Uncategorized
Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The op-ed was typical of the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page, extolling the virtues of moderation in all things.
The difference was that the author of the piece published Wednesday, Bezalel Smotrich, has a reputation for extremism, and the political landscape he was imagining is in Israel, not America.
Experts who track the U.S.-Israel relationship say the op-ed had a clear purpose: to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be rattled by his new extremist partners in governing Israel.
Those partners include Smotrich, the Religious Zionist bloc leader and self-described “proud homophobe” whom Israeli intelligence officials have accused of planning terrorist attacks — and who was sworn in as finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government Thursday. They also include Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement for his past support of Jewish terrorists, who will oversee Israel’s police.
The presence of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their parties in Netanyahu’s governing coalition has alarmed American liberals, including some in the Biden administration. But insiders say conservatives are feeling spooked, too.
“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who just returned from a tour of Israel where he met with senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming governments. “And I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”
In his op-ed published on Tuesday, two days before the new Israeli government was sworn in, Smotrich sought to persuade Americans that the new government is not the hotbed of ultranationalist and religious extremism it has been made out to be in the American press.
“The U.S. media has vilified me and the traditionalist bloc to which I belong since our success in Israel’s November elections,” he wrote. “They say I am a right-wing extremist and that our bloc will usher in a ‘halachic state’ in which Jewish law governs. In reality, we seek to strengthen every citizen’s freedoms and the country’s democratic institutions, bringing Israel more closely in line with the liberal American model.”
The op-ed is at odds with the stated aims of the coalition agreements; whereas Smotrich says there will be no legal changes to disputed areas in the West Bank, the agreements include a pledge to annex areas at an unspecified time, and to legalize outposts deemed illegal even under Israeli law. He says changes to religious practice will not involve coercion, but the agreement allows businesses to decline service “because of a religious belief,” which a member of his party has anticipated could extend to declining service to LGBTQ people.
Netanyahu has alienated the American left with his relentless attacks on its preference for a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he perceives as dangerous and naive. (He also differs from them on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.) He has instead cultivated a base on the right through close ties with the Republican Party and among evangelicals, made possible in part because he has long espoused the values traditional conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a united robust Western stance against extremism and terrorism.
But his alliance with Smotrich and others perceived as theocratic extremists may be a bridge too far even for Netanyahu’s conservative friends, who champion democratic values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, a veteran defense official in multiple Republican administrations.
“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former presidents and the secretary of state under the late George H. W. Bush.
Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the op-ed was likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with those conservatives in mind.
“The Wall Street Journal piece was designed to appeal to traditional conservatives,” he said. “It was designed to send a message to the American public writ large that the way in which Smotrich and perhaps [Itamar] Ben Gvir have been described is based on past utterances and not necessarily their forward-looking policies.”
The immediate predicate for the op-ed, insiders say, was likely a New York Times editorial on Dec. 17 that called the incoming government “a significant threat to the future of Israel” because of the extremist positions Smotrich and other partners have embraced, including the annexation of the West Bank, restrictions on non-Orthodox and non-Jewish citizens, diminishing the independence of the courts, reforming the Law of Return that would render ineligible huge chunks of Diaspora Jewry, and anti-LGBTQ measures.
Smotrich in his op-ed casts the changes not as radical departures from democratic norms but as tweaks that would align Israel more with U.S. values. He said he would pursue a “broad free-market policy” as finance minister. He likened religious reforms to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Christian service providers to decline work from LGBTQ couples.
“For example, arranging for a minuscule number of sex-separated beaches, as we propose, scarcely limits the choices of the majority of Israelis who prefer mixed beaches,” Smotrich wrote. “It simply offers an option to others.”
In the West Bank, Smotrich said, his finance ministry would promote the building of infrastructure and employment which would benefit Israeli Jewish settlers and Palestinians alike. “This doesn’t entail changing the political or legal status of the area.”
Such salves contradict the stated aims of the new government’s coalition agreement, Anshel Pfeffer, a Netanyahu biographer and analyst for Haaretz said in a Twitter thread picking apart Smotrich’s op-ed.
“Smotrich says his policy doesn’t mean changing the political or legal status of the occupied territories while annexation actually appears in the coalition agreement and his plans certainly change the legal status of the settlements,” Pfeffer said.
Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said foreign media alarm at the composition of the incoming government was premature.
“I suspect that the vast mass of people will maintain the support that they have for Israel because it hasn’t got anything to do with the passing of one government to another and has everything to do with the principle that Israel is a pro-American democracy in a region that’s pretty important,” she said.
That said, Pletka said, the changes in policy embraced by Smotrich and his cohort could alienate Americans should they become policy.
“I think a lot of things can change if the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government becomes policy, but right now, it’s rhetoric,” she said. “What you tend to see in normal governments is that they need to make a series of compromises between rhetoric that plays to their base and governance.”
Pletka said Netanyahuu’s stated ambition to expand the 2020 Abraham Accords to peace with Saudi Arabia would likely inhibit plans by Smotrich to annex the West Bank. In the summer of 2020, the last time Netanyahu planned annexation, the United Arab Emirates, one of the four Arab Parties to the Abraham Accords, threatened to pull out unless Netanyahu pulled back — which he did.
“It’s not just the relationship with the United States,” she said. “This might alienate their new friends in the Gulf, which, at the end of the day, may actually have more serious consequences.”
Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to relay the impression that he will keep his coalition partners on a short leash.
“They’re joining me, I’m not joining them,” he said earlier this month. “I’ll have two hands firmly on the steering wheel. I won’t let anybody do anything to LGBT [people] or to deny our Arab citizens their rights or anything like that.”
Zakheim said that Netanyahu, who is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, from 1996 to 1999 and then from 2009 to 2021, has proven chops at steering rangy coalitions — but there are two key differences now.
Netanyahu wants his coalition partners to pass a law that would effectively end his trial for criminal fraud, and so they exercise unprecedented leverage over him. Additionally, Netanyahu in the past has faced the greatest pressure from haredi Orthodox parties, who are susceptible to suasion by funding their impoverished sector. That’s not true of his new ideologically driven partners.
“If you look at his past governments, he has really never been forced into real policy decisions by those to the right of him,” Zekheim said. “Now he’s got a problem because these 15 or so seats of those to his right are interested in policy, not just in money.”
Makovsky said Netanyahu appears to be leaving behind a conservatism that was sympathetic to the outlook of its American counterpart.
“His success has been that he’s a stabilizer. He’s risk-averse. He’s focused on the prosperity of the country, with high-tech success. He’s the one to be seen as the tenacious guardian against Iranian nuclear influence,” he said. “And those are things people could relate to. Now, it just seems like he’s just throwing the playbook out the window.”
—
The post Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Somalia’s South West State Says It Has Severed Ties With the Federal Government
FILE PHOTO: Somalia’s presidential candidate of South West state Abdiaziz Hassan Mohamed speaks inside the Somali Parliament house in Mogadishu, Somalia April 30, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Feisal Omar/File Photo
Somalia’s South West state said on Tuesday it was suspending all cooperation and relations with the government in Mogadishu, the latest sign of strain in the Horn of Africa country’s fragile federal system.
At a press conference, South West officials accused the federal government of arming militias and trying to unseat the state’s president, Abdiaziz Hassan Mohamed Laftagareen. Somalia’s defense and information ministers did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
Disputes over constitutional changes, elections and the balance of power between Mogadishu and regional administrations repeatedly open up political fault lines in Somalia. The South West administration says relations with Mogadishu worsened after the federal government pushed through constitutional amendments opposed by some state leaders.
Travel agencies told Reuters on Tuesday that commercial flights between Mogadishu and Baidoa, the administrative capital of South West state, had been halted. Humanitarian flights, including for United Nations operations, were continuing. Baidoa, which lies about 245 km (150 miles) northwest of Mogadishu, is a politically and militarily sensitive city because it hosts federal troops, regional security forces and international humanitarian operations in a zone affected by drought, conflict and displacement.
The Mogadishu government’s relations with other states have also been fraught. Somaliland declared independence in 1991 and has long been outside Mogadishu’s control. The administration of semi-autonomous Puntland said in March 2024 it would no longer recognize the federal government until disputed constitutional amendments were approved in a nationwide referendum.
Semi-autonomous Jubbaland suspended ties with Mogadishu in November 2024 in a dispute over regional elections.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran Sees Control of Strait of Hormuz as Victory Over US, Israel
An LPG gas tanker at anchor as traffic is down in the Strait of Hormuz, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Shinas, Oman, March 11, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Benoit Tessier/File Photo
i24 News – Iran is showing no indication it is ready to end the war with the United States and Israel, as officials say Tehran is relying on its control over the Strait of Hormuz to increase global economic pressure and strengthen its position.
According to regional officials cited by The Washington Post, Iran is rejecting diplomatic efforts to identify an off-ramp and instead escalating attacks on neighboring countries. An Iranian diplomat said the strategy is to “make this aggression super expensive for the aggressors,” as Tehran faces sustained military pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz remains central to Iran’s calculations. The waterway carries roughly one-fifth of global fuel shipments, and its partial closure has disrupted energy markets. US President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour deadline for Iran to reopen the route, warning of further escalation if it does not comply.
Iranian officials and diplomats said the leadership views its ability to maintain pressure through the strait as a short-term success, even as infrastructure damage mounts. “They don’t feel any pressure to negotiate,” one European diplomat based in the Gulf said, adding that Iran sees its influence over oil markets as a form of leverage.
At the same time, efforts to mediate a ceasefire have so far failed. Officials from Qatar and Oman approached Iran last week, but Tehran said it would only engage if US and Israeli strikes stopped first. An Iranian diplomat said the country would not accept a “premature ceasefire” and is seeking guarantees, including compensation and commitments to prevent future attacks.
The war has already caused significant damage. The Pentagon says more than 15,000 targets have been struck across Iran, while Iranian authorities report over 1,200 civilian deaths. The conflict has also expanded regionally, with Iranian strikes targeting energy infrastructure in Gulf states following attacks on its own facilities.
Despite mounting losses, analysts say Iran’s leadership believes prolonging the conflict could shift pressure onto Washington and its allies through rising energy prices and regional instability. “We’re still on an escalatory path,” said Alan Eyre, a former US official, adding that Tehran is attempting to “up the costs” rather than move toward negotiations.
Uncategorized
Persistent Iran War, Energy Price Surge Set to Sway Wavering Stocks
Stock ticker. Photo: Ahmad Ardity/Wikimedia Commons.
A Middle East crisis that has convulsed markets should remain the focal point for Wall Street in the near term, as investors stay glued to developments in Iran and the fallout from surging energy prices.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran stretches to three weeks, an over 40% jump in oil prices is driving worries about higher inflation and stagnating economic growth.
Inflationary concerns on Friday were prompting markets to rule out any equity-friendly interest rate cuts this year, which investors previously had been counting on, with futures trading instead suggesting modest chances of hikes in 2026. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell expressed deep uncertainty at the US central bank’s meeting on Wednesday about how the crisis would factor into the economy, muddying its ability to forecast conditions ahead.
US stocks suffered sharp declines to end the week. The benchmark S&P 500 stock index posted its fourth straight weekly decline and hit a six-month low, while the Nasdaq Composite ended down nearly 10% below its October all-time high.
Middle East tensions escalated this week. Iran attacked energy facilities across the region following Israel’s strike on its gas field, while officials told Reuters on Friday that the US military is deploying thousands of Marines to the Middle East.
“This is a situation that’s so fluid,” said Chris Fasciano, chief market strategist at Commonwealth Financial Network. “We could have a resolution in the next week or it could go on for some time. And the longer it goes on, you start to think about the impacts it could have on the US economy.”
WATCHING OIL, STOCKS’ ‘ORDERLY’ REACTION
Swings in crude prices have rippled through asset classes. US crude settled around $98 a barrel on Friday, while Brent ended around $112. In addition to the attacks on energy infrastructure, traffic has stalled in the Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes.
The 20-day correlation between the S&P 500 and US crude stood at -0.89 late on Friday, according to LSEG data, a strong inverse relationship that showed they have tended to move in opposite directions.
“If you’re a trader, you watch oil prices because I do think that that’s generally giving the leading indicator as to how the financial markets are viewing the outlook for the conflict,” said Eric Kuby, chief investment officer at North Star Investment Management Corp.
The S&P 500 energy sector, which includes shares of oil companies, has gained since crude prices began to spike in late February, but the group accounts for less than a 4% weight in the benchmark index.
The latest declines left the S&P 500 down 6.8% from its record closing high set in late January. The pullback has mostly lacked the chaotic quality of the abrupt equity slide last April following President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement that set off broad economic worries, Fasciano said.
“This has been fairly orderly, which I think is an encouraging sign,” Fasciano said. “And I think it’s because the underlying fundamentals for corporate America are still fairly robust and are offering some support.”
TREASURY YIELDS, MARKET TECHNICALS ALSO IN FOCUS
Fast-climbing Treasury yields, driven higher by the energy price spike and caution from global central banks, were looming as a risk factor for stocks. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield was last at 4.38% on Friday, its highest level since last summer.
Keith Lerner, chief investment officer at Truist Advisory Services, said he was watching whether the 10-year Treasury yield sustainably rises above 4.3%, which could increase pressure on stocks, while he was also eyeing 4.5% as a key level.
“Rates going higher means borrowing costs are somewhat higher. And then that could actually slow the economy,” Lerner said. “At some point, if they keep going higher, then the relative attractiveness of (bond) yields becomes more attractive relative to equities.”
Stocks were also around key technical levels. The S&P 500 on Thursday closed below its 200-day moving average — a closely watched long-term trendline — for the first time since May. With another decline on Friday, the index ended at its lowest point since September and fell below November lows that strategists had also identified as worrisome levels.
Reports on manufacturing, services activity and consumer sentiment highlight a relatively light week ahead for US economic data. A major energy conference in Houston that will feature top global industry executives could draw Wall Street’s attention.
Events in Iran were likely to loom largest. In a note on Thursday morning, analysts at UBS Global Wealth Management said the latest developments were “pushing markets to price in a higher risk of prolonged conflict, deeper infrastructure damage and higher-for-longer crude prices.”
“While a less damaging outcome in the Strait of Hormuz remains possible, recent events have narrowed that path and heightened the risk of continued volatility,” the UBS analysts said.