Sunday, May 24, 2026

Trump says peace deal with Iran has been ‘largely negotiated’ - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

Trump writes on social media that “final aspects and details of the deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly”

 

President Trump announced Saturday that a peace deal with Iran has been largely negotiated.

Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post.

"An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other Countries, as listed," he wrote.

"Separately, I had a call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, which, likewise, went very well. Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly. In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened," he also said.

Trump said he was writing the post from the Oval Office after a "very good call" with Arab leaders, including President Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, of The United Arab Emirates, Emir Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, Minister Ali al-Thawadi, of Qatar, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir Ahmed Shah, of Pakistan, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of Türkiye, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, of Egypt, King Abdullah II, of Jordan, and King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, of Bahrain.

He wrote that the conversations were "related to a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE." 


Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/trump-says-peace-deal-iran-has-been-largely-negotiated

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Out on a Limb, but Unmoved: Trump Will Finish the Job in Iran - Roger Kimball

 

by Roger Kimball

Trump may delay, Congress may posture, and Iran may stall—but the endgame remains the same: finish the job or repeat the failures of Obama and Biden.

 

 

I am out on a limb. The clock is ticking. On Wednesday, I wrote in my new Substack column that I thought it unlikely that “the ‘negotiations’ or (to describe what is happening more accurately) the grandstanding and playing for time by Iran will not result in an affidavit of surrender that is acceptable to President Trump.”

If that is the case, and given that the U.S. Senate is making noises about enacting a War Powers resolution aimed at “forcing Donald Trump to end the war in Iran unless he receives congressional authorization to continue it,” I suspect that hostilities will resume quite soon. Today is Wednesday. The next sleepy news day is likely Friday, May 22. Look for the short, sharp shock then or over the weekend.

Friday has come and gone. Do I feel like revising the timetable or even adjusting my prediction that hostilities will resume?

As to the first, not really. It’s Memorial Day weekend here in the States, which means that it is a long weekend. If something kinetic (I love that Greek-inspired euphemism) is going to happen in the near term, I believe that it will happen now, taking “now” in the generous sense we all accord to historical happenings.

There are both intrinsic and what we might call extrinsic reasons for this.

The intrinsic reasons include the fact that the replenishment of U.S. forces in the area is basically complete. Men and matériel are both at the ready. Too long a wait risks dulling the edge of readiness. Then too, the ceasefire has given Iran time to catch its breath, dig out and deploy its remaining drones and missiles, and resume its antic threats and posturing.

In short, as Shakespeare has Brutus observe before the Battle of Philippi,

The enemy increaseth every day;

We, at the height, are ready to decline.

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat;

And we must take the current when it serves,

Or lose our ventures.

When it comes to the extrinsic factors impinging on the president’s deliberations, most of them can be filed in the dossier marked “politics.” The conflict with Iran is not broadly popular. In part, this is because it was undertaken by Donald Trump and is, therefore, for a certain portion of the populace, most of the media, and for all of the Democrat party, by definition illegitimate.

There is also the issue of the cost of oil, which means the cost of energy, which includes the cost of gasoline. Voters do not like it when those costs rise. It’s getting towards the end of May now. The cost of oil must come down soon, or the situation will hurt Republicans, and therefore Donald Trump, in the midterm elections come November.

But maybe I need to rethink the entire scenario. Maybe, when push comes to shove (as it always does with Iran), Donald Trump will pull off a mask and reveal the ghastly rictus of Barack Obama or Joe Biden. That is to say, maybe President Trump will push back from the table and say, “We won. We’re going home. Iran can do as it likes.”

That contingency, as Jeeves would say, is remote.

Iran has just issued another in its seemingly endless series of proposals to bring the conflict to an end. This one is in two parts. Part 1: the U.S. declares that the war has ended and sets up a scheme to compensate Iran for the cost of the war. For its part, Iran would “provisionally” open the Strait of Hormuz.

Part 2: Iran wants full relief from the sanctions that America has imposed upon it and recognition of its formal right to enrich uranium. In exchange, Iran would agree to suspend enriching uranium above 3.6 percent for 10 years and would dilute any uranium already enriched above 20 percent. Iran would also commit to not developing a nuclear weapon.

What do you think of this proposal? I think that the chap who described it as “a bad joke” got it in one. “No serious American president,” he wrote, “—especially President Trump—would accept a deal that makes the JCPOA look brilliant by comparison.” Another commentator performed an admirable translation of Iran’s proposal into plain English:

1) The U.S. will give up all leverage

2) Iran will pretend to relinquish some leverage, while not actually doing so

3) Iran will then engage the U.S. in endless negotiations that never lead to any meaningful concessions

Do you believe Donald Trump will acquiesce to these terms? I don’t. On the contrary, the ultimatum the U.S. just issued to Iran demonstrates how far apart the two sides are. That ultimatum includes non-negotiable demands that Iran give up its 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and that its nuclear program shrink to one facility. It also denies absolutely any “reparations” for the cost of the war and refuses to unlock frozen Iranian assets.

Another tidbit to feed into the policy abacus: Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, it was just reported, was targeted by an IRGC-trained Iraqi terrorist called Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood Al-Saadi. This lovable chap was arrested in Turkey on May 15 and extradited to the U.S. I reckon that was something President Trump thought about when he suddenly canceled his plans for Memorial Day weekend. He skipped his son’s wedding and his trip to his country club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Instead, he returned to Washington as the Pentagon put its staff on “moment’s notice” status, the National Security Council huddled with the president, and Iran started jamming GPS signals and closing its western airspace.

