Uncategorized
How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports
(JTA) — Decades before Sandy Koufax sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur, and 18 years before Greenberg chased Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record in the late 1930s, a college athlete made some overlooked Jewish sports history.
Arnold Horween, a burly Chicagoan, became the first Jewish captain of the Harvard University football team in 1920 — an achievement that sent ripples through American culture.
Horween, who would later play and coach in the early years of what would become the NFL, was born to Jewish immigrants from Ukraine. He became a star player at Harvard, helping the Crimson go undefeated in both 1919 and 1920 after returning from serving in World War I. (His brother Ralph also played at Harvard and in the NFL, and they were the first and only Jewish brothers to play in the NFL until Geoff and Mitchell Schwartz.)
But it was Horween’s unanimous selection as the team’s captain, and more importantly, his appointment in 1926 as the team’s coach, that would prove unprecedented.
“In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson, the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes,” said Zev Eleff, the president of Gratz College and a scholar of American Jewish history.
Eleff explores Horween’s story and its impact in his recent book, “Dyed in Crimson: Football, Faith, and Remaking Harvard’s America,” released earlier this year. He traces the history of Harvard athletics in the early 1900s, exploring how Horween, along with Harvard’s first athletic director, Bill Bingham, altered the landscape of America’s most prestigious college.
Horween’s ascendance came at a time when Harvard instituted quotas to limit the number of Jewish and other minority students it accepted — a practice the school would employ throughout the 1920s and 30s. His story also took place amid a political landscape that featured the rise of Father Charles Coughlin, the antisemitic “radio priest,” and the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Eleff underscores in the book, Horween did not fit the model of a “Boston Brahmin,” the class of elite, Christian, aspirationally manly men whose supremacy was unquestioned at Harvard Yard. Horween broke that mold, instead instilling a team culture where a love of the sport was almost as important as winning — the Ted Lasso effect, if you will.
“Dyed in Crimson” also uses early 20th century Harvard as an allegory for the broader theme of how sports can change society.
“The theme of the book, something that’s uniquely American, is how the periphery can influence the mainstream,” said Eleff. “How people on the sidelines can really make an influence.”
Eleff spoke to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about how Horween’s story fits into the pantheon of Jewish American sports legends and what it says about Jews’ ability to succeed in America.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Let’s dig into Horween’s story. I liked the idea of him as like an earlier version of Koufax or a Greenberg, but to be honest, I had never heard of him. Why do you think his story isn’t as well known as other Jewish athletes?
I think it has everything to do with the emergence of Major League Baseball. College football was America’s sport in the 1910s and 1920s. It was a big money sport, when there was very little money outside of the New York Yankees. And I think that Horween’s star started to sort of decline with Harvard football, but also the emergence of other sports.
The other reason is because the idea of the Jewish ballplayer loomed large. The New York Giants, for decades, tried to identify a Jewish superstar. They actually passed on Greenberg. There was a thought after Greenberg that there was Jewish DNA for baseball, and the signing of Koufax was directly linked to this notion. It was this eugenics-like link that you need a Jewish ballplayer. For the Giants, it was ticket sales. So the commotion about Greenberg and Koufax is more about Jewish identity. And baseball is, as a professional sport in New York, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, different than college football, particularly in New England at this time. Frankly, Jews lived near the Polo Grounds, they didn’t live near Harvard Yard.
Arnold Horween shown in The Baltimore Sun on November 16, 1927. (Wikimedia Commons)
For Horween, obviously he’s not at the level of a Greenberg or Koufax talent-wise, but he also didn’t seem to care as much personally about his Jewish identity. You write in the book that there were some Jews who took issue with the fact that Horween was not practicing, but there were also many Jews who were simply proud he was Jewish. What do you think about that dynamic?
There becomes a sort of disconnect between lived religion and the perception and what they come to represent — the mantle that they wear almost towers above the practice. Horween eschewed the opportunity to claim the mantle of Jewish leadership, Jewish celebrity. But we do see in its moment that he is the topic of rabbinic sermons, that The American Hebrew and other Jewish press are reporting on him. They are elated. In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson — it’s hard for people to realize, but in the moment when they were part of the big three [alongside Princeton and Yale] — the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes.
One of the parts of this book that I enjoyed learning about is the extent to which college football in the early 20th century was all about honor, masculinity, gentlemanliness. And at the time, that kind of stands in contrast to how Jews were viewed — that Jews were not masculine, Jews couldn’t fit into that mold of the “Harvard man.”
Being on the sports team, that was probably far beyond Jewish expectations. Not to say that Jews could not be athletic, but very often the varsity players weren’t picked for their talent but rather their surnames. What the sea change at Harvard is, [within] gentlemanly culture — in which “gentlemanly” is a Protestant, Christian masculinity — Horween is not Protestant. What allows him a pathway into that elite group is that drive to win. And as a player, he’s good luck. He never loses. He becomes a signature player for victory who even wins the Rose Bowl.
But as a coach, he subverts that. What he and Bill Bingham do is their campaign isn’t necessarily for winning, it’s for having fun, it’s for enjoying the game.
In the 1910s and 20s, college football was the peak of American sports, but that’s certainly not the case anymore. What do you think would be the modern comparison for someone like Horween?
Is Becky Hammon with the Spurs, the first woman [to act as] head coach in basketball, something like that? Or the very important discussions about people of color as coaches in the NFL? Sports and education are, for some reason or another, where change is made in American life. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 ends, at least officially, segregation. Title IV, what is basically American law for anti-discrimination based on sex, is based on women’s college sports. You have the breaking down of color barriers and Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Vietnam. You have the first [openly] gay athletes, you have questions of breaking the glass ceiling for women and Serena Williams.
It’s absolutely 100% true that sports doesn’t matter. Who wins the World Series is of no great consequence to most people’s lives. Although it’s interesting, if you drive up I-95 on a Sunday, you will see that the bumper stickers and the flags change. There is some sort of passion, obviously, about sport. But it’s absolutely true that for some reason or another in the 20th century and 21st century in American sport, really important social and cultural decisions, and political decisions, are made in American sport.
Zev Eleff, president of Gratz College and author of “Dyed in Crimson.” (Courtesy)
Another main topic in the book is that the goal for immigrants, especially Jews, was Americanization, assimilation — that to become part of the mainstream was the marker of success. But that seems to be the case for Jews in a very different sense than it is for Catholics and for Blacks.
The major contribution of this book to American Jewish history beyond telling this story is to complicate notions of Americanization. Jews and Catholics in particular view Americanization very, very differently. The Catholic experience is to create parallel systems. If you’re a good Catholic boy with immense football talent, play for Notre Dame, play for Boston College. Don’t play for the Protestant mainstream. Cream them on the football field. Create parallel systems.
The Jewish experience is not so. Outside of Orthodox day schools in the early 20th century, it was anathema, it was considered almost heretical, for American Jews to [go] to private schools. To the contrary, the so-called golden citadels of the public schools — that is the agent of Americanization. Jews don’t establish their own educational systems. They somehow Americanize and acculturate into the mainstream. We don’t compete with Harvard, we get into Harvard.
Thinking about the antisemitism of that time — the quotas, Father Coughlin, all of that — how do you think that compares to what we’re seeing today?
Historians disagree about the 1920s. Was it a time of great prominence of American Jews? There was affluence in the roaring ’20s. There were institutions that were created, there was creativity, from the Orthodox and Mordecai Kaplan certainly, across the board, the Jewish Theological Seminary. American Judaism was at a certain high point in the 1920s. At the same time, there were quotas, and there was rising antisemitism. I think today we also have to deal with the tension of, on the one hand, there are great opportunities for Jews in the United States; at the same time, there is antisemitism. And so from the 1920s to the 2020s, 100 years later, you see a model for how to grapple with those tensions.
What do you hope, more than anything else, someone takes away or learns from your book?
It’s a book that begins like a punch line: a working class Protestant, a Catholic and a Jew walk into a football field. But it ends with something I think a lot more pronounced, which is, it’s a story about change. As a historian, I study change, particularly in American Judaism, broadly in American religion and Jewish Studies. Change is the best asset that a historian has to study. I wasn’t interested in just finding another Sandy Koufax story, replicating that story. This is a story that isn’t just about a Jew who happened for his moment to become quite successful and quite famous, or a Catholic or a former mill hand turned first athletic director in college history. It’s really about how people on the periphery influence the mainstream.
—
The post How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died
פֿון אַבֿיה קושנער און שחר פּינסקער
באַרבאַראַ הרשבֿ, פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר איינעם פֿון די וויכטיקסטע איבערזעצערס פֿון דער העברעיִשער און ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, איז אַוועק אין דער אייביקייט צו 85 יאָר.
הרשבֿ, באַקאַנט ווי באָבי בײַ אירע פֿרײַנד און קאָלעגעס, האָט איבערגעזעצט און אַרויסגעגעבן מער ווי 40 ביכער פּאָעזיע, דראַמע, בעלעטריסטיק, פֿילאָסאָפֿיע, עקאָנאָמיק, סאָציאָלאָגיע און געשיכטע. צווישן אירע איבערזעצונגען זענען געווען די ווערק פֿונעם נאָבעל־לאָרעאַט שמואל יוסף עגנון און די פּאָעטן אַבֿרהם סוצקעווער, מענקע קאַץ און יהודה עמיחי.
אַחוץ דעם וואָס זי איז געווען אַן ערשט-ראַנגיקע איבערזעצערין איז זי אויך געווען שטאַרק באַליבט בײַ אַנדערע אַקאַדעמיקער און איבערזעצער איבער דער וועלט, סײַ ווי אַ וועגווײַזערין אינעם געביט פֿון איבערזעצערײַ סײַ צוליב איר מענטשלעכקייט און ברייטהאַרציקער שטיצע פֿאַר אירע קאָלעגעס.
אַ צענטראַלער אַספּעקט פֿון איר קאַריערע איז געווען איר ברייטע און פֿרוכפּערדיקע צוזאַמענאַרבעט מיט איר מאַן, בנימין הרשבֿ (אַ העברעיִזירונג פֿונעם נאָמען הרושובסקי). צוזאַמען האָבן זיי איבערגעזעצט און רעדאַקטירט אויף ענגליש אַ ריי וויכטיקע טעקסט־זאַמלונגען ווי למשל דעם אייגנאַרטיקן באַנד „אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע פּאָעזיע: אַ צוויישפּראַכיקע אַנטאָלאָגיע“ (1986), וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ דעם אָריגינעלן ייִדישן טעקסט סײַ די פּרעכטיקע ענגלישע איבערזעצונגען. אַזוי אַרום האָט דער לייענער געקענט אָפּשאַצן די קוואַליטעט פֿון די ווערק אויף ביידע שפּראַכן.
איינער פֿון הרשבֿס גרעסטע אויפֿטוען איז געווען דאָס וואָס זי האָט נישט פֿאָרגעשטעלט די ייִדישע פּאָעזיע סתּם ווי נאָסטאַלגישן פֿאָלקלאָר, נאָר האָט זי געשילדערט אינעם קאָנטעקסט פֿונעם גלאָבאַלן מאָדערניזם. דער באַנד האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ אַוואַנגאַרדישע עקספּערימענטן סײַ שטאָטישע טעמעס, צוזאַמען מיט די וויזועלע קונסטווערק פֿון בען שאַהן און ראַפֿאַעל סויער, וואָס האָבן געהאַט אַן ענלעכן הינטערגרונט ווי די פּאָעטן.
מיט איר מאַן האָט זי אויך אַרויסגעגעבן דאָס בוך, „זינג, פֿרעמדער: הונדערט יאָר פֿון אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער פּאָעזיע“, וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען ווערק פֿון די „סוועטשאַפּ“־פּאָעטן מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד און דוד עדעלשטאַדט, ווי אויך „אינזיכיסטן“ ווי ציליע דראָבקין.
הרשבֿ איז געבוירן געוואָרן אין דעטרויט, מישיגען, אין 1940. זי איז נישט געווען קיין נאַטירלעכע רעדערין פֿון העברעיִש אָדער ייִדיש. „איך בין געווען 34 יאָר אַלט ווען איך האָב אָנגעהויבן זיך לערנען העברעיִש און איך האָב זיך ממש פֿאַרליבט אין דער שפּראַך,“ האָט זי דערציילט בעת אַן אינטערוויו אין 2012. מיט דער צײַט האָט זי אָנגעהויבן איבערזעצן די וויכטיקסטע העברעיִשע ווערק.
דערנאָך האָט זי זיך גענומען צו ייִדיש. „ייִדיש איז די לעצטע שפּראַך וואָס איך האָב זיך אויסגעלערנט. צוליב דעם וואָס איך האָב שוין געקענט דײַטש און העברעיִש, האָב איך שוין פֿאַרשטאַנען אַרום 90% פֿון ייִדיש.“ כאָטש אירע טאַטע־מאַמע האָבן געקענט ייִדיש האָבן זיי עס בלויז געניצט צווישן זיך ווען זיי האָבן נישט געוואָלט אַז די קינדער זאָלן פֿאַרשטיין. „דערצו בין איך סײַ ווי נישט געווען אַזוי פֿאַראינטערעסירט אין וואָס זיי זאָגן,“ האָט זי געזאָגט.
איין סיבה פֿאַר וואָס זי איז געוואָרן אַן איבערזעצער — האָט זי דערקלערט — איז „ווײַל די איבערזעצונגען וואָס איך האָב געלייענט זענען געווען אַזוי שלעכט. כ׳האָב דעמאָלט געוווינט אין ירושלים און כ׳האָב זיך באַקענט מיט אַ שרײַבער וואָס האָט זיך באַקלאָגט פֿאַר מיר, און טאַקע מיט רעכט, וועגן די אומגעלומפּערטע איבערזעצונגען וואָס מע האָט געמאַכט פֿון זײַנע ווערק. האָב איך אָנגעהויבן לייענען יענע איבערזעצונגען און דערפֿילט אַז איך קען דאָס טאָן בעסער. ס׳איז מיר אָבער געווען אַ חידוש, ווען מײַן ערשטער פּרוּוו איז טאַקע פּובליקירט געוואָרן אין אַן אַקאַדעמישן זשורנאַל.“
אַחוץ איר אַרבעט ווי אַן איבערזעצער האָט הרשבֿ אויך געדינט ווי די פּרעזידענטין פֿון דער אַמעריקאַנער אַסאָציאַציע פֿון ליטעראַרישע איבערזעצער, און האָט געפֿירט איבערזעצונג־וואַרשטאַטן אינעם דעפּאַרטמענט פֿון פֿאַרגלײַכיקער ליטעראַטור אין יעל־אוניווערסיטעט, דערבײַ שטיצנדיק יונגע איבערזעצער זיך צו פֿאַרנעמען מיט דער ייִדישער און העברעיִשער ליטעראַטור. זי האָט זיך אויך איבערגעגעבן צום קאַמף פֿאַר געשלעכט־גלײַכקייט און פֿאַר שלום און גערעכטיקייט אין ישׂראל/פּאַלעסטינע.
אין 2018 איז הרשבֿ געוואָרן די ערשטע העברעיִשע און ייִדישע איבערזעצערין צו באַקומען די „פּען/מאַנהײַם מעדאַל פֿאַר איבערזעצונג“.
פֿאַר אונדז וואָס האָבן זי געקענט, איז באָבי געווען אַ בריליאַנטענע, ברייטהאַרציקע פֿרײַנדינע און קאָלעגע, שטענדיק גרייט צו העלפֿן אַנדערע מיט עצות און הדרכה.
The post The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’
(JTA) — The pursuit of Greater Israel is a corrosive fantasy, veteran Democratic politician Rahm Emanuel is expected to tell a Tel Aviv audience on Wednesday, calling it as “destructive and fanatical” as the chant “from the river to the sea.”
Emanuel, who has held multiple top roles in the Democratic Party, in Congress and in the Obama White House, is a potential 2028 presidential candidate.
He will warn that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the country to a “dead-end” that has turned the country into a “pariah” and is threatening Israel’s historic alliance with the United States, according to an advance copy of his speech shared with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Tuesday.
He blamed as “our mistake” America’s assumption that “the best thing Washington could do for Jerusalem was to blindly and silently stand behind your government, without conditions, without demands, and without consequences.” That path has led to policies including Israeli extremists terrorizing West Bank Palestinians and Gazans suffering from a lack of food that means “Israel has never been so isolated,” a situation that he terms “a countdown clock” for Israel’s security.
Instead, his remarks state, “we need a fundamentally new and different approach to the alliance.”
At the same time, he criticized the Palestinians for what he said were mistakes and obstacles to peace over the years. He lambasted their supporters in the United States who support replacing Israel with a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
“Those chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ need to hear this loud and clear: they will never have their way,” he declares in his prepared remarks. “But those calling for a greater Israel must also hear this loud and clear: you’re never going to have your way, either. Both are fantasies chanted by fanatics.”
Emanuel, who is a former U.S. congressman from Illinois as well as a former Chicago Mayor and served as White House Chief of Staff under President Barack Obama, is considering a presidential run in 2028. His trip has garnered media attention given that his ideas on Israel could signal the direction of his party on the issue, particularly as they come from a Jewish politician with close ties to the country. Emanuel once volunteered as a civilian with the Israeli army and his father was an Israeli citizen.
His trip to Israel to underscore the importance of the Israeli-U.S. alliance and to advocate for a new regional diplomatic initiative comes at a time when politicians in his Democratic Party are increasingly disavowing Israel to gain an edge in upcoming elections as the country’s reputation plummets.
A Pew Research Center Poll published in April found that 60% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Israel, but its standing was worse among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents, where 8 out of 10 had negative views about Israel.
According to his prepared speech, Emanuel is set to highlight his deep connection to the Jewish state and his family’s sacrifice in bringing about its creation, noting that his uncle, who was a member of the pre-state underground, is buried on Jerusalem’s Mt. of Olives. His father, Benjamin, was born in Jerusalem in 1927 and fought in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence before immigrating to the United States, where he raised his family in Chicago.
Emanuel plans to recount Israel’s history of overtures in the name of peace and in the face of Palestinian violence during the second intifada and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. He will explain that he understands Israel’s cynicism regarding any future arrangement with the Palestinians since Israel’s past offers of Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for security were frequently met with violence.
“I understand why, even if you oppose the Netanyahu government, you’re so prone to dismiss criticism from the outside world,” Emanuel wrote, underscoring that a “corrupt Palestinian leadership has never lived up to the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.”
Still, he wrote, Israel’s future can’t be “held hostage to a past defined exclusively by recriminations,” warning that such a stance will endanger its “historic alliance with the U.S.,” which is now “at a crossroads.” Israel must embark on a path that pairs military and diplomatic efforts, rather than relying solely on military prowess, he wrote.
“Israel will be alone if its leaders choose to attempt to annex the West Bank and pursue the fantasy of a greater Israel,” Emanuel plans to say.
“America will not and cannot be complicit or complacent in that endeavor,” he wrote, explaining that it has erred in the past by “blindly and silently” supporting Netanyahu’s government.
The speech calls for an end to the “American taxpayer’s subsidy of Israel’s defense budget,” maintaining that Israel should buy U.S. arms with the same financial terms and restrictions as every other ally “that abides by our laws.”
The speech laid out a broad-based policy with regard to a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that rejects extremist Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and illegal West Bank settlement building but does not spell out prescriptions for divisive issues such as the future of Jerusalem or using the pre-1967 lines for determining the borders of a Palestinian state.
Emanuel does not mention the U.S.-based political advocacy group J Street in his speech, but the text picks up on the 23-state policy idea that J Street put forward last year, involving 21 Arab states, alongside Israeli and Palestinian ones, that would include recognition of Israel by the Arab League.
Such a regional integration would allow for Israel and the larger Middle East to become a technological and transit hub for trade between Europe and India, he plans to say.
To achieve this regional peace, Emanuel continues, the Arab states would have to support a Palestinian governing entity that would accept the Jewish historic connection to Israel, stop teaching its children to hate Israel and end the “heinous practice” of financially rewarding terrorists who kill Jews.
Israel, he wrote, would have to halt unilateral actions in the West Bank, stop nurturing harmful organizations and support “real partners in pursuit of peace.”
This scenario rests on a three-part U.S. policy in the region that would leverage the Arab world’s desire for stability, Israel’s need for security, and Palestinian demands for sovereignty.
“The political benefits for all parties would be far greater than a two-state solution could ever offer. But to get there, everyone would need to make good on their piece of the bargain,” he wrote in his speech.
The alternative path, he wrote, is one that has seen Israel isolated and turned it into a pariah state.
“Israel has failed to convert its military wins into strategic advantages,” Emanuel is expected to say, noting that the country has “lost Europe” and its support in the U.S. is plummeting. U.S. unconditional support for Israel without demands and consequences has been a mistake, he added in his speech, in which he blamed Israel’s poor global standing on Netanyahu’s policies.
A centrist Jewish Democrat embracing a policy promulgated by J Street, a group founded in 2008 to counter the influence of what was then the mainstream pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, illustrates the degree to which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its credo of creating a bipartisan consensus of support for Israel has eroded.
Emanuel plans to recall his own tensions with Netanyahu, who during his time as White House Chief of Staff labeled him a “self-loathing” Jew for opposing West Bank settlement construction.
Netanyahu, he wrote in his prepared remarks, “cannot fight indefinitely against a world that has stopped believing you have the right to fight. You must instead find a new sustainable path to peace, security, and prosperity.”
Alternatively, he wrote, the United States would stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Israel as it pursued peace and security.
The post Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran
(JTA) — The U.S. military announced that it had launched strikes against Iran Tuesday evening, marking the latest exchange of blows between the countries amid a fragile ceasefire.
In a post on X, U.S. Central Command announced that American forces had begun launching a “series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.
“The U.S. strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the post continued. “Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.”
The latest round of violence could further imperil U.S. negotiations over fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reviving talks over Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel has treated the U.S.-Iran negotiations warily, chafing especially at the proposed imposition of terms of engagement with Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran has not claimed responsibility for the attacks on commercial vessels. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari wrote in a post on X that the country held Iran “fully legally responsible” for an attack on the Qatari ship Al-Rekayyat in the strait.
“We demand that the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately cease all practices that undermine regional security or threaten the safety of international maritime navigation, & refrain from endangering global energy supplies & the resources of the countries of the region in pursuit of narrow interests,” Al Ansari wrote.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry also condemned Iran’s alleged attack on a Saudi tanker, in a post on X shortly before the U.S. strikes were announced.
“The Kingdom affirms that these reprehensible attacks constitute an assault on the security and safety of international navigation and on the security of global energy supplies,” the post read.
The strikes come over a week since the last known round of U.S. strikes on the country late last month, which followed Iranian attacks on both Bahrain and Kuwait.
The post US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran appeared first on The Forward.
