ASPEN, Colo. — Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested at the Aspen Security Forum on Friday that the U.S. strikes on Iran had not been necessary and didn’t accomplish the fundamental goal of permanently stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

Asked whether he wished that President Joe Biden had carried through with plans to strike Iran before he left office, Sullivan argued that the situation at the time had been ripe for a diplomatic solution.

“During the transition, we handed off to the Trump administration. The situation in which Iran was at its weakest point since 1979,” Sullivan said. “Hezbollah had been functionally defeated. Assad had fallen. Its air defenses had been destroyed, and twice, Iran had tried to hit Israel with large salvos and missiles, and twice, with American help ordered by President Biden, Israel defeated those attacks. So Iran was weak and vulnerable.”

“In my view, a weak and vulnerable Iran was susceptible to a very good deal that would lock Iran’s program in a box for decades, not just set it back for a couple of years,” Sullivan continued.

He said that, after the strikes, a very similar deal remains necessary, “which is what I think President Trump will pursue, because the only way to permanently end Iran’s nuclear threat, I think, is through diplomacy.”

Sullivan’s perspective separates him from some Senate Democrats who spoke earlier in the day at Aspen, who described the strikes as successful even as they criticized the administration’s failure to coordinate with Congress and also emphasized that negotiations must follow.

ASPEN, Colo. — Retired Gen. David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and head of U.S. Central Command, said Friday at the Aspen Security Forum that, in the post Oct. 7, 2023 environment, Israel will no longer tolerate threats to its security throughout the region, including a resumption of Iran’s nuclear program.

Petraeus said, “We have to step back a little bit and recognize that Israel’s strategic calculation is very, very different from before Oct. 7, and that’s a big deal for the region,” explaining that Israel will no longer allow threats to metastasize anywhere in the Middle East. 

He added that Iran must understand that it is vulnerable and that no Israeli leader will allow it to resume its push for a nuclear weapon.

“[The Iranians] have to recognize that if they make another move, they’re going to get hammered once again,” Petraeus said. “And I don’t think that an Israeli prime minister, even if it’s not Bibi Netanyahu, will allow the Iranians to proceed down the path to a nuclear device.”

He predicted that Russia would not be helpful to Iran in replacing its Russian-manufactured air-defense systems that Israel destroyed, since it doesn’t have sufficient systems to protect itself from Ukraine’s counter-strikes at this point.

Petraeus argued that Iran’s future direction and leadership will depend on what sort of leader or leadership structure succeeds Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — whether the country remains ruled by a hardline religious cleric or whether a new body, potentially one dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, emerges.

“You can actually entertain at least a notion that, since they control 30 to 40% of the economy, that the Revolutionary Guard Corps says, ‘Hey, why are we doing all this stuff? We could be living high on the hog and stop getting bombed and our headquarters getting taken out, us individually targeted, if we just cut loose Hezbollah, and all these others. Who cares about this nuclear stuff? What has this brought us now?’” Petraeus said.

Journalist Kim Ghattas, speaking alongside Petraeus, said that “this 40 year arc of the Islamic Revolution is coming to an end,” citing knowledge from an unnamed Western diplomat previously based in Iran, “but exactly how it ends we just don’t know yet.”

She argued that the “inconclusive” nature of the Israel-Iran war “has actually complicated matters internally and in the region” and may allow the Iranian regime to recalibrate and consolidate power. She suggested that the IRGC could take charge and transform the country into more of a military dictatorship, sidelining the mullahs.

“I think that in the medium term, we’re looking at a more oppressive, more militaristic Iranian regime,” Ghattas said.

And she predicted that Iran would push ahead with its nuclear program as its only option for deterrence.

Ghattas also said that the fact that Iran had managed to survive the Israeli attacks had complicated efforts to sideline Hezbollah in Lebanon, sending a message to the group that it should hold out; she said that Hezbollah is unlikely to disarm without instruction from Iran, and that it would require political concessions in order to do so.

“We had a really golden opportunity at the beginning of the year, when everything was in flux, Hezbollah was very much on the back foot. [Syrian dictator Bashar al-]Assad was gone. Gaza had a ceasefire in January,” Ghattas said. “This was the moment to strike with a grand political vision, diplomatic vision, for the region. Now, everybody’s recalibrating. Iran is trying to see how it can get a foothold stronger again, into Lebanon, even into Syria.”

Petraeus said that he supports Israel’s objectives it has laid out in Gaza — destroying Hamas, removing it from governance and freeing the hostages — “but I’ve said publicly from the very beginning and written about it as well, that I just don’t think they’re going about it the right way.”

He said Israel should be pursuing a “comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency campaign — clear, hold, build and transition,” including establishing security and governance measures in Gaza as the campaign proceeds and allowing Gazan Palestinians return to their homes.

“And that requires a fourth objective, which has never been stated, and that is to provide a better future for the Palestinian people in Gaza without Hamas in their lives,” he continued.

He said that, though Hamas has been degraded, it still has the largest armed force in Gaza and would reemerge as the dominant force in a vacuum, despite Israel’s arming of some Palestinian clans in Gaza.

“I’m really worried about what is the future of Gaza, for which there’s been no real vision provided for what life of the Palestinian people will look like,” Petraues said.

The retired general indicated that he’s optimistic about Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, explaining, “We believe that he understands the need for a government that has representation from all of these different elements and not only assures majority rule, but also ensures minority rights.”

Ghattas warned that the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Syria risks spawning a revitalized terrorist threat in Lebanon and a renewed threat from Syria.

She said she supports the Trump administration’s policy in opening a door to the new Syrian government, but said that the U.S. has “gone a little bit too far in embracing al-Sharaa.”

“Great about lifting the sanctions, but you still need to breathe down his neck, because international support does not translate into national legitimacy, yet, and he’s not done enough in terms of national legitimacy,” Ghattas said.

The panelists also discussed Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman’s rise to power and vision for the region.

Petraeus said that bin Salman had overhauled a slow and indecisive government to consolidate power.

“There’s never been a consolidation of power like we see there, and there’s never been someone with the kind of vision that he has put forward as well,” Petraeus said. “You can ask if some of that is beyond realistic. … But he knows that.”

He said that bin Salman’s initiative has established Saudi Arabia as one of the key centers of power in the region, alongside the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, supplanting traditional power-players like Egypt.

Ghattas said that bin Salman had evolved over time and “transformed, for the better, the lives of millions of young Saudis.”

“I think the opportunities are great, but I think Saudi Arabia, which wanted to establish relations with Israel before Oct. 7, is finding itself with a conundrum that it cannot solve on its own without pressure from the United States on Israel,” Ghattas said, “which is [that] it is not going to reach out to Israel anymore unless they get a promise of a Palestinian state. The bar for that has risen tremendously.”

ASPEN, Colo. — Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog and other pro-Israel speakers received a warm reception from the crowd at the Aspen Security Forum this week, as they discussed continued efforts to free the hostages in Gaza and Israel’s strikes on Iran.

But Herzog told Jewish Insider, on the sidelines of the conference after his panel on Wednesday, that he’s been disappointed by the response to the strikes from Democratic lawmakers in Washington, which has been overwhelmingly negative.

It’s a response that also stands in contrast to Herzog’s description of the transition he observed in the Biden administration’s thinking on Iran: from pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran that Herzog said would have been weaker than the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to, by the time President Joe Biden left office, active discussions of strikes on Iran.

“I must say, I was disappointed by the response of some senior people on the Democratic side,” Herzog told JI. “I’m saying it carefully because I never interfere in domestic politics here, but from a strategic point of view, I was disappointed by the response of some senior Democrats to the war on Iran.”

Herzog said that maintaining bipartisan support for Israel was the central goal of his ambassadorship and that he engaged with nearly everyone, including critics, with the exception of the most extreme voices. He said he expected U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle to realize that the strikes offered a “unique opportunity” to counter a “malign actor” and “changed the strategic landscape in the Middle East.”

“People who either criticize it on procedural issues or people who say, ‘[It] wasn’t the right timing because they were talking to each other about a deal’ — there’s never a right time. Never,” Herzog said, emphasizing that the strikes had not, as critics warned, spiraled into a protracted war similar to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Herzog said Israel must “put a lot of work into maintaining that dialogue with both sides of the aisle, explaining our common interest, away from domestic politics here … and exploring the new opportunities that have been created in the Middle East.”

Herzog said that Israel has been preparing for an attack on Iran for decades, but the specific planning for what became Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the U.S.’ Operation Midnight Hammer began in earnest in November 2024, after the second Iranian strike on Israel and Israel’s elimination of Iran’s air-defense systems. By that time, U.S. nuclear talks with Iran, which Herzog criticized as misguided, had been long stalled.

He said the fall of the Assad regime in Syria the following month provided a further opportunity to take action.

“If you look at the journey the Biden administration took from the initial days when they were rushing to a deal with Iran, to the last few months of the Biden administration where they were talking to us about military options against Iran, they went a long way,” Herzog recounted.

Herzog said he believes that the Biden administration underwent “disillusionment with the possibility of reaching a good deal with Iran,” as Iran made unrealistic demands, such as removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ terrorism designation. And he said Iran’s supply of weapons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made the talks “much more difficult.”

“I just could see that movement with time, to the last phase of Biden’s presidency, when, after we turned the tables on the Iranian axis and opened that huge opportunity, we actually started looking with them at the military option,” he said. “It was too late in the day [to carry out the strikes before Biden left office], but it was a very interesting journey that I noticed.”

Looking at the rising isolationist sentiments on the Republican side of the aisle, Herzog said he’s been monitoring the issue and has “been concerned about it,” but also argued that such voices aren’t dominant in the Trump administration’s decision-making.

“It’s like a swing of a pendulum because the U.S. ultimately decided to follow Israel and strike Iran, and this is really historic, in that it’s a first-of-its-kind coordinated offensive operation. … This is the first time that we are coordinated in our offensive operations, that’s a very big deal for a long time to come in my view,” Herzog said.

He said he sees the pendulum swinging against the isolationists in the administration’s recent moves to provide additional support to Ukraine and take a tougher stance toward Russia as well.

“So all in all, I don’t think that the administration is following this isolationist trend, but I do follow it and I am concerned about it,” Herzog said. “I do believe that the world needs American leadership, [an] American dominant role. The world needs America to be a force of good, as it has always been, and that’s what we’d like to see.”

Herzog — reflecting on the panel he spoke on, “Israel at a Crossroads” — said that the U.S. and Israel need to be closely coordinated and in lockstep on the path forward on Iran, including the limits of a diplomatic deal and the red lines that would prompt further military action to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program, as well as ways to capitalize on Iran’s weakness throughout the region and prevent it from rebuilding its proxy network.

“We managed to surprise the Iranians, hit all the main centers of gravity and take them completely off balance. But challenges are still ahead of us because we have to assume that Iran will seek to rebuild those threatening capabilities,” Herzog said. “We should not rest on our laurels.”

He also emphasized that the strikes and the degradation of Iran’s proxies had “created the conditions for a different Middle East.”

Asked about the Israeli government’s policy on Syria — which shifted in the span of a week, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actively discussing normalization and diplomatic paths with President Donald Trump in the White House to Israel bombing key Syrian government sites in recent days — Herzog described the new Syria as a “mixed bag” with both risks and opportunities, and said that it may be too early to judge.

“On one hand, I believe that this new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, a.k.a. Mohammad al-Jolani, doesn’t want, he doesn’t seek war with Israel, and he sends across messages, and that’s what he told the Trump administration,” Herzog said, adding that Israel had started a dialogue through the U.S. on what Herzog termed a formal or informal non-aggression agreement and the demilitarization of southern Syria.

“On the other hand, we should not forget the background of al-Sharaa and the people surrounding him or subordinate to him,” Herzog said. “They all grew up in the school of jihadism.”

He criticized al-Sharaa for what he said was an effort to “subjugate [Syrian minorities] so they become part of his Syria, his vision of Syria” rather than allowing for a federalist system. Herzog said the Israeli strikes “sent a very strong message … that we will not tolerate the scenes of humiliating the Druze and endangering their lives,” and aimed to block the Syrian army from conquering Druze areas and carrying out atrocities.

“What we’ve seen, first with the Alawites and now with the Druze, is very troubling,” Herzog said. “We in Israel, our concerns are about, first, the security situation in southern Syria, and second about the state of minorities, especially the Druze, because not only are they close to our border, [but] because we have an important Druze community in Israel. They are our brothers in arms.”

He added that it’s unclear to what extent al-Sharaa himself is in control over Syrian government forces’ actions.

The Israeli ambassador also reflected on the ways that the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel seemingly activated a global wave of antisemitism.

“You’re hit hard, you’re bleeding, and all your enemies smell the blood and rise to hit you,” Herzog said. “That pertains to all of our enemies in the region, the Iranian axis, but also pertains to anti-Israel, antisemitic forces here in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

He said that Israel has “gone a long way” against its military adversaries in the Middle East, “really turned the tables on Iran and the Iranian axis” and “created the conditions for a different Middle East.”

“But,” he continued, “we still have a long way to go against these anti-Israel, antisemitic forces. That’s an open front.”

ASPEN, Colo. — Speaking on a panel at the Aspen Security Forum, a group of Iran analysts discussed the potential paths forward in nuclear talks with Iran after the American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the possibility that Iran will attempt to reconstitute its nuclear program covertly and the prospect of regime change in Iran.

Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley laid out three paths forward after the strikes: a continued campaign of Israeli air strikes to “mow the lawn,” while Iran works to try to re-establish its own deterrence; a negotiated agreement with Iran including intrusive inspections that would make it difficult for Iran to construct a covert nuclear program, with provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies; and the possibility, with an agreement, that Iran decides to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, having spent billions of dollars on the program, alienated the region and still failed to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack.

“There is a question whether the Iranians will decide that the cost of pursuing a nuclear program was just too high,” Hadley said. “It was supposed to safeguard them from getting attacked by the Israelis in the United States, and it resulted in them getting attacked. … That’s a long way down the road. It’s probably a low-likelihood probability, but it would certainly remake the Middle East.”

He presented a potential pathway for Iran, working with Gulf states, to pursue the model that they have laid out, focusing on economic development.

Rachel Bronson, a senior advisor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said that it’s widely believed Iran has seen a nuclear weapon as a guarantor of regime survival, in the model of North Korea. But she said there’s a chance that Iran wants to go down a different path.

“That begs the question whether the Iranians want to live like North Koreans and want to live in a sanctioned regime and in such isolation, which the Iranians demonstrated that they don’t want to live that way,” Bronson said.

David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, argued that, while the Fordow nuclear facility has likely been rendered inoperable due to U.S. strikes, other sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan, can likely be repaired or rebuilt.

“I don’t think anybody can say whether or not this is really gone for good. My guess is you’re going to need a political agreement with getting inspectors back in to make sure that it stays out of circulation,” he said.

Sanger added that it would be a “long time” before Iran is in a position where it will be willing to negotiate. He said he’s concerned about the lack of inspections in the interim, “because I think if we get into another confrontation with them, they will leave the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. And if that happens, I think we could see a second cycle of [military action].”

From the U.S. side, Sanger said that Washington publicly presenting a proposal could build pressure on Iran to strike a deal. Without diplomacy, Sanger continued, future military confrontation is likely. He said there are also major questions around enrichment that Israel and Iran will have to answer.

“The question for the Israelis is, would they give an assurance that says, ‘We won’t strike you if you don’t try to reconstitute your program and don’t have a covert nuclear weapons program?’” Sanger said. ”For the Iranians on the enrichment point, there’s a question of whether, diplomatically, you could finesse it by saying, ‘You of course have the sovereign right to enrich, but you also, in the exercise of that sovereignty, can elect to give it up for other purposes.’”

And he said that Israel should also consider whether it’s willing to allow limited enrichment under comprehensive and intrusive IAEA inspections, arguing that Iran’s pathway to a potential covert weapons program would come via other avenues. 

Bronson highlighted that the U.S.’ European partners, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin, are now in lockstep with the Trump administration in insisting that Iran must give up its enrichment capacity.

She also said it’s likely unrealistic that Iran would be able to restart a covert nuclear program without the world’s knowledge, particularly if it attempts to retrieve its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, activity that would be noticed by various intelligence services.

“The covert is always out there, but it’s a long way to go for them to get back in that game,” she said.

Johns Hopkins University professor Vali Nasr predicted that the Iranian government’s priority would be finding a way to prevent future strikes by the United States and Israel, rebuilding its deterrence and defense.

He also argued that the public, aggressive diplomacy from the Trump administration, including demands on Truth Social for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, make such a deal politically unpalatable for the Iranian regime. He accused the Trump administration of failing to seriously negotiate before its strikes.

“You’re basically asking for surrender. It’s not a compromise anymore,” Nasr said. “So then the question becomes, what is the acceptable cost for surrender? Would the supreme leader think that Iran is back to the wall sufficiently for him to … go and sign a surrender treaty?”

Nasr suggested that the U.S. would have to offer Iran incentives to bring in to the table and that Tehran would make significant demands for such a deal, including a guaranteed end to Israeli strikes on Iran and safeguards against the U.S. pulling out of the deal in the future.

The panel members downplayed the notion that regime change is an imminent prospect in Iran.

Hadley said the most likely source of such a change would be from a faction inside the regime, like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that decides it wants to reduce the role of the mullahs and their revolutionary ideology. 

“If folks come out in the streets it may be because one of those factions has called them to the streets to give them an excuse for making some kind of change with the regime,” Hadley said. “But that’s going to take a long, I think, considerable time, to play out.”

Sanger said that “betting on regime change is a risky business.” He said that the Obama administration had been gambling on the idea that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be dead before the JCPOA sunset.

“It’s pretty clear from talking to the Israelis who were in Washington last week, that is their bet now: They are just pushing for time, and they think a regime change will happen,” Sanger continued. “But I’m not sure where they get that confidence.”

Nasr predicted that there will be no major changes inside Iran as long as Khamenei is still alive. And he argued that the U.S. would need to lay out an attractive alternative and future for Iran in order to motivate a faction like the IRGC to take action.

“How do you force this shift in Iran? How do you cause the debate at the top that people seriously consider that this is a dead end and there’s some other path on the table?” Nasr said. “Iranian leaders, hardline moderates cannot react to what is theoretically possible but is not actually solidly in front of them as an option.”

At the same time, Nasr said that the failure of Iran’s proxy network had been a significant blow to segments of Iran’s government, leaving them in a weakened position in the regime.

Aspen, Colo — U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler said at the Aspen Security Forum on Thursday that there had been “some movement forward” recently toward a ceasefire and hostage-release deal with Hamas. He also addressed criticisms of his direct talks with Hamas.

“It’s closer than it’s been, and if it doesn’t happen, in my strong opinion it would be continued hard-headedness from Hamas, in which case Israel will continue to take action, as they should,” Boehler, the only Trump administration official to address the conference, said. “I am more optimistic than I have been in a while about that.”

Boehler said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s success in striking Iran has given Netanyahu the political capital and positioning at home to potentially seal a deal. “In that way, there’s never been a better time.” He said Israel is “leaning in a lot” and that finalizing a deal gives Netanyahu the opportunity to further burnish his reputation in history.

By contrast, Boehler said that Hamas is “very hard-headed” in talks, which has been frustrating for negotiators and leads the terrorist group to reject deals that seem to be in its interest.

“With [former hostage] Edan Alexander, Hamas had multiple times where they probably lost leverage over time. Look at the whole war. They continue to hold out. Israel continues to kick their ass. And yet they still think they have leverage,” Boehler said.

Asked about his direct negotiations with Hamas, which were controversial, especially among Israeli officials who were largely kept out of the loop, Boehler downplayed the extent of the tension between the U.S. and Israel on the issue.

“There was no unilateral deal ever possible. While that’s an American citizen, Edan, we were always working with the Israeli side,” Boehler said. “Now whether or not — I think the question is whether or not discussions on that side were [conducted with Israeli involvement], but there would be no deal that would be possible that wasn’t coordinated with the Israelis.”

Boehler also emphasized that his job is to negotiate with people who he knows are “bad guys.”

“I’m under no illusions, ever. These are bad people. They’re bad guys,” Boehler said. “I’m not making a moral evaluation. I don’t want to go get beers with the guys. What I want is Americans out now, and I want them never to take them again.”

He said he tries to focus on what each side wants and where there might be commonalities that both sides can pursue. 

Boheler added that he does not believe that meeting with someone is a concession itself. He argued that it can be more difficult to understand what an adversary actually wants in the present if he is relying on others’ characterization of their views, adding that direct talks can also move negotiations along more quickly.

The U.S. envoy argued that earlier and stronger U.S. action in the post-Oct. 7 hostage crisis — “in terms of being more aggressive in our support of Israel” — could have “made a difference if we had leaned in more at the beginning — I believe that is likely — versus holding back.”

“I’m not making that judgement by myself, I’m making that judgement from discussion[s] on the military side too,” he continued. “Are there things we could have done better there that would have made a difference for American lives and for Israeli lives? Yeah, of course.”

Boehler said that the U.S. strikes on Iran will help give him leverage in hostage talks by proving that Trump is serious about the things he says and is willing to back them up with force.

“What do I need to say? ‘You don’t want to listen to the president? One of his core platforms is getting Americans out. Look what happens,’” Boehler said. “He said something [and followed through] … it’s so important to have that credibility. And that kind of credibility doesn’t just bring Americans home. It makes people think twice before they take them.”

Boehler said that sometimes there is no negotiating path with terrorist groups or other adversaries, and that force is the only option, but that it’s worth attempting to see if there is a diplomatic path.

Boehler also repeated the administration’s recent warning to Americans against traveling to Iran for any reason.

“You sort of think that’s like, ‘Duh,’” Boehler said, to chuckles from the audience. “But you’d be surprised.”

He warned that it’s “very sensitive” for the U.S to compensate rogue actors for the release of American hostages because that can incentivize further hostage-taking going forward. The administration conducted a prisoner exchange with Russia.

“I’m very, very sensitive to hostage diplomacy because it doesn’t work. You will see we very rarely trade people. It would have to be very unique. Money? Forget about it,” Boehler said. 

He said that he sometimes needs to employ “negative incentives,” including threats, as well.

“The president has always stated and oriented toward, ‘I would like a diplomatic solution.’ He told Iran that and then Iran tested it, and then they saw what they got,” Boehler said. “So those things are very important, and I think about the same thing from a hostage perspective.”

Asked about his conversations with hostage families, Boehler said he followed advice from his predecessors to be “authentic and truthful. And so if at that moment you’re feeling something, you can let that show.” He said he also tries to be “extremely responsive” to the families, but also upfront about the prospects for a deal and the potential obstacles.

“Those families have been through way more than I’ve been through. I don’t need to soft-pedal to them, but I owe them this responsiveness and authenticity,” Boehler said. “Their children, family members have been taken away, they’ve been killed. They don’t need bullshit from me. They need somebody that’s going to be honest with them and they can certainly take that.”

Boehler, who was involved in efforts to negotiate the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration, said that he believes the accords will grow within the next year, saying that Saudi Arabia had been clear across multiple administrations about its interest in a deal.

“I think that the inherent reasons there was interest there haven’t changed,” Boehler said. He downplayed the strain that the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and the ensuing war have placed on those efforts, noting that the Abraham Accords have “held strong.”

“People make comments publicly, but if you look at the support, it was a totally different Middle East than if we had been in a war years before. And so I feel optimistic,” Boehler said.

Boehler also credited the Israeli government for acknowledging mistakes in its conduct in the war when they happen, noting one such statement issued on Thursday apologizing for an Israeli strike on a church in Gaza.

“I’m sure it was not on purpose and then they will do an investigation and say this is a real issue,” Boehler said.

At the same time, he said that it would be “a very dangerous thing” if Israel were to sway to the whims of global public opinion about its military campaign in Gaza “because they’re fighting for their survival all the time” against a terrorist group embedded in the civilian population.

ASPEN, Colo. — Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday at the Aspen Security Forum that the U.S. should work to exploit frictions between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea, to interfere with their deepening alliances.

Rice suggested that, rather than trying to disrupt links between Iran and other adversaries, the U.S. should “slam them together” because “they actually have very little in common and they actually have a lot of problems between them.”

“Nobody could feel very good right now in their alliance about the Iranian situation,” Rice said, emphasizing that Russia had declined to provide any military backing to Iran after it was attacked by Israel and the United States, and China is also trying to “keep their heads down.”

“I’ve thought this alliance is somewhat weaker than we sometimes would give it credit for, and I’d slam them together and make them deal with their own internal contradictions,” Rice reiterated.

ASPEN, Colo. – Former U.S. and Israeli officials speaking at the Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday emphasized that Hamas bears responsibility for the failure of hostage release and ceasefire talks, and discussed the possible paths to ending the war in Gaza.

Brett McGurk, the top National Security Council official responsible for the Middle East under the Biden administration, argued on Wednesday that the history of ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas “is being rewritten by people that weren’t involved in this.”

He emphasized that Hamas repeatedly ignored and rejected proposals that fulfilled many of its demands over the course of the last year, arguing that Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah had helped force Hamas’ hand to a temporary ceasefire deal that went into effect in early 2025.

“The moral toll of this awful situation tears at the soul of anyone who’s worked on this, anyone,” McGurk said. “But this war could have stopped multiple times if Hamas stopped the war and released hostages — multiple, multiple times.”

He said that, to this day, the “fundamental issue” is that the pressure for the deal has been on Israel, with “no pressure on Hamas.” He said the group has “not budged” on its demand to be allowed to remain in power in exchange for the release of hostages.

“Hamas started the war on Oct. 7, this panel is about Israel, but the enemies of Israel have agency,” McGurk said, emphasizing that Hamas made a choice to start the war, joined by Hezbollah and various Iranian proxies, in addition to Iran itself.

McGurk said he believes that if both sides accept the current U.S.-sponsored proposal to pause the war for 60 days while negotiating a permanent ceasefire, the war would end.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog said that Israel “never developed a coherent plan [of] alternatives to Hamas.”

Herzog argued that Israel needs to propose an end to the war in exchange for the release of hostages, and that Hamas can be dealt with again at a later point while Israel focuses in the short term on Iran, normalization with Arab countries in the region and beginning to heal its own people and society.

Herzog framed the ceasefire deal with Hezbollah as a potentially successful model. 

Former IDF Intelligence Directorate head Amos Yadlin said that the Gaza war is the “most justified war ever; however, at this moment, continuing the war is not serving Israeli interests.”

He said Israel should agree to end the war in exchange for a one-time release of all remaining hostages and the exile of some Hamas leaders, and work to bring in Arab partners to demilitarize the territory, with the understanding that Israel will continue to attack Hamas forces that reemerge as it has done with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even if some Hamas forces remain, he said, they will not have the strength or capabilities they did before the war.

Yadlin also emphasized that Hamas leaders are to blame for the civilian casualties in Gaza, since they could have ended the war by releasing the hostages at any time.

Author and “Call Me Back” podcast host Dan Senor noted that Israel’s military was ill-prepared for the kind of extended, grinding, close-to-home war it is fighting in Gaza, and described the challenges of Hamas’ diversion of humanitarian aid and hostage-taking as unprecedented. And, he said, fear of Hamas has hampered efforts to cultivate alternative civilian leadership in Gaza.

“I think the idea that we could have a permanent ceasefire would only work if Israel would agree for Hamas to stay in Gaza and … in terms of the objectives of war, there is no world in which Israel can agree to Hamas staying in power in Gaza,” Senor said.

Pushing back on the comparisons between a potential Hamas deal and the Hezbollah ceasefire, Senor noted that in Lebanon, the Lebanese government and Lebanese Armed Forces provide a domestic counterweight to Hezbollah able to enforce demilitarization. In Gaza, no Arab states have stepped forward to carry out governance and demilitarization.

At the same time, Senor said that President Donald Trump’s proposal of mass relocation of the Palestinian population is not a realistic solution. He added that Israel will need a substantial buffer zone between its population in the south and the population in Gaza to feel safe in returning people to communities close to the Gaza border.

Yadlin pushed back, arguing that the relocation threat would provide Arab states the necessary motivation to become directly involved.

Yadlin added that Trump’s work to cultivate investments from the Gulf in combination with the strikes on Iran have shown the American people that the Middle East does not have to only be a region of loss and suffering, but one that has real promise.

Asked if Israel and the United States’ quick and devastating military campaign against Iran was a signal that the world had overestimated the threat from Iran, the panelists argued that was not the case. Instead, they said, many had underestimated Israel’s own capabilities and preparations, and the destruction of Iran’s proxies significantly undermined Iran’s ability to threaten Israel.

“You have to remember that Israel has prepared this war for decades, for many, many years, especially the last few months, but for decades,” he said.

McGurk added that the U.S. and Israeli interceptions of missiles fired during Iran’s October 2024 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent destruction of Iran’s air defense systems under the Biden administration set the stage for last month’s strikes, which he characterized as the result of close coordination across multiple administrations for years.

Looking ahead, Herzog said that there are not yet clear answers on the extent to which Iran maintains nuclear capabilities, but said that the strikes’ impact on Iran’s decision-making is also critical: whether it will race to a nuclear device to protect itself or — as Herzog said he believes — it is deterred and will move slowly and carefully if it attempts to resume its nuclear program.

He said there are two paths ahead: a new nuclear deal, including no enrichment and with intrusive inspections, which is nevertheless controversial in Israel because it would provide Iran with sanctions relief to rebuild its capabilities, or Israel’s continued use of force, which brings its own set of questions and challenges.

Herzog also said he’s hopeful that the strikes have deepened the divide between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people.

Yadlin similarly argued that the timetable for Iran’s nuclear program is less important than what kind of agreement can now be reached.

He said that the attacks had disproven Iran’s key calculus about its nuclear program: that Israel had the will but not the capabilities to do significant damage to the program, and that the U.S. had the capabilities but not the will.

McGurk and Herzog both spoke about the initial hours of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel and their perspectives as the situation developed. Herzog, who was serving as the Israeli envoy in Washington at the time, said he received a call shortly after the onset of the attacks on Israel from a senior general shouting, “Mike, this is war, it’s not another round. It’s a war.”

McGurk said that Herzog had informed him about the attack, relaying along that same message: “It’s a massive attack, this is war.”

Herzog described McGurk, who has remained one of the most vocally pro-Israel members of President Joe Biden’s team since leaving office, as “the best partner that I could wish for,” adding that the then-White House official immediately offered full U.S. support for Israel.

McGurk emphasized that, early in the war, there were significant fears that Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies, or even Iran itself, would also mobilize against Israel, which would constitute an “existential threat.” 

He recounted a call between Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the first days of the war. “Netanyahu said, ‘Joe, we’re in the Middle East, and in the Middle East, if you’re weak, you’re roadkill.’ Everybody sharpened their knives, and that’s what was happening,” McGurk said.

He said that intelligence showed early signs Hezbollah was preparing a ground invasion, and that Israeli and American officials had intensively discussed the possibility of a preemptive, Israeli attack in Lebanon, ultimately deciding against it due to Hezbollah’s strength at the time and Israel’s need to focus on Gaza. McGurk said he still believes that was the right decision.

McGurk, seen as one of the strongest champions in the Biden administration for the expansion of the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia, said he’d been in discussion on Oct. 6 with visiting Saudi and other Middle Eastern leaders about “some things that were potentially going to be quite positive over the coming six months a year.”

He also pushed back on narratives from critics that the normalization efforts were a “white whale” that the U.S. chased in spite of reality. Instead, he said, the talks began because the Israelis and Saudis both approached the U.S. and asked them to mediate. He said the constant media leaks about the talks had hampered the process, and that they should have been conducted more privately.

“I think ultimately it will happen,” McGurk said. “What knocked it off was Hamas.”

Addressing the global spread of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment, Herzog said that “we [Israel] should do a better job” of pushing back on anti-Israel narratives, describing the public and diplomatic debate as an additional front in the war Israel is fighting.

Senor added that the Oct. 7 attack “brought something to the surface that was not about the way Israel should operate in Gaza,” appearing to be a “trigger moment for trying to drive Jews underground” in a way he had not expected.

Looking particularly at college campuses, Senor urged Jews to turn to alternative schools than the higher education institutions where they have faced harassment and discrimination, and to invest in those institutions rather than the ones that have not served them well in recent years.

ASPEN, Colo. — Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo argued at the Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday that post-war reconstruction of Gaza will require new tools, methods and partners.

Adeyemo, who served in the Biden administration, said that a lasting solution will require a political settlement that provides the Palestinians with “some type of self-determination” and ensures Israeli security, but that some level of reconstruction and stability will need to precede both of those things. He said one estimate placed the cost of a reconstruction effort at $50 billion.

“We’re going to need to think about this differently with new tools, in new ways, because the thing that you want to do, not just in Gaza, but as we think about reconstruction differently, is we want it to be reconstruction that’s creating economic opportunity in the places that we are reconstructing,” Adeyemo said.

He said that will require a coalition, including new countries as well as private sector partners, because some of the actors involved in previous reconstruction efforts in Gaza have less of an appetite to spend money on the effort than they have in the past. International donors, led by Qatar, pledged upwards of $5 billion for the reconstruction of Gaza following the 2014 war with Israel.

Adeyemo added that it’s crucial that the reconstruction leads to a stable economy in which civilians aren’t reliant on extremist groups. He offered as an example that in prewar Gaza, obtaining fuel for an air conditioning unit required a relationship with Hamas and paying taxes to the terror group.

“Fundamentally, that was because of underinvestment in infrastructure,” Adeyemo said. “So as we think about infrastructure, I think the thing that you will want to think about in postconflict areas, Gaza or others, is, how do you do it in a way that not only restores basic infrastructure and basic equipment, but actually thinks about long term economic development in these areas?”

Former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns said at the Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday that Israel is now in the strongest geopolitical position in its history following the seismic changes throughout the Middle East that have taken place in the past two years.

Burns is a co-chair of the Aspen Security Forum and was a top member of President Joe Biden’s national security team.

“Israel is in such an extraordinary position. … Think about Israel being born, created May 14, 1948, besieged over decades by attacks and enmity from all of its Arab neighbors, now the strongest country in the Middle East,” Burns said as he opened the forum’s second day of events. “Israel’s in the strongest geopolitical position it’s ever been in, after the extraordinary events in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iran, in Syria over the last two years.”

In his opening remarks at the conference the day prior, Burns said that Iran is “in its weakest strategic position since the Iranian revolution.”

“Consider the impact these turbulent series of events of the last few years have had on Yemen and on poor Lebanon, which is searching for true stability and independence, on the people of Syria. Consider the impact on the people of Gaza and the desperate situation that the people in Gaza are suffering right now,” Burns added.

The 2025 Aspen Security Forum kicks off today and finds itself unexpectedly thrust into the ideological fights gripping the administration.

The Defense Department announced Monday that it would be withdrawing numerous senior military and civilian officials who had been set to speak at the conference.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Jewish Insider: “Senior Department of Defense officials will no longer be participating at the Aspen Security Forum because their values do not align with the values of the DoD. The Department will remain strong in its focus to increase the lethality of our warfighters, revitalize the warrior ethos, and project ‘Peace Through Strength’ on the world stage. It is clear the ASF is not in alignment with these goals.” Spokesperson Kinglsey Wilson offered even more pointed criticism to right-leaning outlet Just the News, saying the conference “promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.”

It’s tough criticism of a forum that prides itself on bipartisanship and aims to foster cross-partisan dialogue and solution-making, even as those attributes are in short supply in today’s Washington. The forum said in a statement, “we will miss the participation of the Pentagon, but our invitations remain open. … The Aspen Security Forum remains committed to providing a platform for informed, non-partisan debate about the most important security challenges facing the world,” noting that voices across the political spectrum will be speaking this week.

Many had been hoping to hear Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, who was originally scheduled for a panel discussing the evolution of warfare, speak about his agency’s leaked report suggesting the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had minimal effects, but Kruse was among the speakers withdrawn by the Pentagon.

Among the administration speakers still scheduled to appear are hostage envoy Adam Boehler, speaking on Thursday, and Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria. Barrack will be speaking on a Friday panel about the Middle East alongside former CIA Director David Petraeus and former Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell McCormick.

Wednesday’s Israel-focused panel will feature former IDF Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog, former Biden administration official Brett McGurk and author and “Call Me Back” podcast host Dan Senor. 

An Iran-focused panel on Thursday will include former U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, former CEO of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Rachel Bronson and Johns Hopkins professor Vali Nasr.

There’s likely to be plenty of discussion throughout the week about the ways the Trump administration’s strikes on Iran will shape policy in the Middle East — and throughout the world — going forward, and about the ongoing impacts of the war in Gaza.

Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will be speaking on Friday on a panel with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper and former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will also be speaking Friday, on AI and cybersecurity issues, respectively. Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo will speak on Thursday about international aid and trade.

Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Mark Warner (D-VA) will lead the conference’s annual “View from the Senate” panel on Friday.

We’ll be keeping an ear out for discussion about the internal debates between hawks and isolationists taking place within the Trump administration over America’s role and engagement in key global arenas — from the Middle East to Ukraine and Asia. We’ll also be tracking  proposed efforts to restructure the U.S. intelligence community.

Expect a significant focus throughout the week on the many ways that the Trump administration’s unpredictable foreign policy — from its recommitment to providing Ukraine military aid to the status of tariffs against key countries, along with the recent, sweeping cuts to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development — is shaking up global affairs, how the private sector and foreign countries are adapting and how leaders can attempt to maintain bipartisanship on foreign policy.