06/20 Links Pt2: The Lawless Left and Its Liberal Camp Followers; Ohio Doctor Charged After Allegedly Threatening To Kill Jewish Congressman; Dave Smith humiliates himself, again

From Ian:

Matthew Continetti: The Lawless Left and Its Liberal Camp Followers

Then came October 7. Within hours of the attack on Israel, pro-Hamas protests spread on college campuses. Liberal administrators did nothing. They barely lifted a finger to protect Jewish students and guarantee that every student could study without harassment from keffiyeh-wearing thugs. University presidents found themselves unable to condemn calls for genocide. They lost their jobs—justly.

The Biden administration denounced anti-Semitism and pledged support for Israel. But, as the war continued, Israel became a liability within the Democratic Party. Hamas sympathizers grew in number and intensity. Biden slow-walked military aid and pressured Israel to make a deal with Hamas. Harris refused to appear with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When hecklers accused her of supporting genocide, she could only respond, “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”

She spoke. And Trump won. The Democrats’ inability to confront and contain anti-Semitism on America’s campuses and city streets was a preview of things to come during Trump’s second term. The cause may change—Gaza one day, ICE the next. The spineless liberal response to radicalism does not.

Republicans fell into a similar trap in the years after the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump supporters who soft-pedal the events of that day run the same risk as liberals who succumb to tribalism and dogma. At the same time, January 6 also exposed the hollowness of the liberal position: They found a riot they wouldn’t call “mostly peaceful” and brought down the heavy hand of government on everyone involved.

The pattern holds. On June 12, Mayor Bass imposed a curfew on downtown Los Angeles. The protests diminished. Yet she still held Trump responsible for the mess, not the actual criminals. “Every time you do something like this,” she said, referring to Trump’s bringing in the National Guard, “you provoke the population.”

Madame Mayor needs a refresher course in cause and effect. Democrats who wink at violent protest don’t just risk their electoral future. They guarantee more chaos.

The War Against the War Against the Jews

But there is a problem beyond objections to the method, means, and motivation of Trump officials in fighting anti-Semitism. Any sustained response—even one less assertive than Trump’s—to anti-Semitism in America must be grounded in law. And while some of the administration’s actions will likely be sustained in court rulings, particularly those regarding the almost unassailable executive authority over immigration, others will go by the wayside instantaneously when another party takes the White House, and perhaps before. It is for this reason that Congress is so critical.

Unfortunately, on this question, as on so many others, Congress has embraced rhetoric over action.

In 2023–24 as the anti-Semitic conflagration swept through academia, many on Capitol Hill recognized the characteristic role of TikTok in fanning the flames. The Chinese social media company played a critical role in popularizing anti-Semitic tropes and in organizing anti-Semitic gatherings. And Congress did act, if admittedly for reasons going well beyond TikTok’s promotion of anti-Semitism. It required the president to shut down or force the sale of TikTok. Donald Trump has done neither, choosing not to enforce the letter of the law. Congress has done nothing, effectively undercutting its own legislative power. One can at least take some solace in the fact that this law was passed; not so, most others.

Like the Antisemitism Awareness Act, there have been several important pieces of legislation introduced relating to foreign donations to universities, including additional restrictions for so-called countries of concern; support for terrorism by nonprofits and organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP); additional reporting requirements for student-visa holders engaging in anti-Semitic or pro-terror activities; and more.

One bill, the DETERRENT Act, introduced by Representative Michael Baumgartner (R-WA-5) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, would lower the financial threshold for universities on reporting foreign gifts and contracts, particularly from countries of concern. It would also require colleges and universities to disclose detailed information about all substantial foreign donations and partnerships. Institutions that fail to comply with new transparency standards would face the risk of losing access to federal student-aid programs. The act also directs the Department of Education to create a publicly accessible database of reported foreign gifts, and it authorizes new penalties for noncompliance. It has gone nowhere in the Senate.

The second bill passed the House in 2024: Introduced by Representative Claudia Tenney (R-NY), the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act legislated tax relief for hostages and, more important, established a process by which the secretary of the Treasury could designate a nonprofit as a “terrorist supporting organization” if, within the previous three years, it has provided material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. That provision in the Tenney bill made it largely intact into this year’s HR 1, the “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” before it was quietly stripped out in committee.

Other bills relating to punishing compliance with BDS, requiring greater transparency regarding foreign donations to both NGOs and universities, requiring public disclosure of donors to nonprofits receiving federal funding, and demanding disclosure of university rules regarding anti-Semitism have been introduced, only to wither on the committee vine.

Congress’s failure to enact laws to address the proliferation of anti-Semitic activities in the United States, on and off campus, means that, just as was the case during the Trump-Biden transition in 2021, any future cross-party transitions will see a slew of reversals of executive branch executive orders, as well as rules and regulations promulgated while Donald Trump was in office. And the policies enacted therein will simply cease to exist.

Nonetheless, Congress has not been entirely supine. Investigations into organizations such as American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and its subsidiary groups continue in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Even more encouraging, the State of Virginia, where AMP is headquartered, is digging aggressively into AMP’s and Students for Justice in Palestine’s possible ties to terrorism. That probe began with a formal request for documents and information from AMP in late 2023, citing potential violations of state charity laws and links to the national SJP movement. AMP challenged the request in court, but, in mid-2024, a Richmond court rejected its arguments and ordered AMP to comply with the state’s inquiry. After further legal back-and-forth, the court reaffirmed in May 2025 that AMP must turn over the requested materials. The investigation is still underway.

So, yes, there is movement forward, but it is halting and confusing, and the enemies of Israel are still working relentlessly. The voices of Jew-hatred still screech. And the physical danger in which Jews on American soil find themselves is growing. This all contributes to a dispiriting feeling of failure for advocates of stronger measures to fight Jew-hatred. And there have been failures. But we cannot sink into despair, because that would lead to inaction. We must be as relentless as our foes. Congress must be pressured to cement into law the necessary safeguards ensuring that U.S. tax law, schools, and media do not become instruments of an increasingly anti-Semitic agenda. The critical initial steps require awareness and transparency, and fortunately, we now have much more of that than was the case just two years ago.

Before October 7, the malign agenda of foreign agitators and anti-Semites at home was largely obscured from view. Jews believed that the era of overt Jew-hatred was in the past. There is no one who believes that today. We know what the problem is, we know what needs to be done, and, while it will take time to institutionalize the kinds of protections imperative to keeping Jews safe in America, it will happen if we have perseverance and courage. We have seen anti-Semitism weaponized to murder and harass Jews around the world and at home. The time has come to turn the tables, and to weaponize anti-Semitism against its perpetrators and sponsors.

I Taught My Students the ‘Iliad.’ Then They Went to War.

My student was well trained for combat but was never trained to recognize what war might do to his soul. He had learned the high moral values of the IDF—such as “the purity of arms,” meaning that soldiers should use their weapons and force only to the necessary extent and must maintain their humanity even during combat. But he learned nothing about the shocking violence required in combat situations. The Iliad gave him a deeper understanding of what human beings are capable of. The Illiad’s ending, with Achilles and Priam mourning together, gave him an opening for hope. Even from these depths, one can return to humanity.

Reading Homer After October 7
We spent eight classes on the Iliad, and when we had completed it, I breathed a sigh of relief. I thought the difficult part was behind us. The Odyssey, which came next, had generally been less traumatic for the students: It deals with a man returning home to his wife and son. A simple story, right? His trip home from the Trojan War takes 10 years, and the first half of the book primarily deals with Odysseus’s adventures during his journey. But then Odysseus arrives at his island, Ithaca, and the pace of events slows down substantially. The rest of the book is dedicated to describing the week that begins with his arrival on the island’s shores and ends with his full recognition as its king. In these pages, Homer devotes considerable space to describing his meetings with his wife, Penelope, who waited for him for 20 years.

When Odysseus enters his home, he is disguised as a beggar. His wife is surrounded by dozens of violent young men who seek to conquer her heart and inherit their home. In the evening, after the suitors have left, Penelope and Odysseus speak intimately. She tells him openly about her pain in having her husband away for two decades, but he continues to pretend he is someone else. At this point in my class, the students are angry with him: “Why doesn’t he tell her the truth? How can he deceive her after everything she has suffered for him?” But one student who served in the war and was married understood Odysseus’s actions. “Even when I return home from Gaza and my wife asks me how it was, I lie,” he said. “I can’t tell her what I really went through and I’m not sure she’s capable of hearing it.”

The second time Odysseus and Penelope meet, he has revealed his identity and eliminated all the suitors. Penelope comes out to meet him joyfully, but upon seeing him she isn’t sure whether to approach him. Their son, Telemachus, cannot bear the standoff and scolds her. In the past, my students would always agree with Telemachus: “Why is she hardening her heart now?” This year they sided with Penelope. One of the students shared: “When my husband went on leave from Gaza for the first time, he sent me a text message and my heart burst with joy. He sent another text when he got off the bus and I suddenly felt distrust. When he stood at the doorway I froze. Is this the man I said goodbye to two months ago?”

