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.
RSS
Responding With Hope After This Week’s Devastating News
The devastating news out of Washington, DC, on Wednesday night was both shocking and heartbreaking. Two young Israeli Embassy staff members — Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim — were gunned down at point-blank range outside the Capital Jewish Museum.
They had just attended a peaceful event celebrating Jewish heritage and identity. As they exited the building, a gunman approached, drew a weapon, and murdered them in cold blood.
Yaron had recently purchased an engagement ring for Sarah. He was planning to propose in Jerusalem next week. But instead of celebrating their wedding, their families are now planning their funerals after they were slain on an American sidewalk — simply for the crime of being Jewish.
The killer, Elias Rodriguez of Chicago, calmly entered the building after the attack and handed himself over to police. As they handcuffed him, he chanted, “Free, Free Palestine,” and, chillingly, “There is only one solution — Intifada revolution.”
Let’s be clear: the First and Second Intifadas were violent Palestinian terror sprees in Israel, marked by the systematic targeting of Jews — who were shot, bombed, stabbed, and rammed to death in cafés, buses, bus stops, markets, and on the street.
This is what Rodriguez was invoking. He wasn’t a lone madman acting on delusion. He is part of a global movement that defines itself through the language of “intifada.” He knew exactly what he was doing — but even more disturbingly, he believed what he did was just, even noble.
And make no mistake: he wasn’t targeting Israelis. He was targeting Jews.
Pro-Palestinian thought leaders desperately want us to believe there’s a difference. They insist their opposition is to Zionists, not Jews. That when activists chant “From the river to the sea,” it’s about national aspirations — not exterminationist ideology. That the masked agitators swarming campuses and city halls in keffiyehs are just politically engaged students, not thugs brimming with unfiltered hatred for Jews.
But after the murder of Yaron and Sarah in Washington, they’re running out of excuses. Because when people chant that Israel must cease to exist — and that anyone who supports Israel deserves to die — they obviously mean it. And now, clearly, they are willing to act on it.
This week, it was Washington, DC. Next week, it could be Beverly Hills, or Brooklyn, or Miami. Or London. Or Paris. In fact, it already has been all of those. The common thread is blindingly obvious: the targets are always Jewish.
And yet, remarkably, there are still those who defend this madness — academics who parse words, pundits who moralize from behind microphones, self-appointed progressive ethicists who churn out free-speech justifications and convoluted evasions faster than the victims’ bodies can be removed from the crime scene.
“It’s complicated,” they say. “Context matters.” “Don’t conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.” But let’s not kid ourselves. Anyone still insisting that antisemitic violence, disguised as anti-Israel activism, is just a misunderstood form of political expression has blood on their hands. It really is that simple.
In this week’s Torah portion, Bechukotai, we read a long and difficult section known as the tochacha — a harrowing list of consequences that will befall the Jewish people if we forsake our covenant with God. The passage is devastating: famine, starvation, defeat, humiliation, exile, fear. It paints a portrait of a world turned upside down — where Jew-hating enemies roam freely, Jewish life is cheap, and our dignity is trampled underfoot.
One line from the passage leaps out with chilling clarity (Lev. 26:17): “Those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee though no one pursues you.”
Truthfully, it’s starting to feel like that. No Jewish event takes place without security. We live with fear of real threats and anxiety over imagined ones. It’s become a world where those who hate us seem to have gained the upper hand. Mobs chant for our destruction in broad daylight, and public institutions still debate whether these chants even qualify as hate speech. And now, two Jews can be murdered in the heart of America’s capital — and while it’s shocking, it is no longer surprising.
What’s striking, though, is that the parsha doesn’t begin with curses — it starts with promise: אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ (Lev. 26:3). “If you walk in My statutes,” then God’s blessings will surround you from every side. The key word is teileichu — to walk. Not to sit, not to wait, not to retreat.
To walk is to move forward, to stand tall, to keep going. The Torah’s message is clear: if you face the world with your head held high, with clarity, with courage, and with a deep commitment to who you are — then no matter what challenges come your way, you will be blessed. If we remain rooted in our identity, if we refuse to let fear or pressure compromise our values or our mission, then no hurdle will be too high and no distance too far.
It’s only when we compromise — when we stop standing tall, when we dilute the truth, when we choose comfort over conviction and convenience over heritage — that the protection which flows from moral clarity begins to fade. And into that vacuum come the haters, the chaos-makers, and the murderers.
The answer to the current surge in Jew-hatred and Judeophobia is threefold. First: clarity. The man who pulled the trigger wasn’t randomly attacking two innocent people — he was sending a message to every Jew: you are not safe. And to that, we must respond with moral ferocity. Not fear. Not appeasement. Not nuance. Ferocity.
Second: unity. The Jewish people cannot afford the luxury of internal fracture right now. Left, right, secular, religious, Zionist, anti-Zionist — none of that matters when we are all targets. We either stand together, or we collapse and fall.
And finally, faith. Because Bechukotai doesn’t end with the curses. It ends with a promise (Lev. 26:45): “I will remember My covenant with them… to be their God — I am God.” A remarkable statement that is not an empty platitude. On the contrary, it’s a guarantee, reminding us that we’ve been here before. We’ve been hated, we’ve been hunted, and we’ve been massacred. Not once, but many times. And yet the Jewish people always endures. Because that’s God’s promise, and He always keeps His word.
The couple murdered in Washington this week will never get to build a life together. But their memory must build something for us and within us: the courage to stand tall, the strength to speak truth, and the resolve to relentlessly fight back against the evil that masquerades as virtue. That’s the real lesson of Bechukotai: things may seem bleak — they may even be genuinely hard — but we can endure and get through it, because God is with us. Always.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Responding With Hope After This Week’s Devastating News first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How the Media Blurred the Motive in Slaying of Israeli Embassy Workers in D.C.

Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim who were shot and killed as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum, pose for a picture at an unknown location, in this handout image released by Embassy of Israel to the U.S. on May 22, 2025. Embassy of Israel to the USA via X/Handout via REUTERS
It’s no coincidence that two Israeli embassy staffers attending an American Jewish Committee (AJC) event were murdered outside Washington DC’s Jewish museum by a man shouting “free, free Palestine” as he was taken into police custody.
The motive was clear, but the media dropped the ball. Several headlines suggested that Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim were killed in a random shooting when this was anything but.
Reuters, for one, portrayed the horrific incident as a mere city crime that took an unfortunate turn. They couldn’t bring themselves to state outright in the headline that it was a specifically motivated and targeted attack on Jews at a Jewish event.
Hey, @Reuters, it’s an antisemitic attack on a specifically Jewish target, not a mugging gone wrong.
The gunman shot dead Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim outside the Jewish Museum. pic.twitter.com/ixWoAPOaoa
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 22, 2025
TheBBC was no different — whitewashing, downplaying, and denying the antisemitic and anti-Israel motive for the attack — shameful, given the perpetrator clearly shouted a “free Palestine” slogan on video.
In a later “analysis,” the BBC’s Yolande Knell even went so far as to effectively blame the murders on Israel’s conduct during its ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza.
What’s this? Just @BBCNews “analysis” effectively blaming Israel’s conduct for the murder of its two embassy staff.
Criticism, however harsh, doesn’t lead to murder. Incitement and hate do.
Disgusting that @YolandeKnell, in justifying evil, can’t tell the difference. pic.twitter.com/3X2QPVH34d
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 22, 2025
The Daily Beast took its own liberties, making a predictable connection and justification for the brutal killing of the two Israeli embassy staffers to the unfortunate incident in Jenin on Wednesday, where the IDF fired warning shots in the air in the vicinity of a delegation of foreign diplomats who were visiting the area.
There is absolutely nothing that can justify antisemitic violence; the connection to the Jenin incident is beyond a reach.
Is @thedailybeast actually suggesting the murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim outside the Jewish Museum in Washington DC are a result of an earlier incident in Jenin?
Let’s be clear: There is no justification for their brutal killings. pic.twitter.com/IjCTVZLqRM
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 22, 2025
An Anti-Defamation League 2024 report found that antisemitic violence spiked 360% in the US in the year following the brutal Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. As this disturbing trend continues, it’s wrong for the media to play dumb.
In fact, the last thing that one of the victims, Israeli embassy worker Yaron Lischinsky, reposted on his X account was a tweet that reflects the dangerous consequences of irresponsible reporting, blood libels, and disinformation. Ironically, and tragically, he became a victim himself.
May Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky’s memories be a blessing, and serve as a reminder that hatred and violence painted as virtue do not lead to peace.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post How the Media Blurred the Motive in Slaying of Israeli Embassy Workers in D.C. first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
What Happens to Holocaust Memory When There Are No Living Survivors?

Anti-Israel protesters hold flags on the route of the annual International March of the Living, outside former Auschwitz Nazi German death camp, in Oswiecim, Poland, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Kuba Stezycki
It was reported in The Times of Israel that 70% of the 200,000 Holocaust survivors alive today will be gone in the next 10 years. How will the Holocaust be remembered when there are no survivors? Two recent experiences have given me a sobering glimpse of possible answers.
I live in a city in Canada, with a diverse Jewish community. Every Passover, Chabad organizes the delivery of a box containing three hand-made Shmurah Matzahs to every Jewish household in the area. The matzahs come in a handsome box with the picture of a matzah on the top, and the three things Jews are obliged to explain during the Passover Seder: Pesach (the Passover offering), Matzah, and Bitter Herbs.
This Passover, I noticed that the information on the side of the box indicates the matzahs were made in Dnepr, Ukraine. The street address caught my attention — Bogdan Khmelnitsky (also spelled Bohdan Khmelnytsky) Street.
Dnepr is a city of about one million people in eastern Ukraine, about 75 miles from the frontline of the ongoing war instigated by Russia. Although a very large number of Ukrainian Jews immigrated to Israel after the demise of the Soviet Union, a substantial and active Jewish community remains in Dnepr, centered around a large multifunction Jewish community center, the Menorah Center. It is located on Sholom-Aleikhema (Shalom Aleichem) Street.
However, the matzah factory, a large enterprise a few miles away, is located on Bogdan Khmelnitsky Street.
Bogdan Khmelnitsky is Ukraine’s national hero. Khmelnitsky led a Cossack rebellion against Ukraine’s Polish rulers in the mid-17th century. While successful initially, the revolt ended with an exchange of Polish rule for Russian domination. Today, monuments to Khmelnitsky are found throughout Ukraine, and streets named after him are a feature of most Ukrainian cities. Yet, to Jews his name is an abomination.
As is often the case in Jewish history, the Jews of Ukraine were scapegoats in the Khmelnitsky uprising. Thousands (estimates of Jewish deaths range to 100,000) were slaughtered alongside Poles. In Sabbatai Ṣevi, Gershom Scholem attributes the widespread rise of messianic fervor among Jews at this time to the sense of vulnerability induced by the Khmelnitsky massacres.
Khmelnitsky was not the last Ukrainian leader to receive the adulation of his compatriots and the condemnation of Jews. Symon Petlura was a Ukrainian military commander during the Russian civil war following World War I. The Jews of Ukraine suffered from pogroms carried out by all sides. However, the largest number of deaths (the total number of Jews killed is estimated to be well over 100,000 — see Jeffrey Veidlinger, In the Midst of Civilized Europe) were by Ukrainians under Petlura.
Sholom Schwarzbard, a Jew, assassinated Petlura in Paris in 1926 to avenge their deaths. He was acquitted after a trial that included testimony from witnesses of the massacres. Nevertheless, Petlura’s exploits are the subject of several Ukrainian folksongs and a number of Ukrainian cities have erected monuments to him.
(Remarkably, the current Ukrainian hero, to Ukrainians and many others, is a Jew, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.)
Ukrainians are not unique when it comes to collective memory loss in relation to Jewish calamities. At about the same time that I was thinking about Khmelnitsky, it was reported in Haaretz that the Prosecution Office of the Republic of Latvia had decided to close the investigation into the Latvian Nazi collaborator Herberts Cukurs for lack of legal evidence of war crimes or genocide.
Cukurs’ active role in the killing of thousands of Jews in Latvia in late 1941 is indisputable. He was the deputy commander of the infamous Arajs Kommando, an auxiliary military force created by the Germans to assist in the rounding up and murder of Jews and other undesirables, including assisting in the slaughter of most of the Jews of Riga at Rumbula Forest outside Riga.
Nazi hunter Ephraim Zuroff, writing in response to earlier Latvian efforts to sanitize Cukurs’ story, describes the evidence against Cukurs in detail, including sworn testimony from witnesses in Yad Vashem archives, noting that Cukurs personally tortured and murdered Jewish men, women, and children.
The effort to revise Cukurs’ (and Latvia’s) role in the Holocaust may be a harbinger of more to come. Recently, Zuroff was cited in an article on Holocaust memory in The Media Line saying, “there are no more trials coming. All we have left is memory — and even that is under siege.”
There have been extensive efforts made to perpetuate the memory of the Holocaust by way of museums, monuments, and recordings by survivors. Is it enough? Will the Holocaust continue to be viewed as a unique and tragic event specific to the Jewish people, or will the fading memory of the Holocaust be distorted and manipulated to suit the stories told by others?
Jacob Sivak, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a retired professor, University of Waterloo.
The post What Happens to Holocaust Memory When There Are No Living Survivors? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login