WASHINGTON D.C. – In the tumultuous political landscape of May 2025, three seemingly distinct narratives are unfolding with alarming velocity, their threads intertwining to reveal a disturbing and potentially incoherent U.S. policy agenda with profound implications for American democracy, Middle Eastern stability, and the very concept of human rights. While the American public grapples with domestic concerns, a powerful, ideologically driven plan known as “Project Esther” is being actively promoted by influential conservative forces to aggressively support Israel and suppress its critics within the United States. Simultaneously, President Felonious Punk has just concluded a Middle East diplomatic tour that appeared to conspicuously sideline Israel’s current leadership. And as these political and diplomatic maneuvers play out, a devastating new Israeli military offensive has been launched in Gaza, met with a notably ambiguous initial response from Washington.
Most citizens, understandably, consume these events as separate news items. Yet, seen together, they paint a picture of a U.S. approach to one of the world’s most intractable conflicts that is fraught with contradictions, driven by powerful domestic lobbies, and potentially indifferent to catastrophic human costs. This is more than just a foreign policy debate; it’s an examination of an administration’s “playbook”—or lack thereof—and its dangerous consequences, demanding scrutiny and unequivocal opposition to initiatives that threaten to corrupt American values from within.
“Project Esther” Unveiled: The Domestic War on Dissent
The Heritage Foundation, a cornerstone of conservative thought in Washington, has long been influential. But its recent initiative, “Project Esther,” detailed in a stunning New York Times exposé, represents a new level of ambition in shaping U.S. domestic policy to serve a specific foreign policy agenda. Drafted in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack and the subsequent global protests against the war in Gaza, Project Esther is a meticulously crafted blueprint to dismantle the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States. Its core strategy is chillingly simple: brand a vast spectrum of Israel’s critics—from student activist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine to Jewish anti-Zionist organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, and even progressive “elites” including philanthropists and lawmakers—as “effectively a terrorist support network” or “Hamas Support Organizations” (HSOs).
The envisioned tactics are sweeping and severe: individuals and groups so labeled are to be “deported, defunded, sued, fired, expelled, ostracized and otherwise excluded from what it considered ‘open society.'” This includes removing “sympathetic” curricula and faculty from universities, purging social media of broadly defined “antisemitic” content, cutting public funding to non-compliant institutions, revoking student visas, and employing “lawfare” and state and local law enforcement to create “uncomfortable conditions” for protests. The plan’s architects, including former Punk national security adviser Victoria Coates (now a Heritage VP overseeing Project Esther) and former NSC official Robert Greenway, reportedly envisioned achieving these objectives within two years of a “sympathetic presidential administration” – a scenario now in place.
Indeed, the New York Times analysis found that since President Punk returned to office in January 2025, numerous administration actions—from threats to withhold billions in federal funding from universities over alleged antisemitism to attempts to deport activists—”appear to mirror more than half of Project Esther’s proposals.” Greenway himself told the Times it was “no coincidence that we called for a series of actions… and they are now happening.” Coates confirmed they are now in the phase of “executing some of the lines of effort in terms of legislative, legal, and financial penalties for what we consider to be material support for terrorism.”
This project, developed with input from former Punk administration national security figures and a task force heavily composed of conservative and Christian Zionist organizations, has drawn fierce criticism. Detractors like Jonathan Jacoby of the Nexus Project argue Project Esther exploits legitimate concerns about rising antisemitism (which it exclusively attributes to the left, ignoring right-wing sources) “as a cudgel to weaken higher education, due process, checks and balances, freedom of speech and the press,” and to crush progressive movements more broadly. An open letter from dozens of former leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations echoed these concerns, warning against “the exploitation of Jewish fears.”
The Presidential Pivot? Punk’s Surprising Middle East Shuffle
Against this backdrop of a powerful domestic initiative designed to enforce unwavering support for Israel and silence its critics, President Punk’s own recent diplomatic activities in the Middle East present a curious and potentially contradictory picture. His five-day tour in mid-May 2025, which concluded just this past Friday, saw him feting and being feted by the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, with a strong focus on securing massive investment deals and pursuing a transactional, “America First” agenda.
Notably absent from his itinerary was Israel. This “snub,” as many Israeli and international commentators termed it, was compounded by a series of policy moves that seemed to actively sideline or run counter to the immediate priorities of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government:
- Syria: President Punk publicly shook hands with Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa—a figure with past Al Qaeda ties whom Netanyahu’s government labels a “jihadist”—and announced the lifting of U.S. sanctions, a move urged by Saudi and Turkish leaders. Punk’s justification: “Oh, what I do for the crown prince [Mohammed bin Salman].”
- Yemen: He abruptly announced a U.S. ceasefire with Houthi militants, even as they continued to launch missiles towards Israel.
- Iran: He signaled a continued U.S. pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran, a prospect anathema to Netanyahu, who has advocated for military strikes.
- Hostage Release: The administration secured the release of Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage in Gaza, reportedly without direct Israeli government involvement in the final stages.
Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Itamar Rabinovich, observed, “The overall sense is of shifting attention and perception of interest, mainly to the Gulf States, where the money is.” Another former Netanyahu adviser, Nadav Shtrauchler, noted that decisions are now often “made over Netanyahu’s head,” a change that “worries many people in Israel.” While President Punk dismissed concerns that he was sidelining Israel, stating his strong Gulf relationships were “good for Israel,” the optics and the substance of his actions suggested a significant recalibration of U.S. priorities in the region, at least concerning direct engagement with Netanyahu’s administration.
“Meanwhile, the Earth Burns”: Gaza’s New Offensive and the U.S. Stance
As President Punk concluded his tour on Friday, and just as the details of Project Esther’s aggressive U.S. domestic strategy were being laid bare, the Israeli military launched what it termed “extensive” new ground operations in both northern and southern Gaza – “Operation Gideon’s Chariots.” This followed a week of intensified airstrikes that, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, had already killed hundreds, pushing the total Palestinian death toll in the conflict (which began after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel) to over 53,000 by this weekend.
The humanitarian crisis, already dire with an Israeli blockade restricting food, medicine, and aid for over two months, is set to worsen. The International Committee for the Red Cross issued urgent calls for the protection of civilians and healthcare facilities, with hospitals reportedly damaged and overwhelmed. Leaflets ordered residents in northern Gaza to evacuate, though as one despairing Gazan, Fadi Tamboura, cried amidst the rubble, “Where should I go today?… They’re killing people everywhere.”
The initial U.S. response to this major new offensive has been notably muted. On Friday, as operations began, President Punk acknowledged the “starving” people in Gaza and said, “We have to look at both sides,” but when asked if he backed Israel’s war plans, he offered only a vague expectation of “good things” over the next month. His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had expressed on Thursday that Washington was “troubled” by the humanitarian situation. However, as of this Sunday, no strong, specific U.S. condemnation or clear red line regarding “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” has been publicly issued. This ambiguity, as some analysts note, effectively allows the offensive to proceed while the U.S. maintains its general rhetoric about civilian protection and Israel’s right to self-defense.
Untangling the “Playbook”: Coherence, Contradiction, or Calculated Chaos?
How do these seemingly divergent threads—an aggressive domestic pro-Israel suppression campaign (Project Esther), a presidential diplomatic tour that appeared to cool relations with Netanyahu, and a muted U.S. response to a massive new Israeli offensive in Gaza—fit together? Is there a coherent “playbook,” or are we witnessing, as you pondered, a “hole in his mental cognition, an advanced strategy that will make sense, ‘eventually,’ or just some random rabbit hole”?
Several interpretations, none mutually exclusive, emerge:
A Fractured Approach: U.S. policy might be subject to competing influences. Powerful domestic lobbies and ideological allies (like Heritage) could be driving the hardline “Project Esther” agenda and influencing certain administrative actions (like pressure on universities), while the President himself pursues a more personal, transactional, and sometimes improvisational foreign policy that prioritizes immediate perceived U.S. interests (deals with Gulf states, de-escalation with Iran if possible) even if it means temporarily or tactically distancing from Netanyahu.
A Multi-Level Game: It’s conceivable, though complex, that the administration sees these as complementary. Project Esther could be designed to neutralize domestic criticism of Israel and ensure long-term U.S. ideological alignment, thus providing broader cover for any Israeli government. Simultaneously, the President might use direct diplomacy to engage with other regional players or even apply subtle pressure on Netanyahu by demonstrating alternative partnerships, all while ultimately maintaining core U.S. security commitments to Israel. The timing of the Gaza offensive beginning after Punk left the region might also be seen by some as a coordinated, or at least understood, sequence.
“America First” Realpolitik Overriding Specific Alignments: Punk’s actions could be consistently viewed through his “America First” lens, where alliances and stances shift based on perceived immediate benefits to U.S. economic or geopolitical positioning, as he defines it. This could lead to appearing to support Israel staunchly via domestic proxies like Heritage, while simultaneously engaging with Syria or pursuing an Iran deal if he believes it serves a larger U.S. interest, even if it angers Netanyahu.
Chaotic Incoherence: Alternatively, the appearance of contradiction could simply be that: actual incoherence stemming from an impulsive president, competing advice from different circles, and a lack of a clear, unified strategic vision. The claim during the campaign that he didn’t know what Project 2025 was, juxtaposed with its apparent influence now, could point to either disingenuousness or a reactive approach to powerful policy blueprints presented by allies.
Regardless of the precise “playbook,” the dangers are manifold. Project Esther’s agenda poses a direct threat to American democratic norms—free speech, academic freedom, due process—by seeking to criminalize and suppress legitimate political discourse. The ambiguous U.S. stance on the escalating Gaza conflict allows a devastating humanitarian crisis to deepen, further radicalizing populations and damaging America’s moral standing. For Israel, while short-term domestic U.S. support via Project Esther might seem appealing to some, a U.S. foreign policy that appears erratic or that allows the conflict to fester without a viable path to peace could undermine its long-term security and international legitimacy.
Rejecting Project Esther – A Call for Principled Policy and True Peace
The intricate and often opaque interplay of domestic lobbying, presidential diplomacy, and geopolitical conflict is creating a U.S. policy landscape fraught with peril. While ordinary citizens may not see all these “various moving parts at the same time,” the picture that emerges from connecting them is one that should provoke profound concern and, indeed, “absolute fury.”
Initiatives like the Heritage Foundation’s “Project Esther,” with their broad-brush demonization of critics, their calls for repressive measures against U.S. residents, and their blatant disregard for fundamental civil liberties, must be unequivocally opposed. Such projects are not about genuine security or combating antisemitism; they are about enforcing ideological conformity, crushing dissent, and advancing a narrow, extremist agenda under the guise of supporting an ally. They are, at their core, un-American.
A U.S. policy that speaks of helping starving Palestinians with one breath while allowing devastating offensives to proceed with another, all while domestic groups plot to silence any American who dares to criticize, is not a policy rooted in principle. It is a recipe for continued conflict, injustice, and the erosion of America’s own democratic values.
It is time to demand clarity, coherence, and a return to principles grounded in international law, human rights for all, and a genuine pursuit of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. This requires not only scrutinizing the actions of the President and his administration but also dismantling the influence of shadow projects like “Esther” that seek to manipulate public discourse and policy from behind the scenes. The future of American democracy and the prospects for peace depend on it.
Discover more from Chronicle-Ledger-Tribune-Globe-Times-FreePress-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
