Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth indicated at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday that the U.S. military has the capacity to destroy Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, the underground site suspected of housing elements of Tehran’s nuclear program, following a series of threats by President Donald Trump to strike the site.

The facility is buried inside a mountain in a manner that experts believe would be difficult to fully destroy, even with the heavy munitions used by the U.S. to target Iran’s Fordow and Natanz facilities last summer.

“A lot of our capabilities are classified,” Hegseth said, in response to a question about whether the U.S. has the capacity to destroy the facility. “But if anybody in the world can reach anything on God’s green earth, it’s the United States military, the most powerful military in the world. It’s all about options and trade-offs.” 

"If anybody in the world can reach anything on God’s green earth, it’s the United States military."

Pete Hegseth indicated the U.S. military can destroy Pickaxe Mountain, suspected of housing elements of Iran's nuclear program.

Read more: https://t.co/wxqcuGwu2t pic.twitter.com/an5VEFu4aZ

— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) July 22, 2026

Hegseth, during a hearing focused on a nearly $90 billion supplemental funding request to recoup costs from the war, estimated the current costs of the Iran war at $37.5 billion, up from a $29 billion estimate provided by another Pentagon official in mid-May. He said that estimate includes certain expenses such as troop pay through the end of the fiscal year, but does not incorporate other expenditures related to the war.

He did not directly address a question about whether the Pentagon would put forward another supplemental request to repair or rebuild damaged U.S. bases and facilities, which were excluded from the previous Pentagon estimate.

Asked whether China and Russia were assisting Iran in its military operations against the U.S., Hegseth suggested that they were, but declined to discuss the extent of the cooperation.

“There’s definitely adversary alignment — attempts to do so — and there are many ways that we deter that,” Hegseth said. “Some of which are — and the depth and extent of it ought to remain — classified, and it should. But there are ways in which both of those countries are, at different levels, enabling some of the things Iran is doing.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) pressed Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on whether the supplemental would provide sufficient resources to “appropriately end this war favorable to the United States and to take care of this problem permanently.” 

Caine responded that such a scenario would be dependent on how Iran responds and behaves.

“I can’t answer the question on what it will cost because the enemy has a vote. What I’ll commit to you as this plays out, we’ll make sure that the Congress is informed,” Caine said. “But because I’m not quite sure how this is going to play out yet, it would be unwise for me to comment on what a future cost may or may not be depending on what they choose.”

Hegseth said that the administration continues to believe it has the authorities necessary to continue the war without congressional authorization, but said he would defer to legal experts on whether passing the supplemental would constitute a congressional authorization for use of military force — an argument made by the Clinton administration during operations against Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Throughout the hearing, Hegseth insisted that Iran’s capabilities had been significantly degraded, despite its continued attacks on commercial shipping and U.S. bases around the region, several of which have recently resulted in the deaths and injuries of U.S. service members. Hegseth also called the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports “effectively impenetrable.”

“Iran is at the weakest point militarily it has ever been in in the past decade, certainly — maybe in 47 years,” Hegseth said. He said the Iranian regime had built thousands of ballistic missiles to defend its nuclear program “many of which we have destroyed, others of which they have hidden in underground facilities.”

“So I acknowledge they still have capabilities, no doubt,” Hegseth continued. “But the amount of damage that we’ve done to them over the course of these series of operations has put them in the worst place they’ve ever been.”

He didn’t answer questions about whether the U.S. would attempt to impose tolls on the Strait of Hormuz, as Trump recently floated and then walked back.

Caine acknowledged that air power has “limits, and we always have to be mindful of those,” but argued that the U.S. has other capabilities in the diplomatic, informational, economic and military realms. He declined to discuss the possibility of U.S. ground forces being deployed to Iran, but said that his job involves developing a range of options and laying out their risks.

Though the hearing was principally focused on the supplemental request that the administration put forward to cover the Iran war, Hegseth and Caine both repeatedly argued for the full $1.5 trillion military funding request the administration has put forward for 2027.

It’s unclear at this point if or how that request will be fulfilled. Lawmakers had planned to include $1.15 trillion in the base defense budget and an additional $350 billion in a partisan reconciliation bill, but both of those are currently in limbo.

Senate Democrats have largely rejected the $1.15 trillion topline, particularly in the midst of the Iran war, and the House’s third reconciliation bill aims to cover just the Iran supplemental request.

Republicans are now floating the idea of a fourth reconciliation bill — but many Senate Republicans have been skeptical that the current third package can pass, so it’s not clear how realistic another reconciliation bill would be ahead of the midterm elections.

“This request is an urgent, necessary injection of resources to address the immediate needs of our department. The supplemental funding request is not a substitute for the president’s full $1.5 trillion base budget request,” Hegseth said, amid repeated interruptions of his opening statement by anti-war protesters in the chamber. “$1.5 trillion is what the president seeks and what we need to defend the country. The members of this committee understand better than most that long-term strategic dominance cannot be funded through one-off supplementals.”

Hegseth lambasted what he alleged was neglect and gross negligence by the Biden administration, as well as blaming U.S. aid to Ukraine for some of the current deficits, and said that without additional funding, the U.S. would face “critical shortfalls” that would imperil its ability to pay service members, replenish supplies and continue critical operations.

President Donald Trump warned on Tuesday that the U.S. would “pretty soon” strike Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, the underground facility suspected of housing components of Tehran’s nuclear program.

The president made the comments from the Oval Office while welcoming Lebanese President Joseph Aoun for a meeting about the ongoing U.S.-led talks between Israel and Lebanon. Trump was asked about a Wall Street Journal report that Israeli intelligence shared with the U.S. indicated that Iran moved thousands of centrifuges into its clandestine Pickaxe Mountain site last fall.

“I think that they may have [moved the centrifuges],” Trump said. “It doesn’t mean anything unless they have the [nuclear] material. They don’t have it. We follow the material. That’s where the action is.”

“We’ll be hitting that area probably pretty soon. There’s not a thing they can do about it,” he continued. “Normally, I wouldn’t say that. If I thought they could do something about it, I would never say that, but we’ll be hitting that area pretty soon, and very heavily.”

The president predicted that it would take Iran between 20 to 25 years to rebuild its nuclear program if U.S. forces immediately ceased striking Iranian nuclear targets, though he noted that the U.S. was “not finished at all” in Iran and was “not leaving right now.” 

He added that Iran “wants to meet desperately” with the U.S. to end the war “because they’re getting decimated,” but “until they’re ready to meet in a meaningful way, we have no interest in meeting with them.” 

Joining Trump for his meeting with Aoun were Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. 

On the subject of Lebanon, Trump told reporters that he was willing to speak to Hezbollah’s leaders directly to advance peacemaking efforts with Israel. 

“I would speak to Hezbollah. I speak to everybody. I’ll speak to people that a lot of people think I shouldn’t be speaking to and things work out,” Trump said. “If [Aoun] wanted me to speak to Hezbollah, you know he’s lived with Hezbollah for a long time, and if the president wanted me to speak to Hezbollah, I would.”

Trump praised Aoun directly and detailed his own affinity for Lebanon, telling reporters that the U.S. is “going to help [the country] a lot” and describing the U.S.-Lebanese relationship as “very good.” 

“I think that Lebanon has been a very mistreated country for a long period of time,” Trump said.

The president said that he planned to discuss with Aoun Israel’s ongoing troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ways to empower the Lebanese Armed Forces.

“We’ll be speaking about that today with the president, and we have some very concrete plans already in store for that with others going in and helping,” Trump said. “But they’re also becoming much more self-sufficient, and we will be speaking about that.”

In recent weeks, following the collapse of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has fired dozens of times on Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

At the same time, it has sustained fire from the U.S., whose military bases across the region have been targeted by the Islamic Republic, with several service members killed. And all the while, Tehran has targeted commercial ships transiting through the strait.

But as focus on the conflict with Iran has shifted from addressing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions to the Strait of Hormuz, Israel has stayed out of the fighting — despite Iranian threats earlier this month to target the Jewish state if the U.S. attacks did not cease.

There is no upside for Israel to reenter the fight, especially when the issue of the Strait of Hormuz falls outside of the objectives set by Israel at the start of the war earlier this year. (This, despite the widespread sentiment among Israelis that this year’s war did not improve Israel’s security situation, according to polling last month from the Israel Democracy Institute.)

Key among the goals laid out by Israel was degrading Iran’s ballistic missile program and setting back elements of its nuclear program. Reopening Hormuz is an American objective, not an Israeli one. With Israel having made the calculus that the most immediate Iranian threats have been blunted — at least in the short term — the current mission has become an American one.

“Israel’s best move is to not move — yet,” Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider this morning. “Washington does the striking. Israel keeps its fire and its threats in reserve, waiting for one of two triggers: a U.S. request to join, or an Iranian regime foolish enough to hit Israel and invite the reprisal that has been promised.”

Despite Iran’s threats to target Israel, such a move would likely be a strategic misstep for the Islamic Republic. Iran’s blockade of the strait and its attacks on Arab and Gulf states are an attempt to reassert its dominance over the region and demonstrate its ability to impact the global energy market. Tehran also appears to be betting that sustained attacks across the region will push Arab states to pressure the U.S. to accept an agreement to reopen the strait, handing the Islamic Republic a win.

In that sense, Tehran is calibrating its escalation according to the expected retaliation, knowing that Arab states are, unlike Israel, hesitant to respond with military action.

