A tragic war with no end in sight

Fighting ISIS means difficult, unsatisfying choices.

By: Eli Verschleiser

Our revulsion at the Paris attacks and subsequent Isis violence was palpable, and our reaction almost universal. We want action.

But are we prepared to accept the difficult truth? The only answer to brute force by evil and depraved fanatics is brute force by the good guys -- working with some of the not-so-good guys.

The French wasted no time launching counterstrikes against ISIS targets in retaliation for the brutal slaughter of over 130 citizens at multiple Paris locations. At the same time, the Russians, once confirming their airliner was brought down by a terrorist bomb (Isis took responsibility) have unleashed some heavy ordnance on targets in Isis’ growing territory. There will be no shortage of payback for these outrages, and the ones sadly to come, and the U.S., under increasing pressure to take leadership, will keep up or increase its own strikes.

The burning question: Will it matter?

This is not a war over territory that can be easily won by controlling airspace, ports and resources and by depleting the other side’s troops. It’s a war against an ideology that almost effortlessly gains new recruits and sympathizers, not just people in bunkers in Iraq and Syria, but well-educated people in Europe, in peaceful Mideast states and even in the U.S., willing to give their lives in a conflict that we can barely understand, let alone contain.

There are those who believe we are playing right into Isis’s hands with our response. More bombings create more civilian casualties, and more angry orphans to join Isis. Our suspicion of and, on the part of some, hostility toward Muslim refugees in Europe and those trying to enter the U.S. also creates radicals. The Russians, always with an agenda of their own, stand to benefit from this too: The refugee problem boosts the fortunes of right-wing political parties in Europe more inclined to align themselves with Vladimir Putin, and less concerned about his subjugation of Ukraine.

If chaos is what Isis craves, it is meeting its own objectives handily. Despite the above concerns, we have no choice but to drop bombs, and no choice but to carefully scrutinize the refugees to weed out potential terrorists, despite the notion on the left that it is un-American not to quickly open our doors.

Leaving us with so few choices, Isis is outmaneuvering us.

ISIS

But there’s one aspect of this no-choice conundrum that, as perplexing as it may be, could lead to the eventual defeat of Isis. They are gripped by a powerful delusional vision of what some call “volcanic jihad” that can establish a beachhead in the Middle East that spreads radicalized Islam around the world, and that vision affects everyone around them, creating the unlikeliest bedfellows.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, even Hezbollah in Beirut, Sunni tribes in Iraq and of course the Russians all have the same interest in excising this cancer, as do the U.S. and its NATO allies. Can they all join together in a workable coalition? Do we dare even work with Bashar Assad’s forces? Or is keeping him in power too bitter a bill to swallow?

It may be precisely because of the odds mounting against them that Isis operatives have struck or so many times in recent weeks – the Russian airline, Paris, Beirut -- and may be planning new attacks in Brussels or the U.S.

According to a New York Times analysis, nearly 1,000 deaths have caused by Isis outside Iraq and Syria so far in 2015. A former CIA official told the paper the group is moving beyond inspiring “lone wolf” attacks by sympathizers, and now seems to have the ability to coordinate its own operatives.

It remains to be seen if this power could withstand the disruption of focused attacks by a coordinated coalition of enemies, which could break off communication from the stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, to its operatives abroad. Perhaps in the best case scenario, such force reverts Isis to inspiring the lone wolves again through brutal videotapes and fundamentalist rantings, and there will be fewer recruits if they see the cause losing steam rather than ascendant.

But if inciting a global, apocalyptic war is a key goal of Isis, uniting some of the most disparate powers can achieve exactly the opposite effect.

To achieve this coalition, western powers must step up their efforts to convince Arab powers to take an active role, not just cheer-lead, meaning, troops and logistical support, including use of airspace and bases. It should not be the job of French or American troops to clean up their neighborhood for them. A key strategy for Isis is to rely heavily on fence-sitters to be scared into silence and inaction.

A 2004 manifesto written by the precursor group to Isis, entitled “The Management of Savagery,” as reported in a recent essay by Scott Atran and Nefess Hamid in the New York Review of Books, calls for followers to “diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”

“diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”

Divide and conquer is a time-proven strategy, and it has made Isis more powerful, but as the conflict grinds on, it may backfire as disparate enemies have no choice but to work together.

It may be a long, sad and often terrifying conflict, with no immediate end in sight, and the ideology behind Isis will never be completely eliminated. But with the right amount of determination and unity a coalition could disrupt its leadership, disperse its elements, dissuade volunteers and, most importantly, save thousands of future innocent lives.

Originally Published by: The Hill

A Heated Debate

By: Eli Verschleiser

Like a jolt of caffeine from a five-dollar macchiato, the controversy surrounding Starbucks’ coffee’s modification of its holiday season cups was intense.

Maybe the company was trying to be more inclusive by removing Christmas decorations from the cups, or maybe they just wanted a simpler design. In any case, it nicely kicked off this year’s complaints about a war on Christmas, and even if our attention has been subverted by terrorism around the world, this controversy signifies a growing concern that religion is increasingly so unpopular that is no longer commercial, unless thoroughly watered down.

I do not dismiss those who feel their most important holiday is increasingly secularized, reduced to inclusion with “the holidays,” Santa Claus obfuscating Jesus and sales at the mega-mall overshadowing spirituality and prayer.

America is increasingly diverse but still overwhelmingly Christian, and Christmas is the only religious observance recognized as a national holiday.

However, the Pew Research Center’s poll on religion and public life, released in May, found that Unaffiliated is the fastest growing faith (or lack thereof) in the U.S., at 22.8 percent second to Evangelical Protestants, and just above Catholics. Those identifying as unattached to any particular denomination (which does not necessarily make them atheists) grew by 6.7 percent since 2007. Catholic affiliation dropped 3.1 percent and mainline Protestantism dropped 3.4 percent in that time. Even Evangelicals shrank slightly, 0.9 percent.

The coffee cup change would barely be noticed if not for the larger sense that not just Christianity but all religion is under attack in some form.

Outside of the feel-good Christmas season, when those doing good deeds are likely to be highlighted, religion in the news the rest of the year it is almost always in a negative context: corruption or sexual abuse by a clergy member, intolerant acts or statements by people in the name of religion, and of course, violent terror attacks in the name of fundamentalist Islam. Headline writers seem to delight in them.

When religion is displayed in pop culture, more often than not it’s a comedic turn (Seinfeld’s Festivus) or perhaps “torn from the headlines” depictions of religious misdeeds or silliness. This year, Seth Rogen vomiting in a church while wearing a Chanukah sweater may be the most memorable image of the holiday movie season.

We will never stop investing as a result of Wall Street scandals, or marrying as a result of prominent adultery and divorces, but somehow we are quick to give up on religion because we keep hearing about misbehaving clergy.

Every faith has its bad apples, as do atheists. But the fact is, no one goes around the world to fight AIDS or Ebola or dig wells or save children, or respond to disasters in the proud name of atheism. Faith-based groups do so routinely.

Members of the Jewish faith who observe rituals and customs that are strange to others typically do not face open scorn, per se, in media and pop culture.

Nevertheless, they often find themselves under a media microscope, with articles, books, films and TV news shows making them objects of curiosity, displayed for gentiles with anthropological commentary.

At the same time, calls for inclusion and recognition of diversity from the left seem much more inclined toward watering down anything religious in the public sphere, rather than increasing recognition of the symbols of multiple faiths.

That’s why those offended by the generic “Happy Holidays” and the Starbucks cups worry about a slippery slope.

Next thing you know Christmas is an optional work holiday, In God We Trust comes off the currency, the President is forbidden from using the Bible for his oath of office, and houses of worship lose their tax exempt status, all sacrificed on the altar of the ascendant Unaffiliated tribe.

We’re a long way from that point, but we do need more tolerance of religion and recognition of what it means in a positive way for millions of American individuals and families.

Yielding to pressure, Starbucks may well come up with an appeasing Christmas cup (although they seem to be ignoring pressure to open stores in Israel, which is another story).

But I’d rather see the coffee giant invest in printing up Yuletide, Chanukah, Kwanzaa and other cups to choose from, along with a plain one for the unaffiliated. This would be welcome corporate recognition that diversity does not mean bland secularism and “holidays-ism.”

And it would send a nice message that being proud of identity, faith and country all meld nicely together, and can be just as American as an overpriced macchiato.

Originally Published on: The Huffington Post

Modesty Is Not Bigotry

By: Eli Verschleiser

A society should be judged by how well we treat the vulnerable and minorities in our midst.

But society must also be judged by how we balance the rights of all people to coexist together. Reasonable accommodation for some should never amount to violation of the rights of others.

When it comes to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, change is happening quickly and, post legalization of same-sex marriage, in an almost cascade effect. We must be cautious of the road ahead to maintain that balance.

The transgender flag. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

When it comes to the accommodation of religious observance, for example, now required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and similar legislation, a worker who wants to observe holidays or wear religious garb must be accommodated reasonably up until a point where an employer can demonstrate that such accommodation poses undue hardship to the business despite attempts to compromise.

The Americans for Disability Act also has exemptions for changing infrastructure or service provision if it poses undue hardship to a facility.

But when it comes to fully accommodating youth who identify as transgender, not only must accommodation be immediate and absolute, but it can be imposed not by carefully crafted legislation, but by the fiat of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

In ordering that an Illinois school district must not dare to interfere with a biological boy’s unfettered access to the girls’ locker room, this office of appointed officials has set a precedent for every school in the United States.

And it will have far reaching implications. Already several other similar cases have arisen.

What is most striking about these controversies, from my point of view, is the tolerance gap.

By all accounts, school officials and students have proven sympathetic to the transgender student, while seeking reasonable accommodation. The unnamed student in the Illinois case was offered a private area to change to avoid the apparently unbearable scenario of having to use the boys’ locker room, while still protecting the girls’ privacy.

That led to the civil rights complaint, with the ruling declaring that this accommodation violates the transgender student’s rights – despite the fact that no one questioned the student’s orientation or pointed the student back to the male locker room.

A similar case became more heated, in the small town of Hillsboro, Missouri, where Lila Perry, born male but now identifying as female, has insisted on using the girls’ locker room for gym class. A large number of students, male and female, staged a walk-out protest against such an accommodation.

Hillsboro also offered a private changing area, which Lila refused.

Numerous students and parents interviewed said they did not question the sincerity of Lila’s identification as a girl. They just wanted their feelings to be taken into account in the matter.

One astute Hillsboro high school senior, Sydney Dye, told CNN: “Some girls already have insecurity problems getting dressed in front of other girls as it is, much less having to get dressed in front of a boy."

But Lila wasn’t having any of it, blanket accusing every last one of the student protesters and their parent supporters as bigots: “I don’t believe for a second that they are [uncomfortable]. I think this is pure and simple bigotry. I wasn’t hurting anyone and I didn’t want to feel segregated out.”

And so we are enmeshed in a rather sudden national debate about whether one’s desire for locker rooms and bathrooms to be segregated according to biological gender is akin to hating gays, people of color, Jews or immigrants.

I suspect that even a majority of liberals won’t get caught in that trap. As many commentators pointed out, voters in Houston, a city that heavily supported Barack Obama and elected a lesbian mayor three times, recently defeated an ordinance that included allowing transgender people to use whatever public bathroom they wish.

In the absence of written laws on this subject, or a uniform definition of a transgender student, school officials are left in the unenviable position of trying to find the wisdom of Solomon in these cases and, if they’re lucky, avoid getting sued or federally de-funded.

The only solution that will satisfy everyone involved is a redefinition of the contemporary bathroom and locker room. Public men’s and women’s rooms will eventually give way to banks of private cubicles and stall showers that allow privacy for everyone, similar to what is being done in private health clubs. This is especially important in schools. Equal rights means equal privacy for those who want it.

Only in that way, in today’s cascade of political correctness and bureaucratic redefinition of discrimination, can a girl be spared the dual indignities of being forced to shower with a boy at school, and being labeled a bigot for her discomfort.

Originally Published: The Algemeiner

Israel’s Iron Dome Supporters Deserve Our Thanks

gettyimages -  Israel Iron Dome

By: Eli Verschleiser

Congress understands that stopping anti-Israel rocket attacks saves lives on both sides of the conflict.

Imagine going to bed worried that an alert will go off in the middle of the night and you’ll have to gather up your family and scramble to a shelter.

Imagine sending your kids off to school worrying about their safety from airborne threats on the way, and when they get there. Imagine living through air raid alerts on a regular basis, huddled in your sealed room, wondering if, should destruction rain down from the skies, your shelter will be strong enough to protect you from harm.

Imagine shopping for a home or apartment and, in addition to price and location, needing to ask about a panic room.

Millions of Israelis don’t have to imagine this scenario. Whether Jewish, Arab or Christian – rockets can’t discriminate- this is their reality day to day: In the south, rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza; In the North, from Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the center of Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey, safety is relative as rockets with increasing sophistication and power project terror at longer and longer ranges.

So far in 2015, there have been 23 rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, most recently on Oct. 21, when a projectile landed in Sh’ar Hanegev. Last year, which included the summer conflict that started Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, the number was 4,005, resulting in 8 deaths, 60 injuries and 1,663 Palestinians killed in counterstrikes.

Striking back at the launch sites doesn’t solve the problem. Had Gazans applied the same devotion to productive endeavors like agriculture and tourism as they do toward bloodthirsty rocketry, the area would be thriving today, rather than the blockaded ruin.

The situation would be far worse for both sides if not for the technology of Iron Dome, shared by Israelis and the United States. The ability to track rockets as they launch, calculate their trajectory and eliminate the most dangerous projectiles saves lives, likely many thousands of them. When rockets do not reach their intended targets, Israelis are the obvious beneficiaries, but innocent Palestinians are spared the threat of collateral damage from a counter strike that would be tactically necessary after any lethal attack.

Members of the United States Congress understand this and since 2009 have consistently voted to increase funding for this technology. It should be a political no-brainer. No matter where you stand on Israel’s politics and policies, decent people and particularly leaders should agree that everyone has a right not to blown up by a rocket.

Moreover, it serves the higher purpose of the Israeli Palestinian peace process (such as it is) to decrease the incentive and effectiveness of this senseless violence. Whether Hamas and Hezbollah will one day realize the futility of this strategy is anyone’s guess, but it’s our sacred obligation to send that message.

That is why I am proud to be a part of the Congressional Tribute honoring standout members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have supported Iron Dome – with up to $371.2 million in this year’s Defense Authorization bill. The honorees are Ed Royce (R-CA) , Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa; Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces; Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee; Ted Deutch (D-FL), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa; Hal Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Peter Roskam (R-IL), Co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus; Eliot Engel (D-NY) Ranking Member of Foreign Affairs Committee; Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Investment in Iron Dome has never been more important, given our lack of leadership in the Middle East that has created a dangerous void easily filled by Isis on one side and the Russians on the other. With billions of post-sanction dollars flowing into Iran courtesy of the nuclear deal, Iran may well increase their own investment in Hezbollah in the form of upgraded weapons.

Those same weapons could easily make their way south to Gaza. With anti-Jewish bloodlust on the rise in Israel, missiles may, God forbid, soon become the new knives. And how long before they get their hands on biological or radioactive payloads?

All the more reason to keep close tabs on your representatives and senators. Thank them if they have already boosted Iron Dome. If not, ask them to close their eyes and picture themselves dashing to one of those sealed rooms in the middle of the night as a piercing siren sounds.

Originally Published: The Observer

All Lives Matter

By: Eli Verschleiser

It’s heartbreaking to see a movement in 2015 based on the slogan Black Lives Matter. It seems a throwback to the days of the civil rights struggle in the 60s. Fundamental truths should never have to be asserted through slogans.

It’s equally alarming when the president of the United States feels compelled to say, as Barack Obama did last week, that “Targeting police officers is completely unacceptable — an affront to civilized society.” Does any rational person believe otherwise?

Modern America is an overwhelmingly tolerant and sensitive society, with better rights and protections for all than any other country, but we still somehow manage to seem like a balkanized, deeply divided place.

The most disturbing phenomenon of all is what seems like a back-and-forth between Black Lives Matter and Police Lives Matter camps. This takes on a more volatile tone after a white cop in Texas was shot by a black suspect, possibly having been targeted just because of his uniform. He leaves behind a wife and two small children. A similar incident happened in New York City late last year, leaving two victims.

There have, of course, been numerous incidents in the past year or so involving black suspects or detainees who have died at the hands of police, some resulting in charges against the officers, others bringing no action and some still under investigation. I will not delve into any of these highly emotionally charged cases, several involving video extensively aired before the public.

I will only say that it’s important to study each case individually – the circumstances, the people involved on both sides of the altercation, the timing and every conceivable detail. They should not automatically fall into a narrative that cops view any life as less precious because of race.

It’s important to consider that police officers simply do not inhabit the same world and think the same as civilians who are never called upon to risk their lives. It’s easy to expect them to always calmly and rationally make decisions in a split second as if they had hours to contemplate their response and consult with others, as most of us generally have the luxury of doing in matters of far less consequence. People in dangerous situations can sometimes act in ways completely inconsistent with their usual character, including cops when they perceive their lives to be in danger.

What may not appear to be a life threatening situation in the calm viewing of a video appears completely different to the officer who carries a photo of his family, or a prayer, inside his hat and leaves the house every day fearful that he or she will not make it back.

This, of course, is not a blanket excuse for the behavior of all cops. Stress and danger come with the territory. But just as it would be wrong to assume all cops involved violent encounters with black suspects, detainees or innocent bystanders are inherently racist, it would be just as foolish to assume that this is never the case.

There are people who become cops for the wrong reason – drawn to power and authority for its own sake, not as a means to an altruistic end. There are good cops influenced by bad superiors or peers. And there are cops who grow up with bad perceptions of minorities -- influenced to some extent by selective news coverage, pop culture and lack of personal experience -- who never shake off their biases. It’s also important to recognize that bad cops aren’t inherently white, as black officers have recently been charged in violence against black suspects, notably in the Baltimore Freddy Gray case.

Better training and increasingly diverse police forces may, in the long term, address some of the biases and public scrutiny will inevitably force cops to be more conscious of street confrontations, how they respond to them and which ones may be unnecessary in the first place. (Do untaxed cigarettes really warrant an armed task force?)

Body cameras, already being phased in in Dallas and Los Angeles, will likely one day be standard issue along with the gun and badge. I worry that this technology, while it stands to benefit cops by vindicating their actions in some situations, can have a detrimental effect in causing hesitation to get involved in avoidable situations for fear of making a bad call and having it immortalized.

Technology can make a better contribution: Non-lethal weapons -- which can range from Tasers (already widely in use) to blunt-force projectile guns, chemical agents and even flashing, disorienting light -- have the power to immobilize a civilian and put a quick end to a confrontation without the mortal consequences.

Cops should still carry conventional guns to match force with force when needed, but the non-lethal option could greatly reduce the number of police-related fatalities while still getting criminals off the street and into custody. And, there’s a margin of error that can result in lawsuits, but not funerals.

At the end of the day, it’s important for us all to avoid being dragged into opposing camps, but instead stand behind the single most timely slogan: All Lives Matter.

Lewd Awakening: Clean Up Times Square by Taxing Naked Nuisances

By: Eli Verschleiser

When I was growing up, Times Square was a seedy place full of adult movie theaters, greasy fast food joints, video game arcades and souvenir shops that – open secret -- also made and sold fake IDs.

