Airlangga Tegaskan Golkar Berpihak terhadap Anak Muda

Ketua Umum Partai Golkar Airlangga Hartarto menghadiri acara halalbihalal DPP AMPI, di Hotel Double Tree Hilton, Menteng, Jakarta Pusat/Ist

Golkar, Airlangga Hartarto mengaku telah mempercayakan banyak hal kepada Ketua Umum Angkatan Muda Pembaharuan Indonesia (AMPI), Jerry Sambuaga.

Hal ini dikatakan Airlangga saat menghadiri acara halalbihalal DPP AMPI, di Hotel Double Tree Hilton, Menteng, Jakarta Pusat, Selasa, 16/04/2024.

“Golkar mempercayakan kepada Saudara Jerry banyak hal. Pertama saat Mas Jerry lagi jalan-jalan di Plaza Indonesia. Saya tanya, Jer lagi di mana? Dia langsung menghadap. Dan dia mendapat kepercayaan jadi Wamen mewakili Sulawesi Utara. Yang kedua, Jer lagi ngapain? Saya minta dia jadi Ketua Umum AMPI,” kata Airlangga Hartarto yang disambut tawa hadirin.

Tak hanya itu, Jerry juga mendapatkan kepercayaan DPP Partai Golkar untuk menjadi koordinator Golkar Under 40. Gerakan Golkar Under 40 menjadi salah satu ujung tombak terciptanya branding bahwa Partai Golkar sangat ramah terhadap ekosistem politik generasi muda.

“Ada lagi tambahan. Saya bilang, Jer ini kita mau mendorong orang muda, under 40. Saya minta dia jadi koordinator under 40 dalam Pemilu 2024. Dan alhamdulillah, Pak Jerry dipercaya jadi LO Partai Golkar untuk mendampingi Mas Gibran selama masa kampanye,” tambah Menko Perekonomian RI ini.

Airlangga menekankan jika kepercayaan yang diberikan kepada Jerry serta AMPI tak lain sebagai wujud keberpihakan Partai Golkar terhadap generasi muda.

Bahkan Partai Golkar berani memberikan jabatan strategis Menpora RI, kepada kader muda yang juga merupakan mantan Ketua Umum AMPI, Dito Ariotedjo.

“Jadi kepercayaan Partai Golkar terhadap Mas Jerry ini luar biasa. Ditambah lagi Ketua Umum AMPI sebelum Mas Jerry, dijadikan Menpora. Dan Menpora yang termuda sepanjang sejarah republik adalah Ketua Umum AMPI, saudara Dito Ariotedjo. Ini menginspirasi semua anak muda di Indonesia,” tutup Airlangga.

Iran’s strike on Israel was much more successful than it seems. Here’s why

Screen grab from AFPTV showing explosions lighting up the sky over Hebron, West Bank, during an Iranian attack on Israel, April 14, 2024.
©AFPTV/AFP

By Abbas Juma, an international journalist, political commentator, Middle East and Africa specialist

On the night of April 14, Iran and its proxy forces launched a series of cruise missile and kamikaze drone strikes on Israeli territory. The attacks did not come as a surprise. Tehran had warned that it would respond to the Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, which killed several high-ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including two generals. The retaliatory strike was called Operation True Promise. 

There is still much debate on whether Iran’s retaliatory strike was successful. Most military experts agree that there was nothing unusual about Tehran’s actions, except that this was Iran’s first direct attack on Israel. From a technical point of view, the strategy was simple and correct: Iran first suppressed the enemy’s air defense systems with drones and then launched hypersonic missiles which the Israelis and Americans were not able to intercept. Incidentally, in light of this, Ukraine’s statements about shooting down Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles sound ridiculous.

Do not jump to conclusions

Many experts were skeptical about Iran’s strike and hastened to say that the retaliation did not live up to expectations. Given the clip thinking of most commentators, this reaction is hardly surprising. Their reasoning resembles a Hollywood blockbuster stuffed with special effects, where the end of the world and its miraculous salvation fit into 90-120 minutes, with a love scene in the middle. In real life, things are different. As Sun Tzu wrote in ancient times, to fight 100 battles and win 100 battles is not the height of skill. The best way to win is not to fight at all. This is Iran’s strategy. Its strike against Israel was not so much a military response as a grandmaster’s move in a big chess game. And the game is not over yet. 3

After the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital, Tehran found itself in a tough situation. It had to respond in a way that would look convincing and would achieve specific military goals, but would not start World War III.

To achieve the first point, Iran had to carry out a direct strike without resorting exclusively to proxy forces – and that is indeed how it acted. Regarding the second point, even though most of the missiles and drones were indeed shot down, some managed to penetrate Israeli air space and hit military targets. The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, said that the information center on the Israeli-Syrian border and Israel’s Nevatim air base were hit. And finally, as to the third point – war didn’t happen. This resembled the situation in 2020, when the Iranians hit US bases in Iraq in response to the assassination of General Soleimani.

However, it is still too early to speculate as to whether Iran’s attack was a success or not. The big question now is how Israel will respond. 

What Iran has accomplished

It’s important to emphasize that Iran’s operation carried more political than military weight. In this sense, it was carried out subtly and was a success. Obviously, the Iranians did not want to start a war which would involve the US, even though that is what Netanyahu wanted. In other words, Israel didn’t manage to provoke Iran. 

It is also obvious that the Islamic Republic possesses more powerful drones and missiles than those used in the attack on April 14. However, even the less advanced drones and missiles were able to penetrate Israeli air space and inflict economic damage, since Israel spent much more money on shooting down the missiles and drones than Iran spent on launching them. 

Tehran has once again demonstrated that Israel is not invulnerable, and it is possible to attack it. As for the degree of inflicted damage, which some commentators were unsatisfied with, it largely depends on the type of missiles and drones used in the attack – and Iran has a lot of military equipment.

Finally, Iran’s main achievement is that it has managed to confuse Israel in the same way that it was confused after the October 7 Hamas attack. The country has to respond. But how? Should Israel strike Iranian proxy forces? This is possible, but Israel does it all the time without much result. Should it hit Iran directly? But that would start a war which no one is prepared for, including the US.

Conclusion

The ball is now in Israel’s court, and the country faces the same challenges that the Islamic Republic did after April 1. But will Israel be able to solve these challenges as efficiently? 

It is noteworthy that IRGC Commander-in-Chief, Hossein Salami, said that from now on, if Israel attacks the interests of Iran and Iranian citizens, Tehran will strike it again.

This is an important statement. Essentially, the attack carried out by Iran on April 14 was not just a retaliatory strike, but established a new order. Iran demonstrated that it is ready to resort to new means of influence in a situation where words are not sufficient.

It attacked Israel directly not in order to start a war, but to demonstrate what could happen if all other methods of pressure on Israel fail.

A new option has been put forward. Israel may be deprived of its most important advantage – absolute impunity, which until recently had been guaranteed by the US.

Pain at the Pump? Why Military Action or Sanctions Against Iran May Backfire on US & Allies

©AP Photo/Horst Faas

Market watchers warn that oil prices could surge if the latest tit-for-tat between Israel and Iran morphs into a wider regional conflict. If the Biden administration slaps new sanctions on Iran's oil exports, it could send prices higher too, observers say.

On the eve of Iran's retaliatory strike on Israel, oil prices spiked, but slightly backtracked in the aftermath of Tehran's attack. On Monday, Brent retreated 0.9%, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was down 0.8%.

"The impact of Iran’s attack on oil prices was hardly noticeable for the simple reason that the flow of oil from the Gulf region hasn’t been disrupted," Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, an international oil economist and a global energy expert, explained to Sputnik. "This could, however, change if Israel retaliates, thus prompting Iran to respond with a harsher retaliation that could lead to a disruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz," he noted.

Brent Crude is currently trading around $90 a barrel, yet Salameh predicts that we should be prepared for a potential rally in the near future. He estimates that Brent will fluctuate between $90 and $100 per barrel throughout the year. However, the expert forewarned that in the event of increased tensions between Israel and Iran, the price could surpass $100 and even reach $120 per barrel.

"Iran had no alternative but to retaliate against Israel’s attack on its Consulate in Damascus, Syria in which two high ranking commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were killed otherwise it would have lost face in the world and would have been depicted as a paper tiger," said Salameh.

"Moreover, Iran warned Israel not to retaliate and that it will get a harsher response if it did. I am convinced that Israel is going to respond in one way or another, but not immediately. So we are now in some sort of calm before the storm. Israel is coming under heavy pressure from the United States and its allies not to respond," the expert continued.

The Biden administration does not want any ratcheting up of tensions between the two arch enemies that could potentially lead to a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This waterway is recognized as one of the world's most crucial oil passages, with tankers transporting roughly 17 million barrels of crude oil through it daily, accounting for about one-fifth of the world's total consumption. If the strait were to be blocked, it is likely that global petroleum prices would surge, resulting in increased pain for American consumers at the pump right before the 2024 presidential election.

"However, the Biden administration has signaled that it will impose additional sanctions against Iranian crude oil exports, particularly to China," Salameh noted. "To this effect, the US may also decide to impose restrictions on Chinese financial organizations and banks alleged to be involved in Chinese purchases of Iranian crude," the oil analyst explained.

Axios reported on Tuesday that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is preparing "fresh sanctions" for Iran. The media outlet noted that Yellen is likely to force Western finance ministers at the annual spring IMF meetings this week to coordinate on possible joint actions against Tehran.

American congressmen aren't sitting on their hands, either. According to Bloomberg, House lawmakers are pushing ahead with the Iran-China Energy Sanctions Act of 2023, which envisages tightening the screws on Iranian oil exports and China's purchase of crude or petroleum products from the Islamic Republic. US lawmakers are expressing outrage about the fact that Iran's oil exports have reached a four-year high of 1.5 million barrels per day this year. Around 80% of Iranian crude is sent to China’s independent refiners.

"The truth of the matter is that any additional sanctions on Iran won't fare better than the existing ones," Salameh said.

Restricting Iran's oil exports may boomerang on the Biden administration. With no immediate replacement for the Iranian oil that could be lost, especially since OPEC+ members have decided to keep cutting back on production and exports for the time being, there could be a significant impact on the market. Furthermore, China's bullish economy and high energy demand only serve to exacerbate this situation, as any decrease in oil supply will likely lead to a sudden surge in prices.

Experts warn that since China is one of the largest consumers of Iranian crude, they would have no choice but to fiercely compete for oil from other sources if Iran's exports were to be hampered. This could potentially lead to further instability in the global oil market.

"The China factor got a huge boost yesterday when it was announced that China’s economy grew by 5.3% in the first quarter of 2024 beating its own projection of 5.0%," Salameh said. "This very bullish factor will add to growing bullish sentiments about global oil demand which is, anyway, underpinned by solid fundamentals, robust demand and a tightening market."

Despite all the muscle-flexing, the Biden administration is unlikely to take significant action against Iran, believes Michael Rothman, president and founder of Cornerstone Analytics, a US-based consultancy focused on macro-energy research.

"This looked to me as having a near-zero probability given the Biden Administration has actually loosened US compliance measures with existing sanctions on Iran that, in fact, allowed the country’s oil exports to rise over the past year," Rothman said.

Another potential issue that could arise from a rise in oil prices is the risk of inflation increasing. This, in turn, could hinder economic growth in the West and result in delays in rate cuts by Western central banks. In such a situation, any military or economic actions taken against Iran by Israel or NATO countries would be teeming with substantial risks.

Potential Dangers of Major Nuclear Accident at Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant Remain Real - IAEA

©AFP 2023/OLGA MALTSEVA

Even though the six reactors at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) are in a cold shutdown, the threat of a major disaster at the facility remains real, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi said on Monday.

“Even though the plant’s six reactors are now in cold shutdown, with the final unit shifting into that status two days ago following the IAEA’s recommendation, the potential dangers of a major nuclear accident are very real,” Grossi told the UN Security Council.

The situation is "dangerously close to a nuclear accident," Grossi warned. Attacks around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) have to stop immediately as nuclear safety is already compromised, the IAEA director stressed.

“These reckless attacks must cease immediately. Though, fortunately, they have not led to a radiological incident this time, they significantly increase the risk at Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, where nuclear safety is already compromised,” Grossi said.

The recent attacks on the nuclear power plant earlier this month repeatedly violated one of the five principles he outlined last year to avert a nuclear disaster amid the Ukraine conflict.

"Nevertheless, Madame President, over the past ten days, the first of these principles has been violated repeatedly in what marks a step-change increase in risk to nuclear safety and security at Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant," Grossi emphasized.

"We must do everything in our power today to minimize the risk of an accident," he stated.

On April 7, Ukraine's kamikaze drones attacked the territory of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant right after an inspection carried out by IAEA experts, the plant's press service said. The IAEA confirmed minor damage to the sixth power unit of the nuclear power plant, adding that nuclear safety had not been compromised. The attack also left three workers injured, with one of them sustaining serious injuries, Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom said.

No Russian heavy weapons at Zaporozhye nuclear plant – IAEA boss

Russia does not station heavy weapons at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi told reporters on Monday.

Moscow and Kiev have been accusing each other of shelling Europe’s largest nuclear plant, which sits close to the front line. Kiev and its Western backers have also accused Moscow of using the facility as a cover for its troops.

Grossi made his comments after a UN Security Council meeting dedicated to the renewed strikes on the plant. “There is no heavy weaponry there,” Grossi said while answering a reporter’s question during a media stakeout.

Russia does not station heavy weapons at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi told reporters on Monday.

He explained that, although there are Russian “armored vehicles and some security presence at the plant,” IAEA monitors did not see any prohibited weapons, such as multiple rocket launchers, tanks and artillery.

Grossi said that the IAEA does not have the mandate to determine which side has been attacking the facility and argued that “indisputable evidence” is needed to establish who is responsible.

Addressing the Security Council, Grossi confirmed that Europe’s largest nuclear power plant was struck on April 7, which was the first direct attack on the site since November 2022. Insectors have determined that the apex of the containment dome of the Unit 6 reactor building had been hit, he added. “Whilst the damage to the structure is superficial, the attack sets a very dangerous precedent of the successful targeting of the reactor containment,” Grossi stressed, warning that “these reckless attacks must cease immediately.”

Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the Security Council that Ukrainian forces have been “systematically” targeting the plant and surrounding areas. He stated that the Russian army has been “spotting and intercepting up to 100 drones per week.” Moscow has never placed heavy weapons at the facility or used the plant to stage attacks on Ukraine, he said.

Officials in Kiev have denied striking the plant. “The position of Ukraine is clear and unequivocal: we are not conducting any military activities or provocations against nuclear sites,” Andrey Yusov, spokesman for Ukraine’s military intelligence, told Ukrainian TV this month. Andrey Kovalenko, the head of the state-run Center for Countering Disinformation, accused Moscow of spreading false information and “manipulating the IAEA.”

The agency said in its report this week that all of the plant’s six reactors are currently in cold shutdown. According to the plant’s management, only one reactor had been working since 2022 in order to keep the site operational. IAEA inspectors were deployed to monitor the facility in September 2022.

Sources deny Saudi Arabia’s participation in intercepting Iranian attacks on Israel

A man walks past a banner depicting missiles launching from a representation of the map of Iran colored with the Iranian flag in central Tehran on April 15, 2024. (AFP)

Informed sources denied to Al Arabiya on Monday Saudi Arabia’s participation in intercepting Iranian drones during its attack on Israel on Saturday.

Israeli news websites had published statements attributed to an official Saudi website stating that the Kingdom participated in the recent defense coalition that confronted the Iranian attacks.

“There is no official website that published a statement about Saudi participation in intercepting attacks against Israel,” the sources told Al Arabiya.

Iran launched drones and missiles toward Israel on Saturday evening into Sunday morning and described the attack as a response to several crimes, including the strike on its consulate in Damascus on April 1.

Tehran indicated that the attack targeted military targets, while the Israeli army announced that it intercepted 99 percent of the Iranian missiles, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Monday.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE shared intelligence, including radar tracking information, with the US and Israel before Iran’s drone strike on Israel.

According to the WSJ, Israel was able to intercept almost all of the drones due to the involvement of Arab countries, who passed along intelligence about the attack before it took place, opened their airspace to warplanes, shared radar tracking information and in some cases, supplied their own forces to help.

After a wary initial response, the UAE and Saudi Arabia privately shared intelligence, while Jordan said it would allow the US and other countries' warplanes to use its airspace, as well as use its aircraft to assist in intercepting Iranian missiles and drones

Iran's assault was designed to saturate Israeli and U.S. air defenses with drones and cruise missiles and clear the way for Iran's ballistic missiles, two U.S. officials told CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. It took several hours for the drones and missiles to travel toward Israel, and alerts began to sound across the country at about 2 a.m. local time on Sunday (7p.m. Eastern on Saturday).

Four missiles hit Israel's Nevatim Air Base, where Israeli F-35s are based, the U.S. officials said, adding this base was likely Iran's primary target, as it was believed to have been an Israeli F-35 that carried out a deadly strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria's capital on April 1. 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said on Sunday that Tehran had informed the US and neighboring countries about its retaliatory strike on Israel, giving a 72-hour warning.

“We announced ... to the White House in a message that our operations will be limited, minimal and will be aimed at punishing the Israeli regime,” said Hossein Amir-Abdollahian during a briefing to foreign diplomats regarding Tehran’s drone and missile assault on Israel.

Iran, on the other hand, hailed the operation as successful, saying it had inflicted “heavy blows” to Israel.

“The size of the attack, and the manner in which drones and missiles were fired in tandem, suggests Iran did intend to pressure Israel’s air defense system,” Eurasia group analyst Gregory Brew told Al Arabiya English.

But Iran’s signaling of the attack beforehand allowed Israel and its allies sufficient time to prepare defenses, rendering the assault largely ineffective, Brew added.

“This would suggest Iran intended this attack to be largely symbolic and designed to restore deterrence, rather than actually inflicting damage on Israel. The telegraphing also emphasizes how Iran hopes to avoid escalation with both Israel and the US in the short-term,” he said.

'Nothing You Can Do to Stop Us' - Iran's Strikes on Israeli Bases Establish Deterrence

©AP Photo/VAHID SALEMI

Former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter urged observers to look beyond Israel and the United States’ framing of Iran’s retaliatory strike, noting Tehran was able to successfully deal damage to Israeli military assets.

Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter stressed that Iran is playing the long game in its dealings with Israel, carefully calibrating its actions to restore deterrence against the country rather than concerning itself with world opinion.

The former US Marine Corps intelligence officer offered the analysis on Sputnik's Fault Lines program Monday, challenging the perception that Israel is in a stronger position after intercepting most of Iran’s retaliatory strikes over the weekend.

“The point is prior to this Israel had established a dominance – I'll call it deterrence dominance,” claimed Ritter. “Meaning that, from an Israeli perspective, nobody should ever dare attack Israel, that Israel has let it be known that if you attack Israel, there will be a ten-fold response, that your life would end, it would be horrible, you can't do it. And, for the most part, people didn't attack Israel.”

“And so Israel had become very arrogant, had become sort of the neighborhood bully writ large,” he explained. “And this is why Israel was bombing Syria with impunity, striking targets in Lebanon with impunity, striking targets in Iraq with impunity.”

Israel frequently bombs Syrian airports and other infrastructure and has been illegally occupying the country’s Golan Heights territory since 1967. In 1982 the Israeli military bombed the Lebanese capital of Beirut so aggressively the US President Ronald Reagan referred to the event as a “holocaust,” hurting the feelings of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Observers also suggest Zionist opposition to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein played a role in the United States’ decision to invade the country and remove him from power in 2003. “It's very clear: Israel had the most influence in this and more so since we know how the Israelis were running into the Pentagon consulting with Rumsfeld and all those guys without even having to show any badge or anything,” former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern claimed on Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program recently.

