RSS
The Cautionary Tale of Jimmy Carter
Former US President Jimmy Carter attends an interview with Reuters in Cairo, Egypt, January 12, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
H.L. Mencken, the twentieth-century American journalist, satirist, and cultural critic, noted that “for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” His pithy observation prophetically described President Jimmy Carter, who has died at the age of 100.
Although he lived for more than a century, Carter’s legacy is unlikely to last nearly as long — because time and again, when faced with complex problems, he reached for clear and simple solutions that turned out to be disastrously wrong.
History’s verdict on Carter is hardly mixed—it leans heavily toward disaster, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. While he may have meant well, his penchant for moralizing in a way that bordered on patronizing, and his insistence on prioritizing ideals over reality, made him a pioneer of the kind of weakness that Barack Obama later perfected with his “leading from behind” doctrine. Carter’s America didn’t lead from behind—it just didn’t lead at all.
The fallout? A Middle East that’s been on fire ever since.
Carter’s most consequential failure was Iran. By abandoning the Shah and allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to step through the front door with his fanatical Islamic revolution, Carter handed the world over to radical Islamists. Khomeini didn’t just take over Iran—he ignited a revolutionary flame that still burns today.
October 7th, the deliberate and eagerly executed Hamas massacre of 1,200 innocent Israelis in Southern Israel, an evil atrocity that sent shockwaves through Israel and across the world, is just one link in the chain of chaos that Jimmy Carter helped to forge. Iran’s terror tentacles—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis—all trace their origins to the regime Carter allowed to flourish.
The vile Assad regime in Syria, now deposed, with as yet unknown chaos following in its wake, also owed its longevity to support from the regime that came into being as a result of Carter’s inadequate response when he could have cut it off before it took root.
In a 2014 interview on CNBC, Carter admitted, “I could have been re-elected if I had taken military action against Iran. It would have shown that I was strong and resolute and manly… I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had. But in the process, a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages.”
What an admission! Look how many innocent people have died and been repressed as a result of his ivory tower moral stance. As Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”
Many commentators have pointed to the fact that Carter presided over the historic Camp David Accords, but let’s be clear: while he played a significant role as a facilitator, the deal ultimately succeeded because Sadat and Begin were pragmatic men who understood their people needed peace more than platitudes.
Carter’s vision leaned heavily toward Palestinian autonomy, and had he gotten his way, Israel might have faced greater pressure to concede to PLO demands. Instead, the actual treaty focused on Israel-Egypt relations, and Carter, despite his moralizing, was fortunate to share credit for a deal rooted in the leaders’ pragmatism rather than his ideology.
And, as former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren put it in his article about Carter’s legacy, “No sooner were the Camp David Accords signed in 1979 than Carter embarked on a 40-year smear campaign against Israel.”
And in his post-presidency, things only got worse. Instead of acting as a neutral go-between and peace facilitator for Israel and the Palestinians, Carter transformed himself into the elder statesman of global finger-wagging. He seemed determined to lecture Israel at every opportunity, portraying it as the primary obstacle to peace, while cozying up to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat—a man whose organization, the PLO, had the blood of countless Israelis on its hands.
Carter didn’t stop there. In 2008, he went out of his way to meet in Syria with leaders of Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and Israel. Carter defended the visit as an attempt at peace-building, but in reality, it gave Hamas a veneer of legitimacy it neither earned nor deserved.
Carter compounded his betrayal of Israel by introducing the word “Apartheid” to describe Israel’s treatment of Arabs—an obscene accusation with no basis in reality, and one he surely knew was both false and inflammatory.
Rather than contributing to peace, Carter’s self-proclaimed moral high ground quickly eroded into a moral swamp, enabling some of the world’s most dangerous actors while undermining America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Instead of securing his place in history as a peacemaker, Carter’s post-presidency cast him as a sanctimonious meddler whose actions deepened divides rather than bridging them.
There was undoubtedly a good side to Carter—his Habitat for Humanity project, which built thousands of affordable homes for Americans who couldn’t afford expensive property, showed that he genuinely cared about people. He was willing to roll up his sleeves—literally!—and get to work for those in need. It was a touching example of his personal decency and desire to make a tangible difference in people’s lives.
Carter wasn’t a bad man—he was just a bad president. Idealism, while admirable, often walks hand-in-hand with naivety. And naivety, especially in leadership, allows evil to flourish—even when the intentions are noble. Carter believed deeply in human rights, but he had no idea how to protect them. He believed in peace—which all good people do—but he mistook appeasement for diplomacy. Worst of all, he failed to grasp a harsh truth: giving bad people slack doesn’t make them better—it just gives them room to harm the innocent.
And that’s the crux of the problem. The world Carter left us is more dangerous, not less, because he gave evil a foothold—and then had the audacity to call it progress.
In the end, Carter’s legacy is a cautionary tale. Good intentions aren’t enough. Leadership means knowing when to stand firm, when to draw red lines, and when to stop pretending that the world’s villains can be reasoned with. Carter never learned that lesson. And the world is still paying the price.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post The Cautionary Tale of Jimmy Carter first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report
Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.