The Israeli attack is over, but the outcome remains unclear. Tehran is downplaying it — even mocking it — which may be more reflective of their desire to de-escalate than a true assessment of the damage Israel inflicted on Iran.
Just as Israel kept the damage of Iran's Oct. 1 strikes secret, Iran will likely not disclose the full picture of Israel's strike, although Tehran has reported that the strikes killed two members of Iran's regular army (which is separate from the IRGC).
Indeed, another red line was crossed in this Israeli attack, lowering the cost of crossing it going forward.
Thus, while we may see some tactical de-escalation, the trajectory remains escalatory.
The Biden team, however, may draw a sigh of relief if Iran exercises restraint, as a major conflict right before the elections may be evaded.
But in the larger scheme of things, that may prove to be of little consolation if Biden wastes this pause once more by failing to use it to truly de-escalate the situation by forcing a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon.
The U.S. has the leverage to stop Israel's slaughter, but Biden has thus far refused to exercise that leverage. How many rounds of bombings can Israel and Iran engage in before it blows up into a full-scale war that engulfs the entire region?
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Top photo credit: A general view of Tehran after several explosions were heard, in Tehran, Iran, October 26, 2024. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS
Top photo credit: Bucharest, Romania. 13th Jan, 2025: George Simion (C), the leader of the nationalist Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) lead the rally against the annulment of the presidential elections (LCV/Shutterstock)
The head of Romania’s “sovereigntist” camp, George Simion won Romania’s first round presidential race on Sunday with 41% of the vote in a field of 11 candidates.
Simion leads the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, the leading opposition force in parliament. Simion — who as president would have substantial powers in the realm of foreign and security policy — supports Romania’s NATO commitments, but is not an enthusiastic supporter of sending further military aid to Ukraine. His victory could strengthen the dissident camp on this issue within the EU.
This first round result seems to be a decisive rebuke by the electorate of the cancellation of the first-round contest of last November, after the surprise first-place finish of Calin Georgescu, another nationalist-populist candidate. Georgescu, an AUR member until 2022, endorsed Simion, and the two men appeared together throughout the campaign.
Simion seems to have succeeded in winning support from those angered by Georgescu’s disqualification. (The combined tally of votes in November for Georgescu and Simion, who finished fourth, was 37%). Georgescu was barred from running, because his November campaign allegedly benefited from covert financing from Russia, including effective TikTok advertisements.
Simeon’s AUR was founded in 2019 initially advocating linguistic and cultural rights of ethnic Romanians in Moldova and Ukraine, but has broadened its appeal by espousing nationalist-populism and criticism of the EU. Ukraine barred him from entering the country on grounds that he was fomenting discontent within the ethnic Romanian minority (numbering about 150,000) in Ukraine.
In the runoff to be held on May 18, Simeon will face popular Bucharest mayor Nicosur Dan, a pro-EU anti-corruption campaigner who received just under 21% of the first round vote, slightly ahead of the pro-establishment standard-bearer Crin Antonescu. Dan founded the liberal reformist Union for the Salvation of Romania (USR) party which is represented in parliament, but he ran as an independent.
The May election rerun was conducted under stricter controls of campaign financing and monitoring of social media for inauthentic posts. Echoing some of Simion’s campaign rhetoric, Social Democrat Victor Ponta also ran a “Romania First” campaign, winning 13% of the vote. Those voters could give Simion an easy path to victory in the runoff. Simion’s AUR party is in the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) bloc in the European parliament, with the party of Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni and the Polish Law and Justice Party. Simion has called Meloni his political hero.
Romania’s mainstream center right National Liberals and center left Social Democrats govern together in coalition, and are held responsible by much of the electorate for steady population decline, emigration of much of the workforce, lackluster economic performance, and corruption. Simion won 60% of the Romanian diaspora vote. Many rural and traditionalist voters are clearly disaffected and keen to see dramatic change.
Sovereigntists vs Europhiles
The self-described sovereigntist Simion clearly aligned himself with the Trump administration, alleging that Romanian independence and dignity needed to be reasserted. Simeon clearly sought to emulate the model of Trump — and perhaps also Meloni — in his appeal to voters. Nationalist-populist parties in Italy, France and Poland celebrated Simion’s victory.
On May 2, Simion posted on X that the election was not about any one candidate but was instead about “every Romanian who has been lied to, ignored, humiliated, and still has strength to believe and defend our identity and rights.”
Dan has made fighting official corruption the centerpiece of his political career. His success represents a liberal rebuke of the political establishment and in particular the ruling coalition of the center right and center left (National Liberals and Socialists).
NATO and Ukraine
Simion is somewhat more sympathetic toward Ukraine than Georgescu, although unlikely to favor providing further financial or military support. Romania is important to sustaining the economy and war effort in Ukraine. A large share of Ukrainian wheat exports is shipped from Romanian ports, and NATO conducts operations from bases in Romania.
Simion favors following Trump’s lead on Ukraine and not that of those Europeans who vow to support Ukraine’s war effort even as the U.S. reduces or potentially halts its support. For better or worse, Simion has staked his campaign on the popularity of Trump’s administration. He sees continued U.S. support for NATO as essential to the defense of Europe, but recently expressed doubt that Russia poses a threat to Romania or NATO.
Prospects for May 18 runoff
Simion’s performance suggests that the populist right anti-establishment movement has a strong base of domestic support, as do similar parties across Europe, and is not an artifact of foreign meddling. The EU’s leadership likely dreads a Simion victory, which could reinforce the dissident stance of Hungary and Slovakia on the Ukraine war and the resolute stance against Russia. Simion will no doubt play up his affiliation with the slightly more acceptable faces of European populism, such as Meloni and former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
After the cancellation of last November’s election, the EU gave Romania its long-sought membership in the Schengen group, facilitating free movement within the EU. Rather than foregrounding attitudes toward Russia, the election contest in its first and second rounds pits Trump’s America against the European Union, sovereigntists vs. Europhiles.
Simion goes into the runoff with a strong advantage, especially as Dan, a critic of the status quo, may not get wholehearted support from the mainstream parties. Although inspired by a wave of structural popular discontent, Simion’s continued success depends to some extent on the attractiveness of the U.S. under President Trump to Romania’s nationalist minded voters.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Alex Karp, the Hill & Valley Forum via screen grab/youtube.com/@TheHillandValleyForum
Silicon Valley’s elite traded hoodies for Hill passes last week and planted their flag in Washington.
During a nearly 12-hour marathon Hill and Valley Forum in the Capitol Building, star-studded venture capitalists, defense technologists, and allied policymakers congratulated themselves on the promising start to the military application of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons in the era of Trump 2.
Jacob Helberg, co-founder of the annual forum and Trump’s pick for under secretary of state for economic growth, energy, and the environment, laid out the success story of Silicon Valley’s David-to-Goliath arc in his opening remarks.
“We have the best leader in the world. President Trump is objectively and truly a sample of one…The stars have aligned. We have the builders, we have the innovators, the policymakers and leaders for a reindustrialization revolution in this country to seize this American moment,” he declared.
Helberg forgot to credit one important group: the lobbyists. During coffee breaks outside the auditorium — where old friends caught up and West Coasters complained about the early start time — attendees explained that lobbyist insiders have been crucial in closing the daylight between would-be skeptics in government and Silicon Valley’s startups.
“It’s no mistake that there’s been an infusion of Silicon Valley acolytes in Washington DC the last 6 months,” said one founder of a venture capital firm invested in defense technology companies. “Silicon Valley is recognizing that lobbying is a key conduit to get things done and sell its message to three letter agencies.”
Venture capitalists are only now beginning to hire lobbyists. Since Trump’s victory in November, Andreessen Horowitz has snapped up contracts with BGR Government Affairs, Cornerstone Government Affairs, and Trump-connected Miller Strategies to advocate on “issues related to AI,” among other items. Other major venture capital firms, such as General Catalyst and Sequoia Capital, registered lobbyists for the first time just last year.
Meanwhile, major defense technology firms such Palantir, Anduril, and Shield AI have doubled down on lobbying efforts in recent years.
Another founder of a defense technology firm told RS that by lobbying up, Silicon Valley is following in the footsteps of the “game” played by prime contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. “It’s all marketing. It’s about creating a message that sells well,” they said.
And that message is resonating. Trump has signed a series of executive orders that
favor some of Silicon Valley’s longtime stated goals, such as ordering the Pentagon to find commercial solutions rather than custom ones, emphasizing speed over testing, and slashing acquisition regulations. Trump also ordered the creation of a “Golden Dome” missile defense system, with three defense technology heavy hitters — Palantir, Anduril, and Spacex — reportedly eager to cash in.
