Uncategorized
A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary
(JTA) — Israel’s new governing coalition has been called the “most right-wing” in the nation’s history. That’s heartening to supporters who want the country to get tough on crime and secure Jewish rights to live in the West Bank, and dismaying to critics who see a government bent on denying rights to Israel’s minorities and undermining any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the far-right politics of new government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have drawn much of the world’s attention, a series of proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system has also been raising hopes and alarms. On Wednesday, new Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced an overhaul that would limit the authority of the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court. It would put more politicians on the selection committee that picks judges, restrict the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and government decisions and enact an “override clause” enabling the Knesset to rewrite court decisions with a simple majority.
Levin and his supporters on the right justify these changes as a way to restore balance to a system that he says puts too much control in the hands of (lately) left-leaning judges: “We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard,” he asserted. “That is not democracy.”
Critics of the changes call them a power grab, one that will hand more leverage to the haredi Orthodox parties, remove checks on the settlement movement and limit civil society groups’ ability to litigate on behalf of Israeli minorities.
To help me make sense of the claims on both sides, I turned to Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, where he is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law and co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project, which gathers and analyzes the constitutions of all independent nation-states. He’s also a Jew who has transformed a former synagogue on the South Side of Chicago into a cutting-edge arts space, and says what’s happening with Israel’s new governing coalition “raises my complicated relationship with the country.”
We spoke on Friday. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You have written about law in Israel, which lacks a constitution but relies on a series of “basic laws” to define its fundamental institutions. You’ve written that the Israeli judiciary had become “extremely powerful” — maybe too powerful — in imbuing the basic laws with a constitutional character, but worry that the current reforms will politicize the court in ways that will undermine Israeli democracy.
Tom Ginsburg: The proposed reforms were a campaign promise of certain elements of this coalition who have had longstanding grievances against the Israeli judiciary. The Israeli judiciary over the last decades has indeed become extremely powerful and important in writing or rewriting a constitution for Israel, promoting human rights and serving as a check and balance in a unicameral parliamentary system where the legislature can do anything it wants as a formal matter. A lot of people have had problems with that at the level of theory and practice. So there have been some reforms, and the court has, in my view, cut back on its activism in recent decades and in some sense has been more responsive to the center of the country. But there’s longstanding grievances from the political right, and that’s the context of these proposals.
A lot of the concerns about the new government in Israel are coming from the American Jewish left. But in an American context, the American Jewish left also has a big problem with the United States Supreme Court, because they see it as being too activist on the right. So in some ways isn’t the new Israeli government looking to do what American Jewish liberals dream of doing in this country?
Isn’t that funny? But the context is really different. The basic point is that judicial independence is a really good thing. Judicial accountability is a really good thing. And if you study high courts around the world, as I do, you see that there’s kind of a calibration, a balancing of institutional factors which lead towards more independence or more accountability and sometimes things switch around over time.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Jan. 4, 2023. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)
You mean “accountability” in the sense that courts should be accountable to the public.
Right. The Israeli promoters of these plans are pointing to the United States, in particular, for the proposals for more political involvement in the appointment process. On the other hand, in the United States once you’re appointed politically, you’re serving for life. There’s literally no check on your power. And so maybe some people think we have too much independence. If these proposals go through in Israel, there will be a front-end politicization of the court [in terms of the selection commission], but also back-end checks on the court [with the override clause that would allow a simple majority to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court]. So in some sense, it moves the pendulum very far away from independence and very much towards accountability to the point of possible politicization.
And accountability in that case is too much of a good thing.
Again, you don’t want courts that can just make up rules. They should be responsive to society. On the other hand, you don’t want judges who are so responsive to society that there’s no protection for the basic rights of unpopular minorities.
What makes Israel either unique or different from some of the other countries you study, and certainly the United States? Part of it, I would guess, is the fact that it does not have a constitution. Is that a useful distinction?
They couldn’t agree on a single written constitution at the outset of the country, but they have built one through what you might call a “common law method”: norms and practices over time as well as the system of “basic laws,” which are passed by an absolute majority of the Knesset, where a majority of 61 votes can change any of those. But while they’re not formally entrenched, they have a kind of political status because of that term: basic law.
