Uncategorized
The Psychology Behind the Rise in Right-Wing Antisemitism
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024, during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Over the past year or so, there has been a strange and unsettling shift on parts of the political and cultural right. Figures who built their influence by pushing back against progressive excess, moral confusion, intellectual laziness, and the erosion of democratic values have begun drifting into territory that should have been left behind long ago — antisemitic tropes, conspiratorial thinking, and flirtations with ideas they themselves once would have dismissed as corrosive and dangerous.
It has been very upsetting to watch, not least because many of these voices rose to prominence by presenting themselves as more serious, more grounded, and more responsible than the alternatives they criticized.
Some have pointed to foreign money and malign external influences – with Qatar chief among them as a reliable patron of some of the most destructive forces in the modern world – as an explanation. It would be naïve to deny that such actors play a role. But that explanation, on its own, is not enough to explain this phenomenon.
Even if Qatari money helps shape narratives at the top of the pyramid – and their possible involvement absolutely deserves scrutiny – it does not explain the sheer number of willing followers who nod along to contentious statements and ridiculous conspiracies without being paid a cent by anyone.
Elite influencers may be driven by incentives tied to financial or political power, but the grassroots level is clearly motivated by something else. Money may help light the match, but it does not explain why so many people are eager to watch the fire burn – and then cheer it on.
The instinctive response is to frame all of this as ideological betrayal – and then to draw battle lines, or to declare that the political culture of Western democracies is fundamentally broken. But that reaction is the wrong approach. It shuts down thought precisely when careful thinking is needed most. Because at its core, something more human – and far more familiar – seems to be going on.
What makes this moment so counterintuitive is that this regression on the right has not emerged from defeat or marginalization. It has emerged from success.
The stunning political victory by the Republicans in November 2024 should, in theory, have been followed by a period of consolidation – a sharpening of ideas and a renewed sense of responsibility. Instead, we are witnessing a growing rift between principled conservatism and a darker, more reckless version of right-wing beliefs. That paradox suggests we are dealing less with ideology than with a psychological response to the sudden expansion of freedom and power.
We tend to assume that success produces stability and confidence. History suggests otherwise. When people or movements feel genuinely embattled, they often develop discipline, clarity, and a strong sense of shared purpose – an understanding of what matters and what must be set aside for the greater good.
But when the wind is at their backs, and a threat – real or imagined – appears on the horizon, the result is often anxiety: “We might lose what we have!” And anxiety is dangerous. It clouds judgment and tempts people to reach for ideas they already know are corrosive, simply because they feel familiar.
History offers some sobering examples. After years of devastating war under Napoleon, France in 1814 finally rid itself of him and he was exiled to Elba. The country had a rare opportunity to step back, recover, and build something more stable and restrained. But when Napoleon escaped from Elba a year later and returned to France, large parts of the country welcomed him back.
Soldiers sent to arrest him joined him instead. Within weeks, France had re-embraced the very man who had brought it to ruin, and 100 days later, they paid for it at Waterloo. The regression was not imposed from above. It was embraced from below – and it was an utter disaster.
Ancient Rome offers a similar lesson. The Roman Republic was built on restraint, combined with a sophisticated system of checks and balances and a healthy suspicion of the concentration of power into the hands of one man. And yet Julius Caesar’s rise was welcomed by many as a solution to a period of dysfunction.
He was appointed dictator, and what followed was not renewal but the oppressive age of emperors. Rome gained order but lost its liberty. Once again, faced with uncertainty, a civilization chose a familiar system that was bad over the harder work of repair and healing — and they called it progress.
The Torah identifies this same flaw in human nature at the very beginning of Jewish history, in Parshat Beshalach. Just days after experiencing one of the most dramatic liberations ever achieved by a slave nation – the Exodus from Egypt – the newly freed Jewish people find themselves trapped between the sea and Pharaoh’s approaching army.
Despite everything they know – that God has redeemed them, that awesome miracles have carried them this far – panic sets in. They turn on Moses and cry out: “Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you took us out to die in the wilderness?”
And then comes a line so jarring that it almost feels like parody (Ex. 14:12): טוֹב לָנוּ עֲבֹד אֶת־מִצְרַיִם מִמֻּתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר – “It would have been better for us to serve Egypt than to die in the wilderness.”
How is this even possible? These are people who have just witnessed the collapse of the most powerful empire on earth for their benefit – who are, in that moment, at the very top of their game. And yet, even as they bask in the glow of victory, the instant their freedom begins to feel fragile, their instinct is not to move forward into the rational unknown but to retreat into what they already know is irrational evil.
That is the crucial point. It is not a calculation that makes sense, nor is it a carefully thought-out strategy; it is a psychological reflex, and a dangerous one. Faced with what feels like an existential threat, people often reach for the familiar – even when that is the worst possible thing they could do.
Which is what makes the current flirtation with antisemitism and conspiracy thinking on certain parts of the right so disturbing. These are old instincts, long known to be destructive, that have now resurfaced because they feel familiar, as some on the right feel tinges of anxiety.
