During Metallica’s residency at the Sphere in Las Vegas earlier this month, frontman James Hetfield told concertgoers: “Metallica is not here, like some other entertainers, to influence you with their bullshit, OK?” He then declared: “We’re here to forget about all the outside shit, OK? Metallica’s agenda is love, energy and heavy music, baby!”

The remarks arrived less than a month after rapper Macklemore was removed from Ed Sheeran’s US tour following his onstage call for a free Palestine. Many interpreted Hetfield’s words as a swipe at Macklemore; NME raised that exact question.

Indeed, the timing matters. Musicians are facing professional consequences for speaking out about Palestine, and one of rock’s most influential frontmen was ridiculing the practice of addressing audiences about political causes.

Whether it was directed at Macklemore or not, Hetfield’s comments were particularly rich coming from a member of Metallica because for decades, the band has sold millions of records filled with condemnations of militarism, political repression, and institutional corruption.

For Palestine solidarity activists, this highlighted the contradiction between the band’s professed ideals of justice and their behaviour when it comes to Palestinian oppression.

A history of mixing politics and music

Metallica did not become famous by pretending the world beyond the concert hall did not exist. On their album Master of Puppets (1986), their track Disposable Heroes critiques young soldiers as expendable instruments of military command. Blackened imagines the planet's destruction, and the song … And Justice for All attacks a legal order distorted by money and power. The band’s own anniversary retrospective described the latter as music that confronts broken systems and serves as a “battle cry for change”. Its power lay precisely in making listeners face the world around them – not hide from it.

The politics are even less ambiguous in the track One, which tells the story of a soldier catastrophically wounded in war and trapped inside his own body. In an interview republished on Metallica’s official website in September 2026, Hetfield called it “the anti-war song.”

Discussing The Shortest Straw, which references McCarthyism and restrictions on artistic freedom, he said it was “more political than any of the other songs”.

Not only does this history make Hetfield’s attack on other entertainers hollow, but the fact that so many of their anti-war tracks were then performed on the night that their fans were urged to forget the outside world makes it all the more so.

There is no difference between condemning war through song lyrics and speaking out against it on stage.

Several band members have also openly expressed political opinions. For example, guitarist Kirk Hammett urged people to defend American democracy and reject Donald Trump’s rhetoric of “American carnage” in 2017. He used his considerable platform to criticise the new administration and called on his followers to respond.

Drummer Lars Ulrich also publicly opposed Trump’s proposed wall on the US-Mexico border, and invoked Metallica’s ability to bring people across national and cultural divisions.

And during a period of rising racial tension in 2017, Hetfield made his opposition to division and intolerance clear during a performance in Edmonton.

As has been the case with many artists over the past three years of the attacks on Gaza, Metallica's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has also highlighted much hypocrisy. Through the ‘All Within My Hands foundation’, Metallica gave an initial $100,000 and then a further $500,000 to World Central Kitchen’s relief effort for Ukrainians displaced by the war. The foundation even turned the campaign into a mobilisation of Metallica’s fanbase, using merchandise, auctions, fan-club activity and matching donations to raise more money.

By June, the band announced that the drive had met its $1 million target.

Apparently, it’s not “bullshit” when artists use their influence to rally support for Ukraine…

Palestine

Palestine was hardly a new political question for Metallica. Already, in 2009, the Palestine solidarity movement urged the band to cancel its scheduled concert in Tel Aviv, warning that performing would help normalise Israel’s system of occupation, apartheid, and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

Activists published an open letter which started with a passage from “...And Justice for All”, deliberately confronting Metallica with its own denunciation of corrupted justice.

Despite the mobilisation, Metallica went ahead with the show, choosing to disregard calls for a cultural boycott from Palestinian civil society. Its official concert archive confirms that the band played at Ramat Gan Stadium in Tel Aviv on 22 May 2010, which was their third time performing in Israel.

Little has changed, clearly.

In reality, Hetfiled's tone-deaf comments earlier this month only fuel hostility towards those who dare to speak out during a time of political repression, in Donald Trump’s America – which the band was once all too willing to publicly oppose – and around the world. And given that their fellow artists have been targeted and censored for speaking in support of Palestinian liberation and calling for an end to the killing, their message puts them on the wrong side of history.

As Antonio Gramsci argued, ruling groups maintain power partly by making their ideas seem like common sense. This helps explain the political significance of Metallica’s call for disengagement at a time when Israel’s genocide in Palestine demands urgent international attention. Hetfield’s vague agenda of “love, energy and heavy music” ultimately amounts to a refusal to stand for anything meaningful. And that refusal is itself deeply political.

Shan Karemani is an independent researcher focusing on Islamophobia and nationalism. He holds a master’s degree in Russian and East European Studies from Indiana University and is the director of the documentary film Stories of the Kosovo War.

Follow Shan on Instagram: @GenghisShan

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.

As military operations between the United States and Iran seem to subside, a war of competing narratives is emerging, and opposing claims over the Strait of Hormuz are creating potentially misleading and profound consequences.

On the one hand, Iran declares that the Strait is shut down, while allowing a limited number of ships and vessels to gain safe, yet reportedly paid, passage through its territorial waters. The United States, meanwhile, continues to insist that the Strait is open and that free, unobstructed navigation is guaranteed. President Trump has gone further, declaring the Strait of Hormuz to be US territory.

Beyond these competing claims, however, lies a compelling reality. Satellite imagery and marine tracking applications undeniably show that traffic across this Strait is very limited, with navigation now operating at only a fraction of its normal level before 28 February 2026. Contrary to US claims, the severely restricted passage of commercial ships across the Strait has clearly affected the global energy market, driving a surge in oil prices.

As this narrow passage becomes congested with military fleets, tankers, and other vessels, and as international interest grows, new realities are unfolding. Reported bilateral discussions between the two coastal states bordering the Strait, Oman and Iran, have reached a critical stage, defining new routes for vessels into and out of the strait. The bilateral discussions, meticulously followed by the US and the mediators, Pakistan and Qatar, is said to introduce new realities which did not exist before the US-Israeli attacks on Iran last February.

The Maritime Security Group's open-source analysis indicates that Iran seeks a role in overseeing inbound, and possibly outbound, maritime traffic through the Strait. Tehran is reportedly demanding new arrangements concerning vessels carrying military articles that could be used in military operations against Iran. If these reports prove accurate, they would mark the beginning of a fundamental shift in how access, navigation, and security are managed in the Strait of Hormuz.

Yet, even a successful conclusion of bilateral discussions with Oman would not guarantee the reopening of the Strait. Iranian officials have stressed that reopening the Strait of Hormuz is not contingent on the successful conclusion of these talks. Rather, Tehran views US adherence to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) bilaterally signed with Iran as a precondition for a sustainable resumption of navigation across Hormuz. In particular, Iran is calling for swift implementation of the MOU provisions on the cessation of hostilities, the lifting of the blockade, and the easing of sanctions. This distinction is critical.

The Oman-Iran discussions may address the mechanics of navigation through the Strait, but Tehran appears to be linking the sustainability of that navigation to a much broader political and security framework.

Those familiar with Iran’s nuclear negotiations will realise the magnitude and the level of concession Tehran has made on the nuclear front. A closer look at the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding reveals that Iran has committed itself to halting uranium enrichment, down-blending its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and imposing a moratorium on nuclear fuel cycle activities.

Amid growing speculation of a rift with Iran’s leadership, these concessions may have prompted hard-line elements, already dissatisfied with the MOU's terms, to seek to renegotiate Article 5, which addresses the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. This is consistent to a great extent with repeated statements by Iranian officials that the “Hormuz card” is more valuable than possessing nuclear weapons; To the Iranian mindset, the strategic leverage offered by the Strait is the perfect compensation to Iran’s concession in the nuclear file.

All this suggests that the Strait of Hormuz may not return soon to pre-war conditions. For Iran, Hormuz is not simply a waterway; it is now the “guarantor”, a part of its broader strategic equation involving sovereignty, deterrence and gaining lasting leverage.

For Oman, known for its balanced relations and tradition of diplomatic mediation, this Gulf state finds itself in a peculiar yet potentially advantageous position at the forefront of emerging regional arrangements.

Other GCC states may be the greatest losers from these evolving dynamics and arrangements. Obviously, GCC states have to face the new reality that Iran is not simply a neighbour, but a “gatekeeper for Hormuz”. Given GCC economies’ heavy dependence on maritime trade and energy exports, we may soon see GCC plans for alternative routes to export/import oil and commodities. This contingency planning would profoundly affect oil prices and markets.

For the United States, a key player facing an equally difficult calculation in the region, there is a fundamental interest in keeping international navigation open across Hormuz, alongside a recognition that military pressure would backfire.

Russia, meanwhile, remains in a comfortable position, benefiting from US exemption from oil sanctions, which allows it to sell its oil to international markets. The longer the crisis in Hormuz, the greater the benefit for Russian energy exports.

For China, the calculation is different. As one of the world's largest energy consumers, Beijing has a strong interest in restoring predictable navigation through Hormuz while exploring mechanisms to evade sanctions.

Regardless of these positions, the critical question is not simply whether the Strait becomes open. It is whether regional actors can build a mechanism that keeps Hormuz open, rather than using it as an instrument of pressure.

Ayman Khalil is a Senior Researcher at the Arab Institute for Security Studies. A physicist by training and holds a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Reading University (UK).  He is the coordinator of the "Missile Capabilities Platform" and “Nuclear Forum”, the only specialized forum in the Arab world that promotes policy and public dialogue in CBRN and delivery vehicles.

Fadel Kaseb is a Senior Researcher and Lecturer at the Arab Institute for Security Studies. He possess strong academic qualification with a Diploma focused in  policy and strategy from U.S Naval War college and a diploma from UK's joint staff college. He has vast experience  in Defence and security studies, with a Master degree from the University of London/King's College. Brigadier retired Kaseb has specific interest in joint military operations, future and strategic foresight. Fadel Kaseb and Ayman Khalil are both coordinators of the Maritime Security Group, a Norwegian sponsored initiative.

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.