Another student, who got married during the war, suggested that Penelope is consciously examining the returned Odysseus. In her own way, she too has been fighting for the past 20 years: initially raising a child alone and in recent years preserving the home and maintaining her independence against the pressure of suitors. Penelope wonders if the man who has now returned is worthy of her efforts?

Reading Homer After October 7
“This thought occupied me during the war,” said my student. “I tried to act in a way that would justify my return, the worry and anxieties my wife experiences while waiting at home. I tried to see where, within my framework as a warrior on the battlefield, I could care for the person I would be the day after the war.”

At the course’s concluding session, one of the students said: “I always thought the Iliad was the difficult story. Only when I returned home from the war did I understand that The Odyssey is the real challenge. War is just preparation for the return.”

Coleman Ruiz, a former Tier One U.S. Navy SEAL joint task force commander, recounts that the tool that helped him cope with the process of returning to civilian life comes from Joseph Campbell’s formula for all great stories: the “hero’s journey.” The journey has three stages, each challenging in its own right: departure, initiation, and return. The journey begins with a crisis in society that causes the hero to embark on the path of trials. After successfully completing his initiation, he is called to return to society with the wisdom he has gained in order to contribute to its healing and growth. For many years I taught these ideas in my fantasy literature course, but I never thought about them in the context of warriors who left their homes to defend their country. The thought of our returning warriors as the third part of the hero’s journey significantly changed my perspective: The returnees need our help, but we need them no less.

Jonathan Shay, an American psychiatrist who treated Vietnam War veterans, argues that there are certain aspects of war’s impact on fighters’ psyches that Homer identifies better than today’s mental health professionals. I am not an expert on war or mental therapy, but teaching the Iliad and The Odyssey during the war made clear to me the unique ability of this ancient literature to give expression and framework, meaning and significance, to the experience of war and the return from it.

Reading Homer After October 7Reading Homer After October 7
I always took pride in learning from my students, but honestly, how much could young people in their twenties really teach me about a book I’d read more than a dozen times? The war reversed the roles: Now they were truly teachers and I was the student.

In the past two years I learned things about the Iliad and The Odyssey that before the war I never understood. My students taught me so much more: They taught me about fear and love, courage and sacrifice, about personal coping and about the ability to act together despite disagreements. The journey of return is not only for the soldiers and their families but for all of Israeli society: We sent this generation into battle and we must ensure their return. Moreover, we have much to learn from them. The ancient stories provide a language that can help us all complete the journey.

Read More

06/20 Links Pt1: Under Fire, Israelis Back Total Victory in Iran, With or Without US Support; Why do so many educated idiots make excuses for Iran?

From Ian:

Niall Ferguson and Yoav Gallant: Israel Has Done Most of the Job. Only Trump Can Finish It.

One of us devoted considerable time and effort to considering ways that Israel could achieve the same result with the F-15Es it possesses and the 2,000- and 5,000-pound bombs they can carry, or with a World War II–style commando raid behind enemy lines. Neither option is realistic. Only America can do this. Only President Trump can order it.

Primo Levi’s novel If Not Now, When? is about a group of Jewish resistance fighters who desperately defy the might of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front in World War II. The Holocaust has been much on the minds of Israelis since October 7, 2023, an Iran-sponsored atrocity that was consciously intended as a trailer for a second Shoah. But the question “If not now, when?” is also an ancient Jewish one, posed by Hillel the Elder more than two millennia ago. It is the question we would now ask President Trump. And we would add another question: If B-2s and MOPs were not designed for precisely this purpose, then what use are they?

A nuclear-armed Iran would pose more than a threat to the Israeli people and their state. Its missiles could reach Gulf capitals and Europe. Those missiles could allow Iran to sponsor terror and wage conventional war with impunity. The result would be a nuclear arms race in the Gulf. By destroying Fordow, President Trump would create a new equilibrium in the Middle East and reestablish American leadership. The strike would focus solely on eliminating Iran’s nuclear arms program, but it should be accompanied by a clear message: If Iran attempts to target the United States or its Gulf allies, it will risk the elimination of its regime.

There is an economic consideration, too. The longer the current conflict continues, the greater the risk to energy markets and global economic stability. Running out of missiles and launchers, its military command structure disabled by assassinations, Iran must now be contemplating desperate measures such as attacks on its Arab neighbors or mining the Strait of Hormuz, in the hope that these might deter U.S. intervention. Decisive action now can prevent an oil-price shock.

Israel has moved and continues to move with determination and dispatch. The support of allies, first and foremost the United States, has been crucial. Now, with a single exertion of its unmatched military strength, the United States can shorten the war, prevent wider escalation, and end the principal threat to Middle Eastern stability. It can also send a signal to those other authoritarian powers who have been Iran’s enablers that American deterrence is back.

This is a rare moment when strategic alignment and operational momentum converge. It must not be missed.

Douglas Murray: Douglas Murray: President Trump can end the nuclear threat from Iran with one call

A number of the most crucial nuclear sites in Iran, like the facility at Fordow, can only be destroyed by a bunker-buster bomb that only the US has.

Successive US administrations have refused to sell this weapon to the Israelis.

Now, almost a week into the war, Israel has been unable to stop Iran’s nuclear program entirely.

If the Israelis destroy only 70%, or 80% or even 90% of the Iranian nuclear project, then there is still the possibility that Iran can restart its nuclear race.

Meaning that the world will always have this gun to its head.

For many years, President Trump has made it plain that he will never allow this.

But the mullahs may be happy to wait until some other Sleepy Joe-like figure is in the White House.

Trump knows he cannot let that happen.

But this is the one chance in our lifetimes to once and for all stop the world’s worst regime getting their hands on the world’s worst weapon.

As a poll published in yesterday’s Post showed, President Trump’s MAGA base is keen for him to follow through on his promise.

A whopping 65% of MAGA Republicans support US strikes to finish off Iran’s nuclear project.

Just 19% oppose it.

Which shows that the president’s noisy online critics are just as kooky and irrelevant as he senses them to be.

Who’s in control?
“But what will happen next,” some of his critics say.

There is an easy answer to that.

President Trump’s campaign promise is that he will never allow Iran to have nukes.

In the coming hours and days he has the opportunity to make good on that promise.

But what about “regime change?”

In truth those words do not need to be anywhere near his lips or his agenda.

If the Iranian people want to rise up and overthrow the death-cult regime that has held their country in terror for 46 years, then they should.

Many of us will wish them well.

But that is their affair.

The president’s only need is to make good on his promise to the American electorate.

If he does that, then he will send a sharp but necessary message to a regime that has too long threatened his own life, the life of Israel and indeed the world.

John Spencer: Why dismantling Iranian threat won't create another Libya or Iraq

The Iraq comparison is just as flawed. Iraq was a full-scale invasion. It was based on faulty intelligence and executed with no coherent postwar plan. It involved hundreds of thousands of American troops, a toppling of the entire government structure, and years of bloody counterinsurgency and sectarian violence. That war left deep scars on US foreign policy and strategic credibility.

What is happening now with Iran looks nothing like Iraq. There are no American boots on the ground. There is no occupation. There is no attempt to transform Iran into a Western-style democracy. This is a limited military campaign targeting a specific threat: the infrastructure, personnel, and technology behind Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons effort.

Israel dealt irreparable damage to Iran's nuclear, military targets
Israel has already delivered devastating blows to Iran’s nuclear program. Enrichment facilities at Natanz and Isfahan have been struck. The heavy water plutonium reactor at Arak has been rendered unusable. Multiple weaponization labs have been destroyed.

According to reports, 14 of the 15 nuclear scientists on Israel’s high-value target list have been eliminated. That is not symbolic. That is a strategic victory. The only parallel would be eliminating Oppenheimer and every member of the Manhattan Project before they ever arrived at the Los Alamos Laboratory.

President Trump is not rushing in because there is no need to. Israel is achieving the mission step by step. Trump is using the time to mitigate risks, prepare for contingencies, and hold the cards. American assets are moving into the region not to invade, but to finish the job if needed, or to deter escalation.

The choice now lies with the regime in Tehran. As Trump might say, we have the cards, Israel has the cards, and Iran can take the diplomatic offramps offered by the United States and Europe, or it can continue on a path that ends with its program being destroyed.

This is not the beginning of a new war. This is the long-overdue end of a decades-long campaign by Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, destabilize the region, and threaten the world. It is a campaign being carried out with intelligence, airpower, cyber capabilities, and precision. There is no appetite for occupation. There is no plan for regime change. There is only a clear, achievable military objective rooted in international law and shared security interests.

If the Iranian regime collapses under the weight of military defeat, economic pressure, and domestic unrest, that will be the result of its own failures. But that is not the goal. The goal is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. Nothing more, and nothing less.



This is not Libya. This is not Iraq. This is strategic clarity in action. And it is working.

