According to a former US ambassador, Daniel Shapiro, Azerbaijan's significance in this context cannot be overstated: "Azerbaijan is uniquely positioned – perhaps more than any other Muslim-majority country – to build bridges with Israel while maintaining strong relations across the Islamic world. Its secular governance, religious tolerance, and pragmatic diplomacy make it an ideal mediator in an otherwise divided region."

Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev has maintained open lines with Israeli leadership for years, while also preserving close strategic and cultural ties with Turkey. This dual alignment has allowed Azerbaijan to act not just as a passive observer but as a proactive diplomatic conduit.

Israel's former ambassador to Deek added by noting his appreciation for creating the conditions for such negotiations: "This allows us to strengthen the dialogue and improve mutual understanding between the countries of the region."

Azerbaijan's internal social fabric is another factor contributing to its growing diplomatic capital. Despite being a Muslim-majority country, Azerbaijan has cultivated a model of religious harmony. Its Jewish community – one of the oldest and most well-integrated in the Muslim world – continues to flourish, with synagogues, schools, and community centers receiving full state support.

This cultural openness has not gone unnoticed by both Israel and its neighbors. It sets a powerful example of how coexistence and mutual respect can transcend political differences.

Geopolitically, Azerbaijan occupies a crucial position at the crossroads of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. As an energy-rich, independent republic in the South Caucasus, it maintains diversified partnerships – not only with Israel and Turkey, but also with Russia, the European Union and the United States. This multi-vector diplomacy has allowed Azerbaijan to remain neutral yet active in regional peace-building.

The Abraham Accords, which normalized ties between Israel and several Arab states, opened a new chapter in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Azerbaijan's discreet but effective engagement is viewed as part of this broader momentum – a sign that regional realignment is no longer limited to the Arab world alone.

Looking ahead, Azerbaijan is likely to continue leveraging its unique status to facilitate cooperation between Israel and other Muslim-majority nations. With tensions still simmering in parts of the Middle East and South Asia, Baku's approach – grounded in pragmatism, mutual respect, and cultural diplomacy – offers a hopeful path forward.

In the words of the former US ambassador: "Azerbaijan's influence is not about power projection. It's about trust. And trust is the currency that diplomacy thrives on." By positioning itself as a sincere mediator rather than a partisan player, Azerbaijan has carved out a role that few others can fill – a trusted bridge between worlds too often kept apart.

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy and an Israel-based journalist. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."

The post Azerbaijan emerges as a unique diplomatic bridge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The war that broke out in 2025 between Israel and Iran has shaken not only the Middle East but also deeply affected the South Caucasus region. As two major powers clashed, several surrounding nations found themselves indirectly drawn into the conflict. Among them, Azerbaijan – a country of strategic significance and energy importance – faced unique threats and opportunities arising from this confrontation.

For years, Azerbaijan has maintained a careful balance in its foreign policy – building strong strategic and military-technical ties with Israel, while also sharing a long border and deep cultural-religious connections with Iran. The full-scale war that erupted in 2025 made this balancing act far more difficult.

In the early stages of the conflict, Iranian officials and state media strongly criticized Azerbaijan's ties with Israel. Tehran accused Baku of allowing Israeli intelligence activity on its soil. While Azerbaijan firmly denied these accusations, Iran responded by deploying more troops to the border and conducting large-scale military exercises nearby.

Azerbaijan publicly emphasized its neutral stance in the conflict. President Ilham Aliyev and the Foreign Ministry declared that the country would not allow its territory to be used against third parties. At the same time, Baku reaffirmed its sovereign right to choose its partners and defend its security interests.

Azerbaijan plays a crucial role in Europe's energy supply, acting as a key corridor for oil and gas exports. With fears that the Israel-Iran conflict might spill over into the wider region, serious concerns arose over the security of the Southern Gas Corridor and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline:

Iran's potential targeting of regional infrastructure prompted Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey to reinforce the protection of energy assets and pipelines.

The war has triggered sharp fluctuations in global oil prices. While Azerbaijan, as an energy exporter, initially benefited from higher prices, prolonged instability could pose long-term economic and investment risks.

Azerbaijan's defense partnership with Israel has long contributed to enhancing its military capabilities. The ongoing conflict has made this relationship even more critical:

Tehran sees this partnership as a threat to its national security. Azerbaijan's growing reliance on Israeli military support has thus become a further source of tension in bilateral relations.

The Israel-Iran war has not only played out on battlefields, but also in the digital and media domains. Public opinion in Azerbaijan has been divided, with competing narratives circulating widely:

On one hand, many Azerbaijanis support strategic ties with Israel; on the other, some feel uneasy about any potential confrontation with a fellow Muslim-majority nation, Iran.

Social media platforms have seen a rise in false information and provocations aimed at pulling Azerbaijan deeper into the conflict. State authorities have taken steps to counteract such narratives and maintain public calm.

The Israel-Iran war has presented one of the most complex challenges in Azerbaijan's recent foreign policy history. Baku now finds itself navigating a delicate path – striving to preserve security, uphold regional stability, and protect its national interests amidst regional chaos.

So far, Azerbaijan's calculated and measured diplomacy has helped it remain stable while contributing to regional peace. However, should the conflict intensify or prolong, Baku may soon face even tougher choices that could redefine its strategic orientation.

The continued preservation of balance in this geopolitical storm remains essential – not only for Azerbaijan, but for the peace and development of the wider Caucasus region.

The post The impact of the Israel-Iran war on Azerbaijan appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Anyone who follows global diplomatic developments understands that Ukraine made a strategic mistake by relying on American backing throughout its military and political conflict with Russia. Under President Biden, the United States did indeed support Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. However, following the change in administration with Donald Trump's return to the White House, Washington's stance toward Ukraine shifted. Trump prefers maintaining good relations with Russia over offering blind support to Ukraine, which he views as misaligned with American interests. Thus, almost overnight, Ukraine lost its most significant advantage – the backing of Washington – marking a dramatic turning point in its story.

Ukraine's experience is not unique. Throughout its efforts to align itself with the West and move away from the post-Soviet bloc, NATO countries and the United States have disappointed it on multiple occasions. At the onset of the war, NATO, the very alliance Ukraine sought to join despite Russian opposition, did not provide military assistance. More recently, the complete reversal in U.S. policy toward Ukraine has further highlighted this pattern. Ukraine's strategy was clear: as a relatively "weak" nation seeking strength, it aimed to join the Western bloc and receive the absolute support granted to its allies. Today, it is evident that such a strategy is not sustainable in the long term for a country seeking peace and security.

Another post-Soviet country is beginning to recognize the flaws in this strategic approach – this time in the Caucasus. Armenia, which suffered a devastating defeat against Azerbaijan in the 2020 Karabakh War and again after the military campaign in 2023, has come to understand that blindly relying on a single great power is both mistaken and dangerous. Armenia's first painful shock came with Russia's lack of military support during the Second Karabakh War. For years, Armenia cooperated closely with Russia, hosting a Russian military base on its territory, which led to bitter disappointment in Yerevan when Russian troops stationed in Armenia did not intervene to repel Azerbaijani forces.

Moreover, Armenia is a member of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance based on collective defense – similar to NATO. The CSTO, comprising six countries, is meant to provide military cooperation and ensure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its members. Given this framework, Armenia was stunned to realize that Russian support would not materialize, leaving it to confront Azerbaijan alone.

Following Armenia's defeat and the harsh reality of being abandoned by Russia – the very power in which it had placed its trust – Yerevan began searching for a new patron. Armenia explored options in India, approached France, and reached out to other Western players. Ultimately, under pressure and uncertainty, Armenia hastily signed a strategic partnership agreement with the United States in January 2025, just days before the newly re-elected U.S. president took office. However, two months later, President Trump dramatically shifted American foreign policy, announcing that the U.S. would scale back its support for European allies and seek reconciliation with Russia. Today, Armenians are coming to terms with the realization that their strategy was flawed.

Azerbaijan, in contrast, chose a different path. For three decades, Azerbaijan watched as Armenia controlled Nagorno-Karabakh with Russian backing. Instead of seeking another great power to protect its interests, Azerbaijan focused on strengthening itself. Baku deepened its alliance with Turkey while simultaneously enhancing its cooperation with Israel. Azerbaijan also maintained ties with global powers, keeping diplomatic channels open with Russia – Armenia's patron – while gradually fostering relationships with the U.S. and the West.

Despite these strong partnerships, Azerbaijan did not overlook its regional adversaries and even sought to improve relations with Iran, historically one of its greatest rivals. Unlike Armenia, which placed its hopes in external support, Azerbaijan took proactive steps, leveraging its natural resources and strategic advantages to build its own strength. When the Second Karabakh War erupted in 2020, Azerbaijan benefited from economic and military assistance from its allies, while Armenia waited in vain for Russian aid that never arrived.

Now, with the war concluded in a decisive Azerbaijani victory and the liberation of Karabakh from Armenian occupation, the Caucasus region is grappling with the consequences. Without Russian military support, Armenia resorted to desperate measures, even by wartime standards. The Armenian government ordered the illegal Karabakh administration to launch indiscriminate attacks on historic Azerbaijani cities, including Ganja, Tartar, Barda, Mingachevir, and the capital, Baku. This was later confirmed during interrogations of Karabakh's former leaders following Armenia's defeat.

To this day, Baku holds 23 Armenian individuals in custody on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Beyond the immediate human toll, Armenia inflicted severe damage on Azerbaijan, with 20% of Azerbaijani territory suffering extensive destruction during the conflict. Entire residential areas remain uninhabitable, forcing Azerbaijan's government to allocate significant resources toward reconstruction. Moreover, Armenian forces planted landmines across the region, further complicating Azerbaijan's recovery. Given these realities, Baku argues that it should not bear the financial burden of the devastation inflicted upon it – especially since the aggressor lost the war. Seeking reparations aligns with international legal norms, as compensation for war-related damages is a widely accepted principle in international law.

Armenia, however, is in no position to pay the damages that Azerbaijan is likely to demand. Lacking a powerful ally to ensure its security, Armenia has resorted to fabricating a revised historical narrative to avoid economic collapse. Yet no amount of denial can change Azerbaijan's legitimate claim. If Armenia cannot provide financial compensation, it may be forced to offer an equivalent concession. One likely scenario is the opening of the Zangezur Corridor, including its redevelopment – an outcome reminiscent of historical agreements such as the return of Alsace-Lorraine from Germany to France.

In conclusion, the contrasting strategies of these two neighboring, conflict-ridden states highlight the consequences of different approaches to national security. One nation, which occupied its neighbor's territory, placed its fate in the hands of a powerful ally, expecting protection in times of crisis. The other, whose land was taken illegally, chose to strengthen itself by forging diverse and strategic relationships across various geopolitical spheres. Ultimately, the country that pursued a short-term reliance on an external protector did not receive the promised defense. Meanwhile, the nation that built a broad network of alliances reaped military and diplomatic support, helping secure victory and reclaim its lost territory. This is a lesson that Israel can learn from to never rely too much on one ally and instead to build oneself up.

The post Diversify your allies appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Recently, a draft law regarding teaching "non-Persian literature" in Iranian schools, which the Iranian Parliament's Education Committee prepared, was put to a vote during a session of the open parliament. 246 members of parliament participated in the vote, with 104 voting in favor of the proposal, 130 voting against it, 5 abstaining, and 7 not voting at all. As a result, the proposal, which would have allowed the teaching of non-Persian languages and literature belonging culturally to minorities living in Iran, was rejected, which is highly unfortunate.