One week ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking in Dimona, drew a line in the sand. “I have one message for Iran’s leaders: Do not count on there being calm if you attack us,” Netanyahu said. “Do not expect a repeat of what happened before, because there will be no repeat. The previous response was powerful enough, but any further attempt to harm us will be met with a different response — far more powerful.”

Thus far, the Arab states have shown little indication that they intend to escalate to match Iran’s attacks, and will not retaliate with a proportional response (or even a disproportionate response). But with the intermittent fire, Iran keeps the region on edge and Hormuz closed for business.

The question many Israelis are asking is how much longer the domestic quiet will continue. But unless Iran directly strikes Israel or acts in a way that compromises Jerusalem’s interests, there is little appetite in Israel to transform what has become a U.S. effort to reopen shipping routes into another round of intensive fighting between Iran and Israel. For now, Israel’s restraint is less about hesitation, and more of a calculation that deterrence, rather than direct military engagement, will serve Jerusalem’s interests in the long term.

President Donald Trump’s call for Republicans to incorporate sanctions against Iran into the late Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) bipartisan legislation sanctioning Russia and countries that buy Russian oil was met with confusion by some of the Democrats supporting the bill.

The legislation, which was renamed in the late senator’s honor, places sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil and gas in an effort to cut off Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to finance his war in Ukraine. It also codifies sanctions against Russia that have already been implemented via executive order, preventing a future president from easily terminating them.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday that, “Republicans should add Iran to the Russian Sanctions Bill. That’s what Lindsey wanted to do, and it was going to happen.”

His comments come less than a week after he said that Republicans would “like to add Iran and they’d like to add Hezbollah” to the sanctions package. “That’s what I’m hearing,” the president told reporters at the White House on Tuesday.

“This is in honor of Lindsey,” Trump said when asked if he will sign the Russia sanctions bill if it reaches his desk. “This was his thing, he wanted this more than any other thing. You know how he felt.”

The president’s comments came as a surprise to the Democrats who worked with Graham on the legislation, who noted that the late senator had never sought to add sanctions on Iran or its proxies into the package. 

“Our Russia sanctions bill was meticulously crafted during painstaking, sometimes painful negotiations over many months,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who spearheaded the effort alongside Graham for over a year, told Jewish Insider in a statement. “This bill should move forward as quickly as possible — as is — without additional provisions, which can be done separately.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Bloomberg’s “This Weekend” on Sunday that, “Sen. Graham never raised the concern about putting Iranian sanctions on the bill.”

“The fact is, we have significant sanctions on Iran. When the war started, we put additional sanctions on Iran. I think if the president wants to do that, let’s do it in a separate bill, but this bill is moving,” Shaheen said. “It’s targeted in a way that is important and it comes on the heels of the G7 conference, where everyone, including President Trump, signed on to a communiqué that said we need to support Ukraine and put more pressure on Putin. That was echoed at the NATO summit.”

“We know that that’s what it’s going to take to get Vladimir Putin to the table,” she continued. “So far, we have not been successful at getting him to the negotiating table. Let’s put more pressure on him to do that.”

Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), a cosponsor of the sanctions legislation and an ally of both Graham and Trump, did not rule out Trump’s idea to add Iran sanctions to the bill during a joint appearance with Shaheen on “Fox News Sunday.” 

“I think Lindsey Graham was clear-eyed about this,” Britt said. “He knew what Iran was capable of, and he knew that when they chanted, ‘Death to America,’ that they meant it. Look, he believed in President Trump and knew that President Trump had what it takes to create a resolution to what is happening there”

“Being able to move this bill across the finish line — [along with] the bipartisan support that we have gotten to hold Putin accountable, to give President Trump the flexibility and the tools he needs and the economic firepower to bring Putin to the table to create peace and resolution here — will ultimately have a lasting impact across the globe, making sure that those who are funding bad actors, whether it be Russia or those in Iran, will be held accountable,” the Alabama senator continued. 

Graham and Blumenthal first introduced their legislation last April. By May, the duo had accumulated more than 80 cosponsors in the Senate for the bill, which was repeatedly stalled last year as the late senator worked to secure Trump’s support. Despite the bipartisan support, a number of Democrats and other critics, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board, expressed concern about the legislation over the fact that its language grants sweeping tariff authorities to the president.

After being sworn in last Tuesday, Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC), the late senator’s sister who was appointed to serve out the remainder of his term, sponsored a revised version of the legislation, which was renamed to honor her late brother. The bill has since collected 62 cosponsors. 

ASPEN, Colo. — The rift growing rift between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hurts U.S. interests in the region and Washington should work to bring the countries and other Gulf Cooperation Council states back together, Herro Mustafa Garg, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, argued on a panel at the Aspen Security Forum on Thursday.

“This conflict, this current war with Iran, made the animosity between these two countries — and some of the other Gulf countries — at a point that is not in the U.S. national interest,” Garg said. “Also, I don’t think it helps us when we think about what we do with Iran, what we do with Iraq. We need a united GCC in order to tackle these important strategic questions.”

She said that with a divided Gulf, the U.S. will see unilateral backchannelling to Iran by various partners, internal suspicion and more. And, she noted, the conflict between the UAE and Saudi Arabia is also playing out in other arenas — including Sudan, Libya and the Horn of Africa — fomenting instability that does not serve the U.S.

“It is in our interest to strengthen the GCC as much as possible,” Garg said.

Garg, who represented the U.S. in Cairo from 2023 until earlier this year, also praised comments by Iraqi President Ali al-Zaidi during a visit to Washington, D.C., this week, in which he committed to efforts to demilitarize Iranian-backed militias in the country, though Garg warned that such a task is easier said than done, given the political and structural constraints in the country and the Iranian regime’s continued resilience.

“This is an area that will be very very important for us to give our support, sustain support, and here again I would say, bring in the GCC because we need this to be not Iran versus U.S., but a coalition supporting Iraq,” Garg continued.

On the same panel, former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad highlighted the delays in implementing what he described as a laudable peace agreement to end the war in Gaza, including the failure of the proposed governance committee to actually enter Gaza.

He argued that the best path forward would be to establish a technocratic interim government, with the promise of elections at the end of a set period, for a government to manage both the West Bank and Gaza.

He added that the PA has long been stunted by basic failures of governance to provide for basic needs of the Palestinian people and because it lacks broad acceptance and legitimacy. He described the discussions of reform in the PA over the past few years as an exercise in “kicking the can down the road” — and said that the prospect of true reform is difficult to envision at this stage.

“In the way it’s constituted right now, it’s difficult for me to see how the Palestinian Authority can be fundamentally reformed,” Fayyad said. “Part of the reason goes to the fact that actually our own basic law … is not being respected in the way it should be. That is something that was promulgated by our administration going back to 2003. It created a position of prime minister and a purview for a government that has, over the past years, become completely usurped by the president and his office.”

But he emphasized that he believes the PA remains critical and that it must be politically reconfigured such that it becomes a product of popular consensus with true legitimacy.

Kim Ghattas, a Lebanese journalist who writes for The Atlantic, argued on the panel that the focus in Lebanon should move away from disarming Hezbollah, arguing that it’s unrealistic for Israel to expect the Lebanese Armed Forces to expect to go into neighborhoods and villages and forcibly disarm Hezbollah — something the LAF is obligated to do under various international agreements.

Ghattas said that a more realistic path is for the Lebanese government to work on interdicting weapons shipments and going after Hezbollah through legal, judicial and financial restrictions, as well as empowering the Lebanese state to deliver for all its citizens.

Jordan’s foreign minister offered a similar readout during a separate panel earlier in the day.

ASPEN, Colo. — Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) argued on a panel at the Aspen Security Forum on Thursday that the war with Iran had irreparably damaged the U.S.’ reputation and capacity in the Middle East, and that Gulf states would now need to take the lead and negotiate with Iran over the region’s future.

The U.S. has been “effectively eliminated as a security guarantor for our allies” because of what he described as a failed military campaign against Iran, Murphy argued.

“You can make an argument that that could be a long-term silver lining, that the Gulf states will have to sit down and negotiate, at the beginning, the question over the Strait of Hormuz and maybe another set of factors, and in those negotiations, that might be the new reality in the Middle East,” he said.

“Maybe in that conversation with the U.S. not in the lead, but as a partner, there is a solution to the ultimate Iranian control of the strait, but it’s admittedly very hard to answer that question right now,” Murphy continued.

He said that the current state of play suggests that an emboldened, enriched Iran with control of the Strait of Hormuz “seems to be the best-case endgame” and “that is why our allies and friends in the region are questioning whether there is any way the United States can ever secure them.”

Some allies, he acknowledged, want to see the U.S. “finish the job” in Iran, but argued that that’s an unclear and undefined goal that in some cases might involve committing U.S. ground forces.

Asked by moderator Jim Scuitto, a CNN correspondent, how a future Democratic president would approach the situation assuming the current status quo persists through 2028, Murphy said that is “kind of an impossible question,” adding that the U.S. would have to engage with its partners and Iran to try to secure freedom of transit in the Strait of Hormuz. Murphy himself is viewed as a potential presidential candidate.

He said that resolving the current standoff would likely require lifting sanctions and pressuring Israel to permanently end its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Asked about the possibility of expanded U.S. strikes on Iranian oil infrastructure, as suggested earlier in the forum by former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, Murphy said that would only lead Iran to escalate further by ordering the Houthis to close the Bab el-Mandeb strait.

Iran, in Murphy’s framing, had “taken our best shot and survived” and realized it can use the Strait of Hormuz to increase its leverage at the negotiating table. He said that the current situation essentially removes any leverage the U.S. had in nuclear talks — having surrendered sanctions relief for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and showing that the U.S. military threat is not sufficient to bring down the regime.

As a result, he said that the U.S. would likely not be able to get a better deal than the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal even if talks resumed.

Murphy characterized the war as a catastrophic, generational mistake — “the greatest foreign policy disaster of the last 20 years [and] one of the greatest mistakes any president has made in the world in our country’s history,” which left the U.S. looking “weak and feckless.”

He said that, as a result of the munitions expenditures in the war, the U.S. could not defend Taiwan from China today if it wanted to.

Robert Greenway, who led Middle East policy on the National Security Council during President Donald Trump’s first term, was the primary voice of optimism on the panel, arguing that despite some changing rhetoric, Trump’s objectives have been clear — dating back even to his first administration — and that there is “no question in my mind” that Iran’s capabilities have been significantly degraded.

“Their means and the opportunity to constitute a threat to U.S. vital interests and to global interests, as a matter of fact, are probably the lowest they have ever been since 1979. From the enrichment standpoint, they haven’t been at zero enrichment capacity since 2006,” Greenway said. “So, from an empirical perspective, I would say yes, progress has been made, and I think at this juncture, I would be pleased with that progress. And I don’t think there’s a lot left to be done to eliminate the remaining threat. 

He argued that those who are concerned by Iran’s disruptions of the global economy should be supportive of the administration’s military campaign, arguing that Iran would only be more emboldened under a nuclear and missile umbrella.

“This is the most practical way to solve it. Diplomacy up to this point hasn’t prevailed, and it won’t as long as you have a disingenuous partner,” Greenway said. “Now, Iran cannot defend itself from any attack by the United States, or frankly, anyone else.” 

Diplomacy, he reiterated, was a “failed approach” and he said military action is the “fastest” and “probably the only realistic way” to achieve the U.S.’ objectives.

He also said that definitively eliminating the threat from Iran would allow the U.S. to reduce its troop presence in the Middle East in the longer term. He said he doesn’t see any need for U.S. ground forces in Iran, arguing that the only potential uses for them would be for search and rescue operations or recovery of Iranian nuclear materials.

But with the nuclear materials currently buried and closely monitored, Greenway said, a ground infiltration to remove them isn’t necessary in the short term, though he said they should be removed from the country in the long term.

Countering Murphy, Greenway also said that many Middle East allies are privately supportive of continued U.S. military operations to finish the job, and are happy to see the threat of Iran reduced, though he acknowledged opinions vary.

Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, disputed Murphy’s notion that the result of the war would remove the U.S. as a guarantor of regional security. He said that the Gulf countries understand that only the U.S. can protect them in the near term — China and Russia not being viable alternatives — and they still understand and fear Iran as a threat.

But he also acknowledged that, as a consequence of geography, Middle Eastern states will need to seek side deals with Iran to some extent.

Sadjadpour also emphasized that there will never be lasting stability in the Middle East until Iran is led by a government that actually represents the interests of the Iranian people — an aim he said the war did not advance.

“It is militarily weaker than it was four and a half months ago, but … psychologically it feels much stronger. It’s much more confident than it was four and a half months ago before the war,” Sadjadpour said. “I don’t think it’s going to give up its control of the strait anytime soon. I don’t think it’s going to make meaningful compromise anytime soon.”

He compared the current situation in Turkey to post-Soviet Russia — continuing to pursue its own security and destabilize its neighbors, and use energy and trade as a weapon.

He added that leaders in the U.S. often misunderstand Iran, comparing it either to Nazi Germany, an ideologically rigid regime that cannot be bargained with, or to China, ripe for grand bargain and rapprochement. Iran is most similar, he said, to the Soviet Union — not suicidal but not willing to place its economic and national interests above its revolutionary ideology except when faced with “almost existential” economic pressure.

With the Iranians appearing prepared to wait out the Trump administration, Sadjadpour continued, he doesn’t see a clear end to the current war.

Roxana Saberi, a journalist and author with contacts inside Iran, said that most people in the country remain hopeful but were disappointed by the results of the war and the memorandum of understanding, which she said had demonstrably emboldened Iran to step up human rights abuses at home.

Among the anti-regime population in Iran, which she said constitutes 80% of the Iranian public, there are now three groups: those that opposed the war, those that supported it and want to see further strikes and those that have become numb to the situation and are simply trying to survive.

Several House Republicans sent a letter on Thursday to the Department of Justice calling for an investigation into whether New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his international affairs commissioner, Ana María Archila, violated the Logan Act by scheduling a meeting with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.  

Archila, who heads the New York City Mayor’s Office for International Affairs, had previously scheduled a July 7 meeting with Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s U.N. ambassador, before the State Department intervened and the meeting was canceled. 

Mamdani claimed last week that the meeting was “made in error” and had been scheduled without his knowledge. The mayor also stressed that the Iranian mission had reached out to his team and not the other way around. 

The lawmakers argue that the planned meeting should be investigated for potentially violating the Logan Act, a centuries-old statute that prohibits American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments without authorization on behalf of the United States.

The letter was led by Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC) and also signed by Reps. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Clay Fuller (R-GA), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Randy Fine (R-FL), Riley Moore (R-WV), Wesley Hunt (R-TX), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Pat Harrigan (R-NC), Rich McCormick (R-GA), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), and Max Miller (R-OH). 

The lawmakers said they were especially concerned about the attempted meeting in light of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran being “in a critical stage.”

“Given its timing, we believe this proposed meeting may have presented significant national security risks,” the letter reads. “In light of this, we respectfully ask that the Department of Justice investigate potential violations of the Logan Act on the part of the mayor’s office.” 

“We support President Trump’s efforts to shore up American economic and national security interests in the Middle East, and we understand the vulnerable nature of continued peace negotiations,” it continues. “For that reason, we believe that a formal investigation is necessary to determine whether Commissioner Archila, acting on behalf of Mayor Madani, engaged in any unlawful activity or communication with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ASPEN, Colo. — Akif Çağatay Kılıç, a top foreign policy and security advisor to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, downplayed the threat posed to the region by Iran’s nuclear program at the Aspen Security Forum, while also repeatedly sidestepping questions about the status of Turkey’s Russian S-400 missile defense system and efforts to acquire F-35 fighter jets.

“I don’t perceive that we have a nuclear threat to the level that is being talked about, but we are closely monitoring it, and we’re talking to our Iranian colleagues and friends on how they perceive to be working on their nuclear program — civil nuclear program,” Kılıç said.

He continued to defend his country’s decision to acquire the S-400 system.

Kılıç also argued that the alternative energy corridors through the region that have been proposed to avoid the Strait of Hormuz are not a viable option so long as the war continues.

Kılıç said that Turkey is working with the U.S. to resolve the “legal issue” around the F-35s and S-400s, emphasizing that the leaders of both countries have expressed a desire to move the F-35 sale forward.

Asked directly about whether Turkey will offload its S-400s, Kılıç prevaricated and did not offer clear answers.

“It’s not easy always to navigate these things. But we’re trying to work with our American partners and allies to find a way that both countries can live with and go towards the future,” Kılıç said.

ASPEN, Colo. — Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Ayman Safadi repeatedly emphasized on Wednesday that any deal with Iran should be comprehensive and ensure an end to Iran’s support for proxy groups and confront its efforts to destabilize the region.

The position suggests concern in the Arab world that a U.S. deal with Iran would not cover the regime’s long-running regional provocations — a concern Arab partners similarly raised about former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. 

“All of us in the region have always wanted good relations with Iran, but we said in order for those good relations to be had, Iran’s interventionism in the region, its meddling in the affairs of the area, non-respect for sovereignty of states must end,” Safadi, who also serves as Jordan’s foreign minister, said at the Aspen Security Forum. “Let’s put all those issues on the table and hopefully come up with a deal that will address all sorts of tension and allow for the region to enjoy the peace and stability that we deserve.”

Safadi emphasized that both Iran’s nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz are important, but that a deal also must address “other aspects that cause tension in the region,” including Iran’s proxies and regional aggression, and must be “comprehensive enough to make sure that we don’t find ourselves in the same place that we have been for years.”

Safadi also criticized Iran for closing the Strait of Hormuz and for retaliating against Jordan and Gulf states for U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.

He accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of lying about the situation along the border between Jordan and Israel — asserting that Jordan, rather than Israel, is carrying the brunt of securing that border, and that much of the smuggling is coming from Israel into Jordan rather than the other way around. 

He also blamed Israel for “manufactur[ing] unreal threats” in order to perpetuate an unproductive “strategy of perpetual conflict.”

Safadi criticized Israeli policy and activities in the West Bank, which he said are “undermining our objective of achieving a just and lasting peace” for both Israelis and Palestinians, and amount to a policy of annexation and encroachment on Muslim and Christian holy sites.

He also urged Israel against undermining a two-state solution without presenting a viable alternative.

“If you undermine the two-state solution, then where do you go from here? What are you going to do with 5 million Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank?” Safadi said. “The two-state solution is the only path to that just and lasting future. The Israeli government has completely refused that. What we say is, ‘Okay, … what do you want? Put that plan on the table. … Tell us what is your alternative to that.’ And you hear nothing.”

Safadi further warned that a flare-up in violence in the West Bank would undermine efforts to restore peace in Gaza. He said that spreading hate or antagonism on either side is unproductive and, at some point, “you can’t walk back if you cross a certain threshold.”

In Gaza, he called for the implementation of the U.S.-backed 20 point peace plan and lamented the delays on numerous fronts, also accusing Israel of blocking aid from Jordan from flowing into Gaza.

Safadi also called for an end to “power politics” in Lebanon — referring to the continued IDF presence — while expressing support for a long-term strategy to ensure Lebanese sovereignty and monopoly on arms. He argued that a military option alone for disarming Hezbollah is not viable, and that there is no short-term answer for restoring full Lebanese government control.

“I don’t believe that the military option should be on the table because it will only lead to the destruction of the country,” Safadi said, calling instead for a comprehensive social, economic and political strategy. “We have to have a comprehensive strategy that must be realistic, that must take into account what can and cannot be done, that must factor in what is the price of one option over the other, and obviously none of us want Lebanon to go into civil war.”

ASPEN, Colo. — Robert O’Brien, who served as national security advisor during President Donald Trump’s first term, said on Wednesday that the U.S. should target Iran’s oil infrastructure with the goal of choking off its economy — and predicted that the president is moving in that direction.

The former national security advisor said on a panel at the Aspen Security Forum that Trump had been “very, very generous” with Iran but he believes that Trump’s “patience” with Iran is running thin. The next steps, he predicted, would be for the U.S. to “hit them hard” and “finish the job” by targeting sites connected with Iran’s oil infrastructure, including the facilities at Kharg Island, in order to deprive Iran of its ability to produce and export oil.

“Without oil, they’re nothing. With oil, the regime thinks if they can survive, they can just buy more kit,” O’Brien said. “I think President Trump will finish the job. The Iranians are using the old playbook of extend, pretend and snowball. … They’re dealing with a whole new administration with Donald Trump. They don’t understand it, and I think that they’ll pay a heavy penalty for their lack of understanding.”

The first Trump administration’s strategy of maximum pressure through economic sanctions is “not enough” without strikes on Iran’s oil production, he continued.

O’Brien said that cutting short Iran’s oil exports would be the skeleton key to deafening the regime — cutting off its ability to build missiles, support terrorism or rebuild its nuclear program, and said that the U.S. could “turn them into a ‘stan, turn them into a nonentity” and prevent it from ever rebuilding.

The former national security advisor acknowledged that targeting Iranian oil production would hurt the world economy, but made the case that there are other oil producers that would be able to fill the gap with the right support, including Venezuela, Guyana and Mozambique, along with increased production in the U.S.

Asked after the panel by Jewish Insider about how he views the future of Israel policy among conservatives — and about comments by Vice President JD Vance accusing Israel of running a cover influence campaign to undermine the Iran deal and of having ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — O’Brien insisted that support for Israel among conservatives, including Vance, remains strong.

O’Brien said he hadn’t heard Vance’s comments but called him a “supporter” and “friend of Israel.” He added that Trump is “a very good friend of Israel. President Trump has Jewish grandkids, I mean, so he cares deeply about it. He got the Abraham Accords for us and sent me to Jerusalem many times. And I can tell you, after Oct. 7, he was very concerned about Israel and has remained so ever since. No better friend to Israel than President Trump.”

He argued that recent polling indicates that support for Israel remains strong among Republicans in general, even among young people, and predicted that issues among “some conservatives — or people who claim to be conservatives” will not “hold.”

“Those of us who value the partnership, love our Jewish friends, our Israeli colleagues, just need to be forthright and stand up for Israel,” O’Brien said. “Israel, I’ve always said throughout my career, is a canary in the coal mine. If people are attacking Israel, the next country they’re going to attack is America, and so we need to stand strong with our allies in Israel, stand strong with Jerusalem, and I think it’s going to be a relationship that lasts long into the future.“

Stephen Hadley, who served as national security advisor in the Bush administration, said on the panel that the U.S. “can do better in terms of an outcome” with Iran, urging the administration to “stop chasing after the Iranians for an agreement on the nuclear issue,” adding that the U.S.’ operations have done significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program and can hit Iran again if it attempts to reconstitute the program.

It’s a similar strategy to that outlined by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also a Bush administration alumnus, a day prior at the Aspen conference.

Hadley said the U.S. should be open to nuclear talks if Iran seeks them out — but with the preconditions of no enrichment and no financial paydays for Iran.

He said that with continued sanctions, facilitation of trade along the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz, strikes on Iranian capabilities threatening trade in the strait and assistance to countries in the region to diversify their export channels in the longer term, the U.S. could erode Iran’s ability to hold the global economy hostage and reach a stable situation.

“Hopefully, someday an Iranian regime will come forward and decide that their pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for Hezbollah and the like has been a dead end, and they will join the countries in the region to try to build a more prosperous and secure Iran for their people,” Hadley said. “If that happens, great. If it does not happen, the kind of arrangement I think I’ve described will protect our interests, protect the interests of our allies. “

At the same time, he emphasized that regime change through air power alone is likely off the table.

“[Trump] has to be clear that his objectives are consistent with the tools and means he has at his disposal,” Hadley said. “I think that’s a mistake he made in Iran initially when he was talking about regime change.”

Former Undersecretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, who served under President Barack Obama, praised the U.S.’ Operation Midnight Hammer last June as “very targeted, very specific and very effective” — something few Democrats said at the time.

She contrasted her praise of that operation to the war this year, which she said started with unclear objectives, priorities and strategy, a lack of appreciation of the risks and a failure to appreciate the Iranian regime’s durability.

“I don’t know how this is going to conclude,” Flournoy said. “But the most likely outcome is we’re going to have a new normal. Even if the Strait opens, Iran is still going to have a few drones, a few mines to jerk the chain of the international economy when it’s unhappy.”

She said that, even if one agrees with the objectives of the war, “the way it’s been done has not paid enough attention to managing the risks, having a clear strategy, and ensuring you want to translate the military campaign into political outcomes.”

Vice President JD Vance told podcaster Joe Rogan on Wednesday that he is worried American politicians are being swayed by Israeli “influence campaigns.” 

In the three-hour interview on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Vance warned of a “very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign” to derail negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. 

“What does bother me is when those operations, those influence campaigns, actually affect American political judgment, because they shouldn’t. Because we should be thinking, What is in the best interest of the United States of America?” 

Vice President JD Vance told Joe Rogan he is worried American politicians are being swayed by Israeli “influence campaigns" and warned of a “very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign” to derail negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.

Read more: https://t.co/yN72h76DSY pic.twitter.com/eAeh8eAJNm

— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) July 15, 2026

The interview comes after a series of recent statements in which Vance has criticized Israel’s handling of the Iran war. Last month, he issued a rebuke to Israeli leaders critical of President Donald Trump’s decision to negotiate with Iran, urging them against “attacking the only powerful ally” they have left. 

“[Israel is] a country of 9 million people. We have 330 million people. And so, of course, they’re going to try to persuade Americans. They’re going to try to move Americans in one direction or another,” Vance told Rogan. He noted that Israel’s efforts to influence American foreign policy are not themselves suspect — “a lot of other countries do [it],” Vance said — but, rather, that American officials will act in ways that do not serve the American public as a result of Israel’s urging.

Vance compared these alleged Israeli efforts to influence campaigns by Qatar and Russia. “It doesn’t bother me that Qatar tries to influence the United States …. I like a lot of the Qataris, just like I like a lot of the Israelis …. It frankly doesn’t even bother me that Russia or some of these other countries do it. It’s just the nature of being a political leader in 2026,” he said. 

He also claimed such Israeli influence campaigns are supportive of war for its own sake: “There are some people within their system we know beyond a shadow of a doubt who are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely. Again, not towards any objective, but just indefinitely,” he said.

In the interview, Vance described an ongoing “massive pro-Israel, anti-Israel debate in the United States of America,” and painted himself as the “reasonable moderate” in that conversation. For that reason, Vance said, he has “been accused of being an antisemite.” 

“I guess some people say that I’ve insulted the Jewish religion, which is insane. Like, I have a ton of respect for the Jewish religion,” said Vance. But even as he defended himself against charges of antisemitism, he suggested that his accusers need to acknowledge that American political support for Israel is receding.

“I’ve never heard a good, compelling argument for why I’m an antisemite, even though I’ve been accused of being an antisemite by many people. But what I say to these guys is, look at public opinion, look at the way young Republicans versus Republicans over the age of 65 approach this issue,” said Vance. “Right now, Israel is losing the public opinion battle in the United States of America. It is a simple and obvious fact. Donald Trump has said that publicly.” 

What he supports instead is a reevaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship, he said.

“Israel is an ally like France or like the United Kingdom. We’re going to have disagreements with them. We’re going to have agreements with them,” said Vance. “So my approach to this is to say, you know what? When we’re partnered, great, let’s work together. When we’re not, let’s just be honest about it. And for that, people attack me for being an antisemite or anti-Israel, and they don’t see the writing on the wall, that I’m actually just the guy advocating for a normal relationship with a normal country that’s based around shared interests, as opposed to based around something else.” 

It’s a position that sounds similar to recent policy positions adopted by J Street, the progressive Israel advocacy group. J Street said in April, when it announced that the U.S. should no longer support any foreign military aid to Israel, that the country should be treated as a “normal ally — not an exception that receives unquestioning, blank check support from the United States.”

Later in the interview, in a lengthy discussion about disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, Vance agreed with Rogan’s comments that some have claimed that Epstein may have been connected to the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service. 

“He clearly had connections to the highest levels of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest levels of Israeli intelligence,” said Vance. 

ASPEN, Colo. — Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday opposed any nuclear deal with Iran, arguing at the Aspen Security Forum that the U.S. should continue pressure on Iran’s economy and “see what happens.”

Meanwhile, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper speaking alongside Rice on a panel, suggested that the U.S. had potentially overestimated its capabilities in the war, agreeing that continued economic pressure and a renewed blockade would be the best strategies going forward.

The two, speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, also offered strong criticisms of U.S. allies for not joining with and at times attempting to obstruct the U.S. campaign against Iran.

“I would not buy a nuclear agreement [with Iran] under any circumstances. I’d let them sit there and stew in their lousy economy, where most of their A-level nuclear scientists have been killed, where I believe there are deep splits in the Iranian government … and let’s just see what happens,” Rice said. “I wouldn’t give them a penny back, and let’s just see what happens to that economy over time.”

Rice said that she believes the U.S. did do significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program and that she’s “quite confident” that the country is not in a position to produce a nuclear weapon in the near future.

Mark Esper, who served during President Donald Trump’s first term, said that the U.S. war on Iran was a “a good thing to do to show the seriousness of of how we felt about this and our willingness to commit force to do that” but added, “we can discuss whether our reach exceeded our grasp, and some of the language used about unconditional surrender, et cetera, pushed them into a corner”

He said that a success in the war would require a return to the status quo in the Strait of Hormuz and a deal on Iran’s nuclear program superior to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Esper argued that there would be no way to bring such a result solely through airstrikes, and that the primary path forward should be renewed economic pressure on Iran, including a renewed blockade targeting Iran’s ports and land and air routes. He said the U.S. should continue to respond to Iranian attacks with strikes on its missile and drone capabilities.

Esper said that strategy will take time, patience, discipline and the support of allies and come at the cost of higher gas prices. He said the end goal should not be to collapse the Iranian regime but to bring Iran back to the negotiating table.

“That approach, barring — I’m open to any better one — gives you the highest return with the lowest risk to where we don’t want to go,” Esper said.

Former Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, who also spoke on the panel, emphasized that economic pressure is a useful tool, which can be effective but takes time, will and coordination, without which there are ways to evade sanctions.

“I’m hopeful that with all this pressure, that something rational can come of this, because we’re not in a good place right now, obviously,” Pritzker said.

Rice and Esper both expressed frustration with U.S. allies’ refusal to cooperate with the U.S. operations and, particularly, European allies’ decisions to block the U.S. from using their bases in their countries in the course of those operations — a move Esper called “really stupid.”

Rice said it was “really not a very smart thing” for allies to dismiss the conflict as not “our war.”

She said would have “preferred” if the U.S. had worked more closely with its allies before the operation, but acknowledged that actually getting them onboard would have been questionable, pointing to her own experience trying to bring allies onboard with the Iraq invasion during the Bush administration.

Sometimes, she said, “the United States has to do something really hard, like really deal with a bad guy who’s been a bad guy for a long time,” she said, emphasizing that the sophistication and range of Iran’s missile program was increasing and it was preparing to make a major agreement with Russia on missiles. “When the time comes, if it’s your ally and your friend, even if you’re not going to join, you don’t try to harm the effort,” she said.

“When I hear, ‘Well, it wasn’t imminent,’ I think, ‘Do you really want to wait until it’s imminent, or do you want to try to degrade it earlier?’” she continued.

Both Esper and Rice warned that, through their actions around the Iran war and comments denigrating the U.S.’ reliability as an ally, or declaring that they will handle their own defense without American assistance, allies are only playing into the hands of those who want to see those alliances collapse.

“You may speak into existence exactly what you need to avoid, because there are some people inside the American political system, on both sides of the aisle, who would be perfectly happy to withdraw from the world, and you don’t want to help empower those people,” Rice warned.

Democrats on Monday slammed President Donald Trump’s resumption of hostilities against Iran, as well as the notion, implicit in Trump’s notification, that the operations mark a new conflict and therefore reset the 60-day window for military operations launched by the executive branch without congressional approval.

In a letter to congressional leaders on Friday notifying them that the war had resumed, Trump said that Iran repeatedly violated the memorandum of understanding by attacking commercial vessels on July 6 and 7, and that the U.S. had, as of July 7, commenced “defensive strikes against targets within Iran including missile launch sites, air defenses, military maritime assets, military support infrastructure, and command and control capabilities.”

Trump said that ground forces are not involved in the operations and are focused on protecting the U.S., but American forces “remain postured to take further action.” He added that he was notifying Congress pursuant to his obligation under the War Powers Act, the statute that lays out the 60-day timeline.

Critics of the war have argued consistently that the operations that began in February never actually concluded during the since-terminated ceasefire, despite the administration’s assertions otherwise.

“Trump’s rinse and repeat approach to the Iran war isn’t a strategy, it’s a recipe for utter disaster,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Monday. “It’s incredible what a fiasco this war is. Trump’s so-called understanding — lot of bull — with Iran fell apart faster than the ink could dry.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who has led war powers efforts in the Senate to end the conflict, said the U.S. has been at war, and argued that the administration is obligated to withdraw U.S. forces in response to the war powers resolution that Congress passed last month.

“The notion that [the 60-day clock] was paused before, I think, was sort of laughed out of the room. This has been an ongoing conflict, even during the midst of a ceasefire,” Kaine said. “There were still hostilities underway. So this is not a war that paused and restarted.”

He said he will continue to support war powers efforts but believes that Congress has already definitively declared the war illegal. The resolution that Congress passed came in the form of a concurrent resolution, which is not presented to the president, and its legal force is disputed.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) filed a new war powers resolution on Monday to oppose the war, which likewise argues that combat operations never ceased. 

“We were promised the war would be over for months. And now in a matter of days we’ve gone from a bad U.S.-Iran deal to more strikes, another blockade, and added turmoil that will only drive prices higher,” Schiff said in a statement. “Any assertion by the Trump administration that he gets 60 more days to act without Congress has no foundation in law.”

Kaine and Sens. Andy Kim (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) cosponsored the resolution.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, “wholeheartedly condemn[ed]” Trump’s plans to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that it is impossible without significant escalation and would be “frankly, just wrong.”

“Iran has gained greater leverage, continues to destabilize the region, and has a younger and more hardline leadership than when this war started,” Smith said. “It is past time for [Republicans] to work with us to ensure the president finds a diplomatic solution to ending a war he never should have started and that threatens our national security and defense as well as that of our partners.”

Even some Republicans have expressed skepticism of the administration’s strategy, including over Trump’s plan to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz.

“I recall Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio saying that would not be proper for any country. … Am I wrong?” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters.

Additionally, given the recent sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the extended medical absence of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Democrats may be able to more consistently pass war powers resolutions to oppose the war in Iran.

Many Democrats also say they plan to oppose a procedural vote this week to advance the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act in protest of the continued operations against Iran.

Airstrikes on Yemen’s Sanaa International Airport on Monday were intended to stop Iran and the Houthis from breaking a decades-long air blockade and opening an uncontrolled air link between Tehran and its Yemeni proxy, regional analysts said — a corridor they warn could let Iran resupply the Houthis directly with weapons for future campaigns against Saudi Arabia and Israel. 

The Houthis accused Saudi Arabia of carrying out the strikes and vowed to retaliate, with a spokesperson claiming the period of “de-escalation” between Riyadh and the terror group was over. Later Monday, the group said it had fired on Saudi Arabia’s Abha International Airport. 

The Saudi-backed Yemeni government took responsibility for the original attacks, with Defense Minister Gen. Taher al-Aqili saying on X that the strikes hit the runway to stop an Iranian aircraft — carrying the Houthi delegation returning from the funeral of the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — from landing. The Houthis said the plane was diverted to Hodeida Airport, and the government ordered all airports under its control closed until further notice.

Riyadh has not claimed responsibility for the attack in Sanaa, but “it was certainly responsible,” said Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former British diplomat and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 

“The attack was intended to resist Iranian and Houthi efforts to break the air blockade on the Houthi-controlled part of Yemen that has existed for more than a decade,” Fitton-Brown told JI. “Iran and the Houthis took the opportunity of Khamenei’s funeral to test Saudi resolve. Their explicit intention is to establish a regular air link between Iran and Sanaa, uncontrolled by the Saudis or their allies.” He warned such a link would let Iran funnel weaponry to the terror group for “future campaigns” against Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as in the Red Sea.

President Donald Trump reportedly gave his blessing for the strikes to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who called him on Friday to get U.S. backing for military action against the Houthis, according to an Axios report.

Kristin Diwan, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, said similarly that “there were well-founded fears on the part of the Yemen government and the Saudis that the Houthis would use this as a pretext to get around U.N. restrictions and to normalize flights from Iran. If they succeeded, these flights could funnel weapons and other material support to the Houthis.”

The renewed tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis come after a period of relative calm in Yemen’s decade-long civil war, which began in 2014 when the Houthis seized the capital, Sanaa, and much of northern Yemen – forcing the internationally recognized government into exile. 

A Saudi-led coalition, including the United Arab Emirates, intervened the following year in support of the government. The parties have held a fragile truce since 2023, which has lasted even as the Houthis launched strikes around the region in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel.

Today, the Houthis control Sanaa and much of northern Yemen, including most major population centers, while the Saudi-backed government controls much of the south.

The incident “fits a long-term pattern of covert Iranian assistance to the Houthis, which remains subject to U.N. Security Council prohibitions,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Riyadh wants to prevent the Houthis from recovering after being hit hard by U.S.-Israeli strikes last year, before the counter-Houthi coalition fractured.”

Ruhe said that while the “counter-Houthi coalition is weakened right now,” he noted that the Houthis are also not at full strength. 

“Riyadh might be calculating that it’s better to deal with Houthi retaliation now, and to assert the Yemeni government’s authority to keep Iran out of the country, than to stand by and wait for the Houthis to rearm and become a major problem once again,” Ruhe said. 

“Riyadh historically has seen Yemen as its own soft underbelly, long before the Houthis ever took Sanaa. Iran is the obvious threat on the kingdom’s front door, but Saudis’ threat perception from the south has always been acute, which leads it to be more assertive in Yemen than people might normally expect,” he continued. 

“There is a contradiction [on the part of the Saudis] between trumpeting the strength and resolve of the Saudi-led coalition on Yemen and the Saudi-Emirati quarrel that erupted over southern Yemeni independence late last year and it’s still not fully resolved,” Fitton-Brown said. “Ironically, Iranian and Houthi overreach may drive the Saudis and Emiratis back into each other’s arms.”

Fitton-Brown said next steps could also depend on what the Houthi retaliation looks like. He noted that the terror proxy could employ drone or missile attacks on Saudi Arabia or disrupt shipping in the region. 

“[The Houthis] may attack Saudi Arabia directly with drones and missiles, as they have in the past. Or they may decide that it is time to resume disruption of the Red Sea and [the] Bab el-Mandeb [strait], compounding the impact of Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz on the global economy,” Fitton-Brown said. “That risks drawing a U.S.-led united international response.”

Diwan noted that the Houthis have shown a willingness to “take revenge” on key assets in the region. She said the group could “take revenge both through provocations in the Bab el-Mandeb strait and aerial strikes on Saudi airports in the west.” 

Ruhe said that while the Houthis have notably been silent during the conflict between Washington and Tehran, their lack of involvement “can’t be taken for granted going forward.” He similarly noted that Houthi retaliation is possible as Iran seeks to “ratchet up pressure on shipping chokepoints and key regional energy infrastructure,” such as the Red Sea, which has been a bypass for Saudi oil exports that would have previously gone through the Gulf.

Iran netted nearly $5 billion in the 22 days after Washington and Tehran signed their memorandum of understanding on June 17, according to a new report from the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.

The findings come as President Donald Trump announced on Monday that the U.S. would reimpose its naval blockade on Iranian ports effective July 14 at 4 p.m. ET, with an added 20% U.S. toll on all shipping through the strait. 

The U.S. had lifted the blockade last month upon the signing of the MOU with Iran, at which time the Trump administration also issued a waiver that allowed the sale of Iranian oil. That waiver was revoked last week in response to Iranian attacks on shipping vessels in the strait, but the damage, JINSA says, was already done.

The JINSA report, published on July 8, found that once the initial maritime blockade was lifted mid-June, the Iranian regime “rushed to export its oil at the first opportunity.” Shipping data analyzed in the report indicates that Iran exported 50 million barrels of crude within the first two weeks after the blockade was lifted. By early July, total exports under the temporary truce topped 55 million barrels, netting the regime more than $4.5 billion.

Before the conflict, Iran typically exported between 47 million and 50 million barrels in a single month, averaging roughly $3.05 billion in revenue, according to the report. Because the U.S. waiver allowed Iran to sell its crude at standard market prices rather than the heavily discounted rates it usually relied on to bypass international sanctions, the regime pulled in 47% more cash in the 22 days following the MOU than it normally did in an entire month before the war.

Tehran has simultaneously maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz that has severely constrained broader global shipping, in what the report describes as a “bad omen for the future of maritime security in the Middle East — and U.S. deterrence of Iran.” 

Daily global transit through the Strait of Hormuz fell from 15 million barrels of crude oil per day before the war to 4.8 million barrels per day during the first week after the MOU was reached — less than a third of normal volumes. By contrast, Iran managed to export 5 million barrels of its own crude oil per day during that same week. 

Beyond standard oil sales, the report notes that Iran maintained an aggressive financial squeeze on foreign vessels transiting the region. Citing Israeli media reports, the report said Iranian authorities blocked commercial oil tankers from passing through the Strait of Hormuz unless they paid a transit fee of up to $2 million per vessel. 

Tracking data from the shipping analytics firm Kpler suggests that these unauthorized checkpoints generated roughly $300 million in extra revenue for Tehran, directly violating the agreement’s terms guaranteeing free passage for international trade.

President Donald Trump declared on Monday that the U.S. will take control of the Strait of Hormuz and said Washington will institute a 20% fee on all cargo passing through the waterway “for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World.”

“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped.”

Trump’s comments came after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced on Sunday that the strait was considered closed until further notice. 

Trump also said he is reinstating the U.S. blockade on Iran, which had been lifted as part of the memorandum of understanding signed between the two countries last month. The blockade will once again prevent “Iran’s ships or customers from entering or leaving,” he said. “All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait.”

Earlier on Monday, Trump said during a “Fox & Friends” interview that “we’re going to keep the strait, and we’ll probably run it.” 

Trump has declared the MOU, which said Iran would oversee arrangements for ships transiting the key waterway, as finished.

“We had a deal. It was a done deal, and then they broke it. They always break it,” Trump said of Iran on Monday, declaring his intent to “hit them very hard.” The U.S. struck Iranian targets near the strait on Sunday night after Iran hit a Cyprus-flagged container ship, prompting Iran to fire barrages of drones and missiles at Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. 

Iran has attacked several commercial tankers this month for traversing the strait through “unauthorized routes.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said that normal shipping traffic can only resume if the U.S. ends its military involvement in the strait entirely, according to Iranian state media. 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters on Friday that he had been unaware that top officials in his administration planned to meet with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations earlier this month — calling the decision “an error” on the part of one of his most prominent and politically active commissioners.

Speaking after an unrelated event, the mayor maintained he only learned from a request for comment from City Journal that International Affairs Commissioner Ana Maria Archila and what the publication described as “two other senior officials” working under her had planned to sit down on Tuesday with Amir-Saeid Iravani of the Iranian Mission to the U.N. City Journal, affiliated with the right-of-center Manhattan Institute, reported that the State Department stepped in to preempt the meeting. 

“That meeting did not take place, it will not take place, and I did not know about it until there was a press inquiry regarding it,” Mamdani told reporters, vowing a change in internal policy to prevent it from occurring again. “The commissioner recognizes that this was made in error, and we’re working on a new process, in terms of new meeting requests.”

The democratic socialist stressed that the Iranian mission had reached out to his team, not the other way around, and maintained that the office’s function is to maintain the city’s international relationships.

However, City Journal and El Pais have reported that Archila has taken a decidedly political tack in her outreach to foreign governments, explicitly seeking to engage with those that are “in political alignment/leftist,” including Colombian President Gustavo Petro, a fierce critic of Israel.  

Archila first gained attention for confronting then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in a Senate elevator over the nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and subsequently ran unsuccessfully for New York lieutenant governor in 2022. Prior to joining the Mamdani administration, she served as co-director of the New York chapter of the left-wing Working Families Party.

After several days of watching from the wings as the United States has conducted strikes against Iran, Israeli officials have increasingly indicated that Jerusalem is ready to return to military action if it determines that circumstances demand it.

Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told CNN on Thursday that Jerusalem is “supportive of the position of the United States” and would “fly alongside U.S. aircraft” if called on to do so. 

At an Israeli Air Force graduation ceremony the same day, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the IDF is prepared to “regain air superiority and carry out ‘blue-and-white’ [Israeli] strikes in Iran to remove threats — even for a third time,” warning that it would be with “even greater force” than before. Meanwhile, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir told graduates that “on the drawing board are new plans. Major operations are still expected to lie ahead of us. Be prepared.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reinforced that message in his remarks at the ceremony. While celebrating the outcome of Operations Rising Lion and Roaring Lion, he made clear that Israel does not view the conflict with Iran as settled. “Our policy is clear: With an agreement or without an agreement, Iran will not have nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. He added: “The war is not yet over. Alongside old challenges, new ones are emerging. Axes fall, and axes rise. We are turning our attention to this. We are prepared for any scenario.”

Security analysts say the messaging reflects a desire to preserve military pressure without committing to another immediate campaign. Yoni Tobin, a senior political analyst at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Jewish Insider, “While Israel isn’t exactly clamoring for more combat with Iran, particularly after nearly three years of multifront war, it is certainly ready for it.” Tobin noted that “Israel will likely feel comfortable acting against Iran if the United States does so as well, and if the two countries are aligned on objectives and strategy.”

David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the memorandum of understanding “should be seen as part of the process of ending the fighting between the United States and Iran, not the final agreement.” 

“Washington needed the Strait of Hormuz opened urgently, but Iranian provocations have prevented the strait’s return to normal. Iran has always tried to cheat on the margins of deals with the United States — even with favorable agreements — to test American resolve,” May continued. “With the terms of the MOU so favorable to Iran, Tehran would have been wise to abide by the deal but didn’t, thanks in part to internal divisions. The renewed fighting will hopefully lead to the MOU being scrapped and replaced by a more reasonable peace agreement.”

“Israel has enjoyed the relative quiet and is feeling a bit shaky over its exclusion from ceasefire talks,” May posited. “But open conflict with the Islamic Republic remains a likely possibility.”

At the same time, the current situation may be more complicated than the public rhetoric suggests. Ran Zimmt, director of the Iran and Shiite Axis research program at the Institute for National Security Studies, wrote in an op-ed for Ynet that both Washington and Tehran would prefer to avoid a return to full-scale war.

“In this reality, the most likely scenario at this stage appears to be a continuation of the current situation: not a full-scale war, but also not a long-term diplomatic arrangement,” Zimmt wrote. “From Israel’s perspective, this reality seemingly has clear advantages. The military option remains on the table, and Iran does not enjoy a broad package of economic benefits that could strengthen the regime and allow it to invest significant resources in rebuilding its power.”

Zimmt warned, however, that while the status quo “may be preferable in the short term,” it does not “provide a stable solution, but at most a temporary pause,” during which Iran can rebuild its military capabilities.

In a change of tone, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Wednesday that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa deserves a chance to rebuild the war-torn country, arguing that his efforts to curb Iran’s influence in Syria should prompt Israel to reassess its approach to the new government. 

Graham, who has long been skeptical of Syria’s new government, released a statement at the conclusion of his visit to Ankara, Turkey, this week for the NATO summit, where he took part in several bipartisan meetings between U.S. lawmakers and world leaders including al-Sharaa. 

The South Carolina senator said he left his meeting with the Syrian president feeling encouraged, saying the Syrian leader has earned U.S. backing as he seeks to rebuild the war ravaged country.

Graham’s latest statement came hours after President Donald Trump notified Congress that he’s moving to remove Syria from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list, which the president had been publicly considering. 

“I believe it is in America’s national security interest to work with him and give him a chance to see if he can put together a lasting, functioning government in Syria,” Graham said of al-Sharaa. “A fractured Syria, on the other hand, plays into the hands of our enemies. I think President al-Sharaa presents the best chance for a functioning, united Syria over time.”

“I very much understand Israel’s concerns, but President al-Sharaa has been a true thorn in the side of Iran. He has dramatically reduced Iran’s influence in Syria, which is a giant step forward for the Syrian people and a blow to Iran,” he continued. “It is time to recognize what he’s done regarding Iran and give him the capability to improve the lives of the Syrian people, realizing that the status quo is unacceptable for all.”

The comments mark a notable shift for the South Carolina senator, who has been among the most vocal skeptics of the new Syrian government since it took power in March 2025. Graham had tried to convince the Trump administration to place binding conditions on the repeal of Caesar Act sanctions on Syria last year, which the White House and Syrian diaspora groups successfully pushed congressional Republicans to lift unconditionally. 

Graham vowed to “do everything in my power to revive the Caesar Act sanctions, making them even more bone crushing” in response to the Syrian government’s military offensive in January against territory held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. He introduced legislation that month imposing sanctions on any government or group involved in targeting Kurdish forces in Syria.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday reiterated his threat to “finish the job” in Iran and said the current ceasefire is “over” while denying that renewed U.S. strikes in the country mark a return to war. 

Trump told reporters during a press conference at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday that he was no longer sure if he was interested in a peace deal with Iran and was questioning if the country’s leadership was rational enough to work with. 

Hours after Trump’s remarks, CENTCOM announced additional strikes on Iranian targets “at the direction of” the president, saying in a statement that the operation was intended to “further degrade [Iran’s] ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” 

Asked during the press conference what caused him to sour on Iran’s leadership — whom he referred to on Wednesday as “scum” and “sick people,” after praising them last month as “very rational” and “nice to deal with” — Trump replied: “I got to know them.”

Trump noted that he was comparing the current regime to the previous two regimes in his prior complimentary statements.“I think they’re much more rational than level one, level two. Level one is gone, level two is gone. This is level three,” Trump said. “I think they are more rational, but based on their actions over the last week or two, they’re not doing a service to the people.”

“I’m not sure I want to make a deal with them,” he continued. “We can play games, but I’m not sure I want to make a deal. Let’s just finish the job.”

The comments came hours after the president said that the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran was “over” and said “I don’t want to deal with them anymore.” 

Trump went on to criticize Iran’s leaders as “a little loco. They’re a little crazy,” pointing to Iran’s continued attacks against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and claiming he’s Iran’s top target for assassination.

“They want to make a deal, but they don’t know how to make the deal, and then they go around shooting ships at night [in the Strait of Hormuz]. I don’t like that,” he said. “I’m the No. 1 target. … I’m the No. 1, because they’re scum. That’s the way they act, and that’s the way they’ve done it for 47 years.”

Still, he rejected the idea that the military operations meant that the U.S. was resuming full-scale warfare with Iran. 

“I don’t think ​it’s going to start again. I ​think it’s going to go very quickly. They hit a couple of ships, ​and so we hit them ​much harder,” Trump said of the war. “When they hit, we hit. We use their language. We speak their language. No, I don’t think so. I think anything that happens is going to be over very quickly and will only make [the region] safer.”

President Donald Trump, speaking at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday, said that the memorandum of understanding with Iran that was inked last month was “over,” following overnight Iranian attacks targeting U.S. military installations in Bahrain and Kuwait. 

“To me, I think it’s over,” Trump said. “I don’t want to deal with them anymore.”

The Iranian attacks came after CENTCOM hit over 80 targets in Iran on Tuesday in retaliation for Iranian strikes on three commercial vessels — including a Qatari ship and a Saudi oil tanker — in the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week.

“We attacked very powerfully last night the very dangerous people from Iran,” Trump said of the U.S. strikes, which targeted air-defense systems, command and control networks, coastal radar sites and more than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small boats. “They’re sick. There’s something wrong with them.”

“We said, ‘Go and do your funeral stuff,’” Trump added, noting the multiday funeral ceremonies for the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on the first day of the war against the Islamic Republic in February. “Instead of that, they start shooting rockets at ships yesterday, and so we hit them very hard last night.”

The president, appearing alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Ankara, said that the U.S. was “going to de-nuke Iran.”

“We’re not going to let them because they’re crazy,” Trump added.

The Iranians, the president said, are “bad people, very bad people. I think they’re incompetent, by the way, because if they were competent they would have made a deal a long time ago.”

“Of course they’re dirty players, so they go after everyone. Probably including me. I’ve been No. 1 on their list for years. And they’re a bunch of scum, if you want to know the truth. They’re scum. So we don’t like them, I don’t like them. And they’re evil people.”

A brief window of U.S. sanctions relief for Tehran closed on Tuesday as the Trump administration revoked a waiver that allowed the sale of Iranian oil in response to continued Iranian attacks on shipping vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Last month, the Treasury Department lifted sanctions on Iranian oil sales by issuing a 60-day license, a decision experts told Jewish Insider risked providing Tehran with significant revenue for malign activity. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had said the temporary license was issued due to Iran’s commitments under the memorandum of understanding, including guaranteeing safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz and inviting international nuclear inspectors back into the country — a claim that Iran swiftly denied. The license allowed Iran to produce, deliver and sell oil, including to U.S. importers, through Aug. 21.

But since the agreement was signed, Iran has since continued its attacks on commercial vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz, including strikes on three commercial tankers since the beginning of the week, which a U.S. official called “wholly unacceptable.”

“As President [Donald] Trump and the administration have repeatedly affirmed, the MOU in effect with Iran is entirely performance-based. Iran will only reap benefits if they exhibit good behavior,” the official told JI. “Iran’s actions in the Strait were wholly unacceptable to the United States and will be met with consequences. Our negotiators continue to work in good faith towards a final deal.”

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson had warned that commercial vessels using routes outside of Iranian control could face consequences and said that Iran was “diligently fulfilling its commitments” within the MOU to manage the strait, according to Axios.

The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait — both of which came under heavy Iranian fire during the recent war — skipped the funeral proceedings for late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while representatives from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, India, China and Turkey traveled to the Islamic Republic to attend the ceremonies for Khamenei, who was killed in Tehran at the outset of the war at the end of February.

The event began on Friday and spans five cities across Iran and Iraq, ending in the Iranian city of Mashhad, where he will be buried Thursday.

Despite his three brothers’ attendance at the funeral proceedings, Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as supreme leader and is thought to be seriously injured from the same airstrike, still has not appeared publicly.

IRGC Commander Ahmad Vahidi made his own first public appearance since the war began, sitting beside Khamenei’s casket on Thursday before the funeral began. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, estranged from Khamenei for years, made a rare public appearance at the procession.

President Donald Trump noted on Monday that the gathering would be an opportune time to take out Iran’s remaining leadership. “They are all there,” the president told Axios. “One shot and we can take them all out, but we are not going to do that because then we would have nobody to negotiate with.” Talks between the U.S. and Iran are expected to resume after the funeral ends later this week. 

Though Lebanon sent Lebanese Defense Minister Michel Menassa, a delegation from Iranian proxy Hezbollah also traveled to Iran for the ceremonies.

Hamas, meanwhile, said in a statement that its delegation was led by the head of its political bureau, Mohammed Darwish, and included other bureau members such as Bassem Naim.

Also attending Saturday’s ceremonies in Tehran were Ziyad al-Nakhalah, the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and senior Houthi member Dhaif Allah al-Shami, state TV reported. Russia sent former President Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of the security council, as a special envoy of President Vladimir Putin.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a key mediator between Washington and Tehran, was one of the few sitting heads of government to attend in person. “The late supreme leader’s wisdom, leadership and profound influence on Iran and the wider region will be remembered for generations,” Sharif said, per his office. 

The number of Israelis who believe President Donald Trump views Israel’s security as a central consideration has continued to fall to record lows after Washington signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, according to a new survey from the Israel Democracy Institute.

The June 2026 Israeli Voice Index, conducted between June 28 and July 1, found that 28% of respondents — including 26% of Jewish Israelis and 36% of Arab Israelis — believe Israel’s security is a key consideration for Trump. 

Among Jewish Israelis, the figure dropped 15 percentage points from a month ago, when 41% of respondents said they felt Israeli security was a key consideration for Trump as his administration engaged in negotiations with Tehran. At the time, those findings marked the lowest levels of Israeli trust in Trump since the research center began tracking the metric when he was elected to a second term in November 2024.

Despite declining confidence in Trump, a majority of Israelis continue to view current tensions between Washington and Jerusalem as temporary rather than indicative of a meaningful deterioration in bilateral ties. Among Jewish Israelis, 54% said current disagreements represent a temporary crisis that will not harm the relationship, while 34% said they mark a longer-term shift for the worse.

Respondents were more divided when asked whether Israel’s strategic security situation was better or worse than it was before the Iran war. Thirty-six percent said Israel’s security situation is now worse, an increase of eight percentage points from April. Meanwhile, 38% said it is better, down six percentage points over the same period.

The survey also found strong support for maintaining an Israeli security zone in southern Lebanon, even if doing so conflicts with U.S. interests. Overall, 72% of respondents backed a permanent security zone in the area. Support was especially high among Jewish Israelis, at 80%, while a majority of Arab Israelis (58%) opposed maintaining a permanent Israeli presence in southern Lebanon.

Beyond military and diplomatic issues, the poll found that rising antisemitism and attacks targeting Israelis abroad were influencing travel decisions. Fifty-six percent of respondents said the threat environment has affected their travel plans, with 41% saying it has impacted where they choose to travel and 15% saying they plan to avoid traveling abroad altogether because of security concerns.

The director general of Israel’s Ministry of Defense, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amir Baram, urged Israelis on Wednesday to understand Washington’s perspective as the U.S. and Israel negotiate the next memorandum of understanding, cautioning against judging American policy through a purely “provincial lens.”

“What some in Israel perceive as weakness or folly, an apparent disregard for every warning sign on the ground, is viewed in Washington as cold, calculated and clear-eyed risk management in an era of shifting global attention,” he said at the annual Herzliya Conference at Reichman University. 

The divergence between the two allies, he concluded, is not a misunderstanding of the fundamental threat, but rather a byproduct of different national security priorities.

“For us, Iran is an existential threat; for the United States, it is a chronic regional challenge, while China and the Indo-Pacific theater remain the core concern,” Baram said. “We think Tehran, they think Taiwan.”

“At the same time, based on my deep familiarity with the range of views within the American system, if there is one thing Americans hate more than this war that has dragged on for them, it is losing a campaign they have already won,” he added of the conflict with Iran.

Ultimately, Baram asserted that as Washington increasingly operates under an “America First” framework, the historic bilateral relationship must pivot toward concrete, mutually beneficial strategic dividends.

“Our partnership cannot rest on shared values alone. It must also rest on hard interests: a strong, independent, and proactive Israel that stabilizes the Middle East is the very asset that allows the United States to redirect resources toward Asia,” Baram stated. “This is the foundation of the next memorandum of understanding on security cooperation now being formulated. The agreement will need to generate security, economic, and strategic benefits for both countries for years to come.”

The director general also noted that he understands the differing strategic realities in Washington, including a growing American desire to avoid prolonged Middle East entanglements while prioritizing competing global theaters.

“From the Pentagon’s perspective, with American munitions stretched between supporting current wars and preparing for a potential confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, a prolonged war in the Middle East runs counter to America’s global posture,” Baram observed.

Baram emphasized that the war with Iran has fundamentally transformed Jerusalem’s strategic military calculus, warning that an escalating Iranian threat necessitates a sweeping, expanded regional security alliance.

“The war has sharpened, for every actor in the region, the price of Iran’s military buildup,” Baram said. “It has created a shared interest in forging a broader alliance, from India through the UAE to Greece and Cyprus. Israel’s strengths in technology, proven operational experience, and defense innovation, combined with the Gulf’s financial power, could enable a new security-economic front.”

Baram said that building these alternative multilateral partnerships is “not a substitute” for Israel’s bedrock security relationship with the United States. Rather, he argued, the strategy allows Israel to “broaden its room to maneuver and its standing on the international stage, and allow us to diversify our strategic footing.”

Top Middle East analysts — including the Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour and Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz — offered starkly different takes on whether the United States or Iran has emerged in a stronger strategic position following the recent U.S.-Iran conflict, yet shared a deeply critical view of the preliminary memorandum of understanding brokered between Washington and Tehran.

Speaking on Monday at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado during a panel discussion moderated by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued that Tehran successfully leveraged the crisis to its advantage.

“Iran is in a much better place now than it was four months ago, before the war,” Sadjadpour said. “I think the biggest advantage they now have is controlling the Strait of Hormuz. They want to try to turn it, if not into the Panama Canal, at least have administrative control over it.”

Sadjadpour expressed deep skepticism that the Islamic Republic has any intention of making the fundamental concessions that the Trump administration has long demanded.

“I don’t think that they plan to make any meaningful compromises on the points which President Trump hoped to advance before the war, which is their nuclear program, their missile program, their regional proxies,” Sadjadpour said. “If you read that memorandum of understanding, which I call a ‘memorandum of misunderstanding,’ the two sides have very different takeaways from that. Really, the only thing it asks of Iran is a vague nuclear compromise, but it concedes the idea that after 60 days, perhaps they could control the strait. There’s nothing in there about missiles or proxies.”

Sadjadpour added that the conflict has inadvertently reinvigorated an Iranian regime that had otherwise appeared to be buckling under domestic dissent prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

“Four months ago, I used to describe the Islamic Republic as a zombie regime with a dying ideology, a dying leader, and dying legitimacy,” he observed. “I fear, at least in the immediate term, that we’ve kind of breathed new life into this zombie regime. It has a newfound self-confidence.”

He noted that while the war and protests among the Iranian public should have forced Tehran to rethink its priorities, the regime ultimately drew the wrong conclusions from the conflict.

“A lot of governments would say, ‘You know what? It is time for us to prioritize our economic and national interests first, instead of our ideology being death to America and death to Israel’ — which has gotten them into two catastrophic wars and triggered continuous popular uprisings,” Sadjadpour said. “But I actually think the regime has reached the opposite conclusion: that revolutionary ideology is not an albatross around the neck that’s going to sink the regime, it’s actually proven to be a life preserver, and we’re going to double down on it.”

Veteran Middle East journalist Ghattas similarly argued that the war has not led to a favorable outcome for the U.S. and has left the Iranian people in a worse position.

“I don’t see yet how this leads us to a better place in the region, and there’s a sense of despair in Iran,” Ghattas said. “It’s hard to get access to voices in Iran, but I think people feel betrayed.”

She added, however, that Tehran did suffer some losses, including that its “regional project has been severely damaged.” Ghattas also notedthat Iran has “lost their foothold in Syria.” 

Offering an opposing perspective, Dubowitz, CEO of FDD, countered that Tehran has actually suffered an unprecedented, devastating strategic and military defeat.

“The United States of America is winning, Israel is winning and the Islamic Republic of Iran is losing,” Dubowitz insisted, pointing to the physical damage inflicted on Iran’s sensitive facilities.

“Their nuclear infrastructure is severely degraded, the top 40 of their nuclear weapons scientists have been eliminated, and their nuclear sites are in ruins, with nuclear dust under the rubble,” Dubowitz added. “Their nuclear program has been set back by years, and their missile program has been severely curtailed.” Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, he argued could have allowed Tehran to target America, is “obliterated.” 

But Dubowitz agreed that the White House squandered its upper hand by rushing into a substandard diplomatic framework.

“Why would you take that incredible military leverage and negotiate a fatally flawed MOU, which looks like it was written by the Qataris, written by the Iranians, and translated by ChatGPT into English?” Dubowitz asked. “It’s a terrible agreement. Why would you squander all that leverage at the negotiating table?”

According to Dubowitz, the driving force behind the agreement stemmed from  domestic political pressures rather than long-term geopolitical strategy. Trump, he argued, felt compelled to secure a quick pause in hostilities to stabilize the U.S. economy ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

“Why? Because Trump needs to hold the House, he needs to hold the Senate, he needs to punt to November,” Dubowitz said. “He needs to open Hormuz, he needs to get gasoline and oil prices down, inflation down, and punt to November. And then he’s got two years and three months to double down on his Iran strategy” until his term is over.

“I think what Trump did is he realized ‘I have serious leverage, but I have a time issue,’” he continued. “So two parties are going in for an MOU, neither believes that either party is going to comply with it, and for their own reasons they need to hit the pause button.”

Sadjadpour noted, however, that those within the president’s inner circle remain deeply divided over whether the current diplomatic pause represents a genuine policy shift or a mere tactical intermission.

“When you talk to people who are in daily contact with the president, they will tell you very different things about where his mind is on this,” Sadjadpour said. “Some will tell you that this MOU was just temporary, don’t take it that seriously — ‘We needed to bring down the price of oil, and if within two months the Iranians are not playing ball, he’ll go back to the blockade or back to bombing.’ I speak to other people who are in daily contact with the president who say no, he’s done with Iran.”