The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey

Instability Spreads As Israels Military Campaigns Escalate_BFM 23072025 by James M. Dorsey

A just-published report on Israel and the United States’ interception of Iranian missiles during the 12-day Israel-Iran war highlighted the Jewish states’ dependence on US military support. The report by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) concluded that US-operated Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence or THAAD air defence systems, produced by Lockheed Martin, accounted for almost half of all interceptions of Iranian missiles fired at Israel during the war. The US positioned a second of its seven THAAD systems and crew in Israel in April. The US deployed the first system last October. A THAAD battery, one of the United States’ most powerful anti-missile systems, typically deploys with 95 soldiers, six truck-mounted launchers, 48 interceptors (eight per launcher), and a mobile radar. The system intercepts incoming projectiles from up to 200 kilometres away with kinetic energy, in a process often referred to as “hit-to-kill,” or “kinetic kill.” The Institute’s report suggested that Israel depended on THAAD because it lacked sufficient interceptors for its Arrow anti-ballistic missile system. The United States expended more than a year’s worth of THAAD interceptor production in the Israel-Iran war at a cost of US$12.7 million per interceptor, or US$1.7 billion for the approximately 100 interceptors fired during the war. "As a result, the United States used up about 14 percent of all its THAAD interceptors, which would take three to eight years to replenish at current production rates,' the report said. The Institute's Iran Projectile Tracker reported that the United States and Israel had successfully neutralised 201 of the 574 missiles fired by Iran during the war, with 316 landing in unpopulated areas. Israel has admitted that Iranian missiles had pierced its air defence systems, striking at military targets and residential areas. In a twist of irony, Iran increased its successful hit rate by one to four per cent in incidents when they were confronted by THAAD interceptors, the Institute’s report said, based on analysis of video shot by Amman-based photographer Zaid Abbadi. Even so, the Institute argued that air defence support of Israel in the war served US interests beyond coming to the aid of an ally. "This strong support of a US partner may also reinforce US. deterrence against Russia and China," the report said. What the report did not say is that it also demonstrated the degree to which Israel depends on the United States for its defence, despite the ruthless prowess of the Israeli military and the sophistication of the country's military-industrial complex.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appears determined to depopulate Gaza by hook or by crook, even if he has bowed to US pressure by agreeing to a reduced military presence in the Strip as part of a temporary ceasefire. The reduced presence, involving a withdrawal from the Morag Corridor that separates Rafah from the rest of Gaza, would complicate Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz’s plans to corral hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in a tent camp on the flattened ruins of the Strip’s southernmost city close to the Egyptian border. That hasn’t stopped Israel from seeking to depopulate Gaza by ensuring that the Strip is unliveable and uninhabitable in the hope that Palestinians will ‘voluntarily’ relocate to a third country.

Soccer has long been a tightly controlled double-edged sword for Middle Eastern autocrats. On the one hand, autocrats sought to harness the sport’s popularity that evokes the kind of passion in a soccer crazy part of the world that was traditionally reserved for religion. On the other hand, soccer constituted one of the few arenas in which youth could vent frustration and anger. Soccer’s disruptive potential was evident in 2011 when militant fans played a key role in the Arab popular revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. With world soccer body FIFA disregarding violations of its rules that ban government interference in sports and restrict ownership of premier league clubs to one per owner, governments sought to control the sport’s disruptive power by owning several top clubs or ensuring that individuals with close ties to the regime controlled them. Fifteen years later, autocratic perceptions of soccer’s double-edged sword may be changing. A confluence of developments has, for the first time, prompted Middle Eastern autocrats to contemplate foreign ownership of domestic clubs.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar celebrated this week a “diplomatic victory” by delaying European sanctions against the Jewish state. It’s a victory that could prove to be pyrrhic. That is, if EU foreign ministers, increasingly critical of Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war, put their money where their mouth is and make good on their threat to suspend the Jewish state’s 25-year-old association agreement with the European Union because of its human rights violations.

