The Geopolitics of Epic Fury - Roger Kimball

 

by Roger Kimball

As media hype falters and globalists posture, Trump’s campaign to secure the world’s chokepoints reshapes power—and leaves Iran and its allies with little leverage left.

 

 

Possibly the most amusing fake news item Saturday morning came from The New York Times. Under the rubric “Iran War Live Updates,” a headline screamed, “Iran’s Military Says It Has Reimposed ‘Strict Control’ of Strait of Hormuz.” To which an inquiring mind wants to know, “What Iran military?” It’s gone, Kemo Sabe. The floating bits are at the bottom of the sea. The terrestrial bits have been crushed, blasted, pulverized, or incinerated. Ditto most of the bits that flew. Which is why a healthy skepticism must severely discount the Times’s breathless comment that “A shipping monitor run by the British Navy said Saturday that it had received a report of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards firing at a tanker in the strait.” Click the link. What it says is that someone told someone else that something “was reported” to have happened, but no one and nothing was hit or damaged.

I don’t mean to single out the paper that President Trump accurately, if impolitely, calls “the failing New York Times.” About all things Trump, The Wall Street Journal is just as bad. Between February 28, when Operation Epic Fury began, and last week, when President Trump allowed Iran to lift its head out of the water briefly in order to surrender, the WSJ has run countless stories explaining how, despite appearances, Iran was actually winning the conflict. On Saturday, the Journal greeted Iran’s braggadocio about the Strait of Hormuz just as enthusiastically as did the Times. If your version of those papers came with a magic subtext mood reader, you would have been able to hear the excited Molly Bloom-like cries wafting off the page: “Yes! Yes! Yes! Please let it be so! Please let something bad happen to US forces so we can wipe that grin off Trump’s face! Please!”

So maybe some dead-enders in the IRGC are jumping up and down, making threats, or even lobbing missiles or other ordnance at ships in the Strait. They won’t be doing so for long.

On Friday, President Trump delivered a few status reports on Truth Social. (1) The Strait of Hormuz is fully open and “ready for business.” (2) The naval blockade will remain in full force until we are satisfied that Iran has complied 100 percent with our demands. (3) That should happen quickly because “most points” have been agreed on. The president also reported that Iran had promised never to close the Strait of Hormuz again. “It will no longer,” he wrote, “be used as a weapon against the World!”

It has been a merry few days. On Friday, Iran agreed to let America collect and remove its uranium, a key US demand going into the conflict. Also on Friday, Trump announced that the Strait was open for business. That was NATO’s cue to waddle into the limelight and offer to help. President Trump was not amused. But the rest of us can be. “Now that the Hormuz Strait situation is over,” President Trump wrote, “I received a call from NATO asking if we would need some help. I TOLD THEM TO STAY AWAY, UNLESS THEY JUST WANT TO LOAD UP THEIR SHIPS WITH OIL. They were useless when needed, a Paper Tiger!”

There, Trump goes again, telling unpalatable truths. Do you believe in coincidences? Within hours of President Trump’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz was open, the British make-believe Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to Paris to co-host a 40-nation “virtual summit” with French President Emmanuel Macron. Their goal? To open the Strait of Hormuz. For those keeping track, the US Navy, which had actually opened the Strait, was not invited to this romper room play date. As one commentator put it,

This is 40 guys showing up to a house fire three hours late with a PowerPoint titled “Fire Response Coordination Initiative,” while the homeowner is already back inside watching TV.

Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister fully capitulated on camera today. Oil crashed 11 percent in minutes. Iran has reportedly agreed to suspend its nuclear program indefinitely and will not receive any frozen funds. Trump says the deal is mostly done.

The two-week ceasefire that President Trump called expires this Wednesday. What then? “What if there is no final deal by the deadline?” a reporter asked. “I don’t know,” President Trump said. “Maybe I won’t extend it—but the blockade is going to remain. . . . Unfortunately, we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.”

Understandably, the situation in Iran has mesmerized the world’s attention these last several weeks. But it is important to place that conflict in a broader strategic context. On Saturday, the US signed a defense agreement with Morocco concerning the Strait of Gibraltar, the chokepoint between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Just a few days ago, the US inked an agreement with Indonesia granting “expanded operational access” over the Strait of Malacca, through which nearly 80 percent of China’s oil imports flow. Last year, Trump negotiated the neutrality of the Panama Canal, sidelining the Chinese companies that had quietly stepped in to manage access to the canal. Gibraltar. Malacca. Hormuz. Panama. In just over a year, President Trump has opened the world’s major chokepoints under the aegis of American oversight.

In a couple of weeks, Trump will travel to Davos, Switzerland, to participate in—or to school—the globalist citadel at the World Economic Forum. “You could say he is walking into the lion’s den,” observed one commentator, “except that he is the lion.” Trump will be bringing his entire “demolition crew,” including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright. This will not be a Kumbaya Summit. It will not be about some “Green New Deal,” forging an alternative to the US dollar, or proliferating international NGOs to further the globalist agenda. Operation Epic Fury includes what Scott Bessent called Operation Economic Fury, and it is being deployed not only in Iran but also wherever anti-American forces pool and fester.

Meanwhile, President Trump announced that Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a ceasefire. This comes in the wake of Lebanon essentially outlawing Hezbollah. The Middle East is reshaping itself before our eyes. It is good news for those interested in peace and prosperity. It is bad news for misogynistic mullahs and other members of the theocratic death cult that has been terrorizing the world for decades. There are still regime thugs prowling the streets of Iran looking for bare-headed women or protestors to hang or shoot. But there are also an increasing number of reports of the Iranian people ambushing the ambushers, taking out the Basij and IRGC terrorists. There will be cries and whispers for a short while from the dying Iranian regime. But for all intents and purposes, the story is over. We’re into the coda or epilogue now. There might be a few plot twists and turns yet, but we know how the saga ends. America wins, the mullahs lose, and so do the globalists at the trough in Davos, and China, with its dreams of a BRICS hegemony in tatters. 