By the way, the Germans are in the same boat. The German constitution is called the Basic Law. And it was always meant to be a provisional constitution until they got together and reunified.
If you don’t have a written constitution, what’s the source of the legitimacy of judicial power? What is to prevent a Knesset from just passing literally any law, including ones that violate all kinds of rights, or installing a dictator? It has been political norms. And because Israel has relied on political norms, that means that this current conflict is going to have extremely high stakes for Israeli governance for many decades to come.
Can you give me a couple of examples? What are the high stakes in terms of democratic governance?
First of all, let me just say in principle that I don’t oppose reforms to make the judiciary more independent or accountable in any particular country. But then you obviously have to look at the local context. What’s a little worrying about this particular example is that several members of this coalition are themselves about to be subject to judicial proceedings.
Including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Right. And for example, they need to change the rules so that [Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri can sit in the cabinet despite his prior convictions. That indicates to me that maybe this isn’t a good-faith argument about the proper structure of the Israeli, uncodified constitution, but instead a mechanism of expediency.
Any one of these reforms might look okay, and you can find other countries that have done them. The combination, however, renders the judiciary extremely weak. Right now, it’s a multi-stakeholder commission that nominates and appoints judges in Israel, and the new coalition wants to propose that the commission be made up of a majority of politicians. We know that when you change the appointments mechanism to put more politicians on those committees, the more politicized they become.
Think about the United States process of appointing our Supreme Court judges: It’s highly politicized, and obviously the legitimacy of the court has taken a big hit in recent years. In Israel, you’d have politicized appointments under these reforms, but then you also have the ability of the Knesset to override any particular ruling that it wanted. Again, you can find countries which have that. It’s called the “new commonwealth model” of constitutionalism, in which courts don’t have the final say on constitutional matters, and the legislature can overrule them on particular rulings. But I think the combination is very dangerous because you could have a situation where the Knesset — which currently has a role in protecting human rights — can pick out and override specific cases, which really to me goes against the idea of the rule of law.
You mentioned other countries. Are there other countries where these kinds of changes were enacted and we saw how the experiment turned out?
The two most prominent recently are Hungary and Poland, which are not necessarily countries that you want to compare yourself to.
Certainly not if you are Israel.
Right. There’s so much irony here. When the new Polish government came in in 2015, they immediately manipulated the appointment system for the Constitutional Court and appointed their own majority, which then allowed them to pass legislation which probably would have been ruled unconstitutional. They basically set up a system where they were going to replace lower judges and so they were going to grow themselves into a majority of the court. And that’s led to controversy and rulings outside the mainstream that have led to protests, while the European Union is withholding funds and such from Poland because of this manipulation of the court.
In Hungary, Victor Orban was a really radical leader, and when he had a bare majority to change the constitution he wiped out all the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. I don’t think the Israeli government would do that. But still there is this kind of worrying sense that they’re able to manipulate interpretation of law for their own particular political interest.
Another thing I want to raise is the potential for a constitutional crisis now. Suppose they pass these laws and the Israeli Supreme Court says, “Well, wait a minute, that interferes with our common law rules that we are bound by, going back to the British Mandate.” It conflicts with the basic law and they invoke what legal scholars call the “doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” which is basically saying that an amendment goes against the core of our democratic system and violates, for example, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic society. Israel has never done this, but it is a kind of tool that one sees deployed around the world in these crises. And if that happened, then I think you would have a full constitutional crisis on your hands in Israel.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak speaks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony in the Supreme Court marking 50 years of law, Sept. 15, 1998. (Avi Ohayon)
What does a constitutional crisis look like?
Suppose you have sitting justices in Israel who say, “You know, this Knesset law violates the basic law and therefore it’s invalid.” And then, would the Knesset try to impeach those judges? Would they cut the budget of the judiciary? Would they back down?
When you compare Israel’s judicial system to other countries’ over the years, how does it stack up? Is it up there among the very strong systems or is it known for flaws that might have maybe hobbled its effectiveness?
It’s always been seen around the world as a very strong judiciary. Under the leadership of Aharon Barak [president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006] it became extremely activist. And this provoked backlash in Israeli politics. That led to a kind of recalibration of the court where it is still doing its traditional role of defending fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of the political process, but it’s not making up norms left and right, in the way that it used to. This is my perception. But it’s certainly seen as one of the leading courts around the world, its decisions are cited by others, and because of the quality of the judges and the complex issues that Israel faces it’s seen as a strong court and an effective court and to me a balanced court.
But, you know, I’m not in Israel, and ultimately, they’re going to figure out the question how balanced it is or where it’s going to go. I do worry that an unchecked majoritarian system, especially with a pure proportional representation model like Israel, has the potential for the capture of government by some minorities to wield power against other minorities. And that’s a problem for democracies — to some degree, that’s a problem we face in the United States.
How correctable are these reforms? I am thinking of someone who says, “These are democratically elected representatives who now want to change a system. If you want to change the system, elect your own majority.” Is the ship of state like this really hard to turn around once you go in a certain direction?
This is an area in which I think Israel and the United States have a lot of similarities. For several decades now, the judiciary has been a major issue for those on the political right. They thought the Warren Court was too left-leaning and they started the Federalist Society to create a whole cadre of people to staff the courts. They’ve done that and now the federal courts are certainly much more conservative than the country probably. But the left didn’t really have a theory of judicial power in the United States. And I think that’s kind of true in Israel: It’s a big issue for the political right, but the political left, besides just being not very cohesive at the moment, isn’t able to articulate what’s good about having an independent judiciary. It is correctable in theory, but that would require the rule of law to become a politically salient issue, which it generally isn’t in that many countries.
How do you relate to what is happening in Israel as a Jew, and not just a legal scholar?
That’s a great question, because it really raises my complicated relationship with the country. You know, I find it to be a very interesting democracy. I like going to Israel because it’s a society in which there’s a lot of argument, a lot of good court cases and a lot of good legal scholars. On one level, I connect with my colleagues and friends there who seem very demoralized about this current moment. And I honestly worry about whether this society will remain a Jewish and democratic one with the current coalition.
The rule of law is a part of democracy. You need the rule of law in order to have democracy function. And I know others would respond and say, “Oh, you’re just being hysterical.” And, “This isn’t Sweden, it’s the Middle East.” But the ethno-nationalist direction of the country bothers me as a Jew, and I hope that the court remains there to prevent it from deepening further.
—
The post A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Iran Rounds Up Thousands in Mass Arrest Campaign After Crushing Unrest
A billboard with a picture of Iran’s flag, on a building in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 24, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Plainclothes Iranian security forces have rounded up thousands of people in a campaign of mass arrests and intimidation to deter further protests after crushing the bloodiest unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, sources told Reuters.
Modest protests that began last month in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar over economic hardship unleashed long-suppressed wider grievances and swiftly escalated into the gravest existential threat to Iran‘s Shi’ite theocracy in nearly five decades, with protesters commonly calling for ruling clerics to step down.
Authorities cut internet access and stifled the unrest with overwhelming force that killed thousands, according to rights groups. Tehran blames “armed terrorists” linked to Israel and the United States for the violence.
Within days, plainclothes security forces launched a campaign of widespread arrests accompanied by an intensified street presence based around checkpoints, according to five activists who spoke on condition of anonymity from inside Iran.
They said detainees had been placed in secret lockups.
“They are arresting everyone,” one of the activists said. “No one knows where they are being taken or where they are being held. With these arrests and threats, they are trying to inject fear into society.”
Similar accounts were given to Reuters by lawyers, medics, witnesses, and two Iranian officials speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution by security services.
They said the roundups appeared aimed at preventing any serious revival of protests by spreading fear just as the clerical establishment faces rising external pressure.
Uncertainty over the possibility of military action against the Islamic Republic has lingered since US President Donald Trump said last week that an “armada” was heading toward the country but that he hoped he would not have to use it.
