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
Palestinian-French lawmaker arrested after praising 1972 bomber of Ben Gurion Airport
(JTA) — French police detained Rima Hassan, a member of the European Parliament from France, on suspicion of “advocating for terrorism” after she quoted one of the perpetrators of a 1972 terror attack on an Israeli airport in a social media post.
Hassan, 33, was detained for several hours on Thursday by French authorities over a March 26 post in which she quoted an individual convicted of participating in the 1972 terror attack on Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, which killed 26 people.
The post, which Hassan later deleted, included Japanese and Palestinian flags as well as a quote from Kozo Okamoto, a member of the terror group, which read, “I dedicated my youth to the Palestinian cause. As long as there is oppression, resistance will not only be a right, but a duty.”
The Paris prosecutor’s office said it had released Hassan and given her a court date of July 7 “to be tried on charges of advocating terrorism committed online.” If convicted, Hassan could face up to a seven-year jail term and a fine of up to 100,000 euros, or $115,290.
Hassan, who was elected to the European Parliament in 2024 for the French far-left party France Unbowed, has previously said that “Hamas’s actions are legitimate from an international perspective” and argued that Franco-Palestinians “must be able to join the Palestinian armed resistance.” She also participated in the Gaza-bound flotilla protesting Israel’s blockade of the enclave last June, and, last month, was denied entry into Canada ahead of a scheduled conference appearance.
The arrest came after two France-based antisemitism watchdogs, the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism and the European Jewish Organization, lodged complaints over Hassan’s post.
“Statements presenting the acts committed by terrorists in a favorable light constitute an apology for terrorism,” the European Jewish Organization wrote in a post on X on Thursday. “It is on this basis that the OJE has filed a complaint against RH for the statements made on X and for which she appears to have been placed in police custody today.”
The prosecutor’s office said that Hassan is under investigation in six additional cases, and that 16 other cases involving alleged online hate speech have been closed. Police are also separately investigating “substances resembling CBD and 3-MMC,” illegal drugs, that were found among her belongings.
In a post on X Friday, Hassan, who was born in Syria in a Palestinian refugee camp and has made pro-Palestinian advocacy and fierce criticism of Israel a hallmark of her political career, said that she was the “target of political, judicial, and media harassment.”
“This custody hearing was followed by a fifth summons this Friday, well illustrating the politico-judicial harassment that the Palestinian cause is enduring after more than 2 years of genocide and inaction on the part of our government,” wrote Hassan in a subsequent post.
French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez dismissed claims that the case against Hassan was politically motivated, saying in a television appearance, “No one is above the law, especially on subjects as serious as the glorification of terrorism.”
The post Palestinian-French lawmaker arrested after praising 1972 bomber of Ben Gurion Airport appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Michigan Democrats, Jewish leaders uneasy over Senate candidate’s alliance with Hasan Piker
(JTA) — Just weeks after an attack on a Michigan synagogue, a U.S. Senate candidate’s decision to campaign in the state with Hasan Piker — a streamer accused of antisemitic rhetoric — is prompting unease among Jewish leaders and fellow Democrats.
Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and former county health executive, is set to appear with Piker at two different Michigan universities on Tuesday.
The Hillel at Michigan State University said it was “deeply troubled” by Piker’s planned visit to campus, calling him a “known antisemite,” while at least one planned speaker, a state representative, backed out of the rallies citing the concerns of her Jewish constituents.
National Jewish leaders also criticized the planned events, with some comparing Piker to Nick Fuentes, the openly antisemitic livestreamer who has divided Republicans and others drawing a connection to the attack last month on Temple Israel.
“Abdul El-Sayed’s decision to host campaign rallies with Piker is not just alarming; it’s absolutely shocking. It reflects a broader trend: the dangerous normalization of antisemitism in our politics,” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti-Defamation League. “That this is happening in Michigan, where Temple Israel was targeted in a violent antisemitic attack … makes it even more egregious.”
El-Sayed has defended his decision to campaign with Piker, including to Greenblatt, saying that he agrees with Piker on some issues but not others. Their points of agreement, he said, include “the way that AIPAC has decimated our politics and made us think that the most important goal of our foreign policy is to backstop Israel.”
He recently told a pro-Palestinian podcast that Piker’s past comments have been “taken out of context,” adding that Piker represents “where the disaffected people are” and that the streamer “has taken great pains to condemn any attempt to tie the government of Israel to the Jewish people.”
The campaign stops come as both Piker and El-Sayed — both Muslim progressives — face scrutiny over their comments about Jews and Israel.
Piker has increasingly divided Democrats, with a Jewish congressman from Illinois recently calling him “an unapologetic antisemite” even as some of his colleagues have continued to appear with him on his streaming show and in real life.
El-Sayed, meanwhile, grew up in a heavily Jewish suburb of Detroit and has the endorsement of some progressive Jews including former U.S. Rep. Andy Levin. He raised eyebrows with his response to the Temple Israel attack last month — he condemned the attack but also criticized Israel’s offensive in Lebanon, where the attacker’s brother was killed — as well as his reluctance to comment on the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
A former security official with El-Sayed’s campaign recently told a local blog that he had witnessed comments from the candidate that the staffer thought would “give credibility to the claims of [El-Sayed’s] antisemitism and pro-Islamist regimes/factions” before resigning. The blog did not report any specifics.
