Uncategorized
Six months into the Iran War, the West has a second chance
Six months ago, the war against Iran began with a display of Israeli military and intelligence prowess so spectacular that rapid political change seemed within reach. Israeli strikes decimated much of Iran’s leadership, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, senior officials and military commanders, while demonstrating extraordinary intelligence penetration and an ability to strike at the heart of a regime that had spent decades protecting itself.
For supporters of regime change in Iran, myself included, the possibilities seemed extraordinary. I wrongly assumed the military campaign formed one part of a broader strategy, with the CIA and perhaps Mossad working inside Iran to prepare senior military officers, dissident elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or other power centers to move once the regime was suddenly leaderless. A coup seemed plausible, and the opening attack appeared capable of acting as the trigger.
That optimism proved misplaced. Six months later, the Islamic Republic survives under an even more hardline leadership, the United States has paid heavily for the conflict, Israel’s standing has plummeted dangerously as a result, and the world has endured an energy crisis. Western interceptor stockpiles have been disturbingly depleted as Iran has demonstrated how relatively inexpensive missiles and drones can impose enormously expensive defensive requirements on its enemies.
In addition to the failure to organize regime change, there was – incredibly – no American plan for dealing with Tehran’s predictable move to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquified natural gas flows.
That is particularly difficult to explain because the danger was both obvious and apparently understood inside the administration. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard warned President Donald Trump before the war that killing Khamenei would probably produce more obstinate leaders, that Tehran would move to close the Hormuz and destabilize global energy markets, attack American forces and partners across the region, and redouble nuclear weapons efforts.
The most plausible explanation for Trump’s decision to proceed is the confidence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others that Iran’s historic weakness had created an opportunity for rapid regime collapse. Iran certainly was weak, but weakness and imminent collapse are very different things in a country without real elections or term limits and a willingness to kill as many of its own people as necessary.
The military math has meanwhile grown increasingly unfavorable. The United States and Israel are using sophisticated interceptors costing enormous sums against Iranian missiles and drones that can be produced far more cheaply. Months of fighting have placed pressure on Iron Dome, Patriot and other interceptor inventories at a moment when such weapons, if the war resumes, may be required all over the Middle East and even beyond. Iran has discovered an asymmetric advantage in forcing wealthy adversaries to spend vastly more on defense than Tehran spends on attacks.
It also discovered that the Americans had not rounded up a posse: America’s allies, who were not consulted in any of this, were clearly not on its side. Though they certainly hate the Islamic Republic, one could be forgiven for suspecting they hated Trump – who a month before the attack on Iran threatened NATO ally Denmark over Greenland – even more.
By June, the strategic balance was reflected in diplomacy. Trump had entered the war speaking about eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat and clearing the way for Iranians to overthrow their oppressors, yet the memorandum of understanding reached with Tehran represented a retreat from any such ambitions, containing none of the transformational conditions that might have justified the costs of the war.
Iran made no meaningful commitment concerning its ballistic missile program or its calamitous support for Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The agreement offered no protection for Iranians confronting a regime that had massacred tens of thousands of protesters. Instead it envisioned massive sanctions relief, unfreezing of assets, the removal of the American blockade and hundreds of billions of dollars for Iranian reconstruction and economic development; all this inevitably would have strengthened the same regime whose survival the war was expected to jeopardize.
Such were the shameful wages of hubris and poor planning, and it reflected Trump’s panic at the energy crisis unfolding as midterm elections approached. The Islamic Republic had every reason to view the June agreement as a victory – and yet, amazingly, it then overplayed its hand.
Rather than pocketing a strategic reprieve, Iran’s rulers continued asserting the right to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz and charge vessels fees and tolls. Accepting such an arrangement would create a dangerous precedent extending far beyond Iran, effectively granting a belligerent power a tollbooth over one of the world’s essential maritime arteries and inviting similar behavior around other strategic chokepoints. It would upend global maritime trade, and devastate America’s credibility as the chief protector of freedom on the seas.
The MOU’s negotiating period has now expired, and Washington this week shifted toward a strategy better suited to Iran’s actual vulnerabilities. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has unveiled what the administration calls an “economic D-Day,” beginning with sanctions against roughly 60 Iran-linked individuals, companies and vessels and threatening secondary sanctions against foreign entities that continue doing business with Tehran.
This was, of course, greeted with considerable skepticism, which the Trump administration has earned in spades. But in fact, combined with a determined blockade, the approach has the potential to accomplish what the original expectation of rapid regime collapse could not.
Iran has spent decades developing sophisticated methods for evading sanctions through disguised tankers, ship-to-ship transfers, shell companies, yuan transactions and an elaborate shadow economy. China purchases the overwhelming majority of the oil Iran manages to export and provides Tehran with both buyers and financial channels outside the conventional dollar system. Those mechanisms can help Iran disguise and monetize a barrel that reaches the international market, while they cannot create a physical route for the next barrel through a blockade.
And that is the main issue: the oil Iran is currently selling, which is its key export, is mostly what had been stashed before the war outside the blockade zone, on the high seas and elsewhere. It should run out in six months or less. The world just needs patience (though it would also help for the United States and NATO to make up and project a united front).
Iran’s resilience has been remarkable, but its economic position was precarious even before the war. The country entered the conflict suffering chronic electricity shortages, deteriorating infrastructure, a severe water crisis after years of drought and groundwater depletion, punishing inflation and a currency that had already lost most of its value in recent years. It was economic desperation that helped fuel the unrest that the regime answered with mass killing in January. It is very likely that this fury will explode again, stronger still.
The conflict has been transformed into a contest of endurance. Iran is betting that Western political patience will expire before its economic oxygen does, because democratic governments feel higher energy prices, business pressure and voter anger immediately, while authoritarian governments can impose extraordinary suffering on their populations.
The West possesses a countervailing advantage of overwhelming economic scale. Iran’s economy is tiny beside the combined economic power of the United States, Europe and their allies, while China’s economic relationships with America and Europe dwarf its commerce with Tehran. Sustained pressure can therefore force governments and companies to decide how much economic risk they are prepared to assume on behalf of a weakened Islamic Republic.
The first six months of the Iran War offer a harsh lesson about the limits of military power against a ruthless rival with asymmetric levers. But six months after a war built around the expectation of rapid collapse, the outcome depends on patience. The United States is now fighting the right war: Iran’s regime is a global rogue, and sometimes superpowers must use power, whether military or economic. Moreover, time is on its side, if it will bide it.
There is just one small problem: Trump, a man with almost no credibility, needs to credibly explain to the American people why it’s worth the pain.
The post Six months into the Iran War, the West has a second chance appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
How a Jewish, German-averse writer came to love Berlin
Berlin Before and After: A Cautionary Mirror for Our Times
By Wendy Lesser
Harper, 352 pages, $32
For years, Wendy Lesser was a proud, Germany-avoiding Jew with what she calls “an ingrained distaste for the nation that gave rise to the Third Reich.” Then, in 2003, Lesser, founder and editor of The Threepenny Review and a prolific critic and author, was the recipient of a fellowship from the American Academy in Berlin. Those few months in residence started her love affair with that history-embattled city, where she now returns regularly and feels surprisingly at home.
“One of the things I discovered, when I eventually got to Berlin,” she writes in her latest book, Berlin Before and After, “was how deeply Jewish that city’s culture still is. Or…how thoroughly the German and Jewish cultures at one time entered into each other, so that the versions we now have of them…are still colored by that mutual infusion.”
Berlin Before and After is Lesser’s highly idiosyncratic, selective take on the city — as much travelogue as cultural history. Its subtitle, A Cautionary Mirror for Our Times, evoking the civil rights abuses of the Trump era, reveals something of its raison-d’être. But Lesser doesn’t belabor the comparison, by now a cliché of American political discourse. She is at least as interested in the diverse artistic pleasures of contemporary Berlin as in the historical shadows that shape its landscape and personality.
The conceit of the book is simple: Lesser begins with an admiring look at Berlin in the year 1929, which she defines as “the last year in which it was possible to turn a blind eye” to impending disaster. “Runaway inflation, widespread economic despair, and violent social unrest were just around the corner,” she writes, “but they were invisible to most people.”
Lesser skips over the rise of the Third Reich, the Holocaust and the devastation of World War II and resumes her narrative in the contemporary city, with its wealth of museums, memorials and other cultural attractions. An aficionado of Berlin’s public transit, she ends, somewhat bizarrely, by taking readers on an extended bus ride across the city.
Some of the greatest achievements of the Weimar period, she argues, date to 1929. Lesser proceeds chronologically but also associatively, touching on architectural treatises, novels (including Alfred Döblin’s Berlin Alexanderplatz, Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front and Vicki Baum’s Grand Hotel), and the photography, paintings, silent film, dance and theater of the era. Though her focus isn’t political, she lauds the achievements of chancellor and, later, foreign minister Gustav Stresemann. She also remarks on the celebrity of Albert Einstein, one of the many German Jewish scientists and intellectuals who eventually found refuge in the United States.
In the section “Berlin Now,” Lesser is concerned with the impacts of two separate, but related traumas: the Nazi era and the Cold War, epitomized by the Berlin Wall dividing the city into east and west. Berlin’s intense memorial landscape has by now been the subject of countless articles and books, but that doesn’t impede Lesser from digging in. “Berlin is the companion who never shuts up, and what it wants to tell you about is itself,” she writes. The city “lives on a daily basis with its history in a way that is true of no other place I know.”
Lesser is right on the big picture. But her patience for dissection of both the history and its memorialization is limited. She rushes through the Topography of Terror museum (admittedly, a heavy lift), built on the site of Gestapo and SS headquarters and the Reich Security Main Office. She has little to say about the German Resistance Memorial Center, another site-specific museum, located in the military headquarters where the failed July 20, 1944, assassination plot against Adolf Hitler was planned. And she contemptuously dismisses what she calls “the self-glorifying architecture” of Daniel Libeskind’s generally acclaimed Jewish Museum Berlin in a single paragraph, without any reference to the many important shows it has mounted over the years or to its revamped (in 2020) core exhibition.
Nor does Lesser explicitly consider the notion of the “counter-memorial” — those self-effacing monuments that serve as a critique of more conventional, celebratory memorials. She nevertheless describes several of them. Among the earliest is Bibliothek, the underground “empty library” memorial on Bebelplatz, commemorating the 1933 book burnings that took place there. She visits Peter Eisenman’s vast, unmissable (and controversial) Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, but makes no mention of its excellent underground museum. She examines the now ubiquitous Stolpersteine (Stumble-Stones), recording the last known residences, deportation dates and fates of Berlin’s Jewish residents, and Renata Stih and Frieder Schnock’s Places of Remembrance, whose playful signs attached to lampposts catalog the plethora of anti-Jewish ordinances enacted by the Third Reich.
She also covers memorials to Germany’s division, including remnants of the Wall, the Stasi Museum, the Spandau Zitadelle (with its collection of “toxic monuments”) and the gruesome Hohenschönhausen Prison, whose brutal past clearly captures her imagination.
Berlin’s greatest draw for Lesser is arguably its culture, though it, too, is inseparable from history. She delves into the art of Gerhard Richter, the music of the Russian-born conductor Vladimir Jurowski, the television series Babylon Berlin, and the literature and film of East Germany.
The resulting narrative is an intellectual potpourri, probably most engaging to those who know Berlin (but not too well) or who might be contemplating a visit. Lesser follows her own wide-ranging curiosity and assumes that we’ll tag along. “Viscerally and consciously, with a kind of self-awareness that is rare in a collective entity,” she writes, radiating enthusiasm, “Berlin has continued to reveal itself to me in ways I never cease to find moving.”
The post How a Jewish, German-averse writer came to love Berlin appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
What Black voters can teach Michigan Jews about Abdul El-Sayed
Jewish Democrats in Michigan face a tough choice. They can vote for Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate whose views clash with their own, or withhold their support for the Democratic candidate for senator in a razor-close election that may determine which party controls the Senate.
In a race where a single percentage point separates the two candidates, and in which Jews make up 1.4% of the electorate, every Jewish vote counts. That’s why it’s instructive to look at the history of another minority voting bloc — Black Americans.
Black Americans have faced a version of the El-Sayed dilemma for a century: Should they support a candidate who is imperfect or even hostile on issues they care about intensely, or hold their noses, be pragmatic and vote for the larger prize of institutional power?
Black Americans “don’t have the luxury of picking a candidate who is purely for their interests,” Sam Fulwood III, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who specializes in race and public policy, told me in a phone interview. “I don’t think there’s ever been a moment in history where there’s been a pure choice.”
I get why so many Michigan Jewish voters see El-Sayed as the ultimate “impure” choice. He said he’d cut off both offensive and even defensive military aid to Israel. He called the Israeli government evil, comparing it to Hamas. He has campaigned with Hasan Piker, the influencer who called Israel “the Jewish ISIS” and said that American Jews bring violence on themselves by supporting Israel.
Amid a storm of criticism and calls to distance himself from Piker, El-Sayed reiterated his support for Jews. “I love and revere Judaism and the Jewish people,” he said.
At the same time, El-Sayed’s progressive stances on health care, education and economic justice and even his sharp criticism of the Israeli government have resonated with some Jewish voters.
Others have been satisfied by his pledges to fight antisemitism and his call for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that, in his words, guarantees equal rights “for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike.”
“So many young Jewish people are active in Abdul’s campaign, and it’s their Judaism that leads them to that position,” said former U.S. Rep. Andy Levin, a self-described Zionist.
Many Michigan Jewish Democrats remain unconvinced. Just before the High Holidays, dozens of Michigan rabbis and Jewish leaders signed onto a list of “non-negotiable” principles about Jewish safety and Israel that any candidate hoping to earn their support must espouse. The petition, called Non-Negotiable Michigan, didn’t name El-Sayed directly, but it’s clear he was its target.
Ultimatums cut both ways. In setting terms for El-Sayed Jewish leaders have created one for themselves. Elections, despite what we learned in high school, aren’t popularity contests. A vote isn’t an approval. It’s a choice.
The Democratic Jews on the fence over El-Sayed may ultimately be faced, come November, with the prospect of an imperfect candidate representing a wing of the party they fear, versus two more years of a Republican majority that will continue to rubber-stamp the Trump administration’s damage to the economy, democracy, the environment, the social safety net, health care and immigrant rights.
If the choice is novel for many Jewish Democrats, it’s old news for Black Americans.
The dilemma goes back at least as far as the 1936 election, when Black voters shifted to the Democratic Party to vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt, even though FDR, fearful of losing Southern support, repeatedly refused to support federal anti-lynching legislation.
Or consider Lyndon Johnson. In 1957, Johnson, then Senate Majority Leader, stripped the enforcement teeth out of that year’s Civil Rights Act to get it passed, bypassing the objections of civil rights leaders. Seven years later, after Johnson became president and signed the Civil Rights Act, Black voters delivered him about 94% of their vote — despite a legislative record on civil rights that had been mixed at best.
Even more recently, Black voters have had to sacrifice the perfect for the good, supporting Hillary Clinton despite the impact of Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill that contributed to mass incarceration.
In all these cases, Black voters didn’t overlook or excuse these records. Instead, they made a strategic calculation to focus on the bigger goals, realizing politicians are often imperfect vehicles to get us there.
“Black Democrats have overlooked differences in the Democratic Party and even overlooked prejudice because they knew the Democratic Party was much better than the alternative,” Ada Horwich, a longtime Democratic Jewish activist in Los Angeles told me. “We need to learn from their political behavior.”
Perhaps the best example, Fulwood reminded me, was John F. Kennedy, who saw the civil rights movement as a domestic distraction. But in 1960, after Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed, Kennedy privately — so as not to offend Southern Democrats — called Coretta Scott King to offer support, while his brother Robert worked behind the scenes to secure King’s release. That persuaded King’s father, King Sr., to throw his considerable electoral influence behind the Democrat.
“He took a lot of Black voters with him,” said Fulwood, “even though Kennedy was not great.”
Fast-forward to 1963, and JFK came around to support the movement.
“It’s a difficult thing,” King Jr. said at the time, “to teach a president.”
One lesson is that politicians are teachable. Stances that seem “non-negotiable” now can change.
That mixture of cold calculation and hope is exactly what this election is asking Jewish Michiganders to negotiate. Or, as Fulwood said of so many electoral choices Black Americans have faced, “One candidate is very bad, and one is less bad.”
The post What Black voters can teach Michigan Jews about Abdul El-Sayed appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
South Florida Democrat Moskowitz airs campaign ad targeting antisemitism with concentration camp footage
(JTA) — South Florida U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz pulled on his family’s story as Jews in the Holocaust in a campaign ad targeting antisemitism, as he strives to retain his seat in the November general election.
“In every generation, they rise against us,” the Jewish incumbent says in the ad over a background of somber music and black-and-white photos from a concentration camp. “My great-grandparents were murdered in Auschwitz.”
“In our generation, right here, the Parkland shooter had swastikas carved into his gun,” he continues, standing in front of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, referring to the 2018 fatal shooting that killed 14 students and three educators.
Moskowitz, a top Democratic supporter of Israel in Congress, who fended off progressive challenger Oliver Larkin in a heated August primary, emphasizes in the ad that he has worked to fight antisemitism through bipartisan laws. Some of this legislative action has involved increasing security at synagogues and Jewish nonprofits and expanding education to reduce hate crimes.
“Never again is now,” Moskowitz concludes.
Moskowitz won the August primary with 63.5% of Democratic voter support, to Larkin’s 36.5%. But Larkin was vocal throughout the race about his opposition to arms sales to Israel, going so far as to label the country as a “religious supremacist” nation.
As Moskowitz prepares to face former Boca Raton Mayor Scott Singer, a Republican who is also Jewish, the Democrat may be facing a tight race in a region that had previously been solidly blue.
The 25th Congressional District, which includes parts of Delray Beach, Boca Raton and Miami Beach, is about 25% Jewish, according to local estimates.
Yet recent redistricting efforts have transformed the region into territory that President Donald Trump would have likely won in the 2024 elections. In fact, the Cook Political Report declared a shift from “solid D” to “toss up.”
“There’s no doubt that the race for the new 25th District will be highly competitive in a favorable environment for Democrats,” the report stated.
Moskowitz’s team emphasized the “deeply personal” nature of the congressman’s battle against antisemitism, in a statement issued alongside the ad’s release. He is confronting this challenge, his team explained, by “connecting his family’s experience during the Holocaust to the hatred that continues to threaten our communities today.”
While Moskowitz’s great-grandparents died in Auschwitz, his grandparents were able to escape Europe right before the war. His grandmother left on the Kindertransport, an organized effort that rescued Jewish children from Nazi-controlled territories beginning in 1938.
By Tuesday evening, the Google Ads Transparency Center, which includes data on YouTube ads, did not yet reflect how much money the campaign had spent on its ads there. Meta’s Ad Library also did not yet have data as to how much had been spent on the Facebook version of the ad posted there.
Stephen Sussman, a professor of public administration at Barry University, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that although “Holocaust imagery should never become routine campaign material,” he doesn’t believe that this ad has crossed a line.
“The Holocaust was, of course, a real event that continues to shape Jewish life and memory,” Sussman said, recognizing that Moskowitz’s great-grandparents were murdered at Auschwitz and that many Jews today feel threatened by antisemitism.
“He is not comparing his opponent to Hitler or using the Holocaust to make an unrelated political attack,” Sussman added.
The professor also noted the ad’s direct connections to the congressman’s record, such as his leadership in passing bipartisan legislation on antisemitism awareness and in boosting funding for synagogue security.
Sussman acknowledged that when Holocaust imagery becomes part of a campaign, there “is a legitimate concern” that other people might deploy that imagery less responsibly. But he stressed that given Moskowitz’s history and work record, as well as the current political climate, this particular ad is “powerful but defensible.”
Ken Goldstein, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco, offered a similar perspective, explaining that of the thousands of ads he has watched in his lifetime, he found this one to be powerful but not particularly controversial.
“He was certainly using pictures of the Holocaust, jarring images, but they were his family’s story,” said Goldstein, who is an expert on the impacts of political advertising.
“I don’t think he’s using it to personally attack anybody else except the Parkland shooter,” he added, noting that the ad isn’t being used to attack an opponent. “This one does not strike me as particularly harsh, unfair, or out of bounds at all.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post South Florida Democrat Moskowitz airs campaign ad targeting antisemitism with concentration camp footage appeared first on The Forward.
