Rev. Johnnie Moore, a member of President Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory committee, has years of experience with complex situations in the Middle East. He helped evacuate Christian refugees under threat from ISIS and has advocated for religious freedom and tolerance for minorities in the region.

But the challenges Moore faces as executive chairman of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the U.S. group, supported by Israel, that began distributing food and humanitarian aid in Gaza in May, have been unique. 

Since its inception, GHF has faced a pervasive negative narrative in the international media and among aid organizations. More recent statements from U.N. and other aid groups in effect accuse the GHF of being an IDF front luring Gaza residents to one place so they can be attacked, while largely ignoring Hamas violence against Palestinians working with the GHF.

In a wide-ranging interview this week with the Misgav Institute for National Security’s “Mideast Horizons” podcast, co-hosted by Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov, Moore pushed back against what he says are false narratives about the group’s work and accused aid organizations of “sabotage” and spreading disinformation, while acknowledging the challenges of aid distribution in an active war zone.

*****

GHF is addressing “a problem that everyone knew and admitted existed … and now everyone has amnesia,” Moore said. “The vast majority of humanitarian assistance that has gone into the Gaza Strip over many, many, many years, was almost immediately diverted into the hands of Hamas, and then used for various nefarious purposes. And I’m not talking about some of the aid — I’m talking about almost all of the aid.”

As such, the mission of GHF is to equally and directly distribute aid to Gazans without having it be “used to prolong a conflict or hoarded,” he said.

Since the beginning of GHF’s operations on May 26, the organization has opened four distribution sites in southern Gaza, from which it said it has provided Gazans with over 958,000 boxes of food. Moore said the GHF calculates meals with a greater caloric value than what the U.N. aid organizations distribute, and by the GHF’s count, it has distributed over 54.8 million meals.

“In an objective world, this would be viewed as an incredible success,” Moore said. “To my great surprise, we poked a number of bears that I wasn’t anticipating, and not all of them are Hamas threatening our local aid workers and the Americans helping these people. A lot of [the antagonists] wear suits and are in places like Geneva and New York City.”

Moore quipped that he has faced “lots of trouble” in his career advocating for religious freedom for Christian minorities around the world, including death threats and sanctions from the Chinese Communist Party, but that the negative response to GHF is unique.

“Respectable — I don’t even call them respectable anymore — elite organizations that we would assume [have] good intent have just attacked us again and again. The whole time, we’re like ‘cooperate with us … teach us, let’s find ways of solving problems together,’” to no avail, he said.

Moore said he would have liked to collaborate with major humanitarian organizations, such as the World Food Program, but that the U.N. has “been trying to sabotage us from the very beginning.” 

“We’d really like the people whose job it has been to do this for many years to decide to help us,” he added. “Instead, they spread lies that originate in Hamas and try to shut us down, and I can’t think of anything more immoral than trying to shut down an operation that’s … feeding millions and millions of meals every day.”

Moore said details his staff on the ground in Gaza have heard from residents have been “a shock to us,” and revealing about other humanitarian aid groups’ conduct.

“Early on, we had a number of people who wanted to confirm that the aid was free, because in every other circumstance, their experience was that the aid that was coming in from the United Nations and other organizations was being taken and sold to them. It was unbelievable to them that we were giving this stuff away for free,” Moore said. 

Moore pushed back against news stories associating death and killing in Gaza with the GHF and its distribution sites, slamming them as “lies.” 

“We didn’t wait for a ceasefire to start our aid distribution. We’re distributing aid in the middle of a hot war,” he said. “There have been incidents in the Gaza Strip of civilians being killed. But what’s clear is that there is this very intentional disinformation campaign that is trying to say that … the GHF is a death trap, that we exist not to feed people 50 million meals, but to lure people. This is the lie that they keep telling.” 

Hamas has dedicated extensive efforts to delegitimizing GHF in the eyes of the world and trying to threaten and scare Gaza residents seeking food from GHF, Moore said.

“They release these statistics every single day and they say that all these people are being killed at our aid sites or in close proximity to our aid sites,” Moore said. “This is their primary way of both trying to scare Gazans [from] getting our aid, trying to force us to shut down, trying to force European governments not to fund us, for the United Nations to continue opposing us.” 

Moore has been actively pushing back on social media against false claims about GHF, and called on the media and international organizations to scrutinize claims from the terrorist organization in Gaza, “but no one is asking hard questions,” he lamented.

“What about the prolific evidence that we do have of Hamas intentionally killing people and then attributing their murder to the GHF or others?” he added.

Moore said that “sometimes you read all these crazy headlines and you’re like, ‘Am I deceiving myself here?’ but we’re actually talking to the people [of Gaza] every day, and it seems [reality] really is in many cases the exact opposite.”

On the ground in Gaza, Moore says people are adapting to GHF’s mode of distribution, with families often getting together to trade if one needs more of one product than another. GHF also tries to be flexible under the circumstances, having morning and evening distribution times when needed to keep the process more orderly.

Some Israeli politicians have maintained that providing aid for Gaza hinders the achievement of Israel’s war aims. Some on the right, who oppose letting any aid into Gaza, argue that if Hamas can pocket humanitarian aid and make money selling it, they will continue to control the enclave. And Hamas does still retain a significant measure of control over the area, despite more than 20 months of IDF operations.

Moore agreed with the argument that Hamas’ ability to take control of aid was “prolonging the conflict,” but said that GHF’s “mission is not related to the war.” 

Still, he said that he thinks Hamas feels very threatened by GHF: “The fact is that Hamas continues to threaten Gazans and killed 12 of our local workers two weeks ago and nearly killed others and tortured others … Hamas took them to the Al Nasr Hospital and piled the dead and the injured outside … and wouldn’t let them get medical treatment, in order to send a message.”

“So I think it’s a hard argument to make that Hamas doesn’t oppose what we’re doing or isn’t somehow feeling threatened by what we’re doing,” Moore added. “Think of the fact that they issued bounties on the heads of Americans … They’re doing everything they can to shut [the GHF] down, which means that every time our aid workers, local or American, step into [Gaza], they are risking their lives in order to feed people.”

Moore noted that GHF does not operate in northern Gaza, where U.N. trucks continue to enter and are often taken by Hamas: “There was one day where 55 U.N. trucks went in and literally 52 were hijacked at gunpoint by Hamas or Hamas-linked militants,” he said. Another example he recalled was a time when “there was a [U.N.] truck that went in … Hamas wasn’t able to hijack the truck. So what does Hamas do? Hamas kills civilians around the truck to try to keep the civilians from getting what they can.”

“Amidst all of this, the U.N. literally told the BBC that none of their aid had been diverted. Zero. That was the official statement,” Moore said. “The U.N. is just lying through their teeth.”

Moore declined to share who funds GHF, but said that “the seed funding … principally came from a couple of countries, not Israel, that wanted to remain totally secret for political reasons.” Moore said he supports the decision of those countries not to reveal themselves, because of the negative narrative about the GHF, and expressed appreciation for the Trump administration for contributing to the foundation and encouraging others to do the same.

*****

Last month, Moore visited Syria with Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation and a Syrian Muslim refugee who had fled the country. In Damascus, Moore met with al-Sharaa for nearly three hours.

Moore’s approach to al-Sharaa’s new government in Syria, he said, “comes down to two things. Number one … You’re saying nice things, but can we trust you? And number two, if we can trust you, are you actually capable of doing these things?”

Following the meeting, Moore said, “I absolutely believe there will be peace between Syria and Israel.”

“I think the first priority in Syria has to be the stabilization of Syria. But I definitely left that conversation with a very clear idea of what needed to be done, of how it could be done, and of the probability in the right time of it being done in order to see peace all across the region.”

There have been contradictory reports in recent days as to whether al-Sharaa is willing to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. Moore suggested that peace between the countries may involve things that make both sides “uncomfortable.” 

“I do think many of us, including many people in Israel, misread certain aspects of this new government, all for good reasons,” Moore added, referring to those who highlight al-Sharaa’s history as a leader of an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. “Those of us who focus on the Middle East … have a tendency to be, we can be cynical, we can be conspiratorial, we can be a bit paranoid sometimes … But I always say the most valuable commodity in the Middle East is not oil or gas, it’s trust. If there’s no trust, nothing exists. And our visit was a trust-building exercise, and it was far more beneficial than I expected.” 

Moore called al-Sharaa “a type of unicorn.”

“He comes from an Islamist orientation, no question whatsoever. But I’m not sure you can take this person and easily profile him,” Moore said. “This is the last gasp of a lot of extremists and when I met with Shahra, I viewed him as being more like [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] as almost any other of the leaders that I’ve that I’ve met with, in terms of his generation, and the way he talks about solving problems and all of these things. This is a younger generation of leaders in a region with a lot of older leaders who think only about the past. I think al-Sharaa, like MBS, and a few other leaders, are future-oriented.”

Moore called for the U.S. to help Syria rebuild, because the country’s economy and infrastructure are in shambles. 

*****

Moore has also been a longstanding advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and evangelical support for Israel.

Asked about polls showing decreasing support for Israel among young evangelicals, and the rise of figures such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson who have used Christianity as an argument against such support, Moore said he thinks the decline is exaggerated as is the influence of the podcasters.

“For a long time, there was exaggerated concern about a rise of antisemitism on the right while we were watching this incredible surging of antisemitism on the left. Well, now, I’m sorry to say, but we’re seeing it on both sides,” Moore said. “Yet, it actually isn’t the right. OK, it’s a type of pseudo-libertarianism. You know that isn’t a part of the institutional right, but because of the internet, it’s much more influential.”

Still, he added, “I’m not seeing some of these actors becoming more influential among evangelicals. I’m seeing evangelicals reject these influencers as they start talking about things that evangelicals actually know quite well … like skepticism about, you know, the evangelical relationship with Israel.”

Moore said he summarizes the relationship between evangelicals worldwide with the Jewish community, and Israel in one sentence: “Your book is our book; your heroes are our heroes; and your values, while we interpret them differently, are our values.”

“You have this massively dispersed religious movement around the world, 700 million people, and they all generally feel the same, 80-90% of them, about the Jewish community and Israel, because they get it from the Bible,” he said. “I’m not focused very much on politics these days, as we try to feed Gaza, but I think the evangelical community all around the world is a positive force and I don’t think the macro trends are changing at all.”

Two Senate Republicans are urging the administration against lifting any sanctions on Iran in absence of real concessions from the regime, following comments from Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff indicating the U.S. had already rolled back some sanctions.

Witkoff, speaking on CNBC on Wednesday, appeared to confirm that President Donald Trump had lifted some oil sanctions on Iran this week, as a signal of cooperation to China and Iran. Trump also said at the NATO summit that Iran would “need money to put that country back into shape. We want to see that happen,” adding, “If they’re going to sell oil, they’re going to sell oil.”

The comments came after Trump posted on Truth Social earlier this week, “China can continue to purchase Oil from Iran” — comments that a senior White House official said did not indicate any policy shift or sanctions relief.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told Jewish Insider he had heard Trump and Witkoff’s comments and that he was not sure what they were referring to, but said no sanctions should be removed until Iran ends its support for terrorism and guarantees that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have access to facilities in Iran.

“We’re trying to get additional details, because we’re hearing the sanctions are still there, as well they should be. They still have acts of terrorism. Until we can actually verify that they’ve actually set aside planting terrorism around the region, we need to continue to be able to put pressure on them,” Lankford told JI.

He said the U.S. should not be removing any sanctions at this point, noting, “We can’t verify anything on the ground yet. … They’re literally trying to be able to block out the future [International Atomic Energy Agency] certification,” referring to an Iranian parliament effort to block IAEA inspectors from Iran going forward.