But familiarity is not necessarily wisdom; far more often, it is a dangerous trap. A recent study suggests that engagement with antisemitic conspiracy theories on the right has risen dramatically since the November 2024 election. Unless this trend is halted, it won’t end well.
The Torah’s message at the sea is uncompromising. The way forward is not to turn backward. Redemption does not come from retreating into the habits and ideas that once enslaved and degraded us. The sea will open up and offer salvation only when someone is willing to step into it – to take the risk, and to trust that moral clarity and courage still matter.
Regression may feel comforting, but it leads nowhere. The only way forward is through.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
Uncategorized
Syrian Government, Kurds Agree to Integration Deal, US Hails ‘Historic Milestone’
Members of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) queue to settle their status with Syrian government in Raqqa, Syria, Jan. 27, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Karam al-Masri
The Syrian government and Kurdish forces declared a ceasefire deal on Friday that sets out a phased integration of Kurdish fighters into the state, averting a potentially bloody battle and drawing US praise for a “historic milestone.”
The sides announced the deal after government forces under President Ahmed al-Sharaa captured swathes of northern and eastern Syria from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) group this month. This forced the Kurdish forces to retreat into a shrinking enclave in the northeast.
The fate of the SDF, which took over a quarter or more of Syria during its 2011-24 civil war, has been one of the biggest issues looming over Syria since Islamist insurgents led by Sharaa toppled President Bashar al-Assad 14 months ago.
US envoy Tom Barrack, who has been closely involved in mediation efforts, declared Friday’s accord “a profound and historic milestone in Syria’s journey toward national reconciliation, unity, and enduring stability.”
The SDF was once Washington’s main Syrian ally, playing a vital part in the fight against Islamic State terrorists. But its position grew weaker as President Donald Trump built close ties with Sharaa, a former al Qaeda commander who has now brought almost all of Syria back under the authority of Damascus.
US ENVOY PRAISES ‘COURAGEOUS STEPS’
Under the agreement, forces that had massed along front lines in the north would pull back and Interior Ministry security forces would deploy to the center of the cities of Hasakah and Qamishli in the northeast, both now held by the SDF.
The agreement includes the formation of a military division that will include three SDF brigades, in addition to a brigade for forces in the SDF-held town of Kobani, also known as Ain al-Arab, which will be affiliated to the governorate of Aleppo.
The Syrian official said the military division in the northeast would include “groups from the SDF within brigades, alongside other brigades.”
Governing bodies set up by the Kurdish-led groups in the northeast are to be merged with state institutions. But Elham Ahmad, a senior Kurdish official, told reporters via an interpreter that they would retain the co-chair system developed under autonomy-minded Kurdish authorities, with one male director and one female director.
Damascus and the SDF first struck an integration deal last March, but made scant progress toward implementation before a year-end deadline, paving the way for the government offensive.
“Both sides have taken courageous steps: the Syrian government in extending meaningful inclusion and rights, and the Kurdish communities in embracing a unified framework that honors their contributions while advancing the common good,” Barrack said.
Kurds have been on high alert for a potential government thrust into their remaining enclave, mindful of last year’s violence against minority Alawites and Druze.
Noah Bonsey, senior adviser with the International Crisis Group think tank, said the deal was “a potentially historic turning point” that appeared to lay out a middle ground for both sides.
“It spares northeast Syria what could have been a really ugly military showdown. Implementation will be tricky. There are a lot of challenges ahead,” he said.
Turkey said it was scrutinizing the agreement. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said “genuine integration is in Syria’s interest, and the parties are already aware of its conditions.”
Turkey has sent forces into Syria several times since 2016, deeming the SDF an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which took up arms against the Turkish state in 1984 but began a peace process with Ankara in 2025.
UNIFYING SYRIAN TERRITORY
Ahmad, the Kurdish official, said France and the United States should establish a mechanism to ensure the deal is implemented correctly, citing fears it could be derailed by “spoilers,” without specifying further.
Syrian officials said on Friday they feared figures within the PKK who reject the deal would not abide by the ceasefire.
An SDF statement said the deal “aims to unify Syrian territory and achieve full integration in the region.” The Syrian government shared an almost identical statement with Reuters.
A senior Syrian government official told Reuters the deal was final and had been reached late on Thursday night, and that implementation was to begin immediately.
The statements did not address control of the last remaining SDF-controlled border crossing to northern Iraq, known as Semalka. The Syrian official said the Syrian state would take over all border crossings.
Ahmad said Semalka border officials would be integrated into the central state but that more discussions would need to be held with Damascus.
Uncategorized
US Imposes Sanctions on Iran’s Interior Minister, Businessman
USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, Sept. 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni and a businessman it said helped launder money for Tehran, as President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up pressure on the Islamic Republic.
The Department of the Treasury, announcing the move, said Momeni was responsible for a brutal security crackdown in Iran this month as he oversees law enforcement forces it said were responsible for the deaths of thousands of peaceful protesters.
Trump has in recent weeks issued threats to intervene in Iran over the bloody suppression of the protests and has sent warships to the Middle East, even as he has said he plans to talk with the government there.
The financial sanctions on Friday also targeted five other Iranian security officials involved in “violently repressing the Iranian people,” the Treasury said in a statement.
