06/30 Links Pt2: This is an anti-fascist; the Book That Saw October 7 Coming; How Palestine Became the Left’s Omnicause; Europe slams Israel, then buys its weapons

From Ian:

How Israel was turned into the fount of all evil

The conviction that Israel is evil, then, is sustained by several, prominent overlapping arguments: that it is perpetrating a holocaust, that Jews are the bearers of white privilege, and that Israel is no more than an expression of white colonial domination.

These arguments have been germinating in universities and other elite educational institutions for a while. Ideas such as white privilege and Israel being a colonial-settler state have long been taught under the rubric of critical race theory and post-colonial studies. So when students organise anti-Israel protests at universities, they are not ‘rebelling’, as they seem to imagine – they are conforming to what their professors have taught them.

What happens in the university clearly does not stay in the university. Over the past two decades or so, a cadre of graduates has joined our political and cultural elites. They have taken up roles in government, non-governmental organisations, the media and the broader culture industry. Many are all too happy to promote the idea of the Jewish State as exemplifying a malevolent spirit.

That Israel is evil has become the ‘right’ thing to think. Celebrities have been desperate to get in on the act, and proclaim their virtue in opposition to Israel. Superstar environmentalist Greta Thunberg is a prime example. Too old to continue posing as a schoolgirl campaigner against climate change, she can now be found on assorted anti-Israel protests and ventures, including this month’s so-called aid ship to Gaza. Last October she appeared at an anti-Israel rally in Milan, where she proclaimed: ‘If you, as a climate activist, don’t also fight for a free Palestine and an end to colonialism and oppression all over the world, then you should not be able to call yourself a climate activist.’ Obviously she wore a keffiyeh, an Arab headscarf, as an ostentatious symbol of her virtue.

It seems that hatred towards Israel has become a cornerstone of the woke elites’ worldview. No doubt they believe that it is the virtuous pose to strike. That they are on the right side of history. But they’re not. By casting the Jewish State as the epitome of evil, they are perpetuating racial animosity towards Jews in a 21st-century form.

Andrew Pessin: Zohran Mamdani and the Book That Saw October 7 Coming From a Mile Away

The Book That Saw October 7 Coming From a Mile Away: Richard Landes, Can “The Whole World” Be Wrong? Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad (Academic Studies Press, 2022) (November, 2023)

When it’s all over, when Israel is gone, the Jews are gone, the world as we thought we knew it is gone, this is the book people will read in order to understand what happened. Landes is a medieval historian, an expert on millennial apocalyptic movements, which gives him a unique perspective on current affairs. This book attempts to bring you into that perspective and, to the degree that it is successful, suddenly everything might look different to you, like the gestalt switch in perceiving the ambiguous image, the beautiful young woman suddenly yielding to the crone. Once seen, however, you can’t unsee it, and you will now see so many current events through its lens.

And it will terrify you.

Or at least that’s its aim.

The book is too deep and wide-ranging to do it justice in a short review, so I will just a highlight a few points, noting only that Landes supports everything with extensive documentation and argument. In short, it aims to turn everything you think you understand about the Jews, Islam, and the West upside-down—because it exposes how "lethal [activist] journalism" inverts reality in the ways it portrays these issues and conflicts, which in turn informs the left-leaning, progressive mindset largely in charge of Western policy-making. In so doing the book argues that we have been profoundly and dangerously misled by the Western mainstream media, which turns out, in the end, to be working in service to a globalist Islamist movement that in fact seeks to destroy the West, including those same media.

So, can “the whole world be wrong”—about Islam and its relation to the West in general, and about the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular that is at the heart of this book (or as I prefer to call it, to highlight its complexity, the Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim Conflict)?

Landes writes:
As a result of a confluence of intellectual trends (postmodernism, postcolonialism, anti-Orientalism …) the role of honor-shame motivations in key [Arab] decision-making in this conflict since the Oslo Accords has been systematically ignored. Indeed the entire ‘Peace Process’ was predicated on the rational, positive-sum assumption that, offered the right deal, the Palestinians will say yes. As a result, scholars and policy makers alike have ignored abundant evidence of a limbic captivity to honor concerns among Arab patriarchal elites ... (191-2)

Brendan O'Neill: This is an anti-fascist

The name we should remember from this weekend is not Bob Vylan. Or Pascal Robinson-Foster, to give the Israelophobic punk who caused such a stink at Glastonbury his real name. No, it’s Yisrael Natan Rosenfeld. For as Bob Vylan was whipping the smug mob of Glasto into a frenzy of violent loathing for the IDF, this young IDF soldier, himself a Brit, was laying down his life for the Jewish people. He was killed in Gaza on Sunday as he did battle with that army of anti-Semites, Hamas. Now that’s anti-fascism.

Natan – as he was known – was 20 years old. He was born in London and moved to Israel 11 years ago. He was a sergeant in the 601st Combat Engineering Battalion of the IDF. He was killed by an explosive device in northern Gaza. His sister’s boyfriend, also an IDF soldier, died in combat during Hamas’s pogrom of 7 October 2023. Natan’s father paid tribute to him this morning. He was fighting ‘for his parents, his family, his people’, he said. ‘I feel he has a place in history.’

This is the Briton we should be talking about – not the sozzled, moneyed brats of Glastonbury who got a sick thrill from chanting ‘Death, death to the IDF’, but this fresh-faced warrior against Islamofascism. Not that Bob Vylan faux-punk who hollered for the death of the Jewish State’s soldiers, but this soldier of the Jewish State, this British Jew just out of his teens, who ventured into enemy territory to fight the Islamists who butchered so many of his people. Not the fake anti-fascists of Britain’s wet, vain left, but this real anti-fascist who put his life on the line for the Jewish homeland.

That Natan died just hours after thousands of his one-time compatriots chanted ‘Death, death to the IDF’ is chilling in the extreme. One can only hope that in his final few hours he did not see any clips of these privileged, hateful Gentiles in the country of his birth dreaming of the death of Jews like him. How betrayed he would have felt. To look from Natan’s smiling face to the malicious gurning of that Glasto mob is to behold the Two Britains: one brave, optimistic and willing to fight for what it believes in, the other indolent, self-regarding and only able to derive meaning through its hatred of others.

Here’s what horrifies me. Two groups of people were thinking ‘Death to the IDF’ on Saturday – the keffiyeh classes at Glastonbury and the barbarous militants who planted the device that ended Natan’s precious life. Britain’s middle classes were saying out loud what that neo-fascist militia was thinking as it laid its deadly trap for the soldiers of the Jewish nation. There was a meeting of minds, a most sickening meeting of minds, between the fashionably Israelophobic of the West and the murderously Israelophobic of Hamas. ‘Death, death to the IDF’, roared affluent Britons; ‘Okay’, replied Hamas.

‘We have to be united’: Father’s plea at funeral for UK-born IDF soldier killed in Gaza

IDF soldier Sgt. Yisrael Natan Rosenfeld, 20, who was killed during fighting in northern Gaza, was laid to rest at the Ra’anana cemetery on Monday.

According to an initial IDF probe, Rosenfeld, who was known as Natan, a member of the 601st Combat Engineering Battalion, was killed by an explosive device during operations in the Kafr Jabalia area.

Thousands of people joined the funeral procession, holding Israeli flags and paying their respects to Rosenfeld before he was buried.

In a teary eulogy, Rosenfeld’s father, Avi, said: “It’s so hard to stand here, but I am proud of you. You’re a hero.”

“Natan said we have to stay together,” he said. “He said that he is fighting in Gaza because we have hostages that must return home,” he added.

Avi delivered a message of unity to the country, declaring that “it’s not the time to argue.”

“It’s not the time to have arguments in the Knesset or on the streets. Think of our soldiers: they fight every day, they give their lives every second. Be together, give them the respect, the support. We have to be together, united,” he said.

“We suffered the Holocaust, the 7th of October, all the families of the soldiers who have fallen, and all the hostages who are now dead or are still there; the suffering is beyond belief. Hashem, it’s enough! The people of Israel are good people. Hashem save us, because it’s only You,” Avi stated.

“As far as Sam and I are concerned, our boy is still with us,” he added.

In her eulogy, his mother, Samantha, said: “Natan, we hope you are the last sacrifice anyone should have to pay for the price of our land and our freedom. There is no religious, secular, or Haredi person in the army; we are all one people, with one heart. We need to come together and put aside our differences. You shall not die in vain.”

“I can’t actually quite believe that I’m standing here at your funeral. It’s really quite unbelievable in your 20 years, how much you’ve been able to achieve,” she said.

Athalia, his younger sister, said she was “so proud” when Rosenfeld joined the army.

“I always envied you for everything. You were happy and surrounded by my friends. Since you enlisted, I sent you messages every day telling you to take care of yourself. One day, I stopped because I realized you would be OK. I didn’t think it was possible that you wouldn’t be OK,” she said, adding she wished she could have done something to stop him from returning to his service.

Read More

06/30 Links Pt1: Karen Diamond dies of injuries from Boulder firebombing; A Twelve-Day War’s Twelve Surprises; The poisonous identitarianism of Zohran Mamdani

From Ian:

David Horovitz: Israel was facing destruction at the hands of Iran. This is how close it came, and how it saved itself

Knowing when to stop
The military and political leadership agreed ahead of time to set achievable goals for the war — which were defined as “Creating conditions to prevent Iran’s nuclearization over time, and improving Israel’s strategic balance.” Twelve days in, the IDF reported that those goals had been attained, and that Israel’s position would weaken, and Iran’s strengthen, if the war continued.

The IDF had assessed that several of its planes could go down and pilots could be captured. That didn’t happen. It had estimated that 400 people would be killed on the home front if the war went to 30 days. The death toll was rising.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whom the IDF deeply credits with creating the conditions for the US to join the attack — agreed that a war of attrition had to be avoided, and that Iran should not be given time to alter the balance of the conflict. With US President Donald Trump very publicly brokering a ceasefire, the war was brought to an end.

Unlike in Gaza, where the war goes on because the goals of eliminating the Hamas threat and returning all the hostages have not been met, in Iran the specified job was done. The IDF was prepared to put uniformed and civilian lives at risk to face down an existential threat, but not when that threat had been eliminated for at least the near future, and when there was a high probability that further incremental gains would be offset by greater losses.

Israel would like to see a “good deal” finalized by the US with Iran, and would hope to provide input on such an agreement’s necessary provisions. But it does not doubt that Iran will do whatever it can to evade even the most stringent barriers to reviving its bomb-making program. If the IDF has to strike again, it believes it can do so within a matter of days.

No surrender
A new painting has been erected in Valiasr Square in recent days. Rather than a scene, depicted from behind, of the march to Jerusalem, this installation shows Iranians from various walks of life — slain recognizable military chiefs, but also soccer stars, engineers, women — looking out into the streets of Tehran.

This is not a portrait of surrender. The depicted Iranians, civilians and military men, are saluting. Rockets are leaving smoke trails behind them. The accompanying slogan proclaims, “We are all soldiers of Iran.”

But this time, only Iranian flags are shown. And the backdrop is not Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock but Iran’s highest peak, Mount Damavand. This is the regime attempting to convey a message of national unity and, perhaps, even domestic focus.

And yet, it is more than possible that Iran spirited away some, maybe even most, of its 60% enriched uranium far from the major sites targeted in this war, and plenty of centrifuges too. Iran is about 75 times larger than Israel — plenty of room to construct smaller nuclear sites, and enrich and weaponize there, while trying to avoid attention. New scientists will replace the departed. It is not impossible that Pakistan or North Korea could be tempted to try to provide Iran with nuclear weapons.

Fresh, quite possibly more radical, leaders will replace the old for so long as the regime can retain power. And that regime, humiliated over 12 days in June, may be more motivated than ever to either scramble for the bomb or, more akin to its approach thus far, to lick its wounds and patiently rebuild the entire program.

On Saturday, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi predicted that Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months.” Israel expects the regime to try to start resurrecting its program far more quickly than that.

‘If we hadn’t acted now…’
Israel has had a narrow escape.

It was only in a position to save itself, moreover, because Yahya Sinwar, fearing leaks, chose not to coordinate Hamas’s October 7, 2023, with Iran and its other proxies, incorrectly gauging that the rest of the axis would pile in when recognizing his “success,” and join the triumphal, Israel-eliminating march to Al-Aqsa. (Israel is not certain, to this day, why Iran held back.)

Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed last week that the Air Force had struck the “Destruction of Israel” clock in Tehran’s Palestine Square, counting down to Israel’s predicted demise in 2040. It’s not clear that the clock was smashed. If it was, Iran will doubtless fix it. And, we know full well, it was aiming to achieve the goal of rubbing out Israel a lot earlier than 2040.

Was. And is.

Netanyahu on Tuesday accurately described the war as a “historic” victory, and has said it opens the door to potential new normalization agreements. He also asserted that it would abide for generations and that Israel had sent the Iranian nuclear program “down the drain” — assessments that the security establishment would not, should not, dare not, complacently endorse.

The prime minister also declared that Israel would have faced destruction in the near future “if we hadn’t acted now.” On that, there is no disagreement.

Nikki Haley: A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America

It's important because Israel is such an important partner for us in the Middle East. A safe and secure Israel helps us have a safe and secure America. None of the other countries in the region were saying anything against it. They knew that there was a likelihood that the US could attack, and they didn't say anything. Why? Because Iran is not just a threat to Israel, Iran's not just a threat to the US, Iran has been a threat to their neighbors for a long time. It's telling that they didn't step up, that they didn't say anything, because they've dealt with the threat of Iran's terrorist proxies for a long time

Those in America that worry about why these strikes took place should understand that those strikes were a move to keep Americans safer. That was a move to take out one of the threats that Iran has used against Americans for years. It's naive to say, "Oh, they were never going to use it," because you have to believe terrorists when they tell you something. When Iran continued to say, "Death to America," they meant it. And President Trump acted to make sure they could never follow through with it. The UN came out and condemned the US for strikes. I'm still waiting for the UN to condemn Iran for their use of ballistic missiles; I'm still waiting for the UN to condemn Iran for not complying with the nuclear inspections. I'm still waiting for the UN to say something to Iran about transferring weapons, which is a violation of the arms embargo.

If Trump would have continued to try and take the diplomatic route with Iran, he would have seen the same thing we've seen for years: Iran continues to delay, delay, delay. They always say they want to talk, but the action doesn't match what they want to do. Trump was right that while you could kick this can down the road if you wanted, the threat would only get bigger.

For us to think that more talks would have changed that is naive. We said, "We're done talking, we gave you the opportunity, you didn't take it, now it's time for us to take action on our own to protect Americans and protect Israelis." That was the right thing to do. Trump only had one choice, because if he had not followed up with these strikes, we would be dealing with Iran and their nuclear threats for years to come.

This is not a time where Israel or America needs to let their guard down. We need to now be very vigilant. Americans need to be vigilant of our military bases in the region. we need to be vigilant of cyber attacks that could come our way through Iran. Iran is not done.

82-Year-Old Jewish Woman Dies From Injuries Suffered in Anti-Semitic Colorado Terror Attack

An 82-year-old Jewish woman who suffered severe injuries during an anti-Semitic firebombing attack early June in Boulder, Colo., has died, prompting prosecutors to file first-degree murder and more hate crime charges on Monday against suspect Mohamed Soliman.

Karen Diamond died after Soliman, a 45-year-old illegal immigrant from Egypt, attacked her and 28 other peaceful pro-Israel demonstrators on June 1 using Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office said in a statement, according to the Colorado Sun.

Colorado prosecutors in the statement announced two new first-degree murder charges against Soliman, who is facing more than 100 other state charges, including 52 counts of attempted first-degree murder, 8 counts of first-degree assault, and 16 counts of attempted use of an incendiary device. Soliman is also facing 12 federal charges, to which he pleaded not guilty during a hearing on Friday.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Soliman will serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Each attempted murder charge carries a penalty of 16 to 48 years in prison, according to 9News.

Read More

06/29 Links: Nuremberg at Glastonbury; The 28 victims killed by Iranian missiles; Shin Bet busts major Hamas cell in Hebron; Saudi king rewards 1,000 Palestinian terrorists’ relatives

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Nuremberg at Glastonbury

So what happened at Glastonbury was that thousands of young people — the coolest, hippest young people who are into peace and love and the brotherhood of man — were chanting for the murder of Jews, beneath a forest of flags that transmit a similar message to the Nazi swastika.

That’s because the cause of “Palestine” is founded entirely upon the aim of annihilating Israel, murdering Jews and stealing from them their own history in the land of Israel. It is no exaggeration to hear in the delirious chanting at Glastonbury the chilling echoes of the rallies at Nuremberg.

For it is only Jews, and the Jewish state, who are singled out for such murderous frenzy. The Glastonbury crowds aren’t chanting “Death to the Chinese Communist Party” or “Death to Russian forces” in protest at the persecution of the Uighurs or the onslaught against Ukraine. They chant for the murder only of those who have been defending their people against genocidal annihilation for the past 20 months.

In any moral universe, Bob Vylan would be arrested and charged with incitement to murder. The police say they are looking into this. Take your time, officers! What bit of “Death to the IDF” don’t they understand? The same bit, probably that they haven’t understood of “Death to the Jews” or “Globalise the intifada” that’s been chanted on pro-Hamas demonstrations these past 20 months.

Glastonbury’s organisers say they are appalled and that the act crossed a line. Yet they have sat by while a series of other performers swelled the hysteria of which the Bob Vylan incitement to murder was the inevitable outcome.

Glastonbury and the BBC must answer for platforming anti-Israel hate

The BBC has played no small role in this moral decay. It has frequently failed to uphold even basic journalistic standards in its Israel coverage and has employed staff who openly support Hamas or have made antisemitic remarks.

That institutional failure continued at Glastonbury. The slogan calling for the death of the Israel Defence Forces was broadcast live by the BBC as part of its festival coverage. This was no accident. Editors knew exactly what was being said. They issued a mealy-mouthed trigger warning – describing chants for death as merely “discriminatory” and containing “strong language,” as though the problem were the duo’s expletives – and then carried on broadcasting the spectacle, all funded by mandatory licence fees.

This is the fog of moral confusion we now inhabit: when “Death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea” – slogans calling for the annihilation of Israel – are not treated as incitement but aired as entertainment.

To complete this spectacle, Palestine Action – a group expected soon to be proscribed under UK terrorism legislation – was also given a platform at the festival. Glastonbury claims to be a festival of love. It has become a stage for hate.

Ofcom must initiate an urgent review into how the BBC allowed violent messaging to be aired under the guise of cultural coverage. BBC management must be held accountable. Festivals or venues giving airtime to groups like Palestine Action or Bob Vylan should lose public funding and sponsorship.

A government spokesperson confirmed that Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy had raised the matter with the BBC, saying: “We strongly condemn the threatening comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury.

"The Culture Secretary has spoken to the BBC Director General to seek an urgent explanation about what due diligence was carried out ahead of the performance, and welcomes the decision not to re-broadcast it on BBC iPlayer.”

Not everyone in government, however, seems to grasp the gravity of the situation. Health Secretary Wes Streeting offered a masterclass in moral obfuscation. Yes, he condemned the chants as "appalling" and criticised both the BBC and Glastonbury.

But he then pivoted to what he claimed we really should be talking about this week in the context of Israel and Gaza – namely, a set of accusations against Israel, which he proceeded to list.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his accusations, this was not the moment. He went on to lash out at the Israeli Embassy, which had quite reasonably issued a statement condemning the incident, scolding it to “get your own house in order”.

Bob Vylan, Glastonbury and the banality of Jew hatred

If you can’t see it now, you never will. The sight of tens of thousands of people at Glastonbury yesterday joining in a spirited chant of ‘Death, death to the IDF’ was the sight of us officially becoming a very different country, I fear. One in which anti-Israel hysteria has so flawlessly rehabilitated Jew hatred that it has become unthinking, conformist, almost mundane. Something that Home Counties idiots can jive to before adjusting their hot pants and heading off to catch Charli XCX. Something that is broadcast by the BBC into millions of homes. The banality of the new anti-Semitism.

Let’s not muck about here. When punk-rap duo Bob Vylan called for the killing of Israeli soldiers yesterday – as they warmed up the crowd at the West Holts Stage for every Israelophobe’s new favourite Irish rap trio, Kneecap – they weren’t opposing war. They were calling for war, and on the one army on Earth charged with protecting Jews from genocide. The army now at war with a jihadist cult that murdered, raped and kidnapped its way through an Israeli festival not unlike Glastonbury on 7 October 2023. The army that almost all Israelis are expected to serve in. Indeed, those making excuses for that sickening call-and-response yesterday hopefully don’t know that Hamas justifies killing Israeli civilians on the grounds that they are basically all tainted by national service. That they are all enemy combatants. Death, death to that IDF?

Whether we got here by ignorance or conscious hatred is pretty much moot. The end result is British Jews – at Glasto or at home – watching thousands whoop as Jew-killing slogans are recited. Frontman Bobby Vylan also treated the crowd to a deranged rant about the indignities he suffered working for a ‘Zionist’ at a record label, because he had to listen to his boss talk favourably about Israel. I wonder if he knows that the vast majority of British Jews are Zionists. I wonder if he cares. ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, Vylan chanted at another point in his fetid little set. Surely he knows what this means? Surely he recalls the tiny, 10million-strong nation that lies between the River Jordan and the Med, 74 per cent of which is Jewish? Surely he knows that when the Islamofascists currently menacing Israel chant it they are explicitly calling for the genocide of Jews? Bob?

Read More

06/28 Links: The 12-day gamble: How the Israel-Iran war unfolded; Haaretz: the lies continue; Hamas offers bounties to kill GHF aid workers; Glastonbury: The permitted racism

From Ian:

Bigger Than Just Iran

This was not, however, the first time Israel used its military against an enemy’s nuclear program. The history is noteworthy. Israel sent its air force to hit Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and to hit Syria’s nuclear facility in 2007. No major retaliation, let alone a new war, resulted, and neither Iraq nor Syria even tried to revive their nuclear weapons programs. Both decided it was not worthwhile to rebuild, given Israel’s determination to prevent any such program from succeeding.

Trump’s action has produced criticism from the left and also within his political camp. Some MAGA critics have argued that Iran is a distraction from containing China and ending reckless government spending. Those are important priorities, but the spread of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest threats in the world to the security, prosperity, and well-being of Americans. Even by the strictest standards of MAGA restraint in world affairs, the United States has to prevent such proliferation.

If Iran became a nuclear power, the danger would extend beyond aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and other bad actions by Iran. Iran’s achievement would spur Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and other states in the Middle East and beyond to become nuclear powers too. The number of nuclear powers in the world, now fewer than 10, could in short order grow to 20 or 30. This would create greater risks of catastrophic accidents and "dirty" bomb terrorist attacks. If the world had dozens of nuclear powers, the likelihood of nuclear conflict would increase. Even a limited nuclear exchange could produce enormous harm, and not just to the parties involved in the exchange. It could gravely damage Americans by devastating global markets and supply chains, poisoning Earth’s atmosphere, and contaminating agriculture.

The blow struck by Operation Midnight Hammer will reverberate globally. Any country seeking a nuclear bomb—or considering providing one to others—now understands the United States may use force against it. This credible threat will make nonproliferation diplomacy more effective. It will reassure America’s allies that Washington is intent on maintaining the nuclear status quo.

The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is more than a tactical military success. It is a strategic reaffirmation of American global leadership. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts since 1945 have not been a perfect success. But they have been astonishingly effective. They represent one of the most significant achievements of the United States (and key partners) in international security. That fewer than 10 nations possess nuclear weapons today reflects the effectiveness of combined diplomatic, economic, and military pressures. The strike against Iran reinforces the point—critical to the interests of the United States and the world in general—that rogue states pursuing nuclear weapons will face not just disapproving diplomacy and economic sanctions, but maybe also military destruction. It’s a harsh but constructive message.

‘The stars aligned’: Why Israel set out for a war against Iran, and what it achieved

Over the past decades, Israel has come up with numerous different plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program. None of them were activated, nor were they considered ready. Until this month.

In the early hours of June 13, the Israel Defense Forces launched what it dubbed a “preemptive” operation against not just the Iranian nuclear program, but the wider threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles and its overarching plans to destroy Israel.

The war began with surprise strikes carried out by the Israeli Air Force in Tehran and other areas of Iran, some 1,500 kilometers from Israel. The sudden assault was multifaceted.

In what is now known as Operation Red Wedding, some 30 top Iranian military commanders — including the three most senior generals — were eliminated in near-simultaneous strikes in Tehran, which, according to the IDF, disrupted Iran’s command and control and prevented it from responding to Israel for nearly a full day.

Most significant among them was the chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ air force, Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who was killed alongside the rest of the top brass of the IRGC Aerospace Force — responsible for Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones — as they met in an underground command center to prepare Iran’s retaliation.

The 12-day gamble: How the Israel-Iran war unfolded

A window of opportunity emerged. Iran’s proxies had been depleted in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre. At great cost, Israel was able to weaken Hamas and also impair Hezbollah. The Lebanese terrorist group agreed to a ceasefire in November 2024. With US President Donald Trump in office, Israel’s leadership believed it could act against Iran. Iran also lost out in Syria when the Assad regime fell in December 2024. This meant that the road was now open to Iran.

The road was open because the new government in Damascus opposes Iran. Iraq is a weak state and can’t stop Israel’s efforts against Iran, even though Iraq has pro-Iranian militias. The Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq also fears Iran’s power and is likely pleased to see the regime weakened. That means Israel felt it could act.

Israel’s initial sorties were effective against parts of the nuclear program and key officials in Tehran. In addition, Iranian nuclear scientists were targeted. Iran fired back, killing more than 24 Israelis in several days. It also wounded up to 3,000 people in 12 days of war and caused 10,000 Israelis to be displaced, as Iranian missiles destroyed neighborhoods.

Around 50 missiles impacted Israel of the 500 that were launched. Israel continued daily strikes on Iran, destroying its air defenses and going after other Iranian regime elements.

On June 22, the US joined the war with an attack on three nuclear sites, including using massive munitions on Fordow. This was supposed to have destroyed key parts of the nuclear program. It is likely that many parts remain and that Iran can rebuild its ballistic missiles. The question now is whether Iran will change its tune and stop trying to move toward a nuclear weapon. Iran is weakened, but its regime has not collapsed. Israel’s 12-day war was a gamble, and it was made possible by a unique set of circumstances. Much remains to be seen if it was the game changer that some people think it was.

Mossad had 'boots on the ground' in Iran for over a decade before war - report

Mossad agents had been monitoring nuclear sites in Iran for nearly 15 years before the start of the Israel-Iran War, The Times reported on Friday.

According to leaked intelligence documents seen by The Times, the Mossad realized that Iran’s capability, knowledge, and components of the nuclear program expanded beyond the main sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

An intelligence source told The Times that the Mossad had “boots on the ground” at several different locations across Iran since 2010.

Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were destroyed by US and Israeli strikes at the start of the month, though there has been notable debate about the damage to the sites.

The intelligence documents showed that Iran aimed to produce at least 1,000 long-range missiles a year, and wanted to amass an arsenal of 8,000 missiles.

However, the Islamic Republic reportedly started the war with Israel with a maximum of 2,500 missiles.

An intelligence cited in the documents said that Mossad agents visited every workshop and factory that were later attacked during the war to target “the entire industry that supported the manufacturing of large amounts of missiles.”

Israel launched the 12-day war based on intelligence that Iran was building centrifuges at sites in Tehran and Isfahan.

Spies built maps of nuclear enrichment sites, infiltrated IRGC
An intelligence source cited in the documents said that Mossad agents visited every workshop and factory that were later attacked during the war to target “the entire industry that supported the manufacturing of large amounts of missiles.”

Israel launched the 12-day war based on intelligence that Iran was building centrifuges at sites in Tehran and Isfahan.

The Times reported that the US attack on Iran targeted seven parts of Iran’s main uranium enrichment site, Natanz. Israeli intelligence used spies on the ground to create a map of Natanz and identify aboveground and underground structures that included piping, feeding, and solidification of uranium. The Israel Air Force also targeted electric infrastructure, a research building, the site’s transformer station, and a backup generator.

The IDF also targeted several other sites related to nuclear weapons developments, such as Isfahan and the Shariati military site.

Many of these were reportedly set up by the SPND, an organization led by now-dead Iranian nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. He was reportedly assassinated by Israel in 2020 by a satellite-controlled machine gun.

Additionally, the leaked documents showed that the Mossad had infiltrated the IRGC headquarters as well as the Sanjarian nuclear site, which reportedly developed nuclear weapons components.

Read More

06/27 Links Pt2: Nova massacre doc ‘We Will Dance Again’ wins Emmy; Exposing Gaza: What the World Wasn’t Supposed to See; Gentrifying the Intifada; Dems to Mamdani: Take My Party, Please!

From Ian:

The Metaphysical Root of Antisemitism and Ziophobia

Conclusion: The Endurance of Antisemitism and Ziophobia
Antisemitism and Ziophobia are not merely political phenomena or temporary social biases. They are deeply embedded in the theological and metaphysical frameworks of Christianity and Islam, which have historically claimed to replace or supersede Jewish identity. These religions’ foundational narratives involve both the appropriation and the delegitimization of Jewish history and sovereignty.

Because these belief systems continue to exist—as do the real Jewish people and the modern state of Israel—and, in many cases, remain unexamined or unrepentant in their supersessionist doctrines, antisemitism and its modern mutation, Ziophobia, are likely to persist for as long as Christianity and Islam endure.

This also explains why UNRWA and its system of hereditary “refugees” will likely persist as well. It is not merely a humanitarian agency—it is the institutional expression of an unresolved metaphysical resentment.

As long as Islam and Christianity continue to view themselves as rightful heirs to Israel—spiritually, historically, or territorially—without acknowledging that the Jewish people never relinquished their identity, sovereignty, or covenant, the conflict will remain unresolved not just politically, but ontologically.

And let’s be honest: supersessionism is just a theological euphemism for stolen identity, stolen covenants, stolen prophets, and ultimately, a stolen God. And whoever you’ve stolen from, you don’t want around. The continued existence of the Jewish people is an unbearable reminder of that theft—a living contradiction to the replacement story.

Understanding this is crucial: combating antisemitism and Ziophobia requires more than political or social measures. It demands confronting centuries-old theological narratives and the metaphysical resentments they perpetuate—along with the institutions, like UNRWA, that have grown out of them.

Boulder, DC Terror Attacks Targeting Jews Were 'Political,' Not Anti-Semitic, NYT Columnist Suggests

New York Times opinion columnist Masha Gessen suggested that the terror attacks targeting two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, D.C., and a group of Jews marching in support of Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colo., weren’t anti-Semitic but rather "political."

Gessen argued in a Wednesday column that "violence that looks antisemitic may—even when it very effectively serves to scare a great many Jews—be something else." The columnist suggested the attacks were instead politically driven.

"Neither of these events was exclusive to Jews, as a synagogue service might be. Both events were inextricable from the war in Gaza," Gessen wrote. "And though the violence in Boulder was wide ranging, the shooting in Washington seems to have been very specifically targeted—at two representatives of the Israeli government."

Both attackers, however, targeted events that would attract Jews specifically. Elias Rodriguez shot and killed Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim outside the Capital Jewish Museum at point blank range and screamed "Free, free Palestine" upon his arrest. Mohamed Soliman threw two molotov cocktails—with 16 more and a makeshift flamethrower nearby—at a group that meets weekly to support Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity, injuring 15, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Soliman was caught on film yelling to "end Zionists."

The terror attacks have reverberated across Jewish communities. Boulder-area Jews rallied after the firebombing, but told the Washington Free Beacon that the incidents have left them on edge, if not fearful.

Gessen’s column comes as anti-Semitic incidents surge across the nation, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting more than 10,000 incidents in the year after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, marking over a 200 percent increase. It also contradicts a piece from the New York Times editorial board, which stated, "No political arguments or ideological context can justify" growing bigotry against Jews. It also recognized that "antisemitism has become an urgent problem" leaving "Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group."

While Gessen acknowledged that the D.C. and Boulder incidents, which occurred less than two weeks apart, were terror attacks, the columnist also argued that they stemmed from "Israel’s devastation of Gaza following the Hamas attack on Oct. 7." Gessen pointed out that Rodriguez didn’t mention "Jews" or "Zionists" in his 900-page manifesto, opening "the possibility that he had a different motive."

New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander defended Gessen’s column as part of the paper’s effort to "put forth original perspectives on the world, and any fair reader of our opinion report will understand this inherently. There isn’t another media institution, digital, print or broadcast, that commits more resources to audiences' understanding of multiple viewpoints."

Stephen Pollard: Lord Hermer’s idiocy is boundless

It is meant to be that of a quiet, sagacious legal adviser. Lord Hermer, however, seems to treat it as a chance to pretend to be a heavyweight politician whose opinions the world needs to know.

Last month, for example, Lord Hermer told the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) that both Nigel Farage’s Reform and Kemi Badenoch’s Tories had adopted Nazi ideology by asserting that national law supersedes international agreements, in reference to the idea of withdrawing Britain from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): “The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change, is a claim that was made in the early 1930s by ‘realist’ jurists in Germany, most notably Carl Schmitt”. It was a grotesque comparison for which he was later forced to issue a humiliating apology.

Then there was his role in the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which he asserted was about “honouring our obligations under international law” – even though the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the issue was not legally binding.

It is remarkable how often Lord Hermer, a renowned KC, seems to speak before fully engaging his brain.Which brings us to today’s comments. Lord Hermer was referring to – dismissing, rather – accusations after the riots last summer, when it was argued that the rioters were treated unduly harshly.

But he of all people will surely be aware that there is another element to accusations of two-tier justice, which he appears to have ignored altogether: the way in which the so-called Free Palestine marches have been allowed to continue with minimal intervention despite open chants calling for “globalising the intifada” (ie killing Jews) and support for terror against Jews.

I simply do not see how it is possible not to accept that there is two-tier justice, when the hate marches have not merely been protected by the police – but when counter-demonstrators condemning Hamas or peacefully waving Israeli flags have been arrested.

Hermer clearly fancies himself as some sort of moral conscience, when in reality he is merely the latest – albeit the most exalted and most egregious – of political buffoons embarrassing himself and the Government of which he is a part.

Read More

06/27 Links Pt1: Trump speculates Gaza ceasefire will be reached ‘within the next week’; ‘Ha’aretz’ article accusing IDF war crimes a ‘blood libel,’ Netanyahu says

From Ian:

Amit Segal: How Ron Dermer Helped Shape History Behind the Scenes

Just 24 hours later, dozens of meters underground, somewhere in the Jerusalem hills, the minister responsible for American affairs spoke moments before the decisive vote. “In every generation, they rise up to destroy us,” Dermer began, referencing a classic Jewish text. “Today, it is the Iranians who seek our destruction. I’ve spent 25 years working to prevent exactly this.”

He was referring to the mission that began in 2000, when Dermer, then a young private citizen, first met Benjamin Netanyahu, a worried private citizen himself, and discussed the Iranian threat. The current chapter started shortly after the recent U.S. elections, at Mar-a-Lago, when Dermer flew in to meet President-elect Trump. “If you strike Iran,” he argued, “you will experience the opposite of what Biden faced after Afghanistan. Biden’s hurried withdrawal weakened America, emboldening Putin to invade Ukraine and Hamas to attack Israel. A decisive strike on Iran will strengthen you—and America.”

What makes America’s decision to drop the bombs even more remarkable is the isolationist direction the country has been heading in. After the First World War, America retreated into isolationism, only to be shaken out of it by the horrors of Pearl Harbor. But then, following the Iraq War, another era of American withdrawal began. Today, we stand in a moment analogous to the 1930s—just before a local “Hitler” acquires a nuclear bomb. Democrats have overwhelmingly opposed foreign intervention, and this reluctance has also started to gain traction within the Republican Party.

What’s so extraordinary about the U.S. bombing of Iran, therefore, is that this dramatic shift occurred without an American tragedy, such as Pearl Harbor, provoking it.

Dermer told Israel’s security cabinet this week that America’s action represents a tectonic shift, beneficial for years to come: the use of force doesn’t necessarily lead to disaster. Indeed, Iran may have just corrected Iraq’s legacy.

American bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles sealed off Iran’s nuclear facilities, burying its uranium deep underground. Now the United States must prevent the enriched materials from being smuggled out. Once again, Dermer will be there to see the job through.

Amid ceasefire, struggle for Iranian freedom must accelerate

What’s different is that the Iranian people have a clear vision for what comes next. They are not simply saying no to dictatorship — they are saying yes to democracy, yes to secularism, yes to freedom. And they are not alone. For years, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, under the leadership of Maryam Rajavi, has provided not just hope, but structure. Her 10-point plan for a free Iran is not a dream. It is a roadmap. It calls for universal suffrage, gender equality, freedom of belief and expression, an independent judiciary, and a non-nuclear Iran committed to peace.

This vision has real support — not just in the streets of Iran, but across the democratic world. The majority of the United States House of Representatives recently supported House Resolution 166, with strong bipartisan backing, affirming support for the Iranian people’s right to a democratic republic. Worldwide, over 4,000 political figures and parliamentarians have done the same. These are not symbolic gestures. They are declarations that the world no longer sees the regime as Iran’s future.

So what now?

This ceasefire creates a narrow, vital opening. The missiles may be grounded, but the mission is not complete. In fact, it is only now that the real mission begins. The time has come for the world to stop dancing around the question and answer it plainly: the future of Iran must be decided by the Iranian people themselves—not by foreign powers, and certainly not by a criminal regime desperate to survive another day.

The West must shift its strategy—from managing the regime to empowering its opposition. That means sanctioning the IRGC as a terrorist organization everywhere. It means freezing assets held by regime officials and their families abroad. It means cracking down on regime lobbies and propaganda in Western capitals. And most importantly, it means opening the door to direct engagement with the democratic alternative that already exists: the NCRI and its 10-point platform.

This is not a call for war. It is a call for alignment. A call to stop legitimizing a regime that murders its own children and start amplifying the voices of those who dare to dream beyond it. It is a call to match words with action — and action with conviction.

This moment — this brief pause — may be the last best chance we have. The regime is weakened, isolated, and increasingly desperate. But desperate regimes do desperate things. Only the people of Iran, organized, unified, and backed by a principled international community, can finally bring this dark chapter to an end.

Let us not waste this moment. Let us not confuse silence with stability. Let us make it clear: the ceasefire is not the goal. Freedom is. And it must come from the hands of the Iranian people — and the resistance they have built.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: Make Iran pay. Literally.

So, how do we stop the terror? How do we ensure Iran has no incentive to launch new threats? The answer is simple: make them pay for every act of terror – for the damage inflicted by their proxies, and for any future attack for which they are responsible.

This isn’t a novel idea. In 2003, Libya agreed to pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as part of a deal to lift international sanctions. Similarly, Sudan agreed to compensate victims of the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (carried out by al-Qaeda) in order to be removed from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

American courts have already issued judgments totaling billions of dollars against Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Any future agreement with Iran must resolve the payment of those existing judgments and establish a mechanism, such as a dedicated victims’ compensation fund, financed by Iran, to address future claims.

In this way, Iran would be forced to pay both for past acts of terrorism and for any future involvement in such crimes, creating a real and tangible deterrent.

Of the three central goals in this campaign, stopping Iranian-sponsored terrorism may well be the most urgent and critical to regional stability. So many innocent people in so many countries have been killed in Iran’s decades-long global terror campaign. While other safeguards and enforcement mechanisms will be necessary, one thing is clear: any deal must make terror costly for Iran.

Terror must come with a price.

Read More

06/26 Links Pt2: The new populism of the Judeocidal left; The Colonization of the American Mind; Alice Wairimu-Nderitu and the high price of honesty; CODEPINK or CODERED?

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The new populism of the Judeocidal left

Now America is facing a similar nightmare in the shape of Zohran Mamdani, whose victory over former New York governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic Party primary this week puts him in pole position to become mayor of New York. This spells a potential catastrophe for the iconic citadel of American cultural and financial power, and a security disaster for the city’s Jewish community, the largest outside Israel.

Mamdani is an extreme leftist who four years ago tweeted: “Queer liberation means defund the police.” In his campaign, he ran on taxing the rich, government-run grocery stores, free bus travel and a freeze on rent. Such policies are unworkable but offer New Yorkers what many want to hear—a program of left-wing, anti-capitalist populism.

He also has a deep hatred of Israel. He supports a boycott of the Jewish state; he has refused to condemn the Hamas-led atrocities in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023; and he has sanitized the slogan “Globalize the intifada,” which is a call to murder Jews around the world.

As a result of all this, and his charismatic and telegenic personality, he’s become an overnight rock star.

The kind of people who drape themselves in the keffiyeh and mindlessly parrot Hamas propaganda about Israel’s supposed “genocide,” young, college-educated progressives and the vacuous narcissists who people the entertainment industry are going wild for him.

The support by such people for such a man is bizarre. Mamdani isn’t just a Muslim. He is a practicing member of the Islamic Shia Twelver sect, which holds that an apocalypse will bring down to earth the Shia messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

The most prominent member of this sect is Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the genocidal fanatic whose defining slogan is “Death to America!”

Given Mamdani’s affiliation to such an uncompromising jihadi sect, one does wonder about his pledge to create an “office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs” at City Hall.

Whatever the theological legerdemain behind such contradictions, Mamdani represents the alliance between reactionary Islamism and left-wing progressivism that we have seen on the streets of Western cities. This has produced the surreal spectacle of liberals marching alongside Islamists who, should circumstances be different, would remove these liberals’ progressive heads from their shoulders.

As with Britain’s Labour Party, Mamdani represents the deeply disturbing future of progressive politics in Britain and America—a movement that has Zionism, capitalism and the West in its sights under the banner of human rights, humanitarianism and anti-racism.

While its followers demonize and dehumanize the Jewish targets of extermination, they are, astoundingly, moralizing as conscience an agenda for exterminating the Jews.

The Colonization of the American Mind

A few days before Israel began Operation Rising Lion, Facebook blocked my account. I cannot thank Mark Zuckerberg enough for that mitzvah. Instead of having to watch neo-Hellenistic Jews do anything possible to hide their Judaism and vapid “Instaporners” do everything possible to steal the spotlight, I got to witness an endless array of Iranian dissidents thanking Israel on X.

They post Persian graffiti blessing Israel, the horrific history of the 46-year-old Islamic Republic, as well as what little protests they are able to engage in. And they remain as stunned as the rest of us at the protests both here and in Europe — in favor of the sociopathic, homophobic, misogynistic regime that is stifling not just their freedom but the lives of their families.

Qatar, China, Russia and Iran have been unquestionably successful at one thing: the colonization of the American mind. Through antisemitic professors, “ethnic studies,” infiltration of leftist media (Shalom, Washington Post), and an intense disinformation campaign on social media, leftists have been fed a steady stream of lies and propaganda to the point that the protesters are ardently embracing a regime that kills women for showing their hair in public, hangs gays and considers child rape sacred.

In 2018, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff published “The Coddling of the American Mind.” They discussed how a culture of “safetyism” interferes with social, emotional and intellectual development. In retrospect, that seems to have been Stage I of what’s now called the red-green alliance.

Stage II is a complete colonization — OK, obliteration — of brain cells. Disinformation so steeped in anti-facts it makes the Soviets look like amateurs. All of which led to a cognitive dissonance so septic some protesters simultaneously hold up posters celebrating both gay pride and the mullahs who would hang them.

It also led to a mass conformity during precisely the period when most healthy teens and 20somethings rebel. There is only one word for this level of mass conformity: cult.

But for the moral inversion to be complete — for young women in the West to support the most evil patriarchy that has ever reigned — something else had to happen: a complete soullessness. Morality begins in our souls. If you choke off the soul — through a negation of spirituality, creativity, nature — you can easily be convinced to do anything and feel nothing. Thus, the increasing political violence here and in Europe.

The future of the Palestinian movement

The Palestinian movement is at a crossroads. Fatah and its foremost rival for power, Hamas, are both weakened, the former by internal divisions and unpopularity and the latter by the Israeli military. Palestinian politics are entering a transitional phase, and Palestinian political institutions are dead or decaying. The aftershocks will be felt in the Middle East and beyond.

Mahmoud Abbas turns 90 this year. Abbas is the president of the Palestinian Authority, the United States-backed entity that rules over the majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The PA was birthed by the 1990s Oslo peace process, which created a lot of process but, in the end, very little peace. Indeed, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis has documented, terrorist attacks have increased in the post-Oslo period.

The PA was established in 1994 as a result of the Israel-Palestine Liberation Organization Declaration of Principles. In exchange for Western backing and support, the Authority, then headed by PLO head Yasser Arafat, promised to renounce terrorism and to resolve outstanding problems with Israel in bilateral negotiations. Palestinians got the opportunity to have limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza. But three-plus decades after its creation, the verdict is in: The PA is a failure.

The Authority never kept its promises to renounce terrorism and accept Israel. From its inception, the PA has paid tax-deductible salaries to those who murder and maim Jews, or people it believes are Jewish, such as Taylor Force, an American and U.S. Military Academy graduate who was killed in 2016 by a Palestinian terrorist. The PA’s media and educational arms praise terrorist attacks and celebrate murderers, even planting trees and bestowing awards in their honor.

Since the PA’s creation, Palestinian leaders have rejected numerous proposals for something that has never existed: a sovereign Palestinian Arab state. Arafat refused U.S. and Israeli proposals in 2000 at Camp David and in 2001 at Taba. In 2008, Abbas rejected an offer that would have given the Palestinians 93.7% of the West Bank, with Israeli territory to make up 5.8% and a corridor to Gaza for the other .5%. Abbas not only rejected the plan, but he also refused to make a counteroffer. Similarly, in 2014 and 2016, the Obama administration sought to present plans for restarting negotiations, with the 2008 offer as a starting point. Yet again, the PA refused to sit down and negotiate — a feat it would repeat when the first Trump administration sought to engage in talks.

The reasons for the refusals are simple: No Palestinian leader has ever accepted Israel’s right to exist. Going back more than eight decades, all have, without exception, rejected offers for statehood if it meant living in peace next to a Jewish state. The PA’s maps depict all of Israel as “Palestine.” Even Arafat’s pretensions during Oslo were a lie.

The PLO never amended its charter calling for Israel’s destruction. And in a May 10, 1994, speech in South Africa and in another one on Aug. 21, 1995, at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Arafat compared his decision to participate in the Oslo process to deceptions that the Prophet Muhammad engaged in against rival tribes. Its purpose was for Arafat and the PLO — severely weakened by the fall of the Soviet Union, its chief sponsor — to rebuild, consolidate, and then resume working toward Israel’s destruction. As he stated in a 1996 speech in Stockholm: “We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. … We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.”

Importantly, the PA was not meant to give Palestinian Arabs a state, as then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear. Rather, it was, to use a phrase popular at the time, a “chance for peace.” But more than three decades after the PA’s establishment, peace seems more distant than ever.

Read More

06/26 Links Pt1: Trump and Netanyahu's 2-state vision: Gaza war's end, Abraham Accords expansion; The Trump Doctrine on Nuclear Nonproliferation Is Born

From Ian:

The Trump Doctrine on Nuclear Nonproliferation Is Born

The main lessons from this week are that countries that build the bomb risk getting bombed themselves.

Pursuing nuclear arms is not a path to security, but to insecurity.

By striking Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night, President Trump did not just deal a blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also established an important new precedent.

By demonstrating that the U.S. is willing to use military force to stop the spread of the bomb, he made it much less likely that any other country will follow Iran's path and build an illegal nuclear program.

Until last week, the U.S. had never launched military strikes on the nuclear facilities of a country with which it was not at war. By bombing Iran, the U.S. has reset expectations.

If the U.S. had simply stood by and watched Iran cross the nuclear threshold, future American threats would have been perceived as a mere bluff that can safely be ignored.

Iran spent four decades and an estimated $500 billion on its nuclear program, only to have its nuclear facilities reduced to rubble. What other leader in their right mind will want to sign up for that deal?

This new reality will strengthen global nonproliferation efforts and make the world a safer place.

Richard Kemp: Arab nations should be grateful to Israel for destroying the Iranian hydra

Only those who don’t understand Middle East politics will take seriously reports that some Arab leaders and diplomats are concerned about Israel’s recent pre-emptive action against Iran. This mostly amounts to posturing for the benefit of their own populations. Many of their people are vehemently against Israel, for religious reasons but also to a large extent due to their governments’ own anti-Israel indoctrination from previous times.

It is a similar position to the one Western European governments find themselves in. Keir Starmer’s false criticisms and actions against Israel, such as arms suspension and sanctions, are surely due not to genuine concerns about Israel but the need to bolster support among Labour’s electorate, much of which is vehemently anti-Israel.

Arab leaders are well aware of the dangers they face from Iran. The ayatollahs are most vocal against Israel but they hate the Sunni Arab states just as much, if not more. This is more than mere rhetoric. Iran’s proxies have attacked the UAE and Saudi Arabia in recent years and Iran itself attacked US bases in Iraq and a few days ago in Qatar. Meanwhile Iran has for years been working to subvert Jordan and use it as a base of attack against Israel.

An Iranian nuclear capability threatened Arab countries as well as Israel. For years Israel has been understood to possess a nuclear capability. The Arabs knew that presented no threat to them. Only as the Iranian nuclear programme gained momentum did several countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, begin to seriously investigate acquiring their own nuclear capability.

With the exception of Iran itself and Syria, Israel has not attacked any country in the region and the Arabs know it will not. All of its offensive operations, in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, have been only against Iranian proxies that have attacked Israel.

Tony Badran: Iran’s Flying Monkeys

So what changed? As the past few weeks have demonstrated, the key variable—the difference between a U.S.-protected nuclear Iran that dominates the region, and the geopolitical picture we have today, with Iran cut down to size—is leadership. Any misalignment on either side, in the United States or Israel, could well have prevented the current outcome.

Had the Obama team’s campaign to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded at any point between 2021 and 2024, it seems unlikely that Netanyahu’s American-approved replacement would have been able to successfully navigate the post-Oct. 7 landscape and destroy Iran’s regional project. Likewise, had Trump lost the 2024 election or, worse still, had he not turned his head at that precise moment in Butler, Pennsylvania, the likelihood of American support for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons program drops to zero. Remove the great men of history, and everything defaults back to the Obama structural settings on the Democratic and also some of the Republican side of the aisle.

Even now, you can see it in some of the comms environment in Washington, after the U.S. strikes on Iran, where we’re hearing things from both Democrats and Republicans about the need for a “long-term settlement” with Iran, to be accompanied, no doubt, by endless new rounds of negotiations. Over what, exactly? A new and improved JCPOA, after having destroyed all their centrifuges and facilities? Why? Who cares?

President Trump put it best. When asked if he’s interested in restarting negotiations with Iran, the president was dismissive: “I’m not. … The way I look at it, they fought. The war is done. I could get a statement that they’re not going to go nuclear … but they’re not going to be doing it anyway. … I’ve asked [Secretary of State] Marco [Rubio], ‘You want to draw up a little agreement for them to sign?’ … I don’t think it’s necessary.”

The president is being praised for using military force while eschewing long-term commitments and entanglements. The corollary of that policy is, properly, for America to walk away after the strikes yet threaten to bomb again should the need arise. Everything else, whether it’s a new “deal” or the hope of “integration” for a “moderate” Iran, is static from the Obama signal.

Why the D.C. establishment, left and right, feels such an intense attachment to Iran defies any rational cost-benefit analysis related to the national interest. It therefore can only be explained by extrinsic factors that are probably best explained by a shrink who specializes in subjects like “white guilt” or “the burdens of empire”—which means I am obliged to take a pass. I can only observe that this attachment is a powerful one that must therefore signify something important to those who continue to feel its attraction, even when the United States and Iran are at war.

Fundamentally, D.C. is a pro-Iran town, where factions on the left and right have shown a core investment in ensuring that Iran has the means and the opportunity to go nuclear as part of their political programs at home. Why? Again, I can only speculate, as it so clearly defies basic calculations of the national interest. Perhaps they see Iran, as Obama did, as a useful tool in factional wars against domestic political rivals.

Luckily for the rest of us, the behavior of D.C. sewer dwellers matters far less now, thanks to President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The illusion that the D.C. establishment has maintained, hand in hand with Iran, for decades, has been shattered. The proxy armies that formed Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” are no more. We can even pinpoint the moment when Israel pulled the curtain aside: Sept. 27, 2024, the day it killed Nasrallah, whose Iranian masters turned out to be part of the same illusion that he was.

Now that the Ayatollah’s monkeys have scattered, whatever remains or does not remain of Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t much matter, even while anonymous sources in Washington do their best to put cards back into the regime’s hand by claiming that Fordow wasn’t “fully” destroyed and other such irrelevancies. The spell is broken, and the regime’s regional alignment, which was at the heart of both its threat to its neighbors and its strategy of deterrence, has been shattered beyond any hope of easy repair. Now it’s time for Washington and regional leaders alike to deal with reality.

Read More

06/25 Links Pt2: Seven soldiers KIA in Gaza; The Threat of Zohran Mamdani; The toxic narcissism of Palestine Action; ‘Severe, pervasive’ Jew-hatred at MIT

From Ian:

John Podhoretz: The Threat of Zohran Mamdani

Thoughts on the staggering out-of-nowhere victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral primary—I say “out of nowhere” because six months ago literally no one in America knew who he was and I say “staggering” because last night he got 43 percent of the first-choice vote in a 9-candidate election in which more than 1 million New Yorkers participated, the highest primary turnout in 36 years.

1. What you will hear is that Mamdani ran a brilliant race, and he did—he focused on the fact that living in New York City is ridiculously expensive and he would control costs by applying socialist principles to city government, somehow finding a way to “freeze” rents and starting city-run grocery stores, among other free stuff. Andrew Cuomo came into the race intending to run as the “order” candidate, talking about cleaning up the subways and the streets in a non-partisan manner. But his team seemed to drop that entirely and instead talk about how he’d get things done, including deal with affordability, and stand up to Donald Trump. So he was playing on Mamdani’s turf rather than his own. That’s clearly because his polling and focus groups indicated his issues weren’t resonating with Democratic primary voters. He was also thrown off course by the fact that incumbent mayor Eric Adams dropped out of the primary race after his indictment on charges of accepting bribes from Turkey and his subsequent pardoning by Trump. He assumed he could run with Adams as a punching bag and instead he became the punching bag all the other candidates in the race took turns pummelling.

2. Mamdani immediately became a serious contender when it turned out he was raising oceans of money—$9 million, with matching public funding bringing his campaign to around $17 million in all. That suggested he had caught fire as a grass-roots candidate, and indeed, the results showed that. But he raised a huge amount of money before he showed grass-roots strength. Where did that money come from? His campaign says he had 18,000 donors in New York City, and those donations are the ones that got matched by public funds ($8 for every $1 raised up to $250 per donation from a city resident). But according to the website City Limits, “Mamdani received 4,494 out-of-state contributions. Cuomo: 1,030. Who are these donors? You know who they are—they’re Bernie-bro leftists and Muslim activists.

3. Next to Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, who has run and won statewide twice for attorney general, Mamdani got more votes last night in the NYC primary than any Muslim candidate has ever received in the United States. And while he ran on affordability and did not make his anti-Israel obsession (he opened a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine at Bowdoin) a centerpiece of his campaign, he didn’t hide it even though he was running in the most Jewish city in America. Why? Because it was a feature and not a bug. Because it was a significant reason, if not the most significant reason, for his grass roots support.

4. To put it simply: Mamdani won because of October 7, by which I mean, he is the encampment candidate. He is the “Free Palestine” candidate. He is the “globalize the intifada” candidate. He emerged from the pack because this was his secret sauce. He is a foreign-born Muslim who rose from the ranks of the anti-Israel movement of the 2010s that laid the groundwork for the explosion of anti-Semitism in America over the past 20 months. He’s smart and articulate and able and impressive. He is also an implicit celebrator of anti-Jewish violence and anti-Semitic evil. He said he would have Bibi Netanyahu arrested if Bibi came to New York City. He did not moderate his views or his positions as he ran for office here. That’s because they were good for him financially and electorally.

Seth Mandel: Brad Lander and the Collapse of NYC’s Jewish-Political Establishment

Lander has long been a supporter of one of the most prominent anti-Semitic activists around New York City, Linda Sarsour. When Sarsour said that a person cannot be both a Zionist and a feminist, Lander defended her. She has since been a fixture of the same progressive anti-Zionist circles in which Lander travels and campaigns.

Another former staffer of Lander’s is Shahana Hanif. When she left Lander’s employ to join the City Council, she immediately amplified a social-media post with the phrase “globalize the Intifada.” (Years later she deleted the tweet.) Soon after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre, Hanif was arrested at a Democratic Socialists of America anti-Israel protest and accused Israel—before it had commenced its counteroffensive in Gaza—of genocide. She also joined the pro-Hamas encampment at Columbia for a photo op.

This year, Hanif ran for her council seat against a Jewish challenger. In May, Lander joyfully gave Hanif his full endorsement in the race. “It has been a joy to watch her grow from a staffer and organizer in my office to a passionate elected official,” he said.

Which is all helpful background for Monday night’s Colbert show. The New York Times gushed that the two “Showcase[d] Their Unique Alliance.” Lander was more explicit: “there is something quite remarkable about a Jewish New Yorker and a Muslim New Yorker coming together to say, ‘Here’s how we protect all New Yorkers.’”

Of course, there is no such intent to protect “all” New Yorkers. But Lander receives little pushback from the Jewish-political world of city politics. Indeed, Sen. Chuck Schumer tweeted this morning how proud he was of Mamdani. When Cuomo criticized progressive anti-Semitism during the campaign, the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs criticized Cuomo for it.

Lander is part of a larger story of the collapse of New York’s Jewish-political establishment, which has forced Jews to seek representation in non-Jewish politicians who inevitably get told to mind their business when they criticize anti-Semitism. Lander has played an important role in this collapse by being a sherpa of sorts for rising Jew-baiters. Schumer kissing Mamdani’s ring is merely the capstone of this project.

Trump, post-New York primary: Mamdani ‘a 100% Communist lunatic’

U.S. President Donald Trump excoriated Zohran Mamdani, the New York state representative who came in first on Tuesday night in New York City’s ranked-choice mayoral Democratic primary, as a “Communist lunatic.”

“It’s finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line,” Trump stated. “Zohran Mamdani, a 100% Communist lunatic, has just won the Dem primary and is on his way to becoming mayor. We’ve had radical lefties before, but this is getting ridiculous.”

Mamdani, who, if elected, would be the first Muslim mayor of New York City, has made waves within the Jewish community and elsewhere with his anti-Israel rhetoric and refusal to censure the words and ideas behind “Globalize the intifada.”

“He looks terrible, his voice is grating, he’s not very smart, he’s got AOC plus-3, dummies all backing him,” Trump said, referring to progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). (It wasn’t clear who else the president was referring to; however, other members of the so-called “Squad” in Congress also supported Mamdani.)

“Even our great Palestinian senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him,” Trump said. “Yes, this is a big moment in the history of our country.”

Read More

06/25 Links Pt1: Iran Preferred to Surrender to the Great Satan; They Predicted World War III. They Were Wrong; Kohelet: Was Israel’s Strike on Iran’s State TV Legal?

From Ian:

Arsen Ostrovsky & David Harris: Netanyahu and Trump showed the kind of resolve Churchill himself would have saluted

Netanyahu and Trump seized the moment. They led – boldly and decisively.

To be clear: neither sought war. But Iran was at the nuclear precipice. The risk of military action was real. But the risk of inaction, of a nuclear-armed Iran, was far greater.

Today, many in the international community wring their hands, asking whether the strikes “destabilised” the region. But let’s be honest: what destabilises the region hasn't been the absence of a nuclear Iran – it's been the prospect of its arrival. What preserved global security wasn’t a weak and porous accord in Geneva, but the hard power of Israeli fighter jets and American B-2s over Iran.

Too many Western leaders still echo the same naïveté that once led Neville Chamberlain to declare “peace for our time.” Churchill exposed that delusion for what it was when he told Chamberlain: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

The Iranian regime is an heir apparent to the Nazis – not only in the infrastructure of death it has single-mindedly pursued, but in its oft-stated genocidal ambitions. The difference, however, is the scale of devastation it could have unleashed with nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

Netanyahu and Trump understood that inaction was not an option. Their courage may well have spared the world from catastrophe.

And now, with a ceasefire brokered by President Trump having been announced, we are reminded that such an outcome was not achieved through weakness or appeasement – but through the projection of power, strength and resolve. The kind of outcome Churchill himself would have saluted.

Ultimately, in striking Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, Netanyahu and Trump made the world a safer place. They did it not only in defence of their own countries, but in protection of the free world. Indeed, not since 1940, has so much been owed by so many to so few.

Why Trump Was Confident that Iran Was Building a Bomb

After a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, what's next is a period of negotiations. Israel wants a verifiable, ironclad agreement to prevent Iran from ever producing a nuclear weapon. Negotiators will confront this essential problem: Iran has been lying about its activities for more than 20 years. It said it wasn't trying to make a bomb even as it had its top scientists push toward weaponization. It claimed to be leveling with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the IAEA concluded last month that it wasn't.

Israeli intelligence, backed by IAEA investigations, shows that after Iran ceased its Amad weaponization program in 2003, it secretly reconstituted a new effort to pursue similar research. The Iranians moved equipment from one set of secret sites to other covert locations, covering their tracks to evade IAEA inspectors, Israel and IAEA found.

This renewed push to make a bomb - as opposed to just enriching the fuel for one - was probably the trigger for the devastating war that Israel began on June 13. Israeli intelligence on Iranian weaponization was shared with me by a source familiar with the reports. Much of it tracks IAEA reports published on June 12 with the agency's stern warning that it couldn't "provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful."

Trump has received much more detailed information from Israel, and officials say that's why he stated last week that Iran was actively seeking to build a weapon, despite a statement to the contrary in March by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Based on what I saw, I would be surprised if the House and Senate intelligence committees didn't conclude that U.S. analysts were being too cautious in preparing Gabbard's March 26 testimony that the intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon."

Iran's renewed weaponization program was called SPND, known in English as the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, according to an Israeli document. A key site at Shariati, in Tehran, "is part of Iran's concealment and deception efforts" and houses some of its technical laboratories and workshops. The site was struck by Israeli jets on June 13. Another key site, Sanjarian, near Parchin, produced detonators. It was also struck last week by Israeli jets.

Iran's weaponization infrastructure is now in ruins. Israel has destroyed the equipment - and killed the researchers - that were part of a secret bombmaking effort dating back 25 years. Any future nuclear agreement with Iran must reliably ban any restart of these activities.

Iran Preferred to Surrender to the Great Satan

Israel must ensure that Iran is not attempting a rapid breakout toward a basic nuclear weapon, such as a crude "dirty bomb" - using its remaining stockpile of 60% enriched uranium and several hundred advanced centrifuges reportedly hidden away.

As a result, Israel must now ramp up intelligence-gathering efforts in close coordination with the U.S. to verify how much high-level enriched uranium Iran still has, potentially enabling a swift nuclear breakout.

Another key focus is Iran's remaining missile capabilities. It's possible Iran also retains significant offensive capacity with cruse missiles and drones.

Negotiations over a new nuclear deal could take several months. If the results are unsatisfactory from Israel's perspective, or if Iran drags its feet, another military confrontation may be necessary.

It seems the Iranian leadership signaled their desire for a "dignified" ceasefire once they opted for a weak, pre-coordinated response to the U.S. strike.

This may not have been a traditional white-flag surrender, but Iran's move to let Washington know it sought to avoid escalation was a capitulation in all but name.

It's likely that the American strike accelerated the end of the war because surrendering to U.S. military pressure is considered more "honorable" than backing down in the face of Israeli strikes.

In the eyes of the Iranian regime, conceding to the "Great Satan" - the world's most powerful superpower - does less damage to its image and internal stability than appearing to fold before the "Little Satan," Israel.

Read More

06/24 Links Pt2: The Ayatollah’s Lifeline: Made in the West; Benny Morris; Israel & Iran; Sinwar’s March of Folly; Zohran Mamdani’s long war on Israel

From Ian:

Jeffrey Goldberg: Sinwar’s March of Folly

Sinwar’s misunderstanding of Israel was, if anything, deeper than Iran’s misunderstanding of Trump. Hamas and other Palestinian groups believe that Israelis see themselves as foreign implants, and therefore can easily be brought to defeat. Sinwar’s misplaced confidence in theories of settler colonialism and Jewish perfidy undermined his strategic effectiveness. Sinwar was so convinced of his beliefs that he even sponsored a conference in 2021 called “The Promise of the Hereafter—Post-Liberation Palestine,” in which specific plans were discussed for the building of Palestine on the ruins of Israel. “Educated Jews and experts in the areas of medicine, engineering, technology, and civilian and military industry should be retained in Palestine for some time and should not be allowed to leave and take with them the knowledge and experience that they acquired while living in our land and enjoying its bounty,” one presentation read.

The theme of this conference, which was held in Gaza, was an echo of a statement made by Hassan Nasrallah, then the leader of Hezbollah, who said in 2000, “This Israel, with its nuclear weapons and most advanced warplanes in the region, I swear by Allah, is actually weaker than a spider’s web … Israel may appear strong from the outside, but it’s easily destroyed and defeated.” Nasrallah was assassinated by Israel nine months ago.

I asked Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, in Jerusalem, to explain the root of this misapprehension. “The only way you can believe that Israel is Nasrallah’s spiderweb is if you believe that we don’t have substance here, that we’re not a rooted people,” he said. “The problem with Sinwar is that he believed his own propaganda. He believed that we ourselves believe that we don’t belong here. Our enemies in the Arab and Muslim worlds don’t understand that their perception of Israel and of Jews is based on a lie.”

If nothing else, the wars of the past 20 months have proved that Israel’s adversaries are not adept at analyzing political and social phenomena as they manifest in reality. Walter Russell Mead, the historian, once explained that a weakness of anti-Semites is that they have difficulty understanding the world as it actually works, and don’t comprehend cause and effect in either politics or economics. Sinwar, Nasrallah, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself saw Israel as they wished it was, not as it actually is. And in part because of this, they placed their movements in mortal danger.

Sharansky: ‘The Iranian regime was exposed before its people as a paper tiger’

For decades, former Israeli politician and Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky has championed the cause of freedom from oppressive regimes. Dissidents across the world have found inspiration in his books and sought his advice and support.

Iranians seeking to topple the totalitarian mullahs’ regime are no different.

Soon after Israel began its strikes on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear, weapons production and military sites, Sharansky, who has been in contact with Iranian dissidents, expressed hope that the war would increase pressure on the regime from within Iran, leading to its downfall.

That hope has been reflected in statements by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the operation, though after the interview, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he favors stability over regime change.

Sharansky spoke with Jewish Insider on Tuesday about the prospects of the Iranian people rising up against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, even after a shaky ceasefire had been declared between Israel and Iran.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jewish Insider: What did this war between Israel and Iran mean for the possibility of regime change in Iran?

Natan Sharansky: It’s difficult to speak now, because we don’t know what kind of [ceasefire] agreement it is, whether it is the type with Hezbollah, the type that prevents Iran from rebuilding their ballistic missiles.

What is important is that the regime has been very weakened in the eyes of its own people.

A regime like Iran needs control not only over practical matters, it needs a way to keep its people under control, and the only control they had is through fear. The moment the level of fear goes down, or the empire looks weak, or some serious event causes people to doubt it, the regime can fall apart very quickly.

If some people cross the line of fear and go to the streets and resist, [the regime] can fall in a few days, as it did in Eastern Europe or in Tahrir Square in Egypt.

[On Monday], I thought we were very close. The fact that Israel was destroying the symbols of the regime, one after the other — the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] headquarters, the Interior Ministry that controlled people’s movement — meant the regime was being weakened in the eyes of its own people.

The Ayatollah’s Lifeline: Made in the West

The nuclear plants may have been damaged or destroyed, but the regime’s nuclear ambitions are very much alive. Now, with the ceasefire announced shortly after these strikes — initially denied by both sides but rapidly taking effect — the regime has been given a chance to regroup and come back stronger.

This ceasefire paves the way to lifting sanctions. Once sanctions are lifted, the regime will have the funds to rebuild everything: its nuclear program, its terror networks, its brutal internal repression. The world has once again handed the Ayatollahs exactly what they wanted, a lifeline. Trump announcing China can now buy oil again from Iran proves exactly that.

Reports say, The exiled crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, unfollowed Netanyahu and Trump on social media. If true, he for sure feels betrayed by this ceasefire that leaves the Ayatollah in power.

Even worse, they don’t need 100 nuclear weapons; they only need one. One bomb is enough to wipe Israel off the map. And they can get it from any rogue actor willing to sell. A wounded humiliated and weak tyrant is more dangerous than a happy one. The regime was clear they won’t stop. Some countries are willing to provide them the bomb. They are selling the ceasefire to their radical jihadi followers as a win against the “empire” and the “zionist entity.”

Why do we keep betraying millions of Iranians — risking their dreams of freedom — to save a regime that jails, tortures, and executes its own people?

Why do we force Israel to stop short of victory every time it defends itself against terror? Enough.

Let the regime in Iran fall. Stop handing it lifelines. Stop romanticizing, they are a regime designed for tyranny. Stand with the people of Iran — not their jailers and oppressors.

And let Israel win. Stop interrupting wars halfway through and pretending that “both sides” just need to stop. One side seeks to live. The other seeks to destroy. The world is failing at the moral test.

The pattern is clear: when tyrants are vulnerable, the world protects them. When democracies defend themselves, they are told to stand down.

Let the regime in Iran fall.

Let Israel win its wars.

Stop saving tyrants.

Stand with the people.

The world must stop saving the Ayatollahs.

The nuclear plants may be gone — but Iran’s deadly ambition lives on.

Read More