I’m Iranian – Israel’s attacks give me hope

While Israel has taken concrete action, the US under Trump is acting timidly and still calling the Mullahs to the negotiating table. Trump has shown again and again that he will only pick a fight with defenseless immigrants and the most vulnerable, as only a cowardly bully would. However, maybe for once, Trump can choose to pick a fight with a real enemy.

There are some indications that Israel may be considering a policy of regime change in Iran. I would argue that regime change is the only policy that would make this war worthwhile. We have seen what half a century of Mullahs’ rule has done to Iran and the region, we don’t have to hazard a guess as to what another half a century would do. If the Mullahs survive these attacks, their victory will only serve to embolden them and make them feel invincible. Terrorism will continue to be the hallmark of the region unless the Iranian regime is dismantled and elections free of terrorist candidates are held.

In the Middle East, we all have our fights with religious fanatics as they are a persistent fixture of our histories, but I genuinely hope that we will overcome Iran’s murderous fanatics with the help of Israel’s targeted operations in Iran and an unequivocal support for regime change.

So, to anyone who cares to ask this Iranian, I say that I’m hopeful. I hope that both Israel and the US see the benefit of regime change in Iran and do not let the Islamic Republic linger for another 50 years. Appeasement with terrorism begets terrorism. It’s time to have peace.

Read More

06/19 Links Pt2: Having Faith While in Hell; Israel Isn’t Striving for Regional Hegemony, It’s Striving To Be Left Alone; Branding the Jew: From Medieval France to Modern Times

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: Having Faith While in Hell

This column is about faith and miracles, and it begins with an event wondrous to behold: the New York Times publishing a thoughtful, balanced, and inspiring article pertaining to the current moment in Israel.

The article features an interview with Omer Shem Tov, who until recently was held in cruel captivity by Hamas. Omer, the Times tells us, “had grown up in a largely secular home, and was living a relatively carefree existence after completing his compulsory military service.” Then, on October 7, 2023, he was suddenly snatched and subjected to torture in cramped surroundings for a year and a half. It was as a hostage that Shem Tov embraced the faith of his fathers:

A few days into his captivity, he said, he began to speak to God. He made vows. He began to bless whatever food he was given. And he had requests—some of which he believes were answered. “You are looking for something to lean on, to hold onto,” Mr. Shem Tov said in a recent interview at his family home in Herzliya, north of Tel Aviv. “The first place I went to was God. I would feel a power enter me,” he said.

“Faith kept me going,” he said, adding, “I always believed I would get home, though I didn’t know how or when.”

Shem Tov’s embrace of Jewish observance was not limited to prayer. We are further informed that he “decided to keep kosher as much as he could, eating either the cheese or the canned meat when they were given both, in line with Jewish dietary laws that prohibit mixing meat and dairy products.” The Times concludes by describing how Shem Tov “promised God that if he got home, he would pray daily with ‘tefillin’—the small leather boxes containing scriptures that worshipers tie onto their heads and one of their arms for morning prayers.” The article features a photo depicting Omer Shem Tov doing just that.

At this point, we must pause to ponder what might appear paradoxical. A young man has lived a largely secular life. Many in his circle, it is safe to say, would welcome an age in which Jews were “normalized,” in which they would be a people like any other, in which they would be left alone to create the Silicon Valley of the Middle East. Yet suddenly, at the very moment when he is being tortured for his Jewish identity, and when many of his fellow concert attendees at the Nova festival were murdered for the very same reason, his reaction is to embrace Judaism.

In this, Omer Shem Tov captures, in a certain sense, the story of Zionism itself. In 1897, a secular Jew, Theodore Herzl, had promised the possibility of normalization in his pamphlet The Jewish State. Living among Europeans, he argued, Jews would continue to be hated, but if a separate Jewish state could be created elsewhere, anti-Semitism would cease. The state Herzl originally described had little that was Jewish in its civic character. But not long after, as the Zionist movement suddenly and mysteriously, began to spread, the assimilated Austrian journalist began the ponder with wonder the history of which he was a part.

John Podhoretz: We Are Awesome: A Rant

Why am I praising us? I’m not, actually. I’m actually enraged at a great many of my fellow Jews, who promote cultural ideas I revile and vote for politicians and causes I believe are injurious to America, to civil society, to the world, and to the Jews, both here and in Israel.

No, what I am praising is our birthright—and the good fortune we have been granted because of it. This is something worthy of celebration, and we must give thanks for our forebears for being forbearing. Throughout Jewish history, being a Jew was not something you could say granted you worldly good fortune. But each Jew in history lived and bore children and kept the flame alive to bring us here today, to this moment. It would be a sin against the difficulties they faced, far worse than anything we’ve faced, not to connect ourselves to the thing that connects us deeper than blood.

They said the same prayers we say. They followed the same rules the more rigorous among us follow. If we met them across centuries, if we time-traveled to a Saturday morning in the Alteneuschul in Prague in the 13th century when it was first constructed, one or another of us would be able to say, Hey, that was my bar mitzvah parashah. And depending on how good our memory is, and how good our reading is, and how solidly we know trop, we could go up and take an aliyah and read.

These are all the reasons that being proud of being a Jew, teaching our kids why they should be proud to be Jews, and feeling that transcendent connection across time and space is everything.

No reason to apologize.

And yet so many do. The question is why.

Some of it is a natural occurrence of being a small band conscious of our differences and conscious that others feel we are different, such that we are hyper-aware of the way bad actors might reflect on us. Who among us hasn’t breathed a sigh of relief to discover that, say, some lunatic or evil killer or other—the guy in Idaho, or Luigi Mangione, or the Menendezes—are not members of the tribe? We feel this way because we feel it so keenly when one is. Madoff. Weinstein. Epstein. Whose heart has not sunk to the bottom of his or her chest at the sound of their names?

So we feel responsible for each other, and worry about blame affixing to us, because we are so few.

Now consider the condition of Jews in 2025. Worldwide. Israel was attacked in October 2023. It was invaded. Thousands were killed and injured. And that attack and those killings and casualties ignited an old-fashioned blood lust—a lust for Jewish blood, or at least Jewish humiliation, or capitulation.

That was surprising. I know because we were all surprised. And shocked. And dismayed. And depressed. And filled full of rage. And sorrow. And a sense that for the first time in our lives as American Jews, we were at some form of risk in the land that had been very nearly a paradise for us after 1,800 years in the Diaspora.

What was not surprising, alas, was the presence among those with that blood lust of Jews themselves—or what Eli Lake has called the “as-a-Jews.” The type that says, “As a Jew, I am horrified by the images on my television,” or “As a Jew, I believe in tikkun olam, and Israel is not healing the world the way it should.” I say this was not surprising because these people have been present in our public life since I was a kid. More recently, I think of the example of a 2021 letter issued by rabbinical students condemning what they called Israeli apartheid.

No, Trump Is Not ‘Weaponizing’ Anti-Semitism

If “a liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel,” as Robert Frost put it, then a Jewish liberal must be someone who begs for his nation to take anti-Semitism seriously—and then condemns the president of the United States for obliging.

American Jews have sounded the alarm on rising anti-Semitism for years, and the case was made when the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks spurred terrorist sympathizers in the West to take their bigotry to the streets. Campuses revealed themselves as hotbeds of sympathy for the attackers. Universities did nothing to punish flagrant violations of civil rights laws committed by those sympathetic to Hamas, and the culprits remained undeterred. As reports from Harvard, Columbia, and other universities attest, faculty, students, and even administrators continued to bait Jews and Israel in class, on the quad, and everywhere in between. Student groups revealed themselves as unabashed collaborators with terrorist organizations, raising funds for them and promoting their propaganda.

Yet when the federal government finally took upon itself the cause of ridding our campuses (and, where possible, our nation) of these malignities, Jewish public figures rushed to condemn the deployment of state power on the Jews’ behalf. For perhaps the first time in history, a non-Jewish polity has decided that the fate of its Jews is intertwined with the fate of the nation as a whole and acts accordingly. And some Jews have chosen to stand athwart our defenders, yelling “Stop!”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits universities from tolerating environments that are hostile to individuals because of their national origin. If schools do not do enough to crack down on discrimination against Jews and Israelis—both are considered “national origins” under federal law—they can lose their federal support. And under long-established immigration law, noncitizens who take up the cause of terrorist organizations may be deported.

These tributaries of antidiscrimination and immigration law have blended on elite campuses, where foreign students and faculty have spearheaded a campaign of discriminatory harassment in service of terrorist organizations. Joined by young American leftists, they have used bullhorns, cement, spray paint, and just about any other instrument at hand to turn campuses into platforms for radical views. They have repeatedly forced the cancellation of classes, disrupted study sessions, destroyed libraries, pulled fire alarms on guest speakers, and blocked off campus thorough-fares. As if to demonstrate the subordination of edu-cation to activism with crystalline precision, some professors held classes within encampments—those “Zionist-free zones”—or offered extra credit for participation in demonstrations.

Is this the system of higher education the American people want to support to the tune of billions per year? Clearly not. Enter the Trump 2 administration, which has made no secret of its antipathy toward higher education in its current state. “Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education,” he tweeted in July 2020. “Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!” Conservatives have long lamented the corruption of the university, manifesting in ideological uniformity, stifling speech codes, and the proliferation of thoughtless activism. It was a matter of time before a Republican administration would use its legal leverage and threaten to revoke universities’ federal funding and even tax-exempt status.

And pervasive anti-Semitism, which had exploded but met little pushback from the Biden administration, provided an opening. A newly formed federal task force nominally focused on anti-Semitism first targeted Columbia University, which had been wracked by building occupations, vandalism, and a vacuum of leadership. “We’re going to bankrupt these universities,” said its chair, Leo Terrell. “We’re going to take away every single federal dollar.” The task force first froze some discretionary grants while threatening that the worst was yet to come. Mimicking one part of the Title VI enforcement process—during which universities must be allowed to come into “voluntary compliance” with government-determined remedial measures—the administration made its demands. If Columbia did not expel or suspend students who had broken into and occupied Hamilton Hall, ban masks on campus, treat anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, place the Middle Eastern Studies Department under academic receivership, begin reforming admissions procedures, and more, it would lose billions in federal support. Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, agreed publicly to cooperate with the demands while privately vowing not to. She resigned a few weeks later. As of now, the extent of Columbia’s acquiescence remains unclear.

Branding the Jew: From Medieval France to Modern Times

But just as the badge has been used for humiliation, it has also been transformed into defiance.

On October 30, 2023, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, while speaking to the Security Council chamber he decided to wear a yellow Star of David emblazoned with the words “Never Again.”

This wasn’t submission. It wasn’t shame. It was an accusation. It was a statement of anger toward a world that, once again, was showing itself too comfortable with ignoring Jewish suffering—this time after the October 7 Hamas massacre.

Erdan declared:
“From this day on, my team and I will wear yellow stars…”

Some criticized the move, others, like me, saw it for what it was: the reclaiming of a symbol once used to mark Jews for death, now worn by a sovereign representative of a Jewish state at the heart of global diplomacy making a bold and clear statement, NEVER AGAIN. What was once imposed by kings, popes, and Nazis was now worn by choice, in defiance.

And look at where we are now. Today it’s not medieval kings or inquisitors—it’s the United Nations itself leading the inquisition. Just yesterday, they released a report accusing Israel of “exterminating” the Palestinian people, not only a complete distortion and lie, it completely ignored the crimes of Hamas. Complete reality inversion. Last year, on Holocaust Remembrance Day 2024, it was revealed that UN employees actively took part in the October 7 massacre—murdering, raping, kidnapping—while others helped conceal hostages or praised the slaughter online. Today, 622 days later, 53 hostages are still in Gaza in the hands of those who truly carried out acts of extermination.

Today is also the 23rd of Sivan, the day Queen Esther gave the Jewish people the legal right to fight back. A day to remember that survival, liberation and victory starts with that right. That is what Israel is doing against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime racing to get nuclear weapons, a regime who will do anything in its power to wipe Israel out of the map.

History echoes. It rhymes. And sometimes, if we’re not careful, it repeats. That’s why it shouldn’t just sit in books; it should be remembered and analyzed.

Always remember: It always starts with the Jews. But it never ends there.

Never again not just a promise, it is also recognizing the signs. And never again is not a slogan—it’s now.

Read More

06/19 Links Pt1: How Israel Stunned Iran; The Fordow Conundrum; ‘This is a war crime’: Herzog tours Beersheva hospital hit by Iranian missile

From Ian:

How Israel Stunned Iran

Israel stunned and hobbled Iran when it pulled off an intelligence and military operation years in the making that struck high-level targets with precision.

Guided by spies and artificial intelligence, the Israeli military unleashed a nighttime fusillade of warplanes and armed drones smuggled into Iran to quickly incapacitate many of its air defenses and missile systems.

"This attack is the culmination of years of work by the Mossad to target Iran's nuclear program," said Sima Shine, former head of research at Israel's spy agency, the Mossad, and now an analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies.

An intelligence officer involved with selecting individuals and sites to target said Israel used the latest artificial-intelligence (AI) technology to quickly sift through troves of intelligence.

Israeli Secret Services Used Fake Phone Call to Lure Iran's Air Force Elite to Their Deaths

Israel's Mossad secret service used a fake phone call to trick 20 members of Iran's air force senior staff into gathering at a single location before taking them out in a targeted strike, Israel's Channel 12 reported on Monday.

Using falsified communications through Iranian channels, the Mossad triggered what appeared to be an emergency meeting that successfully drew the entire senior leadership of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, including Commander Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, his deputies, and key technical personnel, into a fortified bunker outside Tehran.

The bunker was hit in a precision airstrike. There was no one alive to give the command to strike back.

10 Things They Don’t Want You to Know About Israel’s War With Iran

7️⃣ The Iranian TV Station Israel Hit Used to Broadcasts Torture and Forced Confessions
One of Israel’s precision strikes hit an IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) facility in Tehran. Western headlines breathlessly called it a “TV station.” What they didn’t tell you is that IRIB is a documented propaganda tool of the Iranian regime, broadcasting forced confessions, videos of prisoners tortured into false admissions, and televised “trials” of Iranian dissidents.

This wasn’t about silencing journalism.
It was about disrupting the machinery of state violence. IRIB is to journalism what ISIS beheading videos are to filmmaking.

8️⃣ Iran Used Cluster Bombs — A War Crime
During its retaliation, Iran used cluster munitions — weapons banned by over 120 countries — on Israeli civilian areas. These weapons are designed to scatter dozens or hundreds of small bombs over a wide area, maximizing civilian casualties.

Why didn’t the UN issue immediate condemnations?
Why didn’t the UN issue immediate condemnations? Because when the target is Israel, the rules don’t apply. The use of cluster bombs against civilians is the very definition of a war crime, yet major international human rights organizations have not even acknowledged it. The media is completely silent.

Meanwhile, for over 15 years, the same media and “human rights” groups have relentlessly pushed false allegations that Israel uses white phosphorus indiscriminately in civilian areas—claims never backed by credible evidence. White phosphorus is not banned under international law when used according to the rules of warfare. Yet these very organizations have chosen to ignore the clear use of cluster munitions by Iran, a weapon widely banned precisely because of its horrific impact on civilians.

This glaring double standard exposes a selective application of human rights rhetoric—one that protects certain actors while turning a blind eye to others’ crimes.

9️⃣ Hundreds of Iranian Regime Loyalists Are Already Living in Canada — More Are Coming
While Iran fires advanced missiles at Israeli civilians, hundreds of Iranian regime-connected insiders are living peaceful, suburban lives in Canada. Many have links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and more are seeking entry.

Where’s the urgency from Canadian government?
The same Canadian activists who scream about settler colonialism and apartheid won’t mention that Tehran’s ideological enforcers are buying homes and starting businesses in their own neighborhoods. Islamic Republic leaders seeking shelter in Canada now that is about to fall.

Read More

06/18 Links Pt2: The ‘America First’ Crew’s Complete Disregard for American Lives; Zohran Mamdani justifies “globalize the intifada” by saying the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was an intifada.

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The ‘America First’ Crew’s Complete Disregard for American Lives

As an American, I have a hard time shrugging this off. As an American, I find it increasingly difficult to even understand the psychology of those who can shrug it off. And as an American, I find it incomprehensible that the defenders of these innocent American victims are accused of being disloyal Americans.

“They were schoolyard bullies,” Trump said of Iran this morning. “But now they’re not bullies anymore.” He specifically mentioned the Iranians’ motto of “Death to America,” which was also their battle plan and organizing program. He seemed pleased that there were finally consequences for Iran’s long war on the United States, that there is a price to be paid for all Iran’s mischief.

And here is the most interesting part: The price Iran has paid has not, in fact, been steep or cruel and unusual. In the history of mankind, no nation’s civilians have been safer while an enemy state controls their airspace during a live war. There’s nothing really to even compare it to. We are watching something no one has ever watched before. Israel, in response to Iran’s pursuit of the destruction of the Jewish people, not to mention its role in the worst daylong mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, took control of Iran’s airspace and used that to patiently eliminate the sources of the Iranian regime’s power to oppress its people.

Trump supports this. If it feels to the keyboard warriors of isolationism like there is a degree of pressure to support these strikes, that is because those who are comfortable with Iranian nuclear acquisition, which would grant the regime full immunity from all its ongoing crimes against America and Americans, are in the minority.

It is also because they must intuitively question, on some level, their own decision to draw the line in the sand right here. When Trump ordered the elimination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria in 2019, the handwringing from his MAGA supporters was muted. The same is true for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian terror general in charge of a global campaign to murder Americans. It was not cause for much in the way of hysterical warnings of apocalyptic warmongering.

The difference this time, of course, is Israel’s direct involvement. Most Americans seem to think this is a good thing—we have an allied nation willing to sacrifice to keep our common enemies down—but a few are uncomfortable for reasons they do not try very hard to disguise.

Whatever “America First” means, surely it ought not to mean a coldblooded heartlessness toward the victims of totalitarian terror, many of whom are Americans themselves. Nor should it mean an instinctive suspicion of anyone who seeks the defeat of America’s enemies.

John Ondrasik: My 2001 Hit Song, ‘Superman,’ Is for the Hostages in Gaza

I turned to “Superman,” hoping to remind the world that the hostages are people, not statistics. They are brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Music would bring out this shared humanity after the Jewish people experienced their worst trauma since the Holocaust, just like music uplifted an America shattered by 9/11.

“Superman” is a message of hope, solidarity and unity. Yet the unity of 2001 feels elusive. In response to my compassion for the hostages, I’ve been called a sellout and propagandist. For whom or what, I don’t know. I’ve been told I should “stick to music.” My new video with Alon’s family—shared by hostage families, supported by human-rights advocates, played in synagogues and town halls—triggered an onslaught of online vitriol.

“Superman” isn’t political. It’s emotional. It’s all of us. I can’t understand how connecting it to the obvious cause of Israeli hostages unleashed a torrent of hate from people who have never listened to the lyrics, never watched the video, and never cared to understand what this moment is truly about. To them, taking a stand—any stand—means choosing sides in someone else’s war. Yet the hostages aren’t political. This is a basic moral issue.

I’ve written political music before. When I released “Blood on My Hands” in 2021, condemning the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, I expected blowback. I got it. But I accepted that because the song was overtly political. It pointed fingers, demanded accountability. It became the voice for veterans of the war in Afghanistan who were gutted by the withdrawal. Similarly, I wrote “Can One Man Save the World” to support Ukraine, and then recorded a video for it with a Ukrainian orchestra in the bombed-out Antonov airport. I chose a side, and again expected the criticism I received.

Yet there is no way to pick a side over Oct. 7. The horrors of that day stand alone. My critics believe that expressing empathy for one group means you must hate another. You have to either be “oppressor” or “oppressed,” though I’m not sure who Alon Ohel is oppressing from the tunnels of Gaza. In the face of these absurd labels, there’s no room for conversation, let alone reality.

When did we lose the ability to say “I see suffering, and I choose to respond with compassion”? How can anyone be reluctant to say a simple phrase like “Free the Hostages”? Would anyone prefer they stay put, starving and abused underground? When did we become so tribal that Americans could label a song dangerous, divisive or, worse, genocidal, simply because it refuses to dehumanize one side over the other?

Music is where we should be able to meet honestly without enmity. As I sing in “Superman,” I’m not naive. I know a song can’t stop a war, but it can start a conversation. It can open a heart. It can remind us that behind every headline is a human being who bleeds and loves and cries just like we do.

Rigged, Corrupt, and False: The UN Just Accused Israel of “Extermination"

The UN’s latest accusation of “extermination” against Israel is not just false—it’s the culmination of a rigged, corrupt process designed to shield terrorists and slander the Jewish state.

International law was created to protect humanity from horrors like genocide, mass murder, and systemic oppression. But what happens when those very laws are hijacked—used not to protect the innocent, but to cover for terrorists and smear their victims?

Welcome to the world of the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Israel, chaired by Navi Pillay. The COI’s latest June 2025 report accuses Israel of the crime of extermination—a grotesque inversion of reality that exposes the entire commission for what it is: propaganda in legal drag. The UN’s Permanent Inquisition

Unlike past UN inquiries that had defined time frames, this Commission of Inquiry is permanent. Established after the 2021 Hamas-Israel war, it was designed to create an endless cycle of condemnation against Israel, regardless of facts. The COI doesn’t just investigate events—it investigates Israel’s existence.

Its leadership? Activists pretending to be in judges’ robes.
Navi Pillay has long lobbied for sanctions against Israel and supports the antisemitic BDS movement.
Miloon Kothari publicly ranted about “the Jewish lobby,” comments so outrageous even the U.S. condemned them as “antisemitic, inappropriate, and corrosive.”
Chris Sidoti mocked accusations of antisemitism, claiming that “Jews throw around accusations of antisemitism like rice at a wedding.”

This is not impartiality. This is a rigged trial. The methodology behind the COI's latest report has raised significant concerns, particularly regarding its lack of transparency. The report relies heavily on anonymous testimony and unverifiable sources, with little to no forensic evidence to back up its claims.

Read More

06/18 Links Pt1: This Is Israel’s ‘Finest Hour’ — And Iran’s Turning Point; Israel Hits Iranian Weapons Depots, Internal Security HQ As Trump Weighs US Involvement

From Ian:

Roz Rothstein: Iran’s Nuclear Escalation Is Not Just Israel’s Problem — It’s the World’s

Many talking heads who disagree with Israel’s preemptive attack on Iran are asking, “What is Israel’s endgame?” The answer should be obvious. Israel’s end goal is to prevent an existential threat from, and denuclearize, a theocratic government that has openly called for the destruction of not just one nation, but an entire people. Iran left Israel no choice. The alternative would have been to wait for a nuclear-armed dictatorship to make good on its promises of annihilation.

It is important to remember that this is not Israel’s first confrontation with existential threats. From its founding, Israel has been forced to defend itself against those who sought its destruction. But what we are seeing now is different. This is not another border conflict or skirmish with a non-state terrorist actor funded by Iran. This is a direct confrontation with Iran, a regime that has both the ideology and, increasingly, the capacity to inflict catastrophic damage, not only on Israel but on the broader international community.

What would the world expect Israel to do in this moment? Sit silently while its enemies prepare weapons of mass murder? Wait until the regime that funds more terror proxies than any other country in the world gains the ability to launch nuclear warheads? Every sovereign nation has the right — and the duty — to defend its people. When that nation is the first target of a radical regime’s nuclear ambitions, that duty becomes urgent and non-negotiable.

Now is the time for moral clarity and international resolve. A maniacal regime with nuclear ambitions that openly threatens to destroy Israel, the U.S., and the West, cannot be appeased or ignored. This is not just an Israeli problem. It is a test of the world’s ability to recognize evil, call it by its name, and confront it before it is too late.

Israel is on the front lines, but the danger reaches far beyond its borders. What Iran is attempting is not just a regional conflict — it is a challenge to the global order. If the world fails to stop Iran now, the consequences will be felt from Jerusalem to London to New York and beyond. The safety of our shared future depends on our ability to see the threat that is staring us in the face, and to act — not with delay, not with equivocation, but with unity, courage and resolve.

By defanging Iran, Trump would also bloody China and Russia

Clearly, it is in America’s best interest to give Israel what it needs to succeed, and to pursue a strategy that exploits Iran’s multiple internal and external pressure points to further weaken the regime’s hand.

This is important not just for containing Iran, but because of the message it will send Iran’s autocratic allies, Russia and China, about America’s commitment to restoring deterrence.

Make no mistake: Russia and China are also — at least metaphorically — being bloodied by Israel’s success.

The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria last year already dealt a blow to this alliance’s strategic depth in the region; the prospect of a weakened or collapsed Iran puts put an even larger dent in the armor of this dangerous partnership.

More importantly, by demonstrating American resolve on the issue of nuclear proliferation, dictators like Xi Jinping will have to think twice before making any aggressive or destabilizing moves — for example, in the South China Sea, or toward Taiwan.

To critics who argue that America is on the verge of being dragged into yet another Middle Eastern entanglement, it’s worth remembering that wars generally start when bad actors perceive weakness — not the other way around.

Brendan O'Neill: Israel’s clash with Iran is nothing like the Iraq War

For the Iraq comparison to carry moral weight, Saddam would have had to have attacked the US and the UK – and savagely. In Britain, which has a population of 70million to Israel’s nearly 10million, he would have had to have funded a terror army that slaughtered 8,400 of our people. And sponsored fanatical militants who fired 35,000 rockets at our cities, causing nearly half a million Brits to be displaced. And fired 2,500 of his own missiles directly at our cities. I was implacably opposed to the Iraq War, but if Saddam had visited such horrors on my countrymen I would have supported action against him. I’m an anti-imperialist, not a hippy.

Regionally, too, the Iraq comparison speaks to the ahistoricism of Israel’s critics. The worst thing about the Iraq War is that it was a violent pummelling of a destitute nation. War with Iran, war with Kuwait, war with its own freedom-yearning Kurdish population, war with America, the UN-enforced partition of its lands, the UN’s sanctions that caused chronic hunger and disease – Iraq was a feeble, pathetic half-nation in 2003. ‘Our’ war against it was pure moral pantomime, with well-known deadly consequences.

Iran, by contrast, is an energetic actor in the Middle East. It does pose a strategic threat. It deploys its proxies to the imperial end of extending its theocratic writ across the region. It has fought brutal proxy wars with Saudi Arabia, most notably in Yemen. And it unquestionably menaces Israel. Its missiles and its proxies’ pogroms are testament to that. Iran’s dream – openly – is to eradicate the Jewish State. Which other nation on Earth would be told to chill out in the face of such an extremist neighbour which in both word and deed had made plain its annihilationist aspirations?

The ‘invoking of the spectre of Iraq’ deserves ridicule. If people want to campaign against US or UK assistance for Israel’s war with Iran, that’s their business. I don’t want to see Western boots on the ground in Iran – let the IDF and the mullahs fight this war that Iran started. But the frothing anger with Israel for waging a supposed ‘forever war’, the feverish depiction of Israel’s leaders as modern-day Bushes or Blairs promising the world nothing but catastrophe, smacks of political infantilism. An addiction to the easy anti-war positions of the 2000s has blinded people to the moral and even civilisational questions raised by the multi-pronged Islamist effort to destroy the Jewish State.

Israel’s critics see themselves as being on the side of peace. Really? In railing against Israel for striking back against the regime that has visited extreme violence on its people, they are essentially instructing the Jewish State to live meekly alongside an existential hazard. They want to maintain a status quo ante in which the permanent threat of annihilation hangs over Israel. They see the existential endangerment of the Jews of Israel as a small price to pay for their own peace of mind. That isn’t ‘peace’ – it’s the displacement of war on to the Jews in order to save non-Jews’ arses.

It’s understandable that Iraq gave rise to a new isolationism. But it’s clear now that concern about that war has curdled into a deep and fretful cynicism where military action of any kind is viewed suspiciously. The role of the ‘Iraq spectre’ in public life is less to promote a principled opposition to Western interference in the affairs of other states than to institutionalise a politics of precaution in which every nation is encouraged to batten down the hatches lest ‘another Iraq’ occur. Between this nervous isolationism and the imperial hubris of those who smashed Iraq, there’s something else: internationalism, a support for democratic liberation everywhere. Israel has a right to defend itself against anti-Semitic tyrants, and Iranians have the right to choose who rules them – those are my uneasy positions.

John Spencer: What Is the Bomb Israel Needs from the U.S. to Quickly Destroy Fordow?

Why Fordow Is the Ultimate MOP Target
The Fordow facility is not just underground. It is inside a mountain, roughly 260 to 295 feet below the surface. Iran’s engineers designed it to survive even advanced airstrikes. The facility is thought to be constructed beneath at least 80 meters of rock, potentially reinforced by concrete and blast-resistant barriers. It is one of the most protected uranium enrichment plants on Earth.

Fordow’s depth and fortification render it immune to standard air-to-ground munitions. Even advanced Israeli bunker busters like the GBU-28 would likely fail to reach the centrifuge halls.

Some analysts believe that two MOPs may be required to guarantee mission success at Fordow. The first would weaken or breach the protective layers, and the second, following in short succession, could then reach and detonate inside the heart of the facility. This tandem-strike approach would maximize the likelihood of collapsing the internal chambers or destroying centrifuges beyond repair.

Could Fordow Be Attacked Another Way?
While the GBU-57 is the most capable conventional weapon for destroying the Fordow facility, it is not the only potential option. Israel has demonstrated alternative approaches, most notably in Operation Many Ways in 2024, where Israel conducted a complex, multi-domain campaign deep inside Syrian territory. That operation involved deception, intelligence penetration, cyber disruption, precision strikes, and a special forces raid on the ground to eliminate the high-value missile construction facility by placing explosive inside it and then extracting the Israeli soldiers. A similarly bold campaign could theoretically be designed to target Fordow, possibly involving cyber attacks to disable critical systems, electronic warfare, or even special operations forces inserted to destroy key components from within. However, such an approach would carry significantly higher risks, including mission failure, and loss of personnel. Compared to these contingencies, the GBU-57 remains the most direct, reliable, and strategically low-risk option to ensure the physical destruction of Fordow’s deeply buried enrichment infrastructure.

A Strategic Choice for the United States
As Israel weighs its military options against Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program, the question is not whether it has the will to strike Fordow. It is whether it has the means. The United States is the only country in the world with the capability to field the GBU-57. Granting Israel access to the weapon would involve not only transferring the munition but also addressing the delivery platform, a logistical and geopolitical decision of the highest order.

There is no substitute for the GBU-57 in this mission set. It is not just the bomb Israel needs. It is the only bomb that can do the job.

Read More

06/17 Links Pt2: Kasparov: Israel Won’t Fall for the Illusion of Stability; Leftists for the ayatollah?; Trump: Greatest Peacemaker of the Century

From Ian:

Garry Kasparov: Israel Won’t Fall for the Illusion of Stability

Pour one out for Ben Rhodes. In some ways, The World as It Is is a perfect title for the longtime Obama foreign policy adviser’s memoir, because the illusion of the status quo is all that Rhodes and his fellow travelers could ever stomach in geopolitics. But it was always just that: an illusion. Rhodes never really looked at the world as it is; he simply imagined a facade of post–Cold War stability. The historic Israeli military campaign against Iran that began last week represents another crack in that facade, joining the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and the Arab Spring.

After spending the past year and a half knocking out one Iranian proxy after another, Israel has dealt the Islamic Republic a heavy blow in recent days. Not just militarily, but politically too. Israeli forces killed a number of senior officials in Tehran, including the chief of staff of the military, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force, and a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And that was just in the first few hours. I suspect that the occupational hazards associated with employment in the Iranian government will continue to grow with each passing day.

Now that the Islamic Republic is severely weakened, the alarmist foreign policy commentariat is apprising us of the unacceptable risks, raising their well-worn red flags. (Or should I say white flags?) “Escalation!” “Global war!” And the ultimate enemy of the status quo: “regime change!” In the shadow of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, I don’t doubt that Rhodes and some like him had good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Under President Obama, American officials frequently stared down the nastiest offenders in the international rogues’ gallery and insisted that there was “no military solution.” “No military solution” might sound nice to enlightened ears. Unfortunately, it’s a meaningless slogan. Tellingly, Russian officials repeat it all the time too. The Russian ambassador to the UN used that Ben Rhodes-esque turn of phrase at the Security Council, declaring that “no military solution can be legitimate or viable” in Iran. But Russia does believe there are military solutions to its problems—ask any Ukrainian, Syrian, or Georgian. Yet too many in Washington remain determined to fight armed marauders with flowery words.

The initial takeaway from Rhodes on the well-earned battering that the Iranian regime has received was that “this war will above all harm innocent people for no good reason.”

In the shadow of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, I don’t doubt that Rhodes and some like him had good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Notice the reliance on the future tense. Status-quo huggers hide behind fear of what might happen instead of confronting the brutal truth of what’s actually happened or is happening. Call it a preference for deadly reality over frightening uncertainty.

Andrew Fox: Israel’s bold, and dangerous, gamble

So what does ‘success’ look like for each side? For Israel, the best-case scenario in Iran is that a combination of internal unrest, elite fragmentation and sustained sabotage, along with airstrikes, either collapse the regime or force it to retreat from its nuclear programme. The second-best outcome would be a significant delay to Iran’s nuclear programme, perhaps buying a decade or more. The worst-case scenario is that Iran weathers the storm and sprints for a bomb.

For Iran, ‘success’ means surviving the onslaught while projecting strength, deterring future attacks through visible retaliation and perhaps leveraging the threat of nuclear capability to force concessions. If Tehran can maintain regional influence, continue enrichment and keep Israel guessing, it will consider that a strategic win. The Iranians may accept Trump’s offer of a deal to reconsider their nuclear ambitions, although this would represent a humbling strategic defeat.

There is a darker prospect, too: unending escalation. This cycle could spiral into a painful and damaging campaign of attrition for both sides. Should Iran refuse to compromise, firmly on the back foot and battered from the skies, it is conceivable that Israel will escalate. This could mean striking at the political leadership itself, and forcing the regime change Israel is currently only hinting at.

Which brings us to the crucial question: how does this de-escalate? At present, it does not. Neither side is incentivised to back down. Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat; Iran perceives Israeli aggression as justification for doubling down. The lack of a credible mediator and the erosion of American deterrence highlight just how fragile the situation is.

One path to stability may lie in backchannel diplomacy, particularly if the US and Gulf states can persuade Iran to halt enrichment in exchange for an end to hostilities. However, Israel’s leadership seems to have little faith in diplomacy and no desire for a pause. They believe time is not on their side.

Israel’s absolute penetration of Iran’s security environment and its total air supremacy over its enemy’s capital city should be understood as both a message and a warning. It says: ‘We are inside your defences. We can strike you at will.’ It also reveals a strategic conundrum. Israel has embarked on a campaign that may be beyond its means to finish. Effective as these strikes are, they may not stop Iran’s nuclear drive and might even accelerate it.