What’s the end game? President Trump vouchsafed the world a hint in a Truth Social post on Saturday. It’s a map of the Middle East showing Iran bedecked with the stars and stripes and emblazoned with the headline: “United States of the Middle East?” Later Saturday he announced that “An Agreement has been largely negotiated,” subject to review. All of which is to say that I stick by my original prediction. Donald Trump is not Barack Obama. One way or the other—through tough negotiation or by force—he will “finish the job.” He would prefer the former. If he wants a longstanding peace and a free Iran, he is likely to require the latter. 

Photo: US President Donald Trump mimics firing a gun as he speaks about the conflict in Iran in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 6, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kent Nishimura / AFP) 


Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and the president and publisher of Encounter Books. He is the author and editor of many books, including The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press), The Rape of the Masters (Encounter), Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse (Ivan R. Dee), and Art's Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity (Ivan R. Dee). Most recently, he edited and contributed to Where Next? Western Civilization at the Crossroads (Encounter) and contributed to Against the Great Reset: Eighteen Theses Contra the New World Order (Bombardier).

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/05/24/out-on-a-limb-but-unmoved-trump-will-finish-the-job-in-iran/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cruz says he’s ’deeply concerned’ about potential Iran deal, tells Trump to ‘hold the line’ - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

Cruz appears concerned about any deal that would leave the "Iranian Regime" in place.

 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Saturday evening he has concerns about the potential peace deal the White House might have reached earlier in the day with Iran to end the war. 

President Trump said more details on the possible deal would be forthcoming. 

"I am deeply concerned about what we are hearing about an Iran 'deal' being pushed by some voices in the administration," Cruz posted on X. "President Trump’s decision to strike Iran was the most consequential decision of his second term. He was right to do so, and we achieved extraordinary military results – including destroying all of their missiles & drones and sinking their entire navy."

Cruz also wrote: "If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."

Cruz noted that the "details are still coming out" and he is praying the "early reports are wrong" about the contents of the agreement. 

"But the fact that Biden’s Rob Malley is praising the deal is not encouraging," he wrote. "President Trump believes in peace through strength, and his strong leadership has already made America much safer. He should continue to hold the line, defend America & enforce the red lines he has repeatedly drawn."

His post drew criticism from Alex Bruesewitz, a Trump adviser. 

"Cool, Ted," he wrote. "No one asked you, bro. Stop trying to undermine the President and his administration."

Cruz responded: "Hush, child. The adults are talking. I’m not your 'bro.' And young political grifters pushing Iran appeasement are not remotely helping the President." 


Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/cruz-says-hes-deeply-concerned-about-potential-iran-deal-tells-trump-hold-line

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Gunman killed after firing at White House had previous run-ins with Secret Service - Nicholas Ballasy

 

by Nicholas Ballasy

The U.S. Secret Service said the suspect “removed a weapon from his bag and began firing at posted officers” at a security checkpoint

 

Dozens of gunshots were heard near the White House on Saturday night, resulting in a lockdown of the complex.

The U.S. Secret Service shot and killed the shooter after he approached a security checkpoint and started firing at officers.

The U.S. Secret Service said the suspect “removed a weapon from his bag and began firing at posted officers.” A bystander was also shot. Their condition is unclear at this time. 

The gunman has been identified as Nasire Best, 21, of Maryland. Reports said he suffered from mental health issues and had previous encounters with the Secret Service. 

The New York Post obtained a photo of the gunman and reported that he believed he was Jesus Christ. 

Earlier on Saturday, FBI Director Kash Patel had confirmed a gunman fired shots and said law enforcement was on the scene. 

The shots were reportedly fired at the corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest.

Members of the press ran into the White House briefing room after hearing the shots. 


Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/local/gunshots-heard-near-white-house-reports

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

EU leaders now preaching 'strategic autonomy,' as future remains tied to unpredictable Putin - Eric J. Lyman

 

by Eric J. Lyman

After Putin's threats against EU and NATO member state Latvia, European leaders worry about increasing instability in Russia.

 

“Strategic autonomy” has been an increasingly frequent buzz phrase among European Union leaders, guiding member states to increase defense spending, double down on support for Ukraine, and stay out of the Israel and U.S.-led conflict with Iran. 

Now the concept is being put to the test by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats against the Baltic States. 

In recent days, Putin said that membership in NATO “will not protect” Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – that may be aiding Ukraine by hosting its military drones, something Russia accuses Latvia of doing. All three countries are members of the European Union that border Russian territory. 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – a former German defense minister – was quick to condemn the Russian comments, calling them “unacceptable” and promising that “Europe will respond.” 

How far Europe can go to protect a member state under attack, however, remains unclear, especially after President Donald Trump questioned whether the U.S. would come to the aid of a NATO ally under attack.

The question comes amid worries not only about the future of NATO but also about potential instability in Russia as speculation increases that Putin’s more than 25-year tenure as Russia’s leader may be entering its final phase.

Von der Leyen has repeatedly said the European Union must “learn the language of power” in an increasingly dangerous and unstable world. And uncertainty about Putin’s health and durability have increased the urgency of that learning curve.

The perception is that the 73-year-old Putin’s grip on power has been weakened by the long, drawn-out war with Ukraine, now in its fifth year, and by growing questions about Russia’s long-term economic and demographic stability. 

Media has also speculated that the Putin could be in poor health, and Ilya Remeslo, a one-time pro-Kremlin lawyer who has become a Putin critic, warned of the possibility of “palace coup” later this year or in early 2027.

