Uncategorized
Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments
(JTA) — When the New York Times journalist Jodi Kantor was reporting the 2017 Harvey Weinstein sexual assault story that earned her a Pulitzer prize, the powerful Hollywood producer and his team tried to influence her by using something they had in common: They are both Jewish.
“Weinstein put [Jewishness] on the table and seemed to expect that I was going to have some sort of tribal loyalty to him,” Kantor told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on a video call from the New York Times newsroom. “And that was just not going to be the case.”
Now, that exchange has been immortalized in “She Said,” a new film adaptation of the nonfiction book of the same name by Kantor and her collaborator Megan Twohey that details their investigation into Weinstein’s conduct, which helped launch the #MeToo movement.
The film, directed by Maria Schrader with stars Zoe Kazan as Kantor and Carey Mulligan as Twohey, is an understated thriller that has drawn comparisons to “All the President’s Men” — and multiple subtle but powerful Jewish-themed subplots reveal the way Kantor’s Jewishness arose during and at times intersected with the investigation.
In one scene, the Kantor character notes that a Jewish member of Weinstein’s team tried to appeal to her “Jew to Jew.” In another, Kantor shares a moving moment with Weinstein’s longtime accountant, the child of Holocaust survivors, as they discuss the importance of speaking up about wrongdoing.
Kantor, 47, grew up between New York and New Jersey, the first grandchild of Holocaust survivors — born “almost 30 years to the day after my grandparents were liberated,” she notes. She calls her grandmother Hana Kantor, a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor, her “lodestar.” Kantor — who doesn’t often speak publicly about her personal life, including her Jewish background, which involved some education in Jewish schools — led a segment for CBS in May 2021 on her grandmother and their relationship. Before her journalism career, she spent a year in Israel on a Dorot Fellowship, working with Israeli and Palestinian organizations. She’s now a “proud member” of a Reform synagogue in Brooklyn.
Kantor spoke with JTA about the film’s Jewish threads, the portrayal of the New York Times newsroom and what Zoe Kazan’s performance captures about journalism.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
JTA: How did you feel having Zoe Kazan, who is not Jewish, play you? Kazan has played some notably Jewish characters before, for example in the HBO miniseries “The Plot Against America.”
JK: I feel Zoe’s performance is so sensitive and so layered. What I really appreciate about her performance is that she captures so many of the emotions I was feeling under the surface in the investigation. You know, when you’re a reporter and especially a reporter handling that sensitive a story, it’s your responsibility to present a really smooth professional exterior to the world. At the end of the investigation, I had the job of reading Harvey Weinstein some of the allegations and really confronting him. And in dealing with the victims, I wanted to be a rock for them and it was my job to get them to believe in the investigation. And so on the one hand, you have that smooth, professional exterior, but then below that, of course you’re feeling all the feelings. You’re feeling the power of the material, you’re feeling the urgency of getting the story, you’re feeling the fear that Weinstein could hurt somebody else. You’re feeling the loss that these women are expressing, including over their careers. And so I think Zoe’s performance just communicates that so beautifully.
What Zoe says about the character is that there are elements of me, there are elements of herself, and then there are elements of pure invention because she’s an artist, and that’s what she does.
I think the screenplay gets at a small but significant line of Jewish sub-drama that ran through the investigation. It went like this: Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew. And they’ve done this more recently, as well. There have been times when Harvey Weinstein was trying to approach me “Jew to Jew,” like almost in a tone of “you and I are the same, we understand each other.” We found dossiers later that they had compiled on me and it was clear that they knew that I was the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, and they tried to sort of deploy that. So speaking of keeping things under the surface, I privately thought that was offensive, that he was citing that. But your job as a reporter is to be completely professional. And I wasn’t looking to get into a fight with Weinstein. I just wanted to find out the truth and I actually wanted to be fair to the guy. Anyway, even as he was approaching me “Jew to Jew” in private, he was hiring Black Cube — sort of Israeli private intelligence agents — to try to dupe me. And they actually sent an agent to me, and she posed as a women’s rights advocate. And she was intimating that they were going to pay me a lot of money to appear at a conference in London. Luckily I shooed her away.
To some degree I can’t explain why private Israeli intelligence agents were hired to try to dupe the Hebrew speaking, yeshiva-educated, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. But it’s not my job to explain that! It’s their job to explain why they did that.
Then the theme reappeared with Irwin Reiter, Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years, who kind of became the Deep Throat of the investigation. I quickly figured out that Irwin and I were from the same small world. He was the child of survivors, and had also spent his summers at bungalow colonies in the Catskills just down the road from mine. I don’t bring up the Holocaust a lot. It’s a sacred matter for me, and I didn’t do it lightly. But once I discovered that we did in fact have this really powerful connection in our backgrounds, I did gently sound it with him – I felt that was sincere and real. Because he was making such a critical decision: Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years is still working for the guy by day and he’s meeting with me at night. And I felt like I did need to go to that place with him, saying, “Okay, Irwin, we both know that there are people who talk and there are people who don’t. And we both grew up around that mix of people and what do we think is the difference? And also if you know if you have the chance to act and intervene in a bad situation, are you going to take it?”
We didn’t talk a lot about it, because I raised it and he didn’t want to fully engage. But I always felt like that was under the surface of our conversations, and he made a very brave decision to help us.
That was a very powerful scene in the film, and it felt like a turning point in the movie that kind of got at the ethical core of what was motivating your character. Was that a scene that was important to you personally to include in the film?
What Megan and I want people to know overall is that a small number of brave sources can make an extraordinary difference. When you really look at the number of people who gave us the essential information about Weinstein, it’s a small conference room’s worth of people. Most of them are incredibly brave women, some of whom are depicted, I think, quite beautifully in the film. But there was also Irwin, Weinstein’s accountant of all these years, among them. It’s Megan and my job to build people’s confidence in telling the truth. And as we become custodians of this story for the long term, one of the things we really want people to know is that a tiny group of brave sources, sometimes one source, can make a massive difference. Look at the impact that these people had all around the world.
Did you feel the film captured the New York Times newsroom? There’s a kind of great reverence to the toughness and professionalism in the newspaper business that really came through.
Megan and I are so grateful for the sincerity and professionalism with which the journalism is displayed. There are a lot of on screen depictions of journalists in which we’re depicted as manipulative or doing things for the wrong reasons or sleeping with our sources!
We [as journalists] feel incredible drama in what we do every day. And we’re so grateful to the filmmakers for finding it and sharing it with people. And I know the New York Times can look intimidating or remote as an institution. I hope people really consider this an invitation into the building and into our meetings, and into our way of working and our value system.
And we’re also proud that it’s a vision of a really female New York Times, which was not traditionally the case at this institution for a long time. This is a book and a movie about women as narrators.
“Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew,” Kantor said. (The New York Times)
There have been comparisons made between this movie and “All the President’s Men.” One of the striking differences is that those journalists are two male bachelors running around D.C. And this film has scenes of motherhood, of the Shabbat table, of making lunches. What was it like seeing your personal lives reflected on screen?
It’s really true that the Weinstein investigation was kind of born in the crucible of motherhood and Megan and my attempt to combine work with parenting. On the one hand, it’s the most everyday thing in the world, but on the other hand, you don’t see it actually portrayed on screen that much. We’re really honored by the way that throughout the film you see motherhood and work mixing, I think in a way that is so natural despite our obviously pretty stressful circumstances.
I started out alone on the Weinstein investigation, and I called Megan because movie stars were telling me their secrets but they were very reluctant to go on the record. So I had gone some way in persuading and engaging them, but I was looking to make the absolute strongest case for them. So I called Megan. We had both done years of reporting on women and children. Mine involved the workplace more and hers involved sex crimes more, which is part of why everything melded together so well eventually. I wanted to talk to her about what she had said to female victims in the past. But when I reached her, I could hear that something was wrong. And she had just had a baby, and I had had postpartum depression myself. So we talked about it and I gave her the name of my doctor, who I had seen. Then she got treatment. And she not only gave very good advice on that [initial] phone call, but she joined me in the investigation.
I think the theme is responsibility. Our relationship was forged in a sense of shared responsibility, primarily for the work – once we began to understand the truths about Weinstein, we couldn’t allow ourselves to fail. But also Megan was learning to shoulder the responsibility of being a parent, and I had two kids. And so we started this joint dialogue that was mostly about work, but also about motherhood. And I think throughout the film and throughout the real investigation, we felt those themes melding. It’s totally true that my daughter Tali was asking me about what I was doing. It’s very hard to keep secrets from your kid in a New York City apartment, even though I didn’t tell her everything. And Megan and I would go from discussing really critical matters with the investigation to talking about her daughter’s evolving nap schedule. It really felt like we had to get the story and get home to the kids.
And also, we were reporting on our own cohort. A lot of Weinstein victims were and are women in their 40s. And so even though we were very professional with this and we tried to be very professional with the sources, there was an aspect of looking in the mirror. For example, with Laura Madden, who was so brave about going on the record, it was conversations with her own teenage daughters that helped her make her decision.
We didn’t write about this in our book because it was hard to mix the motherhood stuff with this sort of serious reporter-detective story and all the important facts. And we didn’t want to talk about ourselves too much in the book. But the filmmakers captured something that I think is very true. It feels particular to us but also universal. When Zoe [Kazan] is pushing a stroller and taking a phone call at the same time, I suspect lots of people will identify with that. And what I also really like is the grace and dignity with which that’s portrayed.
It must have been surreal, seeing a Hollywood movie about your investigation of Hollywood.
I think part of the power of the film is that it returns the Weinstein investigation to the producer’s medium, but on vastly different terms, with the women in charge. Megan and I are particularly moved by the portrayals of Zelda Perkins, Laura Madden and Rowena Chiu — these former Weinstein assistants are in many ways at the core of the story. They’re everyday people who made the incredibly brave decision to help us, in spite of everything from breast cancer to legal barriers.
Working with the filmmakers was really interesting. They were really committed to the integrity of the story, and they asked a ton of questions, both large and small. Ranging from the really big things about the investigation to these tiny details. Like in the scene where we go to Gwyneth Paltrow’s house and Megan and I discover we’re practically wearing the same dress — those were the actual white dresses that we wore that day. We had to send them in an envelope to the costume department, and they copied the dresses in Zoe and Carey’s sizes and that’s what they’re wearing. There was a strand of extreme fidelity, but they needed some artistic license because it’s a movie. And the movie plays out in the key of emotion.
—
The post Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril
For much of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current term, Israelis have been told that they are on the verge of a historic military triumph. Netanyahu has been promising “total victory” since early 2024.
Yet the public mood inside Israel has darkened rather than lifted. After nearly three years of war, none of our enemies have actually been vanquished.
The war with Iran may resume at any moment, and the Iranian regime shows no sign of collapse, or of acquiescence to Israeli-American terms. Iran’s proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen — all soldier on, certainly bruised but strangely unbowed.
And in Israel, reservists continue to be called up, and soldiers continue to die. Israel has absorbed devastating reputational damage, and the sense that the country has no positive political horizon has hardened into exhaustion.
As that exhaustion translates into polling that should terrify the prime minister, Israel faces an unprecedented internal danger: that Netanyahu will use a state of permanent emergency he has worked to enshrine to cancel upcoming elections altogether.
Over the weekend, the combined party of former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid passed Netanyahu in many of the polls. Per one poll, the opposition together is now leading him by 71 to 49 seats — a 19-seat swing relative to the current Knesset. And because several small opposition-aligned parties are currently polling below the electoral threshold, the actual anti-government majority in a real election could be larger still.
The direction of travel is clear, the deficit in the polls for the right-religious bloc is huge, and the danger for Netanyahu is real. He faces a plausible future in which he not only loses power in the election that by law must be held by the end of October, but loses decisively.
That’s why many Israelis suspect the election may not occur.
In a recent Hebrew-language column, Haaretz writer Ravit Hecht wrote that when Netanyahu “ is vulnerable and lagging behind, he is at his most dangerous.”.
“Netanyahu will try to ignite an external front — preferably with Iran — in order to manufacture a state of emergency.,” Hecht added. “If he fails to maneuver Donald Trump into renewing the war with Iran, and if that leaves his hands tied in Lebanon or constrains his moves in Gaza, he will inflame the domestic front instead.”
