National Security Action named Maher Bitar, a former Biden official and Students for Justice in Palestine student activist, as its new leader
Screenshot/C-SPAN
Maher Bitar
Several top Jewish Democrats are expressing concerns about the ideological direction of a newly revived foreign policy group now aiming to shape the party’s approach to Israel in the 2028 presidential election as well as a future Democratic administration.
National Security Action, an influential Democratic foreign policy organization that launched in 2018 and helped staff the Biden administration, is returning to the political arena with a new leader, Maher Bitar, who has served in high-level defense and intelligence roles on Capitol Hill and in the White House, the group confirmed on Sunday.
Bitar, a deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and coordinator for intelligence and defense policy at the National Security Council who most recently served as chief counsel and national security advisor to Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), has faced scrutiny over his past record of anti-Israel activism.
During his time in the Biden administration, Bitar, who is Palestinian American, drew criticism from Republican lawmakers who alleged that he had demonstrated bias against Israel, citing, among other things, his past board membership with Students for Justice in Palestine while attending Georgetown University. As a student, he had also helped organize a pro-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions conference and was shown in a university yearbook performing a dance in front of a banner that called to “divest from Israeli apartheid.”
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security advisor in the Obama administration who is now a leading left-wing critic of Israel, co-founded NSA with Jake Sullivan, most recently Biden’s national security advisor. Sullivan drew headlines last year when he came out in support of withholding arms to Israel, an argument he reiterated last month on “Real Time With Bill Maher” while defending the majority of Senate Democrats who had recently voted to block some weapons sales to the Jewish state.
Both sit on NSA’s board and will be involved in the group, Rhodes told Axios, saying he is invested in building a “pipeline” to help “populate a Democratic administration” as well as crafting “ideas that can form a progressive or Democratic foreign policy going forward.”
“The center of gravity has shifted on the relationship with Israel, and there will be a debate about the nature of the relationship going forward,” Sullivan told the outlet.
“We urge National Security Action to continue to be an honest convener about these important issues,” Brian Romick, the president of Democratic Majority for Israel, told Jewish Insider. “There is a strong majority of Americans, including Democratic primary voters, who support the U.S.-Israel relationship because they understand that doing so is in the best interest of the United States.
“DMFI is proud to advocate for those voices and we recognize they have a major role to play in choosing our 2028 nominee,” Romick said.
Bitar told Axios, which first reported his role, that NSA would be a “big-tent” organization seeking to unite the party. “We are not excluding anyone,” he said, noting that the group will serve as a “hub” to discuss Democratic foreign policy “to be ready for 2028 and beyond.”
A former senior foreign policy official in the Biden administration, who was granted anonymity to address a sensitive issue, told JI that Bitar “was part of a small cohort of senior White House advisors who worked to actively undermine President Biden’s policy preferences by inserting their own anti-Israel ideology, especially” following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.
“National Security Action exists to help empower our leaders and broad community of stakeholders to communicate effectively about foreign policy and bring together a wide range of perspectives,” David McGonigal, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement to JI.
“Maher’s deep relationships across the national security community and the outpouring of support for his appointment — including from members of Congress and organizations such as J Street, the Jewish Democratic Council of America and the Nexus Project — underscore how National Security Action is uniquely positioned to carry out this important mission.”
Ethan Wolf, a Democratic strategist who previously worked as a communications director for Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), told JI he was “concerned National Security Action is rewriting everything they’ve ever stood for and putting their pen in the hand of a ‘Pod Save America’ bro,” referring to Rhodes’ association with the left-wing political podcast hosted by former Obama officials who have grown increasingly hostile to Israel.
DMFI, for its part, also alluded to Rhodes and the podcast in a heated social media post on Monday. “Democrats and Americans do not want Pod Save America hosts dictating our future national security platform,” the group wrote.
Despite other reservations over Bitar’s new role, some Jewish Democrats voiced positive views about his extensive resume.
“Maher has held multiple high-level national security positions in government — in the House, in the Senate and in the Biden and Obama administrations — where he was deeply respected for his pragmatism, depth and expertise,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. “I enjoyed working with Maher in the Obama administration and think National Security Action is lucky to have him at the helm.”
Daniel Shapiro, a U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration who served as a top defense official in the Biden administration, said he had worked with Bitar “in various capacities for over a decade, and know him to be a thoughtful and talented national security professional.”
“When we agree and when we disagree — and we do both — Maher has always been dedicated to pursuing smart, strategic, productive policy in the national interest,” Shapiro told JI. “I am confident we will continue to have a productive dialogue. And I completely reject the prejudiced attacks against him based on his Palestinian-American identity.”
In an unsolicited statement shared by a spokesperson for Schiff, the senator said Bitar “has been devoted to addressing the country’s most complex foreign policy challenges while upholding our values and protecting America’s national security interests.”
“In this new role with National Security Action, I know Maher will continue to provide the great insights and leadership we need to get through these turbulent times,” Schiff told JI.
Joel Rubin, a progressive strategist involved in Jewish and pro-Israel causes, acknowledged what he called a “freak-out” among some Jewish leaders over Bitar, but expressed optimism that the new NSA head would be open to constructive dialogue on a divisive issue.
“As long as multiple voices are included at the table, and I have no reason to believe they won’t be, this is the reality of the Democratic Party,” said Rubin, who is releasing a new book on Democratic foreign policy this week.
Michael Makovsky, the president and CEO of the hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said, “Given the recent anti-Israel statements and actions of possible Democratic presidential candidates, even historically pro-Israel ones such as Rahm” Emanuel “and centrist former officials like Jake Sullivan, it will be interesting to see if the big tent the organization says it’s seeking will include real pro-Israel voices.”
NSA is also hiring an associate director for polling and outreach to “support its work advancing a smart, principled vision of U.S. foreign policy, while pushing back on the Trump administration’s reckless national security policies,” according to a job listing posted to its website.
The group’s previous executive director, Caroline Tess, a former National Security Council official in the Obama administration, stepped down in 2025.
You couldn’t draw up a better test on the degree of Trump’s impact on the Republican Party than examining the results from four states holding highly consequential primaries next month that will be a benchmark of the president’s power
Win McNamee/Getty Images
President Donald Trump walks toward reporters before answering questions prior to boarding Air Force One on April 10, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
There’s been a lot of debate lately over whether President Donald Trump is losing some of his grip on the Republican Party, amid growing economic concerns and the ongoing military operations in Iran.
While the media coverage has been amplifying any sign of intraparty discontent — to the point that former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is getting strange new respect from some Democrats and mainstream press alike — polls continue to show Trump with widespread backing from within his own party, and especially within the MAGA faction of the GOP.
Ultimately, election results are the best reality check. And you couldn’t draw up a better test on the degree of Trump’s impact on the Republican Party than examining the results from four states holding highly consequential primaries next month that will be a benchmark of the president’s power.
Key races in Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas will speak volumes about the president’s ability to shape the GOP agenda for the remainder of his second term — and most consequentially, whether he will be able to maintain a unified front with his party on continuing to pursue military action against Iran.
The biggest intraparty showdown, especially when it comes to foreign policy, is the May 19 primary between Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and military veteran Ed Gallrein. Massie, one of the few anti-Israel Republicans in Congress, is being opposed by Trump but also has a solid base of grassroots support in the northern Kentucky district, which has thus far supported his anti-establishment brand of politics. But Gallrein has proven to be a credible challenger, raising millions and giving Massie the biggest political test of his career.
Trump has spent some valuable political capital to boost Gallrein, including appearing at a recent rally in Massie’s district to promote his challenger. He’s been joined by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which has poured $3.5 million into the race, airing five ads underscoring Massie’s record of breaking with Trump. (Further drawing Trump’s ire: Massie also joined with Democrats in championing the release of the Epstein files.)
It’s never easy to beat a sitting incumbent, but Trump also has an imposing record of winning primaries in which he chooses to engage. If Massie pulls out a victory despite breaking so flagrantly with Trump on a number of key issues, it will be a sign of the president’s diminished political clout.
Another high-profile race where Trump’s engagement in a primary hasn’t yet been definitive: Sen. Bill Cassidy’s (R-LA) uphill fight to win renomination against Trump-endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) and state Treasurer John Fleming. The primary will be held on May 16, with the top two finishers heading to a runoff if no one wins a majority of the vote.
Cassidy, largely because of his vote to impeach Trump in 2021, has long faced challenges with the GOP base. Trump, looking to secure Cassidy’s defeat, backed Letlow earlier this year in hopes she’d consolidate the MAGA vote. But Trump’s endorsement hasn’t translated into a groundswell for Letlow, and the presence of Fleming, a former right-wing congressman, has complicated the political math in the primary.
Cassidy looks like a long shot even if he heads to a runoff, and Letlow holds a narrow lead in the limited public polling of the race. But there’s a chance that Fleming could sneak past Letlow on the primary ballot and face Cassidy in a runoff, blocking Trump’s candidate from the race. If that happened, it would be another sign that Trump’s endorsement doesn’t carry the same weight as it once did.
The first Trump test of the month (May 5) will be in Indiana, where the president is trying to punish certain Republican state legislators for not backing a redistricting plan, championed by the White House, which would have allowed the GOP to gain an additional seat.
Finally, it’s the spring race where Trump has remained on the sidelines that may be a signal of his limited political powers. After Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) finished ahead of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the state’s primary last month, reports indicated the president was close to endorsing Cornyn for reelection, in an effort to prevent an expensive and competitive general election against Democrat James Talarico.
But amid furious pushback from right-wing activists and polls suggesting that a Trump endorsement wouldn’t have moved the needle that much, the president has not gotten involved in the race. That alone speaks volumes about the limited level of the president’s political capital.
Trump boasts a near-perfect record in GOP primaries throughout his decade-long political career, with the most prominent setbacks being in Georgia (working against Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2022). So if the president’s chosen candidates end up falling short in these key contests, it will be a sign that Republicans may already be preparing for the post-Trump era.
The mayor lauded visiting former Irish President Mary Robinson and her controversial tenure as U.N. high commissioner for human rights
TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP via Getty Images
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (2L), New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch (2R) and Cardinal Timothy Dolan (R) participate in annual St. Patrick's Day Parade in New York on March 17, 2026.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani took the occasion of St. Patrick’s Day and the presence of former Irish President Mary Robinson in New York to talk Middle East politics and praise Robinson’s controversial tenure as the United Nations’ high commissioner for human rights.
Speaking at a breakfast at Gracie Mansion, Mamdani acknowledged Robinson from the lectern and lauded her record of advocacy, particularly singling out her stance on Israel. The Irish presidency is a largely ceremonial role.
“I think also of how she stood steadfast alongside the people of Palestine,” the mayor said in listing Robinson’s accomplishments. “I say this as over the past few years as we’ve witnessed a genocide unfold before our eyes, there has been deafening silence from so many. For those who have long cared about universal human rights and the extension of them to Palestinians, silence, however, is nothing new. For Palestinians are so often left to weep alone. Yet former President Robinson has never been silent.”
During her tenure at the U.N., Robinson chaired a preparatory meeting for the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia gathering in Tehran that blocked the participation of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and representatives from the persecuted Baha’i faith. Robinson blamed the obstruction on “procedural and technical” issues, though she voiced support for the general right of such groups to take part.
The eventual conference, held in Durban, South Africa, was a notoriously disorganized fiasco that led to the end of Robinson’s commissionership. The conference saw the withdrawal of American and Israeli delegations over draft document language from Arab governments attempting to reinstate a repealed U.N. resolution that declared Zionism to be a form of racism and to compare Israeli policy to the Holocaust.
She was a founding member of The Elders, a group of veteran global leaders promoting “peace, justice, human rights and a sustainable planet,” and became the group’s chair in 2018. In 2014, she co-authored a Foreign Policy opinion piece with former President Jimmy Carter amid the 2014 Israel-Gaza war that called for “recognizing Hamas as a legitimate political actor.”
‘If you can't stand against that, you don't stand for a f***ing thing,’ the former Obama admin official said
Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Ben Rhodes, then-deputy national security advisor to President Barack Obama, participates in an interview with press at the White House in on Wednesday, December 14, 2016.
