The view from Lebanon Transcript

Disclaimer: This transcript is an edited version version of a transcript created using AI technology and may not reflect 100% accuracy.

The video can be found here. 

Sarah Stern: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Stern and I am the founder and president of EMET. On November 19^th, we are hosting our annual Rays of Light in the Darkness dinner, in Washington DC. This year, we will be honoring my dear friend Mosab Hassan Yousef. We will also honor Congressman Jared Moskowitz from Florida, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and Shabbos Kestenbaum. You may remember the role Congresswoman Stefanik played in challenging several college professors on antisemitism at their universities. Two of them have since resigned. Shabbos Kestenbaum, is the brave student suing Harvard University for the pervasive atmosphere of antisemitism on that campus. If you would like to learn more about the event, please go to https://emetonline.org/. You can also register directly from our website. Thank you so much.

The multi-front war launched by the Islamic Republic against Israel, is now 361 days old. Since October 8^th, Iranian backed Hezbollah has launched more than 9,000 missiles at Israel. This has rendered the North of Israel virtually unlivable. Over the past year, the IDF has focused on destroying much of Hamas’ infrastructure in Gaza. Recently, the IDF has escalated its campaign in Lebanon. Their objective is to uproot Hezbollah’s infrastructure and to allow the people of Israel’s North to return and live there safely once again. The IDF has eliminated virtually all of Hezbollah’s top commanders. This includes leaders of its elite Radwan force. Yesterday, Iran launched 181 missiles toward the Jewish state. This was in response to Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Remarkably, Iran’s massive attack on Israel resulted in the death of just one person. On the other hand, a terror attack conducted in Jaffa at the same time, killed seven Israeli citizens. How will Israel and the United States respond to Iran’s attack on Israel? If Hezbollah loses control over Lebanon, could a coalition of other ethnic minorities step in and govern the country?

It is our pleasure to welcome today’s guest, Dr. Walid Phares. Walid is an American scholar, analyst, and expert who was born in Beirut. Dr. Phares is an in-demand Middle East scholar and speaker. He often predicts trends and situations on the ground years before they occur. He was a Fox News terrorism expert and is now a Newsmax foreign policy analyst. He appears frequently on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, Al Sharq, and France 24. He has published at least eight excellent books that I am aware of. Walid has co-launched two recent projects. The first is Educate America, a platform helping to reform US education in the Middle East and to counter disinformation in the classroom. The second is War and Freedom: Insights Talk, a podcast available on YouTube.

Dr. Phares served as an advisor to the US Congress and the European Parliament. He served as a foreign policy advisor to former President Donald Trump and as a national security senior advisor to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. His book, The Coming Revolution, Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East, predicted the Arab Spring a year before it occurred. He predicted the worldwide spread of the jihadi ideology in another of his books, Future Jihad Terrorist Strategies. His latest book, Iran: An Imperialist Republic and U.S. Policy, exposes the below-the-surface relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US administration. Dr. Phares’ CV is extensive. He has many noteworthy achievements in the fields of academia, government, media and publishing and has provided critical advice on combating terrorism and counter jihadi radicalization. It is a profound honor and pleasure to welcome Dr. Phares once again.

Walid, you advised two presidential candidates. Between 2015 and 2016, you were President Trump’s first policy advisor. You also advised members of Congress and the European Parliament. Equally important, you are native of Beirut who lived through 15 years of war there. Given your background and expertise, please explain the geopolitical and historical contexts of the different Lebanese reactions to Israel’s war with Hezbollah? How do they view the potential for Israeli operations inside Lebanon?

Dr. Walid Phares: Thank you for this invitation. It feels like you and I have been working together for decades. I am always happy to address EMET’s audience. EMET is one of the organizations leading the battle for reeducation. As you mentioned, one of the projects I am co-leading also deals with reeducation. We aim to correct the information being propagated in our classrooms. Based on what has transpired since October 7^th, we know the US education system is in need of massive reform. These reforms are especially needed in Middle-East related education. We also need to educate people on the Jihadi threats against Israel. The conversation is no longer about the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is way bigger than that. So again, thank you for inviting me. A little correction. I have published 15 books, not eight and I will hopefully publish one more soon.

In response to your question, Israel has a long and complicated history with Lebanon. There are a number of different players in Lebanon, including Christians, Sunnis, Druze and Shia. There are also many political parties there. Lebanon gained independence in 1943. Lebanon was successful economically, but it had a problem of identity. Most of the Christians identified with the identity of the West while most Muslims of the time identified with Arab Islamism.

In 1948, the Arab countries signed an armistice with Israel following Israel’s War of Independence. Between 1948 and 1975, Israel and Lebanon maintained a quasi-peace. Even though the two countries did not develop a warm relationship, they did not go to war against each other. This was different from Israel’s relationship with Arabs in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Libya. During this period, these countries remained technically and legally at war with Israel. It was during this time that the Arab League launched the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO was the first organization launched by Palestinian nationalists in the West Bank and Gaza.

Many Arab countries subsequently signed peace treaties with Israel. These include the famous Camp David Accords with Egypt, the Wadi Araba Treaty with Jordan and subsequent accords with other Arab countries. The first wave of peace agreements between Israel and some Arab states occurred way before the Abraham Accords and continued through the Cold War. There were no wars. However, there were some countries which maintained a line of confrontation with Israel. These were countries ruled or controlled by a militia funded and organized by the Khomeinist regime. The Khomeinist regime is basically the Islamic regime in Iran. I will use the terms Islamic regime and the Khomeinist regime interchangeably. I will not refer to the regime as Iran since many in Iran oppose it.

What is Hamas and what is Hezbollah? Who are the Houthis in Yemen and the Hasid forces in Iraq? All of these organizations operate in countries which have gradually fallen under the control of the Khomeinist regime, the mothership in Iran. They have maintained a state of war with Israel. There were three or four terrorist actors who actively launched operations against Israel and I will single out two of them.

Hamas never stopped their war against Israel. We all know that Israel abandoned Gaza after the start of the peace process. In 2005, Gaza fell under the Palestinian Authority (PA) for a brief period. However, less than two years later, Hamas conducted a bloody coup. They killed hundreds of Fatah and PLO members. Hamas never stopped its Jihadism and it culminated in the genocidal attack against Israel on October 7^th last year. The rest is the recent history we have all lived through.

Hezbollah spent decades taking over Lebanon. Those on university campuses and in the media often ask me when Hezbollah was formed. Hezbollah came in being after the coup in Iran brought about the Khomeinist regime. So, that dispels the argument that Hezbollah was formed to resist the Israeli occupation and the invasion of Lebanon. Not at all. Hezbollah is a militia funded and organized by the representatives of the Khomeinist regime with the help of Assad. Hezbollah was founded at the end of 1980, two years before the Israeli invasion. The Israelis entered Lebanon to push back the PLO to Beirut, and remove them from its northern border. At that time, Hezbollah was already ensconced in the northern Bekaa. This is an important point to remember when countering propaganda about the founding of Hezbollah.

In 1990, a big event occurred in Lebanon with a significant impact on Israel. The Assad regime, together with Hezbollah militias, engineered a coup in Lebanon. They brought down the free government of Lebanon, and seized the Lebanese army. As of 1990, the old quasi free, half western Lebanon ceased to exist. The exception was a band in the southern part of the country, known as the security zone. This band was defended by a local force called the South Lebanon Army (SLA). From 1990 till 2000, all of Lebanon minus that security zone, was controlled by the Baath and by Hezbollah. They transformed Lebanon. The changed its laws, and suppressed and disarmed all the Lebanese who were not Hezbollah members. The Southern Lebanese were too small a force to counter this takeover. The United States did not want to help in ways they had done elsewhere around the world. This was especially true later on under the Clinton administration.

In 2000, a second major event occurred. The Israelis withdrew from Southern Lebanon under pressure from Washington. The decision to withdraw was taken by Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister at that time. The hope was that Hezbollah would not return to the area. The UN promised that they would not allow them to enter. However, as expected, Hezbollah returned to Southern Lebanon. Israel accepted a new status quo with both Hezbollah and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) stationed at the border. From 2000 until the October 7^th massacre, the situation in the North was manageable. There were some attacks from Hezbollah. There were even short wars. In 1996, as an example, Hezbollah initiated a war. The Israelis responded and eliminated the threat from the air. The Israelis did not need to conduct a serious ground operation.

In 2005, the Lebanese people rose in revolt during the Cedar Revolution. They succeeded in their goal of establishing an independent cabinet government in Lebanon. This government remained in power from 2005 till 2008. There was also a non-armed, multi-sectarian force in Lebanon. This force included Christians, Sunni and Druze. They were against Hezbollah, which controlled the Shia community. The Cedar Revolution inspired many other uprisings in the Middle East. These included the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009 and uprisings in other states during the so-called Arab Spring.

In 2008, Hezbollah conducted a coup in Lebanon. They brought down the government and reasserted the role of the Islamic Republic and its allies there. They decided to move back to the South and began to engage Israel. The Islamic regime of Tehran has successfully held Lebanon in its orbit for multiple decades and they have ensured that Hezbollah remains the dominant force there. This is in spite of many different US presidents and political milestones including the Cold War, the September 11^th attack and the Arab Spring.

There have been questions as to what preempted October 7^th. We have done a lot of work to be able to answer that question. We concluded that the same actors who ordered Hamas to conduct its genocidal operation, also ordered Hezbollah to begin bombing Israel in the Galilee and beyond. Those same people ordered the Houthis to send their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as far as the South Red Sea and they instructed the militias in Syria and in Iraq. We knew it from day one. The Khomeinist Empire was behind all of this. Their influence starts in Tehran, covers the southern suburb in Beirut and extends all the way to Sana’a in Yemen.

They had multiple reasons for initiating the October 7^th attack. Saudi Arabia and Israel were on the cusp of signing the Abraham Accords. This would have been a huge achievement which would have negatively impacted the Islamic regime. To subvert the Saudi signing of the Accords, the regime instructed the terror organizations under its auspices to attack Israel. They aimed to create divisions between Israelis by scaring them. This is why Hamas focused their attacks on women and children and treated them in the most abhorrent ways possible. The regime also aimed to deflect attention from what was going on inside Iran. They wanted to deflect from a fully-fledged Iranian revolution led by women. They wanted to open the front against Israel and shake off both Israel and the United States.

After Hamas conducted its operation in Israel, the Israelis responded by entering Gaza. The Grand Ayatollah in Iran instructed Hezbollah to begin a bombing campaign using ballistic and non-ballistic missiles, and drones. The decision to attack Israel was made by the Khomeinist leader because Hezbollah’s troops essentially belong to him. Hezbollah succeeded in forcing hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the North to leave their homes. There is a large area in Israel’s North that is the largest width of Israel with an important population. The Khomeinist leaders knew that relocating or exiling that population would impact the entire state of Israel. It would impact the demography and the economy. That is why Hezbollah bombarded Israel.

Hezbollah developed a strategy very similar to that of Hamas. Together with the leadership in Tehran, they planned to implement their strategy at the appropriate time. Their plan was for Hezbollah to bombard the Galilee. There are a lot of targets there. They would then occupy parts of Israel and launch a commando operation, very similar to that of Hamas. In terms of the number of troops, the size of the operation would be double or triple compared to that of Hamas.

The attack would include about 3,000 to 4,000 Jihadis, rather than 1,500 or 1,200 of them. Hassan Nasrallah said he could spare a few of his 100,000 fighters in Lebanon to send into the Galilee. There they would capture Israeli citizens and bring them back to Lebanon as hostages. In this way, they would replicate the Hamas attack of October 7^th. Israeli intelligence, as far as we understood, realized there was such a plot. There was always an Israeli plan to deter or destroy Hamas and Hezbollah. This is not an overnight issue. The Israeli government and their intelligence knew about it and had a plan to hit back against Hezbollah.

Now, let me cover a point which will answer some of your initial questions. Not all Lebanese reacted in the same way towards Hezbollah’s current war against Israel. Lebanon’s wound has not healed. The contradictions inside Lebanon are still there. Those who resisted Hezbollah during the Cedar Revolution are still there, but they are unarmed. An uprising from them would have resembled the Warsaw uprising against the Nazis. On top of that, the Obama and Biden administrations failed to engage with the Lebanese opposition. They received very few Lebanese politicians who were against Hezbollah.

As discussed, when the war started, there were many in Lebanon that refused to support it. 70% of the Lebanese population was opposed to Hezbollah even before the war started. The situation is very different from what it was during times of previous conflicts in Lebanon. For 20 years, Hezbollah has assassinated prime ministers, ministers, members of parliament, teachers, students and officers of the Lebanese army. Neighborhoods and communities targeted by Hezbollah, refused the war. These included Sunni, Christian and Druze communities. The Christian Druze were certainly part of this contingent. Not only did these people refuse the war, but they had begun messaging that they did not want Hezbollah in their areas.

Over three years before Hamas’ October 7^th attack, there were multiple confrontations between Hezbollah and the Lebanese majority who opposed them. These incidents illustrated that many civilians opposed the deployment of Hezbollah forces in their neighborhoods. There were clashes in the mountains in the Chouf area, where the Druze are a majority. Hezbollah used weapons and bombarded these areas and they lost, by the way. West Beirut has a majority Sunni population. It was invaded by Hezbollah. Most Americans are not aware of this because our media is not good. This has an impact on international public opinion. The majority of Lebanese are against Hezbollah. Over the past three years, there were incidents on Mount Lebanon, and in the North and people were killed. It is an explosive situation.

After October 7^th, Lebanese politicians considered what to do and where they fit in the equation. Anti-Hezbollah politicians and coalitions, and civil society warned Hezbollah that they oppose a war with Israel. They want the UN to stop the war and they want Hezbollah to comply with Resolution 1701.

Sarah: Yes, the world has ignored Hezbollah’s breaches of the 2006, UN Security Council Resolution 1701. UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces have been impotent in the face of Hezbollah’s brutality. Recently, the IDF eliminated most of Hezbollah’s leadership. What remains to be seen is whether Hezbollah is still able to launch their missiles. The United States has brought more military might into the area. Walid, at this point, what do you think Israel and the US are going to do? What do you think Iran will do to counter Israel’s engagement in Lebanon?

Dr. Walid: Well, first of all, the Israeli operation has eliminated two or three layers of Hezbollah’s leadership. Israel has disoriented the militia through waves of bombardments conducted over Hezbollah’s headquarters in the southern suburbs. This gives Israel some time. Hezbollah has aborted its planned operation in the Northern Galilee. We do not know how far the IDF plans to push on the ground in Lebanon. There is a chance this land incursion will allow a large number of internally displaced Israelis to return to their homes in the upper Galilee. Having said that, Hezbollah still has a large body of fighters in Southern Lebanon who will fight if Israel decides to move in, in a frontal way. There will be casualties. Of course, they will not be able to stop Israel, but the issue is the number of casualties Israel will sustain.

Some analysts on the ground predict that local populations in Southern Lebanon may try to keep their areas safe, meaning free of any Hezbollah presence. That could open the path for the Israelis to reconstitute a security safe zone from the Hermon Mountains all the way to Rosh HaNikra. Israelis would not need to maintain many troops there given their drone capabilities and ability to conduct long-range targeting. That is one option.

The other option would be for Israeli forces to cut off the south of Lebanon from the Beqaa. In this case, Israel would not have to enter Lebanon. The Beqaa is the natural path for Hezbollah to reach Syria where they have reserves. It is also the way for them to reach their allies in Iraq and to reach the mothership in Iran. I have mentioned the two options that the Israelis have so far. There may be more but these are the two they have so far.

Right now, it appears that Israel is seeking to end the problem. A ceasefire will not end the problem. A ceasefire implies that everybody goes back to where they came from. Ending the problem also does not imply implementing a new security council resolution. The problem will end by creating facts on the ground which deny Hezbollah, or any other terror organization, the opportunity to approach the border again.

Let me end with one additional point. Real change would occur if the Lebanese themselves were to rise up and isolate Hezbollah. This could bring Lebanon back to a state of peace. It could bring more stability to Lebanon than the signing of the Abraham Accords. Israel defends itself. It has its own strategy. Even US leaders have told Israel to do what they need to do to protect themselves. The solution for the problem in Lebanon needs the Lebanese and it needs an international coalition as well.

Sarah: Walid, what do you expect Iran to do next? We already saw 181 missiles fired at Israel yesterday.

Dr. Walid: We should expect the regime not to allow the complete defeat of Hezbollah. This is because it will open the door to the defeat of Assad and others, including the militias in Iraq. The regime’s vassal states, or colonies, have many within their borders, who oppose them. As discussed, 70% of the Lebanese population is against Hezbollah. The percentage of those opposed to Hezbollah in Syria is also sizable. At least 50% of the Syrian population is against the regime. We do not know the exact percentage because so many Syrians have fled the country. The northern part of Iraq is already an autonomous zone. There have been uprisings in the Shia community of Iraq, including those that occurred in the fall of 2019.

The youth in all of these countries do not want the Ayatollah’s ideology and the lifestyle that comes with it. Hezbollah is the largest and most powerful terror organization controlled by the Islamic regime. If they are contained or defanged in Lebanon, we may observe a chain reaction similar to what we witnessed in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Soviet Union. We may see the Islamic regime’s influence wane and the rise of democracy in countries that are essentially colonies of the regime right now.

Sarah: I have seen videos of young Lebanese Cub Scouts. Children as young as six years old are being indoctrinated and taught to march with weapons. How difficult would it be to counter the indoctrination that so many of the Lebanese youth have been subjected to? Last week a retired lieutenant colonel from the IDF said he thinks Hezbollah might rise again within another 20 years. What are your predictions for the future of Lebanon?

Dr. Walid: If Lebanon changes the way I hope it will, a Hezbollah-like organization will not arise again in 20 years. If that change does not occur, the jihadi ideology will persist there. We as Americans are also responsible for the outcome. There are no geographical limitations to jihadi indoctrination. It is online and it is universal. We have sent more than $150 billion to the Islamic regime. A slice of that money is being used to fund indoctrination. We call it jihadization.

At the beginning of this webinar, I mentioned that I am co-launching a platform to wage an ideological battle. This is a specific ideological battle to ensure the classroom is not hijacked by jihadist ideology and propaganda. It is as necessary here as it is in Lebanon and in the rest of the Middle East.

We are going to require political change in Lebanon. If it continues to be occupied by this Khomeinist militia, it is going to be hard. It will be easier to institute change in the Christian Druze areas than in other places in Lebanon. This will not take a lot of effort because they have been occupied by Hezbollah.

It will not be as easy to institute change in the Sunni areas because of the Jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood there. However, it is feasible. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt are instituting major reforms in their education systems. They are the major players in the Sunni world and can influence the classroom in any Sunni area in the Middle East.

The issue is going to be with instituting change in the education systems of the Shia community. The problem is not that they are Shia but that Hezbollah is receiving funding from Tehran. This is the same funding we are providing to Iran. The mothership is using our funding to ensure their militias have the means to radicalize their kids. Continuing with this model will likely produce a new generation of jihadis every 10 or 12 years.

As discussed, 70% of the Lebanese population is opposed to Hezbollah. The international community, could act to weaken Hezbollah and to uproot it militarily. A free, post-Hezbollah government would include representatives from all of the different communities comprising the opposition. That government should be in charge of the Ministry of Education. They should be able to clean up the jihadi classrooms. It is a three-to-four-year project. From there, Hezbollah would be dismantled.

Sarah: The Islamic regime controls the weapons in Iran. This makes it difficult for the Iranian opposition to act effectively against the regime. In Lebanon, Israel has destroyed a significant number of Hezbollah’s weapons over the past two weeks but we do not know how many they have left. Do you believe the Iranian and Lebanese opposition can actually succeed if they rise up against the regime and its main proxy?

Dr. Walid: As I mentioned previously, the Cedar Revolution occurred in 2005. At that time, Assad’s Syrian army and Hezbollah had occupied Lebanon completely yet no one paid any attention to this. After Hariri’s assassination, 1.2 to 1.4 million out of a nation of 5 million, came out on the streets to protest his murder. However, in 2009, President Obama determined that the US was not going to intervene in the demonstrations taking place in Iran against the regime. The jihadi regime very likely read Obama’s position to mean they could do anything they wanted to both within Iran and with all of the militias under their control. This included Hezbollah in Lebanon.

You asked about the potential for successful uprisings against the regime in Iran. There have been three or four revolutions in Iran and the last one is still ongoing. The problem is the attitude of decision makers in Washington. Exactly this time last year, the Biden administration sent $6 billion to the regime. This level of funding strengthens the regime and ensures regular people on the streets will not be able to stand against it. The Islamic regime does not only have weapons, they have influence and lobbies as well. They were so confident about their power that they attacked Israel. They believed that the US administration was with them. They thought the Europeans would allow it. They were receiving huge amounts of funding from the US who they thought would never support the opposition. Our policy was a big mistake and we need to change it.

This week, I spoke at a major conference on Iran. The conference was held in Washington, DC. I noted that Washington needs to do three things with respect to Iran. Firstly, the US needs a president who will address the Iranian people directly. The president should talk to them in the same way as Reagan spoke to the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. A direct presidential address would provide encouragement to the people of Iran. They would be able to accomplish a lot with this type of moral backing.

Secondly, they need to engage the different components making up the Iranian opposition. We have seen US presidents reaching out to leaders of the Islamic regime. We have seen Zarif and others in New York. Where is the opposition? They should be invited to Congress and received appropriately there.

Thirdly, we need to stop the transfer of funds to the regime. This is suicidal. We are sending them billions of dollars which they are reinvesting and using against us. These are all actions we can take before considering a military action against the regime.

In answer to your question, I think there is a huge potential for the opposition in Iran and Lebanon to succeed in rising up against the regime. I think the opposition in Syria, Iraq and even Yemen, could successfully challenge the regime and its proxies. Southern Yemen is secular. Southern Yemen is free. They are blocking the Houthis from taking over all of Yemen and attacking Saudi Arabia. We need to change the architecture of US policy. That is my opinion.

Sarah: Okay. If push comes to shove, do you believe that the US would help Israel militarily? We know that the US is bringing aircraft carriers into the region and they are also increasing their troop level there. What are your thoughts about this?

Dr. Walid: This is a complex issue, but I am going to try and summarize my answer for the sake of time. First of all, the answer depends on the administration we are referencing. Sending carriers under one administration implies something different from sending carriers under a different one. At a minimum, the current administration will grant Israel the means to defend itself if attacked. They will help Israel to defend itself from incoming missiles and drones. Both the current administration and CENTCOM have affirmed that.

In my opinion, a Kamala Harris administration would be a worst-case scenario. They will use the help they provide Israel to exert pressure on her. They will pressure Israel to sign cease fires, both in Gaza and in Lebanon. They will pressure Israel to sit down with the Jihadi organizations in the same way the US insisted Israel negotiate with the PLO. They will agree to help protect Israel from incoming attacks as long as the Israelis agree to negotiate with Jihadists. Eventually, they will insist that Israel accepts their conditions for a two-state solution, even if one is a Jihadi state. There will be a conditional help but they will not help Israel if it has to go beyond its borders as it is doing today in Lebanon. A Kamala Harris administration will not help Israel to strike the regime’s capacities and capabilities in Iran. They have already affirmed this.

On the other hand, the Trump administration has already said they will stand in full solidarity with Israel. The campaign said it, and they said the same thing when they were in charge. That means the administration will back Israel in whatever it needs to do. Of course, once the terrorists are defeated, they will sit with the Israelis at the negotiation-table. It will be similar to what happened after the defeat of Nazi Germany. There will be an international conference and the administration will help. So, the difference in the approach of the two potential administrations is night and day. The impact of the result of the November election on foreign policy, is the difference between night and day.

Sarah: Right. Middle Eastern history has taught us time and time again that diplomacy is not a substitute for victory. Negotiation without military power, is actually appeasement of evil. We have seen Sunni and the Shia terrorists monopolize the Middle East for far too long. We have witnessed these forces of evil coordinate with their friends in China and Russia. We have seen how appeasement has empowered and emboldened them. Appeasement never works in the Middle East.

Dr. Walid: I agree with you completely. This appeasement policy parallels the policy of appeasing the Nazis before World War II.

I have described the impact of the choices we are facing in November. Right now, the current administration is trying to encourage players involved in the Middle East to do a Munich. They want to give the regime more money and more recognition.

Israel, on the other hand, is starting to try and get the region to become a Middle Eastern NATO. They want to expand the Abraham Accords. They want to work with the Arab coalition. These are not dreams and we have already seen some of this becoming a reality. They are backed by more than half of Americans.

There is a worldwide battle raging for the future of humanity. On the one side is Israel and its friends and allies in the United States and in Europe. On the other side is the Khomeinist Regime with Hezbollah and Hamas and all the other jihadists. This is not a localized battle limited to the Lebanese and Gazan borders.

Sarah: Right. This is not just about Israel. It is about Western civilization as we know it. I think we have time for some more questions from the audience. An audience member requested that you discuss the pluses or minuses of an Israeli attack on Iran’s oil fields?

Dr. Walid: We are very divided in Washington. Those conscious of the threat the regime presents, want regime change. That is the bottom line. Some of us, including Senator Graham, are discussing targeting the oil fields. Others are talking about targeting the nuclear facilities. A third group asserts that these industries should not be destroyed because they will be used by the Iranian people going forward. They believe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is the nerve of the regime and should be Israel’s target. This third school of thought asserts that targeting the IRGC will lead the Iranian people to rise up against the regime. The Iranian people will see that what is happening in Iran is similar to what happened to Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza. This will serve as a call for them to rise in resistance against the regime. They will no longer have to be afraid of the police crushing or subduing the population. In fact, Iran’s police and army may actually change sides.

Sarah: Israel has some very important decisions to make. We certainly hope that Israel has the offensive capability to take on Hezbollah in the North and possibly Iran as well. We know Israel has already been involved in the war in Gaza for an entire year.

Please continue discussing the pluses and the minuses of attacking the oil fields. Also, please address Israel’s capacity to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Dr. Walid: I have deployed three doctrines in Washington, DC. The first is the destruction of Iran’s oil refineries. This would stop all the regime’s attacks, but is limited by the need to obtain votes at the United Nations and other factors. The second is an attack on the regime’s nuclear program. Implementing this would leave the rest of the regime’s army and the missiles intact. What remains is the third doctrine. This involves implementing a similar approach to the one employed by Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Under this scenario, the militia positions serving as the nerve center of the regime, would be targeted. In this case, the only members of elite organizations like the IRCG would be touched.

The opposition is telling us that destroying the regime’s SS-like IRGC, will lead to an unstoppable revolution. This is because the police will not act against the population and will likely walk with them. There is also information available that asserts that large segments of the army would walk with the youth, the women and the minorities. The opposition contends that the army is separate from the revolutionary guard and is likely to help change the regime. So, eliminating the IRGC may serve as the silver bullet. This is an alternative to destroying oil or nuclear power. Both of these would serve as a deterrent but the brain and the forces will remain. On the other hand, if the nerve of the system is destroyed, then everything will collapse like it does in science fiction movies.

Sarah: Let’s hope. Watching Israel’s accomplishments since September 17^th has been better than watching a James Bond movie. Everything Israel has achieved since then has been executed in a clean and precise way. We are hoping that the Lebanese people Walid represents so beautifully, will be able to rise up against Hezbollah. Inshallah we will continue to have victories while avoiding the casualties of innocents.

I do want to put in a word for EMET. Members of Congress are currently receiving many mixed messages as relates to the Middle-East. In some cases, the messages are coming from think tanks backed by the Islamic Republic. They usually disguise the source of their support very well. As such, it is critical that we continue to provide members of Congress with accurate facts and analysis. EMET’s role is to work with wonderful people like Walid Phares. Together we ensure Congress has the data they need to make informed Middle East related policy decisions.

EMET has the support of respected scholars and thought leaders, including Dr. Walid Phares. We provide a timely nonpartisan education on Capitol Hill every day. So, please support our efforts to help instigate impactful policy changes. During this critical period, it is especially important for us to win the battle of ideas on Capitol Hill. As a reminder, please join us at our annual dinner on November 19^th. Hopefully Walid Phares will join us as one of our esteemed guests. Thank you all so much for joining us today.

Dr. Walid: Thank you very much for the invitation.

[END]