Victory, or emergency
Netanyahu may see two possible lifelines.
The first: political redemption through the kind of overwhelming victory he’s been promising for years. If the Iranian regime were somehow destabilized or collapsed, Netanyahu could argue that history had vindicated him. Enough Israelis who currently view the wars as endless and inconclusive might reinterpret the sacrifices as the painful prelude to a transformative strategic success.
The trouble: years of promising such a victory, with no clear returns, make its likelihood at this late hour very dubious.
The second possibility is darker and more dangerous: capitalizing on a state of permanent emergency.
Israel adopted a siege mentality during the six weeks of war with Iran, weathering mass missile barrages, civilian deaths and profoundly disrupted routines. If those conditions re-emerged under a resumption of war, the government could attempt to argue that national elections are impossible during wartime.
Ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition have spent years preparing the ideological ground for precisely such a claim — and the confrontation it would spark with Israel’s democratic institutions.
Netanyahu’s allies have portrayed the Supreme Court as governed by an illegitimate elite conspiracy. They describe judges not as guardians of the constitutional order but as enemies of the popular will. The current chief justice, Yitzhak Amit, has faced relentless delegitimization campaigns. Senior ministers have openly suggested that court rulings need not be obeyed.
Any attempt to delay or suspend elections would almost certainly trigger intervention by the court. Israel lacks a formal written constitution, but it possesses a dense web of so-called Basic Laws, precedents, and institutional norms that collectively form its constitutional structure. If the government attempted to legislate an indefinite postponement of elections under emergency conditions, the Supreme Court would likely strike the move down.
At that point, Israel could face a constitutional crisis unprecedented in its history: a government claiming emergency authority against a judiciary insisting on democratic continuity.
The government’s position would be strong, because Israel’s institutions are deeply dependent on executive cooperation. If a determined government sought to sabotage the electoral process indirectly while claiming national necessity, the Central Electoral Commission would face immense practical obstacles. At the same time, the Supreme Court lacks any practical enforcement mechanisms
An uncomfortable bargain
None of this means Israeli democracy is doomed. Israeli institutions remain resilient, civil society remains energetic, and public resistance to authoritarian overreach would likely be massive. But it does mean that scenarios once dismissed as hysterical are now being discussed openly by serious observers.
There is, however, another path still faintly visible.
Increasingly, Israeli political circles are discussing the possibility of a negotiated Netanyahu exit from public life. Netanyahu has already sought ways to terminate or freeze his ongoing corruption trial. Under Israeli practice, a presidential pardon generally requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and some expression of remorse.
If Netanyahu were willing to plead to a reduced offense such as breach of trust rather than the more severe bribery charges, President Isaac Herzog could potentially justify a pardon framed as an act of national reconciliation. Such an arrangement would go against Netanyahu’s pugnacious grain. But he may fear the humiliation of resounding defeat — and the end of any plausible excuses for delaying his trial — even more. It is even conceivable, although far from likely, that he would not choose to cause debilitating harm to Israel.
A bargain — Netanyahu steps back from politics in exchange for a pardon — would outrage many Israelis. Others would see it as a necessary escape hatch from national trauma. And Netanyahu himself would preserve a version of the story he has always wanted to tell: that of a historic statesman stepping aside after defending Israel through existential wars, not a defeated leader dragged from office in disgrace.
His supporters would accept the narrative. His opponents would accept the outcome. Israeli democracy, bruised and deeply damaged, would survive without crossing into outright institutional rupture.
It may be the least destructive option available. Democracies can survive flawed leaders. And Netanyahu, in his obsession with clinging to power, has made the need for this radical option existential.
The post Netanyahu is facing electoral catastrophe — and could place Israel in existential peril appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Texas Sex Therapist in Congressional Race Calls for Castrating, Incarcerating ‘American Zionists’
Maureen Galindo, a sex therapist running for US Congress in Texas as a Democrat. Photo: Screenshot
The Democratic Party has rushed to condemn one of their own — Maureen Galindo, a candidate for US Congress in Texas’s 35th district — following an Instagram post last weekend in which she threatened Americans who support Israel with castration and internment.
“When Maureen gets into Congress, she’ll write legislation so that all Zionism and support of Zionism is undoubtedly Anti-Semitic, since it’s Zionists harming the Semites,” a post appearing on Galindo’s campaign account read. “She’ll turn Karnes ICE [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. (It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists).”
The post charged that Galindo’s Democratic primary opponent Johnny Garcia, the public information officer for Bexar County’s Sheriff Javier Salazar, “wants Jews and Mexicans in warehouses.” The campaign asserted that “the billionaire Zionists that control San Antonio and South Texas trafficking networks have coordinated a blitz campaign to propagate the conspiracy that anti-Zionist Maureen Galindo wants Jews in warehouses.”
The Instagram post added that “she would never blame ALL Jews for THE Jews (the Zionists) who have committed genocide on the indigenous Jews (the Semites) of the Middle East. Real Jews are VICTIMS of the Fake Jews (the Zionists).”
Galindo has also claimed that Jews control Hollywood and worship in a “synagogue of Satan,” perpetuating classic antisemitic ideas that have been promoted by both neo-Nazis and far-left extremists.
Democrats have started scrambling to ensure Galindo fails to advance to the general election. The Democratic primary runoff between Galindo, who finished first in the initial vote, and Garcia is scheduled for May 26.
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) released a statement blaming Republicans for spotlighting Galindo in an effort to damage Democrats politically.
“House Republican leadership must immediately cease propping up this antisemitic candidacy, pull spending in the race, and forcefully condemn these comments,” they said. “This vile language by her is disqualifying and has no place in American politics, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.”
According to Democrats, Republicans are the true backers of Galindo’s campaign, with almost the entirety of her funding coming from a mysterious group called Lead Left which emerged earlier this month. Researchers found metadata on the website which suggested alleged links to WinRed, a Republican fundraising platform.
On Wednesday, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) released a joint statement on X warning that “if for some reason, Maureen Galindo wins the congressional election in TX-35, as soon as she is sworn in, we will force a vote to expel her every single day we are here. Maureen’s insane, antisemitic views – including putting Americans in concentration camps – have no place in our party or country.”
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has announced that he will refuse to campaign with Galindo.
“This antisemitic rhetoric has no place in our politics,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “We need leadership in both parties willing to stand up and call out hate wherever it rears its ugly head.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), called Galindo’s statements “absolutely disgusting.”
“This bigoted garbage and antisemitism should be nowhere near our politics,” she posted on X. “If you’re in TX-35, vote for @johnnygarciatx. And the donors behind the Republican super PAC funding her should be exposed.”
Galindo defended herself in a text exchange with the Texas Tribune, claiming that reports of her Instagram post were “miswording my proposal to sound anti-Jew,” adding, “All politicians who have taken Israeli money should be tried for treason for aiding a foreign national with materials to harm Americans.”
In response to a question about how she felt about Democrats opposing her, she the candidate said that she did not care “what any Zionist-owned politician thinks. They’re exposing themselves as Zionists which will backfire on them.”
Galindo operates a business she has christened Exulted Sex Therapy, which offers to “increase safety, increase pleasure” at rates of $200 hourly for individuals or $250 for couples. She states on her site that “with my judgement-free [sic] and systemic approach to sex and wellness, you’ll learn to navigate various facets of your sexuality: anatomy & physiology, thoughts & emotions, and heart & spirit. Through this integration, you’ll discover the keys that unlock your most authentic pleasures.”
Galindo also encourages her potential clients to “inquire about including an astrology report.” She previously operated Cosmic Kinks Tarot in Bexar County, where she offered “kinky birth chart readings” and “live Tarot therapy” with her goal of empowering individuals “through the exploration of their sexuality, spirituality, and the stars,” according to a report from the Daily Mail.
Uncategorized
Trump Says Negotiations With Iran in Final Stages, Warns of Attacks if Deal Fails
A man holds a flag with a picture of late leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, late Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, during a rally in Tehran, Iran, April 29, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that negotiations with Iran were “in the final stages,” while warning of further attacks unless Tehran agrees to a peace deal.
Six weeks since Trump paused Operation Epic Fury for a ceasefire, talks to end the war have shown little progress. Trump said this week he came close to ordering more attacks but held off to allow time for negotiations.
“We’re in the final stages of Iran. We’ll see what happens. Either have a deal or we’re going to do some things that are a little bit nasty, but hopefully that won’t happen,” he told reporters.
“Ideally I’d like to see few people killed, as opposed to a lot. We can do it either way.”
Speaking later at the US Coast Guard Academy, Trump reprised his either/or rhetoric – “We may have to hit them very hard … but maybe not” – and reiterated his determination not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Tehran, for its part, accused Trump of plotting to restart the war, and threatened to retaliate for any strikes with attacks beyond the Middle East.
“If aggression against Iran is repeated, the promised regional war will extend beyond the region this time,” the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Iran‘s top peace negotiator, said in an audio message on social media that “obvious and hidden moves by the enemy” showed the Americans were preparing new attacks.
‘SUSPICION OVER AMERICA’S PERFORMANCE’
Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei later said the US had to end its “piracy” against Iranian ships – a reference to the US blockade of Iranian ports.
“Despite the negative record of the other side over the past year and a half, Iran is pursuing the path of negotiations with seriousness and good faith, but it has strong and reasonable suspicion over America’s performance,” Baghaei said.
In the latest diplomatic push, the interior minister of Pakistan – which hosted the only round of peace talks so far and has since been the conduit for messages between the sides – was in Tehran on Wednesday.
Baghaei said Washington and Tehran continued to exchange messages through the Pakistani minister’s mediation.
Iran submitted a new offer to the United States this week. Tehran’s descriptions suggest it largely repeats terms previously rejected by Trump, including demands for control of the Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damage, lifting of sanctions, release of frozen assets, and the withdrawal of US troops from the area.
Trump has said he called off attacks this week at the last minute in response to requests from several of Iran‘s Gulf neighbors. On Tuesday he said he had been an hour away from ordering strikes.
CHINESE TANKERS CROSS STRAIT
Iran has largely shut the Strait of Hormuz to all ships apart from its own since the US-Israeli campaign began in February, causing a massive disruption to global energy supplies. The US responded last month with its own blockade of Iran‘s ports.
Iran says it aims to reopen the strait to friendly countries that abide by its terms. That could potentially include fees for access, which Washington says would be unacceptable.
Baghaei said late on Wednesday that Iran was ready to establish with Oman a mechanism to ensure sustainable security in the Strait of Hormuz.
Two giant Chinese tankers laden with a total of around 4 million barrels of oil exited the strait on Wednesday. Iran had announced last week, while Trump was in Beijing for a summit, that it had agreed to ease rules for Chinese ships.
South Korea’s foreign minister said on Wednesday a Korean tanker was crossing the strait in cooperation with Iran.
Shipping monitor Lloyd’s List said at least 54 ships had transited the strait last week, about double the previous week. Iran said 26 ships had crossed in the past 24 hours, still only a fraction of the 140 per day before the war.
PRESSURE TO END WAR
Trump is under pressure to end the war, with soaring energy prices hurting his Republican Party ahead of congressional elections in November. Since the ceasefire, his public comments have veered from threats to restart bombing and claims that a deal is close.
The fluctuating US stance has sent oil prices swinging. Benchmark one-month Brent crude futures dropped to $105.76 per barrel late on Wednesday, down 4.95% on the day on revived hopes of a deal.
“Investors are keen to gauge whether Washington and Tehran can actually find common ground and reach a peace agreement, with the US stance shifting daily,” said Toshitaka Tazawa, an analyst at Fujitomi Securities.
The US-Israeli bombing devastated Iran’s military capabilities, including its defense industrial base, before it was suspended in a ceasefire in early April.
Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when they launched the war that their aims were to curb Iran‘s support for regional militias, dismantle its nuclear program, destroy its missile capabilities, and make it easier for Iranians to topple their rulers.
But Iran has so far retained its stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, and its ability to threaten neighbors with missiles, drones, and proxy militias, though toa lesser degree. Its clerical rulers, who put down a mass uprising at the start of the year, have faced no sign of organized opposition since the war began.