If the forum was any indication, Silicon Valley is also getting buy-in from Congress. Key lawmakers such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) and Senate Armed Services Committee members Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), all made appearances and sung the firms’ praises. “What you’re doing here is so critically important…you always have a welcome mat here at the Capitol. I hope you come by the Speaker’s office when you come individually or with your family, we’ll roll out the red carpet for you,” said Johnson.
Aided by K street’s most high-powered firms, such as Invariant, Cornerstone Government Affairs, Akin Gump, and Brownstein Hyatt, Palantir’s rise in particular has been nothing short of meteoric. An investigation by the Tech Transparency Project
found that Palantir has “hired a slew of well-connected players from Congress and federal agencies, ramped up lobbying activity, and created a foundation to bankroll policy-shaping research, conferences, and public commentary,” all of which is taking place mostly below the radar.
One of the bills that Palantir’s lobbyists worked to
pass was the $14 billion aid package to Israel. It’s not hard to see why; last year, the military software company agreed to a strategic partnership with Israel to supply “advanced technology in support of war-related missions,” and even organized its annual board meeting in Tel Aviv.
Palantir’s full-throated support of Israel has not been without controversy. Palantir CEO Alex Karp was among one of the speakers at the Hill and Valley Forum, but his panel was quickly interrupted by two protestors.
“Your AI technology for Palantir kills Palestinians.” shouted the first protestor from the Capitol Auditorium balcony.
“Mostly terrorists, that’s true,” Karp replied.
“You say mostly, so it’s okay to kill other innocent civilians?” The protestor quipped back, before security escorted her out.
Karp ended his remarks by noting that Silicon Valley firms are no longer the underdogs they used to be. “You're still shooting uphill, but shooting uphill and shooting to Mount Everest while they're dropping grenades on you is a different story,” he said.
As of this writing, the military software company currently has a market capitalization equal to Lockheed Martin and RTX combined. Firms like Palantir and Anduril still have some way to go in competing for top defense contracts, but, backed by an army of K street lobbyists, they might find more and more offices rolling out the red carpet. Grenades will certainly continue to drop — but Palantir and Co. want to be the ones throwing them.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
The Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, recently asserted that continued instability in Lebanon does not serve U.S. interests.
Qassem made the remarks following an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs which Israel claimed had targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot.
“Put pressure on America and make it understand that Lebanon cannot rise if the aggression doesn’t stop,” he said, addressing senior Lebanese state officials. He added that Washington has interests in Lebanon, and that “stability achieves these interests.”
Those statements mark a notable shift from the fiery anti-American rhetoric historically employed by senior officials of the Lebanese Shiite movement. They also represent a rare public acknowledgement and recognition of U.S. interests in a stable Lebanon. This offers an opportunity worth exploring by the Trump administration and provides it with a strong motive to press Israel to refrain from conducting attacks on Lebanese targets.
Unlike previous Israeli attacks on the Lebanese capital following last November’s ceasefire agreement, Israel did not claim that its latest strike was provoked by any alleged action by Hezbollah. The Israeli military conducted its first post-ceasefire strike on Beirut last March after two missiles were launched at Israel from southern Lebanon.
Despite suffering immense losses in its latest war with Israel, Hezbollah remains an important player in Lebanon, not least because it retains widespread support within the Shiite community, the largest sectarian group in the country. This support was reflected in the funeral procession for its former leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike last September. According to Reuters news agency, hundreds of thousands of people took part in this procession. (Pro-Hezbollah media outlets put the figure at 1.4 million).
If anything, events in neighboring Syria, where some Alawite and Druse communities have been subject to killings and massacres under the new Sunni-led regime, have strengthened Lebanese Shiite support for Hezbollah as their most reliable protector against a Sunni extremist threat.
As a result, Hezbollah’s public recognition of U.S. interests in Lebanon will likely translate into much broader popular acceptance across the country. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the Shiite movement would commit to its word. While relations between the U.S., which still considers the group a terrorist organization, and Hezbollah have been historically hostile, that animosity stems largely from Washington’s support for Israel, as opposed to ideological anti-Americanism.
