Uncategorized
Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments
(JTA) — When the New York Times journalist Jodi Kantor was reporting the 2017 Harvey Weinstein sexual assault story that earned her a Pulitzer prize, the powerful Hollywood producer and his team tried to influence her by using something they had in common: They are both Jewish.
“Weinstein put [Jewishness] on the table and seemed to expect that I was going to have some sort of tribal loyalty to him,” Kantor told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on a video call from the New York Times newsroom. “And that was just not going to be the case.”
Now, that exchange has been immortalized in “She Said,” a new film adaptation of the nonfiction book of the same name by Kantor and her collaborator Megan Twohey that details their investigation into Weinstein’s conduct, which helped launch the #MeToo movement.
The film, directed by Maria Schrader with stars Zoe Kazan as Kantor and Carey Mulligan as Twohey, is an understated thriller that has drawn comparisons to “All the President’s Men” — and multiple subtle but powerful Jewish-themed subplots reveal the way Kantor’s Jewishness arose during and at times intersected with the investigation.
In one scene, the Kantor character notes that a Jewish member of Weinstein’s team tried to appeal to her “Jew to Jew.” In another, Kantor shares a moving moment with Weinstein’s longtime accountant, the child of Holocaust survivors, as they discuss the importance of speaking up about wrongdoing.
Kantor, 47, grew up between New York and New Jersey, the first grandchild of Holocaust survivors — born “almost 30 years to the day after my grandparents were liberated,” she notes. She calls her grandmother Hana Kantor, a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor, her “lodestar.” Kantor — who doesn’t often speak publicly about her personal life, including her Jewish background, which involved some education in Jewish schools — led a segment for CBS in May 2021 on her grandmother and their relationship. Before her journalism career, she spent a year in Israel on a Dorot Fellowship, working with Israeli and Palestinian organizations. She’s now a “proud member” of a Reform synagogue in Brooklyn.
Kantor spoke with JTA about the film’s Jewish threads, the portrayal of the New York Times newsroom and what Zoe Kazan’s performance captures about journalism.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
JTA: How did you feel having Zoe Kazan, who is not Jewish, play you? Kazan has played some notably Jewish characters before, for example in the HBO miniseries “The Plot Against America.”
JK: I feel Zoe’s performance is so sensitive and so layered. What I really appreciate about her performance is that she captures so many of the emotions I was feeling under the surface in the investigation. You know, when you’re a reporter and especially a reporter handling that sensitive a story, it’s your responsibility to present a really smooth professional exterior to the world. At the end of the investigation, I had the job of reading Harvey Weinstein some of the allegations and really confronting him. And in dealing with the victims, I wanted to be a rock for them and it was my job to get them to believe in the investigation. And so on the one hand, you have that smooth, professional exterior, but then below that, of course you’re feeling all the feelings. You’re feeling the power of the material, you’re feeling the urgency of getting the story, you’re feeling the fear that Weinstein could hurt somebody else. You’re feeling the loss that these women are expressing, including over their careers. And so I think Zoe’s performance just communicates that so beautifully.
What Zoe says about the character is that there are elements of me, there are elements of herself, and then there are elements of pure invention because she’s an artist, and that’s what she does.
I think the screenplay gets at a small but significant line of Jewish sub-drama that ran through the investigation. It went like this: Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew. And they’ve done this more recently, as well. There have been times when Harvey Weinstein was trying to approach me “Jew to Jew,” like almost in a tone of “you and I are the same, we understand each other.” We found dossiers later that they had compiled on me and it was clear that they knew that I was the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, and they tried to sort of deploy that. So speaking of keeping things under the surface, I privately thought that was offensive, that he was citing that. But your job as a reporter is to be completely professional. And I wasn’t looking to get into a fight with Weinstein. I just wanted to find out the truth and I actually wanted to be fair to the guy. Anyway, even as he was approaching me “Jew to Jew” in private, he was hiring Black Cube — sort of Israeli private intelligence agents — to try to dupe me. And they actually sent an agent to me, and she posed as a women’s rights advocate. And she was intimating that they were going to pay me a lot of money to appear at a conference in London. Luckily I shooed her away.
To some degree I can’t explain why private Israeli intelligence agents were hired to try to dupe the Hebrew speaking, yeshiva-educated, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. But it’s not my job to explain that! It’s their job to explain why they did that.
Then the theme reappeared with Irwin Reiter, Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years, who kind of became the Deep Throat of the investigation. I quickly figured out that Irwin and I were from the same small world. He was the child of survivors, and had also spent his summers at bungalow colonies in the Catskills just down the road from mine. I don’t bring up the Holocaust a lot. It’s a sacred matter for me, and I didn’t do it lightly. But once I discovered that we did in fact have this really powerful connection in our backgrounds, I did gently sound it with him – I felt that was sincere and real. Because he was making such a critical decision: Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years is still working for the guy by day and he’s meeting with me at night. And I felt like I did need to go to that place with him, saying, “Okay, Irwin, we both know that there are people who talk and there are people who don’t. And we both grew up around that mix of people and what do we think is the difference? And also if you know if you have the chance to act and intervene in a bad situation, are you going to take it?”
We didn’t talk a lot about it, because I raised it and he didn’t want to fully engage. But I always felt like that was under the surface of our conversations, and he made a very brave decision to help us.
That was a very powerful scene in the film, and it felt like a turning point in the movie that kind of got at the ethical core of what was motivating your character. Was that a scene that was important to you personally to include in the film?
What Megan and I want people to know overall is that a small number of brave sources can make an extraordinary difference. When you really look at the number of people who gave us the essential information about Weinstein, it’s a small conference room’s worth of people. Most of them are incredibly brave women, some of whom are depicted, I think, quite beautifully in the film. But there was also Irwin, Weinstein’s accountant of all these years, among them. It’s Megan and my job to build people’s confidence in telling the truth. And as we become custodians of this story for the long term, one of the things we really want people to know is that a tiny group of brave sources, sometimes one source, can make a massive difference. Look at the impact that these people had all around the world.
Did you feel the film captured the New York Times newsroom? There’s a kind of great reverence to the toughness and professionalism in the newspaper business that really came through.
Megan and I are so grateful for the sincerity and professionalism with which the journalism is displayed. There are a lot of on screen depictions of journalists in which we’re depicted as manipulative or doing things for the wrong reasons or sleeping with our sources!
We [as journalists] feel incredible drama in what we do every day. And we’re so grateful to the filmmakers for finding it and sharing it with people. And I know the New York Times can look intimidating or remote as an institution. I hope people really consider this an invitation into the building and into our meetings, and into our way of working and our value system.
And we’re also proud that it’s a vision of a really female New York Times, which was not traditionally the case at this institution for a long time. This is a book and a movie about women as narrators.
“Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew,” Kantor said. (The New York Times)
There have been comparisons made between this movie and “All the President’s Men.” One of the striking differences is that those journalists are two male bachelors running around D.C. And this film has scenes of motherhood, of the Shabbat table, of making lunches. What was it like seeing your personal lives reflected on screen?
It’s really true that the Weinstein investigation was kind of born in the crucible of motherhood and Megan and my attempt to combine work with parenting. On the one hand, it’s the most everyday thing in the world, but on the other hand, you don’t see it actually portrayed on screen that much. We’re really honored by the way that throughout the film you see motherhood and work mixing, I think in a way that is so natural despite our obviously pretty stressful circumstances.
I started out alone on the Weinstein investigation, and I called Megan because movie stars were telling me their secrets but they were very reluctant to go on the record. So I had gone some way in persuading and engaging them, but I was looking to make the absolute strongest case for them. So I called Megan. We had both done years of reporting on women and children. Mine involved the workplace more and hers involved sex crimes more, which is part of why everything melded together so well eventually. I wanted to talk to her about what she had said to female victims in the past. But when I reached her, I could hear that something was wrong. And she had just had a baby, and I had had postpartum depression myself. So we talked about it and I gave her the name of my doctor, who I had seen. Then she got treatment. And she not only gave very good advice on that [initial] phone call, but she joined me in the investigation.
I think the theme is responsibility. Our relationship was forged in a sense of shared responsibility, primarily for the work – once we began to understand the truths about Weinstein, we couldn’t allow ourselves to fail. But also Megan was learning to shoulder the responsibility of being a parent, and I had two kids. And so we started this joint dialogue that was mostly about work, but also about motherhood. And I think throughout the film and throughout the real investigation, we felt those themes melding. It’s totally true that my daughter Tali was asking me about what I was doing. It’s very hard to keep secrets from your kid in a New York City apartment, even though I didn’t tell her everything. And Megan and I would go from discussing really critical matters with the investigation to talking about her daughter’s evolving nap schedule. It really felt like we had to get the story and get home to the kids.
And also, we were reporting on our own cohort. A lot of Weinstein victims were and are women in their 40s. And so even though we were very professional with this and we tried to be very professional with the sources, there was an aspect of looking in the mirror. For example, with Laura Madden, who was so brave about going on the record, it was conversations with her own teenage daughters that helped her make her decision.
We didn’t write about this in our book because it was hard to mix the motherhood stuff with this sort of serious reporter-detective story and all the important facts. And we didn’t want to talk about ourselves too much in the book. But the filmmakers captured something that I think is very true. It feels particular to us but also universal. When Zoe [Kazan] is pushing a stroller and taking a phone call at the same time, I suspect lots of people will identify with that. And what I also really like is the grace and dignity with which that’s portrayed.
It must have been surreal, seeing a Hollywood movie about your investigation of Hollywood.
I think part of the power of the film is that it returns the Weinstein investigation to the producer’s medium, but on vastly different terms, with the women in charge. Megan and I are particularly moved by the portrayals of Zelda Perkins, Laura Madden and Rowena Chiu — these former Weinstein assistants are in many ways at the core of the story. They’re everyday people who made the incredibly brave decision to help us, in spite of everything from breast cancer to legal barriers.
Working with the filmmakers was really interesting. They were really committed to the integrity of the story, and they asked a ton of questions, both large and small. Ranging from the really big things about the investigation to these tiny details. Like in the scene where we go to Gwyneth Paltrow’s house and Megan and I discover we’re practically wearing the same dress — those were the actual white dresses that we wore that day. We had to send them in an envelope to the costume department, and they copied the dresses in Zoe and Carey’s sizes and that’s what they’re wearing. There was a strand of extreme fidelity, but they needed some artistic license because it’s a movie. And the movie plays out in the key of emotion.
—
The post Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Jewish Primary School in Paris Vandalized Amid Surge in Antisemitic Attacks
Nearly 200,000 people took to the streets of Paris to protest rising antisemitism. Photo: Reuters/Claire Serie
A Jewish primary school in eastern Paris was vandalized over the weekend, with windows smashed and security equipment damaged, prompting a criminal investigation and renewed outrage among local Jewish leaders as targeted antisemitic attacks continue to escalate.
On Sunday night, a group of unknown individuals attacked the Beth Loubavitch–Beth Hannah primary school in Paris’s 20th arrondissement (district/borough), located on Passage des Saint-Simoniens, French media reported.
According to local authorities, the perpetrators did not enter the school building, but they did manage to smash windows, damage security equipment, and deface the school’s plaque and Jewish symbols.
The Paris public prosecutor’s office has now opened an investigation into the outrage, treating it as “aggravated damage” committed by a group with religious motives.
Éric Pliez, mayor of Paris’s 20th arrondissement, strongly condemned this latest antisemitic attack, promising swift action to ensure the safety of the local Jewish community.
“These acts are unacceptable and run counter to our values,” Pliez said in a statement. “The safety of our students is our highest priority. Alongside the municipal team, I reaffirm my unwavering opposition to all forms of antisemitism.”
Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo also denounced the incident, reaffirming her full solidarity with the local Jewish community.
“I reiterate that these acts of antisemitic hatred, which I condemn with the utmost firmness, have no place in our city or in our Republic,” Hidalgo said in a statement.
Meanwhile, southeast of Paris, French authorities in Lyon are preparing for the trial of a 55-year-old man accused of murdering his 89-year-old Jewish neighbor in 2022, with the court set to determine whether antisemitism was a motivating factor.
Starting Monday, defendant Rachid Kheniche is facing trial after being charged with aggravated murder on religious grounds, even as he denies an antisemitic motive.
In May 2022, Kheniche threw his neighbor, René Hadjadj, from the 17th floor of his building, an act to which he later admitted.
According to the police investigation, Kheniche and his neighbor were having a discussion when the conflict escalated.
At the time, he told investigators that he had tried to strangle Hadjadj but did not realize what he was doing, as he was experiencing a paranoid episode caused by prior drug use.
However, after two psychiatric evaluations, Kheniche was deemed criminally responsible.
Ten days after the murder, the Lyon prosecutor’s office launched a broader investigation to determine whether the act had an antisemitic motive.
With this new trial, only the alleged antisemitic motive is being contested, while the murder itself has already been established.
The National Bureau of Vigilance against Antisemitism and the Jewish Observatory of France have filed a civil suit, with the International League Against Racism and the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France also participating in the case.
“The anti-Jewish nature of the act is fully established, both materially and morally,” Franck Serfati, legal counsel for the groups involved in the suit, said in a statement.
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, France has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to the French Interior Ministry, the first six months of 2025 saw more than 640 antisemitic incidents, a 27.5 percent decline from the same period in 2024, but a 112.5 percent increase compared to the first half of 2023, before the Oct. 7 atrocities.
Uncategorized
Top US Lawmaker Accuses Illinois Mayor of Not Protecting Jewish Students at Northwestern From Pro-Hamas Encampment
US Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) speaking at a press conference at the US Capitol, Washington, DC, Nov. 4, 2025. Photo: Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The chairman of the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce is demanding answers from the mayor of Evanston, Illinois, accusing him of failing to protect Jewish students during a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel encampment at Northwestern University that, lawmakers say. devolved into widespread antisemitic harassment and violence.
In a sharply worded letter dated Jan. 28, US Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) said Daniel Biss, a Democrat, refused to authorize Evanston police to assist when Northwestern requested help clearing the encampment in April 2024, despite reports of assaults, intimidation, and explicitly antisemitic incidents. Walberg wrote that the decision left the university unable to enforce the law safely, citing committee documents indicating Northwestern lacked sufficient police resources to carry out arrests without city support.
According to the letter, Jewish students reported being spat on, verbally harassed, and told to “go back to Germany” and “get gassed,” while others said they were called “dirty Jew” and “Zionist pig” as they attempted to move across campus. One student wearing a kippah reported being targeted, while another described being assaulted as an encampment member recorded the incident.
Walberg described the environment as a “hotbed of antisemitic harassment and hostility,” rejecting public characterizations of the encampment as peaceful.
Northwestern’s campus, located in Evanston, became a hub of anti-Israel activism following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza. The school was ravaged by a series of antisemitic incidents tied to campus protests. Most notably, pro-Hamas activists illegally occupied the Deering Meadow section of campus in May 2024, demanding the university boycott all Israeli entities.
During the tense standoff in the spring 2024, Jewish students reported being physically assaulted and harassed while attempting to navigate campus, including incidents in which students wearing visible Jewish symbols such as a kippah were targeted.
Amid the post-Oct. 7 campus protests, the Education and Workforce Committee has been investigating several schools for what lawmakers described as insufficient responses to a surge in antisemitism. Last week, Walberg released documents along with his letter showing what he described as Biss’s failure to protect Northwestern’s Jewish students during the encampment.
Biss called Walberg’s letter a “dishonest political attack” during a news conference at City Hall on Thursday morning.
“But we are here today because that attack is an effort to go at the right to peacefully protest. This is an effort to use the very real danger of antisemitism to advance a political agenda,” Biss said. “I will say that personally, as a Jewish person, as a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I find it deeply, deeply offensive.”
Biss also defended his decision not to intervene in the campus unrest.
“After meticulously assessing the situation through the lens of public safety and the right to peaceful protest, we came to that conclusion,” Biss said. “We believed at the time it was the right decision. I believe today it was the right decision.”
The mayor added that the police department warned at the time that sending city officers to the encampment “might further inflame the situation.”
In May 2024, university president Michael Schill testified in front of the US Congress amid mounting skepticism over efforts to clamp down on campus antisemitism. His administration ultimately ended the encampment by reaching what became known as the “Deering Meadow Agreement” with the pro-Hamas protesters. Terms of the deal included establishing a scholarship for Palestinian undergraduates, contacting potential employers of students who caused recent campus disruptions to insist on their being hired, creating a segregated dormitory hall to be occupied exclusively by students of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim descent, and forming a new advisory committee in which anti-Zionists students and faculty may wield an outsized voice.
Biss touted the deal during his press conference last week, noting it ended the encampment peacefully.
However, the agreement was abolished in November 2025 as part of a deal that the university reached with the Trump administration, which months earlier in April had impounded at least $790 in frozen federal funds over accusations of antisemitism and other discriminatory behavior. Northwestern agrred to pay $75 million and implement measures to protect students from antisemitism in exchange for a resumption of federal funding.
However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — an organization that has been scrutinized by US authorities over Hamas — filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Northwestern Graduate Workers for Palestine (GW4P) group to cancel Northwestern’s new antisemitism prevention course, which was implemented as part of the deal. The lawsuit was dropped last month.
In last week’s letter, Walberg alleged that political considerations influenced Biss’s decision not to intervene with police force. Walberg cited testimony from a Northwestern trustee who claimed Biss publicly framed his refusal to provide police support as a way to bolster his progressive credentials, even as the university struggled to maintain order. Internal communications referenced in the letter suggest Northwestern officials feared the city’s position left Jewish students vulnerable during a period of escalating campus unrest nationwide.
Walberg also criticized Biss for recently condemning the federal government’s agreement with Northwestern to restore funding, calling the mayor’s opposition inconsistent with his stated concern about discrimination.
The committee is requesting a formal briefing from Biss on law enforcement coordination and antisemitism in Evanston-area campuses, signaling potential legislative action. Walberg emphasized that Congress has broad constitutional authority to oversee education-related civil rights enforcement, including Title VI protections against religious and ethnic discrimination.
Biss has sought to bolster his reputation with the left flank of the Democratic Party as he runs for Congress himself in Illinois’ 9th District. The mayor has vowed to no longer accept funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, and has adopted a platform critical of the Jewish state.
In a campaign news release on Thursday, Biss wrote that Walberg’s letter was a “baseless attack fueled by” AIPAC.
“It’s no coincidence that Rep. Walberg’s letter arrived just eight days before the beginning of early voting in the March primary election,” Biss wrote. “They’re playing cheap political games in service to AIPAC’s right-wing agenda. It is shameful.”
AIPAC’s mission is to foster bipartisan support in Congress for the US-Israel alliance.
Spectators suggest that Biss, who is facing a bruising primary battle with 26-year-old anti-Israel social media personality Kat Abughazaleh, has sought to curry favor with local progressive activists by pushing a harder line against the Jewish state.
Uncategorized
Amid standoff with US, would Iran really attack Israel?
As President Donald Trump weighs ordering military action against Iran — with officials from both sides scheduled to meet Friday to pursue a diplomatic resolution —Tehran has issued a familiar warning: Attack us, and we will strike Israel.
The threat makes little sense. Israel is responsible neither for Iranians’ miseries, which led to major protests last month, nor for any possible attack by the United States. Yet the cynical logic behind the warning is credible. Turning any confrontation with the U.S. into an Arab-Israeli one might change the dynamics by fracturing any regional coalition backing Washington, shifting the narrative to one of resistance.
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein attempted exactly this in 1991, during the first Gulf War. Facing a broad U.S.-led coalition that included Arab states, he fired Scud missiles at Israel. If Israel had retaliated, those Arab partners would have been forced to choose between coalition discipline and domestic outrage. The alliance might have collapsed.
Israel, urged by the U.S., showed extraordinary restraint: It absorbed the attacks and did not respond. Saddam’s gambit failed, and he was expelled from Kuwait. That precedent may no longer apply. Israel is angrier now, and its accounts with Iran — even after last summer’s brief war — remain overdue.
Those truths, combined with Trump’s rash approach to conflict, could make for a dangerous combination.
From Tehran’s perspective, it is critical that Trump has no apparent appetite for long wars. He wants moments that can be spun as achievements, not long and costly campaigns. And he is generally impatient. After the 12-day-war in June, the Iranian regime was badly exposed, and serious analysts were calling for real surrender terms: an end to enrichment, abandonment of ballistic missiles, and the dismantling of proxy militias including Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Trump instead rushed to declare that everything had been “obliterated” and mused publicly that a deal might no longer be necessary at all, turning his sights elsewhere.
That short attention span creates room for Iranian calculation — in which Israel is apparently factoring.
It is possible that the Iranians are bluffing about attacking Israel. But they may also be threatening to do so as part of a certain logic, which might look like this: as last summer’s war showed, an American strike targeting the nuclear system — which has clearly become Trump’s focus, despite the fact that his initial threats came in response to Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters — is survivable. As a form of symbolic punishment, it can be absorbed. Limited concessions — caps on enrichment, revived nuclear negotiations, even the quiet removal of expendable officials — might preserve the system itself.
But since Trump is unpredictable, and may get carried away, the threat to strike Israel could serve as a way of cautioning Trump to not take things too far. It could be seen as warning that, should he not stick to the script, Iran has the ability to potentially mire him in a far more drawn-out and costly conflict.
If this is the case, the Iranian regime should tread very carefully indeed. That’s because Israel’s interests in this situation diverge fundamentally from those of the U.S. And actually making good on the threats, and handing Israel an excuse to pursue them, might spectacularly backfire.
Trump may want a quick win for his hubristic claims of unparalleled greatness. But for Israel, regime change in Iran is a very serious, real and rational goal. The Islamic Republic is explicitly committed to Israel’s destruction and has spent decades constructing a “ring of fire” around it — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, militias in Syria and Iraq, precision-guided munitions aimed at Israeli cities.
The benefit of a post-theocratic Iran — one no longer devoted to Israel’s annihilation — would be transformative, not only for Israel but for the Middle East itself.
Yet despite Trump’s initial passion for protecting the Iranian protesters agitating toward regime change, all signs suggest that he is unlikely to really pursue a democratizing project. To do so would go against his own political philosophy, which is centered on his admiration for authoritarians. His real interest is in being seen to have achieved something — even a item much smaller than regime change — which he might argue his predecessors could not.
That is bad news for those who want to see a democratic Iran, and with it, a more stable Middle East with improved prospects for regional peace. Israel is far from alone in that wish.
Across the Arab world, a quiet realignment is underway. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and even parts of the broader Sunni establishment increasingly view Iran — not Israel — as the primary source of regional instability. Normalization with Israel is no longer taboo.
So whereas Iran’s playbook assumes Arab outrage will constrain Israeli action, that logic is eroding — giving Israel its own potential ace in the hole.
Moreover, Israelis genuinely yearn for peace with Iran, and they believe that feeling is at least partly reciprocated. Israeli singers performing in Farsi have followings in Iran. The occasional Iranian dissident has visited Israel to much acclaim. The Crown Prince in exile, Reza Pahlavi, has called for a democratic Iran at peace with Israel and the West. There are also more than 200,000 Iranian Jews in Israel, and they remember a different Iran, and consider that its rebirth should be no fantasy.
Israel, in short, is more focused than the U.S., potentially more ruthless where necessary, possibly more patient where required, and far more invested in the outcome with Iran than Trump is ever likely to be. So, counterintuitive as it may seem, provoking the U.S. may be survivable. Provoking Israel would be far more dangerous. Israel’s air force is far larger than the number of attack jets the U.S. has moved into the region. And that air force, backed by stellar intelligence, made mincemeat of Iran’s air defences just last June.
If Tehran is thinking clearly, it may conclude that its safest move is not escalation. Then again, desperate dictators can do very stupid things.
The post Amid standoff with US, would Iran really attack Israel? appeared first on The Forward.