Diplomacy
Prof. Doster outlines strategic limits of US and Israeli campaigns on Iran
The strategic shifts within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the historical balance governing Turkish-Russian relations, and the compounding geopolitical pressures confronting the US and Israeli leaderships in the Middle East formed the central themes of an extensive interview conducted by Dr Elif İlhamoğlu with Professor Dr Barış Doster, a senior academic in international relations, on the Harici digital broadcast network.
Dr İlhamoğlu opened the discussion by noting the leaders’ summit of the SCO convened in Bishkek, observing that the gathering had not received the attention it deserved in Western media despite the attendance of major global figures, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Setting the context of the proceedings scheduled to run through 3 September, Dr İlhamoğlu reviewed the opening statements delivered by the leaders. President Erdogan characterised the SCO as an indispensable component of a multipolar order and issued a call for a more equitable international system. President Putin affirmed that Russia would exert every effort to eliminate elements that provoke armed conflict. President Xi urged the implementation of global initiatives, particularly promoting Chinese-led frameworks such as the Global Security Initiative to establish a just and peaceful order. Prime Minister Modi appealed for an end to endless wars. Dr İlhamoğlu then asked Prof. Doster how he evaluated the summit and what expectations should be drawn from it.
“The SCO proves its self-confidence by admitting rivals”
Prof. Doster stressed the institutional maturity and growing significance of the organisation, charting its historical trajectory:
“First of all, this summit is positive and important. If we date it from 1996, from the Shanghai Five, that makes 30 years. If we date it from its transformation into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2001, because initially it was five members—the Shanghai Five under the leadership of Russia and China, along with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan—and in 2001 Uzbekistan joined, leading them to rename the Shanghai Five as a cooperation organisation, that makes 25 years from 2001. Now, whether one counts a quarter-century or 30 years from 1996, this represents an important process in terms of institutionalisation. It is an important period for taking stock, for self-criticism regarding what was achieved, how it was done, and what could not be achieved and why.”
Prof. Doster underscored the complex internal dynamics of the expanding bloc, which grew from five to six, then to eight with India and Pakistan, and subsequently to ten members with the accession of Iran and Belarus:
“Among the members, geography is expanding, but there are also differences in scale. The number of members is increasing—from five to six, from six to eight, from eight to ten. However, there are also differences in expectations, interests, threat perceptions, and priorities. Not all members enjoy sweet and harmonious relations. Among the members are states with serious mutual rivalries, such as India and Pakistan, who were admitted simultaneously. Then comes Iran, a state currently locked in struggle with the US and Israel in the Middle East.
“What does this show? It demonstrates that as the organisation institutionalises, expands, and diversifies its membership, and as large disparities in scale emerge among its members, it asserts a major ambition and seeks to demonstrate self-confidence by incorporating members that have serious disputes between them. The founders and leaders of the SCO, foremost among them Russia and China, are saying: ‘Look, who wanted India’s membership most? Russia. Who wanted Pakistan’s most? China.’ But by simultaneously admitting two nuclear-armed states that experience severe tensions, particularly the Kashmir dispute, and which have been on the verge of hot conflict, they are asserting an ambition. They are saying, ‘We can resolve the problems between these two members within the framework of the Shanghai spirit by admitting them on the exact same day; we have confidence in ourselves.’ They want to convey this message.”
Prof. Doster rejected characterisations equating the SCO to a Eurasian counterpart to NATO:
“Is this important? Naturally, it is important. Is it important for a multipolar world? Yes. Is it important for the evolution of an organisation? Yes. For instance, many of our colleagues argue that this organisation is a ‘Eurasian NATO’. I do not agree with that view. NATO is an organisation established in a different geography, under different regimes, within a different global context, and under the leadership of a different state. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, by contrast, is the product of another geography, other leading major powers, and a completely different international climate.
“One emerged at the onset of the Cold War; the other was established after the Cold War had ended. One is explicitly an Atlantic alliance, the North Atlantic alliance; the other is the Shanghai Cooperation, with a distinctly Eurasian weight. One is an organisation of regimes that prioritise liberal values and capitalism, such as democracy, human rights, freedom, and the rule of law, emerging from a context similar to the IMF, the World Bank, and the European Union. The other belongs to a climate and era marked by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the socialist and communist bloc, the relegation of the Warsaw Pact to history, and the downfall of the Eastern Bloc. Who is the founder and master of the former? The US. In the latter, Russia and China hold primacy.”
He observed that the perspectives of Moscow and Beijing within the SCO have converged over time:
“Initially, their expectations differed. While Russia viewed the Shanghai Five and subsequently the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation through the prism of separatism, extremism, crime, and border issues, China approached it more from a trade-oriented perspective. With new accessions, these perspectives multiplied, diversified, and began to harmonise. Today we see Russia moving closer to China on commercial matters, and China moving closer to Russia on security issues. The structure takes into account the concerns, threat definitions, priorities, and interests of new members. Its secretariat, its institutionalisation, and its dialogue partners have matured accordingly.”
Prof. Doster situated the SCO alongside the BRICS platform and the Belt and Road Initiative as drivers of a broader systemic shift:
“BRICS is a different structure—it is a platform rather than an institutional mechanism with a permanent secretariat in the conventional sense. If we add the Belt and Road Initiative, also spearheaded by China, this diversification is beneficial for the transition toward global multipolarity and for the Global South, or the Third World, a term I personally favour. As our great liberator and leader Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the great Ataturk, defined it, the proliferation and diversification of organisations that belong to, support, and empower oppressed nations is positive both for checking, restraining, and slowing imperialism, and for advancing multipolarity.
“This holds an added advantage for countries like Türkiye. For states defined as middle powers, as well as for smaller, less powerful nations, a multipolar system is beneficial because it expands their alternatives and strategic options.”
Dr İlhamoğlu noted the structural contrast between the two blocs, observing that if the US were removed from NATO, the alliance would face dissolution, whereas the SCO embeds multipolarity into its governance.
“NATO has operated as an instrument of US imperialism”
Prof. Doster elaborated on the structural divergences separating NATO and the SCO, reiterating his analytical critique:
“NATO has 32 members, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has 10. Look at NATO’s structure when it was founded, and look at the geography across which it expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union by rapidly absorbing former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact members. Are they the same? Certainly not. In the Black Sea, Türkiye joined NATO in 1952, followed later by Bulgaria and Romania. If they had the capacity, they would seek to include Ukraine and Georgia as well. The most recent two members are Sweden and Finland.
“Consider the geography of NATO’s expansion versus the geography of its founding. Look at its political economy, and examine what NATO signifies for the US arms industry. Then compare that to the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the states it incorporated during its expansion. There is an immense divide between them. Because of the historical context, the time frame, the domestic regimes of the member states, and their numbers, they cannot easily be compared.
“Alliances typically form around common denominators: liberal regimes sharing values like democracy, human rights, and the rule of law; shared threat perceptions; geographic proximity; and shared interests. When we look at NATO from its inception, including during the period following the September 11 terrorist attacks when its famous Article 5 was invoked, it has functioned according to the priorities of US imperialism and served as an instrument of aggression and occupation for US imperialism. Comparing NATO, founded in 1949 and now comprising 32 members, expanding despite assurances given to the Russians, with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation shows that these structures are not comparable.”
Dr İlhamoğlu turned to bilateral diplomacy on the summit margins, highlighting the meeting between President Erdogan and President Putin. President Erdogan stated that Türkiye-Russia relations were far more advanced than ever, while President Putin described Türkiye as remaining one of Russia’s privileged partners in foreign policy and economics. Both leaders indicated that the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant project had reached its final stage and signalled potential new joint ventures. Dr İlhamoğlu asked Prof. Doster how he assessed bilateral ties, taking into account past tensions such as the S-400 dispute and recent developments in the Black Sea regarding attacks on Turkish commercial vessels.
“Ankara and Moscow know their ties must not be severed”
Prof. Doster framed Turkish-Russian relations within an enduring historical and institutional continuum:
“Whatever the political leaderships governing these countries or their political-economic preferences may be, relations between the two countries represent the ties of two great civilisations that are the heirs of empires, possess profound state traditions, and constitute two great nations. Whether Türkiye produces centre-right, centre-left, political Islamist, or nationalist traditions, and whether it is the era of Menderes, Demirel, Ozal, Erdogan, or Ecevit, Türkiye views the Soviet Union and its successor, Russia, through a historical lens. Moscow looks at Ankara through the exact same prism.
“The periods when bilateral relations peaked were the founding eras of both modern states. The Great Soviet Revolution, the October Revolution of 1917, overthrew the empire, bringing the Bolsheviks under Lenin to power. In Türkiye, under our great liberator Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk, the National War of Independence took place, dismantling an empire as well. These two historical processes, which formed the subject of my doctoral dissertation, occurred concurrently through war and revolution following the dissolution of empires, and both possessed an anti-imperialist character, particularly against Britain. The Russians knew the Turks would not become communists, yet Lenin recognised Mustafa Kemal as a brilliant leader fighting the British and resolved to support him.”
He reviewed the long historical trajectory spanning the Ottoman and Romanov empires:
“Prior to that, two empires—the House of Osman and the Romanovs—fought, competed, and struggled. Over roughly the past century, the Russians changed their name three times and changed their regime three times: Tsarist Russia collapsed and was replaced through war and revolution by a communist regime under the Bolsheviks; the USSR collapsed in December 1991, leading to the Russian Federation with a semi-presidential system and a rapid transition to capitalism. Yet did this diminish the weight of the Russians on the world stage, their qualified human capital, their diplomatic ambition, or their historical pursuit of access to warm seas? It did not.
“The periods when our relations with Russia were strongest coincided with times when centrist political cadres governed Türkiye, such as the Demirel and Ozal eras. The Turkish construction sector carried out its successful African projects in Libya, while to the north it executed major projects across Russia, the Soviet Union, and Moscow. When this historical memory is kept in view, commercial relations, Russian tourism to Türkiye, our grain purchases—which President Erdogan also emphasised—and our defence acquisitions all fit within this perspective.”
Prof. Doster addressed acute diplomatic crises in recent years, noting how structural pragmatism prevailed:
“Under the Justice and Development Party, severe problems were experienced with Russia. We shot down their aircraft, which was a first in the history of a NATO member state. Subsequently, their ambassador was assassinated in Ankara, an incident that 300 years ago would have constituted a casus belli. Yet both states acted with great restraint.
“Naturally, there exists what we term a historical and balanced tension, a historical and balanced rivalry between them. They hold differing views on Central Asia, diverging positions on Chechnya, and disagreements over Ukraine—even as Türkiye relies on the Montreux Convention, one of the brilliant achievements of Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Disagreements persist regarding Crimea, over influence in the Caucasus, and President Putin has likely made a note of the S-400 issue.
“Nevertheless, no matter how strained relations become, both capitals understand that ties must not be broken or allowed to deteriorate into unmanageable phases. They value mutual friendship geographically, historically, politically, and economically. Russia is consistently one of Türkiye’s top three foreign trade partners, alongside Germany within the EU and China. We import grain, natural gas, and petroleum from Russia, and welcome large numbers of Russian tourists, while exporting fruits and vegetables to Russia and undertaking construction projects there.
“Taking all these factors together, Türkiye is a NATO member, and a loyal one, which Russia understands. However, Russia positions Türkiye in a distinct category. While they would not admit a NATO member to the SCO, they recognise Türkiye as a significant actor that experiences friction within NATO, and they position it accordingly.”
Dr İlhamoğlu turned to the intersection of ongoing armed conflicts and electoral politics. She pointed to the upcoming November midterm elections in the US amid the war involving Iran, where President Donald Trump has altered his rhetoric and actions to mitigate potential electoral damage. Similarly, in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces domestic instability and risks losing partial US support, drawing criticism. Dr İlhamoğlu asked how leaders are managing the dynamic between warfare and election campaigns.
“Netanyahu cannot defeat Iran without US troops in combat”
Prof. Doster analysed the domestic political vulnerabilities confronting the US and Israeli leaderships:
“From the US perspective, oil prices driven by volatile conditions in the Strait of Hormuz represent a clear vulnerability for Trump. Having lived in the US, I know that ordinary citizens are not ideological in the way we are, but they care deeply about the price of fuel for their cars. Furthermore, the midterm elections take place in November. In US political science terminology, if a president loses, he becomes a lame duck for the remaining two years, a weak president. Therefore, ahead of November, Trump requires a foreign policy or military achievement that can be presented effectively at home and abroad.
“However, such an outcome is not achievable regarding Iran. The US has not defeated Iran militarily. Despite rhetoric claiming Iran had two, three, or twenty-four hours left, events demonstrated otherwise. In fact, stockpiles of expensive missiles and rockets produced by the US defence industry have been depleted. Politically, no objective was secured; the regime was not changed, and the combat capability and resolve of the Iranian armed forces, the Revolutionary Guard, and other armed formations were not broken. On the contrary, the Iranian nation, including opponents of the regime, set domestic opposition aside to rally behind their state. Trump did not achieve his aims in Hormuz, and there is no indication that conditions will shift to his desired scale before November.”
Turning to Israel, Prof. Doster assessed the strategic limits of its military operations against Tehran:
“What has become evident is that even with complete US backing, Israel cannot defeat Iran on the battlefield if the US itself is not fighting directly. Israel received US funds, weapons, intelligence, foreign policy backing, financial support, munitions, artillery, missiles, and radar systems. Yet if US combat aircraft are not bombing Tehran, Israel cannot defeat Iran on the battlefield alone. Furthermore, Iran demonstrated that through the range, technology, and cost efficiency of its missiles and radar systems, it could carry out highly effective counter-strikes and penetrate Israel’s defensive domes.
“This constitutes Netanyahu’s vulnerability. During periods of war and armed conflict, security-driven policies typically gain traction among electorates as concerns over physical survival rise. Netanyahu argues that Arabs and Iran are hostile and claims the public must unite behind him. Yet he and his spouse face documented charges; he is being tried for genocide at international courts and faces severe domestic corruption allegations. He attempts to suppress these issues by claiming the country faces an existential threat.
“However, he cannot convince the Israeli public as easily as before. If his primary opponent were a liberal figure, Netanyahu might find it easier to persuade the electorate on security grounds. But his strongest opponent is a former Chief of General Staff. Netanyahu cannot credibly claim that a former Chief of General Staff is an overly peaceful figure sympathetic to Arabs or Iran. On matters of security, existential threats, and armed conflict, his rival possesses professional training and military expertise far exceeding Netanyahu’s.
“This places severe pressure on Netanyahu. Israeli voters sympathetic to hardline policies who perceive Netanyahu as ineffective look toward the former military chief. Open sources indicate significant losses for the Israeli military, depletion among reserve units, and severe psychological trauma among returning soldiers. When critics argue that Netanyahu has failed to wage the war effectively, they direct their support toward a former Chief of General Staff rather than leftist or Marxist candidates.”
Dr İlhamoğlu observed that following the inability to achieve a military breakthrough against Iran, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had initially signalled the implementation of unprecedented sanctions targeting Iran and third-party facilitators, including Chinese banks. However, after extensive media buildup, no sweeping measures were enacted, with Bessent citing the risk of triggering a global economic crisis. Dr İlhamoğlu noted that analysts pointed to ongoing US-China negotiations and a projected reciprocal visit by President Xi Jinping to the US in late September as factors restraining Washington, and asked Prof. Doster for his appraisal.
“US tariff measures against China have acted like a boomerang”
Prof. Doster addressed the broader efficacy of international sanctions and the structural constraints limiting US leverage:
“Having studied the history of sanctions, one sees that sanctions have rarely achieved their stated objectives globally. Since the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, Iran has faced continuous sanctions, blockades, and embargoes. Iran has suffered strain, economic exhaustion, brain drain, periods lacking basic goods, and technological impediments, but it has not surrendered. Sanctions are likewise imposed on North Korea and Cuba, yet none of these states have been brought to their knees. In certain instances, countries transform sanctions into national mobilisation, achieving domestic breakthroughs in targeted sectors and technology.
“Regarding diplomacy, Trump frequently refers to foreign leaders as personal friends—including the leader of North Korea, President Putin, President Erdogan, President Xi, Egyptian President Sisi, and Ahmad al-Sharaa. He is exceptionally generous with such characterisations.
“More importantly, Iran possesses strategic depth supported principally by two major powers: Russia and China. If secondary sanctions are attempted against this rear guard, they will face defiance. Furthermore, when trade tariffs on China were raised to levels between 15% and 165%, the measures ultimately rebounded against the US itself and its European allies, without hurting China to the degree Washington intended. In accordance with the principle of reciprocity, China responded by introducing proportional tariffs and export restrictions on rare earth elements and critical minerals.
“Having taught in Australia, where the term is widely used, I view this as a boomerang: it struck the US, damaged its European allies, and failed to inflict the intended damage on China. Attempting comprehensive sanctions against the world’s second-largest economy and one of your top three trading partners inevitably causes severe domestic blowback. Consequently, despite aggressive rhetoric and high initial demands, substantive follow-through did not materialise.”
Dr İlhamoğlu concluded by asking whether the US could sustain military operations under prevailing conditions, noting renewed strikes in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian retaliatory strikes on US bases, Trump’s assertions of harsher retaliation, and reported institutional discord within the Pentagon between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, military commanders, and the resignation of Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll.
“I do not expect sustained strikes against Iranian infrastructure”
Prof. Doster dismissed the prospect of an expanded, sustained US air campaign against Iranian territory:
“To be clear, I do not expect a sustained campaign resembling the 40-day intensive strikes where US and Israeli forces targeted the Iranian mainland, Tehran, nuclear sites, infrastructure, military facilities, and energy installations. Harassment-style strikes or isolated exchanges may occur, but an intensive, uninterrupted 40-day campaign mobilising large numbers of aircraft, missiles, and radar systems against major Iranian infrastructure is unlikely.
“I rule this out not only on military grounds, but also due to economic and financial constraints, alongside depleted US inventories. This assessment is shared by prominent analysts such as John Mearsheimer, an eminent political scientist at the University of Chicago, leading international relations scholar, former military officer, and the pioneer of offensive realism. Mearsheimer articulates these precise constraints. When I make these arguments, domestic critics often attach labels, calling me a nationalist, Kemalist, or Eurasianist. But these realities are documented by leading American realist scholars who understand these military and strategic balances thoroughly.”
US President Donald Trump met leaders from Egypt, the Gulf, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Türkiye on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Trump described the countries represented as “friends, allies, and partners of the United States.” Speaking about peace and prosperity in the Middle East, Trump said:
“It is an honour for me to be here with some of America’s greatest and closest friends, allies, and partners, to continue our efforts towards a safer and more prosperous Middle East. This is a special place, and it has become even more special in the time since I entered politics… I have many great friends sitting at this table. They are all magnificent people, and we are ensuring that their lives go well.”
Adding that every country around the table was “extraordinary”, Trump thanked them for US investments originating from these nations totalling approximately $21 trillion since he took office in January 2025.
In particular, he spoke of his close relationship with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with whom he has forged a close friendship since his first term in office. Thanking Erdoğan, he described him as a “great man” and a “tough cookie”.
The US president also noted that a recent meeting held between US and Iranian representatives had been productive.
Trump observed humorously that the region was filled with high energy, though he noted this sometimes meant “too high energy.”
Trump said there was “great momentum” towards reaching an agreement with Iran. A few hours before this statement, speaking from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly, he had asserted that the US could either make a deal with Tehran or “destroy” it.
In his address of approximately 35 minutes to world leaders earlier on Tuesday, Trump said: “I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that will allow them to rebuild the country and make it much greater than before, perhaps one of the greatest countries in the Middle East or even the world? Or will I destroy the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, without ever giving them the chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”
Stating that the US aims “to completely isolate Iran financially”, Trump added: “I hope they do the right thing quickly before it is too late; you know that one day it will be too late, and we will have no chance left to allow their survival as a nation.”
Trump also addressed Iran’s nuclear programme, stating that preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon remains one of the primary objectives of the US campaign.
Trump continued:
“A large part of what we did, perhaps 99%, was to ensure Iran did not obtain a nuclear weapon; those facilities were blown up. We might have to blow up one more, Mount Kazma. We do not see much activity there, but if we do, we will blow it up immediately.”
Asked by Al-Monitor whether there was a consensus on a roadmap forward, the US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria and Iraq, Tom Barrack, said: “There is a consensus that we need a roadmap forward; that is the only consensus.”
In a separate development, King Abdullah of Jordan told Al-Monitor that the meeting went “very well”.
Asked by a reporter about the meeting with Iran, Witkoff replied: “I feel very good right now.”
Gulf states are attempting to keep diplomatic channels with Iran open while the conflict continues. On Sunday, UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash told Al-Monitor that talks between Washington and Tehran must be accompanied by a parallel regional dialogue.
Gargash said: “We need a new mindset that these kinds of discussions about what kind of region we all want, what kind of stability we pray for, and what core elements of development we need: which are very closely linked to stability: can take place at an Iran-US level, but must also take place at an Iran-Arab level.”
At the UN General Assembly, regional leaders took a sharp line against Israel. King Abdullah II of Jordan highlighted the Palestinian issue during his address at the 81st UN General Assembly in New York, stating that Israel was a “regional threat” acting with “frightening impunity”.
On the opening day of the event, he delivered a passionate speech referencing a “unique moment in history” where “the scale of information and the speed of change are unprecedented.”
The King added: “Every day, a new crisis, a new tragedy, a new emergency arises demanding our attention. Every generation believes that the challenges it faces are unique; perhaps for us, this is true.”
Hussein continued:
“If anyone has any doubt that a crisis in this part of our world will remain confined solely to this region, let them look at the energy and grocery bills of ordinary families from Mumbai to Madrid and Minnesota. The Iran war has demonstrated how quickly instability can disrupt trade, investment, and the lives of people outside the region.”
Recalling that he has warned at the UN for years about the dangers of leaving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict unresolved, the King argued that the international community has chosen to “manage” the conflict rather than confront and resolve it, questioning the value and legitimacy of international law in light of “one of the longest-running occupations in the world.”
The King of Jordan continued:
“If international law can be ignored for decades, then what exactly is the value of this law? And how can we enforce it if we do not even name its violations? In Gaza, the evidence is stark: at least 300 Palestinian children were killed in the first 300 days of the so-called ceasefire.”
The King condemned the Israeli government for “changing the rules”, continuing attacks and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, and refusing to withdraw from the war-torn Palestinian territory.
Stating that Israeli actions in the West Bank must be regarded as a policy of forced displacement, Hussein called on the international community to treat Gaza and the West Bank as integral parts of a single whole belonging to the Palestinian people.
Appearing as a guest on the online programme hosted by American journalist and television presenter Tucker Carlson, political scientist, academic, and author of “The Holocaust Industry” Norman Finkelstein evaluated post-October 7 developments in Gaza, Israel’s military operations, free-speech crises across American universities, and the historical background of Gaza.
Responding to Carlson’s question regarding conditions in Gaza prior to the October 7 actions, Finkelstein stated that the roots of the issue trace back to 1948.
“Gaza became Gaza in 1948”
Explaining that the current demographic structure of the Gaza Strip was shaped by the forced displacement of 1948, Finkelstein said:
“Gaza became Gaza in 1948 as a result of Israel expelling approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs from the lands it incorporated into its borders. Around 300,000 of those 750,000 expelled individuals were sent to Gaza, and this population constituted roughly 80% of Gaza’s inhabitants. The indigenous population was overwhelmed by this massive influx of refugees. At that time, Gaza was part of Mandate Palestine under British rule.”
Finkelstein noted that conditions in the territory, which fell under Egyptian administration after 1948, drew the attention of international observers from the earliest years.
Recalling that United Nations officials serving in Gaza as early as the 1950s explicitly compared the territory to a concentration camp, Finkelstein cited historical accounts from the era:
“In July 1967, Al Gore Sr., then a senator from Tennessee, visited Gaza. Describing what he witnessed upon his return to the US Congress, he characterised Gaza as a concentration camp established on sand. Consequently, this has been the common terminology used by external observers visiting the region since 1948.”
Drawing attention to statements by Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, Finkelstein noted that Eiland does not project a pro-peace profile, continues to advise the current Israeli government, and has publicly stated that he would welcome the outbreak of epidemics in southern Gaza.
Finkelstein continued:
“During a 2004 meeting with senior American officials, Giora Eiland described Gaza as a huge concentration camp. Eiland was an Israeli, a Jew, and head of the Israeli National Security Council. He naturally understood very well the historical gravity of designating a piece of land a concentration camp. The most painful aspect is that those days were Gaza’s best days.”
“A concentration camp kept on the brink of starvation”
Finkelstein recounted that former US President George W. Bush’s administration forced Palestinians into holding elections in 2006 as part of its democracy promotion agenda, noting that Hamas initially hesitated to participate on grounds that it would legitimise the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Hamas won the election backed by public support reacting against corruption within the Palestinian Authority, Finkelstein recalled, citing former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s subsequent remarks expressing regret over the outcome. Observing that former US President Jimmy Carter monitored the process on the ground and described the balloting as completely free and fair, Finkelstein offered the following evaluation:
“Immediately after the elections, Israel, followed by the US and the European Union, imposed an almost medieval blockade on Gaza. Lengthy lists were drafted for items prohibited from entering Gaza. The entry of chocolate, chicks, potato crisps, spices, musical instruments, and notebooks was barred. Official documents were later exposed; they declared that they would keep the population of Gaza at a bare minimum humanitarian nutritional level. This was the diplomatic cover for keeping people living on the edge of starvation. Their objective was to induce the public to overthrow Hamas by keeping Gaza’s economy on the brink of collapse. When Salvador Allende’s government took power in Chile in 1971, the US had said it would make the economy scream. Israel did precisely that in Gaza.”
Finkelstein noted that former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson observed during a 2008 visit that an entire civilisation was being destroyed, adding that prior to October 7, 2023, international bodies had described Gaza as a sinking ship and a toxic slum.
Pointing out that Israel for years termed its recurring military campaigns under the metaphor of mowing the lawn, Finkelstein stressed that this phrase assumes a horrifying dimension in light of the fact that half of Gaza’s population consists of children.
“Targeting children is an indicator of genocide”
Finkelstein described Operation Cast Lead in 2008, Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014 as waves of high-tech slaughter.
Citing former International Committee of the Red Cross President Peter Maurer, who visited the territory following the 2014 assault and stated that he had never in his life seen destruction on the scale present in Gaza, Finkelstein illustrated the gulf between past attacks and the current situation with figures:
“During Operation Protective Edge, 18,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Around 2.5 million tonnes of rubble were left behind. Since October 7, however, the number of destroyed dwellings has exceeded 325,000. Accumulated debris in Gaza has reached 61 million tonnes. While the 2014 devastation was considered unprecedented, it is no longer even a footnote alongside the current picture.”
Turning to the scale of casualties in Gaza, Finkelstein highlighted that in addition to those killed by direct bombardment and artillery fire, children have lost their lives to starvation and collapsed immune systems.
Noting the difficulty of establishing an exact figure, Finkelstein addressed the matter within the framework of debates over genocide:
“The United Nations’ latest report on child fatalities treats the direct targeting of children as a primary indicator in distinguishing whether a conflict constitutes a war or a genocide. According to Gaza Ministry of Health data, children account for roughly 30% of those killed. Out of the 6 million Jews who died in the Nazi Holocaust, 1.5 million were children; this proportion corresponded to roughly 25%. If we all agree that the Nazi slaughter was a genocide and 25% of its victims were children, the fact that 30% of those slaughtered in Gaza are children provides powerful evidence that this is a genocide.”
Responding to Carlson, who noted that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism prohibits comparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, Finkelstein pointed out that Israeli politicians have historically and continually equated their adversaries with Adolf Hitler.
Recalling that Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Iranian leaders, and Hamas have all been compared to Hitler by the Israeli leadership itself, Finkelstein pointed to the contradiction in barring critics of Israeli actions from making such comparisons.
“The goal is not just genocide, but emptying Gaza entirely”
Emphasising that the destruction in Gaza has been denser and more devastating than even the World War II bombing of Dresden, Finkelstein explained that 97% of schools have been flattened, while hospitals, medical personnel, United Nations staff, and journalists have faced unprecedented targeting.
Finkelstein explained Israel’s primary intent in the following terms:
“I do not believe Israel’s primary objective is to commit direct genocide. Israel’s fundamental goal is to empty Gaza completely. They want to carry out ethnic cleansing. The method they use is to destroy the people of Gaza until they abandon their land. Because the borders are shut and neighbouring states refuse to accept them, they will continue this slaughter until their goal is attained. They are resolved to solve the Gaza problem once and for all. For them, solving this problem means entirely expelling the population. They regard committing genocide as the only means of convincing the people to leave and forcing neighbouring countries to take them in.”
Noting that international legal experts, Human Rights Watch founder Aryeh Neier, the organisation’s former executive director Kenneth Roth, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, and the International Court of Justice have evaluated Israel’s actions within the framework of genocide, Finkelstein shared striking demographic data:
“Between 30% and 40% of American Jews believe that Israel is committing genocide. This is extraordinarily striking. We are talking about an educated community that has been inculcated from childhood with unconditional affection for Israel, learning this loyalty in synagogues as a condition of belonging. That these people, who cannot be easily duped, have reached such a conclusion constitutes a historic stance.”
“Unprecedented assault on academic freedom”
Finkelstein stated that defending Israeli conduct openly grew difficult after October 7, noting that dual-citizen soldiers serving in the Israeli military posted their own deeds on social media, rendering the horror impossible to conceal, at which point financial leverage was deployed.
Asserting that billionaire donors blackmailed university administrations, Finkelstein addressed presidential resignations at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia:
“Figures such as Bill Ackman targeted university leaderships publicly. They announced they would withhold alumni donations unless student encampments supporting Gaza were dismantled. Even at institutions with immense endowments like Harvard, where a single alumnus donates between $50 million and $300 million, this pressure proved effective. Harvard President Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, and Columbia University President Minouche Shafik were removed from office. When Magill stepped down, she uttered only two words to a close acquaintance of mine: ‘Money talks.'”
Stating that a pervasive climate of fear has been erected across universities, hospitals, and cultural institutions, Finkelstein said healthcare professionals have lost employment over social media postings, while New York libraries and arts institutions have fallen into silence because of financial dependence.
Drawing on his background as a scholar who has examined historical eras of academic suppression across the US, Finkelstein compared the current landscape:
“Nothing like this has ever been seen in our country’s history. There has never been an attack on academic freedom of this brazen magnitude, including the Red Scare of the early twentieth century or the McCarthy era. All three ousted university presidents were women, and two belonged to minorities. Despite possessing every progressive cultural safeguard, none could preserve her post. Outlets such as The New York Times remained silent. This wave of terror persists. Since the spring of 2024, I have received invitations to speak at only two universities across the entirety of the US. As someone who formerly delivered lectures and conference addresses at 40 different institutions annually, I have not been invited to a single institution in New York, where I live.”
Describing how students have had their faces projected onto mobile billboard trucks branding them terrorists, even facing public exposure in their family neighbourhoods, Finkelstein noted that he personally read Harvard University’s 312-page report on antisemitism.
Asserting that the report contained no concrete incidents and instead lumped Israeli students feeling alienated into the category of antisemitism, Finkelstein recalled that Harvard President Alan Garber was forced to concede that the vast majority of claims in the report amounted merely to political criticisms of the state of Israel.
Pointing out that US Supreme Court precedent establishes constitutional protection under free speech even for burning the American flag or advocating the violent overthrow of the government, Finkelstein argued that attempts to criminalise the slogan “From the river to the sea” lack any legal foundation.
“Netanyahu is a perfect reflection of Israeli society”
Answering questions regarding the personal political future of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finkelstein dismissed claims that Netanyahu is poised to fall from power.
Recalling that Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history, Finkelstein characterised the politician’s connection to the public:
“It is constantly claimed that Netanyahu will be ousted, that he will be erased from politics because of corruption trials, but that never happens. The sole reason for this is that Netanyahu is a perfect reflection of Israeli society. He embodies an arrogant, self-righteous Jewish supremacist. When Israeli society looks at him, it sees its own reflection. The corruption allegations or personal scandals surrounding him simply do not matter to the Israeli public.”
Finkelstein recounted that he was barred from entering Israel in 1989 and 2004 while travelling to the occupied Palestinian territories, noting that numerous Jewish intellectuals who opposed the occupation, including Noam Chomsky, were placed on Israeli blacklists.
Stating that he placed the search for justice at the core of his life from his youth and has always remained prepared to pay the price, Finkelstein turned to the obstructions he encountered throughout his academic career.
Disclosing that he remained entirely unemployed for 13 years after his tenure bid at DePaul University was rejected in 2007 following outside pressure and intervention by academic Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein described the ordeal:
“From 2007 until 2020, I could not find a single job. I was completely unemployed. The rhythm of people’s lives is determined by external obligations; you go to work, you have responsibilities. I had to wake up every morning and invent a purpose for my existence. It was a dark chapter of my life. Later, I taught adjunct courses at institutions such as Hunter College and Brooklyn College. As a scholar of 40 years, I experienced humiliating situations, going weeks without receiving my salary and being treated as an hourly contract lecturer. Yet all I loved was engaging with young minds and teaching them to think.”
Contending that classrooms must not serve as venues for political indoctrination, Finkelstein recalled British philosopher Bertrand Russell’s observation that in every great debate, strong arguments exist on both sides.
He stressed that an academic’s primary duty is to teach students how to weigh evidence rather than imposing one’s personal convictions.
Describing how, as a graduate student, he conducted months of archival work systematically exposing demographic fabrications in Joan Peters’ book, which claimed that Palestinian lands had been largely uninhabited and settled by incoming Arab migrants, Finkelstein recalled that academic doors closed to him one after another following that period, despite earning the endorsement of Noam Chomsky.
“Not a shred of evidence confirms systemic sexual violence on Oct 7”
Responding to Carlson’s inquiries regarding his new book, “Gaza’s Gravediggers”, Finkelstein stated that while he does not deny that Hamas and other armed factions committed grave crimes on October 7, claims of systemic rape are unsupported by physical evidence.
Stating that he devoted the opening chapter of his volume to scrutinising these allegations, Finkelstein noted that he examined in detail the 300-page report released by the Israeli civil commission headed by Dr Cochav Elkayam-Levy:
“The commission announced that it possessed 10,000 photographs and video recordings from October 7. They indicated that reviewing this material would take a single investigator working eight hours a day more than seven months. They stated they had amassed footage from dashcams, helmet cameras, security cameras, and mobile phones. Yet across that vast archive, there is not a single frame of footage showing Hamas members committing rape or sexual violence. Amnesty International has likewise not confirmed the existence of such visual evidence. They justified the lack of forensic proof by citing the rapid burial of corpses according to religious rites. However, that not a single digital recording has emerged defies credulity.”
Pointing to inconsistencies in the report’s testimonies, Finkelstein argued that claims by the primary witness, who hid inside a windowless caravan and purported to hear sounds from a distance, lack legal validity.
Noting that none of the victims named in the report, including released hostage Amit Soussana, provided direct testimony that they had been raped, Finkelstein sharply criticised the documentary produced by former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg:
“Sandberg is an intelligent Harvard graduate who studied economics, so she understands evidentiary standards well. Yet throughout her film, she looks at a mobile phone pretending to be horrified. While no footage substantiating the claims exists, they turned this into an instrument of propaganda. Facts no longer matter; all that counts for them is keeping their ideological cause alive at all costs.”
“The US supplied 70% of the weapons”
Asked by Carlson whether accountability proceedings would ever commence before international tribunals, Finkelstein asserted that judicial mechanisms cannot function when an entire society is complicit in crime.
Arguing that the Israeli leadership will never be held accountable, Finkelstein concluded:
“The US would never permit it. A fear of a domino effect prevails. If Israeli officials were placed in the dock, what would happen to Joe Biden and Antony Blinken? The US itself supplied 70% of the weapons used in the genocide in Gaza. Washington was the sole power capable of severing the arms flow, yet it refused to do so. In 1964, they staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify entering the Vietnam War on the ground; at least they devised a pretext. In Israel’s recent direct strikes against Iran, they did not even bother seeking such a cover. From the United Nations Security Council, not a sound emerged. Indeed, through Resolution 2803, the Security Council effectively surrendered governance of Gaza to Donald Trump. My sole purpose in writing my new book is to transmit an unvarnished record of the historic evil inflicted upon the people of Gaza to future generations, knowing that no one will ever be brought to justice.”
Israel has said it will transfer technical know-how to Greek companies taking part in the Achilles’ Shield air defence shield project.
The Israeli Ministry of Defence made the statement to Euractiv in response to reports alleging that Israel would retain control over the system.
The ministry stated that Israel will provide Greece with all the necessary technical know-how to enable Athens to develop its own source code for the much-debated Achilles’ Shield air defence system.
Israel noted that under the agreement, the Israeli Ministry of Defence and the Greek Ministry of National Defence agreed on the transfer of Israeli expertise to Greek firms participating in the programme.
A spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Defence said:
“The Greek source code developed under the programme, along with any modifications and additions made to it, will remain exclusively under Greek control and will be tailored to Greece’s operational requirements.”
Israel’s stance contradicts media reports suggesting that the system’s source code would belong to Tel Aviv rather than Athens, thereby effectively granting Israel full control over the platform.
Those reports had prompted a strong reaction from the opposition PASOK party, which called for transparency on the matter.
The system will integrate Greece’s existing capabilities, such as Patriot air defence systems and unmanned platforms, with Israeli systems covering various ranges, including Rafael’s SPYDER.
Türkiye reacted to the growing military cooperation between Greece and Israel, claiming that the two countries are attempting to encircle it strategically.
Athens, for its part, stated that its objective is solely to enhance its deterrence.
Meanwhile, former diplomat Vassilis Bornovas argued that the Achilles’ Shield project and Greece’s broader rise in defence spending are directed against “Russian aggression from the north” rather than Türkiye, which is also a NATO member.
Greece and Israel signed an agreement for the 3 billion euro project at the end of August. On the same day, Türkiye announced a mutual defence pact with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a development received with caution in Athens.
US foreign policy expert Ian Lesser told Euractiv that such regional defence arrangements were “not surprising” following the war in Iran.
“Countries are looking for new ways to diversify their security partnerships,” Lesser said, adding that while NATO’s collective defence relies on trust, that trust “has been eroding for years”.
Palestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
The strait changes hands: How the Red Sea design collapsed into Iran’s favour
Sharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
European intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
AfD weakens CDU across state elections as Weidel offers Merz talks
-
America1 week agoMilanovic declares global neoliberalism dead, warns of plutocracy
-
America2 weeks agoOver half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races
-
Asia2 weeks agoIran and China run secret barter network to bypass oil sanctions
-
America2 weeks agoTrump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports
-
America1 week agoFive minutes to doomsday – 4: American capitalism at the frontiers
-
Asia1 week agoDeepSeek engineer warns AI will lead to communism or Cyberpunk
-
America1 week agoBig Tech profits from AI extinction hype, Ken Klippenstein says
-
America2 weeks agoResearcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives
