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.
Uncategorized
‘Marty Supreme’ and everything else Jewish at this year’s Academy Awards
At last year’s Academy Awards, Anora — a frenetic, somewhat ambiguously Jewish look at a Jewish enclave of New York, took home best picture, original screenplay, director and actress for its Jewish lead Mikey Madison. This year, we have a film that feels, in some ways, quite parallel, while cranking the Yiddishkeit to 11: Josh Safdie’s breathless picaresque Marty Supreme, set on the Lower East Side, is up for best picture and its star, Timothée Chalamet is a favorite for best actor.
There’s also Blue Moon, Richard Linklater’s portrait of Jewish lyricist Lorenz Hart’s breakup with composer Richard Rodgers (Ethan Hawke is up for best actor). And One Battle After Another, a campy and absurdist satire about the infiltration of white supremacists in the U.S. government, is poised to have a massive night, with the blockbuster Sinners serving as its main competition.
That all goes to say that it’s another great year for Jewish stories at the Oscars, with some really compelling fodder for discussion about the place that Jews occupy today in arts and media. What stories are we telling and how are they received?
Here, as ever, the Forward culture team is here to break it all down for you, live as it unfolds. Of course, we cover Jewish movies all year. But at the Academy Awards, we get to see how the rest of the world feels about these movies. We will be updating this story with our thoughts throughout the ceremony.
Traditionally, as we begin these Oscars roundtables, we discuss what we’re all wearing and eating. What’ve we got?
Olivia: brown sweater and jeans; no food but aggressively chewing mint gum. I will later be drinking some of the seltzer I got from Brooklyn’s Seltzer Fest today.
Mira: I did a bunch of cooking for the week so I have vegetarian avgolemono soup and Alison Roman’s fennel salad. (I’m obsessed with this salad.) I am proudly wearing hard pants.
PJ: I am reheating some chicken from last night. Wearing a blue sweater with a little toggle and jeans. How many of Stellan Skarsgård’s large adult sons are here? In other l’dor v’dor news, Bill Pullman just mentioned how they filmed the Spaceballs sequel with his son Lewis.
Talya: I believe I’m wearing the exact same sweater I donned for this event last year — where’s my award for consistency? And, as always, sweatpants; I cannot comprehend suffering through this event in jeans.
Discussion of Israeli-Palestinian protests on the red carpet
Mira: Love a toggle. Speaking of outfits, anyone have thoughts on Odessa A’zion’s spangled red carpet set? She is one of the only people who styles herself on the red carpet, which I do respect.
Olivia: A’Zion’s outfit kind of looks like she forgot to tie whatever was supposed to be holding it up. I don’t think it looks bad, just like it’s falling down.
PJ: It wouldn’t look out of place hanging from the window of a VW van with shag carpet and some Tibetan prayer flags.
Mira: Of note, the past several years have seen protesters approaching people on their way into the ceremony, and a lot of pins on the red carpet taking a stance on the Israel-Hamas war, largely pro-Palestinian ones. We’re seeing less of that this year — though not none. Javier Bardem posted a photo of him wearing a pin reading “no to the war” in Spanish, along with another pin featuring Handala, a cartoon boy considered a symbol of Palestinians. The team of The Voice of Hind Rajab, nominated for best foreign film, are also wearing red pins with a white dove.
PJ: Those have replaced the red hand ArtistsforCeasefire pins, which some said recalled the bloody palms of Palestinians who killed IDF soldiers in 2000.
Olivia: A reporter for ABC in a pre-recorded segment asked executive producers and showrunners for the ceremony Raj Kapoor and Katy Mullan if anything would get bleeped, such as mentions of Trump, Israel and Palestine. Recently, the BBC removed director Akinola Davies Jr’s call for a “Free Palestine” from their BAFTA stream. Kapoor asserted that the night’s production team supports free speech, but we’ll see what transpires over the course of the night.
The post ‘Marty Supreme’ and everything else Jewish at this year’s Academy Awards appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Sends Additional Arms to Israel to Sustain Iran Operations
The first of two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors is launched during a successful intercept test. Photo: US Army.
i24 News – The United States has recently increased shipments of munitions to Israel to support ongoing Israeli air operations against Iran.
According to reports broadcast by the public radio network Kan Reshet Bet, several weapons deliveries have arrived in Israel in recent days as part of what officials describe as an ongoing airlift aimed at sustaining the pace of military strikes.
Since the start of the campaign, Israeli forces are believed to have dropped more than 11,000 bombs on targets across Iran.
The shipments come as reports emerge about a potential shortage of ballistic missile interceptors in Israel. US officials told the news outlet Semafor that Israel’s interceptor stockpiles have been heavily used during the conflict.
According to those sources, Washington had already been aware for months that supplies could become strained, though it remains unclear whether the United States would be willing to share its own interceptor reserves. Israeli officials have since rejected claims that such a shortage exists.
Unlike the Iron Dome, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and projectiles, ballistic missile interceptors serve as Israel’s primary defense against long-range missile threats. Fighter jets can also be used to attempt interceptions, though this method is considered a supplementary measure to missile defense systems.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government has taken additional budgetary steps to support the war effort. During an overnight vote between Saturday and Sunday, ministers approved a roughly 1 billion shekel reduction across various ministry budgets to help finance classified military purchases linked to Operation “Roar of the Lion.”
The government had already approved a 3 percent cut in ministry budgets, a move expected to increase the defense budget by approximately 30 billion shekels as the conflict continues.
Uncategorized
Pope Leo Decries ‘Atrocious Violence’ in Iran War, Urges Ceasefire
Pope Leo XIV leads the Angelus prayer from a window of the Apostolic Palace, at the Vatican, March 15, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Matteo Minnella
Pope Leo made an impassioned plea on Sunday for an immediate ceasefire in the expanding Iran war, lamenting “atrocious violence” that he said had killed thousands of non-combatants and caused suffering across the region.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its third week, the first US pope warned that violence would not bring the justice, stability and peace that the peoples of the region long for.
“For two weeks, the peoples of the Middle East have been suffering the atrocious violence of war,” the pope said at his weekly Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square.
“In the name of Christians in the Middle East and of all women and men of good will, I appeal to those responsible for this conflict: Cease fire!” Pope Leo said.
IDEA THAT WAR SOLVES PROBLEMS IS ‘ABSURD’
Leo added that the situation in Lebanon – ravaged by a war between Israel and the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah – was also a cause of “great concern.”
“I hope for paths of dialogue that can support the country’s authorities in implementing lasting solutions to the serious crisis currently underway, for the common good of all the Lebanese people,” the pope said.
During a visit to a Rome parish later, the pope said war could never resolve problems and hit out at people who invoke God to justify killings.
“Today many of our brothers and sisters in the world are suffering because of violent conflicts, caused by the absurd claim that problems and disagreements can be resolved through war, when instead we must engage in unceasing dialogue for peace,” he said during his homily.
“Some even go so far as to invoke the name of God to justify these choices of death, but God cannot be enlisted by darkness. Rather, He always comes to bring light, hope and peace to humanity.”