1) At WINEP, Michael Jacobson discusses What an “Iranian Proxies” Agreement Should Encompass.
“Late last month, the Trump administration presented Iran with a fifteen-point plan to end the war, including a demand that Tehran cut off its support for foreign proxy and partner groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Yemeni Houthis, among others. The regime appears likely to reject this proposal—unsurprising given how vital these groups have been to “exporting the revolution” and extending Tehran’s influence throughout the region. Yet it is still important to consider what such an agreement would entail, and how the United States could verify and enforce its terms—in part to bolster the international community for potential postwar scenarios in which the regime simply redoubles its terrorist proxy activities.”
2) At the FDD, Janatan Sayeh and Samuel Ben-Ur profile 5 Men Now Running Iran.
“The Islamic Republic was designed to outlive any one individual, as it rests on multiple institutions designed to preserve it. In times of crisis, two pillars sustain it: the armed forces, which continue the war and impose costs on the United States and Israel, and the internal repression apparatus, which confronts the regime’s true existential threat, the Iranian people.
Regime survival now hinges on key figures across the parliament, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the judiciary, and national law enforcement.”
3) Fatima Abo Alasrar unpacks The Myth of Iran’s Ideological Straightjacket.
“The danger is not that the regime will never negotiate. The danger is that it will, and that Washington will call it peace while the people who marched under “Woman, Life, Freedom” discover that the grand bargain was never about them. The Islamic Republic has survived for over four decades not because it refuses to bend, but because it bends toward whoever holds the leverage and away from whoever doesn’t. The leverage has never been held by Iranians.”
4) At the Jerusalem Post, Nadim Koteich asks Why is the West pretending Iran is winning the war against Israel, the US?.
“Let us be precise about what is happening here. A war is being fought in the Middle East. Another war is being fought in the pages of newspapers, on the panels of cable networks, and in the faculty lounges of institutions that have confused sophistication with a reflex. The second war has a declared winner: Iran. It just has nothing to do with what is actually happening in the first one.”
5) At the Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh discusses The ‘New Syria’: Same Old Jihad.
“Recent footage from Aleppo and other parts of Syria should serve as a wake-up call to anyone in Washington and European capitals still clinging to the illusion of a “moderate” new Syria under President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
In the video, soldiers from Brigade 60, a unit affiliated with the Syrian Army, are seen chanting slogans that openly threaten Israel: “O my enemy [Israel], I’m coming after you!”
The message is neither subtle nor ambiguous: the struggle of the soldiers does not end inside Syria’s borders. It extends to Israel and, by implication, to its allies, especially the US.”
6) At the Jewish Chronicle, Ashley Rindsberg explains the Iranian regime’s secretive Wiki war to brainwash the world on Israel, Jews and Zionism.
“We’re witnessing the greatest propaganda campaign in modern history play out online. Racial rhetoric salvaged from the trash heap of history is being splashed across the internet at industrial scale and digital speed.
The constant blitz is bewildering, but the message is unmistakable: Jewish puppet masters kill babies, drink blood and murder innocents. Zionism is evil; Israel is Satan.
This effort, likely funded to the tune of billions, has roiled politics across Western nations. But social media is only the top layer of a broad-spectrum geopolitical influence campaign. Deeper down, in the infrastructure of digital knowledge, a more profound and alarming impact is being made.”
7) Ahmad Sharawi and Natalie Ecanow ask Has Al Jazeera Changed Its Editorial Direction?.
“Veteran Al Jazeera analyst Leqaa Makki threw viewers a curveball during a recent news segment. He advocated for an escalation against Iran. […]
This is not language that is expected from Al Jazeera, which is better known for promoting the talking points of its state backer, Qatar. But the Iran war is teaching us to expect the unexpected.
There is no single Al Jazeera line on this war, and no editorial spine through its English opinion pages, Arabic website, and rolling live coverage. Instead, the network has fractured into a platform where competing instincts about Iran, the Persian Gulf, and the costs of war are colliding.”