In the words of former CIA veteran and Quincy Institute non-resident fellow Paul Pillar, the Lebanese Shiite movement “has never looked to pick fights with the United States based on some al-Qaida-like transnational ideology.” Pillar also explains that the 1983 Marine Barracks attack in Beirut that killed 241 US servicemen and has been attributed to Hezbollah--although it did not actually exist as a formal organization at the time — was the result of perceived U.S. support for an Israeli offensive against Lebanon and its occupation of the southern part of the country.
Hezbollah officials have also recently gone on the record stating that its issues with the United States do not stem from animosity towards Washington per se but rather its policies, particularly its support for Israel. In an interview with Responsible Statecraft in March, Hezbollah parliamentarian Ali Fayyad remarked that the Lebanese Shiite movement “didn’t have bilateral problems with the Americans,” and that "the antagonism owes largely to Washington's pro Israel policies."
At the same time, U.S. government documents have warned that renewed Israeli military action in Lebanon threatens American interests, suggesting that Washington should try to rein in Israel. “A resumption of protracted military operations in Lebanon could trigger a sharp rise in sectarian tension, undermine Lebanese security forces, and dramatically worsen humanitarian conditions,” warned the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community released in March.
Militant Islam is waning but the root causes endureTop image credit: Hezbollah supporters carry the coffin of a victim who was killed in electronic pagers explosion, during a funeral procession in Beirut southern suburb. Marwan Naamani/dpa via Reuters Connect
Indeed, renewed unilateral Israel actions against Lebanon threatens U.S. interests, not least given that Washington has invested heavily in backing former army chief Joseph Aoun in his election to the presidency in January. That support stemmed from Washington’s longstanding support for the Lebanese army – more than $3 billion since 2006 -- which is one of Washington closest regional partners.
A spike in sectarianism, coupled with deteriorating security and humanitarian conditions would seriously undermine Aoun’s position and, by extension, that of the United States. Perhaps even more important, the weakening of Lebanon’s state security apparatus undermines Washington’s declared aim of the state assuming full responsibility for securing the country.
Reining in Israel would also facilitate Aoun’s efforts to resolve the contentious issue of Hezbollah’s still formidable arsenal and gain a state monopoly over the possession of weapons. The Lebanese president has affirmed his intent to tackle this issue through national dialogue that includes the Shiite movement, rather than taking a more confrontational approach. Aoun has even suggested that Hezbollah fighters could be integrated into the Lebanese military.
Pressing Israel to refrain from unnecessary escalation would bolster Aoun’s position and potentially make Hezbollah more cooperative with the Lebanese president’s initiatives.
Some pundits in Washington have dismissed Aoun’s approach as unworkable. A policy analysis by David Schenker of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy argued that integrating Hezbollah fighters into the army would not be consistent with the goal of disarming the Lebanese Shiite movement. He also asserted that integrating Hezbollah forces would “undercut” the Lebanese army, and that now is the time to disarm Hezbollah, by force if necessary.
This argument prioritizes the disarmament of the Lebanese Shiite movement over other considerations, making it more closely aligned with Israel’s objectives as opposed to U.S. aims. Any attempt by the Lebanese army to forcefully disarm Hezbollah would almost certainly lead to civil strife and weaken Lebanon’s military by splitting it along sectarian lines and/or provoking the defection of Shiite officers and soldiers within its ranks, thus severely degrading the very national institution in which Washington has invested so much in strengthening.
Moreover, integrating Hezbollah fighters into the Lebanese army would arguably strengthen rather than weaken the institution. Many of the group’s fighters are battle-hardened as a result of having taken part in military operations against Israel or during the civil war in Syria. war. Any fears that Iran would infiltrate the Lebanese army via Hezbollah under such a scenario were addressed by Aoun’s recent dismissal of an Iraqi Popular Mobilisation-like model in Lebanon.
Simply stated, the Lebanese president’s initiatives deserve American support given that this would be consistent with U.S. interests in a stable and unitary Lebanese state that can lay the groundwork for reinvigorating the economy, attracting badly needed foreign investment, and dealing with longstanding problems of corruption and clientelism.
To its credit, the Trump administration has shown an inclination to place U.S. interests above those of Israel, as evidenced by the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran (notwithstanding the delay of the next round of these talks). This allows for cautious optimism that it may pursue a similar approach in Lebanon, which would have the added benefit of facilitating an understanding with Tehran.
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.