Connect with us

RSS

Donald Trump: Back to the Future on Iran Policy

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi meets with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Tehran, Iran, Nov. 14, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Tehran’s theocrats must be terrified. That’s a good thing.

Despite the limited and lackluster commentary on Donald Trump’s electoral victory in the Iranian press and by officials, regime elites must now face the fact that the candidate they sought to kill is set to re-assume the presidency on January 20, 2025.

During his fist term, Trump functioned like a bull in a china shop on Iran policy, and it worked. The administration pulled out of the fatally flawed 2015 Iran nuclear deal, designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization, showed the strength of US unilateral sanctions against the Iranian economy, and even killed Quds-Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, Tehran’s chief terrorist-strategist. And for good measure, Trump drew a sharp contrast with his predecessor by strongly supporting Iranian protestors. In so doing, he broke long-held taboos among the Washington establishment about foreign backing being a kiss of death. And he did it all without triggering World War Three.

A second Trump administration is reportedly set to resume its “maximum pressure” policy against the Islamic Republic, the broad contours of which are encompassed by the above moves. Returning to this policy would course-correct the outgoing Biden administration’s approach, which has been defined by light sanctions enforcement, a preference for de-escalation over deterrence, and turning a blind eye to Iran’s growing atomic infrastructure and nuclear saber-rattling.

But the resurrection of this policy cannot be divorced from the challenges of the present. 2025 will be harder than 2016-2020 were. Iran today is on the nuclear threshold, with an enriched uranium stockpile and centrifuge capacity assessed by experts to be able to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium for one bomb in a week, and up to 15 in five months.

Iran is also increasing its missile capabilities, hinting that it might develop longer-range projectiles that could threaten the European continent and the American homeland. It is also relying on trans-national criminal syndicates rather than traditional proxies, trying everything from Mexican drug cartels to Azeri gangs to Canadian bikers, to reach onto American soil. Had the Islamic Republic been deterred or felt it had more to lose than to gain from these threats and plots, it would not have embarked on them.

For deterrence to work, a credible military threat is needed. Given that deterrence is first and foremost psychological, threats alone may be insufficient for an adversary as resolute as the Islamic Republic and one with the impression of America as a risk-averse power. In order to avoid a larger conflict with the Islamic Republic, the US will counterintuitively be required to push back earlier and harder against the full-spectrum of Iran-backed threats to change the impression of American risk-tolerance for Iranian national security decision-makers.

A pure “management” approach towards Tehran that aims to contain rather than roll-back the full-spectrum of these threats will only lead to Washington being managed by Tehran. Now is the time to push past mere management as a strategy and work to roll back threats.

The maximum pressure strategy during Trump’s first term began to lay the groundwork to do precisely that. By targeting Iran’s oil, natural gas, petrochemical, and industrial metal exports, the administration aimed to put the macroeconomic squeeze on Tehran, shrinking the overall ability to resource threats. This campaign reduced Iran’s 2.9 million barrels a day oil exports from 2018 to 775,000 by 2021. Trump’s policies also led to a decline in non-oil exports, with Iran’s total exports dropping by 12.8% in 2020.

Iran’s oil exports surged under the Biden administration, largely due to a relaxed sanctions enforcement posture and the prospects for nuclear diplomacy. As a result, Iran’s annual oil revenue reportedly soared, rising from $16 billion in 2020 to $53 billion in 2023. In August 2023 alone, Iran’s exports to China peaked at an estimated 1.5 million barrels per day — a sharp increase from the lower levels seen during the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign. As a reminder, China has been the most importer purchaser of Iranian oil — increasingly marked as “Malaysian” — for over a decade.

Iran’s petroleum export value and volume under the Biden administration also drastically increased, countering the sharp decline seen amid Trump-era sanctions. Between 2021 and 2023, Tehran generated an estimated $144 billion from petroleum sales, a stark contrast to the mere $16 billion in 2020. The increase has been substantial across multiple categories, with crude oil and condensate exports rising over threefold, reaching 1.59 million barrels per day, while Iranian petroleum product exports expanded over 50% in the same timeframe.

The new administration should work overtime to plug the economic lifelines Tehran has benefitted from in the illicit petrochemical and oil trade. The Trump administration previously warned of sanctions against Chinese entities involved in importing Iranian oil, and this stance should be maintained if Beijing continues enabling Tehran’s sanctions evasion, which in turn underwrites Tehran’s global terrorist apparatus and regional “ring of fire” against Israel. Likewise, the next administration must take a firm stand, emphasizing the severe consequences for any person, bank, or business aiding the Islamic Republic’s illicit trade.

The United States should marry this economic pressure with a political strategy that aims to multiliterate maximum pressure with its trans-Atlantic and five-eyes partners. First and foremost, this must begin by commencing a diplomatic track on day-one with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to reinstate UN sanctions on Iran by triggering the snapback mechanism set to expire this October in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The administration should also impress upon its allies to leverage their individual counterterrorism authorities and designate the IRGC in its entirety as a terrorist organization. After more than a decade of deliberation, Canada has done precisely this. Other US partners should be encouraged to follow suit.

Additionally, Washington should impose strict limitations on the entry of Iranian officials into the US for United Nations-related matters and closely monitor their movements. To further isolate the Islamic Republic diplomatically, the US should press its European counterparts to either reduce the size of Iran’s diplomatic missions or expel Iranian diplomats and shutter these embassies altogether.

While former US Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, who is reportedly leading Trump’s transition team at the State Department, claims the incoming administration isn’t aiming for regime change, the brittleness of the deeply unpopular regime in Tehran and the impact maximum pressure can have will mean nationwide anti-regime demonstrations like those seen in 2019 and 2022 are more a matter of when and not if.

To recalibrate US strategy toward Iran, Washington must find ways to empower the Iranian street against the state, and in a manner in conjunction with American values and broader regional interests. Marrying “Maximum Support” for the Iranian people with maximum pressure against the regime may provide the necessary pincer that can force the Islamic Republic into settling for suboptimal outcomes or better yet, making mistakes that can be capitalized upon.

By leveraging enduring internal opposition to the regime, Washington can bolster the efforts of the Iranian people in their fight for a government that reflects their views, values, and interests. The next administration must have the audacity to imagine what a Middle East without the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism looks like, one which distracted time, attention, and resources away from rising security challenges in the Asia-Pacific.

To assist Iranians in defining their own destiny, the US should provide them access to free, reliable Internet through the provision of VPNs and collaboration with private companies like Starlink. Intelligence support can also help protestors outwit the regime’s forces, enabling them to leverage their non-violent resistance effectively. Additionally, the US should coordinate with allies to provide cyber support, targeting regime communications infrastructure, disabling surveillance systems, and disrupting the security forces’ command and control. Giving Iranians a tactical advantage ensures they are better equipped to confront a well-armed authoritarian regime, especially the next time Iranians take to the streets en masse.

The Islamic Republic is a determined adversary that means what it says when it chants “death to America” and “death to Israel.” The same applies to its attempts to take President Trump’s life. Only by building on the successes from his first term does the incoming president stand a chance at meaningfully confronting Iran, and maximizing the fears in Tehran about what will come next.

Behnam Ben Taleblu is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington DC, where Janatan Sayeh is a research analyst.

The post Donald Trump: Back to the Future on Iran Policy first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Jewish Synagogue, Holocaust Memorial Vandalized in Poland After Politician Denies Holocaust

An antisemitic slur spray-painted on the ruins of a former synagogue in Dukla, Poland. Photo: World Jewish Restitution Organization

Two Jewish sites in Dukla, Poland, were vandalized over the weekend mere days after Polish member of the European Parliament (MEP) Grzegorz Braun claimed gas chambers at the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp were fake and repeated an antisemitic blood libel in a live radio interview.

Vandals spray-painted the word “F–k” followed by a Star of David on the ruins of a former synagogue that was destroyed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, and a memorial commemorating Holocaust victims located at the entrance of the Jewish cemetery in Dukla was defaced with a swastika and the word “Palestine,” according to the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO). The memorial honors Jews of Dukla and the surrounding areas who were murdered by Nazis during the Holocaust.

The two Jewish sites in Dukla are cared for by the Foundation for the Preservation of Jewish Heritage in Poland (FODZ), which was established in 2002 by the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland and the WJRO to protect and commemorate Poland’s Jewish heritage sites.

“These hateful acts are not only antisemitic, but they are also attempts to erase Jewish history and desecrate memory,” said WJRO President Gideon Taylor in a released statement on Tuesday. “Polish authorities must take swift and serious action to identify the perpetrators and ensure the protection of Jewish heritage sites in Dukla and across the country.”

“The vandalism of Jewish sites in Dukla—with swastikas and anti-Israel slurs—is not an isolated act,” insisted Jack Simony, director general of the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation (AJCF), in a statement to The Algemeiner. The nonprofit focuses on preserving the memory of the Jewish community in Oświęcim (Auschwitz) and maintains the Auschwitz Jewish Center, the last remaining synagogue in town.

“While we cannot say definitively that it [the vandalism] was sparked by Grzegorz Braun’s Holocaust denial, his rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere where hatred is emboldened and truth is under assault,” added Simony. “Braun’s lies are not harmless — they are dangerous. Holocaust denial fuels antisemitism and, too often, violence. This is why Holocaust education matters … because when we fail to confront lies, we invite their consequences. Memory must be defended, not only for the sake of the past, but for the safety of our future.”

On July 10, a ceremony was held commemorating the 84th anniversary of the 1941 Jedwabne massacre, when hundreds of Polish Jews were massacred – mostly by their neighbors – in the northeastern town in German-occupied Poland. The ceremony was attended by dignitaries and faith leaders including Poland’s Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich and Israeli Deputy Ambassador Bosmat Baruch. Groups of anti-Israel and far-right activists — including MEP Braun and his supporters – tried to disrupt the event by holding banners with antisemitic slogans and blocking the vehicles of the attendees, according to Polish radio.

Hours later, during a live radio broadcast, Braun falsely claimed the Auschwitz gas chambers were “a lie” and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum was promoting “pseudo-history.” He also claimed that Jewish “ritual murder is a fact.” Polish prosecutors launched an investigation into Braun’s comments, they announced that same day. Under Article 55 of the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in Poland.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum issued a swift condemnation of Braun’s remarks and said it intents to pursue legal action. The Institute of National Remembrance — which is the largest research, educational and archival institution in Poland – also denounced Braun’s remarks, saying there is “well-documented” evidence supporting the existence of gas chambers. His comments were also condemned by the Embassy of Israel in Poland, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski and the US Embassy in Warsaw, which said that his actions “distort history, desecrate memory, or spread antisemitism.” AJCF called on the European Parliament to consider disciplinary measures against Braun, including potential censure or expulsion.

Auschwitz Jewish Center Director Tomek Kuncewicz said Braun’s comments are “an act of violence against truth, against survivors, and against the legacy of our shared humanity.” AJCF Chairman Simon Bergson called the politician’s remarks “blatant and baseless lies,” while Simony described them as “a calculated act of antisemitic incitement” that “must be met with legal consequences and universal moral condemnation.”

The post Jewish Synagogue, Holocaust Memorial Vandalized in Poland After Politician Denies Holocaust first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Coalition of 400 Jewish Orgs and Synagogues Urge Teachers Union to Reverse Decision Cutting Ties with ADL

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. Photo Credit: ADL.

Following a vote by the National Education Association (NEA) on July 6 to end its relationship with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 400 Jewish communal groups, education organizations, and religious institutions have come together to call for the influential teachers union to change course.

“We are writing to express our deep concerns about the growing level of antisemitic activity within teachers’ unions, particularly since the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023,” the letter to NEA President Becky Pringle stated. “Passage of New Business Item (NBI) 39 at the National Education Association (NEA) Representative Assembly this past weekend, which shockingly calls for the boycott of the Anti-Defamation League, is just the latest example of open hostility toward Jewish educators, students and families coming from national and local teachers’ unions and their members.”

In addition to the ADL, signatories of the letter included American Jewish Committee (AJC), Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Federations of North America, #EndJewHatred, American Jewish Congress, B’nai B’rith International, CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting & Analysis), Combat Antisemitism Movement, Democratic Majority for Israel, StandWithUs, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Zioness Movement, and Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

The group told Pringle that “we have heard directly from NEA members who have shared their experiences ranging from explicit and implicit antisemitism within the union to a broader pattern of insensitivity toward legitimate concerns of Jewish members – including at the recently concluded Representative Assembly. We are also deeply troubled by a broader pattern of union activity over the past 20 months that has targeted or alienated Jewish members and the wider Jewish community.”

The letter to Pringle included an addendum providing examples of objectionable rhetoric. These named such incidents as the Oakland Education Association (OEA) putting out a statement calling for “an end to the occupation of Palestine” and the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) accusing Israel of genocide.

The coalition of 400 organizations urged the NEA to “take immediate action” and suggested such steps as rejecting NBI 39, issuing a “strong condemnation” of antisemitism within the union, drafting a plan to counter ongoing antisemitism in affiliate chapters, and opposing “any effort to use an educator’s support for the existence of Israel as a means to attack their identity.”

ADL CEO and National Director Jonathan Greenblatt wrote on X that “Excluding @ADL’s educational resources from schools is not just an attack on our org, but on the entire Jewish community. We urge the @NEAToday Executive Committee to reverse this biased, fringe effort and reaffirm its commitment to supporting all Jewish students and educators.”

The post Coalition of 400 Jewish Orgs and Synagogues Urge Teachers Union to Reverse Decision Cutting Ties with ADL first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Zohran Mamdani Won’t Condemn Calls for Violence Against Jews; Why Are Jewish Leaders Supporting Him?

Zohran Mamdani Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

In the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s surge in New York City politics, a disturbing trend has emerged: prominent Jewish leaders are being urged to join “Jews for Zohran,” a newly formed effort to legitimize a candidate whose record and rhetoric are alarmingly out of step with Jewish communal values.

In a city that’s home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel — and where antisemitic incidents are on the rise — this is a profound mistake.

Mamdani has refused to explicitly condemn the slogan “Globalize the Intifada,” which has been widely understood as a call to violence against Jews. His defenders insist it’s a symbolic plea for Palestinian rights. But nuance offers little comfort when the phrase glorifies violent uprisings, and is routinely chanted alongside calls for Israel’s destruction.

Institutions such as the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and watchdogs like StopAntisemitism.org have made it clear: attempts to sanitize violent language must be firmly rejected.

Mamdani’s vocal support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is equally troubling. BDS does not merely critique Israeli policy; it seeks to economically isolate and politically delegitimize the Jewish state. When a candidate stands against the most visible symbol of Jewish survival — Israel — while brushing off violent slogans as misunderstood metaphors, we must ask what message this sends to our communities.

The answer should be clear. Jewish New Yorkers were the targets of over half the city’s reported hate crimes last year. From Crown Heights to Midtown, visible Jews have been harassed, assaulted, and mocked. Mamdani was flagged by national antisemitism monitors in December for promoting material that mocked Hanukkah. This is not abstract. This is personal, present, and dangerous.

Yes, Mamdani has pledged to increase hate crime funding from $3 million to $26 million. But that’s not enough. The Jewish community — especially now — needs more than budgetary gestures. We require moral clarity, as Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel powerfully stated: “Morally speaking, there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings, that indifference to evil is worse than evil itself….”

Moral clarity demands more than financial promises, it requires principled rejection of rhetoric that endangers Jews. Belonging isn’t forged by slogans; it’s proven through sustained empathy, shared responsibility, and unwavering commitment to safety.

Calls for Jewish leaders to publicly support Mamdani, including those made to officials like Brad Lander and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), aim to provide political cover for a candidate whose worldview clashes with core Jewish values. These aren’t harmless endorsements. They’re symbols. And symbols matter.

Endorsing Mamdani sends a troubling signal: that political convenience or progressive branding outweighs communal safety and historical memory. When Jewish leaders align with someone who flirts with the delegitimization of Jewish statehood and refuses to condemn slogans rooted in violence, they are telling our adversaries that our moral lines are negotiable.

New York’s Jewish community has long been a moral compass in American politics. What happens here echoes across the nation. If our leaders can be cajoled into supporting a candidate like Mamdani, what message does that send to Jews in swing districts, smaller cities, and across college campuses? It normalizes equivocation. It emboldens the fringe. It tells the next generation that Jewish dignity is up for debate.

This is about more than Mamdani. It’s about whether Jewish pride and Jewish safety remain non-negotiable pillars of our political participation. Some have argued that this is simply politics as usual — that strategic alliances are part of coalition-building. But the Jewish people know better than most that what begins as a small compromise can metastasize into a much greater danger.

Former Democratic Councilman Rory Lancman said it best: “If ever there was a time to put principle over party, this is it.” He’s right. And that’s why this moment requires Jewish leaders to speak not just as political actors, but as moral stewards.

Jewish leaders are free to engage with any candidate they choose. But engagement is not endorsement. One can listen, challenge, and debate without aligning oneself publicly with a candidate whose positions cross communal red lines. Outreach does not require complicity.

If Jewish political figures join “Jews for Zohran,” they risk helping mainstream dangerous ideologies. They risk fracturing communal unity even further at a time when Jewish communal unity is our best defense. They risk allowing today’s ambiguity to become tomorrow’s regret.

Jewish history teaches us the cost of silence, of appeasement, and of looking away. We cannot afford those mistakes again — not in this city, not in this era; history is beginning to repeat itself and we cannot allow that to happen.

To every Jewish leader now weighing their public stance: choose principle. Choose safety. Choose the kind of moral leadership our tradition demands; reject the logic of “Jews for Zohran.” The stakes are too high — and the message matters.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The post Zohran Mamdani Won’t Condemn Calls for Violence Against Jews; Why Are Jewish Leaders Supporting Him? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News