“Personally, I regret and feel shame for excusing antisemitism and for not leaving sooner,” the former staffer said.
El-Sayed and Piker are set to appear with Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania as well as candidates for local office, at both MSU and the University of Michigan.
In the leadup to the rallies, one of El-Sayed’s primary opponents, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, as well as the head of the AJC compared Piker to white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who has celebrated Hitler and attacked “organized Jewry.”
Piker’s most vociferous critics have pointed to a history of his comments in which, among other things, he has denied or downplayed that rape took place during the Oct. 7 attacks and compared Houthi rebels to Anne Frank.
Piker rejects allegations of antisemitism. But in a recent interview he expressed regret over some of his more extreme rhetoric, including referring to Haredi Orthodox Jews as “inbred,” and offered additional context for some of his other remarks spotlighted by Greenblatt and other critics including the centrist Democratic group Third Way.
He has also said it is “Islamophobic to say: ‘Oh, this Muslim critic of Israel who has the majority opinion on Israel should not be going to a campaign rally.’”
El-Sayed has suggested that Piker’s critics are more broadly conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
“I love and revere the Jewish people because I love ALL people. And I criticize Israel’s genocide because I love ALL people. I pray someday you understand,” El-Sayed tweeted in response to Greenblatt’s criticism of his association with Piker.
In a subsequent video, the candidate pointed out that former Vice President Kamala Harris invited Piker to stream at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, during her bid for president. He said he would not apologize “for every single video that people put up there that Hasan said this or Hasan said that” — and that he thought the progressive cause was larger than those critiques.
“Any Democrat who tells you that you cannot speak with some group of people because of one offensive thing that they might have said is missing the point of what it means to actually bring people into a legitimate mainstream policy where we can actually fight for the things we need and deserve,” El-Sayed said.
Third Way has called on El-Sayed to outline specifically where his views and Piker’s differ.
“If you insist on campaigning with an extremist like Piker just weeks after an attack on Jews at Temple Israel in Michigan, voters in your state deserve to know what you truly believe and how closely you align with his most abhorrent views,” wrote the group’s president, Jonathan Cowan. He asked six questions including, “Do you also dismiss the mass rape of Jewish and Israeli women by Hamas?” and “Do you believe as he does that ‘Hamas is a thousand times better’ than the Israeli state?”
At least one planned participant, Ann Arbor-based state Rep. Carrie Rheingans, has backed out of the rallies. She told local media that she still endorses El-Sayed and has “heard him denounce antisemitism vehemently multiple times,” but added, “I don’t appreciate many of Piker’s antisemitic comments… Maybe Hasan Piker has some room to learn how his comments affect other people, but I have to say, Jews, Muslims, and Arabs in Michigan are hurting for a lot of really good reasons right now.”
MSU Hillel, meanwhile, did not mention El-Sayed by name in its statement.
“At a time when Jewish students are experiencing heightened fear and vulnerability — especially in the wake of the recent attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield — this choice is especially concerning,” the Hillel chapter wrote on Instagram. “Hosting individuals like Hasan Piker who consistently use harmful, inflammatory and antisemitic rhetoric creates a hostile environment for Jewish students, threatening their security and belonging.”
The comparisons between Piker and Fuentes have opened a new flashpoint in debates over the role that streaming personalities are playing in American politics.
“In Piker’s case, his record speaks for itself, the same with Nick Fuentes. I don’t need to go into details about who they are or what they represent,” Ted Deutch, CEO of the American Jewish Committee, told Jewish Insider while urging Democrats not to associate with Piker. “Neither one of them belongs in the middle of the political process as a result of candidates choosing to put them there.”
In a statement, AJC Detroit, the region’s Jewish community relations arm, cautioned associating with both Piker and Fuentes but also did not name any candidates.
“AJC has reached out to leaders of both parties to warn about the dangers of platforming extremists like Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes and helping them spread their virulent antisemitism,” spokesperson Amy Sapeika wrote. “With increasing polarization and the rise of extremism from the far left and far right, both parties need to make clear that antisemites like them have no place on their stages.”
The comparison is also shaping the Senate race directly. Piker “is somebody who says extremely offensive things in order to generate clicks and views and followers, which is not entirely different from somebody like Nick Fuentes,” McMorrow told Jewish Insider.
The other Democratic candidate in the Senate primary, Rep. Haley Stevens, said El-Sayed was “choosing to campaign with someone who has a history of antisemitic rhetoric” but did not make a Fuentes comparison. (Elissa Slotkin, the state’s centrist Jewish senator who is not up for reelection this year, said she wasn’t familiar with Piker’s rhetoric but that it “sounds deeply antisemitic.”)
