The Israeli military said on Monday night that it killed Islamic Jihad’s commander in Lebanon, describing the operation as a major blow to the Iran-backed terrorist group’s capabilities. Israel struck multiple targets in Lebanon after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel in support of Iran.
Uncategorized
Tucker Carlson’s Iranian Nuclear Fairy Tale
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Here is what Tucker Carlson recently said about Iran’s nuclear program:
“What are the chances Iran would actually launch a nuclear attack? History suggests they’re zero.”
“Could the Iranians obtaining the bomb wind up being a good thing?”
“North Korea’s nuclearization has undeniably stabilized the Korean Peninsula.”
“Would it incentivize Israel to drop its stated goal of controlling Gaza and the West Bank?”
These are not stray remarks or provocations. They form the scaffolding of an argument Carlson is now advancing openly: that a nuclear-armed Iran might be beneficial — stabilizing, sobering, even morally clarifying.
This is not merely wrong; it is the intellectual architecture of appeasement, rebuilt for a new generation and a new dictatorship.
In the 1930s, Western commentators insisted they were not defending Adolf Hitler — only understanding him. Germany, they argued, had been humiliated. It had legitimate grievances. Accommodating these “reasonable concerns” was framed as sophistication, not surrender. War, after all, was the greater evil.
History remembers how that ended.
Carlson’s Iran argument follows these echoes of appeasement. It reframes aggression as insecurity, ideology as negotiable, and the regime’s victims as inconveniences. Carlson’s past flirtation with rehabilitating Hitler while recasting Winston Churchill as the reckless villain of World War II is not incidental. It is explanatory.
Carlson’s case rests on a crude premise: no rational state would ever use a nuclear weapon because doing so would be suicidal. History, he says, proves this. No member of the “Axis of Evil” has fired a nuke. Only the United States has.
This confuses outcomes with intentions, and treats deterrence as a law of nature rather than a fragile political achievement.
Deterrence worked during the Cold War because adversaries shared assumptions: regime survival as the highest value; stable command-and-control; and a strategic culture that treated nuclear weapons as last resorts — not instruments of ideology.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a status-quo power seeking security. It is a revolutionary theocracy animated by theology, grievance, and openly messianic ambition. Its leaders glorify martyrdom. Its proxies — Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis — treat death as strategy. Israel’s destruction is framed not as rhetoric, but as destiny.
Deterrence is determined not only by whether a regime can be deterred, but also whether it wants to be.
Carlson points to North Korea as proof that nuclearization produces stability.
This is a category error.
North Korea has not stabilized the region; it has frozen it in permanent coercion. The peninsula remains one miscalculation from catastrophe. Pyongyang engages in nuclear blackmail, missile launches over Japan, cyber warfare, and weapons proliferation abroad. Its population remains imprisoned and expendable.
More importantly, North Korea does not pursue regional hegemony through transnational militias and proxy wars. Iran already does — all without nuclear weapons. A nuclear umbrella would not restrain Iran’s behavior. It would shield it.
Carlson suggests nuclearization might make Iran less oppressive by relieving fear of Western “decapitation.”
This reverses cause and effect.
Iran’s repression is not defensive. It is foundational. Women are beaten and murdered for removing headscarves. Protesters are executed after summary trials. Gay people and minorities are systematically crushed. All because of the regime’s identity and ideology, not fear.
None of this is caused by US sanctions or Israeli action.
Nuclear weapons would not protect Iranians from their rulers. And nuclear weapons would further protect the rulers from their people.
History is unambiguous: authoritarian regimes do not liberalize when their security is guaranteed. They consolidate.
Carlson also suggests a nuclear Iran might “incentivize Israel” to abandon its security posture. This requires an inversion of both morality and causality.
Israel’s security policies are shaped by experience. Every withdrawal — from southern Lebanon to Gaza — was followed by rockets, terror, and massacre. Before 2023, Gaza was not occupied; it was ruled by Hamas, an Iranian proxy whose charter openly calls for genocide.
To frame Israel as the destabilizer in a region saturated with Iranian-backed militias is not realism. It is willful blindness.
A nuclear Iran would not compel restraint. It would compress decision timelines and make miscalculation existential.
Carlson’s argument treats ideology as irrelevant, extremist theology as cosmetic, and history as a grab bag of comforting analogies. It asks Israel and the entire international community to absorb existential risk so others can indulge fatigue and moral vanity.
This is not realism. It is surrender dressed up as sophistication.
And this is how many catastrophes throughout history began: not with madmen shouting, but with influential people calmly explaining why the madmen should be accommodated — why their threats aren’t real, their ideology isn’t serious, and their victims are an acceptable price for someone else’s peace.
History does not whisper when this happens. It screams — and then it counts the dead.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.
Continue Reading
Uncategorized
The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture
די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור האָט אַ היפּשע צאָל בולטע אימאַזשן פֿון קאַפֿע־הײַזער: מנחם–מענדלס שילדערונג פֿון „קאַפֿע פֿאַנקאָני‟ אין אָדעס; די ניו־יאָרקער „קיביזאַרנע‟ און „קאַפֿע–ראָיאַל‟ אױפֿן איסט–סײַד.
אָפֿט לײענט מען די דאָזיקע באַשרײַבונגען װי טשיקאַװע עפּיזאָדן, אָבער אין דער אמתן איז דאָס קאַװע־הױז געװען אַ װיכטיקע קולטורעלע אינסטיטוציע, בפֿרט ערבֿ דער צװײטער װעלט־מלחמה. דאָס בוך פֿון פּראָפֿעסאָר שחר פּינסקער, ”A Rich Brew“ [אַ גוט געקאָכטע קאַווע] האָט אַן אַמביציעזן אונטערקעפּל: „װי אַזױ די קאַפֿע־הײַזער האָבן געשאַפֿן די מאָדערנע ייִדישע קולטור‟. װען מען לײענט איבער דעם װאָגיקן באַנד זעט מען בפֿירוש, אַז די קאַפֿע־הײַזער אין אײראָפּע, אַמעריקע און ארץ־ישׂראל זײַנען געװען זײער אַ פּראָדוקטיװ אָרט, װוּ מען האָט געשריבן, געלײענט, געשמועסט און אַ סך זיך געאַמפּערט װעגן דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור.
די ליבע־געשיכטע צװישן ייִדן און קאַפֿע־הײַזער הײבט זיך אָן אין בערלין אינעם אַכצנטן יאָרהונדערט. „דאָס געלערנטע קאַפֿע־הױז‟ איז געװען אַ נײַער לאָקאַל, װוּ די בערלינער אינטעליגענץ האָט זיך געקאָנט טרעפֿן, לײענען צײַטונגען, שפּילן שאַך און שמועסן. צװישן די אַרײַנגײער אין דעם קאַפֿע־הױז איז געװען משה מענדלסאָן, דער „פֿאָטער‟ פֿון דער בערלינער השׂכּלה. קאַװע איז געװען כּשר און דאָס קאַפֿע־הױז האָט ניט געהאַט קײן קריסטלעכן טעם. דװקא דאָ האָט מענדלסאָן פֿאַרטראַכט זײַנע פּובליקאַציעס, װאָס זײַנען געװאָרן די בימה פֿאַר זײַנע משׂכּילישע אידעען.
די בלי־תּקופֿה פֿון ייִדישע קאַפֿעען האָט געדױערט פֿון סוף-19טן יאָרהונדערט ביזן חורבן. פּינסקער פֿירט דעם לײענער אױף אַ רײַזע איבער די װיכטיקסטע צענטערס פֿון דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור: אָדעס, װאַרשע, װין, בערלין, ניו–יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. ער האָט באַאַרבעט אַ ריזיקן מאַטעריאַל פֿון פֿאַרשידנאַרטיקע מקורים און אים מגולגל געװען אין אַ פֿאַרכאַפּנדיקער לעקטור. דאָס דאָזיקע בוך װעט זײַן סײַ ניצלעך פֿאַר די פּראָפֿעסיאָנעלע פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישער און העברעיִשער קולטור און ליטעראַטור, סײַ אינטערעסאַנט פֿאַרן ברײטן עולם.
דער װאַרשעװער „פֿאַראײן פֿון ייִדישע ליטעראַטן און זשורנאַליסטן‟ אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13 איז געװען דער סאַמע באַרימטסטער ייִדישער ליטעראַרישער קלוב, באַשריבן אין צענדליקער זכרונות און בעלעטריסטישע װערק. אָבער דאָס איז ניט געװען דאָס ערשטע ייִדישע קאַפֿע־הױז אין װאַרשע. קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװאָרן פּאָפּולער אינעם אָנהײב צװאַנציקסטן יאָרהונדערט, װען װאַרשע איז געװאָרן אַ מאַגנעט פֿאַר אָרעמע יונגע אינטעליגענטן, און בפֿרט ליטװאַקעס. אײניקע פֿון זײ האָבן געחלומט װעגן אַ ליטעראַרישער קאַריערע אױף ייִדיש אָדער העברעיִש. זײ האָבן זיך געפֿילט הײמיש בײַ יחזקאל קאָטיקן, דעם מחבר פֿון באַרימטע זכרונות װעגן דעם ייִדישן לעבן אין רוסלאַנד אינעם נײַצנטן יאָרהונדערט. מען פֿלעגט דאָ זיצן שעהען לאַנג און לײענען צײַטונגען, שמועסן װעגן ליטעראַטור און פּאָליטיק און אַפֿילו פֿירן געשעפֿטן. דערצו נאָך זײַנען די קאַפֿע–הײַזער װינטערצײַט געװען װאַרעם, װאָס איז אױך געװען װיכטיק פֿאַר די אָרעמע באַזוכער.
אָן װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען, און על–אחת–כּמה–וכמה אָן דעם שרײַבערקלוב אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13, װאָלט די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור אַװדאי געװען אָרעמער און שיטערער. פּינסקערס בוך איז װי אַ מין ייִדישע ליטעראַטור־געשיכטע, װאָס באַטראַכט די טעמע פֿונעם שטאַנדפּונקט פֿון קאַפֿע־טישן. די װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװען װיכטיק ניט נאָר פֿאַר „ייִדישע‟ ייִדן, נאָר אױך פֿאַר אַזעלכע, װאָס האָבן געשריבן אױף פּױליש, װי יוליאַן טובֿים אָדער אַנטאָני סלאָנימסקי.
דער עפּילאָג פֿון דער װאַרשעװער ייִדישער קאַפֿע־קולטור האָט זיך אױסגעשפּילט אינעם געטאָ, װוּ עס זײַנען אױך געװען עטלעכע קאַפֿעען: „דער געטאָ־קאַפֿע איז אַ קאָמפּליצירטער אָרט פֿון קאָלאַבאָראַציע, קולטורעלן לעבן, קאָמערץ און עליטיזם,‟ שליסט פּינסקער זײַן קאַפּיטל װעגן װאַרשע.
אין װין און בערלין זײַנען געצײלטע קאַפֿעען געװאָרן אַ מקום־מקלט פֿאַר ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן און פּליטים, װאָס זײַנען לרובֿ געקומען נאָך דער ערשטער װעלט־מלחמה. די דאָזיקע דײַטשיש–רעדנדיקע הױפּטשטעט האָבן צו יענער צײַט שױן געהאַט פֿאַרמאָגט אַ רײַכע קולטור פֿון ליטעראַרישע און קינסטלערישע קאַפֿעען. בײַ אַ סך ייִדישע ליטעראַטן זײַנען די קאַפֿעען געװאָרן „סטאַנציעס אױף דעם טראַנס־נאַציאָנאַלן זײַדן־װעג‟ פֿון עמיגראַציע, װאָס האָט זײ סוף־כּל–סוף געבראַכט קײן אַמעריקע אָדער ישׂראל. דערבײַ האָבן זײ מיטגעבראַכט שטיקלעך פֿון דער דאָזיקער קולטור מעבֿר־לים, קײן ניו־יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. די ניו־יאָרקער קאַפֿעען װערן געשילדערט אין דער אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, װי למשל „שלומס קאַפֿע‟ אין דוד איגנאַטאָװס ראָמאַן „אין קעסלגרוב‟. איגנאַטאָװ שילדערט דעם דאָזיקן לאָקאַל װי אַן „אָרט פֿון קאָנפֿראָנטאַציע צװישן פֿאַרשידענע השׂגות װעגן דער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור‟. ניט װײניק הײסע סיכסוכים האָט מען דאָ געפֿירט אױך װעגן דער ראַדיקאַלער פּאָליטיק.
צום שלוס שרײַבט פּינסקער: „די שטאָטישע קאַפֿעען האָבן געדינט ניט נאָר װי צענטערס פֿון מיגראַנטישע קולטורעלע נעצװערק, אָבער אױך װי אַ מקום–מקלט פֿאַר הײמלאָזע מענטשן, פֿאַר קאָסמאָפּאָליטישער פֿילשפּראַכיקײט, װאָס איז געװען אין געפֿאַר פֿון צעשטערונג מצד די נאַציאָנאַליסטישע אידעאָלאָגיעס.‟ אָבער הײַנט, איז פּינסקער משער, שפּילן די קאַפֿען מער נישט אַזאַ חשובֿע קולטורעלע ראָלע. „פֿײסבוק‟ און אַנדערע װירטועלע לאָקאַלן האָבן איצט פֿאַרנומען זײער אָרט.
The post The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran Loses Contact With Palestinian Terror Proxies Amid US-Israel Strikes: Report
Smoke rises following an explosion, after Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The Israeli-American offensive targeting Iran’s military and security apparatus has led to a loss of communications between the Iranian regime and its Palestinian terrorist proxies, according to a new report.
Palestinian factions both in and outside of Gaza, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have lost contact with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) since the US and Israel began launching large-scale strikes against Iran this past weekend, the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Tuesday.
It remains unclear whether the IRGC officials responsible for dealing with the Palestinian terrorist groups were killed in the strikes or are operating with special safety measures. However, sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Iranian commanders conveyed messages in different ways during last June’s 12-day war with Israel, indicating a disruption in reliable communication channels during the current conflict.
The US and Israel have killed dozens of top Iranian officials over the past few days of military action.
“Normally, messages are transmitted in encrypted ways, either electronically or in other ways. Since the beginning of this war, no messages have been received,” the Palestinian sources said.
Iran has long supported and expanded its regional network by providing financial and military assistance to its terrorist proxy groups, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, among others.
Palestinian factions — particularly Palestinian Islamic Jihad and smaller groups — have been facing a severe financial crisis for months amid a sharp decline in Iranian support, as Tehran grapples with mounting international sanctions and domestic crises that have constrained its ability to sustain funding, arming, and training for its terrorist networks.
Even prior to the Israeli-American strikes, Palestinian sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that they feared “the collapse of the Iranian regime, which would mean the end of support without return.”
The consequences are expected to be significant but less severe for Hamas, which has been ramping up efforts to rebuild its military capabilities and maintain tight control inside the Gaza Strip through a brutal crackdown on internal opposition, reflecting its broader network of support compared with Islamic Jihad and other smaller factions that remain heavily dependent on Iranian backing.
Uncategorized
Support for Israel, Trump Gaza Peace Plan Remains High Among US Voters, New Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
A new national survey suggests that American support for Israel remains resilient overall but with notable generational divides that could shape the future political landscape.
According to the February 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, strong majorities of US registered voters back policies aligned with Israel’s security posture and express approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Gaza. At the same time, the data shows that support for Israel fluctuates significantly depending on age.
Notably, the survey was conducted last week on Wednesday and Thursday, just before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran over the weekend.
Among respondents, 73 percent of voters say they support Trump’s Gaza deal framework. The proposal, aimed at restructuring governance and stabilizing post-war conditions in Gaza, commands bipartisan backing in the poll’s toplines.
The plan calls for the dismantling of Hamas’s military and political control, the establishment of an interim administrative authority backed by regional Arab partners, and a major internationally funded reconstruction effort. Trump has also emphasized expanding normalization between Israel and Arab states, building on the Abraham Accords, as a cornerstone of long-term stability, while maintaining Israel’s security oversight during a transitional period.
Voters appear to prioritize stability and deterrence, responding favorably to an approach framed around preventing Hamas from reasserting control and reinforcing Israel’s long-term security.
The poll shows that a clear majority of Americans continue to side with Israel over Hamas and support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, support levels vary considerably by age group.
Older voters, particularly those over 55, show the strongest pro-Israel sentiment, with large majorities backing Israel’s military actions and expressing sympathy with Israel over the Palestinians. Voters between 35 and 54 also lean pro-Israel, though by narrower margins.
The sharpest contrast appears among younger voters. Americans under 35 remain more divided, with significantly lower levels of sympathy toward Israel and greater skepticism about its military campaign in Gaza. While even in this group Israel retains meaningful support, the margins are slimmer and opposition more vocal.
The generational gap reflects broader cultural and media consumption differences, as well as the impact of campus activism and social media narratives. Yet the topline remains clear: despite softness among younger voters, Israel continues to command majority support nationwide.
Further, strong and stable majorities support Israel over the Hamas terrorist group. According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans support Israel over Hamas. However, support for Israel heavily fractures along age lines. Per the poll, 82 percent of those over 55 years old support Israel, compared to only 62 percent between the ages 35-44. However, a striking 58 percent of those between the ages 18-24 support Hamas over Israel, indicating a groundswell of backing for a foreign terrorist organization among American youth.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, support for the Jewish state has seen significant declines across political and age lines in the US. Younger Americans, particularly, have largely turned against Israel. The increasingly tense relationship between Israel and US voters has become a flashpoint in Democratic primaries, with liberal political hopefuls increasingly vowing not to accept support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US.
The February poll was conducted among 1,999 registered voters, with a margin of error of ±2 percentage points.