Why has the US under President Donald Trump failed to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, an end to the Hamas war against Israel and the hostage crisis, an end to Houthi assaults on Israel, and an end to the Iranian nuclear bomb program?

Because Trump and his team have the wrong paradigm in mind. They approach everything with a pragmatist, transactional perspective. They see everything through dispassionate business eyeglasses. They think that America’s enemies do the same.

Worse still, Trump thinks that the weighty economic power of America and the force of his own HUGE personality will bend adversaries to his will.

But what if America’s challengers are motivated by deeper, darker purposes? What if Russia, Iran, Hamas, and the Houthis (and even the Chinese) are driven by ideological ambitions that go far beyond the calculations of economic and other cold-neutral self-interest? What if these actors are prepared for decades of war against the West, and specifically against Israel, no matter what “great deals” Trump offers them?

The latest example of such American miscalculation is the reported Trump administration proposal to shoehorn Iran’s program for enrichment of uranium to atomic-bomb levels into some wacky offshore consortium of Middle East countries including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey alongside the US. This would somehow dilute or restrict Iran’s near-bomb-ready nuclear colossus.

But of course, Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khamenei defiantly has rejected this idea, for ideological reasons. “National independence means that the Iranian nation stands on its own feet; it means not waiting for a green or red light from others,” he declared.

Iran’s resolve to forge its own path without foreign interference “defines its sovereignty,” he said. “We can” is a revolutionary principle taught by Imam Khomeini, he bellowed. He proceeded to call US proposals rude, insolent, arrogant, destructive, and “deviating from the motivations and sacrifices rooted in our people’s faith.”

Khamenei ranted on about Zionist “crimes,” with the usual formulas about Israel as a cancer in the Middle East that must and will be eliminated by Iran, and he insisted that Iran is developing all means to do so. “By definite divine decree, the Zionist regime is collapsing. God willing, the day [of its demise] is not far off.”

In short, no pragmatic deal offered by the US to Iran nor any further Western sanctions against it are going to knock the Islamic Republic off its radical path, even if it bends a bit to mollify Trump for a bit. Ingrained ideological commitment for the long-term trumps short term accommodations to Trump.

The algorithm by which America and Israel’s adversaries operate is attrition; long wars of attrition, informed by an ethos of sacrifice and eschatological visions of zealous, crushing victory.

AFTER OCTOBER 7, all Israeli leaders and most of the Israeli public recognize this; that the set of rules by which the worst actors in the Middle East operate are ideological, attritional, genocidal; not accommodational or transactional.

For example, Israelis understand that beyond whatever temporary accords might unfortunately be necessary to obtain the release of a few more Israeli hostages held criminally and viciously by Hamas, there are no long-term accommodations with Hamas. It must be rooted out from Gaza, Judea, and Samaria – and this means a decade (or more) of bloody warfare at varying degrees of intensity.

It means “managing the conflict” through the determined use of force in a proactive, preemptive, and persistent manner. It means no establishment of any runaway, radical, revolutionary Palestinian states.

And if there are any accommodations and reconciliations in the broader region to be had, they run through the Abraham Accords prism which purposefully and smartly sidelined the Palestinian issue.

(This is also why it is so nonsensical of France, Saudi Arabia, and others to resuscitate delusions of Palestinian statehood, specifically now. This is a recipe for devastating disappointment and escalated conflict. And of course, for the isolation of Israel – which may be the point of the whole French-Saudi exercise.)

Similarly, Israelis understand that beyond whatever interim accords might be possible with the new Al-Jolani regime in Syria and the Aoun government in Lebanon, the IDF itself must and will continue to regularly interdict threats to Israel over the borders with these countries. Israel will not sit back for a decade or two, merely gathering intelligence on emerging threats until the threat reaches monstrous proportions (as Israel unfortunately did versus Hezbollah).

The same goes for Judea and Samaria. Nobody is under the illusion that any Palestinian “authority” can or will counteract the build-up of Iranian backed Islamic terrorist armies in these areas – which directly threaten Jerusalem and central Israel. Only the IDF can and will; thus, the full-scale Israeli military operations in places like Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus to resolutely rout out such threats. This is likely to be a permanent feature of Israeli policy. President Macron should take note.

The same goes for Iran. The IAEA is warning that Iran already has enriched enough uranium at near-bomb-ready levels for 6-8 nuclear bombs, and that its advanced centrifuges could do so many times over within three months’ time. Thus, Israelis know that complete dismantling or military destruction of this apparatus (as well as Iran’s ballistic missile empire) is necessary soon.

Half or cosmetic measures based on “trust” that purport to put the Iranian nuclear juggernaut to bed are insufficient. Especially if they ignore the missile threat and Iran’s other hegemonic incursions across the region. Any such boondoggle of an American accord with Iran will force to Israel to act against Tehran on its own.

THE ENEMY wars of attrition against Israel, like the drawn-out and purposefully never-ending negotiations for hostage release, have an additional, central purpose. This is the ripping to shreds of Israeli society from within – the exacerbation of political and religious-social divisions; the exhaustion of Israeli citizens and fighters; and the sapping of a will to fight on.

Alas, this enemy strategy is highly effective. Israel is indeed increasingly drained and divided (not to mention highly taxed and exasperated with the country’s leadership); although not crushingly so.

I am certain, as detailed above, that most Israelis understand the long-term ideological and civilizational nature of the battles ahead and are girding themselves for them. This, irrespective of what political changes may be wrought by an Israeli election campaign over the next year and regardless of what mistakes of accommodation/surrender might be made in the coming weeks by Western leaders.

Israelis have every reason to believe that the State of Israel can successfully reset the regional strategic architecture in positive directions – as it did once through the Abraham Accords; as it has in going a long way toward crushing Hamas and Hezbollah (which also sped forward collapse of the Russian- and Iranian-backed Assad regime in Syria); as it has in stripping Iran of its air defenses, and more.

The question is: How does one advance a deeper, more mature, more resilient, and more patient appreciation of threats and responsibilities in the Middle East among Western leaders? How does one assist them in growing a spine and backing Israel along its long path toward security and prosperity?

Published in The Jerusalem Post 06.06.2025.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

French President Emmanuel Macron is currently threatening to unilaterally “recognize” Palestinian statehood, in order to punish Israel for its war of self-defense in Gaza and pressure it to withdraw from all “Palestinian territories.” In response, Israeli leaders have threatened to apply Israeli sovereignty to parts or all of Judea and Samaria.

Macron needs to be slapped down. (His wife can show us how.) Recognizing ersatz Palestinian “statehood” at this time is an unforgivable offense. But the Israeli counter-threat is a mistake for two reasons. It will not deter Macron and other hostile Western leaders from pursuing their nefarious agenda, and it is the wrong way to rightfully apply sovereignty.

Macron and others are convening a “High-Level Two-State Solution Conference” at the UN three weeks from now to “build consensus” around political recognition of a pseudo “State of Palestine.” “Irreversible and concrete measures are necessary to maintain the prospect of a Palestinian state,” the French president has imperiously declared.

The fact that previous such resolutions and proclamations have only bolstered Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist – and have been interpreted by Palestinians as an international green light for the use of terror to destroy Israel – does not frighten Macron.

Nor is he dissuaded by the fact that blabbering at this moment about Palestinian statehood is the very essence of victory for Hamas terrorism and incentivizes more acts of massacre. Merely discussing Palestinian statehood now gives Hamas more sway in Palestinian politics than it ever had, especially in Judea and Samaria (known as “the West Bank”).

Don’t confuse Paris with facts – like the support of three-quarters of Palestinians in the West Bank for the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, or the support of governors in the Palestinian Authority for terrorism and the active participation of its Fatah Party in the wave of terror attacks threatening central Israel.

INSTEAD OF pushback against the increasingly genocidal Palestinian national movement, we get more perilous pablum about the “urgency” of Palestinian statehood. Instead of action to retaliate and truly deter Hamas from ever raising a hand against a hostage again, we get diplomatic rewards for Palestinian intransigence and violence.

International wags should ask themselves: Is their effort to bolster Palestinians with “recognition” of faux statehood – and with more and more aid money – helping Palestinians mature? Or is it merely deepening Palestinian dependency, perpetuating Palestinian victim-refugee-martyrdom identity, prolonging the campaign to demonize Israel as a genocidal monster, and in the end, just plainly and unabashedly weakening Israel?

In fact, one suspects that the latter motivation, tinged with a smidgen of deep-seated antisemitism, is the main impulse.

The scent coming from Macron and his ilk is antipathy toward Israel. They simply cannot stomach a strong Israel. In their view, Israel is a global problem because it has grown too strong, too “hegemonic” in its ambitions, too “aggressive” in its military actions, too “dominant” in resetting the regional strategic situation; too successful in defending itself, and too effective in crushing the holy Palestinian campaign to force Israeli withdrawals.

And also, too threatening against Iran, which soon may sign another nuclear bamboozle with Washington that leaves Tehran in pole position towards an atomic bomb while claiming otherwise; a phony “achievement” that Macron will surely welcome.

Therefore, in the French president’s view, Israel must be restrained, constrained, hemmed-in, humbled. Brought to heel, under a responsible Western thumb. Compelled to accept a cancerous Palestinian “state” which, alas, will be an elevated platform for continuing the war against Israel.

HAVE ANY of Israel’s critics dared to ask themselves why Israelis today are overwhelmingly unwilling to even contemplate establishment of a Palestinian state, at least not for a generation or two or three? Have Israel’s critics any gumption for telling Palestinians: “No, there will be no Palestinian statehood ‘from the river to the sea,’” which means erasure of Israel? Have any of Israel’s critics dared to ask themselves what type of Palestinian state they are seeking to create?

And have Israel’s “friends” like Macron bothered to contemplate the bigger picture – the annihilationist, pernicious narrative against which Israel is contending? Have they thought about pushing back against the relentless equation of Israel and Zionism with the evils of current discourse – imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, white supremacy, and genocide?

Why are good people pretending Palestinian attacks on Israel are legitimate?

It is so exasperating that otherwise good people pretend that Palestinian assaults on Israel’s sovereignty and security have anything to do with legitimate demands for humanitarian aid or with a “two-state solution.” They profess to be concerned for Palestinian rights yet ignore the murderous intentions of Palestinians against Israel. They disregard Palestinian antisemitic discourse and the Fatah/Hamas record of dictatorship and human rights abuse.

Instead, they complain that Israel is restricting supply convoys into Gaza during the current fighting and worry aloud that Hamas will not get kid-gloves treatment after the fighting ends (including the provision of cement and steel to “rehabilitate” Gaza, which would also mean the rebuilding of military capacity against Israel).

And, instead, they tolerate Palestinian “Days of Rage,” “Nakba Day” riots, and missile barrage eruptions as expected behavior. As if the Palestinians cannot help themselves from throwing a tantrum. As if responsible and reasonable behavior – such as negotiation, democratic and peaceful discourse, and normative state-building – cannot be demanded of the Palestinians.

This is the soft bigotry of low expectations of the Palestinians, which is the counterpart of hard bigotry of unreasonable demands on Israel.

IT IS high time that Palestinian leadership be showered with the “tough love” that is usually, uniquely reserved for Israel – especially after October 7.

Why continue to fund a corrupt and Hamas-penetrated UN agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), with more than a billion dollars every year, feeding the Palestinian claim to a “right of return” to all of Israel: the delusion that Israel can be overwhelmed and wiped out?

Why not tell the Palestinians to grow up, and choose leaders who don’t endlessly run around the world peddling lies about Israeli war crimes?

For Macron and others to scurry about without pressing on the Palestinians the inevitability of compromise with Israel is mischievous; to be overly solicitous of the Palestinians especially now, and crushingly censorious of Israel especially now, is malicious. Dishing out some tough love and dialing down Palestinian expectations would be much more constructive.

In short, the Macron-ian campaign to unilaterally, “urgently,” and immediately recognize synthetic Palestinian “statehood” is destructive: an unforgivable offense.

AT THE same time, the counter-threat to apply Israeli sovereignty to parts or all of Judea and Samaria, issued by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and other Israeli ministers in response to Macron’s muckraking, is a mistake. Aside from the fact that it will not deter Macron, it is the wrong way for Israel to rightfully apply sovereignty.

Israel should unequivocally realize its historic and legal sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria. Its hesitancy to do so over the past 50 years only has strengthened Palestinian claims that the areas are “Palestinian territory,” helping to establish a fiction that has been willingly accepted within the international community.

But doing so should not be the function of a momentary need to slap Macron on the cheek, or in response to any particular act of Palestinian terror. It should come, soon, as an essential part of a well thought out, broader Israeli strategic plan to reassert this country’s rights and security needs and to restructure relations with regional and international partners.

Sovereignty assertion must be an up-front and forward-looking move, a central and proud plank in a major Israeli party platform, perhaps ratified in an election campaign. It should not be a backhanded rejoinder to the spasms of spent European politicians who are peddling hackneyed “solutions” and beating up on Israel because they know of nothing else to do.

There are other just, punitive measures that Israel can and should take against countries that diplomatically assault it in the way that Macron is planning, such as closing their consulates in Jerusalem that function as “embassies” to “Palestine.” And there are other forward-looking, Zionist moves that Israel can and should make in the immediate term, like strengthening Israeli cities and towns in Judea and Samaria – defiantly so.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, May 30, 2025.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

I enjoy sharing books with others, which was the genesis of this annual list. Six previous reviews have included monographs by Rabbis Asher Weiss, Haim Sabato, Jonathan Sacks, and Steven Pruzansky, and thinkers or public figures such as Benjamin Netanyahu, Gil Troy, Henry Kissinger, Natan Sharansky, and others. Here is my new selection of recent best reads.

The best books of 2024, ranked

Judaism: A Love Story by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (Koren-Maggid). Through storytelling and passionate argumentation, Riskin takes readers on a journey into “the enduring love story between the Jewish people and their compassionate God.” He traces the roots of Jewish ethics through biblical narratives, which he argues are the basis for the moral justice and compassionate righteousness that is the nation’s mission. In many ways, this book caps Riskin’s unique career and character.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Jew: Learning to Love the Lessons of Jew-Hatred by Rabbi Raphael Shore (Beverly House). An exploration of antisemitism for those who seek a just and moral world. Shore wants Jews to deepen their Jewish commitments with confidence and optimism as an antidote to antisemitism. His powerful new documentary film, Tragic Awakening, starring Arab human rights activist Rawan Osman, is based on the book.

Torah Topics: A Series of Essays by Prof. Nathan Aviezer (Ktav). This professor of theoretical physics has published four famous books reconciling science and religion. Here, he offers 21 brilliant Torah-based homilies on topics that range from the central Shema prayer and the Exodus from Egypt to the problematics of prophecy.

Conceived in Hope by Dr. Chana Tannenbaum (Koren-Maggid). This Torah scholar looks at infertility in the Bible to study women, mothers, societal roles and expectations in male-dominated societies, issues of lineage and inheritance, and more. Book chapters are alternately painful and uplifting, with deep psychological and theological insight.

In a Yellow Wood: Selected Stories and Essays by Cynthia Ozick (Everyman’s Library/Penguin Random House). Ozick is the most illustrious American writer of today and a Jew of piercing and daring insight who is still active at age 97. Here, she collates a selection of her 60-plus years of publishing – novels, short stories, essays, criticism, poetry, and plays – marked by her trademark mix of myth, memory, illusion, and social commentary wrapped in soaring language. I celebrate her as a penetrating critic of contemporary attitudes to Jews and Israel and as a cherished friend.