Putin has given no indication he might consider stepping down, and Russia analysts point out that past predictions about his political demise – and failing health – have proved inaccurate. 

But European officials nonetheless appear to be preparing not only for some kind of prolonged standoff with Russia, but also for the possibility that the eventual end of Putin’s rule could create a period of even greater instability. 

Russia finds itself at an impasse with no obvious plans or hopes for getting out,” said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. Stanovaya and other analysts warn that situation is particularly dangerous. 

Succession crises are among the most dangerous moments in authoritarian systems,” warns Yale historian and author Timothy Snyder.  


Eric J. Lyman

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/europe/putin-major-obstacle-europe-moves-toward-strategic-autonomy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel mocks Spain after Gaza flotilla activists beaten by police in Bilbao - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

“We demand an explanation from the Spanish government regarding its treatment of the flotilla anarchists,” the Foreign Ministry wrote.

 

A Basque police officer charges a member of the Global Sumud Flotilla upon their arrival at Bilbao airport on May 23, 2026. Photo by Idurre Etxaburu / AFP via Getty Images.
A Basque police officer charges a member of the Global Sumud Flotilla upon the activists’ arrival at Bilbao Airport on May 23, 2026. Photo by Idurre Etxaburu/AFP via Getty Images.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry on Saturday mocked Spain’s government after Madrid criticized Jerusalem over its handling of activists detained from a Gaza-bound protest flotilla.

The activists were intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters on May 18 and 19, briefly held in Israel and then deported. Spain’s leftist leadership had condemned Israel’s treatment of the group, which the United States called the “pro-Hamas flotilla” in slapping sanctions on some of the organizers it accused last week of terrorism ties.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem demanded “an explanation from the Spanish government regarding its treatment of the flotilla anarchists,” citing an incident at Bilbao Airport on Saturday in which returning activists scuffled with police and blocked an arrivals gate. Video appears to show police beating and detaining the activists.

 

The ministry also circulated videos it said showed chaotic scenes involving the activists in Greece, and another clip from Dublin of a participant holding an Iranian regime flag.

“The flotilla anarchists bring provocation and chaos everywhere,” the ministry said, adding that they were “not peace activists.”


JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/world/israel-mocks-spain-after-gaza-flotilla-activists-beaten-by-police-in-bilbao

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel’s envoy spoke a hard truth that needed to be said - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Groups like J Street and Jews who support New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani aren’t just criticizing Jerusalem. They are assisting a globalized intifada against their own people.

 

Yechiel Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the United States, speaks to the media after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Nada Hamadeh, Lebanon's ambassador to the United States, outside the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C., April 14, 2026. Photo by Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90.
Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, speaks to the media after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Nada Hamadeh, Lebanon’s ambassador to the United States, outside the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C., April 14, 2026. Photo by Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90.

 

It’s not the sort of language we’re used to hearing from ambassadors, especially not from Israeli ambassadors to the United States when speaking about American Jews. At a National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism meeting at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, Yechiel Leiter called the left-wing J Street lobby “a cancer within the Jewish community.”

That sort of blunt talk about American Jews who band together to bash or pressure the State of Israel has, up to now, generally been regarded as divisive and unproductive by the Jewish establishment here in the United States, as well as the diplomats and bureaucrats back at Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem.

Undiplomatic talk
But as efforts to delegitimize Israel grow, alongside and as part of an unprecedented surge of antisemitism in the United States, diplomatic niceties and happy talk about a big tent is no longer appropriate to cope with a real crisis.

Democrats are falling increasingly under the sway of their intersectional base that regards Israel as a “white” oppressor and an “apartheid” state. Antisemitism that operates under the guise of hatred for Israel has become normative both on the political left and the far right.

All of the instincts and past practices of the organized Jewish community impel it, as well as Israeli diplomats, to tread lightly when it comes to Jews who join the ranks of anti-Zionists. However, in the current crisis, it is vital that the hard truths like those spoken by Leiter be heard rather than the empty talk about inclusion and a big Jewish tent. Under the current circumstances, unity with J Street and openly anti-Zionist and antisemitic groups like Jewish Voice for Peace means giving those who are actively aiding and abetting others waging war on Israel and the Jewish people legitimacy they don’t deserve.

Leiter’s undiplomatic comment was not a one-line mic drop. He explained that “the worst thing about J Street is it’s duplicitous.” Referring to the group’s stand favoring the attempts of Democrats to cut off arms sales to the Jewish state, he asked, “How can you be pro-Israel and advocate for an arms embargo on a state that’s fighting a seven-front war against Iranian proxies?”

While J Street and its defenders say they are just criticizing the Israeli government, Leiter says this stand is disingenuous.

“If they said that they were pro-Palestinian, I wouldn’t have a problem meeting with them,” Leiter said. “I meet with pro-Palestinian groups.”

“But when you come and say in such a two-faced manner, ‘We’re pro-Israel, we’re pro-democracy,’ there’s a democratically elected government in Israel,” he said. “You don’t like Netanyahu, make aliyah, vote in the next election and express yourself. Don’t say you’re ‘pro-democracy,’ and decry and defy the position of the democratic government of Israel.”

Where ‘pro-Israel’ merges with anti-Zionist
J Street, which entered the political fray in Washington in 2008, was criticized harshly in the past by two of Leiter’s predecessors, Michael Oren and Ron Dermer, who also represented Israeli governments led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But they didn’t call the group a “cancer.”

Michael Herzog, who was appointed by the short-lived government led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid from 2021 to 2022, stayed away from attacks on J Street, even if he was blunt about his negative opinion about the organization’s ally in the Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt).

Leiter’s right about what J Street has been up to. They back the efforts of congressional Democrats to cut off arms sales to Israel in the midst of a war against Iran and its terrorist proxies, which began with the Hamas-led Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Indeed, since its founding, J Street has made it its sole purpose to aid efforts in pressuring the Jewish state to make suicidal concessions rejected by its democratically elected governments and the voters that put them into office.

Despite their claims to be a nominally Zionist group, the difference between its stands and those of openly anti-Zionist and antisemitic groups like Jewish Voice for Peace is increasingly theoretical, rather than a matter of actual policy and actions.

That was made evident when J Street defended Zohran Mamdani, the virulently anti-Zionist and antisemitic mayor of New York City. When the Anti-Defamation League, which was slow to recognize the peril to the Jewish community from the left, began a “Mamdani Monitor” to note his actions and statements, J Street condemned it. The group claimed that it was wrong to “conflate” what they say is “criticism of Israel’s government” with antisemitism. But Mamdani has never made any effort to conceal his opposition to the existence of the Jewish state and his desire to aid those working to destroy it.

From his time as a student at Maine’s Bowdoin College, where he founded a chapter of the openly antisemitic Students for Justice in Palestine, the 34-year-old mayor has been an ardent anti-Zionist, dedicated to supporting the war on the one Jewish state on the planet.

That takes various forms. It includes his longtime support for illegal BDS discrimination against Israel and Jews, which J Street claims to oppose. It also means falsely labeling Jews who support Israel as taking part in violations of international law, even when that means egging on antisemitic marches and demonstrations outside of synagogues. There is also his consistent backing for mobs who target Jews for intimidation, in addition to violence on college campuses and elsewhere, while chanting for Jewish genocide (“From the river to the sea”) and terrorism against Jews wherever they live (“Globalize the intifada”).

Mamdani’s hate for Israel was front and center this week, but so was his ability to rally support from left-wing Jews.

‘Nakba Day’ fraud
The mayor has announced that he will be the first person holding his office since the founding of the Jewish state to refuse to march in the annual “Salute to Israel” parade down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue. Instead of making that token gesture of solidarity with the city’s Jewish residents, he commemorated “Nakba Day,” or “Disaster Day,” referring to the establishment of the modern-day State of Israel in 1948.

Mamdani did so by posting a video and a statement on social media, including a four-minute, documentary-style video created by his government-paid staff that featured an interview with a woman named Inea Bushnaq. “Inea is a New Yorker and a ‘Nakba’ survivor,” said Mamdani. In it, Bushnaq recounted her family’s departure from Jerusalem during the 1948 War of Independence, claiming that they were forced to flee because “the Zionists were coming into Jerusalem.”

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs did, in fact, flee the British Mandate for Palestine before May 1948. They did so because of the war that their leaders and the surrounding Arab nations started, most often at the behest of those who claimed they could come back after the Jews were pushed into the sea. They had rejected the U.N. partition vote in November 1947 for an Arab state alongside the new Jewish one, just as they would reject every peace offer from Israel in the decades that followed.

The failure of that effort to carry out a second Holocaust, only a few years after the first one, which resulted in the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe, left the Arabs disappointed. But they were still determined to continue their war on the Jewish presence in the country, a self-destructive belief that persists to this day, which has brought nothing but suffering for Palestinian Arabs.

During this same period, an even larger number of Jews were expelled or forced to flee from their homes throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds—from North Africa to the farthest stretches of the Middle East.

The plight of the Palestinian refugees was hard, but unlike the Jews, who were resettled in Israel and the West, they were deliberately kept homeless to serve as props in the ongoing war on Israel that continues 78 years later.

What was particularly egregious about Mamdani’s highlighting of one such refugee lies in the fact that—contrary to the anti-Zionist mantra about the Palestinian Arabs having been in the country from time immemorial—her family were relatively recent immigrants. Bushnaq’s relatives were Bosnian Muslims, who had arrived in what is now Israel in the 1880s, after that country was no longer controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans had ruled over parts of the Balkans for centuries, tyrannizing its Christian inhabitants, and some Muslims fled, fearing retribution from the new rulers. The Bushnaqs first went to Syria and then settled in Jerusalem, which was already starting to grow as a result of the initial wave of Jews returning to their ancient homeland.

Yet far from Jews being new to Jerusalem, as Bushnaq claimed, they had, of course, been there for thousands of years—long before the Muslim conquest in the seventh century C.E. While Jews had been the largest religious group in the city for many years before that, the Ottoman census in 1875 showed that they formed an absolute majority of the population.

And just to show how fake the claim that the city and country she fled was wrongly stolen from her family and other Muslims, Mamdani’s video contained one damning detail that his staff missed. The “Visit Palestine” poster on the wall behind Bushnaq was actually a work of a Zionist and Jewish artist, Franz Kraus, who saw it as part of the effort to promote the burgeoning Jewish homeland prior to 1948. Indeed, as Liel Leibovitz noted in the New York Post, if you look closely in the video, you can see that Kraus signed his work in Hebrew.

Mamdani’s Jewish collaborators
That is, as he rightly pointed out, a graphic metaphor for the fraudulent nature of the entire nakba narrative that Mamdani relentlessly promotes. Its purpose is not to help Palestinians, but to build support for the dispossession of the more than 7 million Jews of Israel. That is something that could only be accomplished by genocide—like the one the Arabs of 1948 failed to accomplish, and for which the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7 were merely a trailer for what they wished to do to every Jew.

Yet Gotham’s Marxist mayor has had no trouble recruiting Jews to collaborate with his efforts to harm their own community.

One such person is Rabbi Miriam Grossman, a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. That’s a group that not only shares Mamdani’s desire to destroy Israel but is responsible for spreading blood libels against it. Yet she will serve in a paid government post as the mayor’s “faith liaison” with the Jewish community.

That’s an outrage and an insult to the overwhelming majority of Jews who rightly understand that Israel and support for Jewish rights to it remain an integral part of their faith and identity as a people. The events of the last 31 months testify to one basic fact: anti-Zionism can’t be separated from antisemitism. The former is merely a variant of the latter.

As much as a third of the city’s Jewish population might have voted for Mamdani last November for a number of reasons, including their blind loyalty to the Democratic Party and justified disgust with disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was the main alternative. Still, Mamdani’s hostility to Jewish safety is no longer a theoretical argument.

The good news, however, is that the leaders of the organized Jewish world in New York have been forced by Mamdani’s actions to show some spine. Their language wasn’t as blunt as Ambassador Leiter’s about J Street. But by boycotting Mamdani’s pre-Shavuot Jewish Heritage Day reception at his Gracie Mansion official residence, they sent a message that the city’s Jews aren’t going to go along with the pretense that the mayor is anything but an open enemy of Jewish life.

Mamdani was nevertheless able to recruit some Jews to show up for his shindig. And they deserve the opprobrium not only of the Jewish community, but of all decent people who realize we are at a tipping point when it comes to the normalization of antisemitism.

Among them was the usual contingent of ultra-Orthodox Jews from the Satmar sect, who proclaim their opposition to Zionism and Israel for theological reasons that treat Jewish powerlessness as a virtue to be embraced until the coming of the Messiah. The far smaller and often violent Neturei Karta group is another problem. Such sectors of the community are willing to do business with anyone in power, regardless of whether or not they pose a threat to Jews.

Far more prominent were the left-wing Jews like Grossman and other JVP members, who see Mamdani’s hostility to Israel and mainstream Judaism as reasons to support him.

Perhaps even more significant were the comments of the man who gave the invocation at Mamdani’s sham event—Rabbi Irwin Kula, president emeritus of CLAL: The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. CLAL became an important focus of efforts to unify the Jewish community under its founder, Rabbi Irving (“Yitz”) Greenberg. But under his successor, Kula, it has become not merely irrelevant but arguably counterproductive.

For Kula and others who seek to normalize Jewish antisemites, as well as those working to undermine and attack Israel, inclusion is the most important value. He mocked the absence of Jewish leaders as illustrative of the collapse of “the liberal Zionist consensus.”

He blessed Mamdani and urged him to “hold the complexity of this city, to parse and nuance, with care and precision, the meanings of Zionism, of antisemitism, and the inextricable connection of Jewish identity and Palestinian dignity.” Such a meaningless word salad speaks to his intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It also demonstrates that Jews, including those who hold the title of rabbi, who won’t take a stand against open Jew-hatred and delegitimization, aren’t merely harmless idealists or starry-eyed dreamers of peace.

When they work to isolate Israel—and strip it of its only ally and the means to defend itself against genocidal regimes and their terrorist auxiliaries, and treat those who seek to destroy it as praiseworthy—they have lost more than the respect of their fellow Jews. They have instead taken on the role of foot soldiers in a globalized intifada against their own people.

The primary focus of Jewish activism must be combating those on the left and the right who are normalizing antisemitism, along with publications like The New York Times that traffic in blood libels against Israel and the Jews. Yet we cannot be silent about those Jews who aid and abet them. They are, like the Satmar Chassidim, turning into a sect outside of normative Jewish life. They have little in common with those who understand that, imperfect as it may be, Israel deserves our love and support regardless of who leads it or what measures of self-defense they choose to employ against murderous enemies.

At a time when antisemitism is surging and Jewish lives are in danger, those who stand with the Israel- and Jew-haters do so outside of the Jewish community. What’s needed when dealing with them is not diplomacy or dialogue, but harsh truths like the ones spoken by Ambassador Leiter.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/jonathan-s-tobin/israels-ambassador-spoke-a-hard-truth-that-needed-to-be-said

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

To the Trump Administration: Recognize Somaliland, Solid Ally for the West - Pierre Rehov

 

by Pierre Rehov

The only question left is whether Washington and its allies possess the clarity, the courage, and the strategic vision to welcome it.

 

  • While the international community says it champions democracy, stability, and self-determination, Somaliland ticks every box. Yet it stays unrecognized, largely because diplomats cling to the fiction of Somalia's territorial integrity — even though that unity exists only on paper. This is not principle at work. It is bureaucratic inertia. It has become a costly strategic error.

  • Denying recognition sends exactly the wrong signal: that building a functioning democracy in hard conditions earns you nothing.

  • The only question left is whether Washington and its allies possess the clarity, the courage, and the strategic vision to welcome it.

While the international community says it champions democracy, stability, and self-determination, Somaliland ticks every box. Yet it stays unrecognized, largely because diplomats cling to the fiction of Somalia's territorial integrity — even though that unity exists only on paper. Pictured: People gather to celebrate Israel's recognition of Somaliland's independence in downtown Hargeisa, on December 26, 2025. (Photo by Farhan Aleli/AFP via Getty Images)

Washington should take note. Somaliland has achieved what its neighbor, Somalia, could not: relative order, internal cohesion, and institutional resilience. Official recognition would not just fix a diplomatic anomaly. It would unlock a genuine strategic asset — economic development, infrastructure projects, intelligence sharing, and potentially a forward U.S.-Israeli military presence. Such a base on Somaliland's coast would help monitor shipping lanes, deter piracy, counter jihadists, and contain Iranian influence from Yemen. It would send a powerful message: stability brings rewards.

Somaliland has never aligned with Islamist movements or hostile powers. Instead, it has repeatedly sought pragmatic partnerships with the West, offering security cooperation and investment opportunities. It understands the threats — from piracy to jihadism to great-power competition — and has shown through deeds, not words, that it belongs in the camp that builds stable institutions rather than tears them down.

At this time, when the Free World faces authoritarian expansion, ideological extremism, and its own internal divisions, it cannot afford to overlook its natural allies. Somaliland is one of them. It is not perfect, and it faces real challenges, but it has consistently aligned itself with the principles Western leaders claim to defend.

For decades the United States has poured military, financial, and political resources into neighboring Somalia with painfully limited results. Somalia remains trapped in the classic pattern of a failed state — fragmented authority, deep corruption, and persistent jihadist threats. Meanwhile, right next door, Somaliland has held multiple peaceful transfers of power, including the most recent presidential election on November 13, 2024. In that vote, opposition candidate Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi (commonly known as Irro) of the Waddani party defeated incumbent Muse Bihi Abdi. The transition was orderly, observed by international monitors, and certified without violence.

Geographically, Somaliland is crucial. It sits astride the Gulf of Aden, right beside the Bab el-Mandeb Strait — one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints. Roughly a fifth of global petroleum trade passes through these waters, linking the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and the Indian Ocean. Across the strait lies Yemen, where Iranian-backed Houthis have repeatedly disrupted shipping. To the northwest sits Djibouti, already packed with foreign military bases from the United States, China, France, and others. In this volatile corridor, a reliable partner is not optional. It is essential.

The strategic map of the 21st century is being redrawn right now — in the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula – all central arenas in the contest between open societies and authoritarian powers. Every alliance matters.

Somaliland already governs itself, secures its territory, and manages its own foreign relations. The real question is whether the international system can adapt to reality or will keep pretending otherwise while strategic rivals fill the vacuum.

There is a moral dimension here too. For more than 30 years, Somaliland's people have chosen democratic institutions over militias and ballots over bullets. In a region long defined by conflict, that choice was never guaranteed — it required hard work, political maturity, and a deliberate rejection of the path taken by Somalia, their neighbor to the south. Denying recognition sends exactly the wrong signal: that building a functioning democracy in hard conditions earns you nothing.

In Somalia, Mogadishu still struggles to project authority beyond a few besieged districts, constantly harassed by Al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda affiliate that controls large rural areas and stages deadly attacks on the capital. Somaliland, by contrast, maintains internal security, secures its borders, and has kept jihadist groups largely at bay. This stability did not come by accident. It is the direct result of deliberate governance, clan reconciliation, and open, democratic governance.

Somaliland is not begging for charity. It is offering a genuine partnership.

In December 2025, Israel became the first country in the world to formally recognize Somaliland. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Somaliland's President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi Irro, signed a joint declaration establishing full diplomatic relations. This was a clear strategic signal that Jerusalem sees Somaliland as a serious partner in a region increasingly shaped by Iranian proxies, Turkish influence, and Chinese expansion.

While the international community says it champions democracy, stability, and self-determination, Somaliland ticks every box. Yet it stays unrecognized, largely because diplomats cling to the fiction of Somalia's territorial integrity — even though that unity exists only on paper. This is not principle at work. It is bureaucratic inertia. It has become a costly strategic error.

There will always be voices of opposition to everything. European capitals, bound by risk aversion and outdated legal doctrines, prefer theoretical borders to practical realities. Some regional players prefer chaos or ideological expansion. Somali political elites in Mogadishu fear that formal recognition would simply confirm what everyone already knows on the ground: the supposedly unified Somali state no longer exists in any meaningful sense.

Somaliland exists. This simple fact has stood unchallenged for more than three decades. Since May 18, 1991, when clan elders and leaders of the Somali National Movement gathered in Burao to declare independence after the fall of Siad Barre's regime, this breakaway territory has built a functioning state in one of the world's toughest neighborhoods. It has its own government, its own currency, its own security forces, and — most impressively — its own track record of democratic elections. Yet for much of the international community, Somaliland remains a geopolitical ghost: stable, democratic, and quietly successful, but still officially invisible.

The only question left is whether Washington and its allies possess the clarity, the courage, and the strategic vision to welcome it.


Pierre Rehov
, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.

Source:

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ben-Gvir made a mistake, but Israel isn’t the villain - Fiamma Firenstein

 

by Fiamma Firenstein

The reaction to the latest Gaza flotilla reveals a familiar pattern: outrage at the Jewish state, silence on terrorism and indifference to the region’s real aggressors.

 

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir raises the Jewish state's national flag on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City, May 14, 2026. Photo by Avraham Yitzhak Grossman.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir raises the Jewish state’s national flag on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City, May 14, 2026. Photo by Avraham Yitzhak Grossman.

 

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. The Ben-Gvir moment has arrived—the moment when it is once again declared beyond doubt that Israel is fascist, imperialist, brutal and, as always, colonialist, genocidal and unworthy of existence.

Among Jews, only those who publicly denounce Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are granted entry into purgatory if they live in the Diaspora. In Israel, there is no amnesty at all.

The latest controversy erupted when videos released by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s office this week showed him waving an Israeli flag and taunting international activists detained after Israeli forces intercepted a Gaza-bound flotilla seeking to breach the naval blockade on the Hamas-controlled enclave. The Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that they had all been deported.

“Welcome to Israel,” Ben-Gvir said mockingly. “We are the landlords here.”

The footage prompted criticism from several Western leaders, as well as a rare rebuke from Netanyahu. The consensus across much of the media and political commentary is striking.

Italy’s Il Fatto Quotidiano, for example, argued that Israelis should thank Ben-Gvir for exposing the country’s “true face”—the supposedly hideous reality behind the Star of David. Others eagerly quote Italian President Sergio Mattarella, repeating the word “illegal” to describe Israel’s interception of the flotilla.

Yet international law permits the enforcement of a naval blockade and the stopping of vessels attempting to breach it. The flotilla openly declared its intention to challenge the blockade; it was not carrying significant humanitarian aid, despite public claims to the contrary.

But when it comes to Israel, “illegal” has become a universal label. It is applied not only to the blockade but also to Judea and Samaria, territories whose status remains disputed and whose future has repeatedly been left unresolved because Palestinian leaders have rejected compromise in favor of continuing a conflict aimed at eliminating Israel. Facts matter little in this narrative.

Nor does it seem to matter that the participants in at least five previous flotillas—including some organized with Hamas involvement—ultimately returned home unharmed, often after receiving food and assistance from the very country they had set out to condemn. Greta Thunberg’s widely publicized voyage followed the same pattern.

To be clear, any humiliation inflicted on the activists would be reprehensible. But accusations that they were beaten, tortured, abused or worse require evidence, not slogans. Ben-Gvir was wrong to intervene, disregarding the authority of the government of which he is a member. Predictably, after the publicity generated by the episode, another flotilla is already being planned.

Yet the furious international reaction reveals something larger than criticism of one minister. It reflects a deep hostility toward Israel itself and a refusal to acknowledge its right to defend itself against terrorism—a threat that has not disappeared simply because many prefer to stop talking about it.

Ben-Gvir often appears to be an opportunistic politician seeking headlines and votes. But the sanctions, denunciations and dramatic condemnations directed at Israel ignore the larger story unfolding before our eyes. They overlook the reality of Islamist extremism and the persistent threat it poses. Many Israelis once dismissed that danger as well—until Oct. 7, 2023.

Ben-Gvir is not Israel. He is a supporting pillar of a right-wing coalition government.

Israel’s next election will be fiercely contested—in the media, in the streets and in the Knesset. Whoever wins will govern. But should Netanyahu prevail again, many observers will inevitably cite the result as further proof that Israel is “fascist.”

Why? Because he is not a man of the left.

The accusation is particularly curious when it comes from countries such as Italy, which itself is governed by a right-of-center coalition. Yet despite 76 years of almost continuous conflict, Israel’s press, courts, universities, writers and civil society remain vibrant and fiercely independent.

Even language is manipulated. In reporting on the flotilla activists, some outlets preferred the word “deported” rather than “expelled.” One can guess why. Certain words carry historical echoes, and those echoes are often invoked deliberately when Israel is involved.

Back home, the self-styled heroes of the flotilla are already preparing their next voyage. Curiously, it will not be headed toward Iran, whose regime has been responsible for the deaths and repression of countless innocent people.

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. Three balls for a penny. The anti-Israel circus is back.


Fiamma Firenstein is an Italian-Israeli journalist, author and senior research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA). An adviser on antisemitism to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, she served in the Italian Parliament (2008-2013) as vice president of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A founding member of the Friends of Israel Initiative, she has written 15 books, including October 7, Antisemitism and the War on the West, and is a leading voice on Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the fight against antisemitism.

Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/fiamma-nirenstein/ben-gvir-made-a-mistake-but-israel-isnt-the-villain

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Do All Roads Lead to Beijing? - Amir Taheri

 

by Amir Taheri

Despite all the talk about a multipolar world system -- a meaningless conceit because if you have more than two poles you won't have a polar system -- Washington has emerged as the favored destination for leaders seeking help or legitimacy.

 

  • In the past decade, the UN has lost much of its aura as a source of moral authority, let alone meaningful material relevance. Two of its veto-holding members have been engaged in wars of choice, while a third one has been branded a gross violator of human rights.

  • Despite all the talk about a multipolar world system -- a meaningless conceit because if you have more than two poles you won't have a polar system -- Washington has emerged as the favored destination for leaders seeking help or legitimacy.

  • Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Beijing almost in the same timeframe. China's President Xi Jinping gave both visitors exactly the same reception while granting neither any of the things they demanded.

  • In fact, there was no threat, and Xi's reference to the Thucydides trap was about a change in the status quo rather than depicting China as a rising power to replace the US as a retiring one.

  • Trump acted with exemplary discipline and gently reminded Xi that the US remains the indispensable power. He also made it clear that China has more to lose from the blockades in the Strait of Hormuz if only because some 40 percent of its energy needs pass through it, while the US has the power to allow Chinese tankers to pass.

  • [F]ew people remember that Iran's nuclear project was started by American money and expertise in 1959, and that the first generation of Iranian nuclear scientists were trained in US universities.

  • Each year China trains more engineers than the US and EU combined.

  • My guess is that Xi will not invade Taiwan because he knows the Confucian concept of "active waiting."

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Beijing almost in the same timeframe. China's President Xi Jinping gave both visitors exactly the same reception while granting neither any of the things they demanded. Pictured: Putin and Xi tour a photo exhibition in Beijing on May 20, 2026. (Photo by Alexander Kazakov/Pool/ AFP via Getty Images)

Imagine you are a nation's leader facing problems or seeking to underline your legitimacy on the global stage. Where will you go in pursuit of those goals?

In ancient times, all roads led to Rome or Susa, where two great empires set the tune in large chunks of the three continents known at the time. In the age of European imperialism, the obvious destinations were London, Paris and Petrograd. During the Cold War, Washington and Moscow were the obvious destinations. After the USSR collapsed, Washington was seen as the first source of authority, with the United Nations as a distant second.

In the past decade, the UN has lost much of its aura as a source of moral authority, let alone meaningful material relevance. Two of its veto-holding members have been engaged in wars of choice, while a third one has been branded a gross violator of human rights.

Despite all the talk about a multipolar world system -- a meaningless conceit because if you have more than two poles you won't have a polar system -- Washington has emerged as the favored destination for leaders seeking help or legitimacy.

Under President Donald Trump, however, going to Washington has become a toss-up over which the visitor has no control. Instead of enhancing your legitimacy, you might end up being humiliated on live TV or sent packing after hearing a monologue about how bad Obama and Biden were.

In such a context, it is no surprise that Beijing is seen by many leaders as the must-visit destination, especially when one is in trouble or seeking political and economic support.

Thus, it was no coincidence that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Beijing almost in the same timeframe. China's President Xi Jinping gave both visitors exactly the same reception while granting neither any of the things they demanded.

The red carpet was unrolled, the cannons roared 21 times, and children waved flags and cheered the honored guests, but no pens were drawn to sign the deals.

Trump had hoped to get help in persuading Iran to offer concessions needed to reach a deal to end the current war. He also wanted Xi to finalize deals on the purchase of 300 Boeing aircraft and huge quantities of soybeans, among other goods, from the US. Xi kept a Mona Lisa smile but went no further. He made an enigmatic reference to his pet subject of Taiwan, citing the Thucydides trap, and warned of "discord."

Anti-Trump pundits translated the old Mandarin word for "discord" as "conflict" or even "war" to claim Trump was threatened but went TACO.

In fact, there was no threat, and Xi's reference to the Thucydides trap was about a change in the status quo rather than depicting China as a rising power to replace the US as a retiring one.

In fact, Trump acted with exemplary discipline and gently reminded Xi that the US remains the indispensable power. He also made it clear that China has more to lose from the blockades in the Strait of Hormuz if only because some 40 percent of its energy needs pass through it, while the US has the power to allow Chinese tankers to pass.

If blocking maritime passages becomes the norm, what would the closure of the Strait of Malacca by littoral states allied to the US do to Chinese global trade?

Xi gave Putin almost the same treatment with pomp and ceremony but without any concrete results. Putin had hoped to finalize a deal for a new Siberian oil and gas pipeline that has been negotiated for almost a decade. Xi, however, was determined not to walk into the trap that Russia set for the European Union with the Nord Stream pipelines. Thus, Putin too ended with a Mona Lisa smile from Xi but nothing to write home about.

Misunderstanding what China is today and might be tomorrow could have disastrous consequences. To treat China as a mere regional power is as wrong and dangerous as elevating it to the status of the new superpower.

Xi seems determined to learn from the experience of the US as a superpower paying a heavy price in blood and treasure to ensure the security of allies and protectorates but ending up with open or implied anti-Americanism. And that is not taking into account unintended consequences. For example, few people remember that Iran's nuclear project was started by American money and expertise in 1959, and that the first generation of Iranian nuclear scientists were trained in US universities.

China is certainly more than a regional power, as Obama and Biden supposed. But nor is it the global superpower that the "End of America" chorus is singing about. It is going through a scientific and technological revolution unprecedented since the start of the Industrial Revolution in England. Each year China trains more engineers than the US and EU combined.

It is also building its military power at top speed with special emphasis on projection of naval power. Nevertheless, China is still some distance away from acquiring a credible blue-water navy capable of projecting power across the globe. Xi's genius as a leader lies in his understanding of the risks involved in playing big power. China is the only major power to know where and when it is time to pack and leave a trouble spot rather than stay and fight for an uncertain denouement.

Xi's priorities remain the maintenance of economic growth, and the elevation of living standards for the two-thirds of the population still close to poverty lines. Then there is the problem of an aging population and a falling birth rate, which cannot be corrected with waves of immigration as is the case in the US or the EU. Then there is the fact that China remains a second-rate contestant in terms of soft power despite ambitious plans in all cultural domains.

Meanwhile -- the brouhaha from China-bashers or Chinamaniacs like the late Henry Kissinger notwithstanding -- I think China should be treated as a stabilizing power rather than a perturbateur, as French intellectuals suggest. The obnoxious "yellow peril" discourse did much damage to both China and the rest of the world. To his credit, Trump seems to have understood that. He remained firm and demonstrated his leverage but treated Xi with respect.

All roads do not end in Beijing, but some certainly do. My guess is that Xi will not invade Taiwan because he knows the Confucian concept of "active waiting." Decades ago, President Hu Jintao was asked why China had waited so long to regain sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macao. "Things take time," he said with the Mona Lisa smile.

Gatestone Institute would like to thank the author for his kind permission to reprint this article in slightly different form from Asharq Al-Awsat. 


Amir Taheri
was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He graciously serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22540/all-roads-lead-to-beijing

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter