RSS
Could — and Should — Israel Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program Before January 20?

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro meets with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, Oct. 24, 2024. Photo: Miraflores Palace/Handout via REUTERS
Iran’s nuclear program is advancing rapidly. According to the Institute for Science and International Security’s November 21, 2024, report, Iran has enough uranium to further enrich to weapons-grade uranium for 10 nuclear weapons within a month, and for 16 bombs within five months.
Furthermore, Iran could produce 25 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium — the amount required for one bomb – in as little as one week.
These alarming timelines, coupled with Iran’s diminished air defenses and lack of any substantial regional active proxy right now that it can activate against Israel with the exception of the Houthis in Yemen, present a rare strategic window for preemptive action following Israel’s recent military achievements against Hamas and Hezbollah and the fall of the Assad regime.
Delaying action risks that Iran will continue to creep toward the nuclear threshold and potentially take secret breakout action, which would fundamentally alter the region’s balance of power. With its proxy agenda in ruins, Iran’s weakened regime may be tempted to fall back on its nuclear program as an “immortality potion” against external threats.
A nuclear-armed Iran would quickly embark on a program to rebuild its shattered proxies and reconstruct the Iranian ring of fire around Israel while bullying Sunni powers into submission and seeking to destabilize them. A nuclear Iran would likely shield its proxies and allies, especially Hezbollah, under a nuclear umbrella. Striking now would prevent this scenario while Iran’s proxy networks remain severely weakened.
Following significant setbacks to Iran’s air defenses and missile production infrastructure in Israel’s October 26 strikes, Iran is currently extremely vulnerable. Israel achieved near-uncontested aerial supremacy in Iranian skies during the October 26 strikes, demonstrating the feasibility of further operations.
A swift, decisive strike may outpace international responses or potential restrictions from the incoming Trump administration, allowing Israel to maintain operational independence.
On the other hand, a unilateral Israeli strike might trigger prolonged missile exchanges with Iran itself, in a continuation of the long-range firepower exchanges of blows between Tehran and Jerusalem.
In addition, it could be argued that acting without the explicit backing of the United States or other allies may strain diplomatic ties and limit Israel’s ability to mitigate fallout from the strike. Should Iran choose to disrupt the global energy market, the fallout would be even more severe.
The incoming Trump administration, set to assume power on January 20, offers Israel a determined partner for addressing Iran’s nuclear threat. President Trump has historically favored a hardline, maximum pressure stance on Iran, and his administration is likely to pursue aggressive policies, including reimposing maximum pressure sanctions and bolstering military cooperation with Israel.
As such, those arguing to hold off on strikes point out that Trump’s administration may provide diplomatic cover for future Israeli strikes, shielding it from international condemnation and facilitating follow-up measures.
Furthermore, the Trump administration could expedite the delivery of critical military assets that would improve the quality of Israeli strikes, such as F-15IA fighter jets and KC-46A refueling tankers, enhancing Israel’s operational long-range capabilities for sustained action against Iran.
A joint approach with the US would amplify the effectiveness of economic, diplomatic, and military measures against Iran, creating a comprehensive campaign to halt its nuclear ambitions.
With US backing, Israel could deter retaliation from Iran’s proxies, as Tehran would face the prospect of direct US involvement in any escalation.
And yet, delaying action risks Iran’s once again using negotiations as a cover to legitimize its nuclear program and achieve breakout later on as it advances the program to the point where it would be significantly more difficult to neutralize.
Iran’s increasingly advanced centrifuges in operation in Natanz and Fordow make daily progress toward enriching uranium to the 60% level, and it is no major step to go from there to military-grade uranium. By some estimates, Iran is six months away from a crude nuclear device and around 18 months away from an operational nuclear warhead that it can install on a delivery mechanism (missiles).
The Trump administration may initially prioritize diplomatic engagement or prefer to focus on challenges from Russia and China, creating delays or limiting operational scope.
Iran’s current vulnerabilities may diminish over time as it repairs its defenses and missile infrastructure. A delayed strike could face greater resistance and higher operational risks.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently emphasized the centrality and existential nature of Iran’s nuclear threat, warning that failure to address it would exacerbate other security challenges. While recent strikes demonstrated Israel’s operational capabilities, the question of timing remains pivotal.
If Iran’s nuclear advancements continue unchecked, Israel risks facing a fait accompli — a nuclear Iran that begins rebuilding its path toward its ambition of Israel’s collapse by the year 2040, as the infamous clock in Tehran indicates.
At the same time, waiting for American diplomatic and potential military support could lead to a better strike opportunity.
Israel’s choice between striking Iran’s nuclear program before January 20 or waiting for Trump’s second term presents no easy answers. Immediate action offers a chance to neutralize an existential threat while Iran is vulnerable but carries the risks of escalation, isolation, and limited international support. Waiting suggests stronger diplomatic and military backing but risks Iran’s advancing its nuclear capabilities beyond the point of no return.
Israel must weigh these factors carefully. And while the decision must be heavily influenced by intelligence on the real-time status of Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli decision makers must take into account the danger of unknown unknowns when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program.
Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane’s Defense Weekly and JNS.org. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Could — and Should — Israel Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program Before January 20? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
16 States Support Trump Admin Over Harvard in New Amicus Brief as Part of Federal Funding Lawsuit

Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US on Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Attorneys general representing 16 US states have together filed an amicus brief in support of the Trump administration, which is being sued by Harvard University for confiscating some $2.26 billion of its federal contracts and research grants.
On Monday, the attorneys general of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, and others said in their amicus brief that the Trump administration took appropriate action to quell what they described as Harvard University’s flagrant violation of civil rights laws concerning its handling of the campus antisemitism crisis as well as its past history of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by practicing racial preferences in admissions.
“Harvard both admits that it has a problem with antisemitism and acknowledges that problem as the reason it needs a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. Yet when the federal government acted to rectify that acknowledged violation of federal law through a negotiated practice, Harvard cried retaliation,” the brief says. “Its characterization of its refusal to follow federal nondiscrimination law as First Amendment speech is sheer chutzpah.”
It continued, “There is strong evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory animus, and the First Amendment does not shield it from consequences. This court should deny summary judgement and allow the federal government to proceed with enforcing the law. Perhaps if Harvard faces consequences for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it will finally stop violating federal antidiscrimination law.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard alleges that the Trump administration bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering federal funds. It also said that the Trump administration does not aim, as it has publicly pledged, to combat campus antisemitism at Harvard but to impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.”
The Trump administration has proposed that Harvard reform in ways that conservatives have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Its “demands,” contained in a letter the administration sent to interim Harvard president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implored Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
Harvard has its own defenders, including those who are responsible for drawing scrutiny of antisemitism and far-left extremism there.
Earlier this month, the Palestine Solidarity Committee — which blamed Israel for Hamas’s Oct. 7., 2023, massacre mere hours after images and videos of the terrorist organization’s brutality spread online — filed an amicus brief which argued that the school’s alleged neglecting to restrict antisemitic demonstrations did not violate the civil rights of Jewish students.
“The expression of views critical of Israel — even where it personally offends — is not actionable harassment under Title VI [of the US Civil Rights Act],” wrote Palestine Legal attorney Radhika Sainath, who represents the group. “Defendants have not specifically alleged what actions they believe created a severe or pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI — or what educational programs or activities were limited or denied by such acts.”
Sainath continued, comparing Jewish Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while comparing anti-Zionists — who have been trafficking racial slurs and epithets about African Americans on social media during the Gaza war — to the civil rights activists of the 1960s.
“Many white parents who supported segregation were discomforted — even frightened — by the prospect of Black children attending schools with their children. But advocacy for the rights of Black Americans to live as equal citizens was not anti-white any more than advocacy for the equal rights of Palestinians is anti-Jewish,” Sainath charged. “In fact, it is opposition to equal rights of Black people that is discriminatory, just as opposition to equal rights for Palestinians is discriminatory.”
The Palestine Solidarity Committee triggered a cascade of events in which Harvard was accused of fostering a culture of racial grievance and antisemitism and important donors suspended funding for various programs. Additionally, the school’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, resigned in disgrace after being outed as a serial plagiarist. Her tenure was the shortest in Harvard’s history.
More incidents followed over the next several months. In one notorious episode, a mob of anti-Zionists — including Ibrahim Bharmal, editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review — were filmed following, surrounding, and intimidating a Jewish student. A pro-Hamas faculty group also shared an antisemitic image depicting a left-hand tattooed with a Star of David, containing a dollar sign at its center, dangling a Black man and an Arab man from a noose.
Earlier this month, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon hinted at the possibility of unfreezing billions of dollars the federal government put on ice, telling Bloomberg’s Akayla Gardener, “It would be my goal that if colleges and universities are abiding by the laws of the United States and doing what we’re expecting of them, they could expect to have taxpayer funded programs.”
Responding to an additional question Bloomberg posed regarding President Donald Trump’s saying recently that Harvard University — which lost over $2.26 billion during the spree of cuts — “is starting to behave” — McMahon agreed with the president, suggesting that Harvard and the administration are drawing near a compromise. She added, however, that taxing Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment, the value of which exceeds the gross domestic product of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and over 120 other nations, would benefit taxpayers. In April, Trump ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to review Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a measure that was cheered by populists while being regarded as extreme by others who argue that following through on the revocation stands to make American higher education less competitive.
Trump addressed a potential “deal” with Harvard on Friday, writing on his Truth Social platform, saying a “deal will be announced over the next week or so.” He added, “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”
To date, Harvard has held its own against the federal government, building a war chest with a massive bond sale and notching a recent legal victory in the form of an injunction granted by a federal job which halted the administration’s restrictions on its international students — a policy that is being contested in a separate lawsuit.
“The court’s order will continue to allow Harvard to host international students and scholars while this case moves forward,” a Harvard spokesperson told Newsweek on Tuesday. “Harvard will continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post 16 States Support Trump Admin Over Harvard in New Amicus Brief as Part of Federal Funding Lawsuit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Jewish Lawmakers Challenge Hegseth Over Pentagon Press Secretary’s Social Media Antisemitism

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on US President Donald Trump’s budget request for the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US, June 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The Congressional Jewish Caucus on Tuesday sent a letter to US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, demanding explanations for the continued employment of Kingsley Wilson, now serving as the Pentagon’s press secretary, following revelations of her social media postings peddling antisemitic conspiracy theories.
“These statements include promoting the antisemitic and racist ‘Great Replacement’ theory, praising far-right political movements using slogans tied to neo-Nazi groups, and repeating patently false statements commonly circulated in neo-Nazi circles about Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was lynched by an antisemitic mob in Georgia in 1915,” the legislators wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Jewish Insider.
According to the members of Congress, on four occasions Wilson had written “Ausländer Raus!,” a term associated with neo-Nazis and banned in Germany.
One August 17, 2024, post on X stated “Leo Frank raped & murdered a 13-year-old girl. He also tried to frame a Black man for his crime. The ADL turned off the comments because they want to gaslight you.”
Frank, a Jewish factory manager, was sentenced to death by hanging for the rumored rape and the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan in Atlanta in 1913. Phagan was found dead in the basement of the factory in which Frank worked.
The 31-year-old’s sentence was later commuted to life in prison. However, an armed mob, infuriated by the decision to downgrade the sentence, abducted Frank from his jail cell and lynched him.
Frank was officially pardoned in 1986, and historians largely believe that he was wrongly convicted. Historians also believe that Frank’s trial and subsequent conviction were compromised by antisemitism. During his court proceedings, thousands of spectators gathered and yelled chants such as “hang the Jew.”
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was founded following the lynching of Frank and regularly receives comparable attacks from neo-Nazis and other antisemites today.
In previous testimony before Congress regarding Wilson’s remarks, Hegseth had said he “would need to see precisely what’s being characterized.” He described the questioning as “a mischaracterization attempting to win political points.”
Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) led the letter. Cosigners included Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Becca Balint (D-VT), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).
The congressmembers concluded with four questions for Hegseth, beginning with asking if he could “confirm whether or not the public comments made by Kingsley Wilson are permissible for a civilian employee serving in a senior, public-facing role within the department?”
The letter asked, “When a department employee has been confirmed to have made public statements of this nature, how has the department assessed whether those remarks are relevant or serious enough to warrant action?” It also inquired about “specific steps” taken in response to previous similar instances.
The legislators concluded by asking, “Do you, Secretary Hegseth, find these comments to be acceptable language for an official representing the Department of Defense?”
Following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks across southern Israel, Wilson expressed disinterest, writing that “the images of the babies murdered by Hamas are horrific. I wish images of aborted babies evoked a similar global outcry.” She embraced a conventional position long advocated by the non-interventionist, paleo-conservative right, saying the United States should not “get involved in foreign ethnic conflicts” and that the Israel-Hamas war was “none of our business.”
Wilson also made explicit her support for “the Great Replacement Theory,” the conspiracy theory which insists a cabal of Jews has plotted to replace white Americans with brown immigrants. She wrote, “The Great Replacement isn’t a right-wing conspiracy theory … it’s reality.”
This racist fantasy inspired convicted mass murder Robert Bowers to slaughter 11 Jews on Oct. 27, 2018, at the Tree of Life – Or L’Simcha Congregation in Pittsburgh. Bowers currently sits on death row at the US Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.
In interviews with Jewish Insider, multiple Republican senators expressed their concerns with Wilson’s statements, including Republican Sens. Roger Wicker (MS), Rick Scott (FL), and James Lankford (OK).
Wicker confirmed he was looking into Wilson’s statements while Scott said “obviously I don’t agree with her comments. I trust the Pentagon will address this.”
Lankford called the remarks “weird stuff” and noted an ongoing pattern of defense hires with questionable positions on Israel or hateful statements. “So yes, I have some questions, and I think those are fair questions,” he said.
Wilson’s isolationist sentiments and promotion of antisemitic conspiracies reflect viewpoints in line with a wing of the so-called Make America Great Again movement which now finds itself at odds with President Donald Trump’s decision to drop three 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Far-right provocateur Candace Owens also began a series of antisemitic social media postings in August 2024 which included the promotion of conspiracy theories about Frank.
In response to the recent strikes on Iran, Owens appeared to take Iran’s side on X, writing to her 6.9 million followers on Tuesday that “Iran is alleging that they never violated the ceasefire. Israel has a LONGGGG history of faking ceasefire violations. Iran did not begin this war so no one should believe anything [Israel Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is alleging. He wants this war, badly.”
The post US Jewish Lawmakers Challenge Hegseth Over Pentagon Press Secretary’s Social Media Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Says He’ll Back Republican Primary Challenger Against ‘Pathetic Loser’ and Israel Critic Thomas Massie

US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the US Capitol on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
US President Donald Trump repudiated Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Monday, calling him a “pathetic loser” after the Kentucky Republican criticized Trump’s weekend strike on Iranian nuclear facilities as unconstitutional.
Massie, a libertarian‑leaning congressman and a staunch opponent of American intervention in foreign conflicts, joined Democratic colleagues Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on the CBS program “Face the Nation” to denounce the strikes on Iran. Massie lambasted Trump’s decision to authorize the military actions as an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power, claiming that there was “no imminent threat” to the US.
In response, Trump took to Truth Social, labeling Massie “not MAGA,” referring to the Make America Great Again movement of his supporters. Trump also accused the lawmaker of routinely voting “NO” and supporting Iran’s nuclear ambitions while the regime chants “Death to America.” Trump slammed Massie for supposedly not supporting his agenda.
“Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA … Actually, MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him,” Trump said.
“Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes ‘NO’ on virtually everything … He is disrespectful to our great military — not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in yesterday’s attack, which was a total and complete WIN,” Trump added.
Trump urged Kentucky Republicans to refrain from voting for Massie’s reelection, arguing that the representative has not been an effective lawmaker or advocate for the conservative legislative agenda. Massie has been an outspoken critic of several of Trump’s policies, including his “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
“MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! … GET THIS ‘BUM’ OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The president continued, claiming that he would support a challenger to unseat the outspoken Kentucky representative.
“We will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I’ll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.”
Close advisers of Trump have recently launched a new anti-Massie super PAC and are searching for the right candidate to challenge the incumbent representative, according to reporting by Axios.
Later on Sunday, Massie responded on X/Twitter that Trump “declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress.”
Since the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of Israel, Massie has been one of the few Republicans to consistently question US military and financial support for Israel. He opposed multiple House resolutions condemning Hamas and affirming Israel’s right to exist, labeling such measures as overly broad attempts to stifle speech. In late October 2023, Massie broke with his party by voting against a $14.3 billion aid package to Israel. During an appearance on the podcast of controversial political commentator Tucker Carlson, Massie criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US — accusing the organization of employing “AIPAC babysitters” to steer congressional votes.
The post Trump Says He’ll Back Republican Primary Challenger Against ‘Pathetic Loser’ and Israel Critic Thomas Massie first appeared on Algemeiner.com.