On Wednesday, however, he doubled down on his threats by demanding Iran negotiate curbs on its nuclear program, warning that any future US attack would be “far worse” than one day of airstrikes last June on three nuclear sites.
Multiple Western and Middle Eastern sources told Reuters this week that Trump is weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, although Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple the clerical establishment.
ROUNDED UP FOR PROTESTS IN PREVIOUS YEARS
One of the activists said security forces were detaining not only people accused of involvement in the latest unrest but also those arrested during protests in previous years, “even if they had not participated this time, plus members of their families.”
The latest death toll compiled by the US-based HRANA rights group stands at 6,373 – 5,993 protesters, 214 security personnel, 113 under-18s, and 53 bystanders. Arrests stand at 42,486, according to HRANA, which is investigating an additional nearly 20,000 possible deaths.
Several media outlets have reported the death toll could exceed 30,000 citing sources inside Iran.
Judiciary officials have warned that “those committing sabotage, burning public property, and involved in armed clashes with security forces” could face death sentences.
The UN human rights office told Reuters on Thursday it understood that the number of detainees was very high and they were at risk of torture and unfair trials. Mai Soto, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, said the thousands of detainees included doctors and health-care workers.
UNOFFICIAL DETENTION CENTERS, THOUSANDS OF ARRESTS
Two Iranian officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to Reuters that thousands of arrests had been carried out in the past few days.
They said many detainees were being held in unofficial detention sites, “including warehouses and other improvised locations,” and the judiciary was acting quickly to process cases.
Iranian authorities declined to comment publicly on the number of arrests, or say where the detainees were being held. Authorities said on Jan. 21 that 3,117 were killed in the unrest, including 2,427 civilians and security personnel.
Amnesty International reported on Jan. 23 that “sweeping arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, bans on gatherings, and attacks to silence families of victims mark the suffocating militarization imposed in Iran by the Islamic Republic’s authorities in the aftermath of protest massacres.”
Arrests are continuing across the sprawling country, from small towns to the capital, witnesses and activists said.
“They arrested my brother and my cousin a few days ago,” said a resident of northwestern Iran who asked not to be named.
“They stormed our home in plainclothes, searched the entire house, and took all the laptops and mobile phones. They warned us that if we make this public, they will arrest all of us.”
FAMILIES FRANTIC OVER MISSING YOUNG PEOPLE
More than 60% of Iran‘s 92 million people are under the age of 30. Although the latest protests were snuffed out, clerical rulers will eventually risk more demonstrations if the heavy repression persists, according to rights activists.
Three Iranian lawyers told Reuters that dozens of families had approached them in recent days seeking help for relatives who had been detained.
“Many families are coming to us asking for legal assistance for their detained children,” one lawyer said. “Some of those arrested are under 18 – boys and girls.”
Human rights groups have long said Iranian security organs use informal detention sites during periods of serious unrest, holding detainees without access to lawyers or family members for extended periods.
Five doctors told Reuters that protesters wounded during protests had been removed from hospitals by security forces and dozens of doctors had been summoned by authorities or warned against helping injured demonstrators.
Prison authorities denied holding wounded protesters.
Families of five detainees said the lack of information about their whereabouts itself had become a form of punishment.
“We don’t know where they are, whether they are still alive, or when we’ll see them,” said an Iranian man whose daughter was rounded up. “They took my child as if they were arresting a terrorist.”
Uncategorized
Israeli Parliament Gives Initial Approval for 2026 Budget, Averting Snap Election for Now
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a session of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, in Jerusalem, Jan. 26, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Israel‘s parliament gave initial approval to the 2026 state budget draft on Thursday, handing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a temporary political reprieve by averting the immediate prospect of an early election.
Lawmakers voted 62-55 in favor of the spending plan, which totals 662 billion shekels ($214.43 billion), excluding debt servicing, and sets a budget deficit ceiling of 3.9% of gross domestic product this year.
The budget, as well as an accompanying economic plan, still faces a difficult path to final approval amid deepening polarization within Netanyahu’s governing coalition. Under Israeli law, the budget must be passed by the end of March or parliament would automatically dissolve, triggering a snap election.
Tensions inside the coalition have simmered for more than two years, fueled by disagreements over the war in Gaza, the ceasefire reached in October that halted the fighting, and demands by ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties for legislation exempting religious seminary students from mandatory military service.
Some ultra-Orthodox lawmakers did not vote in favor of the budget since a military conscription bill has not yet been approved.
Netanyahu’s other right-wing coalition partners – as well as opposition parties – argue that ultra-Orthodox men must share the burden of military service, particularly after two years of fighting in Gaza and Lebanon in which nearly 1,000 Israeli soldiers were killed.
($1 = 3.0872 shekels)
Uncategorized
Trump Weighs Iran Strikes to Inspire Renewed Protests, Sources Say
US President Donald Trump delivers a speech on energy and the economy, in Clive, Iowa, US, Jan. 27, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
US President Donald Trump is weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, multiple sources said, even as Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple the clerical rulers.
Two US sources familiar with the discussions said Trump wanted to create conditions for “regime change” after a crackdown crushed a nationwide protest movement earlier this month, killing thousands of people.
To do so, he was looking at options to hit commanders and institutions Washington holds responsible for the violence, to give protesters the confidence that they could overrun government and security buildings, they said. Trump has not yet made a final decision on a course of action including whether to take the military path, one of the sources and a US official said.
The second US source said the options being discussed by Trump‘s aides also included a much larger strike intended to have lasting impact, possibly against the ballistic missiles that can reach US allies in the Middle East or its nuclear enrichment programs. Iran has been unwilling to negotiate restrictions on the missiles, which it sees as its only deterrence against Israel, the first source said.
The arrival of a US aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the Middle East this week has expanded Trump‘s capabilities to potentially take military action, after he repeatedly threatened intervention over Iran‘s crackdown.
The US Navy sent an additional warship to the Middle East, a US official told Reuters on Thursday. The official, who was speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the USS Delbert D. Black had entered the region in the past 48 hours. This brings the number of destroyers in the Middle East to six, along with the aircraft carrier and three other littoral combat ships. The additional warship in the region was first reported by CBS News.
Reuters spoke to more than a dozen people for this account of the high-stakes deliberations over Washington’s next moves regarding Iran. Four Arab officials, three Western diplomats, and a senior Western source whose governments were briefed on the discussions said they were concerned that instead of bringing people onto the streets, US strikes could weaken a movement already in shock after the bloodiest repression by authorities since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, said that without large-scale military defections Iran‘s protests remained “heroic but outgunned.”
The sources in this story requested anonymity to talk about sensitive matters. Iran‘s foreign office, the US Department of Defense, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. The Israeli Prime Minister’s office declined to comment.
Trump urged Iran on Wednesday to come to the table and make a deal on nuclear weapons, warning that any future US attack would be “far worse” than a June bombing campaign against three nuclear sites. He described the ships in the region as an “armada” sailing to Iran.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was “preparing itself for a military confrontation, while at the same time making use of diplomatic channels.” However, Washington was not showing openness to diplomacy, the official said. The US official said the current weakness of the regime encouraged Trump to apply pressure and seek a deal on denuclearization.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is civilian, was ready for dialogue “based on mutual respect and interests” but would defend itself “like never before” if pushed, Iran‘s mission to the United Nations said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Trump has not publicly detailed what he is looking for in any deal. His administration’s previous negotiating points have included banning Iran from independently enriching uranium and restrictions on long-range ballistic missiles and on Tehran’s already-weakened network of armed proxies in the Middle East.
LIMITS OF AIR POWER
A senior Israeli official with direct knowledge of planning between Israel and the United States said Israel does not believe airstrikes alone can topple the Islamic Republic, if that is Washington’s goal.
“If you’re going to topple the regime, you have to put boots on the ground,” he told Reuters, noting that even if the United States killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran would “have a new leader that will replace him.”
Only a combination of external pressure and an organized domestic opposition could shift Iran’s political trajectory, the official said.
The Israeli official said Iran’s leadership had been weakened by the unrest but remained firmly in control despite the ongoing deep economic crisis that sparked the protests.
