RSS
Port of No Return: The US Plan for Aid Relief in Gaza
Aerial view shows a World Central Kitchen (WCK) barge loaded with food arriving off Gaza, where there is risk of famine after five months of Israel’s military campaign, in this handout image released March 15, 2024. Photo: Israel Defense Forces/Handout via REUTERS
The US has chosen to cross the Rubicon. In his 2024 State of the Union address, President Biden reminded Americans, “The United States has been leading international efforts to get more humanitarian assistance into Gaza.” He said, “I’m directing the US military to lead an emergency mission to establish a temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine, and temporary shelters.”
Washington has taken ownership of the crisis by committing significant US resources to mitigate the Gaza humanitarian emergency. It is now America’s problem to solve. The Marshall Plan saved Western Europe from starvation and Soviet domination, but it came at a serious price: the US became intimately and inextricably involved in European affairs, effectively becoming “the most important country in Europe.” The US Gaza port plan is the first step in a “Marshall Plan for Gaza.” It is the Port of No Return.
However, when we look at American aid missions that were attempted in other areas embroiled in war and conflict in the years since the original Marshall Plan, the US has had less success.
In the early 1980s, President Reagan deployed US Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force to stabilize the country amid its civil war and facilitate the withdrawal of Israeli forces. While their goal was to provide a neutral intervention to restore peace and order, the US forces increasingly found themselves embroiled in the conflict, as they were perceived as siding with the Lebanese government and its Christian allies against Muslim factions. The situation deteriorated dramatically on October 23, 1983, when a Hezbollah truck bomb destroyed the US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American service personnel. The devastating attack, one of the deadliest against US forces since World War II, led President Reagan to withdraw the remaining US forces, marking an end to the ill-fated intervention.
Similarly, in the early 1990s, the US initiated a humanitarian aid operation in Mogadishu, Somalia, to alleviate the severe famine and restore order amidst the country’s civil war. What was meant to be a UN-backed aid distribution operation escalated into a military engagement when local warlords appropriated all the aid and monopolized its distribution. The US resolved to end the control of the warlords through military force, culminating in the infamous 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, vividly depicted in the book and film Black Hawk Down. Intense urban warfare resulted in significant casualties, with 18 US soldiers killed and 73 wounded. On the Somali side, hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000 Somalis were killed. The dramatic failure of the operation prompted another embarrassing US withdrawal.
There is significant risk in endeavors of this kind. Hamas uses its monopoly on the distribution of resources, including foreign aid, to reward its members and supporters. It withholds these resources as a means of control. Power is a finite resource, and an increase in power for one party directly corresponds to a decrease in power for others. Should an alternative source of aid distribution emerge, this lever of Hamas’s power will greatly diminish. There is therefore a strong likelihood that Hamas or a related group will employ violence against aid distribution personnel (civilian or military) to provoke an American withdrawal.
It is also important to bear in mind that some in Gaza have adopted a strong Islamist worldview. These individuals will see the US effort not as a form of international aid relief but as the US attempting to gain a foothold in Dar al-Islam (the territory of Islam). During the Gulf War (1991-92), al-Qaeda made an argument about the sanctity of Dar al-Islam by criticizing the presence of US military forces in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden argued that it was a violation of Islamic principles for non-Muslim forces to be stationed in the land of the believers. He called for the expulsion of US forces and for Muslims to unite against what he perceived as a Western intrusion into Islamic territory. Some Palestinians are already calling the US port just another form of occupation. For Gazans who embrace Islamist ideology, expelling a US presence would be part of their jihad, and the use of force against Americans would be sanctioned.
In the current conflict, Iranian proxies are already targeting Americans. The Houthis of Yemen are attacking US warships and neutral shipping nearly daily. US forces in Iraq and Syria have faced over 130 attacks since October. In all probability, Iran’s surrogates in Gaza will also attack US forces when they arrive in the hope of driving them out. As one analyst put it, “The port will be a bullet magnet.” If casualties mount and the US abandons the project, it will strengthen Iran and deepen Tehran’s impression that the US is wavering in its regional support.
Contrary to media representation, Israel has been providing aid. A recent Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) report noted that “Since Hamas’s October 7 massacre, Israel has supported the transfer of 11,943 humanitarian aid trucks into Gaza. As of February 4, these deliveries included 144,030 tons of food, 20,780 tons of water, 23,160 tons of shelter equipment, 16,700 tons of medical supplies, 146 tanks of fuel, and 222 tanks of cooking gas.” This aid is being delivered while major combat operations are still ongoing, putting IDF soldiers, aid workers, and Gazan residents at risk. In a recent aid delivery attempt, Gazans rushed toward an aid truck, causing a stampede with significant loss of life.
Even with the significant risk involved, the effort may be worthwhile. The US has a storied history of successful humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) programs. The most celebrated would be the aforementioned Marshall Plan (1948-52). The Berlin Airlift (1948-49) was also a major US success. The US has achieved positive results in more recent HADR programs as well, including its responses to a massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean (2004), an earthquake in Haiti (2010), the massive Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (2013), Cyclone Idai in Mozambique (2019), and a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Turkey and Syria (2023).
In Gaza, the relief plan calls for a combination of forward basing out of Cyprus and non-combatant “seabasing” nearer to Gaza with a temporary pier and infrastructure. Gaza has a port, but it is a small fishing boat marina that is not suitable for this sort of operation.
The US military is planning a Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) operation. JLOTS is designed to facilitate the transport and distribution of personnel, equipment, and supplies from sea to shore in environments where traditional port facilities are limited or nonexistent. It involves a coordinated effort among multiple branches of the armed forces, utilizing various specialized equipment and techniques such as roll-on/roll-off ships, causeways, barges, and amphibious vehicles to offload cargo directly onto the shore. It is used when conventional ports are unavailable due to damage, conflict, or lack of infrastructure in remote or austere environments.
Pentagon spokesman Gen Ryder said, “[JLOTS] is a capability… that we are going to execute and enable us to get… up to 2,000,000 meals in [to Gaza] a day.” Also, the EU has donated barges laden with foodstuffs that will be consolidated in Cyprus. According to a recent article in the Jerusalem Post, the operation would involve the screening of cargo in Cyprus, with Israeli officials’ involvement.
Examples of JLOTS capabilities. Source: DoD screenshot republished in “DOD to Construct Pier to Deliver Humanitarian Aid to Gaza” by Mathew Olay, DoD News.
US Military Sealift Command (MSC) conducted a demonstration of its JLOTS capabilities in 2017 through an exercise involving an Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) ship. The USNS MONTFORD POINT (T-ESD-1) is a large vessel with a wide-open deck area and low freeboard, facilitating cargo transfer from conventional ships. The exercise demonstrated the feasibility of the “floating pier” concept. It showcased the ability to transfer large cargo at sea by using the MONTFORD POINT as a floating pier that would receive freight from traditional logistics vessels for further transfer by lighters or similar small vessels.
One day after President Biden’s speech, US Central Command announced that it is deploying five ships and 1,000 troops to build the offshore port and has already dispatched the US Army Vessel (USAV) GENERAL FRANK S. BESSON (LSV-1). The BESSON departed from Virginia and will arrive no earlier than the end of March. The BESSON is tasked with delivering the equipment necessary to establish the temporary pier. The USNS BENAVIDEZ (T-AKR-306), a BOB HOPE class ship, has been activated from the ready reserve to participate. The BENAVIDEZ is a large vessel that carries modules to build both floating and shore-based piers. The 7th Transportation Brigade from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, will oversee the JLOTS operation. Their mission is to “conduct multi-modal transportation operations in support of the Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration (RSOI) of joint and/or combined forces into a theater of operations.”
President Biden assured Americans in his speech that there would be no US military personnel with “boots on the ground.” It is unclear how the pier can be built securely and aid safely provided without a military presence. In addition, the pier facilities themselves need regular tending and maintenance. “No boots on the ground” likely means highly paid US and foreign contractors to do the job so US military and government personnel can avoid having to do so.
At a recent Pentagon press briefing, General Ryder was asked, “Does the DoD anticipate that Hamas will fire on them, on the JLOTS operation?” He replied, “That’s certainly a risk, but if Hamas truly does care about the Palestinian people, one would hope that this international mission to deliver aid to people who need it would be able to happen unhindered.” If the US is depending on Hamas’s goodwill for the success of this operation, it is likely to be disappointed.
By spearheading the Gaza Port operation, the US has not only underscored its commitment to addressing the dire humanitarian needs in Gaza but is also taking on significant inherent risks. The initiative mirrors historic US humanitarian missions, highlighting America’s capacity to mobilize substantial resources in response to global crises. While the plan aims to deliver essential aid and foster stability, it also exposes the US to risks associated with local power dynamics and anti-American sentiment, echoing past challenges in Lebanon and Somalia. Those were places where the US found itself entangled in local conflicts, with varying degrees of success and failure, all with a fair share of unintended consequences. For Washington this is a serious gamble with high stakes of either peace and stability or calamity and conflict.
David Levy is a retired US Navy Commander. He was the Director for Theater Security Cooperation for US Naval Forces Central Command and the US Air and Naval Attaché in Tunis, Tunisia. CDR. Levy is a Ph.D. candidate at Bar Ilan University in the Department of Political Science.
A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Port of No Return: The US Plan for Aid Relief in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Lawmakers Grill Ireland Ambassador Nominee on Israel
US Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) speaks during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing at the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, May 21, 2024. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
During Thursday’s confirmation hearing for the position of US ambassador to Ireland, Dublin’s long-standing skepticism towards Israel became a central point of discussion.
Edward Walsh, the Trump Administration’s pick to serve as the liaison between America and the Ireland, fielded comments from federal lawmakers over the Emerald Isle’s intense criticism of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
“This is going to be a tough needle to thread when you got a close ally making a horrible mistake,” Jim Risch, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said about Ireland’s treatment of Israel, “But you have got to thread that needle and I hope you will convey the message that they are very much out of step with the United States as far as the relationship with those countries.”
Risch lamented Ireland’s decision to officially recognize a Palestinian state, calling the declaration “a heartbreaking mistake with zero recognition of what Hamas did on October 7.”
“I hope you will ensure that our friends in Ireland will understand that America strongly supports Israel,” Risch added.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) lambasted the International Criminal Court (ICC) for being “engaged in a campaign against our Israeli allies.”
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which has provided significant humanitarian aid into the war-torn enclave throughout the war.
US and Israeli officials issued blistering condemnations of the ICC move, decrying the court for drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s democratically elected leaders and the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the ongoing war in Gaza with its massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
“These warrants are utterly illegitimate,” claimed Cruz, who added that the ICC’s warrant requests against Israeli leaders is “setting a precedent to go after countries who are not members of the Court, which exposes American soldiers and officials.”
“Ireland has filed a motion to directly boost the ICC campaign,” said Cruz.
Walsh agreed that Ireland’s lack of support for Israel represents a “big issue and a big concern.”
“We’re an ally of Israel so it’s a difficult conversation and I’d be glad to relay president Trump’s message over to them at any time,”
In January, Ireland filed a motion to join South Africa’s bid to the ICC accusing Israel of “genocide.” Israel responded by closing their embassy in Ireland and issuing a statement blasting Dublin for backing “the politicized proceedings being conducted at the ICC against Israel and its leaders.”
Ireland’s relationship with Israel has sharply deteriorated following the events of October 7, when Hamas launched a deadly massacre on the Jewish state, slaughtering roughly 1200 individuals and kidnapping 250 others. While Ireland swiftly condemned the Hamas attacks, its government has since voiced mounting criticism of Israel’s conduct in the conflict, particularly in regard to the high civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In response, Israeli officials have accused Ireland of bias and undermining Israel’s right to self-defense, further souring diplomatic ties. The deepening rift reflects long-standing tensions over Middle East policy and positions Ireland as one of the most outspoken critics of Israel within the European Union.
The post US Lawmakers Grill Ireland Ambassador Nominee on Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Panic on Memorial Day: Sights and Sounds From Israel
Israelis stand for a moment of silence as the memorial siren sounds on Israel’s Memorial Day. Photo: Meir Pavlovsky, OneFamily
I was at the Memorial Day ceremony at Habima Square in Tel Aviv, which is like Israel’s Lincoln Center. This is not like America’s Memorial Day — there are no barbecues or celebrations. This is Israel: a small country, where everybody has lost somebody.
The commemorative siren sounded and thousands of people fell completely silent, some cried, a few dogs howled back at the siren. I saw two female police officers holding hands, one had tears in her eyes.
The siren ended and the ceremony proceeded, with speakers and prayers, but then, suddenly — screams.
“Screaming” isn’t really the right word — it was coming from all directions and sounded more like a huge high frequency roar, but not like in a sporting event. I can’t quite describe it; it was like hearing a tornado approach.
Then people were running, thousands of people, like a human tsunami — so I ran too. Because when something like this happens in Israel, you get to safety first and ask questions later.
To view a video of some of the event, click here.
Like most people around me, I first focused on getting some distance between myself and the event location, not knowing whether I might be about to run into something dangerous. I turned onto a side street because it seemed like a safe direction to go, then I saw some people running into a building, and I ran there too because it simply seemed to make sense. I found myself in someone’s apartment with about 20 other people.
I don’t remember falling along the way, but I noticed my knee was hurting, and my pants were ripped, so apparently I had.
One of the people in the apartment was crying and panicking, a young American girl, probably high school age, who didn’t speak Hebrew. So I sat with her explained what little I knew, as a few of us tried to give her some degree of comfort. I could at least offer a familiar American voice to talk to.
I also walked around and asked people if anyone had cell phone reception or had heard any news, and for the most part the answer was no. Later, when everything seemed OK, I thanked the apartment owner for “hosting” us and stood outside with the American girl waiting for her mother to come get her.
An Israeli woman nearby seemed concerned and I offered to walk her home. She thanked me, and told me her husband thanks me too — he was on the phone from Gaza where he was serving in combat that very night.
So what actually happened?
According to reports, several suspicious people, apparently wearing what appeared to be combat vests, tried to force their way through security into the ceremony. The suspicious people were arrested without further incident. Some conflicting reports said the suspects had attempted to attack police. Whatever it was, something about the interaction triggered a panic, which spread.
The police officially say this was not a “security event” but it’s important to remember that at the time, none of us knew that. We knew only that there was an urgent need to run, possibly for our lives.
I don’t mean to compare this small experience to some of the more dramatic ones Israelis have faced and continue to face: our hostages, our lost loved ones, our fallen soldiers, and more. But I can say this: in 14 years, I’ve been in my share of bomb shelters, and heard my share of sirens, yet this is the first time I’ve been inside of what one might call an “event.”
Meanwhile, terrorists successfully managed to set the countryside around Jerusalem on fire, cancelling numerous Memorial Day and Independence Day events and setting Israelis to work fighting the blaze.
It is well understood by all Israelis that terrorists favor large crowds and symbolic events for their attacks. A Memorial Day ceremony in Tel Aviv would be an ideal target — this reality was in the back of everyone’s mind from the beginning — which probably contributed to the rapid and dramatic reaction of the crowd.
And there’s something simply amazing about that: knowing that we realistically might be walking into danger, we came anyway. We came by the thousands, to HaBima Square and to other ceremonies across the country. We also show up to our jobs, and our lives, we take public transportation, we visit parks, and malls, protests and yes, even music festivals. The day-to-day courage of ordinary Israelis is remarkable, and touching beyond words.
There’s an Israeli expression: on Memorial Day, we acknowledge the painful cost of having a state; on Yom HaShoah (Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day) we acknowledge the cost of not having one.
And finally, on Independence Day, we celebrate. Celebrations are muted this year: due to the fires around Jerusalem, the hostages in Gaza, and our loved ones in the IDF fighting on seven different fronts.
Nonetheless, I wish you all a Happy Independence Day from Israel.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Panic on Memorial Day: Sights and Sounds From Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Iran Prompt Concern Among Republicans, Applause From Ex-Obama Officials
US President Trump speaks to the media at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Washington, DC, April 21, 2025. Photo: Andrew Leyden/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
As the US continues to negotiate a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration has drawn praise from political adversaries and criticism from traditional allies over a perceived reversion to the basic framework of the now-defunct 2015 nuclear accord, which US President Donald Trump has lambasted as a dangerous agreement.
Members of the former Obama administration have expressed cautious optimism that the approach of Trump and his team to the current nuclear talks might mirror the steps they took to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal which placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of major international sanctions. Trump withdrew the US from the accord during his first presidential term in 2018, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers and hawkish foreign policy analysts have increasingly raised skepticism about the Trump administration’s approach to the Iranian nuclear program, suggesting that the White House has been receiving bad advice.
Such critics have argued that the White House may have relaxed its hardline stance against Iranian uranium enrichment, potentially allowing Iran’s Islamist regime to continue enriching uranium “civilian purposes.” Tehran has previously rejected halting its uranium enrichment program, insisting that the country’s right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable. Iranian officials have also refused to include their ballistic missile program, which would allow Iran to continue improving its weapons delivery capabilities, in negotiations with Washington.
The 2015 deal, which the Obama administration negotiated with Iran and other world powers, allowed Iran to enrich significant quantities of uranium to low levels of purity and stockpile them. It did not directly address the regime’s ballistic missile program but included an eight-year restriction on Iranian nuclear-capable ballistic missile activities.
Allies of Trump had argued such terms of the deal were insufficient, as they would allow the regime to maintain a large-scale nuclear program and wait for certain restrictions to expire before ramping up their activity. Supporters of the deal countered that the accord kept Iran further away from being able to break out toward a bomb quickly and gave international inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear sites.
The current framework being advanced by the Trump administration “suggests that the Americans have, at least for now, abandoned several of the fundamental demands that were emphasized before negotiations began,” the Israeli outlet Israel Hayom wrote.
Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served as Trump’s top diplomat from 2018 to 2021, questioned the utility of attempting to broker a nuclear deal with Iran “while it is at its weakest strategic point in decades” in a recent article for the Free Press. He appeared to be referring to Israel’s military activities in recent months decimating Iran’s air defenses and proxy forces — particularly Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon — in the Middle East. Pompeo argued that conservatives who “coddle” Iran in hopes of avoiding war are only ensuring that Tehran eventually acquires a nuclear weapon.
The White House has also received criticism from fellow Republicans in Congress. In a comment posted on X/Twitter, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, lamented, “Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the president terrible advice.” Urging the White House to reverse course, Cruz added that Trump “is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that.”
Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she works as deputy director of the think tank’s Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program, also warned against any deal allowing Iran to retain its uranium enrichment capabilities.
“Only the full, verified, and permanent dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment, weaponization, and missile-delivery programs constitutes a sound deal with Iran,” she told The Algemeiner. “Leaving enriched uranium, associated facilities, centrifuges, and infrastructure in the country means Tehran can renege on a deal and ramp its nuclear threat up at any time. Iran’s breakout time would also be considerably shorter today given its stock of thousands of fast-enriching advanced centrifuges.”
Stricker continued, “The regime’s goal is to wait out the Trump administration, delay sanctions pressure, and avoid a military strike. The administration should make clear that dismantlement is the only possible deal that allows the regime to avoid major consequences.”
David Bedein, director of the Jerusalem-based Center for Near East Policy Research, blasted the Trump administration for supposedly keeping the details of the negotiations a “mystery” and potentially compromising Israel’s long-term interests in the region.
The Trump administration’s allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium would be “an absolute violation of Israel’s interests,” he told The Algemeiner.
Bedein also claimed that the intentions of Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, are “dangerously unclear,” noting his ties to Qatar, which has long maintained close cooperation with Iran and supported terrorist groups such as Hamas.
In 2023, the Qatar Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, purchased one of Witkoff’s New York properties for nearly $623 million. Witkoff further raised eyebrows earlier this year when he praised Qatar as a partner of the US and a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
Witkoff drew backlash last month when, during a Fox News interview, he suggested that Iran would be allowed to pursue a nuclear program for so-called civilian purposes, saying that Iran “does not need to enrich past 3.67 percent.” The next day, Witkoff backtracked on these remarks, writing on X/Twitter that Tehran must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that Iran has to “walk away” from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development and it should allow nuclear inspectors access to military facilities.
Despite pursuing diplomacy, Trump has said he is committed to ensuring Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and has threatened additional sanctions, tariffs, and military action if Iran does not agree to a deal to curb its nuclear activity.
Harsh US sanctions levied on Iran during Trump’s first term crippled the Iranian economy and led its foreign exchange reserves to plummet. Trump and his Republican supporters in the US Congress criticized the former Biden administration for renewing billions of dollars in US sanctions waivers, which had the effect of unlocking frozen funds and allowing the country to access previously inaccessible hard currency. Critics argue that Iran likely used these funds to provide resources for Hamas and Hezbollah to wage new terrorist campaigns against the Jewish state, including the brutal Oct. 7 massacres throughout southern Israel perpetrated by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists.
Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to close to weapons grade at its Fordow site dug into a mountain.
The UK, France, and Germany said in a statement at the time that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
However, former key players within the Obama administration have praised the similarities between Trump’s efforts and the JCPOA.
Ilan Goldberg, a national security advisor in the Pentagon and State Department during the Obama administration, praised the Trump administration for doing the “right thing” by revisiting key components of the now-scrapped JCPOA during their negotiations with Iran.
“It’s hard not to take a jab at Donald Trump for walking away from the nuclear deal in the first place, because I think if we get to a deal, it’ll probably be something pretty similar,” Goldberg told Jewish Insider.
Phil Gordon, a national security advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region during the Obama administration, said that the Trump team will learn that they are likely to “have to accept some of the same imperfections that the Obama team did.”
Israel has been among the most vocal proponents of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that that the US should pursue a “Libyan option” to eliminate the possibility of Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon by overseeing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and the dismantling of equipment.
The post Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Iran Prompt Concern Among Republicans, Applause From Ex-Obama Officials first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login