Photo: US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine speaks as a map of the Strait of Hormuz is displayed during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2026. The United States will prevent all shipping from entering or exiting Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz for "as long as it takes," US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday, the fourth day of the blockade. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP)

 
 Roger Kimball

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/04/19/the-geopolitics-of-epic-fury/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says - report - Jerusalem Post Staff

 

by Jerusalem Post Staff

The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday.

 

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine speaks as a map of the Strait of Hormuz is displayed during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2026.

(photo credit: SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images)

 

The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.

The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.

The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”

“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.

Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon on April 16, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. (credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

US to pursue Operation 'Economic Fury' against Iran

 White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.

The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.

The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.

The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.

“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”

Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.

“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.

In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

Jerusalem Post Staff

Source: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-893413

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran: Heading for Another Ceasefire? - Amir Taheri

 

by Amir Taheri

[A] reshuffling of cards that leaves the regime in place in an altered form would not change the genetics of an ideology built around the radical rejection of accepted international law.

 

• Under the system created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, even the chiefs of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are not allowed to hold staff meetings without prior approval of the Office of the Supreme Guide ("Beit-e Rahbari") and the presence of his military advisers.

• Two things seem clear at this juncture. The Khomeini-Khamenei system cannot be rebuilt even if the new "Supreme Guide" Mojtaba Khamenei is really alive and kicking.

• The second thing is that a reshuffling of cards that leaves the regime in place in an altered form would not change the genetics of an ideology built around the radical rejection of accepted international law.

A reshuffling of cards that leaves Iran's regime in place in an altered form would not change the genetics of an ideology built around the radical rejection of accepted international law. Pictured: Members of the Iranian security forces stand under a billboard of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on April 9, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

The ceasefire declared in the US-Israel war against Iran is set to end in the next couple of days amid conflicting views on what might happen next.

By the time of writing this piece, many observers thought that both sides might agree to an extension of the brittle truce for a further 45 days. In a world of a 24-hour news cycle, punctuated by tweets and video clips, that may sound like a long time.

In last June's war against Iran, US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire after 35 hours of bombing.

He had also declared "mission accomplished" in Venezuela after a 5-hour raid to arrest President Nicolás Maduro. When the second round of war against Iran seemed to stall, the president threatened to turn Iran back to the Stone Age in just 4 hours.

In the Islamabad peace talks last week, Vice President JD Vance decided that enough was enough after a 16-hour back-and-forth with Tehran's emissaries, half of it spent on translation of what each side said.

In war and diplomacy, however, as in love, patience is the name of the game.

The US wars with Mexico lasted six years. The two world wars got the US involved for almost four years each time. The Korean War ended after more than three years with no clear winner, and the war in Vietnam pegged the US down for more than a decade.

Since Trump is clearly unwilling to pursue this war for as long as it takes, his best choice is to seek a way of concluding it through diplomacy.

However, diplomacy also needs patience.

You can't just walk in and put down your desiderata for the adversary to sign with a "my way or the highway" brag, which is what Vance did in Islamabad.

Remember that the Vietnam peace talks in Paris spent 15 days to decide the shape of the table around which the delegates would sit.

The problem with talking to Iran today is that it isn't a normal nation-state. It is an unusual structure built around a charismatic personality with absolute power that uses a more or less formal government as a façade.

In it, nobody can claim to be anybody unless endorsed by the "Supreme Guide" for a specific mission and a limited period. In that system, there is no normal circulation of information even within the organs of the regime.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin suddenly arrived in Tehran, the Iranian president at the time, Hassan Rouhani, learned about it only by watching television.

The Russian leader went directly to the residence of then "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei, spent four hours with him, and drove back to the airport to return to Moscow. General Qassem Soleimani, then chief of the Quds Force and a favorite of Khamenei, invited Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad to Tehran without informing the Iranian president or foreign minister.

Under the system created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Khamenei, even the chiefs of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are not allowed to hold staff meetings without prior approval of the Office of the Supreme Guide ("Beit-e Rahbari") and the presence of his military advisers.

The IRGC is divided into 5 separate commands, plus half a dozen other armed outfits whose ultimate control rests with the "Beit".

Former Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif, not known for his love of veracity, was telling the truth when he told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that he didn't know much about Iran's nuclear project.

Trump says regime change has already happened in Tehran. But what has happened is the destruction of a regime built around a cult of personality.

With Khamenei's demise, the "Beit" has disappeared, with its 5,000-strong personnel killed, scattered or left uncertain about their future.

In the absence of a ruling political party, Khamenei ruled Iran through multiple parallel networks of clients in cultural, economic, religious and security domains. He even had his own ambassadors, apart from Iran's official ones, in 22 capitals. The so-called proxies were also run by the "Beit," with the formal Iranian government used as a façade.

With Khamenei's demise, pundits have been looking for a strongman to put Iran on a different trajectory.

For a few days, Ali Ardeshir Larijani was fancied as the Iranian version of Deng Xiaoping. When the Israelis assassinated him, people started talking about 1-star General Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf as a cut-price Napoleon Bonaparte for Iran.

The truth, however, is that to play a Deng or a Bonaparte, one needs an organized state structure capable of being used by a new big cheese.

Two things seem clear at this juncture. The Khomeini-Khamenei system cannot be rebuilt even if the new "Supreme Guide" Mojtaba Khamenei is really alive and kicking.

The second thing is that a reshuffling of cards that leaves the regime in place in an altered form would not change the genetics of an ideology built around the radical rejection of accepted international law.

All that, however, is no concern of Trump, who is looking for a quick Nescafé solution to suit his calendar of events: a summit in Beijing, hosting the British monarch in Washington, celebrating the 250th anniversary of American independence, a NATO summit and mid-term elections -- all that against the backdrop of rising gas prices and inflation.

If Trump is looking for a breathing space, his best bet is to do the ceasefire trapeze with a safety net, a strong military safety net, underneath.

None of the political midgets left in Tehran has the courage or stature to grant Trump all of what he wants. But a renewed ceasefire might provide the time and space for the contours of a new power arrangement in Tehran to appear on the horizon.

