Mouin Rabbani Profile picture
Jan 29, 2024 39 tweets 6 min read Read on X
THREAD: There have been a number of important developments over the weekend.
Three US soldiers were killed, and several dozen wounded, in a drone attack on a US military/intelligence base known as Tower 22 in northeastern Jordan, the region where the borders of Jordan, Syria, and Iraq meet.
The Jordanian authorities continue to insist that the attack was in fact directed at the US base in Tanf in southeastern Syria rather than Tower 22, because it does not want to draw unnecessary attention to the highly unpopular US military presence on Jordanian territory.
The US deployment is regulated by the 2022 US-Jordan Memorandum of Understanding on Strategic Partnership, which gives Washington virtually unlimited rights to use Jordanian territory for US military purposes, and the Jordanian treasury USD 1.45 billion per year for seven years.
The attack is significant for a number of reasons. Although there have been numerous attacks on US bases and forces in the Middle East since 7 October 2023, including in Iraq, Syria, in the Red Sea off Yemen, and according to unconfirmed reports Israel as well,
these are the first confirmed killings of US soldiers in the region since that date. (Two Navy SEALS died off Yemen’s coast recently, but it was reported as an accident). It is also the first confirmed attack on or from Jordanian territory since 7 October.
Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a coalition of groups aligned with the Axis of Resistance, itself a coalition of states and movements in the region opposed to US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
According to the statement of responsibility the attack, apparently launched from Syrian rather than Iraqi territory, is intended to raise the cost of Israel’s genocidal onslaught on the Gaza Strip and US support for Israel’s mass killings.
“If the US keeps supporting Israel, there will be escalations. All US interests in the region are legitimate targets and we don’t care about US threats to respond.” The expulsion of US forces from Iraq and Syria is an additional, unspoken objective.
In his own statement about the incident, US President Joe Biden blamed “radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq”.
White House spokesperson John Kirby will probably be trotted out to deny any connection whatsoever between developments in Jordan and Gaza, much as he has done in relation to attacks by Ansar Allah off Yemen’s coast, which even more explicitly reference the Gaza Strip.
Given US casualties, Washington is virtually certain to respond to this escalation with a significant escalation of its own. This in turn brings direct conflict between the US and Iran one big step closer, from plausible but unlikely to plausible and possible.
Powerful forces in both the US and Israel have been agitating for such a scenario since 7 October, and will now see a new opportunity to make this a reality.
The broader significance is that US forces are now dying in defense of Israel. Throughout this war Washington has had a clear choice: put an end to Israel’s genocidal onslaught on the Gaza Strip, or engage in conflict with regional forces determined to do so themselves.
Given Israel’s extraordinary level of military and political dependence on the US, so visibly demonstrated these past several months, it would take only a brief phone call to achieve the former. But the Biden administration has consistently chosen for the latter.
In the words of @asadabukhalil : “The US does not want a cease-fire in Gaza and objects to the regional repercussions of its rejection of the ceasefire.”
@asadabukhalil That’s not how the US-Israeli relationship is supposed to work. Israel is the designated proxy, assigned to defend Western interests in the Middle East. A “stationary aircraft carrier”, in the words of former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig.
@asadabukhalil Instead, the US is functioning as Israel’s proxy, now fighting on multiple fronts, its soldiers dying to defend Israel and protect its ability to continue fighting in the Gaza Strip. This is because for more than 100 days, Israel’s longest war since 1948-1949,
@asadabukhalil it has proven incapable of defeating Hamas, a second-order guerilla movement that doesn’t possess a single aircraft, tank, warship, or anti-aircraft defense system. Its long-range missiles basically need to make a direct impact on an individual’s forehead to achieve a kill.
@asadabukhalil As previously argued, Israel’s military incompetence and mediocre performance will have long-lasting consequences for its strategic relationship with its Western sponsors.
@asadabukhalil To put it simply, t-shirts emblazoned with an Israeli fighter jet and the slogan “Don’t Worry America, Israeli is Behind You!” used to popular among visiting tourists. I suspect they can now be obtained at a steep discount.
@asadabukhalil Related to this, a rally was held in Jerusalem today to promote the expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and renewal of Israeli settlements in that occupied territory. It was attended by no less than 12 of Israel’s 37 government ministers (almost a third),
@asadabukhalil including several leaders of parties represented in that state’s genocidal coalition. Two of Israel’s most senior leaders, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich, addressed the raucous and adoring crowd of several thousand.
@asadabukhalil Ben-Gvir leads Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), a Kahanist party that is Israel’s equivalent of Germany’s Nazis. Bezalel Smotrich is the leader of Tkuma (Religious Zionist Party), also Israel’s equivalent of Germany’s Nazis.
@asadabukhalil One thing that distinguishes these parties (and a few others) from others in Israel is their insistence that Israel is sufficiently powerful to act unilaterally and do as it pleases, and sufficiently independent to give the world, including Israel’s sponsors in the US and Europe,
@asadabukhalil the middle finger. That’s why they convened this meeting within 48 hours of the International Court of Justice session indicating that Israel has plausibly been accused of genocide.
@asadabukhalil The above notwithstanding Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have the mannerisms of spoiled children more than seasoned gangsters. Insufferable kids who feel free to grab or break anything they want at the store because they know Mummy and Daddy are there to take care of things,
@asadabukhalil and clean up any resulting mess. In other words, they talk big but know they can only do so because Biden and Brussels have their back. And on this score they’re right.
@asadabukhalil Which brings me to UNRWA. Several of Israel’s sponsors, including the US and UK, have suspended their funding of the UN refugee agency for Palestine refugees in response to unproven allegations that several of its employees participated in the attacks on Israel on 7 October.
@asadabukhalil It’s a bit like cutting off aid to a foreign country because a dozen of its civil servants have been charged (but not yet tried) for participation in criminal activity.
@asadabukhalil There’s much going on here, including a long-term campaign to liquidate the Palestinian refugee question, in which UNRWA serves as a primary surrogate for US-Israeli hysteria. And a history of previous Israeli allegations against UNRWA subsequently exposed as fraudulent.
@asadabukhalil (For example, a 2014 drone video released by Israel of two UNRWA medics purportedly using an ambulance to transport Hamas missiles was later revealed to be two UNRWA medics transporting a stretcher into an ambulance.)
@asadabukhalil But when it comes to UNRWA, a rush to judgement is obligatory, the agency is guilty until proven innocent, and then still guilty.
@asadabukhalil The Israeli allegations were transparently released to divert from the ICJ ruling. The response of multiple Western governments should also be seen as a response to the ICJ.
@asadabukhalil In their rules-based international order, it is a violation of international law to apply international law to Israel or Western states.
@asadabukhalil South Africa dares to hold Israel accountable for genocide? Let’s see what it thinks when we deliberately intensify hunger and famine in the Gaza Strip.
@asadabukhalil I’ll conclude by citing the comment of @sarahleah1, former head of MENA at Human Rights Watch and currently Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN):
@asadabukhalil @sarahleah1 “It took Blinken about 3 seconds to suspend UNRWA aid based on mere allegations that 12 employees linked to Hamas attack,
@asadabukhalil @sarahleah1 but despite evidence that IDF has indiscriminately & deliberately massacred tens of thousands of Palestinians – plausibly a genocide ICJ said – zero suspension of military aid”. END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mouin Rabbani

Mouin Rabbani Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MouinRabbani

Jun 24
THREAD: It seems a ceasefire has been achieved in what US President Trump is now calling the “Twelve-Day War” between Israel and Iran. What motivated the parties involved to accept it?
For the United States, the calculation is fairly straightforward. It viewed the war launched by Israel against Iran primarily as an instrument to improve its negotiating position vis-à-vis Tehran. If Israel succeeded, Iran would be compelled to comprehensively dismantle its nuclear program, renounce its right to enrich uranium on its own territory as guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), terminate its ballistic missile program, and sever links with militant movements in the region in a subsequent agreement dictated by Washington.
Washington’s objectives were further demonstrated by its bombing of Iran several days ago. Its attacks were limited to three Iranian nuclear installations, accompanied by threats of a more widespread campaign if Iran retaliated. While Trump at one point identified regime change in Tehran as a desirable outcome he never committed to it, nor instructed the US military to pursue this goal.
Read 18 tweets
Jun 22
THREAD: On 21 June 2025 the United States bombed Iran, concentrating its massive firepower on three Iranian nuclear installations. It was, by any measure, and like the war launched by Israel on 13 June, an unprovoked attack. None of the justifications offer pass the smell test. As for the status of these attacks under international law, any such analysis is irrelevant, because international law as we have known it no longer exists. For good measure Israel and the United States have most likely also administered a fatal blow to the nuclear regulatory regime.
I continue to maintain that the latest developments were not inevitable, and that the Trump administration did not assume office with a determination and plan to go to war against Iran. The evidence suggests that Trump, and key members of his entourage, were serious about pursuing negotiations with Tehran, but that Trump and his de facto Secretary of State Steve Witkoff were then persuaded on a different course of action by a coalition consisting of Israel, its loyalists in the US (including within the administration), and anti-Iran war hawks.
First, to put forward unrealistic demands in the negotiations conducted with the Iranians on the pretext these were achievable, and then to endorse an Israeli attack on Iran on the pretext that it would improve Washington’s negotiating position and force it to accept Washington’s unrealistic demands. Once Israel launched its war a concerted campaign ensued, designed to convince the Narcissist-in-Chief in the White House that he could not afford to look weak, that he had a unique opportunity to clinch a foreign policy victory, and that in sharp contrast to Iraq it would be “One and Done” and quickly followed by a prostrate Iran accepting a deal.
Read 10 tweets
Jun 15
THREAD: Various reports suggest that the United States is debating direct participation in Israel’s war against Iran. In addition to the massive supply of arms and funds to its Israeli proxy, the mobilization of anti-missile defenses to protect it from Iranian retaliation, and the provision of diplomatic and political support, this would mean that US forces would become directly involved in attacking Iranian territory and assets. How did we get here?
Since Israel launched its war of aggression on Iran, various theories have been floated about the role of the US. One popular interpretation is that the Trump administration’s very different approach to Tehran relative to that during its first term was all a ruse. A joint US-Israeli decision to attack Iran was purportedly made from the very outset, and the negotiations were convened in order to lull Tehran into a false sense of security, and were never meant to be serious. In other words, everything went exactly as planned. This strikes me as excessively simplistic.
When the second Trump administration assumed office, the failure of its previous approach was visibly apparent. Its 2018 renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear agreement, enabled Iran to become a nuclear threshold state, with possession of a nuclear weapon essentially just one political decision away. While the policy of “maximum pressure” that replaced the JCPOA had produced a permanent and growing economic crisis in Iran, and contributed to anti-government sentiment and protests, they affected neither the coherence and political will of the Iranian leadership, nor significantly weakened its grip over the country.
Read 31 tweets
Jun 14
THREAD: On 11 June GHF, the US-Israeli project to seize control of humanitarian relief efforts in the Gaza Strip from specialized international agencies, in order to further Israel’s genocidal agenda, issued a press release. In it, GHF claimed that a bus “carrying more than two dozen” Palestinians working for the project was “brutally attacked by Hamas”, with “at least five fatalities” and “multiple injuries”, and that others “may have been taken hostage”. GHF additionally claimed the attack “did not happen in a vacuum”, because “For days, Hamas has openly threatened our team”.
In an updated statement the following day, 12 June, GHF claimed the attack resulted in eight dead and twenty-one wounded, and that Hamas was preventing the injured from receiving treatment at Nasir Hospital in Khan Yunis.
In a separate communique, also issued on 12 June, Hamas announced that its forces had killed at least twelve members of the Popular Forces, the militia led by convicted drug smuggler Yasir Abu Shabab, and which is armed by Israel and operates under its direction. The Hamas statement added that its forces had wounded many more of Abu Shabab’s gunmen and captured others. The Popular Forces for their part responded that there had in fact been an exchange of fire between its gunmen and Hamas, and that it managed to kill several Hamas attackers. Press reports however indicate that some if not all of the Hamas casualties resulted from Israeli forces intervening on their militia’s behalf. It remains unclear if GHF, Hamas, and the Popular Forces militia were referring to the same encounter or separate ones.
Read 27 tweets
Apr 30
THREAD: Until several weeks ago I was unfamiliar with the neo-conservative polemicist Douglas Murray. In my defense, I had also not previously heard of the comedian Dave Smith. Why their 10 April debate has generated so much comment and discussion remains something of a mystery. Presumably this has at least as much to do with it being hosted by Joe Rogan, the most popular English-language podcaster, as with the substance of the exchange itself.
I haven’t yet viewed the debate in its entirety, and probably won’t, and will therefore refrain from commenting on it in detail. Regarding one of the main controversies generated by the event, namely questions about the standing of a US comedian to have a clear position on events in a region of the world he has never visited, such criticism is akin to maintaining that those who never visited South Africa during the decades of white-minority rule should have been disqualified from forming an opinion on apartheid and mobilizing for the country’s freedom.
How many Americans who passionately supported or opposed their country’s wars against Vietnam or Iraq made it a point to visit these countries, let alone familiarize themselves with the societies in question? Virtually none. Whatever Smith’s faults, he at least doesn’t claim to be a journalist reporting on the Middle East, in which case his lack of direct familiarity with the region would deserve further scrutiny.
Read 43 tweets
Apr 2
THREAD: I have on several occasions pointed out that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fraudster who invented her origin story out of thin air. Like other immigrants who embrace far-right politics, she is motivated by a combination of opportunism, self-promotion, and callous, gratuitous contempt for those who genuinely experience the challenges she falsely claims as her own. Combine with the requisite insecurity, identity crisis, and burning desire to be accepted by the dominant culture, add a hefty dose of insufferable narcissism, et voila, the far-right immigrant template is complete.
I wrote the below in 2006, in response to a disingenuous defence of Hirsi Ali by the unlamented Christopher Hitchens. At the end of this thread I provide a link to the documentary that I reference in this thread. The link is to a copy of the Dutch documentary with (accurate) English subtitles, and I can’t recommend it highly enough for those unfamiliar with the sheer scale and brazen nature of Hirsi Ali’s fraud. Here’s my 2006 text:
Christopher Hitchens's most recent defence of Ayaan Hirsi Magan (aka Ayaan Hirsi Ali), "Dutch Courage", published in Slate on 22 May 2006, was – judging by the reference to a 19 May 2006 New York Times op-ed by Ian Buruma, completed on or after that date. Yet it fails to account for a slew of facts that were by then public knowledge. Together with other facts that have been in the public record for considerably longer, these collectively either undermine or reverse many of Hitchens’s assertions:
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(