RSS
IDF Says Iran Strikes May Wrap in ‘One or Two Weeks’ as Speculation Swirls Over US Role
US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House in Washington, DC, US, June 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes and Iranian missile launches on Tuesday and estimations by Jerusalem that its campaign would end soon, debate intensified over whether the United States would enter the conflict in the 90th hour, with experts divided on how far Washington may go.
Backchannel efforts suggest the regime in Iran is seeking off-ramps, with the Wall Street Journal on Monday reporting that Iranian diplomats had “signaled” through Arab intermediaries their willingness to return to negotiations.
But US President Donald Trump has publicly dismissed the prospect of a negotiated ceasefire.
“We’re not looking for a ceasefire,” he said, but rather for a “real end” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. After two months of stalled negotiations, he added, “I’m not in the mood to negotiate.”
Trump later posted a message on social media that read “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” without elaborating, further fueling speculation that the US may take military action against Iran or at least not stop Israel from fully completing its campaign.
Military officials said Tuesday that Israel expects its current campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear program to meet its primary objectives “within one to two weeks.” Its aim — to eliminate what Israel views as the core threat posed by both Tehran’s nuclear weapons efforts and its long-range missile capabilities — would be fulfilled by then, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) brass said.
Since the start of the operation, Israeli strikes have hit multiple elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to the officials, the attacks have caused extensive damage at two major enrichment sites — Natanz and Isfahan — and eliminated at least nine senior nuclear scientists involved in bomb development. Additional strikes have targeted facilities supporting the program, including command nodes and administrative offices tied to Iran’s nuclear operations. Israeli strikes have also taken out 40 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers and destroyed 70 Iranian air defense batteries since the start of the campaign on Thursday night.
One potential target that Israel has so far not hit is Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. However, Trump noted on social media on Tuesday that could change.
“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump posted. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”
Jonathan Ruhe, director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said Trump’s recent military posturing might be designed to strengthen US leverage rather than signal imminent intervention.
“Trump has shown an inclination to always want to play peacemaker, staying above the fray and bringing both sides together when he believes US available leverage is at a maximum,” Ruhe told The Algemeiner.
Ruhe added that Trump’s increasingly explicit threats to join the war was “one more way to try to build US leverage against Iran.”
Eyal Hulata, Israel’s former national security adviser, voiced skepticism about American involvement. “I’d be very surprised if the Americans join the war themselves,” he said on call with reporters on Tuesday. “Israel is proving that it’s pretty much capable of handling the situation so far.”
Hulata noted, however, that US calculations could shift if Iran followed through on threats to strike American personnel or energy infrastructure in Gulf states like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. “That will change the American calculus,” he said.
While Israel continued its strikes in its so-called Operation Rising Lion, reports surfaced that senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders were abandoning their posts. The IRGC, an Iranian military force and internationally designated terrorist organization, also reportedly controls a substantial portion of Iran’s oil industry and broader economy.
Ruhe cautioned that the collapse of the Islamic Republic, if it came, would not follow a linear trajectory. “Regime collapse is always gradual until it’s sudden,” he said. “One key factor determining whether regimes disintegrate or survive is not whether the people take to the streets and protest and conduct subversion — which we’re already seeing initial indications of — but whether the security services decide to fire on them and try to put them down or whether they drop their guns and melt into the crowds, disobey orders, or simply flee. That second factor is now very much in play.”
While the heavy losses suffered by the Revolutionary Guards, particularly among senior commanders, could spark defections or widespread disorder that might prevent the regime from suppressing uprisings, Ruhe cautioned that Iran’s internal security apparatus remained significantly more “robust, pervasive, and capable” than the non-state actors Israel has confronted over the past two years, like Hamas and Hezbollah.
“It’s also very possible, amid all this chaos, that the regime doesn’t so much disintegrate as fracture and we see an abrupt turnover in leadership in which the clerics, including supreme leader [Ali] Khamenei, give way to a more militarized government of IRGC diehards willing to fight on no matter the cost.”
Divisions remain within the US intelligence community over how close Iran actually was to a bomb. A CNN report published Tuesday, citing American intelligence, estimated that Tehran was “up to three years away” from building a nuclear weapon.
However, a White House assessment released Tuesday to counter the CNN report cited CENTCOM Commander Gen. Erik Kurilla as saying that Iran was “mere steps” from weapons-grade uranium enrichment. Iran had amassed 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent of weapons grade — double its stockpile from six months earlier. According to the White House, if Tehran accelerated enrichment, it could produce one bomb within a week and as many as ten within three weeks.
A recent analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security found that if Iran chooses to “break out” toward a bomb, it would have enough highly enriched uranium at two of its main facilities, Fordow and Natanz, “for 11 nuclear weapons in the first month, enough for 15 nuclear weapons by the end of the second month, 19 by the end of the third month, 21 by the end of the fourth month, and 22 by the end of the fifth month.”
Ruhe noted that even before reaching full weapons-grade enrichment, Iran had accumulated enough material to assemble a crude device that could be used for a test with its existing stockpiles of 60 percent enriched uranium.
This sense of urgency was sharpened by increasing calls from Iran’s security establishment, including advisors to the supreme leader, to “simply finish the bomb very quickly,” Ruhe said. Ruhe also pointed to the risks of misjudging Iran’s timeline. Israel had long assumed Iran would complete enrichment first and only then move to weaponization over the course of months or years. But Tehran increasingly pursued both tracks in parallel, and, as Ruhe noted, one lesson from past breakouts is that there may never be a “clear and detectable ‘go’ order from the top leadership to finish the bomb.”
“Israel’s increasing sense of urgency to strike after the horrors of Oct. 7 reflects its new security calculus where there is no margin of error to assume they could detect the last turn of the screwdriver on a bomb with enough time to act and to stop it,” he continued.
This was also a key reason behind Israel’s decision to strike Iran’s scientific brain trust in addition to its known nuclear facilities.
For his part, Hulata highlighted the asymmetric warfare Israel wages with its adversaries and the difference between Israel’s precision targeting and Iran’s indiscriminate missile barrages against civilians. “When it’s Hamas, then people say well it’s a terror organization so what do you expect, but Iran is a serious country,” he said. Even so, he continued, “the damage to Israel in this conflict so far is way below what we all would have expected.”
The post IDF Says Iran Strikes May Wrap in ‘One or Two Weeks’ as Speculation Swirls Over US Role first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.