The writing is on the wall. As Gaza ceasefire talks flail, if not fail for the umpteenth time, a series of vignettes tell the story of Israel’s increasingly shrinking support base in the United States and Europe. Alarmingly for Israel, the vignettes reflect mounting criticism of the Jewish state in US President Donald J. Trump’s Make America Great Again and America First support base, as well as among European leaders. To be sure, Chirstian Zionists and pro-Israel Evangelicals remain an important segment of Mr. Trump’s base. Similarly, European leaders have yet to put their money where their mouth is. Even so, failing to do so is becoming increasingly difficult. That realisation may be registering on Israeli radars. Not that it will change Israel’s indefensible conduct of the Gaza war. Instead, Israel’s response resembles Hans Brinker, the boy in Mary Mapes Dodge’s 19th century children’s novel, who puts his finger in a Dutch dike to prevent a major breach.

World soccer body FIFA’s more than a decade-long refusal to implement meaningful reforms and adhere to its own principles, rules, and regulations is on public display. FIFA’s response to past corruption scandals and willingness to award World Cup hosting rights to violators of the group’s human rights standards illustrate the organisation’s rejection of meaningful change that would hold the group accountable. So do FIFA’s repeated, mostly cosmetic, reforms aimed at pacifying public and commercial clamouring for change. The scandals and disregard for FIFA’s Human Rights Policy and Code of Conduct are “only the tip of football’s problem iceberg. An extended troubleshooting list includes antiquated governance structures, growing financial imbalances, and inadequate safeguards for athletes, just to name some of the most pressing issues,” said law professor Jan Zglinski in a recent 26-page academic paper. Mr. Zglinski argues that, potentially, Europe, a leader in regulating sports, and particularly soccer, as a sector of the economy, could emerge as the sport’s white knight.

Malaysia, unlike other perceived Muslim Brotherhood supporters such as Qatar and Turkey, has remained, by and large, in the shadows of the Middle East's information wars, despite the country’s public support for Hamas. That may change if a recent report by the Philadelphia-based far-right, pro-Israel Middle East Forum is anything to go by.

What happens when you bring together three veteran foreign correspondents, each carrying decades of wisdom, scars, and tales from the world’s most dangerous places?

A much-touted meeting between US President Donald J. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, their third encounter this year, apparently failed to move the needle on a Gaza ceasefire, despite both men expressing optimism that an agreement was only days away.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet US President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday. The talks come amid ongoing indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas in Doha, as efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza continue. James M. Dorsey, an adjunct senior fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, shares his analysis on whether Trump’s push for a 60-day truce has a real shot.

If US President Donald J. Trump had his druthers, he would announce a Gaza ceasefire on Monday when Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visits him in the Oval Office for the third time this year That may be easier said than done despite Mr. Netanyahu’s endorsement of the latest US ceasefire proposal and Hamas’s ‘positive’ response. Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas have responded positively to the proposal, even though it doesn’t bridge the most significant issue dividing them: whether to end the war and on what terms. Even so, neither Mr. Netanyahu nor Hamas wants to get on Mr. Trump’s wrong side and shoulder the blame for another failure to get the guns to fall silent in the devastated Strip. Reading between the lines of the two parties’ responses, the cracks are apparent. Nevertheless, the parties appear inclined to accept what amounts to cosmetic changes that paper over the gap in their positions, which have not narrowed.

Gaza, US military contractors, Trump, Syria , and much more

American contractors guarding aid distribution sites in Gaza are allegedly using live ammunition and stun grenades against Palestinians seeking food, according to the Associated Press. James M. Dorsey, from Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies weighs in.

Note: There's a little bit of crackle in the audio in this episode. Attempts were made to remove crackle as much as possible, but it remains at some point. Hopefully it does not pose too much of a problem for listening. https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com/p/israel-iran-ceasefire-fragility-israels On this edition of Parallax Views, James M. Dorsey of the Turbulent World Substack blog returns to reflect of the "ceasefire" between Israel and Iran. Dorsey argues this is not so much a ceasefire as a fragile halt of hostilities for the time being, or a pause. Dorsey notes that it's unclear how much of Iran's nuclear program has been damaged or salvaged by the Islamic Republic in light of the strikes. That, he says, is a big question right now. We then discuss Trump's relationship with the Gulf States and his evangelical Christian Zionist base. That poses an issue for Trump, Dorsey argues. $3.6 trillion are on the table from the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.) and they want the situation with Israel, Gaza, and Iran solved according to Dorsey. The tumult and fragility of the Middle East has become something of a headache for both the U.S. and the Gulf States. Dorsey argues the current talk of a Gaza ceasefire is a "Fata Morgana", or a mirage, an illusion. We delve into the different interests at work when it comes to the Gulf States and Israel, and how the relationship between Israel and certain Gulf States have changed from 2015 to now. He argues that the Gulf States' perceptions of Israel have changed. For one thing, the Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement means that the situation of Israel's unofficial alliance with the Saudis against Iran has changed. Moreover, Dorsey says that the defense doctrine of Israel has gone from deterrence to emasculation of perceived enemies and states within the region. This changes the dynamic between Israel and the Gulf States, at least in how the Gulf States perceive Israel. Which is to say that Gulf States are now perceiving Israel as aggressive leading to the question of, "Could we be next?" We then begin delving into some "odds and ends" in the conversation including: - Israel, Palestine, and the issue of the 1967 borders - The history of the U.S.-Iran relations and why they have been so tense - Pushing back on the "mad mullahs" narrative about the Islamic Republic of Iran - Trump's walking away from the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal) - Is Iran more likely to go nuclear after the latest strikes? - Biggest risk in the Middle East?: not tackling root problems; Israel's belief that it has the right to strikes whenever and wherever it wants against a perceived threat means a "law of the jungle" system in the Middle East and could become adopted by other states - Potential deal between Israel and Syria - The Abu Shabab clan in Gaza - Netanyahu's rejection of any Palestinian national aspirations and what informs it - And more! NOTE: Views of guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect all the views of J.G. Michael or the Parallax Views w/ J.G. Michael program

It’s going to take more than the halt of Israeli-Iranian hostilities to replicate US President Donald J. Trump’s success in Gaza, let alone leverage it into a paradigm-changing Saudi, Arab, and Muslim recognition of the Jewish state. It’s not because of a lack of effort but because the assumptions underlying the push to end Israel’s devastating 21-month-long assault on the Strip in response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel are problematic. Earlier this week, Mr. Trump asserted, “We think within the next week we’re going to get a (Gaza) ceasefire.” Mr. Trump’s prediction came amid increasing chatter about a possible long-evasive pause, if not a permanent halt, to the Israeli assault that has turned Gaza into a pile of rubble and sparked one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

Iran has vowed to respond to any future US strikes by attacking American military bases in the Middle East, according to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an address on Thursday- his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel. The 12-day war culminated in Iran’s attack on a US base in Qatar, which is the largest in the region, after the US joined Israeli strikes. US intelligence assessments indicate that America’s bunker-buster bomb and cruise missile strikes did not destroy the three Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday- despite Trump’s remarks that the attack “completely and fully obliterated” the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. Analysts have warned that although the ceasefire is still intact, it is extremely fragile, with hopes for longer-term peace resting on potential negotiations between the US and Iran next week. “There may or may not be negotiations this week or talks this week between the United States and Iran, but nothing is going to get resolved and as a result you’ve got a very fragile ceasefire,” James M. Dorsey said in this week’s Middle East Report

Don’t hold your breath. US President Donald J. Trump’s silencing of Iranian and Israeli guns is fragile at best. Speaking at a news conference on the sidelines of a NATO summit, Mr. Trump admitted as much. “Can it start again? I guess it can, maybe some day soon,” Mr Trump said. The fragility was built into the halt to the hostilities from the outset, starting with differences over whether the halt constituted a ceasefire. Iran rejects the notion of a ceasefire, even if it has agreed to halt the hostilities.

The Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD) hosted an award-winning journalist and scholar Dr. James M. Dorsey for a special Horizons Discussion on June 23rd, 2025. In conversation with Horizons Managing Editor Stefan Antić, Dorsey unpacked the lightning-fast escalation between Israel and Iran, the Trump administration’s divided response, and the wider stakes for regional and great-power politics.

The targeted sites by the US attack on Iran are Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. Fordo is one of Iran's key uranium enrichment facilities, located underground in the southwest of Tehran. Natanz is another major enrichment site, which is located southeast of Tehran. Uranium had been enriched to up to 60 per cent purity at the site before Israeli strikes targeted parts of it.