Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that young people in America are won over “pretty quickly” by the truth about the situation in Israel, when discussing New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on a podcast released Monday, and suggested that Mamdani’s policies would be unpopular if he’s elected.

“A lot of people have been taken in by this nonsense,” Netanyahu said, on the “Full Send” podcast, hosted by a social media influencer group called the Nelk Boys popular with young men.

“Sometimes folly overtakes human affairs for a while, but not for long, because reality steps in,” Netanyahu said. “I’m obviously not happy with it, but I’m less concerned with it, because I think if we can speak the truth to the young people of America, they wise up pretty quickly.”

The Israeli leader also addressed other policies supported by Mamdani, including the Democratic mayoral nominee’s past support for defunding the police and raising taxes.

“You want to defund the police? You want to have people go into stores and rob them and be free? You think that really creates a good society? You want to crush all enterprise? You want to tax people to death?” Netanyahu said. “That’s a one-term effort, but sometimes you have to get mugged by reality to understand how stupid that is. So that’s silly.”

A newly released CNN poll, conducted this month, illustrates the resilience of a hawkish DNA within the Republican Party and among its voters even amid the rise of an isolationist strain that has sought to gain influence in the GOP during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The poll asked respondents: “Do you think the United States should or should not take the leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international problems?” Overall, 43% took the more active approach, while 56% took a more isolationist view.

Republicans, however, remained the strongest advocates of a muscular American role in world affairs, with 52% supporting America taking a leading role and 47% opposed. By contrast, just 42% of Democrats and 39% of independents shared the more hawkish worldview.

Notably, the shift in more isolationist sentiment was almost entirely driven by Democrats and independents since the last CNN survey in March, which found majority support for significant American global engagement. In the March survey, a 57% majority of Democrats preferred more American involvement in the world, a number that dropped 15 points in the last four months. The Republican share of those preferring American engagement remained steady at 52%.

The results from the CNN polls suggest there’s a more committed core of Republican-voting hawks that is more resilient than the shifting political winds, whereas the Democratic foreign policy worldview appears more dependent on partisanship and what’s happening in the news at the time. 

In March, at the time of the first CNN poll, Democrats showed a surge of support for foreign engagement — in large part, because they were responding to the hostile reception Trump delivered at the time to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was seeking American military aid to his country. Back then, Trump wrongly blamed Zelensky for causing the war, and attacked him as a dictator in the run-up to the ugly confrontation at the White House. It was the high point of isolationism in Trump’s second term — and prompted an uptick of hawkishness among Democrats.

But since then, Trump has sharpened his rhetoric against Russian President Vladimir Putin and agreed to send Ukraine offensive weapons, in a reversal of his previous reluctance. He also decided to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities despite alarmism from an isolationist faction within his party, which turned out to be a major military (and political) success. 

A recent Echelon Insights survey underscored that Trump’s hawkish turn has broadened and deepened support for strongly supporting American allies within the party. A clear 49-36% of Trump voters, asked if they supported continuing to give weapons to Ukraine, said yes. When informed that it was Trump’s decision to aid Ukraine further, nearly two-thirds of Trump supporters embraced the decision.

The actions on Capitol Hill are consistent with the polling. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) proposed a series of amendments cutting off aid to foreign allies, the vast majority of Republicans voted against them. Even on her proposal to cut military aid for Ukraine, 141 of the 217 House Republicans took the pro-Ukraine side. 

And when Greene proposed to block missile defense funding that the U.S. gives to Israel, only one other Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), joined her. Indeed, there were more Democrats who joined with MTG (four) than Republicans — in a sign of the “horseshoe theory” of the far left and far right uniting in their extremism.

Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program appears to have created a momentum shift within the party, pushing back the faction of isolationists seeking to gain influence in the administration but also building support for a familiar brand of muscular engagement that has defined the party for generations.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told Jewish Insider on Friday that he’s inclined to view the Trump administration’s strikes last month on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a “success,” if negotiations with Tehran resume and barring substantial future retaliation from Iran.

His comments largely echo sentiments shared earlier in the day by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) at the Aspen Security Forum, suggesting an increasing willingness by moderate, national security-minded Democrats to publicly acknowledge positive outcomes of the strikes, even if they maintain other concerns about the process that produced them.

“I will acknowledge the successfulness of the Israeli attacks and how back-foot the regime was. The fact that they didn’t launch the thousands of missiles,” Warner told JI on the sidelines of the forum. “I was concerned about an attack that didn’t bring Congress along. And I do think there was a huge process foul when the Gang of Eight wasn’t notified and the Republicans [were]. Trump[’s first administration] never did that — but I have never contested the success.”

Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s been pleased that there has not been ongoing asymmetric retaliation against the U.S. by Iran, such as cyber, sleeper cell or Iraqi militia attacks.

“If the current status quo is the same a year from now and it actually leads towards further negotiation — success.”

Warner, Coons and other top Democrats had cautioned the administration against unilateral action against Iran without congressional approval just days before the attack.

“Let’s make no doubt that the Iranian regime [are] bad guys, and that is why I’ve been such a consistent supporter of Israel,” Warner told JI.

“Iran’s, at least so far, been shown to be more of a paper tiger,” Warner said. “If we could just get to the resolution in Gaza, there really could be a fresh start.”

The senator said that his ongoing concern is how President Donald Trump has responded to the attacks, declaring that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely obliterated.

“The president, within two hours of the strike, set an arbitrary, almost impossible standard to meet, in terms of ‘total obliteration,’” Warner said. “To get the enriched uranium you’re going to need troops on the ground. And there are more than three sites — the vast majority [of the activity] was [at] those three, but there was some bad stuff happening elsewhere.”

He said the intelligence community had also been pressured to “contort itself to meet” the assessment Trump put forward.

In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Warner and other Democrats expressed frustration that the Trump administration took days to brief Congress about them. Warner said he’s received “some additional clarity” in the weeks since the strikes about their effects. But he said that without physically sending operatives into the facilities, it’s difficult to know for sure the impacts of the strikes.

“Other nations have made assessments that were more in the multiple months” of delay to Iran’s nuclear program, “but I’m not even sure that’s the right metric,” Warner said. “It was a success. So the question is, what’s next? That, I don’t have visibility on.”

Going forward, Warner emphasized the need for negotiations to bring International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into Iran, adding that he wants to look further into the source of the delays in resuming talks.

Warner said he’s also seeking information on the timeline on which Iran would be able to build a less sophisticated nuclear device that could be delivered in a truck, rather than via a ballistic missile.

Though he noted that U.S. intelligence had not assessed that Iran was actively constructing a nuclear weapon, he said he had heard reports about an Israeli assessment that offered a different view and that he is looking further into it.

Asked about the fluid situation in Syria, in which Israel went, in the span of just a week, from floating normalization with the new Syrian government to bombing key government facilities in response to attacks on the Druze population, Warner indicated he’s still gathering information.

He said that Israel is “appropriately … very protective of its Druze population,” adding that he does not know at this point whether the Syrian government forces attacking the Druze population are doing so at the orders of that government. 

He said he’s hopeful that Israel and other parties involved will not miss an opportunity to find a peaceful resolution that could defuse a major longtime threat to Israel’s north.

Warner said he also wants to see Trump use his “enormous influence in Israel” to “[force] Bibi’s government into a return of the hostages, a ceasefire,” saying that would open up opportunities for transformational change in the region, including Saudi-Israeli normalization.

Warner said that while he’s been critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel and the IDF deserve credit for their surprise accomplishments in taking down Iran’s proxy network and in their strikes against Iran itself.

“The [Jewish community’s] concern is real and understandable,” Warner said. He said that he has been struck by the “level of anger, animosity, vile things said” in anti-Israel protests that have targeted him — “and I’m not Jewish. And I can only imagine.”

“Iran’s, at least so far, been shown to be more of a paper tiger,” Warner said. “If we could just get to the resolution in Gaza, there really could be a fresh start.”

Asked how concerned he is about the possibility of homeland attacks against the Jewish community carried out by or in the name of Iran, Warner said that U.S. intelligence monitors potential threats fairly comprehensively, but indicated that he’s most worried about radicalized lone-wolf attacks, like those in Washington and Boulder, Colo.

“The [Jewish community’s] concern is real and understandable,” Warner said. He said that he has been struck by the “level of anger, animosity, vile things said” in anti-Israel protests that have targeted him — “and I’m not Jewish. And I can only imagine.”

Warner expressed frustration at the way that the Palestinian cause has crowded out other global issues on college campuses. He said that it “would be healthy” if young people “have the chance to get exposed to other things in the world,” offering as examples the conflict in Sudan — which he said has been more deadly than Gaza and Ukraine combined — and the military junta in Myanmar.

On the subject of the Houthis, who have ramped up attacks against commercial shipping and Israel in recent weeks, Warner called the group a “tough nut to crack,” noting that a protracted Saudi and Emirati campaign against the Iran-backed terrorist group in Yemen had failed to put the issue to bed. But he said that the U.S. can’t rule out further military action against the group.

“I hope that those plans would be kept classified and not shared … on a device that’s not secure,” he quipped, referencing the Signalgate scandal, which he said had prompted concern from the Israeli government.

******

Last week’s Aspen summit, which typically prioritizes bipartisan and nonpartisan discussion and solution-making, became particularly politicized after nearly all Trump administration speakers canceled their participation, followed by a handful of foreign and private sector leaders and former government officials disappearing from the week’s agenda.

The issue was a frequent topic of discussion both on the main stage and across the Aspen Meadows campus last week, seen by many as a sign of the ways that intense partisanship has infiltrated U.S. foreign policy, once seen as a less antagonistic space.

Warner’s own panel featured himself and Coons, but not a Republican senator, as has been tradition.

Nevertheless, Warner said that bipartisanship on foreign policy issues still lives in the Senate, noting that the Intelligence Committee had passed an Intelligence Authorization Act recently in a nearly unanimous vote.

Looking ahead, he said the “easiest place to rebuild that consensus is around China,” which he described as an unprecedented competitor. He said there has been a long and difficult journey across multiple administrations to refocus on China, but he said there has been bipartisan success in pushing back against China.

He also argued that the Trump administration’s transactional and short-sighted approach to foreign policy goes against a longtime bipartisan tradition of viewing U.S. international relationships as an effort in “mutual trust-building.”

He said that his Republican colleagues privately disagree with many of Trump’s more outlandish foreign policy efforts — like annexing Canada. “At some point, there’s got to be a break,” he responded, when pressed on the fact that some Republicans defend Trump’s policies publicly despite those private disagreements.

Warner told JI that the bill the Intelligence Committee recently passed would cut the size of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But, despite offering biting criticisms of DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Warner said that the reform efforts are not a reflection of or specifically prompted by concerns about her conduct in the role.

“I’m very comfortable with the idea of bringing the mission closer to what it was originally, but also making sure that people who are at the ODNI get returned to their original home agency and don’t get [fired],” Warner said.

Clarifying comments that he made on the panel about close U.S. intelligence partners in the Five Eyes group curtailing their intelligence sharing with the United States, Warner said he was not aware of specific instances in which that had happened, but said that U.S. partners are concerned about the state of the U.S. intelligence community.

“The challenge about intelligence sharing is [that] this is all based on trust,” Warner said.

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.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin defended himself on Friday amid criticism that his response to a question about New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan did not sufficiently express his own view that the phrase should be condemned.

“The right-wing lie machine is at it again. That’s not what I said in this interview. I’ve never supported or condoned the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’, a phrase which is reckless and dangerous, as it can been [sic] seen as a green light to terror, and it should be unequivocally condemned,” Martin wrote in a response on X to the Washington Free Beacon.

“Let me be clear, at a time of rising antisemitism, there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence,” he added.

Several Jewish Democrats and organizations that represent them defended Martin’s handling of the Wednesday “PBS NewsHour” interview fallout.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Jewish Insider on Friday that, “We welcome the clarification from Chair Martin that the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’ is reckless and dangerous because it can be seen as a green light to terror. Chair Martin has never supported or condoned this phrase, and has now made it clear that there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence in the Democratic Party.”

“He also said that this phrase should be unequivocally condemned, and we would like to see all Democrats do exactly that,” Soifer told JI. 

The Democratic Majority for Israel said in a statement that the group “appreciates the recognition by DNC chair Ken Martin that the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’ is a dangerous call to incite violent action against Jews & Israelis.” 

“During the last two intifadas, thousands of innocent Israelis — Arabs and Jews — were victims of Palestinian terrorism. Words have meanings, and the meaning of that phrase is clear to those who have experienced the intifadas. This incitement of violence should never be acceptable and must be condemned unequivocally,” the statement continued.

Martin’s Friday comment was met with criticism from several Jewish Democrats.

Georgia Democratic state Rep. Esther Panitch took issue with the DNC chairman’s response, writing on X, “I am not right-wing, and I know what I heard. You have welcomed the person who refused to condemn the phrase you call dangerous. Why?”

Sara Forman, the executive director of the New York Solidarity Network, an organization representing Jews in New York, criticized Martin in a lengthy X post on Friday for his handling of the interview question and his subsequent tweet clarifying his position. 

“There is no excuse the chair of @TheDemocrats could come up with to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Ken Martin is the chair of the DNC and his idiotic ‘big tent’ comment is now a party position with a high cost – the loss of normal Democrats around the country,” Forman wrote.

“Incumbents will be held accountable for his words against Republican challengers who will make it very difficult and expensive to hold swing districts. And D challengers will be playing right into the hands of their Republican incumbent opponents when they distance themselves from his comments,” she continued. “For a party chair to fundamentally misunderstand his role, which is to fundraise so Democrats can win elections, is insane.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) has stood apart in recent weeks as one of a small number of congressional Democrats who’ve been supportive of the Trump administration’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

He argued in an interview with Jewish Insider last week and in a recent op-ed that the Israeli and American show of force, alongside the undermining of Iran’s proxies across the region, could be the key to weakening the Iranian regime to a point where it will agree to a fundamental change of course going forward, unlocking opportunities for regional peace and prosperity. And, he said, it’s critical that the U.S. move forward in a truly unified and bipartisan manner to capitalize on that opportunity.

Landsman told JI he thinks that his Democratic colleagues’ responses to the strikes are motivated by the current political environment, fears about a broader war and concerns about the future of diplomatic talks and the safety of people in the region.

“We’re just in a different political environment than the one I grew up in,” Landsman, 48, said. “The one I grew up in was ‘politics stops at the water’s edge,’ which I loved. … The thinking behind it … is that when we take on these really complicated foreign policy issues, that we do it in a bipartisan way, and that’s not the environment we live in right now.”

He said there’s also a “legitimate concern that it would provoke further attacks or it would instigate a broader war.” Landsman has argued that the current situation is fundamentally different from the run-up to the Iraq war that many skeptics of the strikes have invoked.

Some colleagues, he added, may have also had concerns about compromising diplomatic efforts or “legitimate concerns for people’s safety. But I think for others, and for a lot of folks, it’s just political,” he said.

Landsman said he still hews to the older approach, believing that it’s critical to work toward bipartisan common ground in critical foreign policy questions. He highlighted that the American people overwhelmingly oppose the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

“I think the American people want [our Middle East policy] to be bipartisan, all of it,” Landsman said. “I think they’re tired of the partisanship in general, but in particular, as it relates to how we resolve these international conflicts and how we take advantage of international or global opportunities, I think they are done with all of this being so partisan.”

He said he still believes a diplomatic solution with Iran is possible and necessary, but said the regime needed to be weakened and see that the U.S. is willing to use force in order to agree to totally dismantle its nuclear program and allow comprehensive international inspections and to dismantle its terrorist proxies .

Unlike some supporters of the strikes, Landsman said he doesn’t think regime change in Iran is the most productive goal, and that the U.S. should instead leverage the regime’s vulnerability for a more favorable deal and fundamental change to the regime’s posture.

“This regime wants to stay in power. If they decide — which they can, and now they’re so weakened that it’s an easier decision for them, and that’s why the strikes were important — they can decide, ‘We’re going to focus on the Iranian people’” and abandon terrorism and their ambitions to destroy Israel, Landsman said. “They could unlock the talent of tens of millions of incredibly brilliant people that have been stuck in Iran under this regime.”

He said that achieving that will “require real engagement and leadership” from both Congress and the executive branch.

Landsman has proposed establishing a bipartisan and bicameral congressional committee to work toward Middle East peace, and argued that the administration needs an expanded team working on the issue, describing Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff as stretched too thin.

“They need to lay out a vision for ending hostilities with Iran and ending the war in Gaza and giving people a sense of what will happen next in terms of peace and stability and security,” Landsman said.

The congressman argued that these issues are too difficult and too important for Congress to be excluded, or to be treated in a partisan manner. He pushed for deep and ongoing executive branch engagement with Congress, not just providing briefings, but in strategizing and building a lasting solution going forward.

Finally putting the Iranian threat to bed would set the Middle East on a fundamentally different course, Landsman argued. “[The Middle East] should be Europe, [if not] for Iran. It hasn’t been able to break out that way because Iran has been the primary obstacle.”

“Getting to a point where Iran is slowly but surely being removed as a threat opens up all the doors,” he said. “It just changes the dynamic for everybody.”

He said he believes leaders across the region see a path toward ending the war in Gaza and the long-running conflicts and building “a Middle East that’s entirely free from terror and countries are working together” and prospering.

In spite of the deep divisions that have increasingly characterized discussions in the United States on Israel and the Middle East since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks, Landsman said he still believes that “the list of what we agree on is way bigger than the list of what folks may disagree on.”

The points of agreement across the American political spectrum include: that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon; that Iran needs to be subject to stringent inspections; that Iran needs to cease its support for terrorists; that Hezbollah must be disarmed; that the war in Gaza needs to end; that the hostages need to be returned; that Hamas needs to be removed from power; and that international investment in collaboration with Israel and non-Hamas Palestinian leaders is needed to move Gaza forward.

“More international pressure can be brought to bear on Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis to separate them … and say ‘The world has come together. We are going to pick the side of those who want to rebuild the region and rebuild it free of terror and corruption,’” Landsman said. “Ultimately, when you have the kind of security that any country would need and expect, then you get back to the negotiating table.”

Landsman has spoken on multiple occasions in recent months about his aspirations for an abiding peace in the Middle East, a vision that he says is driven by a lifetime of connection and passion for Israel and the region.

He said his Jewish upbringing had inculcated in him a sense of connection to the importance of Israel for the Jewish people.

Landsman said that efforts to negotiate between Israel and the Palestinians were also a constant feature of his youth, and that he believes that there is still broad agreement on the goal of a durable peace that can provide security for Israel and self-determination and self-governance for the Palestinians.

A Harvard Divinity School graduate, the Ohio congressman has visited Israel numerous times as a lawmaker, but also traveled there frequently and built connections in his previous work in education advocacy. After implementing new preschool programs in the Cincinnati area, Landsman was asked to help work with Ethiopian Israelis to improve educational outcomes, an effort that grew between 2015 and 2020.

He said his time on the ground in Israel showed him that Jews and Palestinians “have a lot in common” — shared history, a shared home and common experiences of expulsion and rejection. And it highlighted to him the extent to which Arab Israelis are part of and integrated into Israeli society.

“I have built up this legitimate affection and love for these two communities of people that, because of circumstance, have been fighting,” Landsman said. “Ending that would transform everything — not just their lives, but the region and the world.”

Rep. Nellie Pou (D-NJ) starts out her first re-election campaign at a crossroads: Running in a historically deep-blue district that President Trump surprisingly carried, she’s caught between her background as a liberal leader and the pressures of a purple district that could pull her toward the political middle to preempt Republican opposition. 

Pou — who has never faced such a competitive general election in her political career — has generally leaned left while keeping a relatively low profile on the Hill. She joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus and stuck with the majority of her party on many key votes, including some pertaining to antisemitism and Israel that divided the Democratic caucus. She now faces a well-credentialed GOP challenger — Clifton, N.J., councilmember Rose Pino — as the Republican Party hopes to keep her urban north New Jersey district on its target list.

Despite representing a district with a sizable Jewish population, she didn’t join many of the moderates in her party in voting for a Republican-led resolution last month condemning the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colo., urging stronger enforcement of immigration laws and supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Boulder resolution split the Democratic caucus, with 75 lawmakers voting for the resolution and 113 voting against it. Some Democrats objected to the immigration-related language. 

Pou, and nearly all other Democrats, voted in favor of a second resolution condemning a series of recent antisemitic attacks without that language.

“Congresswoman Pou believes that the rise of antisemitism in the United States and across the world is alarming and unacceptable. That’s why Congresswoman Pou voted in favor of a resolution on the House floor fully condemning antisemitism,” Pou spokesperson Mark Greenbaum told Jewish Insider. “And it’s why she is using her position on the Homeland Security Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee to demand increased funding for law enforcement to keep our Jewish communities safe and greater federal grants for synagogues and schools to upgrade their security.”

Pou also voted earlier this year against sanctioning the International Criminal Court, another vote that split House Democrats. Forty-five Democrats supported the sanctions.

But she has joined other efforts to support Israel and the Jewish community during her tenure, including signing a letter urging prompt federal approval of additional flights by Israeli airlines between the U.S. and Israel and calling for $500 million in funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program in 2025.

Pou’s district, New Jersey’s 9th, has both significant Jewish and Palestinian constituencies. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Pou’s predecessor who died in August 2024, faced a primary challenge from Prospect Park, N.J., Mayor Mohamed Khairullah, who focused his campaign squarely on criticizing Pascrell’s support for Israel. 

Pou was tapped by New Jersey Democratic leaders to replace Pascrell on the ballot after the congressman died during the election cycle — and they assumed she would face little opposition in future elections.

Pou’s district was considered a safe Democratic seat before the election, and Trump’s performance came as a surprise to Democrats, leaving Pou, the former majority leader in the state Senate, on guard as she prepares to defend her seat next year. 

Pou told the New Jersey Globe she takes political pressures into consideration on divisive votes, “But I also think it’s [about] doing the right thing.”

“Politics is very important, and I would love to make sure I have the opportunity to return back to Congress,” Pou said. “But I also think that we are here to do a job, and that we should be doing it with the right reasons in mind.”

Pino, a leading GOP recruit, announced her campaign on Thursday. Pino is a longtime local official and the child of Ecuadorian immigrants. Pou herself is the first Latina woman from New Jersey to serve in Congress. The district has a sizable Hispanic population.

Republican Billy Prempeh, whom Pou beat by five percentage points in the 2024 election, is also running again. Prempeh was endorsed by the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations last year and supported cutting off U.S. aid to Israel to stop the war in Gaza; opposed Israeli strikes on Gaza, saying in part, “I’m not dying for Israel”; and opposed the Antisemitism Awareness Act.

Andre Sayegh, the mayor of Paterson, N.J., who called his city “the capital of Palestine in the United States of America” and has been critical of Israel, is a potential primary challenger to Pou.

Pou’s re-election campaign raised $500,000 in the second quarter, reporting $780,000 on hand.

Trump won the district by a point, after President Joe Biden won it by nearly 20 points in 2020. Pou’s margin of victory was also substantially smaller than Pascrell’s in previous races, and Republicans see her as a top target in 2026.

“Nellie Pou went to Congress pledging to be a friend of Israel and the Jewish community, but that was a pledge she never intended to keep,” National Republican Campaign Committee spokesperson Maureen O’Toole said. “The truth is, Pou is backed and bankrolled by rabid antisemites, and her vote … makes it clear that she stands with them. Nellie Pou won’t be sitting in her Trump-won district much longer.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pushed back, noting her vote in favor of the second antisemitism resolution that passed the House nearly unanimously.

“Congresswoman Nellie Pou has been outspoken on combatting antisemitism and joined Republicans and Democrats in voting for a bipartisan resolution to condemn the horrific attack in Boulder, Colorado,” a DCCC spokesperson told JI. “Nellie is working hard to lower costs and deliver for New Jersey’s 9th District, which is exactly what her constituents elected her to do.” 

The DCCC spokesperson also highlighted Pou’s work in supporting police funding and opposing the GOP reconciliation bill.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin declined on Wednesday to criticize New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan. The DNC chair, who was elected earlier this year, praised the party for being a “big tent” comprising different ideologies, including “leftists” such as Mamdani.

Asked during a “PBS NewsHour” interview about concerns from Jewish Democrats regarding Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase, Martin replied, “There’s no candidate in this party that I agree 100 percent of the time with, to be honest with you. There’s things that I don’t agree with Mamdani that he said.”

Martin said that he had learned through his 14 years as chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party and his tenure at the DNC “that you win through addition. You win by bringing people into your coalition. We have conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist.”

“We win by bringing people into that coalition. And at the end of the day, for me, that’s the type of party we’re going to lead. We are a big tent party. Yes, it leads to dissent and debate, and there’s differences of opinions on a whole host of issues. But we should celebrate that as a party and recognize, at the end of the day, we’re better because of it,” Martin said.

Martin also argued that national Democrats could learn from Mamdani’s primary campaign performance in terms of focusing their message away from President Donald Trump and toward a forward-looking vision.

“He campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can’t just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There’s no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we’re for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power,” Martin said.

“One of the lessons from Mamdani’s campaign is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live,” he continued.

Martin praised the methods by which Mamdani’s campaign got its message out.

“The other lessons, of course, is the tactics he used to get his message out, both a very aggressive in-person campaigning, meeting voters where they’re at, and then also in those digital spaces, using very creative messaging to cut through the noise and to get to voters in an inexpensive but authentic way,” he said.

California’s state Senate has delayed consideration of a bipartisan bill meant to strengthen statewide protections against antisemitism, four key senators announced on Tuesday, days after the state’s largest teachers’ union announced its opposition to the legislation. 

The bumpy road for the bill, which is focused on countering antisemitism in K-12 education, stands in contrast to its earlier passage in the state Assembly. In May, the body voted unanimously to pass the legislation. 

It was slated to be debated by the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday in a hearing that has now been postponed indefinitely. 

“Antisemitism must never be normalized, and we must put a stop to it in our schools,” wrote Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire; Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, the education committee chair; and Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, co-chairs of the Legislative Jewish Caucus. All are Democrats. “We are committed to doing so and will be working overtime with a broad coalition over the summer to send an antisemitism bill to the governor by the end of this year’s legislative session in September.”

Wiener told Jewish Insider on Tuesday that the delay is “good news for the bill.”

“We just need more time, and now we have it,” said Wiener, who represents San Francisco. “I’m optimistic we’ll pass a strong antisemitism bill this year to protect Jewish students in our schools.”

The Senate has until Sept. 12 to pass the bill and send it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. It is not expected to be considered again until mid-August, after a monthlong summer recess. 

A spokesperson for the California Teachers Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. 

Leading Jewish communal groups in California sharply criticized the CTA on Monday and pledged to lobby hard for the bill’s passage. 

David Bocarsly, executive director of Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California — the umbrella group leading Jewish advocacy efforts for the bill — said the fact that the leader of the Senate and the chair of the education committee signed onto the statement signals that Democratic leadership is taking the bill seriously, though he acknowledged that passage is not guaranteed.

“We lose a little bit of the tangible reassurance, but we’ve gained some significant commitments from Senate leadership, which might be even more important,” Bocarsly told JI.

Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat and the bill’s co-sponsor, said the delay will also allow the Legislature to consider concerns from some in the Jewish community that the measure does not go far enough in actually addressing “the kinds of harm, ostracism and incidents that are actually occurring in the schools.”

Navigating the competing concerns of the teachers’ unions and the Jewish community has already been a balancing act for the bill’s authors. When asked if he thinks the bill can pass without the support of the CTA, Zbur did not offer a firm answer.

“I think we are committed to doing what we need to do to get the bill passed,” he told JI. “It can’t wait another year and I think we’ve got the entire Jewish caucus — this is our highest priority, and we’re determined to get this bill passed, and that means doing everything we can to help everyone understand that this is a problem and that there are things that we need to do to try to rectify it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday blamed coordinated anti-Israel advocacy campaigns for recent polls showing falling support for the Jewish state in the United States, particularly among Democrats, but argued that effective Israeli counter-messaging could reverse those trends.

Recent surveys have shown that support for Israel has declined among Democrats since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, with a majority now viewing Israel unfavorably.

“I am certainly interested in maintaining the great support that Israel has had. I think there’s been a concerted effort to spread vilifications and demonization against Israel on social media,” Netanyahu said in response to a question from Jewish Insider at a news conference on Capitol Hill following a closed-door meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).

“It’s funded, it’s malignant, and we intend to fight it, because nothing defeats lies like the truth, and we shall spread the truth for everyone to see it,” Netanyahu continued. “Once people are exposed to the facts, we win, hands down.”

The Israeli premier hinted that he may have a second meeting with President Donald Trump before leaving the U.S. later this week, following their Monday evening meeting, as some media reports have indicated.

At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Jewish Insider's @marcrod97 asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about polls showing falling support for Israel in the U.S.

"I think there’s been a concerted effort to spread vilifications and demonization against Israel on social… pic.twitter.com/z5JwidJeo5

— Jewish Insider (@J_Insider) July 8, 2025

Netanyahu said he and Trump had discussed the need to “finish the job in Gaza, release all our hostages, eliminate and destroy Hamas’ military and governance capabilities” in their private conversation on Monday — an issue left unaddressed in their public remarks.

