America's Best Weapon is the Iranian People

This little snippet is from my old blog twenty years ago. 

Thinking of the dominant views among American policymakers on Iran, I am reminded of the great Persian poet Jalaledin Rumi's story about a group of people trying to describe an elephant exhibited in a dark room. One felt the elephant's back and claimed that it resembled a great throne. Another, touching its ear, declared it was in fact a huge fan. A third felt its leg and concluded it must be a large pillar.

The Islamic Republic has been with us for almost three decades, yet still it manages to amaze and confuse the experts. In the 1990s, Mohammed Khatami inspired the majority of Western commentators to believe that Iran was on the verge of upheaval. But, while Khatami may have distinguished himself from his predecessors by ushering in a milder version of the Islamic Republic, he was, and remains, very much a part of that system. Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has persuaded us that the same system is an imminent menace and must, therefore, be overthrown. Yet, while Ahmadinejad may be more repressive and violent than previous presidents, his reactionary tendencies are fundamentally a sign of the Iranian system's weakness--not its strength.

The problem is that Western pundits are only feeling part of the elephant--the political one--and ignoring the most important part: the Iranian people themselves. If you take the long view of Iranian history and focus on the country's people rather than its rulers, a very different picture emerges: that of an Iranian order in crisis.

Evidence for this proposition is everywhere. A cursory look at Iran's publications and blogs shows that, although some Iranians--for a variety of reasons--support their regime's nuclear ambitions, most are far more interested in trying to redress day-to-day problems like corruption, the struggling economy, rising unemployment, political and social repression, and a general lack of freedom. Few are well-informed about the nuclear program, and most are embarrassed and disturbed by the image of their country in the world. Indeed, Iran's new international isolation and pariah status is deeply unpopular at home, and the fact that the government is emptying its coffers to foment revolution abroad rather than to support the welfare of the Iranian people has turned many of Ahmadinejad's supporters against him. Workers' protests have lately escalated in at least ten cities. Angry union leaders have held the president responsible for the weakening of the economy. In the recent city council elections in Tehran, only two of 13 winners were supporters of Ahmadinejad.

Nick Kristoff column about Palestinian prisoner torture.

 

On May 11, 2026, The New York Times published an explosive, heavily debated opinion column by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof titled “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians”. The piece alleges a pattern of systemic, widespread sexual abuse and torture of Palestinian detainees inside Israeli military detention centers and prisons. 

The publication has ignited severe geopolitical backlash, internal newsroom turmoil, and threats of an unprecedented international defamation lawsuit. 

Summary of Column Allegations

Kristof states that his essay is based on interviews with 14 Palestinian victims (including men, women, and three children), alongside data from legal advocates, a 2025 United Nations report, and human rights organizations. While Kristof notes he did not find evidence that Israeli leadership explicitly orders rape, he argues they have constructed a security apparatus where institutional impunity permits horrific violations. Key graphic details included in the report involve: 

• Object-Assisted Assaults: Graphic firsthand accounts of detainees being beaten on their genitals or raped with metal and rubber batons. 
• Weaponized Guard Dogs: Extreme claims from a Gaza journalist alleging that handlers encouraged military dogs to sexually abuse and penetrate him while prison staff filmed and laughed. 
• A Culture of Silence: Kristof heavily criticizes the international community's moral silence regarding Palestinian abuse compared to the swift, rightful global condemnation of Hamas's weaponization of sexual violence on October 7, 2023. 

The Backlash and Israeli Response

The column immediately triggered intense fury from Israeli officials and media watchdogs, who labeled the piece a fabricated "blood libel". 

• Defamation Threat: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar officially ordered legal advisers to prepare a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. Sa'ar called the article "one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel". 
• Source Credibility Critiques: Pro-Israel media watchdogs, such as HonestReporting, publicly challenged Kristof's sourcing. They alleged that key elements of the piece relied on highly biased individuals and organizations with undisclosed ties to Hamas networks, specifically calling out the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. Critics also argued that the highly publicized "dog rape" claim is biologically impossible and functions as salacious war propaganda. 
• Public Demonstrations: Scores of Jewish and pro-Israel protesters gathered outside The New York Times headquarters in Manhattan demanding that Kristof be fired. 

Internal "Civil War" at the New York Times

The piece has created deep polarization inside the newspaper's own walls. According to media reports, an internal "civil war" erupted as newsroom journalists questioned the gatekeeping and editing standards of the Opinion section. Staffers openly debated whether such extreme, unverified allegations—particularly regarding the trained dogs—should have ever been published without the rigorous fact-checking and forensic verification required of standard newsroom investigations. One Times journalist reportedly vented, "I am sick of being embarrassed by the Opinion section." 

The Times' Defense

The New York Times has staunchly defended the integrity of Kristof's work. A spokesperson for the publication dismissed Netanyahu’s legal threats as a "well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism". Media law experts note that a defamation suit by a foreign government against a U.S. media entity faces an incredibly high legal hurdle due to strict American First Amendment protections.