Renewed US-Iran hostilities likely, Iranian commander says - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

The U.S. Defense Department estimates that Tehran has lost almost $5 billion due to the blockade.

 

The guided-missile destroyer USS Spruance (foregound) sails in front of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (not seen) and behind a cargo ship (in photo’s background) during a transit of the Singapore Strait on Aug. 15, 2024. Credit: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kassandra Alanis/U.S. Navy Photo.

“A renewed conflict between Iran and the United States is likely,” a senior Iranian military officer said on Saturday in the wake of President Donald Trump’s statement that he was “not satisfied” with Tehran’s latest proposal to end the conflict.

“Evidence has shown that the United States is not committed to any promises or agreements,” AFP quoted IRGC Brig. Gen. Mohammad Jafar Asadi as saying in an interview published by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Fars News Agency.

Asadi is deputy commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran’s highest operational military command, which is responsible for planning, coordinating and controlling joint operations between the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Artesh (regular army).

On Friday, Iran’s judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei said the Islamic Republic had “never shied away from negotiations,” but that it would not accept an “imposition” of peace terms, AFP reported.

Also on Friday, Trump told reporters at the White House that the Iranian regime wants to “make a deal because they have no military left.”

However, Tehran is “asking for things that I can’t agree to,” he added.

The president attributed the stalemate in negotiations to Iran’s “extremely disjointed” leadership, which was effectively decapitated during the joint U.S.-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic launched on Feb. 28.

Speaking at a rally in The Villages, Fla., on Saturday, Trump said that America is “in a war because, I think you would agree, we cannot let lunatics have a nuclear weapon.”

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re in a war because, I think you would agree, we can’t let lunatics have a nuclear weapon.

*Thunderous Applause* pic.twitter.com/Sx7DmMz8B4

— Department of State (@StateDept) May 1, 2026

According to Axios, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff had submitted a counter-proposal to Tehran that includes a section on its nuclear program, demanding no movement of enriched uranium from bombed facilities or resumption of activity there during negotiations.

Iran’s storage capacity problem

In a separate report on Saturday, Axios said that the U.S. military has denied the Islamic Republic close to $5 billion in oil revenue since imposing a blockade on Iranian ports, according to U.S. Defense Department estimates.

Some 53 million barrels of Iranian oil on 31 tankers are currently stranded in the Gulf waters, the report cited Pentagon officials as saying.

This has prompted Iran to use older tankers as floating storage, with some vessels attempting “a costlier and longer route to deliver oil to China for fear of U.S. maritime interdiction,” the officials added.

Gregory Brew, an analyst with the Eurasia Group, told Axios that Iran is “probably several weeks, or perhaps as much as a month, away from running out of storage.” If that happens, it could be forced to shut down its oil wells, which has the potential to permanently destroy the flow of oil from the ground.

A senior Iranian official told Bloomberg on Saturday that the country has begun curbing production of oil as a result.

However, the report added that Tehran has plenty of experience in dealing with the situation after years of sanctions and economic disruptions. The official was cited as saying that Iranian engineers have learned how to idle wells without lasting damage and restart them quickly.

Hamid Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Association, said, “We have enough expertise and experience. We’re not worried,” the report continued.

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/world/renewed-u-s-iran-hostilities-likely-iranian-commander-says

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

SCOTUS Tolls the Bell on Racial Gerrymandering - Clarice Feldman

 

by Clarice Feldman

The implications of the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais overturning race-based voting districts are far more profound and far-reaching than anyone has yet realized.

 

This week, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, ended decades of race-engineering in how congressional districts are drawn. The opinion is likely not only to benefit Republicans by increasing their representation in Congress, but it also should end racial engineering in a multitude of local institutions, to the benefit of all. It signals the beginning of the end for progressive governance, begun by President Woodrow Wilson (ironically, a segregationist), whose vision conflicts with the Constitution.

Thirty-one years ago, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that racial gerrymandering -- defended as a means for ensuring proportional electoral results according to race -- should not continue.

In my view, our current practice should not continue. Not for another Term, not until the next case, not for another day. The disastrous implications of the policies we have adopted under the Act are too grave; the dissembling in our approach to the [Voting Rights] Act too damaging to the credibility of the Federal Judiciary. The “inherent tension” -- indeed, I would call it an irreconcilable conflict -- between the standards we have adopted for evaluating vote dilution claims and the text of the Voting Rights Act would itself be sufficient in my view to warrant overruling the interpretation of § 2 set out in Gingles. When that obvious conflict is combined with the destructive effects our expansive reading of the Act has had in involving the Federal Judiciary in the project of dividing the Nation into racially segregated electoral districts, I can see no reasonable alternative to abandoning our current unfortunate understanding of the Act.

It did, however, continue until this week.

Progressivism at the Heart of Racial Engineering

Just last week, Thomas fleshed out why progressive governance is at odds with the Constitution, and for most of us who lived under its grip for decades, it’s important to understand that too many of us were manipulated into ignorance of its perniciousness. Once you listen to his speech, this week’s decision is easier to understand. It’s fundamental, not partisan.

The Constitution asserts that our rights are natural, inherent, God-given to each of us. This vision, said Thomas, strengthens us from concentrated power and mob rule.

Human history teaches us, alas, that numerical majorities frequently seek to control government, and use the state to violate the rights of the minority. Because man is fallen and the desire for power was, as James Madison described it, “sown in the nature of man,” government had to be limited. For, as Madison said, “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental natural rights of the slaves; the segregationists used the state to oppress the freed men and women -- including my ancestors. 

President Wilson, he argues, took from Germany’s Otto von Bismarck a state-centric view and “liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of government.” He began a process of undermining the Constitution and its setting of the relationships between citizens and their government.

