Uncategorized
Tehran’s Escalation Doctrine: Why Iran Is Targeting the Entire Middle East
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following United States and Israel strikes on Iran, as seen from Doha, Qatar, March 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
Iran’s latest missile and drone strikes across the Gulf signal a dangerous strategic shift. What once appeared to be a confrontation primarily between Tehran, Israel, and the United States is rapidly transforming into a wider regional conflict. By conducting military assaults on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, the Islamic Republic has effectively widened the battlefield and placed the stability of the entire Middle East at risk.
On March 7, 2026, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly apologized to Iran’s Gulf neighbors after Iranian missile and drone strikes triggered air defense alerts in those states. In a televised statement, he expressed regret for the attacks and claimed that Tehran would halt strikes on neighboring countries unless attacks against Iran originated from their territory. But even as he spoke, air defense sirens and missile interceptions were continuing across the Gulf region. Then the government walked the statement back.
For many countries in the Middle East, the contradiction is glaring. Iran’s apology appeared less a genuine effort at de-escalation and more a familiar Iranian tactic: spinning rhetorical damage control while continuing its aggression.
This pattern is hardly new. For decades, the Islamic Republic has pursued a strategy that blends diplomacy, denial, and deception with relentless expansionism. The result is a geopolitical doctrine aimed not merely at confronting Israel or the United States, but at reshaping the entire Middle East under Tehran’s ideological and strategic dominance.
Iranian leaders have long framed their military posture as defensive, but the reality unfolding across the Middle East tells a very different story. Missiles fired toward Saudi territory, drones intercepted over Gulf cities, and attacks linked to Iranian proxies across multiple theaters point to a broader strategy of coercion. Rather than confining its conflict to direct adversaries, Tehran is increasingly pressuring neutral or semi-neutral states in order to expand the battlefield.
The remarks of Muhammad‑Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, made this explicit. Ghalibaf declared on social media that Iran’s defense doctrine follows the ideological guidance of the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary leadership and warned that peace will remain impossible as long as American military bases exist in the region.
This statement was effectively a strategic threat to every Middle Eastern state hosting American forces. It confirmed what regional leaders have long suspected: Iran views the entire Gulf security architecture, not merely Israel, as a legitimate target.
One of the most striking aspects of Iran’s recent escalation is that it has drawn states into the conflict that were actively attempting to avoid confrontation. Countries across the Gulf Cooperation Council had pursued diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions between Iran and its adversaries. Oman, for example, had played a leading mediating role in discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.
Yet Iranian missiles and drones have now placed these very states directly in the line of fire. Strategically, this approach is baffling. By striking Gulf territories or allowing projectiles to fall near critical infrastructure, Tehran risks transforming potential mediators into determined adversaries. Analysts have long warned that attacks on Gulf states could collapse the region’s delicate neutrality and push Arab governments into closer alignment with the United States and Israel. In other words, Iran’s escalation may be strengthening the very coalition it claims to oppose.
The Islamic Republic’s behavior cannot be understood purely in military terms. At its core lies an ideological framework embedded in the doctrine of Vilayat-e-Faqih: “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist.” This system, created after the Iranian Revolution, grants ultimate political authority to the clerical leadership rather than elected institutions. The result is a hybrid regime in which electoral politics exist but real power rests with a religious elite that defines foreign policy through ideological confrontation.
For this leadership, regional dominance is not merely a strategic ambition. It is a revolutionary obligation. From Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, Tehran has cultivated proxy networks that extend its influence far beyond its borders. These networks allow Iran to wage asymmetric warfare while maintaining plausible deniability. The expansion of this strategy into the Gulf itself marks a new and dangerous phase.
Iran’s confrontation with Gulf states is not only militarily reckless. It is economically self-destructive. The Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz form one of the most vital arteries of global commerce. Disruptions in the region affect energy markets, maritime trade routes, and strategic industrial supply chains.
Iranian actions that threaten shipping lanes risk destabilizing not only regional economies but also global technological industries. Qatar, for example, plays a significant role in the export of helium, a critical resource used in semiconductor manufacturing and advanced technologies. Any disruption in Gulf logistics reverberates across industries ranging from artificial intelligence to aerospace.
If Tehran’s objective is to impose costs on its adversaries, it must recognize that such disruptions will also inevitably damage Iran itself. Economic isolation, sanctions pressure, and investor flight are predictable consequences of escalating regional conflict. In strategic terms, Iran’s current approach resembles an “economic own goal” — a policy that undermines its own long-term stability.
The Islamic Republic’s external aggression reflects deep internal vulnerabilities. Years of economic hardship, corruption scandals, and political repression have eroded public confidence in the ruling establishment. Anti-government protests have repeatedly shaken the regime, revealing widespread dissatisfaction across Iranian society. The leadership in Tehran therefore faces a familiar dilemma.
Authoritarian systems often attempt to consolidate power by redirecting domestic frustration toward external enemies. Foreign confrontation becomes a tool for internal cohesion. In this context, escalation abroad may serve a political purpose at home: reinforcing the narrative that Iran is surrounded by hostile forces and must rally behind its revolutionary leadership. Yet such strategies carry enormous risk. History demonstrates that regimes relying on external conflict to sustain legitimacy often accelerate their own downfall.
The Middle East now faces a critical strategic question: Will Iran’s campaign of intimidation continue unchecked, or will the threatened regional states coordinate a collective response? The growing convergence of security interests between Israel and several Arab states represents one possible outcome. Iranian escalation may inadvertently accelerate regional cooperation against Tehran’s ambitions. The normalization processes that began in recent years could gain renewed urgency if the Gulf states conclude that Iran’s threats are directed not only at Israel but at the entire regional order.
At the same time, the United States remains a central factor in the strategic equation. In Tehran’s calculus, American military installations across the Gulf serve as both deterrents and potential targets. Iran’s repeated warnings about these bases indicate that the regime views the broader American security architecture as a critical obstacle to its regional ambitions.
Another factor shaping Iran’s future is the question of leadership. The Islamic Republic now faces a profound political vacuum. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the regime, no unified opposition figure has yet emerged capable of mobilizing the population around a coherent alternative vision. This absence of leadership allows the ruling clerical establishment to maintain its grip on power even as public frustration grows. Yet history suggests that such conditions rarely remain static. The pressures created by economic stagnation, international isolation, and internal dissent can eventually converge to bring about transformative political change.
For Iran, the central challenge is whether a new leadership capable of reconciling the country with its neighbors and the international community will emerge before the current system pushes the region into wider conflict.
The Iranian regime’s recent missile and drone attacks across the Gulf reveal a dangerous strategic reality: Tehran’s confrontation is no longer limited to Israel or the United States. It is evolving into a broader campaign of intimidation against the entire Middle Eastern order.
By targeting or threatening Gulf states that had sought neutrality, the Islamic Republic risks uniting the region against it. By escalating military pressure while offering hollow diplomatic apologies, it exposes the contradiction at the heart of its strategy. And by prioritizing ideological confrontation over economic stability, it places the welfare of the Iranian people at risk.
If the current trajectory continues, Iran will not succeed in dominating the Middle East. Instead, it may accomplish the opposite — driving its neighbors, the United States, and Israel into an increasingly unified coalition determined to contain the ambitions of a regime whose revolutionary ideology has turned regional leadership into a permanent state of war.
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is editor of the Bangladesh-based publication Blitz and a commentator on Islamist extremism, terrorism, and South Asian geopolitics. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
Uncategorized
No Hate Crime Charges Yet Filed After 3 Suspects Arrested in Brutal California Assaults of Israeli-Americans
Screenshot from video circulated on social media showing three unknown attackers punch two Israeli-Americans in San Jose, California on March 8, 2026.
California prosecutors have charged three men with felonies and misdemeanors after an attack on two Israeli-Americans overhead speaking Hebrew outside a San Jose restaurant.
The district attorney of Santa Clara County released a statement on Monday, announcing that “Bruneil Henry Chamaki, 32, of Morgan Hill, along with Roma Akoyans, 20, and Ramon Akoyans, 18, of San Jose, self-surrendered today to the San Jose Police Department.”
Video which widely circulated online last week showed three alleged assailants punching Lior Zeevi, 47, and Daniel Levy, 48, leaving the men with injuries which required hospitalization. District Attorney Jeff Rosen said “we won’t tolerate pummeling a victim on the ground in front of a restaurant or anywhere, and we will hold the perpetrators fully accountable.”
Prosecutors have not yet filed hate crime charges against Chamaki—who works as a lawyer—and the Akoyans brothers noting in the release that “these charges do not reflect allegations of a hate crime at this time. However, this remains an active investigation. The DA’s Office is working closely with SJPD to review all new information. We encourage anyone with knowledge about this crime to contact the San Jose Police Department.”
According to the police report, before the assault outside Augustine restaurant on Santana Row began, one of the attackers yelled “f— Jews.” As the three men ran away toward the Valley Fair mall after the beating, a witness heard one of them say “don’t f— with Iran,” according to the police report. The witness told police that he thought the suspects were Persian because he was Persian too.
The arresting officers named the offenses in the police report as “simple assault” and “violate civil rights by force/threat of force.”
Chamaki worked as a lawyer for Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP until January. The firm confirmed the separation and released a statement to Fox KTVU saying “the conduct described in the reports is deeply troubling. Murphy Austin condemns antisemitism, violence, and acts of hatred in any form.” The police report lists the Akoyans as living in San Jose and Roma as a student at West Valley College. The Santa Clara county court scheduled an arraignment for the three suspects on May 12.
The invocation of Iran during the assaults against Levy and Zeevi places the crime as another example of violence targeting Jewish individuals and institutions in response to the US-Israeli attacks against the leadership of the Islamic regime in Iran which resulted in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28.
On Saturday, two individuals detonated a bomb outside a Jewish school in Amsterdam, causing minor damage. An Islamist terror group claimed responsibility, as well as for recent strikes on synagogues in Rotterdam and Liege. On Monday, the Netherlands announced the arrest of four unnamed teenagers—aged 19, 18 and 17—suspected of involvement with the Rotterdam attacks. Dutch prosecutors said the crime sought to instill “serious fear in a population group, in this case the Jewish community.”
On Saturday, the Israel Defense Forces revealed that the brother of Ayman Mohamad Ghazali—the man who committed a terrorist attack on Thursday against the Temple Israel synagogue in Michign—served as a Hezbollah commander who died the previous week in an Israeli airstrike.
Ghazali had rammed his pickup truck through the building’s doors and drove through a hallway, the vehicle loaded with fireworks, before dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police, failing in his mission to murder Jews.
On March 1, Ndiaga Diagne, 53, allegedly fired rounds from an AR-15 rifle at people outside Buford’s bar in Austin, Texas, resulting in three deaths and 16 injuries. Investigators say that he wore a sweatshirt that proclaimed him as “Property of Allah” and that a t-shirt underneath featured an Iranian flag design. In addition, when searching Diagne’s home, they found an Iranian flag and photos of Iranian leaders.
The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has labeled the mass shooting as a “potential act of terrorism” with Acting Special Agent in Charge Alex Doran warning that it was too early to name the motive in spite of the available evidence.
Uncategorized
Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel
Joe Kent, director of the federal National Counterterrorism Center, resigned Tuesday in a letter to President Donald Trump that claimed Israeli officials had used lies to convince Trump to start the current United States-Israel war against Iran.
Some administration officials, notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio, had previously asserted that Israel compelled the U.S. to strike Iran; Rubio later tempered those claims. But Kent, a controversial figure who has repeatedly engaged with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, made more sweeping — and unproven — assertions in his letter, which Kent posted to social media, declaring the president of a victim of an Israeli “misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.”
He further claimed Israel had used similar lies “to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war” which he called “manufactured by Israel” without pointing to any evidence. Israeli officials expressed support for striking Sadaam Hussein at the time, but then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also reportedly warned President George W. Bush not to occupy the country.
Kent’s departure may be a sign that the isolationist wing of the conservative movement — associated with antisemitic influencers like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes — may be losing influence with the White House. Despite repeated fulminations against the war by isolationists inside and outside of the administration, Trump has shown little sign of recalibrating his approach to the Iran war and recently proposed a possible military incursion in Cuba.
The White House issued a scathing response to Kent’s claim in his resignation letter, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating, “the absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries, is both insulting and laughable.”
It remains to be seen if Kent’s resignation will trigger a wave of departures from within the administration. Congressional Republicans have largely stayed aligned with the president. And Trump himself has moved between suggesting the conflict could end “very soon” and insisting that the United States has not yet achieved “ultimate victory.”
Tulsi Gabbard, who was Kent’s boss in her role as director of national intelligence, once sold campaign merchandise with the slogan “No War With Iran” but has reportedly remained largely silent during the current war while being sidelined within the administration.
Vice President JD Vance, closely aligned with the party’s isolationist wing, reportedly expressed private objections about the Iran war but appears to have been overruled and has yet to publicly voice that view in public.
Meanwhile, Rubio, a longtime foreign policy hawk, has emerged a key advisor to Trump, who has privately surveyed insider opinion about Rubio emerging as heir in 2028.
Kent’s nomination to lead a top counterterrorism agency was contentious from the start. A retired Green Beret and former CIA officer, Kent had twice run unsuccessfully for a House seat in Washington state. In his first bid, Kent was interviewed by a neo-Nazi YouTuber and also met with Fuentes, who has denied the Holocaust. Kent later disavowed Fuentes.
Amy Spitalnick, chief of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, cautioned liberal opponents of the Iran war not to welcome Kent as an ally. “He’s an extremist with deep ties ot Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers who never should have been in this role in the first place,” Spitalnick said in a statement. “Of course, Kent’s own post announcing his resignation is riddled with antisemitic tropes under the guise of blaming Israel.”
Trump, who nominated Kent to his post in the administration and previously supported him, sought to cut bait in comments to reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon.
“I always thought he was weak on security — very weak on security,” Trump said. “It’s a good thing that he’s out.
The post Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Dueling letters from Jewish groups dispute prevalence of antisemitism at UCLA
More than 100 Jewish faculty and staff at the University of California, Los Angeles published a letter Monday disputing the Trump administration’s claim in a federal lawsuit against the university that the school has fostered a hostile climate for its Jewish employees.
Following an investigation launched just weeks after Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. Department of Justice filed the case last month, arguing that “UCLA failed to live up to its systemwide commitment to diversity and equal opportunity when it stood by as Jewish employees were subjected to harassment.”
But signatories to the letter dispute this characterization and say that the lawsuit mischaracterizes pro-Palestinian speech and activism as expressions of antisemitism that would justify a federal civil rights case.
“A ‘hostile work environment’ under Title VII is one where we are being harassed so severely or pervasively as to alter our conditions of employment,” the letter states. “It would be legally unprecedented for a court to rule that any category of faculty and staff faces such a hostile work environment primarily on the basis of student speech.”
The lawsuit and letter come on the heels of reporting by ProPublica, the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Los Angeles Times that described deep apprehension among career lawyers within the Department of Justice over the Trump administration’s investigations into the University of California system and its legal claims against UCLA.
Several government lawyers told the publications that the White House directed them to find evidence that UCLA and other campuses in the statewide system had allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place, rather than conducting open-ended investigations to determine whether any legal violations had occurred.
Not all Jewish faculty at UCLA have opposed the lawsuit, and the members of UCLA’s antisemitism task force — which had been critical of the school’s handling of antisemitism claims in its 2024 report — did not sign the open letter.
UCLA was the site of some of the most dramatic scenes and allegations during the Gaza solidarity encampment movement in the spring of 2024. Pro-Israel groups claimed that pro-Palestinian protesters had banned Jewish students from central areas on campus, pointing to bans on “Zionists” entering areas around the encampment. Some members of the local Jewish community subsequently attacked the encampment with pepper spray, fireworks and sticks in one of the most violent incidents of its kind.
The Jewish Faculty Resilience Group at UCLA told the Los Angeles Times that they were not opposed to claims made by the Trump administration: “The DOJ lawsuit reflects the experiences reported by Jewish faculty who described serious harassment, exclusion, and retaliation based on their Jewish identities,” the group said.
The lawsuit focuses on similar allegations as previous federal claims against the school, including that it allowed Jewish faculty and staff to be barred from certain areas of campus by student protesters.
The open letter was signed by 132 Jewish faculty and staff at the university. It is not clear how many faculty are represented by the resilience group, or how many total Jewish employees work at UCLA.
The post Dueling letters from Jewish groups dispute prevalence of antisemitism at UCLA appeared first on The Forward.