Connect with us

RSS

Ted Deutch left Congress to head a Jewish organization. Can he find the ‘nuance’ that he seeks?

(JTA) — “Nonpartisan.” “Centrist.” The words seem quaint in an era of house-on-fire polarization, but Ted Deutch, marking one year as CEO of the American Jewish Committee, remains committed to what he calls “nuance” in fighting the community’s battles. 

“Having been a Democratic member of Congress, I don’t think there’s anyone who better understands the threat that extreme partisanship poses to the country and, frankly, to the issues that we in our community care deeply about,” Deutch told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in an interview last week. “And someone’s got to stake out a loud position that says, ‘We’re not going to be pulled to the far right or the far left.’” 

Deutch succeeded David Harris as head of the 116-year-old AJC after 12 years representing South Florida in Congress, where he was an outspoken advocate for Israel and for combating antisemitism. One year into his new job, he’s carefully stoked AJC’s reputation as a sort of “State Department” of the organized Jewish community, with its citizen diplomacy on behalf of Jewish concerns and advocacy for Israel. 

At the same time, he was drawn into unforeseen crises, like the outrage that followed online antisemitic rants by the rapper formerly known as Kanye West and and the tumult over the right-wing Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plans

He’s also cultivated the AJC brand: temperate, somewhat patrician, more comfortable pulling together a task force or quietly meeting with a social media executive than issuing an angry press release or tweet. In a wide-ranging conversation, he discussed whether that approach remains viable — or even advisable — in the current political climate, why he thinks AJC speaks for a majority of American Jews and how he feels about reports that support for Israel is softening among his former Democratic colleagues.

Our conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

It’s been almost a year since you left Congress to take your position at the American Jewish Committee. Do you miss politics?

I’m grateful to have had the opportunity and proud of what I was able to do on Jewish issues as chair of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. I chaired the Ethics Committee, which, especially around the time of the High Holidays, feels like a Jewish part of my work as well, frankly. And it was really great work. It’s also, as everyone knows, a bitterly partisan place. It was different when I left than it was when I got there seven terms before. And to have had the opportunity to leave what is perhaps the single most partisan place in America to lead a Jewish organization that allows me to work on the issues that are central to who I am to and do it every day of the week (except for Shabbat) — and to do it in a space that is nonpartisan and nuanced, and that recognizes the importance of working together — that’s been fantastic.

I want to get back to the issue of partisanship, especially as it applies to the Jewish community. But first I want to ask: The Anti-Defamation League and dozens of other organizations fight antisemitism. AIPAC lobbies for Israel. A network of community relations councils advocates for a Jewish agenda in local government. Why do we need the American Jewish Committee? 

AJC is the global advocacy organization for the Jewish people. The mission is both straightforward and incredibly expansive. Our mission is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and advance democratic values. Yes, there are lots of organizations that work on various pieces of that, but we have for more than 116 years. We have been active in the United States and around the world now with 25 regional offices, and offices and representatives all across the globe, forging the kinds of relationships that are necessary in a nonpartisan way to advocate for the entirety of the Jewish people. There’s 16 million Jews in the world out of eight-and-a-half billion people and AJC’s role is to advocate on behalf of all of them — whether it’s working in Paris, to help ensure that the Macron government understands the challenges that Israel or the Jewish community faces, or our new regional office in San Diego or our regional office or in Atlanta that’s working on building relationships in the intergroup space.

The Jewish community may not be partisan in the sense that you are using the term, but it’s certainly polarized, with its own far right and far left. In recent years AJC has been seen as the ultimate “centrist” Jewish group, which to some is a compliment and to others a sign that it doesn’t take tough positions that could alienate those on either side of the political debate. Do you accept the label of “centrist” and if so why?

Proudly centrist. Yes, you’re right, in the Jewish community, like in the broader community, there are definitely extremes. But I absolutely believe that the vast majority of members of the Jewish community, like most people in America, don’t spend their time on the extremes. They don’t spend their time looking for ways to demonize one another. In the Jewish community that means finding opportunities to work together to strengthen the Jewish community, like giving voice to Jewish students or training the next generation of global Jewish leaders to stand and advocate for Jewish communities with governments around the world and here in our own country. 

The suggestion that being centrist is somehow more challenging, with the noise coming from the extremes, highlights exactly why AJC’s role is so necessary. We’re going to call out antisemitism wherever we see it on the far left or the far right. We’re going to work with whoever we need to to advance the Jewish community’s interests. 

“We’re not going to take positions that play into the hands of those whose interest is not in Israeli democracy, but whose interest is in finding ways to undermine Israel’s very right to exist,” said Ted Deutsch. (Courtesy AJC)

So let me give you a test case. AJC issued a statement on the judicial reform effort in Israel essentially criticizing the government’s rush to change the law, defending checks and balances, minority rights and civil liberties, and urging compromise. Other Jewish groups, alarmed by the government’s anti-democratic moves, have used much stronger language. Does AJC risk appearing out of step by in this case saying less? 

I would absolutely disagree. I took a group of AJC leaders to Israel in January. The protests had been going on for a couple of weeks, as I recall, and we were the first organization to lay out our position with respect to judicial reform. And we haven’t wavered from it. We’ve engaged with all of the parties and that I think is perhaps a difference. Our view, as we said in Israel at the time, is that it’s not up to us to decide whether Israel decides [to change] their judicial system. That’s not our call. However, if they’re going to do anything that dramatically impacts the institutions that are fundamental to Israeli democracy, given the importance of democracy in Israel and to the Jewish people, if they’re going to do anything that’s going to affect that, it ought to come as a result of a process that is thoughtful and deliberative and that ultimately seeks compromise and respects civil liberties and minority rights. I said it in my meetings with the Knesset. I said it in my meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And it’s why we’ve been so supportive of [Israeli] President [Isaac] Herzog’s efforts to reach a compromise. And when the “reasonableness” bill went through and it wasn’t the result of a deliberative process or compromise, we said so at the time

What we’re not going to do as an organization that is fiercely pro-Israel, is we’re not going to take positions that play into the hands of those whose interest is not in Israeli democracy, but whose interest is in finding ways to undermine Israel’s very right to exist. So I’m not going to declare that this government is illegitimate. I’m not going to take sides in political battles. We have a principled approach that respects the importance of Israeli democracy for Israel and for Diaspora Jewry. And we point out that the fact that these protests have gone on as long as they have, using as their symbol the Israeli flag, is a perfect example of what Israel represents. 

The fight against antisemitism has also become partisan, even within the Jewish community, with disagreement over whether the biggest threat is from a violent right or an anti-Israel left. Are you concerned about how it’s been made a partisan issue and a polarizing issue when it should be a consensus issue?

I don’t know how anyone who couldn’t have that concern. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which antisemites we’d like to focus on. It’s why we do so much in the Latino Jewish space, in the Black church space and why our Muslim Jewish Advisory Council matters so much. It’s why we’ve been so engaged with the Catholic Church. When I was in Congress, it was always easy to point out the antisemitism among those that you disagree with in partisan political terms. It’s a lot more challenging to call out the statements and behavior of those in your own party. That, unfortunately, is now something that we see beyond the halls of Congress. 

Take the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, for example. It looks a lot like the AJC’s Call to Action Against Antisemitism, which we published several years ago, and we worked hard with the White House to help inform them in drafting their society-wide approach. There are over 200 specific action items that will help keep the Jewish community safe, and yet there are those who immediately pivot to the things that they think undermine the effort to fight antisemitism. That’s the challenge. We have to be able to come together and call out the antisemites wherever they are, and it’s hard. But again, it’s what most people want us to do in the real world. 

Speaking of the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which the Biden administration announced in May: I’m curious how you, as a former member of Congress, view the effectiveness of such strategies. Have you seen examples of an administration setting priorities like this that have a real effect in bringing about change, and do you worry that action plans like this sound great but won’t be enacted? 

That’s why we immediately formed a task force with over 50 of our professionals from around the country and from 14 different departments of AJC, all with a goal of identifying every one of the 200 action items and making sure that it’s carried out. This cannot be a document that sits on a shelf. It can’t be a document that is important in this administration, but then future administration’s may push it aside. I can tell you just from the work that we’ve done, there are parts of the federal government that never really think about antisemitism. That’s why his plan is so significant. It went out to the bureaucrats, the policy people who are doing the work.

Can you give me an example? When AJC follows up with bureaucrats in government to discuss the strategy against antisemitism, what’s the ask?

Sure. We entered into an agreement with the Small Business Administration. Administrator [Isabella Casillas] Guzman came down to South Florida and we did a roundtable with small business owners. Small businesses represent the heart and soul of our economy. They don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how to fight antisemitism. They’re trying to earn a profit. So this roundtable will be replicated around the country with the regional offices of the SBA, to help them understand how to respond if there’s antisemitism in local small businesses and better understand the challenges that Jewish small business owners face. This is the kind of thing that can make a real difference, if for no other reason than there are lots of people who don’t think about antisemitism who will now join in this fight with us. 

There’s one other quick example. We recently had a meeting with a number of mayors on Long Island. We’ve partnered with the Conference of Mayors to come up with a mayor’s guide to combating antisemitism, which these mayors are now committing to. So that when a national debate happens after Kanye decides to unload an antisemitic rant on the Jewish people online, there’s an opportunity to engage more allies with us than we’ve ever had before. 

When you raise Kanye, we’re talking about the toxic effect of social media and celebrity and how someone with antisemitic ideas can own a platform with a couple of rants. Tell me about your outreach to social media companies. You saw how Elon Musk went after the Anti-Defamation League for calling out antisemitism on X/Twitter. What does AJC do differently in this regard?

I can tell you what we have done for some time now. A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X. And we were very, very clear about what we wanted and steps that they could take to make their platform safer for the Jewish community. And she made clear to us that she’s the CEO and that she welcomed our input. We’ve continued the conversations where we’ve offered to be helpful in a whole variety of ways, including helping to identify blind spots. 

Such as?

We know that outside of the Jewish community, there are lots of antisemitic tropes that over millennia have led to really dire outcomes for the Jewish community, including violence and pogroms and expulsion from countries and and obviously, the worst case, the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. We understand that there are lots of people who need to be educated about why statements about Jews and power and conspiracy theories about Jewish control are so dangerous. That’s one of the ways that we’ve offered to be helpful. 

We’ve also suggested some steps that can be taken right now. For example, if there’s a post on X that is antisemitic in nature, there’s not a way to respond and raise the issue for X and specifically identify it as antisemitic. Well, that’s an easy step. And then big picture: What we want from all of the social media companies first and foremost is for them to enforce their own rules. These are private companies. They have rules about what is and what isn’t tolerated on their platforms. We want them to enforce those rules to prevent antisemitism that’s a threat to the Jewish people. 

And it was your takeaway that Yaccarino seemed amenable to these kinds of suggestions?

She was absolutely willing to continue to engage with us. We’ve continued to follow up and, and certainly my hope from that response is that we’ll see concrete actions. 

I want to pivot to talk about a survey AJC did last year about millennials’ attitude toward Israel, which confirmed that American Jewish millennials are distancing themselves from Israel more than their elders. AJC’s message at the time was that the numbers were not quite as bad as some people feared — nevertheless, the trends are clear. How worried are you about disaffection for and alienation from Israel for younger Jews — and if you had a solution, what would it be?

Well, first of all, the top line of the survey was that three-quarters of American Jewish millennials believe that it’s important for Jews to have close ties with Israel. So I think that’s significant. That’s something that we see in the work that we do every day. 

There are others who have questions about Israel’s policies, and I’m not writing off young Jews who come from a place of concern about Israel. It’s a serious issue. We engage in it. It’s why we devote so much attention through our our high school division, our Campus Global Board, our young leadership division, in ensuring that we’re addressing these issues that we’re discussing, but that we’re also capitalizing on the incredible energy and enthusiasm and passion of young people who absolutely want to join the effort with their fellow Jews from around the world in supporting one another and supporting Israel.

But it’s also a little more complex. We don’t shy away from the conversations that young people want to have. I don’t believe that the way to address concerns about millennials is simply to lecture them and tell them that if you simply understand this piece of history, then you’ll understand why this should all be so important to you. I was in France a few months ago and heard from a number of Jewish university students that when they went to parties, as soon as someone learned they were Jewish, they were bombarded with questions about Israel and the Palestinians. And so for some, [in terms of their distancing from Israel,] it’s more an issue of not wanting to define their Jewish identity [in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. It doesn’t mean that they’re anti-Israel.

A delegation from the American Jewish Committee marches in the Celebrate Israel parade in New York City, June 4, 2023. (Philissa Cramer)

The anecdote about the French students reminds me of a critique, not just about AJC but many Jewish mainstream institutions, that by making Israel so integral to what it means to be an American Jew, it came at the expense of creating a distinct American Jewish identity. Do you think Jewish organizations somehow share in the blame for that, in the sense that they tied the two identities too closely together?

No, I don’t. Israel means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Some people engage in Israel because they care about Israel as a Jewish homeland. Some people recognize it as a refuge for Jews from around the world. For some it’s based purely on the importance of Israel in our prayers. 

I do think, however, that this gets to a broader point of what we should be advocating for. If the only thing that we’re doing as a community is responding to antisemitism, if we’re letting the people who hate Jews define the Jewish community’s mission, or that the only Jewish history that we’re really focused on is the Holocaust, then we’re failing our young people. The big question that I find myself asking, especially around the holidays, is what happens when we win the battle against antisemitism? That’s why it is so important for us to be not just a global organization, but a proudly Jewish organization. We have to understand who we are so that others can understand who we are and what we’ve contributed to the world and to America. And that requires us to learn a little more and be understandably proud of what it means to be a Jew in America.

Can you give me a specific example of AJC programming that’s about inculcating this sort of Jewish pride?

Our Leaders for Tomorrow program for high school teaches kids to not just be proud, proud Jews and and proudly pro-Israel but helps them understand what we’ve contributed throughout history. And our center for Contemporary Jewish Life does educational programs that lead the way on this whole Jewish-and-proud effort.

You succeeded David Harris, who led the organization for over 30 years. What goals did you set out for AJC when you took over and what have you achieved? What hasn’t been done and are you most anxious to get going?

First of all, AJC for over 116 years has been a trusted — I would argue, the most trusted — voice across the globe in representing the Jewish community. And I came in committed to expanding on that legacy. Right at the beginning I wanted to make sure that people know who we are. There’s no benefit when you’re a global NGO in being referred to as “the best kept secret,” which is something that I heard from time to time when I started. 

But in my first week Kanye went on his antisemitic rant against the Jews and suddenly, I found myself in front of cameras and talking to reporters about antisemitism because this is something that AJC had been dealing with for decades in Europe. It’s the reason that we worked so hard with the White House and in helping to inform the creation of the national strategy. 

When I first announced I was taking this job we were in a different place in Israel. The government was different. It was the most diverse government in the history of Israel, and now we have the most conservative government in the history of Israel. But that hasn’t stopped us from continuing to work hard to expand Israel’s place in the world and expand the Abraham Accords. So we’ve continued to meet with leaders from throughout the Gulf and to build out the work that we do in our offices in Jerusalem and in Abu Dhabi to really help propel the Abraham Accords forward. 

We also recognize the need to continue to expand, which is why we opened the new office in San Diego in my first year, deepening our relationship and our political activity in Denver and in the Mountain States and embarking on a major expansion in Florida.  

What haven’t I been able to do? For my first 12 months after leaving Congress, I’ve been barred [by House ethics rules] from engaging my former colleagues on any substantive issues. Come Oct. 1, as someone who has deep personal relationships with members of Congress across the aisle, I’ll be re-engaging with Democratic leaders and Republican leaders in ways that will strengthen our place in Washington and in turn, the Jewish community’s and Israel’s place in the world.

I want to ask about that. Within the Democratic Party, there has been some drift away from Israel, and there’s been some harsh criticism from certain lawmakers on the party’s left. Are you concerned that the party is not as forthrightly pro-Israel as it used to be? And are you worried about Israel itself becoming a partisan issue in Congress?

There have been people who have been trying to make Israel a partisan issue for a long time. I fought that when I was in Congress. Our role as a nonpartisan organization, as a centrist organization, is to call out those on both sides who try to weaponize the issue and engage in the use of antisemitic tropes. We work closely with those Republicans who are fiercely pro-Israel. And you also have to look at Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who recently led a group of Democratic lawmakers to Israel. His commitment to Israel is very strong and firm. Yeah, there’s a small minority who tried to politicize this issue. There’s a small minority who take positions that I think need to be called out. I did that when I was on the floor of the House. We’re going to work with leadership to advance the issues of the Jewish community. It’s something that I look forward to doing with people that I’ve known for a long time and based on relationships that I think will be really helpful.


The post Ted Deutch left Congress to head a Jewish organization. Can he find the ‘nuance’ that he seeks? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

RSS

Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives

FILE PHOTO: Boulder attack suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman poses for a jail booking photograph after his arrest in Boulder, Colorado, U.S. June 2, 2025. Photo: Boulder Police Department/Handout via REUTERS

A suspect in an attack on a pro-Israeli rally in Colorado that injured eight people was being held on Monday on an array of charges, including assault and the use of explosives, in lieu of a $10-million bail, according to Boulder County records.

The posted list of felony charges against suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, in the attack on Sunday also includes charges of murder in the first degree, although police in the city of Boulder have said on social media that no victims died in the attack. Authorities could not be reached immediately to clarify.

Witnesses reported the suspect used a makeshift flamethrower and threw an incendiary device into the crowd. He was heard to yell “Free Palestine” during the attack, according to the FBI, in what the agency called a “targeted terror attack.”

Four women and four men between 52 and 88 years of age were transported to hospitals after the attack, Boulder Police said.

The attack took place on the Pearl Street Mall, a popular pedestrian shopping district near the University of Colorado, during an event organized by Run for Their Lives, an organization devoted to drawing attention to the hostages seized in the aftermath of Hamas’ 2023 attack on Israel.

Rabbi Yisroel Wilhelm, the Chabad director at the University of Colorado, Boulder, told CBS Colorado that the 88-year-old victim was a Holocaust refugee who fled Europe.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Soliman had entered the country in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023. He filed for asylum in September 2022. “The suspect, Mohamed Soliman, is illegally in our country,” the spokesperson said.

The FBI raided and searched Soliman’s home in El Paso County, Colorado, the agency said on social media. “As this is an ongoing investigation, no additional information is available at this time.”

The attack in Boulder was the latest act of violence aimed at Jewish Americans linked to outrage over Israel’s escalating military offensive in Gaza. It followed the fatal shooting of two Israel Embassy aides that took place outside Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum last month.

Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said after the shooting there was a question of how far security perimeters outside Jewish institutions should extend.

Boulder Police said they would hold a press conference later on Monday to discuss details of the Colorado attack.

The Denver office of the FBI, which is handling the case, did not immediately respond to emails or phone calls seeking clarification on the homicide charges or other details in the case.

Officials from the Boulder County Jail, Boulder Police and Boulder County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to inquiries.

The post Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS

Iran is poised to reject a US proposal to end a decades-old nuclear dispute, an Iranian diplomat said on Monday, dismissing it as a “non-starter” that fails to address Tehran’s interests or soften Washington’s stance on uranium enrichment.

“Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer,” the senior diplomat, who is close to Iran’s negotiating team, told Reuters.

The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who was on a short visit to Tehran and has been mediating talks between Tehran and Washington.

After five rounds of discussions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, several obstacles remain.

Among them are Iran’s rejection of a US demand that it commit to scrapping uranium enrichment and its refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium – possible raw material for nuclear bombs.

Tehran says it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

“In this proposal, the US stance on enrichment on Iranian soil remains unchanged, and there is no clear explanation regarding the lifting of sanctions,” said the diplomat, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Araqchi said Tehran would formally respond to the proposal soon.

Tehran demands the immediate removal of all US-imposed curbs that impair its oil-based economy. But the US says nuclear-related sanctions should be removed in phases.

Dozens of institutions vital to Iran’s economy, including its central bank and national oil company, have been blacklisted since 2018 for, according to Washington, “supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.”

Trump’s revival of “maximum pressure” against Tehran since his return to the White House in January has included tightening sanctions and threatening to bomb Iran if the negotiations yield no deal.

During his first term in 2018, Trump ditched Tehran’s 2015 nuclear pact with six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the pact’s limits.

Under the deal, Iran had until 2018 curbed its sensitive nuclear work in return for relief from US, EU and U.N. economic sanctions.

The diplomat said the assessment of “Iran’s nuclear negotiations committee,” under the supervision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was that the US proposal was “completely one-sided” and could not serve Tehran’s interests.

Therefore, the diplomat said, Tehran considers this proposal a “non-starter” and believes it unilaterally attempts to impose a “bad deal” on Iran through excessive demands.

NUCLEAR STANDOFF RAISES MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS

The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. Iran’s clerical establishment, for its part, wants to be rid of the devastating sanctions.

Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord.

Two Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Iran could pause uranium enrichment if the US released frozen Iranian funds and recognized Tehran’s right to refine uranium for civilian use under a “political deal” that could lead to a broader nuclear accord.

Iran’s arch-foe Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and says it would never allow Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons.

Araqchi, in a joint news conference with his Egyptian counterpart in Cairo, said: “I do not think Israel will commit such a mistake as to attack Iran.”

Tehran’s regional influence has meanwhile been diminished by military setbacks suffered by its forces and those of its allies in the Shi’ite-dominated “Axis of Resistance,” which include Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi militias.

In April, Saudi Arabia’s defence minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian officials to take Trump’s offer of a new deal seriously as a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.

The post Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron after a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, May 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stephanie Lecocq/Pool

The dramatic fall of the Assad regime in Syria has undeniably reshaped the Middle East, yet the emerging power dynamics, particularly the alignment between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, warrant profound scrutiny from those committed to American and Israeli security. While superficially presented as a united front against Iranian influence, this new Sunni axis carries a dangerous undercurrent of Islamism and regional ambition that could ultimately undermine, rather than serve, the long-term interests of Washington and Jerusalem.

For too long, Syria under Bashar al-Assad served as a critical conduit for Iran’s destabilizing agenda, facilitating arms transfers to Hezbollah and projecting Tehran’s power across the Levant. The removal of this linchpin is, on the surface, a strategic victory. However, the nature of the new Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa — a figure Israeli officials continue to view with deep suspicion due to his past as a former Al-Qaeda-linked commander — raises immediate red flags. This is not merely a change of guard; it is a shift that introduces a new set of complex challenges, particularly given Turkey’s historical support for the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization deemed a terror group by Saudi Arabia and many other regional states.

Israel’s strategic calculus in Syria has always been clear: to degrade Iran’s military presence, prevent Hezbollah from acquiring advanced weaponry, and maintain operational freedom in Syrian airspace. Crucially, Israel has historically thought it best to have a decentralized, weak, and fragmented Syria, with reports that it has actively worked against the resurgence of a robust central authority. This preference stems from a pragmatic understanding that a strong, unified Syria, especially one under the tutelage of an ambitious regional power like Turkey, could pose much more of a threat than the Assad regime ever did. Indeed, Israeli defense officials privately express concern at Turkey’s assertive moves, accusing Ankara of attempting to transform post-war Syria into a Turkish protectorate under Islamist tutelage. This concern is not unfounded; Turkey’s ambitious, arguably expansionist, objectives — and its perceived undue dominance in Arab lands — are viewed by Israel as warily as Iran’s previous influence.

The notion that an “Ottoman Crescent” is now replacing the “Shiite Crescent” should not be celebrated as a net positive. While it may diminish Iranian power, it introduces a new form of regional hegemony, one driven by an ideology that has historically been antithetical to Western values and stability. The European Union’s recent imposition of sanctions on Turkish-backed Syrian army commanders for human rights abuses, including arbitrary killings and torture, further underscores the problematic nature of some elements within this new Syrian landscape. The fact that al-Sharaa has allowed such individuals to operate with impunity and even promoted them to high-ranking positions should give Washington pause.

From an American perspective, while the Trump administration has pragmatically engaged with the new Syrian government, lifting sanctions and urging normalization with Israel, this engagement must be tempered with extreme caution. The core American interests in the Middle East — counterterrorism, containment of Iran, and regional stability — are not served by empowering Islamist-leaning factions or by enabling a regional power, like Turkey, whose actions have sometimes undermined the broader fight against ISIS. Washington must demand that Damascus demonstrate a genuine commitment to taking over the counter-ISIS mission and managing detention facilities, and unequivocally insist that Turkey cease actions that risk an ISIS resurgence.

The argument that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, despite their own complex internal dynamics, are simply pragmatic actors countering Iran overlooks the ideological underpinnings that concern many conservatives. Turkey’s ruling party, rooted in political Islam, and its historical ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, present a fundamental challenge to the vision of a stable, secular, and pro-Western Middle East. While Saudi Arabia has designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, its alignment with Turkey in Syria, and its own internal human rights record, means that this “new front” is far from a clean solution.

The Saudi-Turkey alignment in Syria is a double-edged sword. While it may indeed serve to counter Iran’s immediate regional ambitions, it simultaneously risks empowering actors whose long-term objectives and ideological leanings are deeply problematic for American, Israeli, and Western interests. Washington and Jerusalem must approach this new dynamic with extreme vigilance, prioritizing the containment of all forms of radicalism — whether Shiite or Sunni — and ensuring that any strategic gains against Iran do not inadvertently pave the way for a new, equally dangerous, Islamist crescent to rise in the heart of the Levant.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx 

The post The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News