![\"\"](\"https:\/\/natharatmouchrika.net\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/61f43ebe5db2430bef5361a86dda09d5-297x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In a striking conversation on Katie Halper\u2019s program, Israeli historian and anti-Zionist scholar Haim Bresheeth-Zabner delivers one of the bluntest assessments yet of how Israeli power is being interpreted by critics inside and outside the region. His argument is not limited to Gaza. Instead, he frames current military escalation as part of a much wider geopolitical design\u2014one aimed at reshaping power across Western Asia, with Iran positioned as the central obstacle.<\/p>\n
Joined by Mohammad Marandi, Bresheeth argues that what the world is witnessing is not simply another isolated military confrontation, but the continuation of a regional order built through force, deterrence, and political fragmentation. In his reading, Israel functions not merely as a state defending itself, but as a strategic actor whose wars repeatedly produce wider instability\u2014an instability he says often aligns with broader Western security interests.<\/p>\n
Rather than treating Gaza as a separate crisis, the discussion links current destruction there to earlier conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon. The argument presented is that these wars form part of a recognizable pattern: weakened states, fractured societies, and long-term strategic dependency.<\/p>\n
A major focus of the conversation is Iran\u2019s political and civilizational weight in the region. Bresheeth suggests that Iran represents more than a military adversary\u2014it represents an independent center of political gravity that complicates Israeli and Western strategic ambitions. That, he argues, explains why rhetoric around Iran so often escalates beyond containment and toward regime collapse or systemic destruction.<\/p>\n
The discussion becomes even more provocative when Bresheeth turns toward ideology itself. He argues that the crisis cannot be understood only through military decisions or leadership personalities, but through the political logic of Zionism as practiced through state power today. His criticism is severe: he contends that global institutions have normalized levels of violence that would trigger sanctions elsewhere, raising difficult questions about why international enforcement appears selective when it comes to Israel.<\/p>\n
The interview also touches on the erosion of international credibility surrounding institutions like United Nations. If sanctions can be rapidly imposed on some states but not others, Bresheeth argues, then the principle of universal law begins to collapse. In that vacuum, violence risks becoming routine rather than exceptional.<\/p>\n
Whether one agrees with every comparison made in the interview or not, the discussion reflects a growing strand of international criticism: that the conflict can no longer be understood only through immediate battlefield events, because the deeper issue is the structure of power that repeatedly makes such wars possible.<\/p>\n
They also point to remarks by Mike Huckabee, who suggested it would be acceptable if Israel \u201ctook it all.\u201d In the interview, Huckabee said:\u00a0\u201cIsrael is a land that God gave, through Abraham, to a people that he chose. It was a people, a place and a purpose.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n