Uncategorized
The Pentagon fears the Vatican’s authority in a battle over Christianity’s power
The Vatican has not been a major player on the geopolitical stage in, well, at least a few centuries. The Catholic state is tiny, and has not had a real army or ruled land since, give or take a century, the days of Machiavelli.
Nevertheless, in January the Pentagon summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre, then the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S., to a meeting, according to reporting from The Free Press. There, Elbridge Colby, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, sparred with the Catholic diplomat in light of Pope Leo XIV’s outspoken opposition to the war in Iran, and to wars in general.
According to the report, which cited anonymous sources, the Pentagon told the cardinal, has the military might to do “whatever it wants” and that the pope “better take its side.” NBC reported its own Vatican sources calling the meeting “most unpleasant and confrontational,” and Catholic outlet The Pillar reported a senior Vatican official describing the meeting as “tense” and “aggressive” though not overtly threatening.
Then, one of the Pentagon reps reportedly referenced the Avignon papacy, a niche bit of church history that the official transformed into a cudgel. During this period, from 1309 until 1376, the papacy moved to France, where seven different popes lived in the territory of Avignon, under the influence of the control and influence of the French crown.
Since the reporting broke, both Pierre and Pentagon representatives have rejected the framing of the meeting as a threatening one. Vatican representative Mateo Bruni said that the meeting “provided the opportunity for an exchange of views on matters of mutual interest.”
The Department of War’s X account posted that the meeting was a “substantive, respectful, and professional” one in which the participants discussed “morality in foreign policy, the logic of the U.S. National Security Strategy, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and other topics.” The department denied any mention of the Avignon papacy.
Still, the fact that the Pentagon met with the Vatican ambassador at all is a first, and notable for demonstrating the impact of the pope’s moral leadership and the importance of Christianity in driving and justifying U.S. military actions — in particular, the war with Iran. And the public’s engagement in the debate over the specifics of the meeting proves that the U.S. government is right to care what the church says about its wars; people take it seriously. Military might is not the only force for influence.
Pivotal to understanding what the meeting meant is the disputed reference to the Avignon papacy, a historical moment in which a country’s secular government clashed with the church over symbolic and moral authority. The fact that there is even uproar and debate over whether an esoteric piece of history was mentioned in the meeting is proof enough of the stakes of the meeting.
To understand why Avignon is so pivotal — and why a Jewish publication would even be covering a piece of Catholic ancient history — it’s important to understand that, during that time period, in the 1300s, Europe was Catholic. Martin Luther wouldn’t nail his 95 Theses to the door of the church for two more centuries, and Protestantism didn’t exist. That gave the Vatican massive influence as the leader of Christendom, which encompassed all of Europe, and arguably much more. Kings were seen as vassals of the Vatican, carrying out its orders.
When the French king, Philip IV, asked for the church to fund his war against Britain, the pope refused. In 1302, Pope Boniface VII drove the point home with a papal bull stating that submitting to the pope was required for eternal salvation, placing the Vatican’s authority over all royal power. And he threatened to excommunicate Philip.
In response, the king had Boniface VII beaten to a pulp, and he died shortly thereafter. His successor, not incidentally, forgave the king and restored his religious authority. France used its power at the time to stack the church with French-allied clerics, and the move to Avignon followed shortly thereafter, with the next seven popes all of French background.
Fundamentally, the Avignon papacy was a conflict over symbolic authority. Philip IV wanted his wars to be blessed, and righteous. The Pentagon, clearly, wants the same for the war on Iran, with historically freighted roles. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has declared the war a Christian mission for the U.S., fighting alongside Israel as the world’s Jewish state — together targeting the Islamic Republic.
The idea that the Pentagon might have summoned the ghosts of the Avignon papacy shows that the U.S. still cares about the moral authority of the peace-preaching Vatican as a rival to military might. And the debate over whether anyone referenced what sounds like a nerdy piece of history is really a debate over the influence of the U.S. as a world leader, and its bona fides as what the current government purports to be a Christian nation.
Catholicism is becoming increasingly high profile in the historically Protestant U.S. Six out of nine Supreme Court justices are Catholic. Vice President JD Vance is a Catholic convert. Unsubstantiated rumors are flying online that the pope is considering excommunicating Vance. There is clearly still power in the church, at least culturally.
And Leo XIV has leaned into that cultural authority. In numerous speeches, including his Easter address, the pope has appeared to directly respond to American government officials and decisions, expressing sympathy for migrants as Trump’s deportation efforts accelerated, and critiquing “imperialist” military might as he entered into war with Iran. Despite being the first American pope, he has refused multiple invitations to the White House, including one for July 4 this year to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday; instead, he is pointedly visiting migrants on the same day.
“The Pope may well never visit the United States under this administration,” a Vatican official told The Free Press.
The particular clash between the White House and the pope also centers in large part around Hegseth, who is a member of an extremist Reformed Christian church, not a Catholic. (Though he does have a tattoo reading “Deus Volt,” a rallying cry during the Crusades — which were certainly Catholic.) After Hegseth gave a speech declaring that God had blessed the war with Iran and asking troops to pray for military victory, the pope said that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” Despite their different Christian movements, summoning a Vatican representative to the Pentagon, whatever was said, shows that Hegseth wants the pope on his side, and recognizes his speeches as a major factor in geopolitics.
The battle for Christian moral authority between the government and the pope also comes alongside a more internal Catholic clash in the U.S. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is fighting high-profile Catholic influencers such as Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, who regularly justify their open antisemitism with Catholicism. Though the pope himself has yet to weigh in, it’s another face of an ongoing struggle to define what Christianity means.
In today’s world, it’s hard to imagine a speech from the pope or the threat of excommunication carrying real weight, among so many churches with many theologies about war, antisemitism and the Middle East. The Vatican is no longer the singular authority over the West, and the pope’s power is largely symbolic. Whether or not anyone in the Pentagon meeting said that the U.S. has the military force to do anything it wants, it’s true.
Yet the fact that the government is engaging so seriously with the Vatican is a sign of the increasing centrality of Christianity, both Catholic and otherwise, in the U.S. government, and in American society. As Christian nationalists in the Trump administration seek to go back to the imagined glory days of Western culture, when Christendom rules, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the oldest, largest and most public face of the religion, or to deny its moral authority.
In a world in which the Vatican has only soft power, the pope’s decrees carry only as much power as they are given. But however soft the pope’s power may be, that surreal Vatican visit to the Pentagon suggests that even the best-armed military in the world is afraid of it.
The post The Pentagon fears the Vatican’s authority in a battle over Christianity’s power appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel Expels Spain From US-Backed Gaza Coordination Center as Diplomatic Rift Deepens
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez speaks during a press conference after attending a special summit of European Union leaders to discuss transatlantic relations, in Brussels, Belgium, Jan. 23, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
Israel has expelled Spain from the United States’ Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in Kiryat Gat, a hub established to coordinate humanitarian operations in the Gaza Strip, marking a sharp escalation in an already deteriorating diplomatic rift between the two countries.
On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Spain’s expulsion from the CMCC, framing the move as a response to Madrid’s increasingly anti-Israel stance and what he described as continued hostility toward the Jewish state.
“Spain has defamed our heroes, the soldiers of the [Israel Defense Forces], the soldiers of the most moral army in the world,” Netanyahu said during a press conference. “Anyone who attacks the State of Israel instead of the terrorist regimes … will not be our partner in the future of the region.”
“I am not willing to tolerate this hypocrisy and this hostility,” the Israeli leader continued. “I do not intend to allow any country to wage a diplomatic war against us without paying an immediate price for it.”
In a press release, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar confirmed that the United States had been informed ahead of time, adding that the decision followed Spain’s serious harm to the interests of both Jerusalem and Washington.
The Spanish government has also been informed of the decision, though it has yet to issue any public statement or official response.
“Spain’s obsessive anti-Israel bias under [Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez]’s leadership is so egregious that it has lost all capability to serve a constructive role in implementing US President Donald Trump’s peace plan and the center operating under it,” the top Israeli diplomat wrote in a post on X.
For a long time, the government of Spain under @sanchezcastejon has been operating against the State of Israel in every way possible. Sánchez and his ministers level false blood libels against Israel and its army, defame and incite against Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The…
— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) April 10, 2026
Established in October 2025 as part of US Central Command, the CMCC was set up to coordinate and manage the flow of humanitarian, logistical, and security assistance from the international community into Gaza under Trump’s peace plan for the enclave.
Since the start of the war in Gaza, and increasingly amid the war with Iran and broader regional escalation, Spain has launched a fierce anti-Israel campaign aimed at undermining and isolating the Jewish state on the international stage.
Earlier this week, Sánchez publicly condemned Israeli strikes in Lebanon and the widening regional escalation tied to the Iran conflict, renewing calls for the European Union to suspend its association agreement with Israel and urging an end to “impunity for [Israel’s] criminal actions.”
The Spanish leader also accused Netanyahu of breaching basic humanitarian norms, saying his “contempt for life and international law is intolerable.”
Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares has also publicly condemned Israel’s military campaign, describing the conflict as “the greatest assault on the civilization built upon the humanist ideals of reason, peace, understanding, and universal law over the abuse of power, brute force, and arbitrariness.”
In a phone call with his Spanish counterpart on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi praised Spain’s “principled and honorable” stance on what he called “US-Israeli aggression against Iran,” urging countries to take a firmer stand against what he described as war crimes.
“Spain’s valuable stances in defending international law and human values have been noted and praised by the Iranian nation and the international community, and will never be forgotten,” the top Iranian diplomat said.
Even though Spain welcomed the recently announced US–Iran ceasefire, Albares said, “Madrid will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket to put out that fire.”
As part of its broader anti-Israel campaign, Spain had recently closed its airspace to aircraft involved in what officials described as a “reckless and illegal confrontation” – another move welcomed by Iran’s Islamist government.
In one of its most controversial recent moves, Madrid also announced this weej the reopening of its embassy in Tehran.
According to data from Spain’s Ministry of Trade reported by Servimedia, the Spanish government exported more than €1.3 million worth of dual-use materials to Iran in 2024 and the first half of 2025, including explosive components, laboratory reagents, and specialized control software.
Uncategorized
DNC Fails to Pass Resolutions Condemning AIPAC, Pushing for Conditioning Aid to Israel
Crews prepare the stage at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Brian Snyder
A panel at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Thursday voted down a resolution to condemn the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, in Democratic primary elections. The panel also deferred a decision on resolutions to push for conditioning military aid to Israel and to recognize a Palestinian state.
The resolutions, which were considered within the newly created Middle East Working Group, were introduced into the agenda by Florida DNC member Allison Minnerly, who saw it as an opportunity to bring those who have not been “seeing their party support Palestinian rights or stand against military conflict” back into the fold of the Democratic Party, she told The Intercept.
Minnerly’s effort comes as the gap continues to widen between the official stance of the Democratic Party, which has largely supported aid to Israel in recent decades, and the views of the Democratic base, which now has an overwhelmingly unfavorable view of Israel, according to recent polling.
In recent months, a number of potential Democratic presidential hopefuls — including some who were former donors and speakers at AIPAC conferences — have been distancing themselves from AIPAC, saying they would not take money from the bipartisan group in the future.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, for example, recently said he abandoned his support for AIPAC when it “began to lean much more to the right and much more pro-Trump.” Another prominent Democrat, US Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) told Politico in March that he is no longer going to receive funds from AIPAC.
Others who have made sure to have no association with AIPAC include California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel.
Aside from the fact that Israel is now seen less favorably by Democratic voters, AIPAC has also become a hot topic on the left as its allied super PACs have become increasingly influential in Democratic primaries, spending millions to back candidates aligned with their positions. Critics within the party argue that this influx of money, including donations from Republican-aligned contributors, risks distorting Democratic contests and elevating outside influence.
Even so, the resolutions specifically calling out AIPAC, aiming to condition aid to Israel, and pushing to recognize a Palestinian state did not pass. Meanwhile, a separate resolution calling out all dark money went through.
“Let’s be clear on what really happened: Today, the Resolutions Committee voted to pass a resolution condemning the corrosive influence of ALL dark money in Democratic primaries,” DNC chair Ken Martin posted on X. “We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation.”
Meanwhile, Democratic Majority for Israel President & CEO Brian Romick said in a statement that the Democratic pro-Israel group was “pleased” with the outcome of the vote.
“We’re pleased that the DNC Rules Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions,” he said. “These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.”
“DMFI will continue to stay engaged with the DNC and its Task Force on the Middle East as it relates to these harmful resolutions,” he added. “The DNC and party advocates need to keep focus where it belongs — on building a united Democratic Party that can win back Congress this November.”
AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa said in a statement to Politico that the DNC “made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the democratic process. And we plan to do just that.”
Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America — an organization that aims to bring Jews into the Democratic Party — told Politico that the DNC “as a whole has not shifted from where it has been … which is an organization that is inclusive of Jewish Americans and is supportive of the US-Israel security relationship, as well as Israel’s future as a Jewish and Democratic state.”
She argues that “misconceptions” about this have been driven by “a vocal, far-left faction of our party.”
“But they are in no way leading here,” Soifer said.
Uncategorized
Israeli Report Sounds Alarm Over ‘America Only’ Faction Influencing US Right
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism has published a new report warning of a high-stakes schism among US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement propelled by an “America Only” alliance known for advancing antisemitic invective.
“The picture emerging from the report is concerning: Alongside significant American support for the war against the Iranian terror regime, a discourse is expanding in the US that attempts to present Israel as acting manipulatively, as if it dragged the US into war,” Amichai Chikli, minister for diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, said in a statement announcing the research.
“This is a dangerous discourse that often devolves from political and diplomatic criticism into conspiratorial rhetoric with a sharp antisemitic aroma,” he continued. “Our role is to identify these trends in time, alert people to them, and act together with our partners to understand deep-seated trends and know how to prepare and respond to them.”
Avi Cohen-Scali, the government ministry’s director general, added that “we identify an increasingly tightening connection between internal political debate in the US and the dissemination of anti-Israel and antisemitic messages online.”
The report, released on Thursday, analyzes the public sentiment of Republicans and conservatives regarding the US-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic regime in Iran. It defines two alliances on the American political right which have voiced opposition to the joint strikes: so-called “America First” and “America Only.” The Israeli researchers characterize the former faction as “restraint-oriented,” noting that adherents argue “”the strikes contradict anti-war campaign rhetoric, risk drawing the United States into another prolonged Middle East conflict, and impose economic costs that undermine domestic priorities.”
Advocates of this approach have also advanced narratives around the term “Israel First,” which the report describes as “including antisemitic claims alleging disproportionate Israeli or Jewish influence over US foreign policy, as well as slogans such as ‘dying for Israel’ that frame the war as serving foreign rather than American interests.”
The report names and profiles three prominent podcasters it identifies with this mentality: Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Joe Rogan, as well as streamer Sneako (Nicolas Kenn De Balinthazy).
In contrast, the Israeli researchers name “a more radical fringe, sometimes referred to as ‘America Only,’ which promotes extreme isolationism combined with conspiratorial, white nationalist, and antisemitic narratives.”
In this category, the report offers six profiles, leading with former US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who features “America Only” in her descriptor and banner on her X social media account where she routinely shares her views with 1.6 million followers. The report notes five others and includes data about their followings on billionaire Elon Musk’s X website: white nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes (1.3 million), former mixed martial arts fighter Jake Shields (over 900,000), British-American influencer Sam Parker (over 300,000), neo-Nazi Lucas Gage (over 286,000 but now blocked), and radio host Stew Peters (over 900,000).
According to the report, “the core distinction between right-wing populists (America First) and white nationalists (America Only) lies in how they define the in-group.”
While America First advocates “emphasize culture, nativism, and hostility toward elites,” those in America Only “place race and ancestry at the center of their worldview and openly support either the maintenance or restoration of white dominance. Their ideology prioritizes the preservation of ‘ethnic purity’ and often rests on explicit racial doctrines that can also shape their positions on foreign and international policy.”
Researchers describe how these voices “play a central role in shaping discourse, particularly among younger audiences, amplifying anti-war messaging and framing the conflict as misaligned with American interests.”
Noting that polls show Republican support for the war with Iran is limited with voters expressing caution about sending soldiers back to the Middle East, the report says that “divisions within conservative media and among some Republican figures, particularly within ‘America First’ and ‘America Only’ circles, indicate that support could weaken if the conflict becomes prolonged, expands operationally, or imposes sustained economic costs.”
These divisions do not remain in the domestic sphere. The ministry describes how pro-Iran networks “amplify narratives of American opposition to the conflict to deepen perceived divisions. These trends may have implications for Jewish and Israeli communities in the United States, particularly in relation to the risk of increased antisemitic discourse and incidents.”
The report cites polling showing a collapse of the American public’s sympathy for Israel (down to 36 percent, according to a recent Gallup survey) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with – for the first time ever – more Americans now aligning with the Palestinians (41 percent). This has flipped from February 2025 when 46 percent stood with the Jewish state and 33 percent supported the Palestinians.
While most of this rising anti-Israel sentiment has grown among Democrats, the report notes that “among Republicans, the same tendencies are evident to some degree, but the changes are significantly smaller. Among Republicans, sympathy for Israel decreased from 80 percent in 2021 to 70 percent in 2026, while sympathy for Palestinians edged up from 10 percent to 13 percent.”
A survey of 1092 people conducted from March 26-30, released on Thursday by YouGov and the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, offers further illumination about the potential levels of American enthusiasm for these ideologies.
Asked whether the close US-Israel alliance does more to help or harm the American national interest, 42 percent said more to hurt, 29 percent said more to help, and 29 percent said neither. Among Republicans those figures were 23 percent more to hurt, 52 percent more to help, and 24 percent neither.
Analyzing the survey results, CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake shared data and noted that “Tucker Carlson isn’t that popular among Republican-leaners anymore,” with 31 percent having a favorable opinion compared to 24 percent unfavorable. Overall, 38 percent of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of him, compared to 17 percent favorable.
Even among Carlson’s heaviest bloc of backers – self-identified conservatives — the former Fox host showed limited support. While 34 percent of conservatives expressed a favorable opinion, 26 percent affirmed “unfavorable,” 31 percent offered no opinion at all, and 10 percent had never heard of him. Meanwhile, the poll showed that 7 percent of Democrats and self-described liberals expressed favorable views.
The pollsters also researched how Carlson would potentially fare against California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), two widely floated potential Democratic presidential candidates, in the 2028 contest.
Head-to-head with the California leader, 25 percent of voters would support Carlson, while 33 percent would vote for Newsom and 20 percent would refuse to vote. Two percent of Democrats said they would back Carlson while six percent of Republicans said they would vote for Newsom, as did 7 percent of conservatives.
Up against Ocasio-Cortez, the numbers remained similar with 25 percent saying they would support Carlson and 32 percent backing the leader behind the so-called “squad” of left-wing congressional representatives.
Many observers in the media have speculated that Carlson could run for president in 2028.