“We know they don’t have the power and the ability to be able to highly enrich uranium at this point, but we don’t have the ability, still, to be able to verify things on the ground,” Lankford continued. “And we have no shift in their policy, as far as we can tell — and certainly not in their charter — on what their stand is for terrorism in the region and to us.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that sanctions relief should “[depend] on what we get for it. If we get complete denuclearization and a peace between Israel and Iran, that might be worth talking about.”

He said that the U.S. should not remove any sanctions preemptively.

“We should get something for it. Certainly, Iran is back on its heels now, and this is exactly the right time to negotiate some sort of long-standing arrangement,” Cornyn said. “I wouldn’t do anything preemptive.”

Three House members who traveled to the Middle East last week told Jewish Insider on Friday that Arab leaders expressed to them concern about a potential broadening of the conflict between Israel and Iran, even as they acknowledged the threat posed by Iran and its nuclear program.

The trip, sponsored by the Atlantic Council’s N7 Initiative and the Jeffrey M. Talpins Foundation, took Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Don Bacon (R-NE), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and Zach Nunn (R-IA) to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain immediately following Israel’s initial attacks on Iran. A stop in Israel was initially planned, but ultimately became infeasible due to the evolving war between Israel and Iran.

The initial goal of the trip was to discuss the Abraham Accords and their potential expansion.

The lawmakers said that the Arab leaders they met with were concerned that the war between Iran and Israel would expand and escalate, and their countries would be caught in the crossfire — particularly the UAE and Bahrain, given the presence of American bases in their countries. The conversations took place before the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night.

“We heard quite a bit about their concerns with respect to a nuclear-armed Iran that would be an existential threat to every one of those countries,” Schneider said, “but also a desire to deescalate what’s happening because they rightly see [that] every day the war goes on is another day for an unintended consequence or an inadvertent escalation that could directly involve any of the Gulf countries.”

Schneider noted that the countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have publicly condemned Israel’s attacks, but he said that in private conversations, the lawmakers heard a more nuanced message and stronger opposition to Iran’s nuclear program.

“While they’re not going to celebrate what Israel is doing, certainly they are not going to cry over Israel’s success in handling Iran’s nuclear program,” he said.

Panetta said that the Arab leaders also clearly understood why Israel had taken the action that it had.

“The leadership of the countries we met with, they understand how disruptive, how much of a destabilizing force, the regime of Iran is to the region of the Middle East,” Panetta said, adding that the pushback they heard against the conflict was not as strong as he anticipated.

Bacon also said that the Emirati and Bahraini leaders were clear about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but preferred a diplomatic solution to the problem. 

Bacon said the Saudis “held their cards much more tightly.”

“They were much more worried about Israel initiating this and they focused more on Gaza than anything else,” Bacon said. “In the end, if you pushed them, they would acknowledge Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but their public face was much more critical of Israel than the other countries.”

Panetta said Saudi leaders did not discuss whether they’d be willing to use their own forces to intercept attacks from Iran on Israel, as they did during Iran’s April 2024 attack on Israel.

Privately, Bacon said, Arab leaders were in “awe of what Israel’s been able to do” in its operations inside Iran and knew “that only Israel could pull something off like this.” Bacon said he also sensed relief from those countries that Israel was addressing the threat from Iran.

The lawmakers indicated that the normalization process between Saudi Arabia and Israel had been dealt setbacks by and since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel. They said that the Saudis are demanding concrete progress toward a two-state solution before moving forward on normalization.

Schneider said that the Saudi deputy foreign minister indicated that “there has to be an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. It doesn’t have a timeline, it’s not saying a state tomorrow. I think there was recognition that that pathway and progress towards it must not be seen as a reward for Hamas and its actions on Oct. 7 and otherwise.”

“There needs to be hope and a pathway for the Palestinians for the Saudis to move forward,” Schneider continued.

Panetta noted that he had met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Oct. 6, 2023, and left with “great hope” for normalization, but that two subsequent meetings with Saudi leadership made clear that, “the Palestinian issue is definitely something that needs to be addressed prior to normalization.”

Bacon said he challenged Saudi leaders on the issue of who in the Palestinian Authority would be willing to live and coexist peacefully with Israel as the leaders of a Palestinian state, “and I didn’t hear a good answer back.”

Schneider said that there was “no love for Hamas in any of our conversations,” and that Arab leaders recognized the issues within the PA and the need for a true partner for peace with Israel.

Panetta argued that, if the Saudis want to see a two-state solution develop, “it’s incumbent upon them to be involved in these types of discussions. And what that entails is obviously something that’s going to continue to develop during the hopefully diplomatic negotiations that we must continue to have.”

Bacon added that his impression was that if Iran were “defeated significantly” by Israel, it would increase the opportunities in the longer term for the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

In spite of the regional tensions the war in Gaza has produced, the lawmakers said that Emirati and Bahraini leaders highlighted the benefits they have experienced from the Abraham Accords as they relate to Gaza, including regular access and communication to the senior levels of the Israeli government and, in the case of the UAE, easier access to provide aid to Gaza.

Bacon added that the leaders of those countries expressed “no weakening” of their commitments to the agreements, and instead focused on the benefits.

Schneider said that the Arab leaders are eager to pursue an economically prosperous future, and are focused on ensuring that Iran and other malign actors cannot disrupt that.

Bacon said that the group had hoped to continue on to Israel, the final stop on their original itinerary, by driving in from Jordan, but that plan was blocked by House Ethics Committee staff, who are responsible for oversight of privately sponsored congressional travel.

Panetta also noted that the State Department and Department of Defense did not support the prospect of the lawmakers traveling to Israel in the midst of the conflict.

Schneider said that there was “never any hesitation” from the group’s members about going forward with the trip, which left a day after Israel launched its attacks, before the scope and nature of Iran’s retaliation was clear.

“Over the course of the days, it became clear that Israel was vastly overperforming expectations and Iran was vastly underperforming expectations and so the dynamic changed every day, but what I can say is, we spent our last two days in UAE — life was normal,” Schneider said.

Asserting that President Donald Trump “owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement” in the Middle East, top Senate Democrats on Wednesday cautioned against potential U.S. strikes on Iran and argued that the president would need congressional authorization to conduct such an operation.

The signatories to the statement include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrats on several key Senate committees and subcommittees. The statement suggests that a direct U.S. military intervention in Iran would see little support among Senate Democrats.

Trump has indicated that he is considering carrying out strikes inside Iran but has yet to make a final decision.

“​​Intensifying military actions between Israel and Iran represent a dangerous escalation that risks igniting a broader regional war,” the statement reads. “As President Trump reportedly considers expanding U.S. engagement in the war, we are deeply concerned about a lack of preparation, strategy, and clearly defined objectives, and the enormous risk to Americans and civilians in the region.”

The lawmakers said they are “alarmed by the Trump administration’s failure to provide answers to fundamental questions” and demanded that the president seek authorization from Congress “if he is considering taking the country to war.” 

“Congress has not provided authorization for military action against Iran – we will not rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk,” the Democrats said. “Our foremost duty is to safeguard American citizens wherever they reside and to protect our troops serving on the front lines. The United States cannot sleepwalk into a third war in as many decades. Congress has a critical role to play in this moment.” 

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to bar military action against Iran, which could come up for a vote as soon as next week.

“[Trump] owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region. We need a clear, detailed plan outlining the goals, risks, cost, and timeline for any proposed mission, as well as how he will ensure the safe evacuation of Americans in harm’s way all across the region,” they continued. “We demand immediate, detailed answers on these and other urgent matters to determine the way forward.

At the same time, the statement describes Iran as a threat to the U.S. and its allies that “must not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon.” 

“The United States stands firm in our support for the continued defense of Israel, our partner and ally,” they said. “Our commitment to Israel remains ironclad and we urge the administration to defend Israel against the barrage of Iranian airstrikes, including through the provision of additional air defense capabilities.”

Morgan Ortagus, who joined the Trump administration as Steve Witkoff’s deputy Middle East special envoy, has now moved to a position at the U.S. mission to the United Nations, a State Department source told Jewish Insider. 

A State Department directory lists Ortagus as a senior policy advisor at the mission to the U.N., according to a screenshot obtained by JI. 

Ortagus left Witkoff’s office after a widespread purge of Israel and Iran officials at the National Security Council. Ortagus is close with Mike Waltz, President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor who is now his pick to serve as ambassador to the UN. 

Ortagus served as the State Department spokesperson during Trump’s first term, becoming a familiar face advocating for the president’s foreign policy priorities. 

While the last two months have been an exercise in diplomacy for Trump administration officials, who have crisscrossed the Middle East and Europe in an attempt to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, the last 24 hours have seen a sharp pivot from President Donald Trump to a more hard-line approach to Tehran.

“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” the president posted on his Truth Social site on Tuesday afternoon, understood to be a message to Iran after more than five days of Israeli attacks meant to degrade Tehran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. Iranian reprisals have paralyzed Israel, but resulted in damage that has fallen far short of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s threats. Khamenei responded on Wednesday that “the Iranian nation will not surrender.”

The president’s post, made following his early departure from the G7 summit in Alberta, Canada, but before his Situation Room sit-down with senior advisors, signaled Trump’s new approach to the regional conflict.

Trump’s latest comments underscore his shift away from the isolationist elements of the GOP that have dominated his administration since a purge of more traditional foreign policy-minded Republicans, including former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. As The New York Times’ Ross Douthat wrote on Tuesday, Trump’s isolationist supporters “imagined that personnel was policy, that the realists and would-be restrainers in Trump’s orbit would have a decisive influence. That was clearly a mistake, and the lesson here is that Trump decides and no one else.”

As the president’s position further crystalized — also Tuesday, he called Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei an “easy target,” but said the U.S. would not assassinate him, “at least not for now” — his post-G7 rhetoric trickled down to his inner circle.

Trump “may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,” Vice President JD Vance posted on X yesterday. “That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. … Whatever he does, that is his focus.”

It’s a notable shift from Vance, too, who has been one of the most prominent opponents of preemptive military action in the Middle East. (Vance opposed U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen earlier this year.)

Journalist Eli Lake noted on Tuesday that Trump’s “inner circle deliberating on Iran policy is very small and has been fairly tight-lipped,” adding that those advising him on Iran include Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Lake said, is “occasionally” part of the group, but was absent from recent Camp David conversations about Israel and Iran.

On Capitol Hill, while Republicans appear publicly split on the level of involvement that the U.S. should have in the conflict — from working with Israel to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility to forcing Iran’s hand in diplomatic talks — JI’s conversations with legislators indicate a different approach behind the scenes. One senior Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conference dynamics estimated that nearly the entire GOP conference is privately united on the issue of the U.S. supporting Israel in bombing the Fordow facility if Israel needs such support. Read more from JI’s Emily Jacobs and Marc Rod here.

“I think the president has struck the right position,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told JI earlier this week, “which is supportive of Israel’s right of self-defense, which is what this really is, and supporting them publicly while they defend themselves. I think that’s the right position to stick on.” Read more of Hawley’s comments here.

Trump has “handled this situation very deftly,” Hawley added. “I think his message has been pretty clear, which is that Iran is not going to get a nuke. So they can either surrender their nuclear program peaceably, and he’s willing to [have] the United States facilitate that, or the Israelis are going to blow their program to smithereens. Right now they’re choosing the smithereens route.”

Midway through June, the Middle East looks very different than it did when President Donald Trump traveled to the region just last month. 

Trump was feted by Gulf monarchs, as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates sought to make their mark on a business-savvy president by touting hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and trade deals. 

Israel was an afterthought on the trip; Trump didn’t even visit. Iran nuclear talks were happening, but nonproliferation and geopolitics were secondary discussion topics to Trump’s checkbook diplomacy. 

Israeli tech leaders at the time acknowledged that Israel cannot compete with the oil-rich Gulf states when it comes to investment dollars, and instead urged Israel to consider unique ways for the two countries to collaborate.

Now, with Israeli strikes on Iran entering their sixth day, the best way to get Trump’s attention in the region — at least for the moment — is no longer financial prowess. It’s firepower. 

“I think what you saw over the last few days is Israel’s alternative model to checkbook diplomacy,” author and podcast host Dan Senor said in a Saturday episode of “The Prof G Pod,” hosted by NYU professor Scott Galloway. 

“Israel has its own way of competing, because what Israel is demonstrating is, ‘Yeah, we’re not going to be the country that personally has sheikhs and emirs who can write checks for billions and trillions of dollars into the American economy,’” Senor said. “‘But we are the most capable ally in the world, and you, the United States, are going to get more out of this relationship than you give.’” 

Trump amped up his rhetoric against Iran on Tuesday, a clear escalation after his more restrained posture in the early days of Israel’s strikes on the Islamic Republic. 

“We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” he wrote in a post on TruthSocial, blurring the lines between Israel and the U.S. “Our patience is wearing thin,” he wrote in another. “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.” Trump rounded out his posting spree with a straightforward message: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked everything — his legacy, his global standing, his relationships with world powers — on defending Israel against the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The topic has dominated nearly every major address the prime minister has given, from U.N. General Assembly speeches to addresses to Congress, for the last 15 years. And over the last four days, Israel has been forced to put into action a plan that was years in the making — one that could profoundly reshape the Middle East in the days and months to come.

As Israeli journalist Amit Segal notes, “And so Netanyahu’s life mission became dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Over the years, in meetings with U.S. presidents, the incumbent president would raise the Palestinian issue, while Netanyahu would focus on the Iranian threat. Menachem Begin destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, Ehud Olmert did the same to Syria’s reactor in 2007, and Netanyahu vowed to do likewise with Iran.”

The writer Douglas Murray forecasted exactly this situation 13 years ago, speaking at the Cambridge Union: “When Israel is pushed to the situation it will be pushed to of having to believe [Iran] mean[s] it, and when every bit of jiggery pokery behind the scenes runs out, and when the U.N. and distinguished figures have run out of time, and Iran is about to produce its first bomb,” Murray said at the time, “Israel will strike.”

Israel’s Friday morning strikes came as the Trump administration’s announced 60-day deadline for negotiations expired, and following intelligence reports indicating that Iran was weeks away from nuclear capabilities — as Murray predicted.

What has ensued is the deadliest and most destructive direct conflict between Israel and Iran in history. At least 24 Israelis have been confirmed killed since Friday night in strikes around the country. 

For the last three nights, Israelis around the country have stumbled into safe rooms and public shelters as Iran bombarded the country with ballistic missiles.

And while the barrages, meant to overwhelm Israel’s defensive systems, have inflicted damage across the country, the vast majority of the roughly 350 missiles fired from Iran and Yemen over the last 72 hours have been intercepted by Israel’s missile-defense systems.

With Iran believed to still have nearly 2,000 ballistic missiles in its arsenal, the ongoing air raid sirens and attacks around the country could continue for weeks, stranding the more than 150,000 Israelis currently abroad as Israeli airspace remains closed. Israel’s Channel 12 reported today that repatriation flights may begin in the coming days, allowing stranded Israelis to return home. 

In the last 72 hours, more than a decade of warnings have crystallized into reality, a culmination of years of diplomatic efforts, proxy battles and intelligence operations. What happens in the ensuing days and weeks will not only determine the strategic balance of the region — it has the potential to reset the global order.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, criticizing Israel’s strikes on Iran and the Trump administration’s global posture, suggested that China might be better positioned than the United States to broker peace in the Middle East.

The 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee was a favorite of Israel critics on the left during the vice presidential selection process and praised anti-Israel protesters during the campaign. He is seen as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate.

“I truly worry now. I’m sure there’s some great strategic thinkers in the Trump administration that have now said, how is this going to — a tweet from the President today said, ‘I told them, I told them, they should have done something and here we are,’” Walz said at a Center for American Progress event, to chuckles from the audience. “Yeah, here we are with the Middle East back on fire in a way that has now expanded.

He said he is “deeply concerned” about the Israeli strikes on Iran.

“Iran has to retaliate in their mind, I’m sure,” Walz continued. “And now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this, who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and maybe we never were, I don’t want to tell anybody that … but I think there was at least an attempt to be somewhat of an arbitrator in this.”

“Consistently, over and over again, we’re going to have to face the reality, it might be the Chinese,” Walz said, “and that goes against everything [the Trump administration] say they’re trying to do in terms of the balance of power.”

.@GovTimWalz on Israel's preemptive strikes: "Iran has to retaliate in their mind I'm sure and now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some kind type agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority…we are not seen as a natural actor…it might be the Chinese…" pic.twitter.com/pi4tpnc4lD

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 13, 2025

Walz also described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “intolerable.”

“It became a central focus in the campaign — and I would say rightfully so,” Walz said. “Human rights issues, how we’re going to try and attempt to get a two state solution where we can allow folks to live peacefully and coexist and have their own self control, or self determination.”

American fascination with the Middle East and its colorful leaders — dictators and military generals and royals and Israeli premiers — dates back decades, from Saddam Hussein to Iran’s ayatollahs to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. 

One ruler has survived more or less unscathed over more than a quarter century, avoiding flashy headlines about power struggles or coups, all while keeping a tight grip on power and maintaining close, bipartisan ties with Washington. 

That’s Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who has ruled the country since 1999, taking over from his father, King Hussein, who ruled for 47 years. In The Most American King, a new biography of King Abdullah, author Aaron Magid argues that the Jordanian king’s staying power is what makes him interesting — and that the relative stability he has overseen demands attention in a region so often beset by chaos elsewhere.

“Jordan is a critical U.S. strategic partner, both in terms of money and in terms of U.S. troops — there are thousands of U.S. troops based in Jordan,” Magid, a Middle East analyst and former Amman-based journalist, told Jewish Insider in an interview this week. “But unfortunately, journalists often chase violence and wars and conflicts, and the Hashemite Kingdom has been remarkably stable over the past 25 years … Jordan, because it has less violence, it gets a lower media profile.” (Magid was a reporter at JI from 2016 to 2018.)

The book charts King Abdullah’s journey from boarding school in the U.S. and studying at Georgetown University to ruling a country whose language he hardly spoke, given his many years spent living and learning abroad. But it’s that intimate knowledge of American culture that, Magid argues, has allowed King Abdullah to cultivate the kind of lasting, bipartisan relationships with lawmakers that many other nations covet. King Abdullah was the first Arab leader to meet with Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump — in both terms — in the White House. 

Magid drew a distinction between Washington’s longtime relationship with Amman and Trump’s efforts this year to build closer ties with Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, each of which he visited in May.

“Qatar, which President Trump visited recently, is the same country that Trump called for a blockade against in 2017 for supporting terrorism. And Saudi Arabia, of course, right now might be close with Trump, but when the Democrats were in power, President Biden called them a pariah, and there’s a lot of Democratic opposition to Saudi Arabia,” Magid explained. “What makes Jordan unique is its ability to be close with both presidents and then have those very strong security ties as well.”

Jordan receives roughly $1.45 billion a year from the U.S., making it one of the largest recipients of American foreign assistance dollars. That’s despite King Abdullah’s public criticism of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East — and even harsher language from his wife, Queen Rania, who is of Palestinian descent. 

Still, despite taking a publicly hardline stance against Israel’s conduct in Gaza, King Abdullah has not seriously considered pulling Jordan out of its 1994 peace treaty with Israel, nor has he severed the crucial security ties between the two countries. Jordan also helped shoot down Iranian missiles fired at Israel last year.

“There were many disagreements with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, personally … but at the same time, King Abdullah has ensured that even though many in the country support annulling the peace treaty, he’s refused to do that,” said Magid. “Part of the reason he does that is because he’s been getting about $1.5 billion a year from Congress, and if he were to sever the peace deal, it would be unlikely he would reach that number of aid, and that aid is critical for the country. But I think he does understand that having some sort of relationship with Israel is in his benefit and his national security interest.” 

In his book, Magid reveals that King Abdullah’s public criticism of Israel was not a foregone conclusion. 

“There was a honeymoon period in terms of King Abdullah’s relationship with Israel as king, and it lasted about a year, 1999 and 2000. He says in an interview, ‘I have many friends in the IDF.’ That’s not language you would ever hear from King Abdullah today,” Magid recounted. “He praised Ehud Barak as someone who is great to work with, not something you’d ever hear him say again about an Israeli prime minister. And then he even said that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon raised Israel’s moral credibility. Once again, you’d never hear King Abdullah or any Jordanian official say anything positive about Israel’s morals in today’s day and age.”

King Abdullah has generally succeeded at balancing the concerns of Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are Palestinian, with the nation’s security needs, argues Magid. But he has “done a very poor job of providing jobs for his people,” Magid said. 

“Part of the issue for King Abdullah is he doesn’t have a grand accomplishment, either on the domestic front or on the foreign policy one,” said Magid. “But unlike his father, who had these grand moves, he has been much more toned down.”

During the reign of King Hussein, Jordan had some major victories, both strategic and tactical, as well as some major setbacks — like losing control of Jerusalem and the West Bank in the 1967 war with Israel. Still, the stability that King Abdullah has maintained is coupled with a high unemployment rate and a move even further away from democracy, which does not help his image in the eyes of his countrymen.

“When you ask people, often behind closed doors, who is more popular, his father or him, most people will say his father. His father was loved,” said Magid. “But it’s difficult to know, exactly, given that you can go to jail — and many people have gone to jail in Jordan — for criticizing the king.”

The U.S.’ moves to evacuate some State Department personnel and military families from the Middle East are seen by experts as a potential sign of a U.S. or Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program — or, at least, a signal to Iran that the U.S. is prepared for such action, ahead of a planned round of nuclear talks with Tehran. 

The moves come as President Donald Trump’s self-imposed deadline for the talks is approaching this week, and Trump has expressed public frustration with the lack of progress being made. There have been conflicting reports about whether the talks expected this weekend are still slated to occur.

The State Department is drawing down personnel in Iraq, the department said, and the Pentagon is allowing for voluntary departures of military families from locations in the Middle East. The United Kingdom, separately, issued a maritime trade warning about a potential “escalation of military activity” in the Middle East.

Dana Stroul, the research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, noted that the Trump administration had conducted mandatory drawdowns of State Department personnel in Iraq at the end of the first Trump administration. The Pentagon evacuations, she noted, are thus far optional.

“This was part of the Iran policy approach [during Trump’s first administration] to increase pressure on the Iraqi government to get attack[s] against U.S. forces to stop,” Stroul told Jewish Insider. “So some of the people making these decisions inside the Trump administration have prior experience with reducing our presence in the region as part of a pressure play against Iran.”

But, she added, a “reduction in military families in the Gulf is the first step military planners would want to take if they were trying to reduce risk to U.S. personnel before large-scale, significant military operations.”

“If you’re trying to minimize risk before significant military operations, this is what you do. But right now they’re voluntary, not ordered,” Stroul continued.

Stroul argued that, in combination with the recent call between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump’s public comments that he’s been frustrated by Iran’s posture in negotiations, “Tehran should take notice.”

Daniel Shapiro, Stroul’s successor in the deputy assistant secretary role, said that the administration “is clearly into some major preparations for possible military action vs Iran (by US and/or Israel).”

“A useful signal ahead of round 6 of nuke talks,” Shapiro continued. “Need to be prepared to back it up.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director for United Against Nuclear Iran, framed the move as a likely sign of action, noting that congressional testimony by Gen. Erik Kurilla, who leads U.S. Central Command, set for Thursday morning, had been postponed.

“Something is cooking,” Brodsky said.

John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, told JI he believes that the moves are primarily an “unambiguous signal to the Iranians in advance of the next round of talks that U.S. patience is not unlimited and that time may be running out for them.”

He said the steps will take time to carry out but “they all have the indicia of the classic playbook that the United States would start rolling out in advance of anticipated hostilities. And of course it’s all being undertaken without much stealth and secrecy, but rather in a manner that ensures the Iranians and the rest of the world will know about it.”

He added that it “doesn’t necessarily have to be just one or the other,” and the moves should leave Iran guessing.

“The fact that the immediate purpose of these moves might primarily be a signaling mechanism to influence Iran’s posture in the negotiations doesn’t ipso facto mean it’s all just a bluff — although, if we’re honest, bluffing and then retreating is clearly often an integral part of President Trump’s negotiating MO and the ‘art of the deal,’” Hannah said. “That said, it could also be a deadly serious first step to put Iran on notice that it’s got one last chance to take the deal on offer or face the wrath of a U.S. military strike.” 

“Trump is perfectly capable of going either way and the Iranians shouldn’t sleep too comfortably trying to figure out which one of those possibilities  they’re facing,” he continued. “If they guess wrong, the outcome for them is potentially catastrophic.”

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, framed the moves more as a negotiating tactic.

“Ahead of round 6, the U.S. is signaling: failure at the table means real consequences,” Dubowitz said on X. “Starting to move non-essential personnel and families —reversible but not trivial. Message to Khamenei: you can end this peacefully, or face serious preparedness if you don’t.”

Kurilla said in response to a question from lawmakers on Tuesday about retaliation from a potential Israeli strike on Iran that the U.S. is continually assessing threats to military personnel in the Middle East and taking steps to address potential vulnerabilities.

Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, said on Tuesday that he had provided “a wide range of options” to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump for carrying out U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program if negotiations with Tehran fail to achieve the dismantlement of its nuclear program.

Kurilla affirmed, under questioning from the House Armed Services Committee, that the military is prepared for a strong show of force against Iran if it refuses to give up its nuclear program. He said that Iran is continuing to increase its stockpiles of uranium enriched to 60% purity, for which he said there are no legitimate civilian uses. 

Kurilla added that Iran is in a “weaker strategic position” than it was pre-Oct. 7, but still maintains “a lot of operational capabilities, in terms of their long-range weapons.”

He also emphasized that China, in purchasing the majority of Iran’s exported oil, is “effectively supporting and financing Iran’s malign behavior.” He said that the administration’s moves to sanction “teapot refineries” in China were a major step.

Kurilla said that a stand-alone Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would increase the risk of attacks on U.S. forces in the region, but added that “every day, we’re making assessments of our posture and our risk to force, and we made adjustments based on those. We’re fielding new systems and new equipment and making adjustments every single day.”

Pressed by Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) about Michael DiMino, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, who had previously downplayed U.S. interests in the region and opposed action against Iran and its proxies, Katherine Thompson, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, largely demurred, saying that she was not involved in DiMino’s hiring and could not speak to his positions.

She said that her superior, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy who himself made comments opposing strikes on Iran, which he walked back during his confirmation process, is in line with the administration’s policy.

“We support the president’s objective to not only, first and foremost, defend the State of Israel but second, of course, deny Iran the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. That is something that we are 100% committed to,” Thompson said. “I will also note that we support the president’s objectives and stand ready to provide military options should his strategy of pursuing peace with Iran through a negotiated solution [fail].”

Ryan said that he was concerned that “dissonance” and “lack of clarity” in the administration’s public statements on its willingness to allow Iran to enrich uranium as part of an agreement was signaling “division and weakness to our adversaries.”

Asked about the U.S. ceasefire with the Houthis, Kurilla and Thompson said that the U.S. bombing campaign had achieved the goal Trump had set out of restoring freedom of navigation for U.S. ships through the Red Sea. Kurilla pointed to a recent transit of U.S. and allied naval vessels through the Red Sea as evidence.

While the ceasefire made no provisions to halt Houthi attacks on Israel, which have continued, Kurilla insisted that the U.S. is continuing to defend Israel through the operation of an American THAAD missile defense system in Israel and other efforts to intercept Houthi missiles and drones fired at the Jewish state.

He acknowledged that normal commercial traffic through the region has not yet resumed, but said that it would be a “lagging indicator” that would increase over time as insurance rates for commercial ships transiting the region drop.

Thompson said that the U.S. is not fully withdrawing from the Houthi issue, noting that the group is still designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S., and said the administration continues to pursue a “whole of government approach” to the Iran-backed group. 

She said the U.S. is working to have Gulf partners take a greater role in countering the Houthis and “develop a regional solution that empowers our Gulf partners … to tackle the long-term elements of the problem set.”

Kurilla said that permanently ending the Houthi threat will require stopping covert shipments of weapons and weapon components from Iran to Yemen.

“They would die on the vine without Iranian support,” Kurilla said, adding that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel remain on the ground in Yemen assisting with assembling and operating those weapons.

Pressed at one point by Rep. Derek Van Orden (R-WI) on why the U.S. is not sinking ships bringing weapons to the Houthis, Kurilla responded that the key challenge has been identifying the ships and the weapons among the many ships transiting the vast area of the Red Sea. But he said that when such ships are identified, the U.S. can and has intercepted and captured them.

Thompson said that European allies have taken positive steps toward collaborating on this mission and Kurilla said that the United Nations’ inspection mechanism for Yemen had also recently taken steps to increase inspections of containers, though he said that it should require the full unloading of all containers to verify their contents.

He also noted that the Houthis have been spreading across the region their knowledge and expertise gained from upgrading Iranian drones to attack Israel. He said the group and its personnel have a presence in Iraq and are sharing technical expertise with Iranian personnel as well as members of Iranian proxy groups in Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah.

He said that the Houthis also maintain cells in Syria and Lebanon and have conducted diplomatic outreach to Russia and China.

But, Kurilla continued, Iran’s vision of a “Shia crescent” through the Middle East has collapsed with the fall of the Syrian government — ”probably the single biggest event that has happened in the Middle East” — and the degrading of Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies.

He praised Israel’s success against Iran’s proxies, at one point describing its “disintegration” of Hezbollah as “brilliant” and saying that it should be studied by every military in the world.

He said that Iran is attempting to make inroads into Iraq, but that the Iraqi government has largely rejected them.

“I would offer there has rarely been a time with greater opportunity to protect [our] national interests [in the Middle East], but only if we have the courage to step through that window,” said Kurilla, who will soon be retiring after 37 years in military service. 

According to public reporting, Kurilla has largely been seen as a hawkish voice in the Trump and Biden administrations and a close ally of Israel.

Kurilla said the U.S. is “transitioning from security guarantor to security integrator” in the Middle East, which requires the U.S. to maintain a “sufficient and a sustainable posture” in the region, as well as to improve foreign military sales to partners in the region.

Asked at multiple points about Qatar’s reliability as a U.S. ally, Kurilla defended Doha as a reliable and eager partner. He said that the U.S. is working to bring Qatar into the military supply chain to repair and manufacture shared weapons systems, noting that it had been enlisted to repair a component of a Patriot missile defense system the previous week.

“We have a phenomenal relationship with them, military-to-military,” Kurilla said. “They have been incredibly supportive of everything we do. Generally, the answer is, ‘Yes, what is the question,’ when I talk to them.”

Kurilla said that U.S. partners are also critical to anti-terrorist missions in places such as Syria and Iraq, and allow the U.S. to keep its operating force in the Middle East relatively small, even as those troops in the Middle East have repeatedly been on the front lines in the past year.

In Syria, he said that the U.S. is working with Kurdish partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, to integrate them into the new Syrian government, and said that Turkey is playing a positive role in those efforts.

But he also warned that the current Syrian government is being run by a small group of individuals and that he is deeply concerned about its stability, saying President Ahmed al-Sharaa  may also bring foreign terrorist fighters, who helped bring his government to power, into the fold. 

He said that U.S. troops remain in-country for counterterrorism missions, including one carried out against ISIS forces the morning of the hearing. But he said the U.S. is currently undertaking a process to review and consolidate its forces inside Syria into a smaller number of bases.

Kurilla further said that a key obstacle for U.S. relationships and goals in the region has been delays in U.S. foreign military sales to allies, frustrating those partners and imperiling efforts to integrate U.S. and allied systems across the region. He cited obstacles in the Defense Department, Congress and the defense production industry.

For the U.S.’ own purposes, he also noted that U.S.-produced air-defense systems are significantly more expensive than systems such as the Arrow, which is co-produced with Israel.

He added that the U.S. had learned much, particularly in improving technical and software capacities for air defense systems, from its ongoing operations in the Middle East.

Multiple Democrats pressed Kurilla on what role the U.S. military could play in delivering aid to civilians in Gaza. Kurilla said that the U.S. government is currently not involved in aid delivery, but highlighted the efforts of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a positive step.

“Hamas hates that because Hamas no longer has control over that distribution,” Kurilla said.

He said the military would be prepared to assist if asked to do so.

Wayne Wall, an under-the-radar former military and intelligence official, is now the National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East, a source familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider.

Axios first reported the news, citing a U.S. official and a source familiar with the issue.

Wall is among the first new hires at the NSC since the administration purged officials hired by former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, including those leading the Middle East, Israel and Iran portfolios.

Wall’s public record and online presence is minimal — a LinkedIn page matching his background appears to have recently been deleted, and his X account has no active posts. Searches indicate that he was, until earlier this year, active on the platform but has since deleted all of his posts and replies.

Several conservative and pro-Israel leaders outside of government and on the Hill contacted about Wall said they were not familiar with him until rumors began to circulate about his appointment to the NSC, which was not announced publicly. The NSC has not responded to requests for comment about his appointment.

A page on the site RocketReach appearing to match Wall’s background lists him as a division chief at the Defense Intelligence Agency and a former Army officer serving in the Middle East who holds a master’s degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

A preview of his deleted LinkedIn profile available through Google search results lists Wall as a retired Army officer with more than 23 years of active service and 14 years as a Middle East specialist.

Many of the conversations in which Wall appears to have been involved on X relate to cryptocurrency. The X account bio also describes Wall as a retired Army officer.

Wall follows just 49 accounts on the platform, mostly administration officials. Accounts directly related to the Middle East include the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, an anti-Israel think tank that has accused Israel of genocide, the Middle East Institute and the page for the Middle East program at the Chatham House. All three are among the most recent accounts he has followed.

Some of Wall’s first follows on the platform include right-wing figures such as former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO). He also follows LindellTV, the media company run by right-wing conspiracy theorist and MyPillow owner Mike Lindell, Newsmax and conservative influencers Diamond and Silk and Benny Johnson.

Wall’s predecessor, Eric Trager, was pushed out in May in what one official called a purge of “the Deep State” inside the NSC.

Another week, another round of evidence showing that a growing faction of isolationist-minded foreign policy advisors — or, in the parlance of some on the MAGA right, the “restrainers” — are slowly but surely gaining influence in the Trump administration’s second term.

If personnel is policy, it suggests the second Trump term will feature a markedly different approach to the Middle East than his record from 2017-2021, which included the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and four Arab countries, the elimination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Soleimani and the withdrawal from former President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

We reported this week that the Senate will soon consider the nomination of Justin Overbaugh to be deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security. Overbaugh is just the latest of several senior Pentagon nominees who come from Defense Priorities, a Koch-backed think tank that has generally argued the U.S. should scale back its involvement in global conflicts, including in the Middle East. 

It’s not just at the Defense Department. A senior State Department official told Jewish Insider that at Foggy Bottom, too, the “restrainers” are ascendant. Morgan Ortagus, an Iran hawk who has been serving as deputy Middle East special envoy under Steve Witkoff, plans to depart the office. At the National Security Council, top officials focused on Israel and the Middle East were pushed out last month as President Donald Trump seeks to centralize foreign policy decision-making in the Oval Office. 

This story is more than just a gossipy tale of White House palace intrigue. This factional foreign policy battle is set to have major global consequences. The impact is already clear: Trump is pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran, led by Witkoff, that may result in a deal — one that reportedly could allow Iran to at least temporarily continue enriching uranium, a position that would have been unimaginable in Trump’s first term.

The ongoing, ever-extending negotiations and apparent concessions to Iran — along with occasional leaks from unnamed American officials telegraphing Israel’s military plans — have reduced the leverage to pressure Iran to make significant concessions. While Trump has threatened military action if the talks break down, the actions from the U.S. side suggest they’re eager to make a deal at any cost.

It’s not a coincidence that malign actors are taking advantage of American goodwill. Last month, Trump abruptly abandoned a bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthi militia, announcing a truce with the Iranian proxy even as the group continues to threaten Israel with missiles. While Trump claimed to have reached a ceasefire with the Houthis to make the trade lanes safer, commercial shipping companies are continuing to avoid the Red Sea and Suez Canal shipping lanes, according to The New York Times.

Trump’s reassignment of hawkish former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to serve as ambassador to the United Nations last month was the first of a series of moves that have since diminished the influence of those advocating a more traditional conservative foreign policy worldview of peace through strength, and projecting military power to deter American enemies.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also serving as U.S. national security advisor, would’ve been considered firmly in that camp until this year. But since joining the Trump administration, Rubio has managed to maintain his influence by accommodating the ascendant faction of isolationists in the administration.

Following a visit to the Middle East, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he’s very “optimistic” about the future of Lebanon under its new government, describing the country’s leaders as serious about centralizing power and demilitarizing Hezbollah.

Lankford and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) traveled last week to Baghdad and Erbil in Iraq, Beirut  and Amman, Jordan. Lankford continued on to Jerusalem while the Maine senator went on to Turkey. 

Lankford, in an interview with Jewish Insider in his Senate office on Thursday, said that he also heard from Iraqi partners that Tehran is not budging on its commitment to uranium enrichment and that regional leaders are supportive of sanctions relief for Syria.

Lankford pointed to reforms in banking rules to help allow for international investment and concerted action by the Lebanese government and Lebanese Armed Forces against Hezbollah as reasons for optimism.

“The Lebanese Armed Forces and the president were very clear: ‘We will be the defender of Lebanon. There’s not two armies, there’s one army,’” Lankford said. “They are working to demilitarize Hezbollah and to be able to make sure that they are the one army … I think there’s real progress and real opportunity.”

He said the LAF has undertaken hundreds of operations to move into and take over Hezbollah strongholds — which he said had been confirmed by U.S. military leadership — and Lebanese leaders were clear that they plan to continue to advance, seize weapons in Palestinian refugee areas and ultimately move into the Beqaa Valley, where many Hezbollah fighters have fled. 

“[Lebanese leaders] don’t want to be at war with Israel and they don’t want to have two militaries in their country,” Lankford emphasized. “They want to be Lebanon and have peaceful relationships with their neighbors.”

At the same time, he said that the prospect of normalization between Lebanon and Israel floated by some Trump administration officials appears further off. He said the issue came up in his discussions, but that Israel’s military presence inside Lebanon is a “sticking point” for Lebanon’s leadership.

“The Lebanese leadership is saying, for Israel, ‘We understand that you’re wanting to be able to have some leverage here to be able to get us to do our work. We are doing our work. This is our country, you need to back across the Blue Line,’” Lankford said, referring to the border between the Golan Heights and Lebanon. “What we all understand is that boundary, and they’re working to be able to solidify that. And I believe they’re very close.”

He said that on both the Israeli and Lebanese sides, officials volunteered their “overwhelming support” for Morgan Ortagus, the Trump administration’s deputy Middle East envoy, who sources said will depart her post soon. Lankford said that regional leaders viewed Ortagus as an “honest broker, someone who is legitimately working to try to get to a resolution in the area.”

He said that discussions about Iran’s nuclear program were a primary focus for many in the region, adding that he “heard loud and clear” from leaders in Iraq who have been in close contact with Tehran that Iran is not budging on its insistence on maintaining enrichment capacity.

“[Leaders in Iraq] said, ‘All they want is peaceful [enrichment] purposes and [Iran is] hopeful that they’re going to keep that and they’re hopeful for the negotiations,’” Lankford said. “And I just said, ‘I’m not in the negotiations but I could tell you, there’s not an interest in having a uranium enrichment program in Iran at all.’”

Asked about recent reports that the U.S. has put forward proposals that would allow Iran to continue enriching, either in an interim capacity or as part of a regional consortium, Lankford said that Iran’s centrifuges cannot continue operating.

He also said, in response to comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Iranian proxy terrorism and ballistic missile development are not part of the ongoing talks, that the proxies and missiles are central to the U.S.’ issues with Iran, and “it all needs to be addressed.”

Lankford added that Iran cannot be allowed to continue developing a missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon while it continues to enrich uranium.

“I can remember saying [in 2015] that the problem with JCPOA is that they can continue to do their weapons development towards a weapon that can deliver a nuclear weapon, while they have time to be able to [do] more study,” Lankford said. “So it provides them the two things they need, money and time, and they don’t have to slow down their weapons development.”

Lankford said that, throughout the region, he heard support for sanctions relief for the new leadership in Syria to allow the fledgling government a chance to coalesce.

“There’s also cautious skepticism about the new leadership there, to say they need to have a chance, but they need to pull together a government that respects the rights of the minority,” Lankford said. “Everybody was focused in on, how do you get a unified Syria so it’s not split up? With so much diversity in Syria, how do you actually make that work?”

He said he hadn’t discussed the prospect of sanctions relief directly with Israeli leaders, but said that Israeli leaders are very wary of Turkish influence in Syria, and of Ankara effectively attempting to annex the country.

“That’s a real threat if the Turks decide they’re just going to keep moving south and dominate that, the Israelis are not comfortable with that at all,” Lankford said. “Syria needs to be Syria, and not Turkey South, and the prime minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] was very, very clear about that.”

He said that the president of Iraq’s Kurdistan region, Nechirvan Barzani, said he’s encouraging Syrian Kurds to focus their attention on the new Syrian government in Damascus and on establishing themselves as “part of the new Syria, not a separate entity … and that’s not going to happen if they just stay to the east and don’t actually go engage with the new government.”

Lankford said Israeli leaders were “skeptical” that a ceasefire and hostage-release deal with Hamas, as pushed by the Trump administration, is achievable, and said Israeli leaders told him they plan to continue military operations until Hamas agrees to release the hostages, though he said all parties involved want to see a ceasefire and hostage release.

“[Hamas] could turn over the hostages at any moment and they’ve chosen not to do that, and so we’re going to go get our hostages,” he said, characterizing Israeli leaders’ position on the issue, adding that Hamas cannot remain in power.

He said that Israel is also focused on eliminating remaining Hamas fighters and weapons and said that Israel still has “a long way to go in the tunnels,” but is working to create “safe areas for people to live free of Hamas” and receive food aid.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the new U.S. and Israeli-backed aid delivery mechanism in Gaza, began operations while Lankford was in Israel, and he said that it was achieving its desired results in getting food to Palestinians free of Hamas control. 

Morgan Ortagus, a key member of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff’s team, is departing his office, Jewish Insider has learned. 

Ortagus, the deputy special envoy, has been removed from her portfolio in the special envoy’s office, two sources familiar with the matter confirmed to JI. Ortagus had been overseeing the Trump administration’s Lebanon policy and had wanted to take over the Syria file, but was unsuccessful in doing so. 

Israel’s Channel 14 reported over the weekend that Ortagus was expected to leave her position.

Ortagus, who supported Trump’s 2024 bid and campaigned for him, did not respond to JI’s request for comment on the move or if she plans to continue serving in the administration in another capacity. 

The White House did not respond to JI’s request for comment on Ortagus’ future in the administration. 

President Donald Trump appointed Ortagus as Witkoff’s deputy in January, which he announced in an unusual statement expressing reticence about her appointment.

“Early on Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson,” Trump said in the statement, referencing Ortagus’ tenure as spokesperson for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “These things usually don’t work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing it for them. Let’s see what happens.” 

Ortagus’ departure comes less than two weeks after Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio oversaw a widespread purge of officials at the NSC, including those overseeing the Middle East and Israel and Iran portfolios. This followed Trump’s decision to pull former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, another Iran hawk in the administration, from his role and instead nominate him to be his ambassador to the United Nations.

The staffing developments inside the administration are taking place against the backdrop of an effort by Witkoff and Trump to move ahead with nuclear talks with Iran and a continued push for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said that Ortagus was leaving the National Security Council. Ortagus was not a member of the NSC.

A group of lawmakers from more than 30 countries came together on Wednesday to discuss ways that the Abraham Accords can be leveraged to address energy security issues in the Middle East, the Caspian Sea Basin and the Eastern Mediterranean, Jewish Insider has learned.

The event, hosted by AIPAC and the European Jewish Association, was the third such meeting of the Abraham Accords Interparliamentary Strategic Dialogue, which has focused on energy issues. The meeting was the largest yet in the series, in terms of the number of countries represented.

Participants included Abraham Accords Caucus co-chairs Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and parliamentarians from Israel, Morocco, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Greece, Cyprus, Japan, Paraguay, Bahrain and a range of European Union nations.

Richard Goldberg, a senior energy official in the Trump administration and former senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, briefed the group on behalf of the Trump administration.

“Advancing normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors and strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship are two of my top priorities,” Rosen said in a statement. “As one of the co-founders and co-chairs of the Senate Abraham Accords Caucus, I’ve seen firsthand how these agreements are reshaping the Middle East — improving regional security, expanding economic opportunity, and creating people-to-people ties that make peace real and lasting. Today’s conversation made clear the importance of continuing our efforts to strengthen these ties, fostering cooperation, and widening the circle of peace and progress.”

For decades, Jewish and pro-Israel groups invested significant resources in building bipartisan relationships with key members of Congress to steer legislation, while helping secure foreign aid and blocking unfavorable initiatives concerning the Middle East.

But that long-standing playbook has appeared less effective and relevant in recent years as Congress has increasingly ceded its authority on foreign policy to the executive branch, a trend that has accelerated with President Donald Trump’s return to office. The dynamic is frustrating pro-Israel advocates who had long prioritized Congress as a vehicle of influence, prompting many to reassess the most effective ways to advocate for preferred policies.

That Congress had no formal role in Trump’s recent decisions to unilaterally reach a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen and to lift sanctions on Syria, for example, has stoked speculation that legislators could also be sidelined from ratifying a potential nuclear deal with Iran.

There are any number of reasons why Congress has taken a back seat in shaping foreign affairs, experts say, including Trump’s efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch, most recently by gutting the National Security Council. And Trump’s own power in reshaping the ideological direction of his party, preferring diplomacy over military engagement, has made more-hawkish voices within the party more reluctant to speak out against administration policy.

“Congress is increasingly irrelevant except on nominations and taxes,” Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a special envoy for Iran in the first Trump administration, told Jewish Insider. “It has abandoned its once-central role on tariffs, and plays little role in other foreign affairs issues. That’s a long-term trend and we saw it in previous administrations, but it is worsened by the deadlocks on Capitol Hill, the need to get 60 votes to do almost anything, and by Trump’s centralization of power in the White House.”

Previously, “when there was real power in the departments, congressional oversight meant a lot more,” Abrams added. “If you’re a foreign ambassador in Washington, there’s no one to talk to at the NSC, lots of vacancies at State, and while there are plenty of people to meet with on the Hill, what are they going to do for you? You need to see Trump” Abrams said, or Steve Witkoff, the special envoy to the Middle East leading the negotiations with Iran.

The executive branch, to be sure, has long held significant control over foreign policy but it has expanded considerably in the decades following the 9/11 attacks. Since then, a law passed by Congress to authorize the invasion in Iraq in 2003 has been used — and, critics allege, abused — by successive administrations to initiate military action abroad without first seeking approval from lawmakers who are constitutionally empowered to decide when the country goes to war and oversee defense spending.

Still, Congress has also long shown “disinterest” in exercising its power over foreign policy, said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “This was a preexisting condition,” he explained to JI. “By and large, Congress abdicated its oversight role before Trump even came to office,” especially as national security matters have been overshadowed by competing domestic issues such as inflation and immigration, which “resonate more saliently” with voters.

“Trump’s dominance over the Republican Party accounts for much of the acquiescence on the part of his Congress,” observed Stephen Schlesinger, a historian who specializes in international affairs. “But let us not forget that recent Democratic presidents have practically had a free hand, too, in pursuing their own global policies — with little reaction or opposition from their party members.”

Among other examples, Schlesinger cited former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — brokered without consent from Congress — as well as former President Joe Biden’s “total support” for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Republican deference to Trump, however, has set a new standard for such acquiescence, Schlesinger argued, particularly on talks with Iran. “Given the past obsessive Republican fury against a deal with Iran during Democratic administrations, still none in Trump’s party have objected to a nuclear deal with Tehran under Trump, or, for that matter, his solo decision to lift sanctions on Syria, a country led by a former radical Islamic leader,” Schlesinger noted.

“Certainly the reality of governance in Washington today is that Congress may not be totally irrelevant, but they’re an appendage to the whims and desires of the Trump presidency,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “There is little if any pushback or oversight of what Trump” and his advisors “involved in foreign policy and diplomacy are doing — and that’s a change.”

The new dynamic has forced pro-Israel groups to adapt to a new political landscape in which their traditional advocacy has been weakened by Congress’ diminished clout and lack of interest in asserting meaningful supervision over Trump’s recent Middle East policy decisions.

“There are very few remedies for this kind of a standoff where the executive branch has arrogated to itself so much power that Congress is essentially marginalized,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who previously worked on the Hill. “When you look at the question of Israel, you have to see it in the context of much broader trends.”

Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, argued that both “the administration and Congress play a critical role in strengthening and expanding the U.S.-Israel relationship, and AIPAC works with key leaders in power, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to build support for the mutually beneficial alliance between America and Israel.” 

The absence of congressional influence has come as disagreements have emerged between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government over ending the war in Gaza and nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East — where he met with a range of Arab leaders but did not stop in Israel — was one of the latest indications of deprioritization of America’s closest ally in the region.

Tensions have also surfaced amid ongoing negotiations with Iran. Pro-Israel advocates have voiced concerns that Trump’s negotiating team is nearing an agreement that could simply reinstate the deal brokered by the Obama administration a decade ago — which detractors had criticized as a pathway to a nuclear weapon since it allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.

The Trump administration has indicated it will not permit Iran to retain domestic nuclear enrichment — even as some officials have sent mixed signals on the matter, contributing to a sense of confusion over the ultimate terms of an agreement. Trump pulled out of the original deal — which was widely opposed by Republicans — during his first administration.

For pro-Israel groups, the risks of clashing with Trump on key issues likely outweigh the benefits, observers contend. “Any organization has to very carefully weigh its equities before publicly taking on the administration,” Daniel Silverberg, a former top foreign policy advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), told JI.

The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has recognized that it is now operating in a unique landscape, according to Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist who previously served as the group’s progressive outreach director in the Midwest. Before Trump was elected, Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s former president, frequently said the group “was all about Congress,” Houle recalled in a recent interview with JI. “Then, Trump was in office and he said we’re going to be dealing with the White House.”

Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, argued that both “the administration and Congress play a critical role in strengthening and expanding the U.S.-Israel relationship, and AIPAC works with key leaders in power, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to build support for the mutually beneficial alliance between America and Israel.” 

“President Trump has a strong pro-Israel and anti-Iran record, but his administration evinced early on a lack of expertise and consistency in its policy toward Iran’s nuclear program,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But recently that position has evolved and strengthened due in no small part to feedback it has gotten.”

“We applaud the administration’s strong statements and actions in support of our ally, commend Congress for passing pro-Israel legislation such as the annual appropriation for lifesaving security assistance to Israel, and appreciate President Trump and congressional leaders both making clear last week that Iran must completely dismantle its nuclear program,” Wittmann said in a statement to JI last week.

Even as Congress has failed to take formal action over points of disagreement with Trump’s recent Middle East directives, some pro-Israel activists suggested their outreach to lawmakers on the Iran talks in particular has yielded substantive results in recent weeks. 

“President Trump has a strong pro-Israel and anti-Iran record, but his administration evinced early on a lack of expertise and consistency in its policy toward Iran’s nuclear program,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But recently that position has evolved and strengthened due in no small part to feedback it has gotten.”

In public and private settings, JINSA and other pro-Israel groups, as well as Israeli officials and congressional Republicans, “have made the case that Trump needs to stick to his initial policy of dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment facilities,” Makovsky said.

“This has contributed to Trump officials pivoting in the past couple weeks to a tougher ‘no enrichment’ stand,” Makovsky told JI last week.

Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who recently launched a federal lobbying practice, said “the most important voice Congress will have is if the president makes a deal with Iran. I think that it’s really important that the Senate remains steadfast and safeguards its powers and insists, if there is a deal, it should be counted as a treaty. If he thinks it’s an amazing deal, he should have no trouble passing it.”

Still, it remains to be seen if the toughest voices against Iran in the Senate who have expressed reservations with enrichment limits and other perceived weaknesses of a potential deal will push back against Trump if he lands on an agreement that does not meet their standards. While some Republican lawmakers have spoken out in recent weeks to set expectations for a deal, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), observers say they are skeptical that Congress will ultimately seek to flex its authority if an agreement comes forward.

“The ultimate test will be if there’s a vote on Iran,” said former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), a pro-Israel Democrat who opposed Obama’s deal in 2015. “As Congress has grown more performative, it has become less deliberative on foreign policy,” he added. “The speaker’s gavel has become a rubber stamp. The result is an abdication by Congress of its delineated responsibilities.”

Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who recently launched a federal lobbying practice, said “the most important voice Congress will have is if the president makes a deal with Iran.”

“I think that it’s really important that the Senate remains steadfast and safeguards its powers and insists, if there is a deal, it should be counted as a treaty,” said Levine. “If he thinks it’s an amazing deal, he should have no trouble passing it,” Levine said of Trump’s efforts to reach what he has suggested is an imminent accord.

It is unclear if the White House will seek approval from Congress for a deal, even as lawmakers have recently stressed that an agreement would have no guarantee of surviving in future administrations if not ratified by the legislative branch.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed during hearings on Capitol Hill last week that U.S. law requires that any deal with Iran be submitted to Congress for review and approval, noting that he had been in Congress when that law, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, was passed. A White House spokesperson declined to confirm if Trump plans to present a potential deal to Congress when reached by JI on Wednesday, deferring to the president and Witkoff’s remarks from the Oval Office — which did not address the matter.

With Congress increasingly on the sidelines, some pro-Israel groups have turned to alternative forms of advocacy to buttress their lobbying efforts in recent years.

“Advocacy tactics are always changing,” James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and a leading expert on federal lobbying, told JI. “It is like war where opponents must be flexible, try new tools, assess and adjust. It is essential to be persistently focused on the best strategy, theme and message and to not rely on outdated lobbying tactics.”

“Our world has changed,” said Ann Lewis, a veteran Democratic advisor and a former co-chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, whose formidable political arm has actively engaged in congressional primaries featuring sharp divisions over Israel. “Any definition of advocacy that begins post-election is less effective than it deserves to be.”

Indeed, AIPAC’s foray into campaign politics four years ago, marking a major tactical shift for the organization, was a sign of the changing power dynamics in Washington. The group has since helped to elect a range of congressional allies, while working to unseat some of the fiercest critics of Israel in the House and blocking potential antagonists from getting elected.

“Advocacy tactics are always changing,” James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and a leading expert on federal lobbying, told JI. “It is like war where opponents must be flexible, try new tools, assess and adjust. It is essential to be persistently focused on the best strategy, theme and message and to not rely on outdated lobbying tactics.”

But as most foreign policy decisions now emanate from the White House, some pro-Israel activists say they remain frustrated by the lack of will from Congress to assert its authority, even as they vow their efforts will continue.

“It is tragic that Congress has so blatantly shirked its responsibility to act as a check and balance on the executive branch,” a senior political operative involved in pro-Israel advocacy recently lamented. “But under no circumstances does that mean we stop fighting for the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

With the Middle East in flux from Gaza to Lebanon, Syria and Iran, any week in the last 600 days would have been a busy one in Jerusalem. Still, Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) arrived in Israel on Monday at a particularly significant moment, with nuclear talks with Iran reaching a critical juncture and the U.S. and Israel moving forward with a plan to distribute humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Israel is one stop in McCormick’s first trip abroad after becoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism earlier this year. 

“There are so many issues that will be coming before the Senate … so it felt like it was appropriate to come and get the truth on the ground,” McCormick said in an interview with Jewish Insider in Jerusalem on Tuesday. “We wanted to come to Israel as a show of solidarity. It’s a very tough time now, in the aftermath of [Israeli Embassy staffers] Yaron [Lischinsky] and Sarah [Milgrim] killed in Washington, and all the polarization and the challenges with Gaza and Iran.”

In between a visit to the Western Wall and minutes before his meeting with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the group implementing the American-Israeli Gaza aid plan, which has come under fire from international aid groups on the ground, McCormick spoke with JI about the significant issues on his agenda. Tech investor Liran Tancman, one of the Israelis involved in arranging the aid distribution program, took part in the meeting with McCormick and GHF as well. 

The GHF began distributing aid on Monday, though it had to pause at one point on Tuesday, reportedly due to overcrowding. Additionally, Hamas members reportedly threatened Gazans who cooperated with the American-led effort.

“I certainly recognize … how complex a problem this is,” McCormick said. “On one hand, you want to give the humanitarian assistance that is needed to make sure innocents are able to have the support they need. But it’s also a tool that’s been hijacked by Hamas as a source of revenue, as a source of leverage and control. So, how do you balance?”

The senator noted positively that hundreds of trucks had already entered Gaza, and expressed hope that the GHF could distribute aid to families in need.

McCormick also pointed out that “this whole thing could end overnight if [Hamas] release[s] the hostages.”

His message for countries such as the U.K., France and others that have threatened action against Israel if it does not allow the U.N. to distribute aid is “to actually look at the complexity of the problem and the good faith efforts that are being taken to address it. I think that will hopefully be confidence-building for them.”

McCormick was also in Israel at a time in which the Trump administration appears increasingly concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not on board with the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic deal with the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program. Israel is reportedly preparing contingency plans to strike Iran. 

Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem led Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to tell Fox News on Monday that she was dispatched to Israel to tell Netanyahu to allow negotiations to run their course.

The day after meeting with Netanyahu, McCormick said, “Nobody shared any battle plans with me. Obviously, the administration is in close contact with the Israeli government … I think, ultimately, the defining point is Iran can’t have a nuclear program and can’t be on the path to having a nuclear program. That’s a defining goal.”

“I think there is an opportunity because I think Iran is at a weak moment due in part to incredible actions that Israel has taken against the terrorist proxies supported by Iran,” he added. “The political pressure on Iran is at an all-time high, and the capability of the Iranians is at an all-time low. So you’ve got a moment of opportunity, and I’m hoping that forces will come together to make the most of it.”

McCormick argued that Trump and Netanyahu’s remarks on Iran’s nuclear program are consistent with one another.

“I go to what President Trump said, which is full dismantlement of the nuclear program and no enrichment, those are his two red lines, and I listen to what Netanyahu said yesterday, which is, ‘I don’t trust them, but we need full dismantlement of the nuclear program and no enrichment,’” he said.

McCormick noted that former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, Israel’s opposition leader, said the same thing as Netanyahu about Iran in their meeting. 

“If the deal would come together in line with what President Trump has said, that would be something that would be welcome,” McCormick added. “It would be a huge step forward for the region and a huge step forward for the world.” 

Asked if Republicans in the Senate would accept a deal that fell short of those lines, McCormick first said that while he is not privy to the details of the current negotiations with Iran, “I don’t necessarily believe any of what I read [in the media]. I’ll believe it when I hear the president … I’m not going to talk about something that doesn’t exist yet.” 

The senator pointed to a letter signed by nearly all Senate Republicans urging the president to reject any deal that does not include the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

“I’ve been with the president when he’s talked about this, and I’ve heard him talk about dismantling [the Iranian nuclear program] … That’s the position that I think he’s taken and that I would take,” he stated.

When one negotiates with Iran, McCormick said, the first consideration must be to “take Iran at its word when it says it wants to destroy Israel and the United States,” and the second is that “there’s a history of untrustworthiness.”

“If you start with those two premises, then you have to get an outcome where the likelihood of a reconstitution of a nuclear Iran program is not something that is in the cards,” he said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress last week that the current negotiations with Iran are only about its nuclear program and not its terror proxies or ballistic missile program, though related sanctions remain in place.

However, McCormick said, “that doesn’t mean U.S. policy is only going to deal with [the nuclear program], and my basic view is Iran has been a bad actor and any … reducing sanctions should also require the complete termination of any support for terrorist proxies.”

Asked if that doesn’t contradict an offer to lift sanctions in exchange for a nuclear-only deal, McCormick said, “I don’t know what the deal is, but any treaty would ultimately come before the Senate and those are the kinds of questions I’ve asked.”

McCormick expressed confidence that the Trump administration would not try to circumvent the Senate, saying that “for any agreement to last, it needs to come through the Senate.”

The senator rejected the framing that there are two dueling foreign policy camps in the Trump administration, the more traditional Republicans and the “restrainers,” saying that Trump has been “very consistent” and that he has “a realpolitik view of supporting American interests.”

“I’ve seen lots of administrations … There are always conflicting views. That’s how good policies are made. You have a policy process where people get to argue and the president gets to decide,” he said.

Trump, McCormick said, has “made it very clear that the Israelis are our closest ally in the Middle East. There is no one that’s done more to support Israel … He’s been very clear on his stance on antisemitism. So listen, these are complex problems … but I think the administration stance has been a very clear one, and the president keeps coming back to peace through strength, which I think is one of the defining pieces of this foreign policy.”

As for the relationship between the U.S. and Qatar, which hosts Hamas leaders in its capital and represents Hamas’ interests in hostage and ceasefire negotiations with Israel, McCormick said: “From a realpolitik perspective, Qatar is an important part of bringing together the possibilities of a peace deal, but I think any funding that’s supporting terrorist organizations or any historical support should be an important consideration in the relationship.”

The senator posited that “our relationship with Qatar is moving in the right direction, but ultimately it depends on changing behavior where it’s not supporting groups that aren’t in line with U.S. objectives or allies of the United States.”

When it comes to concerns that Qatar is spending large sums of money to try to gain favor and influence the U.S., McCormick drew a distinction between the $400 million plane Qatar is planning to gift Trump to be used as Air Force One and then donated to his library, and Qatar’s large contributions to American universities.

McCormick has “concerns about the plane from a security perspective and an intel perspective. Obviously, we want to make sure that … there’s no national security risk associated with it.”

However, he called the donation of the plane “a sort of transaction between the U.S. government in many countries that happens in all sorts of different forms … It’ll go through whatever ethics review.”

McCormick said that funding for universities, however, is a major concern, not only from Qatar but from China, “particularly if there are motivations tied to it.”

“No one has been a stronger voice on antisemitism on campus than me,” he said. “Any foreign money that can be tied to supporting groups that are leading this antisemitism, I’m very opposed to. I think President Trump cracking down on these universities for their antisemitism, looking at the sources of funding, making federal funding contingent on dealing with antisemitism and making sure universities are doing their role is necessary.”

During President Donald Trump’s trip to the Middle East earlier this month, he shuttled between Gulf capitals to announce major economic deals. In Qatar, it was an eye-popping $1.2 trillion economic commitment in trade agreements and direct investment. Saudi Arabia pledged to invest $600 billion in the United States in defense, energy and infrastructure. And in the United Arab Emirates, Trump announced a series of agreements — including one to build Stargate UAE, the largest artificial intelligence campus outside the United States, in partnership with OpenAI and Nvidia — worth more than $200 billion, on top of $1.4 trillion previously committed in U.S. investments.

Missing from the list of deals announced on Trump’s Middle East junket was any kind of similar agreement with Israel, which Trump did not visit on his first major trip abroad since returning to office. Economic ties between the U.S. and Israel are strong; Israel is a larger trading partner to the U.S. than either Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Qatar, and American investors are among the biggest investors in Israeli startups. But the country lacks the liquid financial firepower that is available to the oil-rich Gulf monarchies, which risks placing Israel at a disadvantage in the eyes of an American president who sees the world as a series of business deals. 

“You try not to compete in areas where you have a disadvantage. We have a capital disadvantage. So we should compete where we have an advantage, which is on innovation and technology,” said Michael Eisenberg, who co-founded Aleph, an Israeli VC firm. 

Some Israeli business leaders and innovators are now urging the country to seriously consider adopting a strategy of “economic diplomacy” to place the country more firmly on Trump’s radar. They think that startup founders and venture capitalists stand to serve as Israel’s best ambassadors, better suited to make the economic case for deepening U.S.-Israel ties than the buttoned-up bureaucrats who populate global capitals advancing Israel’s interests.

“Founders are Israel’s best ambassadors. They travel more than diplomats, pitch to the world’s biggest investors and solve real-world problems that transcend borders,” said Jon Medved, the Israel-based CEO of OurCrowd, a global venture investing platform. “Do they have a responsibility to engage in economic diplomacy? I think they already do, whether they realize it or not.” 

Where the Gulf countries have the ability to spend seemingly endless sums of money on American investments and projects to woo Trump, Israel offers “deep tech expertise” and a venue for early stage collaboration that cannot easily be replicated. 

“We’re the lab. The Gulf can be the scale-up market,” Medved continued. “There’s a powerful opportunity for synergy, not just competition.” 

It’s not news to the American government that Israel excels in technology. In 2022, the two countries launched a strategic high-level dialogue on technology as a way to advance cooperation on artificial intelligence, climate change and pandemic preparedness. (The dialogue slowed down after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.) 

Avner Golov, who until 2023 served as the senior director for foreign policy in Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office, thinks the collaboration between the two countries should be formalized with a photo op, like the signing ceremonies Trump participated in during his visit to the Gulf. The U.S.-Israel security memorandum of understanding, which promises Israel $3.3 billion in U.S. security assistance annually, expires in 2028, and Golov thinks the renegotiation of that agreement is an opportunity to strengthen the tech and economic ties between the countries — to put Israel’s tech diplomacy to the test. 

“I envision going to the White House Rose Garden, signing, for the first time, a formal strategic partnership between Israel and America, approved in both Congress and the Israeli Knesset,” Golov told Jewish Insider. Such a deal, as Golov sees it, might also include ways to make it easier for American businesses to operate in Israel. 

Eisenberg, who has invested in major Israeli startup successes such as WeWork and Lemonade, thinks changes to Israel’s “regulatory environment” can help make the sell to American companies and, by extension, Trump. 

“We’re not going to do zero taxes like Dubai, but we need to be attracting more capital here by making our regulatory environment much simpler and lowering our capital gains taxes to be competitive with the United States so that we can bring capital formation vehicles like hedge funds to Israel,” Eisenberg said. 

Of course, many leading tech companies already have large operations in Israel. The chip giant Nvidia announced a $500 million investment in an Israeli AI research data lab in January. In March, Google acquired the Israeli cybersecurity company Wiz for $32 billion, Google’s largest-ever acquisition. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Google President Ruth Porat were with Trump in Saudi Arabia, along with other top CEOs. 

“Many of them have employees in Israel because of our innovation, but we need to build a strategy around attracting them, getting deeper engagement and using them in our attempt to build us into a regional superpower,” added Eisenberg. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long touted Israel’s startup ecosystem, but some worry he has not sufficiently tapped into that world to meet the moment, when Trump — whom Netanyahu has always sought to present as a close friend — seeks flashy financial success on the world stage. 

“[Netanyahu] should have realized that in a competition for the affections of a strongman like Trump, Israel had little to offer,” The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg wrote this month. 

But the basis of the U.S.-Israel relationship has never been purely about dollars and cents. 

“If we’re going to make sure, ‘Hey, don’t forget about us,’ it’s not about money. It’s about morality and humanity and the purpose of Israel on the world stage,” former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides told JI. “Obviously there’s this whole notion that there are a lot of deals to be done. But that’s not how we compete.” 

The top National Security Council officials overseeing the Middle East and Israel and Iran portfolios — seen as pro-Israel voices in the administration — were among the dozens of officials dismissed in a widespread purge of the NSC on Friday, two sources familiar with the situation told Jewish Insider.

Eric Trager, who was the senior director for the Middle East and North Africa — the lead official on the Middle East — and Merav Ceren, the director for Israel and Iran, were both Trump administration political appointees but were pushed out in what one official called a purge of “the Deep State” inside the NSC.

Their firings come as voices skeptical of the U.S.’ role in the Middle East increasingly establish a foothold in the administration, and as President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also the acting national security advisor, seek to restructure and slim down the key foreign policy-making body.

According to Axios, officials cut from the NSC will be moved to other positions in the government. Ceren previously came under fire from the far left and far right after false claims that she had previously worked as an Israeli Ministry of Defense official generated accusations of dual loyalty.

NSC spokesman Brian Hughes defended Ceren at the time and denied the accusations, describing her as “a patriotic American who has served in the United States government for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman James Comer. We are thrilled to have her expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President’s agenda on a range of Middle East issues.” He said she “was never employed by the Israeli Defense Ministry, let alone was she an Israeli official.”

Trager and Ceren were hired under former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who was pushed aside after he added a journalist to an administration group chat about U.S. strikes on the Houthis, and after right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer accused him of staffing the NSC with a host of neoconservatives out of step with Trump.

Trager and Ceren had maintained their positions at the time, even as several of Waltz’s top hires were dismissed.

Before President Donald Trump departed the Middle East last week, his motorcade made one final stop in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, before heading to the airport: a visit — the first by a U.S. president — to the Abrahamic Family House, a multifaith complex with Muslim, Christian and Jewish houses of worship. 

His tour, with stops inside the mosque, church and synagogue, underscored the message of tolerance that he shared in an address at a Saudi investment forum earlier in the week. 

“From the United States’ point of view, that is a signal to everybody he met in the region that week, and to people he didn’t yet meet, that religious freedom and tolerance is absolutely crucial going forward,”  Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean and director of global social action at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told Jewish Insider last week.  

Trump had just wrapped up a four-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, and all week he had spoken about the Gulf nations’ efforts at modernizing and moving away from sectarian divisions. 

“Before our eyes a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence,” the president said at the forum. 

Trump used the speech to call for Saudi Arabia to normalize ties with Israel, following the lead of the UAE, as well as Bahrain and Morocco. So could the Saudis similarly follow suit by creating an Abrahamic Family House of its own, or something similar to advance religious pluralism? 

Religious freedom experts say that’s highly unlikely. After all, it is only in recent years that people of other religions have even been able to legally practice their faiths at home, behind closed doors, in Saudi Arabia, part of the wide-ranging reforms implemented by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. But as a monarch with near-unlimited authority as well as near-unlimited resources, MBS’ next move is anyone’s guess — and that pertains to religion, too, even in this deeply religious country where the vast majority of people practice Sunni Islam. 

“I think you won’t see a version of the Abrahamic Family House in another country. I think what you will see is each country, in their own way, doing similar things in the years to come,” said Johnnie Moore, an evangelical leader who met with MBS in 2018 as part of the first delegation of evangelical leaders to Saudi Arabia. “Obviously in Saudi Arabia, the baseline is different.”

As the home of Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, Saudi Arabia has long been viewed as the standard-bearer for the Muslim world. In the UAE — a much smaller nation, where nearly 90%  of residents are foreigners there for business purposes or as laborers — Islamic law has never been applied as strictly. 

“The strategy of letting expatriates worship as they like or other cultural practices that aren’t inherently Islamic looks very different in a country where the majority of those residing in it are expatriates, versus the majority of those residing in it are Arab Muslim,” said Moore. 

MBS has made clear his desire to turn Saudi Arabia into a global business and tourism hub. Part of that mission involved his 2016 decision to sharply curtail the powers of the religious police, who for decades had regulated every facet of daily life in the country, in a bid to make the country more appealing to foreigners. 

The Muslim World League, a major Islamic NGO, hosted a forum in Riyadh in 2022 for a diverse array of global religious leaders that included Jews, Muslims, evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Buddhists and Hindus. Saudi Arabia has also made efforts in recent years to rid textbooks of negative references to Jews and Christians. 

Houda Nonoo, a former Bahraini ambassador to the U.S., touted “the presence of interfaith houses of worship across the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]” as “a powerful symbol of coexistence and mutual respect.” The king of Bahrain has promoted religious tolerance in the small island nation, situated between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 

“Building houses of worship for all religions is a meaningful step toward making people of all faiths feel seen, respected and truly welcome,” Nonoo told Jewish Insider last week, declining to specifically comment on whether Saudi Arabia should adopt a similar approach. 

Overall, true religious pluralism in Saudi Arabia remains far afield. The State Department has designated Saudi Arabia a “country of particular concern” on matters of international religious freedom since 2004, alongside China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Russia, among others.

A U.S. delegation to the country last year departed early when Saudi officials asked Cooper, the then-chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, to remove his yarmulke. The Saudi Embassy in Washington acknowledged the flub, describing the incident as “unfortunate” and “the result of a misunderstanding of internal protocols.”

But despite Saudi Arabia at times facing global censure for such incidents and for other human rights abuses, the country is guaranteed to be a major figure in shaping the changing face of the Middle East, particularly in relation to Israel’s standing in the region. 

“Without question, the most important address on this issue about how we move forward on the peace end of things is Saudi Arabia,” said Cooper. “Expect that whatever the Saudis do will have a Saudi, if you will, stempel” — Yiddish for “stamp” — “and imprint. It won’t look like whatever anybody else has done.” 

Speaking at an event celebrating Israeli Independence Day on Monday, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that he expects additional countries will join the Abraham Accords in the coming year.

“We think [we] will have some, or a lot of announcements, very, very shortly, which we hope will yield great progress by next year,” Witkoff said of the prospects for additional normalization between Israel and Arab states, at an event organized by the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Witkoff only gave a glancing mention of Iran, with which he is the lead U.S. negotiator, in his brief remarks, pledging that Tehran would never obtain a nuclear weapon, but not elaborating on the talks beyond that.

The U.S. envoy emphasized the need for Israeli unity, saying, “I urge the Israeli people to choose unity over division, vision over disagreement and hope over despair. When you do, Israel’s future will shine brighter than ever.”

Witkoff also said that one of the most joyous moments of his life was visiting with recently freed hostages from Gaza and singing Am Yisrael Chai with them and their families. He pledged to work “tirelessly this year” toward “peace, prosperity and for Israel, unity.”

The event for Yom Ha’Atzmaut also featured remarks from Secretary of Energy Doug Burgum.

Right-wing talk show host Tucker Carlson appeared to remain seated as President Donald Trump said that “the hostages in the Middle East are coming back home to their families” during his inauguration speech on Monday, a comment that drew a wide and bipartisan standing ovation from a majority of attendees at the Capitol Rotunda ceremony. 

Carlson, who received one of the most sought-after seats in Washington to attend the inauguration in the rotunda — which has a limited capacity of about 600 people — drew unusually fierce criticism from several Republican lawmakers over his decision last September to host Darryl Cooper, a Holocaust distortionist who called Winston Churchill the “chief villain” of World War II, on his show. 

Three months later, Carlson held another controversial interview with Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University professor who, in a lengthy discussion with Carlson, espoused a litany of conspiracy theories about Israel and the broader Middle East. 

Carlson and the newly inaugurated Vice President J.D. Vance have a close professional relationship. The former Fox News host lobbied Trump aggressively to choose Vance as his running mate, and the former senator has appeared on his online streaming program.

Elon Musk is facing scrutiny for amplifying Tucker Carlson’s controversial interview with Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia professor who, in a lengthy discussion with the former Fox News host released on Monday, espouses a litany of conspiracy theories about Israel and the broader Middle East, among other spurious claims that have drawn criticism.

“Very interesting interview,” Musk wrote in a post to X, his social media platform, on Monday night, while sharing the conversation with his more than 207 million followers. 

Musk’s comment is the latest example of how the brash billionaire tech mogul, who has become one of President-elect Donald Trump’s closest advisors in recent weeks, has stirred controversy for boosting extreme content on X — where he has perhaps most notably endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

In the interview, Sachs, who was once a renowned economist but now frequently promotes conspiracy theories on a range of issues, cast the fall of Syria’s authoritarian regime this month as the culmination of a decades-long plot led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to oppose any Middle Eastern government supporting the creation of a Palestinian state.

“The United States goes to war on his behalf,” he said of Netanyahu, arguing that “Israel has driven so many American wars.” 

Invoking a classic antisemitic trope about Jewish control of American politics, Sachs added that the U.S. “gave over Middle East foreign policy to Israel a long time ago, not to U.S. interest, but to Israel’s interest. That is the Israel lobby, and we don’t hear questioning of this at all.”

In the two-hour conversation with Carlson, who has hosted multiple anti-Israel guests on his streaming show, Sachs also claimed Americans were involved in the overthrow by Islamist rebel forces of Bashar Al-Assad, the ruthless Syrian dictator. He had led a “normal, functioning country,” according to Sachs, dismissing claims to the contrary as the product of misleading propaganda.

His comments otherwise touched on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, looming conflict with China and U.S. intelligence agencies, among other topics Carlson has frequently covered with a conspiratorial eye.

Musk, who also approvingly shared comments from Sachs on social media last month and has likewise appeared on Carlson’s show, did not specify in his post if he agreed with Sachs’ views on Israel and the Middle East, which do not align with the incoming Trump administration. Musk did not respond to a request for comment through X. He otherwise could not be reached.

A spokesperson for the Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment about Musk’s comment.

But as a key adviser to Trump who has been tapped to lead a new government efficiency department, his endorsement of the interview raises questions about how Musk’s assessment of Middle East policy could influence the administration’s plans to engage in the region. 

Musk’s recent actions suggest he could have a hand, for instance, in helping to shape policy toward Iran — whose ambassador to the United Nations he met with last month for a private discussion that fueled concerns among national security experts. Trump’s team has indicated that it will return to a maximum pressure campaign against Iran — and is reportedly weighing preventive airstrikes to contain its nuclear program.

In the interview with Carlson, meanwhile, Sachs said that war with Iran would be the final stage in what he described as Israel’s effort to “reshape the Middle East in its image,” while claiming that the Islamic Republic “has been asking for peace” and “reaching out to the Biden administration for the last two years.”

While Musk has voiced support for Israel and met with Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, he has faced backlash for allowing antisemitism to flourish on X, his social media site. Last year, he helped lend credence to an antisemitic conspiracy theory that is embraced by white nationalists. He later apologized for the offending post. 

During the election, Musk, who spent more than $250 million to boost Trump, also funded a GOP super PAC behind a slate of contradictory ads that targeted Vice President Kamala Harris’ record on Israel. The ad campaign, which targeted Jewish and Muslim voters in different states, was criticized by members of both parties as a cynical effort to play both sides of a uniquely polarizing issue.  

In a new book looking back at his time in the military and in several presidential administrations, former national security advisor H.R. McMaster expounds on what he thought were “fundamental flaws” in the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and why he tried to persuade President Donald Trump not to withdraw from the deal. 

In Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World, released on Tuesday, McMaster called the original JCPOA negotiated by former President Barack Obama “an extreme case of strategic narcissism based on wishful thinking” that led to “self-delusion and, ultimately the deception of the American people.” 

Yet, when Trump wanted to make good on his campaign promise to leave the deal, McMaster made clear his opposition to withdrawing from the accord. In the book, McMaster explains that he wanted the U.S. to maintain leverage to punish Iran for its behavior on matters unrelated to the Iranian nuclear program and to get the parties in the agreement to fix the deal’s flaws. McMaster said he also wanted to avoid giving Tehran the opportunity to portray itself as a victim. But as he attempted to work on a comprehensive Iran strategy, McMaster wrote, Trump grew “impatient.” 

McMaster details how he intervened in former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s efforts to certify the deal in April 2017, and how he successfully lobbied the president to recertify the agreement over the next two 90-day deadlines as required under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. “We had created a window of opportunity for our allies to demonstrate the viability of staying in the deal while imposing costs on Iran,” McMaster writes. “That window closed soon after I departed the White House.” A month after McMaster left the administration, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the deal. 

The former national security official accuses the Obama administration of ignoring Iran’s behavior in the region and avoiding confrontation in an effort to preserve the accord. According to McMaster, Obama officials “focused on selling the deal rather than subjecting it to scrutiny” by using a “red herring” talking point — the Iraq War — to pose “the false dilemma” of either supporting the deal or going to war with Iran. 

McMaster also offers his view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Trump peace plan announced in early 2020. Trump’s moves on Israel, he writes, “communicated support for Israel, but also removed incentives that might have been crucial in a future agreement.” While he described the rollout of the peace plan as “dead on arrival” due to lack of participation from Palestinian leaders, McMaster posits that the plan itself may at some point “help resurrect the possibility of a two-state solution.” 

The book itself is not a tell-all on the Trump administration. McMaster does not write about being excluded from Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the president’s trip to Israel, or his disputes with Trump and Jared Kushner. “This is not the book that most people wanted me to write… a tell-all about my experience in the White House to confirm their opinions of Donald Trump,” McMaster writes in his preface. “Although writing such a book might be lucrative, I did not believe that it would be useful or satisfactory for most readers.”

McMaster accuses the Russians and the alt-right movement of leading a campaign against him, under the hashtag #FireMcMaster, because they viewed him as a threat to their agenda of undermining America’s national security. McMaster writes that the attacks against him were “often inconsistent” in nature. “For example, one caricature on social media portrayed me as a puppet of billionaire George Soros and the Rothschild family (both of whom were frequent targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories), while articles in the pseudo-media charged me and others on the NSC staff as being ‘anti-Israel’ and soft on Iran,” McMaster recalls.