The issue of teaching non-Persian languages in Iran is not a new one in the Islamic Republic, as Iran's current president, Masoud Pezeshkian, spoke about it more than once during his election campaign. He repeatedly stated that he would implement Article 15 and eliminate the discrimination against non-Persian languages. It is important to note an important detail about Iran's current president when discussing the languages of minorities in Iran. Pezeshkian is not ethnically Persian, nor even half-Persian, as his father is of Azeri descent and his mother is of Kurdish descent. This means that under a president who is not Persian at all and whose first language is not Persian, Iran still oppresses the minorities living within it and refuses to acknowledge their cultural status.

Many people think that only Persians live in Iran, but anyone who thinks that is greatly mistaken. About half of Iran's population is ethnically Persian, speaks Persian, and is mainly located in central Iran, but the other half of the population in Iran is divided into several ethnic groups and lives mainly in the peripheries or borders of Iran. Besides Persians, Iran is also home to Ahwazi Arabs, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Turkmens, Assyrians, Jews, and others.

The authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran have a particular obsession with the Persian language, a kind of fanaticism. No other language is accepted by the authorities, even though the languages of these non-Persian citizens of Iran have been spoken in the region for many generations. In Ahvaz, an Arab city in Iran's Khuzestan province in the southwest of the country, residents suffer from the racist treatment of Iranians towards them.

Throughout history, Persians have always looked down upon Arabs and viewed them as inferior and primitive. However, it seems that the issue is not really about the ethnic relations between Persians and Arabs but rather about how Iran uses its power. Khuzestan province generates a lot of income for Iran because it contains most of the country's natural resources (mainly oil and gas), but despite this, the residents of Ahvaz suffer from criminal neglect by the government. The use of Arabic is prohibited in any official capacity in Iran; more accurately, no language other than Persian is allowed in official spaces.

There are no street signs in languages other than Persian, as they have been replaced with Persian names instead of the original Arabic, Turkish, Kurdish, etc. Cultural events cannot be held in any language other than Persian, and in addition, the state-run television channels in Iran broadcast exclusively in Persian, suggesting that the government does not seem to care about speaking to its ethnic minorities. In the public sector, no one who does not speak Persian as their first language will be employed, and no government services are available in any language other than Persian. This means that minorities in Iran are facing difficulties in obtaining help for their needs from the state's institutions. Even worse, there have been minority women executed for crimes in Iran and many claim that the language barrier played a role in their guilty verdict.

It is interesting to compare the Islamic Republic of Iran's attitude to the State of Israel, which Iranians often refer to as the "little Satan." Israel is a Jewish nation-state, and there is no dispute about this; it is enshrined in the definitions of the State of Israel (Jewish and democratic), and this is how its enemies view it as well. However, within Israel, an Arab ethnic minority lives, making up about 20% of the population. This is much smaller than the proportion of ethnic minorities in Iran and much more hostile (depending on the region and period, of course).

Yet, the Arab minority in Israel enjoys rights that ethnic minorities in Iran can only dream of. All streets in Israel are named in Hebrew and Arabic, and even English for tourists and new immigrants. Speaking of streets, in Arab villages within Israel, such as Kfar Qassem, the street names are in Arabic and are related to Arab culture rather than Israeli/Jewish culture, unlike in Jewish communities. There are even names that might sound very controversial when heard by Israelis. For example, in Kfar Qassem, Israel, there is a street named "Omar Ibn al-Khattab," named after the second caliph in Islam (which has no relation to Israeli culture), and there is even a square in the village called "Martyrs' Square." Names like this would not exist in Iran for more than five minutes. For example, if a street in the Jewish neighborhood of Tehran were named after Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, or if a square were called "The Maccabees" or "Zionism Square," the authorities responsible would face severe consequences.

Of all the languages oppressed in Iran, two are particularly surprising. First, let me talk about the Turkish language. Alireza Monadi, a representative from Tabriz and head of the Iranian Parliament's Education Committee, claimed after the failed vote in Parliament that "about 60 percent of the country's population speaks Turkish. This language is one of the most spoken in the world and is considered the third most spoken language worldwide. Turkish is an official language in many neighboring countries, including Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan, and linguistic and cultural ties with these countries could create opportunities for Iran." Therefore, the question arises: What is Iran's problem with Turkish? If I didn't know Iran and its character but knew the data about Turkish speakers living in Iran and the countries sharing a land border with Iran where Turkish is spoken, I would surely think that Turkish is the second language of Iran, taught like Spanish is taught in the United States.

The second language that surprises me the most is Arabic. True, the history between the authorities in Iran and the Iranian Arabs probably causes the decision-makers in Iran to distance themselves from their Ahwaz Arab citizens, but why are they distancing themselves from the Arabic language as well? After all, the most senior intellectuals of the legendary Arab empire were ethnic Persians. Most of the Arab literature was written by Persian authors, such as many of the stories in One Thousand and One Nights and similar works.

Why don't Iranians want to take pride in what their ancestors created, which influenced the entire ancient Middle Eastern world? A different perspective on the Arabic language in Iran is that Iran is, of course, an Islamic Republic, and the language of the Quran is Arabic! And as Iranian society becomes more religious, more Arabic words enter the Persian language. In other words, Persian "borrows" words from Arabic. Why do Iranians demean the Arabic of their Arab citizens while at the same time embracing Arabic words that have entered Persian? This is a question I have no answer to.