When the Stones Speak: The Remarkable Discovery of the City of David and What Israel’s Enemies Don’t Want You to Know by Doron Spielman (Center Street). This is the story of the rediscovery of the ancient City of David in Jerusalem and the powerful evidence that proves the Jewish people’s historical and indigenous connection to the Holy Land. It offers compelling pushback against Palestinians and other denialists and is a gripping read.

The Assault on Judaism: The Existential Threat Is Coming from the West by Gol Kalev (Post Hill). The author argues that the assault on Judaism from the West is rapidly turning into a threat to US national security and global stability. He offers a paradigm shift, a recommitment to Herzlian Zionism as the core of Jewish faith, that can both protect Judaism and benefit the world.

On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization by Douglas Murray (Broadside). Murray is one of the great, heroic defenders of Israel over the past two years. He contrasts Israel’s democracy with the authoritarianism, extremism, and love of death over life that characterizes Hamas and its Western backers and shows how Islamists use the humanity of the West to spread their propaganda. A difficult, harrowing, and necessary read.

The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West – and Why Only They Can Save It by Melanie Phillips (Wicked Son). This brilliant Briton argues that Christianity and Western civilization can survive division, decadence, and demoralization only if they learn lessons in resilience and faith from Judaism and the State of Israel. Otherwise, their fall to radical secularism and Islamic barbarism is not far off.

The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel – and America – Can Win by Victoria Coates (Encounter). This former Trump administration national security official (now at the Heritage Foundation) skewers the Biden administration for abandoning Israel and the grand civilizational fight and argues, like Melanie Phillips, that we are in a broader military and cultural war that must be won for the sake not only of Israel but also of the US.

Israelophobia: The Newest Version of the Oldest Hatred and What to Do About It by Jake Wallis Simons (Constable). This superb writer (who was editor of The Jewish Chronicle in London) analyzes prejudiced coverage and intense scrutiny of Israel that so often veers into obsession and outright demonization and traces its origins from medieval European and Stalinist antisemitism to the present day. His next book, Never Again? How the West Betrayed the Jews and Itself, will be published in September.

Hamas’s Human Shield Strategy in Gaza by Maj. Andrew Fox and Salo Aizenberg (Henry Jackson Society). This critically important report, almost book-length, exposes Hamas’s exploitation of Gaza’s civilian population over the past 19 months to fuel a global information war against Israel. The authors emphasize that turning Gaza’s urban landscape into a battleground designed to maximize civilian harm and delegitimize Israel on the world stage is not incidental but a core tenet of Hamas’s military doctrine.

The Titans of the Twentieth Century: How They Made History and the History They Made by Prof. Michael Mandelbaum (Oxford). One of the great US foreign policy experts and political historians of our day, Mandelbaum offers eight historical portraits of the most influential figures of the twentieth century: Woodrow Wilson, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mohandas Gandhi, David Ben-Gurion, and Mao Zedong. Fascinating and incisive.

The Man Who Would Be King: Mohammed bin Salman and the Transformation of Saudi Arabia by Karen Elliott House (Harper, forthcoming in July). Based on lengthy and exclusive interviews with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and dozens of his associates and opponents, this eye-opening biography captures MBS’s calculating, controversial, and confident character. The writer, a former Wall Street Journal publisher who has covered Saudi Arabia for more than 45 years, reveals a Saudi leader “who is both Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible.” (I received advance book excerpts).

The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes Between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry by Tevi Troy (Regnery). This noted presidential historian takes readers on a journey through the biggest battles between CEOs (like John D. Rockefeller, Mark Zuckerberg, Katherine Graham, and Elon Musk) and the president of the US. The book reveals an intricate web of power, where business leaders need presidents, and presidents need business leaders, and each must step carefully or risk collateral damage. A perfect read for the current Trump moment.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2025.

Two major reports were published this week on the explosive and continuing rise of antisemitism around the world.

One study was prepared by the J7 Large Communities’ Task Force Against Antisemitism. (J7 is a partnership between Jewish organizations from the seven countries with the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel: Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and the US.)

The second, longer study is by Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, led by Minister Amichai Chikli. Its 153-page review singles out the governments of South Africa, Ireland, and Spain for leading the way in antisemitic rhetoric by voicing opposition to Israeli actions or policies. Political leaders speaking out against Israel are fingered for bolstering anti-Jewish sentiments, as are the United Nations, the TikTok social media network, and Columbia University.

Both studies identify common global trends: A rise in violent antisemitic incidents; repeated targeting of Jewish institutions including synagogues, schools, and community centers; an escalation of online hate; growing insecurity leading some Jews to hide their identity; and government failure to hold accountable those who engage in antisemitic violence or support terrorism against the Jewish state.

However, both reports are thin regarding pathways of combating antisemitism, and they fail to draw lessons from the field: what works and what does not. Obviously, more comparative study and the sharing of best practices in this regard is necessary.

One central principle must be to avoid mistakes of the past and have the courage to adopt new paradigms and approaches in combating antisemitism. To this end, here are “ten commandments” – ten takeaways that I think have emerged in recent years on how not to combat antisemitism.

(Note that seven of the ten Biblical commandments given at Mount Sinai are broached in the negative – do not do this or that – probably based on the first principle of proper behavior, to do no harm.)

1. Reject false equations and homogenizing statements. Some “intellectuals” and Western politicians feel compelled to simultaneously condemn “Islamophobia” and “all forms of racism” every time they demur from antisemitism. This politically correct refusal to acknowledge the uniqueness of antisemitism (and the overwhelming preponderance of antisemitism, beyond all other hatreds including anti-Moslem hatred) demonstrates precisely that Jew-hatred. As Melanie Phillips has written, “People can’t stand the uniqueness of antisemitism because they can’t stand the uniqueness of the Jewish people.”

2. Reject passé partisan lenses. Mainly this refers to the political Left, which sees antisemites only on the Right, and which refuses to embrace new allies on the Right in combating Jew hatred and anti-Israelism.

This is because confronting antisemitism on the Left runs-up against politically correct liberal sensibilities. It requires recognition that “progressivism” has fallen captive to antisemitism and has failed to curtail radical Islam that fuels it in placid Western countries.

Minister Chikli showed leadership in this regard by embracing some “far-right” European political figures and “fundamentalist” Christian leaders at his recent international conference in Jerusalem on fighting antisemitism. These are figures like Jordan Bardella of France’s Rassemblement National who have repented and become partners in the fight against antisemitism, and who forcefully have stood up for Israel against Hamas and poisonous Palestinianism.

3. Do not hide behind “free speech.” While free speech, especially in academia and media, is a valued democratic principle, it ought not be brandished to a blind, self-immolating degree to defend the indefensible.

Should Mahmoud Khalil, the radical leader of recent Columbia University protests against Jews, Israel, and America, be protected from arrest and deportation just because of “free speech”? Should Facebook and X/Twitter hold no responsibility for monitoring and censoring genocidal propaganda because “free speech” reigns supreme?

An interesting, sad historical footnote is necessary here. In the 1990s, the Israeli government “Inter-Ministerial Forum for Monitoring Antisemitism” forcefully advocated global legislation that would limit access to sources of hate literature such as neo-Nazi web sites on the Internet. But at the time, many American Jewish groups opposed this approach because it suggested limits on free speech.

In retrospect, this was a terrible mistake, considering the monstrous proportions to which antisemitism on social networks and the web has grown. Now, belatedly, everybody agrees that combating “cyberhate” is a top priority…

4. Do not accept security measures as sufficient. Yes, Jewish community institutions around the world need more protective police patrols, safe spaces (“bubble zones”) around schools and shuls where antisemitic and anti-Israel demonstrators should be banned, and more government funding for physical security and security personnel.

But Jewish communities also must demand and obtain much broader and deeper action from their governments against antisemitism, such as adoption of the IHRA definition for antisemitism across educational institutions and government bodies; strengthening hate crime legislation; judicial and law enforcement training; prioritizing the safety and well-being of Jewish students, faculty, and staff on campus; protection of Zionist expression; and especially fighting radicalization and extremism in local Moslem communities.

5. Do not hide or let local authorities tell Jews to hide. Unfortunately, some local police forces and municipal leaders are afraid of the aggressive antisemitic and anti-Israel protesters. It is often easier for them to tell Jews to hide themselves or any signs of their Jewishness than it is to confront the radical hordes.

This happened last year to me and a large group of Australian Jews who were rallying for Israel inside the Sydney Great Synagogue while protesters rampaged outside. The police shamefully asked that Jews skunk-out the back door of the synagogue after removing signs of their Jewish or Zionist identity. This is utterly unacceptable!

6. Do not rely on institutions like DEI bureaucracies. The Biden administration’s “national strategy” for combating antisemitism of June 2023 relies heavily on existing government-enabled Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives to address root causes and promote anti-hate education. But DEI offices are more likely to house anti-Semitism than to combat it. A Heritage Foundation study of the social media patterns of 800 campus DEI officers found that they tended to reflect a level of hostility toward Israel that went far beyond policy disagreement and often descended into antisemitism.

7. Do not accept distancing from Israel. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that it is possible for Western governments to truly to combat local antisemitism while simultaneously denying Israel arms when it is fighting for its life against genocidal enemies. The two matters may seem disconnected, but they are not.

Every Western leader that brags about his/her arms embargo against Israel from a position of ersatz “morality” – essentially is giving tailwind to the antisemites. Any Western leader who supports the arrest of Israeli leaders as “war criminals” because of the Gaza war – essentially is giving tailwind to the antisemites.

8. Do not brook unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood. The penchant (threat) of Western leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron to unilaterally recognize the “statehood” of Palestinians davka (specifically) now, after the Hamas invasion of Israel – is nothing less than outrageous, and this is not just a diplomatic/security affront.

Recognition of a faux Palestinian state at war with Israel not only retards peace and weakens Israel. It is grandstanding to defy the opinion of most Jews. This also drives antisemitism.

9. Do not deny Israeli leaders their inevitable role in the fight against global antisemitism. Not all Diaspora Jewish leaders are comfortable with Israeli leadership in this regard, especially because of the Gaza war and because of takeaway no. 2 above.

But as raw antisemitism around the world has risen and morphed into virulent anti-Israel sentiment – making the two phenomena almost indistinguishable – the State of Israel inexorably has moved from indifference to active involvement in the struggle against such hate. And Israel’s involvement today is critical to blocking the transformation of Israel into a “criminal” state that is a key target of the antisemitic/anti-Zionist extreme Left.

10. Do not ignore the truth about strength and weakness. There is only one explanation for the explosion of antisemitism around the world on October 7, 2023 – the day Hamas raped, tortured, murdered, and kidnapped Israeli Jews in Gaza border communities and long before the IDF launched its counterattack.

The explanation is this: That Jews everywhere are despised and vulnerable when Israel is weak. That is when enemies pounce. Jews everywhere are grudgingly respected and relatively safe only when Israel is strong.

In other words, the safety and security of Jews around the world depends on Israel winning – on regaining its strength, self-confidence, and deterrent power. This, in turn, will re-empower Diaspora Jews to defend Israel and themselves.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 09.05.2025

As I walked this week through the endlessly chilling rows of fallen soldiers in Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, two narratives about Israel went to war in my head.

One was a dangerously debilitating discourse of depression, desperation, and decay. A defeatist and poisonous exposition, predominant in some media, on the supposed moral bankruptcy of the Israeli government and half the Israeli nation. This is because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his backers will not unconditionally bow before Hamas for the release of Israel’s remaining hostages in Gaza.

The other storyline is a tale of defiance, determination, and destiny. It is an optimistic and far-seeing discourse on the legitimacy, necessity, and sure-to-yet-succeed heroic battle against Israel’s enemies like Hamas and Iran, despite the depleting debate over hostages and battle priorities.

My eyes are wide open, and I am well aware of the mistakes made in Jerusalem. But I reject the narrative of government evil and Israeli decline.

I refuse to embrace the radical Left’s assertion of Israel’s unworthiness. I hate and reject its “torch dousing” instead of “torch lighting” ceremonies on Independence Day. I cannot stomach its desecration of Remembrance Day ceremonies with rhetorically violent protest.

Instead, I prefer to embrace a plot of purpose and an inevitable, righteous movement toward stability and peace.

Indeed, polls published this week about this country’s state-of-mind clearly show that most Israelis reject the negativism and angry bombast of radical actors, even if many of us are hurting and restless.

Israelis, I think, prefer to mark this complex memorial/holiday weekend in appreciation of Israel’s survival and achievements, and with prayer that brotherhood, tenacity, and better leadership will see the country through to remarkable success.

I SENSE that as beleaguered and critical of their decision-makers they may be, Israelis also are steadfast in seeking triumph. Hatikvah, the hope, has not been extinguished. Israelis can and certainly will drive beyond the current straits, repairing their internal ills and strengthening their strategic posture.

So much magnificent motivating music comes from the speeches given by bereaved mothers and fathers at Remembrance Day and Independence Day ceremonies. Some of these texts are epistles left behind by fallen soldiers, expressing absolute faith in the wellsprings of age-old Jewish identity and the future of the State of Israel; letters that exhorted their families to stay the course and celebrate life.

Others, like the inspiring speech delivered last year by Rabbi Menahem Kalmanson at the Israel Prize award ceremony, are based on a deep dive into brotherhood, a renewed commitment to national solidarity, and love of peoplehood.

Israelis withstand the storm

Another set of apt notes dominating Independence Day discourse is defiance; defiance of the pro-Hamas messaging and anti-Zionist assaults that have taken root in capitals and campuses around the world.

Israelis are determined to withstand ugly narratives of delegitimization that are crashing like tidal waves, and the resultant international dictates meant to weaken the Jewish state.

They are resolute in rebuffing the soft bigotry of low expectations from Palestinians, which is the counterpart of hard bigotry – impossible demands – made on Israel.

They repudiate the arrogant talk in Western capitals of unilaterally recognizing Palestinian statehood and anointing the decrepit Palestinian Authority as a stabilizing force in Gaza. They also reject erroneous strategic thinking that sees another soft deal with Iran as the panacea for all regional ills.

At this moment, real independence means that Israel must flout those who seek to emasculate it (deny it weapons), those who would prevent Israel from achieving its necessary and justified war goals of crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, countering Iran, and restoring this country’s deterrent power.

As Prof. Gil Troy has written: “On Israel Independence Day, we must negate the misleading, Palestinian-centered tale of woe, and return to the magnificent Jewish story and the Zionist tale of redemption… Our enemies want to make us miserable, to make Israel unlivable, to make Independence Day uncelebrate-able. We cannot allow that to happen.

“We cannot afford to mourn or mope. We must live the miracle of Israel: freedom, prosperity, dignity, and power… while rejecting the poisoned ivy of the Ivy Leagues… and we must broadcast our narrative and affirm our rights loudly and proudly, effectively, and creatively.”

I SENSE that there is another level of motivation that grips and sustains most Israelis, and this stems from the realm of faith, from the capacity to discern grand historical movement beyond momentary difficulty.

Ambassador Dr. Ya’acov Herzog (1921-1972; uncle of Israel’s current President Isaac Herzog) wrote that “Israel is mystic movement, a divine drama, a saga of metaphysical union spanning centuries between a people, their God, and a land.

“It is the celebration of a nation that, at the moment of ultimate nadir, of devastating Holocaust, rose from the ashes, armed with little more than conviction and a historical consciousness that promised renewal, to stake claim to their ancestry.

“Israel represents a vindication of faith and prayer through the ages. It is a symbol of revival, a message of hope, lasting evidence of the integrity of the spirit. It is redemption, providential consolation.”

