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

Rafael Lemkin’s Family Fights to Have Anti-Israel Group Stop Using Name of Famed Zionist Who Coined Term ‘Genocide’

Raphael Lemkin being interviewed on Feb. 13, 1949. Photo: Screenshot

The family of Raphael Lemkin — the Polish-born Jewish lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and helped draft the Genocide Convention after World War II — is taking legal action against a stridently anti-Israel group based in the US, accusing the nonprofit organization of corrupting his family name and legacy.

Joseph Lemkin, the cousin of Raphael Lemkin and closest living relative, confirmed to The Algemeiner that his family is initiating legal proceedings against the Pennsylvania-based Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, with the support of the European Jewish Association (EJA), to stop the misuse of his family name.

“From our perspective, the Lemkin Institute has no right to use his name. Their actions are completely opposed to what he stood for,” Lemkin told The Algemeiner, referring to his cousin. “He was a passionate Zionist who dedicated all his efforts and resources to one cause: the adoption of the Genocide Convention.”

Lemkin’s father was Raphael Lemkin’s first cousin, and he said the two men had a close relationship.

First reported by The Algemeiner, the institute has used the Lemkin name to advance an agenda of extreme anti-Israel activism, which Lemkin’s family called a “shameful betrayal” of their legacy.

Initially registered in Pennsylvania as a nonprofit organization in 2021, the institute received US federal tax-exempt status two years later.

Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the organization has shifted toward aggressive anti-Israel political advocacy, backing pro-Hamas campus protests and reaching millions on social media with posts that falsely accuse Israel of genocide.

Less than a week after the Oct. 7 atrocities, for example, the institute released a “genocide alert” calling the Palestinian terrorist group’s onslaught an “unprecedented military operation against Israel.”

Comparing Israel’s defensive military actions against Hamas to the Holocaust, the institute accused the Jewish state of carrying out a “genocide” against Palestinians — the very term Raphael Lemkin coined in 1943. Israel had not even launched its ground offensive in Gaza at the time of the social media posts.

Days later, the Lemkin Institute called on the International Criminal Court “to indict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the crime of #genocide in light of the siege and bombardment of #Gaza and the many expressions of genocidal intent.” Israel still had not initiated its ground campaign.

Since then, the organization’s vocal anti-Israel advocacy has continued unabated for the past two years, accusing the Jewish state of genocide and terrorism while largely staying silent about Hamas.

According to the Lemkin family, such statements distort history and undermine their legacy, but even more, they disrespect the memory of six million Jews.

“The institute has used this term to promote an inflammatory, antisemitic stance against Israel — completely contrary to the principles he stood for,” Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner, referring to his cousin.

“Astonishingly, they have even expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas — both internationally designated terrorist organizations — while smearing Israel,” he continued.

Now, legal steps are underway to hold the institute accountable, stop it from exploiting the Lemkin name to raise money, and end its Holocaust comparisons.

After first sending letters demanding that the institute change its name, the Lemkin family is now awaiting a response — and if no voluntary action is taken or Pennsylvania officials fail to intervene, the matter will be taken to court, Lemkin told The Algemeiner.

Beyond its communications with the institute, the EJA legal team also sent letters to Gov. Josh Shapiro and Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations regarding this issue.

“The Lemkin Institute, through its very name, as well as its marketing and other materials, represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology. In reality, the Lemkin Institute’s policies, positions, activities, and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system,” the letter reads.

“The Lemkin Institute is not authorized by Raphael Lemkin’s family, his estate, or any custodian of his legacy to rely upon his name for any purpose,” it continues. “The European Jewish Association and Mr. Lemkin’s family are outraged by the Lemkin Institute’s use of Mr. Lemkin’s name, especially in the context of the Lemkin Institute’s anti-Israel agenda.”

EJA Chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin has sharply condemned the institute’s actions and statements, saying it has “weaponized a sacred legacy against the very people it was meant to protect.”

“The Lemkin Institute was established to prevent genocide — not to distort its definition or fuel antisemitic tropes,” Margolin said in a statement.

Raphael Lemkin was born in Poland in 1900 and eventually escaped the Nazis to the US, where he joined the War Department, documenting Nazi atrocities and preparing for the prosecution of Nazi crimes at the Nuremberg trials. He dedicated much of his life to making the world recognize the horrors of the Holocaust and designating mass murder as a crime which could be prosecuted through international law. Forty-nine members of his family, including his parents, were killed in the Holocaust. He died in 1959.

A 2017 article by James Loeffler, who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, described what he called “the forgotten Zionism of Raphael Lemkin.” Loeffler noted that while “dead international lawyers rarely become celebrities,” Lemkin “has emerged as a potent symbol for activists and politicians across the world.”

Loeffler traced Lemkin’s work as an editor and columnist of a Jewish publication, Zionist World. “The task of the Jewish people is … [to become] a permanent national majority in its own national home,” Lemkin wrote in one such column.

“It is not enough to know Zionism,” Lemkin wrote in another column quoted by Loeffler. “One must imbibe its spirit, one must make Zionism a part of one’s very own ‘self,’ and be prepared to make sacrifices on its behalf.”

Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute, told the online news site EJewish Philanthropy that her organization was named after Lemkin to “bring his name back into public discourse” but “there was no clear person to contact” when naming the institute in 2021.

“We don’t want to cause unhappiness for anybody in the Lemkin family. We did ask to know what legal basis exists for the complaint, and we have not received any response to that specific question,” she added.

Continue Reading

RSS

China Expands Influence Campaign Targeting Israel as Way to Hurt US, Study Finds

Chinese and US flags flutter outside the building of an American company in Beijing, China, April 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tingshu Wang

China has increasingly used state media and covert campaigns to spread anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives in the United States, according to a new study.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, has released a report examining how China’s state media portrays Israel and the United States as solely responsible for the war in Gaza, depicting them as destabilizing actors while spreading anti-Israel and antisemitic messages.

“It is evident that China and its proxies play a significant role in the current wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the United States,” Ofir Dayan, a research associate in the Israel-China Policy Center at INSS, writes in the report.

According to Dayan, China’s dissemination of anti-Israel narratives is not intended to directly harm Israel but rather to undermine the US, while preserving its valuable diplomatic and economic ties with Jerusalem.

“Israel is used as a tool to advance Beijing’s claim that Washington destabilizes both the international system and the regions where it operates,” the report says.

While China’s primary aim is to target the United States, Israel ends up suffering “collateral damage” as a result, the study finds.

In advancing these objectives, INSS explains that China covertly conducts influence campaigns across the United States, promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives, including conspiracy theories about “Jewish control” of politics, the economy, and the media.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused China, along with Qatar, of orchestrating a campaign in Western media to “besiege” Israel by undermining its allies’ support.

There is “an effort to besiege — not isolate as much as besiege Israel — that is orchestrated by the same forces that supported Iran,” Netanyahu said, speaking to a delegation of 250 US state legislators at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

“One is China. And the other is Qatar. They are organizing an attack on Israel … [through] the social media of the Western world and the United States,” the Israeli leader continued. “We will have to counter it, and we will counter it with our own methods.”

According to the INSS report, China’s role in promoting anti-Israel activity in the United States is evident in the narratives it spreads — both publicly, through state-run media, and covertly, through targeted cyber operations.

For example, China Daily — the official news outlet of the Chinese Communist Party — has been openly critical of Israel since the start of the Gaza war, using its coverage to attack Washington and depict it as a destabilizing force fueling conflict worldwide.

The Chinese news outlet has also published articles contending that neither Israel nor the United States care about Gazans or Israeli hostages held by Hamas, accusing the US of instigating wars for domestic political gain, and attempting to create divisions in American society by portraying support for Israel as unpopular.

The study also explains how China exploited the wave of protests across US universities following the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, to deepen divisions within American society.

It portrayed anti-Israel protesters as calm and peaceful defenders of free expression, while depicting pro-Israel demonstrators as violent.

“Posts on heavily censored social media in China were even more blatant, and at times antisemitic, claiming that Israel controls the United States and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany,” the report says.

“Some referred to Israel as a ‘terrorist organization,’ while describing Hamas as a resistance organization and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories,” it continues.

In the past, the US State Department has accused China of promoting conspiracy theories and antisemitism within the United States.

China also carries out covert influence campaigns through targeted cyber operations, aimed in part at shaping Israel’s image in the United States and undermining US-Israel relations.

According to the study, China-linked cyber campaigns have used troll networks to spread malicious content about Israel, disseminating antisemitic messages to American audiences that falsely claim Jewish and Israeli control over US politics.

Continue Reading

RSS

US Lawmakers Slam Zohran Mamdani Over Pledge to Scrap IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS

Two members of the US Congress on Wednesday slammed New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani after he pledged to abandon a widely used definition of antisemitism if elected.

Reps. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, and Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a joint statement that Mamdani’s plan to scrap the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is “dangerous” and “shameful.” The IHRA definition — adopted by dozens of US states, dozens of countries, and hundreds of governing institutions, including the European Union and United Nations — has been a cornerstone of global efforts to monitor and combat antisemitic hate.

“Walking away from IHRA is not just reckless — it undermines the fight against antisemitism at a time when hate crimes are spiking,” Lawler said in his own statement. Gottheimer echoed that concern, arguing that dismantling the definition “sends exactly the wrong message to Jewish communities who feel under siege.”

The backlash followed Mamdani’s comments last week to Bloomberg News in which he vowed, if elected, to reverse New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order in June adopting the IHRA standard. Mamdani, a democratic socialist and state assemblymember, argued that the IHRA definition blurs the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel and risks chilling free speech.

“I am someone who has supported and support BDS [the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel] and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he said at the time.

The BDS movement seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.

“Let’s be extremely clear: the BDS movement is antisemitic. Efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist are antisemitic. And refusing to outright condemn the violent call to ‘globalize the intifada’ — offering only that you’d discourage its use — is indefensible,” Lawler and Gottheimer said in their joint statement, referring to Mamdani’s recent partial backtracking after his initial defense of the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada.”

“There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan — it is hate speech, plain and simple,” the lawmakers continued. “Given the sharp spike in antisemitic violence, families across the Tri-State area should be alarmed. Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews.”

IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.

In a statement, the Mamdani campaign confirmed that the candidate would not use the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which major civil rights groups have said is essential for fighting an epidemic of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping across the US.

“A Mamdani administration will approach antisemitism in line with the Biden administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism — a strategy that emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue,” Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec told the New York Post.

Lawler and Gottheimer’s pushback comes as Congress debates the Antisemitism Awareness Act, legislation that would codify IHRA’s definition into federal law. Advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have urged lawmakers to back the measure, warning that antisemitic incidents have surged nationwide over the past two years and having a clear definition will better enable law enforcement and others to combat it.

For Mamdani, the controversy over the IHRA definition adds a new flashpoint to a mayoral campaign already drawing national attention. 

A little-known politician before this year’s Democratic primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the BDS movement. He has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.

Mamdani especially came under fire during the summer when he initially defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. However, Mamdani has since backpedaled on his support for the phrase, saying that he would discourage his supporters from using the slogan.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News