Our Best Stuff From a Big Week in the Middle East
The Dispatch · RC · trust 50/100
Unlocked Dispatch Weekly Our Best Stuff From a Big Week in the Middle East As the U.S. and Iran continue hostilities, the Saudis enter the chat. Rachael Larimore / July 25, 2026 Loading A woman stands next to Iranian-made Zolfaghar missiles displayed at Azadi Square in Tehran on July 24, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images) A woman stands next to Iranian-made Zolfaghar missiles displayed at Azadi Square in Tehran on July 24, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images) = 3 && ageInMonths 3 months old . Some information may be outdated.'; } else if (ageInMonths = 6 && ageInMonths 6 months old . Some information may be outdated.'; } else if (ageInMonths = 12 && ageInMonths 1 year old . Some information may be outdated.'; } else if (ageInMonths = 12) { const ageInYears = Math.floor(ageInMonths / 12); this.message = `This post is more than ${ageInYears} ${ageInYears === 1 ? 'year' : 'years'} old . Some information may be outdated.`; } } }" { this.tooltipOpen = false; }, 200); } }" class="relative" Audio Turn any article into a podcast. Upgrade now to start listening.
Text Size { this.tooltipOpen = false; }, 200); } }" class="relative" Members can share articles with friends & family to bypass the paywall.
That’s a lot to unpack—especially considering that after the nuclear deal was signed, President Donald Trump said Thursday it was contingent on Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia has long insisted it would not do so without a pathway to Palestinian statehood.
That puts the deal in doubt, which, given the reviews of the agreement provided by Kevin D. Williamson and Nick Catoggio, might not be the worst thing. Pointing to reporting from the New York Times that the Saudis insisted on terms that limit international inspectors and that the deal could eventually allow the Saudis to enrich uranium, Nick ran through the various reasons Trump might have sought such a deal—the Saudis have been benefactors to various Trump family businesses, he sees them as friends, or maybe oil was involved. He concludes :
Wherever you land in all of this, it goes without saying that a U.S. government led by Trump can’t be counted on to stop the Saudis from converting their nuclear energy program into a nuclear weapons program, no matter what sort of formal “black box” guarantees might be built into the relationship. Relying on postliberal America for oversight of Riyadh is like relying on one mafia family to police another with which it’s in business.
Kevin, who agrees with Nick that the Saudis are ultimately seeking a nuclear weapon, reminded readers that the Saudis had awfully close ties to the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—15 of the hijackers were subjects, Saudi charities and elites supported al-Qaeda financially, etc.—and noted that the Trump administration has sought to stymie litigation brought by families of 9/11 victims against the Saudi government. He writes , “The administration’s credibility here … is not exactly bombproof. And we know that Trump can be bought, or at least rented, by any tinpot Arab potentate with capital sufficient to purchase an airplane.”
As of Friday, the U.S. had carried out strikes on targets across Iran for 13 straight nights, with Iran targeting U.S. military installations and civilian infrastructure in the Gulf States. Trump has threatened to strike Iranian bridges and power plants in response.
Reuel Marc Gerecht suspects that Trump really wants a nonmilitary solution to the problem, but says that “his ‘art-of-the-deal’ style isn’t helping. The president’s gyrations, the continuing disconnects between word and deed, make him look increasingly unserious.”
We are probably at Trump’s last chance to show that he still deserves the Islamic Republic’s initial fear of him. If he doesn’t now begin the battle of Hormuz or at least amp up economic warfare through an oil-proof, indefinite blockade, which will certainly guarantee that Iran keeps shooting at Arab Gulf-state energy infrastructure, then it’s not likely he will gird his loins for a more dangerous military campaign after the November elections, as some hope.
Got it. We won't recommend this newsletter for a while.
But Mike Coté, a writer and historian who hosts the Rational Policy podcast, argues that there might be another option: stop shooting. He notes that the endless cycle of “negotiation, ceasefire, fighting, and escalation” has done nothing to temper the conflict and that both diplomacy and combat have their own risks. His solution? “Embrace ambiguity and step back.” Basically, end the strikes, leave the blockade in place, and ramp up sanctions. He writes :
This approach avoids many of the traps that could present themselves—and very much already have—in the dealmaking and enforcement process, as well as a potential return to all-out war. Instead of trying to come to an understanding with a counterparty that is uninterested in implementing or following any agreement, America should bank its tangible military victories, continue to apply maximum economic pressure, and maintain its freedom of action to strike kinetically once again if the opportunity arises.
Thank you for reading and have a good weekend. One note: There will be no Dispatch Weekly next Saturday as the Ohio bureau is relocating to South Carolina for a little R&R. If you have any recommendations for the Charleston area, I’d love to hear them.
The Great and Powerful Doug Michael Reneau & Hannah Anderson / July 19, 2026 Perhaps the most surprising thing about Doug Wilson’s ideas is how much they recycle. When asked about Christian nationalist policies he would focus on today, Wilson replayed a narrow set of issues from the culture wars: abortion, LGBTQ rights, and feminism. Wilson runs his ministry along the tried-and-true template of the megachurch pastor or televangelist, presiding over a conglomerate of churches, schools, and media outlets that also employ his family. … And while Wilson…
Read the original at The Dispatch →
Open in TruthVane →