### ELNET Zoom conversation with Andrew Fox

##### Date: September 8, 2025

Mark Sachs of ELNET conducts the interview.

Fox is a British analyst who is active on X and has a deep background in military strategy and affairs. Also has an influential Substack. https://mrandrewfox.substack.com/.

Sachs' comments and questions are ***italicized and bold.*** Fox's replies and thoughts are plain text or marked with "AF -".

Note - Some of below reflects my editorializing. Quotes around a phrase reflect words chosen by AF as I heard them.

---

**// starting here**

***First - Major UK political changes just announced. Lammy out in the foreign ministry, and Yvette Cooper is in. What's your take on that?***

AF: Labour has been struggling to govern effectvely in the UK even though it has a huge parliamentary majority.

* rocked by low polling figures and approval ratings
* economically, persisting problems
* immigration upsurge has been deeply alarming and is still not under control (even though they ran on the issue)
* maybe not entirely their fault but optics are they cannot implement their mandate

Reform party (right wing; Nigel Farage) looks strong in the polls but it only has a handful of seats in Parliament now. So, hard to say where UK electoral politics goes from here.

The shifts in government leadership is being positioned as a "Phase II" by Starmer, an attempt to buttress Labour's political support which he should have anyway with a huge majority in Parliament. But polls show widespread public discontent with the direction the government is taking.

On the other side, the hard left is also gaining. The Green party and whatever Jeremy Corbyn's new party ends up being called will bleed voters off Labour's base.

As for Lammy, he was awful - a truly "bad friend" of Israel.

As for Yvette Cooper, who now replaces him, "she is good." She gets what's happening and can see that groups like Palestine Action needed to be banned. But overall, this is a more cosmetic than meaningful change because extremist agitation is still a relatively minor problem. The country's political focus overall remains on immigration.

(Related issue that I noticed while there last month - noticeable staffing issues in service industries because a lot of EU residents have left the UK by now.)

There was a huge protest march yesterday which reflects that. (More on that in answer to next Q.)

---

***Is it fair to say there are bad trends in British attitudes toward Israelis and Jews? And if so, is this systemic or might it shift once the situation around Gaza shifts and the war ends?***

AF - well, overall the headlines are horrendous but then fair reporting has long gone out the window.

The protests yesterday in the UK were impressive
* Labour was a no-show
* 70k people was a huge turnout
* there are many people like me who think what we are seeing is not just an attack on Israel but also Western values

Still, the Red-Green Alliance is in full swing in both UK and USA. See Asra Nomani's recent book. Not new, and not going away anytime soon but maybe not irredeemable.

---

***Let's switch gears to the recent summit by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). You describe it as "a block that roars in communiques and rarely bites in policy." Can you explain further?***

AF: SCO came about in 2001 but it hasn't really had a lot of success in terms of doing anything in particular. Lately, it has expanded to more countries.

But what it lacks is any form of policy power. It's a "talking shop," reflecting China's interests and position.

E.g., it's great that SCO can now get Pakistan and India to show up but they would never jointly agree on anything substantively. The same is more or less true for China and India.

But it does have value in optics. It shows that the "great power competition" is back on the front burner in global geopolitics.

The recent Chinese military parade raised eyebrows. Some very interesting technology on display, but nothing that's been battlefield tested yet so hard to assess its value. But clearly, China is self-sufficient now in military technology.

Still, China won't necessarily try to exert military strength beyond its borders because of its broad nonintervention policy. Beyond where it views itself having sovereign interests (Taiwan and S. China Sea), it still claims it has no plans to medddle (at least not directly).

But it all shows that the enemies of the West are not as isolated as they used to be.

* Iran still has friends in Russia and China and they can bring people into their orbit as much as Western leaders can.
* China has diplomatic muscles it can flex.
* U.S. tariff policies risks losing it friends.

---
***Let's talk about what effect ongoing diplomatic shifts among the world's major powers have on ancillary parties - such as Israel.***

Here's a quote I read and agree with - the SCO may never fight China's wars but it still has value by showing that Beijing will never stand along. ... and that "the American led world order" somehow being permanent is a fantasy at this point.

How all this affects Israel is very speculative. No point in guessing but of course it's probably being looked at carefully there and elsewhere, as it should.

---
***Where is Europe on this?***

Still extremely focused on Ukraine. I agree with Trump that the EU has been hypocritical in buying Russia's petrochemicals while arming Ukraine. But that's what's still happening. China is now a secondary concern geopolitically although still very important economically. No one in Europe is rushing to raise the issue of trade with China in trying to deal with Russia.

---
***Is NATO an effective mechanism for countering the SCO optics?***

Yes and no. First, it has much lesser importance in the Trump presidency. NATO's mission is still constrained to defending only NATO states and Russia is not going to invade the Baltics - at least not any time soon. So as a defensive alliance, would not expect it to be active.

Turkey, meanwhile, is trying to play both sides, being in both SCO and NATO, which is a concern, but also shows how upside down things now are. The same applies to India, which was "deeply stung" by recent shifts in USA policy (added to sanctions for buying Russian oil).

Anyway, geopolitics is always deeply complicated but NATO is theater-specific and not directly affected by what happens in the purely diplomatic space with SCO or elsewhere.

---
***Any possibility of an offer to Israel to join NATO with non-member status? Beyond and regardless of that, how could Israel work on challenges presented by overall geopolitical trends?***

AF - China and Russia have significant financial links with Iran. With more countries in the SCO and its being part of it, showing the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran is not a problem for them, that is a big deal for Israel. (Which may be partly why Israel acted when it did against Iran.)

But there are important "second order effects" resulting from Israel's isolation by "the global south" with Hamas' information war having captured it.

* Recently wrote about Abu Obeida - https://mrandrewfox.substack.com/p/hamass-information-warriors.
* He was "diabolically brilliant" in the information war as Hamas head of information (or propaganda).
* He perfected what is known as the "information maneuver."
https://hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/03-The-Concept-of-Information-Manoeuvre.pdf

The maneuverist's mission is to shatter enemy's will and cohesion. In my paper for the Henry Jackson Society, I explored how Hamas does this. It is directed against Israeli society, turning public against the war and turning Israel's allies against it. And they clearly have had some significant success.

Between Jan-April 2024, the tactical pause came about because of disinformation on imminent combat.
* The "all eyes on Rafah" campaign gave Hamas a 4-month pause which allowed it to booby trap, inflict hit and run casualties on IDF and damage morale
* Other temporary pauses have allowed Hamas to catch its breath, work outside angles, organized protests, etc.

Obeida has run a 1,500 combat camera crew / news reporter apparatus under his command. Every single Hamas squad has an information agent attached to it. The whole "journalists are getting targeted and killed" story is part of it. Almost inevitable that a cameraman is attached to every action to send back a live feed back to HQ. When the cameraman gets killed, it is in the feed as it happens and so naturally that gets exploited. Hamas does this far more often and more effectively than the IDF, so that leads to a major perception problem.

But these "innocent journalist(s) got killed" news stories have another value, which is that the people who get killed really are essentially Obeida's people, even if they are co-opted by his tactics. So it's a "win-win": if they are not killed, Hamas "gets their news feed." If they are killed, Hamas gets to say "look, the IDF targets journalists!" Both have value.

Abu Obeida also oversaw all the farcical hostage release ceremonies. It's really an industrial size propaganda machine, very operationally complex. Obeida pulled it off but he is gone now, so the Q becomes - what happens now, going forward?

The structure he created is still in place in the field, in Gaza City and elsewhere in the central areas, so they are still able to operate and pump out information.

Hamas has also benefited from having a very decentralized command structure -
* Someone else is always ready to step up
* For Obeida, unlear who his replacement might be as no one below him was a "second in command" type figure
* AF will be watching that closely to see if they find someone "capable of his level of wickedness"

All this means that Hamas functions more like Al Qaeda than a traditional military organization. It reflects that its an ideology - call it Palestinianism (meaning, "from the river to the sea") or Islamism (meaning "global jihad") - and not really a state. It's a "way of thinking and believing."

---
***Is this why you think it is important for people to move on from the idea of destroying Hamas?***

AF - "More or less."
* "Defeat" and "destroy" mean very different things in military analysis.
* "Defeat" means degrading your enemy by 60% or more of what they started with so they can no longer pose a major threat
* "Destroy" means wiping them off the battlefield so they will never be able to come back

"Destroy" is extremely hard to do with Hamas. They are great blending in to civilian population. Then very difficult for a legal army to target you.

Second, the nature of Muslim Brotherhood organizations is very insidious. They become infested into everything in the area they take over ... judiciary, media, education, health care, etc. ... Hamas puts its people into every key position in Gaza. If you remove them all, there would literally be no one there to run the society so you get anarchy or even worse filling the void. Cf., Iraq, Afghanistan.

"You could beat the Nazis because they had a state with an army. But Hamas is not truly a state. It basically squats on Gaza and uses it as a base for its manpower and infrastructure. It also doesn't mind what it considers temporary defeat and just sees it as the price to pay for ultimate victory.

So you can't think of Hamas as geographically confined. It has backing from Turkish military, Lebanese intelligence, Qatari financial help and 70-80% support in polling in the West Bank.

Therefore, because Israel has such a powerful army and amazing intelligence, destroying it sounds reasonable. But it's far more complex than that.

Note that military force is simply a tool to get to a desired political end state. So you have to have a reasonable understanding of the political end state that is achievable.

Also - until you address the reasons why Hamas has the resilience it does, even if you hit it very hard, you should not expect it to go away. Instead, you are likely to eventually get Hamas 2.0, and it will still be focused on Palestinianism.

"Destroying Hamas is a simple solution to a complex problem which is seldom the right one."

---
***Hamas polls so well in the WB which is why there is no election in the PA anymore. The risk is "just too great." So let's talk about where all this leads ... the information continues, the counter-West alliances continue .... what do you do? why are you opposed to entering Gaza City?***

AF - "I think militarily it's a bad choice," not that I oppose it; I analyze it. Look at the advantages and disadvantages, and make an assessment. But that's not the same as opposing it.

The advantages - you destroy infrastructure, kill terrorists, and show them they have no where to hide - those are "good things."

But what are the downsides?

* the fate of the hostages
* Soldiers will die
* Israel's plummeting reputation on the world stage
* more enemies doing more collaborating like in SCO and elsewhere
* Israel looking increasingly lonely

Regarding Israel's isolation, Europe is a "lost cause." Hamas has managed to persuade EU countries to recognize a Palestinian state. It's disgusting that Europeans see Israel as the villain and the massacre maker is applauded but in light of that, you look at the cost-benefit analysis of trying to obliterate Hamas inside Gaza. The CBA is "some infrastructural gain" against hostage endangerment and further isolation.

***Not sure Europe is truly that far gone. That may be a misperception caused by having a westernized regional focus - Germany, France, UK, Spain, the low countries. But central and eastern European countries remain strong friends of Israel so this is "not monolithic." (Would expect Sachs to soften AF's choice of words on ELNET's behalf!)***

---
***Anyway, if you were the PM of Israel, what would you try to do, or consider doing, right now?***

AF - I'd work first and foremost to get the hostages released. But I will be the first to say that I don't truly know how you go about doing that. Still, it would be my priority. I've seen the deal that Trump is talking about. Each person can have their own take on it. I have an emotional involvement because I know some of the hostage families. The only way to get their loved ones back is to make a deal. And yes, it "tastes awful."

This would have been over a year ago without the hostages. On the flip side, you could argue that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. A lot of people do, and they point to how the Shalit deal was a disaster. So that is an argument. But you are looking for the "least worse" option. Grinding it out throut Gaza City? Or, getting the hostages back and letting Hamas continue but defanged? As an army commander, this is the kind of scenario where you would ask for more intelligence before deciding on a course of action.

---
***Final points ... in the course of human events, good always triumphs over evil and "Israel has always triumphed." (Side note - not sure I agree with that!) So we can and should be optimistic. (Sachs quotes Victor Frankl erroneously ... Frankl paraphrased a Nietzsche quote: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.") So what's your basis for optimism?***

AF - "The silent majority." Explained a bit on the basis of what's happening in the UK. Yes, the news about anti-Israel protests and Palestine Action looks and sounds bad, but it's still a blip on a much bigger screen. AF then offers what amount to closing thoughts ...

The far bigger problem in the UK is uncontrolled immigration. The first priority is to stop the massive movement of people across the borders. Then, once that's done, implement a system for a smooth integration of immigrants into society.

Denmark offers a good example. How do you ensure "proper integration into a multicultural society"? You require people need to be able to speak the language to get benefits. You prevent them from creating self-contained concentrations and make sure they "spread out and join mainstream society."

The far left has always been at the fringes of UK politics but they make a lot of noise. Jeremy Corbyn never led a real movement, it was a coup of the Labour party (aided and abetted by radical activists). He never reflected the average Labour party member. Tony Benn was a similar story.

Yes, there are always people against the West and it's become an "omni cause" - various manifestations - Gaza, environment [side note: Greta Thunberg switched from one to the other], genderism, socialism - anything that undermines "Western imperialism." So yes, Palestine Action had to be banned because it was causing destruction and the agitation is an ongoing nuisance but not a massive problem.

All that said, I believe the vast majority of people in the UK and elsewhere are "good, decent & not antisemitic." Most will "resist going down that rabbit hole." We need to tap into that silent majority's force and influence and power.

---
***Q & A (one of a few questions) - What is your take on the situation in Syria and Lebanon?***

AF - The big Q - can the Lebanese finally take advantage of a weakened Hezbollah to reclaim their country? Or will it eventually rear its ugly head again? Hard to know.

As for Syria, its fate is now heavily intertwined with Turkey. Its military role and influence is very clear. The Syrian National Army (a/k/a Free Syrian Army) was Turkish controlled. The new infratructure of the Syrian military is Turkish supplied. So even though Al-Sharaa is in control day to day, what happens over the long term will depend heavily on what the Turks do in terms of military and the Qataris do in terms of financing.

As for al-Sharaa, still highly skeptical of him based on what's happened to the Druze and the Alawites. Either he has "no control over the crazies" in his armed forces or he secretly sympathizes with them. Both are bad. So, still a mess, and could still lead in a "Jihadi direction" and so "I would not jump into normalizing him too soon."

**// ending here**