What began with a covert drone strike has now turned into open conflict. Rockets are being fired at Israeli cities and airstrikes are lighting up the skies over Tehran. Israel is gambling on precision, pressure and psychological warfare to bring down a regime it hopes to bomb into submission. Iran is betting that it can absorb the blows, outlast its enemies and emerge nuclear-armed. Both sides are pushing the boundaries of strategy and restraint.

Right now, neither side has the option to stop. Both are willing to find out what happens when they do not. Whatever happens next could shape the Middle East for decades.

Michael Oren: Trump: Greatest Peacemaker of the Century

For many years now, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, American diplomacy on Iran has focused on curbing its nuclear program. Successive presidents have pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But that approach, however admirable, did not seek to deny Iran the ability to make nuclear weapons nor did it address what was euphemistically called Iran’s “malign behavior.”

That behavior includes Iran’s status as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror attacks that have claimed countless lives on multiple continents. The regime has murdered Iranian dissidents around the world and tried to assassinate senior American officials, among them President Trump. The Islamic Republic has supplied the missiles and drones used to kill thousands of Ukrainians and helped ignite the current disastrous Middle East war by backing Hamas and Hezbollah. The regime enabled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to massacre a half million of his own countrymen and the Houthi terrorists in Yemen to block international shipping. Pro-Iranian militias launched dozens of attacks against US bases in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria killing and wounding American soldiers. And the Ayatollahs did all this while brutally oppressing their own people, women, LGBT+, and ethnic minorities especially. Malign behavior indeed.

By insisting that Iran not only limit its nuclear program but dismantle it, President Trump is the first world leader to ensure that the regime will neither have nuclear weapons now nor the means to produce them in the future. But once the Ayatollahs are defeated or overthrown, the president can achieve vastly more.

The president can end Iran’s support for global terror, its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and its supply of the weapons that kill Ukrainians. The president can guarantee the sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon and the demilitarization of Yemen and Gaza. Through President Trump’s diplomacy, Iranians can once again enjoy freedom.

The fall of the Islamic Republic’s empire can give rise to peace between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Iran itself. A ceasefire deal can be achieved in Gaza and all of the Israeli hostages released. The Middle East will be thoroughly and stunningly transformed. President Trump will be hailed as modern history’s greatest peacemaker.

David Harsanyi: Iran is nothing like the Iraq War

Iran, of course, has been an enemy of the U.S. for over four decades, regularly taking American citizens hostage, hatching assassination plots against U.S. leaders, undermining U.S. interests in the Middle East, and threatening Gulf allies and international shipping lanes. Iran is responsible for the death of over 600 American troops, or approximately 1 in every 6 combat fatalities in Iraq, maiming thousands of others. Imagine how fundamentalist Islamic leadership would conduct itself with nuclear warheads.

It is, in case anyone has forgotten, the longtime position of the U.S. that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons. This was, ostensibly at least, the purpose of former President Barack Obama’s deal with the mullahs. Remember that Ben Rhodes’s “echo chamber” narrative was conceived to gin up support for the failed Iran deal. Trump, who backed out of that disastrous agreement, has on multiple occasions not only unequivocally stated that Iran would be denied nuclear weapons, but that he would allow Israel to take out the program. “Hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later” does not sound like the sentiments of a neoconservative nation builder but a pragmatic Western leader.

Though Israelis have likely funded and employed public relations efforts to boost the prospect of internal opposition groups, not one leader has ever expressed any interest in landing troops on Iranian soil for any occupation to make it happen. If Iranians want to depose the Khamenei regime, and they have shown repeatedly that they do, they will have to do the hard work themselves.

For Israel, the strategic goal is clear: degrade, hopefully destroy, Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb. Israel is trying to win a war of survival, not remake the Middle East. Numerous outlets have reported that Israel has asked the U.S. to participate in strikes. This might be true, or it might be information warfare. Perhaps the story was planted to scare the Iranians into surrendering. Perhaps Israel could use help destroying the Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep under the mountainside. Doing so would be in our best interests as well.

As of this writing, however, there is no evidence that the U.S. has engaged in any combat missions. The Iranians, thus far, haven’t attacked any American bases in the region because the last thing they need is further pulling us into the conflict.

And it’s about time rogue terrorist regimes were terrified of the U.S. again.

Read More

06/17 Links Pt1: Israel cannot settle for a temporary military win, it must topple the Islamic regime; The Simple Reasons Behind Trump’s Support for ‘Operation Rising Lion’

From Ian:

Armin Rosen: Can Israel End Iran’s Nuclear Program?

The United States is the only country in the world with the ability to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility quickly from the air, something we could accomplish by dropping a couple 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on the most important and heavily protected piece of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Such a strike would potentially reset the entirety of international arms control.

Since the early 1970s, the world has depended on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the U.N. Security Council to maintain a global system that regulates the spread and development of nuclear weapons technology, placing American adversaries like China and Russia at the apex of the arms control system and creating layers of bureaucracy and diplomacy that would-be proliferators have learned to exploit. Pakistan, India, and North Korea have all built nuclear arsenals in defiance of the NPT. Until this week, Iran was very close to joining them.

The global arms control regime never considered Fordow—or, for that matter, Yongbyon, the site of North Korea’s nuclear breakthroughs in the mid-’90s—to be sufficiently serious a threat to global peace to warrant military action. Interestingly enough, the three most recent instances of a country using force to stop an in-progress nuclear program—namely, the Israeli attacks on Iraq, Syria, and Iran—were launched by a state that isn’t a signatory to the NPT. So far the United States has declined to attack North Korean and Iranian nuclear sites. If Donald Trump were to reverse course and bomb Fordow, he would reorient all of global nonproliferation around American strategic judgment and leadership. A successful U.S. attack on Fordow would establish a precedent that a would-be atomic scofflaw couldn’t ignore, with Washington acting as the final bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons in cases where the NPT regime failed.

But what if Trump decides stanching the tide of nuclear weapons is a job better left to the Chinas and Russias of the world? What if the Israelis are really on their own here? One of the big unknowns of Operation Rising Lion is the extent of the damage Israel has been able to inflict on the Iranian nuclear program so far. Clarifying the issue requires both scientific expertise and deep knowledge of the entire Iranian nuclear-industrial complex.

Almost no one on earth is more qualified to talk about Israel’s progress against the Iranian bomb than the physicist and former IAEA inspector David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). The institute has already published a detailed summary of the likely impact of Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. I spoke to Albright on Monday afternoon to get an update on where things stand. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Israel cannot settle for a temporary military win, it must topple the Islamic regime

Israel’s immediate military actions have, by all accounts, been successful in degrading Tehran’s most critical threats. The three pillars of the regime's threat – its nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, and its global terror network – have been shaken. But to believe these setbacks are permanent is to ignore decades of history. The Islamic Republic’s ambition is resilient. Its nuclear program, though damaged, retains its most crucial asset: the knowledge to build a bomb. The scientists may be gone, the centrifuges shattered, but the blueprints remain. History shows us that after every setback, Tehran has rebuilt its program with greater speed, sophistication, and secrecy. To allow this regime to survive is to guarantee that it will rise from the rubble more determined than ever to cross the nuclear threshold, this time building deeper, more fortified sites, and learning from every Israeli success.

Similarly, its ballistic missile program is not merely a strategic asset; it is a core pillar of its regional dominance and its primary threat against the Israeli home front. While stockpiles can be destroyed and launch sites cratered, the industrial base and the engineering expertise remain. The regime’s leaders are driven by ideological and strategic imperative to maintain and advance this capability. They will rebuild, and they will aim for missiles that are faster, more precise, and capable of overwhelming any defense system.

Finally, the regime’s tentacular support for terrorism has been its primary method of waging war for decades. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq, this proxy network is Iran’s way of bleeding its enemies without risking a direct state-on-state war. Disrupting weapons convoys and eliminating commanders are necessary tactical actions, but they do not address the source of the cancer. As long as the head of the snake remains in Tehran, it will continue to fund, arm, and direct its legion of proxies to sow chaos and violence on Israel’s borders.

The nature of this regime is not subject to negotiation. It will not be pacified by diplomacy or deterred by temporary military defeats. Its commitment to regional hegemony and the destruction of Israel is woven into its very DNA.

Therefore, Israel faces a stark choice. It can heed the calls for de-escalation, enjoy a fleeting moment of victory, and allow a wounded and vengeful regime to reconstitute its strength for the next, more lethal, round. Or, it can commit to a policy that sees this conflict through to its only logical conclusion: to topple the regime once and for all. It is time to stop trimming the branches of the poison tree and focus on uprooting it entirely.

Andrew Fox: How This Phase of the Israel-Iran War Will End

With that being said, Andrew Fox is fairly optimistic, writing that “this war is won already.” He explains:

Israeli air supremacy has decimated Iran’s military infrastructure. At the same time, Iran’s missile salvos appear to be diminishing in scale daily as the IDF degrades Iranian launcher capability. Missiles have been intercepted for the most part, although they continue to inflict casualties.

Although Iran insists it will not negotiate under fire, its backchannel diplomacy conveys a different narrative. The regime seeks a face-saving way out. This is a surrender.

But the details of a negotiated peace could vary, and in the worst-case scenario, Fox writes,

the regime would frame it as a heroic stand: Iran “resisted Zionist aggression,” inflicted damage on Israel, and emerged intact. State media would highlight Israeli casualties and missile damage as proof of Iranian strength, while portraying international ceasefire efforts as evidence that the world fears Iran’s power. This narrative of resilience could temporarily bolster the regime’s fragile legitimacy.

However, this “victory” would be highly costly and precarious. Israeli strikes have devastated Iran’s military infrastructure, degraded the leadership of the [Revolutionary Guard], and set back its nuclear program, albeit not permanently. The economy, already crippled by sanctions, would be in an even worse condition, with oil facilities, airports, and industrial sites all damaged. Rebuilding would take years.

If Iran does not find a way to reach a deal, Israel will capitalize on its advantage and try to collapse the Iranian regime. The IDF, having achieved air supremacy, will target the regime’s backbone: command bunkers, nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure, and symbols of state authority.

At this stage, there is nothing at all to stop Israel from relentlessly pounding Iran until it surrenders. There seems to be no shortage of ammunition, and American resupply can happen at will. Despite international media attempts to portray a tit-for-tat scenario, it has been an overwhelming victory for Israel. This is not even a debate.

Read More

06/16 Links Pt2: Israel’s actions are a favour to Europe – but don’t expect a thank you; France walls off Israeli pavilion at Paris Air Show; The march of the useful idiots

From Ian:

Israel’s actions are a favour to Europe – but don’t expect a thank you

Blame Hollywood if you like, but Britain has drifted into that cliché scene where by-standers beg the hero not to cut the red wire. This week’s by-standers are Cabinet ministers and assorted world leaders, panicked that Israeli pilots might finish the job on Iran’s nuclear programme. The talk is all about “de-escalation”, as though you can politely handcuff a centrifuge and hope it learns some manners. Yet the red wire in question is attached to Tehran’s nuclear-bomb-in-waiting, and – brace yourself – Israel is prepared to yank it out.

Let’s admit what the diplomatic communiqués whisper: Iran is not enriching uranium for a school science prize. The International Atomic Energy Agency counts hundreds of kilos sitting at 60 per cent, a couple of turns from weapons-grade. Strap that payload to an intermediate-range Shahab and the footprint stretches far beyond Tel Aviv to nearby Europe. If you want a working definition of “clear and present danger”, that’s it – especially when the regime boasts that its reach is now “continental”.

Meanwhile, every time you map the region’s misery you find Tehran’s fingerprints. Hezbollah’s missiles in Lebanon, Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, Shia militias turning Iraqi highways into shooting galleries, Houthis lobbing drones across the Red Sea – each a franchise in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ terror food-court. Pay, train, arm, repeat. The ayatollahs have franchised terror into a geopolitical Deliveroo – dispatching proxy couriers who drop rockets on Israel and drones on Red Sea shipping.

Against that backdrop, the suggestion that Israel must be reined in feels almost zoological – like silencing the guard dog while the burglar assembles Semtex in the neighbourhood. Yes, Israel’s operations spark unease; a bombing run is nobody’s idea of diplomacy. But allowing Iran to complete its nuclear sprint would be more than an escalation: it would be a time-release calamity.

Israel’s pilots and engineers are, in effect, buying the civilised world time that sanctions, resolutions and strongly worded letters never could. Knocking out centrifuges today means fewer warheads tomorrow, and fewer warheads means no regional arms race in 2030. In the cold arithmetic of strategy, that is a favour to every European capital even if they’re too squeamish to send so much as a thank-you tweet.

NYT's Editorial: Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses.

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, has suggested a “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, with the D’s being delegitimization, demonization and double standards. Progressive rhetoric has regularly failed that test in recent years. “Americans generally have greater ability to identify Jew hatred when it comes from the hard right and less ability and comfort to call out Jew hatred when it comes from the hard left or radical Islamism,” said Rachel Fish, an adviser to Brandeis University’s Presidential Initiative on Antisemitism.

Consider the double standard that leads to a fixation on Israel’s human rights record and little campus activism about the records of China, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela or almost any other country. Consider how often left-leaning groups suggest that the world’s one Jewish state should not exist and express admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — Iran-backed terrorist groups that brag about murdering Jews. Consider how often people use “Zionist” as a slur — an echo of Soviet propaganda from the Cold War — and call for the exclusion of Zionists from public spaces. The definition of a Zionist is somebody who supports the existence of Israel.

Historical comparisons can also be instructive. The period since Oct. 7, 2023, is hardly the first time that global events have contributed to a surge in hate crimes against a specific group. Asian Americans were the victims in 2020 and 2021 after the Covid pandemic began in China. Muslim Americans were the victims after Sept. 11, 2001. In those periods, a few fringe voices, largely on the far right, tried to justify the hate, but the response from much of American society was denunciation. President George W. Bush visited a mosque on Sept. 17, 2001, and proclaimed, “Islam is peace.” During Covid, displays of Asian allyship filled social media.

Recent experience has been different in a couple of ways. One, the attacks against Jews have been even more numerous and violent, as the F.B.I. data shows. Two, the condemnation has been quieter and at times tellingly agonized. University leaders have often felt uncomfortable decrying antisemitism without also decrying Islamophobia. Islamophobia, to be clear, is a real problem that deserves attention on its own. Yet antisemitism seems to be a rare type of bigotry that some intellectuals are uncomfortable rebuking without caveat. After the Sept. 11 attacks, they did not feel the need to rebuke both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Nor should they have. People should be able to denounce a growing form of hatred without ritually denouncing other forms.

Alarmingly, the antisemitic rhetoric of both the political right and the left has filtered into justifications for violence. But there has been an asymmetry in recognizing the connections. After a gunman murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, observers correctly noted that he had become radicalized partly through racist right-wing social media. There has been a similar phenomenon in some recent attacks, this time with the assailants using the language of the left.

The man who burned marchers in Colorado shouted “Free Palestine!” and (awkwardly) “End Zionist!” The man charged with killing the young Israeli Embassy workers in Washington last month is suspected of having posted an online manifesto titled “Escalate for Gaza, Bring the War Home.” His supporters have since published a petition that includes “Globalize the Intifada.” The demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the right bore some responsibility for the Pittsburgh massacre; the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left bears some responsibility for the recent attacks.

Americans should be able to recognize the nuanced nature of many political debates while also recognizing that antisemitism has become an urgent problem. It is a different problem — and in many ways, a narrower one — than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America. Yet the new antisemitism has left Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group. Many Jews live with fears that they never expected to experience in this country.

No political arguments or ideological context can justify that bigotry. The choice is between denouncing it fully and encouraging an even broader explosion of hate.

Is The Simple Truth: ‘Progressives Hate Jews’?

We all know the saying – and apparent truism – that there will be peace in the Middle East when the Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate the Jews. But it seems increasingly apparent to me that something similar applies to so-called “progressive politics”. Campaigning organizations might one day achieve their campaigning goals when they value those goals more than they hate the Jews.

Last week we saw the unedifying spectacle of Environmental Campaigner Greta Thunburg – who only a short while ago claimed the “climate emergency” was the biggest existential threat to the planet. Of course, it wasn’t so great an emergency that she couldn’t take time out from it to deliver some groceries to Gaza as if she were Tuesday’s ‘Hello Fresh’ drop-off driver.

The Israel-Iran war gives us a few new examples of where anti-Israel activism seems to override the urgency of primary campaigning. Almost all of these groups state that their values include human rights, democracy, rights and protections for women and sexual minorities, and so on. So when they appear to condemn Israel – a society where these values have legal force – over Iran – where these values are forced to their knees – is there any conclusion other than this one?

“Progressives hate Jews so much that they are willing to support a theocratic dictatorship that stands against almost all of their core values against a Jewish state which reflects most of those values.”

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) apparently stands for a world free from the threat of nuclear war. So you’d think they’d be quite pleased when a mad theocracy on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb is stopped. But of course they aren’t.

“The British government must end its support for nuclear-armed Israel’s illegal war on Iran – a war based on lies used to justify attempts at regime change that risks widening a humanitarian catastrophe,” they raged.

Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) condemned Israel’s attacks on the grounds that attacking nuclear facilities might cause an environmental disaster. “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked,” scolded the agency head, Rafael Mariano Grossi. His organization is dedicated, they say, to “nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and to promote cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

Of course they don’t appear to have a plan to stop a rogue state weaponizing nuclear power other than to hope for the best while condemning any practical efforts to stop them. Perhaps they subscribe to the view formulated by President Barack Obama ten years ago. How’s that turning out?

Read More