Indeed, there is power in Jewish history that explains much about Israel today: About the Jewish people’s against-all-odds return to the Land of Israel after 2,000 years; about its willingness to sacrifice so much for independence; about its sometimes-stubborn refusal to accept rational calculations of diplomatic cost and benefit.

And so, Israelis plow forward while shaking off bleak prognostications impressed upon it (often impolitely) by allies. In fact, those who consider history only in terms of national politics and international relations underestimate or misjudge Israel.

They fail to understand that Israel is guided by an astral calculus that is not always perceptible; by a deep sense of Jewish historical mission that blurs the lines between imagination and reality, between the possible and the feasible. They fail to appreciate how committed Israelis are to victory.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, May 2, 2025.

Being “in between” is never comfortable. The nebulous, indeterminate space between one place and another, one time zone and the next, one period and a new era, one approach and a wholly different policy – often is marked by hesitation, confusion, and blunder.

In Jewish tradition and religious law, this is called bein hashemashot (literally, between the suns or between days), meaning the “twilight” period between sundown and full nightfall, which is marked by the clear emergence of stars in the sky. It is a time where halachic decision-making is indeterminate and confusing. Things can go any which way.

The State of Israel finds itself in such a strategic moment: In a murky twilight zone with critical security clocks ticking on all fronts, from Gaza to Iran. And political clocks in Washington and Jerusalem, too. A time where things might go in one or more of several directions, with ferociously clashing and contrary implications.

Israel stands at a crossroads between renewed full-scale warfare and complete cessation of warfare in Gaza; between decent and disastrous ends to the hostage saga; between massive military assault on Iran’s nuclear bomb infrastructure and diplomatic dealing that once again lets the terrorism sponsor off the hook; between solidification and disintegration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government; and between cold and hot civil war in Israeli politics.

The muddied situation cannot hold for too long on any of these fronts. If forceful foreign decision-making, force majeure, or forced errors do not sort things out, Israel will have to determine its fortunes by bold action. Indeed, the entire strategic balance of the region for decades going forward is on the scales, making this an even more acute inflexion point.

Holding the most influential and simultaneously ambiguous set of cards is US President Donald Trump. He is resupplying Israel with colossal amounts of needed weaponry with which to annihilate Hamas, supporting depopulation of Gaza (“humanitarian resettlement” of Gazans), and urging Israel to “get the job done.”

Conversely and contradictorily, he wants “all hostages released immediately” and the war “to be over fast” – and the only way to do this is to lose the war and let Hamas live on to fight another day.

He swears that he will bring a swift end to Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and abilities with military demolition of Iran in the offing. Then he backpedals to “nice” negotiations with the Islamic Republic toward a deal that may preserve Iran’s latent nuclear weapons capabilities, which will facilitate simple reconstitution of its bomb program in the future, and which may not push back against the other elements of Iranian power (missiles, proxies, terror networks).

Such juggling or perhaps purposeful opacity of policy is fine for a while. It may even be crafty for a truly short while. But it is not clear to me that Trump fully comprehends the urgency of the moment and the very brief window of opportunity that exists for definitive action.

Does he understand that enemy strategy, from Khan Yunis to Tehran to Moscow, is to drag things out while strengthening its own offensive abilities and disordering American-Western-Israeli systems?

This is my greatest fear: That overextension of the current bein hashemashot period, this imprecise twilight zone, will drive further fragmentation on the strategic and political levels. That hesitation in confronting enemies and hubris in coddling enemies will lead to collapse in US-Israel ties and to breakdown in Israeli society and politics – which of course is exactly what the enemy is hoping for.

In the meantime, there are signs of dissolution everywhere. In Washington, pro-Iranian and isolationist forces are disseminating lies about the “disaster” that would result from US military action against Iran (Tucker Carlson: “Thousands of Americans would almost certainly be killed at bases throughout the Middle East.”) This eats away at Trump’s maneuvering room versus Iran.

Trump’s negotiator Steve Witkoff talks about namby-pamby interim deals and many months of talks ahead, and retracts America’s redlines regarding Iranian uranium enrichment every time he opens his mouth. This gives Iran what it most wants – more time to “break out” toward a nuclear bomb – as well as a shot of confidence that it once again can bamboozle over-eager American envoys.

What happened to Trump’s declared two-month deadline for a deal with Iran “or else there will be bombing, and it will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” or his warning to hold Iran responsible for Houthi attacks from Yemen?

And thus underway is a dangerous decaying of America’s deterrent power.

Protests against Netanyahu continue

In Tel Aviv, anti-Netanyahu protesters are calling for an end to his “war criminal” leadership and “illegal” wars, and are demanding that the legal system usurp power from the Israeli government by declaring the prime minister “unfit” for office. Any next decisions Netanyahu might take in war and peace already have been deemed illegitimate by the increasingly (rhetorically) violent opposition campaigns.

The government is again pushing controversial legal reforms, it could fall this summer over the haredi draft issue, and it anyway only has one year on the clock until mandatory elections.

The IDF finds itself trapped between the contradictory goals of freeing hostages, crushing Hamas, facilitating food supply in Gaza, and facilitating the exit of Gazans. It must keep many reserve troops at high-level for Gaza deployment and to handle an all-front escalation in case of fuller confrontation with Iran. But it has no clear instructions about unleashing its full force.

And thus underway is a dangerous decomposing of Israel’s political stability and military coherence.

It is true that in grand strategic perspective, Israel is in a much better place now than it was 19 months ago – with Hamas on the defensive, Hezbollah decapitated, Iranian air defenses eviscerated, the IDF bulking up, and so on.

And it is also true that with a little more patience, Israel could yet emerge even more strategically ascendant in the region. And that preserving Israel’s strategic alliance with America and delicate relationship with Trump may demand additional forbearance.

But it is hard to be patient with any degree of comfort in the twilight zone. Indecision is unnerving, vacillation is disheartening, and dillydallying is destructive, especially on the home front. Daybreak or nightfall will soon be upon us, and willy-nilly it will be time for forthright, audacious moves.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, April  26, 2025.

Beware the Western diplomatic discourse developing in New York, Paris, and elsewhere that views Israel as a global problem because it has grown too strong, too “hegemonic” in its ambitions, too “aggressive” in its military actions, too “dominant” in resetting the regional strategic situation. Too successful in defending itself.

Instead, Israel ought to “reckoned with” by the West, i.e., restrained, constrained, hemmed-in, humbled. All this to redress the “current asymmetry of power” in the Middle East (again, meaning too much Israeli power, as opposed to say, Iranian and Turkish power) – a situation that “sooner or later will lead to more confrontation, violence and terror.”

In other words, Israel must not be allowed to win so much. This would be bad for American and Western interests.

President Emmanuel Macron of France said so most succinctly this week by averring that Israel “has the right to defend itself, but within proportion” (whatever limited proportions he is comfortable with, one assumes.)

His officials then went swiftly on to reassert the necessity of strengthening the Palestinian Authority, rebuilding Gaza, and driving toward Palestinian statehood, while urging Israeli military withdrawals from Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

And the EU announced $1.8 billion in new funding over the next three years for the PA.

The fact that Macron and the political Left in the West has learned nothing from the attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023 (and Mahmoud Abbas’s support for them) is disappointing but not surprising.

What is more discouraging and indeed infuriating is the attempt to delegitimize Israel’s re-asserted defense doctrine of preventively and preemptively downgrading enemy capabilities and threats. This includes IDF operations against Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, various jihadist and Iranian forces in Syria, and terrorist enclaves in Judea and Samaria, including a long-term Israeli military presence over the previous borders. Striking at Iran, too.

But no, that is not acceptable to Macron and other oh-so-concerned Western minders of regional security. Israel cannot be so powerful and controlling, so “provocative.” It must be brought to heel, under a “responsible” Western thumb.

‘Too much Israeli power’

The dangerous discourse that warns of too much Israeli power was given most prominent expression this week in a New York Times op-ed article by two Mideast experts from the Oslo era who served in Democratic administrations: Aaron David Miller and Steven Simon.

These American experts are well known in Israel and are not among Israel’s fiercest critics. And yet they now choose to disparage Israel as a problematic “hegemon” in the Mideast that must be “reckoned with,” that must be pressured by Washington to back down and back off. Israel, they insinuate, must put aside its narrow interests in order to achieve an American “balance of interests.”

To restore a healthy “symmetry of power” in the Middle East (whatever the heck that means), pressure must “particularly” be placed on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “and his far-right coalition.” Netanyahu (and Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, etc.) must be forced to “strike deals” such as re-embracing the PA and withdrawing on all battlefronts, in order to “convert Israeli military dominance” into supposedly “more stable arrangements and agreements.”

Miller and Simon grant that Israel’s response to the Hamas terror attacks of 2023 “has fundamentally altered the Middle East balance of power in a way not seen since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War,” and at first, they almost appreciate what a fine achievement this is.

“The Israelis have broken the Hamas-Hezbollah ring of opposition and revealed the vulnerability and weakness of their patron in Tehran while also degrading Iran’s air defenses and missile production.”

But then they immediately proceed to explain that such Israeli “hegemony” (a pejorative term!) is awkward and clashes with American interests. To do so, they blame Israel for everything bad happening in the Middle East from Lebanese, Syrian, and Iraqi internal rivalries to America’s difficulties in cutting grand agreements with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

FOR EXAMPLE, they accuse Israel of “favoring a weak and divided Syria… permeated by foreign forces with conflicting agendas” over a “stable, united, and effective” Syrian government that will align with American interests in countering ISIS and disposing of chemical weapons.

Aside from this being an absolute canard, Miller and Simon have not a word to say about ending Iranian and other threats from Syria against Israel or about stopping Iranian weapons smuggling to Hezbollah through Syria.

Nor do they have anything to say about the threats to destroy Israel coming from the radical Islamist and openly antisemitic leader Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, whose ambitions include gobbling up Syria and launching strikes on Israel from there. Did somebody say “hegemonic”?

You get the sense that these two experts prioritize the return of Syria to its towering military bases – on the Hermon Mountain heights on the previous border with Israel – than they care about long-term security and peace for Israel. You get the sense that they prefer a region led by “East-West bridges” like Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt than a region stabilized by overwhelming Israeli military power and led by Israel and its Abraham Accord partner countries.

The common sentiment expressed by these old-guard European and American denizens is a hankering for a return to the good old days of “sensible strategies as mapped out by former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to foster security, effective governance and reconstruction.”

The scent coming from these old-guard European and American denizens is antipathy toward Israel. They simply cannot stomach a strong Israel.

Instead of embracing Israel – the only democracy in the Middle East, the only country that constantly has compromised for peace in the Middle East, and the only true American ally in the Middle East – as a positive, proactive regional power reshaping the Middle East for the better, they slander it as a troublemaker, or worse.

HERE IS THE place to explain why Israel no longer considers “effective government and reconstruction” (involving for example the lavishing of additional billions of dollars and euros on the PA) or feeble diplomatic agreements (such as soft deals with Syria and Iran or a deal with Saudi Arabia on civilian nuclear power – which Miller and Simon endorse) to be sufficient security policy.

Forty or so years of Oslo-style arrangements, in which the West cajoled and pressured Israel into territorial withdrawals and a policy of restraint against emerging enemy threats, has proven to be an utter failure. “Containment” policy, which prioritized diplomacy over decisive military triumphs, has failed. It all blew up in Israel’s face, with terror and invasion from the West Bank and Gaza and Syria and Lebanon, and the march of Iran’s nuclear bomb program to near completion.

This was accompanied by decades of willful Western blindness to the jihadist nature of Israel’s enemies, to the threat of the jihadis to other countries in the region, and to infiltration of jihadist influences in – and jihadi-minded migrant populations to – the West itself.

Consequently, over the past 18 months, Israel has necessarily moved to a better balance between diplomacy and the use of force to prevent and scuttle enemy threats. Israel must and will continue to employ fierce, overwhelming, and surprising strikes against enemy assets and strongholds. It needs to keep its enemies off base with beeper blasts and bunker-busting airstrikes, even on hospitals and schools where the enemy burrows its arms arsenals and terrorist headquarters.

Israel wants to be feared – and yes, militarily “dominant” – not loved. And Israel also knows that its neighbors will seek true partnership with Israel only when it is strong.

Thus, Israel can no longer accept policies that emphasize “quiet for quiet” or “restraint” because this allows the enemy to develop its attack capabilities under the cover of diplomatic breathing time; what Miller and Simon wrongly call “stability.”

In this new era, Israel intends to project its strength to definitively neutralize adversaries, and in so doing to lead the region – to gather a coalition of truly peace-seeking nations. Yes, to truly “stabilize” the region, but not through reliance on hackneyed diplomatic templates and failed formulas that ooze weakness.

It is sad and so destructive that politicians like Macron and analysts like Miller and Simon think that the way to peace in the Middle East is, once again, ho-hum, to pressure Israel into restraint, to “show good faith” in diplomacy, to bend to Arab demands and agree to withdrawals that supposedly will “satisfy” the enemy bloodlust.

It is ugly that they stoop to demonizing Israel as the threat, rather than the greatest asset for the West, in resetting the strategic table and helping win the war against the Russia-China-Iran axis.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 18.04.2025

This third installment of my trilogy on Iran examines the minimum threshold for an American nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic, and American and Israeli options in the likely case that such a deal is not achievable.

In previous weeks, we reviewed the treacherous Iranian record (its overarching revolutionary ambitions to dominate the region, its proxy wars, and nuclear and missile programs), and President Donald Trump’s strategic worldview.

I argued that Trump’s plans for winning in the global struggle against China and his hope for a reset in relations with Russia depend on proving his mettle in confrontation with Iran.

I furthermore argued that if Trump’s threats against Iran amount to no more than another Obama-style soft deal that kicks the Iranian nuclear can down the road – then Trump’s presidency will be over, at least in international affairs. He will never be the “transformational” president with “historic” achievements that he so explicitly wants to be.

The key to getting a “good deal” with Iran is to differentiate between arms control and nuclear disarmament. President Barack Obama settled for arms control in 2015, restricting Iran’s nuclear program but leaving it intact, legitimized, and primed to accelerate as soon as temporary restrictions expired. And he freed tens of billions of dollars of frozen funds to fuel Iran’s military march forward.

Obama aimed low and ultimately paved the way for Iran’s emergence as a nuclear threshold state.

South Africa, by contrast, initiated nuclear disarmament in 1990, as Libya did after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This path leaves no enrichment and weaponization infrastructure hanging around for the regime to change its mind.

That is exactly what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump this week: Libya is the model. US National Security Advisor Mike Walz specified that Iran must “hand over and give up” all elements of its nuclear program, including missiles, weaponization, and uranium enrichment.

In Trump’s shorthand: “Supervise, check it, inspect it, and then blow it up or just make sure that there [are] no more nuclear facilities.” Last week he said that he is pursuing a deal “that would be just as good as if you won militarily.”

Three experts from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington DC this week laid out in detail what such a win would be, what complete disarmament must entail. It means “full, permanent, and verifiable dismantlement, export, or in-place destruction” of Iran’s uranium and plutonium production assets; “anytime, anywhere” inspections; and an end to nuclear weapons R&D.

It also means termination of Iran’s ballistic missile, cruise missile, and drone arsenals; an end to Iran’s illicit nuclear and missile imports and exports; and especially to its nuclear, missile, and arms agreements with Russia, China, and North Korea. And oh yeah, also an end to Tehran’s longtime support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other proxy forces.

All this would require super-invasive American or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring of Iran’s bank accounts, uranium mines, mills, ore processing facilities, military and missile bases, ports and airfields, along with total destruction of Iran’s underground bunkers for nuclear activities and weapons storage.

IN MY VIEW, the likelihood that Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei will agree to anything remotely resembling such a dismantlement of Iranian power, such an evisceration of Iranian sovereignty and supremacy – is nil.

I think it more likely that Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and General Security Service Director Ronen Bar will vote for Netanyahu in the next Israeli election than Ali Hosseini Khamenei bowing nicely before Trump and presiding over disembowelment of the Islamic Revolution.

Remember: Tehran has spent four decades and hundreds of billions of dollars developing its military power and regional ascendancy, accompanied by considerable suffering (“sacrifice”) of the Iranian people to this end. All this, based on deep ideological-religious conviction, on a dark eschatological vision that involves genocide against Israel and West and downright destruction of enemy civilization.

So, it is much more likely that in this weekend’s talks, Iran will do what is does best: – delay, offer reversible concessions, and deflect US power. Previous American administrations have even rewarded Iran with sanctions relief simply for staying at the negotiating table! As FDD director Mark Dubowitz notes, Iran is a master at rope-a-doping American presidents.

The difference – for Trump, Netanyahu, and the West – is that this time, there is no time. Iran is minutes or months away from unveiling its first nuclear bomb.

According to a biennial report published Tuesday by international nuclear watchdogs IAEA and NEA, known as the Red Book, Iran’s uranium reserves are much larger than previously estimated, and it is set to increase production of uranium ore from 21 to 71 tons this year. No country in the world has enriched uranium to 60 percent, as Iran has, without building nuclear weapons – so Iran’s intentions are clear.

THIS LEAVES the Trump Administration with three choices. The first option is to capitulate; to cut a weak, watered-down, wishy-washy deal with Iran that pretends to check Iranian nuclear and other power while vapidly claiming that it is a “HUGE” victory for Washington.

You have to wonder who will prevail: Trump’s ego or Khamenei’s tenacity?

I would like to believe that Trump will not fall into this hole, but given his unpredictable nature, self-regard as the greatest global dealmaker, and oft-expressed desire to be recognized as world class peacemaker – this cannot be ruled out.

Israel must do everything in its power to prevent such an American collapse. Selling out to Iran would be ghastlier than bowing to Russia (regarding Ukraine), and far more devastating to Israel’s security.

Trump’s second option is to bomb Iran to kingdom come – not only its military and oil facilities but also regime loci of power. This would be an attempt to eliminate Iran’s military threat for decades, to strip Iran of the economic ability to swiftly rebuild its military, and to decapitate the current leadership and hopefully effect regime change.

Trump’s third option is to let Israel do the job or at least start the job of destroying Iran’s frontline nuclear and missile bases, with Washington kicking-in with auxiliary offensive and defensive moves to back-up Israel and demonstrate to Tehran that its hegemonic gig is up.

If and when Iran is stupid enough to make good on its threats to retaliate by lashing-out at Israel, at US troops and facilities in the Arabian Gulf, and at American allies in the region – Trump will have no choice but unleash America’s military might against Iran too.

In this scenario, nasty wags assuredly will accuse Israel of “dragging” the US into war but so be it. In the absence of Iranian nuclear capitulation to the US, there will be no choice. I think this to be the most responsible and most likely scenario.

After all, twice over the past year Iran assaulted Israel with ballistic missiles, and Iran holds deep responsibility for the 2023 Hamas and 2024 Hezbollah assaults on Israel too. Israelis have learned the hard way to take seriously Iran’s further genocidal threats.

According to the text of the Passover Haggadah read in Jewish homes this weekend, “in every generation enemies arise seeking the elimination of the Jewish People” (bechol dor vador omdim aleinu lechaloteinu), “but G-d gives the National of Israel strength to overcome, survive, and thrive” (veHakadosh Baruch Hu matzileinu miyadam). It surely will be so in the impending mega-confrontation with Iran, too.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, 11.04.2025.

On March 27, 2025, Israel’s High Court of Justice, led by Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit, delivered a measured, fact-driven and deeply legal judgment, reaffirming that Israel’s decision to halt aid to Gaza, following Hamas’s rejection of the U.S. proposal to continue the hostage-ceasefire negotiations, was fully compliant with international law. The ruling should send a powerful signal to international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have rushed to indict and accuse with politically charged narratives untethered from operational facts and legal substance.

The High Court found that Israel is not in violation of international humanitarian law in its decision to halt the facilitation of aid to Gaza and—critically—is not an occupying power in the Strip. This rebuke, coming from Israel’s own top court—widely regarded as one of the most independent in the world—matters immensely. It is everything the ICC and ICJ have failed to be: rooted in evidence, guided by law and aware of the real-world consequences of war against terrorist enemies who embed themselves within civilian populations.

This was no rubber stamp. Israel’s Supreme Court has a longstanding history of challenging its own government, particularly on national security policy. The idea that this court would serve as a political puppet is laughable to anyone familiar with Israel’s democratic and judicial culture.

What the High Court did was what international tribunals have refused to do: look at the facts. After reviewing extensive classified materials, multiple hearings and actual data—not rhetoric—the court ruled that Israel has met and continues to meet its obligations under both international and domestic law. It confirmed that Israel facilitates humanitarian aid to civilians, with no quantitative restrictions, and has taken extensive steps to coordinate with international aid groups—even amid a complex war against a terrorist army that systematically steals that same aid.

The court also addressed allegations that Israel was using starvation as a method of warfare. Citing the entry of 25,000 aid trucks carrying over 57,000 tons of food since Jan. 19—during the first phase of the hostage-ceasefire agreement—it found no violation of the prohibitions on starvation or collective punishment, “not even remotely.” The court emphasized that international law only obliges a state to facilitate the passage of humanitarian supplies when there is no reason to believe they are being diverted for hostile use. Given overwhelming evidence that Hamas has been systematically stealing aid and repurposing it for military operations, including hostage captivity, the court concluded that Israel acted within the bounds of international law when it halted certain aid flows.

This legal conclusion echoes longstanding principles under the Fourth Geneva Convention, specifically Article 23, as well as similar provisions in the U.S. Defense Department Law of War Manual and customary international law: Aid is not unconditional when it risks empowering a belligerent force. Even U.S. President Joe Biden underscored this in Oct. 2023, saying that if Hamas diverted aid, the assistance would—and should—stop.

Critically, the court also rejected claims that Israel is subject to the legal obligations of an occupying power. Based on an in-depth factual analysis—including Hamas’s continued control in large areas of Gaza, reestablishment of its administrative functions and Israel’s lack of effective governmental authority—the court concluded that the laws of belligerent occupation simply do not apply. In doing so, it directly rebutted the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion, which took a broader, speculative view of Israeli authority without full access to facts, participants, or classified military intelligence.

Let’s be clear: No court on Earth scrutinizes its own military in wartime the way Israel’s does. No other democracy has fought such sustained urban combat against a genocidal enemy hiding in homes, schools, hospitals and mosques, while remaining under the microscope of its own judiciary. And yet, Israel’s legal system not only holds to—but exceeds—the standards expected by the international community.

Contrast this with the ICC, which has moved with stunning speed toward possible indictments of Israeli officials, all while ignoring Hamas’s brutalities or pretending that Oct. 7 never happened. Contrast it, too, with the ICJ, which entertained South Africa’s politicized genocide charges without addressing the deeply asymmetric reality of this war: that Israel is fighting a defensive campaign against a terrorist group that openly vows to repeat the massacre of its civilians.

Israel’s High Court recognized what the world must not forget: the “Iron Swords” war was forced upon Israel after one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in modern history. It was also, as the court stated, “forced on the uninvolved civilians of Gaza” by Hamas and its allies, who embed themselves among civilians, steal aid and carry out military operations from protected civilian infrastructure.

The court acknowledged the humanitarian suffering in Gaza. It also acknowledged the limits of what Israel can control in a warzone, especially when international organizations operate in Gaza without coordinating with Israeli forces. And yet, even with these challenges, the court documented how Israel has improved aid flows, opened more crossing points, coordinated access and constantly evaluated the humanitarian situation—without violating its legal obligations.

This ruling is a judicial firewall against politicized attacks on Israel’s legitimacy. It is an affirmation—by a court rooted in the rule of law—that international law is not a weapon to be used selectively against democracies defending themselves.

The truth matters. The law matters. And what Israel’s Supreme Court just showed is that even in the fog of war, when politics runs hot and justice often runs cold, there is still room for reasoned, moral and lawful adjudication.

That’s more than can be said for the tribunals in The Hague.

The article was written by Arsen Ostrovsky in collaboration with John Spencer Jthat he is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, codirector of MWI’s Urban Warfare Project and host of the “Urban Warfare Project Podcast.”

Published in JNS, April  10, 2025.

For 14 months, the Biden administration let the Houthis savage international shipping lanes through the Red Sea and Suez Canal and attack Israel and Saudi Arabia without sufficient response. So it is good that America is finally acting, under US President Donald Trump’s leadership, to eliminate Houthi missiles and air bases in Yemen.

More importantly, Trump said this week that he would hold Iran responsible for any attacks conducted by its Houthi proxy regime.

“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!” the president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

He then sent a letter (via the Emiratis) to “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran with a two-month deadline for a deal to end Iran’s nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs. US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz specified that the Islamic Republic must “hand over and give up” on all elements of its nuclear program, including missiles, weaponization, and uranium enrichment.

Iran’s response? Khamenei said that Tehran would not be bullied into talks by “excessive demands and threats” from the US. He called Trump’s offer for talks “a deception aimed at misleading public opinion.” To boot, he once again called the Holocaust a “myth” and a “fictitious event” – a theme to which he frequently, obsessively returns – something that exposes his annihilationist-toward-Israel mindset.

I find that foreign leaders and officials, even those who specialize in the Middle East, truly are not aware of the scope of Iranian muckraking and troublemaking in the region. Generally, they know that there are bad actors at play out there, from al-Qaeda and ISIS to Hezbollah, but they don’t have a comprehensive picture of Iranian belligerence and ambition.

They often wrongly assume that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, then-president Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, is still in place, shunting concerns about Tehran to the backburner. Nor do they know that this October, Obama’s “snapback” mechanism for sanctions on Iran expires, giving the Islamic Republic a “legitimate” path to a nuclear bomb.

Some North American and European leaders prefer to pretend that Israel is exaggerating the menace of Iran. Therefore, instead of investing thought and effort in confronting Iran’s tectonic threat to Middle Eastern and global stability, they focus on a range of secondary regional issues.

These range from humanitarian relief for Palestinians in Gaza to settlements in Judea and Samaria and stabilization of the new regime in Syria. In pursuit of a bit of “balance” in their foreign policies, they might even feign some interest in the fate of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

These are important issues but a sideshow to the urgency of halting Iran’s aggressive march across the Middle East. In fact, pushing back against Tehran is the linchpin of a necessary regional reset, the fulcrum for ameliorating most flashpoints in the region.

So, for those who have not been paying sufficient attention (or, again, for those who allege that Israel is exaggerating the Iranian threat), here is a summary of the treacherous Iranian record.

Iran’s overarching revolutionary ambitions

Iran does not hide its overarching revolutionary ambitions: to destroy Israel, to subdue any pro-Western states in the Middle East and dominate the region, and to export its brand of radical Islamism globally. Tehran constantly threatens Jerusalem with war and eventual destruction.

Khamenei regularly refers to the Jewish state as a “cancerous tumor” in the Middle East that must be removed and speaks of the complete liberation of Palestine (meaning the destruction of Israel) through holy jihad.Iran has sought to carve out a corridor of control – a Shi’ite land bridge – stretching from the Arabian (“Persian”) Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, including major parts of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its Quds Force, various Shi’ite militias, and Hezbollah.

This corridor has given Iran a broad strategic base for aggression across the region and has deterred Israel from operating against Iran.

Iran equipped Hezbollah with an arsenal of over 150,000 missiles and rockets aimed at Israel and supplied Hamas with the arms and rockets that fueled four significant military confrontations with Israel over the past decade.Fortunately, over the past year, much has changed.

Israel has operated to significantly defang and decapitate Hezbollah. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria to Sunni forces has weakened Iran’s Shi’ite arc across the region, too. And in the wake of Hamas’s October 2023 invasion of southern Israel, the IDF has moved to destroy the terror group’s military capabilities and end its rule in Gaza, a difficult campaign that is still underway and probably won’t be completed unless and until Tehran is subdued.

Iran is fomenting subversion in Middle Eastern countries that are Western allies, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. It is particularly focused on destabilizing the Hashemite regime in Jordan to gain access to Israel’s longest border and, from there, to penetrate Israel’s heartland.

The mullahs of Tehran are behind the radical Islamic groups in Judea and Samaria and terrorist infrastructure with tons of weaponry and cash that are fueling violence against Israel – an infrastructure currently being exposed and destroyed by the IDF.

Iran is sponsoring terrorism against Western, Israeli, and Jewish targets around the world, including unambiguous funding, logistical support, planning, and personnel for terrorist attacks that span the globe, from Buenos Aires to Burgas. The Islamic Republic maintains an active terrorist network of proxies, agents, and sleeper cells worldwide.

Tehran is rapidly approaching full nuclear military status, with uranium enrichment and bomb-assembly facilities buried in near-impenetrable deep underground bunkers.

According to the IAEA, Iran has enriched uranium to almost-bomb-ready levels (60% and 84%, which are very close to the 90% level necessary for a nuclear weapon), with its stock of refined uranium hexafluoride growing by 92.5 kg. in the past quarter alone to 274.8 kg. By IAEA standards, this is sufficient for an estimated six nuclear weapons, with the final sprint achievable within months.

The past six US presidents all pledged that Iran would never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. But Obama cut a rotten, soft deal with Tehran that legitimized the nuclear program and afforded the Islamic Republic tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and cash aid. President Joe Biden continued on this path.

Worse still, Biden’s top military man, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, dialed back America’s commitment to stopping Tehran by saying that the US only “remains committed [to ensuring that] Iran will not have a fielded nuclear weapon.” This suggested that the Biden administration was prepared to tolerate developed nuclear weapons in the Islamic Republic’s hands, provided the weapons were not “fielded,” in other words, deployed.

Iran has developed a formidable long-range missile arsenal of great technological variability, including solid and liquid propellant ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and ICBMs. The entire Iranian ballistic missile program is in violation of United Nations Security Council prohibitions.

Tehran has fired its ballistic missiles at US troops in Iraq, at targets in Iraqi Kurdistan, and twice over the past year into Israel. Fortunately, Israeli air defenses, alongside a coalition of Western forces, successfully intercepted most of the incoming Iranian missiles aimed at the Jewish state, which were not (yet) nuclear-tipped. The latest Iranian ICBM seems to be based on the North Korean BM25 missile with a range of 3,500 km., meaning it could reach deep into Europe.

Iran has provided Russia with thousands of armed attack drones for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine. Experts are concerned that, in return, Tehran will be getting sophisticated Russian military technologies such as new aerial defense systems – especially after Israel destroyed much of its Russian-supplied air defense systems (known as S-300 and S-400) in a retaliatory operation last October.

And where is all Iran’s money coming from? Well, in addition to the payouts from Obama and Biden, Iran’s Quds Force and Hezbollah are invested heavily in drug production and distribution (Captagon pills and more) across the Middle East and Europe and in money-laundering cryptocurrency schemes – as revealed two years ago by the Israeli Defense and Foreign Affairs ministries. And in violation of all international sanction regimes, Iran sells roughly $2 billion a month of oil to China.

This accounting is particularly important as America and Israel move closer – I hope and believe – to an essential, decisive military strike on Iran’s nuclear bomb facilities and missile bases.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, March 21, 2025.