PANDORA’S BOX AND THE IRAN-ISRAEL WAR
When Israel attacked Hizballah last September with exploding beepers and a broad assassination campaign, one of the overriding reasons that dictated the timing was Israel’s concern (according to sources in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem) that Hizballah was about to discover that its internal paging instruments had been boobytrapped—part of a complex intelligence operation that took several years to plan and to execute. Israeli leaders decided to strike hard rather than risk losing the capability. It was a gamble which appears to have paid off brilliantly.
These same Israeli sources now tell us that a similar consideration might have been at play in the timing of Israel’s decision to go to war against Iran on June 13. Tehran was still more than a few months away from developing a nuclear weapon. According to the DIA, U.S. officials did not see any significant change in the Iranian program, much less a decision to weaponize. However, Israel had managed by last week to execute a remarkable intelligence and covert military operation, placing drones inside Iran that could be used to strike strategic assets and pinpointing the location of key regime figures. According to our sources, while they would not say so with certainty, the Israeli government’s concern about losing that capability was likely one of the factors that led Israel to launch its attack when it did.
During its opening salvoes, Israel eliminated the brain trust for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), killed many leaders in Iran’s current nuclear development program, and devastated scores of military and nuclear development sites. Iran launched a series of less damaging but still impressive ballistic and cruise missile and drone attacks in response. Iran’s Hizballah ally remained largely silent throughout the conflict. And Israel’s much vaunted defensive Iron Dome remained effective over 90 percent of the time.
Comment: Sources in Israel have noted Prime Minister Netanyahu’s fixation on Iran for decades. His father, on his death bed at age 100, allegedly exacted a promise from his son to eliminate Iran’s danger as a nuclear-armed power, and on June 13, 2025, Israel moved to do just that. Except, it was unable to finish the job. In what was a genuinely surprise move, President Trump launched his one-night war against Iran’s nuclear program on June 22 using B2 bombers and American bunker busters. The Iranians were forewarned and had reportedly already removed several tons of highly enriched fuel. Despite the histrionics, our sources in the DIA would not comment in detail, noting simply that the program has been severely – but not necessarily permanently – damaged. The President’s forceful calls for a cease-fire ended active war for now, so perhaps – just maybe — Pandora’s Box has not opened. There may still be windows of opportunity for diplomats from a variety of countries to try to put the pieces for a fruitful negotiation into place to prevent a dangerous resurgence. End Comment.
ECONOMIC ANXIETY ON THE RISE IN THE USA
A fresh wave of economic anxiety is washing over the U.S. – and this even before Israel launched a preemptive war against Iran on June 13. A pause on President Donald Trump’s sky-high tariffs is set to end next month, and with few trade deals negotiated, the country is “entering another uncomfortable summer,” according to The Wall Street Journal. The WSJ reports that shifting policies have led to hiring and investment freezes. Survey data shows geopolitical instability and uncertainty is still weighing heavily on CEOs, while increased sales of high-yield bonds, or “junk bonds,” suggest companies are looking to get ahead of the trade tumult when Trump’s tariff pause expires. The Financial Times reports that “…the market “feels good now, but it’s setting up for some volatility in July.”
Comment: Economists, like weather reporters, also have a safe out when their predictions fail to transpire. However, depending on how Trump handles Iran and China will probably determine whether this economic anxiety is temporary or not. End Comment.
TRUMP TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS
Trump’s entry restrictions for citizens of nineteen countries came into effect June 8. Twelve countries are affected by a full travel ban, and seven face partial restrictions, with exceptions for certain groups. The Trump administration said it needed the measures to preserve national security. Most of the targeted countries are in Africa and the Middle East. The new policy echoes a travel ban from Trump’s first administration for citizens of Muslim-majority countries, although analysts said the language has been drafted to better withstand legal challenges this time.
A full travel ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Partial curbs affect citizens of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The State Department provided around 170,000 visas last year to citizens of the first twelve countries, mostly for tourism, business, or study.
Exemptions apply to green card holders, dual citizens, recipients of Afghan Special Immigrant Visas, and World Cup and Olympic athletes, among other cases. Trump said many countries in question insufficiently screened their citizens for travel, had high rates of visa overstays, or were not accepting deportees from the United States
Comment: It is not expected that these restrictions will cause too much political or economic disruption for the U.S. They certainly cause awkward optics and public relations difficulties, but these latter only matter if they raise any care or concern from the White House, and in this instance, they do not. However, forty-two countries may be additionally targeted according to White House officials. These include such important U.S. “friends” as Egypt. U.S. interests are much more likely to suffer another self-inflicted blow if such a policy were to be rolled out. End Comment.
IS THE U.S. CHANGING ITS PREFERENCE FOR A TWO-STATE SOLUTION?
SocoSIX queried a senior official at the U.S, Embassy in Jerusalem about a comment made by the American Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, that Washington no longer fully endorses an independent state for Palestinians. The Ambassador allegedly made these comment to Bloomberg. Not surprisingly, the State Department declined to comment yesterday, while the White House referred to former comments by Trump proposing a U.S. takeover of Gaza and said that the president was unsure about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Comment: This is certainly policy which reflects Huckabee’s personal and religious preferences, and our source said that he is not alone in the administration in taking this view which – if adopted – would place the United States at odds not only with every real and potential Arab ally but with most countries worldwide. Our source intimated that Secretary Rubio does not support this approach, but he believes that Vice President Vance might be more favorably disposed. A now disenfranchised GOP advisor from Trump I commented sarcastically that the President has a better chance of annexing Canada rather than Gaza, if he ever seriously considered this proposal as practical, possible, or acceptable to the region and world at large. End Comment.
POLISH ELECTION COMPLICATES THE EUROPEAN PROJECT
The Polish run-off Presidential election on June 1 saw the largest turnout by Polish voters in a presidential race since the country cast off Communism in 1989. In a survey conducted shortly after he was tapped by Law and Justice for the race, only 39% of respondents knew who he was. He staked out positions on the right as he established his political image, calling for the criminalization of abortion and opposing same-sex unions. When Poland’s most popular right-wing antiestablishment party, Konfederacja, was eliminated in the first round of voting, Nawrocki moved swiftly to sign up to a platform of party objectives that included not sending Polish troops to Ukraine and keeping Kyiv out of NATO.
Nawrocki won with 50.89% of votes cast. The backing of the Trump administration might not have been the deciding factor in catapulting Nawrocki to the presidency, but it gave him an edge in a tight race. As Trump-styled conservatism has faltered in other recent elections such as in Canada, Australia and Romania, it found fertile ground in Poland, and helped Nawrocki as he tried to establish a political identity. Many voters used the election to voice dissatisfaction with the current ruling coalition, headed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, which has struggled to deal with rising prices and make good on the campaign promises that got it elected in 2023.
Comment: Trump’s role in supporting Nawrocki should not be understated. His support from Washington gave him a new level of credibility. When the Conservative Political Action Conference, a U.S.-based conservative advocacy group, had its first meeting in Warsaw just prior to the election, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said Nawrocki needed to be Poland’s next president. The same day the House Committee on Foreign Affairs claimed without giving proof that Nawrocki’s opponent, Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, could be benefiting from illegal funds, and implied the EU was staying quiet about it because it benefited its interests. Trzaskowki has denied illicit financing. The most important show of support was from Trump. After a meeting between Trump and Nawrocki in the Oval Office, the White House released photos of them smiling. A picture says a thousand words, and in this instance, the photo with Trump made Nawrocki look credible. End Comment.
