NZ must immediately expel the Israeli Ambassador for this unprovoked attack on Iran.
As moral and ethical people, we must turn away from Israel’s new war crime, they have started a war, we must as righteous people condemn Israel and their enabler America.
This is the beginning of madness.
We cannot be party to it.
Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman, Jordan, said the Israeli army radio was reporting that in addition to the air strikes, Israel’s external intelligence service Mossad had carried out some sabotage activities and attacks inside Iran.
“There are also several reports and leaks in the Israeli media talking not only about the assassination of the top chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard but rather a very large number of senior military commanders in addition to prominent academics and nuclear scientists,” she said.
“This is a very large-scale attack, not just on military installations, but also on the people who could potentially be making decisions about what Iran can do next, how Iran can respond to this attack that continues as we speak.”
The US is on high alert in the Middle East and is anticipating a potential Israeli attack on Iran, The Washington Post has reported. Amid the anticipation, the US is reducing the presence of non-essential personnel in the region.
The report said that “in recent months, US intelligence officials have grown increasingly concerned that Israel may choose to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without the consent of the United States.”
US officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the military has authorized the “voluntary departure” of the dependents of US troops from locations across the Middle East.
Amidst an escalation of threatening rhetoric between Tehran and Tel Aviv, Iran has revealed an intelligence operation of historic proportions. The Iranians not only claim to have retrieved thousands of classified Israeli documents, but now warn Israel that it can hit its secret nuclear weapons sites in the event its own are targeted.
On June 7, Al Mayadeen News and Iranian state broadcasters began releasing exclusive stories about a massive intelligence operation carried out by Tehran’s intelligence services “inside the Zionist Entity”.
According to Al Mayadeen’s original scoop, “thousands of documents related to the Israeli occupation’s projects and its nuclear facilities” were seized, and the operation had taken place some time ago and could only be revealed now due to security concerns.
This blog is part of a five-part series looking at interfaith and intercultural relationships and the factors behind their success and longevity (or lack of). The series is based on my personal experience as a Muslim woman in her 20s and 30s.
In part 1, I look at marriage and love across cultures and borders, examining the role of shared values and knowing oneself.
In this blog, I share my experience of faith and religious divides in an intercultural/interfaith relationship.
In part 3, I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
In part 4, I look at emotional factors (in particular attachment styles) and their relation to culture, as opposed to cultural or religious difference as a standalone.
In part 5, I conclude by sharing insight into the factors and dynamics involved in mixed relationships in maintaining a healthy long-lasting interfaith/intercultural relationship.
Love should celebrate, not tolerate: managing cultural-religious diversity
“Real diversity and inclusion doesn’t mean that we will always agree. It means that even when we disagree, we can still respect each other.”
(Justin Jones-Fosu)
I met “Farhad” on my first in-person date following my divorce. Looking back, we were a bit like young love-stuck teenagers.
We fell in love quickly and intensely. We pretty much clicked on our first date and things sped along from there.
Farhad was significant at this stage of my life as he understood my background more than the average non-Muslim man living in Britain. Being an “outsider”, he also posed less “risk” (according to my trauma-based reality at the time).
How? Who was he? And what was his background?
Well, Farhad was Persian and Baháʼí(his family had converted previously from Shia Islam). He’d grown up in Iran and sought asylum in the UK in his early 20s.
Growing up in Iran (and a very conservative area of the country too), he was obviously familiar with Islam to a certain extent as a whole (my choice of wording will become clear later in terms of religious diversity within the Muslim world).
In Farhad’s case, he’d grown up in an Islamist theocracy (a particularly famously brutal one) as a persecuted religious minority.
There was clearly trauma and frustration there. He was happily Persian but didn’t associate much with other Persians. He did however attend services with other members of his community, who were a mix of Persians, English converts and other nationalities.
His faith was one I was slightly familiar with but more as a religion belonging to a minority group both in Iran and the UK.
Prior to meeting Farhad, I knew about his faith to some extent. But this was more based on Baháʼí as a community through my activism on human rights in Iran, rather than any great theological insight.
As a religion, the Baháʼí faith originated in Iran. The founder Baháʼu’lláhwas born in Iran and exiled to Iraq.As a religious leader, he preached religious unity, with the faith today standing for unity of faith and amongst people worldwide.
I liked it – and still do! And the more I learnt, I personally came to see the Bahai faith as an historical extension of Islam, having been originally been forcibly separated as the Muslim world rejected and persecuted the now separate Baháʼí community .
Today, the Baháʼí are generally a religious community that is not well known. Exceptions include amongst religious/interfaith enthusiasts and practitioners alike and within the Jewish world – with the Baháʼí World Centrebased in Haifa, Israel.
It was only my interfaith and Jewish friends that didn’t ask what Baháʼí was when enthusiastically asking for details of the new love in my life!
As a community, the majority of Bahai are Persians from Iran – but not all by any means.
There are communities all over the world with the faith now the second largest religion in Panama, Belize, Bolivia, Zambia, Papa New Guinea, Chad and Kenya. Most converts however reside in India and the Western world.
In Iran however, the community remain persecuted and severely restricted. I knew this quite well.
Out in London protesting for women’s rights in Iran (2019).
The Baháʼí community are banned from attending public university and pretty much have to rely on themselves to survive. The more I got to know Farhad, the more I learnt about this.
More broadly, add to this the wider ramifications of living in modern Iran – a country with such beautiful rich culture yet an oppressive regime – Farhad likely had a very difficult upbringing.
War, religious persecution, Islamism: they’re not easy at all to say the least (especially when I now see and understand the emotional impact of such trauma and how trauma-responses/lived experiences can develop into socio-cultural norms and/or practices).
On my side, I at the time of meeting, I was not in the place where I felt I could date a man who was Muslim, Arab or Amazigh.
I’d come out of a conservative marriage, had emotional trauma to deal with, and I hadn’t been on a date for many, many years (minus the recent post-divorce video call e-meet).
Prior to being married, I was a serial monogamist. Now I was a millennial in my 30s and the dating scene had changed – a lot!
In terms of intercultural dating, I loved Persian culture and knew a lot about Iran.
I loved the warmth, the family values, the food, the music, the language, the architecture and much more.
I’d engaged in a lot of human rights activism and had a deep respect and fondness for the people and their nation – but not the regime.
I understood Farhad’s struggles. I loved his culture. And I didn’t whitewash over anything – I knew and felt the pain of Iranians across the board and the Baháʼí community as an example.
So, in short, when Farhad and I met, we seemed to match. I think we both learnt at lot from each other on our first date. And, we also learnt that the spark was there.
We understood each other and this grew over time. Obviously, Farhad had to learn over time who I was (I’m a bit of a mixed bag to say the least!), but he approached me in a way that was sensitive to my faith.
He knew and appeared to respect the fact that I was a Muslim woman. And so, he pursued me accordingly, learning who I was as a British-Italian woman embracing progressivism in faith – and in the early stages of such journey.
At the start, this mutual understanding and shared trauma translated to providing a safe space for me. He understood me. He “got it”.
I wasn’t the average “British woman” (whatever that is!).
I had a more conservative approach to dating on the one hand and baggage from the past, but on the other hand, I was also an open-minded Muslim and a European (British-Italian) woman who’d grown up in the “West” (and had dated before converting to Islam).
Embracing my post-hijab days (left: as an Orthodox Muslim, 2012; after removing hijab, c. 2019)
It was timely. Farhad gave me that space to be me. He understood my struggles. And we were on the same team – or so I thought.
We fell in love. We committed to each other. We pushed through the Covid-19 pandemic together and the challenges involved. And we prayed together.
It was beautiful. We opened his prayer book. It looked rather like a Muslim prayer book – with Farsi and Arabic combined.
The letters, the words, the monotheism were familiar, warm and beautiful.
Together we prayed and we shared our mutual spirituality as two people of different faiths, one love and belief in One God. It was a moment I shall never ever forget.
That moment truly pictured who and where I was at the time – as a Muslim, a woman and a human. And Farhad seemingly understood that. He didn’t just “tolerate” my faith, he always encouraged me. At least outrightly at the start.
He never professed to love Islam, but he didn’t need to. And I didn’t want or need him to either.
I respected and loved his faith for his sake (even without considering how similar both our spiritualities were in outlook). And I simply needed the same.
As the months passed, we discussed how I’d approach Ramadan. We talked (quite easily and unitedly) about what raising children would look like – sharing and teaching a belief in a One God. Simple.
And we both talked about how we were less conservative than the conservative communities we knew and belonged to.
Yes, the Baháʼí faith is incredibly open and tolerant. But I also found it had its conservatisms too (this is only my singular experience however). It was so alike yet far from the “Islam” I’d met as taught in the conservative diaspora (UK) and wider Muslim world to some extend at least.
For one, there was no gender segregation in his faith. There were no dress codes. There was no hijab.
Post-hijab me loved it. I felt a commonality theologically, culturally, socially.
Next: Farhad grew up being taught that sex outside of marriage was a sin and that drinking alcohol was a no-no. Again: something I’d shared in the Muslim world.
We were both so similar. But in retrospect, similar in trauma, similar in pushing boundaries and similar in rejecting conservative norms.
The difference is that I didn’t hide who I was. I believe in something, or I don’t. I think, I rationalise, and I come to my own moral conclusions. And I have no pressure from my non-Muslim family.
Farhad on the other hand had a community to think about.
His parents had certain expectations. And whilst he was very open with my friends and family (even meeting mine after around a year), I wasn’t blessed with the same openness – or even frankness about this.
I cannot speak for him about the reasons why he made the choices he did, but I can share the impact it had on.
For example, I felt shut out. And given my past, I didn’t want to feel shut out by any community, people or practice. I always aimed to be true to myself and respectful to others as a person – including friends, families and communities.
It suddenly unfolded quite immensely during one argument.
Farhad explained how the relationship was a private affair regarding his religious community (not just personal safety in terms of political asylum).
It turned out that he’d expected me to “trust the process”. Well, no.
I expected to be part of an open communicative process about said “process” from the start and to decide if that was something I wanted to engage with (I did later meet and spend quite a bit of time with his mother who was visiting from overseas and became rather fond of her – sharing food and gifts).
This became a critical point of contention. I didn’t hide. He did. And he wasn’t open about it to me either. That was the real issue.
I understood community and family dynamics – but I expected to be in on the process from the start and to decide what role I wanted to play (if any) in that.
What’s more, other things also began to increasingly unravel – and felt quite bitter on the receiving end.
Farhad’s softness towards me in my spiritual journey came to a halt. A massive halt.
It started with the blanket statement: “Dogs are haram in Islam”.
Muslims do like and own dogs!
Farhad declared this openly and firmly when discussing how the Iranian government let dogs in for rescue efforts (eventually) because the faith declared that owning dogs was forbidden (a common belief).
Of course, in my mind, dogs were and have never been “haram” (forbidden). They’re a beautiful creature, and a blessing from God that offer companionship, love and care.
Any hadith (apparent saying of the Prophet Muhammed – recorded 500 years after his death and with varying stated degrees of “authenticity”) that referred to this was clearly either: contextual (dogs at the time had rabies) or unreliable (possibly both).
None the less, as a Muslim woman, I shared my stance.
There are varying beliefs amongst Muslims and an increasing number of Muslims are keeping dogs are pets (rather than outside guard dogs). Dogs are not inherently unclean, and dogs can and do live in Muslim homes.
But, he insisted no. Islam is X. Islam says this. And he’d lived in a Muslim country.
He spoke and acted as thought he knew Islam better than me.
I stood my ground – of course. I’m not naïve. I knew what Islamism is.
I know the traditional belief he’d have lived. I knew what “Islam” in Iran looked like.
And I knew my faith – the good, the bad and the ugly (I’d literally experienced it!).
The Islam he knew was likely often seemingly one of a brutal intolerant theocracy or at least a very, very conservative faith (I can’t speak for him outrightly).
Either way, that wasn’t my faith. And no, I wasn’t making my faith up. I’d learnt, I’d rationalised, and I’d lived. No one owned God.
It had been a darn hard but important struggle. No one was taking that away from me. I was a Muslim. He wasn’t.
Of course, as a non-Muslim was free to discuss, to criticise and to share his views and lived experience whatever his background (and this is important) – as was I.
This was the safe space I found at the start – a space where I could be honest about my religious trauma, where I could be a free-thinking progressive, where I could be spiritual and not have to listen to the conservative dogma where there was “one Islam” and I was apparently going against it and was therefore a “murtad” (apostate), “munafiqa” (hypocrite) or “kafirah” (non-believer/concealer of the truth) as the trolling antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic Islamists would declare, spitting out from their hate-fuelled mouths.
Yet my pain, my trauma and my faith were not up for debate. Intentional or not, it felt patronising, dismissive and frustrating.
Post-hijab but still a happy Muslim woman (Eid at Birmingham Central Mosque, 2022).
He didn’t have the right to dictate my faith to me, declaring what it is or isn’t.
Farhad wasn’t a scholar of religion, he wasn’t an interfaith practitioner, and he wasn’t Muslim. He didn’t appear to know about the diversity of Islam. But that wasn’t the point.
More than that: he wasn’t appearing to listen, share and fully care for his partner.
He didn’t need to be Muslim to share in the discussion by any means, but he needed to be open-minded. His lived experience of Islam was not the faith I had chosen.
I’d never believed in the Islam of Khomeini. Ever. And was never going to.
Whether it was “Islam” de facto, “Islamism” or just another form of a diverse faith (and potentially more diverse religious/cultural community than as currently socially, culturally and theologically lived/expressed) – is besides the point.
It’s about the conversation – how it started and how it was navigated.
Without a doubt, there was overlapping trauma between Farhad’s country of origin and himself, and likewise my faith and my religious trauma. But the conservatism I’d left behind was not the faith I still clung onto. And this clinging on to was empowering but also very difficult.
I needed support, compassion and kindness, not what appeared to be in time criticism, unkindness and self-blame. For sadly, it got worse from there.
I was processing my trauma – only just beginning to become aware of the full pernicious extend it had on myself as a woman. And he appeared to want to shut it down.
It all came to a crux: he pointed out the harm. I knew a lot of it.
But I was – slowly but increasingly – becoming more aware of it. I was starting to become more self-aware, and I needed to process it all.
Of course, I wanted to leave the trauma behind and remain Muslim. But that was a process.
As a young woman, I was walking on a journey of emancipation, self-realisation and healing – whatever the end result. This journey couldn’t happen in a day.
I was Muslim and was going to remain one I told myself.
Yet Farhad’s response appeared more-or-less to be: it caused you so much harm. Why are you holding on to it?
Only he knows what lies in Farhad’s heart, mind and soul.
Perhaps all of this triggered him. Perhaps it was frustrating for himself, and that he felt angry on my behalf.
Or perhaps it a deep dislike, disdain or rejection of my faith as a whole?
Who knows. Farhad is the only person featured in this blog to not have been consulted on this blog. So, I can’t answer that.
But what I will say is that unlike at the start of the relationship, things had changed.
He may have been well intentioned (or stemming from frustration). But, nonetheless, it came across as cold, angry unempathetic and blaming.
Whether he thought Islam was the problem – one that I was hanging on to – or whether he was merely pointing out the harm I’d been taught, lived and was processing as a Muslim (which with care and trust is open, honest and beautiful), only he knows.
When reflecting on this more recently, it appeared to me as a hatred/intolerance for my faith/spiritual experience.
And so, it seemed that my progressive criticism were at odds with each other.
At the end of the day, Muslims are a group of people who interpret and live a faith known as Islam.
Without a direct line to God, Muslims are free to interpret and (with free will) to life their faith as they like (of course there are fundamentals to the Islamic faith/Muslim community as it stands that unite Muslims as a group of people).
As his partner, I had all the time and love in the world for his emotional needs, but not for my needs to be either (intentionally) used or unintentionally pushed against me.
I didn’t need my partner, the man who supposedly loved me to appear to blame me for me pain.
Love is about patience, kindness compassion, empathy and understanding.
And reflecting back, what I’d say to Farhad now is this: we know that no one owns God and so as a Muslim woman, yes; there was much pain and trauma (both cultural and religious) in my past. But, there was also still so much beauty.
And that beauty was part and will always be a part of me. Without regret.
Almost a year into our relationship, I felt he used my own religious trauma against me.
I felt that he vented his frustrations at me when I needed care. And I felt that he blamed me when a partner should instead love, listen and care – with honesty of course, yet also compassion and empathy.
I don’t believe it was simply about him wanting me to move on from trauma. He met me as a Muslim and shared 11 months with me as a Muslim.
My faith was non-negotiable. I think he couldn’t see any beauty in the faith I held. He didn’t and couldn’t respect it. And through his behaviour, he didn’t respect me.
I was in a tricky stage of my life, but I was open about this (as much as I was learning at the time).
He wasn’t as open about his emotions and his trauma – whatever and wherever the source (including family dynamics).
I needed to process and claim my own identity for myself – whatever that looked like. It wasn’t his to pick apart.
He may well have been frustrated. To me, he just came across as not a very nice person (to put it mildly!).
And that theme continued up to meeting my family and afterwards his increasing coldness, accusations, unwillingness to communication and lack of empathy.
Towards the end, I told him he was a narcissist as he lacked much needed empathy (I believe my trauma has made me a more empathetic person – for others, I have since learnt trauma can manifest in narcissism, but that’s a much bigger topic).
Farhad’s response? He agreed he might be.
His tolerance mask (inner patience) had seemingly slipped – for my faith, for my emotional needs and for my friendship with my ex-husband.
Things were getting tiring, painful and emotional. I’d had enough. And he shut down.
Farhad didn’t share his feelings for discussion, dialogue and growth.
He grew angry. He grew cold and he grew increasingly accusative.
He questioned my own very real truths and in the end he outrightly twisted them against me, including towards my mental health and my reactions regarding his behaviour towards me.
Was this out of ignorance or very real intentional gaslighting? It felt at the time like the latter.
Looking back, who knows. Either way, it was out of order, incredibly hurtful and toxic.
Farhad had become a different person. I wanted the old Farhad back – the loving, patient, understanding one – or to move on.
In the end, I ended it calmly and peacefully. I felt free. Then, I went back. It was painful. Very, very lonely and painful.
My emotions ran deep. He ran cold. He then declared he wanted to “go on a break”. I didn’t believe in breaks – you work it out or you end it.
We went on said break and before it ended, we met and he ended our relationship.
He told me that he “couldn’t meet both mine and his emotional needs” and that he’d apparently been told by his therapist back in Iran on day one (and later his mother) that we weren’t compatible.
He broke my heart into a million tiny pieces. No Farhad, we weren’t compatible. I deserved better.
I returned home crushed. I wanted answers – to at least have a discussion to see if anything we’d shared has been real. And later, we did. I cried and he cried.
Farhad shared that he wanted to remain friends – to travel, to spend time together (to essentially act like but not be a couple). I refused. I had to cut him off.
And so, our story closed. And once again the healing had to continue – this time with an extra added load.
Looking back: what I learnt
You cannot live in peace without respect for one another
Respect should be about love and freedom – but not censorship. The criticism or critique of one’s own belief system or culture by a partner, most not be used, exploited or manipulated by the other.
Intolerance is not the same as critical thinking or examining lived experience.
Intolerance (as opposed to sympathy to difficult lived experiences) should not be used to blame the individual, feed disrespect regarding disagreement and/or dislike of practices, values and beliefs.
Tolerance isn’t enough to sustain a healthy relationship: if you love another person, you should love their being for their sake – not as a form of religious conversion, proselytising or blasphemy-esque censorship, but in recognition, appreciation, respect and care for their feelings, the things they cherish (their value system) and their lived experience.
You can of course agree to disagree. This is in fact very important, and each person should feel and must be free to express themselves. But respect, care and inclusivity are non-negotiable.
There are also many different ways to live a faith
There is no one way of being any adherent to a faith or expressing one’s spirituality. We really need to respect that choice, regardless of whether we share that faith or not.
It is not acceptable for one person (or both) to gatekeep the other – whether they share that faith, have lived experience (of course real) in one or more contexts or are an external observer (with no real insight, experience or knowledge).
Stereotyping and judging – as an internal gatekeeper (e.g. co religionist), stereotyping “outsider” or by any other way this may present, are not healthy, open, caring and do not nurture a loving safe space for a relationship
Spiritual compatibility can occur across faith traditions
Spiritual sharing is real and beautiful. This is a very real reality and can include rituals such as praying together or in non-ritual terms based on value-based practices (e.g. charity and social action) through shared values and beliefs.
By understanding and embracing the varied nature of faith traditions and additionally recognising the varied personal practice and interpretation of each person (rather than stereotypes), couples can develop their own shared beliefs, practices and experiences.
This is a powerful bonding experience – but should be mutually desired and by no means derive from any form of criticism, coercion, disrespect or force (it goes without saying).
Coming up:
Keep an eye out for part 3 of this series, where I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
This blog is part of a five-part series looking at interfaith and intercultural relationships and the factors behind their success and longevity (or lack of). The series is based on my personal experience as a Muslim woman in her 20s and 30s.
In part 1, I look at marriage and love across cultures and borders, examining the role of shared values and knowing oneself.
In this blog, I share my experience of faith and religious divides in an intercultural/interfaith relationship.
In part 3, I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
In part 4, I look at emotional factors (in particular attachment styles) and their relation to culture, as opposed to cultural or religious difference as a standalone.
In part 5, I conclude by sharing insight into the factors and dynamics involved in mixed relationships in maintaining a healthy long-lasting interfaith/intercultural relationship.
Love should celebrate, not tolerate: managing cultural-religious diversity
“Real diversity and inclusion doesn’t mean that we will always agree. It means that even when we disagree, we can still respect each other.”
(Justin Jones-Fosu)
I met “Farhad” on my first in-person date following my divorce. Looking back, we were a bit like young love-stuck teenagers.
We fell in love quickly and intensely. We pretty much clicked on our first date and things sped along from there.
Farhad was significant at this stage of my life as he understood my background more than the average non-Muslim man living in Britain. Being an “outsider”, he also posed less “risk” (according to my trauma-based reality at the time).
How? Who was he? And what was his background?
Well, Farhad was Persian and Baháʼí(his family had converted previously from Shia Islam). He’d grown up in Iran and sought asylum in the UK in his early 20s.
Growing up in Iran (and a very conservative area of the country too), he was obviously familiar with Islam to a certain extent as a whole (my choice of wording will become clear later in terms of religious diversity within the Muslim world).
In Farhad’s case, he’d grown up in an Islamist theocracy (a particularly famously brutal one) as a persecuted religious minority.
There was clearly trauma and frustration there. He was happily Persian but didn’t associate much with other Persians. He did however attend services with other members of his community, who were a mix of Persians, English converts and other nationalities.
His faith was one I was slightly familiar with but more as a religion belonging to a minority group both in Iran and the UK.
Prior to meeting Farhad, I knew about his faith to some extent. But this was more based on Baháʼí as a community through my activism on human rights in Iran, rather than any great theological insight.
As a religion, the Baháʼí faith originated in Iran. The founder Baháʼu’lláhwas born in Iran and exiled to Iraq.As a religious leader, he preached religious unity, with the faith today standing for unity of faith and amongst people worldwide.
I liked it – and still do! And the more I learnt, I personally came to see the Bahai faith as an historical extension of Islam, having been originally been forcibly separated as the Muslim world rejected and persecuted the now separate Baháʼí community .
Today, the Baháʼí are generally a religious community that is not well known. Exceptions include amongst religious/interfaith enthusiasts and practitioners alike and within the Jewish world – with the Baháʼí World Centrebased in Haifa, Israel.
It was only my interfaith and Jewish friends that didn’t ask what Baháʼí was when enthusiastically asking for details of the new love in my life!
As a community, the majority of Bahai are Persians from Iran – but not all by any means.
There are communities all over the world with the faith now the second largest religion in Panama, Belize, Bolivia, Zambia, Papa New Guinea, Chad and Kenya. Most converts however reside in India and the Western world.
In Iran however, the community remain persecuted and severely restricted. I knew this quite well.
Out in London protesting for women’s rights in Iran (2019).
The Baháʼí community are banned from attending public university and pretty much have to rely on themselves to survive. The more I got to know Farhad, the more I learnt about this.
More broadly, add to this the wider ramifications of living in modern Iran – a country with such beautiful rich culture yet an oppressive regime – Farhad likely had a very difficult upbringing.
War, religious persecution, Islamism: they’re not easy at all to say the least (especially when I now see and understand the emotional impact of such trauma and how trauma-responses/lived experiences can develop into socio-cultural norms and/or practices).
On my side, I at the time of meeting, I was not in the place where I felt I could date a man who was Muslim, Arab or Amazigh.
I’d come out of a conservative marriage, had emotional trauma to deal with, and I hadn’t been on a date for many, many years (minus the recent post-divorce video call e-meet).
Prior to being married, I was a serial monogamist. Now I was a millennial in my 30s and the dating scene had changed – a lot!
In terms of intercultural dating, I loved Persian culture and knew a lot about Iran.
I loved the warmth, the family values, the food, the music, the language, the architecture and much more.
I’d engaged in a lot of human rights activism and had a deep respect and fondness for the people and their nation – but not the regime.
I understood Farhad’s struggles. I loved his culture. And I didn’t whitewash over anything – I knew and felt the pain of Iranians across the board and the Baháʼí community as an example.
So, in short, when Farhad and I met, we seemed to match. I think we both learnt at lot from each other on our first date. And, we also learnt that the spark was there.
We understood each other and this grew over time. Obviously, Farhad had to learn over time who I was (I’m a bit of a mixed bag to say the least!), but he approached me in a way that was sensitive to my faith.
He knew and appeared to respect the fact that I was a Muslim woman. And so, he pursued me accordingly, learning who I was as a British-Italian woman embracing progressivism in faith – and in the early stages of such journey.
At the start, this mutual understanding and shared trauma translated to providing a safe space for me. He understood me. He “got it”.
I wasn’t the average “British woman” (whatever that is!).
I had a more conservative approach to dating on the one hand and baggage from the past, but on the other hand, I was also an open-minded Muslim and a European (British-Italian) woman who’d grown up in the “West” (and had dated before converting to Islam).
Embracing my post-hijab days (left: as an Orthodox Muslim, 2012; after removing hijab, c. 2019)
It was timely. Farhad gave me that space to be me. He understood my struggles. And we were on the same team – or so I thought.
We fell in love. We committed to each other. We pushed through the Covid-19 pandemic together and the challenges involved. And we prayed together.
It was beautiful. We opened his prayer book. It looked rather like a Muslim prayer book – with Farsi and Arabic combined.
The letters, the words, the monotheism were familiar, warm and beautiful.
Together we prayed and we shared our mutual spirituality as two people of different faiths, one love and belief in One God. It was a moment I shall never ever forget.
That moment truly pictured who and where I was at the time – as a Muslim, a woman and a human. And Farhad seemingly understood that. He didn’t just “tolerate” my faith, he always encouraged me. At least outrightly at the start.
He never professed to love Islam, but he didn’t need to. And I didn’t want or need him to either.
I respected and loved his faith for his sake (even without considering how similar both our spiritualities were in outlook). And I simply needed the same.
As the months passed, we discussed how I’d approach Ramadan. We talked (quite easily and unitedly) about what raising children would look like – sharing and teaching a belief in a One God. Simple.
And we both talked about how we were less conservative than the conservative communities we knew and belonged to.
Yes, the Baháʼí faith is incredibly open and tolerant. But I also found it had its conservatisms too (this is only my singular experience however). It was so alike yet far from the “Islam” I’d met as taught in the conservative diaspora (UK) and wider Muslim world to some extend at least.
For one, there was no gender segregation in his faith. There were no dress codes. There was no hijab.
Post-hijab me loved it. I felt a commonality theologically, culturally, socially.
Next: Farhad grew up being taught that sex outside of marriage was a sin and that drinking alcohol was a no-no. Again: something I’d shared in the Muslim world.
We were both so similar. But in retrospect, similar in trauma, similar in pushing boundaries and similar in rejecting conservative norms.
The difference is that I didn’t hide who I was. I believe in something, or I don’t. I think, I rationalise, and I come to my own moral conclusions. And I have no pressure from my non-Muslim family.
Farhad on the other hand had a community to think about.
His parents had certain expectations. And whilst he was very open with my friends and family (even meeting mine after around a year), I wasn’t blessed with the same openness – or even frankness about this.
I cannot speak for him about the reasons why he made the choices he did, but I can share the impact it had on.
For example, I felt shut out. And given my past, I didn’t want to feel shut out by any community, people or practice. I always aimed to be true to myself and respectful to others as a person – including friends, families and communities.
It suddenly unfolded quite immensely during one argument.
Farhad explained how the relationship was a private affair regarding his religious community (not just personal safety in terms of political asylum).
It turned out that he’d expected me to “trust the process”. Well, no.
I expected to be part of an open communicative process about said “process” from the start and to decide if that was something I wanted to engage with (I did later meet and spend quite a bit of time with his mother who was visiting from overseas and became rather fond of her – sharing food and gifts).
This became a critical point of contention. I didn’t hide. He did. And he wasn’t open about it to me either. That was the real issue.
I understood community and family dynamics – but I expected to be in on the process from the start and to decide what role I wanted to play (if any) in that.
What’s more, other things also began to increasingly unravel – and felt quite bitter on the receiving end.
Farhad’s softness towards me in my spiritual journey came to a halt. A massive halt.
It started with the blanket statement: “Dogs are haram in Islam”.
Muslims do like and own dogs!
Farhad declared this openly and firmly when discussing how the Iranian government let dogs in for rescue efforts (eventually) because the faith declared that owning dogs was forbidden (a common belief).
Of course, in my mind, dogs were and have never been “haram” (forbidden). They’re a beautiful creature, and a blessing from God that offer companionship, love and care.
Any hadith (apparent saying of the Prophet Muhammed – recorded 500 years after his death and with varying stated degrees of “authenticity”) that referred to this was clearly either: contextual (dogs at the time had rabies) or unreliable (possibly both).
None the less, as a Muslim woman, I shared my stance.
There are varying beliefs amongst Muslims and an increasing number of Muslims are keeping dogs are pets (rather than outside guard dogs). Dogs are not inherently unclean, and dogs can and do live in Muslim homes.
But, he insisted no. Islam is X. Islam says this. And he’d lived in a Muslim country.
He spoke and acted as thought he knew Islam better than me.
I stood my ground – of course. I’m not naïve. I knew what Islamism is.
I know the traditional belief he’d have lived. I knew what “Islam” in Iran looked like.
And I knew my faith – the good, the bad and the ugly (I’d literally experienced it!).
The Islam he knew was likely often seemingly one of a brutal intolerant theocracy or at least a very, very conservative faith (I can’t speak for him outrightly).
Either way, that wasn’t my faith. And no, I wasn’t making my faith up. I’d learnt, I’d rationalised, and I’d lived. No one owned God.
It had been a darn hard but important struggle. No one was taking that away from me. I was a Muslim. He wasn’t.
Of course, as a non-Muslim was free to discuss, to criticise and to share his views and lived experience whatever his background (and this is important) – as was I.
This was the safe space I found at the start – a space where I could be honest about my religious trauma, where I could be a free-thinking progressive, where I could be spiritual and not have to listen to the conservative dogma where there was “one Islam” and I was apparently going against it and was therefore a “murtad” (apostate), “munafiqa” (hypocrite) or “kafirah” (non-believer/concealer of the truth) as the trolling antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic Islamists would declare, spitting out from their hate-fuelled mouths.
Yet my pain, my trauma and my faith were not up for debate. Intentional or not, it felt patronising, dismissive and frustrating.
Post-hijab but still a happy Muslim woman (Eid at Birmingham Central Mosque, 2022).
He didn’t have the right to dictate my faith to me, declaring what it is or isn’t.
Farhad wasn’t a scholar of religion, he wasn’t an interfaith practitioner, and he wasn’t Muslim. He didn’t appear to know about the diversity of Islam. But that wasn’t the point.
More than that: he wasn’t appearing to listen, share and fully care for his partner.
He didn’t need to be Muslim to share in the discussion by any means, but he needed to be open-minded. His lived experience of Islam was not the faith I had chosen.
I’d never believed in the Islam of Khomeini. Ever. And was never going to.
Whether it was “Islam” de facto, “Islamism” or just another form of a diverse faith (and potentially more diverse religious/cultural community than as currently socially, culturally and theologically lived/expressed) – is besides the point.
It’s about the conversation – how it started and how it was navigated.
Without a doubt, there was overlapping trauma between Farhad’s country of origin and himself, and likewise my faith and my religious trauma. But the conservatism I’d left behind was not the faith I still clung onto. And this clinging on to was empowering but also very difficult.
I needed support, compassion and kindness, not what appeared to be in time criticism, unkindness and self-blame. For sadly, it got worse from there.
I was processing my trauma – only just beginning to become aware of the full pernicious extend it had on myself as a woman. And he appeared to want to shut it down.
It all came to a crux: he pointed out the harm. I knew a lot of it.
But I was – slowly but increasingly – becoming more aware of it. I was starting to become more self-aware, and I needed to process it all.
Of course, I wanted to leave the trauma behind and remain Muslim. But that was a process.
As a young woman, I was walking on a journey of emancipation, self-realisation and healing – whatever the end result. This journey couldn’t happen in a day.
I was Muslim and was going to remain one I told myself.
Yet Farhad’s response appeared more-or-less to be: it caused you so much harm. Why are you holding on to it?
Only he knows what lies in Farhad’s heart, mind and soul.
Perhaps all of this triggered him. Perhaps it was frustrating for himself, and that he felt angry on my behalf.
Or perhaps it a deep dislike, disdain or rejection of my faith as a whole?
Who knows. Farhad is the only person featured in this blog to not have been consulted on this blog. So, I can’t answer that.
But what I will say is that unlike at the start of the relationship, things had changed.
He may have been well intentioned (or stemming from frustration). But, nonetheless, it came across as cold, angry unempathetic and blaming.
Whether he thought Islam was the problem – one that I was hanging on to – or whether he was merely pointing out the harm I’d been taught, lived and was processing as a Muslim (which with care and trust is open, honest and beautiful), only he knows.
When reflecting on this more recently, it appeared to me as a hatred/intolerance for my faith/spiritual experience.
And so, it seemed that my progressive criticism were at odds with each other.
At the end of the day, Muslims are a group of people who interpret and live a faith known as Islam.
Without a direct line to God, Muslims are free to interpret and (with free will) to life their faith as they like (of course there are fundamentals to the Islamic faith/Muslim community as it stands that unite Muslims as a group of people).
As his partner, I had all the time and love in the world for his emotional needs, but not for my needs to be either (intentionally) used or unintentionally pushed against me.
I didn’t need my partner, the man who supposedly loved me to appear to blame me for me pain.
Love is about patience, kindness compassion, empathy and understanding.
And reflecting back, what I’d say to Farhad now is this: we know that no one owns God and so as a Muslim woman, yes; there was much pain and trauma (both cultural and religious) in my past. But, there was also still so much beauty.
And that beauty was part and will always be a part of me. Without regret.
Almost a year into our relationship, I felt he used my own religious trauma against me.
I felt that he vented his frustrations at me when I needed care. And I felt that he blamed me when a partner should instead love, listen and care – with honesty of course, yet also compassion and empathy.
I don’t believe it was simply about him wanting me to move on from trauma. He met me as a Muslim and shared 11 months with me as a Muslim.
My faith was non-negotiable. I think he couldn’t see any beauty in the faith I held. He didn’t and couldn’t respect it. And through his behaviour, he didn’t respect me.
I was in a tricky stage of my life, but I was open about this (as much as I was learning at the time).
He wasn’t as open about his emotions and his trauma – whatever and wherever the source (including family dynamics).
I needed to process and claim my own identity for myself – whatever that looked like. It wasn’t his to pick apart.
He may well have been frustrated. To me, he just came across as not a very nice person (to put it mildly!).
And that theme continued up to meeting my family and afterwards his increasing coldness, accusations, unwillingness to communication and lack of empathy.
Towards the end, I told him he was a narcissist as he lacked much needed empathy (I believe my trauma has made me a more empathetic person – for others, I have since learnt trauma can manifest in narcissism, but that’s a much bigger topic).
Farhad’s response? He agreed he might be.
His tolerance mask (inner patience) had seemingly slipped – for my faith, for my emotional needs and for my friendship with my ex-husband.
Things were getting tiring, painful and emotional. I’d had enough. And he shut down.
Farhad didn’t share his feelings for discussion, dialogue and growth.
He grew angry. He grew cold and he grew increasingly accusative.
He questioned my own very real truths and in the end he outrightly twisted them against me, including towards my mental health and my reactions regarding his behaviour towards me.
Was this out of ignorance or very real intentional gaslighting? It felt at the time like the latter.
Looking back, who knows. Either way, it was out of order, incredibly hurtful and toxic.
Farhad had become a different person. I wanted the old Farhad back – the loving, patient, understanding one – or to move on.
In the end, I ended it calmly and peacefully. I felt free. Then, I went back. It was painful. Very, very lonely and painful.
My emotions ran deep. He ran cold. He then declared he wanted to “go on a break”. I didn’t believe in breaks – you work it out or you end it.
We went on said break and before it ended, we met and he ended our relationship.
He told me that he “couldn’t meet both mine and his emotional needs” and that he’d apparently been told by his therapist back in Iran on day one (and later his mother) that we weren’t compatible.
He broke my heart into a million tiny pieces. No Farhad, we weren’t compatible. I deserved better.
I returned home crushed. I wanted answers – to at least have a discussion to see if anything we’d shared has been real. And later, we did. I cried and he cried.
Farhad shared that he wanted to remain friends – to travel, to spend time together (to essentially act like but not be a couple). I refused. I had to cut him off.
And so, our story closed. And once again the healing had to continue – this time with an extra added load.
Looking back: what I learnt
You cannot live in peace without respect for one another
Respect should be about love and freedom – but not censorship. The criticism or critique of one’s own belief system or culture by a partner, most not be used, exploited or manipulated by the other.
Intolerance is not the same as critical thinking or examining lived experience.
Intolerance (as opposed to sympathy to difficult lived experiences) should not be used to blame the individual, feed disrespect regarding disagreement and/or dislike of practices, values and beliefs.
Tolerance isn’t enough to sustain a healthy relationship: if you love another person, you should love their being for their sake – not as a form of religious conversion, proselytising or blasphemy-esque censorship, but in recognition, appreciation, respect and care for their feelings, the things they cherish (their value system) and their lived experience.
You can of course agree to disagree. This is in fact very important, and each person should feel and must be free to express themselves. But respect, care and inclusivity are non-negotiable.
There are also many different ways to live a faith
There is no one way of being any adherent to a faith or expressing one’s spirituality. We really need to respect that choice, regardless of whether we share that faith or not.
It is not acceptable for one person (or both) to gatekeep the other – whether they share that faith, have lived experience (of course real) in one or more contexts or are an external observer (with no real insight, experience or knowledge).
Stereotyping and judging – as an internal gatekeeper (e.g. co religionist), stereotyping “outsider” or by any other way this may present, are not healthy, open, caring and do not nurture a loving safe space for a relationship
Spiritual compatibility can occur across faith traditions
Spiritual sharing is real and beautiful. This is a very real reality and can include rituals such as praying together or in non-ritual terms based on value-based practices (e.g. charity and social action) through shared values and beliefs.
By understanding and embracing the varied nature of faith traditions and additionally recognising the varied personal practice and interpretation of each person (rather than stereotypes), couples can develop their own shared beliefs, practices and experiences.
This is a powerful bonding experience – but should be mutually desired and by no means derive from any form of criticism, coercion, disrespect or force (it goes without saying).
Coming up:
Keep an eye out for part 3 of this series, where I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
President Donald Trump argued that any revived nuclear accord with Iran should permit the United States to destroy the country’s nuclear infrastructure and send inspectors to Iranian facilities at any time.
The president outlined his vision for a new agreement during a White House presser on Wednesday, calling for a “very strong document” that would effectively give Washington carte blanche over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
“I want it very strong – where we can go in with inspectors, we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want, but [with] nobody getting killed,” he told reporters.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is threatening to upend negotiations between the US and Iran by potentially attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.
The report said that the threat from Israel led to a recent tense phone call between Netanyahu and President Trump and a series of meetings between senior US and Israeli officials in recent days.
Trump was asked by reporters on Wednesday if he warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran during a phone call last week, and said, “Well, I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did.”
“It’s not a warning. I said I don’t think it’s appropriate.
Flying under the media radar, the Heritage Foundation—a think tank widely viewed as the intellectual engine behind the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda—has published a brief that appears to map out the president’s prospective approach to Iran.
The six-page document advocates ending nuclear negotiations and pursuing joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Though thinly veiled as a policy analysis, the brief reads more like a soft launch for a war strategy.
Heritage has long played a predictive role in Trump-era foreign policy. Its reports and recommendations often find their way into official doctrine, especially on issues involving Israel and Iran.
With nuclear negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran’s Reformist government at a standstill, I held two separate, lengthy background conversations in Tehran this past week with a pair of seasoned Iranian diplomats with detailed knowledge of the talks in Muscat, Oman.
Like most Iranians, the diplomats were eager for a durable deal that would provide sanctions relief. But they said their side could not seem to break through to a Trump team they described as dithering, divided, distracted by other conflicts, and incapable of holding to a consistent position. Worse, as the negotiations drag on, the Trump administration is defaulting toward the hardline Israeli position which rejects all uranium enrichment, even for civilian purposes, violating a right Tehran considers sacrosanct.
As threats of an Israeli strike on Iran grow louder, the United States is making quiet but unmistakable moves of its own. Over the past month, Washington has quietly repositioned strategic bombers and fighter squadrons to Diego Garcia, a remote U.S. military outpost in the Indian Ocean, squarely within striking distance of Tehran.
The official rationale is force protection. But the scale and nature of the deployments have sparked speculation that Washington is laying the groundwork for potential military involvement in an Israeli-led operation, or, at the very least, sending a message to Tehran that it won’t stand in the way.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on 20 May that Tehran is “not waiting for anyone’s permission” to enrich uranium, stressing that he does not expect a positive outcome from ongoing nuclear talks with the US and blasting Washington’s “absurd” statements.
His comments came during a speech for the one-year anniversary of the death of Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in a helicopter crash.
“We do not think that negotiations with the US will bear fruit now,” Khamenei said, adding, “We do not know what will happen.”
“The assertion by US representatives that they will not allow Iran to enrich uranium is a significant mistake.
The arrest of a group reportedly consisting of Iranian nationals, accused of planning an attack on the Israeli embassy in London, has coincided with an aggressive lobbying campaign to classify Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization in the UK. While details of the case remain sparse, previous such allegations suggest that linking this plot to Tehran without substantiated evidence is politically motivated.
On 7 May, The Telegraph claimed that five individuals were detained in what the UK Home Secretary described as one of the “biggest counter-terrorism operations in recent years.”
The Trump administration, which unilaterally withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Agreement during Donald Trump’s first term, claims to be negotiating a new nuclear agreement with Iran. However, ‘negotiations’ are taking place under an escalation of economic coercive measures, a.k.a. sanctions, and military threats. Bahman Azad, president of the US Peace Council, delves into the hidden intentions of the Trump administration and the changes to Iran’s foreign policy under its new president. Azad also explains what is happening in the context of the rise of the multipolar world and the decline of US hegemony, and what we can do in the United States to promote security and peace, as Israel and the US prepare for war.
Seven European nations have called on Israel to “immediately reverse” its military operations against Gaza and lift the food and water blockade on the besieged enclave.
They have also called on all parties to immediately engage with “renewed urgency and good faith” for a ceasefire and release of all hostages.
The seven countries are Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain.
They declared that they would be silent in the face of the man-made humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza that has so far killed more than 50,000 men, women and children.
Israeli forces continue bombarding Gaza yesterday, killing at least 125 Palestinians, including 36 in the so-called “safe zone” of al-Mawasi.
The intensified Israeli attacks have rendered all the public hospitals in northern Gaza out of service, said the Health Ministry.
The joint statement
The joint statement signed by the leaders of all seven countries said:
“We will not be silent in front of the man-made humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place before our eyes in Gaza. More than 50.000 men, women, and children have lost their lives. Many more could starve to death in the coming days and weeks unless immediate action is taken.
“We call upon the government of Israel to immediately reverse its current policy, refrain from further military operations and fully lift the blockade, ensuring safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian aid to be distributed throughout the Gaza strip by international humanitarian actors and according to humanitarian principles. United Nations and humanitarian organisations, including UNRWA, must be supported and granted safe and unimpeded access.
“We call upon all parties to immediately engage with renewed urgency and good faith in negotiations on a ceasefire and the release of all hostages, and acknowledge the important role played by the United States, Egypt and Qatar in this regard.
“This is the basis upon which we can build a sustainable, just and comprehensive peace, based on the implementation of the two-State solution. We will continue to support the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and work in the framework of the United Nations and with other actors, like the Arab League and Arab and Islamic States, to move forward to achieve a peaceful and sustainable solution. Only peace can bring security for Palestinians, Israelis and the region, and only respect for international law can secure lasting peace.
“We also condemn the further escalation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, with increased settler violence, the expansion of illegal settlements and intensified Israel military operations. Forced displacement or the expulsion of the Palestinian people, by any means, is unacceptable and would constitute a breach of international law. We reject any such plans or attempts at demographic change.
“We must assume the responsibility to stop this devastation.”
The letter was signed by Kristrún Frostadóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland; Micheál Martin, Taoiseach of Ireland; Luc Frieden, Prime Minister of Luxembourg; Robert Abela, Prime Minister of Malta; Jonas Gahr Støre, Prime Minister of Norway; Robert Golob, Prime Minister of Slovenia; and Pedro Sánchez, President of Spain.
Gaza proves global system ‘incapable of solving issues’
Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says the crisis in Gaza has once again demonstrated that “the pillars of the international system are incapable of resolving such issues”, reports Al Jazeera.
It also showed “that the fate of the [Middle East] region cannot and should not remain at the mercy of extra-regional powers”, he said during a speech at the Tehran Dialogue Forum.
“What is currently presented by these powers as the ‘regional reality’ is, in fact, a reflection of deeply constructed narratives and interpretations, shaped solely based on their own interests,” Iran’s top diplomat said.
He said these narratives must be redefined and corrected from within the region itself.
“West Asia is in dire need of a fundamental reassessment of how it views itself,” Araghchi said.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Amid President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East, we continue our interview with DAWN’s Sarah Leah Whitson and HuffPost’s Akbar Shahid Ahmed about Trump’s acceptance of a luxury plane gifted to him by the Qatari government, nuclear negotiations with Iran and Saudi Arabia, a less cooperative relationship with Israel and more. This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final…
Israel is in a weak position and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremism knows no bounds. The only other way around an eventual regional war is the ousting of the Israeli prime minister.
US President Donald Trump has closed his line of communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to various reports citing officials.
This comes amid alleged growing pressure on Israel regarding Gaza and the abrupt halt to American operations against Ansarallah in Yemen. So, is this all an act or is the US finally pressuring Israel?
On May 1, news broke that President Donald Trump had suddenly ousted his national security advisor Mike Waltz. According to a Washington Post article on the issue, the ouster was in part a response to Waltz’s undermining of the President, for having engaged in intense coordination with Israeli PM Netanyahu regarding the issue of attacking Iran prior to the Israeli Premier’s visit to the Oval Office.
Some analysts, considering that Waltz has been pushing for a war on Iran, argued that his ouster was a signal that the Trump administration’s pro-diplomacy voices were pushing back against the hawks.
This shift also came at a time when Iran-US talks had stalled, largely thanks to a pressure campaign from the Israel Lobby, leading US think tanks and Israeli officials like Ron Dermer.
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Trump publicly announced the end to a campaign designed to destroy/degrade Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a on May 6.
Israeli leadership shocked
According to Israeli media, citing government sources, the leadership in Tel Aviv was shocked by the move to end operations against Yemen, essentially leaving the Israelis to deal with Ansarallah alone.
After this, more information began to leak, originating from the Israeli Hebrew-language media, claiming that the Trump administration was demanding Israel reach an agreement for aid to be delivered to Gaza, in addition to signing a ceasefire agreement.
The other major claim is that President Trump has grown so frustrated with Netanyahu that he has cut communication with him directly.
Although neither side has officially clarified details on the reported rift between the two sides, a few days ago the Israeli prime minister released a social media video claiming that he would act alone to defend Israel.
On Friday morning, another update came in that American Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth would be cancelling his planned visit to Tel Aviv.
Can Trump and Netanyahu remake the Middle East? Video: Palestine Chronicle
Is the US finally standing up to Israel? In order to assess this issue correctly, we have to place all of the above-mentioned developments into their proper context.
The issue must also be prefaced on the fact that every member of the Trump government is pro-Israeli to the hilt and has received significant backing from the Israel Lobby.
Mike Waltz was indeed fired and according to leaked AIPAC audio revealed by The Grayzone, he was somewhat groomed for a role in government by the pro-Israel Lobby for a long time.
Another revelation regarding Waltz, aside from him allegedly coordinating with Netanyahu behind Trump’s back and adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal group chat, was that he was storing his chats on an Israeli-owned app.
Yet, Waltz was not booted out of the government like John Bolton was during Trump’s first term in office, he has instead been designated as UN ambassador to the United Nations.
The UN ambassador position was supposed to be handed to Elise Stefanik, a radically vocal supporter of Israel who helped lead the charge in cracking down on pro-Palestine free speech on university campuses. Stefanik’s nomination was withdrawn in order to maintain the Republican majority in the Congress.
If Trump was truly seeking to push back against the Israel Lobby’s push to collapse negotiations with Iran, then why did Trump signal around a week ago that new sanctions packages were on the way?
He announced on Friday that a third independent Chinese refiner would be hit with secondary sanctions for receiving Iranian oil.
Israeli demands in Trump’s rhetoric
The sanctions, on top of the fact that his negotiating team have continuously attempted to add conditions the the talks, viewed in Tehran as non-starters, indicates that precisely what pro-Israel think tanks like WINEP and FDD have been demanding is working its way into not only the negotiating team, but coming out in Trump’s own rhetoric.
There is certainly an argument to make here, that there is a significant split within the pro-Israel Lobby in the US, which is now working its way into the Trump administration, yet it is important to note that the Trump campaign itself was bankrolled by Zionist billionaires and tech moguls.
Miriam Adelson, Israel’s richest billionaire, was his largest donor. Adelson also happens to own Israel Hayom, the most widely distributed newspaper in Israel that has historically been pro-Netanyahu, it is now also reporting on the Trump-Netanyahu split and feeding into the speculations.
As for the US operations against Yemen, the US has used the attack on Ansarallah as the perfect excuse to move a large number of military assets to the region.
This has included air defence systems to the Gulf States and most importantly to Israel.
After claiming back in March to have already “decimated” Ansarallah, the Trump administration spent way in excess of US$1 billion dollars (more accurately over US$2 billion) and understood that the only way forward was a ground operation.
Meanwhile, the US has also moved military assets to the Mediterranean and is directly involved in intensive reconnaissance over Lebanese airspace, attempting to collect information on Hezbollah.
An Iran attack imminent? While it is almost impossible to know whether the media theatrics regarding the reported Trump-Netanyahu split are entirely true, or if it is simply a good-cop bad-cop strategy, it appears that some kind of assault on Iran could be imminent.
Whether Benjamin Netanyahu is going to order an attack on Iran out of desperation or as part of a carefully choreographed plan, the US will certainly involve itself in any such assault on one level or another.
The Israeli prime minister has painted himself into a corner. In order to save his political coalition, he collapsed the Gaza ceasefire during March and managed to bring back his Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to his coalition.
This enabled him to successfully take on his own Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, in an ongoing purge of his opposition.
However, due to a lack of manpower and inability to launch any major ground operation against Gaza, without severely undermining Israeli security on other fronts, Netanyahu decided to adopt a strategy of starving the people of Gaza instead.
He now threatens a major ground offensive, yet it is hard to see what impact it would have beyond an accelerated mass murder of civilians.
The Israeli prime minister’s mistake was choosing the blocking of all aid into Gaza as the rightwing hill to die on, which has been deeply internalised by his extreme Religious Zionism coalition partners, who now threaten his government’s stability if any aid enters the besieged territory.
Netanyahu in a difficult position
This has put Netanyahu in a very difficult position, as the European Union, UK and US are all fearing the backlash that mass famine will bring and are now pushing Tel Aviv to allow in some aid.
Amidst this, Netanyahu made another commitment to the Druze community that he would intervene on their behalf in Syria.
While Syria’s leadership are signaling their intent to normalise ties and according to a recent report by Yedioth Ahronoth, participated in “direct” negotiations with Israel regarding “security issues”, there is no current threat from Damascus.
However, if tensions escalate in Syria with the Druze minority in the south, failure to fulfill pledges could cause major issues with Israeli Druze, who perform crucial roles in the Israeli military.
Internally, Israel is deeply divided, economically under great pressure and the overall instability could quickly translate to a larger range of issues.
Then we have the Lebanon front, where Hezbollah sits poised to pounce on an opportunity to land a blow in order to expel Israel from their country and avenge the killing of its Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Trigger a ‘doomsday option’?
Meanwhile in Gaza, if Israel is going to try and starve everyone to death, this could easily trigger what can only be called the “doomsday option” from Hamas and other groups there. Nobody is about to sit around and watch their people starve to death.
As for Yemen’s Ansarallah, it is clear that there was no way without a massive ground offensive that the movement was going to stop firing missiles and drones at Israel.
What we have here is a situation in which Israel finds itself incapable of defeating any of its enemies, as all of them have now been radicalised due to the mass murder inflicted upon their populations.
In other words, Israel is not capable of victory on any front and needs a way out.
The leader of the opposition to Israel in the region is perceived to be Iran, as it is the most powerful, which is why a conflict with it is so desired. Yet, Tehran is incredibly powerful and the US is incapable of defeating it with conventional weapons, therefore, a full-scale war is the equivalent to committing regional suicide.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle and it is republished with permission.
The non-existent Iranian bomb has lesser importance to the existing bombs that threaten the world. United States (US) demands that Iran promise to halt pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile developments distract from the real intent of US actions — deter other nations from establishing more friendly relations with Iran and prevent them from gaining a correct perspective on the causes of the Middle East crises.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) created a potential for extensive political, economic, and social engagements of the international community with Iran. The investments would lead to attachments, friendships, and alliances and initiate a revitalized, prosperous, and stronger Iran. A new perspective of Iran could yield a revised perspective of a violent, unstable, and disturbed Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia would finally receive attention as participants in bringing chaos to the Arab region. Economies committed to Iran’s progress and allied with its interests could bring pressure on Israel and Saudi Arabia to change their destructive behaviors.
Because arguments with Iran could have been approached in a less provocative and insinuating manner, the previous demands were meant to provoke and insinuate. Assuredly, the US wants Iran to eschew nuclear and ballistic weapons, but the provocative approach indicated other purposes — alienate Iran, destroy its military capability, and bring Tehran to collapse and submission. For what reasons? Accomplishing the far-reaching goals will not affect the average American, lessen US defense needs, or diminish the continuous battering of the helpless faces of the Middle East. The strategy mostly pleased Israel and Saudi Arabia, who engineered it, share major responsibility for the Middle East turmoil, and consistently try to use mighty America to subdue the principal antagonist to their malicious activities. During the 2016 presidential campaign, contender Donald Trump said, “Many nations, including allies, ripped off the US.” President Donald Trump has verified that statement.
Noting the history of US promises to leaders of other nations – give up your aggressive attitudes and you will benefit – the US promises make the Ayatollahs skeptical. The US reneged on the JCPOA, sent Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to the World Court and eventual death (although his personal compromises were the key to the Dayton Accords that ended the Yugoslavian conflict), directly assisted NATO in the overthrow of subdued Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, pulverized Iraq after sanctions could not drive that nation to total ruin, rejected the Iranian pledge of $560 million worth of assistance to Afghanistan at the Tokyo donors’ conference in January 2002, and, according to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, disregarded Iran’s “decisive role in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands of wanting 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government.” Tehran has always sensed it is in a no-win situation. Regardless of its decisions and directions, the U.S. intends to pulverize the centuries old Persian lands.
If the US honestly wants to have Iran promise never to pursue nuclear and ballistic missile weapons, it will approach the issues with a simple question, “What will it take for you (Iran) never to pursue these weapons?” Assuredly, the response will include provisions for the US to withdraw support from a despotic Saudi Kingdom in its oppression of minorities and opposition and propose that the US eliminate financial, military and cooperative support to Israel’s theft of Palestinian lands, oppressive conditions imposed on Palestinians, daily killings of Palestinian people, and expansionist plans. The correct question soliciting a formative response and leading to decisive US actions resolves two situations and benefits the US — fear of Iran developing weapons of mass destruction is relieved and the Middle East is pointed in a direction that achieves justice, peace, and stability for its peoples.
Despite the August 2018 report from Trump’s U.S. Department of State’s Iran Action group, which “chronicle Iran’s destructive activities,” and consists of everything from most minor to most major, from unsubstantiated to retaliatory, from the present time to before the discovery of dirt, Iranians will not rebel in sufficient numbers against their own repressive state until they note the end of hypocritical support by western powers of other repressive states. Halting international terrorism, ameliorating the Middle East violence, and preventing any nation from establishing hegemony in the Arab world starts with Trump confronting Israel and Saudi Arabia, two nations whose records of injustice, aggression, oppression, and violation of human rights exceed that of the oppressive Iran regime.
Otherwise, it will occur on a Sunday morning; always occurs in the early hours on the day of rest. It will come with a roar greater than the sum of all shrieks and screams ever uttered by humankind, rip across fields and cities, and burn through the flesh of a part of the world’s population.
On Wednesday night, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened Iran over Tehran’s alleged support for the Houthis amid the US’s heavy Yemen bombing campaign.
“Message to IRAN: We see your LETHAL support to The Houthis. We know exactly what you are doing,” Hegseth wrote on X.
“You know very well what the US Military is capable of — and you were warned. You will pay the CONSEQUENCE at the time and place of our choosing,” he added.
While the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, are aligned with Iran, the Yemeni group has its own domestic missile and drone program, meaning they’re not reliant on Tehran for military support. This has been acknowledged by US officials, including President Trump.
The man who behaves as if he is saving the world cannot save himself. He is tumbling fast, but, if he seizes the moment, he can recreate himself and gain an exalted place in history — Trump triumphant, if Iran permits.
In his first term, Trump left the White House with the country in a state of physical, mental, social, political, and economic shock — a COVID-19 epidemic, economy in shambles, nation divided, an insurrection impeded, and two congressional attempts at having him removed from office. With this enviable record, maybe not all his fault, he asserted he had made the destroyed America “Great again.” Historians disagree.
The 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey surveyed 525 historians and political science scholars. Abraham Lincoln topped the list, with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Washington, Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson rounding out the top five.
The results of a poll released on Presidents Day weekend rank Biden as the 14th greatest president in American history, coming in ahead of the likes of Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and Ulysses S. Grant. His predecessor and likely Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, found himself in dead last at 45th on the list.
Donald Trump rates lowest (10.92), behind James Buchanan (16.71), Andrew Johnson (21.56), Franklin Pierce (24.6), William Henry Harrison (26.01), and Warren Harding (27.76). Barack Obama has risen nine places (from #16 to #7), as has Ulysses S. Grant (from #26 to #17), while Andrew Jackson has fallen 12 places (from #9 to #21) and Calvin Coolidge has dropped 7 spots (from #27 to #34).
After successor and predecessor Joe Biden managed to end the COVID-19 epidemic and revive the economy, while keeping the country divided, the dead last Trump entered his second term by announcing he is going to make the United States greater. Tariffs, which many prominent economists and Wall Street analysts say will cause a RECESSION, will revive the industrial base. Peace and stability will return to the Slavic nations and to the peoples of the Middle East. The dead last man is quoted as having said, “But it (Ukraine/Russian conflict) is a very easy negotiation to take place. I will have it solved within one day, a peace between them.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio now suggests “the U.S. might soon back away from negotiations altogether without more progress.”
The most grievous faux pas in Trump’s jumbled policies is his repudiation of The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement promoted by the Obama administration, which limited the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions. The agreement was finalized on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council together with the European Union.
For 13 years, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges.
For 15 years, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% and not to build heavy-water facilities.
For 10 years, uranium enrichment would be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges. Other facilities would be converted to avoid proliferation risks. IAEA would have regular access to all Iranian nuclear facilities to monitor compliance. In return for verifiably abiding by those provisions, Iran would receive relief from U.S., European Union, and United Nations S.C. nuclear-related sanctions.
To President Donald J. Trump “the Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States ever entered.” He inaugurated the PROTECTING AMERICA FROM A BAD DEAL, terminating the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and re-imposing sanctions lifted under the deal. Misinformation, exaggerations, and wild predictions steered America from A GREAT DEAL into a BAD FUTURE.
President Trump is terminating United States participation in the JCPOA, as it failed to protect America’s national security interests.
The JCPOA enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior, while at best delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons and allowing it to preserve nuclear research and development.
The re-imposed sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy, such as its energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors.
United States withdrawal from the JCPOA will pressure the Iranian regime to alter its course of malign activities and ensure that Iranian bad acts are no longer rewarded. As a result, both Iran and its regional proxies will be put on notice. As importantly, this step will help ensure global funds stop flowing towards illicit terrorist and nuclear activities.
Intelligence recently released by Israel provides compelling details about Iran’s past secret efforts to develop nuclear weapons, which it lied about for years.
The intelligence further demonstrates that the Iranian regime did not come clean about its nuclear weapons activity, and that it entered the JCPOA in bad faith.
The JCPOA failed to deal with the threat of Iran’s missile program and did not include a strong enough mechanism for inspections and verification.
The JCPOA foolishly gave the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment.
*Instead of using the money from the JCPOA to support the Iranian people at home, the regime has instead funded a military buildup and continues to fund its terrorist proxies, such as Hizballah and Hamas.
Because of Trump’s decision to leave the JCPOA, everything the JCPOA managed to prevent has been encouraged. The Islamic State has ballistic missiles, drones, anti-ballistic missiles, and uranium stock at 60 percent enrichment, close to having material for a nuclear bomb.
WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) – Iran could make enough fissile for one nuclear bomb in “about 12 days,” a top U.S. Defense Department official said on Tuesday, down from the estimated one year it would have taken while the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was in effect.
Trump’s efforts have been counterproductive and his fast fall into oblivion might be hastened in the renewed nuclear discussions, except, wait, he can be resurrected. By playing his cards right, not the way he told Ukraine President Zelensky is playing the cards, he can rise faster than a SpaceX starship and vault himself into a page of glorious history ─ Trump can rid the world of the nuclear menace ─ Iran can help Trump to achieve nuclear disarmament. Unlikely, but doable.
The only reason for Iran having a nuclear weapons program is to neutralize Israel’s nuclear armaments. The Ayatollahs will definitely halt their program if assured Israel surrenders its weapons, that is, if Israel has deliverable weapons to surrender. This is a fair trade and one that Trump, who covets a Nobel Prize, might entertain. Think of it, and he will ─ Donald J. Trump, 45th and 47th presidents of the United States was responsible for halting nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and for eventually reducing the nuclear threat throughout the world. Much to deliberate, much to cajole, much to administrate, and much to admire. What is the alternative — much to bomb, much to kill, much to destroy, and much for history to scorn.
Israel will not approve, and will kick, squirm, and threaten. Without the United States support and an entire world from Tierra del Fuego to Siberia allied with the proposition, Israel will receive an offer it cannot refuse. The bitter man will smile again. His hateful disposition hid the real Trump, the man who wants to be loved by all.
The Council decided 14 April to impose restrictive measures on an additional seven individuals and two entities responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran, including for the use of thejudiciary as a tool for arbitrary detention.
The European Union continues to be deeply concerned by Iran’s distressing practice to arbitrarily detain EU mono and dual nationals ..
In this context, the EU is imposing sanctions on the Shiraz Central Prison, located in Fars Province, and the First Branch of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz. Furthermore, the EU is imposing restrictive measures on members of the judiciary, including Hedayatollah Farzadi, head of Evin prison, and Mehdi Nemati, head of the Fars Prisons Protection and Intelligence Department.
Restrictive measures now apply to a total of232 individuals and 44 entities. They consist of an asset freeze, a travel ban to the EU, and a prohibition to make funds or economic resources available to those listed. A ban on exports to Iran of equipment, that might be used for internal repression, and of equipment for monitoring telecommunications is also in place.
The European Union expresses its support for the fundamental aspiration of the people of Iran for a future where their universal human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, protected and fulfilled. The relevant legal acts have been published in the Official Journal of the EU.
The EU introduced in 2011 a regime consisting of restrictive measures that have been renewed annually since, and last extended until 13 of April 2026. Since 2022, the EU has drastically increased restrictive measures, adopting 11 packages of sanctions in the context of growing concerns about serious human rights abuses and violations in Iran.
In a rare moment of candor, former Trump administration officials are now admitting that economic sanctions — one of their most aggressive foreign policy tools — don’t actually work. This admission, coming from the architects of the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaigns, is telling. It confirms what many in sanctioned countries, and those who study them, have known for years: sanctions fail at their…
The third round of indirect nuclear talks between Iranian and US officials concluded on 26 April after several hours of meetings in the Omani capital, Muscat.
“The talks were much more serious than in the past, and we entered into more detailed and technical discussions. The presence of experts was useful,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who is leading the Iranian delegation, told reporters following the talks.
“Positions were exchanged in writing several times. Overall, the atmosphere was quite serious and businesslike, and we stayed away from major discussions,” Araghchi added, stressing that the “businesslike” atmosphere created “hope for progress, although this is a cautious hope.”
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the United States and Israel have been zealous in their efforts to disempower it. Israel has used its powerful hasbara (propaganda) machine to peddle absurdities about Tehran as a nuclear threat to the region and the world.
For refusing to bend to U.S.-Israeli demands to abandon the Palestinian cause and for standing against their hegemonic plans for the region, Iran has been the target of the most restrictive economic sanctions in history and under perpetual threat of military intervention.
Like any sovereign nation, Iran has a right to defend itself. Nuclear weapons are a security guarantee that Iran has not sought.
On Saturday, the United States and Iran will hold another round of talks in Muscat, the capital of Oman. The aim is to continue to advance talks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Thus far, the talks have gone well, but, as I have explained on several occasions recently, there are serious difficulties to overcome. These include the fact that Iran, having not pursued a nuclear weapons program to any degree since 2003, starts from a grudging position where it, justifiably, wonders why it should compromise over a non-issue. Meanwhile, the United States, which, along with Israel, has created a terrifying image of a nuclear-armed Iran, is pressing hard for unprecedented intrusiveness in monitoring Iran’s nuclear work.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited China and held talks with Chinese officials on 23 April, discussing several matters including bilateral cooperation and developments in West Asia, while also briefing Beijing on ongoing nuclear talks with Washington.
Araghchi met with Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang to discuss “interaction within the framework of the comprehensive agreement on strategic cooperation and weighing plans to expedite the implementation of the 25-year road map,” according to Tasnim news agency.
Iran and China signed the 25-year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement in March 2021. The deal includes cooperation in energy, finance, transportation, and trade, as well as military and security.
On April 17, US airstrikes on Yemen killed 74 people and injured 171 in a dangerous escalation of US President Donald Trump’s war against the poorest country in the Middle East. A resident of the area around Yemen’s Ras Issa fuel port told Chinese media that “among the victims were employees, truck drivers, contracted workers, and civilian trainees of the port,” and “rescue teams recovering bodies and extinguishing fires were also targeted in [US] subsequent strikes.”
Trump’s attack targeted Ras Issa a vital lifeline connecting the isolated, bombarded country to outside supply shipments. For its part, the US administration claimed that the bombing intended to prevent Iranian fuel from reaching “the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists” in order to “deprive them of illegal revenue that has funded Houthi efforts to terrorize the entire region for over 10 years.”
While it is US policy to delegitimize Ansar Allah (also known as “the Houthis”) as “Iran-backed terrorists,” in fact, 80 percent of Yemenis live under the Sanaa-based Supreme Political Council led by Ansar Allah, making them Yemen’s de facto government. They have a huge degree of public support, as evidenced by the regular protests of tens of even hundreds of thousands of Yemenis opposing US aggression and supporting Ansar Allah’s armed support for Palestinian liberation.
Ansar Allah survived eight years of Saudi-led attacks on Yemen, a war of aggression (backed militarily and diplomatically by governments of the US, Canada, and Europe) that levelled civilian infrastructure and killed almost 400,000 Yemenis. Trump’s bombings will not destroy the vilified “Houthi rebels,” but that is not their goal. What Washington wants is to force Yemen to withdraw its armed support for Palestinians resisting Israel’s genocide.
After Israel launched its onslaught against Gaza in October 2023, Yemen imposed a blockade on Red Sea shipping to Israel. As Israel’s assault on Palestinians in Gaza reached genocidal proportions, Yemen launched drone and missile attacks against Israeli targets. From the beginning, Ansar Allah was very forthright: they stated that the attacks on Red Sea ships and Israeli targets would stop once Israel ceased its genocidal assault on Gaza. During the Gaza ceasefire of January 19 to March 18, 2025, Ansar Allah did cease its military actions in the Red Sea (even as Israel violated the ceasefire 962 times), clearly demonstrating the connection between Israel’s genocide and Yemeni military activity.
US efforts to paint the Yemenis as puppets of Iran, mindless terrorists, and maritime pirates are part of a concerted effort by Washington to obfuscate the just, defensive, and humanitarian motivations behind Ansar Allah’s actions. The recent phase of US attacks on Yemen began in January 2024 under former president Joe Biden, and these bombings received logistical support from, among other countries, Canada and the United Kingdom. After coming to office, Trump intensified the US war on Yemen. Since March, his attacks have killed more than 50 Yemenis, not counting the recent bombardment of civilians at the Ras Issa port. Reportedly, his administration is mulling a ground invasion of Yemen.
One must always keep in mind why America is upping its attacks on the Yemeni people. It is because Yemen is trying to prevent Israel, an outpost of US power in the Middle East, from carrying out a genocide. That’s it. International and humanitarian law mean nothing to Washington. US efforts to paint Ansar Allah as illegitimate, criminal, or aggressors are transparent attempts to rhetorically discredit a regional resistance movement in order to make the massacre of Yemenis palatable to Western audiences.
In the US empire’s eyes, the reason Yemenis need to be massacred is obvious: they are opponents of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Trump is massacring Yemenis so that Israel can continue massacring Palestinians. It really is that simple.
