On June 8, 2026, opinion columnist Megan Stack published an article titled “Israeli Expansionism Is Shaking the Middle East.” In the article, Stack delivers a scathing critique of Israeli policies with regard to the Palestinians and the Middle East more generally, as well as the U.S.-Israel relationship. Specifically, she focuses on what she calls “Israeli expansionism and projection of power in the Middle East.
The issue with Stack’s article is not her criticism of Israel. It’s that Stack demonstrates such a lack of understanding of regional geopolitics, actors and history that her view of the Middle East leads readers to an upside-down, alternative reality. Specifically, she casts Israel as the only “expansionist” actor in the region while ignoring Iranian aspirations. Stack’s flawed understanding of the region deprives Times’ readership of an adequate understanding of the recent war while making some reckless suggestions.
Iran
Stack portrays Iran mostly as a victim of Western aggression, ignoring much of its actions in the region. But Stack also casually mentions that Hezbollah, a U.S. designated terror organization in Lebanon, is “Iran-backed.” This is a popular, though extraordinarily understated, description of Hezbollah in The Times. Unpacking it undermines the gist of Stack’s article.
Hezbollah is not merely “Iran-backed.” Its development is a part of Iran’s attempt to export its 1979 Islamic Revolution to the world. Stack’s colleague, Ben Hubbard, recently explained that Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini explicitly called for the exporting the Islamic Revolution, an aspiration which translated into Iranian backing for proxies in Gaza (Hamas), Lebanon (Hezbollah), and Yemen (Houthi rebels). In later years, this support helped to develop Iran’s “ring of fire” – a network of heavily armed militias preparing to attack Israel from multiple fronts. Some of these militias, like Hezbollah and the Houthis also seek local political power and challenge the governments of Yemen and Lebanon.
Former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman called Hezbollah “revolutionary Iran’s most successful export.” The terror group’s establishment was fulfillment of Iran’s aim to “expand its influence in Arab states.” Indeed, Hezbollah recently lost some support among Lebanese constituents who fault the organization for serving Iran’s agenda instead of focusing on domestic issues – a development which Stack’s Times colleagues covered.
Stack writes that Hezbollah was formed after Israel invaded Lebanon is 1982. But she fails to mention that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps provided Hezbollah with training and funds, sending some 1500 IRGC personnel to Lebanon. It was Iran who turned the embryonic organization into what is effectively a proto state within the Lebanese state and supported its war against Israel.
Stack writes that “there’s no question that Israel is finding new opportunities in weakened states,” referring to reports claiming Israel formed two bases in Iraq, as well as Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. Perhaps.
But she forgets that Iran formed Hezbollah by taking advantage of the chaos of Lebanon’s long civil war (1975-1990) and exploiting religious divisions in the country. Hezbollah’s power base is the Shiia population, historically marginalized economically and politically by Lebanon’s Sunni Muslims and Christian Maronites.
Regional Influence and the Abraham Accords
Stack ignores Iran’s drive for expanding its regional influence as well as geopolitical interests in the region. She states:
The notion that the U.S. and Israel might turn on or even attack (!!!) Saudi Arabia or others because they did not join the Abraham Accords is one of the article’s more ridiculous assertions. Stack simply ignores the shared interests and relations Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have.
Like Israel and the U.S., Saudi Arabia has been Iran’s rival, seeking to check Iran’s regional influence. Between 2015 and 2022, this rivalry escalated into armed conflict: the IRGC and Hezbollah supported Iran’s Houthi proxy in their fight against Saudi Arabia, providing training, weapons, and other assistance. This support too was part of the Iranian attempt to export the Islamic Revolution and extend influence in the region. The recent warming of ties between the countries was strategic, and the rivalry remained. Therefore, all three countries share a desire to check Iran.
The Israeli-Saudi convergence of interests against a shared foe is apparent in the fact that Saudi Arabia joined Israel in encouraging Trump to attack Iran and embark on Operation Epic Fury. With regards to the U.S., the country has a strong, decades-old strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, including various military and economic interests.
Another country that is not a party to the Abraham accords is Qatar. While Israel has a tense relationship with Qatar given its support of Hamas, the U.S. has a strong and strategically important relationship with the country. Qatar hosts Al-Udeid airbase, an important American hub that houses thousands of service people and invested some eight billion dollars in its development over two decades. In addition, President Trump recently signed an executive order that ensures the security of the State of Qatar against an external attack.
These well-known facts show that Stack’s wild insinuations regarding the Abraham Accords are not grounded in the realities of the region – or in anything at all.
Conclusion
Stack’s analysis does great disservice to Times’ readership. As an opinion writer, she is entitled to voice criticism grounded in some kind of reality. But in Stack’s alternate universe, Iran’s longstanding well-known aspirations and proxy network are virtually non-existent – and have nothing to do with recent events. Stack’s suggestion that Israel and the U.S. might attack or otherwise turn on the Gulf states if they do not join the Abraham Accords not only lacks any sort of concrete evidence to support it but also ignores regional politics to a worrying degree.
The Times describes Stack as “a contributing Opinion writer who has reported extensively from the Middle East.” But her column raises the question: what Middle East was she reporting from – the real one or some imagined version of it?
For the Hebrew version of this post, please see CAMERA Hebrew.