Uncategorized
The Iran war looks like a failure. Now comes the Trump-Netanyahu spin game
Within the space of a day, President Donald Trump’s genocidal threat to wipe out Iran’s “entire civilization” gave way to a two-week ceasefire that may well end the war — at least on the Iran front. In Israel and the United States, both of which are moving toward elections, a fierce reckoning will unfold over what this war achieved, what it cost and what it revealed.
A full accounting must await the results of talks due to begin in Pakistan on Friday. But judging by statements from Trump and other U.S. officials, these are something of a formality, and the war should be expected to end in exchange for Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz and perhaps handing over its enriched uranium.
The latter outcome was essentially achievable before the war; the former solves a problem caused by the war. And while both Trump and Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu will surely spin their gambit, which placed the entire world on edge, as successful, it is absolutely unclear whether this war was a strategic net gain or loss for both countries.
To begin an assessment, it’s important to remember what the operation’s initial aims were. The main goal stated by Trump at the outset was to halt and reverse Iran’s nuclear program. Even if the regime hands over its enriched uranium stockpile, it has made no promises to stop its nuclear efforts or allow intrusive international oversight. That is anything but a decisive shift.
Israel had wider goals, which American officials seemed to sometimes echo and often ignore. It wanted Iran to be relieved of the long-range missile capability used to target Israel with the biggest ballistic attacks in history. And it wanted to debilitate Iran’s web of proxy militias, including in Lebanon and Yemen, which perpetually threaten attacks.
Unlike with the nuclear program, Iran is not even willing to discuss these issues, and here, too, there is no evidence that the war has moved its position by an inch.
In the background, of course, there was the hope that the regime would mercifully just fall. Indeed, Trump said on the first day that the people of Iran would be able to take their country back, and Netanyahu made similar statements.
Normally, external regime change efforts are a bad idea — interference is both hard to defend legally and unlikely to succeed. But in this case, with the regime having damaged the region for decades and killed tens of thousands of its own citizens to stamp out the protest movement in January, the ambition seemed justified, as long as there was a realistic plan for it to work
Spin, spin, spin
There was no such plan.
What there was, instead, was some hope that the regime’s decapitation in the war’s early hours would lead to a spontaneous shift. This would have required the arranging of a plan with elements in the Iranian security apparatus to seize power once the leaders of the theocracy were gone. Efforts on this front were meager: days into the war, Trump acknowledged that the candidates the U.S. had seen as most likely to be good new leaders for Iran had themselves been killed by airstrikes.
The window for regime change, cracked open at the war’s onset, quickly began to close as the regime adapted and projected continuity.
What was left to aim for was the degradation of the regime’s abilities. Here the ledger looks more successful, although still mixed.
Even though the regime has reconstituted, an array of very senior political and military figures were killed, which will set the country back. Essential military facilities — including missile launchers, research sites, operational headquarters, checkpoints and much of its entire naval fleet — were destroyed.
A normal regime might be cowed after such a thrashing, but these are fanatical jihadists, and all of this can be rebuilt. Moreover, Iran was still firing missiles at Israel for a few hours even after the ceasefire was announced. So this amounts, at best, to what Israeli officials call a “mowing of the grass.” Selling it as a huge victory is basically spin.
We’ve seen that move before. After the 12-day war last June, Trump and Netanyahu vastly exaggerated the effort: Trump insisted the nuclear program had been “totally obliterated” and that any journalist who questioned this was “doing a really bad job,” and Netanyahu declared that Israel had “set back for generations” not just Iran’s nuclear threat but the one from ballistic missiles. Neither has attempted to explain the contradiction between those claims and the pretext for the renewed war.
Military and political losses
Meanwhile, the war’s costs have been profound.
There is significant loss of civilian life in Iran and Lebanon, most devastatingly the erroneous U.S. attack on an Iranian school that killed more than 100 children on the war’s first day. 23 Israeli civilians have been killed, as well as at least 13 American service members.
The strategic loss may be the most meaningful. Iran demonstrated that it can hold the world for ransom by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s crude supply travels. Oil prices spiked, and the inflationary effects via petroleum-based and other products, supply chain disruptions, and the systemic trust breakdown are dire. They could have long-term consequences even once the Strait reopens.
Moreover, it looks like Iran is still somehow hoping to charge ships to pass through the strait, at least during the ceasefire and possibly more long term — which, of course, must categorically not be allowed. That Iran is even toying with this idea reflects the regime’s belief that it has emerged from the war with more leverage, not less.
That belief itself marks a serious negative outcome to the war. An Iran that is emboldened is an Iran that is more dangerous, even with its capabilities degraded.
For Trump, there is a personal political cost as well. The war was seriously unpopular in the U.S. He will likely go in search of a scapegoat: a prime candidate is Netanyahu, whom many in the MAGA movement have accused of misleading the capricious and superficial Trump into believing that the Iranian regime would easily collapse. That could spell dire consequences for the U.S.-Israel relationship, already made more brittle by strains over the Gaza war.
Americans should be troubled by what the war revealed about their impetuous political leadership and its standing in the world. The NATO nations refused to join the war, causing Trump to threaten that the U.S. might pull out of the alliance that has helped keep global peace for almost 80 years. This caused enough angst to send Secretary-General Mark Rutte on an emergency mission to Washington today.
However the geopolitical dust settles, there must be lasting consequences over Trump’s Tuesday social media post in which he wrote “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” Anyone who thinks that words should carry weight might conclude that what will be remembered of this war is that the U.S. president is a person capable of making such dire and cavalier threats.
The post The Iran war looks like a failure. Now comes the Trump-Netanyahu spin game appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The Nakba exhibit and the importance of historical context
By NOAH STRAUSS When I went to the Nakba Exhibit, I was shocked, not by the contents of the exhibit but by its size. The exhibit was tiny in my eyes, and I thought the amount of outcry was excessive for an exhibit that is less than 500 words. It felt like every other day the National Post had an article about the exhibit, criticizing different aspects of it. But then I had a realization: the exhibit was never criticized because it was “too” big, but because of the contents of it. When I was toured by the curator, I actually asked her, “Where is the rest of it?” I was confused because I had been misled by the media to believe the size of the exhibit was massive.
I believe that every human being should be able to live a free life. No human should be bullied for who they are. That is not okay, and to some credit, the Nakba exhibit does cover this. But where my problem now comes into play is the fact that the museum fails to portray the full history surrounding the Nakba.
The museum is publicly funded; our taxpayers’ dollars go there. It is supposed to represent our nation and our beliefs, not take a side on history. The Museum did exactly that. It took a side, and guess what? It caused chaos.
Whenever asked why it does not show the other side of history, the museum would always say something along the lines of: our space is limited, the focus of the exhibit is solely the Nakba, etc. But to me, these are excuses, and I will call that out.
For context, the Nakba was an event that occurred around 1948 after the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The Nakba continued until about 1949. During this time, approximately 750,000 Palestinians were either forced out or left what is now Israel.
The Museum is contributing to concerns surrounding the rise of antisemitism. The Museum has failed to mention that during the same era as the Nakba, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were displaced from Middle Eastern and North African countries, with many forced to leave because of their religion.
Context matters. Yes, 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, but what happened during the same era also left hundreds of thousands of Jewish people without homes. When a visitor with no historical context walks in to see what the “Jewish” people did to the Palestinians, of course they’re going to blame the Jews. Because it makes me, a Jewish person, look terrible.
In my view, the exhibit contributes to concerns about growing antisemitism by presenting an incomplete historical narrative.
But then, as Jewish people, we need to know when it’s time to move forward. We need to focus on how we can positively portray the Jewish community and show the world who we are, rather than allowing others to define us through a one-sided historical narrative.
Noah Strauss is a 15-year-old Gray Academy student
Uncategorized
Trump is still going after Palestinians in the U.S. Jews must keep protesting those antidemocratic efforts
Mohsen Mahdawi, a 35-year-old Palestinian, has been a permanent resident of the United States for the past 14 years. And as the U.S. government presses ahead with efforts to deport him over his pro-Palestinian advocacy at Columbia University, more than 1,000 Jews have come forward to defend him by signing an open letter I authored.
Why? At a time of particularly fractious division in the Jewish community over issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how is it possible that so many Jews have come together in support of a Palestinian activist?
One key reason is that the government is seeking to infringe upon the rights of someone who neither engaged in acts of violence nor supported them. In July, the Second Circuit Court overruled a prior district court judge’s dismissal of the deportation case against Mahdawi, giving new energy to the government’s efforts.
Mahdawi has committed no crime; the government has not even bothered to accuse him of doing so. Instead, he simply gave voice to his belief in the necessity of freedom for his people.
Jews of all ideological stripes can and should agree that it is wrong to penalize someone for the expression of their political views. They don’t need to go far back in time to recall that such tactics have often been used against Jews themselves — in the Soviet Union to suppress refuseniks who sought to manifest their identity as Jews; in the U.S. during the McCarthy era; and, most ominously, during the dark age of Nazi totalitarianism.
In drafting an open letter defending Mahdawi, focused on the attack on his political rights, I hoped that a diverse range of Jews would be willing to acknowledge that whether they agree or disagree with Mahdawi, the government’s targeting of him represents a threat to all of us.
I know Mahdawi personally. We met at a peace-building retreat in the summer of 2024. He was an enormously compelling presence who drew people together through his preternatural calmness and clarity of purpose.
Since then, I have come to see him as a unifier, not a divider. He’s an advocate of peace, not war. And he has the potential to become a leader of enormous charisma and potential.
So why has the Trump administration devoted so much attention to persecuting a Palestinian student who has repeatedly called out antisemitism, including at a Palestinian solidarity rally at Columbia?
The sad reality is that Mahdawi, like his fellow Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, is being persecuted for the crime of being Palestinian.
The U.S. State Department came up with the logic-defying claim, in March 2025, that Mahdawi’s activities at Columbia “would have a potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” If this administration truly wishes to advance its foreign policy interests, then it should focus on reconstructing Gaza and building a framework for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, not targeting a devoted adept of non-violence like Mahdawi.
Many who signed the letter in support of Mahdawi joined in for the simple reason that they believe it is un-American to discriminate against people on the basis of their political views. Some who added their names felt, as I did , that there was another compelling reason to sign on: that Mahdawi’s activism gives the lie to the prevalent myth that to be pro-Palestine is to be antisemitic. This proposition gets buried in the raging discourse around antisemitism and Israel today.
It is essential to recognize that support for the cause of Palestinian freedom and self-determination is not the political or moral equivalent of antisemitism. It is a precondition to a world in which Israeli Jews and Palestinians live peaceably together. And it is a cause that Jews, by virtue of their own historical experience of exile, should be eminently capable of both understanding and supporting.
Mohsen Mahdawi perfectly exemplifies the position. He is fierce in his advocacy for Palestinian rights. And he is fierce in his opposition to all forms of identity-based discrimination, including and especially, antisemitism. He deserves better from the U.S., and we Jews must vigorously oppose the profound miscarriage of justice being directed against him.
David N. Myers teaches Jewish history at UCLA.
The post Trump is still going after Palestinians in the U.S. Jews must keep protesting those antidemocratic efforts appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Lawmakers seek 100-foot buffer zone around houses of worship to protect prayer goers from protests
(JTA) — A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a federal legislation Thursday in the House and Senate aimed at protecting houses of worship from disruptive demonstrations, following a series of protests outside of synagogues this year.
The Right to Worship Act was introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, alongside Reps. Brad Knott, a North Carolina Republican, and Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat. It would establish a 100-foot “buffer zone” around houses of worship during religious services — mirroring similar legislation recently enacted in New York.
“The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to freely exercise their faith, and Congress has a duty to ensure that guarantee is met,” Cruz said in a statement Thursday.
The legislation would also establish civil penalties for offenders and provide pathways for individuals, including state attorneys, to seek court orders and damages in federal court. While the legislation would target protesters who knowingly disrupt scheduled religious services, houses of worship would not be required to make their schedules public.
The bill’s sponsors say the measure is aimed at conduct rather than the content of protesters’ speech.
“No one should have to push through a hostile crowd or shout over a bullhorn in an attempt to pray,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO and national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which helped lawmakers draft the legislation.
It’s the latest attempt at passing federal legislation aimed at insulating houses of worship from protest, following Suozzi’s “SACRED Act” legislation, a similar bill he introduced in April but which has not progressed in the House.
Those efforts have now been joined by Slotkin, who is Jewish, and Cruz, who has often taken aim at antisemitism within the Republican coalition over the past year.
“Exercising your right to worship should not require you to exhibit particular courage as you enter your synagogue, church, mosque, temple, mandir, or gurdwara,” Suozzi said in a statement.
The New York City Council passed a local buffer zone bill in March following a series of pro-Palestinian protests outside of synagogues that hosted Israeli real estate expos. While Jewish groups and leaders heavily advocated for the measure, it also faced opposition from civil rights leaders who said it would have a chilling effect on First Amendment protections.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Lawmakers seek 100-foot buffer zone around houses of worship to protect prayer goers from protests appeared first on The Forward.
