s decision-making process, highlighting internal divisions within the group’s leadership.

 

United States No Exit from Pakistan

"No Exit from Pakistan" by Daniel S. Markey offers an in-depth analysis of the complex and often turbulent relationship between the United States and Pakistan. Markey, drawing on his extensive experience in South Asian affairs, explores the multifaceted nature of Pakistan and the challenges it presents to US foreign policy.​

Complex Pakistani Identity:

Markey portrays Pakistan as a nation with multiple identities: an elite-dominated society, a military-centric state, a breeding ground for terrorism, and a country with a youthful, idealistic population. This diversity complicates both internal governance and external relations.

US-Pakistan Relations:

The book traces the historical oscillations in US-Pakistan relations, highlighting periods of close military cooperation during Pakistan's military regimes and strained ties during its democratic transitions.

Anti-US Sentiment:

Markey delves into the roots of anti-US sentiments in Pakistan, noting that both conservative and liberal factions harbor distrust towards the US, albeit for different reasons. Conservatives view the US as untrustworthy, while liberals criticize US support for military dictatorships over democratic institutions.

The author presents three strategic options for the US:

Defensive Insulation:

Minimizing engagement with Pakistan while protecting US interests through intelligence and military means.

Military-First Cooperation:

Focusing on strengthening ties with Pakistan's military to achieve security objectives.

Comprehensive Cooperation:

Engaging with both civilian and military sectors to promote democratic institutions, economic development, and counter-terrorism efforts.

Markey emphasizes that there is "no exit" from Pakistan for the United States, underscoring the necessity of a nuanced and sustained engagement to navigate this intricate bilateral relationship.

 

Lebanese president condemns Israeli airstrikes

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Saturday condemned any attempts to drag Lebanon back into a cycle of violence, following an Israeli airstrike campaign on villages and towns in southern Lebanon in response to a rocket attack on the Israeli settlement of Metula.

The strike on Metula marked the first major cross-border attack since the November 2024 ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel. No group has claimed responsibility for the rocket launch.

“What occurred today in the south, and what has been happening there since February 18, regarding the failure to adhere to the precise terms of the ceasefire agreement, constitutes an ongoing aggression against Lebanon,” Aoun said in a statement, warning it could derail the national rescue plan agreed upon by Lebanese stakeholders.

He called on Lebanon’s allies to remain vigilant against “what is being plotted against Lebanon by multiple hostile parties,” and urged the monitoring committee established under the ceasefire, along with the Lebanese army, to take urgent steps to prevent further escalation.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam also issued a warning Saturday against further military escalation on the southern border, stressing the potential consequences of renewed hostilities.

“The continuation of hostilities could lead to a new war that would only bring destruction and suffering to the Lebanese people,” Salam said.

He held phone calls with Defense Minister Michel Mounir and UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, stressing that only the Lebanese state has the authority to declare war or peace.

Salam also criticized Israel for continuing to occupy Lebanese territory in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and urged the international community to pressure Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied areas.Earlier in the day, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz warned that any further rocket fire from Lebanon would prompt Israeli strikes on Beirut, escalating concerns of a return to full-scale conflict.

Since the ceasefire took effect in November, Lebanese officials report nearly 1,100 Israeli violations, resulting in at least 85 deaths and over 280 injuries.

Under the terms of the ceasefire, Israel was expected to fully withdraw from southern Lebanese border areas by January 26, but the deadline was extended to February 18 due to non-compliance. Israel reportedly maintains military presence at five border outposts.