Stevens, who is not Jewish, is generally seen as a centrist candidate preferred by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that has emerged as a bogeyman in Democratic politics. McMorrow, who has a Jewish husband and Jewish child, is battling El-Sayed for the progressive mantle: She has the endorsement of liberal Zionist group J Street and has said Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
The post Michigan Democrats, Jewish leaders uneasy over Senate candidate’s alliance with Hasan Piker appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Over Half of All New York City Hate Crimes Have Targeted Jews Since Mamdani Took Office, Police Says
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the New York City Office of Emergency Management, as a major winter storm spreads across a large swath of the United States, in Brooklyn, New York City, US, Jan. 25, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Bing Guan
The majority of all hate crimes in New York City over the first three months of this year have targeted Jews, according to new data released by the New York Police Department (NYPD).
The striking figures, announced last week by NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, will likely fuel criticism of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who took office on Jan. 1 and has been accused of promoting antisemitism and not doing enough to denounce violence against Jews.
“Confirmed hate crimes increased nearly 12 percent this quarter citywide. We continue to see that the vast majority of our hate crimes are antisemitic in nature,” Tisch said on Thursday in an appearance at 1 Police Plaza with Mamdani to discuss the overall crime data for the year.
“In fact, in the first quarter of 2026, more than half of all confirmed hate crimes, or 55 percent, were antisemitic, despite Jews only making up approximately 10 percent of the population of New York City,” the police commissioner added.
Explaining that the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force “determines whether an incident meets the legal standard for hate crime under New York state law,” Tisch announced that “as of today, and for the first time, our monthly hate crime data will include two clear, accurate sets of numbers. Reported hate crimes, those flagged for investigation by the task force and confirmed hate crimes as determined by the task force.”
Tisch called this approach “the gold standard for reporting on hate crimes, and that is what we are going to do going forward. This will ensure that the public has an accurate and timely and more robust view than ever of hate crime activity in New York City.”
Tisch’s comments came amid an ongoing surge in antisemitic hate crimes across New York City. In January, for example, such crimes skyrocketed by 182 percent during Mamdani’s first month in office compared to the same period last year.
Jews were also targeted in the majority (54 percent) of all hate crimes perpetrated in New York City in 2024, according to data issued by the NYPD. A recent report released in December by the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism noted that figure rose to a staggering 62 percent in the first quarter of 2025.
Under Mamdani, however, Jewish New Yorkers have expressed particular alarm about their safety.
A far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, Mamdani has refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; supported boycotts of all Israeli-tied entities; and failed to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been used to call for violence against Jews and Israelis around the world.
Last week, the mayor said that New York was welcoming to people of all backgrounds.
“This is a city where everyone who lives here should know that they belong across these five boroughs. There is no person of any faith that should ever be made to feel as if this is not their home, that this is not a place where they can be safe,” he said. “And frankly, we are looking to build a city where the threshold is not simply safety. We want this to be a city where New Yorkers are cherished, where they are celebrated. And we know that that is the case for many. And still, there is so much more work to be done to ensure that is the case for all.”
Hours after taking office, Mamdani revoked multiple executive orders enacted by his predecessor to combat antisemitism.
Among the most controversial actions was Mamdani’s decision to undo New York City’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, a framework widely used by governments and law enforcement around the world to identify contemporary antisemitic behavior. The definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
In February, a group of New York City politicians and civic leaders sued Mamdani, charging that members of his administration had stonewalled Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests related to his choice to cancel the executive order embracing the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a move supported by the mayor’s inner core of radical, anti-Zionist activists.
A reporter at 1 Police Plaza asked about the nature of New York City’s hate crimes and if they had grown more violent. Mamdani’s response notably avoided mentioning the Jewish community by name, despite the NYPD’s focus specifically on antisemitic attacks.
“So, the hate crimes that we are seeing are really, like, very across the board. It could be something — an act of violence. It could be drawing a symbol on a wall, like, for example, a swastika,” Tisch added. “So, I don’t want to characterize them in that way. What I can tell you is that the NYPD has released this month, the gold standard for data about hate crimes. We’ve done this in consultation with experts in the field. And that is data about reported crimes and data about confirmed crimes.”
Concluding the questions, Tisch said, “And so now everyone has access to both pieces of information, and that will continue into the future. I want to make sure that we are incredibly transparent about data because data is power, and I also don’t want to continue or perpetuate the practice of releasing bad data that doesn’t help draw meaningful conclusions.”
Despite Tisch’s comments, not everyone supports the city’s so-called “gold standard” change to hate crime data reporting, which some critics argue is conveniently timed to sanitize the administration’s record on rising antisemitism.
“We’re all watching the manufacturing of propaganda in real time,” Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun on the Upper East Side, told the New York Post. “They’ll change the method of counting antisemitic crimes and literally six months later the mayor’s office will claim that antisemitism has dropped.”
Elisha Wiesel, son of the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, shared Steinmetz’s suspicions, telling the Post that “I think there should be a loud outcry telling them to change it back.”
Former NYPD Detective Michael Alcazar, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, called the much-lauded data style an example of “textbook fudging the numbers,” adding, “It’s going to look like they’re combating hate crimes, but they’re not being transparent.”
Alcazar said that if the NYPD really sought transparency, “then they should show the number of complaints they actually receive and what the investigations yielded.”