A former top Obama administration foreign policy official said on Wednesday that any Democratic lawmakers who vote to support U.S. strikes on Iran should be primaried.
“If you vote for the funding of this war, you should be primaried. I don’t want you in the Democratic Party,” said Ben Rhodes, co-host of the “Pod Save the World” podcast and former deputy national security advisor under President Barack Obama.
He was referring to Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Juan Vargas (D-CA), the only four Democrats to vote against a war powers resolution last week that sought an immediate end to the U.S. military campaign in Iran.
Rhodes, who was one of the biggest boosters of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and a leading Israel critic on the left, said the Democratic Party should have a big tent — but that support for President Donald Trump’s actions in Iran falls outside of that tent.
“I would like to have a big tent in this party. I think there should be people with different ideas of how to get health care, different ideas of taxation,” Rhodes said to co-host Tommy Vietor. “To me, this is not a left-center issue. This is a right and wrong issue. Morally, what do we stand for as Democrats?”
Rhodes suggested that Democrats who cast a vote in support of the war are doing so because of donor pressure.
“How is anybody going to trust you to fight for their health care if you’re too afraid to cast a vote, that someone might call you weak or some donor might call you and complain?” Rhodes asked. “If you as a Democrat can’t say that I am against a war and I’m not going to fund a war that is being launched by an authoritarian president, illegally, with no rational basis that is explained to the American people, that has already unleashed these consequences, if you can’t stand against that, you don’t stand for a f***ing thing.”
The Pennsylvania senator told JI about the U.S. military operation’s successes: ‘Why can’t a single Democrat agree that this is a good thing for the world and the region?’
Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Senator John Fetterman speaks during the grand opening of The Altneu synagogue.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is criticizing his fellow Democrats over their opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to launch the U.S. war in Iran, arguing that his party should celebrate efforts to bring down the Iranian regime and its military and nuclear capabilities as a “positive development.”
Fetterman, the most vocal pro-Israel Democrat in the Senate, has been one of the leading advocates for striking Iran directly since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. He backed Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities amid the 12-day war with Israel last year, criticizing Democrats at the time for speaking out against the operation, and has since emerged as one of the staunchest Iran hawks in the Democratic Party.
The Pennsylvania senator said, since leading Democrats have long argued that Iran should never have the ability to get a nuclear weapon, criticism from the party of the joint U.S.-Israel efforts to degrade their military capabilities is hypocritical.
“First, let’s get to history. Every single Democratic presidential candidate or Democratic president all agreed, we can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. Everyone has run the gamut: sanctions, treaties, proxies, other kinds of negotiations. It never worked,” Fetterman told Jewish Insider in an interview on Tuesday. “But you know what it actually produced? Nine hundred pounds of just pure, weapons-grade uranium.”
“When the country that wants death to America and wants to destroy Israel could have been months away from developing a nuclear weapon, and every single Democratic candidate for president all agreed we can never allow them [to do so], why can’t we just acknowledge what’s happened?” he asked. “It’s a profound development. I don’t get it. I know what the [Democratic] base demands right now: condemn and criticize.”
He said that Democrats should be able and willing to praise the operation for degrading Iran’s regime and its capabilities.
“Why can’t a Democrat call this a positive development given everything that Iran is responsible for and what their ambitions are?” Fetterman said. “This is effectively us destroying the Nazi regime and Hitler before they could’ve even begun. So, to your readers, whether in Israel or here, I ask: Why is that a problem?”
Fetterman also said that the media and fellow Democrats are ignoring what he characterized as the apparent successes and effectiveness of the U.S.-Israel strikes.
“Iran’s capabilities have been effectively ended. Right now, the missile strikes are down by 90 percent. Their Navy is gone. They can’t even project any force at this point,” Fetterman said. “Why do The New York Times and other left-wing media keep making it seem that the region is on fire when this is the breaking free of Iran? Why can’t a single Democrat agree that this is a good thing for the world and the region?”
Fetterman also blasted recent comments from former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders, criticizing Trump’s decision to launch the U.S. war in Iran and questioning the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship. The Pennsylvania senator said he was not surprised by the mainstreaming of opposition to Israel within the Democratic Party, predicting that the shift away from supporting Israel would continue.
“I expect at the end that our party is going to continue to back away from the moral clarity of Israel. If you are describing Israel as an apartheid state, or you have people in leadership [doing so], that’s profoundly disappointing but unsurprising,” Fetterman said.
JINSA’s Hussein Mansour: ‘During the 12-day war, Qatar called Iran the sisterly Islamic Republic. Nine months later, Qatar is shooting down Iranian jets’
Fadel SENNA / AFP via Getty Images
A yacht sails past a plume of smoke rising from the port of Jebel Ali following a reported Iranian strike in Dubai on March 1, 2026.
Leading Middle East foreign policy experts warned that Iran’s decision to expand its response to the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign by striking neighboring Arab states could prove to be a major strategic miscalculation — one that risks isolating Tehran further and potentially drawing Gulf countries to take action.
In the days following the launch of the campaign, Iran carried out widespread drone and missile strikes at multiple Arab nations, striking all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — as well as Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Oman.
Some Iranian strikes hit U.S. military installations in those countries, as well as the U.S. consulate in Dubai and the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, in what analysts said was an apparent attempt to raise the costs for Washington and lead allies to pressure it to halt the campaign.
But Iran also indiscriminately struck civilian targets — including airports, hotels and major oil and gas infrastructure — causing damage that is sending oil prices soaring and could have lasting economic consequences for the region. Prior to the attacks, several of the affected Arab governments had publicly stated they would not allow their territory to be used to launch strikes on Iran.
On Sunday, the U.S. issued a joint statement along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait, strongly condemning Iran’s “indiscriminate and reckless missile and drone attacks against sovereign territories across the region.”
The attacks have only continued and expanded since then: On Wednesday, Turkey’s Defense Ministry said that Iran had launched a ballistic missile towards its airspace that was intercepted by NATO defense systems. NATO spokeswoman Allison Hart condemned the incident, adding that NATO “stands firmly with all allies.”
While Arab officials have sought to distance their countries from the conflict and have largely remained silent as they weigh their options, experts said Iranian attacks are a significant error from Tehran that risks pushing Arab states toward direct involvement.
Alexander Gray, a former National Security Council chief of staff under President Donald Trump and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told Jewish Insider that Iran’s decision to attack Arab countries was an “extraordinary strategic miscalculation.”
“Not only has Iran forced the region’s Arab states to openly support the U.S. and Israeli operation, but it has encircled itself far more effectively than any American diplomacy could have accomplished,” Gray said. “Over the long term, this unifying force may offer the U.S. a unique opportunity to return to the economic and diplomatic track of the Abraham Accords on a broader, regional basis after the conclusion of the military operation.”
Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at Israel Policy Forum, echoed those sentiments, calling the action a “risky move at best.”
“Iran’s decision to attack neighboring Arab states was intended to impose escalating costs that would theoretically put pressure on the U.S. to bring the war to a halt,” Koplow said. “So far it has backfired as the U.S. and Israel show no signs of backing down, while there are reports that the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are contemplating taking their own action against Iranian missiles and launchers.”
He added that the latest missile fired toward Turkey is “a sign of Iranian regime desperation,” and follows a similar pattern. Koplow also noted that Gulf states are likely to have a “much lower tolerance threshold for Iranian attacks and provocations” going forward, warning that the result could be “an even more isolated Iran facing a regional coalition that takes a more aggressive posture toward its own defense.”
Hussein Mansour, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, also said that Iran “catastrophically” miscalculated. “Iran created the conditions for the Gulf states to join the operation,” said Mansour. He added that Tehran’s decision to strike Arab neighbors destroyed “every diplomatic off-ramp it [Iranian leadership] had spent years cultivating.”
Dana Stroul, director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said “there is no question that Iran’s strategy of punishing U.S. allies and partners backfired.”
“Gulf leaders are also making clear they maintain the right to defend themselves and are likely considering the proposition that, given Iran’s willingness to unleash its missile and drone arsenal, the best defense is a strong offense,” Stroul said. “It should not be a surprise if in the coming hours or days we see an expanded role for Gulf countries under attack.”
Amb. Dan Shapiro, a former official in both the Obama and Biden administrations, also told JI that the recent Iranian attacks increases the potential for Arab partners to get involved, noting that the situation underscores the value for Arab countries in “being part of a regional air defense network that includes the United States, but also includes Israel.”
“The Gulf states mostly wanted to stay out of this conflict,” Shapiro said. Now, ”there’s at least some possibility you see the UAE and possibly other Gulf states participate in some measure in operations against Iran.”
Mansour said the strikes have pushed the Gulf states further away from Iran and towards the West.
“Last June, during the 12-day war, Qatar called Iran ‘the sisterly Islamic Republic,’ Kuwait accused the U.S. of violating international law, and Saudi Arabia called for ‘restraint,’” said Mansour. “Nine months later, Qatar is shooting down Iranian jets. Saudi Arabia has authorized retaliation and offered to place ‘all its capabilities’ at the region’s disposal. The UAE has shuttered its embassy in Tehran.”
Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former Trump administration official, told JI that he views Iran’s decision to attack Arab neighbors as more of a “reality of who the regime is” rather than a miscalculation.
“The regime is fighting for its survival, it sees all of these countries hosting U.S. bases or otherwise aligning with the U.S. in strategic ways. It knows one of their only cards to play is both to drain air defense assets and spike energy prices, so it wildly attacks civilian and critical infrastructure across the region,” said Goldberg. “The regime sees most of these countries as complicit in the attack simply by enabling the U.S. to operate in the Middle East, and it knows that if it can hit enough energy targets hard enough it can increase the pain point for the West.”
Kristin Diwan, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, said that while Arab Gulf states are “furious with Iran,” there are reasons for them to refrain from entering direct conflict.
“I suspect that [Arab states] not becoming a party to the war will be essential to negotiating workarounds with the Iranians,” said Diwan. “These will be necessary to get the breathing space in shipping and transport necessary to endure a long war.”
“This same logic will apply if Iran emerges from the war depleted but still dangerous,” Diwan added. “While America may depart the region, Iran will remain, and its Arab neighbors must find a way to live with it.”
Goldberg said that while there is “political benefit” for the U.S. in having Arab governments “endorse offensive military action against the regime,” he noted that “absent a major offensive military contribution to the war [from Arab states], the regime inflicts more costs on the region than it endures for doing so.”
“The GCC states are now on an escalation ladder they did not choose and cannot easily descend,” said Mansour. “If Iran continues to target energy infrastructure, I imagine the Gulf will retaliate severely. The bigger question is what happens after the war stops, and this will largely depend on how the war stops.”
Most Democrats are pushing for a war powers resolution next week, amid ongoing military operations
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The American flag flies in front of the U.S. Capitol on February 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. U.S.
A number of Republican lawmakers rallied behind President Donald Trump’s military strikes against Iran on Saturday, while leading Democrats expressed quick and strident opposition to the administration’s decision to attack Iran.
Democrats are also demanding Congress reconvene promptly next week to vote on war powers resolutions to block further military operations in Iran without congressional approval. The resolutions were already expected to come up for votes in the coming week.
A few Democratic lawmakers sounded more open-minded about the attack against Tehran. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), one of the few foreign policy hawks in his party, said the president “was absolutely” correct to attack Iran in an appearance on Fox News. “God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel,” Fetterman said.
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), who told Jewish Insider earlier this week that limited strikes on Iran could be necessary and productive, echoed that stance on Saturday. He said that he would oppose the war powers resolution.
“I hope these targeted strikes on the Iranian regime’s military assets end the regime’s mayhem and bloodshed and makes way for this lasting peace in the region,” Landsman said. “Thank you to our brave service members who are leading this effort, and I pray their work will finally free the people of Iran and those in the region from more violence or war. May peace emerge from all of this.”
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who had been planning to oppose the war powers resolution, praised the attack while highlighting the administration’s obligations under the War Powers Act, which limits the duration for which the president can unilaterally commit forces to armed conflict without congressional approval.
“Today, the United States, with our key democratic ally Israel, took decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies and stand with the Iranian people who have been massacred in the streets for demanding freedom from the murderous Iranian regime,” Gottheimer said. “I applaud the extraordinary bravery and professionalism of our servicemembers and pray for their safety as Iran and its terrorist proxies retaliate against American bases and our partners in the region.”
“Confronting the Iranian threat is essential to America’s national security and to global stability. The world is safer because of the courage and skill of our service members. I am praying for their safety and the safety of all of our allies who have been targeted by Iranian retaliation,” he continued.
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) offered more muted support for the operation, praising U.S. servicemembers while saying she “stand[s] with the Iranian people in their hope for a better future and will continue to work in a bipartisan way in Congress to provide them the support they need.” She called for an immediate and detailed briefing on the administration’s plans, and highlighted Iran’s long record of malign activity and attacks on its own citizens.
But Rosen also warned against a protracted conflict and criticized the lack of congressional authorization.
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), among the most moderate Democrats in the House and a potential swing vote on the war powers resolution, said Trump needs to seek congressional authorization for the operation, while offering support for the administration’s goals.
“I agree with the President’s objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities. The President must now clearly define the national security objective and articulate his plan to avoid another costly, prolonged war in the Middle East,” Suozzi said. “Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the region and must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Preventing that outcome is vital to our national security, the safety of our allies, and the stability of the Middle East.”
Most of the leading voices in the Democratic Party, however, are rallying against the Iran attack.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who is leading a war powers resolution in the Senate that he planned to call up for a vote next week, said in a statement, “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action,” calling the strikes a “colossal mistake,” accusing the president of having “learned nothing from decades of U.S. meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East” and of being “mentally incapacitated.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who is leading similar legislation in the House, said that “the American people are tired of regime change wars that cost us billions of dollars and risk our lives. We don’t want to be at war with a country of 90 million people in the Middle East.”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), one of the few GOP isolationists in Congress and Khanna’s cosponsor on that resolution, also said he opposes the operation.
“This is not ‘America First,’” Massie said. “When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran. The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.”
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), another isolationist-minded Republican who indicated this week that he was leaning toward voting for the war powers resolution, sent similar signals on Saturday.
“We need a government small enough to fit within the Constitution. We need a government effective enough to solve problems and serve its own people. Or, we need a new Constitution,” Davidson said.
The House is not scheduled to reconvene until Wednesday.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was one of the handful of congressional leaders briefed on the administration’s plans earlier this week, said that “everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame.”
He said he expressed his concerns to Secretary of State Marco Rubio during the briefing this week.
Republicans are largely lining up behind the administration, with the exception of Massie.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who had urged Trump to take action, praised the administration, saying Trump had “met the moment.”
“My mind is racing with the thought that the murderous ayatollah’s regime in Iran will soon be no more. The biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years is upon us,” Graham said. “The likelihood of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel getting back on track is exceedingly high – a subject I brought up last week to the key players in the region who concurred if the ayatollah goes down, historic peace advances.”
Graham met with leaders in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this month and said on Fox News on Saturday morning that he plans to return soon. Following retaliatory strikes by Iran on U.S. military facilities in several Arab states, Saudi Arabia issued a statement condemning Iran and offering its support for measures the Arab states may take in response.
“This operation has been well-planned,” Graham continued. “It will be violent, extensive and I believe, at the end of the day, successful. Again the demise of the ayatollah’s regime with American blood on its hands is necessary and more than justified.”
He later urged Arab and other allies to “get behind President Trump and go all in to ensure the ayatollah’s Iran, which has become the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world is no more.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was also briefed, said, “The butcher’s bill has finally come due for the ayatollahs. May God bless and protect our troops on this vital mission of vengeance, and justice, and safety,” highlighting the regime’s long record of attacks against Americans.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said Iran is “facing the severe consequences of its evil actions,” and said Trump had “made every effort” at diplomacy. “For decades, Iran has defiantly maintained its nuclear program while arming and funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other internationally recognized terrorist organizations. Iran and its proxies have menaced America and American lives, undermined our core national interests, systematically destabilized the Middle East, and threatened the security of the entire West.”
“The Gang of 8 was briefed in detail earlier this week that military action may become necessary to protect American troops and American citizens in Iran. I received updates from Secretary Rubio thereafter, and I will remain in close contact with the President and the Department of War as this operation proceeds,” Johnson continued.
Other rank-and-file Democrats, including some moderates, drew parallels with the Bush administration’s war against Iraq in their criticism.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the strikes raise “serious legal and constitutional concerns.”
“The American people have seen this playbook before — claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” Warner continued. “We owe it to our service members, and to every American family, to ensure that we are not repeating the mistakes of the past. The president owes the country clear answers: What is the objective? What is the strategy to prevent escalation? And how does this make Americans safer?”
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), an Iraq war veteran representing a GOP-leaning state, expressed concern for U.S. forces, who Trump acknowledged could be lost in the ensuing war.
“I lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war. Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people,” Gallego said. “We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die.”
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a co-chair of the House Jewish caucus and a key pro-Israel leader, criticized the administration’s move and said he would support the war powers resolution. “The President of the United States is not allowed to take our nation to war without authorization from Congress.”
“This is a moment of peril and opportunity,” Schneider said. “Congress must step up to meet the moment, fulfill its constitutional duties, and ensure American action — with our allies in the region and around the world — leads to a more stable and peaceful Middle East, not another generational entanglement ending in failure.”
Former Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), among the House’s most vocal Democratic Iran hawks while she was in office and who is now running to reclaim her former seat, also said Congress should “immediately return to Washington” to vote on Kaine’s war powers resolution.
Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) said that Trump has “no credibility on either the strategy or law guiding foreign policy” — pointing to the president’s delayed promise to Iranian protesters earlier this year that help would be coming — and said he plans to support the war powers resolution.
“I am ready to work across the aisle to craft congressionally directed strategy on Iran, especially for securing American air supremacy in the region and supporting the Iranian people’s right to self determination,” Auchincloss said. “But first congressional Republicans must call the question on this fundamental issue of war powers by voting against a reckless commander-in-chief and for the Constitution.”
In an interview with JI, Amb. Reuven Azar says joint manufacturing ‘means that, during times of need, we can supply things to each other, unlike what happened [with other countries] during the war’
PRAKASH SINGH/AFP via Getty Images
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (R) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pose for photographers after Netanyahu arrived at the Air Force Station in New Delhi on January 14, 2018.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to arrive in Israel on Wednesday to address the Knesset and head an innovation event in Jerusalem, as part of what Israeli Ambassador to India Reuven Azar told Jewish Insider is an “upgrade” in relations between the countries “to a new, strategic level.”
The visit of the head of the world’s most populous nation, whose relations with Israel have grown stronger since Modi became prime minister in 2014, has important implications for the Jewish state’s security, geopolitics and trade, Azar said.
Modi last visited Israel eight years ago. At the time, a photo of the Indian leader and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wading barefoot in the Mediterranean Sea during a visit to a desalination plant went viral.
His trip this week, during which he will address Israel’s Knesset, comes amid rising tensions across the Middle East — and as Israelis prepare for a potential attack from Iran.
India has been the Israeli defense industry’s largest customer in recent years, with arms sales totaling $20.5 billion during 2020-2024. The countries have reportedly closed deals worth $8.6 billion since the beginning of 2026.
During his visit, Modi plans to sign an “updated security agreement to allow the private sector to work on more sensitive products when it comes to joining production,” Azar, who has been Israel’s envoy to India since September 2024, said. “The updated protocols will allow us to work on more sensitive technology. It will create a lot of action.”
Netanyahu and leading Israeli defense figures have spoken about moving toward greater self-sufficiency in arms manufacturing. Delhi has long had a “Make in India” campaign to increase local production, requiring Israeli arms companies to open production lines in India in order to sell to the country, and the agreement means that joint production “will get a significant upgrade, because we are expanding both the scope and range of technologies we can apply,” Azar said.
“Both Israel and India want to be more independent and self-reliant when it comes to production and less reliant on foreign supply. Producing things together means that, during times of need, we can supply things to each other, unlike what happened during the war [in Gaza] … in which we had interruptions in supply from different countries,” Azar said.
Economically, Israel and India are working on a free-trade agreement, and hope to expand their cooperation on emerging technologies, as well as large infrastructure projects. Azar said that he worked to bring Indian companies to bid on tenders relating to the ongoing Tel Aviv Metro subway project, and that 15 have already applied.
The U.S. has long expressed concern about security risks related to Chinese companies working on major infrastructure projects in Israel. Companies from India, which views China as an adversary, have been considered as a potential competitive alternative.
Though Azar, a former deputy national security advisor for foreign policy, served as head of the Israel-U.S.-China Internal Task Force Israel’s Foreign Ministry at the beginning of the decade, he declined to comment on that aspect, preferring to focus on Israel-India bilateral relations.
With regard to the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a trade route meant to pass through Israel, among other countries in the region, and compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Azar said that “we need to wait for the right geopolitical moment to make it happen. … It needs to happen, but evidently, it won’t now.”
“Currently, there is some movement of merchandise, but to see it become massive, we need some change in Saudi Arabia,” Azar said.
Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., both points on the IMEC route, are facing increased tensions between them. Riyadh has pointed some of its ire at Jerusalem, and has been growing closer to India’s historic foe, Pakistan.
Azar was enthusiastic about an Israeli Cabinet decision approved on Sunday in which Israel plans to allocate over $48 million to cooperation with India in a variety of spheres. Half of the funds come from individual government ministries seeking the cooperation, and the other half was specially allocated by the Finance Ministry.
“The most important is upgrading research and development with funds from the Israel Innovation Authority, and academic cooperation. Israeli universities are all over India now, getting into agreements to exchange students and transfer technology and innovation offices. They feel very welcome in India,” he said.
Asked if that means India has become an alternative to much of the West, where Israeli academics have faced hostility in recent years, Azar said that India and Israel “don’t have challenges in this realm and continue working together to discover the joint resilience so needed in times of war.”
At the same time, he added, “it’s important for any country to diversify. We feel we have so much in common with India, which is a rising force in the world. It’s natural, and it’s not only Israel. Last week, 20 heads of state and 50 foreign ministers went to an AI summit in India. … Everybody is chasing India now.”
Though India-Israel relations were worse before Modi’s rise, Azar said they have the potential for longevity.
“We are now building the pillars of relations that are going to last,” he said. “We are trying to get bipartisan support. There is a lot of support for Israel, not just in [Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party]. The general public feels it, and we have a high appreciation of that. There are some parties, like the communists, that are more critical, but I think this relationship is going to last.”
The Delaware senator holds a unique place in the Democratic Party, rising to leadership roles while continuing to champion Biden-era foreign policy
Alex Kraus/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, at the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, on Saturday, Feb. 14, 2026.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), one of the leading foreign policy voices in the Democratic Party’s moderate wing, expressed concern over the weekend that any White House decision to move ahead with military action against Iran would deeply alienate leading European allies of the United States.
“There are pretty stark early warning signs of some challenges where core allies do not share our priorities,” Coons told Jewish Insider following a weeklong trip to Europe, which included stops at the Munich Security Conference, along with meetings in Ukraine and Moldova with top European diplomats.
“It leaves me genuinely concerned that if Trump goes ahead with a strike against Iran, it is not going to enjoy support from any of our core allies,” he continued. “That will make it harder, and it may deepen this growing challenge for us.”
Asked how he would like to see the Trump administration address the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on protesters and its nuclear program, Coons urged the president to work with close allies to “ramp up pressure” on Tehran and explain his approach to the public. The Delaware senator also encouraged Trump to include Congress in his deliberations.
“A) Consult Congress. B) Make a case to the American people about why this is in our national security interest,” Coons said. “C) Clarify what on earth he’s planning with this Board of Peace, which just launched with a massive pledge from the United States that none of us had heard of before he announced it,” he said, ostensibly referring to the $10 billion financial commitment Trump made to Gaza’s reconstruction. “And D) If he’s going to work with close allies to ramp up pressure to try and achieve something at the negotiating table, he should work with close allies.”
“He shouldn’t just fire off a bunch of missiles and assume that that’s going to be enough to achieve the result he wants,” he added.
Coons also highlighted growing transatlantic tensions over potential U.S. military action against Iran during discussions with European officials, who expressed worries about a brewing U.S.-U.K. dispute tied to the Chagos Islands.
The remote British Indian Ocean Territory is at the center of a 2025 agreement in which the U.K. agreed to transfer sovereignty of the island chain to Mauritius while securing a 99- or 100-year lease for the strategic Diego Garcia military base, a joint U.S.-U.K. facility long used by American forces.
The Trump administration initially signaled support for the deal, with the State Department affirming it last Tuesday. But one day later, President Donald Trump publicly urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to scrap the arrangement and retain full control of the “strategically located” base, warning it could be needed if diplomacy with Iran fails.
The Times of London reported Thursday that the British government had informed Washington that week it would not permit U.S. strikes on Iran from Diego Garcia or the Royal Air Force’s Fairford station, which houses U.S. Air Force troops, in England.
Coons called the U.K.’s stance “striking.”
Coons plays a unique role in today’s Democratic Party. He sits in the Senate seat held by former President Joe Biden for 36 years, and the two Delaware Democrats have a relationship that dates back four decades.
In addition to being the ranking member on Defense Appropriations, the panel responsible for Pentagon funding, Coons is next in line to succeed retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a role Biden held in the early 2000s. The Delaware senator remains Biden’s most ardent defender in politics following his exit from public life, and continues to advocate in his role as a senior Democrat in Congress for the traditional foreign policy views the two men have long shared.
He does so against the backdrop of the ongoing debate among Democrats about the future direction of the party, on foreign policy and otherwise, in the post-Biden era.
Alongside Coons in Munich were a handful of prominent Democrats believed to be considering presidential runs in 2028, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI). Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Gavin Newsom of California and former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.
Among the possible presidential hopefuls, Ocasio-Cortez and Whitmer were criticized for being unprepared for the conference after struggling to answer questions on U.S. policy toward China and Ukraine. Meanwhile, Murphy and Ocasio-Cortez separately accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza — appealing to a left-wing base that has made criticism of the Jewish state central to its foreign policy.
Ocasio-Cortez later griped to The New York Times that her gaffes and perceived presidential ambitions overshadowed the message she was attempting to deliver on a major foreign policy stage.
Asked about the large presence of potential Democratic presidential candidates in Munich, Coons joked that he was “announcing my 2028 candidacy” before crediting his fellow Democrats for engaging closely on foreign policy issues.
“The reality is that over the last several cycles, I’ve been very encouraged to see governors, senators, former cabinet officials who are likely future presidential candidates invest the time in coming to Munich, coming to Davos, going to Halifax, going to Australia, because the threat environment for all of our countries has become more serious and more real,” Coons said.
Coons also expressed concern about the hefty $850 billion budget for the Pentagon in the upcoming fiscal year, noting the significantly increased funding is “a breathtaking amount of money, and there is a lot of skepticism on the part of Americans that it’s being well spent.”
“The average American needs to see good jobs and innovation coming out of this massive defense investment. If we focus only on buying American and only on American jobs, we will lose tactically, we will lose strategically, we will lose politically. To the extent we align together, there is a strong future for all of our countries as democracies to meet this moment and to deliver the innovation that this threat environment absolutely demands,” Coons said.
Pretoria angered after Israel offers parched region water management aid; Jerusalem declares South African diplomat serving Palestinians persona non grata
Amb. David Saranga/X
King Buyelekhaya Zwelibanzi Dalindyebo, the monarch of the AbaThembu people, and Amb. David Saranga.
South Africa and Israel banished each other’s highest-ranking diplomat serving in each country, after a video of Israel offering water technology and medical aid to minority tribes angered Pretoria last week.
The diplomatic row took place days before Congress is expected to vote on renewing the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which would allow many products from the continent to enter the U.S. duty-free. The Trump administration has considered removing South Africa from the program because it is a “unique problem,” as U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer described it in December. Removal from AGOA would adversely affect about half of South Africa’s exports to the U.S., its second-largest trading partner, Bloomberg reported.
Pretoria declared Israel’s chargé d’affaires, Ariel Seidman, persona non grata on Friday, and hours later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar expelled South African envoy Shaun Edward Byneveldt, whom they called “the senior diplomatic representative of South Africa.” Byneveldt is South Africa’s “ambassador to Palestine,” but he was based in Tel Aviv, and diplomats serving the Palestinians are accredited by Israel.
Israel and South Africa have not exchanged ambassadors in recent years. South Africa announced in 2019 that it had downgraded its embassy in Tel Aviv to a liaison office. Israel maintained an ambassador in Pretoria until South Africa petitioned the International Criminal Court to arrest Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in 2023.
However, with an active Jewish community of over 50,000, Israel has dispatched Amb. David Saranga, the Foreign Ministry’s director of digital diplomacy and a former ambassador to Romania, to be a kind of ambassador-at-large, visiting South Africa for specific meetings and projects.
Saranga visited South Africa’s Eastern Cape last Sunday, as a guest of King Buyelekhaya Zwelibanzi Dalindyebo, the monarch of the AbaThembu people. The group is part of the Xhosa nation, the second-largest tribe in the country. Dalindyebo had visited Israel weeks earlier. The largest tribe, the Zulu, dominates South African politics through the African National Congress, the largest party in the country’s parliament.
In a post on X, Saranga characterized the Eastern Cape as “a region rich in heritage, poor in infrastructure,” noting that in some areas, “access to clean drinking water remains a luxury rather than a given” and “healthcare challenges are equally severe.” Saranga helped arrange partnerships between Innovation:Africa, Israel’s Sheba Hospital, Dalindyebo and other traditional leaders in the region.
Saranga and Dalindyebo held a joint press conference with other traditional leaders outside the tribal leader’s home during the Israeli diplomat’s visit last week, videos of which were posted to social media by the Israeli embassy. In one of them, Dalindyebo said of the South African government’s opposition to cooperation with Israel: “They can go to hell if they wish.” Saranga can be seen chuckling next to him.
“As a king, I am a bona fide head and owner of the land. If any government, if any constitution disputes that, someone must educate me afresh,” Dalindyebo said, asserting his authority to accept aid from Israel if he so chooses.
Days later, the Eastern Cape province’s premier, Lubabalo Oscar Mabuyane, expressed “shock and concern” that Israel acted without consulting his office, calling it “a clear breach of diplomatic protocol.” Israel argued to the South African Jewish Report that it was acting within diplomatic norms.
On Friday, South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) gave Seidman a 72-hour deadline to leave the country following what it called “unacceptable violations of diplomatic norms and practice which pose a direct challenge to South Africa’s sovereignty.” According to DIRCO, the violations included a failure to inform the department of visits by “senior Israeli officials” and insults to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on official Israeli social media accounts.
South African political news site The Common Sense reported that the ANC, of which Mabuyane is a member, was “panicked by an Israeli effort to expand a service delivery programme in the Eastern Cape and the positive reception to that programme by communities,” and “feared that positive imagery of ordinary South Africans cooperating with Israelis would be very damaging to the government’s hostile foreign policy towards Israel.”
The South African Jewish Board of Deputies contrasted DIRCO’s actions against Israel with its “willful blindness toward ongoing international atrocities [in Sudan and Iran] … This glaring inconsistency exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of DIRCO’s actions.”
“Given the dire lack of basic services for countless South Africans, it is striking that just days after Israel offered water solutions to a desperate community in the Eastern Cape, DIRCO expelled the Israeli charge d’affairs, diverting attention from real domestic issues,” the SAJBD added.
The South African Zionist Federation said that the expulsion of Seidman “is an act of staggering moral bankruptcy — a choice that exposes a ruling party more committed to ideological hostility than to the welfare of the people it has so profoundly failed.”
SAZF argued that DIRCO’s actions were “never truly about process, protocol, or sovereignty.”
“A diplomat was declared persona non grata not for espionage, not for misconduct, not for breaching protocol — but for the unforgivable crime of helping South Africans get water. Clean water,” the organization stated. “In a country where taps run dry, where children walk kilometers with buckets, where elderly women queue for hours at communal pumps, and where the state has normalised collapse, neglect, and decay, the ANC chose to punish the one party actually delivering solutions. … When water flowed where excuses had ruled, the ANC did not respond with humility or gratitude. It responded with expulsion.”
SAZF also accused the government of corruption: “What the ANC cannot tolerate is … aid that bypasses the patronage machine. Help that cannot be claimed, captured, or corrupted. … The message sent by this government is as obscene as it is clear: if assistance cannot be politically owned, it must be destroyed, even if people suffer.”
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had pledged to increase Saudi investments in the U.S. to $1 trillion during his last visit, a figure experts put in doubt
Win McNamee/Getty Images
President Donald Trump (R) meets with Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on November 18, 2025.
Saudi Arabia’s growing economic struggles have raised doubts among foreign policy experts about whether Riyadh can fulfill its sweeping monetary commitments to the United States.
During Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the White House last November, the crown prince pledged to increase his country’s investments in the U.S. to nearly $1 trillion, committing funds to projects spanning artificial intelligence, energy, defense and infrastructure.
But the kingdom is now facing significant financial strain, driven by persistently low oil prices and the immense funding demands of its domestic development agenda, including Saudi Vision 2030, a major government initiative taken on a decade ago to diversify Saudi’s economy, society and culture, which has since been downsized.
“It’s an economic challenge, and frankly, crisis is a word which works for it,” said Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Saudi economy requires $100 barrels of oil, and although the price of oil has gone up a bit in recent days, it’s still low and way short of $100.”
Henderson emphasized that while Saudi Arabia remains a wealthy country due to its hydrocarbon reserves, declining revenue has forced the government to scale back or cancel marquee projects.
Among the most visible examples Henderson cited were the indefinite postponement of the 2029 Asian Winter Games, which the kingdom was set to host at a futuristic mountain resort as part of its Neom mega‑project, as well as the postponement of a major construction project in Riyadh.
“They have had some very ambitious projects which are very expensive, and there isn’t the money to fund the projects,” Henderson said. “If you’ve got plans for the economy and you can’t fulfill them and you have to cancel them, then that makes it a crisis.”
Due to the increasing financial strain and decision to scale back major financial ventures, experts remain skeptical that Riyadh will have the capacity to live up to its major investment commitments in the U.S.
Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said the pledge is “in doubt,” and called the initial promise “as much performance as substance.”
“A lot of the money Riyadh would devote to U.S. investments is instead being plowed into its ambitious Vision 2030 development projects at home,” said Ruhe. “We already see this reflected in the recent announcements that Neom and other high-prestige gigaprojects are being scaled back. Combined with persistently low oil prices, this means the kingdom is running deficits. In this crunch, borrowing to fund overseas investments becomes less likely.”
Henderson echoed those sentiments, calling Saudi’s investment pledge a “headline figure with a very strong Trump dimension to it.”
“Clearly they [Saudi Arabia] can’t do it at the moment,” said Henderson. “Everybody knew it was far-fetched and probably an exaggeration. It’s clearly not going to happen anytime soon.”
Ruhe noted that several countries in the Middle East practice what he called “checkbook diplomacy” in order to “grab headlines during major summits” and “gratify Trump’s desire to be a deal-maker.” He noted that a similar strategy has been employed by Qatar and Turkey.
In May 2025, President Donald Trump signed an agreement with Qatar for an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion during his visit to the country. Four months later, Turkish Airlines completed a deal to buy 225 Boeing planes following a White House meeting between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
“The actual execution is always in doubt, even if some of the investments do come through,” said Ruhe. “During Trump’s first term, Saudi Arabia announced nearly a half trillion dollars of deals and investments in the United States, but only a fraction of that ever came to fruition.
The kingdom’s economic situation, and its ability to invest nearly $1 trillion, is now less favorable than it was in Trump’s first term.”
Experts noted that should the proposed investment fall through, it is highly unlikely to change the diplomatic relationship between Washington and Riyadh, nor would it have any consequential impact on the U.S.
“Actual Saudi investment in things like AI and critical minerals supply chains would certainly be great for the United States, but it’s just as important for both countries to focus on advancing other aspects of the strategic partnership,” said Ruhe. “Especially regional collective defense against Iran and keeping Riyadh from becoming too close to Beijing and Moscow.”
Na’eh, who died on Monday, was ‘the Abraham Accords ambassador, ushering in a new era of regional diplomacy,’ Fleur Hassan-Nahoum said
Emre Senoglu/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Then-Israeli Ambassador to Ankara Eitan Naeh gives a speech during his first reception in Ankara, Turkey on December 5, 2016.
Veteran Israeli diplomat Eitan Na’eh, who had a long career in key posts representing Israel in the Arab world, died of a heart attack on Monday. He was 62.
Na’eh’s most recent role was as the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s representative to the U.S.-led Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in southern Israel, established in October to coordinate humanitarian relief efforts and the stabilization of Gaza.
Na’eh played a key role in growing and preserving Israel’s relations with Abraham Accords signatories. He was Israel’s first envoy to the United Arab Emirates in 2021, setting up Jerusalem’s diplomatic representation in Abu Dhabi. His last posting abroad was in Bahrain, where he served as Israel’s first ambassador to the country from December 2021 until August 2025.
In 2022, Na’eh told Jewish Insider: “I sit here in Manama and look outside to a beautiful view of the Gulf, and I am still pinching myself. I feel lucky to work in these countries.” The ambassador said at the time that he was optimistic about expanding the Abraham Accords and the potential in Israel-Bahrain ties.
A Foreign Ministry official characterized Na’eh to JI as “contributing the first steps in establishing relations in the framework of the Abraham Accords. … He built the content of the Abraham Accords at a critical time in which you don’t want to drop the ball.”
The official said Na’eh was skilled at bringing concrete results from diplomatic relations and had a talent for making connections. At the CMCC, “everyone knew him after five minutes,” the official recalled.
A Bahraini diplomat remembered Na’eh as someone who “represented his nation with grace and wisdom, but also fostered genuine goodwill and friendship wherever he went.”
Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, co-founder of the UAE-Israel Business Council and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, called Na’eh “the Abraham Accords ambassador, ushering in a new era of regional diplomacy in the most professional way.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said that Na’eh was “a gifted diplomat who stood out in his ability to make connections wherever he served. Above all, in all of his missions and many positions he filled, Eitan was known for his big heart and endless caring.”
Na’eh was also Israel’s ambassador to Turkey from 2016 to 2018, the first after the diplomatic crisis between Jerusalem and Ankara following the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident. However, his term ended abruptly when Turkey expelled him in response to Palestinians killed by the IDF during protests and riots on the Gaza border.
He was previously Israeli ambassador to Azerbaijan and the head of the foreign policy department of Israel’s National Security Council, giving him a broad view of Israel’s international relations that the Foreign Ministry official said was very valuable.
Na’eh was also interim ambassador in London in 2013-2015, and Israel’s political consul at the Israeli consulate in Chicago in 1997-1999.
Hassan-Nahoum recalled Na’eh’s warmth and sense of humor, and said that he and his wife, Cheryl, had a marriage “to emulate in every way.”
Ahdeya Ahmed, former president of the Bahrain Journalists Association, called Na’eh “a friend who was like a brother.”
“I could talk about his professionalism as a diplomat, but what I really want to share is Eitan the friend — Eitan the warm soul who lit up every room, who always had a laugh, and who dreamed of a kinder world,” Ahmed said. “I’ll always remember his smile, his jokes, the way he made life’s burdens lighter for all of us, and all the celebrations we shared.”
Na’eh is survived by his wife, two children, Maya and Itai, and a granddaughter.
Analysts still think it’s possible that Trump will take action against Iran, but worry his backtracking on providing help to Iranian protesters could hurt American deterrence
Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images
President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) sit in the Situation Room as they monitor the mission that took out three Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, at the White House on June 21, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Even as President Donald Trump backed away from taking immediate military action against Iran, several leading foreign policy analysts believe a U.S. strike against the Islamic Republic remains a possibility, arguing that the administration may be deliberately keeping Tehran off balance and preserving its military options.
Trump appeared to ease off on striking Iran after being advised by administration officials that a large-scale attack is unlikely to bring about regime change and could instead trigger a broader regional conflict, and hearing concerns from allies — including Israel, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — who have urged him not to carry out military action. U.S. officials said Washington is now monitoring to see whether Tehran is backing down from its violent crackdowns against protesters before determining whether to act.
“Even though Trump did not direct strikes on Wednesday, he is keeping options open,” said Dana Stroul, the research director at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, pointing to the administration’s decision to reposition the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East. “The buildup of military posture in the region over the coming weeks keeps plenty of military options on the table and maintains pressure on the Iranian regime.”
Stroul said the president appears to be taking additional time to ensure the U.S. is prepared not only to act against Iran, but also to defend regional partners in the event Iran attacks U.S. allies or military bases in the region, in retaliation.
Analysts cautioned that the delay should not be interpreted as a decision against military action altogether. Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Jewish Insider that he believes a strike is still on the table, putting the odds at “60–40 [percent]” in favor of a strike.
“There’s still a very real possibility of a strike,” Miller said. “I don’t see how the president gets out of the box he put himself in,” referring to Trump’s public calls for Iranians to continue protesting and his promise of U.S. assistance. “When an American president emboldens demonstrators and then says ‘We will help you’ without the capacity to really protect them, you have to wonder whether that’s morally conscious.”
Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also noted that Trump’s rhetoric has made the administration’s hesitation striking.
“It’s puzzling and upsetting that President Trump would call on the Iranian people to continue protesting in the midst of gunfire and then wait so long to act,” Stricker said. She suggested the delay could reflect a deliberate effort to gain military or intelligence advantages before a strike.
“I lean more toward a possible deception campaign designed to expose IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] movements and preparations before an actual U.S. attack,” Stricker said, adding that the administration may prefer to wait until additional U.S. naval assets arrive in the region, which she said would “happen in the coming days.”
Other analysts were more skeptical that Trump’s hesitance is a cover for an impending operation. Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Iran envoy in the first Trump administration, said it’s possible the president won’t act at all.
“As of noon today, it seems Trump will not do anything, which is extraordinary after he urged Iranians to protest and seize institutions at the risk of their lives,” Abrams said on Thursday. “It is unconscionable to say ‘Help is on the way’ and then do nothing. I hope the president will change his mind.”
While the Iranian regime has faced unprecedented pressure at home and abroad, Stroul warned that Iranian retaliation could be significant in the event of a strike — potentially another factor in Trump’s hesitation.
“The regime still has substantial missile and cyber capabilities,” she said. In the event of a strike, “the U.S. and Israel would need to prepare for the possibility of a sustained, destructive conflict that could be extremely costly in human life, military platforms and infrastructure.”
Concerns over retaliation have fueled lobbying by Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, urging Trump to avoid military action, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly conveyed a similar message to the president on Wednesday
“Arab governments recognize that the regime in Tehran is destabilized but still dangerous,” Stroul said. “Desperate leaders often take unpredictable, aggressive actions. For a region trying to turn the page after years of conflict, leaders are wary of another escalation that could jeopardize economic and security priorities.”
Even among experts who believe military action remains possible, there is broad agreement that it’s not clear what the consequences of a strike would be or that sustained military engagement would lead to the collapse of the regime.
“Any military strike has to answer the question of how it actually changes the balance between a repressive regime and protesters who have very limited means to push back,” Miller said. “There’s no guarantee that even massive strikes would lead to regime change.”
Miller and Stricker both noted that the administration has also not articulated a clear plan for alternative political leadership in Iran should the regime fall — an issue that complicates any decision to intervene.
“Penalizing the regime enough to support the Iranian people could produce unclear outcomes in terms of who provides order and security afterward,” Stricker said. “At the same time, if Trump ultimately does not act, it will be seen by many Iranians as a historic betrayal — and by U.S. adversaries as weakness.”
Plus, Maduro's successor holds the party line
Amos Ben-Gershom (GPO)
Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullah speaks to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Dec. 26, 2025
👋 Good Wednesday morning!
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we do a deep dive into Israel’s strategic interests in and diplomatic overtures to Somaliland following Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar‘s trip the country, and look at early signals from interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez that she will maintain Caracas’ critical approach to Israel and relations with American adversaries. We talk to Rep. Josh Gottheimer about his recent trip to the Middle East and challenges in building Gaza’s International Stabilization Force, and report on an article in the Spanish daily El Pais that disparaged the Jewish background of the judge overseeing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro’s case. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Rep. Dan Goldman, George Conway and Joyce Karam.
Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by Jewish Insider Executive Editor Melissa Weiss and Israel Editor Tamara Zieve, with an assist from Danielle Cohen-Kanik. Have a tip? Email us here.
What We’re Watching
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio is holding House and Senate briefings this morning before meeting this afternoon with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud.
- The New York City Council will elect its next speaker today. Councilmember Julie Menin, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, announced last month she’d garnered support from a supermajority of councilmembers. Read our report on Menin — and the counterweight she is expected to be to Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s agenda — here.
- Mamdani’s first major test with the Jewish community could come as soon as this evening, when PAL-Awda, the group behind the November protest outside a synagogue that was hosting a Nefesh B’Nefesh event about immigrating to Israel, is slated to protest another event hosted by NBN tonight in Manhattan.
- Elsewhere in Manhattan, the annual Colel Chabad International Awards Gala is taking place tonight. Russian-Israeli entrepreneur Yitzchak Mirilashvili, Heather and Joe Sarachek, Sara and Harry Krakowski and Lauren and Martin Tabaksblat are set to be honored at the event. Also slated to be honored is Ahmed al-Ahmed, the Syrian immigrant to Australia who helped disarm one of the Bondi Beach terrorists during last month’s terror attack in Sydney.
- The Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center is holding a panel discussion this morning at its Washington headquarters on the future of humanitarian assistance. Speakers include IsraAID CEO Yotam Polizer, Zipline Africa’s Caitlin Burton, DAI’s Tine Knott and UNICEF USA’s Patrick Quirk
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S Tamara ziEVE AND MATTHEW SHEA
At the conclusion of the 12-day war in June of last year, both Israel and Iran suspected that the ceasefire brokered by the U.S. would be a pause, not a final cessation of hostilities. That truce has lasted for more than six months, with both sides wary of entering another military conflict — one likely to be more deadly and destructive than the first.
But now, amid destabilizing world events from Venezuela to the Middle East — compounded by growing domestic pressure on the Islamic Republic amid nationwide protests — that ceasefire is even more tenuous, with officials in Tehran and Jerusalem closely watching the other’s every move, careful not to make a potentially disastrous miscalculation — even as both sides make overtures at de-escalation.
Speaking at the Knesset on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “President [Donald] Trump and I have expressed a firm stance — we won’t allow Iran to rebuild its ballistic missile industry or to renew the nuclear program, which we damaged severely in Operation Rising Lion.”
In response, Iran’s newly formed Defense Council warned on Tuesday that the country could act preemptively if it detects clear signs of a threat. “The long-standing enemies of this land … are pursuing a targeted approach by repeating and intensifying threatening language and interventionist statements in clear conflict with the accepted principles of international law, which is aimed at dismembering our beloved Iran and harming the country’s identity,” the council said.
Recent reports suggest that Israel, in an attempt to de-escalate tensions, has used Moscow as an intermediary, communicating through Russian President Vladimir Putin that it has no intention of launching a preemptive strike on Iranian soil. Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are unconvinced.
In a post on X, Khamenei accused Israel of deception: “What makes the enemy first request a ceasefire during [12-day] war with the Iranian nation, then send messages saying he doesn’t want to fight us?”
“Now if he doesn’t believe the messaging and thinks that Israel is about to attack then you can understand why Israel is worried Iran is about to miscalculate and attack. Very tense days/weeks ahead of us,” Nadav Pollak, a lecturer on the Middle East at Reichman University, commented on Khamenei’s post.
REASONING AND RAMIFICATIONS
Why Israel recognized Somaliland — and what the rest of the world might do next

When Israel announced the day after Christmas that it would formally recognize Somaliland, making it the first country in the world to announce formal diplomatic relations with the secessionist region in the Horn of Africa, even some of Washington’s foremost foreign policy experts were sheepishly asking the same question: What, exactly, is Somaliland? There was no single event that led to Israel’s choice to recognize the sovereignty of Somaliland, which announced its independence from Somalia in 1991. The territory has functioned independently for 35 years; nothing in its governance changed last year. What changed was Israel — and its geopolitical calculus regarding regional security threats, Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch reports.
Security strategy: “The Houthis didn’t used to fire missiles at Israel. That’s new, and Israel’s now trying to respond to a new situation,” said David Makovsky, the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “I have no doubt that this was driven by how to try to neutralize a threat from the Houthis that Israel takes very seriously.” Somaliland sits just across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, from which the Iran-backed Houthis have fired drones and ballistic missiles at Israel following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in 2023.
Sa’ar in Somaliland: Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar made a historic diplomatic visit to Somaliland on Tuesday, marking the first official trip by an Israeli Cabinet minister to the territory and the latest move to strengthen bilateral ties following Israel’s recognition of Somaliland’s independence last month, JI’s Matthew Shea reports.
After Israel announced it would recognize the secessionist region, the big question remains whether the United States will follow suit
Shlomi Amsalem, GPO
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar meets with Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi in Hargeisa, Somaliland, Jan 6, 2026
When Israel announced the day after Christmas that it would formally recognize Somaliland, making it the first country in the world to announce formal diplomatic relations with the secessionist region in the Horn of Africa, even some of Washington’s foremost foreign policy experts were sheepishly asking the same question: What, exactly, is Somaliland?
There was no single event that led to Israel’s choice to recognize the sovereignty of Somaliland, which announced its independence from Somalia in 1991. The territory has functioned independently for 35 years; nothing in its governance changed last year.
What changed was Israel — and its geopolitical calculus regarding regional security threats.
“The Houthis didn’t used to fire missiles at Israel. That’s new, and Israel’s now trying to respond to a new situation,” said David Makovsky, the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “I have no doubt that this was driven by how to try to neutralize a threat from the Houthis that Israel takes very seriously.”
Somaliland sits just across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, from which the Iran-backed Houthis have fired drones and ballistic missiles at Israel following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in 2023. Allying with Somaliland could allow Israel to target the Yemeni militia from much closer range. Israel has also reportedly approached Somaliland about resettling Palestinians from Gaza there, although officials in the country have denied that such conversations took place.
Somaliland also sits in a strategic location south of Djibouti and to the east of Ethiopia, and its coastland is close to where the Indian Ocean and Red Sea meet, making it a prime shipping location.
“No one can ignore the strategic location of Somaliland,” Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, told The Wall Street Journal. “The straits are a strategic point.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar visited Hargeisa, Somaliland’s capital, on Tuesday to meet with President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi. It was the first visit by a foreign minister to Somaliland in its more than three decades of existence as a self-governing entity.
The key question is whether Jerusalem’s recognition of Somaliland will prompt similar moves by other nations. Somalia, with which Israel does not have diplomatic nations, has slammed the move. The African Union on Tuesday called for Israel to walk back its recognition, saying the move “represents an unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign Member State of the United Nations.”
But even as Israel faces diplomatic pushback even from allied African nations, it has created an opening for Somaliland to press its case internationally.
The region was a separate entity from Somalia beginning in the 19th century, when it was controlled by the British — in contrast to present-day Somalia, which was previously ruled by Italy. Today Somaliland is home to 6 million people, and it has held democratic elections throughout the past two decades.
Washington has not recognized Somaliland, and a State Department spokesperson told Jewish Insider on Tuesday that no such announcement is forthcoming.
“The United States continues to recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Somalia, which includes the territory of Somaliland,” the spokesperson said.
But at an emergency United Nations Security Council hearing last week, Tammy Bruce, the U.S. deputy representative to the U.N., defended Israel’s right to conduct diplomacy, and she called out the body’s “persistent double standards” in treating the recognition of Somaliland as different from states that have unilaterally recognized a Palestinian state.
“The Americans are engaging with the country. How quickly they move to recognize Somaliland, I don’t know,” said Max Webb, a Horn of Africa expert who works at Israel Policy Forum. “Somaliland has been a fixture of Republican politics.”
“Israel has the same right to conduct diplomatic relations as any other sovereign state,” said Bruce. “Earlier this year, several countries including members of this council made the unilateral decision to recognize a non-existent Palestinian state, and yet no emergency meeting was called to express this council’s outrage.”
Even though Washington does not recognize Somaliland, the region has a small diplomatic mission in the United States. In December, the top U.S. military official overseeing the Africa Command visited Somaliland and met with Abdullahi, its president.
“The Americans are engaging with the country. How quickly they move to recognize Somaliland, I don’t know,” said Max Webb, a Horn of Africa expert who works at Israel Policy Forum. “Somaliland has been a fixture of Republican politics.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation first called for U.S. recognition of Somaliland in 2021. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) threw his support behind recognition last August, and he said in a post on X on Monday that Somaliland recognition “aligns with America’s security interests.” President Donald Trump told The New York Post in December that he wasn’t yet ready to recognize Somaliland but that he will “study” the issue. “Does anyone know what Somaliland is, really?” Trump said.
Taiwan, which is not a United Nations member state, has a representative office in Somaliland, but it has not formally recognized Somaliland as an independent state. A handful of regional powerhouses, including Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates, also have strong economic relationships with Somaliland. They have yet to establish full diplomatic ties, although Somaliland and Ethiopia — the second most populous nation in Africa — signed a major memorandum of understanding in 2024. There are larger geopolitical factors at play: Egypt is closely aligned with Somalia, while Egypt and Ethiopia have long been at odds over an Ethiopian hydroelectric project on the Nile River. Turkey and Qatar, both of which are close to Mogadishu, condemned Israel’s actions.
Somalia is a key counterterrorism partner for the U.S., particularly as the Islamist group al-Shabab has grown and become more deadly alongside a Somali affiliate of ISIS. Some worry that U.S. recognition of Somaliland could hamper that coordination.
“Somaliland is on the map,” said Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “People who had never heard of Somaliland a week ago are suddenly reading up on its history and understanding its arguments.”
“I’m sure there are other countries as well beyond the U.S. that worry if they recognize Somaliland, then Somalia will have a full meltdown and will cut off counterterrorism cooperation, for instance, and then al-Shabab will make even further gains,” said Joshua Meservey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who has called for U.S. recognition of Somaliland. “Somalia’s dysfunction almost protects it, in a way, from Somaliland gaining wider recognition.”
Over the past 10 days, no other states have followed Israel’s lead. But a diplomatic crisis has not emerged, at least not yet — and now, Somaliland is part of the global conversation in a serious way for the first time since it declared independence.
“Somaliland is on the map,” said Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “People who had never heard of Somaliland a week ago are suddenly reading up on its history and understanding its arguments.”
The longtime Commentary editor’s passionate defense of Israel helped shape the Republican Party of the time
(Photo by David Howells/Corbis via Getty Images)
American neoconservative theorist and writer Norman Podhoretz at home in New York City.
Norman Podhoretz, the pugnacious editor and neoconservative pioneer who died on Tuesday at the age of 95, charted a protean trajectory through American politics and intellectual discourse, rising to prominence as a leading champion of a muscular foreign policy vision conjoined with a fierce support for Israel that influenced such presidents as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Despite his early political conversion from staunch liberal to conservative trailblazer, Podhoretz — the always-ambitious son of a Yiddish-speaking milkman from Eastern Europe who was born in Brownsville, Brooklyn — remained consistent in his commitment to defending Israel as well as promoting the Jewish ideals that guided his social and professional ascent.
During his 35-year tenure helming Commentary— from 1960 to 1995 — he established the periodical as a lightning rod of disputatious ideas that helped drive the conservative movement, while at the same time building his reputation as an estimable thinker in Jewish American debate of the mid-20th century.
Under his editorial stewardship, Podhoretz transformed the magazine — then published by the American Jewish Committee — into a pro-Israel force that significantly shaped American foreign policy in the Middle East while helping steer the GOP to a more instinctive embrace of the Jewish state as a key ally.
“The neoconservatives played a pivotal role in providing the intellectual firepower for the case for Israel,” Jacob Heilbrunn, the author of a book about the movement Podhoretz founded, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, told Jewish Insider in an interview on Wednesday. “They did that not only by arguing that Israel was a vital outpost in opposing the spread of communism in the Middle East, but also in forging and defending the rise of the evangelicals who supported Israel.”
Absent Podhoretz and his ideological comrades including Irving Kristol, another neoconservative leader, “I don’t think that you would have had the intellectual justification for defending Israel inside the GOP,” Heilbrunn said, noting that the party had previously been “hostile to Israel.”
Podhoretz, who wrote a dozen books including his score-settling debut memoir, Making It, published in 1967, was an erstwhile liberal who abandoned the left-wing New York intellectual milieu that nurtured his rise and turned to neoconservatism in the 1960s, after growing disillusioned with a counterculture he viewed as increasingly hostile to Israel following the Six Day War.
“Podhoretz was the founder of neoconservatism,” Joshua Muravchik, an author and like-minded foreign policy expert, told JI, noting that the “role is sometimes ascribed to Irving Kristol. In truth, there were two strands.”
Kristol, he argued, “led a group of thinkers who reckoned with the limits of social engineering and the welfare state” — while Podhoretz “led a deeper project, the rediscovery or reassertion of the moral greatness of America, of democracy and of Western civilization.”
“This made him not only a great American patriot but a great Jewish patriot,” he said, “because Israel is a precious, against-all-odds outpost of Western civilization and because the roots of American civic culture and Western civilization are found in the Hebrew bible.”
In publishing major articles by the likes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick as well as Norman Mailer and Philip Roth, Podhoretz “set a high standard for Jewish intellectual periodicals” while also playing “a role in opening up the Jewish community to more conservative views that had not previously been admitted,” said Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University.
“Even those who didn’t agree with him I think respected his standard,” Sarna, who published his first article in Commentary in his mid-20s, told JI in an interview. “I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels indebted to Norman.”
Mark Gerson, an author and businessman who interviewed Podhoretz while working on his 1997 book, The Neoconservative Vision, called the late editor “a towering intellectual” and a “great man of ideas who made Commentary, when he took it over, one of the best magazines or publications ever.”
“It was always interesting, always intellectually serious, always rigorous, always challenging,” he said. Podhoretz, who was otherwise recognized as an astute if often acid-penned literary critic, “had a unique ability to come up with the most interesting ideas, to tell the most visceral truths and to recruit some people who became defining the writers of his generation,” Gerson told JI.
The magazine is now edited by Podhoretz’s son, John, who wrote in a tribute on Tuesday that his father’s “knowledge extended beyond literature to Jewish history, Jewish thinking, Jewish faith, and the Hebrew Bible.”
“Norman believed that words matter, and arguments matter, and his leadership of Commentary was a 30-year effort at putting forward the best arguments in defense of America, Israel, the West and the Jews,” said Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Podhoretz’s stepson-in-law. “He looked for the best writers and champions of this cause, from Moynihan and Kirkpatrick to dozens of young voices, and he engaged them in this noble cause.”
“There was no magic formula beyond logic, language and unwavering moral commitment,” Abrams told JI.
Podhoretz, of course, had many critics on the left and right — including among some former writers. Robert Alter, the renowned biblical translator who frequently contributed to Commentary, said he had “mixed thoughts about Norman.”
“Early in his career, he was admirable in attracting promising young writers,” he told JI on Wednesday. “His staunch defense of Israel, as the American left moved toward anti-Israel positions after 1967, was politically valuable.”
But while Podhoretz had “made Commentary the central journal in American intellectual life” during the 1960s, his politics had, by the end of the decade, “hardened into a rather rigid neoconservatism,” he added. “The eventual result was that Commentary became a kind of sectarian publication with a much smaller readership.”
In recent years, the movement Podhoretz led has also faced backlash from isolationist and America First conservatives who have pejoratively invoked the term “neoconservative” as representative of the sort of hawkish interventionism that helped lead the U.S. into war in Iraq and other quagmires across the Middle East.
Though his movement was usurped by President Donald Trump, Podhoretz — unlike other fellow neoconservatives — backed his campaign in 2016, citing concerns about Hillary Clinton’s support for the Iran nuclear agreement which he viewed as disastrous. In a characteristically cutting explanation, Podhoretz said at the time that he skeptically viewed Trump as “Pat Buchanan without the antisemitism,” underscoring the extent to which his attachment to Israel fueled his political thinking.
But even as the ideals that Podhoretz had long championed have largely “been steamrollered now by Trump,” said Heilbrunn, the scrappy editor and public intellectual “will be there in the conservative pantheon” and “played a key role in reshaping the Republican Party.”
“And who knows, neoconservatism is a protean movement,” Heilbrunn speculated. “It can always make a comeback.”
The former congressman, now running in the special election to succeed Mikie Sherrill, says the U.S. should support Israel’s security while also serving as a ‘counterweight’ to its far right and exercising case-by-case oversight on military assistance
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Democratic incumbent Representative Tom Malinowski participates in a get out the vote event ahead of next month’s midterm elections on October 29, 2022 in Rahway, New Jersey.
Former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), who established himself as a prominent voice on Capitol Hill on foreign policy and national security issues in Congress between 2019 and 2023, told Jewish Insider last week, as he mounts a congressional comeback bid, that he’s “as pro-Israel as I have ever been.”
But he also expressed more openness to policies conditioning or restricting aid, and called for the U.S. to serve as a “counterweight” to the Israeli far right. And he said that U.S. aid shouldn’t be used in furtherance of Israeli actions that the U.S. itself doesn’t support. At the same time, he expressed support for the Trump administration’s Gaza peace plan and strikes on Iran’s nuclear program.
Malinowski is one of the many Democrats who have declared their candidacies in the special election in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, recently vacated by Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill. The 11th District, an affluent suburb with a sizable Jewish population, borders and incorporates portions of the district Malinowski represented for two terms.
Malinowski said that he’s “as pro-Israel as I have ever been, in the sense that I believe that Israel should be safe and secure as a Jewish and democratic state, and that the United States has a moral and strategic interest in defending Israel as that kind of state at the same.”
Malinowski said that “to be pro-Israel for me also requires listening to what the hostage families have been saying for the last couple of years, to what hundreds of Israeli security officials have been saying to their government and directly to the United States about the need to bring the war in Gaza to an end and to have some plan that addresses the legitimate desire of Palestinians to have their rights respected and to have a future that they can strive towards.”
“I would not seek to enable [any] ally to do something that I thought should not be done. It’s just a basic foreign policy principle that I think most people would agree is straightforward,” Malinowski told JI, when asked about the possibility of conditioning or suspending aid to Israel. “I would make case-by-case judgments given what’s happening on the ground.”
He said he would not support U.S. policies that would hurt Israel’s ability to protect itself, but added that the U.S. should “serve as a counterweight” to the pressure that an Israel government may feel from Israel’s far right and “use our influence and leverage and our honest voice to steer our ally away from policies that are self-destructive.”
He expressed a similar view in public interviews last year when he offered support for President Joe Biden’s moves to suspend some U.S. arms sales to Israel to pressure Israel against mounting a military incursion into the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
“I would not seek to enable [any] ally to do something that I thought should not be done. It’s just a basic foreign policy principle that I think most people would agree is straightforward,” Malinowski told JI, when asked about the possibility of conditioning or suspending aid to Israel. “I would make case-by-case judgments given what’s happening on the ground.”
He said he was not committing to supporting conditions on aid but also did not rule them out depending on the situation. “There’s no U.S. ally in the world that I would guarantee a rubber stamp on every request for military assistance, that’s not the way U.S. foreign policy functions,” Malinowski said.
He said on X in April of last year that the U.S. has, in practice, failed to apply the globally applicable U.S. laws conditioning all arms sales on human rights compliance to Israel. He said that a decision to enforce that law last year to suspend arms sales to certain Israeli units was a “step towards treating Israel as we would any other partner.”
He added that the purpose of the law is to seek remediation of the issues to prevent the need to cut off arms, as was the case for most of the Israeli units to which it was applied.
At the same time, Malinowski indicated to JI a level of skepticism of efforts to halt all offensive aid to Israel, which have been pushed by some former colleagues, arguing that the “distinction between defensive and offensive is hard to make and a bit artificial.”
He expressed support for the Trump administration’s 20-point ceasefire plan for Gaza, saying it “offers the best possible hope for a way forward” and said the U.S. should focus on pushing all parties involved to implement it to its fullest extent, to deploy the international security force to neutralize Hamas and to surge humanitarian aid.
He said any decision on Israel in Congress, including with regard to aid, would be geared toward pursuing that goal.
“I think we’re very far from being able to address the issues of sovereignty and what the ultimate answer to those questions should be,” Malinowski said. “Even many of my Palestinian and Arab American friends, I think, would say that they’re not interested in lip service to a two-state solution right now.”
He said that “serious oversight” is needed from Congress on the deal because he is concerned that Trump will be “tempted to just declare victory and claim his Nobel Peace Prize without doing the hard work of securing implementation of the rest of the plan,” when it will require “steady pressure” — on Hamas and its interlocutors as well as on Israel — to ensure that the situation does not return to the pre-Oct. 7, 2023, status quo.
Malinowski was not supportive of an effort led by some progressive lawmakers to recognize Palestinian statehood, arguing that the U.S. focus should be — and that his focus would be — on more immediate humanitarian and security issues, including ensuring the Trump plan proceeds.
“I think we’re very far from being able to address the issues of sovereignty and what the ultimate answer to those questions should be,” Malinowski explained. “Even many of my Palestinian and Arab American friends, I think, would say that they’re not interested in lip service to a two-state solution right now.”
Malinowski said he did not oppose the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this year, adding that U.S. intervention likely helped bring the war to a quicker close than it would otherwise have, by bringing the U.S.’ superior capabilities to bear on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He also said he’s “very happy” the Assad regime fell, Hezbollah was “significantly weakened” and the “paper tiger of Iran’s defenses has been exposed.”
At the same time, he argued that any “lasting solution” to Iran’s nuclear program will require a diplomatic agreement with “highly intrusive inspections,” and said President Donald Trump had “exaggerate[d] the impact” of the U.S. strikes.
“My hope is that we will continue to pursue that, rather than imagining that this problem can be addressed just by going to war every few years,” Malinowski said.
At home, Malinowski has spoken publicly at various occasions since the Oct. 7 attacks about anti-Israel and pro-Hamas activism in the U.S. and on college campuses. He argued in May 2024 that students who care about protecting innocent Palestinians were being overshadowed by more extreme voices advocating for the end of Israel, which he called counterproductive.
“The loudest voices are using Gaza’s plight to push a sweeping & more radical agenda of defeating Zionism and “colonialism.” This is not about ending the war but about ending Israel,” Malinowski said on X. “But the actual political effect of these protests has been to shift attention away from Gaza at the very moment (after the World Central Kitchen strike) when opinion was shifting against the war. All our attention should be on getting aid to Gazans, freeing hostages, avoiding more deaths, and what happens post-war. Instead, we have to talk about dumb 19 year olds glorifying Hamas & ‘intifada,’ drowning out the voices of others who sincerely care about saving lives.”
He said those voices also gave right-wing “bad faith partisans” fodder to “cast all legitimate criticism of self-defeating Israeli government policies” as support for Hamas and demand police crackdowns.
“Even though there is a significant problem on the far left that involves anti-Israel protests morphing into calls for an end to Israel as a Jewish state, we don’t quite have a Nazi problem in the Democratic Party in a way that leading Republicans are now acknowledging they do on their side,” Malinowski said.
Malinowski told JI that leaders need to speak up and police antisemitism on their own sides, adding that he “probably underestimated the extent of the problem on the far left” during his time on office but argued that the “problem on the right has gotten much worse and is too often dismissed by critics of the Democratic Party.”
He argued that the problem in the GOP is much more severe than in the Democratic Party. “You have leaders of the party rightly worried, as some on the Republican side are, that a significant share of the young people going into administration positions … have something akin to a Nazi ideology,” he said.
“Even though there is a significant problem on the far left that involves anti-Israel protests morphing into calls for an end to Israel as a Jewish state, we don’t quite have a Nazi problem in the Democratic Party in a way that leading Republicans are now acknowledging they do on their side,” he continued.
He also said that holding social media platforms accountable — a longtime priority for Malinowski — for their amplification of content designed to fuel hatred, will be critical. He said that social media platforms “bear the largest share of responsibility” for increased extremism on both the far left and far right.
Asked about New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s record on Israel and antisemitism issues, Malinowski told JI the Jewish community is “rightly feeling a tremendous amount of anxiety” about rising antisemitic rhetoric and violence.
He said Mamdani has “made a lot of decent promises about the need to reject antisemitism and hatred of all stripes, and about his interest, his determination to listen to people and to bring communities together. And he needs to be held to those promises.”
Malinowski said that if Mamdani follows through, he could prove to be a “potentially very powerful ally against antisemitism” and help to rebuild Jewish-Muslim dialogue that has broken down since Oct. 7.
“But I also understand that he has said things in the past and failed to say some things in the present that cause people understandable anxiety, and therefore everyone has to be vigilant and hold him accountable to the better angels of his nature,” the former congressman continued.
Malinowski said he decided to run for Congress again because “it would be nice to have a Congress again, one that can fulfill its basic constitutional function of checking presidential policies that go too far. … I’d like to contribute to making Congress a coequal branch again.”
And he argued that his experience in foreign policy generally is one of the key factors that makes him stand out from the rest of the field, explaining that there is a “big shortage” in the House of “people who can conduct oversight of the administration’s foreign policy.”
Asked about emerging attacks on him as a carpetbagger — he previously represented a neighboring district that included only part of the district in which he is now running — Malinowski argued he’s the only lawmaker who has represented any part of the district before and he works in the district as a professor at Seton Hall University.
And he argued that voters are looking for a candidate who can effectively pick up Sherrill’s work where she left off from his first day in office, given his previous service. His previous service, he said “is one of the key distinctions” between him and the rest of the field.
According to a new poll, Republicans remain the strongest advocates of a muscular American role in world affairs, with 52% supporting America taking a leading role and 47% opposed
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
US Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) (L) and US Senator John Thune (R-SD) (R) listen as US President Donald Trump speaks during a dinner for Republican US Senators in the State Dining Room of the White House July 18, 2025, in Washington, DC.
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.
The GOP lawmakers’ comments come after the president, taking a tougher line against Putin, overruled top Defense Department officials
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby (R) and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth look on during a meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister of Peru Elmer Schialer and Defense Minister of Peru Walter Astudillo at the Pentagon in Washington, DC on May 5, 2025.
Senate Republicans on Tuesday emphasized that Trump administration officials need to follow the president’s lead on foreign policy, after President Donald Trump publicly overrode a Defense Department-instituted halt on weapons for Ukraine.
The public back-and-forth indicated discord between the president and the Pentagon. Trump on Tuesday appeared to suggest he was out of the loop about the Ukraine military freeze; when a reporter asked him who had ordered the halt, Trump responded, “I don’t know, you tell me.”
Top Pentagon policy official Elbridge Colby reportedly led the move, citing a review allegedly showing U.S. missile defense interceptor shortages. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth approved the decision without informing the White House, CNN reported, and Trump did not specifically direct him to halt the weapons transfers. Politico reported that a series of other unilateral moves by Colby have surprised and frustrated Trump administration officials and U.S. allies.
Trump’s own policy on Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression has been inconsistent since taking office, but in recent months he has grown publicly frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approach to the war. Trump is now also backing a bipartisan Senate sanctions bill targeting Russia, according to the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Republican hawks on Capitol Hill praised Trump’s decision to reinstate U.S. aid to the country, with several warning Pentagon officials against working at cross purposes with the president, though they declined to directly address the behind-the scenes machinations.
“Policy on defense and otherwise, it’s clear, is set by the president, it’s not set by his underlings,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider, adding that he thinks that Trump’s own position on the issue has hardened because “President Trump is rapidly becoming fed up with President Putin and starting to see him for what he is, which is a pirate and a liar” who only responds to pressure.
Kennedy denied that the Pentagon had been at odds with Trump, however, adding, “Whether you like it or dislike it, the people who generally get crosswise with the president that work for him only do it one time.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told JI, “Generally speaking, I don’t think [Trump] likes people getting out ahead of him. So they need to coordinate that. I assume they did, it could have just been one situation, but you need to coordinate with the president.”
Tillis added that “anything that cuts short or challenges Ukraine’s resupply and support is a bad idea, and it’ll be a disastrous mistake.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI, “I’m in favor of additional aid for Ukraine. Whether it is simply a matter of having the Department of Defense get very clear orders from the president, or if it’s a matter of clarifying for the rest of the world to hear that we’re not walking away from Ukraine, I think it’s a very important message to send.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the former Republican Senate leader, offered the most pointed criticism of those in the administration who have advocated for cutting off aid to Ukraine.
“This time, the President will need to reject calls from isolationists and restrainers within his Administration to limit these deliveries to defensive weapons,” McConnell said in a statement. “And he should disregard those at DoD who invoke munitions shortages to block aid while refusing to invest seriously in expanding munitions production. The self-indulgent policymaking of restrainers — from Ukraine to AUKUS — has so often required the President to clean up his staff’s messes.”
According to Politico, Colby independently ordered a review of the AUKUS submarine pact with the U.K. and Australia, which also surprised other elements of the Trump administration.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to comment on “palace intrigue” and said he was “just glad to see Washington, D.C., on a bipartisan basis moving in the right direction in favor of the good guys.”
“Facts become clearer, and more and more people, including the president and members of the administration, are coming to the realization that Putin wants nothing but conquest, and if he gets it in Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Wicker told JI. “So it’s just a matter of the truth coming to light.”
Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) suggested that the change had come about as a result of new information, rather than discord within the administration.
“Well, I think all of us have the right to change your mind when you have new information, so he’s not happy with the situation,” Budd said. “Again, I think all of our hearts are supportive of Ukraine. We want to make sure they have the right leadership, and transparency that they’re doing the right thing. So I think he’s making the right decision with the information that he’s given in real time.”
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said he wasn’t familiar with the exchange between Trump and the Pentagon, but noted concerns about U.S. stockpiles.
“I don’t know what the back-and-forth is,” Mullin said. “I know what we’re trying to do right now is build up our stockpiles, because we let things get pretty low with some of our missile systems, but I haven’t heard the back and forth between Trump and the Pentagon.”
Among Democrats, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called out Colby and Hegseth by name.
“I am pleased that President Trump appears to have reversed course on the dangerous and shortsighted decision made by Secretary Hegseth and Under Secretary Colby to continue critical assistance to Ukraine,” Shaheen said in a statement. “Unfortunately, last week’s decision sent exactly the wrong message. And it came with a tragic human cost.”
Analysts outside the administration emphasized that Trump’s policy is his own and hard-liners inside the Pentagon should be mindful that their views are not necessarily the same as Trump’s.
“I think over the last few years, it has been very, very clear that the only person who speaks for President Trump is President Trump,” Carrie Filipetti, the executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition and an official in the first Trump administration, told JI. “There are a lot of people, specifically within the Pentagon, that are much more ideological, who have assumed that President Trump shares their ideology, when really President Trump has always been much more flexible and responsive.”
Filipetti added that, from her experience in the first Trump administration, the president could get frustrated when officials “tried to speak for him” or “got over their skis and assumed that they knew the direction he was going in.”
She said that the administration’s recent moves, as well as some of Trump’s hawkish policies dating back to his first administration, show that the calculated use of force and economic power are key to Trump’s foreign policy.
“This is really a vindication of what Trump has always said was America First, which includes the willingness to use force if he can see how it will prevent a longer-term conflict,” Fillipetti explained. “Right now, I think the people who have pushed for a more hawkish policy are gaining more influence, partially because they’re proving that the goal was never to start wars. The goal was to end wars by using force and strength as a deterrent.”
Heather Conley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the former president of the German Marshall Fund, said it seemed clear that the Pentagon had not coordinated its moves with other parts of the administration or Congress, catching the White House off-guard.
“I think this was probably a very important lesson that the senior leadership in the Pentagon learned: that there’s no independent review, that these things are all connected and are all highly political and need to be coordinated with the White House, and Congress, most certainly, as well,” Conley said. “I think this will be a reinforcing lesson for the Pentagon to not get ahead of the president.”
Referencing Colby specifically, Conley said, “He may have very strong views about what is needed, but the president is shaping this policy, he’s shaping it every hour and every day, and that means it’s moving very quickly. … [Administration officials] have to be in alignment for there to be success. And they also may not be able to pursue their own independent view of where things should go.”
Conley said that the capability review that prompted the cutoff was necessary — given proper coordination — for any administration, in light of the multiple draws on American weapons reserves.
She said that the situation highlights the need for the U.S. to significantly accelerate its missile-defense production capacity and find ways to prompt Ukraine to expand its domestic production capacity, explaining that the U.S. lacks the ability to produce sufficient interceptors to cover Ukraine, the Middle East and potentially Taiwan.
Conley also noted that this isn’t the first time the Pentagon has appeared to be acting out of step with the White House, pointing to moves by Hegseth on Ukraine policy dating back to February.
Administration spokespeople have denied any discord or lack of coordination within the administration.
Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon’s press secretary, told CNN in a statement that said in part, “Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump “has full confidence in the secretary of defense.”
The Department of Defense and National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.
Jewish Insider’s congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.
The two factions find themselves openly and publicly aligned in opposition to any form of U.S. intervention in Israel’s campaign and against Israel’s operations in general
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) leaves the House Chamber following the last vote of the week at the U.S. Capitol on September 12, 2024 in Washington, DC.
We’ve written a lot about the so-called horseshoe theory of U.S. politics and foreign policy — the point at which the far left and the far right coalesce into agreement — but the Israeli campaign against Iranian military and nuclear targets is providing a particularly stark example of that convergence. The two factions find themselves openly and publicly aligned in opposition to any form of U.S. intervention in Israel’s campaign and against Israel’s operations in general.
An X post by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Sunday provided a distillation of that dynamic. Greene claimed that a regional war or global war, which would likely overwhelm the Middle East, BRICS and NATO, is inevitable and that countries would be “required to take a side.” She continued, “I don’t want to see Israel bombed or Iran bombed or Gaza bombed. … And we do NOT want to be involved or required to pay for ANY OF IT!!!”
Among those who supported Greene’s post were CodePink activist Medea Benjamin, who praised Greene’s “incredibly strong anti-war position!” and Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim, who called the Georgia Republican “presently the most sensible member of Congress.” Doug Stafford, the chief strategist for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), shared Benjamin’s post — and has repeatedly shared and praised both her and Code Pink in the wake of the Israeli operation. Read more here.
It’s not just Greene and Stafford. A host of prominent figures on the right, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and former Pentagon senior advisor Dan Caldwell are touting narratives about the conflict that would not be out of place at a far-left anti-Israel rally.
Recent reporting from Semafor indicates that some inside the administration, particularly Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, are also reportedly trying to limit U.S. support for Israel. A source familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider they’ve heard similar chatter coming from the administration. Conservative radio show host Mark Levin said he’d been “informed” that the report was incorrect.
On both ends of the horseshoe, many are downplaying or outright rejecting the notion that Iran was close to or even pursuing a nuclear weapon, comparing the idea to the disproven claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that prompted the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and in some cases denying claims Iran attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump.
Voices on both political extremes are also framing Israel as the villain in the conflict, and a perpetrator of unprovoked aggression and atrocities.
And they’re warning that a continued Israeli campaign will inevitably transform into a regional and ultimately global war that will suck the U.S. into an endless quagmire in the Middle East.
Though they haven’t all gone as far as Greene, prominent progressive Democrats in Congress are also warning of significant potential consequences from the conflict. Likely coming soon: a congressional vote aiming to prevent U.S. military action against Iran without specific congressional authorization.
Plus, Persian Jews on what’s happening in Iran
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a swearing in ceremony for interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Jeanine Pirro in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Good Monday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we report on the latest developments in Israel’s war with Iran and cover reactions on the Hill to Israel’s preemptive strikes on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. We talk to foreign policy experts about how the military action might impact diplomacy efforts, and interview Persian Jews in the U.S. about their response to the war. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Anne Wojcicki, Leonard Lauder and Tracy-Ann Oberman
What We’re Watching
- We’re continuing to follow and report on the ongoing military conflict between Israel and Iran. Sign up for email alerts and WhatsApp updates to stay up to date with the latest news.
- A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) is in the Middle East this week for an Abraham Accords-focused trip that is slated to include stops in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Israel. Read more here.
- President Donald Trump is in Alberta, Canada, today, where he will meet with world leaders at a G7 summit. We expect the president to address questions about potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.
- A France-led conference on Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution, slated to take place this week, was postponed following Israel’s strikes on Iran late last week. Read more here.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH ji’s MELISSA WEISS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked everything — his legacy, his global standing, his relationships with world powers — on defending Israel against the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
The topic has dominated nearly every major address the prime minister has given, from U.N. General Assembly speeches to addresses to Congress, for the last 15 years. And over the last four days, Israel has been forced to put into action a plan that was years in the making — one that could profoundly reshape the Middle East in the days and months to come.
The writer Douglas Murray forecasted exactly this situation 13 years ago, speaking at the Cambridge Union: “When Israel is pushed to the situation it will be pushed to of having to believe [Iran] mean[s] it, and when every bit of jiggery pokery behind the scenes runs out, and when the U.N. and distinguished figures have run out of time, and Iran is about to produce its first bomb,” Murray said at the time, “Israel will strike.”
Israel’s Friday morning strikes came as the Trump administration’s announced 60-day deadline for negotiations expired, and following intelligence reports indicating that Iran was weeks away from nuclear capabilities — as Murray predicted.
What has ensued is the deadliest and most destructive direct conflict between Israel and Iran in history.
war with iran
Eight Israelis killed overnight in five Iranian missile strikes

Eight Israelis were killed by Iranian missile strikes in five locations that occurred Sunday night and early Monday morning. In the central Israeli city of Petach Tikva, five people were killed in a residential building, and in adjacent Bnei Brak, an 80-year-old man was found dead at the site of a missile strike. Two of the people killed in Petach Tikva were inside their safe room, which was directly hit by a missile. Petach Tikva Mayor Rami Grinberg said that the residence was struck by a ballistic missile carrying hundreds of kilograms of explosives, Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov reports.
Additional hits: Tel Aviv sustained two direct missile strikes, one of which lightly damaged the U.S. Embassy Branch Office. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee clarified that “the minor damage to the property were from the shock waves … from the nearby blast … No injuries, thank God!” Among the residents evacuated from buildings in Tel Aviv was a 6-day-old baby, whose mother was found alive minutes later. In Haifa, three people were found dead under the rubble of a burning building where a missile hit, and about 300 people were evacuated. The Israel Electric Corporation said that the strike damaged its power grid, and that “teams are working on the ground to neutralize safety hazards, in particular the risk of electrocution ” Maritime risk assessment company Ambrey reported a fire at the Haifa Port.





































































































Continue with Google
Continue with Apple