This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers like you — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

SPECIAL ELECTION SIGNALS

Mamdani bruised but not beaten after City Council candidate loss

The result of the special election signals Council Speaker Julie Menin’s growing political clout, but doesn’t guarantee an override of Mamdani’s veto of her buffer zone legislation

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

WAR WEARY

GOP senators express uncertainty about authorizing extension of Iran war

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president cannot sustain military operations for more than 60 days without congressional approval or requesting a 30-day extension

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

The Senate rejected for the sixth time an effort from Democrats to force the Trump administration to halt the war in Iran — with the vote once again falling largely along party lines. 

The vote was the last before the conflict approaches the 60-day mark outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the executive to seek congressional approval for continuing hostilities or draw down U.S. forces. 

“After 60 days of war, it is long past time for Republicans to hold Donald Trump accountable,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said in a statement released prior to the vote. “Some of my colleagues have indicated that the War Powers Act’s 60-day mark is the moment they may join our efforts to bring this war to its conclusion. That time has come.” 

The latest resolution, sponsored by Schiff and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), failed by a measure of 50-47. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Patty Murray (D-WA) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) did not vote. 

Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted with the opposition party. This was the first time in which Collins sided with the Democrats on the war powers votes.

“As I have said since these hostilities with Iran began, the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief is not without limits,” Collins said in a statement following the vote. “Further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close. I voted to end the continuation of these military hostilities at this time until such a case is made.”

Collins added that the 60-day war powers deadline is “not a suggestion; it is a requirement.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he was not surprised by Collins, noting that “she has been saying the 60-day clock is significant for her.”

He added that for him: “We haven’t reached the 60 days. That’s why I voted the way I voted.” However, Hawley said that he wants “to see an end to the war.”

Senate Republicans have told Jewish Insider they expect the White House to abide by the law and provide notification of a 30-day extension to Congress, which is permitted to ensure a safe withdrawal. However, the administration has not yet indicated publicly whether it will seek that extension or continue offensive operations, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday that the 60-day clock was “paused” during the ongoing ceasefire.

As the deadline approaches, a growing rift is emerging among Senate Republicans over whether to support an Authorization of Use of Military Force. 

“I would hope it wouldn’t come to that,” Hawley said of the White House potentially extending the conflict past the 60-day mark. “I think the administration has tried to remain within the statute.” Hawley has said that should the conflict extend past the deadline with no further action from the White House that he would debate an AUMF, but said he would prefer not to support authorizing a war he wants to see “wind down.” 

Hawley said he would “welcome further communication from the White House.”

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) also said he expects that the White House will “communicate” and “make a very strong legal argument.” He also noted that he believes the administration has “followed the War Powers Act provision so far in a very careful way.”

Young said that should an AUMF be necessary, he could see himself voting for a “properly structured authorization.” 

“That’s been my position throughout this exercise,” Young said, referring to the recent slate of war powers votes. “My hope would be that if we went down that road, we’d work with the administration to draft a properly scoped authorization for the use of military force.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said he is “not ready to commit to anything.”

“I want to make sure that we continue to get classified information on a timely basis from the Pentagon,” Rounds said. “I think today we had a very good classified setting with a lot of good information being provided. I think they [the White House] did a good job of sharing their point of view on it. So we’re moving in a good direction.” 

Asked whether he believes anything would change at the 60-day deadline, Rounds replied: “I have no reason to believe that’s the case right now.” 

Rounds said he believes a path forward between the U.S. and Iran will be “extremely difficult without regime change.”

“But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t hope for an agreement with this particular regime under very strict observations by outside forces to make sure that they adhere to any agreements we make,” Rounds added. 

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that while he thinks the current war is “unwise” and “illegal,” he said that if Congress “were to pass an AUMF in both houses it would stop being illegal.”

“I would stop critiquing it as an illegal war if they [Congress] passed an AUMF,” Kaine said. 

Kaine said he expects that another war powers vote “will come up right after [Congress adjourns for] recess.” 

“I think the testimony this morning shows they [the White House] know they got a 60-day problem,” Kaine said, referring to Hegseth’s remarks at the hearing.

Rounds, who serves on the Senate Armed Services committee, said that he would need to “go back and do a good review of that particular” remark.

“We’re in the middle of it,” Rounds said. “Once I have a chance to actually go through it myself then I’ll have a comfort level. I’m not going to disagree with him [Hegseth] at this stage.”

Senate Republicans are increasingly skeptical about the future of U.S. military engagement in Iran as the 60-day deadline for the war mandated by the War Powers Resolution approaches.

Under the 1973 law, the president cannot sustain military operations for more than 60 days without congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war, after which U.S. forces must be withdrawn. The White House can request a 30-day extension — with written justification to Congress — should it present “unavoidable military necessity.” 

Short of a formal declaration of war, Congress can authorize continued operations through an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), similar to that enacted following the 9/11 attacks, which would provide the legal basis for the administration to sustain the campaign. 

But the prospects for such a measure remain uncertain, as it would require a high-stakes public vote that could divide Republicans.

With the 60-day deadline approaching this week, GOP lawmakers told Jewish Insider they expect the White House to comply with the statute and notify Congress of a 30-day extension — though they remain uncertain and divided over whether they would support authorizing continued military action.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he will not “quibble” over whether the exact deadline is met, however he stressed that the White House should respect the law on the books. 

“I’m not going to quibble over a day or two, but people are saying we don’t know if the War Powers Resolution is constitutional … the reality is it’s on the books, ratified by Congress,” Tillis said. “[The White House should] follow it and at least ask for an extension, and give us clarity on why you need the extension beyond the 60 days. Then it gives them 30 days to be clear on what they need for the appropriations request,” he said, referring to the coming supplemental funding request from the administration. 

Tillis did not indicate whether he believed an authorization would be needed, but said he would “support an AUMF that is drafted and supported by Republicans.” He called the recent rounds of war powers votes initiated by Democrats “political theater.”

“They’re not a serious effort to understand the details of what the president wants to accomplish and then provide congressional support to do it,” Tillis said. “I think if we do that, it strengthens our hand in dealing with the murderers posing as the mullahs of Iran.” 

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) did not commit to whether he would support an AUMF. He told JI that it will depend on several factors, including an explanation from the White House. 

“It’ll depend on the information that they [the White House] provide to us, and we’ll see if they’re actually intending to stay there for an extended period of time, or if they’re going to have boots on the ground, or whether they’re going to be withdrawing from the area based on any kind of peace agreement,” Rounds said. 

Rounds said his “expectation” is that the White House will “notify us [Congress] of an additional 30-day extension.”

 “We’ve begun the process now of both classified and an open hearing tomorrow,” Rounds said, referring to a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing taking place on Thursday with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine. “So I think now steps will start to happen in terms of a more complete congressional review.” 

However, Rounds noted that regardless of where the war heads, he expects that “this chapter in our history has not closed.”

“I suspect we’re still going to have to deal with an Iranian regime, which is a threat to the entire world,” he said. 

Tillis said he had not heard anything on the White House potentially asking for a 30-day extension, but said in response to Rounds’ comments that  “[Rounds] is on the Senate Armed Services committee, so that’s good news. I would expect Senate Armed Services Committee members to know before me. That’s good.” 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) also did not signal whether he would support an AUMF. While he noted that he believes the White House has “been very careful to follow the war powers framework this whole conflict,” he stressed that he would like to see hostilities wind down and is skeptical of voting for a move that opens up the conflict further. 

“Hopefully [there will be] an end to the war,” Hawley said, adding that he hopes “the president and secretary of state will be able to come back to Congress [and say] that they’re working to end the conflict and that active hostilities are over.” 

He added that he wants the White House to do something “better than ask for 30 more days.”

“Clearly the president is trying to get to a peace deal here, I mean he says it everyday. It’s clear what he’s trying to do. He does not want to go back,” Hawley said. “We’re not bombing. He has said he doesn’t want to go back to that, which I agree with by the way. So I think we should bring this to a close.” President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he’s rejecting Iran’s latest proposal to end the war as it omits any concessions on the country’s nuclear program.

Hawley said that Congress “can always debate an AUMF” if the White House doesn’t ask for a 30-day extension, but emphasized that he would prefer to “keep on that track” of winding down the war. 

“I don’t really want to authorize a war, I want to end it,” Hawley said. “If we can’t, if the administration doesn’t ask for more time, if there are no additional certifications from them, I think we’re in AUMF territory, which would be kind of unfortunate. I would prefer not to vote to open up a conflict that I think ought to be wound down.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), meanwhile, said that he would be “open” to supporting an AUMF, but “would be skeptical that it could pass.” He added that Trump is “relying on his own power within the Constitution.” 

“We don’t have any American troops on the ground, and I don’t think that’s the president’s idea,” Cornyn said. “I mean, we’ve seriously degraded their ability to threaten their neighbors and that’s a good thing.”

“But unfortunately, it looks like now the supreme leader is out of the picture, that the more radical IRGC elements [are coming to power], which you can’t trust them so I wouldn’t trust any agreement that you might have,” Cornyn added. “I think President Trump ought to finish the job he started and make sure there’s not a threat to us or to the region for the foreseeable future.”

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers like you — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

NON-NEGOTIABLE VALUES

Politico owner Axel Springer doubles down on corporate principles

‘Nobody should work for Axel Springer despite the essentials or in disagreement with one of the essentials,’ the company’s CEO told Politico staff on Monday

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

CLAIM OF ANTISEMITISM

Mallory McMorrow reveals Michigan Democratic activist accosted her husband with antisemitic slur

The Senate candidate shared that her husband, who is Jewish, was verbally attacked in front of their 5-year-old daughter

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

Lawmakers are expressing skepticism over Pakistan’s expanding role in the Middle East, cautiously welcoming its involvement in U.S.-Iran negotiations while questioning its defense aspirations in the region and whether it can truly serve as an impartial intermediary — even as the Trump administration increasingly engages with the country.

Pakistan has taken on a more prominent role in Middle East geopolitics in recent months, deepening defense ties with Gulf states — including signing a mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia in September 2025 and nearing a potential security pact with Qatar — while also positioning itself as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran.

Islamabad’s involvement in the negotiations has helped facilitate a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, even as Pakistan has taken steps to support Iran’s economy, including opening transit routes that allow it to import goods amid the conflict.

President Donald Trump has spokenly highly of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and maintains close ties with army chief Asim Munir, who nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May 2025. Munir has since been invited to a private White House lunch and later to the Oval Office alongside Sharif — part of a longstanding pattern of close ties between U.S. presidents and Pakistani military leadership.

However, Islamabad’s posture toward Israel has not been as warm: Israel and Pakistan do not share diplomatic relations and Pakistan continues to strongly back the Palestinian cause. Islamabad has also refused to recognize or allow its citizens to travel to Israel. In a since-deleted tweet earlier this month, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif called Israel “a curse for humanity” and a “cancerous state.” 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that despite Pakistan’s complicated track record, the U.S. should “welcome” any “constructive role” it is willing to play — while remaining vigilant.

“I think the approach has to be: don’t trust, but verify,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider. “[Pakistan] has certainly been a somewhat ambiguous force in many ways. They’ve been disruptive to some relationships. They’re a nuclear-armed power, but they are definitely a force, and if they can play a constructive role here we should welcome it. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept their word on everything they do or say.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) struck a similarly cautious tone, questioning whether any actor in the region can be considered a truly neutral mediator.

“I’m not sure if anybody over there is an honest broker, to tell you the truth,” Burchett said. “They’ll all side with the winner, and that’ll be us when it’s all over, because they need those American dollars.”

Burchett warned that Pakistan’s growing engagement with Washington “could” strain U.S. ties with India. 

“India has been a strong ally of ours, so I think we need to be very careful about that,” he said. “But I think Trump understands that, and he’s going to keep that in mind. Him and [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi are fairly close.” 

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) was more critical, arguing that Pakistan’s role stems from its close ties to Iran — a dynamic he said raises concerns.

“[Pakistan has] good relations with Iran, which doesn’t speak well of them,” Sherman said. “I mean, I don’t have any friends of mine who engage in terrorism. So, you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends, so certainly we would like to have more support from Pakistan than we have.”

Sherman also warned that deepening U.S.-Pakistan ties could have consequences for Washington’s relationship with New Delhi.

“If we grow our ties with Pakistan to the point that we’re not calling upon them to clamp down on [hostility toward Israel] and other terrorist groups, then it would [hurt the U.S.-India relationship],” he said. “If it goes to the point that we [the U.S.] forget that there are terrorist groups that are finding haven in Pakistan and that Pakistan should be doing more to clamp down on them, then I will be upset and Modi will be upset.” 

He further expressed concern over Pakistan’s expanding defense relationships in the region, cautioning that “you certainly don’t want Pakistan sharing nuclear weapons technology with Saudi Arabia or anyone else.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), meanwhile, suggested the U.S. may not have a choice as it faces limited options in choosing a mediator. “I don’t think we have a lot of alternatives,” he said. “I don’t think we’re in a position to be too picky in terms of interlocutors. I hope it works.”

Foreign policy experts have also expressed caution over Pakistan’s expanded role and the Trump administration’s apparent friendliness with Islamabad. 

“The Trump administration’s Pakistan policy suffers from deep historical amnesia,” said Sadanand Dhume, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. “It appears as though the U.S. has decided to completely ignore decades of painfully learned lessons about Pakistan’s propensity to host anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorists. The Trump administration also risks upturning a robust U.S.-India relationship built over decades by Republican and Democrat administrations alike.”

“Pakistan is one of the world’s most strident critics of Israel,” Dhume added. “Pakistan’s obsessive hatred of the Jewish state masks the Islamic nation’s profound failures, including an inability, so far, to allow democracy to take root and a moribund economy that makes Pakistan one of the poorest countries in south Asia.”

He added that Islamabad’s broadening defense ties are in part due to a growing “insecurity following Israeli strikes on Qatar, and a widespread perception that the Pakistani Air Force performed credibly in a four-day-conflict with India in May 2025.”

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former British diplomat and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that Pakistan’s emerging defense alignment in the region is based on its “historically close relationship with all the Arabian Peninsula countries because of geographical proximity, religious compatibility and the complementarity of small, wealthy countries with labor shortages and a populous poorer country that exports labor.”

Fitton-Brown said that “Qatar is especially attractive to religiously conservative Pakistani expats.” He added that the current conflict between the U.S. and Iran has “driven [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries closer to each other” and that Qatar has sought to bring “Saudi Arabia into a Sunni Islamist axis with Turkey and Pakistan.”

Blaise Misztal, vice president of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said that the Iran war has underscored certain Gulf states’ vulnerability to conflict despite U.S. security guarantees, presenting a need to seek multiple defense agreements. 

He noted that prior to the Iran war, “reports suggested an even bigger agreement lashing Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all together into a defense pact.” 

“The fact that the idea appears to have been revived should be a warning to Washington that all the gains that it had made in demonstrating American strength and resolve and convincing Gulf countries that only the United States can provide for their security are already beginning to evaporate as the region contends with the possibility of Trump cutting a deal that leaves the Iranian regime in place and in control of the Strait of Hormuz,” Misztal said.

Nearly two months after the U.S. and Israel jointly launched a military campaign against Iran dubbed Operation Epic Fury, Washington acknowledged in a new State Department memo that its decision to participate in the conflict came — at least in part — at Israel’s request. 

The statement, in a document authored by State Department Legal Advisor Reed Rubinstein, notes that defending Israel is just one part of a larger rationale for attacking Iran’s capabilities that Rubinstein says relies on decades of evidence. But it comes after several Trump administration officials pushed back on the narrative that Israel had forced the White House’s hand. 

“​​The United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense,” Rubinstein wrote in the document, dated Apr. 24. 

The memo is the most detailed look yet at the Trump administration’s justification for the latest conflict with Iran, which began on Feb. 28. Lawmakers, including leading Republicans, have at times expressed frustration that the administration is not being transparent enough in providing information about the war effort. 

There is currently a ceasefire in place as the two countries are engaged in negotiations, although President Donald Trump has threatened to restart military strikes if a deal is not reached. 

While Rubinstein writes that Israel requested the U.S. participate in striking Iran, his broader argument is that Iran has demonstrated “malign aggression” against the U.S., Israel and other allies in the region for decades. Therefore, according to Rubinstein, this latest salvo is merely the next stage of a decades-old conflict that began anew last June. 

“The operations recommenced in late February were part of an armed conflict with Iran that has been ongoing for years and, at the very least, since June 2025” when the U.S. and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, Rubinstein writes. Since the conflict did not officially end in June — a ceasefire is not the same as a formal agreement to end hostilities — he concludes that it has been ongoing, and the current fighting is just a new phase in the war. 

“If a conflict has not ended, then it must be ongoing,” Rubinstein argues.

The memo documents Iran’s extensive history of targeting American forces and assets, including through its proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. He dates this part of his analysis back to 1979, when the Islamic Republic was created, arguing that the country has been attacking the U.S. and its “interests and its allies” ever since. It was Iran’s “clear pattern of unprovoked aggression and direct and proxy attacks against Israel and the United States” that spurred the U.S. to act last June, he writes. 

Rubinstein concludes by pointing out Iran’s response to the U.S. attacks: “wreaking havoc throughout the region.” That, according to Rubinstein, “further underscores the fundamental necessity, utility, reasonableness, and lawfulness of Operation Epic Fury’s mission and goals.”

As Vice President JD Vance has recently found himself navigating tenuous negotiations between the United States and Iran, his central role in the talks to end the war is highlighting his own vulnerabilities on the domestic front — where he is facing pushback from the isolationist right that is seen as part of his coalition. 

In many ways, Vance’s political troubles recall his predecessor, former Vice President Kamala Harris, who in her 2024 presidential campaign drew fierce protests from far-left activists who objected to former President Joe Biden’s support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.

Harris, who has grown more openly critical of Israel since losing the race and leaving office, strained both to articulate a consistent message on Gaza that would satisfy the far and center left and to distance her campaign from an aging, unpopular president whose approach to Israel, according to her recent memoir, was not fully aligned with her own.

Anti-Israel activists continue to insist, even years after the election, that Harris’ association with Biden while he supported Israel’s war against Hamas cost her votes that contributed to her defeat, while pro-Israel Democrats claim she failed to draw red lines around growing extremism within the party that alienated moderates, and is now inflecting the midterm elections. More recently, the former vice president faced anti-Israel hecklers during a book tour last year.        

In recent weeks, Vance, who is widely seen as a top 2028 presidential prospect, has likewise struggled to appease a restive coalition of anti-war critics on the populist right who feel his alignment with President Donald Trump’s robust foreign policy agenda represents not only a betrayal of their values but also the noninterventionist views he himself had long espoused.

Last week, in a disruption reminiscent of Harris’ campaign experience, Vance was notably heckled during a speaking appearance at a Turning Point USA event held at the University of Georgia, where an attendee interrupted his comments to accuse the Trump administration of supporting “genocide” in Gaza and “killing children.”

“If you want to complain about what happened in Gaza, why don’t you complain about Joe Biden and the last administration? We’re the administration that solved that problem,” Vance said in response to the heckler, after defending what he called Trump’s “peace agreement in Gaza.”

He also touted his so far unsuccessful efforts to broker a resolution to the Iran war — about which he reportedly voiced resistance behind the scenes before Trump greenlit the campaign in late February — saying he is pursuing the president’s goal to achieve an ambiguously outlined “grand bargain” on nuclear enrichment.

“The United States had never had meetings at that level with the Iranian government in 49 years,” Vance said at the event, days after returning from talks with Iran in Islamabad where he tried and failed to reach a diplomatic agreement.

The vice president was expected on Tuesday to leave for resumed negotiations in the Pakistani capital as a two-week ceasefire was set to soon expire, but his trip was put on hold and the ceasefire extended, raising questions about the prospect of a swift settlement.

While Vance had sought to keep the war at arm’s length in the initial days after the attack on Iran, his high-profile position in the negotiation process has now forced him to identify more closely with the sort of foreign military conflict he had built his political career on opposing. 

As a junior senator from Ohio, Vance even wrote in a January 2023 opinion piece that he was supporting Trump’s reelection campaign because the president “started no wars” in his first four years in the White House.

With Trump’s approval ratings trending downward — and as Republicans fret that the war in Iran as well as rising gasoline prices could undercut their chances of holding the House and Senate in the midterms — much is riding on Vance’s efforts to put an end to the conflict as he lays the groundwork for a potential White House bid.

While polling has shown that Trump’s war aims continue to garner widespread backing within his party, including the MAGA wing, independent voters who were a key part of his winning coalition in 2024 are divided, as are younger voters whom Vance has targeted.

In Georgia last week, Vance seemed to acknowledge disappointment among audience members over the war. “I recognize that young voters do not love the policy we have in the Middle East, OK,” he said. “I understand.”

“I’m not saying you have to agree with me on every issue,” he said at the Turning Point event. “What I am saying is: Don’t get disengaged because you disagree with the administration on one topic. Get more involved, make your voice heard even more. That is how we ultimately take the country back.”

Ahead of 2028, Vance is no doubt hoping that his involvement in the Iran negotiations will help yield a deal that satisfies the president and that he can wave before the far-right base he has continued to indulge, even as it has grown increasingly hostile to Jews and Israel.

Meanwhile, Vance has at the same time made some overtures to pro-Israel Republican donors skeptical of his close relationship with Tucker Carlson, a vocal detractor of Israel whose commentary regularly veers into antisemitic rhetoric that the vice president has ignored or downplayed.

But as Harris’ problems demonstrated two years ago, Vance may ultimately find it is not possible to have it both ways.

For the fifth time, the Senate rejected an effort by Democrats to force the administration to end the war in Iran, with the partisan battle lines on the issue remaining firmly unchanged from previous iterations of the vote.

“Democrats will continue to force votes on war powers resolutions every week until Republicans decide to put the American people over Donald Trump and end this war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said ahead of the vote. 

The vote failed 51-46, with Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and David McCormick (R-PA) not voting, and Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) voting with the opposing party.

Democrats have already introduced eight other similar resolutions that will be eligible for votes in the coming days and weeks, giving them plenty of runway to continue such efforts for the foreseeable future.

In the House, Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) also introduced new war powers resolutions on Iran, after previous efforts narrowly failed. The Congressional Progressive Caucus reportedly plans to force votes on such resolutions frequently next month.

Though they haven’t broken openly with the president, dynamics for at least some Senate Republicans could begin to shift toward the end of the month; under the War Powers Act, the administration can only carry on military operations without congressional approval for 60 days, with an additional 30-day drawdown period.

Though some Republicans have said Congress and the administration should disregard that deadline, others say that some form of action will be necessary at that point, and some hope that the war will be over before then.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) who has been working with other senators on crafting an Authorization for Use of Military Force on the war, told Jewish Insider on Wednesday, “we’ve been having some good conversations, and we’re going to continue them.” She said the goal of the AUMF is to have “greater disclosure, greater transparency” about the war.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said earlier this week, ahead of the U.S. extension of the ceasefire, that he believed the president was “trending in a direction of ‘let’s end this without further involvement, including even further strikes’” and said that he hopes the war is over before the 60-day mark.

He told JI that he hasn’t been working with Murkowski on her AUMF, but said that the effort “makes sense since we’re approaching the 60-day deadline.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI he would “give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they will respond accordingly, in compliance with that” 60-day deadline “and if not, then we’ll have to have some discussions” around further congressional involvement through an AUMF or other avenue.

Still, other Republicans seem comfortable overlooking the 60-day deadline.

“I think the president has the authority to protect us, so we should let the president protect us,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) said.

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he was extending the ceasefire with Iran indefinitely until negotiations are complete, reversing course from recent comments that he did not plan to extend the deadline again. 

Trump said on Truth Social that he was making the decision at the request of Pakistani negotiators and “based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so,” so that Iran’s “leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal.” 

“I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other,” Trump continued.

The news came shortly before the ceasefire was set to expire — Trump had said it would expire Wednesday evening, while Pakistani officials said Tuesday night. Vice President JD Vance had been set to leave for the discussions in Islamabad early Tuesday morning but postponed his trip, instead staying in Washington. Vance, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner visited the White House Tuesday afternoon, shortly before Trump made the announcement.. 

The news represented a stark reversal of Trump’s own comments made earlier Tuesday: Asked on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” if he would extend the ceasefire to allow time for negotiations to continue, Trump said, “Well, I don’t want to do that.”

He said further that he preferred resuming military operations to extending the ceasefire. “I expect to be bombing, because I think that’s a better attitude to go in with, but we’re ready to go. I mean, the military is raring to go.”

A White House official confirmed to reporters early Tuesday evening that, “In light of President Trump’s TRUTH Social post confirming the United States is awaiting a unified proposal from the Iranians, the trip to Pakistan will not be happening today. Any further updates on in-person meetings will be announced by the White House.” 

The official did not say that Vance’s trip was canceled, and his spokesperson could not immediately be reached by Jewish Insider to confirm if the vice president was planning to make another trip to Pakistan for talks. 

In response to the news, Pakistani Prime ‌Minister Shehbaz Sharif issued a statement thanking Trump for “graciously accepting our request to extend the ceasefire to allow ongoing diplomatic efforts to take their course.” 

Sharif referenced “the second round of talks scheduled at Islamabad for a permanent end to the conflict” in his statement, posted to X, though he did not provide a date.

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

IRON DOME DECISIONS

J Street accelerates leftward shift as progressives move to end Iron Dome funding

J Street’s Ilan Goldenberg said the surge in far-left calls to cut off missile-defense aid ‘stirred up the conversation a little more’ but says the group was moving that way regardless

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

CAMPAIGN CLASH

Sue Altman accuses challenger in N.J. race of ‘cheerleading’ the ‘deaths of Israeli children’

Adam Hamawy said on Hasan Piker’s show that he does not support Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system, arguing that it insulates Israel from the consequences of war

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on Monday appeared to cheer on the reported evasion by more than two dozen Iranian ships of the U.S. maritime blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Connecticut Democrat, one of the most vocal critics of Israel in the Senate, responded on X with a one-word comment — “awesome” — to an unconfirmed report that at least 26 vessels belonging to the shadow fleet, which is overseen by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, had bypassed the blockade.

A spokesperson for Murphy clarified to Jewish Insider, “The tweet was sarcasm. Chris obviously thinks it’s terrible that Donald Trump continues to mishandle every aspect of a war he started but clearly has no strategy to end.”

Over the weekend, Murphy appeared at the Alex Soros-backed Global Progressive Summit in Barcelona, where he claimed that the U.S. was “in the middle of” a “totalitarian takeover.”

This post was updated at 9:25 a.m. ET on 4/21/2026 to add comment from Murphy’s office.

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

LATIN LINKS

Milei, Netanyahu launch ‘Isaac Accords’ to encourage Israel, Latin America engagement

An Israeli diplomatic source told JI that Ecuador and Paraguay are expected to join the Isaac Accords

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

MICHIGAN MOMENT

Michigan Dems nominate lawyer who praised Hezbollah for UMich regent over Jewish incumbent

Platner, in Reddit post on Hamas terrorist attack: ‘From a strictly professional standpoint, this was a damn fine looking and successful raid against a superior opponent’

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

A weekend of diplomatic turbulence has deepened fault lines in Israel over the ceasefires in Lebanon and Iran, with public opinion split along political lines over whether President Donald Trump is serving Israeli interests — or overriding them.

The most recent poll on the matter, taken before the Lebanon ceasefire was announced and published by Israel’s Channel 12 on Thursday, found that 51% of Israelis oppose a ceasefire with Hezbollah and only 29% support it. Among voters for Netanyahu’s government, 64% oppose a ceasefire and 18% support it. Nearly half (48%) of Israelis do not trust President Donald Trump to consider Israeli interests in negotiations with Iran, while 33% do trust him. Most voters for Netanyahu’s coalition (59%) trust Trump while 24% do not. 

Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire in Lebanon on Thursday, before any known progress had been made in talks between Jerusalem and Beirut toward dismantling Hezbollah, already made waves in Israel. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted on Friday to draw the same delicate balance as he had regarding Iran the previous week, asserting that Israel has “brought about monumental achievements” in Lebanon, created a buffer zone along the northern border and destroyed much of Hezbollah’s missile stockpile. However, he added, “we have not yet finished the job,” but said Israel was “provid[ing] an opportunity to advance an integrated diplomatic and military solution with the Lebanese government,” at Trump’s request.

Within an hour of the release of Netanyahu’s statement, Trump published a Truth Social post in which he “PROHIBITED” Israel from continuing to bomb Hezbollah targets, adding: “Enough is enough!!!”

Jerusalem reportedly asked the Trump administration for clarifications in light of the strong language in the post, which contradicted language in the ceasefire allowing Israel to act “in self-defense, at any time, against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks.” 

Two IDF soldiers were killed in Lebanon over the weekend by explosive devices planted by Hezbollah. The IDF continued striking terror targets in Lebanon, such as “a loaded and ready-to-fire launcher,” saying that “Hezbollah has continued its terrorist activity, in violation of the [ceasefire] agreement.” On Monday morning, IDF Arabic Spokesperson Avichay Adraee urged residents of dozens of areas of southern Lebanon to stay away for their safety.  

Trump said in his Friday Truth Social post that “the U.S.A. will get all nuclear ‘dust’ created by our great B2 bombers,” apparently referring to Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Yet, Iran has denied any concessions on the nuclear file, and resumed its blockade of the Straits of Hormuz as long as the U.S. continued to block vessels going to and from the Islamic Republic. Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the U.S. and Iran are negotiating a 15-year suspension of uranium enrichment and the conversion of highly-enriched uranium into fuel, rather than removing it from Iran, as well as lifting sanctions.

With the ceasefire in Iran due to end on Tuesday night, Vice President JD Vance is set to travel to Pakistan for a second round of talks on Monday, but Iranian state media has said officials do not plan to attend.

Shira Efron, a senior fellow at RAND who serves as the think tank’s distinguished chair for Israel policy, told Jewish Insider that “there is no question that the tone – ‘prohibited’ in upper case, ‘enough is enough’ – struck a sensitive note in Israel, and people are talking about a vassal state.” 

Efron tied Trump’s comments from Friday to those at the end of last year’s 12-day war against Iran, when he said “I’m not happy with Israel … They don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.” She also connected the comments to the pressure Trump has put on Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption charges, as well as Israeli and American flags lining some of Israel’s busiest highways for much of the last two months.

“These are things that make Israelis say, ‘Have we lost our agency?’” she said.

Israelis are also disappointed because they feel the government overpromised to bring security to the residents of the country’s north, Efron said, noting that “it takes a long time to disarm terrorist organizations.” 

“There is a sense of confusion as to how the president, who has been so tightly aligned with Prime Minister Netanyahu, could issue a blanket, almost punitive warning to Israel to stop bombing Hezbollah, that had been bombing Israel incessantly with hundreds of missiles and drones,” Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs told JI.

Efron said that the ceasefires are “the package deal. We’re clearly the junior partner here. The U.S. wants us to stop in Lebanon because that’s what’s required to give the Islamabad talks a chance to succeed.” 

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, called Trump’s remarks “draconian.”

“There is a sense of confusion as to how the president, who has been so tightly aligned with Prime Minister Netanyahu, could issue a blanket, almost punitive warning to Israel to stop bombing Hezbollah, that had been bombing Israel incessantly with hundreds of missiles and drones,” he told JI. 

“This is not a ceasefire by Hezbollah,” Diker added. “Israel agreed to back off to see what the Americans would do. We’re in this waiting period.”

Diker argued that Netanyahu “played it extremely well in going with the president, while maintaining very strict red lines about Israel’s demands to continue to be able to defend itself against Iranian aggression and Hezbollah.”

The mandate of negotiations between Israel and Lebanon “is to try to separate Hezbollah from its Iranian patrons and try to coalesce the Lebanese government that had reached out to Israel,” Diker said.

Efron called the negotiations between the Lebanese government and Israel, including possible peace and normalization, “a stab in the eye for the Iranians. It’s not what they want,” but tying a ceasefire in Lebanon to the talks with Iran — or the resumption of fighting with Hezbollah in the event of the war in Iran starting up again — is a “strategic negative … connecting two fronts, which you want to prevent.”

Efron argued that “Trump is doing Israel a favor” in pushing the Lebanon ceasefire, because “there is a declining marginal utility in continuing the military effort beyond what was done at first. … It’s better to try serious negotiations with Lebanon that are required if we are ever to disarm Hezbollah.”

“This has become the war of Hormuz, not what Israel was concerned with. Israel is concerned with three threats,” Shira Efron, a senior fellow at RAND who serves as the think tank’s distinguished chair for Israel policy said, naming Iran’s nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and proxy war.

Diker, however, said it was unclear whether the Lebanese government would be able to help disarm Hezbollah, pointing out that the Iranian ambassador remains in Beirut even though he was nominally expelled by the government weeks ago. “From a perception standpoint, that tells the whole story,” he said.” 

With regard to negotiations with Iran for a longer-term ceasefire, Efron said that “Israel is almost a bystander. Clearly, its positions are factored in, but Israel is not at the table.” 

“This has become the war of Hormuz, not what Israel was concerned with. Israel is concerned with three threats,” Efron said, naming Iran’s nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and proxy war.

“If the reports are accurate, Israel is getting far less than it wanted,” she added. “If the best we get is no enriching uranium for 15 years and some deal about highly enriched uranium, nothing about missiles and proxies, and Iran will get all this money from frozen funds – How is that much better than the [2015 Iran Deal]? … It’s a little too early to say, but if this is the agreement, clearly there will be a sourness on the part of Israel. Even the biggest cheerleaders of this war are not happy about it. … It will be hard to sell to the people as an actual victory.” 

Diker said “clearly Israel has not finished the mission to deny the Iranian regime of highly-enriched uranium, ballistic missiles or its proxy strategy. It has not accomplished any of those goals.”

That being said, Israel “achieved Prime Minister Netanyahu’s immediate goal … act[ing] heroically in seriously degrading the Iranian regime’s ballistic capabilities … [and] definitely achieved the goal of preventing an immediate existential threat from being carried out,” Diker said. “Clearly Israel is in a much better position today, having destroyed the majority of [Iran’s] ballistic missiles, which were a shield for the nuclear weapons program.” 

From the Iranian perspective, however, the regime “succeeded very consequentially, stood up to the ‘Big Satan’ and ‘Little Satan’ in a six-week war, and they’re still standing,” Diker added. “That, in my assessment, has caused them to act in a far more daring way. That’s why they closed the Strait [of Hormuz] again, because they figured they brought Donald Trump to heel and Israel to heel.”

“I do think they’re overplaying their hand as an apocalyptic jihadistic Islamic regime, because they are driven primarily by ideological religious fervor. They are not primarily rational actors,” he added.

Efron noted that it is “difficult to assess the outcome of war in the short term,” and “Israel may be really happy because in two or three years Iran will be done for.” That being said, Efron said she is “dreading the [regime’s] revenge on the Iranian people.” 

Diker said that Israel is still “determined to dismantle this apocalyptic regime … [otherwise] we are going to be in this for another four, five, six years. We can’t afford to allow this window of opportunity to close.” He referred to outgoing Mossad Director David Barnea’s speech at a Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony last week, in which he said that Israel’s mission in Iran will end “only when this radical regime is replaced.” 

“We hope that the president will be in it for the long run,” Diker added.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), a moderate Republican and co-chair of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, introduced a war powers resolution on Thursday that aims to enforce the deadlines for the war in Iran laid out in the 1973 War Powers Act.

Fitzpatrick is the first Republican — other than isolationist Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) — to introduce legislation that would constrain the administration’s ability to act in Iran. The move is a signal that GOP support for the effort could begin to erode if the administration disregards legal limitations on the length of its operation in Iran.

The War Powers Act limits any military operation initiated unilaterally by the executive branch to 60 days, with an additional 30-day drawdown period, unless the operations are subsequently authorized by Congress. The 60-day period will expire at the end of April.

“The War Powers Act of 1973 is the law of the land,” Fitzpatrick said. “This consistent standard must be applied to all past, current, and future administrations when it comes to military hostilities abroad. … This is the law that has applied to past administrations, and it is the law that will apply to current and future administrations. This is the law and, until it is changed, it will be consistently applied and consistently enforced across all administrations and all conflicts.”

Other Republicans, including moderates, have also indicated that they would be uncomfortable with or unable to support any military operations in Iran past the 60-day deadline without additional congressional authorization — though some have said they would support such an authorization.

Yet, others have argued that the limitations in the War Powers Act are not legally binding and say Republicans on the Hill will disregard them.

Running in a highly competitive district, Fitzpatrick’s move could also be a sign of discomfort with the continued war effort among swing-district Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

As the first day of the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire held strong, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared the Strait of Hormuz “completely open” for the duration of the 10-day pause in hostilities.

President Donald Trump affirmed the strait is “ready for business and full passage” in a Truth Social post, but said the U.S.’ naval blockade “will remain in full force and effect as it pertains to Iran, only, until such time as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete.” 

“This process should go very quickly in that most of the points are already negotiated,” he added, as Trump has indicated U.S. and Iranian negotiators may meet again in Islamabad, Pakistan, over the weekend. 

“Iran, with the help of the U.S.A., has removed, or is removing, all sea mines” from the strait, Trump said in another post. “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World!” he added later.

Trump seemingly denied an Axios report that the U.S. is prepared to offer Iran the release of $20 billion in frozen funds in exchange for Iran relinquishing its highly enriched uranium, which Trump often refers to as “nuclear dust.”

“The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear ‘Dust,’ created by our great B2 Bombers,” he wrote, but “no money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form.” 

“This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either,” he added. “The USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah [sic] situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!” Trump said. 

The ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which began at 5 p.m. ET on Thursday, has held as of Friday morning. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video statement that, at Trump’s request, Israel will “provide an opportunity to advance an integrated diplomatic and military solution with the Lebanese government.”

Israel has destroyed 90% of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket stockpiles, Netanyahu said in the statement — which was made prior to Trump declaring that Israel is “prohibited” from striking Lebanon — “but I say honestly, we have not finished the job. There are things we plan to do regarding the remaining rocket threat and the drone threat, which I will not detail here.”

And, Netanyahu added, “we have an additional goal, and that is the dismantling of Hezbollah. Therefore, I tell you again in all honesty: This will not be achieved tomorrow. It requires sustained effort, patience and endurance, and it requires wise navigation of the diplomatic field.”

“For the first time in 43 years, representatives of the State of Israel are speaking directly with representatives of Lebanon. The road to peace is still long, but we have begun it. One of our hands holds a weapon; our other hand is extended in peace,” the prime minister said.

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

CAPITAL CONTEST

D.C. mayoral candidate Kenyan McDuffie courts Jewish voters as DSA-endorsed rival Lewis George faces communal backlash

‘I didn’t seek, nor would I accept, the endorsement of Democratic Socialists of America,’ McDuffie told JI in an interview

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

SCOOP

‘I dig it’: Graham Platner praised Hamas tactics in 2014 graphic video of killings of Israeli soldiers

Platner, in Reddit post on Hamas terrorist attack: ‘From a strictly professional standpoint, this was a damn fine looking and successful raid against a superior opponent’

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

The House narrowly voted to block a Democratic resolution to force an end to the war in Iran by a vote of 214-213-1, with all but one of the four Democrats who opposed a similar effort in March changing their votes to support it on Thursday.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had held off on calling a vote on the resolution in hopes that he would be able to win over enough Democratic holdouts and Republican defectors to pass the legislation.

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who voted last month against a similar resolution, flipped their votes to support the war powers effort. But Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who is retiring at the end of his term, voted no again.

On the Republican side, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who voted for the war powers resolution last time, switched his vote to “present.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the only Republican who voted for the resolution.

A small number of Republicans who have expressed skepticism about the war effort and could have been potential swing votes, including Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Nancy Mace (R-SC), did not vote.

Golden said in a statement that the war powers resolution would “weaken our hand” in negotiations with Iran.

“I believe we must maintain a strong negotiation position over Iran’s nuclear program, freedom of movement in the international waters at the Strait of Hormuz, and how to achieve a durable peace between our two nations,” Golden said in a statement.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned on Thursday that U.S. forces are “maximally postured” to resume military operations in Iran, and specifically target energy infrastructure, should the country’s current leaders not agree to a negotiated settlement to end the war.

Hegseth made the comments during a press briefing at the Pentagon on Thursday morning alongside Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and Admiral Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command. The defense secretary spoke directly to Iranian leadership in his opening remarks, cautioning that while President Donald Trump would “rather not have to” resume operations and go after Iran’s energy industry, the U.S. was prepared to do so if negotiations failed.

“There is an alternative, as our negotiators have said. You, Iran, can choose a prosperous future, a golden bridge, and we hope that you do for the people of Iran. In the meantime, and for as long as it takes, we will maintain this successful blockade,” Hegseth said. “But if Iran chooses poorly, then they will have a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power and energy.”

Hegseth said that CENTCOM was continuing “to implement an ironclad blockade” and ensuring “that our forces are maximally postured to restart combat operations should this new Iranian regime choose poorly and not agree to a deal. That is what we urge this morning, that this new Iranian regime choose wisely.”

“To the KH [Kataib Hezbollah] leadership and IRGC leadership: We’re watching you. Our capabilities are not the same, our military and yours,” Hegseth said. “Remember, this is not a fair fight, and we know what military assets you are moving and where you are moving them to. While you are digging out — and this is exactly what you’re doing, digging out of bombed out and devastated facilities — we are only getting stronger.”

Caine clarified during his remarks that the U.S. is not blockading the Strait of Hormuz in its entirety; rather, “the U.S. action is a blockade of Iran’s ports and coastline.”

“Let me be clear, this blockade applies to all ships regardless of nationality heading into or from Iranian ports,” Caine said. “Enforcement will occur inside Iran’s territorial seas and in international waters.”

In his message to Iranian leaders, Hegseth emphasized the work U.S. military and intelligence forces have done since the start of the ceasefire to ensure their readiness in the event of diplomatic efforts failing. 

“You have no defense industry, no ability to replenish your offensive or defensive capabilities. You only have what you have. You know that and we know that. You can move things around but you can’t actually rebuild. You can dig out for now but you can’t reconstitute,” Hegseth said to the Iranians. “But we can. We are reloading with more power than ever before, and better intelligence, even more importantly better intelligence, than ever before.” 

“As you expose yourself with your movement to our watchful eye, we are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation and on your energy industry,” he continued. “We would rather not have to do it, but we are ready to go at the command of our president.”

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.

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

SCOOP

Zohran Mamdani’s video chief lauded Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar

The Oct. 7 mastermind died in ‘heroic’ style, according to Donald Borenstein, director of video for the Mamdani campaign and City Hall

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

DEM DIVIDES

Inside the DNC working group at the center of Democrats’ Israel fight

The question facing the Middle East working group’s members is whether they will actually be able to agree on anything — or if the group is simply a way to push the issue off until 2028

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

An effort by Senate Democrats to force an end to the war in Iran was again blocked by Republicans on Wednesday, the fourth such failed attempt mounted by Senate Democrats since the war began in late February.

The measure failed by a vote of 52-47, with all Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voting for a procedural motion on the war powers resolution, and all Republicans except Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) voting against it. Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) was not present for the vote.

Nevertheless, Democrats intend to continue their efforts. They have nine such resolutions that have been filed, and top Senate Democrats said this week they intend to continue forcing such votes weekly, in the hopes that more Republicans will change their votes as the war drags on.

Some Republicans have begun to express hesitation about the war, and top members of the caucus have said they hope it comes to an end soon. But thus far most have not been willing to openly break with President Donald Trump on the effort.

Separately, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plans to call up a vote later on Wednesday on a pair of measures to block sales of bombs and bulldozers to Israel, which Sanders has also framed as referenda on the war in Iran. Twenty-seven Democrats have previously voted for such resolutions, and supporters of the effort expect that number to increase this time.

But at least one lawmaker, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who introduced a war powers resolution on Iran this week, for future consideration, said that she views the two issues differently.

“I think of them very differently,” Gillibrand told Jewish Insider during a virtual press conference on Wednesday. “I oppose the war in Iran, but I do not believe we should leave an ally who is being attacked without support,” she said, referring to Israel.

Like a desperate poker player holding an ace in the hole, Iran has a “strategic reserve” if the ceasefire in the war with Israel and the U.S. collapses and fighting resumes: the Houthis, the Tehran-backed Yemeni terrorist group.

How Iran plays the Houthi card has been the subject of concern in Israel, with analysts telling Jewish Insider that everything from a ground invasion from the east — with echoes of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, rampage in southern Israel — to making good on the threat to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to further choke off international shipping remains in play.

Yoni Ben-Menachem, a senior Middle East analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told JI that the Houthis planned “to take revenge and bring back their honor” since Israel killed much of their leadership in August 2025.

“They see that Israel’s air defenses are strong, and it’s hard for them to reach military achievements with missiles and drones. They want to surprise Israel, so they are looking at ways to do it on the ground,” he said.

One scenario that Israel has actively prepared for, even before this year’s war with Iran, is a Houthi ground invasion via Syria and Jordan.

The IDF said in September that it has intelligence indicating that the Houthis initiated a training course named “Al Aqsa Flood,” as Hamas called the Oct. 7 attacks. The group planned to take advantage of the instability in Syria and political weaknesses in Jordan to invade Israel from the east, deploying tens of thousands of terrorists on a killing spree, heading toward Jerusalem. In January, the IDF’s Central Command led a training exercise, together with Israeli Border Patrol and police, on how to counter such a scenario. 

In addition, the IDF has continued the construction of a security fence along the border with Jordan.

Yossi Mansharof, a lecturer at Haifa University, told JI that the Houthis speak openly about a possible land invasion in their media channels: “They say they intend to invade and … reach Dimona [in southern Israel], conquer [Israeli] towns.” 

Mansharof said that while an invasion via the Red Sea and Eilat, at Israel’s southern tip, would be closer to the Houthis’ home base, such a move is “unrealistic; they would have to go undetected by the IDF.”

However, he said, the 186-mile border between Israel and Jordan is particularly porous, and if Hamas could break through the Gaza fence, as it did on Oct. 7, the Houthis may be able to do the same in Jordan. In addition, Iran has long worked to gain a foothold in Jordan.

“Iran is a shared enemy” of Israel and Jordan, Mansharof said. “Iran violates Jordanian sovereignty, and some of the missiles shot at Israel land in their territory. … Iran wants to establish terrorist infrastructure [in Jordan], and King Abdullah has said in Davos and in media interviews that he is concerned about Iran.”

In addition, Mansharof said, the Shi’a militias in Iraq, which shares a border with Jordan, have close ties with the Houthis.

A Houthi attack could also be part of an Iran-led multi-front assault on Israel, which Iranian officials — including a top advisor to Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and leader of negotiations with the U.S. — have spoken about for years, Mansharof said.

“They want to advance a mutli-front attack on Israel from all of the axis of resistance arenas,” Mansharof said. “They want to end the story, not just have more rounds of fighting [with Israel]. … A Houthi invasion can be part of that.” 

Ben-Menachem argued that a more realistic scenario in the near term is that the Houthis would help the Iranians by blockading Bab el-Mandab, a strait passing from the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea, to cut off global shipping at a second point while the Strait of Hormuz, which is under Iranian control, remains closed. Saudi Arabia is reportedly especially concerned about this possibility, as the Gulf state uses the waterway to move much of its oil.

The Iranians have been saving the Houthis as their “strategic reserve” in case of renewed fighting with the U.S., Ben-Menachem said, and should the Yemeni terrorists join the war, “their target will be first the U.S. and then Israel.”

“The Iranians see that the most effective move is to pressure the U.S. and harm the world economy,” he said. 

Still, Mansharof said, Israel “should not wait for the Houthis to take initiative. Israel needs to choose the timing [for military action], because at some point, the war with the Houthis will resume. … Israel needs to build advanced intelligence capabilities and cooperate with the Americans to create a jumping-off point. … It’s a just war of defense for Israel.” 

Jerusalem’s recognition of Somaliland in December could provide Israel with a physical base for such an attack and would “break the supply chain of Iranian aid to the Houthis” from Somalia, which is just across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, Mansharof noted.

Ben-Menachem said Israel’s announcement last year that it had discovered the Houthis’ plan served to undermine it.

“Israel must repeatedly warn them and say they know what they’re planning. We shouldn’t take it off the agenda, talking about it is part of the deterrence … [The Houthis’] success depends on the element of surprise. If we show that they can’t surprise us, it will lower their motivation,” he said. 

A popular “domino effect” meme circulates online every few months, linking slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s decision to launch the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks — the smallest domino — to a series of major geopolitical shifts across the Middle East. While both simplified and exaggerated, the meme underscores the dramatic reshaping of Middle Eastern power dynamics.

The next domino may be the decades-long fraught relationship between Israel and Lebanon, as Iran’s ironclad grip over the region loosens and its most powerful proxy, Hezbollah, finds itself increasingly weakened and marginalized in Lebanon, where it has for decades played a key role in the country’s politics and military. 

Those current geopolitical conditions — Iran at its weakest point in decades, successive levels of Hezbollah leadership removed from power through Israeli military actions, the degradation of Hamas and a new government in Syria that has separated itself from Tehran — laid the groundwork for yesterday’s State Department summit, convened by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, between Israel and Lebanon.

The State Department meeting between the ambassadors from Lebanon and Israel took place as the U.S. navigates stalled talks and a tenuous ceasefire with Iran — which was initially on unstable ground as Iran demanded that Israel cease its targeting of Hezbollah as part of the ceasefire. 

A senior Israeli official told Jewish Insider on Wednesday that Iran’s effort to link the two conflicts was “a strategic trap with long-term ramifications.”

“There was real pressure to link the Lebanon front to the Iran ceasefire,” the official said. If President Donald Trump had acquiesced to the Iranian demand to link the two conflicts, the official continued, “We would not be on the path to peace that we’re on now. Keeping the arenas separate ultimately means that the fate of Lebanon is no longer dictated by Iran.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett — now mounting a comeback bid ahead of elections later this year — has often used the “Octopus Doctrine” to describe a security approach to tackling Iran’s decades-long control over the region. Cut off the head of the octopus — Tehran — and the tentacles will be easier to tackle, the logic goes. 

Israel, having severed the metaphorical octopus’ head on the opening day of the recent war with Iran, is now continuing its work to degrade and dismantle Iranian proxies — a process that began two and a half years ago, triggered by the Oct. 7 attacks.

“One of the most significant developments in the Middle East since Oct. 7 has been the steady dismantling of that axis — separating arenas that sought to bind their fates together,” the senior Israeli official said. 

The talks are not without risk. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam called off a planned trip to the U.S. over the weekend out of concerns of potential domestic unrest — amid the still very real risk that Hezbollah, albeit weakened, could attempt a power grab in his absence. Recall that in 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri was killed in a car bombing, with a Hezbollah operative convicted by a U.N. tribunal in absentia for the assassination.

The talks were hailed by Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter, who said that the parties “discovered today that we’re on the same side of the equation” and “are both united in liberating Lebanon from an occupation power dominated by Iran called Hezbollah.”

Rubio delivered a measured assessment of the goals of yesterday’s talks: “This is about bringing a permanent end to 20 or 30 years of Hezbollah’s influence in this part of the world,” he said at a roundtable ahead of the meeting. “This will take time, but we believe it is worth this endeavor.”

Beirut has in recent years — and with varying degrees of seriousness and success — worked to disentangle itself from Iran and Hezbollah. Now, the U.S.-Israeli military pressure on Iran, combined with the Trump administration’s zest for dealmaking and the degradation of Hezbollah, could create the right environment to bring peace to the Mediterranean Riviera.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said Tuesday that he’s hopeful that the war in Iran is close to winding down, in advance of a deadline that could require congressional action for the war to continue.

Under the War Powers Act, unilateral military action undertaken by the president without congressional authority is limited to 60 days — with a 30-day extension for draw-down purposes.

Thune emphasized that the administration’s current goal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and that Senate Republicans support efforts to isolate the Iranian regime and their economy.

“We get the strait open again — and that’s sort of their last resort. The military effort here has been extraordinarily successful. This is sort of the last dying gasp of this regime, is to try and shut down the strait,” Thune said in a press conference after a GOP conference meeting. “The administration is making an effort to ensure that it’s open, that there’ll be traffic in and out there. And hopefully that will be successful and we can begin to see this thing wind down.”

Pressed on whether Republicans would be open to voting to continue the war if it extends beyond 90 days, Thune suggested that wouldn’t be necessary.

“At this point, most of us, I believe, feel pretty good about what the American military has achieved there in terms of its objectives,” Thune said. “It’s a hypothetical down the road. … I think the administration has a clear objective, a clear plan, and if they can execute on it, hopefully that question won’t be a necessary one that we’ll have to answer.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said that it’s “not quite time” yet for a full Senate discussion on the war, but said that he does want to see the administration more fully lay out its strategy and plan as the war continues and approaches the 60-day deadline at the end of April.

“We do expect that the administration will be laying out their plan for after the end of seven, eight, nine weeks,” Rounds said. “We have to know what the next steps are, and that’s part of our due diligence that we have to do.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said that Republicans did not discuss the possibility of an authorization for the war during their meeting.

Other Republicans have argued that the provision of the War Powers Act that sets out the 60-day deadline, is not enforceable and that Republicans on Capitol Hill are not paying attention to it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the U.S. should “finish the job” rather than extending a ceasefire agreement with Iran if the regime is not willing to agree to U.S. demands, including a permanent end to nuclear enrichment, surrendering all of its already enriched uranium, fully reopening the strait and abandoning its ballistic missile program and support for terrorism.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Senate Democrats plan to bring forward another war powers resolution to stop the war on Wednesday, and will continue to force votes on similar resolutions weekly until the war ends. For now, most Republicans seem likely to continue to vote against the legislation.

Senate Republicans also indicated that they’re not likely to attempt to include supplemental funding for the Iran war in an upcoming partisan budget reconciliation package, which is focused on border security and immigration funding currently being blocked by Democrats.

Thune, who has said he wants an “anorexic-like” reconciliation package, again indicated on Tuesday at a press conference after a Senate Republican lunch meeting that the package will be tightly “focused” to fund immigration enforcement.

“I think we’re going to do a very skinny reconciliation,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said when asked about Republicans’ discussions on Iran during the conference meeting.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that he has not heard anything about either the timing or the size of the supplemental request the administration plans to submit. Initial reports indicated that the Pentagon wanted to ask for $200 billion, but more recent reports have indicated that the final request will be lower.

Republicans have discussed advancing another reconciliation package before the end of the year, though some members of the conference, like Kennedy, have openly expressed skepticism that such an effort would be possible.

At this point, given the strong and widespread opposition among Democrats to the war in Iran, it’s unclear whether a funding package for the war would be able to clear the 60-vote filibuster threshold necessary for passage in the Senate.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) said he’s aiming to call up a war powers resolution this week to force an end to the war in Iran, but that he’s still working to lock down the support of a few wavering Democratic and Republican lawmakers whose support will be necessary to pass the legislation.

Meeks had considered calling up the legislation before Congress’ two-week recess, but ultimately declined to do so, saying he was waiting until the legislation could pass and he didn’t yet have the votes.

“I’m probably going to do war powers this week. I’m still working [on] it. I’m very close,” Meeks told Jewish Insider. “I’ve got just about all of the Democrats — just about — and [some] Republicans. And I have some that are contemplating, but I don’t know what they’re going to do.”

He said that there are a few lawmakers who voted against a previous war powers effort in the House who are talking to him and considering now voting in favor, but haven’t disclosed their final plans to him yet. 

Meeks said that he thinks he will get “just about every Democrat … maybe the exception of one.”

Of the four Democrats who voted against a previous war powers effort, two — Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX) — said that they would vote for the next war powers resolution, and Cuellar affirmed those plans to JI on Tuesday. Reps. Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Jared Golden (D-ME) haven’t announced their plans yet.

Vargas told JI on Tuesday that he has made up his mind, but declined to preview how he plans to vote. Golden, who is not running for reelection, could be the hardest of the four to flip.

On the Republican side, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who said she would oppose a supplemental funding request for the war, declined to comment on how she would vote, saying she isn’t currently focused on a potential war powers resolution.

Meeks said that the current ceasefire makes it an important time for Congress to weigh in, and that he may ultimately bring the resolution forward for a vote even if he’s not sure if there are sufficient votes to pass it.

“We don’t know what the president may do or may not do afterwards,” Meeks explained. “I’ve been waiting to get commitments … it may be time for them to get on one side of the fence or the other, as opposed to staying on the fence. I may just do it. I haven’t decided yet, but I may just do it.”

Even if the resolution passes the House, it currently would not pass the Senate and would almost certainly be vetoed by the president. But Meeks argued that passing the resolution in the House would send an important message to the administration anyway.

“I think this is giving a message to the president — and it becomes really important, because the 60 days will be up soon, and they have to come to Congress for the money,” Meeks said, referring to a 60-day deadline for the operation cease or to come to Congress for authorization under the War Powers Act. “And it lets the president know that unless he comes to Congress and lets us know what the plan is, he’s not going to get the money.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who has said the administration hasn’t properly articulated its plans and goals for the war to Congress, told reporters he will “support continued operations until we get this job done, or it’s clear to me it’s fruitless.”

“I support the military campaign. I think some of the commentary has not been helpful from the White House, but yes, I think the military has done a great job,” Bacon said, pointing to the destruction of Iran’s leadership and military capabilities.

He said that an Authorization for Use of Military Force would be legally required to continue the war beyond the 60-day deadline — a point that other Republicans have disputed — but said that he would be “inclined to support” such an authorization.

“Maybe not a blanket one, but yes, I think we should finish the job,” Bacon said. “These guys have been our enemy. These guys have been our enemy, they’ve killed young [U.S. troops].”

Jewish Insider’s Washington reporter Matthew Shea contributed reporting.

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

MINNESOTA MATTERS

Angie Craig calls on Minnesota Democrats to investigate antisemitism ahead of state party convention

Delegates are expected to take up divisive anti-Israel resolutions at the convention being held next month

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

HUNGARY FOR MORE

Analysts expect continued pro-Israel slant from new Hungarian government under Magyar

Economic ties and broader European alliances are likely to preserve the bilateral relationship, even as the expected prime minister-elect moves to rejoin the ICC and potentially pivot back towards the EU

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

Senate Republicans maintained the position on Monday that Iran should never be allowed to possess nuclear enrichment capacity, following reports that the administration had proposed a 20-year pause in enrichment — rather than a permanent end to Iran’s enrichment capacity — as part of peace talks in Islamabad over the weekend.

Last year, during diplomatic talks with the regime prior to the U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear program, all but one Senate Republican signed a letter arguing that Iran should never have enrichment capacity, a position echoed by a vast majority of House Republicans. The New York Times reported Monday that Iran agreed to halt enrichment for just five years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been a vocal proponent of the war in Iran but has also defended the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts, said on X that a 20-year pause to Iranian enrichment would not be sufficient.

“If this reporting is accurate, the idea that we would agree to a moratorium on enrichment rather than a ban on enrichment would be a mistake in my view,” Graham said on X. “Would we agree to a moratorium for al Qaeda to enrich? No. The only difference between al Qaeda and the Iranian regime is that one is a Sunni terrorist organization and the other is a Shia terrorist state.”

He said that Iran cannot be trusted and that the U.S. must hold firm to a standard of zero enrichment.

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), a co-lead of the letter last year, told Jewish Insider that he hadn’t seen the reports about the administration’s negotiating position and declined to comment on it specifically, but said more broadly that he does not believe that Iran has any legitimate need for enrichment.

“There’s no civilian reason for Iran to have an enrichment program,” Ricketts said. “They’re getting their uranium right now for their civilian program from Russia, and the fact that they have admitted they’ve enriched uranium to near bomb-grade potential demonstrates that this is for nuclear weapon production, not civilian use.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that Iran can’t be trusted to “stick with anything they agree to, so you have to understand that going into it.”

“But I agree with the president: no enrichment, no nuclear weapons and open up the Strait of Hormuz.”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said that “the preference is no enrichment.”

“Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Bottom line, end of story,” Budd said. “The 20-year pause — is that a strategic component to a greater negotiation? I can understand that. … Do they have civilian nuclear power as part of that? Can they be trusted with this current regime? I don’t think so. But again, I’m going to give a lot of leeway to the administration who wants to end nuclear capability for Iran.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) also said he has not seen the reports, but that “it should be a forever” prohibition on Iranian nuclear enrichment.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Republicans are set to discuss on Tuesday the best way to approve a supplemental funding request for the war and the proper size of the supplemental package.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) told reporters that he thinks the Iran war funding should be folded into the upcoming reconciliation package — focused on immigration and border security matters — while others maintain it should be a stand-alone bill. Including the Iran funding could make passing the reconciliation package in the House more difficult.

Wicker said, “it’s a matter of vote-counting, largely.”

There are also some apparent disagreements between Republicans about what should happen if the war extends past the 60-day timeline for unilateral executive military action laid out in the War Powers Act.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that the War Powers Act deadline may be unconstitutional or unenforceable, but said “there’s nobody walking around here in the Senate going, ‘How many days do we have left?’ Nobody’s paying attention.”

But Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told reporters, “I’m sure we’ll have some sort of a vote or a statement at that [60-day] point.” 

Other Republican senators are taking a firmer stance, rejecting any war operations beyond 60 days without congressional approval.

“Here in America, constitutional limits are in place to temper the president from unilateral authority. I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests,” Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) said in a recent op-ed. “However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval.”

And Curtis said he would not support any supplemental funding for the war without congressional authorization.

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL

Israelis uncertain if Iran war made them safer after ceasefire brings combat to an inconclusive halt

After the ceasefire went into effect, there was a pervading feeling in Israel that the war with Iran was not complete, and the return to routine life may be short-lived

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

COMFORT FOOD

From trauma to table: An Israeli duo uses food therapy and song to foster connection

A traveling program called ‘Soul and Roll’ by singer Hananel Edri and Foodish CEO Merav Oren tells the Jewish story through an immersive culinary and musical experience

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

A group of six additional Senate Democrats plan to file new war powers resolutions this week to halt the war in Iran, a move that would allow Democrats to continue forcing votes on the war for the foreseeable future. 

Previously, a different group of six Democrats introduced similar resolutions, and Democrats have called up two of them thus far, with plans to call up a third this week. So far, the resolutions have all failed along mostly party lines, with all senators remaining consistent in their votes.

The latest group of lawmakers includes Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Andy Kim (D-NJ). 

The array of lawmakers involved in the latest effort spans from staunch progressives and critics of Israel to generally more pro-Israel members. 

“President Trump chose to start a war knowing it was going to raise gas prices on Americans already struggling to get by,” Gillibrand said in a statement. “The president, and his party, just don’t care about anyone other than themselves. They lie, cheat and steal to enrich themselves and leave regular folks with the bill. It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to stand up and do their job.”

House Democrats also plan to call up a war powers resolution this week, which may pass given that some Democrats who previously opposed a war powers effort and a handful of Republicans have indicated they plan to change their votes.

The latest set of six resolutions will not be eligible for floor votes immediately, but Democrats can call up the other four resolutions introduced previously at will. Senate Democrats are also likely to force votes on matters related to the Iran war during the upcoming reconciliation process, which Republicans aim to use to fund immigration enforcement and other priorities.

Amid the ceasefire with Iran, new Israeli polls were split on the outcome for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party and coalition. Three television polls showed Netanyahu losing significant support as a result of the unpopularity of the ceasefire, while polls from two right-leaning networks projected he would still have a majority in the Knesset to form a coalition. 

The election is currently slated for the end of October. Israeli Channels 12, 13 and Kan 11 projected Netanyahu’s coalition would not receive enough votes to stay in power, but they also found that center-left parties — excluding Arab parties, which most Zionist parties have said would not be invited to join their coalition — would not get the 61-seat majority to form a winning coalition. 

Channels 14 and i24NEWS news projected that the coalition would be able to remain in power, but with a smaller majority than it received in 2022, as it has consistently received in polling since then.

Netanyahu appeared defensive in a televised statement on Saturday night, during which he argued that the results of the nearly six-week war against Iran had been positive, and the ceasefire may not be final: “There are people who say ‘we have no achievements.’ There are giant achievements.”

“The campaign is not yet over, but even now it can be clearly stated: We have achieved historic accomplishments,” Netanyahu continued. “Iran tried to squeeze us in a stranglehold; Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, the militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, Iran itself. They wanted to choke us, and we are choking them. … Those who threatened to destroy us are now fighting for their own survival.” 

Netanyahu went on to list the war’s achievements: “We succeeded in crushing the nuclear program, crushing the missile program,” and brought Iran’s regime “to its lowest, weakest level since the establishment of the regime 47 years ago.” He also listed dozens of senior officials and military commanders who had been killed by Israel and weapons sites that had been destroyed.

Still, the prime minister acknowledged that the enriched uranium in Iran must be removed “either … by agreement, or it will come out in other ways.”

Netanyahu also spoke at length about negotiations with Lebanon as the IDF continued operations against Hezbollah. He said the talks would be about the disarmament of the Iran-backed terrorist group and “a real peace agreement” with Beirut.

In polls released the night before, Israeli channels 12 and 13 and public broadcaster Kan found that a narrow majority of Israelis (from 51% to 56%) said they oppose the two-week ceasefire with Iran. In addition, in a poll published Sunday by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, 61% of Israelis opposed the ceasefire, and less than a third (31%) said they believed that the Iranian regime was significantly harmed in the war. 

Elie Pieprz, an international political consultant who has worked on Likud campaigns, argued that Netanyahu doesn’t need the war to come to a conclusively positive end for Israel for him to use it to his political advantage.

“The prime minister has always thrived when something tantalizing is very close, and [he can say] ‘if you just give me another term, I can bring this home,” Pieprz said. “I think regime change [in Iran] is exactly one of those things.”

Conversely, Nilly Richman, a strategist who has worked with President Isaac Herzog and launched Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, told Jewish Insider that “there is no doubt that Netanyahu is stressed, and he is broadcasting it.” 

According to Richman, the stress comes from the fact that “the polls aren’t bringing [Netanyahu] to the point he hoped to be in after this war” and that he will have to testify again in the corruption trials against him this week, now that Israel is no longer in a state of emergency.

According to Kan’s poll, the current coalition parties were projected to receive 51 seats, while Zionist opposition parties got 59. Likud received 25 seats, down from 28 in the previous week’s polls, while former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s yet-unnamed party was steady at 19.

On Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news broadcast, Likud was projected to drop to 25 from 27 last week, and Bennett to rise from 20 to 22 seats. The coalition would get 50 seats, and the Zionist opposition 60, according to the poll.

In Channel 13’s poll, the coalition got 54 seats and the Zionist opposition received 55. Likud received 22 seats, up from 25 last week, and Bennett went from 18 to 21.

Newer, more right-leaning channels 14 and i24 News, however, showed Netanyahu would be able to form a majority coalition with his current partners. They did not ask about support for the ceasefire.

In i24’s poll, Likud received 32 seats and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar Party led the opposition with 14 seats. The coalition would win 64 seats and the Zionist opposition received 45.

Pro-Netanyahu Channel 14, whose pollster, former Netanyahu aide Shlomo Filber, most accurately predicted the results of the last election, found that the right-wing bloc received 66 seats while the Zionist opposition received 42. The poll also gave Likud 36 seats and Bennett’s party 10, with Yashar leading the Zionist opposition with 11 seats.

Filber’s poll was also the only one asking about the Joint List — a bloc of all four Arab parties, which they have said they plan to form — rather than polling them as the two separate blocs they have in the current Knesset – and found that the singular bloc received 12 seats, more than any Zionist opposition party.

Former Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s party did not pass the electoral threshold in any of the polls, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s party passed it in the polls from Channels 13 and 14 and i24.

Pieprz said that “polls taken six months out [to the election] are not super-relevant, [though] there is value to tracking polls.”

Richman argued that “polls taken a moment after something happened are meaningless. It takes a moment for everything to sink in.” She also noted that “people want to see what will happen in two weeks,” when the current ceasefire with Iran is due to expire.

However, she pointed to a poll Channel 12 took of residents of Israel’s north as especially significant. Residents of the north are worth about 35 Knesset seats, and continue to be attacked by Hezbollah multiple times a day. The poll found that 70% of them — including a third of those who voted for the coalition in the last election — give the government a bad grade in dealing with their issues. While in 2022, the number of coalition and Zionist opposition voters in the north were about even, the Zionist opposition is now leading in the north by eight points.

Richman estimated that “three to four seats could move between the blocs.”

Much of that movement is from Likud to former Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s Israel Beytenu party, which is “on the right, but against Bibi,” Reichman said. She said that Liberman has kept his distance from the center-left and right-wing blocs, saying that he can be part of a coalition without Haredim or Arabs or the left-wing Democrats Party, a claim that appeals to moderate right-wing voters.

Pieprz said that, in line with Liberman’s more independent messaging, he may be signaling that he would be willing to join a coalition with Netanyahu but without Haredi parties, and that Netanyahu may be willing to do that rather than enter another cycle of multiple consecutive elections. “I don’t think Bibi will feel indebted to the Haredim,” he said.

Richman said moderate right-wing voters who don’t want to vote for Netanyahu are not moving toward Bennett, who is hawkish and holds right-wing positions on settlements, the economy and more. “Bennett will have to betray the left so that the right will forgive him” for forming a coalition with left-wing parties and an Arab party in 2021, she argued.

Pieprz said that Bennett is “moving in a downward trend” in the polls, and that “people in the opposition express frustration that he’s not going after voters on the right, and instead trying to concretize a base on the left, creating a problematic dynamic. I don’t think he can maintain it for six months.”

Pieprz noted that there has been a lot of infighting within the Zionist opposition, especially between Eisenkot and Bennett for dominance in the bloc.While calling the infighting “a bad look, they will never win that way,” he said they “have enough time to reconfigure and get on the same page and act in a way that shows the Israeli public that there is a legitimate alternative to Netanyahu.”  

He posited that Netanyahu “is in relatively good shape, primarily because there is not a robust and developed opposition. … People supporting the prime minister are pretty solid. It would take a lot to dislodge [their votes]. In the opposition, there is fluidity.” 

Pieprz, however, said that Netanyahu “squeezed out a lot of the political benefit of the war itself” — such as passing a budget that will allow his coalition to survive months longer than it may have — “and now he has to frame [the war] properly over the next six months. … He can make that case ‘allow me and the team that got us to this point to push it over the top.’”

Richman noted that the successful attacks on Iran’s nuclear program during last year’s 12-day war did not impact Netanyahu’s political standing much, but projected that after this war, the prime minister is likely to decline further in the polls.

“Bibi built [a monster] that ate him,” she said. “If Iran is so scary … Well, [Israel] attacked Iran and not much happened to us, Israel wasn’t destroyed, so we don’t need [Netanyahu] anymore. It’s like [former UK Prime Minister] Winston Churchill” — who lost an election right after World War II and Netanyahu is known to admire — “Be careful what you wish for, Bibi.” 

The U.S. will begin blockading the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump announced on Sunday, hours after negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan, ended without reaching an agreement.

“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that “other countries will be involved with this blockade.”

Trump called Iran’s claim that it had lost track of the mines it dropped in the strait “world extortion.”

In addition, the president said that any vessel that pays Iran a toll to enter the strait will be interdicted and that “Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION.”

As to the negotiations, Trump wrote, “There is only one thing that matters, IRAN IS UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS! … They were very unyielding as to the single most important issue.” 

Nuclear power cannot “be in the hands of such volatile, difficult, unpredictable people… IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” Trump added.

He also indicated military action will resume: “At an appropriate moment, we are fully ‘LOCKED AND LOADED,’ and our Military will finish up the little that is left of Iran,” he wrote.

Soon after, Trump told Fox News that the Iranians “haven’t left the bargaining table. I predict they come back and give us everything we want, and I told my people, ‘I want everything. I don’t want 90%, I don’t 95%.’ I told them, ‘I want everything.’ They have no cards. Their navy is gone, their air force is gone, totally gone.” 

Earlier Sunday, Vice President JD Vance departed Islamabad after 20 hours of talks with Iranian negotiators. 

“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vance said at a press conference shortly before his departure. “So we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are.” 

Vance said he made “a very simple proposal” that was “our final and best offer.” Under the terms of Vance’s proposal, Iran would have been required to make an “affirmative commitment” not to seek a nuclear weapon or the tools to do so. The vice president said the U.S. was leaving its last proposal on the table as he left for Washington: “We’ll see if the Iranians accept it.”

At the same time, he said the U.S. had been flexible and negotiated in good faith.

The vice president did not mention in his press conference Iran’s promise to reopen the Strait of Hormuz during the ceasefire, nor any demands relating to Iran’s ballistic missiles or funding of proxies, and declined to respond to a question as to the status of the ceasefire.

Mohammad Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and negotiator with the U.S., wrote on X that his team had “no trust in the opposing side. My colleagues on the Iranian delegation raised forward-looking initiatives, but the opposing side ultimately failed to gain the trust of the Iranian delegation.” 

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, whose country hosted the talks, said it was “imperative” to continue the ceasefire despite the failure of the first round of negotiations to reach a resolution. 

Ahead of the talks, Iran released its own ceasefire proposal that included continued control over the Strait of Hormuz, a ceasefire that would include Lebanon and the cancellation of primary and secondary sanctions. Iran also demanded their “acceptance of enrichment” of uranium. 

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro accused President Donald Trump of being “bullied” into starting a war with Iran, suggesting in an interview with the “All-In Podcast” that Israel had pressured the U.S. into joining a military campaign against the Islamic Republic. 

“America should never be led around by any other nation. It should always be about America’s interests, our national security interests, the interests of expanding freedom and opportunity for the American people,” said Shapiro, who was responding to a question from tech investor Jason Calacanis about whether the U.S. followed Israel into an unnecessary war. “We should never, ever be bullied, as maybe President Trump was, by any other world leader.”

In the interview, Shapiro continued a line of criticism that he has used regularly against Trump’s handling of the war in Iran: that the president doesn’t know what he’s doing and has failed to offer a sufficient explanation to the American public.

“This was a war of choice. The president never defined the objectives. It is clear he doesn’t know how the hell to get out of this,” Shapiro said.

Shapiro’s allegation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had led the U.S. into war with Iran was a rhetorical escalation for the pro-Israel Democrat. While he reasserted the same pro-Israel, anti-Netanyahu argument that he has been making for years now, Shapiro also made clear that it is America’s goals — and not Israel’s — that he cares about.

“I don’t view this issue as a Jewish American,” Shapiro said. “I view this issue as an American, and I view this issue in a way of trying to understand what is the best thing for America, which to me is having peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Even as Shapiro went after Trump for his handling of the war, he offered a word of praise about a different Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and his approach to antisemitism within his own party.

“I think on the issue of antisemitism, we have got to be in a place where we universally condemn it. And I think what you’re seeing from some folks on the right and some folks on the left is they’ll only call it out if it’s said by a political opponent or someone they disagree with,” said Shapiro. “I frankly respect people on the right like Ted Cruz, who have pulled it out within the Republican Party. I’ve tried to call it out when it rears its ugly head in my party.”

The “All-In Podcast” is hosted by four Silicon Valley investors, including David Sacks, co-chair of Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 

American and Iranian officials are meeting on Saturday in Islamabad, Pakistan, to begin conversations aimed at ending the conflict that has consumed the Middle East since late February. Though much change has occurred in the last six weeks, the decisions made in the next two could determine the future of the region for decades to come.

The “fog of diplomacy,” as The Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it, has shrouded much of what is known about the talks and their contours. The first 24 hours after the ceasefire was announced saw dueling — and often conflicting — statements, denials and claims about various points, including the inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement, Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium and the status of the Strait of Hormuz, that were proposed and supposedly agreed to by the parties.

Those sticking points deepened in the days between the ceasefire announcement and Saturday’s meeting in Pakistan. On Wednesday, Israel conducted widespread strikes in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah infrastructure and operatives whom the IDF said had embedded in civilian areas, while Hezbollah has launched dozens of missiles into Israel — including one fired at the southern city of Ashdod that also triggered sirens across Tel Aviv and surrounding towns early Friday morning. Meanwhile, Trump on Thursday accused Iran of “doing a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing Oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz.”

It is against that backdrop that Vice President JD Vance, joined by White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, will enter into negotiations tomorrow in Islamabad. 

In tandem, a separate set of negotiations is slated to take place in Washington early next week, when the U.S. will convene the envoys from Israel and Lebanon for rare direct, public talks aimed at reaching a peace agreement between Beirut and Jerusalem. If reached — and if Lebanon takes meaningful action to demilitarize Hezbollah — Iran could lose its most powerful proxy in the region. Under pressure from Washington, Israel has limited its attacks on Lebanon.

While the inability to agree on the parameters for a ceasefire does not portend well for the ability to secure a more lasting agreement,both sides have a vested interest in reaching an accord that allows both to declare victory. Watching from the sidelines are Israel and the Gulf states, which will not be represented in Islamabad, and will instead have to hope from their respective capitals that the U.S. does not acquiesce to an agreement that emboldens Iran — and leaves the American allies vulnerable.

With the regime still intact — and still pledging destruction — Israel has reason to worry. Iran’s new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, warned on Thursday night that “we definitely won’t allow the criminal aggressors who attacked our country to go unpunished.”

And even as Pakistan positions itself as a convener, its senior officials make clear it is not hosting talks as an impartial actor. On Thursday morning, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif posted on X — and later deleted — that “Israel is evil and a curse for humanity,” adding, “I hope and pray people who created this cancerous state on Palestinian land to get rid of European jews burn in hell.”

With elections in both the U.S. and Israel later this year, both Washington and Jerusalem have a vested interest in U.S. negotiators securing the best possible deal with Tehran. With rising fuel prices, the White House will want to project strength in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will need to convince voters that they are safer now than they were a year ago — and that Israel won’t find itself in an ongoing cycle of wars that bring the country to a halt for weeks on end every year.

But the longer-term questions remain. Will Iran, whose nuclear and ballistic missile programs were dealt significant blows, further conceal aspects of both? What degree of threat can Israel live with on its borders? How has the Iranian regime’s survival emboldened its allies in Beijing and Moscow? And what of the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have largely held their fire over the last six weeks?

Those are questions unlikely to be resolved in Islamabad in the coming days, but they are the ones that Israel and the West will have to grapple with once the dust from this war has settled.

For many Israelis who were awoken by rocket sirens just before 3 a.m. Wednesday, only to see the headline on their phones that a two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran had been reached, the news was met with mixed feelings of relief and concern.

For most Israelis, the ceasefire has brought tangible relief: an end to regular missile alerts, the prospect of uninterrupted sleep (though Hezbollah swiftly shattered that hope for many on Thursday night), and children back in school. Yet for residents of Israel’s north who continue to live under frequent Hezbollah rocket fire, even this fragile respite remains out of reach.

After the ceasefire went into effect, there was a pervading feeling in Israel that the war with Iran was not complete, and the return to routine life may be short-lived. An overwhelming majority of Israelis supported the war a month after its late-February start, and just over half supported its continuation, according to the Israel Democracy Institute. Those views remained relatively steady after Iran stopped shooting missiles: A poll broadcast on Israel’s Channel 13 news on Thursday found that 51% of Israelis opposed President Donald Trump’s agreement to a ceasefire. 

Israelis’ support for the war effort despite the challenges on the home front was strong because its aims — eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat and severely degrading the ballistic missile threat — were meant to ultimately make them safer, along with the hope, bolstered by statements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump, that the mullahs’ regime would be toppled.

Yet, according to the Channel 13 poll, Israelis ranked their sense of security after the war at 5.36 out of 10, and gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a grade of 5.56. Only slightly more Israelis (33%) thought that Israel and the U.S. won the war, as opposed to Iran (28%); a plurality (39%) were not sure.

“Israel did not meet its war aims, and the cost is expected to be high,” Yoav Limor, the main military analyst of Adelson-owned Israel Hayom wrote on Thursday. The Times of Israel’s Lazar Berman lamented that “another war ends without a decisive win.” Even the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 featured the headline “This is how wars are lost: Stopping a moment before victory” on its homepage, and another, more positive, article about the war’s achievements, still admitted “‘total victory’ was not reached.”

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid went as far on Wednesday as to call the ceasefire “a diplomatic disaster at a level that I cannot remember. … Of all possible results, Netanyahu reached the worst.” 

Shas leader Aryeh Deri, a Security Cabinet observer and one of Netanyahu’s closest political allies, accused Lapid and others who made similar comments of “acting against the country for narrow, short-term political gain.” 

On Wednesday evening, Netanyahu made a live statement to reassure the public. 

“Iran is weaker than ever, and Israel is stronger than ever,” the prime minister said. “This is the bottom line … We have set the terrorist regime in Iran back many years. We have shaken its foundations. We have crushed it.”

However, Netanyahu added, “We still have goals to complete, and we will achieve them either by agreement or by the resumption of fighting. We are ready to return to combat at any necessary moment. … This is not the end of the campaign; this is a way station on the way to achieving all of our goals.” 

The mixed feelings from the public and the mixed messages from Netanyahu were backed up by experts who spoke to Jewish Insider on Thursday.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi, chairman of the Israel Defense and Security Forum, told JI that “it’s too early to sum up, because we need to see the results of the negotiations over the next two weeks, and what happens in Iran when the dust settles.” 

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Assaf Orion, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said that it is “too early to say” whether Israel is safer now than it was six weeks ago.

“We are at halftime,” Orion said. “The first part was military … but wars are not just a military competition, they are diplomatic and military. …The reality after exhausting the negotiations is how we will judge the war.” 

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi, chairman of the Israel Defense and Security Forum, told JI that “it’s too early to sum up, because we need to see the results of the negotiations over the next two weeks, and what happens in Iran when the dust settles.” 

That being said, Avivi was confident that Israel is safer than before the war began.

“The last six weeks were a huge drama, a total military defeat of a regional power,” he said. “Iran’s military industry, steel plants, petrochemical plants, navy, were almost entirely eliminated. … Essentially, Israel and the U.S. did whatever they wanted for the past month and a half. They attacked wherever they wanted. If they wanted to turn off the country’s electricity, they could have. … [Iran is] crushed militarily and economically.” 

Avivi did not view Israel as having been stopped by the U.S. mid-fight, citing the IDF as saying that they hit all the targets they had defined as important and reached a stage where the remaining targets were energy and economic sites. “That’s why the Iranians broke and wanted a ceasefire,” Avivi said.

“The nuclear project was harmed, but the enriched uranium is still in Iran, and it is unclear if they are closer to giving it up than before,” Brig.-Gen. (res.) Assaf Orion, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said. “That needs either a military solution or a deal, or the situation will get worse. … [Iran] may change its nuclear strategy for the worse, because with fewer capabilities, they are more motivated [to break out to nuclear weapons], and the knowledge and materials remain.” 

This was the right time for a ceasefire, Avivi posited, because the fighting had gotten to a point where the remaining targets were Iran’s economic abilities, and the Islamic Republic “basically surrendered,” and decided to agree to the U.S. demand to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without concessions from the U.S.

Orion, however, said that “Israel did very serious damage to Iran [which will last] for many years,” but still viewed the results of that damage as inconclusive.

“The nuclear project was harmed, but the enriched uranium is still in Iran, and it is unclear if they are closer to giving it up than before,” he said. “That needs either a military solution or a deal, or the situation will get worse. … [Iran] may change its nuclear strategy for the worse, because with fewer capabilities, they are more motivated [to break out to nuclear weapons], and the knowledge and materials remain.” 

As for Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, Orion said, “their industry is damaged and unable to produce large quantities … [but] they still retain about half of their capabilities, something like 1,200 missiles and over 200 launchers. It’s clear they can still create the terror effect and harass Israel and neighboring countries. … They can buy [drones] from Russia to threaten the Gulf states.” 

A central question pertaining to Iran’s ballistic missiles and other conventional capabilities, Orion said, is what it will rebuild, how quickly and whether China will help Tehran.

Avivi said he views Iran’s ballistic missile strategy as “totally ineffective, influencing nothing … sporadic and not targeted,” and noted that it did not damage Israeli military capabilities, while “every Israeli strike is a death blow to the regime, its industries or senior officials.” 

As for regime change, which was not an official war aim, Orion argued that it’s too early to know whether it will happen. “Trump said it already happened, but it’s really just a shift change. The [remaining] people are no less extreme,” he said.

Avivi said that reaching a ceasefire with the regime does not undermine the effort to change it: “The people can still take to the streets, and Israeli and American drones can back them up. This regime will crumble in the end, but it’s a process. It won’t happen in a day.”

One major downside of the war for Israel may be a deterioration in U.S. public opinion towards the Jewish state.

“On the one hand,” Orion said, “Israel proved itself as a military partner with capabilities and prowess to significantly help the U.S. with what it wanted to achieve. Israel was there from day one and took on most of the mission of clearing out Iran’s air defenses … It did a lot of the work when NATO didn’t want to.”

However, Orion pointed to a recent New York Times article that portrayed Israel as “dragging the U.S. into the war, even though it was a presidential decision in the end, contrary to the stances of senior [American] figures and public opinion on the left and right. It will take time to see the aftershocks.”

As to whether the ceasefire will last, Orion said that, while nothing is certain, a ceasefire is generally called when both sides “estimate that conditions would be improved by talking,” and noted that at the outset of the war, the Trump administration said it would likely take four to six weeks.

Avivi said that “Israel and the U.S. now have two weeks to regroup and rearm, which Iran isn’t able to do because it doesn’t have a military industry anymore.” 

Iran can spend the ceasefire “taking stock of the disaster that happened to them,” Avivi added.

Despite skepticism over the terms and reports of ongoing Iranian strikes, several prominent hawkish Republicans are voicing support for President Donald Trump’s fragile two-week ceasefire agreement with Iran.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among the most prominent backers of the war in the Senate, said in a post on X that a “diplomatic solution to end the reign of terror in Iran is the preferred outcome” but said he has concerns about the supposed 10-point plan presented by Iran, which would require the lifting of all U.S. sanctions on Iran, among other steps. 

U.S. officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, said the U.S. did not agree to that version of the deal, but that at least three versions of the Iranian proposal have circulated. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the original 10-point plan proposed by Iran was “fundamentally unserious” and was “literally thrown into the garbage by President Trump and his team.”

“I look forward to the architects of this proposal, the Vice President and others, coming forward to Congress and explaining how a negotiated deal meets our national security objectives in Iran,” Graham said.

He added that all of Iran’s enriched uranium must be turned over to the United States and that Iran cannot have any enrichment capacity.

“To those who say, Iran needs to save face by having a small enrichment program, I’m not remotely interested in providing face-saving cover to a regime that murders its own people, beats a 16-year-old girl to death for not wearing a headscarf appropriately, and is dripping in American blood,” Graham said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on his podcast that he believes Trump was prepared to follow through on his threats against Iran, but agreed to hold off in response to Pakistan’s mediation efforts and Iran’s agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as he had demanded.

“Many of the military objectives have been accomplished. The military has been degraded almost out of existence,” Cruz said, though he acknowledged that it doesn’t take much for Iran to disrupt trade in the Strait of Hormuz. “There’s virtually no military left. It’s like four guys with a slingshot sitting on the back of a camel.”

But Cruz said he would be skeptical that the ceasefire would hold if Iran’s attacks on its neighbors continued.

He said his definition of success in Iran would be taking away Iran’s ability to kill Americans and innocent people in the region and its ability to become a nuclear power. He said that full regime change is the responsibility of the Iranian people, not the United States.

Responding to a post by Trump about the agreement and the damage to Iran’s nuclear program, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-AR) said, “President Trump has always been crystal clear: there must be no uranium enrichment for Iran. And he’s absolutely right. That was a central flaw in Obama’s disastrous deal. Because the only reason Iran would demand to enrich uranium is to build a nuclear weapon.”

He didn’t address the substance of the ceasefire deal itself.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) praised Trump’s execution of the war and the ceasefire, saying that the war had shown that the U.S. is the strongest nation and has the strongest military on the planet.

“He has made it clear – Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. And so, it’s really through his efforts that the U.S. not only secured a temporary ceasefire but more importantly, they obtained a commitment from Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” Cramer said in a statement. “That has been his short-term goal in recent days, and it’s an important goal that affects a lot of people, not just the United States but our Middle East friends and certainly Europe.”

He called on other allies to step up — and predicted they would following the ceasefire agreement. But he also urged continued caution.

“Now we have to keep our eyes wide open obviously, it’s not like the Iranian regime is good for keeping its word, but in my mind, this is a pretty good breakthrough,” Cramer continued. “I’m grateful for President Trump’s unwavering dedication to defending our country and holding our adversaries accountable, and frankly, holding some allies accountable as well. I certainly hope they learned from this lesson.”

Other senior Republicans haven’t commented on the ceasefire agreement yet.

Off Capitol Hill, some prominent right-wing voices who have had the president’s ear are taking a different view of the deal.

Conservative commentator Mark Levin emphasized that Iran violated the ceasefire deal shortly after it was signed. He accused Iran of trying to use the negotiations to “blackmail us and Israel” to allow Hezbollah to continue its attacks on Israel and divide the U.S. and its allies.

“The 2-week ceasefire is being violated right now by the Iranian-Nazi regime.  Missiles are being fired into Israel and perhaps other countries in the region.  Are they able to defend themselves?” he said on X. We have the right man as president, and I bet he’s furious about this.”

“But this will be the question throughout — that is, do we expect the Iranian regime to honor a deal, how will we monitor it, and how will we enforce it.  These will all be very difficult issues to resolve,” he continued.

Responding to the 10-point Iranian proposal, Levin said simply, “Uh oh.”

Far-right influencer Laura Loomer said on X the deal is “a negative for our country” and “we didn’t really get anything out of it.”

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, passed in response to the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran in 2015, any agreement pertaining to Iran’s nuclear capabilities must be submitted to Congress for its review, and Congress has the ability to vote to block any such agreement.

In spite of the ceasefire, Democrats are continuing to agitate for Trump’s removal from office and plan to pursue war powers resolutions to force an end to the war.

In a Dear Colleague letter on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said that Democrats plan to attempt to pass a war powers resolution during a pro-forma session on Thursday by unanimous consent — an effort that is likely to fail. 

Jeffries also said that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and committee Democrats plan to hold a briefing on Friday on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment” — indicating that the doomed push to remove Trump from office has backing from the top echelons of the Democratic Party.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Democrats are planning to force a vote on a war powers resolution next week, the fourth since the war began on Feb. 28, when the Senate returns from its own recess.

The war in Iran has cost Israel political support in the United States, according to a new Pew Research Center poll, which shows 60% of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, with 37% viewing the Jewish state favorably.

The results not only reflect an overall decline in public support in recent years, but a significant seven-point drop since the pollster’s last survey in 2025, when it found 42% of respondents viewed Israel favorably and 55% unfavorably. The latest poll surveyed 3,507 U.S. adults between March 23-29, during the height of the joint U.S.-Israel military operations.

Perhaps most concerning for the pro-Israel community, the poll found that 57% of Republican respondents under 50 hold negative views towards Israel. That’s in stark contrast to the strong support it receives from older Republicans, with nearly 3 in 4 viewing the Jewish state favorably.

The survey found that positive views of Israel were concentrated among Jewish Americans (64% said they view Israel favorably) and evangelical Protestants (65% said they hold favorable views). 

The least supportive religious groups towards Israel were: American Muslims (4% favorability), the religiously unaffiliated (22% favorability), Black Protestants (33%) and Catholics (35%).

The poll also found that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to get low marks from the American public, with only 27% saying they trusted him to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.” Nearly the same share of voters who viewed Israel unfavorably also held the Israeli prime minister in a negative light.

Pew also asked how important the conflict between Israel and Hamas was to respondents, and 53% rated it as a “very” or “somewhat” important issue. Nearly all Jewish respondents (91%) and 70% of Muslim respondents said what’s happening in the Middle East is of significant importance.

President Donald Trump hit back at Tucker Carlson on Tuesday after the far-right podcaster used his most recent show to accuse the president of steering the U.S. toward nuclear war with Iran and to suggest, in apocalyptic terms, that Trump might be waging a stealth attack on Christianity.

In a phone interview with the New York Post, Trump described Carlson as a “low IQ” individual who frequently tries to speak with him by phone, adding that he has stopped responding to his calls.

“Tucker’s a low IQ person that has absolutely no idea what’s going on,” Trump told the outlet of Carlson. “He calls me all the time. I don’t respond to his calls. I don’t deal with him. I like dealing with smart people, not fools.”

The remarks came in response to a lengthy monologue Carlson delivered on his Monday podcast. There, Carlson excoriated Trump for issuing an expletive-filled Truth Social post on Easter, in which the president warned that the U.S. was prepared to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges if Tehran did not open the Strait of Hormuz.

Carlson called the post “vile on every level,” particularly for its language on a major Christian holiday, and framed it as the opening move toward nuclear conflict. He speculated that Trump might be pursuing something far larger than conventional military escalation — an effort to provoke Armageddon and undermine Christian faith.

“Is it possible that what you’re watching is a very stealthy yet incredibly effective attack on what, from a Christian perspective, is the true-faith belief in Jesus?” Carlson asked. “Is it possible the president sees this in bigger terms? Sees this as the fulfillment of something? An elevation to some higher office beyond president of the United States?”

“Is it just a conventional escalation ladder in a badly thought out war?” he continued. “Could it be something bigger? Is it possible what you’re watching is a very stealthy yet incredibly effective attack on what, from a Christian perspective, is the true faith: belief in Jesus?”

The former Fox News host then claimed that the reason the president did not put his hand directly on the Bible when being sworn in for his second term last January was because he “rejects” the “limits on human behavior” in the Bible. 

Carlson went on to urge Trump administration officials to resign or refuse to obey orders if the president were to order them to strike Iran with a nuclear weapon. 

“Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say, ‘No, I’ll resign. I’ll do whatever I can do legally to stop this because this is insane, and if you give the order, I’m not carrying it out. Figure out the codes on the football yourself,’ because everything hangs in the balance right now,” he explained.

Top Democrats across both chambers condemned President Donald Trump for threatening that “a whole civilization will die tonight” in Iran, with some pushing for Trump’s immediate removal from office over the threat and his conduct of the war.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and other members of Democratic leadership including Reps. Katherine Clark (D-MA), Pete Aguilar (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Suzan DelBene (D-WA), issued a statement calling Trump “unhinged” and saying that he risks bringing the country “into World War III” unless Congress reconvenes to vote to bring the war to an end.

“For years, Republicans have enabled and excused Donald Trump’s deeply dangerous and extreme behavior. Enough is enough,” the leaders said. “Our brave men and women in uniform have been put into harm’s way in the Middle East. Over a dozen have already been killed and hundreds injured. Gas prices are skyrocketing, the cost of living in America is out of control and billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a reckless war of choice.”

In another joint statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Brian Schatz (D-HI), who are the top Democrats on several relevant committees and subcommittees, similarly condemned Trump’s comments, saying they indicate an intent to commit war crimes.

“This is not strength. Intentionally destroying the power, water, or basic infrastructure upon which tens of millions of civilians depend to punish the very civilians who suffer at the hands of the Iranian regime would constitute a war crime, a betrayal of the values this nation was founded on, and a moral failure,” the lawmakers said. “It’s unconscionable to threaten the lives of so many people — grandparents, children, families — simply because they were born in Iran.”

They said that Trump’s comment “makes Americans less safe, further destabilizes our nation and economy, and puts at greater risk U.S. service members,” as well as makes a diplomatic solution — ”the only viable solution to this war” — harder to achieve.

In a separate statement, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said that Trump’s threat constitutes a war crime and an illegal action under international law which risks tens of millions of Iranian civilians, and potentially catastrophic after-effects.

“At this critical moment, the United States must pursue immediate de-escalation and a coordinated diplomatic strategy with our allies. We cannot allow Iran to simply reset to a dangerous status quo — but the answer is not to threaten war crimes and isolate us from every partner we need to end this conflict,” Meeks said. Trump’s threat is “recklessness that America and the region will pay for long after this president is gone,” he added.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who prior to the war was one of the few Democrats who said he would oppose a war powers resolution — though he ultimately voted for it after the war began — demanded that the House immediately reconvene for a war powers vote. Moskowitz’s comments are a sign that Trump’s latest comments have crossed a line even for some of the most hawkish Democrats in the House.

“Speaker Johnson must immediately reconvene the House to vote on a war powers resolution. It’s beyond clear we are at war,” Moskowitz said. “The Speaker’s legacy will be that he made Congress so irrelevant that a president can threaten to wipe out a civilization while Congress is on vacation.”

Jeffries said Democrats plan to bring up another war powers resolution to halt the conflict in Iran, which stands a stronger chance of passing than a previous one, when the House returns from its recess. At least some of the Democrats who voted against the previous resolution are expected to support this one, and a small number of additional Republicans may join them.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), one of four House Democrats who voted against the previous war powers resolution on the war in Iran last month, announced he will now support such an effort because the administration has failed to provide adequate answers about its goals and its exit strategy.

“[W]e must be careful with the language we use. Strength and destruction are not the same,” Cuellar added. “When the United States echoes the rhetoric of its adversaries, we risk weakening the values that have long defined our leadership.”

Several Democrats have described Trump’s comments as a threat to commit genocide.

Trump’s threat has also prompted growing calls from at least 70 House Democrats for his removal from office, either through impeachment or the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which allows the involuntary removal of a president from power if he is mentally or physically unfit to govern.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) joined those calls.

“Donald Trump is deranged,” Wyden said. “He must be impeached and removed from office. Republicans who don’t stop him will have blood on their hands, and anyone who carries out an order to bomb civilian targets will be complicit in war crimes and will be held accountable.”

Markey called the president “unstable and a clear and present danger, not just to the American people but to the world” and said he “must be removed from office before he causes incalculable and unfathomable harm.” He said that a war powers resolution to stop the war is now insufficient to address the situation.

A small number of Republicans are also airing concerns with Trump’s threat.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), one of the few Republicans who has been openly skeptical of the war effort in Iran, said that Trump’s threat “cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran.”

“This type of rhetoric is an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years. It undermines our long-standing role as a global beacon of freedom and directly endangers Americans both abroad and at home,” Murkowski said, calling for deescalation by both Trump and Iran, and insisting that the U.S. must draw a distinction between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people.

Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) said that, while he has supported the war thus far, “I do not support the destruction of a ‘whole civilization.’ That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America.”

“[W]hat sets America apart is not only our strength, but how we use it. Our nation has always conducted military operations for just causes and through just and moral means. This must continue in the future; otherwise we forfeit our legitimacy to lead the world,” Moran said. “[H]ow we protect the lives of the innocent is just as important as how we engage the enemy.”

Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who recently left the Republican Party but remains part of the GOP caucus and has generally been hawkish on Iran, said that the U.S. “does not destroy civilizations. Nor do we threaten to do so as some sort of negotiating tactic.”

“Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight with respect to ongoing military operations and our obligations under both U.S. law and international agreements to which we are a signatory,” Kiley said.

President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to escalate the war in Iran on Monday if Iranian leaders do not agree to a broad ceasefire deal that includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz by his Tuesday evening deadline, threatening that the U.S. would target every bridge and power plant still standing in the country.

Trump took a hawkish posture while speaking to reporters at the White House alongside senior U.S. defense officials about the ongoing war and diplomatic efforts to bring it to a close, warning that the U.S. has a plan to take out Iran’s entire transportation and energy infrastructure within “four hours” if Iran did not make a deal. 

“I can tell you they’re negotiating, we think, in good faith. We’re going to find out. … After [8 p.m. ET on Tuesday], they’re going to have no bridges. They’re going to have no power plants. Stone ages,” Trump said, referring to the deadline he set for Iran to agree to his terms, which has now been postponed three times.

The president said he extended the deadline from Monday to Tuesday at 8 p.m. ET because he “thought it was inappropriate” to demand a response “the day after Easter.” The comment came hours after telling reporters at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll that the Tuesday deadline was final and unlikely to have any additional extensions. 

“The entire country can be taken out in one night and that night might be tomorrow night,” Trump said from the briefing room. “We have a plan, because of the power of our military, [where] every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again. I mean complete demolition by 12 o’clock, and it’ll happen over a period of four hours if we want it to.” 

“We don’t want that to happen. We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation. If that’s the case, the last thing we want to do is start with power plants, which are among the most expensive things, and bridges,” he continued. “So do I want to do that? No. Do I want to destroy their infrastructure? No. It will take them 100 years to rebuild. Right now, if we left today, it would take them 20 years to rebuild their country and it would never be as good as it was. The only way they’re going to be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who took part in the press conference alongside Trump, told reporters on Monday that, “per the president’s direction, today will be the largest volume which strikes since day one of this operation. Tomorrow, even more than today, and then Iran has a choice. Choose wisely, because this president does not play around.”

Trump repeatedly reiterated his commitment to ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon — after saying the country’s nuclear program was “obliterated” last June — and said that any agreement between Iran and the U.S. would need to adhere to his terms, including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. “We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me, and part of that deal is going to be [that] we want free traffic of oil and everything,” the president said.

“They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said of Iran, arguing that his actions were an insurance policy for the U.S. “if somebody that takes my place someday is weak and ineffective, which possibly that will happen, because we had numerous presidents that were weak, ineffective and afraid of Iran.”

The president described the Iranians as “very good bulls*** artists, that’s why for 47 years they’ve been bulls***ing other presidents,” while defending his decision to take military action against the regime.

“I think that 47 years of this stuff is long enough. They’re at the weakest point they’ve ever been,” Trump said, despite Iran’s continued missile strikes across the Gulf and in Israel. “In fact, the biggest problem we have in our negotiations is that they can’t communicate. … They have no method of communication. So we’re communicating like they used to communicate 2,000 years ago with children bringing a note back and forth.”

This P.M. edition is reserved for our premium subscribers — offering a forward-focused read on what we’re tracking now and what’s coming next. Please don’t hesitate to share your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.

ALTERED LIVES

They survived the Temple Israel attack. They can’t escape what followed

The foiled attack at the Michigan synagogue is being called a miracle — but those who were inside now face the lasting impact of trauma and a search for safety

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

O CANADA

As antisemitic attacks mount, Canadian Jews ask whether they still belong

After a series of targeted attacks in Toronto and beyond, Jewish leaders are raising the alarms on Canada’s failure to properly protect its Jews amid ‘systemic’ antisemitism

Read more

SHARE

Share options

• 
  Facebook
• 
  Telegram
• 
  LinkedIn
• 
  WhatsApp
• 
  Reddit

Add JewishInsider on Google

With Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz roiling energy markets, other countries in the region may begin to pursue alternative routes to transport energy and other goods, but they are far from ready to be put into use, experts told Jewish Insider this week. 

One of the highest-profile routes is the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC), proposed by the Biden administration in September 2023 as a route for trade, energy and more; it would go from India, through Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Israel, then across the Mediterranean to Europe through Greece.

While Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz and obstruct oil shipping for decades, the Islamic Republic was not the main reason for considering another route of transportation — it was initially conceived as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.  

But now that the Iranian threat has been realized, IMEC and other alternative routes to ship oil and gas from the Gulf are back in focus.

Gabriel Mitchell, an expert on energy security and a visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told JI that “the threat and challenge posed with the Strait of Hormuz has raised questions about East-West shipping, traffic and global energy trade to the maximum.”

”If you look at it from the perspective of India on one end, Europe on the other and anywhere in between, they are thinking they need to create as much redundancy as possible for commercial shipping for their own economic security,” Mitchell said. “It doesn’t make a difference whether you’re Emirati or Qatari or just an international shipping company with a base of operations in [the UAE’s Port of] Fuajirah, you’re asking the same questions.” 

Mitchell said the idea of redundant shipping routes initially came from a desire to lower costs and increase speed of delivery, and grew more popular due to challenges with the Suez Canal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, in light of Iran’s obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz, “the argument in favor of IMEC [and] creation of redundancy has increased significantly.” 

Increased regional connectivity can “take away Iran’s lever of closing the Strait of Hormuz,” Joseph Rozen, a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and the former director for Asia-Pacific in Israel’s National Security Council, told JI. (The writer is a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute.)

Rozen said that “IMEC is a buzzword; the focus needs to be on inter-regional connectivity,” and noted that the Trump administration may be hesitant to adopt a Biden-era initiative, though it seemingly supports increasing connectivity more broadly through the Board of Peace. 

Regional connectivity can increase stability and growth, Rozen said, and more countries can be brought in than those initially on board, such as Oman, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and even Gaza.

“The Iran war increased American involvement and its push for connectivity initiatives,” Rozen said. “Before the war [President Donald] Trump expressed interest, but now, the U.S. is more invested, and that encourages countries in the region to invest in regional connectivity if they know there’s an American security umbrella … over their investments and development.”

Rozen argued that existing infrastructure should be improved in the short term. The Saudi and Emirati pipelines combined can only transfer about 8.5 million barrels’ worth of oil per day, 42% of what passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day before the current war with Iran, he said. Another short-term move Rozen proposed is to continue to grant countries waivers to buy Russian gas, though this effort has seen resistance from members of Congress.

Mitchell said that IMEC faced a lot of skepticism when it was proposed, and none of its challenges have been resolved.

The commercial viability of alternative pipelines and routes is in question, Mitchell said: “Who is going to pay? Who is going to secure it? Which available ports will be able to manage that intake?”

Companies may prefer to try to find quick fixes rather than make multibillion-dollar investments that take a decade or more to bring returns, Mitchell argued, and the private sector and states will have to work together to make them viable. “I believe that will tip the scales in favor of these kinds of projects, but which end up getting green lit is yet to be determined.”

Some of the geopolitical challenges have grown more difficult since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, weeks after IMEC was announced. In addition, Mitchell pointed out that Turkey has obstructed joint energy projects between Israel, Greece and Cyprus in the past decade, demanding to be involved, and would likely do the same with IMEC.

”It’s hard to get everyone involved in one project … It’s hard to say how we are going to set aside our differences for these sets of initiatives … [and] what combination of carrots and sticks will convince people to pursue diversification. … I think in the end the answer will be yes, but it will take time to get there,” Mitchell said.

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel earlier this year, IMEC was part of the public conversation, but diplomats from both countries told JI on condition of anonymity that Saudi Arabia was hesitant to proceed because of Israel’s involvement — even though both countries were part of the plan from its inception.

Rozen said that Riyadh and Jerusalem can be part of the same project as long as the focus is on practical steps that serve the Saudis’ interests and not summits and bombastic statements that would “do more harm than good.”

”I understand their interest to maintain a certain kind of rhetoric, but there are other interests,” he said. “The more we advance through channels that are not political and are lower profile … I think the Saudis would be willing to do it. It can happen at any level of IMEC or other connectivity plans, in energy, trade and digital services. Cooperation led by the business sector would not carry the same political baggage … and under the current political circumstances it may be better for it not to be government-led.”

Mitchell also said that disputes between Saudi Arabia and the UAE that surfaced late last year could get in the way of developing IMEC, though in “a situation like now, when everyone is economically bleeding, there should be room for creative solutions.”

Israeli officials have made many positive statements about IMEC and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar took part in a summit last year with his counterparts from involved countries, but no progress has been made on the ground.

Rozen said that Israel will likely wait to develop the necessary infrastructure “as long as there is no commitment from Arab States, such as Jordan, to invest on their side.” However, he added that, in the interim, Israel can “focus on the technological aspects” of regional connectivity at a lower cost.

Mitchell said the big challenge for Israel is that other countries will be competing to be involved in connectivity projects. Egypt, he said, has been pushing to be the gateway to the Mediterranean, with support from France.

”The argument in Israel’s favor is the security-related coordination [with Arab states] that is happening informally in a lot of ways. We need to concretize that,” he said. “One would assume that Israeli companies would have the opportunity to present their offerings for cybersecurity infrastructure.”

”The real thorn in Israel’s side since Oct. 7 is the diplomatic element. Can Israel manifest any kind of diplomatic initiative or momentum to patch together meaningful cooperation?” Mitchell questioned. “It seems that as of right now, nobody is willing to meet in the middle, which is challenging if you’re Israel, but it’s also challenging for the U.S., which is trying to work with everybody in parallel and has struggled to bring them around the table [together].”