In an essay published last fall, Hussein Aboubakr explained how the story of the Nakba has been adopted by one generation after another of Arab revolutionaries as a tool to advance their respective visions of the Middle East. Now, he argues, the meaning of the Palestinian cause has mutated again, leaving the bounds of the Middle East completely. The evidence can be seen on American college campuses:

Instead of being a marginal cause supported and funded by foreign elements, anti-Zionism is in fact the flagship foreign-policy cause of the international left and the academic vanguard of progressive activism. A cause that was once regarded as fundamentally foreign is now mainstream across blue American cities and liberal elite institutions.

Whether wearing a hijab or a Star of David, Students for Justice in Palestine anti-Israel activists are not simply freaks who demonstrate in favor of Hamas. They are mainstream products of the monoculture of the academic left. . . . For contemporary college students, the Israel-Palestine issue is not a separate foreign-policy issue referring to the struggles of people in a small spit of sand in the Middle East. It is a domestic issue of social justice that fits within a unitary and indivisible framework of global justice concerns and decolonization.

Young American Jews have often shied away from facing the prospect that other liberal Americans of their generation—increasingly indoctrinated into left-wing ideologies and seeking a “leftist organizing space” for the struggle against racism, colonialism, and imperialism—are much more likely to align with pro-Palestinian activism than with Jews. One of the reasons is that many young Jews go to the same schools, where they are indoctrinated into the same ideologies, and are often unlikely to question critically whether there is something inherently distorted and dangerous in them.

Noah Rothman provides a worthwhile reminder of why a nuclear Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the United States:

For one, Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism on earth. It exports terrorists and arms throughout the region and beyond, and there are no guarantees that it won’t play a similarly reckless game with nuclear material. At minimum, the terrorist elements in Iran’s orbit would be emboldened by Iran’s new nuclear might. Their numbers would surely grow, as would their willingness to court risk.

Iran maintains the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the region. It can certainly deliver a warhead to targets inside the Middle East, and it’s fast-tracking the development of space-launch vehicles that can threaten the U.S. mainland. Even if Tehran were a rational actor that could be reliably deterred, an acknowledged Iranian bomb would kick-start a race toward nuclear proliferation in the region. The Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and others would probably be compelled to seek their own nuclear deterrents, leading to an infinitely more complex security environment.

In the meantime, Iran would be able to blackmail the West, allowing it occasionally to choke off the trade and energy exports that transit the Persian Gulf and to engage in far more reckless acts of international terrorism.

As for the possible consequences, Rothman observes:

Iranian retaliation might be measured with the understanding that if it’s not properly calibrated, the U.S. and Israel could begin taking out Iranian command-and-control targets next. If the symbols of the regime begin crumbling, the oppressed Iranian people might find the courage to finish the job. If there’s anything the mullahs fear more than the U.S. military, it’s their own citizens.