The Gulf is not growing warm toward Israel; it is becoming more specific in the way it discusses Israel. In this region, word choice is often the first sign that strategy is moving.
Does a political leader who chooses to go to war have the right to unilaterally put the lives of millions of citizens around the world at risk?
From Egypt to Iran, leaders often choose honor over surrender, enduring defeat rather than risking public humiliation.
Amir Ohana, the Speaker of the Knesset, decided last week that discussions could now be held in the Knesset without any limitation on their subject matter.
The Gulf states’ ability to preserve stability, maintain strategic flexibility, and avoid being drawn into an escalation will shape the region for years to come.
If the political situation after the war looks exactly like it did before the war, or worse, the region will have paid an enormous price for very little strategic gain.
As Reza Pahlavi steps forward with a detailed post-regime vision, the conversation is shifting to what comes next and whether anyone is prepared for it.
Joe Kent’s resignation letter highlights his belief in antisemitic conspiracy theories about Israel’s influence on the US. He’s not alone in spreading these false narratives.
A viral barista, a pro-Palestinian Oscar film defeated, and rising US polls: Israel's image is improving, but loose talk from Israeli ministers could undo it all.
The bigger question is whether the American right will remain reliably pro-Israel once this war fades and the debate shifts from missiles and headlines back to culture, loyalty, and identity.
The arguments used today to oppose confronting Iran echo the same isolationist logic that once delayed action against Hitler.
