Uncategorized
Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The op-ed was typical of the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page, extolling the virtues of moderation in all things.
The difference was that the author of the piece published Wednesday, Bezalel Smotrich, has a reputation for extremism, and the political landscape he was imagining is in Israel, not America.
Experts who track the U.S.-Israel relationship say the op-ed had a clear purpose: to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be rattled by his new extremist partners in governing Israel.
Those partners include Smotrich, the Religious Zionist bloc leader and self-described “proud homophobe” whom Israeli intelligence officials have accused of planning terrorist attacks — and who was sworn in as finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government Thursday. They also include Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement for his past support of Jewish terrorists, who will oversee Israel’s police.
The presence of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their parties in Netanyahu’s governing coalition has alarmed American liberals, including some in the Biden administration. But insiders say conservatives are feeling spooked, too.
“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who just returned from a tour of Israel where he met with senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming governments. “And I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”
In his op-ed published on Tuesday, two days before the new Israeli government was sworn in, Smotrich sought to persuade Americans that the new government is not the hotbed of ultranationalist and religious extremism it has been made out to be in the American press.
“The U.S. media has vilified me and the traditionalist bloc to which I belong since our success in Israel’s November elections,” he wrote. “They say I am a right-wing extremist and that our bloc will usher in a ‘halachic state’ in which Jewish law governs. In reality, we seek to strengthen every citizen’s freedoms and the country’s democratic institutions, bringing Israel more closely in line with the liberal American model.”
The op-ed is at odds with the stated aims of the coalition agreements; whereas Smotrich says there will be no legal changes to disputed areas in the West Bank, the agreements include a pledge to annex areas at an unspecified time, and to legalize outposts deemed illegal even under Israeli law. He says changes to religious practice will not involve coercion, but the agreement allows businesses to decline service “because of a religious belief,” which a member of his party has anticipated could extend to declining service to LGBTQ people.
Netanyahu has alienated the American left with his relentless attacks on its preference for a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he perceives as dangerous and naive. (He also differs from them on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.) He has instead cultivated a base on the right through close ties with the Republican Party and among evangelicals, made possible in part because he has long espoused the values traditional conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a united robust Western stance against extremism and terrorism.
But his alliance with Smotrich and others perceived as theocratic extremists may be a bridge too far even for Netanyahu’s conservative friends, who champion democratic values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, a veteran defense official in multiple Republican administrations.
“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former presidents and the secretary of state under the late George H. W. Bush.
Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the op-ed was likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with those conservatives in mind.
“The Wall Street Journal piece was designed to appeal to traditional conservatives,” he said. “It was designed to send a message to the American public writ large that the way in which Smotrich and perhaps [Itamar] Ben Gvir have been described is based on past utterances and not necessarily their forward-looking policies.”
The immediate predicate for the op-ed, insiders say, was likely a New York Times editorial on Dec. 17 that called the incoming government “a significant threat to the future of Israel” because of the extremist positions Smotrich and other partners have embraced, including the annexation of the West Bank, restrictions on non-Orthodox and non-Jewish citizens, diminishing the independence of the courts, reforming the Law of Return that would render ineligible huge chunks of Diaspora Jewry, and anti-LGBTQ measures.
Smotrich in his op-ed casts the changes not as radical departures from democratic norms but as tweaks that would align Israel more with U.S. values. He said he would pursue a “broad free-market policy” as finance minister. He likened religious reforms to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Christian service providers to decline work from LGBTQ couples.
“For example, arranging for a minuscule number of sex-separated beaches, as we propose, scarcely limits the choices of the majority of Israelis who prefer mixed beaches,” Smotrich wrote. “It simply offers an option to others.”
In the West Bank, Smotrich said, his finance ministry would promote the building of infrastructure and employment which would benefit Israeli Jewish settlers and Palestinians alike. “This doesn’t entail changing the political or legal status of the area.”
Such salves contradict the stated aims of the new government’s coalition agreement, Anshel Pfeffer, a Netanyahu biographer and analyst for Haaretz said in a Twitter thread picking apart Smotrich’s op-ed.
“Smotrich says his policy doesn’t mean changing the political or legal status of the occupied territories while annexation actually appears in the coalition agreement and his plans certainly change the legal status of the settlements,” Pfeffer said.
Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said foreign media alarm at the composition of the incoming government was premature.
“I suspect that the vast mass of people will maintain the support that they have for Israel because it hasn’t got anything to do with the passing of one government to another and has everything to do with the principle that Israel is a pro-American democracy in a region that’s pretty important,” she said.
That said, Pletka said, the changes in policy embraced by Smotrich and his cohort could alienate Americans should they become policy.
“I think a lot of things can change if the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government becomes policy, but right now, it’s rhetoric,” she said. “What you tend to see in normal governments is that they need to make a series of compromises between rhetoric that plays to their base and governance.”
Pletka said Netanyahuu’s stated ambition to expand the 2020 Abraham Accords to peace with Saudi Arabia would likely inhibit plans by Smotrich to annex the West Bank. In the summer of 2020, the last time Netanyahu planned annexation, the United Arab Emirates, one of the four Arab Parties to the Abraham Accords, threatened to pull out unless Netanyahu pulled back — which he did.
“It’s not just the relationship with the United States,” she said. “This might alienate their new friends in the Gulf, which, at the end of the day, may actually have more serious consequences.”
Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to relay the impression that he will keep his coalition partners on a short leash.
“They’re joining me, I’m not joining them,” he said earlier this month. “I’ll have two hands firmly on the steering wheel. I won’t let anybody do anything to LGBT [people] or to deny our Arab citizens their rights or anything like that.”
Zakheim said that Netanyahu, who is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, from 1996 to 1999 and then from 2009 to 2021, has proven chops at steering rangy coalitions — but there are two key differences now.
Netanyahu wants his coalition partners to pass a law that would effectively end his trial for criminal fraud, and so they exercise unprecedented leverage over him. Additionally, Netanyahu in the past has faced the greatest pressure from haredi Orthodox parties, who are susceptible to suasion by funding their impoverished sector. That’s not true of his new ideologically driven partners.
“If you look at his past governments, he has really never been forced into real policy decisions by those to the right of him,” Zekheim said. “Now he’s got a problem because these 15 or so seats of those to his right are interested in policy, not just in money.”
Makovsky said Netanyahu appears to be leaving behind a conservatism that was sympathetic to the outlook of its American counterpart.
“His success has been that he’s a stabilizer. He’s risk-averse. He’s focused on the prosperity of the country, with high-tech success. He’s the one to be seen as the tenacious guardian against Iranian nuclear influence,” he said. “And those are things people could relate to. Now, it just seems like he’s just throwing the playbook out the window.”
—
The post Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Creates More Enemies’: Iran’s War Spreads to Turkey as Analysts Warn Regional Assault Is Strategic Mistake
Debris of a NATO air defense system that intercepted a missile launched from Iran is seen in Dortyol, in southern Hatay province, Turkey, March 4, 2026, in this screengrab from video. Photo: Ihlas News Agency (IHA) via REUTERS
Turkey became the latest unexpected target in the widening war in the Middle East on Wednesday after it intercepted an Iranian missile, as Iran’s retaliation for joint US-Israeli strikes spreads across the region.
Tehran appears to be betting that hitting countries beyond Israel will ignite regional pressure on Washington to stop its military operation, but Arab and Israeli diplomats say the strategy is backfiring, with the Islamic Republic “creating more enemies.”
Turkey said NATO air defenses destroyed a ballistic missile fired from Iran that was detected over Iraq and Syria and heading toward Turkish airspace. Turkey, a majority Sunni country and a NATO member, shares a roughly 310-mile border with Iran. Two days earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called for “an end to the bloodbath,” describing the war, launched by joint US-Israeli strikes on Saturday, as “illegal.”
Since the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, the regime in Tehran has expanded its retaliatory missile and drone fire to hit a swath of American allies including Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
Iran’s interim national security chief, Ali Larijani, said on Sunday that Iran was “not seeking to attack” regional states and was acting only in self-defense against American bases. But in the days since, Iranian strikes have hit civilian infrastructure including power facilities and hotels across the Gulf.
New figures released Wednesday by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) show Iran has concentrated far more firepower on Gulf neighbors than on Israel in the war’s opening days. Over the first four days, INSS said Iran launched about 200 missiles and about 100 drones at Israel across 123 attack waves. Over the same period, it targeted the Gulf states with about 500 missiles and about 2,000 drones — 2.5 times more missiles and 20 times more drones than it fired at Israel.
According to Michael Eisenstadt, a military analyst and former US Army officer at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the attacks reflect Iran’s strategy of applying graduated pressure by “catalyzing opposition to the war” in the United States and other countries. Tehran hopes disruptions to oil infrastructure and higher energy prices will create pressure for a ceasefire.
But nearly every expert called Iran’s Gulf assault a blunder, saying the strikes have caused widespread anger in the Arab world. Six GCC states and Jordan condemned Iran’s attacks as “indiscriminate and reckless” and reaffirmed each country’s right to self-defense.
Jeremy Issacharoff, a former Israeli ambassador and arms expert, said the Iranian strategy was counterproductive, turning quasi-allies into adversaries.
“Attacking countries like Qatar that were pretty much positively inclined towards them was a huge mistake,” he told The Algemeiner. “They’ve created more enemies.”
Issacharoff said that Tehran’s leaders frame the conflict through hostility toward Zionism and the existence of a Jewish state in what they see as part of the Islamic world, adding that their driving strategic goal is hegemony. “In the end, they were looking to be much more in control of the region, and of the Arab world as a whole,” he said.
But the region was already moving in the opposite direction of what Iran wants, he said. Years of Iranian-backed missile attacks on Israel by proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon had already pushed several countries to develop what he described as a regional defense mechanism, with Arab states cooperating with Israel and the US under the radar.
“It’s discreet, but it’s happening,” Issacharoff said, adding that the latest attacks could prompt the emerging coalition to expand cooperation even further, beyond the military arena into a broader framework for regional stability.
Former US Central Command (CENTCOM) communications director Joe Buccino took it a step further, telling Fox News that Iran’s move was a “stunning strategic miscalculation” that could “set the Gulf states on [a] path toward normalization with Israel.”
Abbas Dahouk, a retired US Army colonel who served as a senior military adviser for Middle Eastern Affairs at the US State Department, echoed Issacharoff’s view that years of quiet cooperation had already strengthened a regional coalition against Iran, but he tied the acceleration to a specific turning point: Israel’s inclusion in CENTCOM in 2021, which he said was a “transformative” inflection point that forced regional militaries that once avoided overt ties to “quietly mature counter-Iran plans over years of joint exercises and coordination.”
That groundwork is now showing up in the scale of coordination, Dahouk told The Jerusalem Post in comments published Tuesday, with “hundreds of aircraft” able to operate at once, refuel, strike concealed targets, and counter Iran’s drone and missile networks. He added that Iran’s retaliation has left Gulf states little room to stay on the sidelines.
“The region must view the Iranian regime as a common threat alongside the United States and Israel,” he said. “At this moment, they have little alternative.”
Former US General Jack Keane also told Fox that the Islamic Republic’s strategy had “backfired.”
“The Gulf states are responding, they’re adequately defending themselves … they’re frustrated with the Iranians,” Keane said, adding that several GCC states were preparing for combat.
Emirati analyst Mohammad Al Ali wrote in Gulf News that Iran’s only success in this war so far was in “uniting the region and much of the world against them, constructing a vast wall of isolation between [the] regime and the international community.”
“If Iran’s leaders have succeeded in any respect during this war, it is only in uniting the region and much of the world against them, constructing a vast wall of isolation between their regime and the international community,” he wrote.
Beyond the Arab world, Iran’s strikes have triggered outrage in Europe and led France, Greece, and Britan to deploy defensive military assets to the Mediterranean.
“Iran’s strategy is to sow chaos and set the region on fire,” European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters on Wednesday, lambasting the Iranian regime for indiscriminately attacking its neighbors.
Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski expressed similar sentiments when asked about the Iranian ballistic missile headed into Turkish airspace.
Iran is broadening the war to countries that did not attack it … there is a well-known saying it’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake,” he said.
Uncategorized
Frontrunner for Iran’s Next Supreme Leader Emerges, US Sub Sinks Iranian Warship Off Sri Lanka
Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, visits Hezbollah’s office in Tehran, Iran, Oct. 1, 2024. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The powerful son of Iran’s slain supreme leader emerged on Wednesday as a frontrunner to succeed him as the US stepped up its military campaign against Tehran.
As new explosions rang out in Tehran, plans were in doubt for a funeral for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, killed by Israeli forces on Saturday in the first assassination of a nation’s top ruler by an airstrike.
The body had been expected to lie in state in a vast Tehran mosque from Wednesday evening, but state media reported a farewell ceremony had been postponed.
Two Iranian sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that Mojtaba Khamenei, son of Iran’s slain supreme leader, was not in Tehran when his father was killed in a strike that destroyed the leader‘s compound.
Iran said the Assembly of Experts that will select the new leader would announce its decision soon, only the second time it will have done so since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979.
Assembly member Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami told state TV the candidates had already been identified but did not name them.
Israel said it would hunt down whoever was chosen.
Other candidates for supreme leader include Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the Islamic Republic’s founder and a champion of the reformist faction sidelined in recent decades.
But the favorite appears to be Mojtaba Khamenei, who has amassed power as a senior figure in the security forces and the vast business empire they control, the Iranian sources said. Choosing him would send a signal that hardliners were still firmly in charge.
Some Iranians have openly celebrated the death of the supreme leader, whose security forces killed thousands of anti-government demonstrators only weeks ago in the biggest domestic unrest since the era of the revolution.
But Iranians angry with the government said there was unlikely to be much sign of protest while bombs are falling.
“We have nowhere to go to protect ourselves from strikes, how can we protest?” Farah, 45, said by phone from Tehran, adding that the security forces “are everywhere. They will kill us. I hate this regime, but first I have to think about the safety of my two children.”
Meanwhile, in a sign of the US military’s reach, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a US submarine had sunk an Iranian warship off the southern coast of Sri Lanka. At least 80 people were killed, Sri Lanka’s deputy foreign minister told local television.
The United States and Israel pressed on with their round-the-clock assaults on Iran that began on Saturday. The top US commander said the campaign was “ahead of the game plan” and Hegseth said the US was winning the conflict.
“This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down,” Hegseth told a briefing. “Our air defenses and that of our allies have plenty of runway. We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.”
A New York Times report said that Iranian intelligence had reached out to the CIA early in the war about a path toward ending the conflict.
The report said that officials in Washington were skeptical of an “off-ramp” for now, while Trump said on Tuesday that Iranians wanted talks but it was “too late.”
Uncategorized
Britain Launches Review Into School-Related Antisemitism
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump (not pictured) hold a bilateral meeting at Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain, July 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Britain‘s government on Wednesday launched an independent review into antisemitism in England’s schools and colleges, responding to data showing classroom-related incidents have doubled since before Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
Attacks on Jews have risen globally since Hamas’s assault on Israel, which triggered the Gaza war. Britain reported a 4% annual increase in cases of antisemitism in 2025 – the second-highest total on record – including a sharp spike after a deadly synagogue attack in northern England in October.
The Community Security Trust, which advises Jewish communities on security, recorded 204 school–related antisemitic incidents in 2025, twice pre-2023 levels.
“The figures are stark and clear,” education minister Bridget Phillipson said in a statement.
She added that “too many Jewish teachers who raised concerns felt that nothing was done. That is not acceptable.”
The government said the aim of the review was to assess how well education settings identify, prevent and respond to antisemitic behavior, and where further support was needed.
The review will examine schools’ policies, how incidents are handled when they occur, what preventive measures are in place, and how external factors – including protests outside schools and wider geopolitical tensions – influence behavior within education settings.