Twilight of the Dubai dream: UAE’s fatal gamble against Iran

Date: May 19, 2026Author: Ahmad Hashemi0 Comments— Edit

Twilight of the Dubai dream: UAE’s fatal gamble against Iran

By Ahmad Hashemi

May 19, 2026

Summary of My Latest Piece:

-End of the “Dubai Dream”: The UAE’s long-standing status as a secure, neutral Middle Eastern “Switzerland”—built on luxury tourism, trade, and foreign investment—is collapsing due to severe strategic blunders.

-Active Escalation Against Iran: Breaking from the restraint of other Gulf nations, the UAE abandoned its neutrality during a 40-day U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran by conducting covert airstrikes on Iranian oil refineries in April 2026.

-Extreme Economic Vulnerability: As a hyper-globalized “crystal country” dependent on the Strait of Hormuz and absolute safety, the UAE lacks the structural resilience and strategic depth to survive a war of attrition.

-Aggressive Foreign Policy Overreach: The UAE has increasingly overextended itself by backing controversial proxies in Yemen, Sudan, and Somaliland, while aligning closely with Israel via the Abraham Accords.

-Irreparable Damage to Security: By acting as a perceived outpost for Israeli forces, the UAE has painted a permanent target on Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Persistent threats from Iranian drones mean the country may no longer be safe for global commerce, effectively bringing the Emirati economic model to an end.

Twilight of the Dubai dream: UAE’s fatal gamble against Iran

By Ahmad Hashemi

May 19, 2026

The glittering skyline of Dubai has long served as a testament to the power of ambition, capital, and a relentless “build it, and they will come” philosophy.

For decades, the United Arab Emirates marketed itself as a neutral playground—a Middle Eastern Switzerland where trade trumps ideology and commerce bridges the gaps between belligerent neighbors.

But today, that facade is fracturing. Thanks to its leaders’ recent strategic blunders, the era of the “Dubai Dream” as modern times’ most luxurious engineering and construction project is coming to an end.

The fundamental flaw of the UAE, often referred to as a “crystal country,” is its inherent fragility.

It is a desert nation built on the transparency of global markets, foreign investments, and the fluid movement of people and goods, disregarding the geopolitical fact that it is located in a restive and rough neighborhood.

In times of peace, its risk-averse model excels. However, the country lacks the structural resilience to withstand a direct hit from significant geopolitical conflicts.

A Flydubai Boeing 737 Max aircraft prepares for landing as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport in Dubai on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

A Flydubai Boeing 737 Max aircraft prepares for landing as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport in Dubai on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

Strategic miscalculation

During the 40-day U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, while other Arab Gulf nations practiced restraint, recognizing the catastrophic cost of a regional conflict, the UAE chose a path of active escalation.

This is more than a diplomatic faux pas; it is a fundamental betrayal of the boutique nation’s “survive and thrive” strategy.

The UAE’s hyper-globalized economy is based on aviation, international trade, and luxury tourism. All of these areas require an atmosphere of absolute safety.

By choosing to confront a regional heavyweight like Iran, the Emirati leadership has “bitten off more than it can chew.”

The UAE’s decision to respond militarily places its entire economic miracle in the crosshairs of a conflict it cannot win. While Iran thrives on chaos, the UAE’s entire success rests on security and stability.

The Dubai skyline with the landmark Burj Khalifa skyscraper (R) is pictured as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport, UAE on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

The Dubai skyline with the landmark Burj Khalifa skyscraper (R) is pictured as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport, UAE on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

Overextension and aggression

Overconfident in its economic miracle, the UAE has in recent years pursued an assertive foreign policy beyond its weight across the Middle East and Africa, utilizing proxies, financial aid, and strategic investments.

These actions include bombing Yemen and supporting secessionist forces in the south, backing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—who are committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Sudan—and establishing military and economic ties in Somalia’s breakaway region of Somaliland, which is recognized only by Israel.

These moves by Abu Dhabi put the small country at odds with its powerful neighbors, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The UAE’s aggressive foreign policy approach gained momentum with the normalization of relations with Israel. The UAE was the first Arab Gulf nation to move toward this normalization, even as the situation in Palestine reached a fever pitch.

With the ongoing genocide in Palestine and high-casualty Israeli aggression in Lebanon, it is clear that this UAE-Israeli alliance is increasingly unsustainable.

The UAE’s decision to join the Abraham Accords—essentially an effort to forge an Arab-Israeli front against Iran—effectively alienated it from a significant portion of the region.