If the authorities in Iran continue with their cultural oppression, they will eventually harm Iran. Multiculturalism is a beautiful asset in any country. The integration of cultures can only enhance the community and lead to the creation of new ways of thinking. Moreover, people always preserve the tradition they were born into, and preventing the citizens of Iran from maintaining their traditions will mentally break them, causing them to rise against the regime.

I will end with Monadi's words after the vote in the Iranian Parliament: "There were 84 indigenous languages in our country, 40 of which have unfortunately disappeared. If we do not take serious action, we will lose a significant portion of our cultural identity. Our ethnic groups are valuable assets to the country, and we must take full advantage of this opportunity. Unfortunately, some indigenous languages have been threatened with extinction in recent years, and a well-written plan to protect and expand them must be developed".

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy and an Israel-based journalist. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."

The post Iran's repression of non-Persian languages appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Many questions are being asked about what Trump's upcoming term will look like, but here in Israel, we are especially concerned with the questions related to our region, the Middle East, and the balance of power between Western supporters and anti-Western forces in the area. So, how will Trump impact the Middle East?

In my estimation, Trump will take significant steps to strengthen American influence over political processes in the Middle East. This can be inferred from his statements before his inauguration and his initial decisions and actions in his new-old role. Trump took office amid the implementation of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, and even before his inauguration, he made it clear to both warring sides that he would not tolerate violations of the ceasefire. He made it clear that he would not accept any disobedience to his orders.

When the President of the United States tells an Islamist terror organization responsible for the kidnapping of 250 innocent civilians and the murder of 1,200, including babies, the elderly, and women, this is understandable. However, when the President of the United States says the same to the State of Israel, it sends a strong message. Trump has a vision for the future of the region and is determined not to allow either Arab anti-American forces or Jewish pro-American supporters to hinder his plan.

It's clear that the policy Trump will adopt will be anti-Iranian. He has already stated that if Hamas defies him, he will open the gates of hell on them. But here, he is also beginning to target other Iranian allies. On January 22, 2025, Trump redefined the Houthis as a "foreign terrorist organization," just as he did during his first term.

During Biden's presidency, the group was removed from the US terrorist list. Still, last year, the Houthis launched an attack on ships in the Red Sea, and Biden's administration redefined them as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization." The difference between "foreign terrorist organization" and "Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization" is crucial in its implications, as anyone who assists a "foreign terrorist organization" automatically faces severe sanctions. In essence, Trump has reinstated the Houthis on the most severe US terror list to target them and those who aid them.

Alongside his firm stance against Iran and its proxies in the Middle East, Trump seeks to focus on another issue close to his heart: normalization. He ended his previous term by signing the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco and Sudan. Trump aims to create new collaborations in the Middle East that will serve America's regional interests, particularly against anti-Western forces.

A normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel would change the entire geopolitical map, not only in the Middle East but nearly globally. If the Saudis accept Israel and "do business" with it openly, it will pave the way for future collaborations with other moderate Sunni countries currently hesitant to engage with Israel publicly. However, aside from the Israel-Saudi relations, a normalization agreement between these two countries would undoubtedly align Saudi Arabia with the West.

During Biden's term, the Saudis distanced themselves from the Americans, partly due to the removal of the Houthis from the global terrorist lists. This distancing led the Saudis to seek alternatives, and we saw Saudi Arabia, along with China, renew ties with Iran, a blow to pro-Western supporters in the region. It seems that Trump's goal is to bring Saudi Arabia back into the American fold, using this move to curb Iranian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and its periphery – India, African nations, and the Caucasus.

Two countries are set to be impacted by Trump's strategic moves: the first is, of course, Israel, which is engaged in a difficult war against Islamist terror organizations in the region. The second is Azerbaijan, a country that borders Iran, is an ally of Turkey, and a true friend of Israel. Azerbaijan is a pro-Israel country, despite its majority Shia Muslim population, which, logically, should make it a staunch supporter of its southern neighbor, Iran. But it is not, which creates strategic threats to Azerbaijan's survival, just as in the past.

Today, Iran can send operatives to carry out attacks in Azerbaijan whenever it wishes. Iran operates a network of agents, some of whom were involved in drug trafficking, targeting Azerbaijani Jews and possibly Muslims as well – there's no way to know for sure. Azerbaijan is working to strengthen itself against the Iranian enemy, which operates south of it in Iran, through agents or militants in its own territory and in neighboring Armenia. Iranians are increasingly expanding their influence in Armenia, in part to weaken Azerbaijan's operational reach and, of course, to extend their tentacles to as many targets as possible in the region.

We need to understand that when Iran weakens a pro-Western country in the Middle East, it sends a message to all other pro-Western nations not to engage with it. More importantly, Iran strengthens itself in the process. Therefore, we can certainly expect the Trump administration to bolster those countries seeking peace with the West, and Azerbaijan is among them. In fact, President Trump views a strong Azerbaijan to be key to stability in the South Caucuses. The Americans will utilize Azerbaijan in order to strengthen the relationship between Israel and Turkey, as well as to confront Iranian aggression in the region.

The Democrats did not view the region in this manner, as they are heavily influenced by the Armenian lobby. However, the Republicans are less influenced by the Armenian lobby and therefore are more likely to see the merits that Azerbaijan has to offer than their Democratic opponents. Therefore, a Trump presidency is likely to pressure Armenia to make peace with Azerbaijan and Turkey, so that the Armenians can be distanced from the Iranians, rather than embolden hard-liner Armenian positions.

Trump understands that Azerbaijan is the antithesis of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Although Azerbaijanis are Shia, they are secular. Unlike the Shia populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, Azerbaijanis have not turned extremist. The Islamic revolution's messages were to oppose Western influences, and its leaders saw the United States as the "Great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan." However, Azerbaijanis reach out to NATO and the West, seeking collaborations that will benefit all parties involved.

The Trump administration could use Azerbaijan as a model for young Shia Muslims in Lebanon (for example) to show them there is another way – a path without terrorism that leads to safer, more peaceful lives. In this regard, Azerbaijan could significantly strengthen its position in the Caucasus and the Middle East. This could force Iran to retreat from its offensive plans against Azerbaijan, fearing entanglement with the United States.

Trump's upcoming term will not be just any presidency. He takes office with many tasks ahead of him. I believe he will work to weaken Iran and its proxies in the Middle East and strengthen his Western allies – Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Azerbaijan. Such actions will create a "New Middle East," with thriving tourism, shared public transportation systems, and much greater peace than under the watch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, its proxies and those who wished to appease them in the West.

The post How will a Trump presidency impact the Middle East? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Following the demise of the Assad regime in Syria, Iran was greatly weakened. The Assad regime was one of Iran's most important allies in the Arab world. Now, Assad is being replaced by Sunni Islamist rebels backed by Turkey. Although these rebels are no friends of Israel, they are also sworn enemies of Tehran and by them assuming power, they have already broken up the Shia Crescent, which spreads from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea.

After Lebanon and Israel agreed to a ceasefire following Israel eliminating 80% of the leading figures in Hezbollah, Iran is looking to regain its strength as a regional power. For Iran, maintaining a Shia Crescent from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea is of pivotal importance, if the mullah's regime seeks to stay in power. All of their power and support rests upon spreading terror across the globe. Therefore, they will seek to make up for the loss of Assad by rebuilding Hezbollah's arsenal in Lebanon.

Thus, Iran is working in order to help Hezbollah regroup after suffering a major defeat. The elimination of Hezbollah terror leader Hassan Nasrallah together with the pager attacks which resulted in the maiming of thousands of Hezbollah terrorists was a major blow for Iran. That blow was almost as great as the loss of Assad. However, this has not stopped Iran from helping Hezbollah to regroup.

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center reported that Ali Larijani, the Iranian Supreme Leader's advisor, said Hezbollah had become a missile manufacturer itself, and that, contrary to Israel's claims, it continues to maintain extensive capabilities in the field of weapons. He noted that Hezbollah plays a central role in Lebanon and that removing the organization from the political equation in the country is out of the question. He also said that senior Iranian military officials are planning different ways to respond to the Israeli attack on Iran.

According to the report, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the claims that Iran would leave Hezbollah alone are part of Western media psychological warfare, and that Iran would not leave the "resistance" alone under these circumstances and would continue to support it by all possible means. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center added that Iranian Health Minister Mohammad-Reza Zafarghandi reported that Iran had treated nearly 500 wounded Lebanese from the pager attack in September 2024 and had performed about 1,500 surgeries on injuries to eyes and hands.

Meanwhile, while Iran is regrouping in Lebanon, Iran is investing in building stronger ties with Armenia in order to counter the strengthening of rival Azerbaijan following the Second Karabakh War and the subsequent military operation, which led to the weakening of Iran's position in the South Caucasus. According to a report posted on Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi's telegram channel, the Iranian Foreign Minister together with Armenia's Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan met and discussed ways in order to enhance cooperation between Iran and Armenia.

According to the Telegram post, Mirzoyan highlighted the importance of continuing cooperation between Armenia and Iran, particularly in light of regional developments and he invited the Iranian Foreign Minister to also come to Armenia. The two ministers agreed to hold regular consultations in order to better develop bilateral relations.

From an Israeli perspective, this is a major blow because one of the reasons why Israel agreed to a cease fire in Lebanon is because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to focus more on Israel's struggle against Iran proper and less upon fighting Iran's proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel still considers Iran's nuclear program to be an existential threat and possibly now might want to focus more on fighting against it, rather than cleaning up the remnants of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If Iran regains strength through a strong friendship with Armenia in the wake of the South Caucasus country distancing itself from Moscow, this is not a positive development. It would be better for Israel if Armenia would form an alliance with the West and make peace with Azerbaijan, thus leaving Iran alone to be a pariah state. However, so far, this unfortunately has not happened.

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy and is an Israel-based journalist. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media.

The post How Iran is regrouping following Assad's demise appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A young assassin named Thomas Matthew Crooks tried to eliminate the former president of the United States and current Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. The assassination attempt came at the right political timing for Trump. After all, in the days before the assassination attempt, the political talk in the United States of America was about the current president, Joe Biden, and the question, "Is he fit for another term?"

The talk about Biden's competence increased after Trump beat him in the presidential debates. That failed assassination attempt on former President Trump, not only brought out a hero, who survived an assassination attempt and remained indifferent to the whole event, as if he were a veteran soldier, but emphasized the difference between him and Biden. Joe Biden looks much older and slower after that assassination attempt when you look at him stammering and unable to complete a simple sentence in a televised confrontation when in front of him a man who is only 4 years younger than him gets shot in the ear and continues like Mini Rambo. It is safe to bet that Donald Trump is probably on his way to a second term as President of the United States.

If this indeed happens and Donald Trump returns to the American presidency, it can be assumed that the situation of forces in the Middle East is going to change for the better for the allies of the West. In Saudi Arabia, it is still remembered that Joe Biden decided to sever relations with Muhammad bin Salman because of humanitarian views.  Biden failed to understand the local custom in regards to the elimination of opponents of the government. True, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is an inhumane, non-Western act and this is not how it should be done in a reformed country. But the same political move by Biden hurt America's allies in the Middle East, making them feel they lack political support in the face of the terrorism fueled by Iran. Thus, the severing of relations with bin Salman, caused Saudi Arabia to get closer to Iran and damaged deterrence against the Houthis in Yemen.

And of course, you have to remember what the situation in the Middle East looked like when Trump finished his first term. At the beginning of the period at the end of his term, the United States and Israel discussed an Israeli annexation of the territories of Judea and Samaria. Although this did not happen, what did happen was the Abraham Accords - the beginning of the open relationship between the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, a historic political move. Of course, after that, the Abrahamic agreements continued to expand and also reached Morocco and Sudan. It is interesting to think how the face of the Middle East will change after the return of Trump to the position of President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world.

I can surmise that Trump will first of all start arming Israel without doing the math as if he were a grocery store seller who prescribes to his customers. True, Biden stood by Israel from the first second and gave weapons and international backing, but the problem is Biden's party. The Democrats are known as a party supported by many pro-Palestinians, so no matter how pro-Israel Biden is, there will always be those who will put a stick in his wheels. Trump will surely push for Israel to fight and win the war against Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthis, and of course the head of the octopus - Iran. Biden's conciliatory approach towards the Iranians, who dared to send missiles directly to Israel, does not do the West's supporters in the East any good, not Israel, not Jordan, and certainly not Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is a pro-Western country, against Iran, pro-Israeli, and a neighbor of Iran. However, President Biden and the Democrats have not shown enough appreciation for this country.  US President Joe Biden has recognized the 1915 Armenian Massacre as a genocide, but President Trump does not.  Trump's position is greatly appreciated in the Turkic world.  Both Turkey and Azerbaijan acknowledge that the Armenians were deported from Eastern Turkey and that there were many deaths, but believe it was caused by civil unrest rather than being part of a premeditated attempt to eliminate an entire nation.  Meanwhile, Biden was silent on the Khojaly Genocide and this does not help him look balanced in Turkic eyes.

Azerbaijan is a super important country for the West, from where you can send missiles to Iran, from where you can buy natural resources, through which you can get closer to Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc.) and of course Turkey, its close ally. The West must not take Azerbaijan for granted, and not give the Azerbaijanis any excuse to join the Iranians over their allies - Israel and America. The bottom line, Azerbaijan is a country that should be appreciated, not shunned.  Therefore, it was a mistake for Biden to give into the claims of the Armenian lobby and politicize the history of what happened over 100 years ago.  He should have left history to the historians and recognized the Armenian tragedy, without using the word genocide, just like Israel does.

The fact that America has such a strong Armenian lobby who all of the time condemns Azerbaijan in the US Congress, and so many Democratic Congressmen go along with this lobby, endangers American national security now that Iran has an Azerbaijani President who is a Reformist.  For the Azerbaijanis, this is a game changer in their relationship with Iran.  Under Raisi, speaking to Iran was like speaking to the wall.  It was under his regime of terror that the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran was attacked.  But under the new president, both President Ilham Aliyev and the new Iranian leader can converse in Azerbaijani and find mutual ground, and this is not good for America's interests.  Therefore, the US must provide Azerbaijan with good treatment, so that they will stay in America's camp, and for this, Trump is excellent.

Of course, I am not happy that former President Trump was injured and almost assassinated. It's even very scary to think that one person can determine the fate of an entire world if only he manages to get a good enough weapon. But I am sure that if before the assassination attempt, there was any doubt in the world about who would win the American presidential election, it disappeared after seeing the picture of Trump, with a bleeding ear and the American flag in his hand while security guards guard him. And in the situation we are in with the war in Israel, the processes of building the nuclear reactor in Iran, the desire to protect the allies of the West (mainly Azerbaijan), and the Iranian takeover of the Middle East, we should have Trump sitting in the purple room, and no one else.

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center and the editor of the Economic Peace Center. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."

The post How will a Trump presidency affect the region? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"When the people's rights are violated and their voices are not heard, of course the turnout will be dissatisfaction.  We are losing social support day by day due to rising prices, attitude towards girls and women, and restriction of internet." These are the words of Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran's ethnic Azerbaijani reformist presidential candidate, while debating his hardline opponent, Said Jalili.    He also condemned how Iran treats non-Persians and non-Shias: "This causes citizens to distrust the government."  He even condemned how the Islamic Republic represses protesters.

These promising remarks make one ponder, will the election of an ethnic Azerbaijani reformist candidate change how Iran conducts business or not?   Tarlan Ahmadov, the head of the Azerbaijani Society of Maine, believes that everything will overall remain the same despite the promising rhetoric.

"Regardless who will be elected, the shift in the political and foreign policy will not be much shifted in a good way," he stressed.  "In order to keep this regime, they have to be cruel to their own population, but also to sponsor all of this chaos in the region not only to gather the power but to maintain the power.  Of course, if Pezeshkian wins, we might have some ease in terms of the relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey, Qatar and other countries in the Gulf.  This foreign policy might be shifted a little way, but not in a huge way, for Khamenei will still call the shots.  It is a cruel theological Shia regime."

However, Ahmadov did note: "Him being ethnic Azerbaijani will bring some connections with Azerbaijan and Turkey, especially since he is a Reformist.   It is really interesting, but it won't be a tremendous change.  The regime is very powerful.   They won't ease their relationship with Israel.   This is not going to shift overnight.   It is difficult to predict who will win, but this won't be a big change.   It is good for listening for the ethnic Azerbaijanis, but not many are coming.   Many people are not coming for they don't believe in these elections."

Babek Chalabi, a South Azerbaijani dissident based in the US, sees things differently: "Pezeshkian's approach emphasizes dialogue with the West to address the current crisis and demonstrates a thoughtful and balanced stance. It is believed that being aware of the situation, Khamenei has permitted Pezeshkian to address the severe economic and social challenges. It is necessary for him to reintegrate the reformists, who have been marginalized since the 2009 elections, into the political landscape, and so far, he has made progress in this regard. In the recent elections, Khatami, who had previously boycotted elections, extended his support to Pezeshkian."

According to him, "There are various reasons for Khamenei's support, which is to manage the national movements of non-Persian ethnic groups, such as Turks, Kurds, Baluchs, and Arabs. Pezeshkian, who hails from Mahabad, Azerbaijan, a predominantly Kurdish-speaking city, is fluent in Turkish, Kurdish, and English, which could be a valuable asset. Additionally, in recent years, Pezeshkian has publicly advocated for the national rights of non-Persian peoples, including their right to education in their native language."

Chalabi added: "Pezeshkian was among the political figures who advocated for Mahsi Amini's rights during the "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement. He also provided support to protesters during the 1999 student protests, which contributed to his growing popularity and attributed to his reputation for honesty and commitment to justice.

Given these factors, it is expected that Azerbaijanis and other non-Persian ethnic groups may be more inclined to lend their support to Iran's Pezeshkian in the upcoming second round."

Chalabi concluded: "Should he emerge victorious; we could expect significant shifts in both Iran's domestic and foreign policies. An election victory for Pezeshkian might pave the way for improved relations between Iran and Turkic nations, such as Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as Gulf Arab countries. This should potentially lead to a decrease in Iran's support for regional groups in Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas. The leadership may have recognized that with the potential election of Trump in the upcoming U.S. elections, it is in their best interest to de-escalate tensions in the region. Conversely, if Jalili were to win, there is a possibility that Iran may align itself more closely with Russia and, to some extent, China."

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center and the editor of the Economic Peace Center. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."

The post Will Iran's reformist presidential cndidate change things? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In recent weeks, headlines have been dominated by college students protesting on campuses across America in favor of the BDS movement, which the Anti-Defamation League considers to be an antisemitic movement. At Portland State University, they treated the campus library like ISIS treated Palmyra, shattering glass windows, damaging furniture, and computers, destroying the fire extinguishers, and stealing rare books that were endowed to the university, in addition to spraying hateful graffiti calling for an intifada across the library.

About 300 students and community members were arrested at Columbia University and City College of New York, where the university is surveying damage from several buildings and grounds after demonstrators smashed glass doors, graffitied walls, and ransacked public property. At UCLA, the police broke up a violent plot to take over a campus building and disrupt mid-term exams. And the list just goes on regarding the violence that has taken place on American campuses in recent weeks by pro-BDS protesters.

And now, after the police have broken up many of the protests, at Princeton University and other campuses, the pro-divestment students are going on a hunger strike, angered at how campuses across America have invited in the police to deal with the violence caused by the protesters. I have a suggestion for the presidents of American universities. Why don't they just arrest them, place these students in a mental institution and forcefully feed these demonstrators inside of that mental institution?

If the universities give into the pressure caused by these hunger strikes and the sensational headlines that they cause, all it will do is encourage a repeat of what happened at the library at Portland State University and other violent incidents that took place on campuses across America. Appeasing violence never works. To the contrary, it just whets their appetite to do more violent acts, which severely adversely affect the environment for all students studying at American universities.

However, if the university ignores them and lets them starve to death, it will be bad publicity for Harvard and all of the other American universities. Therefore, the universities should not sit back and let them starve themselves to death, nor should they give into their demands. Instead, the police should go to their encampment and give them the following option: Eat and go home, or be hospitalized in a mental institution for possessing suicidal intentions and causing harm to themselves and inciting other students to inflict self-harm. They should be given two hours to eat and go home. During these two hours, the families of the protesters should be brought in to try and dissuade the protesters from continuing their hunger strike.

In recent days, the hunger strike of Armenian leader Ruben Vardanyan ended because his family persuaded him not to give up his life over politics. "I am deeply concerned about the health and well-being of my father," said David Vardanyan, one of Vardanyan's sons, after his father lacked nourishment for several weeks. His concern about his father's well-being in the end paid dividends for Azerbaijan, as he ended his hunger strike when he spoke to his wife on the phone.

This shows that bringing in families of the hunger strikers is instrumental in helping to end a hunger strike without giving in too much to the demands of the protesters. After all, all Azerbaijan did was permit him to speak to his family and to make some speeches from prison, and he ended his hunger strike without Azerbaijan giving him anything substantial in return. This shows how influential families can be in helping to end hunger strikes.

Anyone who does not comply after getting warned from the police and hearing pleas from their family should be arrested and brought to a mental hospital, where they will be forcefully fed with tubes. These students should not be released from the mental hospital until they commit to giving up their hunger strike, which should be treated as the same as having suicidal intentions. Until they agree, they should be forced into the same types of therapy given to people that wish to commit suicide and treated by the authorities as such.

The authorities can even drug them with psychiatric medication in the mental hospital, which will cause them to be more relaxed, less angry and less agitated, and thus when they do return, they will be less motivated to do something like having a hunger strike. The campus should treat these students as individuals who took a break from studies due to mental health issues, and get a record as such. After all, anyone who destroys a library and vandalizes a campus has significant mental health issues, which require psychiatric treatment for either malignant narcissist personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder or both. Anyone willing to die in order to protest for BDS also has significant psychological issues that should be addressed as well.

In this way, Princeton and all of the other universities can rid themselves of the students who are presently doing a hunger strike in favor of divesting from Israel, thus helping to restore peace and tranquility to campuses across America without adversely affecting the public image of the universities. After all, they would not be doing anything more than preventing mentally ill protesters from killing themselves over a worthless cause and stopping malignant narcissists from further disrupting campus life.

Allowing a hunger strike to continue will do nothing more than damage the public image of the universities. Indeed, every week that Vardanyan was on hunger strike was a public relations disaster for Azerbaijan. His son was interviewed by CNN, France 24 and a series of other major outlets, who all spoke ill of Azerbaijan defending itself against the financing of terrorism. A separatist terrorist allied with Putin under the influence of a hunger strike was transformed into a freedom fighter in the eyes of Western media outlets, and this was terrible for Azerbaijan, which prompted them to let his family convince him to stop the hunger strike, even though he was in solitary confinement.

Similarly, if these pro-divestment hunger strikers continue to wage their struggle at Harvard, the value of a Harvard degree will go on a slippery slope downhill. People will stop referring to Harvard as a top notch-institution but rather as a school that let its students starve to death over their refusal to give into the demands of their cause, or as a school who gave into antisemitic agitation and divesting from Israel, thus encouraging more violence on campus in the future. The only way to prevent this from spiraling in that direction is to invite their families into the picture to dissuade them from continuing their hunger strike and if that fails, to place these students immediately in a mental institution, where they will be forcefully fed. There is no other valid response to their hunger strike.

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center and the editor of the Economic Peace Center. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."

The post Pro-divestment hunger strikers must face consequences appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Recently, a senior US administration official told CNN that the US is on high alert and actively preparing for a "significant attack" where Iran would target America or Israel in the greater Middle East region in response to Israel's attack on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus that eliminated senior level commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.   Some are speculating that the terror attack orchestrated by Iran can occur as early as this week, with some US officials describing the potential of such an attack as "inevitable."

Former US Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Fox News that he believes that Iran will go after Israel directly, but on a limited scale in order to avoid a regional war: "They are going to act.  They're going to feel the need to uphold their dignity, to maintain credibility with their proxies throughout the region and to really meet the demands of hardliners, within the theocracy that wants to see something done."

A potential Iranian attack on Israel or one of its allies would represent a major escalation as the Jewish state is in the middle of Operation Iron Swords.   On a daily basis, there are terror attacks and rockets are fired into our country.   We are actively at war with Gaza and a war can ignite any moment against Hezbollah in the north.    Houthis from Yemen have also joined into the fray.   And now, Tehran, after sending its proxies after us, could attack Israel directly.     However, Israel likely will not be the only victim in this Iranian terror attack and this has great significance for the region as a whole.

Not too long ago, the Azerbaijani media reported that inside the Iranian parliament, Jalal Rashidi Kuch, a radical Iranian MP, proclaimed: "Procrastination, patience, and delay in giving a decisive and similar response to the military attack of the "Zionists" on Iranian territory under any title is equivalent to a heavy blow to the reputation and honor of the great name of Iran.  My proposal is to openly and directly target the diplomatic representation of the Zionists in one of the diplomatic centers of the regional countries, preferably in Azerbaijan."

Babek Chalabi, a South Azerbaijani dissident in the US, proclaimed that the idea of Iran waging a terror attack in Azerbaijan in response to IDF action in Syria did not occur in a vacuum: "In Iran, there is a faction keen on instigating a heated conflict between Iran and Azerbaijan.   Known primarily as Iranian nationalists, they rely on Persian ultranationalism and often display a condescending attitude towards the cultures and existence of Turks and Arabs, seizing any opportunity to undermine them."

He noted that the statement by MP Jalal Rashidi Kuch is "part of a campaign of hatred against Azerbaijanis.  Iran lacks the capability and means to engage in conflict with the Republic of Azerbaijan for a variety of reasons.   Iranian leaders, with their exaggerations and noisy debates on diverse issues, aim to distract the public attention.  Iran, through its terrorist activities in the region, is increasingly isolating itself, becoming a friendless nation."

Elnur Enveroglu, deputy editor-in-chief of Azernews, stressed, "Iran is targeting Azerbaijan over its rage against Israel and the USA.   As you know, Israel hit Damascus, but the issue was brought to the South Caucasus in Azerbaijan, even though the US Embassy is located in Yerevan as well.   They could do it in Yerevan too.  They could also target the Israeli Embassy in Georgia.   So why Azerbaijan?"

"Iran is worried about Azerbaijan getting stronger day by day," he noted.   "When Azerbaijan was dealing with the Zangezur Corridor with Armenia, Iran was shocked.  Iran immediately reacted that Armenia's territory is Iran's red line.   That happened a few years ago.  Now, Iran pretends to protect Gaza and Palestine in a fight against Israel.   It just pretends that it is going to bomb Israel.  But this is baloney.  Iran will not launch rockets at Israel.  It is just a show-off to show it as a Muslim country, but Iran is really a traitor.  They are not worried about NATO forces coming to the region.  They are really worried about Azerbaijan, which is opening up the Zangezur Corridor to connect to the Turkic world.  That is their real concern."

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, a prominent Middle East scholar, concurred that the Iranians seek to go after Azerbaijan: "They suspect the Azerbaijanis are supporting Israel and helping Israel.  They might take advantage of this to attack Azerbaijan.  It is psychological hatred on the part of Iran.  After the Soviet Union was dismantled, Iran offered Azerbaijan to join Iran.  They refused.   The fact that the Iranians see they can destroy whatever they like is a problem."

All of this emboldens the Iranians to attack an Israeli target in Azerbaijan.   However, the Iranians could also theoretically go after an Israeli or Jewish target elsewhere.   In the past, the Iranians attacked the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina.   They also attacked a group of Israeli tourists in Burges, Bulgaria.

Speaking at a ceremony in Tehran commemorating those killed in the Damascus consulate attack, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, a military advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said: "None of the embassies of the Zionist regime are safe anymore."  According to Al Arabiya, Safavi claimed that 27 Israeli embassies have been closed due to concerns about potential Iranian retaliation.

Rachel Avraham is the CEO of the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy and an Israel-based journalist. She is the author of "Women and Jihad: Debating Palestinian Female Suicide Bombings in the American, Israeli and Arab Media."    

The post The significance of a potential Iranian attack appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.