In the early 90s, started under Mayor David Dinkins and continued under his successor Rudy Giuliani, the makeover began and all those mom and pop businesses were swept away, replaced by big chain stores and restaurants and media headquarters for Reuters, MTV, ABC and Conde Nast.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg took the beautification a step further in his reign, sealing off a large section of Broadway to traffic and creating a place for tourists to dine, hang out between shopping and matinees and take in the view and excitement from the Crossroads of the World.

Now, the Square is once again in danger of becoming the kind of place you can’t take your kids. It started with the aggressive panhandlers in Elmo costumes, some of whom have displayed unstable and even violent behavior. But even when they behave it’s a nuisance to traverse the area when every four feet a costumed character wants to snap a picture with you for a buck. Mayor Bloomberg wisely recognized the legal reality that you can’t stop people from free commerce or dressing any way they please, and pretty much left the situation alone.

Now comes the scantily clad women who make Vegas showgirls look overdressed. Perhaps inspired by the novelty of the Naked Cowboy, who has been raking in the dough for years (not in fact fully naked), an influx of entrepreneurial women are taking advantage of a 1992 state court decision that there is no fundamental difference between a man or women going shirtless in public. Parents of small children who feel otherwise may enter the area at their own risk.

It’s not just a matter of protecting young eyes. One of the women was reportedly arrested on Sept. 2 on drug and prostitution charges hours after a man accused two others of stealing his wallet. With complaints pouring into City Hall, Mayor Bill de Blasio has decried the situation and even put together a task force to address the problem.

Good luck. Since they are breaking no law, any effort to remove or restrict the women or their overdressed Muppet or superhero counterparts will land the city in court, bringing us back to the days when Mayor Giuliani frequently fought losing battles with civil liberties groups. The women can easily declare themselves performance artists and invoke their Constitutional right to free speech, commerce and assembly.

Bill de Blasio may also see fit to reopen the Square to traffic and let cabs and buses do his dirty work.

But there’s a better way to address the problem: Let them work. But make it expensive. After all, the main appeal of this kind of work is the low overhead.

As we know all too well, the city can tax and regulate almost anything it wants. It already taxes hotels, taxis and street vendors. What if the performers had to get on waiting list for a limited number of permits, with a fee and taxes? Every street vendor in NYC does.

Right now the performance artists are only subject to personal income tax on their earnings. To get their permit renewed, they’d have to show they met their tax obligations.

Bill de Blasio and City Council should earmark the proceeds for specific and related purposes. How about paying for the increased sanitation and police service necessitated by the upswing in tourist activity thanks to these performance artists.

My City Council sources tell me there is no reason this scenario can’t happen. All it would take is appropriate legislation, required registration of the vendors/artists/panhandlers or whatever you want to call them, and then collection. So instead of cops chasing them away or sticking them in penned off areas, the city could just send a team of tax collectors to make sure everyone is paying their share.

Shave 20 percent off the day’s cash earnings, and I can almost guarantee you this pesky population of performers will trickle down in no time. Here’s a chance for bureaucracy to improve quality of life, for a change.

This won’t happen any time soon, since nothing gets passed in City Hall without vigorous debate (as it should be), a bunch of partisan bickering and obstruction and perhaps a lawsuit or two. (Remember, Bloomberg couldn’t quite get his soda ban passed.)

But in the interim there is one unstoppable force waiting in the wings in the coming months that is guaranteed, at least for the short term, to remove the naked nuisance from Times Square and bring some modesty back.

Its called winter.

Originally Published: The Huffington Post

Israel and its Sunni Partners - Should Israel and its Arab neighbors form an alliance ?

By: Eli Verschleiser

Could a nuclear deal with Iran accomplish more than decades of diplomacy in the Middle East and, rather ironically, create new alliances between Israel and Arab neighbors?