This view, Thomas argues, led to Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao. Progressives in the U.S. embraced eugenics, “the inherent superiority and inferiority of race,” from which we got Wilson’s resegregation of the federal work force, and government sterilization programs.

Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration: 

“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.” 

Citizens of any race or ethnicity are endowed with equal rights and none get special privileges from the state.

Louisiana v. Callais

It’s a short step from all people are created equal to the notion that to end racial discrimination, we have to stop discriminating on the basis of race, the underlying sense of this week’s Louisiana v. Callais decision. (The case came to the Court through a complicated series of lower court cases of greater interest to constitutional scholars than I suspect, to you.)

In short summary, Louisiana racial grievance mongers believed the single already-very-tortured district created to assure a majority black district was insufficient and wanted a second majority black district created on the grounds that blacks made up about one-third of the state. The state complied with that court-compelled demand to create a second majority-black district. Others challenged it as a racial gerrymander, arguing that it was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court had to resolve two questions: Whether under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) the Court should apply strict scrutiny only if race “predominated in the decision-making” and whether the VRA provided a compelling reason to justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts.

Thirty-two years after Justice Thomas first argued the practice of setting up districts on the basis of race should not continue, the Court held the VRA did not compel creation of a majority-minority district, that the Constitution very rarely permits a state to discriminate on the basis of race, and when a state does discriminate, the courts must apply strict scrutiny. (So far, the court has found compelling interest only when it is to “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons” and “remediating specific, identified instances of unconstitutional past discrimination.)

The relevant section of the VRA establishes a violation only when members of a racial group have “less opportunity than others of the electorate to elect representatives of their choice.” Minority voters are entitled to nothing less and nothing more. Consequently, states are not barred from drawing districts on nonracial factors, even if that achieves a partisan advantage. In this case, it was uncontestably true that, following a court directive to create an additional majority-black district, there was an “express acknowledgment that race played a role in the drawing of district lines.”

The Consequences of Abandoning State Racial Engineering

At least two states, Alabama and Tennessee, have already begun redistricting now that they are no longer compelled to discriminate by law. The implications are far greater than simply the fashioning of congressional districts. As Jeff Childers wrote, it will affect the composition of “local boards, commissions and councils.”

One of the most politically explosive Supreme Court decisions ever issued. What the Court did in Louisiana v. Callais was not just about one badly drawn Louisiana map, or even about potential GOP pickups in the 2026 midterms. This story is so much bigger than that. SCOTUS quietly unwound four decades of political pod politics that corrupted our body politic top-to-bottom.

In plain English, the ruling is already triggering at least four massive downstream shocks -- three of which nobody has bothered pointing out to us, even though they are probably the biggest stories of all:

1. A red‑state rush to redraw maps before the midterms, now unshackled from court‑mandated “majority‑minority” districts and old Section 2 racial targets.
2. A blue‑state brick wall, which ambitious Democratic gerrymanders and constitutional amendments are suddenly slamming into because their legal doorway just evaporated into thin air.
3. A federal lawfare Uno-reverse, with Trump’s DOJ already promising to apply its civil‑rights powers to attack the race‑driven maps it used to defend, and to enforce Callais in “every state that has such a district.”
4. An earthquake rumbling under local government, where decades‑old Section 2-era “remedies” -- single‑member districts, special minority seats, and other race‑tuned structures in cities, counties, and school boards -- are now open to attack as potentially unconstitutional racial engineering. (Racers, take your marks.)

Only the first one -- the red‑state map rush -- was widely predicted. The other three, especially the local effects, are what make this political earthquake a magnitude‑8 event with aftershocks for two generations.

It’s my experience that minority politicians are no worse, no more radical, and no crazier than anyone else when they represent other than majority-minority districts, that is, when they need to persuade a broader voter base. If I’m right about this, we can look forward to a Congress that more of us of all races and ethnicities can respect. 

Clarice Feldman

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/05/scotus_tolls_the_bell_on_racial_gerrymandering.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

London police chief says Jews facing ‘epidemic’ of antisemitism - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police, requested an additional 300 officers to defend the community.

 

Mark Rowley, Metropolitan Police commissioner, arrives for a roundtable deliberation hosted by Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street in response to the terrorist attack against Jews in Golders Green, April 30, 2026. Credit: Lauren Hurley/No. 10 Downing Street.

Jews are caught at the center of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate,” Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police, said on Friday. He requested an additional 300 officers to defend the community.

In an interview with The Times on May 1, Rowley warned that British Jews are facing their greatest threat ever. He blamed social media for driving an “epidemic” of antisemitism.

Jews are targeted by extremists, terrorists from both the political left and right, and state-backed violent actors, he said.

“If you overlay three things now—hate crime, terrorism and hostile state activity—you add all that together, that combined effect with that building of ideology online, that is really dangerous and troubling,” he said. “And Jewish communities feel that and you can see that in how they talk, how it’s making them change their lives. That’s an appalling state of affairs.”

Rowley requested that the government provide funding to recruit 300 officers to protect the Jewish community. He said it was “essential” for a dedicated group of neighborhood officers and armed officers to be permanently stationed in heavily Jewish northwest London at which the Golders Green neighborhood is the center.

He hailed the two officers who arrested the Golders Green knife attack suspect as “heroes.”

British police charged a 45-year-old man in connection with the stabbing of two Jewish men after they left Hagers Shul Synagogue in north London, authorities confirmed on May 1.

The suspect, identified as Essa Suleiman, a 45-year-old Somali-born British man, faces two counts of attempted murder and one count of possession of a bladed article in a public place, according to the Metropolitan Police, following an investigation by counter-terrorism officers.

When asked whether the threat to the Jewish community had reached an unprecedented level, Rowley said polling on antisemitic attitudes suggested “that has to be true.” He pointed to one survey indicating that one in six young adults in Britain reject the official account of the Holocaust.

While police can respond to the “symptoms,” successive governments have not done enough to address the underlying “disease,” he said. He urged a nationwide conversation about the “appalling” level of hostility facing Jewish communities.

He said social media was “mainstreaming” antisemitism among youth, a reflection of how digital platforms are the source of young people’s news and information. As a result, he warned, such views are becoming more widespread and normalized.

“What troubles me is that this isn’t just about a few racist idiots, this is standing on something that is more embedded in society that isn’t being challenged. There’s too much licensing of it in public debate,” he said.

Rowley criticized politicians for shying away from the issue, as they find it “too difficult” to confront antisemitism.

“You can go back to lots of reports over time saying to successive governments over 10, 20 years there are some issues that need paying attention to,” he said. “They haven’t really had that attention.” 

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/antisemitism/london-police-chief-says-jews-facing-epidemic-of-antisemitism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Poll suggests most Jewish New Yorkers oppose Mamdani policies, connect rising Jew-hatred and normalized anti-Zionism - Debra Nussbaum Cohen

 

by Debra Nussbaum Cohen

“We’re not seeing any indication that a large part of the Jewish community supports anti-Zionism,” Jonathan Schulman, of Jewish Majority, which conducted the survey, told JNS.

 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers remarks at City Winery Passover seder on March 30, 2026. Credit: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office.

Most Jewish New Yorkers—58%—think that Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City, is doing a poor job, while 32% approve of his job performance and 10% weren’t sure, according to a survey from the Jewish Majority.

Mercury Group, which conducted the poll and surveyed 664 Jewish adults who voted in November in the New York City mayoral election, found that 84% of respondents support the city passing a law creating barrier zones around the doors of houses of worship to prevent harassment and intimidation of worshipers.

The zones would allow protests 25 feet away from entrances and exits. Just 7% of those surveyed oppose the idea. Mamdani signed the bill, which passed the New York City Council with a veto-proof majority, into law in late April. He nixed an almost identical law about schools.

Each of the 664 respondents self-identifies as Jewish. The survey was conducted between Feb. 17 and 28, about six weeks into Mamdani’s mayoralty.

The city’s first Muslim mayor, Mamdani is a longtime anti-Israel activist, who has proven a divisive figure in the city with 1 million Jews—the largest Jewish population of any American city.

The mayor has said that he would have the Israeli prime minister arrested in the Big Apple, and his spokeswoman said that synagogues violate international law when they host pro-Israel events.

Hours into moving into Gracie Mansion, Mamdani dispensed with his predecessor’s executive orders, including those designed to protect Jews, and he appointed a leader of the mayoral office to fight Jew-hatred that has drawn extensive criticism from many Jewish leaders.

Jewish New Yorkers have a range of opinions on almost every topic, including the mayor, but the new survey of voters shows consensus on some things.

From revoking the city’s policy against boycotting Israeli products to vetoing the City Council “buffer zone” bill around schools to, last week, posting a city public service announcement video with a city official wearing a keffiyeh, the mayor’s decisions have drawn criticism from many mainstream Jewish leaders.

In an unusual rebuke, 11 Jewish groups, including some of the nation’s largest, said that they were “deeply disappointed” that he vetoed the school buffer bill.

The new survey states that its findings are “very clear.”

“The rise of antisemitism and the need for adequate community safety are chief concerns, and ‘anti-Zionism’ is largely viewed as wholesale opposition to a Jewish state,” it states. “Even among critics of the Israeli government, there is overwhelming support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, and even among the Jewish voters who supported Mamdani in the general election, the majority do not stand with him on the more extreme positions related to Israel and Palestine.”

An election day CNN exit poll suggested that 32% of Jewish voters chose Mamdani. The new survey suggests a different picture, according to Jonathan Schulman, executive director of Jewish Majority, which he launched in 2024.

“We found that 26% voted for him, not 32 %. That’s a quarter, not a third,” Schulman told JNS. Those who voted for Mamdani did so “in spite of his anti-Zionism, not because of it,” he added.

Jonathan Schulman, executive director of The Jewish Majority. Credit: Courtesy.

Schulman, who created Jewish Majority after 18 years at AIPAC, sought to launch a counterweight to views, which had been marginal but appeared to gain traction, with Mamdani inviting members of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and Jewish Voice for Peace into his administration.

Mamdani has said that he opposed Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

Even many of those who voted for the mayor disagree with him, per the poll, which suggests that 60% of respondents support the idea of a two-state solution if it would end the Israel-Palestinian conflict, while 26% oppose the concept,

A clear majority, 73%, support New York City banning face masks that civilians use to hide their identity while engaged in harassment or intimidation. Just 19% oppose a civilian face mask ban, according to the survey.

Moreover, 58% of respondents believe that the recent rise in Jew-hatred is linked to the normalization of anti-Zionism, while 25% don’t see such a link.

Some have said that the term “intifada” is innocuous when used in protests, but 60% of respondents said that it calls for violent destruction of Israel, and the same percentage said that Mamdani’s refusal to decry the phrase “globalize the intifada” has emboldened pro-Hamas protesters. Some 19% disagreed that Madmani’ was encouraging terror supporters, and 15% think that “intifada” refers to civil disobedience.

“The most telling thing is how few Jews voted for the Democratic candidate, which is unprecedented in the history of New York City elections,” Schulman told JNS.

“Yes, 26% voted for him, but on a whole host of other issues unrelated to Zionism or Israel,” he said. “We’re not seeing any indication that a large part of the Jewish community supports anti-Zionism.”

Pollsters asked respondents about their religious identification, frequency of engaging in Shabbat-related practices and adherence to kosher laws but the survey writers opted not to ask outright if people identify as “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist.”

“We didn’t want to get into those semantics,” Schulman told JNS.

Survey results suggest that some think that being critical of Israeli policies defines them as “anti-Zionist,” which it does not, according to Schulman.

Earlier recent studies have put that figure nationally at about 5% of American Jews, he told JNS.

Mark Treyger, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, which co-sponsored the study, told JNS that “at a moment of heightened division and rising antisemitism, our political leaders should foster thoughtful dialogue that recognizes the broad diversity of Jewish perspectives.”

It should do so “while reaffirming the dignity and belonging of Jewish New Yorkers in our civic life,” he said. 

Debra Nussbaum Cohen

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/poll-suggests-most-jewish-new-yorkers-oppose-mamdani-policies-connect-rising-jew-hatred-and-normalized-anti-zionism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Durbin calls public school probe ‘sham’; state lawmaker backs transparency - Catrina Barker

 

by Catrina Barker

State Rep. Regan Deering, R-Decatur, who also serves on the Mt. Zion school board, praised the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to examine school policies across Illinois, arguing that parents have been sidelined in key educational decisions.

 

(The Center Square) -

An Illinois state lawmaker is voicing strong support for a federal investigation into dozens of school districts, framing the move as a necessary step toward transparency and parental involvement – while pushing back against criticism from U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat.

State Rep. Regan Deering, R-Decatur, who also serves on the Mt. Zion school board, praised the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to examine school policies across Illinois, arguing that parents have been sidelined in key educational decisions.

“The federal government and the Department of Justice sending investigators to the state of Illinois, I think, is a great idea,” Deering said. “Parents don't stop being parents when their child walks into a school building… over 40 hours a week.”

Her comments come after the U.S. Department of Justice launched investigations into multiple Illinois school districts to determine whether classroom content and policies align with federal law.

Deering emphasized that families deserve greater insight into what their children are being taught.

“They do have a right to this information and knowing what is being taught in the classroom, and more importantly, being involved in major decisions that might be affecting their children,” she said.

In a statement, Durbin accused the Trump administration of misusing federal power, saying the president is “once again weaponizing the DOJ to carry out a sham investigation against a state that did not vote for him in the 2024 election.”

Durbin sharply criticized the federal probe, dismissing it as politically motivated. “I can save DOJ some time,” Durbin said in a statement. “Their investigators will find 36 Illinois school districts dedicated to providing their students with a good, well-rounded education.”

Deering rejected that characterization and doubled down on her call for collaboration between schools and families.

“Parents are demanding transparency and looking for partnership between families and schools, and it really is not controversial at all,” she said.

The Republican lawmaker attributed the current tensions to policies enacted by Democratic leadership in Illinois.

“What’s happening in our schools here in Illinois is a result of bad policy that's being pushed by our governor and the legislative Democrats,” Deering said, adding that the system has been “moved… in a direction parents have not agreed to.”

She also suggested that some school districts feel pressured by state mandates.

“A lot of conversations I've had with local school districts, they feel like they're being forced to comply with these state mandates,” Deering said. “Many parents are raising absolutely legitimate concerns.” 

Catrina Barker

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/durbin-calls-probe-sham-state-lawmaker-backs-transparency

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Flipper Obama - Silvio Canto, Jr.

 

by Silvio Canto, Jr.

The man is putting on a dazzling acrobatic show, changing positions from one day to the next, but his gerrymandering flip reflects genuine panic.

 

How do you do it, Mr. President?

In one week, the former president has gone from loving gerrymandering—and then he does not. In Virginia, we were saving democracy—and then he’s calling the Supreme Court decision a threat to democracy.

That’s a lot of flipping for one man! We should remember that he’s flipped before, such as when he opposed gay marriage only to put rainbow flags all over the White House when the Supreme Court wrote the 2015 Obergefell opinion.

Why is a former President so concerned about gerrymandering anyway? After all, President Obama should be an expert on partisan drawing up districts, such as they do in Illinois, the state that made him a US Senator.

The problem is that the former President knows that bad days lie ahead for his party. Let me—or, more accurately, let Ronald Carter—explain: 

NOBODY IS TELLING YOU THE REAL STORY OF THE SCOTUS VOTING RIGHTS RULING

Yes, the Court ruled 6-3.

Yes, race-based districting is now unconstitutional.

Yes, Louisiana's map got thrown out.

But here's the part everyone is missing:

Democrats don't have a House majority without… pic.twitter.com/M37xkFOzdp

— 🇺🇸 Ronald Carter (@USronaldcarter) April 29, 2026

NOBODY IS TELLING YOU THE REAL STORY OF THE SCOTUS VOTING RIGHTS RULING

Yes, the Court ruled 6-3.

Yes, race-based districting is now unconstitutional.

Yes, Louisiana’s map got thrown out.

But here’s the part everyone is missing:

Democrats don’t have a House majority without those court-ordered maps.

→ A dozen of their current seats sit in districts that only exist because federal courts FORCED states to draw them

→ Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina — every one has at least one Democrat seat in a court-created black-majority district

→ Their House margin is FOUR seats

→ SCOTUS just made 12 of their 213 seats legally redrawable

→ Republican-led legislatures don’t need new voters — they need a redistricting committee and a Tuesday afternoon

If race-based districts are unconstitutional, then Louisiana redraws.

If Louisiana redraws, then Alabama redraws.

If Alabama redraws, then every Southern state redraws.

If every Southern state redraws, the Democrat House majority was a 60-year courtroom artifact — not an election result.

That’s what nobody is saying out loud.

The 2026 midterms were just decided 6-3 — six months before Election Day.

if you’re not following me you’re finding out about this 48 hours late from someone who read my post..

Yes, the Democrat majority has long been a hoax, to paraphrase the Orange Man. It was never about representing people but rather about providing automatic votes in Congress. Furthermore, these representatives never had to worry about a competitive election because it was all a done deal.

So, the game is over, and the former president knows it.

Image created using AI.

P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts, and videos.

Related Topics: Obama, Gerrymandering, Democrats 

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/05/flipper_obama.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

There Are No 'Moderates': Regime Change in Iran Must Again Be a Priority for the Trump Administration - Con Coughlin

 

by Con Coughlin

The fear now, with the Trump Administration appearing to back away from its original demand of total regime change in Iran, is that... the regime's hardliners will resort to acts of extreme violence to ensure their new dictatorship's survival.

 

• What would be unpardonable is if US President Donald J. Trump simply replaced a brutal Islamic dictatorship with an equally brutal non-Islamic dictatorship -- as seen in other adversaries of the West such as Russia, China, and North Korea.

• At the height of the violence in mid-January, Trump memorably told the Iranian protesters that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY", while calling on the anti-regime activists to "seize control of your destiny."

• Iran is still drawing out negotiations as it reconstructs its nuclear and missile sites.

• Meanwhile, concerns are growing that Trump is losing interest in the plight of ordinary Iranians. He has recently been stating that he no longer regards regime change in Iran as one of his major objectives. His message has regrettably "gone wobbly"...

• Such backtracking on the part of the US president -- the beacon of freedom to the world -- would leave the Iranian people at the mercy of pitiless thugs who would simply replace one form of state-sponsored repression with another, thereby denying the Iranian people their hopes of finally achieving freedom from their oppressors.

• The fear now, with the Trump Administration appearing to back away from its original demand of total regime change in Iran, is that... the regime's hardliners will resort to acts of extreme violence to ensure their new dictatorship's survival.

• As Trump has assured the hardliners that there will be no regime change, they know their power is secure -- under no threat -- so they are under no pressure to comply with Trump's demands. All they need to do is remove whatever so-called "moderates" might still be around and in their way. There are, in fact, no moderates in the Iranian government, any more than there were in Nazi Germany's government.

• The diplomatic standoff between the US and Iran should, at the very least, lead Trump to conclude that, so long as the IRGC and its hardline supporters have a say in the negotiations, the prospect of reaching an acceptable deal remains remote. If the American president is really serious about securing a deal, then he needs to deny the hardliners any say in Iran's destiny and, as he originally promised, to help the Iranian people achieve a true regime change. It is the only way to achieve a peace that will last.

What would be unpardonable is if US President Donald J. Trump simply replaced a brutal Islamic dictatorship with an equally brutal non-Islamic dictatorship -- as seen in other adversaries of the West such as Russia, China, and North Korea. Pictured: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un attend a military parade in Tiananmen Square, Beijing on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Kazakov/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

As the Trump administration's attempts to agree to a lasting ceasefire with Iran drag on, it is vital that the White House not lose sight of a key objective -- one originally highlighted but then abandoned in the Iran conflict -- namely that the war result in the overthrow of Iran's brutal dictatorship.

What would be unpardonable is if US President Donald J. Trump simply replaced a brutal Islamic dictatorship with an equally brutal non-Islamic dictatorship -- as seen in other adversaries of the West such as Russia, China, and North Korea.

From the start of the year, when Iran's security forces killed more than 36,500 civilians in attempts to crush anti-government protests, Trump had made no secret of his desire to achieve regime change in Tehran.

At the height of the violence in mid-January, Trump memorably told the Iranian protesters that "HELP IS ON ITS WAY", while calling on the anti-regime activists to "seize control of your destiny."

On February 28, the US Department of State posted on Truth Social and X:

"PRESIDENT TRUMP's message to the great people of Iran:
When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. America is backing you with overwhelming strength. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach."

As if to demonstrate his commitment to ending Iran's brutal dictatorship, one of Trump's first acts following the launch of Operation Epic Fury in late February was to authorise a strike on the compound housing Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as a number of senior regime security officials who had convened to discuss the deepening crisis with Washington.

At one point, the American president even told Fox News that his administration had attempted to covertly arm Iranian protesters through Kurdish intermediaries based in neighbouring Iraq, claiming, "We sent guns to the protesters -- lots of them."

Trump later said the plan had failed because the Kurds had apparently decided to keep the guns for themselves.

Now, with the Iranian negotiators trying to run out the clock –- presumably until the US midterm elections in November, when Iran's military -- with the recently appointed Ahmad Vahidi, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reportedly now in charge -- Iran is still drawing out negotiations as it reconstructs its nuclear and missile sites.

Meanwhile, concerns are growing that Trump is losing interest in the plight of ordinary Iranians. He has recently been stating that he no longer regards regime change in Iran as one of his major objectives. His message has regrettably "gone wobbly" to ensuring only that Iran must never be able to have a nuclear weapon, that the Strait of Hormuz must remain an independent waterway in accordance with freedom of navigation, and that Iran must no longer support terrorist proxies.

While commendable, such an attitude, if true, would represent an unforgivable betrayal of the Iranian people, the majority of whom are desperate to see an end to the crushing dictatorship that has brutalised their lives for nearly five decades since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Such backtracking on the part of the US president -- the beacon of freedom to the world -- would leave the Iranian people at the mercy of pitiless thugs who would simply replace one form of state-sponsored repression with another, thereby denying the Iranian people their hopes of finally achieving freedom from their oppressors.

Iranian discontent with their corrupt and ruthless rulers is not just confined to the protests that swept the country at the turn of the year, which were primarily prompted by the country's dire economic position.

The country has experienced regular waves of anti-regime demonstrations since the failed Green Movement in 2009, which initially started over the country's rigged presidential elections and quickly developed into a nationwide movement.

Then, as now, the regime crushed the protests by resorting to extreme violence, with tens of thousands of protesters killed and wounded as the IRGC and Basij militia forcefully crushed dissent.

The fear now, with the Trump Administration appearing to back away from its original demand of total regime change in Iran, is that history is likely to repeat itself and that the regime's hardliners will resort to acts of extreme violence to ensure their new dictatorship's survival.

With the Trump administration's focus concentrated on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, through which sails about 20 percent of the world's seaborne oil and gas trade, and resolving the long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, which Western intelligence believes is again aimed at producing nuclear weapons, little attention is being paid to the type of regime that will govern Iran once the fighting has ended.

Regime loyalists and members of the IRGC, who reportedly control roughly 80 percent of Iran's economy, have certainly lost no time trying to re-establish their iron control of the country. Human rights groups are still reporting an upsurge in secret executions and arrests as the IRGC and Basij seek to reassert their authority after the numerous setbacks they suffered at the hands of the US and Israeli military operations.

At the same time, the regime has imposed a nationwide internet blackout that has been in place since the first protests took place at the start of the year, to prevent anti-government groups from coordinating their activities or communicating with the outside world.

Attempts by regime hardliners to reassert control, moreover, are having a direct impact on negotiations between Washington and Tehran to end the conflict. Each Iranian strongman currently seems to be trying to secure his own power. As Trump has assured the hardliners that there will be no regime change, they know their power is secure -- under no threat -- so they are under no pressure to comply with Trump's demands. All they need to do is remove whatever so-called "moderates" might still be around and in their way. There are, in fact, no moderates in the Iranian government, any more than there were in Nazi Germany's government. As Iranian scholar Dr. Majid Rafizedeh points out:

"Softer rhetoric has emerged when the regime needed economic rescue or a diplomatic opening. Once the pressure recedes, the underlying strategic behavior remains unchanged.

"In many ways, so-called 'moderates' have historically served as the most effective guardians of the system: they are able to secure concessions from the outside world while preserving the internal order. They present hope abroad while maintaining continuity and deeper control at home. Trump appears aware of this pattern but, perhaps concerned about the political pressure on him at home, has sometimes, alarmingly, looked tempted to settle for it."

The hardliners' increasing influence in the negotiations was very much in evidence after the first round of talks in Pakistan involving Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Vice President JD Vance. The talks ended in confusion after Araghchi initially indicated he was willing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a move that was quickly undermined by the IRGC, which condemned Araghchi's offer as being "bad and incomplete."

The influence of the hardliners in talks to end the conflict explains why the Trump administration was forced to abandon its plans to attend a second round of talks in Pakistan. It became clear that Tehran wanted to conduct separate negotiations with the White House about its nuclear programme only after agreement had been reached on reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The Trump administration, quite rightly, has refused to accept such preconditions, with reports that the president told a meeting of national security officials that Iran was not negotiating in good faith and did not appear willing to meet his key demand: ending nuclear enrichment and vowing never to make a nuclear weapon.

The diplomatic standoff between the US and Iran should, at the very least, lead Trump to conclude that, so long as the IRGC and its hardline supporters have a say in the negotiations, the prospect of reaching an acceptable deal remains remote. If the American president is really serious about securing a deal, then he needs to deny the hardliners any say in Iran's destiny and, as he originally promised, to help the Iranian people achieve a true regime change. It is the only way to achieve a peace that will last.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22490/iran-regime-change-priority

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IDF soldiers disperse rock throwers near Nablus after coming under attack - JNS Staff

 

by JNS Staff

Troops opened fire to remove the danger. Several hits were reported.

 

Israeli soldiers locate and dismantle two weapon-manufacturing machines in the Nablus area. Credit: IDF.

During counter-terrorism operations near Nablus (Shechem) in Samaria on Sunday, IDF soldiers were met with a violent confrontation as several terrorists threw rocks at troops.

Troops initially used riot-control measures and later opened fire to remove the danger and disperse the crowd. Several hits were reported.

The Israel Defense Forces also reported on Sunday that soldiers operating in Southern Lebanon uncovered and destroyed a 260-feet-long tunnel used by Hezbollah terrorists.

Also on Sunday, ground troops killed a terrorist during operations in the southern Gaza Strip. The terrorist approached the troops in the area of the ceasefire-instituted Yellow Line, “posing an immediate threat to them,” the IDF stated. 

JNS Staff

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/israel-news/idf-soldiers-disperse-rock-throwers-near-nablus-after-coming-under-attack

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Sinking the ‘condom flotilla’: How Israel took control of the Global Sumud Flotilla narrative - Anna Barsky

by Anna Barsky

Israeli officials conducted a combined operation to neutralize both the Global Sumud Flotilla itself and its explosive potential in the international narrative.

 

Vessels of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which was intercepted on international waters by the Israeli Navy, sail off the city of Ierapetra, on the island of Crete, Greece, May 1, 2026.

(photo credit: REUTERS/STEFANOS RAPANIS)

With the world’s eyes focused on the dozens of ships attempting to break into Gaza, behind the scenes, in a well-timed and precise manner, Israel was able both to neutralize the Global Sumud Flotilla and its explosive potential.

In Israel, the flotilla was seen as an attempt to create a crisis of consciousness and politics on the eve of discussions around implementing the components of phase two of the Gaza peace plan and diverting attention from the international effort to move Gaza forward to the next stage.

Israeli officials described a combined operation, unusual in its scope, in which the Foreign Ministry  – and not the IDF spokesman – took the lead in the information campaign.

“This is already the fifth flotilla. We have learned the lessons,” Israeli officials said. This time, they said, the challenge was more complex: It was an especially large flotilla, planned to include some 100 vessels, rather than a smaller event of the type Israel has already experienced.

The closer the flotilla got to the coast of Gaza, the greater the potential for operational, political, and media friction would have been. Therefore, according to the official, it had been necessary to deal with it at as early a stage as possible. 

Approximately 175 activists from more than 20 boats of the condom flotilla are now making their way peacefully to Israel.

In the video: the activists enjoying themselves aboard Israeli vessels pic.twitter.com/0sz8kDpKLX

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) April 30, 2026

“The IDF knows how to act operationally, but the Foreign Ministry knows how to tell the story to the world – and that was the information and diplomatic battle that took place over the past 24 hours.”

Behind the scenes, several bodies were operating in full coordination: the Foreign Ministry, the Public Relations Division, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, Israel Police, the Prison Service, and the Population Authority.

Israeli officials said that, unlike during previous such incidents, this time there was “harmony” between all the bodies. The operational documents from the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit were transferred from the field to the Foreign Ministry, where they were quickly turned into informational material, messaging for networks, and political briefings.

Israel's strategy for dealing with the flotilla narrative

The Israeli line rests on three central points, with the first being the denial of the flotilla’s legitimacy. According to the message conveyed to the world, the humanitarian effort in Gaza is currently managed by international mechanisms, headed by the Gaza Board of Peace and the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), and not private flotilla operators.

According to Israeli officials, over one and a half million tons of humanitarian aid and thousands of tons of medical equipment have been brought into the Strip through the official international channels established following US President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza.

“There is no humanitarian vacuum that the flotilla is filling; it is a show,” Jerusalem emphasized.

The second message was directed at elements identified by Israel as being behind the flotilla. Hamas is the driving force behind the initiative, in an attempt to divert attention from international pressure to disarm and torpedo political progress, Israel explained.

“This is not an innocent civil initiative; it is an orchestrated move,” Israeli officials said.

The third message, the one that resonated quickly, focused on the flotilla’s participants. The Foreign Ministry chose an unusual, almost satirical line, which became the talk of the town: branding the exercise as the “condom flotilla.”

This is the “medical aid” found aboard the PR stunt flotilla: condoms and drugs pic.twitter.com/RKiHrGLWfw

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) April 29, 2026

IDF documentation, passed directly to the Foreign Ministry, showed items such as condoms and drugs, alongside records of recreational activities on board.

“We didn’t invent anything,” Israeli officials said. “We just had to show the world who the people were and what was happening there.” This last message was amplified on social media and quickly echoed, portraying the flotilla as a provocative public-relations move rather than a humanitarian operation.

In parallel with the information campaign, an intensive diplomatic effort was conducted. The turning point came with an unusual pronouncement by the Gaza Board of Peace, effectively determining that it was the address for humanitarian aid in Gaza, and criticizing the flotilla as an act of self-promotion rather than genuine concern for the residents of the Strip.

Israeli officials said this was likely a reflection of quiet diplomatic work in the background by the Foreign Ministry vis-à-vis international bodies.

Flotilla activists to be transferred to Greece

This was immediately followed by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s closing the circle by an announcement that the flotilla activists, all unharmed, would be transferred to Greece and not be allowed to disembark in Israel.

The decision to transfer the activists to Greece, rather than Israel’s conducting a prolonged detention around the event, was aimed at thwarting the narrative that the flotilla organizers were aspiring to: Foreign activists face Israeli police, cameras, and legal hearings, making them the victims in international headlines.

From Israel’s perspective, it was a move designed to defuse the event before it turned into another political demonstration.

The result, according to Israeli sources, was an almost complete neutralization of the image threat in less than 24 hours.

“It was a rolling media mine,” one source said. “And this time – we managed to defuse it in time.”

In response to Sa’ar’s decision to deport the flotilla participants, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir issued, on Friday, a strong statement, disagreeing with the action. He alluded to threats from Turkey being one of the factors behind their deportation.

Ben-Gvir called it a “message of weakness toward Israel’s enemies and the spreaders of antisemitism in the world,” claiming that the move was “contrary to previous discussions and the decisions of all professional bodies to arrest the flotilla participants.”

Following the announcement, Ben-Gvir told Maariv that for an entire month, the relevant bodies, along with the IDF and the Prison Service, had prepared to hold the flotilla activists in Israel, arrest them, and transfer them to prisons.

The original plan, he said, involved around 1,000 activists.

According to a senior source, two reduced cabinet meetings were held regarding the decision to arrest the activists. However, according to the source, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sa’ar made the decision not to arrest the activists without input from the cabinet.

Anna Barsky

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-894861

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran: Four Illusions of a 60-Day-War - Amir Taheri

 

by Amir Taheri

The leftover regime in Tehran .. is trying to coax [Trump] into a maze of pseudo- negotiations starting with confidence-building steps, proceeding with interim discrete accords and moving to modalities of implementation, as was done with seven previous US presidents.

 

• However, assured by Trump that he isn't after regime change, those fighting over power in Tehran feel no need to surrender in order to survive.

• Most of the cash Iran has received for oil exports in decades came from brown and black markets and money laundering through two Turkish banks, an Austrian bank, an Italian bank, and financial facilities in other countries.

• According to the Tehran office of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, Iranian food imports account for 11 percent of domestic consumption. Iran has enough emergency reserves of food for at least six months without causing bread riots.

• The so-called Caspian Sea-Volga River route connects Iran to Russia, eastern, central and northern Europe. Another route connects Iran to the Black Sea via Armenia and Georgia. More important is the transit channel that Iran has been using through Turkey for decades.

• Echoing old Kremlinologists, the US Secretary of State talks of hawks and doves in Tehran fighting over power.

• That reminds one of post-Stalin Soviet Union and post-Mao Zedong China. In neither case did we have either hawks or doves. We had ravens and vultures posing as hawks and doves but quick to act as chickens when and if they faced a determined hunter.

• The leftover regime in Tehran knows that and is trying to coax him into a maze of pseudo- negotiations starting with confidence-building steps, proceeding with interim discrete accords and moving to modalities of implementation, as was done with seven previous US presidents.

Assured by Trump that he isn't after regime change, those fighting over power in Tehran feel no need to surrender in order to survive. 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)

When President Donald Trump triggered the current war against Iran more than 60 days ago, the assumption mostly promoted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the junior partner in the enterprise, was that the whole thing would be wrapped up within weeks by Tehran implicitly admitting defeat, as it did in an earlier episode known as the 12-day War.

That was why the force deployed and the war plans provided for a short and sharp campaign with boots on the ground not considered even as a theoretical necessity.

Though now proven illusory, that assumption sounded plausible at the time.

What Trump didn't take into account was the fact that the only person who could have admitted defeat without risking his own life was no longer there. Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei had been assassinated in an Israeli air strike.

Trump's second illusion was inspired by America's overwhelming military superiority. The respected American historian, Victor Davis Hanson, a source of emulation for Trump's military advisers, beat that drum in a number of video clips.

What VDH ignored was the fact that the Islamic Republic isn't a normal regime and thus wouldn't abide by Sun Tzu's advice not to remain in a war in which you have less than a 50 percent chance of winning.

The Iran-Iraq War could have ended after a year but lasted eight years because Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini regarded war as a "blessing from God." He accepted ending it only when he felt that his regime's survival was at stake.

The destruction that the current war has caused in Iran isn't yet fully documented. But information already in hand shows that Iran has suffered the biggest damage to its state structures, industry, economy and cultural monuments seen in its multi-millennial history.

However, assured by Trump that he isn't after regime change, those fighting over power in Tehran feel no need to surrender in order to survive.

Farrokh Negahdar, a prominent Iranian Marxist activist and longtime supporter of the regime, tells the BBC that the only thing that matters is for regime survival in any shape.

Trump's latest illusion is illustrated by his blockade of Iranian ports with the biggest deployment of US naval power outside the two world wars. The threat is to stop Iranian oil exports, dry up Iranian imports, including food and medicine, and force the regime to sign up to what the US wants.

Paradoxically, that too may have reduced chances of a deal to end the war.

For almost three decades, the Iranian economy has been reshaped on the mad matrix of economic autarchy copied from the North Korean "juche" or self-sufficiency.

Oil and gas production accounts for between 16 and 20 percent of Iran's GDP, with the domestic market accounting for 60 percent of the total.

Moreover, after four decades of having its assets frozen, Iran is used to exporting oil without immediately getting the revenue.

Most of the cash Iran has received for oil exports in decades came from brown and black markets and money laundering through two Turkish banks, an Austrian bank, an Italian bank, and financial facilities in other countries.

The Islamic Republic needs a minimum of $60 billion a year in hard currency to pay its core supporters inside and proxies abroad.

Part of that is supplied through several channels in exchange for Iranian industrial, agricultural and electricity exports. Iran also earns currency through electricity exports to Armenia and farm products to Russia.

In any case, as Hassan Abbasi, alias "Kissinger of Islam," has repeatedly said, "If Afghanistan can live with no oil income, why couldn't we?"

Trump's blockade isn't going to plunge Iran into famine either.

According to the Tehran office of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, Iranian food imports account for 11 percent of domestic consumption. Iran has enough emergency reserves of food for at least six months without causing bread riots.

A reduction in food imports might speed up the rate of inflation but could be compensated for by reducing exports, notably to Russia.

The blockade could stop much of Iran's industrial exports, notably iron and steel, machine tools, farming machines and certain weapons. But that has already happened because of the damage done to more than 800 factories in 21 of Iran's 31 provinces.

However, other trade routes remain available to Iran. The so-called Caspian Sea-Volga River route connects Iran to Russia, eastern, central and northern Europe. Another route connects Iran to the Black Sea via Armenia and Georgia. More important is the transit channel that Iran has been using through Turkey for decades.

Hanson says that Iran won't be able to afford the economic cost of the blockade imposed by the US. He may be right.

But the question is whether Trump can afford the political cost of an endless blockade, as the other half of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Khomeinist regime is in a post-traumatic phase and shouldn't be expected to act rationally in the midst of a bitter power struggle.

Echoing old Kremlinologists, the US Secretary of State talks of hawks and doves in Tehran fighting over power.

That reminds one of post-Stalin Soviet Union and post-Mao Zedong China. In neither case did we have either hawks or doves. We had ravens and vultures posing as hawks and doves but quick to act as chickens when and if they faced a determined hunter.

We witness a similar situation in Tehran today.

Those supposed to be hawks will become doves if they succeed in eliminating their rivals, as the Nikita Khrushchev faction did in Moscow, the Deng Xiaoping faction in Beijing or the Khamenei faction in Tehran after rounds of power struggle.

Can Trump, the wizard of quick fixes, wait that long?

The leftover regime in Tehran knows that and is trying to coax him into a maze of pseudo- negotiations starting with confidence-building steps, proceeding with interim discrete accords and moving to modalities of implementation, as was done with seven previous US presidents.

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/22489/iran-four-illusions

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter