The program, led by Barak Sella, will host research fellow and events, as well as a Shared Society lab focused on strengthening Arab municipalities
Cassandra Klos/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Widener Library on the Harvard Campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, on Wednesday, June 4, 2025.
The Harvard-Kennedy School announced this week the launch of a new program focused on Israel that its organizers say will bring a broader, policy-oriented and pluralistic approach to the study of the country and its role in the Middle East, as universities continue to grapple with intense debate over Israel and the war in Gaza.
The Israel Program, housed within the school’s Middle East Initiative, will examine issues including Israeli politics and society, U.S.-Israel relations, Jewish-Arab relations and Israel’s place in the region. Barak Sella, a senior research fellow at the Middle East Initiative who is spearheading the program under the guidance of Prof. Tarek Masoud, told Jewish Insider that the program addresses an “acute need” for serious research on the complexities of the Middle East, rather than being created primarily as a response to campus polarization following the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.
“You can’t take this program out of the context of the time that we are in,” said Sella. “But I would describe it as something that would be needed anyways.”
Sella, who was a student at Harvard at the time of the attacks, said he witnessed a distinct gap in learning opportunities for peers seeking comprehensive perspectives on the region.
“While there was a lot of discussion about Israel, there was a gap in serious research programs to provide students with in-depth perspectives,” he said. “This program is different because Israel, like many other countries, is a country in the Middle East and if you actually want to do research that can make a difference and support a better future for the region, I think it’s important it be done not only in the local context of Israel but also in the global context.”
The program emphasizes “rigorous, open inquiry and civil, constructive debate.” However, because discussions about Israel on U.S. campuses are so polarized, Sella acknowledged it had been a challenge to make everyone feel comfortable sharing their views.
Addressing that is the “whole basis of the Israel program being housed at the Middle East Initiative,” he said, noting that the initiative already hosts an array of programs including one on Kuwait and research projects on Egypt and Tunisia. “We’re housed in an initiative where the basic idea is that all of the countries in the Middle East have a place,” he said. “The only thing we have to agree on is that we’re sitting at the same table once a week. We have a seminar for all our research fellows and learn from what everyone is researching.”
The program, which is funded by the Middle East Initiative, will host research fellows and events focusing on Israeli and Palestinian Authority elections (the latter last held presidential elections in 2005), alongside a study group examining the future of U.S.-Israel relations. The course “Arguing Israel Palestine” might include a field study visiting Israel and the West Bank in the future, Sella said, though the trip did not run during last year’s pilot course due to the Iran war. Additionally, the Shared Society Lab — led by Dana Schleifer, a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School and former chief innovation officer for the Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality — plans to investigate Jewish-Arab cooperation within Israel, with an emphasis on strengthening Arab municipalities.
The lab “is based on the idea that one of the best ways to increase [partnership] between Arabs and Jews in Israel is through local municipalities,” said Sella. “We interviewed dozens of people from Arab municipalities and identified their weak points and strengths. We’re planning to do more research and hopefully leadership initiatives with leaders of the Arab municipalities. We want to use the resources we have here to make sure the Arab municipalities in Israel are getting the best tools they can to provide a better life for their citizens.”
Sella credits his time at Harvard for prompting him to find new ways to study the Jewish state. One of his most formative experiences happened far from the Cambridge campus, during a student delegation to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
“I met a lot of senior people and there were conversations about the economy and the region, but also very difficult conversations about Israel,” he recalled. “They were always conversations about finding a solution and practical approaches. When I was on that program with Harvard, I realized that I want more students to be able to experience that. When we’re talking about a place like Israel, we need to take out the slogans and base conversations on what universities should be based on — rational thinking and pursuit of truth.”
The vice president, answering a question about unease among some on the right over the relationship, argued Trump has been more willing than any president in 40 years to challenge Netanyahu
Nic Antaya/Getty Images
Vice President JD Vance speaks during a rally at Universal Contracting and Urban Tree Trimming on August 31, 2026 in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that the U.S. must prioritize its own needs and “cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the State of Israel,” likening the dynamic to that of NATO during a virtual appearance at the All-In Summit.
Vance made the comments in conversation with “All-In Podcast” co-host Jason Calacanis, saying there are “obviously a lot of important relationships, a lot of important partnerships in NATO, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to completely make our European foreign policy subservient to NATO in the same way that we cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the state of Israel.”
“We’re going to work with people when we work with them,” Vance continued. “We’re going to disagree when we disagree, and we’re going to pursue America’s interests. That’s the only way to have a rational foreign policy.”
The vice president also addressed a question about concerns on the right over the closeness of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
“Obviously Israel has been an important partner when it comes to military technology, when it comes to intelligence sharing, but also sometimes the United States doesn’t always agree with Israel,” Vance said to Calacanis. “And I think that, more than frankly any president in the last 40 years, he has shown a willingness to actually part ways with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu when he feels like the interests of the American people are different from the interests of the government of Israel.”
At the All-In Summit, Vice President JD Vance said that the U.S. must prioritize its own needs and “cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the State of Israel.”
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) September 16, 2026
Read more: https://t.co/8PdN50WnI8 pic.twitter.com/uFpPkhTPDg
Vance added, “I find it a little ironic, Jason, that you have Democrats criticizing Donald Trump for his relationship with Bibi when Donald Trump is the one president of the last 40 years who’s been willing to say, ‘You know what? Yeah, Bibi’s a good partner, but also Bibi and I have a different opinion on this, or Bibi’s wrong about this, or maybe Bibi’s right about this from the perspective of Israel, but the American people need us to go in a different direction.’”
The vice president responded to a question about the dynamic between himself and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, saying that the “funniest media narrative is that somehow Marco and I are like, hyper competitive, and we sit around like thinking about, you know, how we’re going to run for president against each other in 2028.”
Vance noted that the two were scheduled to speak immediately after his virtual appearance at the conference. “He’s a great human being. He’s doing a great job too,” Vance said of Rubio.
Al Harbi, the Gulf affairs director for a Middle East group building bonds between young Israelis and Gulf leaders, is spreading her message alongside Tishby on several college campuses
Courtesy
Fatema Al Harbi, Jonathan Elkhoury and Noa Tishby
Growing up in Bahrain, Fatema Al Harbi absorbed years of anti-Israel propaganda, but she says the mood in her home country has since shifted markedly, with ordinary citizens no longer seeing Israel as the Middle East’s foremost threat — a distinction they now assign to Iran.
Now serving as Gulf affairs director for Sharaka, an Israel-based organization that aims to develop bonds between young Israeli and Gulf leaders, Al Harbi’s journey from Israel critic to advocate is central to her pitch as she joins a four-day cross-country campus speaking tour that kicked off on Monday.
The tour, which also features Jonathan Elkhoury — a Lebanese-born Christian and LGBTQ+ activist whose family fled Hezbollah rule for Israel — and Israeli-American activist Noa Tishby, is being produced by Tishby’s nonprofit, Eighteen. The interfaith trio is scheduled to address students at University of Colorado Boulder, Emory University, the University of Texas and Florida International University.
Al Harbi spoke with Jewish Insider on Tuesday, the sixth anniversary of the signing of the Abraham Accords, about her experience as a Bahraini Muslim woman publicly supporting Israel, and how the regional landscape has shifted since the historic signing.
Jewish Insider: Why did you decide to do this tour, and did you have any reservations? What do you see as your specific role in the tour’s lineup — what can you speak to that Jonathan and Noa can’t? What do you think is most important that American students understand?
Fatema Al Harbi: I didn’t have any [doubts] about joining. It’s the opposite, I was really excited to be part of this. In the end, we are [all] fighting against loud, extremist voices so we have to come together. I have to speak for my region. So many voices are taking over our region — impacting our country in a bad way. It’s important to have a platform to speak up and show the reality myself, as a Muslim, as an Arab, about what’s going on in the region. This is important to share, especially across campuses.
I’m going to speak about my story: growing up and how I was impacted by propaganda against Israel and Jews. Most Arab countries 20 years ago were affected by Islamism and propaganda from Al Jazeera. Today, nobody trusts [Al Jazeera] in Bahrain, and also it’s banned.
I had so much curiosity about Israel. Seeing the country changed my mind [about the views I grew up learning].
[Today] so many people are aligning with political Islamism and it’s affecting America but also affecting us back home.
JI: The tour stop at Emory lands on the Accords anniversary — how do things look different now than the signing day in 2020?
FAH: Things are so different. Six years ago, the Abraham Accords weren’t very popular at home. Now [support] grew. I’m not saying there’s 100% approval, but it grew. Everyone wants our country to choose peace over anything else.
JI: How would you characterize the dynamics within the Gulf Cooperation Council right now on the question of normalization with Israel — is there a shared view among the Gulf states, or are you seeing divergence?
FAH: Of course there are different opinions. There are a lot of opinions towards normalization but in the end, the GCC always comes together. There is always a meeting point.
JI: Saudi Arabia remains the biggest question mark in the region. Do you think it is moving toward eventual normalization, or has it been pushed to a more hard-line stance post-Oct. 7?
FAH: It’s a tricky question. I think it’s a matter of when, not if. Saudi Arabia was coming closer to normalization but unfortunately after Oct. 7, it was pushed back and you could feel it. Things are changing now, for example, the war we are experiencing. Saudi Arabia is getting attacked from Iran and also from the Houthis. The attacks could change a lot in the region, not just for Saudi Arabia but for all GCC countries. I think one of those things will be normalization with Israel.
I think we’ll have to wait and see what will happen in the next few months, or even years.
JI: Bahrain was hit by Iranian missiles amid the recent escalation. Has that changed how ordinary Bahrainis view the relationship with Israel?
FAH: [In the past] many people came to me after speaking about the Abraham Accords and normalization with Israel and [voiced] a lot of opposition. They said the enemy of the Middle East was Israel. Now after seeing the war — the moment Iran had the chance to attack us in Bahrain, they did — so many people are coming to me saying they realize the enemy of the Middle East is actually not Israel, it’s Iran. Our country, our economy, everything has been affected [by Iran].
JI: What does day-to-day life look like for you as a Bahraini woman who’s publicly aligned with Israel? Has your outspokenness changed how you’re received in your community? What about across the Gulf more broadly?
FAH: Thankfully, I live in a very safe country with strong laws that do not tolerate hate. [Even for] online attacks, I could take them to court or to the police. So the good thing is that not a lot has changed for me in Bahrain. I’ve lived a normal life since the Abraham Accords and until now. The only thing that changed is how people perceive the Abraham Accords, which is a recent change because of the war.
JI: Do you think your neighbors truly share your views on Israel, or are they afraid to speak up because of legal implications?
FAH: I think it is mostly because of the laws. But most Bahrainis are very kind-hearted. They don’t have loud violence or hatred. If someone wants to show their hatred, they will find a well-mannered way to do it. We’re an island; people are more chill than in other countries.
The congressman previously served as a military diplomatic liaison in the kingdom; it’s unclear whether the Senate will be able to process his nomination before the end of the current Congress
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference at the Capitol Hill Club on Wednesday, January 22, 2025.
President Donald Trump on Monday informed the Senate that he plans to nominate Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) as the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, moving toward filling one of the numerous Middle East ambassadorship posts that have sat vacant since the start of his second administration.
Hunt, a former Army officer and Apache helicopter pilot, served two deployments in Saudi Arabia as a military diplomatic liaison. He is serving his second term in the House, but lost a primary bid for Texas’ Senate seat earlier this year.
“It is the honor of a lifetime to accept President Trump’s nomination to serve as the next United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Hunt said in a statement on X. “Having served in the region both in combat as an Army officer and for two years as a diplomatic liaison in the Kingdom, I understand the strategic importance of the partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the profound responsibility of this position.”
Hunt said in 2022 during a virtual event with AIPAC that Israel is the “one true ally” of the United States in the Middle East, while noting that many of 9/11 hijackers, as well as Osama Bin Laden himself, were from Saudi Arabia.
“I learned a lot about what our interests need to be and who we need to be in the business of supporting for the future, because that’s our one true ally in the region,” Hunt said at the event.
Addressing the then-fledgling Abraham Accords, Hunt was supportive but cautious. “Some of these countries are bad actors. They’re rogue nations, some of them,” he continued. “Just because we have something set up like the Abraham Accords — which I think is good for the entire world, especially for the region — we cannot let our guard down.”
He recently joined a letter calling for a Department of Justice investigation into efforts by an official in New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration to meet with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.
Hunt has been a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Black-Jewish Relations.
But he was one of just 21 House members who voted last year against a resolution expressing support for the State Department’s global guidelines on combating antisemitism. Antisemitism envoy Ambassador Yehuda Kaploun has been working to tackle antisemitism in Saudi Arabia, including stripping antisemitic content from the country’s school curricula.
During the AIPAC event, Hunt also described himself as the “energy congressman of the world,” given that he represents the offices of many major energy companies in Houston, making it part of his job to defend the energy industry — also a major industry for Saudi Arabia.
It will be logistically difficult for the Senate to consider Hunt’s nomination before the midterm elections, and with a slew of previous nominees still under consideration, it’s unclear whether the Senate will be able to process Hunt’s nomination before the end of the year. Should Democrats retake the upper chamber, Hunt’s confirmation would be more difficult.
The nomination comes at a highly sensitive time in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, as the two countries move toward a nuclear deal that would reportedly allow for nuclear enrichment inside Saudi Arabia, which is set to be reviewed by Congress in the coming months.
Saudi Arabia is also at a major crisis point with the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen as hostilities have flared after several years of quiet. The Houthis this weekend seized critical port cities and islands along the coastline of the Red Sea and launched missiles from Iraq that disabled the pipeline that Saudi Arabia had been using to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.
President Donald Trump said he doesn’t plan to intervene, despite reported Saudi pleas.
The kingdom has also recently been recalibrating its regional position, with Saudi Arabia moving away from normalization with Israel, experiencing tensions with its regional rival the United Arab Emirates, forming new ties with Turkey and Pakistan and again allowing the promotion of Islamist extremism.
The network's new ‘Global Perspectives’ forum comes amid ongoing concerns about its ability to cover the Gulf state objectively
Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via Getty Images
The CNN logo appears on a smartphone screen in the Apple app store in this photo illustration in Ontario, Canada, on February 26, 2026.
A year and a half after CNN announced its plans to launch a network hub in Qatar, the media company is deepening its ties to the Gulf state with a Middle East speaker series in the capital of Doha that is slated for late October.
CNN said this week it was kicking off its inaugural “Global Perspectives” event in Doha on Oct. 29 with a newly unveiled lineup featuring government officials, business leaders and cultural figures, among others.
The upcoming forum will be hosted in partnership with Media City Qatar, where CNN inked a deal last year to open a new broadcasting studio as part of an ongoing effort to build the network’s presence in the Middle East.
That agreement — which entailed an annual fee of several million dollars that Qatar would pay to CNN, according to sources — raised some concerns among critics who had questioned if it would jeopardize the network’s ability to produce objective journalism on the Gulf state.
CNN is among several media companies, including The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, that have expanded their business relationships with Qatar — even as the emirate has faced scrutiny for its lack of press freedoms, record of human rights abuses and sponsorship of Hamas.
Late last year, CNN also served as a co-sponsor of Qatar’s Doha Forum, whose panels elevated several prominent figures who have embraced hostile views on Israel or espoused antisemic tropes — including far-right media commentator Tucker Carlson; Trita Parsi, the founder of a pro-Iran lobbying group; and Nika Soon-Shiong, the publisher of Drop Site News and the daughter of Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong.
In a statement, Ellana Lee, CNN’s global head of productions, said next month’s series will explore “the ways in which power, influence, technology, business and culture intersect in today’s constantly shifting world,” while “looking to the future through the prism of this unique and increasingly important region.”
The tentative early roster for the Doha conference features Tareq Amin, CEO of Humain, a Saudi AI company; Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv; and Mohammed Saif Al-Sowaidi, the CEO of the Qatar Investment Authority, the state’s sovereign wealth fund — which is among several Gulf investors that are backing the pending merger of David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance and CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.
Multiple CNN anchors and correspondents — including Wolf Blitzer, Christiane Amanpour and Becky Anderson — will lead the discussions in Doha, which will later be highlighted on a dedicated show, according to an announcement.
Anderson, an international anchor for CNN based in Abu Dhabi, on Monday interviewed Majed Al Ansari, the spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, where he argued that “the nucleus” of tensions with Iran stem from “what happened in Gaza” during Israel’s war against Hamas.
Speaking at a conference in Abu Dhabi on Monday, Al Ansari gave Anderson a shoutout while discussing efforts to advance Qatar’s narrative around the globe. “I look in front of me now and I see a lot of the media people that represent the best and the brightest,” the Qatari advisor said from the stage of the Hili Forum, “including Becky from CNN and others.”
“But is our narrative getting through?” he asked, adding that “we need to speak with one voice in the Gulf.”
Rep. Mike Lawler: ‘Iran and its Houthi proxies have now simultaneously put pressure on two of the world’s most important maritime checkpoints’
Photo by Mohammed HUWAIS / AFP via Getty Images
A Yemeni supporter of the Iran-backed Houthi movement holds a portrait of Iran's slain supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during a protest against U.S. strikes on Iran in Sanaa on July 10, 2026.
Middle East experts urged members of Congress on Tuesday to empower the Yemeni government and resume diplomatic efforts to constrain the Houthis in Yemen, warning that the Trump administration’s bombing campaign against the Houthis and the subsequent ceasefire have failed to deter the group from targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
At a House Foreign Affairs Committee Middle East subcommittee hearing on the threats posed by the Houthis to U.S. interests in the Red Sea, Nadwa Al-Dawsari, an associate fellow at the Middle East Institute, and Allison Minor, the director of the Project for Middle East Integration at the Atlantic Council, testified that the Trump administration’s approach to containing the Iran-backed terror group had not sufficiently weakened or deterred it.
“The United States does not have an ambassador appointed to Yemen, to Saudi Arabia or to the UAE, the countries that are most important to resolving the conflict,” Minor said. “We have career diplomats in place as chargé d’affaires, but unfortunately, it’s not sufficient.”
Asked who is filling that void by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA), Minor replied: “You have caretaker career diplomatic staff in place. I think there are a handful of envoys this administration has appointed for a series of global conflicts. I don’t think they have the bandwidth currently for Yemen.”
Lawmakers from both parties expressed concern over the negative impact on the economy caused by the Houthis’ repeated disruptions to commercial shipping in the Red Sea, with several connecting the campaign with Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. (Most recently, the Houthis have been attacking targets in Saudi Arabia, including ships, airports and oil facilities.)
“[The Houthis] have targeted American forces, attacked our partners and threatened commercial vessels transiting one of the world’s most important waterways,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), who chairs the subcommittee, said.
“Iran transformed a local armed movement into a terrorist organization capable of threatening Americans and disrupting international commerce. … This becomes even more dangerous in Yemen when the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz are involved. Iran and its Houthi proxies have now simultaneously put pressure on two of the world’s most important maritime checkpoints.”
Pressed on what Congress could do to protect freedom of navigation and commercial shipping in the Red Sea, Minor warned that, “until we have a durable resolution to this threat, we will continue to see a disruption to commerce that has immediate impacts on global energy markets and long-term consequences for freedom of navigation globally.”
Minor also agreed with Keating’s suggestion that “the closure and the limitation on the Strait [of Hormuz] has given the Houthis even more leverage than before.”
Minor and Al-Dawsari concurred that the Trump administration has failed to develop a durable Yemen policy or provide enough support to the Yemeni government to counter Houthi influence and territorial control.
Both witnesses criticized the ongoing ceasefire between the U.S. and the Houthis as strategically unproductive, pointing to the terrorist group’s increased recruiting numbers and continued attacks on commercial shipping. The two urged the Trump administration to not treat the ceasefire as a long-term strategy.
Al-Dawsari and Minor also rejected the notion that prior U.S. military operations had significantly diminished the Houthis’ ability or willingness to fight.
“U.S. military pressure has imposed real costs on the Houthis, but airstrikes alone will not eliminate the threat,” Al-Dawsari said. “The Houthis have not been degraded.”
“Air strikes have disrupted Houthi operations and … undermined some of their capabilities, but the Houthis have proven that they are able to regenerate some of these capabilities,” she continued. “The Houthis have not engaged in peace negotiations in good faith. They used that time to rebuild their capabilities, recruit more fighters and prepare for the next war.”
Minor argued that, “U.S. airstrikes and Israeli strikes all failed to eliminate Houthi capabilities or alter their strategy. … Each time the Houthis have come under attack from U.S. or Israeli strikes, they have used this to fuel their recruitment.”
Neither witness supported the idea of a U.S. military operation targeting the Houthis involving
ground troops, and both agreed that the Trump administration should fill the vacant U.S. special envoy for Yemen post and surge humanitarian assistance.
But Al-Dawsari and Minor diverged on how to achieve a lasting solution that eliminates the group’s fighting capacity and ensures the Yemeni government can maintain control of the country.
Minor argued that the Trump administration needs to address the lack of a broader American diplomatic apparatus in the region while pursuing a “viable negotiated settlement that can contain Houthi threats while addressing the governance issues that have been fueling this Houthi threat for over a decade.” While Minor did not rule out the viability of military force completely, she urged the U.S. to stop “vacillating between costly U.S. military intervention and disengagement.”
Al-Dawsari, meanwhile, encouraged the Trump administration to partner with Saudi Arabia on a broader effort to provide intelligence and military training, as well as any other assistance, “to support the Yemeni government militarily, politically and economically.” She also urged lawmakers to continue supporting the Houthis’ Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation.
“The most important source of leverage is territory,” Al-Dawsari said. “The United States needs to do the one thing that it hasn’t done yet: support the Yemeni government to take territory from the Houthis.”
“This is not the United States’ war, and it shouldn’t be,” she argued. “We need to provide [the government] with the necessary military and economic and political support in order to be able to take on the Houthis on their own long-term. That’s the only way to do it. There is no other substitute.”
Former Trump special envoy Elliott Abrams: ‘Kushner’s meeting with Hamas was a terrible mistake that helps to legitimize them’
Ali Jadallah/Anadolu via Getty Images
Weapons on display as the Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, hand over on Saturday two Israeli hostages in Rafah on February 22, 2025.
A diplomatic push by Jared Kushner to revive the stalled Gaza peace plan was met with widespread skepticism from Middle East analysts, who warned that the envoy’s timeline for Hamas disarmament is unrealistic as the group continues to hide behind a smokescreen of diplomacy rather than follow through on its commitments.
Following a series of meetings in Cairo and Jerusalem this week with Hamas and Israeli officials, Kushner expressed optimism that initial progress on Hamas surrendering its weapons could begin “in as little as 30 days,” and filling in Hamas’ terror tunnels within “60 to 90 days.” Additionally, Israel and the Board of Peace established two working groups to address key issues in the plan.
However, regional experts told Jewish Insider that Hamas is unlikely to fully disarm, warning that Kushner’s timeline faces significant operational and political hurdles.
“It may feign disarming and may turn in some guns, but full disarmament means they will lose power in Gaza,” said Elliott Abrams, who served as special envoy for Iran during the first Trump administration. “What Hamas wants is what Hezbollah has had in Lebanon: someone else runs schools and collects garbage, while they remain in charge behind the scenes. In my view, Kushner’s meeting with Hamas was a terrible mistake that helps to legitimize them.”
Daniel Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama and deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East under President Joe Biden, similarly questioned whether Hamas would genuinely comply with the roadmap, characterizing the talks as “a lot of misdirection, spinning, time-buying, and politics by all parties involved.”
“[Hamas’] ideology has not dimmed, and they have a long history of seeming to reach agreements, and then asserting caveats to wriggle out of them,” Shapiro said.
Shapiro also argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has incentives of his own to present the negotiations as making progress, describing the Israeli prime minister as performing a “familiar two-step” — reassuring the Israeli public on a sensitive issue ahead of an upcoming election while attempting to keep Washington appeased with the progress of the plan.
Beyond the political dynamics, Shapiro pointed to significant operational obstacles. The technocratic Palestinian government has yet to deploy to Gaza, its 5,000-member police force remains untrained and international stabilization forces are not prepared to seize Hamas’ weapons.
“Kushner is trying to bridge these unbridgeable gaps,” Shapiro said. “The result is different, and at times contradictory, statements and understandings by all parties on timing and sequence… In the best case, it will take many months to make even modest progress, and U.S. officials will need to stay engaged daily to keep the road map from collapsing.”
Hamas has an incentive to remain at the negotiating table even without having intent to fully comply, analysts said.
“Observers should evaluate Hamas’ commitments in the context of their total war against Israel,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They can position themselves as the reasonable party and Israelis as rejectionists if it advances Hamas’ goal to delegitimize Israel. They don’t have to fire a shot. In this case, lying is politically profitable.”
Kushner warned following his meetings in Israel on Monday that if Hamas fails to fulfill its disarmament pledge, Washington would allow Israel to “finish the job” militarily.
Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the threat is “intended to press Hamas to follow through.” But he cautioned that it “must have teeth” to prevent Hamas from using the negotiations to gain international legitimacy without surrendering its weapons.
“At the end of the day, Hamas cannot be allowed to prioritize holding on to its weapons at the expense of Gaza’s reconstruction,” Levitt said. He described the newly established working groups as a “significant” step toward “holding Hamas to full disarmament” and “addressing the very real sanitation crisis in Gaza.”
Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said the timeline will have little meaning without a credible force on the ground capable of disarming Hamas if the group refuses to surrender its weapons voluntarily.
“By saying all the right things, Hamas hopes to aggravate existing tensions between Washington and Jerusalem,” Ruhe said, arguing that the group is playing for time as U.S. and Israeli attention is pulled toward upcoming elections in both countries and other regional flashpoints.
“It’s almost impossible to foresee real progress on the Gaza peace plan until there’s a viable and ready option to forcibly disarm Hamas, since Hamas is not going to voluntarily surrender control over its part of the Strip,” Ruhe said. “The agreed timeline doesn’t mean much in the absence of any viable disarmament option.”
Ruhe added that Hamas could “play for time” and “hope Gaza continues to fall down the list of U.S. and Israeli priorities as tensions flare in [the Strait of] Hormuz, the West Bank and Syria, and as Trump and Netanyahu focus on upcoming elections.”
“Israel may have the U.S. blessing to finish the job, and ultimately it is willing to do so, but that doesn’t mean it’s ready or eager to resume intensive and draining ground operations in the near future,” he said.
Jason Greenblatt, former Middle East envoy in the first Trump administration, struck a more supportive tone toward the administration’s effort while expressing continued distrust of Hamas.
“I remain deeply skeptical of anything Hamas says. Hamas’ defining objective remains the destruction of Israel, and I am aware of no evidence that this has changed,” Greenblatt said. “Yet President Trump and his team secured the release of hostages held by Hamas in brutal conditions when almost no one thought it could be done.”
“President Trump, Jared and others on the team also created the Abraham Accords, which most experts believed could never happen, and they are uniquely qualified to take on this extraordinarily difficult task,” he continued. “The administration is right to pursue every possible path while making clear that, if Hamas refuses to comply, Israel will have America’s support to finish the job.”
Analysts who spoke to JI last week said the deal could portend a more aggressive posture against Israel by Ankara and its ally in Damascus
Bonnie Cash/Getty Images
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) looks on during a hearing to examine war crimes from Syria to Ukraine at the U.S. Capitol on July 10, 2024 in Washington, DC.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) on Sunday praised the new mutual defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan as an accomplishment by President Donald Trump.
“The mutual defense pact of Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan is another achievement of [Trump] promoting stability, peace, and prosperity in the Middle East,” Wilson, a vocal supporter of Israel who has also been strongly supportive of Turkey, said in a post on X. “With our prosperous Gulf allies, a liberated Syria, and Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, it is clear the murderous regime in Iran is isolated and the people of Iran can regain a new government worthy of Iran’s rich history.”
Wilson has been among the most prominent supporters on Capitol Hill of the new Syrian government, which is tied closely to Turkey’s own government.
The pact has been seen by many in pro-Israel circles as a sign that some of the U.S.’ Gulf allies are attempting to hedge against the U.S. and Israel, creating an alternative to the Abraham Accords and empowering those hostile to Israel.
There also has been no public reporting about Trump or the U.S. having been involved with the deal.
Multiple U.S. analysts told Jewish Insider last week that the agreement should be cause for concern for both the U.S. and Israel, and could portend a more aggressive posture against Israel by Ankara and its ally in Damascus.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Edmund Fitton-Brown: ‘For Turkey, it is an assertion of its centrality to security arrangements in the region’
Getty Images
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivers a speech during a joint press conference, July 19, 2022, in Tehran, Iran.
A coalition of Sunni regional powers signed a historic joint defense pact on Friday, but national security experts expressed deep unease over the arrangement, arguing that it reflects U.S. shortcomings in the Middle East while raising serious questions about its practical military feasibility.
The agreement, dubbed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, was signed in the Saudi holy city of Mecca by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
Under the pact, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan agreed to treat an armed attack on one signatory as an attack on all. The move solidifies security and defense cooperation between the three powers amid a period of heightened regional turmoil and uncertainty stemming from the war in Iran.
As a result of the ongoing conflict with Iran, Saudi Arabia has seen its critical infrastructure and oil facilities targeted by strikes, which analysts say has prompted Riyadh to diversify its strategic and security partnerships. The trilateral agreement follows a bilateral mutual defense pact signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia last September.
Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former British diplomat and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explained that the military alliance formed in response to an “uncertain security situation” across the wider region.
“For Turkey, it is an assertion of its centrality to security arrangements in the region. For Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it is a reflection of weakness and uncertainty, as both feel threatened (by Iran and India respectively),” Fitton-Brown said. “Although the agreement is not primarily directed against Israel or the United States, both should be concerned about it.”
Fitton-Brown emphasized that the pact poses strategic complications for both Jerusalem and Washington, while raising alarms for regional actors.
“For Israel, it is further confirmation of Turkish ambitions, which are explicitly directed against Israeli interests,” Fitton-Brown said. “For the U.S., it is questioning how reliable or permanent it is viewed as a player in the region. Stirring up a hornet’s nest in the Gulf and then appearing unsure about an end game, or even clear red lines, has left American allies uncertain about the future and willing to hedge their bets.”
Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, similarly labeled the agreement as problematic, noting that it reflects U.S. diplomatic shortcomings rather than an effective counterweight to Tehran.
“This alignment is problematic to the extent it is about Washington and its regional relationships, not Tehran,” Ruhe said. “These three countries have almost zero shared ability or interest to meaningfully contain Iran. The Trump administration certainly should have done better coalition-building before the Iran war.”
Ruhe added that for Turkey, the pact serves to “support Ankara’s longstanding pretensions to be a major player and arms exporter in the Middle East and beyond, independent of the United States and NATO.”
Fitton-Brown also highlighted how regional shifts in Syria intersect with the new alliance.
“There is also a Syrian dimension: President Sharaa now leads a Sunni Islamist government in Damascus, where Turkey is the most influential foreign power and Saudi Arabia is a key investor and stabilizing influence,” Fitton-Brown said. “Israel will worry that this consolidates Turkish influence in Syria and will ultimately turn Sharaa’s Syria against Israel.”
Fitton-Brown noted that the emerging alliance signals a broader realignment of regional power dynamics following recent geopolitical shifts.
“On one hand, the new agreement looks like a Sunni axis that is replacing the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, following the weakening of the Islamic Republic, Lebanese Hezbollah, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria,” he explained. “On the other hand, Iran remains threatening to the Gulf States, especially, and the Saudis are probably comforted by the appearance of Sunni solidarity.”
Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, similarly assessed that the pact acts as a strategic signal to Tehran.
“The alliance is reminding Iran that it isn’t the only big power in the region,” Henderson said, adding that the dynamic is less about sectarian identity than geopolitical posturing. “[The alliance is] not particularly a Sunni-Shia thing. Pakistan is mainly Sunni, but any tensions are mainly Iran and Saudi playing games.”
Despite the high-profile announcement, Fitton-Brown expressed skepticism over the operational capabilities of the agreement, noting that paper commitments rarely translate to direct military intervention across disparate conflicts.
“In practice, it is inconceivable that Turkey or Saudi Arabia would get involved in a conflict with India if the latter came to blows with Pakistan again, as is more or less inevitable on a regular basis,” Fitton-Brown said. “The extension of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent to cover Saudi against Iran or Turkey in any circumstances looks equally implausible. But defense industrial collaboration may flesh out the substance of the alliance over time.”
Analysts warn that the emerging bloc could complicate future diplomatic breakthroughs in the region, particularly regarding U.S. efforts to broker Saudi-Israeli normalization. Ruhe noted that as a result of the new axis, Riyadh is significantly raising its leverage against Washington.
“With this new axis, Riyadh also is telling Washington that the price for normalization will be incredibly high, greater even than the incredibly one-sided deal for U.S.-aided nuclear enrichment on Saudi soil,” Ruhe said. “As part of the ultimate goal of normalization, the Trump administration should pursue a more comprehensive and balanced partnership with Saudi Arabia: Riyadh gets a truly safeguarded nuclear program and U.S. defense guarantees, but only in exchange for the kingdom formally aligning with Washington and concretely doing more for collective defense.”
To counter the fallout from the alliance, Ruhe argued that the U.S. must recalibrate its regional policy and tighten its focus on existing partnerships.
“The United States should focus more immediately on deepening, not broadening, the Abraham Accords, by redoubling security cooperation with Israel and the UAE,” Ruhe said. “Trump also needs to stop fawning over Erdogan and feeding his ambitions to reap all the benefits of being a U.S. partner without assuming any corresponding responsibilities.”
Robert Greenway predicted that reduced Iranian threat would make it easier for Arab states to join the Abraham Accords
Aspen Security Forum
Robert Greenway speaks at Aspen Security Forum, July 17, 2026.
ASPEN, Colo. — Robert Greenway, who led the Middle East and North Africa portfolio on the National Security Council during President Donald Trump’s first administration, predicted to Jewish Insider in an interview last month that the Iranian regime would not “make it” to the end of Trump’s time in office.
Greenway’s comments came amid the resumption of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran in late July, following the collapse of the countries’ memorandum of understanding, prior to the latest pause in U.S. strikes.
“We’ve really put ourselves in a position where we’ve got massive leverage. Their economy is virtually non-existent. I think it’s dead. We’re just waiting for the funeral, I think their political leadership is in turmoil,” Greenway said in an interview on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum. “The military has been decimated, and very little capacity remains to threaten the United States and our interests. That’s the reality of it. Despite claims to the contrary — those are not serious claims. They’re not supported by the facts.”
Greenway said that the administration’s military success had allowed it to “indulge a potential diplomatic path” that it knew was “unlikely” to actually succeed.
After the war, Greenway said that the U.S.’ regional approach should include working to contain Iran, building on the burgeoning regional security architecture developed with other Middle East allies and expanding the Abraham Accords. He was bullish about the chances for expanded normalization in spite of the apparent obstacles created by the wars in Gaza and Iran.
“The destruction [and] the attrition [in] Iran lowers the price of admission” for the Abraham Accords, Greenway said. “The math equation works here because we’ve reduced the Iranian threat. So there isn’t a massive requirement for us to provide enormous capabilities” to Arab states as a price for normalization.
Greenway was involved in negotiating the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration and continued to work to promote normalization after leaving the administration, first as the executive director of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute and later as the director of the Allison Center for National Security at the Heritage Foundation.
“Getting Saudi Arabia and the other states integrated into the region with Israel and expanding the accords is different now than it was a year or four years ago,” Greenway continued. “But it is still, I think, practical, necessary and achievable.”
He was dismissive of Saudi statements that the kingdom intends to condition normalization on a path to a two-state solution, arguing that such statements are a “public rhetorical mechanism that serves a purpose” but won’t be enforced in practice.
Greenway was a member of the Heritage Foundation when the group issued a report last year — which was controversial at the time — calling for the gradual phasing out of U.S. military aid to Israel. In the months since, the concept has been endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some American supporters of Israel, and most observers expect that a drawdown of direct financial support will be a component of the next U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding.
He said that phasing out U.S. aid would insulate Israel from American attempts to exert leverage over Jerusalem, such as that undertaken by the Biden administration. He said that the threat of growing Democratic shifts against Israel are a key reason for the U.S. to work to ensure that Israel no longer needs aid.
“Let’s improve Israel’s economy, let’s improve the trade that exists between our two countries, the security cooperation that exists between our two countries and our industries, and let’s improve Israel’s relationship to its neighbors, and if we can, reduce the threat,” Greenway said of the path to phasing out aid.
But he also said that aid should only be phased out “if Israel was in a financial position to do it, and its security relative to its neighbors was increased.”
He argued that Israel “doesn’t want” the U.S. involved in its relations with the Palestinians. Instead, he said the U.S. can best help Israel through economic ties and working to broker relationships with its neighbors, things Israel “can’t do … for itself.”
Greenway — as a Trump ally — was something of an outlier at the Aspen conference, which has generally attracted more traditional internationalist voices on the left and right. He said he wanted to urge the attendees to judge Trump and his administration by their results, rather than by rhetoric.
He pointed to the administration’s policy on Russia as one example. He argued that, while Trump has been accused of “coddling” Russia, he’s managed to severely damage Russia’s economy as well as press European countries to curtail their energy purchases that had been fueling Russia’s war machine.
“That actually, concrete, matters, right? And again, if you’re using a different lens and arbiter to look at how policies actually succeed or prevail or not, you can get to dangerous places,” Greenway said.
Greenway was also involved in crafting the Project Esther antisemitism strategy at the Heritage Foundation. Asked about how to avoid the encroachment of antisemitism on the right, Greenway pointed back to that strategy, and argued that Republicans have been more successful in fighting antisemitism in their party than Democrats.
“Republicans aren’t electing high officials that hold antisemitic principles and anti-Israel positions,” Greenway said. “I can’t say the same for the Democratic Party. … You cannot, as a Republican, stand up and make antisemitic comments and expect to survive, much less win an election or even become a candidate representing the party. It just isn’t going to happen.”
But he also said that there is a “very real struggle” to resist those trends and the problem of growing youth antisemitism crosses party lines, a phenomenon he blamed on conservatives “losing control of curricula and institutions and education.”
He said conservatives should work to reform educational systems and have zero tolerance for antisemitism.
‘They are talking to us right now. They’d love to make a deal. … I don’t think it’s time yet, but I’m willing to listen,’ the president said at the White House Correspondents' Dinner
Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
President Donald Trump speaks during the 2026 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, D.C., on July 24, 2026.
President Donald Trump said in remarks at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Friday that the U.S. is continuing to negotiate with Tehran even amid U.S. strikes on Iran, but added that he didn’t think that Iranian leaders were ready to make a deal.
“They are talking to us right now. They’d love to make a deal. I don’t think they’re ready to. I don’t think it’s time yet, but I’m willing to listen,” Trump said at the dinner, held at Washington’s Waldorf Astoria after being rescheduled following a shootout at the annual April dinner between a lone gunman and Secret Service agents at the Washington Hilton.
Trump added that if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, the country “would use it,” potentially targeting the U.S., Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East.
The New York Republican said Turkey envoy Tom Barrack’s efforts to route trade through Syria instead were ‘unacceptable’
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) during a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2025.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East subcommittee, insisted at a Wednesday hearing that Israel could not be excluded from the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor, and called out U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack for apparent efforts to advance an alternative trade corridor through Syria.
The hearing was called to focus on efforts to expand the Abraham Accords. The IMEC corridor, a proposed regional trade route that would connect Europe to India through Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations, was repeatedly raised by witnesses and lawmakers as a key next step in expanding existing normalization agreements and moving toward future ones.
“Unfortunately, reporting came out recently that anonymous Saudi officials were considering connecting these two countries through Syria instead, and just the other day it came out that Ambassador Barrack out in Turkey was also supporting this,” Lawler said. “In my mind, that is unacceptable.”
Barrack last week announced and promoted plans for a Middle East trade route through Iraq, Turkey and Syria.
Lawler previously wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking him to ensure that Israel remains part of IMEC.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted in his testimony that Iran’s ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz highlighted the potential value of the IMEC corridor.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said that the IMEC corridor would be “integral to a more peaceful and cooperative Middle East” and was dismissive of the idea that a pipeline through Syria could be a practical solution in the near-to-medium term, given the recent and continued instability in the country.
He argued that the pipeline should run through the West Bank as a job-creation opportunity for Palestinians that he said would help advance the prospects of peace.
Asher Fredman, the executive director of the Misgav Institute for National Security, said that even short of full Saudi-Israeli normalization, there were ways that the IMEC corridor and Saudi-Israeli ties could be advanced, such as allowing the transit of goods to or from Israel though Saudi Arabia, similar to how Saudi Arabia permitted airlines to fly over Saudi territory going to and from Tel Aviv beginning in 2022.
Highlighting and advancing such steps that serve Riyadh’s own interests could be a way to expand ties and move in the direction of normalization even short of an immediate agreement, Fredman said.
Witnesses and lawmakers also emphasized the importance of appointing a dedicated special envoy for the Abraham Accords, an ambassador-rank position established by Congress that neither the Biden nor Trump administrations have filled.
Shapiro also called on the administration to fill ambassador and other senior diplomatic posts in the region that the Trump administration has left absent while vesting significant responsibilities in envoys including White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
The former Biden administration official told lawmakers that efforts to normalize Saudi-Israeli relations had continued even following the disruptions of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, which would have been paired with an end to the war in Gaza and a release of hostages.
He said that Saudi demands for a component related to advancing a two-state solution have also remained consistent — repeatedly referencing comments to that effect by former Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who had long worked on Saudi-Israel normalization.
President Donald Trump announced the morning after the hearing that a new civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is “totally subject” to Riyadh joining the Abraham Accords. Shapiro and Democratic lawmakers had criticized the administration for reportedly inking that ideal without connecting it to normalization, but Friedman suggested there might be more at play that had not been reported.
Friedman argued that Saudi Arabia’s core security interests in normalization, for the purpose of countering Iran and its proxies, remains the same. And he emphasized that no new Israeli government is likely to take a more positive stance toward a two-state solution, highlighting widespread support among the Palestinian population for Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks.
Friedman said that other countries won’t be interested in pursuing normalization without a durable, bipartisan U.S. consensus in support of Israel, which he said is slipping on the extreme fringes of both parties.
“These countries are watching this every single day. … Until we know who we are, where we stand as a country with regard to Israel, no one’s going to take a gamble,” Friedman said.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a founder and co-chair of the House Abraham Accords Caucus, also warned that politicization of the U.S.-Israel relationship at home is counterproductive to the cause of normalization.
“We risk squandering the opportunity to help lead the region of the Middle East — critical to the United States — we risk squandering the opportunity to lead them to a more stable, secure, prosperous and, ultimately, more peaceful future,” Schneider said. “We have to be united in our commitment to that vision of regional integration, the vision of a safe and secure Jewish democratic state of Israel, living collectively integrated with the 21 Arab [states], the states of the Arab League, and the Palestinians and their aspirations to self-determination and peace with Israel.”
Shapiro repeatedly warned that the Iran war is a major stumbling block toward further normalization, arguing that the conflict is making Gulf states doubt their long-term alliances with the U.S. and see Israel and, to an extent, the U.S. as destabilizing actors. He said that further Israeli action against violent settlers in the West Bank would also be an important step.
Friedman said that settler violence should be opposed but argued that the scope of the problem has been significantly overstated and Palestinian violence in the West Bank has been overlooked.
In the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza, Shapiro argued that Arab publics in the region are less interested in normalization, and the Israeli public has likewise grown more aggressive toward potential security threats, neither of which are conducive to further normalization.
But he pointed to the governmental changes in Syria and Lebanon as providing opportunities for normalization.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), another co-chair of the Abraham Accords Caucus, warned that the Accords currently lack grassroots buy-in and also emphasized the need to work to maintain and strengthen the current agreements, in addition to looking for ways to expand them. She criticized moves by the Trump administration to cut funding for people-to-people peacebuilding programs.
Fredman laid out a multi-point strategy for expanding the Accords, which received praise on both sides of the aisle, including advancing IMEC, pursuing a coordinated roadmap and strategy to advance projects and other economic harmonization efforts, advancing technology and security partnerships and pursuing people-to-people connections through expansions of existing U.S. scientific, leadership and education programs.
The Jewish former Labour leader has supported Israel’s security but has declined to identify as a Zionist
Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images
Newly appointed U.K. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband departs Downing Street on July 20, 2026 in London, England.
Ed Miliband’s appointment on Monday as U.K. foreign secretary is raising questions about how the former Labour chief will influence Israel and Middle East policy under Andy Burnham, the country’s new prime minister.
Miliband, 56, had served as energy secretary under former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation last month and officially departed 10 Downing St. on Monday. As the first Jewish leader of the Labour party, which he helmed from 2010-2015, Miliband has long balanced his commitment to Israel’s security with vocal criticism of the Jewish state that has fueled some tensions with British Jewish leaders.
The naming of Miliband to lead the Foreign Office has been seen as a sign that Burnham plans to adopt a tougher stance toward Israel as prime minister than his predecessor — who had already sought to cut off some arms sales to Israel while imposing sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers and recognizing a Palestinian state in a series of moves that soured ties between the U.K. and Israel.
In the days before his recent election as Labour leader, Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester, apologized for his party’s initial response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza after the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, saying that it had been “too slow to call for a ceasefire,” and suggested he would implement further sanctions on Israel and its government along with a possible trade ban on settlements in the West Bank.
For his part, Miliband, in a statement on Monday, spoke more broadly about his approach to the Middle East, vowing the new government would “seek to end the conflict in Iran,” while “working tirelessly to seek a sustainable peace in Palestine and Israel, including an end to the terrible suffering of the people of Gaza and security for the people of Israel.”
During his past tenure as Labour leader, Miliband “certainly wasn’t an instinctive supporter of Israel, but he also wasn’t as hostile as some expected given his background,” Arieh Kovler, a political analyst in Jerusalem who previously served as the director of policy and research for Britain’s Jewish Leadership Council, told Jewish Insider. “But that was a decade ago. Attitudes to Israel have hardened across British politics and the Labour Party with it.”
Kovler added that he would expect “the Burnham government to be tougher on Israel, and for Ed Miliband as foreign secretary to be quite comfortable moving forward an agenda of, for example, sanctions on settlements and broader arms embargoes while still publicly affirming that Israel’s an ally with a right to defend itself.”
In 2014, Miliband joined most of his party’s lawmakers in what was viewed as a largely symbolic vote calling to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state — a position formally adopted by the U.K. last September.
Prior to that vote, Miliband had publicly rebuked then-Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative, during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, for his “silence on the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians caused by Israel’s military action,” which he called “wrong and unjustifiable.”
Despite his critical stances, Miliband — who drew some praise from the British far left on Monday — has defended Israel’s right to self-defense and said that “there is no place in politics for those who question” the country’s existence, underscoring his personal ties to Israel, where his grandmother took refuge after surviving the Holocaust.
“My relationship with my Jewishness is complex,” he wrote in a 2014 essay. “But whose isn’t?”
While Miliband has called Israel “a homeland for the Jewish people,” he has expressed ambivalence about referring to himself as a Zionist, declining to identify explicitly as such.
“I want you to know that if I become prime minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here,” he said in a 2014 speech to Labour Friends of Israel, after he had returned from a trip to Israel.
In his statement posted to social media on Monday, Miliband invoked his family history, noting that his parents “came to Britain as Jewish refugees from the Nazis.” His father, Ralph Miliband, was a renowned Marxist theorist, and his mother, Marion Kozak, who died in May, was a Holocaust survivor who became a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights. His brother, David, was foreign secretary from 2007-2010 under former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Miliband’s new role as foreign secretary provoked barbed reactions from some British Jewish leaders before he was even officially named to the position, replacing Yvette Cooper in part of a broader Cabinet shakeup led by Burnham, who on Monday rose to the prime ministership.
Stephen Pollard, the former longtime editor of The Jewish Chronicle, said in a lengthy post that Miliband’s appointment was the “most nauseating political appointment of my lifetime.” He harshly criticized Miliband for leading the Labour party in a 2013 vote against U.K. military action to oppose former Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad after he had used chemical weapons on his own people, calling it a “disgraceful” effort that emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade and annex Crimea the following year.
Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former British diplomat who is now a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, said that Miliband’s “record on Syria suggests that he will be a skeptic on any new military engagements in the region, and that he and Burnham will therefore be even less inclined than” Starmer and Cooper “to join the U.S. in its current campaign against Iran.”
In gauging Miliband’s “leanings regarding Israel, Gaza, Palestine and the Middle East relative to his colleagues and former colleagues,” Fitton-Brown told JI that “he is much less rabid than Jeremy Corbyn,” the former Labour leader who had faced accusations of antisemitism, “but more anti-Israel than either of his predecessors,” including Cooper and David Lammy.
“This may suggest that Andy Burnham, who may be described as left of Keir Starmer on this issue, will shift the U.K. government into a slightly more anti-Israel position than Starmer allowed, although he will want to avoid accusations of being soft on antisemitism,” Fitton-Brown explained.
Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian columnist in London who co-hosts the “Unholy” podcast, which covers Israel and Jewish life, told JI that Miliband “has deep personal and family ties to Israel, and when he was Labour leader more than a decade ago he said those ties informed his view of the region.”
“Clearly,” Freedland said on Monday, “the context now is very different — opinions have hardened against the current Israeli government and I would expect Ed Miliband to reflect that change and to do so trenchantly.”
The U.S. ambassador to Turkey floated an overland route for regional trade centered on Iraq, sidelining the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor meant to run through Israel
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Thomas Barrack attend a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Iraq Ali al-Zaidi in the Oval Office of the White House on July 14, 2026 in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack on Friday promoted a new regional trade and security alignment in the Middle East centered around Iraq, Turkey and neighboring Arab states, appearing to sideline a similar regional project including Israel.
Speaking at the U.S.-Iraq Business Summit, Barrack told attendees that Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, who visited with President Donald Trump at the White House this week, is considering a transformative agreement “that will make the Strait of Hormuz” — which has been effectively shut down due to the Iran war and continued hostilities — an “afterthought in two years” by shifting trade that usually passes through the waterway to overland routes.
“What this young leader [al-Zaidi] has in mind — aligned with Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt — is a program that will make the Strait of Hormuz an afterthought in two years,” Barrack said. “We’re going from just-in-time delivery on boats through these minor straits to just-in-case delivery going the other way.”
The proposal appears to serve as an alternative framework to the stalled India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which has faced roadblocks following regional turmoil and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks. While the original IMEC agreement included Israel as a vital transit point connecting India to Europe via the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the newly envisioned corridor relies instead on a coalition featuring Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
The State Department also released a statement on Friday welcoming the announcement of cooperation between Iraq and Syria on the “rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Iraq-Syria crude oil pipeline as a priority infrastructure project of bilateral and regional strategic significance.”
“We feel the chaos on one side, but actually, what’s happened is a brilliant realignment of security and strategic alliances in the region,” Barrack said in his remarks, with “Iraq being at the forefront of a new strategic security alliance.”
Barrack praised Trump for recognizing the necessity of working with localized “strong leaders” rather than enforcing Western-style regime change, which he admitted has historically failed.
“The connectivity of what can happen is mind-boggling,” he continued. “So, if we now take from Turkey, Azerbaijan, to Turkmenistan through Central Asia, the amount of gas that can be sent the other way towards Europe through commerce, we’re starting to find a way to create a different fabric.”
The AJC CEO told JI on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum that he was ‘glad to see’ that many of his colleagues acknowledged that the amendment to cut military aid to Israel was ‘bad policy’
Aryeh Schwartz/AJC
Ted Deutch
ASPEN, Colo. — American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch, who served as a Democratic member of Congress from 2010-2022, expressed frustration and disappointment with the decision of half of his former caucus to vote this week for an amendment to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel.
The issue, Deutch argued, is too important and too sensitive for what some supporters characterized as a show vote on an amendment, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), that even many of its supporters saw as deeply flawed.
Deutch told Jewish Insider in an interview Thursday on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum that he was “glad to see” that many of his colleagues acknowledged that the amendment was “bad policy” and “indirectly acknowledg[ed] that it would damage American interests.”
“And yet [they] turned around to vote for it anyway. That was just a really disappointing reflection of the moment,” Deutch said.
He said that members of Congress have a “responsibility” to “lead” and to “stake out positions that help advance good policy,” not only to follow trends and pressure.
“If the reason that people voted for the Massie amendment was because they see the way some of these primaries have gone — the worst part is the refusal to stand up against what we’ve seen happening,” he said, asserting that the Massie amendment and the arguments over Israel policy that have pervaded this year’s Democratic primaries don’t advance American interests or true conversations about peace for Palestinians and Israelis.
He said that members appeared to feel obligated to vote for the amendment to signal support for an “absolutist” wing of the party that, Deutch said, wants to exclude anyone who supports Israel’s existence.
“I understand that … members of Congress make decisions, they want to make a statement with a vote. But the future of the Middle East, our support for Israel, our interest in advancing the prospects for peace between Israel and Palestinians, is far too important to fall prey to a meaningless and, I would argue, ridiculous show vote,” Deutch told JI.
He took aim at candidates who have made opposition to Israel a centerpiece of their campaigns, arguing that they’re not interested in real solutions but instead in “demonizing Israel” and “undermining the very existence of Israel.” Walking away from the U.S.-Israel relationship or advocating against Israel’s existence will not advance peace, he reiterated.
Those opposing Israel’s existence are not only hurting the Jewish community but also risk “undermining pluralism in America and the ability to actually have a functioning democratic society.”
But he also drew distinctions among those who supported the Massie amendment. Some, he said, are anti-Israel and want to push supporters of Israel out of the political mainstream. Others, he said, decided to “vote for terrible policy because they thought that maybe that would help them politically.”
He said that supporters of Israel need to find opportunities for “the majority of those people” who supported the amendment to understand that, even if they are frustrated with the Israeli government, taking an “absolutist approach” is not necessary or productive.
Deutch said that AJC and other supporters of Israel can’t write off the Democratic Party or the lawmakers who voted for the Massie amendment.
“We’re doubling down on the work that we do on the Hill and the conversations that we have on helping people understand … the future of the region, especially when the Iran war ends,” Deutch said. “When the war ends, the opportunities to help our elected officials take another look at the region and how to achieve regional peace and the critical role that Israel plays in that — that’s one of the things that we’re doing now.”
Deutch said during a panel discussion on Israel and U.S.-Israel relations that it’s also important to emphasize that Israel does not bear sole responsibility for the situation in the Middle East and that other actors bear agency and responsibility for the current state of affairs.
“This is not Israel’s burden to fix all of the problems in the Middle East on their own,” Deutch said. “There are responsibilities for the Palestinians, certainly disarming Hamas, the responsibility for the Arab countries, responsibility for the U.S.”
He told JI that discussions over Israel policy can’t be divorced from talking about antisemitism and the rising demonization of Israel and the Jewish community. Members who voted for the Massie amendment “have a really important role to play in fighting antisemitism, and we’re working doubly hard to make sure they understand what the connection is here, and how the anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel leads to real-world violence.”
On the panel, he likewise warned that characterizations of people who support Israel or AIPAC as “monster[s]” — invoking comments by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — could lead to real-world violence.
Regardless of his frustration over Democratic support for the Massie amendment, Deutch told JI he still wants to work with members who are serious about issues of Middle East peace and representing the Jewish community.
Deutch also said that there are many politicians outside of Washington with whom he has engaged who don’t want to be “defined by a group” of what he described as “DSA extremists” that “sets these absolutist positions that are contrary to the way that they view the world, and it’s important to know that that those leaders exist, and we’re doing as much as we can to help lift up their voices.”
In statements about the vote, even Democratic leaders who opposed the Massie amendment said that they believed that major changes to the U.S.-Israel relationship would be necessary going forward.
Asked what a responsible and reasonable approach to the future of the relationship should look like, Deutch said that it should start with “mutual respect” for each other and recognition of “the importance of the other” — things he said were lacking in the debate around the amendment.
“With that respect comes the ability to have frank discussions about what the future looks like and how to achieve it” on a range of subjects, Deutch said.
On the panel and in his conversation with JI, Deutch also criticized Vice President JD Vance’s comments earlier this week about Israel on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
While he praised Vance for pushing back against the “most extreme” conspiracy theories Rogan presented, he said he wished the vice president would have made a case for why the U.S.-Israel relationship is in the U.S.’ interests, instead of only saying that he acts in the U.S.’ best interests.
“When you put it the way that he did, it suggests that somehow it’s not the case [that the U.S.-Israel relationship serves the U.S.]. It plays into the memes of and the conspiracy theories of Israel and the Jews pulling strings,” Deutch said.
“I respect very much the vice president is working to do what he believes is in the best interest of America, and I want him to understand that for me, that that means engaging in these conversations about the future of Israel and the Middle East, without suggesting that somehow doing that work and standing up for Israel’s right to defend itself and pushing back against Iranian aggression is somehow contrary to the responsibilities that he has,” Deutch continued.
He didn’t impute ill-intent to the vice president, but said Vance’s comments could be weaponized by others who will interpret them to mean that supporting Israel is bad for the United States.
Throughout the panel, Deutch emphasized that discussion about the U.S.-Israel relationship must recognize that Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship, and the state of affairs in the Middle East transcend and are much larger than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his individual decisions.
“There’s much more at stake in the relationship between the United States and Israel than any one prime minister,” Deutch said.
Asked by JI about comments by a fellow panelist, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, that the U.S.-Israel relationship would be difficult to repair on both sides of the aisle if Netanyahu remains in power after the upcoming Israeli elections, Deutch rejected that line of thinking.
“We have to reject this idea that somehow, whatever any individual may want to happen in the Israeli election, that there is only one outcome that can ensure the continued viability of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Deutch said. “I reject that completely out of hand, and I think those of us who are committed to the relationship have to make sure that in the policy debates that are happening, that it doesn’t become a dominant narrative. There’s too much at risk.”
Sen. Chris Murphy said that the U.S. could no longer guarantee regional security, but that might have a ‘silver lining’ by obligating the Gulf states to negotiate directly with Iran
Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Fair Share America
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) speaks at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.
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.
The Israeli leader said Turkey was 'infected by the Muslim Brotherhood' and warned the sales would upset the regional power balance hours before Trump's NATO summit departure
POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives for a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced opposition to the Trump administration’s sale of jet engines and potential sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey on Monday, saying on “Fox & Friends” that such moves “will upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority” and “America’s posture” in the region.
Netanyahu’s remarks came hours before President Donald Trump’s departure for a NATO summit in Turkey, on the sidelines of which Trump is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
“I don’t think [Turkey] should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Fox News.
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) July 6, 2026
He described Turkey as “infected by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme movement that hates America.”
Read more: https://t.co/gSW5VJLPfA pic.twitter.com/XKovNgVPJM
Last month, the Trump administration told Congress it was moving to sell more than $700 million of U.S.-made F-110 jet engines to the Turkish military and was reviewing Ankara’s eligibility for the F-35 program, in a potential change to U.S. sanctions which currently prevent Turkey from participating.
“I don’t think they should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets,” Netanyahu said on Monday, describing Turkey as “infected by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme movement that hates America.” He also pointed to recent comments by Erdoğan and Turkish ministers that Netanyahu characterized as “calling for the annihilation of Israel.”
Netanyahu’s comments echo concerns shared by a bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), who wrote to Trump last week warning that Erdoğan’s “constant and growing anti-Israel rhetoric” and ties to Iran make Turkey’s inclusion in the F-35 program unwise.
Ansari is now rejecting support from Democratic Majority for Israel after the group championed her 2024 candidacy
Photo by Matt McClain/Getty Images
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) speaks at a press conference calling for an end to the conflict in Iran outside the United States Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, D.C.
When Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) narrowly prevailed in the Democratic primary for an open House seat in Phoenix in 2024, winning by just 39 votes in a deep-blue district, the Arizona lawmaker could attribute her success, in part, to strong backing from the local Jewish community as well as a surge of outside spending from a prominent pro-Israel group.
Many Jewish and pro-Israel leaders in the state and beyond were encouraged that Ansari, who identifies as a progressive, staked out what seemed at the time like a moderate approach to Middle East policy issues amid rising Democratic hostility toward Israel over the war in Gaza — particularly in the party’s far-left wing.
Ansari, an Iranian American and former vice mayor of Phoenix, drew a contrast with her top rival, Raquel Terán, a former state lawmaker and party chair who had raised concerns among Jewish activists over her lack of clarity on key issues, such as whether she supported aid to Israel. For her part, Ansari stressed her commitment to U.S. military funding for Israel “without additional conditions,” while saying in a position paper that the United States “must do everything in its power to stop” Iran “from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” which she argued “would pose an existential threat to Israel.”
Now, however, Ansari, 34, has largely turned away from the stances she embraced during her primary, aligning with a range of far-left policy positions that have led several Jewish and pro-Israel leaders to feel they were misled, they told Jewish Insider.
Alma Hernandez, a Democratic state representative in Tucson who had been one of Ansari’s top Jewish campaign surrogates in the 2024 primary, said she “was really excited for the idea of having someone like” Ansari in office, noting that she attended the congresswoman’s swearing-in ceremony in Washington to demonstrate her solidarity.
“I have not talked to her since,” Hernandez said last week in an interview with JI. “I think a lot of folks in the community feel they were really used in a sense,” she added, alleging that Ansari “was very careful with all her words because she wanted the support and the financial backing” in a closely contested race.
Hernandez added that she did not think she could reasonably support Ansari’s reelection or ask Jewish community members to get behind her as she had in the primary race two years ago.
In an interview with JI on Wednesday, Ansari said that she has received positive feedback from Jewish voters in her district about her position on Israel. “I do believe I still have significant support from the Jewish community in Arizona,” she added, affirming that her “relationship to Arizona’s Jewish community has always been, and will continue to be, one of deep engagement and mutual respect.”
“I’m sorry that some people may feel misled, but that’s not how I see it at all,” she said, arguing that her views on the Middle East simply underscore the extent to which “the context and the situation on the ground have changed dramatically since a couple of years ago.”
Ansari said her office keeps a log of local outreach that shows most of her constituents, “if not the vast majority, are pretty in line with the American public on this issue,” stressing voters overwhelmingly agree “that what has happened in Gaza has been atrocious, that we need to really consider using U.S. leverage on how to influence Israeli policy and deep opposition to the far-right Netanyahu government.”
Still, her erstwhile Jewish supporters said they felt betrayed by her shift and questioned her sincerity. “I still really can’t believe how she played us,” said one pro-Israel leader in the state who had enthusiastically backed Ansari’s 2024 bid and was granted anonymity to speak freely about frustrations with the freshman lawmaker. “I thought she was somebody different.”
In her first Middle East policy test as a member of Congress in January, Ansari broke with progressives in backing Republican-led legislation to sanction the International Criminal Court for issuing arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials, even as she clarified it “wasn’t an easy vote.”
But since then, Ansari has adopted a more openly hostile approach to Israel that has fueled a mounting sense of disappointment among her Jewish allies who had believed she would strike a balanced tone while in the House. She is a co-sponsor of the Block the Bombs Act, which would impose sweeping new restrictions on weapons sales or transfers to Israel, for instance, and was an early backer of a Lebanon war powers resolution, introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), aimed at blocking U.S. support for Israeli military operations against Hezbollah, an Iranian terrorist proxy.
During an interview this week with Mehdi Hasan of the media outlet Zeteo that underscored her growing ties to the far left, Ansari said for the first time she believed that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza as well as Lebanon, citing a U.N. report released this month. “I just don’t think we can continue to mince our words or deny what so many credible actors and institutions and doctors are saying,” she said of her thinking.
Ansari told JI she was “deeply sympathetic” to Jewish colleagues and constituents who “find the term genocide to be extremely hurtful,” saying that she did not “believe that a word should be used as a litmus test” in political debates over Israel that have consumed several recent Democratic primary races.
“Ultimately,” she said, “being clear about what has happened in Gaza and what continues to happen is not to minimize the horrors of either the Holocaust or the violence committed on Oct. 7 by Hamas, and I continue to condemn that forcefully and continue to believe Israelis deserve to live in peace and security in the state of Israel, and I believe we need a secure Palestinian state.”
Elsewhere in the Zeteo discussion, Ansari said that she remained uncertain about where she would land on an anticipated House vote over an amendment led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to slash the annual $3.3 billion in military aid the U.S. is set to provide Israel in the 2027 State Department funding bill, a controversial effort that Jewish activists in Arizona have urged her to oppose, according to a recent email shared with JI.
She also vowed to reject financial assistance from pro-Israel groups including AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel, the latter of which endorsed her 2024 campaign and pumped more than $400,000 into the race to boost her bid, hailing her victory as proof “that being pro-Israel is not just wise policy, but also winning politics.”
“I just don’t want anyone to think that any of my decisions are influenced by any organization,” she explained to Zeteo. “They never, quite frankly, have been or should.”
Speaking with JI, Ansari said she has continued to engage with DMFI and has a “respectful relationship” with the group, even as she now disavows its support. “I really do find the villainization of the members of these organizations to be very problematic,” she said of the pro-Israel community. “That’s why I have very much not been antagonistic, because I don’t want to give in to that.”
DMFI’s super PAC declined to comment on Ansari’s remarks. A spokesperson for AIPAC did not return a request for comment.
Ansari’s lack of interest in backing from AIPAC comes as the group’s brand has become toxic in a number of Democratic primaries, particularly those in progressive-minded districts. And her shift to a more skeptical position on the U.S.-Israel alliance is reflective of broader polling trends that show eroding support for Israel in both parties — especially among younger voters.
But according to a source with first-hand knowledge of the matter who spoke with JI on the condition of anonymity to address a sensitive subject, Ansari had “worked tirelessly” in her primary to claim an AIPAC endorsement, crafting a position paper with its policy expectations in mind, meeting with AIPAC’s staff and pledging to visit Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored trip if elected to Congress.
AIPAC held off on supporting Ansari because it was unconvinced about her views and out of deference to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who was backing Terán and asked the group to remain neutral in the primary, the source noted.
Not long after she had entered the House, Ansari privately reiterated her interest in visiting Israel on an AIPAC-led congressional delegation, according to the source. But despite her prior outreach, her team said then that she did not want an AIPAC endorsement — indicating that it was too early in her tenure and she needed more time to acquaint herself with the group.
Ansari did not dispute that account but added there were irreconcilable disagreements with AIPAC that precluded constructive conversation, not to mention an endorsement. “The truth, from my perspective, is that there was never any room for policy differences with AIPAC,” she said, while stressing that the group “continued to provide feedback on” her positions that she was “unwilling to make.”
Despite having voiced interest in visiting Israel with AIPAC, Ansari said she “could not justify taking part” in a trip last year, amid “the continuation of violence in Gaza” and “well into the Trump administration.” Her outspoken opposition to the war in Iran subsequently hardened her resistance to such a trip, she suggested.
One pro-Israel activist in Arizona said that Jewish leaders who got behind Ansari in 2024 and are now stung by her reversals should not necessarily feel surprised, noting she had no demonstrable record as a strong supporter of Israel prior to her campaign for Congress.
In some ways, Ansari’s evolution echoes that of Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), a fellow progressive who was elected in 2022 after making a range of commitments to uphold support for Israel that he has since reneged on in Congress, stoking disenchantment among local Jewish leaders who were initially energized over his campaign.
But while Frost had engaged in private diplomacy with DMFI to preempt attacks as he ran against the group’s preferred candidate, Ansari actively courted and accepted support from the pro-Israel community in her primary, a key distinguishing factor of the race featuring an opponent seen as more critical of Israel.
Zachary Bell, a Jewish community activist in Phoenix who has spoken to Ansari about Israel and Gaza, said that he was “very happy with how she has responded” to the wars in the Middle East. “I am far from a super far-left, anti-Israel person,” he clarified. “I think there is a wide range of opinions on this issue in the Jewish community,” he added. “She has done a very good job seriously engaging with people across that spectrum.”
Bell volunteers with J Street, the progressive Israel advocacy group, but said he was speaking for himself. J Street endorsed Terán, Ansari’s primary rival, in 2024, and it has not backed Ansari this cycle, as she runs unopposed for a second term in Arizona’s solidly Democratic 3rd Congressional District.
A Jewish community leader in Arizona said Ansari’s shifting stances on Israel indicate that she no longer feels she needs support from former pro-Israel allies to continue holding her seat. “She’s packing her bags for reelection, and there is a weight limit,” the Jewish leader told JI. “Israel, right now, weighs too much for her.”
Adam Goodman, a Jewish activist in Phoenix who supported Ansari’s campaign in 2024, said he was aligned with the congresswoman “on many issues,” calling her “smart, pragmatic and engaging, with a long political career ahead of her.”
But while he had once praised Ansari as “unequivocal in her support for Israel,” Goodman suggested he has since grown disillusioned about the congresswoman’s current approach.
“Unfortunately,” he told JI, “she is demagoguing Israel without holding other countries to the same standard.”
Ansari, for her part, said that her views were more carefully considered than her critics speculated and dismissed accusations that she is playing politics on Israel. “I’m not somebody who jumps on any sort of bandwagon,” she insisted to JI. “I think very deeply about foreign policy.”
“We are having quite the reckoning within the Democratic caucus and Congress about all of these issues right now,” she said.
Mark Dubowitz and Karim Sadjadpour held opposing views but agreed that the MOU is ‘fatally flawed’ and favors Iran
Screenshot/YouTube
Karim Sadjadpour, Mark Dubowitz and Kim Ghattas speak at the Aspen Ideas Festival with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.
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.”
The FDD fellow, who said he was taught to hate Israel growing up in Iraq and Lebanon, spoke at a New York launch event for his book on why Arabs should reconsider their views on Israel
Lilya Espinosa, Soapbox Photography
Philanthropist Antoun Sehnaoui, Morgan Ortagus, former deputy U.S. special envoy to the Middle East and Hussain Abdul-Hussain at the launch of The Arab Case for Israel in Manhattan.
At a launch event for his book, The Arab Case for Israel, on Tuesday, writer and researcher Hussain Abdul-Hussain argued that the path to peace in the Middle East begins with Arabs reexamining long-held assumptions about Israel, drawing on his own transformation from believing anti-Israel propaganda to an advocate for the Jewish state.
Speaking days after Israel and Lebanon signed a U.S.-brokered framework agreement, Abdul-Hussain said the Lebanese people can follow in his footsteps, as the country remains divided between a faction that promotes the Iranian narrative that Israel “only understands the language of war and force,” and those seeking to reclaim the country’s sovereignty.
“The Lebanese have had their share of sacrifices for big powers. This started back in the 1960s. The Lebanese will stand up for sovereignty and independence. They’ve been thrown under the bus time and time again and this makes them always wary and they try not to stick their neck out… this is what’s keeping them back,” Abdul-Hussain said.
The invitation-only event for the book, published in February, was hosted by Antoun Sehnaoui, businessman and philanthropist, and Morgan Ortagus, former deputy U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, at the Mark Hotel on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
Abdul-Hussain, a Shia Muslim raised in Iraq and Lebanon where he said he was taught to hate Israel and the West, is now a Washington-based research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The Arab Case for Israel chronicles his unusual journey away from holding anti-Israel views, detailing his argument for why all Arabs should do the same.
“My story is the story of an average person who was told something and when he dug up the story it turned out to be something else,” Abdul-Hussain told some 50 attendees — a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims — at the event. “I was taught, like every other kid was taught, that Israel must disappear. And I believed it.”
“Over the course of my life, events pushed me to try to learn about Israel.” The biggest turning point, he recalled, was in 2000 while he was working as a reporter in Lebanon. “We covered the Israeli military pulling out of the south and that day I drove my car to the border, which at the time was just a flimsy wire so I could see Israelis,” said Abdul-Hussain. “I became really curious. At the time, I could get on the FM radio of the Israeli channels. If you were in Lebanon at the time, your sources on Israel were [staunch Israel critics] Edward Said, [Noam] Chomsky and [Norman] Finkelstein.”
After learning Hebrew, Abdul-Hussain said he “discovered everything they taught us about Jews — that they were scheming to kill every Arab Lebanese kid — was not true.
“It was a long journey and I decided this journey must be told for other Lebanese, Syrians and Moroccans to understand what they are being fed is not true. I make the case that even if you think Israel has caused you injustice, moving on is much better for your future and the future of your children and grandchildren,” he said.
As Hezbollah continues to oppose the framework agreement aimed at restoring sovereignty and establishing lasting peace, Abdul-Hussain called on Americans to support the efforts of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to resist the terror group.
“One of the main criticisms against President Aoun and his government is that he’s talking the talk and not walking the walk,” said Abdul-Hussain. “I understand that. But the guy is going all the way against Hezbollah. He’s being vilified and taking a lot of heat. The last thing he needs is for someone like me to try to push him down. Even if he’s not walking the walk, talking the talk is good enough.”
He also called on the U.S. to implement a long-term policy of protecting religious minorities in the Middle East “to make sure that non-Muslim minorities do not vanish.”
“The pattern of minority shrinking is happening all over the place, except for one place, and that’s Israel,” he said. He pointed to Lebanon where lists of registered voters show that Christians are 35% of the population, whereas 20 years ago they made up about half of the population.
“The trends are not lying. This is bad for everyone. It’s bad for diversity,” Abdul-Hussain continued.
“We in the U.S. should send the message to minorities that we are with you, that we will not let [adversaries] come after you and that Israel is something to be proud of.”
Gen. Frank McKenzie revealed that CENTCOM had previously proposed a similar western contingency plan to the Biden administration which was shot down
Ahmad Seir/AP
Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, then- head of U.S. Central Command, attends at a ceremony where Gen. Scott Miller, who has served as America's top commander in Afghanistan since 2018, handed over command, at Resolute Support headquarters, in Kabul, Afghanistan, July 12, 2021.
Former U.S. CENTCOM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie on Monday voiced his support for the U.S. to shift its military footprint in the Middle East westward, including in Israel, to mitigate threats from Iran.
Speaking on a Jewish Institute for National Security of America webinar, McKenzie said, “No one in their right mind would ever put the CENTCOM forward headquarters, you know, 100 miles away from Iran [in Qatar], yet that’s where it is. Because when we put it in place many years ago, we were thinking Iraq, we were thinking Afghanistan, we were thinking other things, and not the growing threat from Iran.”
The U.S. has long operated a sprawling network of bases across the Middle East as critical hubs for air operations, naval logistics, and intelligence gathering, housing between 40,000 and 50,000 personnel. These include Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base — the largest U.S. military facility in the region — and Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, alongside key installations in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
However, throughout the conflict with Iran, U.S. bases across the region came under repeated drone and missile fire from Tehran and its proxies. Recent reports have suggested that the U.S. is considering moving the damaged bases westward further out of Iran’s range, including in Israel.
The U.S. does not currently maintain a permanent, sovereign military base in Israel, though American forces temporarily operated out of Israel’s Ovda Air Base during the conflict with Iran and the U.S. stationed dozens of military refueling and cargo aircraft at Ben Gurion Airport.
McKenzie argued in support of JINSA’s position that the U.S. should continue operations at Israel’s Ovda Air Base on an ongoing basis.
“What we’ve got is a situation where it’s good to be close to your potential enemy, because it’s a short commute to the fight,” McKenzie said. “But it’s bad to be close to your potential enemy, because he has the ability to strike you very quickly.”
While McKenzie argued that the U.S. should maintain its existing Gulf footprint to signal continued solidarity with regional partners, he noted that an anchor in Israel would grant Washington unparalleled operational flexibility. “The goal is to spread out that necklace of bases far to the west, where you make it harder for the Iranians to reach you,” he said, though he cautioned that the strategy faces a shelf-life as Tehran continues to expand its missile capabilities.
“We need to look at basing in Israel. I think it’s a great idea,” McKenzie said, suggesting that Ben Gurion could continue to serve as a vital refueling hub for American tankers. He also pointed to Egypt, Jordan, and Oman as viable components of a broader western basing network designed to complicate Iran’s targeting calculus.
Israel provides a unique advantage over traditional Gulf hosts, McKenzie argued, because it is far less likely to impose strict political or operational parameters on American missions.
“Of all the countries, one thing that’s significant is the [host] country … they’re going to want to have a say in where those jets go when they take off,” McKenzie explained. “Probably Israel is the place where you’re going to have the fewest ABO [access, basing, and overflight] restrictions on your airplanes. That’s why Israel is a particularly attractive location.”
Beyond fewer diplomatic hurdles, McKenzie emphasized that Israel remains an ideal option because its multi-layered air-defense architecture makes it uniquely resilient against incoming fire. “That’s probably the most significant thing,” he said. Iranian strikes on U.S. facilities in Qatar and Bahrain forced the U.S. to evacuate or disperse personnel and relocate troops after missiles damaged several facilities.
McKenzie revealed that CENTCOM had previously proposed a similar western contingency plan to the Biden administration, but encountered stiff bureaucratic resistance.
“We had plans to do this, plans that were not supported by the policy shop in the Pentagon during the Biden administration. But I think now is the time to go back and take a look at it,” McKenzie said. “It just really was a refusal to examine the reality of the situation on the ground and the growing trend of Iranian rearmament weaponization, which placed these bases at a very close range to Iran under increasing degrees of risk.”
When asked whether shifting forces westward would satisfy the ongoing memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran — which requires the U.S. to withdraw forces from the “immediate proximity” of Iran within 30 days of a final deal — McKenzie remained noncommittal, expressing strong skepticism.
“I think we still need to further negotiate what removal from immediate proximity of Iran means,” McKenzie said. “It would be easy to say moving west would grant you that visibility. I’m just not sure I’d recommend that, and I’m not sure that this administration is going to want to do that.”
Addressing whether a permanent U.S. presence would put Israel at a heightened risk for more frequent or intense Iranian or proxy strikes, McKenzie acknowledged the potential but argued the protective benefits outweigh the downsides, stating: “I’m not sure how we could get to a higher level” of threat environment.
“Yes, possibly. But on the other hand, what you gain by U.S. basing there is you gain the use of those aircraft against [Iran] in order to reduce the frequency, duration and intensity of those attacks,” McKenzie said. “I’d rather have U.S. forces there than not.”
In conversation with Biden foreign policy officials Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer, Kagan said, ‘Israel's vision for the Middle East has never been a vision that the United States should sign up to’
Screenshot/YouTube
Robert Kagan speaks at Aspen Ideas Festival on June 26, 2026.
Historian and prominent neoconservative foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan claimed the U.S. was “never supporting Israel for strategic reasons” and that American strategy in the Middle East has come “to be about defending the interests of Israel,” during a live taping on Friday of “The Long Game” podcast — hosted by former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer — at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.
Finer, who served as principal deputy national security advisor in the Biden administration and also worked with Sullivan under President Barack Obama, asked Kagan if he believes Israel is still a democracy and if Israel is still a U.S. ally, “given [their] increasingly divergent interests.”
Calling Israel “at least an imperfect democracy,” Kagan said, “Our discussion of Israel [has become] one in which we began to believe that we had a vital interest in supporting Israel. We started supporting Israel out of a sense of moral obligation. And I think that was a noble thing to do after World War II and the Holocaust, etc. But we never were supporting Israel for strategic reasons.”
“In fact, much of our strategy in the region came to be about defending the interests of Israel, because they were an ally, because we felt an obligation to them,” Kagan, who has been a vocal critic of President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, continued.
“I’ve always felt about Israel roughly the way I feel about Taiwan, you know, that we have an obligation as a defender of a country that we have the responsibility for, but not that, you know, not that it somehow transcends basic understanding of our interests.”
Kagan said that in his view, “Israel’s vision for the Middle East has never been a vision that the United States should sign up to, because Israel’s attitude is basically the Arab Muslim peoples can’t — ‘we don’t want them in democracies, we want them ruled by strong men who can control them. We fear a public opinion among Arabs and Palestinians, and therefore we don’t want to give them that opportunity.’”
“I just don’t think that is a sustainable position to take over the long run in the Middle East, and it should never have been America’s position,” he contended.
Kagan rose to prominence as a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, the influential neoconservative think tank that advocated for an assertive American global role, and helped shape Republican foreign policy debates before and after the 9/11 attacks. He generally viewed Israel as a key U.S. democratic ally in the Middle East and supported a close U.S.-Israel strategic partnership.
Kagan later became one of Trump’s earliest conservative critics, leaving the Republican Party in 2016 as he argued that Trump’s “America First” foreign policy represented a break with decades of U.S. global leadership.
On the war with Iran and the U.S.’ involvement in the Middle East generally, Sullivan read from Kagan’s March 2026 piece in The Atlantic, where he argued that American intervention in the region is a causal factor of terrorism: “Had the United States not been deeply and consistently involved in the Muslim world since the 1940s, Islamic militants would have little interest in attacking an indifferent nation 5,000 miles and two oceans away. Contrary to much mythology, they have hated us not so much because of ‘who we are’ but because of where we are,” he wrote in the piece.
“The thing that I find surprising about Americans is that we’re constantly shocked that others are reacting to us,” Kagan said in response on Friday, saying the same dynamic was at play in Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which the U.S. “brought on” by embargoing Japan.
He said U.S. involvement in the Middle East made more sense “when America was solidly behind the American world order, when we were solidly behind supporting our allies in Europe and Asia, when we took it on as responsibility to maintain the overall security of our allies.” But “when we are actively abandoning any thought of supporting the international system we’ve supported” under Trump, “the one place we’re going to go to war is in the Persian Gulf? That’s what makes no sense to me.”
Plus, GOP lawmakers speak out against WH's Hezbollah stance
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at a "Rental Ripoff" hearing at Fordham University in the Bronx borough of New York on March 11, 2026, in New York City.
Good Tuesday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we speak with former White House officials and Middle East experts about the Trump administration’s move to lift sanctions on Iranian oil sales through August, and report on the concerns of Senate Republicans over the U.S. effort to halt Israeli operations against Hezbollah. We report on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s intervention in today’s New York primaries, as well as the mayor’s comments doubling down on his rhetorical assault on AIPAC. We also report on a highly charged telephone call between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as revealed in a new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Sen. Susan Collins, Rep. Steny Hoyer and Ambassador Yehuda Kaploun.
Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by JI Israel Editor Tamara Zieve and U.S. Editor Danielle Cohen-Kanik, with an assist from Marc Rod. Have a tip? Email us here.
What We’re Watching
- Voters in Maryland, New York and Utah are heading to the polls for their primaries today. The biggest races to watch are in New York, where New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has endorsed three far-left, anti-Israel candidates running against Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) and Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. We’re also closely watching the hotly contested Democratic primary to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), in a Manhattan district with the largest Jewish constituency in the country.
- In Maryland, we’re keeping a close eye on the race to replace former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), where state Del. Adrian Boafo, endorsed by the outgoing congressman and a strong ally of Israel, has emerged as the favorite. See more below.
- Israeli and Lebanese representatives are expected to begin multiday talks in Washington in a continuation of the countries’ direct negotiations, starting with a joint military and political session, days after the U.S. and Iran said they had established a “deconfliction cell” to end military operations in Lebanon without Israel’s involvement.
- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted multiple times on Monday that the IDF retains the right to act against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon if necessary, as Axios reported that the Israeli government fears the U.S. is limiting its freedom of action through its negotiations with Iran. On Tuesday morning, the IDF said it struck armed terrorists operating close to Israeli soldiers in Ali al-Taher Ridge area in southern Lebanon.
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio is departing for a three-day trip to the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain to discuss issues including the memorandum of understanding with Iran and transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
- Orthodox Union Advocacy will hold its annual lobbying day on the Hill, including a luncheon with senators from both parties.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S matthew kassel
As Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) prepares to step down at the end of his current term, the former Democratic House majority leader is staking his pro-Israel legacy on a little-known candidate who he hopes will uphold his long-standing commitment to maintaining a close relationship with the Jewish state.
In throwing his support behind Adrian Boafo, a 32-year-old Maryland state delegate who is among two dozen Democratic candidates running in Maryland’s 5th Congressional District primary on Tuesday, Hoyer, 87, is using his connections to establishment party leaders and ties with pro-Israel groups to boost his hand-picked choice to the nomination for a safely blue seat.
United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, has emerged as the biggest spender in the race, investing more than $5.7 million as part of an aggressive effort to promote Boafo launched by Hoyer and his allies.
The well-funded foray is a useful illustration of the degree to which planning and organization helped put Boafo in contention for the seat Hoyer has held for 45 years, in contrast with recent primaries where UDP and other pro-Israel advocacy groups have been relatively cautious with their engagement while being outflanked by the far left.
A UDP source, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the race, said polling showed Boafo was not in the lead when Hoyer endorsed him in January. “It’s a super close race that could go either way,” the source told Jewish Insider on Monday, stressing a high level of undecided primary voters. “Many candidates are in contention.”
EASY MONEY

Former White House officials and Middle East experts are expressing concern over the Trump administration’s move to lift sanctions on Iranian oil sales through August, warning that Tehran will gain significant revenue it could use for malign activities before it demonstrates concrete progress on its diplomatic commitments, Jewish Insider’s Matthew Shea reports. The move was made in response to Tehran’s agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz and allow international nuclear inspectors into the country following weekend talks in Switzerland, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a claim which Iranian officials have denied.
Airing concerns: When asked whether the Iranians could use the profits from oil sales for malign activity, President Donald Trump said “they’re not supposed to be doing that,” and that Tehran is meant to use the income to purchase agricultural goods from the U.S. “Why give them the money to stabilize the regime and start rebuilding their military before they have done anything at all on their nuclear program?” Elliott Abrams, who served as special envoy for Iran during the first Trump administration, asked. “Why do we just get promises while they get billions?”
Talking to terror: Vice President JD Vance on Monday backed Iran’s participation in bringing about the end of the military conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, while talking at a press conference in Switzerland. “Of course, Israel has to respond to that,” he said of Hezbollah attacks on northern Israeli towns, “but … we could actually have a better and more peaceful situation if Israel responds in the context of a conversation that’s ongoing between Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel and other partners in the region.”









































































































































