RSS
The Cautionary Tale of Jimmy Carter
Former US President Jimmy Carter attends an interview with Reuters in Cairo, Egypt, January 12, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
H.L. Mencken, the twentieth-century American journalist, satirist, and cultural critic, noted that “for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” His pithy observation prophetically described President Jimmy Carter, who has died at the age of 100.
Although he lived for more than a century, Carter’s legacy is unlikely to last nearly as long — because time and again, when faced with complex problems, he reached for clear and simple solutions that turned out to be disastrously wrong.
History’s verdict on Carter is hardly mixed—it leans heavily toward disaster, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. While he may have meant well, his penchant for moralizing in a way that bordered on patronizing, and his insistence on prioritizing ideals over reality, made him a pioneer of the kind of weakness that Barack Obama later perfected with his “leading from behind” doctrine. Carter’s America didn’t lead from behind—it just didn’t lead at all.
The fallout? A Middle East that’s been on fire ever since.
Carter’s most consequential failure was Iran. By abandoning the Shah and allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to step through the front door with his fanatical Islamic revolution, Carter handed the world over to radical Islamists. Khomeini didn’t just take over Iran—he ignited a revolutionary flame that still burns today.
October 7th, the deliberate and eagerly executed Hamas massacre of 1,200 innocent Israelis in Southern Israel, an evil atrocity that sent shockwaves through Israel and across the world, is just one link in the chain of chaos that Jimmy Carter helped to forge. Iran’s terror tentacles—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis—all trace their origins to the regime Carter allowed to flourish.
The vile Assad regime in Syria, now deposed, with as yet unknown chaos following in its wake, also owed its longevity to support from the regime that came into being as a result of Carter’s inadequate response when he could have cut it off before it took root.
In a 2014 interview on CNBC, Carter admitted, “I could have been re-elected if I had taken military action against Iran. It would have shown that I was strong and resolute and manly… I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had. But in the process, a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages.”
What an admission! Look how many innocent people have died and been repressed as a result of his ivory tower moral stance. As Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”
Many commentators have pointed to the fact that Carter presided over the historic Camp David Accords, but let’s be clear: while he played a significant role as a facilitator, the deal ultimately succeeded because Sadat and Begin were pragmatic men who understood their people needed peace more than platitudes.
Carter’s vision leaned heavily toward Palestinian autonomy, and had he gotten his way, Israel might have faced greater pressure to concede to PLO demands. Instead, the actual treaty focused on Israel-Egypt relations, and Carter, despite his moralizing, was fortunate to share credit for a deal rooted in the leaders’ pragmatism rather than his ideology.
And, as former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren put it in his article about Carter’s legacy, “No sooner were the Camp David Accords signed in 1979 than Carter embarked on a 40-year smear campaign against Israel.”
And in his post-presidency, things only got worse. Instead of acting as a neutral go-between and peace facilitator for Israel and the Palestinians, Carter transformed himself into the elder statesman of global finger-wagging. He seemed determined to lecture Israel at every opportunity, portraying it as the primary obstacle to peace, while cozying up to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat—a man whose organization, the PLO, had the blood of countless Israelis on its hands.
Carter didn’t stop there. In 2008, he went out of his way to meet in Syria with leaders of Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and Israel. Carter defended the visit as an attempt at peace-building, but in reality, it gave Hamas a veneer of legitimacy it neither earned nor deserved.
Carter compounded his betrayal of Israel by introducing the word “Apartheid” to describe Israel’s treatment of Arabs—an obscene accusation with no basis in reality, and one he surely knew was both false and inflammatory.
Rather than contributing to peace, Carter’s self-proclaimed moral high ground quickly eroded into a moral swamp, enabling some of the world’s most dangerous actors while undermining America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Instead of securing his place in history as a peacemaker, Carter’s post-presidency cast him as a sanctimonious meddler whose actions deepened divides rather than bridging them.
There was undoubtedly a good side to Carter—his Habitat for Humanity project, which built thousands of affordable homes for Americans who couldn’t afford expensive property, showed that he genuinely cared about people. He was willing to roll up his sleeves—literally!—and get to work for those in need. It was a touching example of his personal decency and desire to make a tangible difference in people’s lives.
Carter wasn’t a bad man—he was just a bad president. Idealism, while admirable, often walks hand-in-hand with naivety. And naivety, especially in leadership, allows evil to flourish—even when the intentions are noble. Carter believed deeply in human rights, but he had no idea how to protect them. He believed in peace—which all good people do—but he mistook appeasement for diplomacy. Worst of all, he failed to grasp a harsh truth: giving bad people slack doesn’t make them better—it just gives them room to harm the innocent.
And that’s the crux of the problem. The world Carter left us is more dangerous, not less, because he gave evil a foothold—and then had the audacity to call it progress.
In the end, Carter’s legacy is a cautionary tale. Good intentions aren’t enough. Leadership means knowing when to stand firm, when to draw red lines, and when to stop pretending that the world’s villains can be reasoned with. Carter never learned that lesson. And the world is still paying the price.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post The Cautionary Tale of Jimmy Carter first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar attends a press conference with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul (not pictured) in Berlin, Germany, June 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Christian Mang
Israel is interested in establishing formal diplomatic relations with long-standing adversaries Syria and Lebanon, but the status of the Golan Heights is non-negotiable, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said on Monday.
Israeli leaders argue that with its rival Iran weakened by this month’s 12-day war, other countries in the region have an opportunity to forge ties with Israel.
The Middle East has been upended by nearly two years of war in Gaza, during which Israel also carried out airstrikes and ground operations in Lebanon targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah, and by the overthrow of former Syrian leader and Iran ally Bashar al-Assad.
In 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco became the first Arab states to establish ties with Israel since Jordan in 1994 and Egypt in 1979. The normalization agreements with Israel were deeply unpopular in the Arab world.
“We have an interest in adding countries such as Syria and Lebanon, our neighbors, to the circle of peace and normalization, while safeguarding Israel‘s essential and security interests,” Saar said at a press conference in Jerusalem.
“The Golan will remain part of the State of Israel,” he said.
Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing the territory from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. While much of the international community regards the Golan as occupied Syrian land, US President Donald Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over it during his first term in office.
Following Assad’s ousting, Israeli forces moved further into Syrian territory.
A senior Syrian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Syria would never give up the Golan Heights, describing it as an integral part of Syrian territory.
The official also said that normalization efforts with Israel must be part of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and not carried out through a separate track.
A spokesperson for Syria‘s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The 2002 initiative proposed Arab normalization with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from territories including the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza. It also called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Throughout the war in Gaza, regional power Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that establishing ties with Israel was conditional on the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Israel‘s Saar said it was “not constructive” for other states to condition normalization on Palestinian statehood.
“Our view is that a Palestinian state will threaten the security of the State of Israel,” he said.
In May, Reuters reported that Israel and Syria‘s new Islamist rulers had established direct contact and held face-to-face meetings aimed at de-escalating tensions and preventing renewed conflict along their shared border.
The same month, US President Donald Trump announced the US would lift sanctions on Syria and met Syria‘s new president, urging him to normalize ties with Israel.
The post Israel Eyes Ties With Syria and Lebanon After Iran War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Threading Liberty: A Family’s Flight Toward American Freedom
The House of Representatives Building and the East Portico of the US Capitol. Photo: Flickr.
Inside a small toy store in Kiev, my grandmother scanned the faces of 10 identical teddy bears. They all looked back at her with the same blank stare — their beckoning beaded eyes giving the illusion of a choice. Sighing, she picked the very last one on the shelf, wishing there were other options, and bought it for my mother. This sense of having no other choice was a familiar feeling rooted in her day-to-day life, along with the lives of the rest of my family in the Soviet Union.
My grandfather, a student with perfect grades and the hopes of becoming an electrical engineer, had to settle for a lesser school in a small town because the top universities that specialized in engineering rejected him for being Jewish.
My grandparents realized that the life they wanted to live — and the one they wanted their children to have — could not exist in the Soviet Union, so they decided to immigrate to America. Flying across the Atlantic Ocean with her family, my mother tightly clutched the teddy bear my grandmother had given her for her birthday. She gazed out the window of the airplane as it touched down in the land of new beginnings.
Starting this new life towards the end of her high school years, my mother started applying to American universities. There were so many options to choose from, yet there were still so many obstacles to overcome. My mother had to learn English from scratch, and competed with students who grew up in the American education system in order to get one of the limited spots in top colleges. As a result of her hard work and perseverance, she got into and attended a prestigious university, which served as a foundation for building her new life. This would never have been possible if she had stayed in the Soviet Union, as her social status would have always served as a barrier for this kind of opportunity.
My mother, my father, and I now live in a comfortable home in the suburbs of New Jersey. In my bedroom sits the very same teddy bear that made the journey to the United States with my mother. Next to it sit a stuffed frog, a jaguar, and so many other stuffed animals that it would be enough to make an entire zoo. A Hebrew song plays in the background while I sit on my bed and scroll through a list of potential colleges on my computer.
The juxtaposition of how little choice my family had in the Soviet Union — and the seemingly endless amount of possibilities I now have in America — is a perfect example of what the Founding Fathers fought for when they described the “unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Thanks to both the work of America’s founding generations, and my family’s, I now live in a country where opportunities seem limitless, and where the choice is all mine to make.
I am very grateful, and I’m very excited for the future.
Mariella Favel is a high school student in Northern NJ. She is passionate about advocacy and exploring her family’s Russian-speaking Jewish identity.
The post Threading Liberty: A Family’s Flight Toward American Freedom first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The US Attack on Iran Was Legal
A satellite image shows airstrike craters over the underground centrifuge halls of the Natanz Enrichment Facility, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Natanz County, Iran, June 22, 2025. Photo: Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS
After June 21, when the US bombed critical nuclear sites in Iran, some members of Congress called the mission illegal. It appears the hostilities have ended for now. But the legality of “Operation Midnight Hammer” is still debated.
The question boils down to three issues: Was the US entitled under international law to enter the war? Did President Trump have authority under US law to order the use of military force? And did the undertaking comply with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirement to protect nuclear facilities?
When a US ally is subject to an armed attack or “imminent” armed attack, the US may lawfully assist the ally’s defense. The authority for the intervention is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which guarantees “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.” The multinational military incursions in Kuwait in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001 were considered valid acts of collective self-defense.
Israel suffered two forms of Iranian armed attack. Iran orchestrated armed attacks on Israelis for decades through terrorist proxy groups based in territories surrounding Israel. And Iran directly attacked Israel with two waves of missiles and drones in 2024. Meanwhile, Iran posed an imminent threat of attack because it was becoming a nuclear threshold state while obsessively threatening to annihilate Israel.
Iran observers are unsure how close the regime came to nuclear weaponization. The bomb-making task requires highly enriched uranium, a triggering device, and a delivery vehicle such as a ballistic missile. On April 17, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned that Iran had all the weaponizing “puzzle pieces” and was “not far” from putting them together.
Two months later the IAEA reported that Iran had illegally stockpiled over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough to make several nuclear bombs. Estimates on the remaining time needed to complete the lethal puzzle ranged from months to a year.
Some critics of the American-Israeli collective self-defense welcomed the erasure of Iran’s nuclear facilities but insisted President Trump lacked authority to order the operation without a Congressional declaration of war under Article I of the Constitution. The executive and legislative branches of the US government have long debated the Constitutional power to declare war, and the courts have never resolved the standoff.
A 2016 Department of Justice report formalized the executive branch position on the Constitutional dispute. It defines “war” for the purposes of Article I as a prolonged and substantial military engagement. If there’s no war, there’s no need for a declaration of war. For example, the DOJ opined that a two-week air campaign involving 2,300 combat missions, and an air campaign involving over 600 missiles and precision-guided munitions, did not amount to wars.
Under the DOJ framework, the June 21 assault on Iran’s nuclear program was certainly not a war. The counterproliferation scheme involved just 75 precision guided weapons in a one-day surgical strike. Seven US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers in a “package” of 125 aircraft dropped less than 20 bombs on two nuclear sites, and a US submarine fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at a third nuclear site. The pilots spent only two and a half hours in Iranian airspace.
Members of Congress who raised the Constitutional challenge also claim that the president violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR). Under the WPR, the president may commit armed forces to “hostilities” only if there is a Congressional “declaration of war,” a “specific statutory authorization,” or a “national emergency” created by an attack on the US or its armed forces. Once the military action starts, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours and must stop the action within 60 days unless Congress gives its approval.
Presidents of both parties have repeatedly ignored the three WPR prerequisites to the use of military force. Congressional acquiescence was treated as consent. In the tacit understanding, a president may initiate armed force if it is more surgical than “war” as defined by the DOJ framework and it serves “important national interests.” Consistent with that policy, President Trump described the June 21 action as “a precision strike” that served “vital United States interests.” The vital US interest was the same one emphasized by every US president since 2003, when the IAEA first disclosed Iran’s clandestine plan to develop nuclear weapons. President Trump said the violently anti-Western regime must never acquire a nuclear bomb.
Assuming the US raid in Iran was validly authorized, the only remaining question is whether it was validly implemented. IAEA standards prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities “devoted to peaceful purposes.” Director General Grossi stressed this point in his June 13 Statement on the Situation in Iran, while calling for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict.
Significantly, the Statement did not say Iran’s nuclear facilities were peaceful. Nor did it accuse Israel of violating any IAEA rule. The military nature of Iran’s nuclear facilities made them legally targetable for attack.
It is not legally clear when a US president may wield military might. But based on the written law and past US practice, Operation Midnight Hammer was a valid use of force.
Joel M. Margolis is the Legal Commentator, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, U.S. Affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. His 2021 book, The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War, analyzed the major legal issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously he worked as a telecommunications lawyer in both the public and private sectors.
The post The US Attack on Iran Was Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.