That’s a key question as we gear up for the battle on Capitol Hill over President Barack Obama’s controversial pact with Tehran to limit uranium enrichment in return for lifting of sanctions. Critics say the agreement paves the way for a double reward of Tehran— a huge influx of cash and an eventual, unfettered path toward nuclear arms.

Neither the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, nor the United Arab Emirates or for that matter any of the other Persian Gulf states are too excited about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The role of Iran in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and the rise of Islamic State terror and the Muslim Brotherhood, have become a much bigger problem for Arab leaders than the tired conflict with Israel. Those countries have a Sunni majority, while Persian Iran is led by rival Shia Muslims.

Iran, of course, is also a major oil rival for the Gulf States and became more powerful following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The Saudis have been publicly moderate on the deal but said to be privately angry over it. Epitomizing the old Middle East adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Saudis were reported to have offered Israel the ability to use their airspace to strike at Iran. This is a crucial step in keeping a military option on the table as it would save time and fuel if such a strike were necessary. “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official was quoted as saying in an Israeli TV report.

Clearly momentum for alignment with Israel in some form is building.

“To all those who think the Persian state, and the regime of the Rule of the Imprudent… the dictatorial fascist Persian regime which controls it, is a friendly country, whereas Israel is an enemy country, I say that a prudent enemy is better than an imprudent one.”

Those words were written by Abdallah Al-Hadlaq in the official newspaper of Kuwait, Al-Watan.

It is not the first time the author has expressed support for ties with Israel. As far back as 2009 he called on his government and other Gulf states to put aside their differences with Jerusalem and forge an alliance against Iran.

But the fact that his column was published in a government daily in a country without full press freedom speaks volumes.

“The state of Israel and its various governments have waged more than five wars with the Arabs, yet never in the course of these wars did Israel think to use its nuclear weapons against its Arab enemies,” Al-Hadlaq wrote. “Conversely, if the Persian state, with its stupid, rash and fascist regime that hides behind a religious guise, ever develops nuclear weapons, it will not hesitate to use nuclear bombs against the Arab Gulf states in the first conflict that arises.”

Were the Saudis to show leadership in rallying other Sunni-led states against Iran it could have a significant impact on a new order in the Middle East.

Furthermore the new coalition could collectively work wonders to get rid of ISIS, as Jordan’s King Abdullah recently declared in a CNN interview that the war against ISIS ‘is our war’. The Iranian nuclear threat and the ISIS threat can top the agenda in this new coalition.

“Iran does have enough politico-military and economic potential to counter-balance Saudi led “Sunni” states in the Middle East and beyond,” wrote Salman Rafi Sheikh in an essay for the magazine Eastern Outlook last March. “It is precisely for this very reason that Saudi Arabia’s anxiety about an agreement has fueled a flurry of intense diplomacy in recent days to bolster unity among “Sunni” states in the Middle East in the face of “shared threats”, especially those emanating from Iran.”

Rafi Sheikh, a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, noted that “this deal is most likely to send political jolts across the entire Middle Eastern political landscape, with Saudi Arabia and Israel standing as the most sensitive areas to bear its shocks; and as such, are most likely to clutch their hands into an alliance against Iran, and by default, against the US ambitions as well.”

There is great potential for Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to rally Gulf states as well as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to stand up to an Iran that will only become more emboldened with the huge influx of post-sanctions billions and new political bona-fides that will make Tehran bolder.

Increased security cooperation as Iran bides its time for an eventual bomb --after the agreement period, or in the worst-case scenario, in violation of the agreement -- may eventually lead to more nuclear proliferation in the region.

Will that mean a nuclear pact between Israel and its former enemies? That will be a fascinating development that could never have been imagined even a decade ago.

And it will truly be a sad irony if, after nearly 70 years of a solid relationship between the United States and Israel, the Jewish state had to turn to despotic regimes with little or no human rights to solidify its security position, feeling far less than confident that Washington has its back than it has in the past.

However this may simply be the beginning of an Arabic Israeli accord where both groups can begin to understand and accept each other.

Originally Published: The Hill