Now, by doubling down and engaging in hostilities with Iran, the UAE has effectively boxed itself into a corner. Geographically and logistically, the UAE is fully dependent on the Strait of Hormuz.

This narrow waterway is the jugular vein of the Emirati economy. Without maritime security and regional “buy-in” for safe passage, the ports of Jebel Ali become graveyards of a bygone era.

A country built on commerce cannot survive a war of attrition; one cannot sell luxury real estate in a combat zone.

As a sign of a major strategic blunder for the UAE, during Operation “Roar of the Lion,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and heads of Israeli military and intelligence agencies reportedly made a clandestine trip to meet President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. Netanyahu reportedly offered the Emirates the “Iron Dome” defense technology.

Furthermore, the small Persian Gulf sheikhdom crossed the red line in April 2026, committing the unthinkable. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Emirati warplanes repeatedly carried out strikes on Iran, targeting refineries and other oil facilities.

By escalating tensions and directly attacking Iran, the UAE has abandoned the very neutrality that allowed it to exist and thrive in the first place.

From Tehran’s perspective, these developments confirm that the UAE has effectively become a Mossad and IDF outpost sitting just across the Persian Gulf.

This alignment provides Iran with a heightened sense of justification to target Dubai and Abu Dhabi should a regional conflict erupt.

Ultimately, the UAE has tethered itself to Israel’s deep-seated rivalry with Iran—an enmity that runs deeper than the Emirates’ own tensions with Tehran. It is a risky gamble, especially considering the UAE shares a maritime border with Iran, whereas Israel remains safely a thousand kilometers away.

Geopolitical realities require Emiratis to stop being a proxy for Israel. Iran can never tolerate the active presence of Israeli forces near its borders, and the Emirates will no longer be safe for tourism and trade.

Iran has recently announced the creation of the “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” to manage navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It appears that an Iran-dominated modus operandi has already begun to emerge at the Strait, one that has somewhat stabilized global markets.

The question for the Trump administration is whether it wants to disturb that emerging equilibrium by initiating another war against Iran and risk further damaging the global economy, or let the Islamic Republic get away with its expanded powers.

Iran-led realignment in Gulf

The conclusion of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran will mark a seismic realignment in Middle Eastern diplomacy, characterized by the gradual collapse of the Abraham Accords and a fundamental erosion of the strategic alliance between the United States and the Arab Gulf states.

Persian Gulf nations have reached a turning point after concluding that Washington prioritizes Israeli security over the protection of its Arab partners.

This disillusionment is rooted in the 40-day war, where the U.S. failed to respond to attacks on Arab oil facilities, leading regional leaders to believe that the American security umbrella is unreliable when their specific interests are at stake.

In response to this perceived abandonment, the Gulf region would gradually shift toward a multipolar framework where Iran is increasingly recognized as a central hegemon.

To manage this new reality, the Persian Gulf states are pursuing diplomatic realism by improving direct ties with Tehran. For instance, Saudi Arabia has floated the idea of a regional non-aggression pact with Iran in the aftermath of the U.S.-Israel war.

They are also diversifying their global security alliances. By deepening partnerships with major powers like China, these nations are moving away from their exclusive reliance on Western security arrangements, effectively ending the era of U.S.-led regional stability.

The UAE is the main loser in the recent conflict with Iran. This conflict undeniably exposed the nation to unprecedented collateral damage and geopolitical risk.

While the UAE absorbed thousands of Iranian projectiles—more than Israel—it also participated in covert military strikes against Iranian energy assets, fundamentally altering its long-standing “safe haven” reputation.

The small country—made up of seven tiny emirates—has no strategic depth. With a native population of only around 1.3 million out of 11.5 million total residents, Emiratis make up just over 10% of their own country.

This is not a population sufficient to sustain hostilities with an Iranian nation of over 90 million, and Israeli help will not save the UAE.

The “Dubai Model” was predicated on the idea of economic prosperity. Once the dust settles on any broader U.S.-Iran confrontation, the regional landscape will be fundamentally altered.

Iran, as a permanent geographic fixture, will likely ensure the UAE can no longer operate with the impunity it once enjoyed.

The Iranian regime is deeply unpopular domestically and may fall in the near future, but no matter the future political structure, Iran has always been a hegemon and will remain a dominant power in the Gulf region.

Conversely, the U.S. is likely to retreat as isolationist voices grow louder, questioning why they are wasting American blood and treasure in the deserts of Arabia.

Iran and the UAE, however, will eternally remain neighbors. Geography is destiny, and this is exactly why—by over-relying on external powers—the Emiratis have made the gravest mistake of their young country’s history: participating in a war of aggression against Iran. For the foreseeable future, the UAE will not be safe again for tourism, trade, and business, and Iranian drones will not cease to inflict pain.

It would not be an overstatement to claim that the era of the Emirati model has come to an end. The crystal-clear transparency that once invited investors now reveals a nation overextended, exposed, and vulnerable.

The “Emirati Dream” is no longer alive.

The lights of the Burj Khalifa may still shine, but the foundation beneath them has already started to tremble.

Read it here: https://www.turkiyetoday.com/opinion/twilight-of-the-dubai-dream-uaes-fatal-gamble-against-iran-3220235?s=1

#AhmadHashemi

#Geopolitics

#ForeignPolicy

#MiddleEastPolitics

#DubaiDream

#MiddleEastGeopolitics

#IranUAE

#StraitOfHormuz

#BurjKhalifa

#MiddleEastConflict

#ForeignPolicy

#AbrahamAccords

#RegionalRealignment

#AbuDhabi

#ProxyWar

#GlobalMarkets

#DubaiEconomy

#InternationalTrade

#AviationSecurity

#LuxuryRealEstate

#StrategicMiscalculation

#GeopoliticalRisk

#DiplomaticRealism

#GeographyIsDestiny

Share this:

•  Press This
• X
• Facebook

 

American Evangelicals must confront Israel’s war on Christianity

Date: April 24, 2026Author: Ahmad Hashemi0 Comments— Edit

American Evangelicals must confront Israel’s war on Christianity

By Ahmad Hashemi

April 24, 2026 08:49 AM GMT+03:00

For decades, the political alliance between American Evangelical Zionists and the State of Israel has been treated as a theological and geopolitical fortress.

Built on a shared vision of the Holy Land, this bond has channeled billions of American taxpayer dollars and vast amounts of advanced weaponry into the Israeli military.

However, a series of disturbing events—culminating in a viral video of an Israeli soldier’s vandalism of a Jesus statue in Southern Lebanon—demands a painful, long-overdue reckoning.

If the American Christian conscience is to remain intact, it can no longer turn a blind eye to the systematic destruction of the world’s oldest Christian communities in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran.

Israel must be held accountable for the desecration of churches, and the church-going American “patriots” who fund this destruction must ask themselves why they are subsidizing the erasure of their own faith’s heritage.

A pattern of destruction

The creation of Israel and its subsequent wars have been major factors in the sharp decline of the Christian population across the Levant.

Since its inception, Israel has mistreated Christians and sought to displace them in significant numbers. In 1948, some 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes to make room for Jewish immigrants.

Alongside their Muslim neighbors, roughly 90,000 Palestinian Christians were displaced, accelerating a demographic decline from 12.5% of the population to 1.2% today.

Thus, the recent footage from Lebanon was not an anomaly; it was a symptom of a broader policy of cultural and religious liquidation of Christians by Israel.

From Gaza City to the towns of the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran, Christian places of worship are being reduced to rubble.

The historical irony is staggering. While the Israeli government often presents itself as the sole protector of religious freedom in the Middle East, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have overseen the bombardment of religious sites that have stood for centuries.

This is a regime that has not limited its reach to Palestine; its military actions have expanded to impact Christian and other religious sites across the region, including destruction reaching as far as Christian landmarks in Isfahan, Tehran, and other cities in Iran during recent airstrikes.

These are not isolated incidents, despite the narrative presented by Israel’s expansive propaganda machinery. A consistent pattern has been repeating for a long time.

Consider this: recent U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in Iran have damaged centuries-old Armenian churches in Isfahan and the St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church in Tehran.”

In Palestine, Israeli forces struck the Holy Family Church, the only Catholic church in Gaza, on July 17, 2025, killing three and injuring dozens of Christians, including the parish priest, Father Gabriel Romanelli, not to mention the systematic Israeli settler attacks on Palestinian Christian villages in the occupied West Bank.

Again, these are not merely collateral damage in a secular war; they are the intentional targets of a policy that views non-Jewish religious identity as an obstacle to total territorial control and land grabs.

Israel’s goal is to engineer demographics by settling global Jewry (Aliyah) in the region to create a pure ethno-supremacist Jewish land in Palestine and Lebanon, devoid of its indigenous Christian and Muslim populations.