A truce can either prolong this war that started 47 years ago or offer an opportunity for Iranians to seriously think of regime change rather than a change of behavior by the regime. The worst option is to promote uncertainty through provocative tweets and hourly volte-faces.

The tactic may have worked at first because of its novelty. Now, however, it has been factored in as part of the background noise.

Iran's mullahs often boasted that while the "Great Satan" has the gold watch, they have the time. Trump-bashers of all ilks have helped spread that shibboleth warning about global economic meltdown despite a return of calm on stock exchanges and energy markets.

Now, however, the "Great Satan" has the time while the mullahs are left with their worry beads.

Amir TaheriGatestone 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/22451/iran-heading-for-another-ceasefire

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran's Regime Is Not Iran: The War the West Refuses to Understand - Pierre Rehov

 

by Pierre Rehov

In Western capitals, where moral clarity too often yields to political expediency, this confusion (between a brutal ideological regime and the people it has oppressed) produces a strange paralysis: the fear of "hurting the Iranian people" serves as an excuse to tolerate a regime that has hurt them far more cruelly and systematically than any outside power ever has.

 

• One of the most persistent and dangerous misreadings of the confrontation with Iran is the stubborn confusion between a brutal ideological regime and the people it has oppressed for nearly five decades.

• In Western capitals, where moral clarity too often yields to political expediency, this confusion produces a strange paralysis: the fear of "hurting the Iranian people" serves as an excuse to tolerate a regime that has hurt them far more cruelly and systematically than any outside power ever has.

• In January 2026, the Iranian regime launched one of the deadliest crackdowns in its modern history, with protests met by a "shoot-to-kill" order "by any means necessary," issued by the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on January 9. Estimates vary, but internal health data and independent investigations suggest that between 30,000 and 36,500 protesters were killed in just two days, and tens of thousands more wounded or arrested in January alone.

• The idea that Iran's beleaguered people will suddenly, somehow, with no weapons whatsoever, magically rise up and take back their country from a regime armed to the teeth and with a rich record of mass-murder is beyond delusional. The result would be equivalent to the Warsaw Ghetto, whose last few hundred inhabitants tried to take on the German army, or the US resistance at the Alamo: heroic but predictably headed to defeat.

• Some of the Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, might prefer Iran to remain as any kind of dictatorship rather than a democracy, in order not to give their own citizens fancy ideas about freer forms of government. Such a sham solution, however, would be seen as a monumental betrayal of "Help is on its way" -- and undoubtedly be used to harm Republicans in the upcoming US midterm elections.

• The worst result would be for the Trump Administration to throw Iran's desperate citizens from a ruthless clerical frying pan into a ruthless militaristic fire. The brutality would be the same, just secular instead of religious -- a predatory system whose power rests on projecting strength at home while playing the victim abroad.

• The Iranian people have shown repeatedly that they do not identify with the rulers who claim to speak for them. This is a population held hostage, not a nation united behind its regime.

• Western critics who call a military approach – even one that has offered the regime many off-ramps – reckless should answer a simple question: what is the alternative? More rounds of negotiations with a regime that has violated every agreement it ever signed? Passive acceptance while thousands more Iranians are jailed, tortured, or executed? Moral grandstanding without consequences? That is not a policy — it is abdication.

• "Iran is a 47-year-old war crime." — US Senator John Fetterman (D-PA).

• The real Iran — the one that protests, resists, and yearns for normal life — has been the victim of a war its leaders have waged on it for decades. The real tragedy would be to prolong any part of it.

• Until this strategic distinction is understood, debates about Iran will remain trapped in the same sterile cycle of confusion and fear — the very environment in which the West has enabled the regime not only to thrive, but to prevail.

The Iranian people have shown repeatedly that they do not identify with the rulers who claim to speak for them. This is a population held hostage, not a nation united behind its regime. Pictured: Iranians protest against the regime on January 9, 2026, in Tehran. (Photo by MAHSA/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

One of the most persistent and dangerous misreadings of the confrontation with Iran is the stubborn confusion between a brutal ideological regime and the people it has oppressed for nearly five decades.

This is no accident. Tehran has long understood that its best defense is not its missiles or its proxies, but its control of the narrative. In Western capitals, where moral clarity too often yields to political expediency, this confusion produces a strange paralysis: the fear of "hurting the Iranian people" serves as an excuse to tolerate a regime that has hurt them far more cruelly and systematically than any outside power ever has.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has ruled through repression, ideological indoctrination, and outbursts of extreme violence, such as the mass executions of 1988. After a fatwa issued by the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "death commissions" conducted summary trials — often lasting just minutes — before executing political prisoners. Estimates of the death toll vary. International human rights organizations and former regime insiders speak of several thousand (commonly between 2,800 and 5,000), while opposition groups put the figure as high as 30,000. Many of the victims were young activists, students, or supporters of opposition movements, including the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Their bodies were dumped in mass graves, and their families were left without answers.

To this day, the regime denies the full scale of these mass murders, even as some of those directly involved later rose to the highest offices of state. Rather than being "just" an aberration, this slaughter of its own citizens was a blueprint for how the system deals with internal dissent.

The pattern has not only continued, it has intensified. In November 2019, protests triggered by a sudden fuel price hike were met with lethal force under a near-total information blackout. According to a Reuters investigation citing Iranian Interior Ministry sources, security forces killed about 1,500 people in a matter of days. Thousands more were arrested, tortured, or simply disappeared. In 2025, at least 1,639 Iranian citizens were executed. This year, just in the first three months, 657 were executed, and at least 1,600 more are scheduled to be executed.

In September 2022, the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini — arrested and evidently tortured by the "morality police" for allegedly violating the rule requiring that a headscarf cover women's hair — sparked another nationwide uprising. Once again, the regime responded with live ammunition. Human rights groups documented more than 500 killed, including dozens of children, and over 20,000 arrests. Again, these are not isolated episodes; they form part of a sustained internal war waged by the regime against large segments of its own population.

In January 2026, the Iranian regime launched one of the deadliest crackdowns in its modern history, with protests met by a "shoot-to-kill" order "by any means necessary," issued by the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on January 9. Estimates vary, but internal health data and independent investigations suggest that between 30,000 and 36,500 protesters were killed in just two days, and tens of thousands more wounded or arrested in January alone.

Security forces — including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij — fired live ammunition at unarmed civilians, often targeting the head and torso, while a nationwide internet blackout was imposed to conceal the scale of the killings.

Mass burials, disappearance of bodies, and intimidation of medical staff were reported, confirming a systematic effort not only to crush dissent, but to erase the evidence of mass murder.

Much Western commentary nevertheless still frames any pressure on Iran as a danger primarily to "the Iranian people," as if those people were not already living under daily threat from their own rulers. In what clearly appears to be journalistic malpractice, Iranians who risk their lives chanting "Death to the dictator" in the streets of Tehran, Shiraz or Isfahan are portrayed abroad as passive victims of foreign aggression rather than as active agents of resistance against a system that fears them more than it fears any external enemy.

This brings us to US President Donald J. Trump's much-discussed statement that "Help is on its way." Dismissed by critics as empty rhetoric, the remark was never a promise of instant military spectacle. Geopolitics does not unfold like a television drama. What matters is the underlying strategy: combining economic pressure, targeted military actions against regime assets, and psychologically undermining the regime's aura of invincibility.

The idea that Iran's beleaguered people will suddenly, somehow, with no weapons whatsoever, magically rise up and take back their country from a regime armed to the teeth and with a rich record of mass-murder is beyond delusional. The result would be equivalent to the Warsaw Ghetto, whose last few hundred inhabitants tried to take on the German army, or the US resistance at the Alamo: heroic but predictably headed to defeat.

Some of the Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, might prefer Iran to remain as any kind of dictatorship rather than a democracy, in order not to give their own citizens fancy ideas about freer forms of government. Such a sham solution, however, would be seen as a monumental betrayal of "Help is on its way" -- and undoubtedly be used to harm Republicans in the upcoming US midterm elections.

The worst result would be for the Trump Administration to throw Iran's desperate citizens from a ruthless clerical frying pan into a ruthless militaristic fire. The brutality would be the same, just secular instead of religious -- a predatory system whose power rests on projecting strength at home while playing the victim abroad.

Tehran's response follows a familiar playbook — deliberately embedding military assets among civilians (a war crime), then immediately weaponizing any civilian casualties for international outrage. This is a form of propaganda warfare, also used by terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, for which the media and international community fall every time. If the West treats the Iranian regime and the Iranian people as one and the same, the tactic succeeds. If these false equivalences are exposed, the narrative collapses.

The Iranian people have shown repeatedly that they do not identify with the rulers who claim to speak for them. This is a population held hostage, not a nation united behind its regime.

No force can deliver sustainable regime change on its own. Real transformation must ultimately come from within – but with generous outside assistance. External pressure can weaken the system economically and create openings, but the Iranians – in practical terms – cannot be expected bravely to commit collective suicide confronting their armed oppressors if the West is too cowardly to help. That moment nearly arrived before, in 2009, 2019, and 2022, only to be crushed by both the regime's brutal efficiency and even more by West's callous dismissal of the protesters and instead, cozying up to Iran. The difference today is that the regime no longer enjoys uncontested domination.

Western critics who call a military approach – even one that has offered the regime many off-ramps – reckless should answer a simple question: what is the alternative? More rounds of negotiations with a regime that has violated every agreement it ever signed? Passive acceptance while thousands more Iranians are jailed, tortured, or executed? Moral grandstanding without consequences? That is not a policy — it is abdication.

The Iranian regime is not just another geopolitical player. It is a predatory system that devours its own people while exporting instability across the region. "Iran is a 47-year-old war crime," stated Senator John Fetterman (D-PA). The Trump Administration needs to "Make Iran Great Again," to liberate it. Opposing the regime is not an attack on Iran; it is finally winning a half-century war that its rulers have imposed on its own people, its neighbors, and the West. Trump is not "hurting" Iran. He is on the verge of freeing it. The greatest misfortune for the Iranian people and the Free World would be if he now decides to stop.

The real Iran — the one that protests, resists, and yearns for normal life — has been the victim of a war its leaders have waged on it for decades. The real tragedy would be to prolong any part of it. For too long, the West has looked away while the regime, without restraint, has massacred its own people, attacked and destabilized its neighbors, and killed nearly a thousand Americans, and attempted to assassinate Trump and other US officials.

Until this strategic distinction is understood, debates about Iran will remain trapped in the same sterile cycle of confusion and fear — the very environment in which the West has enabled the regime not only to thrive, but to prevail.

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: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22452/understanding-iran-regime

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran’s real 'nuclear option': Strait of Hormuz remains key leverage in future conflict - Ynet

 

by Ynet

US weighs tanker seizures as Iran rebuilds missiles and signals it can again shut the strait, while attacks on ships and internal divisions raise tensions; despite losses, officials say Tehran retains enough drones, mines and launchers to disrupt global trade

Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former president and current deputy chairman of its Security Council, wrote last week that it remains unclear how the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran will develop, but “one thing is certain: Iran has already tested its ‘nuclear weapon.’ It is called the Strait of Hormuz, and its potential is limitless.” Medvedev is considered one of President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies.

The New York Times on Sunday reviewed the conflict surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes under normal conditions. The newspaper also reported that Iran continues to recover its missile stockpiles that were struck by the United States and Israel. Once the process is complete, some U.S. officials estimate Iran could restore up to about 70% of its prewar missile inventory. Other officials dispute that assessment, saying it is inaccurate. Still, there is broad agreement on one point: the Islamic Republic will retain enough military capability to close the strategic waterway in the future.