Sanctions were also issued against investor Babak Zanjani and two digital asset exchanges registered in Britain that the Treasury said had processed funds linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US would continue to target Iranian elites and their networks, who he said exploit digital assets to evade sanctions and finance cybercriminal operations.
“Like rats on a sinking ship, the regime is frantically wiring funds stolen from Iranian families to banks and financial institutions around the world. Rest assured, Treasury will act,” Bessent said in the statement.
Uncategorized
US Slows Transfers of Islamic State Detainees to Iraq, Sources Say
Syrian security forces stand guard outside al-Aqtan prison, where some Islamic State detainees are held, in Raqqa, Syria, Jan. 23, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Karam al-Masri
Transfers of Islamic State detainees from Syria to Iraq by the US military have slowed this week, seven sources familiar with the matter said, following calls by Baghdad for other countries to repatriate thousands of foreign jihadists.
The US military said on Jan. 21 it had started to transfer the detainees. Its announcement followed the rapid collapse of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in northeast Syria, which caused uncertainty about the security of prisons and detention camps they were guarding.
The United States had expected to transfer up to 7,000 fighters to Iraq within days. But more than a week later, only about 500 have been moved, according to two Iraqi judicial officials, two Iraqi security officials, and three diplomats, some from countries whose nationals are among those transferred.
An Iraqi foreign ministry official put the number at under 500 so far.
Baghdad asked the US to slow the influx to make time for negotiations with other countries on repatriating their own nationals among the detainees and to prepare additional facilities to host the fighters, the Iraqi officials and a Western diplomat told Reuters.
Those moved to Iraqi facilities so far include about 130 Iraqis and some 400 foreigners, the Iraqi judicial sources, the Iraqi security officials and a Western diplomat said.
The slowdown, which has not previously been reported, is linked to Western governments’ reservations about bringing home their own citizens who joined the Islamic State‘s brutal self-declared caliphate across swathes of Syria and Iraq from 2014.
Most foreign fighters were subsequently captured in Syria and held in prisons in the northeast for years without trial.
The US State Department and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment on the transfers.
IRAQ BALKS AT MASS TRANSFER
Iraq agreed to host the detainees being moved by the US military after a brief escape by dozens of fighters from one facility in Syria prompted concerns that more could flee, Iraqi government officials said.
But although it has already tried and sentenced dozens of foreign fighters in recent years, Baghdad balked at the prospect of having the full 7,000 in its custody, the officials said.
The influx could overwhelm Iraq’s courts and prisons, and sentencing detainees to death would prompt criticism from Western countries and rights groups, they said.
“It’s a trap,” one of the senior Iraqi judicial sources said. “These Western countries object to the death penalty, but refuse to receive their terrorists. Why should we bear the burden of being seen as the butcher?”
Responding to questions from Reuters, Hisham al-Alawi, Undersecretary of Iraq‘s Foreign Ministry for Political Planning, said fewer than 500 detainees had been transferred to Iraq so far.
“For years, Iraq has been urging foreign states to assume their responsibilities by taking back their citizens and dealing with them in accordance with their own laws. While some countries have taken the initiative, a large number of states have not responded to our requests,” Alawi said.
The dilemma of what to do with foreign nationals who joined Islamic State has plagued Western countries for the last decade.
Securing guilty verdicts against such detainees in their home countries could be harder than in Iraq, said four diplomats from countries whose nationals were captured in Syria, citing a greater need to prove direct participation in violent crimes.
Governments in such countries could face a public backlash if Islamic State fighters were repatriated and then freed, the diplomats said.
The return of an Islamic State-linked woman to Norway in 2020 caused a cabinet crisis that ultimately brought down the government.
As a result of Western nations’ hesitations, thousands of foreign fighters detained in Syria and Iraq remained there for nearly a decade – even though the US, which repatriated and tried its nationals, urged other countries to do the same.
REPATRIATION THE ONLY ANSWER, EXPERT SAYS
The senior Iraqi judicial source said Baghdad was working with the US State Department on increasing pressure on other countries to begin repatriations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after transfers had begun that foreign Islamic State members would be in Iraq temporarily. “The United States urges countries to take responsibility and repatriate their citizens in these facilities to face justice,” he said.
Two diplomats from countries with nationals now in Iraq said their governments faced an uncomfortable choice between repatriation – which would be unpopular domestically – and the possibility that their nationals would face the death penalty if tried in Iraq, an outcome that could outrage voters at home.
One of the diplomats said Baghdad had begun conversations with their country about repatriations but that their government’s policy was unchanged.
“It would be difficult for us to accept that they are transferred to Iraq if they are then going to get their head chopped off,” the second diplomat said.
Letta Tayler, an associate fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, said the mass transfer of detainees to Iraq “has mind-boggling legal implications, none of them positive.”
It could prolong their indefinite detention without trial and place detainees at risk of torture and executions based on flawed convictions, Tayler said. The US has raised concerns about unfair trials of Islamic State detainees in Iraq.
“The only viable solution is for countries with fair justice systems to repatriate their nationals,” Tayler said.