Follow us on social

google cta
2021-05-12t171027z_1620861461_dpam210512x90x030490_rtrfipp_4_politics-conflict-government-unrest-defence-police

New Israeli government challenges US on Ukraine, Palestinians

Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to deepen the divide between Washington and Tel Aviv on a wide range of issues.

Europe
google cta
google cta

Just days after Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power, Israel is poised to make a change in its approach to the war in Ukraine.

“On the issue of Russia and Ukraine, there is one thing that we will certainly be doing, and that is less talking about it in public,” Eli Cohen, the government’s foreign minister, said in a speech Monday before noting that Tel Aviv’s humanitarian aid to Kyiv will continue. Cohen also revealed that he planned to speak Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who Israeli leaders have shunned since the February invasion.

The vague shift in policy received blowback from U.S. commentators and politicians, including ardently pro-Israel Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “[T]he idea that Israel should speak less about Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine is a bit unnerving,” Graham tweeted after the speech.

Prior to the speech, Netanyahu reportedly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to abstain from a UN vote that would mandate that the International Court of Justice issue a legal opinion on Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. 

Ukraine, which had previously supported the measure, opted not to attend the late December vote, reportedly in hopes that Tel Aviv would repay the favor by providing Kyiv with sophisticated missile defense systems. Israel has so far opted against sending such weapons to Ukraine, in large part because of its sensitive relationship with Russia in Syria, and Cohen’s speech suggests that Netanyahu has no interest in changing that policy.

The controversial moves highlight the extent to which Netanyahu’s new government, which includes several notorious far-right politicians, will ruffle feathers in Washington, where the Middle Eastern country has long enjoyed bipartisan support.

Outside of Russian issues, Netanyahu’s team has also signaled a desire to step up repressive policies in Jerusalem and the West Bank. His government announced Monday that it will evict over 1,000 Palestinians from the West Bank region of Masafer Yatta in a move that a leading Israeli human rights group called a “fast-tracked war crime.”

And on Tuesday, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir — a far-right politician who Netanyahu has put in charge of Israeli police — made a provocative visit to the Haram al-Sharif. Also known as the Temple Mount, the area is one of the holiest sites in Islam and Judaism and a consistent flashpoint in Arab-Israeli affairs.

Washington’s ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, warned after the visit that the U.S. wants to preserve the “status quo” around the holy sites and that “actions that prevent that are unacceptable.”

“We have been very clear in our conversations with the Israeli government on this issue,” Nides told Axios reporter Barak Ravid.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) receives operational updates from the IDF Chief-of-Staff Aviv Kochavi and commander of the Israeli Air Force Amikam Norkin. May 12, 2021. (Deutsche Presse-Agentur/Reuters)
google cta
Europe
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.