“And then they struck the wrong target,” said Ritter, referring to Israel’s recent strike on Iran’s diplomatic compound in Syria earlier this month. “You see, Iran said, ‘we have a great latitude for pain because we'll absorb that pain, because we recognize that in a broader sense of the word Iran is prevailing strategically against Israel, especially when it comes to Gaza and the Israeli defeat that is ongoing in Gaza.’”

“And so Iran delivered a blow, but remember, the purpose of the blow was not to destroy Israel or even bring harm to Israel,” he clarified. “The purpose of the blow was to establish Iranian deterrence precedent so that in the future Israel would know what the consequences of its actions would be. And this Iran did with extreme alacrity and extreme effectiveness.”

“The job wasn't to say, ‘we're going to hurt you.’ The job was to say, ‘hey, Israel, look around you. Right now you have America's most sophisticated X-band radar to give you intelligence when we launch our missiles… you have the whole world coming to your assistance to protect you and you can't stop our missiles from hitting your most important bases. That's the future, if you dare attack us again.’”

Israel has claimed in public statements that it was allegedly able to intercept most of Iran’s strikes and prevent major damage. But the country has conspicuously forbidden journalists from observing the aftermath of the attack on Israel’s bases, notes former CIA analyst Larry Johnson. Video posted to social media appeared to show several hypersonic missiles striking Israel’s Ramon military airbase in the Negev desert.

Host Jamarl Thomas pushed back on Ritter’s analysis, asking, “At the point where their generals keep getting murdered, are you really projecting that level of strength if ultimately you are just choreographing in this way?...

Is it really a projection of strength if you're choreographing what you're doing?”

“You're referring to the Iranian attack on al-Assad airbase after the [US] assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the fact Iran telegraphed that so that they struck empty buildings and they didn't kill Americans,” Ritter responded. “Let's look at it this way. When Iran shot down a Global Hawk [US drone] and Donald Trump wanted to bomb Iranian air defense sites, did he? The answer's no. Why? Because the Pentagon said they'll kill everybody. They just set their deterrence. They showed us what they got, and we got nothing to defend against it.”

“When Iran said we're going to strike Israel, what did the United States do?” he asked. “Say bring it on? We stand side by side with the Israelis? We will attack you? We will bomb your territory? The United States went ‘wow, we'll defend Israel, but we're not attacking you.’ Yeah, that's called deterrence.”

“Iran doesn't want a shooting match with the United States,” Ritter argued. “They wanted to avoid it, and they have done so. The United States is scared to death of bombing Iran, of creating a conflict because they know what Iran will do. Iran will flatten every single American military base with the range of their missiles. And if the United States takes its next step, Iran will shut down international oil supplies and the economy will crash, and Joe Biden will never get reelected.”

Ritter insisted that Iran attacked Israel in such a way that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could save face and back down while also revealing Tehran’s capabilities if Israel strikes it again.

“All those things that were shot down – understand those were designed to be shot down,” he claimed. “Iran put a program together with the United States that said, ‘we're going to let you shoot all this stuff down so you feel good. But in the end our good stuff hit the bases, just so you know that we can do that anytime we want, and there's nothing you can do to stop us.’”

Ritter also claimed Iran is focused on economic development rather than seeking military conflict with Tel Aviv.

“They've been focused on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, they've been focused on BRICS, they've been focused on their strategic pivot to the East,” he noted. “So for them to come in and do this feel good thing to make you, me and everybody else feel good – because apparently that's what this is about, making the larger audience that has nothing to do with Iran feel good about the Iranian response – they don't care.

“The Iranians are focused strategically on maintaining that pivot to the East, building strong economic relations, normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia, and, more importantly since October 7th, facilitating the victory of Hamas over Israel which by Israel's own admission Hamas is winning,” he claimed.

“Haaretz [newspaper] – I think a day before the Iranian retaliation – came out with a headline story that said ‘Israel's lost this thing, it's over.’ I mean, there's nothing Israel could do to turn this around in Gaza. They've lost the world. They can't defeat Hamas. Hamas is emerging still intact militarily, they're stronger politically. And Iran's like, ‘we want to sustain that, too. We don't want to distract the world with this larger Israeli-Iranian conflict, we want to keep the focus on Palestinian statehood.’”