Netanyahu told reporters that he has continued to work on ceasefire efforts as recently as this morning. Asked about a Hamas counterproposal, Netanyahu emphasized that Israel had accepted the proposal put forward by U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and the Qatari mediators.

He demurred in response to a question about Qatar’s role in the negotiations, saying that he would “talk about the process later. I have a lot to say about it, but right now I’m totally focused on the result, as is President Trump.”

Netanyahu also aligned himself with Trump’s foreign policy motto — cribbed from President Ronald Reagan — of “peace through strength.”

“First comes strength, then comes peace,” Netanyahu said. “Our resolute action, the resolute decision of President Trump to act with us against those who seek to destroy Israel and threaten the peace of the world has made a remarkable change in the Middle East. … There are opportunities for peace that we intend to realize.”

Asked about a proposal on Capitol Hill to provide Israel with American B-2 bombers and bunker-buster bombs in the event that further strikes on Iran are needed, Netanyahu said that he would “of course … like it” if Israel had the same capabilities as the U.S., but added, “We are appreciative of the systems we receive that I think could serve not only the interests of Israel’s security, but American security and the security of the free world.”

“I won’t get into specifics. There’s much, much more to discuss, and many variegated areas that are best left a more confidential forum,” he continued.

Effie Phillips-Staley, running on a progressive platform in the crowded Democratic field looking to unseat Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) in a swing congressional district, is taking a firm stance against the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, even as she has expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“For the leader of the free world to decide to strike Iran based on Fox News coverage and without deliberation or the approval of Congress is alarming and unprecedented,” she said in a statement to Jewish Insider on Monday, a position shared by many congressional Democrats. “We cannot have a nuclear armed Iran under any circumstances and Congress must hold this President accountable by upholding the War Powers Act and requiring a full diplomatic process.”

She also expressed concern in a statement following the initial Israeli strikes on Iran.

“I do not support a nuclear Iran under any circumstances and understand Israel must preserve its security as it faces near constant threat of attacks. I am also deeply troubled at the rush to war, especially as diplomacy was underway,” Phillips-Staley said. “It is not lost on me that Trump’s decision to carelessly destroy the JCPOA in his first term has now put the lives of countless people, including Israelis and Americans, at risk. Diplomacy must be given a chance. We must prioritize the safety of innocent civilians, American personnel and peace.”

Phillips-Staley, a Tarrytown, N.Y., village trustee who has made her career in the nonprofit world focused on issues including the Hispanic community, public schools and art, told JI in an interview last month that she sees an open lane in the race for an unabashed progressive.

“I looked at the field and felt strongly that there was a space for a progressive candidate in this field, and so I decided to enter,” she said.

She’s leaning on that progressive positioning to distinguish her from a field of nearly 10 Democrats, many of whom are staking out broadly moderate or center-left platforms. Despite her criticisms of the Iran strikes, Phillips-Staley has otherwise not embraced elements of the left-wing policy agenda that have alienated Jewish voters.

Phillips-Staley said she wanted to be “very clear that the U.S. has to continue to be a critical ally to Israel,” emphasizing that Israel remains under threat and “does, of course, have a right to exist and should continue to exist.” 

She indicated that she would oppose additional conditions or restrictions on U.S. aid to the Jewish state, which she emphasized is critical to keeping Israel safe from existential threats.

But Phillips-Staley criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom she said had “repeatedly undermined” a two-state solution, while adding that Hamas cannot continue to rule Gaza.

She said she wants to see Congress work to “create incentives to find a peaceful resolution,” but emphasized that the hostages must first be released. Phillips-Staley said that her family’s El Salvadorian background helps her understand the damage that a “cycle of violence can do” and how difficult it can be to interrupt.

She described the Abraham Accords as a framework that could be built upon for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Speaking to JI in the aftermath of the antisemitic attacks in Washington and Boulder, Colo., Phillips-Staley called rising antisemitism nationwide “deeply, deeply troubling and appalling.” She suggested that brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace would help tamp down on antisemitism domestically.

“Apart from what everybody says — ‘we need more education, we need to come together more’ — I think we really have to work very hard to find a resolution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine,” Phillips-Staley said. “Peace creates peace. And the terrifying thing is … what is spilling from that unresolved conflict is now making Jews in America under threat even more, which is entirely unacceptable.”

She said the U.S. also needs to crack down on acts of violence and provide more resources to address antisemitism in the country.

Asked about the increase of domestic antisemitism predating the war in Gaza, Phillips-Staley criticized the first Trump administration, saying it had enabled and emboldened a range of unacceptable behavior, including white nationalism.

She expressed hope that a new Congress and subsequently a new presidential administration could help to reverse those trends. 

Citing her own immigrant family background, she also criticized the Trump administration for implementing immigration restrictions in the name of combating antisemitism, explaining, “anything that creates wedges, that undermines the openness of people coming together, I question as effective.”

Phillips-Staley told JI she’s running for Congress to continue what she characterized as a lifetime of service in the nonprofit sector and, later, public office. She added that as the daughter of an immigrant from El Salvador, she has close ties to the Lower Hudson Valley district’s Hispanic and immigrant communities. She said those communities had urged her to run for higher office.

She currently lags behind many of the other candidates in the 17th District race in fundraising, though she entered the race more recently than several other competitors. In the first six weeks of her campaign she only raised $52,000, loaning her campaign an additional $100,000. She ended the third quarter with $103,000 on hand.

“Effie’s campaign is people-powered and grassroots,” campaign spokesperson John Tomlin said in a statement. “She does not come to the table with a list of corporations, ultra-rich and Washington establishment figures to seed her operation. We have an active campaign and we are on target with our goals.”

Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson said she raised $350,000 in the past quarter and $850,000 since the start of her campaign, while national security veteran Cait Conley reported raising $472,000 in the second quarter and more than $800,000 since launching her campaign,  and nonprofit leader Jessica Reinmann raised $311,000 in the first quarter, $100,000 of that self-funded.

Phillips-Staley argued that her lived experience as a Hispanic person from a working-class background, who put herself through college and worked her way up from a receptionist to executive director of a nonprofit, makes her fairly unique among political candidates and leaders. 

Her key issues as a member of Congress, she said, will be affordability, particularly in housing, and protecting government services that help Americans succeed. She said she’s proud of the work she’s done on issues like infrastructure and zoning in her role in local government.

Jewish community groups and congressional Democrats are raising concerns about the Department of Homeland Security’s plans to slash 75% of the staff for the department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A).

NextGov reported that the cuts — totaling 725 of the office’s 1,000 staff — had been in progress for months but were temporarily paused following the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which federal officials warned could prompt domestic attacks. 

I&A plays a role in collecting and disseminating to local law enforcement and private partners intelligence to counter threats including terrorism and foreign adversaries. But the office has also come under criticism from various fronts in recent years over alleged domestic surveillance abuses and failures to investigate threats, and faced questions over its scope, capabilities and mission, which have prompted calls for reform.

Top congressional Democrats wrote to the administration last week criticizing the expected cuts.

“Hollowing out the office risks leaving the homeland dangerously exposed to these threats, especially at a time when the FBI’s budget is being substantially reduced,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), the ranking member of Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking members of the Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, said in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

“Radically reducing I&A’s workforce at headquarters or in the field would create dangerous and unnecessary security gaps and could again leave us in the dark about the threats that lie ahead,” the lawmakers continued.

They emphasized that, despite issues at I&A in the past, it has made progress and fills critical gaps in the intelligence infrastructure.

A coalition of Jewish community groups — the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Secure Community Network — wrote to the top lawmakers on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees last week raising similar concerns.

“We are deeply concerned that any wholesale changes to the operations of I&A will have an adverse effect on countering antisemitism and ensuring the safety of the Jewish community in the United States,” the Jewish groups wrote. “With the historic rise in antisemitic incidents and threats both targeting and impacting the American Jewish community, I&A’s role has never been more important.”

The groups highlighted the office’s mission in sharing information with partners, including state and local law enforcement, and said that they “rely on I&A to provide accurate and timely updates on behalf of the intelligence community to inform efforts for our community’s safety and security.”

The groups urged the lawmakers to work to halt changes that would jeopardize Jewish community security.

Michael Masters, SCN’s CEO, wrote separately to Noem on Monday to offer recommendations for the future of I&A, emphasizing, “as the only Intelligence Community entity statutorily mandated to share threat information with state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners, and a key information sharing partner of a non-profit entity such as ours, it is critical that we at SCN, as well as our law enforcement partners, have an effective, credible, and efficient partner in DHS I&A.”

Masters said that, while the office is a critical resource, there have been issues with I&A’s output in the past, some of which have impacted the Jewish community: “When we have received information and support from I&A, we have faced issues with the timely and credible nature of the information itself,” Masters said.

He recommended that I&A’s mission be focused in part on collaboration and information-sharing with nonprofits such as SCN and on open-source intelligence collection and coordinating with other federal intelligence agencies.

A DHS spokesperson said in a statement to JI that DHS has identified some roles and programs inside I&A as unnecessary.

​​“Under President Trump’s leadership, we focused on getting the Department of Homeland Security back to its core mission of prioritizing American safety and enforcing our laws. DHS component leads have identified redundant positions and non-critical programs within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis,” the statement reads. “The Department is actively working to identify other wasteful positions and programs that do not align with DHS’s mission to prioritize American safety and enforce our laws.”

Groups representing state and local law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association, County Sheriffs of America, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the National Fusion Center Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association, have also warned against gutting the office.

“[I&A] is the only component of the U.S. intelligence community with a statutory mandate to share threat information with state and local partners,” a letter from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, County Sheriffs of America and the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, reads. “The current threat landscape makes our partnership with [I&A] more critical than ever. Ongoing Middle East conflicts heighten risks of foreign-directed and homegrown violent extremism, as demonstrated by the recent antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado.”

After Israel’s 12-day war with Iran, the U.S. is now demanding that Tehran return to the negotiating table. 

“Told you so,” many prominent Democrats — including architects of Iran policy in both the Obama and Biden administrations — are saying in response, arguing they were right all along about the power of negotiations. But in doing so, they are also overlooking the impact of President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities on the regime’s negotiating calculus. 

The Pentagon is now saying the strikes set back the Iran nuclear program by two years. Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, the IDF’s chief of staff, said that Iran is no longer a nuclear threshold state as a result of the U.S. and Israeli attacks.

But those assessments, among other similar analyses, have done little to change the minds of some of the leading Democratic foreign policy hands who have long argued for diplomacy above all else.

Susan Rice, who served as national security advisor during President Barack Obama’s negotiations with Iran, said this week that Trump’s use of military force in Iran was a “strategic mistake,” because “diplomacy had not been exhausted.” President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, was skeptical that the impact of the brief war with Iran will be long-lasting. 

“OK, then what?” he said in an interview with CNN last week. “We still need a deal.” 

Former Secretary of State Tony Blinken was more circumspect. He called the U.S. strike on Iran “unwise and unnecessary.” But, he wrote in The New York Times, now that it happened, “I very much hope it succeeded.” 

The White House hopes that the military successes — and threats of further strikes if needed — will translate to a tougher negotiating position and garner more concessions from Iran.

It has at least one prominent Bidenworld name on its side: Brett McGurk, Biden’s top Middle East advisor. (McGurk has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations.)

“This has been a remarkable feat of Israeli military and intelligence proficiency, together with American military power that is unmatched globally,” McGurk wrote in a CNN analysis. 

But even McGurk, a rare Biden appointee who offered praise for Trump’s actions in the Middle East, warned that it will take time to know just how successful the U.S. and Israeli efforts will be, though he argued that they dealt Iran its “greatest military setback” since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. 

“No doubt, this short crisis was well managed and well handled by Trump and his national security team, but the ultimate judgment is far from rendered,” McGurk wrote. “The question now is whether this tactical success will translate into strategic gains.” 

The looming question is whether the strikes will push Iran closer to — or further from — the negotiating table. And the answer to that relies on the degree to which Iran believes that the U.S. and Israel will mount further attacks on its nuclear program — or if they are satisfied with the time bought by last month’s strikes.

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said Wednesday that he’s unlikely to mount a primary challenge against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, after months of circling a potential run for that office.

“I’m unlikely to run for governor. The assault that we’ve seen on the social safety in the Bronx is so unprecedented, so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.,” Torres, a favorite of the Jewish community, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “So, my heart lies in Washington, D.C. I feel like now, more than ever, we have to fight the catastrophe that is the Trump presidency.”

Hochul’s lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado, already declared his candidacy against the governor.

Torres also once again declined to endorse Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but said Mamdani is “likely to win.”

“There’s a difference between praising the man in his policies and praising the manner in which he ran his campaign. I mean, when it comes to how he ran his campaign, he’s genuinely a singular figure,” Torres said. “We do have an obligation to learn from his race. And I suspect he won not because he ran on divisive issues like ‘globalize the intifada’ or ‘defund the police.’ He ran on affordability.”

Torres said he spoke to Mamdani on Sunday and that they have “profound differences of opinion, and I’m not going to downplay those differences, but I’m committed to a working relationship with him. I’m committed to continuing dialogue.” He said that the mayor and the city’s congressional delegation have a “mutually necessary relationship, so we will coexist.”

Esther Kim Varet, an art gallery owner mounting an outsider bid as a Democrat to unseat Rep. Young Kim (R-CA), said she wants to help repair and strengthen a Democratic Party she said has been severely undermined by rampant anti-Israel activism.

Anti-Israel extremism and its proponents have “really decimated the Democratic Party,” Kim Varet, whose husband and children are Jewish, told Jewish Insider in a recent interview. She said that anti-Israel activists in the party are trying to divide Democrats at a time when unity is more important than ever.

She said their efforts have pushed Jews toward the Republican Party, which she argued is no true friend to the Jews, describing it as replete with “antisemitic Zionists.”

“We need to rebuild from the center out right now,” Kim Varet said. “We need to remember that being a Zionist is not a partisan issue. It never has been and it should not be.”

She argued that Jewish values, like tikkun olam, are at the heart of the Democratic Party, because Jews have for so long been a core Democratic constituency. She said that she wants to advocate for the  party to refocus on those values.

Kim Varet’s connection to Israel dates back to her early 20s, when she and a friend backpacked through the Middle East for four months. She said that she saw stark differences between the authoritarian regimes in Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt and the democratic government in Israel, and said, “my priority as an American is to do whatever it takes to preserve democracy.”

“These extremist groups want to exterminate my Jewish children simply because we believe that Jews also deserve a homeland. That’s the definition of Zionist,” Kim Varet said. “Would you rejoice if a pro-Palestinian terrorist gunned down, on American soil, my two Jewish children or my Jewish husband on the streets?”

Kim Varet, who spoke to JI in the immediate aftermath of the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, said it had hit particularly close to home because she had spoken recently at another American Jewish Committee event, about antisemitism in the art world, and because of the danger that antisemitism poses for her own family and children.

She said she was deeply disturbed by the response she saw to the shooting online, with the “‘Free Palestine’ left justifying the slaughter.”

“These extremist groups want to exterminate my Jewish children simply because we believe that Jews also deserve a homeland. That’s the definition of Zionist,” Kim Varet said. “Would you rejoice if a pro-Palestinian terrorist gunned down, on American soil, my two Jewish children or my Jewish husband on the streets?”

She also emphasized that, in the wake of World War II, Israel was a critical safe haven for the Jewish community when it had nowhere else to go, “which is something that every human should have a right to.”

Kim Varet, who grew up in an evangelical Christian Korean household in Texas going to a Christian school, said that she did not fully understand the richness of Jewish culture or the challenges of antisemitism when she and her now-husband first began dating, and has come to discover them over their time together.

“That became critical, for me, to be able to effectively talk to others about what certain kinds of language might feel [like] to a Jewish person, how that lands, how that gets internalized, how that gets processed,” she said.

“People don’t want to admit it, but I think for a lot of marginalized communities, they perceive Jews just to be wealthy, and they choose to just read them as wealthy instead of human, and they refuse to [acknowledge] their pain,” Kim Varet added.

She argued that her background can give her a unique perspective and strong voice to the fight against antisemitism. She argued that the Jewish community needs non-Jewish advocates who will step up and fight for it because of their own convictions, without receiving any political donations from AIPAC — which she criticized for supporting “antisemitic Zionists” in the GOP.

Kim Varet’s husband, Joseph Varet, is a descendant of the Rosenwald family, a founding member of the Sears Roebuck department store chain. He’s a relative of the renowned philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, and their son shares that name. Her family continues to operate a philanthropic foundation, which has turned its focus to Israel-related causes since Oct. 7.

Post-Oct. 7, Kim Varet and her husband have worked with the Israel Children’s Fund, supporting hundreds of children who lost parents or siblings in the attack. They have personally hosted dozens of those children in their California home, flying them out to the area for rest and relaxation, taking them to sites like Disneyland. 

She and her family also recently traveled to Israel to visit some of the families who had stayed with them, Kim Varet’s third visit to Israel.

“I could see where the fractures started happening in my own world, and then I could see that it was mirrored on a larger scale in the Democratic Party,” Kim Varet said.

“For me, it’s always been like this. Walk the walk, don’t just have opinions about things,” Kim Varet said. “Also very similar to why I’m running because … I need to. I feel so much despair around Trump. I’m not going to despair. I’m going to do, and I’m going to work.”

In her professional life, she’s also seen how antisemitism has rocked the art world since Oct. 7 — many artists came out strongly against Israel, using slogans like “From the river to the sea,” while many of the collectors that Kim Varet works with are Jewish. She said she saw the hurt that such rhetoric exacted on the Jewish community.

She said she saw some of the artists reject out of hand accusations of antisemitism and refuse to examine their own rhetoric. “I could see where the fractures started happening in my own world, and then I could see that it was mirrored on a larger scale in the Democratic Party,” Kim Varet said.

Kim Varet said she never anticipated entering politics, but said that she saw the values she cares about under threat under the Trump administration, and believes that the incumbent in the seat, Kim, is a Christian nationalist extremist who could be vulnerable in the upcoming election.

She said she had early conversations with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other groups about the possibility of flipping the Orange County swing seat, a top Democratic target. She’s been endorsed by the political arm of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

“I think we all felt really crappy after the election, if you’re a Democrat. I was like, ‘I’m gonna just go do something. I’m going to go flip the seat,’” Kim Varet said, adding that she’s channeling her “rage” at the unified Republican federal government toward her congressional bid.

“I’m fighting because you’re scared,” she said she’s telling prospective constituents.

A number of other candidates have also entered the race including the 2024 Democratic general election candidate, Joe Kerr; former local school board member Christina Gagnier; nonprofit leader and entrepreneur Nina Linh; and small business owner Paula Swift.

Kim Varet said her personal network from the art and philanthropic world can help her match the incumbent’s fundraising prowess. She raised more than $1 million in the first months of her campaign — placing her in rarified air among Democratic challengers nationwide.

“If I can figure out how to raise the money to compete against all her dirty money, then I have a fair shot here. And this district just hasn’t been able to produce anybody that has the network to do that,” Kim Varet said.

She said she wants to help support the American dream that her parents and grandparents — who fled North Korea — were able to pursue, having seen the hardships that her young employees, most of them first and second generation immigrants, have faced in making ends meet.

She said some consultants had urged her to aim for local office first, but she responded, “it’s 2025. It’s a freaking emergency situation. You think I want to be doing this? This is a call to action … I don’t need this job. This is not a great job … I have a really comfortable life, but at this point of my life, I am too educated, too privileged and too comfortable to not do anything for everybody else.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) apologized to Zohran Mamdani for recently saying that he had made “references to global jihad,” as New York Democrats continue to weigh their response to the 33-year-old democratic socialist’s stunning upset in New York City’s mayoral primary last week that sent shockwaves through the party establishment.

The senator, who is among several Democratic leaders who have so far refrained from endorsing Mamdani in the general election, claimed in a radio interview last week that the Democratic nominee had made comments that are alarming to Jewish voters in New York, alluding to his controversial defense of calls to “globalize the intifada,” a phrase critics interpret as provoking violence against Jews.

“They are alarmed by past positions, particularly references to global jihad,” Gillibrand said in the interview on WNYC. “This is a very serious issue because people that glorify the slaughter of Jews create fear in our communities. The global intifada is a statement that means ‘destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.’”

While a spokesperson for Gillibrand, whose comments drew backlash, soon clarified that she “misspoke in that instance,” her team added on Tuesday that the junior senator had also privately apologized to Mamdani on Monday night, according to a readout of their call first shared with Politico.

The senator “apologized for mischaracterizing Mamdani’s record and for her tone on the call,” the readout stated, adding Gillibrand “said she believes Mr. Mamdani is sincere when he says he wants to protect all New Yorkers and combat antisemitism.”

The news of her apology came shortly after Mamdani had formally clinched the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, in a resounding, 12-point victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, his chief rival in the Democratic primary, who had already conceded.

Mamdani, who significantly expanded his initial seven-point lead on election night, won 56% of the vote in the third and final round of ranked-choice tabulations, with Cuomo in second place at 44%, according to the New York City Board of Elections results.

“I am humbled by the support of more than 545,000 New Yorkers in last week’s primary,” Mamdani said in a statement. “This is just the beginning of our expanding coalition to make New York City affordable. And we will do it together.”

Mamdani has been seeking to shore up support from Democratic leaders as he prepares for a fall general election against Eric Adams, the incumbent mayor running as an independent; Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee; and Jim Walden, an attorney also running as an independent. Cuomo will also be on the November ballot on an independent line, but has not yet indicated if he will mount a campaign.

Even as Mamdani has claimed backing from a growing number of state and local party leaders, federal lawmakers have largely been hesitant to fully embrace him, as he has continued to decline invitations to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” an issue that has dogged his campaign in recent weeks.

Gillibrand, for her part, said in the radio interview last week that she had spoken with Mamdani about Jewish security concerns, and that he had agreed to work with her to “protect all residents” amid rising antisemitism.

“These are things that I think are important to New Yorkers, and I will work with him when he gets elected, if he gets elected, to make sure everyone is protected,” she said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), in some of his first comments on presumptive Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s controversial remarks, said on Sunday that the state legislator will “have to clarify” his position on the slogan “globalize the intifada,” which Mamdani has defended in recent weeks.

“‘Globalizing the intifada,’ by way of example, is not an acceptable phrase, and he’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,” Jeffries said on ABC’s “This Week.” “With respect to the Jewish communities that I represent, I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise of antisemitism in the city of New York.”

Jeffries made clear that he was not yet endorsing Mamdani.

The highest-ranking House Democrat added that the mayor of New York City, regardless of party, needs to “commit to the safety and well-being of all of the people of the city of New York, and when there are moments of crisis and a rise in anti-Jewish hate, that’s a threshold that, of course, needs to be crossed.”

Mamdani said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he doesn’t personally use the phrase “globalize the intifada,” but declined to condemn it, arguing that it’s not the mayor’s place to police speech.

“The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead this city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights,” Mamdani said.

“I’ve heard from many Jewish New Yorkers who have shared their concerns with me, especially in light of the horrific attacks that we saw in Washington, D.C., and in Boulder, Colo., about this moment of antisemitism in our country and in our city,” Mamdani continued. “And I’ve heard those fears, and I’ve had those conversations, and ultimately, they are part and parcel of why, in my campaign, I’ve put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%. I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech in the manner, especially, of [President] Donald Trump, who has put one New Yorker in jail who has just returned to his family, Mahmoud Khalil, for that very supposed crime of speech.”

Mamdani said that action is more important than discussing the issue.

“What I think I need to show is the ability to not only talk about something but to tackle it and to make clear that there’s no room for antisemitism in this city,” Mamdani said. “And we have to root out that bigotry, and ultimately, we do that through the actions. And that is the mayor I will be, one that protects Jewish New Yorkers and lives up to that commitment through the work that I do.”

The Senate voted down Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution that would have blocked additional U.S. military action against Iran on Friday evening, with nearly all Democrats voting in favor of the resolution, and almost all Republicans voting against it.

The resolution failed, 53-47, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only Republican to vote in favor and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) being the only Democrat to vote against. 

Kaine said in an address prior to the vote that while he acknowledged the need for U.S. military engagement in certain instances, any offensive actions required the approval of the legislative branch.

 “The United States needs to defend itself and it needs to work with allies to help them defend themselves,” Kaine said. “But our troops, our sons and daughters, deserve to have wise civilian leadership that only make the decision to send them into war on the basis of careful consideration and a debate before the entire public.”

The Virginia senator, who has long been a champion of enforcing Congressional war powers, argued the president does not have the authority “to go on offense against another nation or an entity like a terrorist group.”

In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of the strikes in the Senate, said that requiring congressional approval would be a “disaster for the country” and upend the military command structure.

“Since the founding of this country, it’s been understood that the commander in chief can act, as the commander in chief, to protect our nation from threats — that he is in charge of the military. He’s the civilian in charge of the military, and it’s his decision to use military force,” Graham said. He noted that Congress has only declared war five times but engaged in hundreds of military actions, and said Congress can cut off funding for military operations if it does not agree with the executive.

“Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there were not one commander in chief, but 535,” Graham reiterated, adding that the reaction from Congress to the strikes and conflicting intelligence about their efficacy shows that Congress would not be able to act decisively if consulted. 

He said it would not be practical for the administration to have to wait for Congress to act in response to a future nuclear facility or threat to U.S. forces, “and that’s not what the founders meant.”

Several Senate Republicans who backed a similar resolution in 2020 following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani voted, this time, against the resolution. That list included Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

Collins noted in her statement that Iran had “threatened to attack Americans on our own soil and around the world” after Israel launched its operation to take out its nuclear program. She also said she supported the strikes and the subsequent ceasefire, both of which made it “the wrong time to consider this resolution and to risk inadvertently sending a message to Iran that the President cannot swiftly defend Americans at home and abroad.”

“I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now,” Collins said. “The president has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.” 

Lee said that determinations around war powers are “heavily fact-dependent.”

“We got a classified briefing yesterday. The totality of the circumstances that they outlined, including the finality of the action they’d taken — there’s no ongoing operations there,” Lee said.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the Senate’s most vocal pro-Israel Democrats, said in a statement that she hopes the strikes are successful in the long-term, that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, that the U.S. must defend its personnel and that she would “continue to back Israel should it need to respond to a break in the agreement.”

“At the same time, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and authorize any offensive attacks on other sovereign nations,” Rosen said. “The decision to go to war and put our troops in harm’s way is one that cannot be made lightly, and must be made by Congress, which is why I voted today to advance the War Powers Resolution.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has advocated for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy, dismissed arguments that the War Powers Act was applicable to the strikes ordered by Trump, which he called “an Article II matter.”

“I think, probably, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Some parts of the War Powers Act are kind of closer questions, but I think this is actually not very hard. I mean, if a president, any president of any party, cannot order one-off, limited military strikes without the approval of Congress, why do we have Article II?” Hawley asked.

“Go back and read the debates, and exactly what the framers did not want was foreign policy by committee, so I think this is not a close question. You can be opposed to the strikes and still be like, ‘Wow, this is not a good idea, this resolution,’” he told JI, adding that Trump was “100%” acting within his constitutional authority.

Former Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC), now the board chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, blasted the North Carolina Democratic Party (NCDP) leadership for what she described as allowing anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism within the state party, in a statement first shared with Jewish Insider.

Manning’s statement comes ahead of anticipated North Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee votes this weekend on a resolution calling for an arms embargo on Israel and accusing it of apartheid and genocide — along with a resolution drawing equivalence between Israel and Hamas, saying both committed “terrorism” and have taken “hostages” and calling for the U.S. to exert influence to remove Israeli officials from power, among several others.

“Time and time again, the Jewish Caucus of North Carolina has attempted to unify and collaborate with the leadership of the North Carolina Democratic Party, which seems unwilling or unable to reciprocate. Instead, Party Chair Anderson Clayton and First Vice Chair Jonah Garson have continued to tolerate extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism from within the party on social media, in executive committee meetings, and even in the exclusion of Jewish members from Interfaith Caucus meetings,” Manning said in her statement.

“DMFI condemns the continued tolerance of bad faith actors within the NCDP, and we stand with the Jewish Caucus in urging all members of the NCDP State Executive Committee to vote for unity tomorrow,” she continued.

Clayton responded in a statement, “Running a big tent party means having many different view points. I have long maintained that there is a big difference between valid criticisms of the Israeli Government and antisemitism and have made abundantly clear that there is no place for antisemitism in our party.”

State party resolutions are generated at the local level, and voted up from precincts, to county to congressional district party groups, before being considered by the party’s Resolutions Committee, which votes on sending resolutions to the State Executive Committee for a final vote.

The resolution votes are the latest development in the ongoing tensions between Jewish Democrats in North Carolina and the state party. The state party, in 2023, voted against recognizing the NCDP Jewish Caucus, a vote condemned by senior leaders in the state, including now-Gov. Josh Stein.

The party has also repeatedly been roiled by heated fights over Israel policy in its state party platform. Party leadership members, including the chair of the NCDP’s Interfaith Caucus, expressed support for the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in the days following those atrocities.

The NC Jewish Caucus said in a statement that it has been trying for months to work “in good faith with party leaders to promote a balanced, inclusive approach to complex international issues” but “those efforts have been met with resistance throughout the party’s resolutions process.”

The statement called the resolutions, particularly the Israel arms embargo, “troubling” and accused the party’s Resolutions Committee of focusing “on only a select few issues, chief among them matters regarding Israel.”

“I’m deeply disappointed that a vocal minority within our party continues to sow division,” Caucus President Lisa Jewel said. “At a time when antisemitic incidents are on the rise across the state, double the national average according to recent data, the Jewish Caucus has repeatedly called for unity, yet the Resolutions Committee chose to focus on wedge issues that, ultimately, would result in harm to our friends and family.”

She urged the party leadership to “reaffirm party unity, refocus on electability, and reject virtue signaling distractions that divide us at the expense of progress,” and pointed blame toward the Interfaith Caucus as the driving force behind anti-Israel advocacy within the state party.

Though the issues at play in the upcoming votes aren’t new for the NCDP, the votes come at a time when Jewish Democrats nationwide are feeling politically homeless and alarmed by the growing acceptance of antisemitism and anti-Israel extremism — trends underscored by Zohran Mamdani’s nomination as the Democratic standard bearer in the New York City mayoral race. 

The North Carolina Democratic Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republican campaign operatives say they intend to tie vulnerable Democratic candidates to Zohran Mamdani, the presumed winner of New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, over his far-left policies.

Mamdani’s victory on Tuesday evening was met with surprise and intrigue within GOP campaign circles, with operatives saying his win provides an opening to force Democratic candidates to say on-record if they align with the 33-year-old democratic socialist’s vision for the nation’s biggest city and long history of anti-Israel activism. GOP operatives told Jewish Insider they expect Mamdani to prominently feature in future ads and broader messaging targeting Democrats nationwide. 

“Socialist Zohran Mamdani has demonstrated he’s proudly antisemitic and anti-Israel, supports criminals over law-abiding citizens, and wants to crush New Yorkers with even higher costs. Mamdani is dangerously wrong, and Republicans will make sure that every single voter remembers that House Democrats are still too cowardly to condemn him,” Maureen O’Toole, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House Republicans’ campaign arm, told JI.

The NRCC has already seized on Mamdani’s candidacy to attack vulnerable swing district New York Democratic Reps. Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi — both of whom distanced themselves from Mamdani on Wednesday.

“If Republicans, in such a public fashion, nominated someone so fringe and so extreme and so outside of the mainstream, there would be calls for condemnation. There would be calls for Republicans to denounce them,” a GOP campaign official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of how the party will respond to Mamdani’s political ascent. “We’d like there to be calls to separate themselves from Democrats.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), who chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee last cycle, said Republicans should amplify Mamdani as the new face of the Democratic Party. 

“It’s a reflection of how crazy the Democrats have become that they would nominate, the left would nominate that kind of candidate. It’s a frightening development,” Daines told JI. 

Daines’ view is shared by several senior GOP campaign operatives, all of whom believe Mamdani can be presented to voters as the new figurehead of the Democratic Party. 

“From a political standpoint, this takes the party’s most polarizing progressive and puts them on a national stage. It’s a big opportunity for us. There’s gonna be massive ramifications on the national level. It’s a real gift for Republicans,” a longtime GOP campaign operative told JI.

Officials familiar with GOP strategy in House and Senate races predicted Suozzi, Gillen and Reps. Pat Ryan (D-NY), Josh Riley (D-NY) and Nellie Pou (D-NJ) would be targeted with ads tying them to Mamdani, given the proximity of each of their districts to the city. 

Republicans are also likely to single out Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is running to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), and Adbul El-Sayed, a candidate running for the Democratic nomination to replace outgoing Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), as being aligned with Mamdani on policy. 

“I think Democrats have a real issue on their hands. What will we be talking about for the remainder of this New York election and going into the next year? We’ll be asking if a socialist can lead the Democrat Party, if a socialist can be the next face of the party,” a Republican official involved in Senate races said.

“We’re going to be profiling these candidates like they’re AOC and Ilhan Omar, people that align more closely with Mamdani. We’re not going to be talking about the moderates in the Democrat Party anymore, we’re not even talking about Democrat leadership,” the official said. “We’re going to talk about the most radical and fringe members of the party. I think you’re going to see some lifeblood pumped into the campaigns of some Republicans as a result.”

Reps. Laura Gillen (D-NY), Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and George Latimer (D-NY) declined to support State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, citing ongoing concerns about his ideological record, as many other prominent politicians in the state fell in line.

“Socialist Zohran Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City,” Gillen said, highlighting his calls for higher taxes and what she described as unrealistic campaign promises. “Beyond that, Mr. Mamdani has called to defund the police and has demonstrated a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments which stoke hate at a time when antisemitism is skyrocketing. He is the absolute wrong choice for New York.”

“I had serious concerns about Assemblyman Mamdani before yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I endorsed his opponent. Those concerns remain,” Suozzi said. Suozzi, once a close ally of New York Mayor Eric Adams, endorsed former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the final weeks of the race, explaining “I don’t want the socialists to win.”

Latimer, who also endorsed Cuomo, said he was surprised by Mamdani’s performance, credited him with a “very energetic campaign” and called him “clearly a very charismatic figure.” But he was also clear that he was not endorsing Mamdani and left open the possibility of endorsing a third-party challenger.

“I haven’t thought about it at all yet, check back with me once things shake out. I don’t want to be presumptive if I don’t know what’s going to happen,” Latimer told reporters, referring to potential uncertainties around whether Adams, Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa stay in the race. “I’m not endorsing anybody at this point.”

He said that he was concerned that “running New York City is an extremely complicated situation … it takes a certain mindset not to just advocate for policies — as popular as they are — but to actually accomplish them.” Latimer said Mamdani would likely have to appeal to the state Legislature and would face difficult cash crunches as he seeks to implement his signature, and costly, campaign promises.

“I know how popular it would be for me to say things and promise things. I try to be careful about what I promise because whether I can deliver it or not becomes the first test of whether I’m effective in that office,” he continued.

Asked by Jewish Insider about Mamdani’s record on antisemitism, Latimer highlighted his own opposition to and work on combating hate.

“You shouldn’t have to feel afraid to walk in the streets with yarmulke on. … You should be treated for who you are as a person,” Latimer said. “So to the extent that you know there’s, there’s a sense that there’s an antisemitic moment, then we can’t add code words and make it worse, we have to fight to try to have people be treated equally all across the board, including those who are Jewish.”

Both Gillen and Suozzi represent Long Island-based swing districts in the outskirts of New York City. Suozzi’s district includes a slice of Queens. Latimer’s district is primarily in Westchester County, but includes a small piece of the Bronx.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), meanwhile, endorsed Mamdani on Wednesday, after backing one of his primary challengers, saying Mamdani was committed to fighting antisemitism.

Nadler, a co-chair of the House Jewish Caucus, said he had “spoken to [Mamdani] today about his commitment to fighting antisemitism, and we’ll work with all New Yorkers to fight against all bigotry and hate.”

“Voters in New York City demanded change and, with Zohran’s triumph, we have a direct repudiation of Donald Trump’s politics of tax cuts and authoritarianism,” Nadler added, describing Mamdani as a future “partner to me in Washington to take on Donald Trump.”

Other prominent New York Democrats including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have offered praise for Mamdani in the hours since his victory, declining to address his antisemitic history. They held back explicit endorsements.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) supported Mamdani in the primary. No other New York Democratic lawmakers responded to requests for comment.

In the region’s northern suburbs, Mamdani’s candidacy is likely to emerge quickly as a hot-button issue in the swing district race in New York’s 17th Congressional District, which is home to a substantial Jewish population.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), the 17th District incumbent, has repeatedly attacked Democratic leaders across the state over Mamdani’s victory, particularly highlighting his record on antisemitism.

“Democrats need to make very clear to voters where they stand on this,” Lawler told reporters. “You’ve already had Laura Gillen speak out against it, and yet, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer and Kathy Hochul put together the most gobbly-gook bull***t statements I’ve ever seen in my life, saying nothing about anything except that they’re going to continue to speak with him, whatever the hell that means.”

Three of the seven Democratic 17th District candidates who responded to questions from Jewish Insider about Mamdani took divergent approaches.

Cait Conley, a former national security official, told JI that she does “not agree with the direction Zohran wants to take NYC. We need to address affordability but not by raising already exorbitant taxes on New Yorkers that will just drive more people out of the state. We need to stand up for the NY Jewish community and stand against anti-semitism in all forms.”

Conley argued that the election results show that voters are looking for alternatives, like herself, to career politicians, adding, “I will never stop standing up to hate. Anti-semitism is on the rise across this country which is both unacceptable and un-American.”

Jessica Reinmann, a nonprofit executive, told JI, “The results of last night’s NYC mayoral race underscore the need for the kind of boots-on-the-ground, community-focused effort that Team Reinmann is building — one focused on kitchen-table issues, meeting people where they are, and addressing their concerns.”

“That said, there should be no tolerance in the Democratic Party for candidates who espouse antisemitic and hateful views,” Reinmann continued. “Team Reinmann is building a coalition that is built on respect for all people, no matter who they pray to, where they come from, who they love, or the color of their skin.”

Peter Chatzky, a tech company founder and deputy mayor of Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., praised Mamdani for “an effective campaign that consistently focused on affordability, fairness, and opportunity in New York City.”

“The Democratic Party needs candidates who are hearing constituent concerns and will take on the Trump administration and fight for the people of their districts,” Chatzky said. “I am excited to bring that message to the voters of the Hudson Valley.”

Pressed on Mamdani’s record on antisemitism, Chatzky added, “To be clear, antisemitism is serious and a real threat to Jewish New Yorkers and needs to be taken with utmost seriousness. It is something I will be on the forefront of for the people of the 17th District every day.”

Neither Gillen nor Suozzi indicated whether they plan to support an alternative candidate like Adams, the incumbent who is running as an independent in the general election.

Suozzi said, when he endorsed Cuomo, that he still likes Adams, but argued he’s too mired in scandal to continue to lead. Adams’ team praised Suozzi’s record even after his endorsement of Cuomo.

Gillen, meanwhile, publicly clashed with Adams at a House Oversight Committee hearing earlier this year, saying she had “no confidence” in his leadership and calling on him to resign. She said previously that he had “failed and betrayed New York City repeatedly” and engaged in “blatant, textbook corruption. She has said that New York Gov. Kathy Hochul should remove him from office.

Given that Mamdani appears headed for a fairly sizable margin of victory in the primary and the city’s largely Democratic electorate, any third-party challenge will be a tough lift.

Cuomo hasn’t confirmed yet whether he will seek to run in the general election as an independent, a prospect that could further complicate efforts for Mamdani opponents to coalesce.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) congratulated Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday for his presumed victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary but stopped short of endorsing the far-left state assemblyman’s candidacy in the general election.

Schumer wrote on X that he spoke with Mamdani on Wednesday morning and was “looking forward to getting together soon,” but did not offer an endorsement while praising the 33-year-old democratic socialist  assemblyman’s campaign. 

“I have known @ZohranKMamdani since we worked together to provide debt relief for thousands of beleaguered taxi drivers & fought to stop a fracked gas plant in Astoria. He ran an impressive campaign that connected with New Yorkers about affordability, fairness, & opportunity,” Schumer said. 

A spokesperson for the Senate minority leader declined to comment when asked by Jewish Insider for Schumer’s thoughts on Mamdani’s long history of anti-Israel activism. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), also praised Mamdani’s campaign operation, telling MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that he “clearly outworked, outorganized, and outcommunicated the opposition. And when someone is successful in being able to do all three things at the same time, it’s usually going to work out for them.”

Speaking to The Independent on Wednesday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said she had a “lovely call” with Mamdani after his win, but similarly declined to offer her immediate endorsement. 

“We talked about how he inspired voters to support him because of his laser-like focus on affordability, and I asked for a meeting to … talk about some issues that I have that I want to talk through,” Gillibrand said. 

A Senate war powers resolution aiming to block further U.S. military action against Iran appears to be building and solidifying support among Democrats ahead of an anticipated vote later this week.

Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) announced on Tuesday they planned to introduce an amendment to Kaine’s resolution to specifically ensure that the U.S. can continue to share intelligence with Israel and to assist Israel’s defense and provide it with defensive equipment to counter attacks by Iran and its proxies.

A House resolution on the issue had prompted private divisions among Democrats earlier this week over a similar issue, with many lawmakers concerned that the resolution would prevent the U.S. from continuing to support Israeli missile defense, a Democratic staffer not authorized to speak publicly told JI.

The senators said in a statement they expect the full Senate will vote on the amendment prior to a final vote on Kaine’s resolution. They argued that the amendment makes clear to Iran that the U.S. will continue to defend Israel.

Kaine said that the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran announced Monday night doesn’t change the necessity of the vote, and “actually gives you the space to actually have a decision about, prospectively, should we be at war with Iran without a vote of Congress.”

Asked by Jewish Insider whether he still anticipates that most or all other Democrats will still support the resolution, Kaine said, “They believe we should not be at war without a vote of Congress. They may have different points where a war would be the right thing to do, but that should not happen without a vote of Congress.”

He said he still expects to have multiple Republicans supporting the resolution, but the number is unknown. Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has publicly voiced support.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), asked about the resolution, said that there was not a “clear and imminent threat to the United States, to our citizens” and the administration “should have come to us and talked about this,” as it did prior to Operation Desert Storm, in which he served.

“You’ve got a goal, you talk to Congress about it. You get the force ready to do this. You talk to the adversary and you say, ‘Here are our options: Get out of Kuwait or we’re going to kick you out,’” Kelly said. “That occurred with a full, transparent discussion with the United States Congress, per the Constitution.”

Kelly reviewed a classified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicating the U.S. strikes had a limited effect on Iran’s nuclear program, and said that the situation shows the “recklessness of just rushing forward when you don’t have the follow-on plan, and you don’t really consider the consequence.”

He said the strikes were risky because Iran may now take its program completely covert and race to a nuclear weapon. “This has been my concern since the second this happened. Does this push them forward?” Kelly said.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) said he hadn’t looked at the resolution but said “it seems like we had lots of time to be consulted.” 

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said she’s still examining the resolution but emphasized that she led legislation in 2020 to block military action against Iran following the killing of Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday proposed another amendment to Kaine’s resolution, commending President Donald Trump for a “successful mission” in damaging the regime’s nuclear program. 

The 21 members of the House Jewish Caucus — all Democrats — pressed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a letter sent on Tuesday expressing concerns about Kingsley Wilson, the recently promoted Pentagon press secretary with a history of antisemitic and otherwise controversial comments.

“Recent public reporting has highlighted a series of deeply troubling and offensive statements made by Kingsley Wilson, now serving as Pentagon Press Secretary,” the letter reads. “These statements include promoting the antisemitic and racist ‘Great Replacement’ theory, praising far-right political movements using slogans tied to neo-Nazi groups, and repeating patently false statements commonly circulated in neo-Nazi circles about Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was lynched by an antisemitic mob in Georgia in 1915.”

The letter argues that the remarks are “not isolated or ambiguous and have long been associated with violence and hate” and “their presence boldly and unrepentantly plastered in the public record of a senior Department official raises serious questions about the Department’s commitment to opposing extremism and antisemitism.”

Hegseth, at a recent Senate hearing, defended Wilson and said her comments had been mischaracterized for political gain, but also said he’d need to see her comments in full to evaluate them.

The lawmakers asked Hegseth whether the remarks are acceptable for a senior Pentagon employee in a public-facing role, how the Pentagon evaluates whether public statements necessitate disciplinary action, any steps the administration has taken in the past in response to antisemitic comments from Pentagon employees and whether Hegseth personally finds the comments acceptable for a representative of the Defense Department.

“We look forward to promptly receiving your reply. In the meantime, we urge the Department to affirm its responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards,” the lawmakers wrote. “That includes an unambiguous commitment to confronting and unequivocally condemning antisemitism — especially within its own ranks — and ensuring that individuals who promote hate are quickly and appropriately held accountable.”

The letter was led by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) and co-signed by caucus co-chairs Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) and co-signed by Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Becca Balint (D-VT), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).

Wilson’s record has also previously elicited concern from Republicans.

House and Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with efforts to bring forward votes this week in both chambers on resolutions that aim to constrain the administration from taking any further military action against Iran in spite of President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Trump’s diplomatic breakthrough is creating some political awkwardness for Democrats who had insisted the president would escalate the war, but many are still likely to support the resolutions, which reflect their dissatisfaction with the president’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without congressional authorization. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the lead sponsor of one war powers resolution in the House, said he no longer plans to force a vote on it, explaining, “if we’re not engaged in hostilities, I think it’s a moot point.” He said he had told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that he would not attempt to bring the resolution to the floor.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Massie’s lead co-sponsor, said, “The anti-war advocacy of the left and right broke through. I am glad cooler heads prevailed and Trump seems committed to stopping this war. I spoke with Rep. Massie this evening and we are taking a wait and see approach about whether a vote will be needed now on our War Powers Resolution.”

But a group of senior House Democrats introduced a separate resolution on Monday evening, which they are expected to continue to advance.

The U.S. strike, Massie’s resolution and broader questions about the situation in Iran have been causing heartburn for many House Democrats, particularly supporters of Israel, Democratic staff sources told Jewish Insider earlier Tuesday.

Democratic staffers not authorized to speak publicly explained that, behind the scenes, the largely unified public Democratic opposition to the strikes has been driven by several factors, including the perceived lack of political support for the strikes, concerns about an escalating war and frustration with the Trump administration.

“I think a lot of members support the strike privately but see this as a politically vulnerable issue for [Trump],” one Democratic staffer said.

Another staffer said that Democrats are afraid of echoes of the Iraq war: If the U.S. ends up in a full-scale, protracted, politically unpopular war with Iran, they don’t want to be on record as having supported it.

And, the staffer said, there’s a deep level of distrust for the Trump administration, which acted largely unilaterally in the strikes, did not make efforts to keep congressional leaders informed about the strikes and hasn’t yet presented any evidence to Congress of the need for the strikes or their success.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who worked with other top Democrats on an alternative war powers resolution, said the resolution effort should continue “if United States forces remain engaged.”

Himes, along with Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrats on the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, introduced their own war powers resolution Monday evening, after the ceasefire was announced.

Whether that resolution will come to the floor remains an open question. The House speaker was reportedly working on a procedural plan that would strip the Massie resolution of its privileged status, sidestepping a vote on the House floor, and could potentially use the same tactic to defuse the new Democratic resolution.

On the Senate side, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said he also plans to push forward with his efforts, and said that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is working with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to facilitate a vote.

“Whether or not a ceasefire between Israel and Iran comes to fruition — and I hope it does — I will move forward to force a vote on my resolution to require Congress to debate and vote on whether or not the United States should engage in a war with Iran,” Kaine said in a statement to JI. “Americans don’t want matters of war and peace, bombing and ceasefire, to rest upon the daily whims of any one person.” 

“That’s why the Framers of our Constitution decided that war should only be declared following a public debate and congressional vote,” Kaine continued. “Congress must affirm its commitment to that principle and send a clear message: no more endless wars.”

Other Democrats agreed that a war powers resolution should still receive a vote in spite of the ceasefire.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told JI, “At the end of the day, I think that a war powers resolution makes good sense to vote on and for Congress to finally reassert what is in black-and-white letters in the Constitution, which is that only Congress and the consent of the American people can start a war.”

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), a former Army intelligence officer, argued that the uncertainty of the situation necessitated that Congress step in.

“It’s a very volatile situation, which, to me, makes it even more urgent that we make clear and reassert what the Constitution of the United States says, which is that it is the Congress that has the authority to declare war or authorize the use of [force],” Ryan told JI.

He added that it “should be concerning to every American that multiple days after doing — not even a preemptive strike — a preventive strike, there’s still no legal justification, there’s still no clarity about the effectiveness.”

A memo sent by Trump to the Senate cited presidential foreign relations authorities enshrined in the U.S. constitution as the legal backing for the strike.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), among the few House Democrats who supported the strikes, told JI that he wants to see Congress reclaim its power but that the administration also has the ability to take defensive action without consulting Congress. He said that the war powers resolution push is likely no longer relevant if the ceasefire continues.

“Based on the ceasefire that was announced, it if holds, it appears that the issue in this current climate is moot, but overall, still important,” Moskowitz said. “[The war powers resolution] is no longer relevant to this particular purpose. It would be more of a general ‘us reasserting our authority as Congress.’”

Kaine told reporters earlier in the day that his resolution in the Senate would come up for a vote on Thursday or Friday.

Kaine said that the vote was “fluid” but he expected to see Republican support, and that he expected nearly all Democrats, with the exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), to support it.

“I think the fluidity and change is something that I think warrants — this is why you get a congressional discussion, because these things can escalate,” Kaine said. “They can move in ways that are hard to predict, and that’s why a discussion and a vote is a good idea.”

He said that, “my colleagues on the Democratic side, regardless of whatever they feel about Iran, [believe] wars without Congress, wars that bypass us, are a bad idea.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) confirmed he planned to support the resolution as well, arguing that the Constitution is clear that war powers are vested in Congress and that his position on the issue has been consistent across administrations.

“There have always been people who argue the president can do whatever he wants,” Paul said. “The problem is, that’s a recipe for chronic intervention. It’s a recipe for endless war.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a pro-Israel Democrat, also said he supported the resolution.

Ahead of the ceasefire, some specific concerns with the wording of the Massie resolution had split Democrats, one Democratic staffer said. That prompted the separate resolution from Meeks, Himes and Smith. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) claimed at a press conference on Monday that he hadn’t reviewed the Massie resolution yet, indicating that he would not be supporting it. 

A Democratic staffer explained that there were fairly widespread concerns that Massie’s resolution could block the U.S. from continuing to support Israel’s defense.

The Democrat-led resolution includes a specific exception allowing the U.S. to defend itself or any ally or partner from “imminent attack,” whereas Massie’s resolution only allowed for continued defense of the United States and intelligence sharing with allies. The Democrats leading the resolution emphasized in a statement that it would allow U.S. forces defending Israel to continue their activities.

“What we’re trying to get clarity on is to ensure that there’s no ambiguity or doubt about our ability to fully support the defense of Israel and the Israeli people, that we can continue … intelligence sharing and information sharing, cyber,” Ryan said earlier, of the Massie resolution. “There are key dimensions where we have to continue to be very closely aligned.”

“My concern is less about the language of the resolution and more about who introduced it, frankly,” Ryan continued. Massie has a history of comments that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have condemned as antisemitic.

Jeffries, at his press conference, largely focused on the fact that the Trump administration had failed to inform Congress about the strikes in the normal manner and had still not provided a proper justification for the strikes or accounted for Iran’s nuclear material.

He also argued that the administration’s claims to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program completely couldn’t be trusted.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a former House majority leader and perhaps the most prominent Democratic supporter of the strikes, told JI that his support for the strikes was consistent with unilateral action taken by administrations dating back to President Bill Clinton. 

He added that it would be “hypocritical” not to support the strikes now, when administrations have said for decades that they will not permit a nuclear Iran, and said that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was “too close” to a nuclear weapon and “stopping them was the right thing to do.”

Hoyer also noted that Congress moves more slowly than the executive branch and that a slow public debate over a potential strike in Congress over strikes would have “incentivized [Iran] to move ahead as quickly as possible.”

He said that as a general matter, however, he believes that it is important for Congress to be able to put a check on the administration’s ability to go to war, though he said that the decision to strike Iran was a long time coming.

Fetterman, the only Senate Democrat who has announced he plans to oppose the war powers resolution, blasted some colleagues who have called the strikes unconstitutional. He said he would have opposed the Kaine resolution before the strikes.

He noted that previous Democratic administrations had conducted similar “one-off” strikes and argued that congressional approval would only be needed if the U.S. was going to start a broader, protracted war.

Fetterman also blasted Democrats for joining Massie’s effort calling him, “that weirdo from Kentucky.”

Among Republicans, Massie’s resolution may have seen some additional support from a handful of isolationist Republicans, but likely not many. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), the Republican who, alongside Massie, has been most outspoken against the U.S. strike, told Punchbowl News she would not support the effort.

But she also said she wanted to push to cut off U.S. aid to Israel, and has previously condemned Israel’s military action against Iran. 

In my years of covering politics, it’s pretty rare for mainstream Jewish organizations to be wildly out of step with the predominant views of the Democratic Party. But in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to order bunker-busting strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend, the views of the institutional Jewish community and many rank-and-file Democrats couldn’t have been more divergent.

Consider: The American Jewish Committee’s CEO Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman, praised Trump’s decision and called it “an historic moment for the United States, Israel and the world.” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt thanked Trump for “holding true to the commitment that the United States will not stand by and watch the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and antisemitism develop nuclear weapons.”

Even the more-partisan Democratic pro-Israel group DMFI, which normally can be counted on to criticize the president, rejected its own party’s predominant view that further congressional approval should have been received before the strikes. “Iran was unwilling to give up its nuclear program through diplomatic negotiations across three different administrations, so the United States was left with no choice but to take decisive military action,” DMFI CEO Brian Romick said.

By contrast, it was tough to find many Democratic lawmakers — even among the many who are typical allies of Israel — to offer praise of the strikes severely degrading Iran’s nuclear program. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who earlier this month recorded a video taunting Trump for “folding” against Iran, criticized the president for carrying out the strikes without congressional authority. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the strongest pro-Israel stalwarts in the Democratic Party, likewise withheld support for striking Iran’s nuclear facilities while also reiterating her view that Iran should never be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. Like Schumer, she called on more congressional involvement.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), another strong pro-Israel ally running as the moderate Democrat in a Michigan Senate primary, sounded wary about the U.S. decision to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. “The last thing our country needs is to be involved in another foreign war,” she said, echoing rhetoric from more progressive voices in the party.

To be sure, there have been a handful of Democrats sounding like the pro-Israel lawmakers that once dominated the party. Just look at the comments from Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ),  Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL),  Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), all of whom described the all-too-urgent threat that a nuclear Iran posed to Israel and the world.

As one pro-Israel Democrat put it to JI: There were notably more Democrats putting out statements cheering anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil being released from immigration detention than those expressing solidarity with Israel in its time of great need.

The debate over dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been a fraught one within the Democratic Party, ever since former President Barack Obama cut a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 that many pro-Israel leaders found too accommodating towards the Islamic Republic. There were very messy internal divisions in the party back then as well.

But with public support for Israel among Democratic voters waning, according to recent polling, it looks like it’s getting harder for even sympathetic Democrats to vocally support the position, as Landsman did, that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a step towards peace. It’s possible to quibble with the administration’s lack of legislative outreach while also acknowledging the positive end result.

On national security, this is becoming a moment of truth for the Democratic Party at large, which is trying to moderate its record to win back power in Washington, but still is beholden to its activist base. The fact that Zohran Mamdani, a radical anti-Israel candidate defending the slogan “globalize the intifada” is running as competitively as he is in tomorrow’s New York City Democratic mayoral primary, is a sign of where the party could be headed without more mainstream leaders speaking out.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a former House majority leader, backed the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a position that puts him at odds with many other Democrats in Congress, including current Democratic leadership.

“The U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan yesterday was essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” Hoyer, the longtime former No. 2 House Democrat, said in a statement released on Sunday.

He said that Iranian leaders had made clear they were not going to comply with U.S. demands to dismantle their nuclear program and had been censured by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Israel believed that Iran was on the verge of achieving its goal and struck Iranian nuclear sites,” Hoyer said. “Yesterday, the United States did the same, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. That was in keeping with our stated position against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

The operation, he said, “helped counter” the Iranian nuclear threat, “but America must continue working to close Iran’s path to nuclear weapons permanently.”

Hoyer characterized the strikes as a “limited, one-time operation.” Many other Democrats have raised concerns that the operation violated congressional war powers.

“These strikes were designed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, but neither the U.S., nor Israel, nor any other nation wants to go to war with the Iranian people, or Iran itself,” he continued.

Hoyer has long been among the most steadfast pro-Israel Democrats in Congress.

At the same time, Hoyer argued that “the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran became this dire because the Trump Administration chose to back out” of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

A handful of other pro-Israel congressional Democrats have come out largely in support of the strike since it took place.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) described the raid as “critical and decisive action to protect America, and freedom and democracy at home and around the world.”

“The destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is essential to ultimate peace in the Middle East,” Gottheimer continued. “This is not a Democratic or Republican issue — dealing with the Iranian threat is central to America’s national security.”

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) was one of the first Democrats to support the strike against Iran Friday night. “The world can achieve peace in the Middle East, or it can accept a rogue nuclear weapons program—but it cannot have both.

The decisive destruction of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant prevents the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons in the world’s most combustible region.  No one truly committed to nuclear nonproliferation should mourn the fall of Fordow,” Torres wrote on X.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said “this was the correct move” by Trump and said he’s “grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) said, “Today, the President made what appears to be a targeted strike to defend the U.S., Israel, and allies throughout the region and the world” and that he’s hopeful that Iran “no longer has the capabilities to continue its nuclear program.”

He said Iran must now commit to negotiations and make a deal. But he also warned against continued military action without congressional approval.

“I am also a firm believer in congressional authority & oversight. Any offensive action must come to Congress for a vote,” Moskowitz said. “I hope this is contained, but we are living in unprecedented times—and it’s critical our leaders work on a bipartisan basis to protect our nation.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) criticized President Donald Trump for carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional authorization, a voice of opposition that was echoed by many leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Jeffries said in a statement less than two hours after Trump announced the strikes that Trump “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

He said that the Trump administration must explain to the country why it carried out the strikes and brief Congress.

“Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,” Jeffries continued.

Schumer, in a similarly critical statement, said that “no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy” and said he would be urging all lawmakers to support war powers legislation to block further military action against Iran, and called for an immediate vote.

He said Trump must explain his actions to the American people.

“Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity,” Schumer said. “The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.”

Senior congressional Democrats were largely left out of the loop about the strikes before they occurred, while Republican leaders have said they were briefed.

Administration officials traditionally brief “Gang of Eight” officials — the top Republican and Democrat in each chamber and the chairs and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees — before carrying out major sensitive operations.

Sources familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider that Jeffries received a notification after the operation was likely already underway, but had not been fully briefed, and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was not briefed prior to the strikes.

Sources familiar with the situation told JI that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-AR) were briefed before the strikes.

Johnson pushed back on claims that the administration had illegally sidestepped Congress, saying, “Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act.”

“The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight’s necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,” Johnson continued.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) called Jeffries’ statement “an embarrassment,” saying Trump had prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Many Democrats in both chambers have gone further than Jeffries in their responses, explicitly describing the strikes as unconstitutional.

“The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional,” Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), the House minority whip, said. “In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation. The American people, our men and women in uniform, and their families deserve answers.”

Some Democrats have also raised the prospect of impeaching Trump over the action. 

“The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said. “He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”

Several pro-Israel Democrats, like Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) have fully backed the strike.

“We don’t yet know what this means for the regime’s nuclear work or ambitions, but it absolutely means that the regime has been further weakened — which is good for those who want peace,” Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH) said.

“It’s time for the Iranian regime to agree to the removal of all enriched uranium, comprehensive, around-the-clock inspections, and the full dismantling of their terror armies from Hamas to Hezbollah and the Houthis. That will end this conflict, and put the entire region on the path to a real and sustainable peace.”

“Iran is a terrorist nation, and we must do everything we can to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) said. “Debates will now ensue about presidential authority and the President working with Congress. The President should work with Congress, especially those of us who recognize how important it is to finally stop Iran.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) said that Iran should immediately end its nuclear program and stop funding terrorism, but also called for Congress to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force “so that the American public can get an open & thorough debate on war-making.”

Jewish Insider Congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed to this report

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) criticized his Democratic colleagues in Congress who have spoken out against Israel’s attack on Iran, calling it “astonishing” to see members of his party treat Israel’s actions as escalatory. 

Fetterman spoke to Jewish Insider on Friday for an interview in the wake of Israel launching its military operation to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and prevent the regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 

The Pennsylvania senator said he could not fathom how some Democrats on Capitol Hill could accuse the Jewish state of launching the strikes to upend the Trump administration’s nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

Fetterman didn’t mention any of his Democratic colleagues by name, but many have been critical of the Iranian strikes. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), for instance, went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday morning and said that Israel’s strike on Iran was “pretty transparent that this was an effort to submarine, to undermine our diplomacy.”

“It was just astonishing to see colleagues criticizing these things. It’s like, do you think you can negotiate with that regime? Do you think you want to run that scenario and allow them to acquire 1,000 pounds of weapons grade uranium? I can’t understand, I can’t even begin to understand that,” Fetterman told JI.

“I can’t imagine why they would say that. Remember, Iran tries to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has created and spent billions of dollars to build those destructive proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah or the Houthis. Why can’t we talk about that? Why can’t we talk about the absolute imperative to keep Iran accountable for what they’ve done? That’s exactly part of what Israel did last night, as well,” he continued.

The Pennsylvania Democrat praised the opening salvos of the operation as “absolutely spectacular,” citing the “precision in targeting people.”

”They eliminated the generals and those scientists in their beds at their building, and they didn’t take out the whole building. It was just their specific apartments. I mean, that is truly remarkable. … It’s like Beepers 2.0, the kind of things they’ve done. Like I said, I am constantly blown away by the sophistication and their lethality,” Fetterman said, referring to the Israeli pager operation that took out senior Hezbollah leaders.

“I think I might have been the only one openly calling for that [striking the nuclear facilities now]. I’m never going to negotiate with that regime. You can never trust them, and the only thing they’re going to respond to, that they respect, are exactly the kind of things that [Israel] did last night. … Any potential path for an enduring peace in the Middle East, these are the kind of steps that do that,” he added.

Fetterman disputed the narrative that the U.S. supporting Israel in targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities could increase the prospect of a regional war. “If Iran is going to take their big, big swing, they would have done that by now. Just imagine how exposed they are, even how [exposed] they were earlier this year after what Israel had done taking out Hezbollah,” he told JI. 

“Hezbollah ain’t talking tough anymore. They’re not talking about any kinds of actions, they’re just whimpering, and that’s my point. Iran can’t fight for s**t. … They just shot their big shot, a couple junkie rockets, and it’s like, that’s what you’ve got?” Fetterman asked.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stood strongly behind Israel in his first public comments on its strikes on Iran and its nuclear program on Friday afternoon — a response that was notably more forceful in its support for Israel than those of many prominent members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

“The United States’ commitment to Israel’s security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran’s response,” Schumer said in a statement first shared with Jewish Insider. “The Iranian regime’s stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world. I have long said that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Ensuring they never obtain one must remain a top national security priority.”

Schumer, who has recently been critical of President Donald Trump’s negotiations with Iran, said “the preferred path to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and for supporting security and stability in the region has always been a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage, and every effort must be made to move toward the path of a diplomatic solution.”

Schumer noted that Iran was just censured by the International Atomic Energy Agency “for systematically deceiving the world about its nuclear program,” that it is “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” and it “has sought to expand its influence in the Middle East, exporting terror and violence across the region.”

He said he is “praying for the safety of American citizens and servicemembers in the region and for enduring stability and security in the region.”

Many of the highest-ranking Senate Republicans, along with leading pro-Israel Democrats, expressed support for Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran, but a number of skeptical lawmakers — mostly Democrats — expressed concern that the strikes could set off a broader war in the region.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, minutes after reports of the operation began, “Proud to stand with Israel.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) soon followed, saying, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”

Cotton later added that “We back Israel to the hilt, all the way,” adding that if “the ayatollahs harm a single American, that will be the end of the ayatollahs.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), said “Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself!”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, “We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”

“I am also praying for the brave U.S. service members in the Middle East who keep America safe — Iran would be foolish to attack the United States,” Risch continued.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) emphasized that Iran has been trying for years to wipe out Israel, and that it had just been found in violation of its nonproliferation obligations. He called for efforts toward peace and warned Iran against attacking American troops.

“Today, Israel has determined that it must take decisive action to defend the Israeli people,” Thune said. “The United States Senate stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas. Iran should heavily consider the consequences before considering any action against Americans in the region.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, “I ask every American to join me in praying for the safety of U.S. personnel in the Middle East and the safety and success of Israel as it takes action against a leading state sponsor of terrorism and our shared enemy, Iran.” 

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East subcommittee, also expressed support for Israel’s preemptive strike.

“Having just visited the region two weeks ago, I support Israel’s decision to preemptively strike Iran and dismantle its nuclear program,” Lawler said. “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons — a position the US and our allies have held for decades. Peace through strength.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that Iran’s refusal to dismantle its nuclear program is a danger to the U.S. and an existential threat to Israel. “Tonight Israel is taking action to defend itself, and we stand with Israel. Our prayers are with them and all American personnel in the region.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the administration’s former nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said, “The U.S. stands strongly with our ally and partner Israel.”

“May God Bless Israel & the brave IAF [Israeli Air Force] soldiers as they protect their national security and the world’s safety,” Stefanik said. “I know President Trump’s top priority is protecting the American people, our brave U.S. service members, and our national security by ensuring the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program to ensure they can never develop a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “Israel has an unquestionable right to defend itself” and that he is “proud to stand with Israel.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that Iran had “given President Trump the middle finger” on demands to dismantle its nuclear capacity. Israel is acting to defend themselves, and we should stand with them.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said that he supports the attack and “Our commitment to Israel must be absolute.”

“Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel,” Fetterman said. “We must provide whatever is necessary — military, intelligence, weaponry — to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said: “If Israel’s strikes set back Iran’s nuclear program, we’ll all be safer,” adding that the U.S. must protect U.S. citizens and personnel and “must support Israel’s defense.”

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said that “Israel is not the aggressor. It is defending itself against an existential threat that long predates the present preemptive strike. The true aggressor is the Islamic Republic and its empire of terror — an empire stained with the blood of innocent Israelis.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), also noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just declared Iran to be in violation of its nonproliferation obligations, said that “Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people.”

“Diplomacy has been given every opportunity, but the Iranian regime refuses to give up their nuclear ambitions,” Landsman said. “There will be peace when Iran no longer has a nuclear program, a civil one sure, and their terror armies dismantled.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said, “I fully stand with the people of Israel and support her right to defend herself against Iran’s nuclear and terror programs.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, emphasized that the U.S. was not involved in the strikes. He pointed blame toward Iran but also called for steps to wind down the conflict quickly.

“I will say I regret that we have come to this breaking point. However, under no circumstance can Iran get its hands on a nuclear weapon,” Crawford said. “A nuclear Iran would only embolden our adversaries and not only pose an undeniable threat to Israel, but also the United States and our Arab allies.”

“Iran pushed the world to this point through its blatant, relentless destabilizing behavior. Israel and others in the region have every right to take the actions needed to defend themselves,” Crawford continued. “I commend the Trump Administration for its tireless efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. I am hopeful a remedy is reached sooner rather than later to stabilize this situation before the stakes get any higher.”

A number of congressional Democrats — and one notable isolationist House Republican — are expressing concern that the strikes will spark a broader war in the region and several described the strikes as designed to sabotage U.S. nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned the strikes as a “reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.” 

“These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces,” Reed said. “While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer.”

He called on both Israel and Iran to “show immediate restraint” and the Trump administration to push for “diplomatic de-escalation before this crisis spirals further out of control.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), a Republican aligned with the isolationist wing of the party, also appeared to decry the strikes.

“I’m sad to say but some members of Congress and US Senators seem giddy about the prospects of a bigger war,” Davidson said, appending an emoji of a bandaged, frowning face.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) stopped short of praising or criticizing the Israeli attack, while blaming President Donald Trump for failing to bring peace to the Middle East and calling for de-escalation.

“I’m hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in the Middle East and the situation is de-escalated,” Jeffries said. “We certainly believe that Iran should never be allowed to become nuclear capable. They are an enemy not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the free world. But we also want to see a reduction in hostilities.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said the strikes appear aimed at undermining U.S. negotiations with Iran, which were scheduled to continue this weekend in Oman.

“Iran should know that any targeting of U.S. forces and personnel stationed across the Middle East in retaliation for Israel’s actions would be a grave mistake. I urge the Trump administration to ensure that the protection of our personnel is our top priority,” Kim said. 

“Conflict should always be a last resort, especially when diplomacy is ongoing. This decision by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to go against American efforts and go alone in strikes puts American and Israeli lives on the line. We should do everything we can to stop this moment from spiraling into a wider conflict and bring parties back to the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) also described the attack as a sabotage of the nuclear talks and said it shows that world leaders do not respect President Donald Trump. He added in a statement, “we have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a progressive Israel critic, said the strikes were “deeply disturbing.”

“I don’t agree often with the Trump administration, but I think here it’s important to say we need more negotiation, we need deescalation,” Warren said. “We need to get to a deal.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, emphasized that the Trump administration needs congressional approval to bring U.S. troops into “Netanyahu’s war.”

“Netanyahu’s reckless strike risks provoking a wider war and pulling in the United States,” Casar said. “Trump must oppose Netanyahu’s escalation and pursue a diplomatic path to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. “

Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, said on Tuesday that he had provided “a wide range of options” to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump for carrying out U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program if negotiations with Tehran fail to achieve the dismantlement of its nuclear program.

Kurilla affirmed, under questioning from the House Armed Services Committee, that the military is prepared for a strong show of force against Iran if it refuses to give up its nuclear program. He said that Iran is continuing to increase its stockpiles of uranium enriched to 60% purity, for which he said there are no legitimate civilian uses. 

Kurilla added that Iran is in a “weaker strategic position” than it was pre-Oct. 7, but still maintains “a lot of operational capabilities, in terms of their long-range weapons.”

He also emphasized that China, in purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil, is “effectively supporting and financing Iran’s malign behavior.” He said that the administration’s moves to sanction “teapot refineries” in China were a major step.

Kurilla said that a stand-alone Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would increase the risk of attacks on U.S. forces in the region, but added that “every day, we’re making assessments of our posture and our risk to force, and we made adjustments based on those. We’re fielding new systems and new equipment and making adjustments every single day.”

Pressed by Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) about Michael DiMino, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, who had previously downplayed U.S. interests in the region and opposed action against Iran and its proxies, Katherine Thompson, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, largely demurred, saying that she was not involved in DiMino’s hiring and could not speak to his positions.

She said that her superior, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy who himself made comments opposing strikes on Iran, which he walked back during his confirmation process, is in line with the administration’s policy.

“We support the president’s objective to not only, first and foremost, defend the State of Israel but second, of course, deny Iran the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. That is something that we are 100% committed to,” Thompson said. “I will also note that we support the president’s objectives and stand ready to provide military options should his strategy of pursuing peace with Iran through a negotiated solution [fail].”

Ryan said that he was concerned that “dissonance” and “lack of clarity” in the administration’s public statements on its willingness to allow Iran to enrich uranium as part of an agreement was signaling “division and weakness to our adversaries.”

Asked about the U.S. ceasefire with the Houthis, Kurilla and Thompson said that the U.S. bombing campaign had achieved the goal Trump had set out of restoring freedom of navigation for U.S. ships through the Red Sea. Kurilla pointed to a recent transit of U.S. and allied naval vessels through the Red Sea as evidence.

While the ceasefire made no provisions to halt Houthi attacks on Israel, which have continued, Kurilla insisted that the U.S. is continuing to defend Israel through the operation of an American THAAD missile defense system in Israel and other efforts to intercept Houthi missiles and drones fired at the Jewish state.

He acknowledged that normal commercial traffic through the region has not yet resumed, but said that it would be a “lagging indicator” that would increase over time as insurance rates for commercial ships transiting the region drop.

Thompson said that the U.S. is not fully withdrawing from the Houthi issue, noting that the group is still designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S., and said the administration continues to pursue a “whole of government approach” to the Iran-backed group. 

She said the U.S. is working to have Gulf partners take a greater role in countering the Houthis and “develop a regional solution that empowers our Gulf partners … to tackle the long-term elements of the problem set.”

Kurilla said that permanently ending the Houthi threat will require stopping covert shipments of weapons and weapon components from Iran to Yemen.

“They would die on the vine without Iranian support,” Kurilla said, adding that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel remain on the ground in Yemen assisting with assembling and operating those weapons.

Pressed at one point by Rep. Derek Van Orden (R-WI) on why the U.S. is not sinking ships bringing weapons to the Houthis, Kurilla responded that the key challenge has been identifying the ships and the weapons among the many ships transiting the vast area of the Red Sea. But he said that when such ships are identified, the U.S. can and has intercepted and captured them.

Thompson said that European allies have taken positive steps toward collaborating on this mission and Kurilla said that the United Nations’ inspection mechanism for Yemen had also recently taken steps to increase inspections of containers, though he said that it should require the full unloading of all containers to verify their contents.

He also noted that the Houthis have been spreading across the region their knowledge and expertise gained from upgrading Iranian drones to attack Israel. He said the group and its personnel have a presence in Iraq and are sharing technical expertise with Iranian personnel as well as members of Iranian proxy groups in Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah.

He said that the Houthis also maintain cells in Syria and Lebanon and have conducted diplomatic outreach to Russia and China.

But, Kurilla continued, Iran’s vision of a “Shia crescent” through the Middle East has collapsed with the fall of the Syrian government — ”probably the single biggest event that has happened in the Middle East” — and the degrading of Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies.

He praised Israel’s success against Iran’s proxies, at one point describing its “disintegration” of Hezbollah as “brilliant” and saying that it should be studied by every military in the world.

He said that Iran is attempting to make inroads into Iraq, but that the Iraqi government has largely rejected them.

“I would offer there has rarely been a time with greater opportunity to protect [our] national interests [in the Middle East], but only if we have the courage to step through that window,” said Kurilla, who will soon be retiring after 37 years in military service. 

According to public reporting, Kurilla has largely been seen as a hawkish voice in the Trump and Biden administrations and a close ally of Israel.

Kurilla said the U.S. is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East, which requires the U.S. to maintain a “sufficient and a sustainable posture” in the region, as well as to improve foreign military sales to partners in the region.

Asked at multiple points about Qatar’s reliability as a U.S. ally, Kurilla defended Doha as a reliable and eager partner. He said that the U.S. is working to bring Qatar into the military supply chain to repair and manufacture shared weapons systems, noting that it had been enlisted to repair a component of a Patriot missile defense system the previous week.

“We have a phenomenal relationship with them, military-to-military,” Kurilla said. “They have been incredibly supportive of everything we do. Generally, the answer is, ‘Yes, what is the question,’ when I talk to them.”

Kurilla said that U.S. partners are also critical to anti-terrorist missions in places such as Syria and Iraq, and allow the U.S. to keep its operating force in the Middle East relatively small, even as those troops in the Middle East have repeatedly been on the front lines in the past year.

In Syria, he said that the U.S. is working with Kurdish partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, to integrate them into the new Syrian government, and said that Turkey is playing a positive role in those efforts.

But he also warned that the current Syrian government is being run by a small group of individuals and that he is deeply concerned about its stability, saying President Ahmed al-Sharaa  may also bring foreign terrorist fighters, who helped bring his government to power, into the fold. 

He said that U.S. troops remain in-country for counterterrorism missions, including one carried out against ISIS forces the morning of the hearing. But he said the U.S. is currently undertaking a process to review and consolidate its forces inside Syria into a smaller number of bases.

Kurilla further said that a key obstacle for U.S. relationships and goals in the region has been delays in U.S. foreign military sales to allies, frustrating those partners and imperiling efforts to integrate U.S. and allied systems across the region. He cited obstacles in the Defense Department, Congress and the defense production industry.

For the U.S.’ own purposes, he also noted that U.S.-produced air-defense systems are significantly more expensive than systems such as the Arrow, which is co-produced with Israel.

He added that the U.S. had learned much, particularly in improving technical and software capacities for air defense systems, from its ongoing operations in the Middle East.

Multiple Democrats pressed Kurilla on what role the U.S. military could play in delivering aid to civilians in Gaza. Kurilla said that the U.S. government is currently not involved in aid delivery, but highlighted the efforts of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a positive step.

“Hamas hates that because Hamas no longer has control over that distribution,” Kurilla said.

He said the military would be prepared to assist if asked to do so.

With a cryptic video that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted on X on Tuesday morning, the Democratic-congresswoman-turned-America-First-advocate reignited simmering concerns about the unorthodox intelligence chief among both her longtime detractors and some Republicans who voted to confirm her earlier this year.

“She obviously needs to change her meds,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider of Gabbard. Kennedy, like all Republicans except Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), voted to confirm Gabbard in February. 

“I only saw a post that she did, which I thought was a very strange one since many people believe that, unfortunate though it was, the nuclear bomb that was dropped in World War II at Hiroshima actually saved a lot of lives, a lot of American lives,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told JI of Gabbard’s video. 

In the social media video, Gabbard describes a recent visit to Hiroshima, Japan, where she learned about the toll of the atomic bomb dropped on the city by American troops in 1945, which spurred a Japanese surrender and the end of World War II. She warned that the world faces another “nuclear holocaust” unless people “reject this path to nuclear war.”

“This is the reality of what’s at stake, what we are facing now, because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” said Gabbard, not specifying who she was referring to by “political elite warmongers” or which countries she may have been calling out. 

Gabbard’s video decrying “warmongers” prompted concern from Republicans seeking a more traditionally conservative foreign policy worldview. 

“She seems to be doing her best audition to be head of the Quincy Institute,” a senior employee at a pro-Israel advocacy group said of Gabbard.

One Senate Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity, questioned Gabbard’s logic in raising the human toll of Hiroshima and her “warmongers” comment.

“I’m not sure I understand why the DNI would even need to make that point,” the senator said of the Hiroshima focus, later adding: “I don’t seek nuclear war. I don’t know anyone who wants nuclear war. There’s plenty of ideological diversity here, but pretty much universal opposition to that.”

Since taking office, Gabbard, who in 2020 was a surrogate for progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign, has generally been aligned with the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, which is increasingly ascendant in the Trump administration. William Ruger, the official she tapped for the high-level position that prepares the president’s daily intelligence briefing, came from Koch-affiliated institutions and has called for “American restraint” on the world stage. 

During her nomination battle, Gabbard faced criticism, including from some Republicans — focused in particular on a congressional trip to Syria in 2017 when she met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, her parroting of Russian propaganda about the country’s war with Ukraine and her defense of Edward Snowden, the former intelligence official who leaked classified information before fleeing the country. 

“It defies belief that someone would be criticizing [President Harry] Truman’s act of winning a war. We really need to get back to winning wars when we fight,” Eric Levine, a prominent Republican fundraiser in New York who urged senators to oppose Gabbard’s confirmation, told JI on Tuesday. 

Levine raised concerns about Gabbard’s ability to influence President Donald Trump’s approach to Iran, as nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are set to continue this weekend. He said that if Trump does the “right thing” — meaning he ends the Iran negotiations and supports a strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — then the U.S. will “save a lot of lives, just like Harry Truman did, and will not require the dropping of a nuclear bomb.” 

“I’m very concerned about the isolationist wing of the Republican Party,” Levine continued. “I don’t know who’s winning out, because we don’t know what the end result is in Iran yet.”

Several Republican senators questioned why Gabbard would make the video in the first place.

“I thought it was not appropriate,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told JI.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described the impact of the bomb as “horrible” but said it was necessary to end the war, in which his father had fought. 

“Dropping those bombs probably saved a million servicemen’s lives. If you don’t want to get nuked, don’t start barbaric wars,” Graham told JI. “I think it’s a horrible thing to happen to people, but it was brought on by Japan, and if I were Harry Truman, I would have done the same thing because the casualty estimates were a million dead Americans invading mainland Japan.”

Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, declined to say whether Gabbard was referring in the video to a specific nation or to specific people. 

“Acknowledging the past is critical to inform the future. President Trump has repeatedly stated in the past that he recognizes the immeasurable suffering, and annihilation can be caused by nuclear war, which is why he has been unequivocal that we all need to do everything possible to work towards peace,” Henning said in a statement. “DNI Gabbard supports President Trump’s clearly stated objectives of bringing about lasting peace and stability and preventing war.”

Despite the criticism coming even from some allies, Gabbard’s views do not appear to have gone outside the realm of what Trump hopes to see from her. 

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), a personal friend of Gabbard’s from their shared time in the House, defended Gabbard’s post and her service as DNI. 

“I think she’s doing a great job … She’s doing exactly what the president wanted her to do,” Mullin told JI. “People have been critical of her, and this is D.C., right? You’re going to get criticized for walking down the stairs wrong, so criticism is part of the job.”

The House voted on Monday to pass two resolutions condemning recent antisemitic attacks. One, led by Republicans, which focused on the Boulder, Colo., attack and immigration issues, and split the Democratic caucus. The other, which was bipartisan and highlighted a series of antisemitic attacks, passed nearly unanimously, with just two lawmakers voting present.

The first resolution attracted controversy among Democrats ahead of the vote, but it passed by a 280-133 vote. Seventy-five Democrats, mostly moderates and pro-Israel members, ultimately voted in favor of the resolution and 113 voted against it. 

Another five Democrats, Reps. Herb Conaway (D-NJ), Shomari Figures (D-AL), Sarah McBride (D-DE), Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) and Dina Titus (D-NV), and one Republican, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), voted present.

The resolution stated that the Boulder attack, perpetrated by an Egyptian national who overstayed a visa and work permit who threw a Molotov cocktail at activists raising awareness for the hostages in Gaza, “highlights the need to aggressively vet aliens who apply for visas” and “demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas.” 

It also praised law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and emphasized the need for “free and open communication” between state and federal law enforcement — an apparent reference to Colorado sanctuary state policies that limit such cooperation.

Prior to the vote, Republicans softened the resolution amid strident criticism from Democrats, stripping out one section that described the slogan “Free Palestine” as antisemitic and another one that explicitly condemned Colorado’s sanctuary state policies.

The second resolution, which condemns “the rise in ideologically motivated attacks on Jewish individuals in the United States,” including the attack in Boulder, the Capital Jewish Museum murders and the arson targeting Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, passed with 400 votes in favor. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Greene voted present. No members voted against the latter resolution.

“We cannot ignore these attacks or dismiss them as isolated incidents,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), who led the bipartisan resolution, said in a statement. “They are part of a serious and dangerous trend that must be condemned by all of us. Today, the House stood firmly in support of respect and dignity for everyone because we know that every American deserves to live without fear in their own community.”

Greene said in an X post that “antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others.”

She objected to the fact that Congress has voted on “endless resolutions” on antisemitism while “Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb.”

“Prioritizing one group of Americans and/or one foreign country above our own people is fueling resentment and actually driving more division, including antisemitism,” Greene continued.

Ahead of the vote, a group of Jewish House Democrats had urged congressional leaders to take substantive action beyond passing nonbinding resolutions to combat antisemitism, primarily by passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act and bolstering Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), in a blistering statement, accused the U.N.’s special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, of antisemitism and said that her activity has undermined the United Nations and eroded U.S. support for the U.N. and foreign aid in general and will contribute to deaths around the world.

The statement comes in response to a letter from Albanese, who has faced ongoing accusations of antisemitism from U.S. officials and lawmakers who have described her as unfit for her role, to Israel Bonds, accusing the group of involvement in crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.

“Only for a demonstrated antisemite like Ms. Albanese could stabilizing Israel’s economy after the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust be something negative,” Sherman said. “This is just the latest instance in Ms. Albanese’s long history of antisemitism – she has regularly used antisemitic terms like the ‘Jewish lobby’ and claims that Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself or even to exist.”

He said that, “Albanese and her ilk have turned once-legitimate entities like the United Nations into kangaroo courts and clown shows, significantly undermining U.S. support for the funding of international institutions and foreign aid.”

Sherman argued that actions by officials like Albanese make it harder for U.S. supporters of foreign aid to fight the Trump administration’s cuts to U.S. foreign development assistance and to support funding to international organizations. He drew a connection between Albanese and the antisemitism at the U.N. and what he said were 3.3 million anticipated deaths as a result of cuts to U.S. foreign aid.

“There’s a substantial amount of blood on her hands – but her victims live in countries that she doesn’t care about,” Sherman continued. “In fact, it seems the only thing she cares about is justifying attacks on Israel and Jews worldwide.”

Sherman also argued that the goal of Albanese and others in the anti-Israel movement is to weaken Israel economically and militarily so that future terrorist attacks can successfully eliminate the Jewish state.

“Believe that the anti-Israel movement means it when they say they want to eradicate Israel and will use any means to do it,” Sherman said. “Ms. Albanese condemns, and seeks to prevent, every effort of the Israeli government to feed and house its poorest citizens and care for the disabled. Due to her blinding rage of antisemitism, she seeks to hurt the most vulnerable.”

Albanese, in her letter to Israel Bonds, formally known as the Development Corporation for Israel, alleged that the group is responsible for a host of crimes against humanity and human rights violations, and suggested it faces international criminal liability.

“The applicable legal framework and the gravity of the situation on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in Gaza, indicate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that DCI is contributing to gross human rights violations that require the immediate cessation of the concerned business activity, and the remedy of the harm done to Palestinians,” Albanese wrote in the letter, which was obtained by JI.

“The continued failure to act responsibly in line with international law risks implicating DCI in an economy of much more serious violations, and increasing the associated liability. Indeed, given the international crimes being considered by the [International Court of Justice] and the [International Criminal Court], DCI is now on notice of a serious risk of being implicated in international crimes, the disregard of which may give rise to criminal liability, both for DCI and its executives,” she continued.

Dani Naveh, the CEO of Israel Bonds, said in a statement, “We will not be deterred by our enemies driven by antisemitism. Hamas, which carried out the atrocities of October 7, and its supporters, will not prevail. Their efforts have failed time and time again, as evidenced by the billions of dollars Israel Bonds has raised globally since the horrific attacks of October 7, 2023,” and called on supporters of Israel to respond by buying more bonds.