 

The Times reported that although the United States and Israel went to war with Iran in part to prevent the ayatollah regime from obtaining nuclear weapons, Iran already has a sufficient deterrent — its geography. Iran’s decision to close the strait drove a sharp rise in global fuel prices, as well as in fertilizer and other goods, disrupting war planning in Washington and Jerusalem. It also prompted what the report described as efforts to develop “military options to wrest control of the strait from Iran.”

 

“Everyone now knows that if there is a future confrontation, closing the strait will be the first move in the Iranian playbook,” Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch in Israeli military intelligence and now a fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Times. “You can’t defeat geography.” He added that Iran viewed the June war as an Israeli campaign serving its own strategic goals. “Now it is a war for regime change.”

 

According to the Times, even naval mines and the risk they pose are enough to deter commercial shipping and oil tankers from passing through the strait. However, Iran retains more precise capabilities, including attack drones and short-range missiles. U.S. military and intelligence officials estimate that even after the war, Iran still possesses about 40% of its attack drone arsenal and more than 60% of its missile launchers — “more than enough to hold traffic in the Strait of Hormuz hostage in the future.”

 

U.S. President Donald Trump last week imposed a naval blockade on all ships departing from or heading to Iranian ports after Tehran refused to reopen the strait as part of a temporary ceasefire agreement — an agreement Iran said was violated because it initially did not include Lebanon. Two days ago, after Trump compelled Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Hezbollah, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that traffic through the strategic strait would be fully restored. Oil prices plunged following the announcement and Trump thanked Iran. 

 

However, on Saturday morning — in a move that may indicate internal divisions within the regime — Iran’s Revolutionary Guard abruptly announced that the strait would be closed again, apparently in response to Trump’s statement that the naval blockade would remain in place until a broader agreement is reached.

 

Several ships managed to pass through the strait before the announcement, but after the Revolutionary Guard’s statement, two vessels were reportedly attacked there, including a supertanker carrying oil from Iraq. The tanker reported it had come under fire from two Revolutionary Guard speedboats. The second vessel reported “unidentified ordnance” that damaged several tankers on board. No casualties were reported in either incident, but the affected ships, along with others preparing to transit the strait, were forced to turn back. Both vessels were sailing under the Indian flag, and India later summoned Iran’s ambassador in New Delhi for a reprimand, expressing “deep concern” over the attacks.

 

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. military is preparing to seize, possibly within days, oil tankers and commercial vessels linked to Iran. The seizures are expected to take place in international waters, including areas far from the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, where the U.S. Navy is already enforcing a blockade. The move is intended to increase economic pressure on the ayatollah regime in an effort to push it toward compromise in negotiations with the United States and to reopen the strait.

 

The Times reported that the blockade is having a significant impact on Iran. Maritime trade accounts for about 90% of the country’s economic output — roughly $340 million per day — and that flow has largely been disrupted in recent days.

Iran's Revolutionalry Guards 'mosquito fleet'

(Photo: Wikipedia)

For now, it remains unclear how talks between the United States and Iran will evolve. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker who led its negotiating delegation to Islamabad last week, told the Iranian Tasnim news agency that “there has been progress in the negotiations with the United States, but significant gaps remain.” He said, “We have reached conclusions on some issues, but not on others, and various proposals have been raised. We are still far from a final discussion. We insist on several issues that are nonnegotiable for us. The talks in Islamabad have not removed our distrust of the United States, but I think mutual understanding between the two sides has become more realistic.”

 

On Saturday, after Tehran again announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that “talks with Iran are going well,” but added that “they can't blackmail us.”

 

“The West tends to act as if Iran is a country with a clear chain of command — you negotiate with the Foreign Ministry, they pass it up the ranks, decisions are made, and that’s it,” Mohamed Amersi, an Iran expert and a member of the Wilson Center’s global advisory council, told The Wall Street Journal. “When the moment of truth comes, the guys with the guns, drones and speedboats tend to win the arguments.”

Ynet

Source: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkmllez6bg#autoplay

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What do the Democrats want from Israel? - Jonathan S. Tobin

 

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Senate Democrats haven’t turned on the Jewish state because the Netanyahu government is reckless. It’s because they fear a party base of deluded antisemites.

 

Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) look on during a hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., on March 12, 2026. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images.

The headline published by the far-left outlet The Intercept was spot on, even if most of the information in its article was slanted or downright false. In declaring that, “The Dam Breaks: Democratic Senators Overwhelmingly Reject Arms Sales to Israel,” the rabidly anti-Israel publication said nothing less than the truth. In the last year, the last vestiges of pro-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party have more or less collapsed.

In the vote held on April 15, 40 of 47 Democratic members of the U.S. Senate voted in favor of one or two of the proposals put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to stop the sale of bulldozers and 1,000-pound bombs to the Jewish state. That this happened in the midst of an existential war that Israel is fighting against Iran, as well as its Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist auxiliaries, is shocking in and of itself. But the dramatic rise in the number of votes against giving Jerusalem the weapons it needs to deal with these enemies is what is most telling.

Pro-Israel Democrats are now the outliers
In 2024, when 19 Senate Democrats got behind a similar move by Sanders to “Block the Bombs” that were being used by Israel to attack Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, that was rightly considered a breakthrough for what was once thought to be a marginal element in their caucus. A year later, in 2025, a then-record 25 Democratic senators joined the Vermont Socialist in seeking to embargo arms to Israel. Now, by getting 40 of his colleagues to join with him, a clear message was sent to the last of the pro-Israel holdouts.

Just a very few years ago, those Democrats who wanted to sunder the alliance with the Jewish state in this manner could be characterized as outliers who represented a marginal faction of the party. Today, pro-Israel Democrats are the ones who must be considered out of touch with not just their fellow senators but with the party base that keeps them in office.

A New York Times article claimed that the major factor in flipping the totals on arms sales to Israel was the unpopularity of the joint war the United States has been fighting with the Jewish state against Iran. That’s certainly an important part of this debate. Still, the partisan motivations of those who think, as Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman does, that defeating President Donald Trump has become more important than opposing the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism is not the sole or even the most important determining factor in deciding how Democrats are going to vote.

What matters most is what party activists and grassroots Democratic voters think about Israel. And as poll after poll has shown, they oppose Israel and favor their terrorist enemies (65% to 17%) by almost as overwhelming a majority as Republicans back Israel (70% to 13%) over the Palestinians.

It’s Hasan Piker’s party now
Indeed, liberal writer Jonathan Chait was not far off the mark when he wrote in The Atlantic of the fear that Democratic officeholders have of a party base that has fallen under the spell of anti-Israel hatemongers like podcaster Hasan Piker.

Republicans may have their own problem with a similar antisemitic set, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Alex Jones and enablers like Megyn Kelly. But Democrats who don’t wish to bend the knee to their intersectional left-wing base are in a very different position than the GOP. The leader of the Republicans—Trump—had no problem kicking them out of the party and his MAGA movement for the offense of opposing the war on Iran and alliance with Israel. He did so not only because he isn’t the type to take orders from someone like Carlson, who is more of a Mar-a-Lago court jester than a policy adviser. He could do so with impunity, secure in the knowledge that whatever inroads the Israel-bashers and Jew-haters have made among young voters, the overwhelming majority of his supporters approve of his stances.

Senate Democrats, most of whom came into office pledging their undying support for the Jewish state, don’t have that luxury. Indeed, as Chait writes, they are on the verge of losing their party to the likes of Piker, as well as the academic, pop-culture and media elites who, as we’ve learned from their pushback against calls to isolate someone who hates America as well as Israel and the Jews, largely agree with him.

Chait’s proposed solution to the problem is to follow the path of the 40 Senate Democrats who are now on record backing a proposal that would disarm Israel in the middle of a war. He says they have choices. One is to abandon Israel and hold onto office. The other is to stick to the principles that got most of them elected in the first place—and be defeated in a future primary by an Israel-hating and antisemitic Democratic Socialist who will steer the party toward the hard left. It also means a Democratic Party in which members of the left-wing congressional “Squad” that includes Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), along with fellow Marxist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are no longer on the margins but in control.

They know he’s right because, as he put it, they can all read polls. And so, they are shifting their principles to accommodate the new ideological alignment toward people for whom one Jewish state on the planet is one too many. And if that means leaving Israel without the weapons and means to defend itself against its genocidal regional foes, that’s just too bad.

Were the Democrats who changed their votes in the last year to get in sync with the new fashionable antisemitic wing of their party—such as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ruben Gallego (D-N.J.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—to admit to this, it would be disgraceful enough. But what’s truly awful about their stand is the disingenuous defenses of their position. They claim that they still support Israel, but think its democratically elected government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has engaged in reckless and needlessly brutal behavior by waging war on Iran, in addition to its terrorist allies in Gaza and Lebanon.

Missing from their hypocritical speeches is any mention of what they really expect from an Israeli government. Even Chait, who also claims to be a “liberal Zionist” disenchanted with Netanyahu but not Israel itself, had to acknowledge that the Jewish state has no current peace partner. At some point, even those who are willfully ignorant about events in the Middle East have to take notice of the fact that Palestinian Arabs don’t want a two-state solution, which liberal Americans still seem to think is the only answer to the conflict. Unlike them, the overwhelming majority of Israelis have decided to accept that Palestinians are saying “no” to any outcome other than the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of its people.

The atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, helped cement that viewpoint.

Israelis won’t commit suicide
Do Democrats really expect Israel, whether led by Netanyahu or any possible alternative that might defeat him later this year in the coming elections, to share their delusions after everything that has happened in the 33 years since the Oslo Accords? Do they think Israeli citizens will commit suicide to retain the world’s goodwill? Even those who will vote against Netanyahu understand that the terrorist attacks that took place on Oct. 7 were just a trailer for what the Palestinians want to do to the rest of the Jewish state.

The Piker wing of the Democrats knows this, too. The difference is that they support Israel’s extinction and think that the Jewish genocide this would entail is merely the just deserts that all “white” oppressors and settler-colonialists deserve.

The “moderates” who once made up the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, but are now voting with the Israel-haters, may not want this. But they value their seats and the ability to move among their base without being accused of being supportive of the mythical genocide Israel is supposedly carrying out against Gazans more than they do the alliance with Jerusalem, let alone Jewish survival.

The party base isn’t aware that the “genocide” and “apartheid” blood libels aimed at Israel are all rooted in recycled Soviet propaganda and other myths validated by toxic “anti-racist” ideologies. Those whose knowledge is limited to what they see on their TikTok feeds or podcasts hosted by Piker—and his moral equivalents on the right—may not know they are being lied to. But the Senate Democrats who are pandering to their prejudices and appalling ignorance do.

Perhaps they can live with it because, as Chait notes, Israel isn’t going to allow itself to be destroyed, regardless of what the Democrats do, even if they retake Congress and the White House in the coming years. Truth be told, it is in the Jewish state’s interests, as Netanyahu himself has said, to eventually wean itself from U.S. military aid, even if doing so now, after more than two and a half years of continuous war, would be disastrous. Still, that aid is almost all spent on buying U.S. materials and constitutes as much of an assistance package to American arms manufacturers as it does to Jerusalem.

A deal with the devil
But Chait and other like-minded pundits, such as Friedman or Ezra Klein at the Times, are wrong if they believe that abandoning Israel in this manner will save the moderates who still claim to care about the Jewish state. By giving in to the hard left in this manner, they are, as The Intercept noted, allowing the dam that held their extremists in check to burst.

Like all such deluges, support for Israel isn’t the only position once held by Democrats that will be swept away. In its wake will come not only the normalization and acceptance of antisemitism, as is already manifested by the liberal media’s swooning over Piker. It will also involve adoption of the rest of the far left’s agenda, including open borders, a “Defund the Police” attitude toward crime and public safety, and AOC- and Mamdani-style Marxist economic measures.

Democrats aren’t wrong to think they are set up to make real gains this year because of both the usual anti-incumbent spirit of a midterm election, but also because of the setbacks faced by the Trump administration—many of them economic. And they believe turning on Israel will only further accelerate a shift in voter sentiment toward them. Yet the sort of thinking that animates the people they are appeasing isn’t limited to hatred for Israel and tolerance for Jew-hatred. It will inevitably lead to general radicalization that is deeply unpopular and will sink them far quicker than a principled stand in support of the Jewish state would. As the ominous saying goes: “First, they come for the Jews … .”

Confronting and refuting the antisemitic base of the Democratic Party won’t be easy for politicians who are, like most of their congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle, more interested in power than principle. But they should realize that making concessions to their base’s anti-Israel prejudices won’t purchase their acquiescence on other issues. Those Democrats who are betraying Jerusalem now aren’t buying themselves time or space to further consolidate their hold on their party. Instead, they are making a deal with the devil from which there is no escape clause to enable them to hold onto their seats—or what’s left of their principles.

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/what-do-the-democrats-want-from-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

London boosts security after weekend synagogue arson cases - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

Police increase patrols around Jewish sites after two suspected attempts to burn down synagogues.

 

Metropolitan Police officers patrol London in December 2025. Credit: Courtesy of the Metropolitan Police. 

Police in London beefed up their presence around Jewish institutions following a suspected attempt to burn down a synagogue on Saturday, one day after an alleged arson attack on the former offices of a Jewish charity, police said.

“Uniformed and plain-clothed officers will maintain a strong presence around the borough, including providing reassurance to Jewish places of worship and businesses. Extra stop and search powers have also been introduced across Barnet to help deter acts of violence and target any potential offenders,” the Metropolitan Police wrote in a statement on Saturday night.

Armed response vehicles and Counter Terrorism Policing resources “have also been deployed to the area to support the increased local policing plan. Police motorbikes and interceptors will also be in and around communities to bolster efforts, the police said.

The arson in Kenton, northwestern London, on Saturday resulted in “minor damage to an interior room” at the synagogue and no injuries, the Community Security Trust, British Jewry’s security organ and watchdog on antisemitism, said in a statement on Sunday. The statement also said that police had arrived at the scene and were investigating what led to the incident.

British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis called the attack part of “A sustained campaign of violence and intimidation against the Jewish community of the U.K.” that is “gathering momentum” and “an attack on the values that bind us all together,” in addition to being a “sustained attack on our community’s ability to worship and live in safety.

“It follows the attack in Finchley on Wednesday and the attempted attack on what was the Jewish Futures building in Hendon on Friday night, making three Jewish sites attacked in London in less than a week,” Mirvis noted.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan wrote on X on Sunday, “There will be a significantly increased police presence in the area, including around Jewish places of worship and businesses. There is no place for antisemitism in our city, and the perpetrators of these despicable attacks will face the full force of the law. London will always stand united against those seeking to divide us.”

Also in north London

On Saturday, the Metropolitan Police said it was probing an arson attack that took place on Friday night in Hendon, also in northern London, against a business that had been previously owned by a Jewish charity.

The site on Hendon Way still bears signs of the former owner, reading “jewish futures.”

A man was seen to approach a row of shops with a plastic bag with what was later found to be three bottles containing fluid. He placed the bag next to the building and lit the items in the bag, according to police. The bottles failed to fully ignite and the man fled the scene. On Wednesday, a man and a woman were arrested on suspicion of arson endangering life after two bottles, possibly containing petrol, on the Finchley Reform Synagogue in northern London. Those incidents, too, resulted in minor damage and no injuries.

On March 23, four ambulances of the Hatzola Northwest Jewish emergency response group were set on fire in the London neighborhood of Golders Green.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews noted these incidents in a statement on Sunday, adding, “There have also been similar incidents targeting Iranian opposition media outlets and the Israeli Embassy.”

Board President Phil Rosenberg wrote: “Our community will not be intimidated by these cowardly acts of hate, which are an attack on Britain and its values, and on the security and cohesion of everyone in our country.”

In 2025, the United Kingdom had the highest per capita rate of real-life antisemitic assaults of any country with a large Jewish community, according to a report published last week by Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating antisemitism.

The report, published on the eve of Israel’s national day of commemoration for the victims of the Holocaust, said that “high and sustained levels of antisemitic activity” were recorded in several areas, “with a notable concentration in a select number of countries: the United States, the U.K., Australia, France, Canada and Germany.”

The United Kingdom topped the chart of violent antisemitic incidents per capita with 121 cases in a country with a Jewish population of 292,000, the report noted.

The Community Security Trust recorded a total of 3,700 antisemitic incidents in 2025, including nonviolent and non-physical cases. This was an increase over the previous year and the second-highest tally on record, representing a 4% bump from the 3,556 anti-Jewish hate incidents CST recorded in 2024. Last year’s total was 14% lower than the highest ever annual total of 4,298 antisemitic incidents reported in 2023.

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/antisemitism/london-boosts-security-after-weekend-synagogue-arson-cases

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Justices' recent public comments reveal tensions over internal court practices, legal reasonings - Just the News

 

by Just the News

The comments, delivered in speeches and public appearances rather than formal rulings, come as the court enters final stretch of its term, when some of the most closely watched cases will be decided.

 

Several justices have in recent days stepped outside the traditional confines of written opinions – offering unusually pointed public remarks that reveal tensions over the court’s internal practices, legal reasoning and broader judicial philosophies. 

The comments, delivered in speeches and public appearances rather than formal rulings, come as the court enters the final stretch of its term and prepares to issue decisions in some of the most closely watched cases of the year.

The recent spate of remarks has drawn attention in legal circles. While justices frequently speak at law schools and public events, it is far less common for them to air disagreements directly, particularly about issues that bear on the court’s current work.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, speaking Monday at Yale Law School, raised concerns about the court’s increasing reliance on emergency orders, sometimes referred to by critics as the “shadow docket.” Such rulings are typically issued without full briefing, oral argument or signed opinions, and can have immediate and far-reaching effects.

“There is a serious concern that the Supreme Court's modern stay practices are having an enormously disruptive and potentially corrosive effect,” said Jackson, appointed to the high court by Democrat President Joe Biden. 

Her remarks add to a growing debate among scholars and practitioners about the transparency and accountability of the court’s emergency decision-making. 

Use of the emergency docket has increased in recent years, as administrations of both parties have sought expedited relief in high-stakes disputes. Critics argue that the abbreviated process can leave lower courts and litigants with little guidance, while defenders say it is a necessary tool for addressing urgent legal questions and preventing irreparable harm.

Jackson’s comments did not reference any specific pending case, but they reflect a broader unease among some jurists about how frequently such orders are being used and how little explanation often accompanies them.

Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking Wednesday at the University of Texas at Austin, took a different tack, focusing on political philosophy and the nation’s founding principles. 

In remarks that echoed themes he has expressed in past opinions, Thomas argued that modern progressivism is fundamentally at odds with the ideals set out in the nation’s founding documents.

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” said Thomas, appointed to the high court by Republican President George H. W. Bush.

Although his comments were framed as part of a broader discussion of constitutional history, they come at a time when the court is considering cases that touch on the scope of federal power and the role of administrative agencies – areas in which debates over constitutional interpretation often align with larger ideological divides.

The most personal moment in the recent series of appearances came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who, during an April 7 event at the University of Kansas School of Law, appeared to criticize a colleague’s characterization of immigration enforcement practices in a recent case.

Without naming Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sotomayor took issue with a concurring opinion that described certain immigration stops as “typically brief.” She suggested that such a description did not reflect the lived experience of many workers.

“This is from a man whose parents were professionals,” Sotomayor said. “And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”

The remarks quickly drew attention for their personal tone, which is unusual in the context of the court’s carefully maintained norms of collegiality. Sotomayor later issued a public apology through the court.

"At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate,” she said in the statement. “I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking at Rice University in March of this year, addressed a different but related concern: rising public criticism and, in some instances, threats directed at members of the judiciary. Roberts warned that attacks on judges, whether verbal or physical, pose a risk to the independence of the judicial branch.

He said criticism of judicial opinions is fair and healthy, but “personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it's got to stop.”

The chief justice has spoken on this issue before, but his latest comments come amid heightened political tensions and increased scrutiny of the court’s decisions. While he did not tie his remarks to any specific incident, they reflect an ongoing effort to defend the role of the judiciary as an independent arbiter of the law.

The recent comments from multiple justices offer a rare glimpse into the range of views and concerns shaping the court at a pivotal moment. From procedural questions about emergency rulings to broader debates over constitutional interpretation and the tone of public discourse, the remarks highlight issues that are often addressed only indirectly in formal opinions.

It is not unusual for justices to disagree. Indeed, dissent is a defining feature of the court’s work. But those disagreements are typically expressed in written opinions. Public comments, especially in reference to colleagues or current controversies, are far less common.

For an institution that places a premium on deliberation and discretion, even modest departures from silence can carry added significance – and serve as a reminder that, despite its formal rituals, the Supreme Court is not immune to the broader debates unfolding beyond its marble walls. 

Just the News

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Fugitives arrested in New England sanctuary jurisdictions wanted on homicide charges - Bethany Blankley

 

by Bethany Blankley

Once in the country illegally, they made their way to the sanctuary jurisdictions of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Sanctuary jurisdictions are those whose leaders defy or obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

 

(The Center Square) -

Fve fugitives have been arrested in New England sanctuary jurisdictions within the past few weeks who are wanted for murder or homicide in their home countries.

They all had foreign arrest warrants charging murder or homicide with some facing additional charges. To evade capture and prosecution in their home countries of Brazil, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, they fled to the United States, where they illegally entered the country during the Biden administration.

Once in the country illegally, they made their way to the sanctuary jurisdictions of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Sanctuary jurisdictions are those whose leaders defy or obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

At least 35 states have been identified by the Trump administration as sanctuary jurisdictions, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, The Center Square reported. Six cities in Connecticut; and 13 counties and 12 cities in Massachusetts are on a federal sanctuary list published last year. The list is missing Natick, whose officials voted for sanctuary status after an Iranian national was arrested there for his alleged ties to a terrorist attack that killed three U.S. service members, The Center Square reported.

In Waterbury, Connecticut, ICE Boston agents arrested Salvadoran national Danny Granados-Garcia, wanted for aggravated homicide and a member of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, MS-13.

MS-13 and other FTO members are increasingly being prosecuted by the Trump administration, charged with using machetes, baseball bats and strangulation to kill their victims, and mutilating or dismembering their victims, The Center Square reported.

In Worcester, Massachusetts, ICE Boston agents arrested Brazilian Magno Jose Dos Santos and Dominican Bryan Rafael Gomez. Dos Santos was wanted for homicide and an attempted crime allegedly committed in 2021. Gomez was wanted for homicide, with a warrant from 2023.

In Everett, Mass., Brazilian Kele Cristian Alves-Pereira was arrested, wanted for a 2021 murder. In Falmouth, Mass., Brazilian Altieris Chaves Paiva was arrested, wanted for a 2024 homicide.

ICE Boston agents have been arresting multiple Brazilians who are illegally in the country, including one convicted of 11 murders and sentenced to more than 200 years in prison for his role in a 2015 “Curio Massacre,” The Center Square reported. After he was sentenced, he fled Brazil and made it to Massachusetts where he was eventually found and arrested by law enforcement, ICE said. Other Brazilians ICE Boston agents have arrested have had criminal charges of child rape, drug trafficking and murder, among other charges, The Center Square reported.

Nearly 70% of arrests made by ICE during the Trump administration have U.S. criminal histories, ICE says, The Center Square has reported.

“Even though some of these foreign fugitives had no criminal charges in the United States, all endangered our New England communities,” ICE-ERO Boston acting Field Office Director David Wesling said. “We will continue to pursue these dangerous criminal aliens that sanctuary politicians fight to protect.” 

Bethany Blankley

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/fugitives-arrested-new-england-sanctuary-jurisdictions-wanted-homicide 

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter