RSS
Hamas Was Preparing New Terror Attacks Before Israel Struck
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a cabinet meeting at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem on June 5, 2024. Photo: Gil Cohen-Magen/Pool via REUTERS
JNS.org – At 2.20 a.m. local time on Tuesday morning, the Israeli Air Force restarted large-scale action against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Included in the first batch of some 80 targets, struck in just minutes, were senior- and medium-ranking members of Hamas’s political regime and key military infrastructure sites.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized the renewal of military action, while the Israeli government and security establishment coordinated the decision to resume operations against the terrorist regime in Gaza.
The decision followed Hamas’s repeated refusal to release hostages despite multiple mediation efforts, particularly those led by US envoy Steve Witkoff, according to Netanyahu. The renewed strikes mark a decisive shift in Israel’s approach, signaling both military escalation and political determination to achieve its war objectives.
However, JNS has learned, the renewal of Israeli military operations was driven not only by Hamas’s refusal to release hostages but also by clear intelligence indicating that the terrorist organization had used the ceasefire period to strengthen its military capabilities. During the two-month truce, which began on January 19, Hamas worked to rebuild its forces, stockpile weapons, and prepare for future attacks.
The Israeli response targeted mid-level Hamas commanders, senior figures in its political wing, and key terrorist infrastructure. The strikes were part of a sustained military effort designed to degrade Hamas’s operational capabilities while applying pressure to release hostages.
The timing of the operation was also influenced by intelligence assessments that Hamas was preparing new attacks. The group had been observed reinforcing its military positions and laying explosives along expected IDF entry routes.
These activities suggested a concerted effort to prepare for a new, cross-border attack targeting Israeli communities, prompting the IDF to act preemptively. The military operation is expected to continue as long as necessary, with the scope potentially expanding based on battlefield and diplomatic developments.
Hamas’s repeated declarations about its intention to conduct further attacks reinforced the perception that it was merely using the ceasefire as a tactical pause to prepare more murderous attacks against Israel. Israeli intelligence had been closely monitoring Hamas’s activities and concluded that its leadership remained committed to its goal of carrying out new large-scale operations on Israeli territory.
Given this assessment, waiting any longer would have allowed Hamas to further entrench itself. While the current phase of the operation remains focused on airstrikes, Israeli officials have indicated that a military escalation remains a possibility. The IDF’s extensive aerial campaign was executed with overwhelming force.
A joint announcement by the IDF and Shin Bet intelligence agency (ISA) on Tuesday stated that they were “continuing to strike terror targets belonging to the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations across the Gaza Strip. The targets struck over the past few hours include terrorist cells, launch posts, weapons stockpiles, and additional military infrastructure used by these terror organizations to plan and execute attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers.”
The strikes took Hamas by surprise. The scale and speed of the attack were designed to inflict maximum damage while minimizing Hamas’s ability to respond effectively.
According to a subsequent IDF-Shin Bet statement, the operation resulted in the elimination of senior Hamas officials, including:
- Essam al-Da’alis, head of the Hamas government in Gaza, and the most senior figure of authority in Gaza.
- Mahmoud Marzouk Ahmed Abu-Watfa, Hamas’s minister of internal affairs and the head of its internal security forces, which the IDF said were also used for terrorist missions.
- Bahajat Hassan Mohammed Abu-Sultan, the head of Hamas’s internal security forces who engaged in terrorism.
- Ahmed Amar Abdullah Alhata, Hamas’s minister of justice, whose role included the use of Hamas-controlled legal institutions for terror-related purposes.
The targeted killings of these figures significantly weakened Hamas’s internal organizational structure and disrupted its ability to maintain governance and military coordination.
Col. (res) Yaron Buskila, a former operations officer in the IDF Gaza Division, told journalists in a call organized by the Jerusalem Press Club on Tuesday: “There were actually three objectives for this attack. The first one, and I think the most important one, is to removing the immediate threat of a Hamas raid on the Israeli positions or again on the Israeli villages. And we know about the threats. In the last two months since the ceasefire, the Hamas tried to arm itself again and to prepare for the next round.”
He added: “We had a lot of alerts that the Hamas is preparing to raid. It can be civilians who are working in the field next to the border, or against the Israeli villages.”
The second objective, said Buskila, “is to push Hamas again to the negotiation table under the terms of the first round.”
Hamas is currently attempting to engineer negotiations in a manner that would allow it to remain as Gaza’s ruler and armed force and prepare a new Oct.-7-style mass assault on Israel, according to Buskila.
“We can never know when [Hamas will try to attack again]. And that’s one of the things that we cannot allow. We have to stay, leave our forces in the Philadelphi Corridor and go inside Gaza again to fight against Hamas, to make sure Hamas will not stay in Gaza anymore. Otherwise, they will just arm themselves again and prepare for the next raid.”
The third objective, Buskila said, is to remove threats to Israel such as explosive devices, rockets and anti-tank missiles that were planted by Hamas in Gazan homes, along roads which the IDF is expected to enter in a future ground operation.
Buskila stressed that “Israel is trying to exhaust as many ways as possible to free the hostages,” adding, however, that “it is clear to us that the Hamas will not release everyone without achieving its goal because they [the hostages] are only assets that they have in their hands.”
“So if you want to change the terms of the next negotiation, we have to get inside Gaza and to fight again, and to go back to the table with terms that are better for Israel.”
In a statement to the nation on Tuesday, Netanyahu said: “Hamas refused offer after offer to release our hostages. In the past two weeks, Israel did not initiate any military action in the hope that Hamas would change course. Well, that didn’t happen. While Israel accepted the offer of President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, Hamas flatly refused to do so. This is why I authorized yesterday the renewal of military action against Hamas.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz reinforced this message during a visit to the Tel Nof Airbase, southern Israel, declaring: “Hamas must understand that the rules of the game have changed. If it does not immediately release all the hostages, the gates of hell will open, and it will face the full force of the IDF—by air, sea, and land—until its total destruction.”
Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the new IDF chief of staff, toured Rafah in the southern Gaza on Tuesday and reiterated the IDF’s commitment to securing southern Israel, telling troops: “Your mission is to protect the communities here. We are engaged in an ongoing operation against Hamas, alongside the IDF’s full obligation to bring back the hostages.”
At present, the operation remains an air campaign, but Israeli officials have made it clear that a ground incursion will follow if Hamas continues to refuse to change its position.
The post Hamas Was Preparing New Terror Attacks Before Israel Struck first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives
FILE PHOTO: Boulder attack suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman poses for a jail booking photograph after his arrest in Boulder, Colorado, U.S. June 2, 2025. Photo: Boulder Police Department/Handout via REUTERS
A suspect in an attack on a pro-Israeli rally in Colorado that injured eight people was being held on Monday on an array of charges, including assault and the use of explosives, in lieu of a $10-million bail, according to Boulder County records.
The posted list of felony charges against suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, in the attack on Sunday also includes charges of murder in the first degree, although police in the city of Boulder have said on social media that no victims died in the attack. Authorities could not be reached immediately to clarify.
Witnesses reported the suspect used a makeshift flamethrower and threw an incendiary device into the crowd. He was heard to yell “Free Palestine” during the attack, according to the FBI, in what the agency called a “targeted terror attack.”
Four women and four men between 52 and 88 years of age were transported to hospitals after the attack, Boulder Police said.
The attack took place on the Pearl Street Mall, a popular pedestrian shopping district near the University of Colorado, during an event organized by Run for Their Lives, an organization devoted to drawing attention to the hostages seized in the aftermath of Hamas’ 2023 attack on Israel.
Rabbi Yisroel Wilhelm, the Chabad director at the University of Colorado, Boulder, told CBS Colorado that the 88-year-old victim was a Holocaust refugee who fled Europe.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Soliman had entered the country in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023. He filed for asylum in September 2022. “The suspect, Mohamed Soliman, is illegally in our country,” the spokesperson said.
The FBI raided and searched Soliman’s home in El Paso County, Colorado, the agency said on social media. “As this is an ongoing investigation, no additional information is available at this time.”
The attack in Boulder was the latest act of violence aimed at Jewish Americans linked to outrage over Israel’s escalating military offensive in Gaza. It followed the fatal shooting of two Israel Embassy aides that took place outside Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum last month.
Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said after the shooting there was a question of how far security perimeters outside Jewish institutions should extend.
Boulder Police said they would hold a press conference later on Monday to discuss details of the Colorado attack.
The Denver office of the FBI, which is handling the case, did not immediately respond to emails or phone calls seeking clarification on the homicide charges or other details in the case.
Officials from the Boulder County Jail, Boulder Police and Boulder County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to inquiries.
The post Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS
Iran is poised to reject a US proposal to end a decades-old nuclear dispute, an Iranian diplomat said on Monday, dismissing it as a “non-starter” that fails to address Tehran’s interests or soften Washington’s stance on uranium enrichment.
“Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer,” the senior diplomat, who is close to Iran’s negotiating team, told Reuters.
The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who was on a short visit to Tehran and has been mediating talks between Tehran and Washington.
After five rounds of discussions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, several obstacles remain.
Among them are Iran’s rejection of a US demand that it commit to scrapping uranium enrichment and its refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium – possible raw material for nuclear bombs.
Tehran says it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
“In this proposal, the US stance on enrichment on Iranian soil remains unchanged, and there is no clear explanation regarding the lifting of sanctions,” said the diplomat, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.
Araqchi said Tehran would formally respond to the proposal soon.
Tehran demands the immediate removal of all US-imposed curbs that impair its oil-based economy. But the US says nuclear-related sanctions should be removed in phases.
Dozens of institutions vital to Iran’s economy, including its central bank and national oil company, have been blacklisted since 2018 for, according to Washington, “supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.”
Trump’s revival of “maximum pressure” against Tehran since his return to the White House in January has included tightening sanctions and threatening to bomb Iran if the negotiations yield no deal.
During his first term in 2018, Trump ditched Tehran’s 2015 nuclear pact with six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the pact’s limits.
Under the deal, Iran had until 2018 curbed its sensitive nuclear work in return for relief from US, EU and U.N. economic sanctions.
The diplomat said the assessment of “Iran’s nuclear negotiations committee,” under the supervision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was that the US proposal was “completely one-sided” and could not serve Tehran’s interests.
Therefore, the diplomat said, Tehran considers this proposal a “non-starter” and believes it unilaterally attempts to impose a “bad deal” on Iran through excessive demands.
NUCLEAR STANDOFF RAISES MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS
The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. Iran’s clerical establishment, for its part, wants to be rid of the devastating sanctions.
Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord.
Two Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Iran could pause uranium enrichment if the US released frozen Iranian funds and recognized Tehran’s right to refine uranium for civilian use under a “political deal” that could lead to a broader nuclear accord.
Iran’s arch-foe Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and says it would never allow Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons.
Araqchi, in a joint news conference with his Egyptian counterpart in Cairo, said: “I do not think Israel will commit such a mistake as to attack Iran.”
Tehran’s regional influence has meanwhile been diminished by military setbacks suffered by its forces and those of its allies in the Shi’ite-dominated “Axis of Resistance,” which include Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi militias.
In April, Saudi Arabia’s defence minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian officials to take Trump’s offer of a new deal seriously as a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.
The post Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron after a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, May 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stephanie Lecocq/Pool
The dramatic fall of the Assad regime in Syria has undeniably reshaped the Middle East, yet the emerging power dynamics, particularly the alignment between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, warrant profound scrutiny from those committed to American and Israeli security. While superficially presented as a united front against Iranian influence, this new Sunni axis carries a dangerous undercurrent of Islamism and regional ambition that could ultimately undermine, rather than serve, the long-term interests of Washington and Jerusalem.
For too long, Syria under Bashar al-Assad served as a critical conduit for Iran’s destabilizing agenda, facilitating arms transfers to Hezbollah and projecting Tehran’s power across the Levant. The removal of this linchpin is, on the surface, a strategic victory. However, the nature of the new Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa — a figure Israeli officials continue to view with deep suspicion due to his past as a former Al-Qaeda-linked commander — raises immediate red flags. This is not merely a change of guard; it is a shift that introduces a new set of complex challenges, particularly given Turkey’s historical support for the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization deemed a terror group by Saudi Arabia and many other regional states.
Israel’s strategic calculus in Syria has always been clear: to degrade Iran’s military presence, prevent Hezbollah from acquiring advanced weaponry, and maintain operational freedom in Syrian airspace. Crucially, Israel has historically thought it best to have a decentralized, weak, and fragmented Syria, with reports that it has actively worked against the resurgence of a robust central authority. This preference stems from a pragmatic understanding that a strong, unified Syria, especially one under the tutelage of an ambitious regional power like Turkey, could pose much more of a threat than the Assad regime ever did. Indeed, Israeli defense officials privately express concern at Turkey’s assertive moves, accusing Ankara of attempting to transform post-war Syria into a Turkish protectorate under Islamist tutelage. This concern is not unfounded; Turkey’s ambitious, arguably expansionist, objectives — and its perceived undue dominance in Arab lands — are viewed by Israel as warily as Iran’s previous influence.
The notion that an “Ottoman Crescent” is now replacing the “Shiite Crescent” should not be celebrated as a net positive. While it may diminish Iranian power, it introduces a new form of regional hegemony, one driven by an ideology that has historically been antithetical to Western values and stability. The European Union’s recent imposition of sanctions on Turkish-backed Syrian army commanders for human rights abuses, including arbitrary killings and torture, further underscores the problematic nature of some elements within this new Syrian landscape. The fact that al-Sharaa has allowed such individuals to operate with impunity and even promoted them to high-ranking positions should give Washington pause.
From an American perspective, while the Trump administration has pragmatically engaged with the new Syrian government, lifting sanctions and urging normalization with Israel, this engagement must be tempered with extreme caution. The core American interests in the Middle East — counterterrorism, containment of Iran, and regional stability — are not served by empowering Islamist-leaning factions or by enabling a regional power, like Turkey, whose actions have sometimes undermined the broader fight against ISIS. Washington must demand that Damascus demonstrate a genuine commitment to taking over the counter-ISIS mission and managing detention facilities, and unequivocally insist that Turkey cease actions that risk an ISIS resurgence.
The argument that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, despite their own complex internal dynamics, are simply pragmatic actors countering Iran overlooks the ideological underpinnings that concern many conservatives. Turkey’s ruling party, rooted in political Islam, and its historical ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, present a fundamental challenge to the vision of a stable, secular, and pro-Western Middle East. While Saudi Arabia has designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, its alignment with Turkey in Syria, and its own internal human rights record, means that this “new front” is far from a clean solution.
The Saudi-Turkey alignment in Syria is a double-edged sword. While it may indeed serve to counter Iran’s immediate regional ambitions, it simultaneously risks empowering actors whose long-term objectives and ideological leanings are deeply problematic for American, Israeli, and Western interests. Washington and Jerusalem must approach this new dynamic with extreme vigilance, prioritizing the containment of all forms of radicalism — whether Shiite or Sunni — and ensuring that any strategic gains against Iran do not inadvertently pave the way for a new, equally dangerous, Islamist crescent to rise in the heart of the Levant.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
The post The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger first appeared on Algemeiner.com.