Multiple US intelligence reports reached a similar conclusion, that the conditions that led to the protests were still in place, weakening the government, but without major fractures, two people familiar with the matter said.
The Western source said they believed Trump‘s goal appeared to be to engineer a change in leadership, rather than “topple the regime,” an outcome that would be similar to Venezuela, where US intervention replaced the president without a wholesale change of government. During a US Senate hearing about Venezuela on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “the hope” was for a similar transition if Khamenei were to fall, although he recognized that the situation in Iran was far more complex. The US official said it was unclear who would take over if Khamenei were out of power.
Israel’s military intelligence chief, General Shlomi Binder, held talks on Iran with senior officials at the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House on Tuesday and Wednesday, a source familiar with the matter said. Axios reported that he shared intelligence on possible Iranian targets.
Khamenei has publicly acknowledged several thousand deaths during the protests. He blamed the unrest on the United States, Israel and what he called “seditionists.”
U.S.-based rights group HRANA has put the unrest-related death toll at 5,937, including 214 security personnel, while official figures put the death toll at 3,117. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the numbers.
Several media outlets have reported the death toll could exceed 30,000 citing sources inside Iran.
KHAMENEI RETAINS CONTROL BUT LESS VISIBLE
At 86, Khamenei has retreated from daily governance, reduced public appearances, and is believed to be residing in secure locations after Israeli strikes last year decimated many of Iran’s senior military leaders, regional officials said.
Day-to-day management has shifted to figures aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including senior adviser Ali Larijani, they said. The powerful Guards dominate Iran‘s security network and big parts of the economy.
However, Khamenei retains final authority over war, succession, and nuclear strategy – meaning political change is very difficult until he exits the scene, they said. Iran‘s foreign ministry did not respond to questions about Khamenei.
In Washington and Jerusalem, some officials have argued that a transition in Iran could break the nuclear deadlock and eventually open the door to more cooperative ties with the West, two of the Western diplomats said.
But, they cautioned, there is no clear successor to Khamenei. In that vacuum, the Arab officials and diplomats said they believe the IRGC could take over, entrenching hardline rule, deepening the nuclear standoff and regional tensions.
Any successor seen as emerging under foreign pressure would be rejected and could strengthen, not weaken the IRGC, the official said.
Across the region, from the Gulf to Turkey, officials say they favor containment over collapse – not out of sympathy for Tehran, but out of fear that turmoil inside a nation of 90 million, riven by sectarian and ethnic fault lines, could unleash instability far beyond Iran‘s borders.
A fractured Iran could spiral into civil war as happened after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, two of the Western diplomats warned, unleashing an influx of refugees, fueling Islamist militancy, and disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy chokepoint.
The gravest risk, analyst Vatanka warned, is fragmentation into “early-stage Syria,” with rival units and provinces fighting for territory and resources.
REGIONAL BLOWBACK
Gulf states – long‑time US allies and hosts to major American bases – fear they would be the first targets for Iranian retaliation that could include Iranian missiles or drone attacks from the Tehran-aligned Houthis in Yemen.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Egypt have lobbied Washington against a strike on Iran. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh will not allow its airspace or territory to be used for military actions against Tehran.
“The United States may pull the trigger,” one of the Arab sources said, “but it will not live with the consequences. We will.”
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman was in Washington this week for meetings with US officials focused on Iran, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
A batch of 1,000 drones was received by the various branches of the Iranian army, semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Thursday, amid growing tensions.
“In accordance with the threats ahead, the army maintains and enhances its strategic advantages for rapid combat and imposing a crushing response against any aggressor,” the army‘s Commander-in-Chief Amir Hatami said.
Mohannad Hajj-Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center said the US deployments suggest planning has shifted from a single strike to something more sustained, driven by a belief in Washington and Jerusalem that Iran could rebuild its missile capabilities and eventually weaponize its enriched uranium.
The most likely outcome is a “grinding erosion – elite defections, economic paralysis, contested succession – that frays the system until it snaps,” analyst Vatanka said.