MEF Dispatch: Bringing Peace to Yemen; Will Israel Strike Again?; British Islamists Defend Vandals

Bringing Peace to Yemen; Will Israel Strike Again?; British Islamists Defend Vandals

By Winfield Myers ● Jul 14, 2025

Smart Brevity® count: 7.5 mins...1964 words

Michael Rubin argues that the first step to bringing peace to Yemen is to ignore the failed policies of lock-step diplomats and move posthaste to designate Islah, Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood branch, as a terrorist organization. Mardo Soghom writes that, whether Israel strikes Iran again or not, the Islamic Republic has suffered “unprecedented humiliation” that has ended the regime’s legitimacy.

Jules Gomes reports that British Islamist organizations linked to jihad, terrorism, antisemitism, and Iran have banded together to oppose the government’s move to ban a militant outfit. We also feature articles by Nicoletta Kouroushi and Ribal al-Assad, plus a summary of a recent MEF Podcast featuring David Daoud.

ICYMI: “Regime Change in Iran?” with Beni Sabti

For decades, Iran's theocratic regime has wielded unyielding control, fueling regional instability through its nuclear ambitions, proxy militias, and ideological fervor, casting a shadow over the Middle East. Yet, amid escalating internal protests, economic collapse, and external pressures from Israel's precision strikes on key military targets in 2025, whispers of regime change are growing louder. How might a post-regime Iran redefine its role in the region? What opportunities and risks would this present for Israel's security, Arab states' stability, and the broader quest for Middle Eastern equilibrium?

Beni Sabti is an Iran expert at the INSS. He was born in Iran in 1972 and raised primarily under the Islamic Revolution regime before escaping to Israel in 1987, where he served in the IDF, primarily as a researcher in projects relating to Iranian culture and influence on cognition, decision making, and media, including leading the establishment of the IDF Spokesperson’s platforms in Persian. Sabti previously worked as a research fellow at JISS in Jerusalem. He gives lectures about issues related to Iran and is a commentator on Iran for media outlets in Israel and abroad. He holds an M.A. in political science and public communications from Bar Ilan University.

To watch the full podcast episode, click here.

How to Bring Peace to Yemen? Start by Blacklisting the Islah Party

It’s déjà vu all over again as Western diplomats reject terror designations because they believe a broad net is counterproductive.

Historical hesitations, like the EU's refusal to designate Hezbollah, compromise security under the guise of stability.

Why it matters: Designating groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorists is crucial to dismantling their influence and protecting global interests.

Legitimate designations reveal the true nature of these groups, paving the way for peace and stability.

The big picture: Inaction in Washington over the Muslim Brotherhood endangers allies, as they recognize the threat these groups pose.

Nations like Bahrain and Egypt already see the importance of these designations, while others resist due to political ties.

What's next: Diplomats may worry that designating Yemeni Islah, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Yemeni branch, could destabilize Yemen, but this is foolish. Empowering an Al Qaeda front will not bring stability or peace to Yemen; it will only guarantee its continued failure.

Yemeni Islah is as much a terrorist group as Hamas and the Houthis; it is time to treat it as such and signal to all Yemenis that the international community will stand with Yemenis against all extremists, no matter their tribe or sect.

To read the full article, click here.

MEF Action Alert: Tell Congress to Pass the Free Iraq from Iran Act

The 12-Day War between the U.S., Israel, and Iran exposed the security threat that Iran-backed militias present to American soldiers and diplomats in Iraq. The Islamic Republic of Iran has penetrated Iraqi government ministries and controls Shi’a militias that are part of Iraq’s security sector. These armed factions have launched drone and rocket attacks on Iraqi bases, many that house U.S. troops and contractors, nearly every day since the the U.S. destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities.

Introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), the Free Iraq from Iran Act is critical to countering this. It imposes sanctions on Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, strengthens U.S. support for Iraqi security forces, and promotes economic independence to reduce Iran’s control. By passing this bill, Congress can ensure Iraq’s government serves its people, not Tehran’s agenda, honoring the sacrifices of U.S. troops and preventing further regional destabilization post-war.

Join the Campaign! Sign up now to urge Congress to pass H.R. 2658 - the Free Iraq from Iran Act.

Will Israel Strike Again? Tehran Reels as Regime Struggles to Respond

Tensions escalate as Iran's inability to counter Israeli airstrikes dominates media and public discourse.

Iranian officials maintain a brave facade, yet acknowledge their airspace's vulnerability.

Why it matters: Iran's failure to defend against strikes highlights its weakened state, sparking discussions of regime change.

Opposition figures and international observers see potential for regime collapse, while officials' contradictory statements strengthen arguments for broader intervention.

The big picture: Internal strife and external pressures mount as Iran's leaders face calls for nuclear negotiation readiness.

Demands from U.S. and Israeli leaders for broader agreements, including missile restrictions, remain unmet.

Russia's urging to halt high-level enrichment further isolates Tehran.

What's next: Despite the political chaos, one perception is widely shared among Iranians: The Islamic Republic has suffered an unprecedented humiliation. It failed to detect Israel’s surprise, well-coordinated strike—and proved incapable of mounting a defense.

This has exposed the regime’s profound vulnerabilities, which have ravaged its economy, environment, social fabric, and legitimacy.

To read the full article, click here.

David Daoud: After the Strike: The Future of Tehran’s Proxies

David Daoud, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, spoke to a recent Middle East Forum Podcast.

Iran's strategy falters as its "axis of resistance" remains inactive in the face of Israeli aggression.

Iran's deterrents like Hamas and Hezbollah, meant to counter Israel, haven't responded, shifting the focus to a direct Iran-Israel conflict.

Why it matters: The inaction of these proxies highlights Iran's vulnerability and strategic missteps.

The sidelining of these groups could weaken Iran's influence in the region and expose it to further risks.

The big picture: Regional dynamics shift as Iran's allies, like the Iraqi militias, seek de-escalation, and Turkey advises Syria to stay neutral.

Israel's strikes aimed to dismantle Iran's nuclear and missile programs, seen as existential threats.

What's next: Although the prospect of freedom increased from the intensive Israeli strikes, 40 years “of living in this prison called the Islamic Republic of Iran” may not be enough to break the mullahs’ grip on the national psyche.

Regime change in Iran is possible if internal dissent and international pressure mount.

To read the full summary and watch the podcast, click here.

Announcing MEF’s Internship Program

Apply for the Middle East Forum’s internship program to gain hands-on policy and research experience. Contribute to MEF’s advocacy while building skills for a career in think tanks or government.

Sessions: Fall (Sep–Dec), Winter (Jan–Apr), Summer (May–Aug)

Commitment: 10 hrs/week, hybrid (on-site/remote)

Eligibility: Undergrad/grad students in history, political science, Middle east studies, public policy, or related fields; strong research, writing, and analytical skills

Program: Virtual orientation, project work, workshops, networking, and a capstone project

Benefits: Professional development budget, D.C. policy conference tickets, MEF event access

To apply: Send cover letter & resume to internship@meforum.org

To learn more, click here.

Tripoli’s Drift Toward Ankara: Time for Washington to Rethink Its Stance

Libya's Tripoli-based Government of National Unity renews regional tensions by advancing a contentious maritime deal with Turkey.

The 2019 memorandum claims maritime zones that cut across established sea boundaries, ignore Greek islands, and undermine accepted interpretations of maritime law.

Why it matters: Greece perceives Tripoli's actions as a direct threat to regional stability, prompting diplomatic and military responses.

Greece deploys naval forces near Libya to deter illegal migration and seeks EU intervention to address the crisis.

The big picture: The dual governance in Libya, with Tripoli aligning with Turkey and Benghazi engaging diplomatically with Greece, complicates the geopolitical landscape.

Turkey has continued to deepen its presence in Libya as part of its broader regional strategy. They seek to empower authorities in Tripoli, which seeks a Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamist government, over the rival, more secular House of Representatives government in Benghazi.

Egyptian officials have appealed to the U.S. to prevent the ratification of the maritime agreement, fearing increased Turkish influence.

What's next: For Washington, Egypt’s appeal should serve as a wake-up call. The fact that both Athens and Cairo—two stable, U.S.-aligned states with divergent but overlapping interests—are independently urging intervention over the same issue should prompt a reassessment of current U.S. policy that tilts toward Tripoli.

The so-called Government of National Unity’s repeated disregard for international law, and its willingness to contribute to regional volatility, should raise concerns in Washington about the costs of unqualified diplomatic support.

To read the full article, click here.

How Washington’s Recklessness Turned Syria Into a Jihadi State on the Mediterranean

Arming al-Nusra: A decade ago, David Petraeus proposed arming Jabhat al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda branch, to combat the Islamic State.

This suggestion was not dismissed as fringe and was not a new idea suddenly conceived to deal with the Islamic State threat. It was merely an attempt to make official a policy that had been in motion behind the scenes for years.

Why it matters: Petraeus’s thinking rested on a flawed assumption that jihadist militants could somehow be turned into strategic partners against both the regime and the Islamic State.

History shows that empowering extremists only strengthens networks and destabilizes regions, as seen in Syria's current state.

The big picture: It was as if the United States had learned nothing from its long list of foreign policy disasters.

Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, once a senior member of the Islamic State, and then the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda franchise Petraeus wanted to empower, is now the de facto, self-appointed president of Syria.

Worse still, Western governments now legitimize, recognize, and support him—never mind that until December 2024, they officially labeled him a terrorist.

What's next: The message is clear—arming extremists is strategically and morally indefensible.

Policymakers must prioritize long-term security and stability over short-term tactical gains to prevent further empowerment of terror regimes.

To read the full article, click here.

U.K. Islamists Come to Defense of Leftist Vandals

British Islamist organizations linked to jihad, terrorism, antisemitism, and Iran’s geopolitical ambitions have joined forces to oppose the U.K. government’s proposal to ban the militant activist outfit Palestine Action (PA).

A coalition of Islamist outfits, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), The Muslim Vote (TMV), and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), has warned the government that the ban would constitute an abuse of terrorism legislation. They have been linked to jihadi violence, Islamist supremacism, and antisemitism.

Why it matters: This alliance prioritizes political motives over national security, undermining efforts to combat extremism.

The Islamist outfits’ support for PA confirms a May 2024 report by Lord Walney, the government’s Independent Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption, warning of “alliances between the British Far Left and Islamist organizations on anti-Israel and antisemitic activism.”

The big picture: PA's record of attacks on Jewish businesses and defense sites underscores the necessity of the ban.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper pushes for the ban to dismantle PA's operations and safeguard citizens from radical threats.

What's next: As Islamist organizations continue to challenge the ban, the U.K. must decide between protecting civil liberties and enforcing crucial security measures.

Parliament's impending vote will test the government's resolve to confront domestic extremism and uphold public safety.

To read the full article, click here.

Thank you for your support and for relying on the Middle East Forum for cogent analyses of this crucial region. If you enjoyed this issue of the MEF Dispatch, please forward it to a friend. We invite you to use the comments feature to let us know your thoughts on the Dispatch and the issues we cover.

Sincerely,

Winfield Myers
Managing Editor, Middle East Forum
Director, Campus Watch

Was this edition useful?

Your email will be recorded and shared with the sender

Powered by