In partnership with |  |
| Middle East Insider · Issue 047 · Wednesday, August 26, 2026 · Special Afternoon Edition The Mailbag, Vol. IIIThe daily brief went dark on August 13. The mailbox did not. While I was away, 303 of you wrote: the families of lone soldiers who read the book announcement and answered with their own dead and their own living, the readers who cross-examined the Turkey file, a correspondent in Herzliya who says a man in Philadelphia has no right to an opinion about Israel, and the first endorsements in the box for Israel’s next prime minister. The daily returned this morning. This afternoon, the mail gets answered. Good afternoon. Two pieces of housekeeping. First: the daily brief came back this morning, and the audio edition now rides with every issue; more on that below, Carlos. Second: this is a mailbag, so the standing rules apply: first names only, employers generalized, and anything personal or operational is handled privately, not in print. If you wrote about a subscription, an event registration, or your own story for the book, the answer is moving to your inbox, not this page. Gregg Roman · August 26, 2026 In this afternoon’s brief • Letters to the Ranks: what came back when I told you about the book • You asked, I answer: Barrack and Huckabee, the citizen’s Turkey file, the leak, and five more • The Runway dock: readers cross-examine the Turkey war file • One argument I refuse, again: the case against my standing • The Corrections Desk: one case, honestly adjudicated • The lightning round, the Number, and the Ask | Section 1 · Letters to the Ranks On August 16 I told you about the book: the lone soldiers, the ones who came home and the ones who did not. I expected orders. What came back was testimony, and it deserves to lead the issue. Robin Sue, on the cookies Her son and Michael Levin were bunkmates at Camp Ramah in the Poconos “from age 9 onwards.” Michael came to Visiting Day while on leave from the IDF, and she gave him a batch of what the camp called Robin Sue cookies. “A few weeks later my husband, Bill, was at his levaya in Israel.” A father on Long Island, on Omer Neutra His older son grew up with Omer: USY together, Camp Ramah together, “weekends together at Omer’s home on Long Island. Can’t stop crying. You outdid yourself.” He will be at the New York lunch on September 9. Sir, the seat is held. Alan in Ventnor wrote about the timing. The same morning the excerpt landed, his synagogue happened to be holding a brunch for the Michael Levin Foundation. His son Jason was a lone soldier in 2006 and 2007, a Ramahnik with Michael. His word for the coincidence: “bashert.” And the veterans wrote their own chapters. Jerry, who filled sandbags at Kibbutz Negba in 1967, was rejected by the army years later and wrote back a letter that “basically yelled, ‘Ok, you don’t want to use my body. What about my mind?’”; they took him at 27, in time for Yom Kippur 1973, and he spent his reserve years teaching soldiers “from Rephidim to Mt. Hermon.” David, Berlin-born, made aliyah in 1971 and jumped with the paratroops of gdud 202 the next year, where a lieutenant named Shimon Naveh “took extra care of me and the other three lone soldiers in our ranks... They became my family.” Three of you offered your stories for the book itself. The desk has written back to each of you; keep them coming. Hedy said it for the rest of the box: “Tears kept streaming... I bow my head to you and our blessed heroes.” Irving asked the question that turns all of this into action. His own son just finished two years as a lone soldier. “If there is any fund for Lone Soldiers that needs topping up, perhaps you could add particulars in your next email.” Here are the particulars, Irving. The fund carries the name that runs through every letter above: the Lone Soldier Center in Memory of Michael Levin, the largest organization in Israel devoted to lone soldiers, more than 15,000 of them supported since 2009, from conscription papers to five years past discharge. Michael was 22 when he was killed in the Second Lebanon War. The camp friends in these letters grew up and buried him; the Center is what they built so no soldier stands alone at the gate. Give there, and tell them the Insider sent you. | Every headline satisfies an opinion. Except ours. | | Remember when the news was about what happened, not how to feel about it? 1440's Daily Digest is bringing that back. Every morning, they sift through 100+ sources to deliver a concise, unbiased briefing — no pundits, no paywalls, no politics. Just the facts, all in five minutes. For free. | Read the newsletter trusted by 4.5 million fact-seekers. | | Section 2 · You Asked, I Answer The question of the cycle · Ernest, in two letters “Tom Barrack speaks for the president of the United States who can remove him at any time.” “Am I the only one that realizes that ambassadors speak for and at the pleasure of the president? How different are the words of ambassador Huckabee... Two different opinions but both having the same boss. Are we back to another ‘cold war’ situation... Is Turkey the new Yugoslavia?” You are not the only one, Ernest, and the contradiction is the finding. When two envoys of the same president say opposite things about the same file and both keep their jobs, that is not a communications failure; it is a policy that has not been decided. The Runway file called it exactly that: Washington has not chosen between Turkey the NATO ally and Turkey the revisionist power, so its ambassadors are free to describe different countries. On Yugoslavia: half credit. Turkey has the seams (Kurds, Alevis, a coastal-interior divide) and an army that holds the state together. But Tito ran a federation that needed him; Erdogan runs a state that predates him and will outlast him. The better model is not Yugoslavia before the breakup. It is a bloc leader testing how much of the neighborhood a distracted America will let it digest. That is what the Radar Line exists to answer. Bruce, the homework request “What is your recommendation for the general public in the United States to do in order to counteract the neo-Ottoman expansionist project of Turkey?” A fair demand, so here is the citizen’s file, in four lines. Write your member of Congress two sentences: no F-35 re-entry while Ankara holds the S-400, and full CAATSA enforcement, no waivers. Ask every candidate who wants your vote one question: does NATO membership oblige us to arm a government that hosts Hamas? Fund the reporting that tracks the drills, the drones, and the bases, because the record is the weapon. And if you are near New York on September 9, come hear the Forum’s case on the outlaw networks in person; the address for that is at the bottom of this issue. Madeleine, the hard one, again “I always ask myself if all these details harm Israel and Israel’s relationship with the USA... especially when the conflict is still ongoing.” She has earned the repeat; in Volume Two I answered on aggregation, and the leak changed the question. So here is the leak-era answer. The crime was the leaking. Someone with clearance handed operational material to a television network, and that person did the damage, all of it, before any analyst typed a word. Once the material was broadcast, the choice left to serious publications was whether the public record would be assembled by the regime’s narrators or by people who know what the stakes are. Analysis of a leak is not the leak. The Insider will keep refusing to print what is secret and keep refusing to pretend what is public is not. The leak file · Rachel, and Henry, who runs a nonproliferation policy center “Who leaked this information to Fox News?” “What is astonishing is the CIA was encouraged to support this.” The honest answer: the desk does not know who leaked, no charges have been announced as of this writing, and I will not speculate on names, because speculation is how leaks metastasize into purges. What can be said: the file now belongs to the Justice Department and the counterintelligence people, the question that matters is not the leaker’s name but whether the pipeline that produced him gets sealed, and this newsletter will report the indictment on the morning it exists. Henry, your astonishment is the story; agencies were made to keep secrets, not to sponsor their broadcast. | Andy, on Israel’s next prime minister “Let’s say Israel chooses the hard line. What specifics would you have Israel’s next PM do?... What specifics would you have Israel’s next PM do if he chooses the peace line? No more mowing the grass. Recognize a Palestinian state? I’m just curious.” Volume Two’s “Not just no but hell no” is back, this time with the harder question. The answer to both of your roads is the same test, the Ben-Gurion Standard from that essay: declare an end-state and hold it. The hard line, specified: verified disarmament as the condition for everything, a security perimeter that does not depend on anyone’s promises, and no withdrawal into a vacuum. The peace line, specified: any recognition priced against conduct, delivered in stages that can be stopped, with the same verified disarmament at the bottom of the page. Notice what both lists share. Neither one mows grass. Mowing the grass was the policy of not choosing, and that is the one option the next prime minister does not have. Rodney in Australia “What would Churchill / Truman / Thatcher / Ben-Gurion / Golda Meir / Reagan / Sir John Monash have done?” One line each, Rodney, and your countryman gets his due. Churchill would have named the enemy out loud while the cabinet was still clearing its throat. Truman would have recognized the fact on the ground in eleven minutes and dared the department to object. Thatcher would have told the conference this was no time to go wobbly. Ben-Gurion would have declared the state first and negotiated its borders from inside them. Golda would have reminded everyone that survival is the policy and the rest is commentary. Reagan would have walked away from the beautiful deal at Reykjavik and been proven right by the collapse that followed. And Monash, the engineer, would have planned the whole battle backward from the objective before the first gun fired, which is the entire argument of that essay in one Australian sentence. Diana, on the name “Can we stop calling it Iran and start calling it the Islamist occupation, or the government, please?” Half yes, Diana. This newsletter already tries to keep the distinction you are pointing at: Iran is the country and the ninety million people who live there; the thing that rules them is the regime, the Islamic Republic, the occupation of a nation by its jailers. I will not strike the word Iran, because the country is the point; surrendering the name to the regime is one more thing it does not get to keep. But watch the sentences: when this brief says Iran did something, it will mean the regime, and it will say so. Carlos in Buenos Aires, who listens “Looks like you discontinued your messages in the audio mode. I looked forward to listen to your texts since I have a visual limitation. Can you bring it back?” Yes. The audio edition is back as of this morning’s daily and it stays: every issue, every special, no exceptions. For what it is worth, when the format poll closed, nineteen readers voted for the option that said they listen to the audio edition anyway; you have a caucus, Carlos, and the desk just heard it. | Section 3 · The Runway Dock The Turkey war file drew the sharpest return fire of the window. Four cross-examinations, taken seriously. Yuval, writing from Israel, challenges the premise “You assume the Turkish radar can see Israeli aircraft. Let me remind you that Iran’s air defense did not see two hundred aircraft coming. That the Sixth Fleet did not see the Israeli flying to Tunis four decades ago except on the way back. I assure you Turkish radar can see Israeli planes only when the raid is done.” A fair reading of the record, Yuval, and it misses what the Line is drawn around. The Radar Line was never a claim about detection ranges; it is a claim about political tripwires. The danger is not that Ankara sees the raid coming. It is that a Turkish battery parked in Syria turns every future Israeli sortie into a potential NATO incident, whether or not the scope was on. Your own examples prove the file’s second track: Israeli aircraft go where they must, which is exactly why the Turkish army cannot be allowed to garrison the flight path. The essay’s two tracks stand: no war with Turkey, and no Turkish army parked where it can blind Israel. If anything, your point sharpens the deterrent: what Ankara cannot see, it cannot pretend it controls. Madeleine, on the envoy’s portfolio: “Tom Barrack will never support Israel. He was and most likely is still involved in so many Arab businesses in the Middle East... Why is he an envoy there, I don’t know? Maybe because of his business connections?” The desk will go as far as the public record and no further. The record: decades of Gulf business relationships, disclosed, and an envoy brief that touches the same map. That is a structural question the Senate is entitled to ask about any envoy, from any administration, and the right fix is structural: recusal walls and disclosure, not mind-reading. What the record does not support is “will never support Israel,” and the desk will not print motives it cannot document. Watch what the envoy does; this newsletter will. Michael on the Golan: the Heights “were taken as spoils of war; a war initiated by Egypt and other Arab nations in 1967... The Golan is the key to the North E. corner of Israel. That area is Israel’s weakest point.” Agreed on the strategic point, Michael, and the file agrees too: the northeast corner is where the two tracks meet, which is why the essay’s containment case treats the Golan as the fixed anchor and Turkish forces in southern Syria as the moving hazard. Nothing in the Runway file trades the anchor. And Ferne forwarded the viral version of the argument, a post making the rounds that reads, in part: “Israel bombed America’s newest ally. Turkey watched jets approach its border and held fire. The three of us are supposed to be on the same side. Nobody’s confused. Everybody’s pretending.” She asked me to counter it, so here is the counter, aimed at the argument and not the account. Every sentence is doing a trick. “Newest ally” launders a NATO member of thirty-plus years hosting Hamas into a fresh American choice. “Held fire” converts a decision not to start a war it would lose into evidence of virtue. And “everybody’s pretending” is the tell, because it is the horseshoe’s favorite move: declare the truth unsayable, then sell the saying of it. Nobody is pretending. The file names the tension in public, prices it, and proposes a policy. That is the opposite of pretending; it is what the pretenders are afraid of. A last word for the dock, from New Delhi · Ashali “I am from India and we had a short war with Pakistan where we destroyed their airfields and terror camps- we too won the war but Pakistanis were quick on the narrative. And they were helped from our own Leftists and Opposition parties and some newspapers. Democracies are very vulnerable...” That is the Tehran-morale file confirmed from another hemisphere, and it is why the narrative front gets covered here like a front. | Short on cash? Get up to $750, no credit check. | | Access up to $750* from your upcoming paycheck within minutes for a small fee, or wait 3 days and get it for free. No credit check. No late fees. | Get Started Now | *Not all users will qualify. Advances range from $25–$750; average advance is $170. Express transfer fees may apply. | Section 4 · One Argument I Refuse, Again Dov wrote from Herzliya, in Hebrew, and he was not rude about it, so he gets the full answer. לדעתי מי שחי בפילדלפיה ארצות הברית אין לו זכות להביע דעה פוליטית בישראל. הזכות הזו שמורה לילידי הארץ ולאזרחים שחיים כאן “Someone who lives in Philadelphia, United States has no right to express a political opinion in Israel. That right is reserved for those born in the land and for citizens who live here.” Three answers, Dov, in ascending order. First, the facts, because the premise has a flaw: the Forum’s letterhead says Philadelphia, and my mailbox does not. I am an Israeli and American citizen. I live in Israel with my family, I served in the IDF, I worked in the Ministry of Defense, and I served as a senior policy advisor to the deputy foreign minister; I pay my taxes there, and my children are growing up there. By the rule you wrote yourself, citizens who live in the land, I qualify in full. Second, and more important: I reject the rule. Ideas are tested on their merits, not their return address. A true claim does not become false because it was written in Philadelphia, and a false one does not become true because it was written in Tel Aviv. Herzl wrote from Vienna. Jabotinsky wrote from Paris and New York. A large share of the thinking that built your state was written outside its borders, and ministers in Jerusalem publish opinions about Washington every week, as is their right. Third, for the readers of this newsletter who do write from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Long Island: scroll up. They sent their sons to your army; one of them baked cookies for a boy who came back to camp in uniform and then went home in a coffin draped in your flag. Whatever entry fee you believe an opinion about Israel costs, those families paid it in full at Mount Herzl, in the currency you respect most. So here is my offer, the same one I already made you privately: the next time you read something of mine and disagree, write me what exactly is wrong, in fact, in logic, or in conclusion. I will read it seriously and answer on the substance. That is the only argument worth having, and my door is always open to it. And because two volumes have now established the tradition: the flank that wants this fight to be against Islam itself wrote again, three letters from one reader among others. The refusal stands as written in Volume Two. This Forum fights the ideology and the regimes that arm it, its strongest allies include Muslims, and that is the whole of it; the position has not moved and will not. One more refusal, from the other direction. A reader argues the Iranian people “never stood up for freedom... maybe they do not want” change, and another dismissed the uprising file as wishful thinking. The graveyards of January say otherwise. The regime did not murder thousands of people for staying home. The Ninety Million are not a rhetorical device; they are the reason the regime builds its prisons bigger than its power plants. | Section 5 · The Corrections Desk One case this cycle. The case of the 15-point headline. Ann writes: “I take exception to your headline that Netanyahu rejects the 15-point plan in a public break with Washington. It’s my understanding that the 15-point plan requires Hamas to disarm before an Israeli withdrawal. It is Hamas who has rejected the plan.” Here is the adjudication, Ann, with the prime minister’s exact words. The headline reported what he said at the Sunday cabinet meeting, plainly and twice: “Israel rejects the 15-point Gaza document proposed by the Board of Peace. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed,” with disarmament meaning “heavy weaponry, lighter weaponry, all weaponry... genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament.” So the rejection was real and it was his. But note why he rejected it, because it rests on your own point: the document as drafted did not nail disarmament down before withdrawal, which is exactly the sequencing you assumed it had. And you are right about the deeper fact: Hamas rejects the substance, disarmament itself, which is why every draft dies. Ruling: the headline stands on the quotes; your instinct about who is killing the plan stands on the record. Both can be true, and both are. The desk remains open. Catch us, and you get the last word unless the evidence rules otherwise. Section 6 · Lightning Round Bill filed the same instruction as last mailbag, in full: “Do you know about Operation Ajax? If Not google it.” Bill, the desk googled it in Volume Two and ruled: 1953 is the case for backing Iranians’ own fight in the open instead of running someone else’s coup in the dark. The ruling has not changed. One of Volume Two’s sharpest critics sent ten numbered points of strategy analysis this cycle and signed off “No reply required.” Reply anyway: noted, argued, and welcome at the table. Darlene in Rancho Mirage answers the ballot question first: “While I love Benjamin Netanyahu, my candidate in the next election would be Gadi Eisenkot...all the way.” The box is open for rebuttals, and the Ben-Gurion Standard applies to all comers. Charles, on tempo: “Time is money. Time for US/Israel, others attacked to finish off Iran.” Frederic, on the mediators: against Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan guiding the negotiations, “If we cannot protect freedom of navigation... America is finished as a world power.” Bill R., the loyal opposition: “It’s become a political exercise and a poor one at that.” The desk prints its critics; that is the whole point of this section. One reader, in capital letters: “YOUR PROBLEM IS THE AMERICAN PRESS.” The Tehran-morale file made the same argument in lowercase. Kenneth, after the Eylon Levy interview: he “should be heard more often.” Agreed; Issue 045 was a start, not a finish. Lucie reported our duplicate sends and then forgave us: “Worthy of reading twice (!)!!!” The duplicates are being fixed anyway, Lucie; one copy, worth two reads, is the standard. Lars, an update on your fourth question: “the tentacles of the outlaws” is now the title of the Forum’s New York briefing on September 9. Coinage credited. Brenda’s entire letter, filed in the subject line: “Brenda loved the article cannot afford subscription best of luck.” Brenda, the daily is free and always will be. Stay. And Leonid: “Without any doubt, Greg Roman is the best expert on the subject in the world. Brilliant.” Flattery will get you printed exactly once, Leonid. This was it. | The Number 303 Letters that arrived while the daily slept: 947 files processed, the auto-replies and duplicates cleared, 303 of you writing in eighteen quiet days. The reader survey ticked up to 1,481 while the presses were stopped. A newsletter can pause. Apparently the readership does not, and as of this morning the desk is caught up. The Ask Three things this Wednesday, and the first one is a promise kept. The daily brief returned this morning, audio edition riding along, full length, as the poll ruled. Come see the Forum in person: Boston, September 1, Bankrupt the Revolution; Philadelphia, September 3, Finish the Job; New York, September 9, Tentacles of the Outlaws. To attend or host, write Nikki Ellis (ea@meforum.org) and me (roman@meforum.org). Every Forum donor receives Insider Premium with our compliments; if your invitation has not arrived, write mefnews@meforum.org and it will be fixed the same day. And the box stays open: reply with your questions, your corrections, your ballot answers, and your lone-soldier stories; I read every letter. The Field Guide to the Frameworks is one click away for new readers. Volume Four is already filling. | Middle East Insider · From Gregg Roman, Executive Director, Middle East Forum You are receiving this because you subscribed at mefinsider.meforum.org. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment