With everything happening in the Middle East, it was easy to lose sight of a minor but significant political story: Rashida Tlaib, an obsessively anti-Israel Michigan congresswoman, lambasted her state’s Jewish attorney general, Dana Nessel, leading Nessel’s defenders to accuse Tlaib of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. The editors of the Free Press take a closer look:

The trouble began for Attorney General Dana Nessel—[a Jewish] progressive lesbian—when she had the gall to do her job: namely, to prosecute criminals. The criminals in question were mainly anti-Israel protesters at the University of Michigan who resisted arrest and refused to leave an encampment on the Ann Arbor campus.

Unlike so many other state attorneys general, who have lacked the political will to indict politically inconvenient criminals, Nessel did. Two of the protesters were prosecuted for trespassing, another seven were charged with trespassing and resisting arrest, and two more pro-Israel demonstrators were prosecuted for separate incidents involving a counterprotest at last spring’s encampment.

Tlaib’s complaint about “possible biases” in Nessel’s office was understood by many as implying that Nessel was acting out of especially Jewish bias. The suggestion that there was an anti-Semitic dimension to Tlaib’s comment itself provoked outrage:

Check out any of your favorite progressive publications—the Intercept, the New Republic, Zeteo—and the story is the inverse of reality. They argue that Nessel is the bigot for smearing Tlaib with the stain of anti-Semitism. It becomes Nessel who has defamed Tlaib—and who must be held to account. This is extraordinary considering that Nessel appointed the first Arab American state solicitor general in American history, Fadwa Hammoud.

This kind of gaslighting has become an unfortunate pattern for progressives since October 7. A couple of examples: after a horrific pogrom where Jewish Israeli parents were murdered in front of their children, it was Israel that was the aggressor. Israel’s defensive war, according to this warped logic, is a genocide. Meanwhile Hamas, the perpetrators of the genocidal act, are the noble resistance.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.