RSS
Could — and Should — Israel Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program Before January 20?
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
Rashida Tlaib Renews Calls for Arms Embargo Against Israel Even as Jewish State Advances Toward Gaza Ceasefire
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) on Thursday renewed calls for the implementation of an arms embargo against Israel, lambasting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “genocidal” even as the Jewish state moved to agree to a ceasefire deal with Hamas to halt fighting in Gaza.
“Genocidal maniac Netanyahu and his cabinet will never stop until we have an arms embargo,” Tlaib posted on X/Twitter.
Tlaib’s comments came after Netanyahu paused the finalization of a ceasefire and hostage-release deal between Israel and Hamas, accusing the Palestinian terrorist group of “reneging” on previously agreed-upon terms.
“Hamas is reneging on the understandings and creating a last-minute crisis that is preventing an agreement,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement. “The Israeli cabinet will not convene until the mediators notify Israel that Hamas has accepted all elements of the agreement.”
The sticking points center on the list of Palestinian prisoners who have been detained in Israel largely for involvement in terrorist activities to be released in exchange for the hostages who remain in captivity in Gaza after being kidnapped during Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Hamas had attempted to overturn a key clause in the agreement that grants Israel veto power over the release of high-profile inmates who are considered “symbols of terrorism,” a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office said. Israel has also accused Hamas of “demanding to dictate the identity of these murderers,” in direct contradiction to the previously agreed-upon terms.
Later on Thursday, however, Israeli officials said the last obstacles to a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal had been ironed out and Israel’s security cabinet was set to approve it on Friday. The agreement is supposed to go into effect on Sunday.
Tlaib, the first Palestinian American woman elected to the US Congress, has positioned herself as a fierce and outspoken critic of Israel. Since entering office, Tlaib has repeatedly accused the Jewish state of implementing an “apartheid” regime in the West Bank and turning Gaza into an “open-air prison.”
In the year following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, Tlaib has sharpened her condemnations of the Jewish state. In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, she hesitated to release an official statement acknowledging the mass slaughter, abductions, and rapes perpetrated by Hamas. Less than two weeks after the invasion, Tlaib introduced a “ceasefire” resolution between Israel and Hamas. In November 2023, the House of Representatives voted to censure Tlaib over her anti-Israel rhetoric.
The progressive firebrand has also condemned Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza, accusing the Jewish state of committing a full-scale “genocide” against the civilians of the enclave. She has also peddled the unsubstantiated claim that Israel has purposefully inflicted mass starvation against Palestinian civilians. Over the past year, Tlaib has urged the outgoing Biden administration to impose an arms embargo on Israel. Simmering with anger over the Biden administration’s support for Israel, she refused to endorse Kamala Harris for the US presidency.
Tlaib also slammed outgoing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday, accusing the State Department official of lying to Congress and helping facilitate “starvation” in Gaza.
“Blinken lied to Congress and allowed starvation to be used as a weapon of war. It’s well documented. He supported war crimes and blatantly lied to Congress about it,” Tlaib wrote on X/Twitter.
On Wednesday, negotiators reached a deal to implement a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, potentially ending 15 months of war sparked by the terrorist group’s invasion of the Jewish state on Oct. 7, 2023. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages to Gaza.
The post Rashida Tlaib Renews Calls for Arms Embargo Against Israel Even as Jewish State Advances Toward Gaza Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Rome’s Chief Rabbi Criticizes Pope Francis Over Israel Remarks
Rome’s chief Jewish rabbi on Thursday sharply criticized Pope Francis over the pontiff’s recent ramping up of criticism against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, in an unusually forceful speech during an annual Catholic-Jewish dialogue event.
Francis has unfairly focused his attention on Israel compared to other ongoing world conflicts, including those in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Ethiopia, said Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, spiritual leader of Rome’s Jewish community since 2001.
“Selective indignation … weakens the pope’s strength,” said Di Segni.
“A pope cannot divide the world into children and stepchildren and must denounce the sufferings of all,” he said. “This is exactly what the Pope does not do.”
Francis, leader of the 1.4-billion-member Roman Catholic Church, has recently been more outspoken about Israel’s military campaign against Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Last week, he called the humanitarian situation in Gaza “very serious and shameful.”
A complex ceasefire accord between Israel and Hamas emerged on Wednesday, and is scheduled to start on Sunday.
Relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism have improved in recent decades, after centuries of animosity. The event on Thursday, held at a Catholic university, was organized to mark the 36th annual World Day of Catholic-Jewish Dialogue.
One of the organizers, Rev. Marco Gnavi, a Catholic priest, expressed surprise at Di Segni’s comments.
He said he felt “discomfort” because of the rabbi’s words. “You can’t ask us not to suffer both with you and with others,” said the priest.
The post Rome’s Chief Rabbi Criticizes Pope Francis Over Israel Remarks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Judge Tosses Challenge to Lawsuit Alleging Mistreatment of Jewish Professor at California College
A judge has denied a motion from the California College of the Arts (CCA) in San Francisco to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a professor who alleges that she was disciplined and humiliated for disagreeing with students about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As The Algemeiner has previously reported, professor Karen Fiss engaged in a brief conversation with anti-Zionist students who, due to being told a historical fact they preferred not to hear, filed a complaint against her with CCA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office which alleged that she had engaged in “harassing and discriminatory” behavior. Her legal counsel, provided by the nonprofit Jewish civil rights organization the Deborah Project, maintain that Fiss merely challenged the students’ anti-Zionist notions and apprised them of a 1991 incident in which Kuwait expelled nearly 300,000 Palestinians from its borders.
The college ultimately found Fiss guilty of the charges lodged against her, ruling that she had imposed her “power” on the students, who are women of color, and betrayed her cultural insensitivity by citing Kuwait’s expulsion of Palestinians in their conversation. The college further alleged that Fiss had used her “positional power as a professor to get the outcome [she] sought, which was for the students to agree with her point of view.” The college reached those findings but had previously declined to apply the same logic to an earlier complaint Fiss had filed about the Critical Ethnic Studies program’s issuing a statement — “DECOLONIZATION IS NOT A DINNER PARTY,” it said — which justified Hamas’s violence and implied that Jews are not indigenous to their own homeland.
That is because, the Deborah Project argues, CCA’s rules are in place to protect left-wing anti-Zionism and punish Jews who oppose it.
“According to CAA, academic freedom is an impenetrable bar to complaints about celebrating the slaughter and raping to death of Jews, but is made of Swiss cheese when a fully-tenured professor — Dr. Karen Fiss — explains to students some truths about the Middle East,” Lori Lowenthal Marcus, legal director of the Deborah Project, said in a statement included in a press release on Wednesday.
With her reputation blighted by scandal and the college threatening to revoke her tenure, Fiss resolved to fight for both her right to exist as a proud Jew at work and her right to free speech. She sued CAA for discriminating against her for being Jewish, a violation of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and breach of contract, offenses which caused her “substantial damages” and other trauma.
Deploying the weapons contained in its legal arsenal, the college attempted to muzzle Fiss even in court by filing a motion to dismiss her case entirely, and later, to strike from her own complaint the most damaging allegations regarding the university’s alleged conduct — including that the college enforces a double-standard free speech code which protects anti-Zionists “who publicly call for the murder of Jews in Israel.”
However, Judge Haywood William of the US District Court for the Northern District of California has now struck down the college’s challenge to the case, clearing the way for it to enter discovery, during which her attorneys will amass additional evidence in support of Fiss’s allegations.
In Wednesday’s press release, Fiss’s legal counsel praised the decision.
“The Deborah Project looks forward to the state of litigation that follows denials of motions to dismiss, which is called the discovery phase,” it said. “We will learn how a leading California arts college lost its way and instead of focusing on art, became most focused on ‘Critical Ethnic Studies’ — which is the largest department in this ‘art’ school. Critical Ethnic Studies, inter alia, demonizes Jews, which are cast oppressors, and the Jewish State, which is described as a colonizing, ethnic cleansing, genocidal, and illicit country.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Judge Tosses Challenge to Lawsuit Alleging Mistreatment of Jewish Professor at California College first appeared on Algemeiner.com.