Iran would respond to any future US attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel.

Khamenei, 86, claimed victory after 12 days of war, culminating in an Iranian attack on the largest US base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes. No casualties were reported in the Iranian attack, which was coordinated with both US and Qatari authorities beforehand in an apparent effort to show a symbolic display of force without triggering retaliation.

“The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,” Khamenei said.

As in his last comments, released more than a week ago during the Israeli bombardment, he spoke from an undisclosed indoor location in front of a brown curtain, between an Iranian flag and a portrait of his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini.

In his pre-recorded remarks, aired on state television, Khamenei promised that Iran would not surrender despite US President Donald Trump’s calls.

“The US President Trump unveiled the truth and made it clear that Americans won’t be satisfied with anything less than surrender… such an event will never happen,” Khamenei said.

“The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centers in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made,” he added.

Trump said “sure” on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment program.

Tehran has for decades denied accusations by Western leaders that it is seeking nuclear arms.

NO GAIN

Khamenei said the US “gained no achievement” after it attacked Iranian nuclear sites, but that it entered the war to “save” Israel after some of Tehran’s missiles broke through Israel’s multi-layered defense system.

“The US directly entered the war as it felt that if it did not get involved, the Zionist regime [Israel] would be fully destroyed. It entered the war to save it,” he said.

“The US attacked our nuclear facilities, but couldn’t do any important deed … The US president did abnormal showmanship and needed to do so,” he added.

Trump said over the weekend that the US deployment of 30,000-pound bombs had “obliterated” Iran‘s nuclear program. Officials and experts are still probing the extent of the damage.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also declared “a historic victory” on Tuesday, after the fragile ceasefire took effect, saying Israel had achieved its goal of removing Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat.

Shortly after Khamenei’s speech, Netanyahu posted a message with a picture of himself and Trump holding hands with the message: “We will continue to work together to defeat our common enemies.”

The post Supreme Leader, in First Appearance Since Ceasefire, Says Iran Would Strike Back if Attacked first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

In September 1882, a coalition of political parties gathered in Dresden, Germany, for the Congress for the Safeguarding of Non-Jewish Interests. It marked a turning point in the convergence of traditional anti-Jewish sentiment with the emerging ideology of antisemitism.

Traditionally, anti-Jewishness was merely an attitude or prejudice. But antisemitism emerged as a political platform, arguing that Jews had undue influence following their European emancipation. Before long, figures in the antisemitic movement made their case explicit: “Antisemit [sic] means an opponent of the Jews.”

This historical convergence proves the fallacy of today’s “antisemitism is not anti-Zionism” assertion. Debates surrounding the terminology are immaterial; the repercussions of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment have already been witnessed in Boulder, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.

In Washington, D.C., two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered by an Islamist-inspired socialist radical. This wasn’t an isolated incident of extremism — it marked the end of a pipeline of hate that has normalized calls for the destruction of Israel and targeting Jews as a collective.

Under Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser’s leadership, the Nation’s capital has become a testing ground for what Democratic Socialist mayoral candidate Zoharn Mamdani advocates for in New York City.

Mamdani contends that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. He started the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Bowdoin College, publicly supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, defends the claim “globalize the intifada,” and declared that he would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York. Mamdani’s inner circle includes Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Linda Sarsour.

Mamdani refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and seeks to “hold Israel accountable.” His dangerous positions and stance echoes the approach of those 1882 conference participants who sought to deny collective Jewry equal legal rights within their nations because of their perceived detrimental influence.

Mayor Bowser does not match up to Mamdani’s advocacy in this regard. Nevertheless, she has proven deliberately negligent to the aggressive anti-Israel activity in her city. Bowser has systematically refused to send police to discipline anti-Israel lawbreakers. Her administration has actively emboldened anti-Israel disruptors by instructing law enforcement not to act against increasingly aggressive demonstrations.

The impact of her negligence was evident in the assault of Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld by anti-Israel actors while he prayed outside the Israeli embassy. It was also felt by George Washington University community members who faced weeks-long hostility at the unlawful Gaza encampment that originated at the campus and spread to D.C. streets. Only the night before she was slated to testify before the Congressional Oversight Committee, did Bowser finally send the Metropolitan Police Department to dismantle the encampment.

Mayor Bowser created a climate where anti-Jewish hostility and harassment were ripe for violence. Given the pre-existing intensity of antisemitism in New York, Mamdani’s endorsement of anti-Israel activity could produce a far more dangerous city landscape. The path from “globalize the intifada” chants to murders of Israeli embassy staffers illustrates what Mamdani’s supporters mean when they call for “resistance by any means necessary.”

Under Mamdani, New York would not merely follow the footsteps of what happened in D.C., but would surpass it. Where Bowser has shown deliberate negligence, Mamdani promises active encouragement of the very activity that seeded the murders in Washington. The consequences of transforming simple anti-Jewish attitudes into legal action or inaction are dire.

Mamdani’s defamatory comments about Israel are troubling — but so too is his radical platform, which appeals to voters drawn to a so-called “new” kind of politics. In reality, this politics is anything but new; it recycles decades-old socialist ideas that younger generations find novel and alluring only because they have not lived through their destructive consequences.

This kind of extremist politicking is a tactic of unification and mobilization. Mamdani’s socialism plays on anti-Enlightenment liberalism and disestablishmentarianism that was evident in late 19th-century Europe. Such ideologies lent, and continue to lend, anti-Jewish sentiments a broader appeal.

When progressive rhetoric masks age-old prejudices, and when calls for “justice” echo the very language used to promote systematic exclusion, we must recognize the pattern: The Dresden conference participants in 1882 believed they were defending their nations and values. They cloaked their agenda in the language of virtue, human rights, and protectionism.

The murders in Washington mark our contemporary Dresden moment — a dire warning of where political tolerance for hateful anti-Israel rhetoric leads. New York City, the city of dreams, deserves leadership that enforces the law to restore order. That governance must be committed to reducing hate, chaos, and crime. Americans cannot afford to let the spirit of 1882 find a home in 2025. While the voices of Democratic primary voters were heard on Tuesday night, the ultimate choice is up to New Yorkers in November.

Sabrina Soffer recently graduated from George Washington University and works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). 

The post Warnings from Washington and Dresden: The Danger of Zohran Mamdani first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

If someone had told me 10 years ago that one of the biggest political movements in Europe would revolve around glorifying authoritarian regimes that kill women, oppress minorities, and chant for the destruction of a democratic state, I would’ve laughed.

But here we are.

Last week, 150,000 people took to the streets of The Hague, draped in red, waving Hezbollah flags and signs of support for the Iranian regime, screaming for the eradication of Israel. This happened in 2025 — in the Netherlands.

The crowd was not just angry men or fringe radicals, it was filled with Dutch girls in eyeliner and keffiyehs, influencers, students, and self-proclaimed feminists. All passionately backing regimes that would treat them like property, or worse.

What happened to Western values?

Let’s break this down.

These demonstrators claim to be standing up for “freedom” and “justice.” Yet they are parroting slogans fed to them by theocratic dictatorships like Iran, which hangs gay people from cranes, arrests women for showing hair, and tortures journalists for speaking the truth.

This is the same Iran that murdered Mahsa Amini in 2022 for not wearing her hijab properly. The same Iran that executed Navid Afkari, Ruhollah Zam, and dozens of teenage girls who dared to speak out or even sing without permission.

But hey, throw on a red hoodie, scream “Death to Israel,” and suddenly you’re the face of resistance?

Here’s what these red-dressed revolutionaries won’t tell you:

• In Israel, women can drive, vote, serve in government, and lead tech companies.
• In Israel, LGBTQ+ individuals live openly, serve in the military, and hold public office.
• In Israel, Arab citizens are doctors, judges, and journalists.
• And in Israel, you can criticize the government without disappearing in the middle of the night.

Meanwhile, in the regimes these demonstrators are supporting:

• Homosexuality is punishable by death.
• Women who speak out risk flogging or execution.
• Political dissent is met with bullets, poison, or the hangman’s noose.

So why the selective outrage?

It’s simple: Israel represents everything these protestors claim to value, but it’s Jewish, strong, and refuses to apologize for existing. That makes it a threat — not because of what it does, but because of what it is.

And this hatred? It isn’t new. It’s ancient, recycled, and repackaged in hashtags and protest posters. Antisemitism has just swapped its brownshirts for influencers and its swastikas for Palestinian flags.

It’s now trendy in some circles to hate the only democracy in the Middle East, not because it’s oppressive, but because it defends itself against actual oppression. The world, somehow, has gone mad.

In 2025, the real rebels are no longer those fighting for freedom in Tehran or Haifa — they’re the ones being canceled for defending a country that protects gay pride parades in the same week it’s under rocket attack.

To those who marched: You’re not standing up for peace. You’re standing with tyrants.

You’re not liberators. You’re their useful idiots.

And when you wear red, it’s not a symbol of rebellion, it’s the color of blood spilled by the very regimes you’re cheering for.

Israel isn’t perfect. No nation is. But it’s free. It’s democratic. And it stands on the front lines against terrorism, fanaticism, and fascism. The fact that this is controversial in 2025 says more about the state of the West than it does about Israel.

So go ahead, paint the streets red. But history won’t forget which side you chose when the dust settles.

And those of us who still believe in truth, freedom, and sanity, we’re not going anywhere.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time to Stand Up for Israel.

The post Hate and Protests March in The Hague: How Europe Came to Love Iran and Hate Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.