The hypocrisy par excellence of the American Church

Perhaps the most jarring element of Israel’s anti-Christian enterprise is the source of its funding. American taxpayers—specifically those within the MAGA movement and the ranks of Christian Nationalists—are the primary financial engine behind this destruction.

This evangelical MAGA lunacy, at its extremes, is willing to go as far as to sacrifice the indigenous Christian inhabitants of the land at the expense of Jewish territorial expansionism.

Consider this: evangelical Zionist and current U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, in his February 2026 interview with Tucker Carlson, suggested that biblical interpretation grants Israel rights to vast areas of the Middle East stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, saying it would be “fine if they took it all.”

There is a profound, almost pathological hypocrisy at play. American evangelical Zionists claim to love the “Holy Land,” yet they remain silent as the original Christians of that land—the direct descendants of the first apostles—are displaced and killed.

These are people who have kept the flame of the Gospel alive for two millennia, yet because they are “non-white” Christians in the Middle East, their lives and their cathedrals seem to carry less weight than a political alliance in Washington.

We must ask the hard question: Why do American Christians support a regime that actively destroys the very faith they claim to hold dear? Is it a “moral decay” within the American church, or a blind adherence to a supremacist political ideology that has superseded the teachings of Christ?

A history of Muslim tolerance and the Zionist threat

To understand the gravity of what is being lost, one must look at the history of the region. For centuries, Muslim-majority lands were the primary refuge for those fleeing religious persecution. 

When Medieval Europe was busy persecuting Jews, Muslims, and “heretical” Christian sects, it was the Ottoman Empire, the Iranian Empire, the Andalusian Empire (Al-Andalus), and other Middle Eastern and North African nations that opened their arms.

The Spanish Inquisition saw Jewish, Muslim, and “heretical” Christian refugees fleeing to the Muslim East for safety. For generations, these Jewish and Christian minorities lived within the fabric of the Muslim world.

Now, that delicate pluralism is being shattered by a Zionist movement that treats Christian and Muslim holy sites with equal disregard.

The “freedom of worship” touted by Israeli PR is a myth that dies every time a bomb levels a Christian parish, or a soldier defaces a statue of Jesus or Mary.

The call for accountability

For too long, Israel has benefited from Christian evangelicals, seeing it as “useful idiots” for its expansionist causes. However, there are clear signs that the era of America’s “unconditional support” is coming to an end.

A new generation of Americans is turning on Israel. Data confirm a significant generational divide in American attitudes toward Israel, with younger generations (Gen Z and Millennials) showing much lower levels of support than older Americans.

As another indication of this change, in a historic April 2026 vote, 40 U.S. Senate Democrats voted to block key weapon sales to Israel.

These sentiments in the U.S. public need to evolve into policy. There must be protection for Christian minorities and their places of worship, ensuring they are exempt from the death and destruction prevalent in current regional conflicts.

American Evangelical Christians must find the moral courage to say: “Not in my name.” They must demand that their tax dollars stop funding the bombardment of the Middle East’s Christian minorities—and everyone else, for that matter.

If the “patriotism” of the American right is to mean anything, it should not involve the subsidizing of a foreign military that views its own religion as a target.

Ultimately, Israel must be held accountable—not just for the loss of life, but for the systematic effort to erase the Christian footprint from the Middle East.

If the American church does not speak up now, it will have to explain to future generations why it stood by and watched while the cradles of its own faith were turned into dust. Accountability is no longer a political option; it is a spiritual necessity.

k up now, it will have to explain to future generations why it stood by and watched while the cradles of its own faith were turned into dust. Accountability is no longer a political option; it is a spiritual necessity.

https://www.turkiyetoday.com/opinion/american-evangelicals-must-confront-israels-war-on-christianity-3218677?s=1

#ChristianReckoning

#ProtectMiddleEastChristians

#FaithOverPolitics

#HolyLandHeritage

#NotWithMyTaxDollars

#EndUnconditionalAid

#HoldIsraelAccountable

#StopTheDestruction

#DefendTheCradleOfFaith

#PalestinianChristians

#LevantineHeritage

#SaveTheHolySites

#ChristianDiaspora

#ReligiousPluralism

#EvangelicalZionism

#BeyondTheAlliance

#ChristianPatriotism

#TruthToPower

#ConfrontingZionism

Will the US buy Netanyahu’s Türkiye narrative?

Date: April 20, 2026Author: Ahmad Hashemi0 Comments— Edit

Will the US buy Netanyahu’s Türkiye narrative?

In my latest article, titled ‘Will the US buy Netanyahu’s Türkiye narrative?’, I explore the shifting geopolitical focus of Israel and its lobby in Washington, arguing that Türkiye is being framed as the ‘new Iran’ to provoke U.S. intervention.

“The New Iran” Label: Figures like Naftali Bennett and various U.S.-based lobbies have explicitly labeled Türkiye as the “new Iran.” This strategy aims to demonize Ankara’s military growth and strategic autonomy, framing it as a threat to Western interests to justify future U.S.-led “wars of choice.”

Barriers to Conflict: There are several reasons why this narrative may fail:

NATO Shield: Unlike Iran, Türkiye is a core NATO member with the alliance’s second-largest military. An attack on Türkiye would effectively dismantle the Western security architecture.

Economic Consequences: As a G20 economy, a conflict with Türkiye would cause far more global economic devastation than the war with Iran.

Leader Relations: Despite tensions, President Trump has historically maintained a personal rapport with President Erdoğan.

Internal U.S. Rifts: A divide has emerged within the American right between “Israel First” hawks and “America First” skeptics. The latter argue that these conflicts do not serve U.S. national interests.

“War by Other Means”: If a kinetic war fails to materialize, Israel may resort to destabilization tactics, such as supporting Kurdish separatist groups (PKK) to weaken Turkish national cohesion.

Conclusion: Targeting a NATO ally would be “madness” and would signal the end of American global credibility. Washington must resist being manipulated into another costly Middle Eastern conflict.

Read it here:

https://www.turkiyetoday.com/opinion/will-us-buy-netanyahus-turkiye-narrative-3217979?s=1

Will US buy Netanyahu’s Türkiye narrative?

By Ahmad Hashemi

April 13, 2026 12:06 PM GMT+03:00

Reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a pivotal role in persuading President Donald Trump to launch military operations against Iran during a high-stakes, secret meeting in the White House Situation Room on Feb. 11, 2026.

This escalation, however, appears to be only one chapter in Israel’s much larger regional playbook.

Despite the indecisive results of the war of choice with Iran, Israel is not yet done attempting to draw the United States into “forever wars” in the Middle East.

Having engaged in genocidal campaigns in Palestine and Lebanon, Netanyahu has increasingly framed these conflicts as prerequisites for the establishment of a new regional and even global power status.

This push is a clear attempt to realize the vision of a “Greater Israel”—the biblical Eretz Yisrael that spans territories from the Nile to the Euphrates through the conquest of territory and the assertion of regional hegemony.

Netanyahu has been remarkably candid about these intentions.

In August 2025, during an interview with i24NEWS, he expressed explicit support for the concept of Greater Israel, describing his administration’s work as a historic and spiritual mission to fulfill this vision.

This is why, as the smoke barely clears from the primary theaters in Iran, a new and more dangerous narrative is already being crafted in the corridors of Washington’s most influential pro-Israeli think tanks.

There is now only one country standing in the way of Israel’s expansionist agenda: Türkiye.

For decades, a coordinated chorus of voices branded Iran as the singular existential threat to Israel’s security to justify U.S. military interventions, repeating the claim for 30 years that Iran was mere weeks away from a nuclear bomb.

Now, those same voices are shifting their gaze toward Ankara, framing Türkiye as an existential threat to Israel.

The question now haunting political analysts and American taxpayers alike is whether Israel can convince America to wage another war of choice, this time against the Republic of Türkiye.

This is no longer a whispered conspiracy; it is an unequivocally stated strategic outlook. Consider this, for instance: former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has explicitly framed Türkiye as “the new Iran,” implying that Ankara is not merely a diplomatic adversary but a strategic menace that must be neutralized.

This sentiment is echoed by a powerful network of Israeli and pro-Israel think tanks and lobby organizations in the United States, including the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), JINSA, AIPAC and the Middle East Forum.

For example, the influential “Israel First” think tank, FDD, recently claimed, “Türkiye, the new Iran?” Ankara’s growing challenge to Western interests.”

Their collective thesis is clear: Türkiye’s growing military might, its defensive capabilities, and its pursuit of strategic autonomy represent an unacceptable challenge to Israeli hegemony.

According to this worldview, once the “Iranian problem” is fully settled, the crosshairs must inevitably move to Türkiye.

Any attempt to replicate the “maximum pressure” campaign or military interventionism seen in Tehran would encounter a brick wall of geopolitical and military obstacles.

First and foremost is the NATO shield. Unlike Iran, which has been a pariah for nearly half a century, Türkiye is a cornerstone of the NATO alliance.

As a treaty ally with the second-largest military in the alliance, an attack on Türkiye would represent the formal dissolution of the Western security architecture.

A direct military confrontation would likely require the U.S. to exit NATO—a move President Trump has already signaled following his allies’ refusal to join the war with Iran.

While this shift is often framed as a reaction to uncooperative allies, former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent offers a more targeted theory: withdrawing from NATO could be a calculated step to side with Israel in a future clash with Türkiye over conflicting interests in Syria.

Furthermore, the personal dimension of diplomacy remains a significant hurdle. President Trump has consistently maintained a rapport with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In Trump’s Washington, the appetite for destroying a functional strategic partnership with Türkiye is low, complicating the efforts of pro-Israel hawks who rely on the dehumanization of foreign nations to sell wars.

Additionally, the lessons of the recent “40-Day War” with Iran remain a sobering deterrent. Billed by Netanyahu as a “walk in the park” that would lead to immediate regime collapse, the reality was a brutal conflict that triggered a global crisis in energy, shipping and aviation.

If a war with an isolated Iran caused such global pain, a war with a globally integrated G20 economy like Türkiye would be economic and geopolitical suicide for the United States.

Turkish Navy deploys four vessels for NATO exercise in Rotterdam, South-Holland, The Netherlands on February 27, 2026. (AA Photo)

Turkish Navy deploys four vessels for NATO exercise in Rotterdam, South-Holland, The Netherlands on February 27, 2026. (AA Photo)

‘America First’ vs ‘Israel First’

The push by the Israel lobby for foreign conflicts, particularly the unprovoked 2026 U.S.-Israel aggression against Iran, has created a significant divide within the American right and the MAGA movement.

A clear rift has emerged between the “America First” and “Israel First” factions of the movement.

While figures like Miriam Adelson, Larry Ellison, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, and Laura Loomer work to create a pro-Zionist echo chamber in the U.S. media, they face increasing opposition from vocal “America First” conservatives like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Candace Owens.

These critics argue that dragging the United States into foreign conflicts serves no national interest and only benefits a foreign power’s regional expansion.

They also point to the staggering hypocrisy of fearing an ascendant Türkiye while Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with a massive, undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Given Türkiye’s NATO ally status and close personal ties between the leaders in Washington and Ankara, a direct U.S. confrontation with Türkiye is highly unlikely, but Israel is not going to simply give up.

If the pro-Israel lobby in Washington fails to convince America to launch a kinetic war against Türkiye, including in the Syrian theater, the campaign of destabilization will likely continue through “war by other means.”

This involves the support of Kurdish separatist movements and militant organizations like the PKK to erode Turkish national cohesion.

For Israel, as an actor that thrives on regional instability, chaos in neighboring states is not a failure of policy; it is the desired outcome.

Turkish officials unite against Netanyahu’s attack on Erdogan

Nation

Pro-Israel Ugandan army chief threatens Türkiye, offers 100K troops to protect

The American people now stand at a crossroads. For thirty years, they were told Iran was a week away from a bomb to justify wars that have finally come to pass with devastating results.

Striking a NATO ally would be more than madness; it would be the final nail in the coffin of American global credibility.

While a conflict with Türkiye may seem unimaginable, President Trump’s strategic blunders and juvenile tantrums—including threats to blow up Iranian civilian infrastructure, including every bridge and power plant, and wipe out the “whole civilization” and send Iran “back to the stone ages”—indicate a susceptibility to manipulation.

If the U.S. moves to abandon its NATO commitments, the chances of being dragged into an Israeli-desired conflict with Türkiye will rise significantly.

The stakes are high, and Washington needs to realize that another war of choice is a choice America simply cannot make.

#AhmadHashemi

#Geopolitics

#ForeignPolicy

#MiddleEastPolitics

#NATO

#StrategicAutonomy

#RegionalHegemony

#InternationalRelations

#Turkiye

#Israel

#Iran

#USA

#TurkiyeIsraelRelations

#Ankara

#TelAviv

#Netanyahu

#Erdogan

#Trump2026

#AmericaFirst

#GreaterIsrael

#NewIran

#Lobbying

#NationalSecurity

#MiddleEastConflict

#DefenseStrategy

#GlobalStability

#PeaceInTheMiddleEast

Share this: