LAS VEGAS — In November 2025, Itay Chen’s remains were returned to his family, more than two years after he was killed in his tank during the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, during which terrorists took Chen’s remains to Gaza. Chen was the last American held hostage by the terrorist group to be released.

His father, Ruby Chen, spent those two years flying to Washington and around the world advocating for his son’s freedom. But even though his son has been laid to rest, Chen’s fight isn’t over. Now, he’s working to ensure that the American victims of Oct. 7 are remembered, that his son’s “sacrifice was not in vain” and to ensure that other families don’t have to go through the same pain, Chen told Jewish Insider on the sidelines of the Republican Jewish Coalition conference last week in Las Vegas.

Chen said that he sees his continuing advocacy, through meetings with lawmakers, administration officials and others, as part of his “rehabilitation” to help him cope with the loss of his son. “At least that’s what helps me get out of bed,” Chen said.

Chen is working to elevate the memory of the 46 American citizens killed on and after Oct. 7 while being held by Hamas — emphasizing that many in the American public at large and even the Jewish community are ill-aware of them — pushing for a State Department-backed memorial event in Washington next month alongside other families of the bereaved.

He said he’s in touch with senior members of the administration about the memorial event, who have been supportive, and he’s “positively optimistic” that it will come to fruition.

On Capitol Hill, Chen is pushing for an investigative committee to probe the Oct. 7 attacks, with a focus on the American casualties and how Hamas’ preparations went unnoticed — particularly in light of the Israeli government’s failure to launch its own investigation.

He said that the pre-midterm election season is a difficult time for such conversations, but that there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle willing to consider the prospect. “I think that people recognize that we deserve some basic answers,” Chen said.

Such a committee, he added, could also help provide ongoing support and monitoring for the families of the bereaved, in the same way that Congress did for the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Chen is pushing for further sanctions on Hamas, Iran and its proxies by both the U.S. and European countries, offering strong criticism for what he said was the Biden administration’s failure to adequately utilize sanctions, as well as difficulties in bringing European allies along, particularly as a result of EU bureaucracy and opposition from some EU member states.

Chen highlighted Turkey’s role as a financial hub for Hamas and other Iranian proxies. “For the love of God, I do not understand why the president, [who] is so close to Turkey and [its president, Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan, is not demanding” that terrorist-linked bank accounts in Turkey are not shut down, Chen said.

“There are always other interests that are on the table, and things get compromised,” he continued. “It’s unfortunate, but that is the case.”

Chen also is pursuing civil penalties against individuals who have backed and facilitated Hamas’ activities in U.S. courts, with open suits against Palestinian American businessman Bashar Masri, accused of working with Hamas, and the cryptocurrency platform Binance, whose CEO was pardoned by President Donald Trump for other crimes last year.

He urged the Department of Justice to take a more active role and provide evidence that can bolster those cases, explaining that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi had seemed supportive at the start of the administration and launched an interagency task force focused on Oct. 7, but that there have yet to be any results from that task force.

Additionally, Chen is pushing to resume normalization efforts between Israel and its Arab neighbors, arguing that Trump “could definitely realign the Middle East for decades ahead” given his singular “political capital” in the region.

Chen offered praise for the U.S. negotiating team, including White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Chen said that he first connected with Kushner in January 2024, a year before Trump took office, when Kushner began to educate him on Middle East political dynamics.

He said his family and Witkoff had connected over Witkoff’s loss of his own son. In their first conversation, they explained to Witkoff that, while he was able to visit his son’s grave, the Chens had nowhere they could go to honor Itay as long as he remained in Gaza.

Though he offered criticisms of the Biden administration and its handling of Middle East policy in general, Chen said that he and the other hostage families built a “unique relationship” with senior administration officials including former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and CIA Director Bill Burns, who he said they could trust to be honest and comprehensive with them.

That relationship continued with Trump administration officials once they took office.

Meanwhile, Chen was deeply critical of the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and said the other hostage families often struggled to get straight answers from Israeli leaders.

He blasted former Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, who spoke at the RJC conference hours before Chen sat down with JI. 

“I did not hear an individual that showed any type of remorse or accountability, but actually he looked at it as a win by stating, ‘Oh, we had all the hostages out,’” Chen said of Dermer’s remarks. “You don’t get points when 45 hostages were killed in captivity.”

He accused Dermer and other Israeli officials of trying to hide their own missteps, and emphasized that Dermer “has no accountability and no responsibility” and “was never elected by anyone,” yet rose to a top position in the Israeli government with significant influence over the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Dermer’s appearance came around the two-year anniversary of the day that Hamas executed six hostages in a tunnel in Rafah, including American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, and Chen criticized him for not making any mention of that grim milestone.

Chen argued that it would be a positive step for Israel to elect a new leader in its upcoming elections, to provide an opportunity for “unity” and a “new chapter,” arguing that Netanyahu should step aside as Prime Minister Golda Meir did after the Yom Kippur War.

“After Oct. 7, the thing that was most needed for the people of Israel was a leader that could provide unity,” he said. “It’s very unfortunate because Netanyahu is a very unique individual that has done a lot of great things, but he is not capable of uniting the people and the polarization in the State of Israel is no less than it was before Oct. 7.”

He said that Meir, in her time, “understood that she couldn’t be part of the solution going forward. That the new chapter that needed to begin … so she stepped down and allowed the next generation of leaders to come about. I think that’s what the majority of the people in Israel wish to see as well.”

Chen characterized Netanyahu as “incapable” of thinking or planning in the long-term, something that is necessary at the current “inflection point” in the Middle East.

“The president has done a fabulous job in creating that political capital,” Chen said. “The opponents of the State of Israel and the United States [are] at the weakest level. Now is the time to cement that with a political structure that would enable a new chapter to begin for Israel and its neighbors, but also for the benefit of the United States and its economy. “

Chen urged the U.S. administration to “place its bets” and prepare for a scenario in which a new government is elected in Israel, arguing that that could provide an opening for normalization and progress in regional integration.

“I hope that there are some good people in the White House that are thinking about that scenario,” he said.

For decades, former Israeli politician and Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky has championed the cause of freedom from oppressive regimes. Dissidents across the world have found inspiration in his books and sought his advice and support.

Iranians seeking to topple the totalitarian mullahs’ regime are no different.

Soon after Israel began its strikes on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear, weapons production and military sites, Sharansky, who has been in contact with Iranian dissidents, expressed hope that the war would increase pressure on the regime from within Iran, leading to its downfall.

That hope has been reflected in statements by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the operation, though after the interview, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he favors stability over regime change.

Sharansky spoke with Jewish Insider on Tuesday about the prospects of the Iranian people rising up against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, even after a shaky ceasefire had been declared between Israel and Iran.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jewish Insider: What did this war between Israel and Iran mean for the possibility of regime change in Iran?

Natan Sharansky: It’s difficult to speak now, because we don’t know what kind of [ceasefire] agreement it is, whether it is the type with Hezbollah, the type that prevents Iran from rebuilding their ballistic missiles.

What is important is that the regime has been very weakened in the eyes of its own people. 

A regime like Iran needs control not only over practical matters, it needs a way to keep its people under control, and the only control they had is through fear. The moment the level of fear goes down, or the empire looks weak, or some serious event causes people to doubt it, the regime can fall apart very quickly.

If some people cross the line of fear and go to the streets and resist, [the regime] can fall in a few days, as it did in Eastern Europe or in Tahrir Square in Egypt.

[On Monday], I thought we were very close. The fact that Israel was destroying the symbols of the regime, one after the other — the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] headquarters, the Interior Ministry that controlled people’s movement — meant the regime was being weakened in the eyes of its own people.

JI: Do you really think the mullahs’ regime is so close to collapse?

NS: In a totalitarian society, there are three kinds of people. There are those who are with the regime; there are the dissidents, the very few who speak out; and the majority, the double-thinkers, who don’t believe in the regime, don’t want the regime, but are afraid to speak out.

Iran was unique among the dictatorial countries in the Middle East [in] that it had a very developed civil society. There were women’s organizations, students, trade unions organized against the regime.

I can tell you that in the estimation of many dissidents when we had a meeting 15 years ago in Prague, we chose Iran as the most likely candidate for a revolution.

In 2009, you had the beginning of a revolution, but [former President Barack] Obama decided engagement with the regime was more important than changing the regime, so the regime was strong enough to destroy [the opposition].

Now, not only is the regime weaker in the eyes of the people, but it was exposed as a paper tiger so quickly and it lost all symbols of power.

JI: The public conversation in the U.S. has been very nervous about the prospect of regime change.

NS: This debate about whether they should change the regime or not — it’s like whether to attack [the nuclear facility in] Fordow or not. You don’t change the regime by throwing another bomb. 

The regime can be changed by people on the inside, if they stop being afraid. If a small group stops being afraid and goes to the streets, it’s very risky. If many people think it’s possible and millions stop being afraid, that’s the end of the regime.

[French President Emmanuel] Macron said yesterday that he was angry and that the Iranian people should decide, not the Americans. He’s right that it’s for the people to decide, but the people have been controlled by fear for many years.

We don’t have to physically change the regime; we have to help the people see the regime is weak. At the moment we have the Nachshons [the first Israelite to enter the Red Sea before it was split in the Exodus story]. This is how it happened in many other places, like in Romania. The moment they go out and show they are not afraid, the regime will be finished in two or three days. 

I think we are now very close to this.

JI: Do you think statements about regime change from Israeli leaders and President Trump helped?

NS: The leaders of the free world need to show their real attitude toward the dictatorship and their support for the people. Especially the Americans and Europeans. That was the failure in 2009. All that was needed was for leaders to say, “We are with you,” but they said the opposite, that they want engagement.

Today it is the opposite. It is the clear position of the free world that in heart and spirit they are with the people of Iran who want to be free. It doesn’t mean we’re saying we will change the regime — we cannot do that, it would just mean continuing the war. It does not mean trying to turn Iran into a colony.

[The purpose of the war is] for them not to continue to blackmail [Israel] and make our lives miserable as they tried to do for many years, but we should be interested in the Iranian people seeing that the regime is weak and the sympathy of the world is on their side.

Israel mostly behaved very cleverly and toed a thin line to make it clear that we are not fighting with the civilians, we are damaging the regime and the image of the regime in Iran as much as possible. I think that even if some ministers did not understand that is the aim, Israel’s leaders did this well.

JI: What do you think was the impact of the bombing of the gate to the notorious Evin Prison, where dissidents are held and tortured?

NS: It was the right thing to do, but maybe it would have been wiser to do it two to three days later, when the authorities lost control of the streets and the prisoners could run away. Is it legitimate to help political prisoners run away? Of course it is legitimate. But it’s a good thing to do when the regime starts losing control.

JI: Does the ceasefire make regime change more or less likely?

NS: We have to see the conditions of the ceasefire, and whether it will help the regime restore the sense that they are strong. It’s clear that the regime is much weaker internationally and the nuclear threat that was so big and looming above us for decades is now [lessened]. Whether this regime is weakened from the inside, we have to see.

JI: As someone in contact with dissident movements, what are you hearing about the movement in Iran?

NS: A lot of dissidents in America and in London and inside Iran are really mobilizing.

I was told yesterday that the price of a Starlink internet receiver rose from $400 to $2,800 in a few days. That means that while, officially, the internet is blocked, people want to be in contact. They want to coordinate and smuggle more and more of this equipment. That’s one parameter from which you see that people feel the moment is coming.

I would like to see this, but we don’t know exactly what is happening.

I think that the moment Hezbollah fell, the [Iranian] regime felt it was in danger. They executed hundreds of people. Iran probably leads the world in executions, but in recent months they accelerated and almost doubled them. They’re very rational; this is how they control people. It’s important to them that people are scared. Even if the attack by Israel was a surprise, Iran was prepared for it in terms of how to control the people.

What happened in the last 12 days is that people could see how weak the regime is. There is a very close connection between the regime’s level of control of the people and how it looks. A dictator who looks weak cannot survive. That is why we are very close.

JI: What are dissidents currently doing against the regime?

NS: There are many different groups of dissidents. There are those representing different aspects of human rights and groups who speak for the Kurds, Azeris, Balochis — only half of the population of Iran are Persians. It’s always like this when facing a totalitarian regime. You have groups with different interests and the secret police plays off of this. 

That’s OK. The important thing is whether, at this critical moment of revolution, they can speak in one voice. That is a process that is happening these days. Those in America, those in London and in some other European countries and those who are in the field — their interconnection is growing with every minute. That is why I mentioned Starlink; it’s very important because the authorities tried to break the internet communications between the people. 

The only thing that is working is state propaganda, which is why it is so important that Israel struck the centers of official propaganda.

Many channels of contact are being established these days, which is very important. Some leaders are taking initiative. It’s important that different groups succeed in uniting for at least a short period of time and speak in one voice. It seems to me that inroads are being made, and from what I hear, very intensely.