Forget it, Mike. It’s the Middle East.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/why-israel-is-sitting-out-the-latest-u-s-bombing-campaign-in-iran-55713b77?st=KsmoUv

And the reasons are just as stupid as you might have expected.

The Persian Gulf’s Arab states are lobbying the U.S. to ensure that Israel doesn’t resume strikes on Iran, said Arab officials familiar with the discussion. They fear Israeli involvement would trigger a fierce response from Tehran that potentially targets their energy infrastructure, the officials said. It also would make it harder politically for Gulf states to join in the attacks on Iran themselves if necessary.

Note, however, that Erdogan seems pretty determined to chisel his name into the history books, even more than he already has…

The core dynamic since 1973 has the US/West constraining Israel victories against radical Islamic jihadists where a strategic win was possible to a tactical victory, always keeping the defeated enemy alive and in some instances helping them recover.

Our global geo-political interests haven’t always aligned, but at each stage of this decades long battle between Islamic and Judeo-Christian values left the jihadists stronger.

Cases in point. I asked Grok for a synopsis of wars fought between Israel and Muslim forces where we have always forced Israel to settle for a tactical win, rather than a strategic victory.

Israel has repeatedly achieved clear tactical and operational victories:

Degrading enemy forces, destroying infrastructure, assassinating leaders, imposing heavy costs, and restoring short-term deterrence.
Examples: the 1982 Lebanon War (PLO military infrastructure smashed and expelled), the 2006 Lebanon War (Hezbollah rocket arrays and command hit hard), and every Gaza round from 2008–09 through the post-October 7 campaign (Hamas battalions attrited, tunnels collapsed, leadership decimated).

Yet these have rarely translated into lasting strategic victory—defined as permanently removing the enemy’s ability and will to regenerate as a viable existential threat**, changing the political/ideological status quo, or ending the cycle. Instead, the result is usually a temporary reset (“mowing the grass”), after which the adversary rebuilds with external help and resumes.

How Western (especially U.S.) influence contributes

The 1973 precedent set the template and has echoed:

U.S. enables the tactical wins (qualitative military edge, airlifts/munitions, intelligence, UN vetoes, diplomatic cover). Without this, Israel could not sustain the series of victories.

U.S./Western pressure then caps the strategic outcome. Goals short of total destruction of the enemy’s war-making capacity and political regeneration are insisted upon—or imposed via leverage over arms, financing, diplomacy, and international institutions.

1973: Classic case—airlift saves Israel, then Kissinger + DEFCON 3 + ceasefire pressure save the Egyptian Third Army so Egypt remains a viable interlocutor.

1982 Lebanon: Israel drives on Beirut and aims to destroy the PLO as a military-political force and reshape Lebanon. Reagan administration pressure, Marine deployment, and diplomacy force a pullback; the PLO survives (Tunis), and Hezbollah emerges as the stronger successor.

2006 Lebanon: Bush team delayed a UN ceasefire (confirmed by John Bolton and others) to give Israel more time, yet the eventual UNSCR 1701 left Hezbollah intact, rearming, and able to claim “divine victory.” No strategic elimination.

Gaza cycles: Repeated IDF superiority, but ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, restrictions on reoccupation or long-term control, and massive post-war aid flows (much of it Western-funded or facilitated) allow Hamas to regenerate tunnels, rockets, and governance. Post-Oct 7 has been the most ambitious attempt at strategic change, yet U.S. pressure on timing (Rafah), civilian harm thresholds, endgame arrangements, and “day after” planning has still limited freedom of action.

Western norms, media, NGOs, lawfare (ICC/ICJ), European diplomacy, and funding streams (UNRWA and others) amplify the effect: they raise the political cost of decisive measures and help keep Palestinian rejectionist structures and Iranian proxies administratively and financially viable.

It is wrong, IMO, to constrain Israel’s wars and then force them to accept a future where 35,000 projectiles are launched into the country in a two year period, and thousands of increasingly sophisticated projectiles are fired into the country in the foreseeable future, possibly forever. At some point we have an obligation to help Israel degrade the Islamists capabilities and give Israel a window of rest.

We have reached this point because at each juncture we’ve forced Israel to accept a temporary pause. But the strategy and the capability that Iran had built and will continue to strengthen requires a strategic victory against this foe.

There will no doubt be new Islamic fundings of the terrorist proxies seeking to surround Israel, but none whether it be Turkey or Qatar or Pakistan will have the will and the means that Iran has.

(Punctuation is fungible—at least mine is….)

At this point, Rubio is more a continuation of Trump in terms of policy (not style, although his style is hard-hitting). Vance is a continuation of neither policy (certainly not foreign policy) nor style. However, Vance certainly has more of the Tucker following – but that group is angry at Trump. The real question is this: how big is that following? I’ve been trying to answer that question and so far I can’t. There is evidence that Tucker’s traffic is heavily from Muslim countries, especially Pakistan, and bots. That’s not to say he doesn’t have an actual following among American voters, but its size is unknown and polls are few and far between.

Should it be

President “Biden” or

“President” Biden or

“President” “Biden” or

“President Biden”?

Sorry, I missed that lesson in 4th grade …

“…Nevertheless, President Biden refrained from a decisive break, citing concerns over the hostages’ fate, Israel’s security, and the viability of negotiations…”

Ah, those jokers.
(That would be President “Biden”, of course…)