Two Jews (JINO) and A Gentile Walk Into a Hotel Conference Room In Pakistan On Shabbos!

 

 “Look at this! They flew halfway around the world to sit in a room with no windows—so nobody can see nothing is happening!”

“So I’m reading about these negotiations—big important meeting, hotel conference room, very serious. You ever notice, the more serious the meeting, the worse the coffee? This is how you know nothing’s getting solved!

Three Americans walk in, very confident—very confident. They got charts, graphs, bullet points. Bullet points! Like the other side is gonna say, ‘Oh! Number three! We didn’t think of number three! Let’s change 40 years of policy!’

Across the table, you got negotiators who’ve been negotiating since before these guys knew how to negotiate with their parents for a later curfew. These people invented patience. They sit there, they nod, they smile—meanwhile they’re thinking, ‘This guy flew 8,000 miles to tell me what I already decided not to do!’

And then at the end—this is my favorite part—they come out and say, ‘The talks were productive.’ Productive?! Nobody agreed on anything! In regular life, if nothing happens, you don’t call it productive—you call it a Pesach Seder with your relatives!

And the discussion goes on for hours. Hours! You ever sit in a meeting that long? After 20 minutes, you’re not negotiating anymore, you’re just trying to remember your own name. But here, they keep going. Why? Because nobody wants to be the first one to say, “This is going nowhere.” In diplomacy, going nowhere—this is somewhere! This is progress-adjacent!

“Look at this! They’ve got charts! Charts! Like the other side is waiting all these years—‘If only somebody would bring a chart, we’d change everything!’”

But here’s the genius of it—this is the part that really kills me—everybody’s happy! Nobody agreed, nobody changed, nobody even looked surprised, and still they say it was a success. Why? Because nobody walked out. That’s the bar! You don’t storm out, you’re a hero! In any other job, this is not success. Imagine a pilot: “Good news, folks—we didn’t take off, but nobody panicked!” You’re not flying with that guy again!

Then comes my favorite part: the official statement. This is where language goes to lie down and take a nap. A guy comes out, very serious, and says, “The talks were constructive.” Constructive?! What did they build, a sandwich? Nothing happened! In regular life, if nothing happens, you don’t call it constructive—you call it a Tuesday! 

“Constructive! I go to a contractor, he does nothing—I don’t say ‘very constructive!’ I say ‘Where’s my kitchen?!’”

Across the table, you’ve got negotiators who look like they’ve been sitting there since the room was built. Calm, patient, not impressed. These are people who understand something very important: if you wait long enough, the other guy will start negotiating with himself. They don’t interrupt. They don’t argue. They nod in a way that says, “I hear you… and I will remember none of it.” It’s not rudeness—it’s strategy with excellent posture.

Into this masterpiece of blandness walk the delegations. The Americans arrive like they’re about to fix a group project that’s been going badly since 1979. They’ve got binders, folders, tabs—tabs on the tabs! You ever see this? Tabs! Like the other side is gonna say, “Oh! Section 4B—this changes everything! Why didn’t you say so sooner?!” There’s this unstoppable confidence, the kind that only comes from believing that if you just explain things clearly enough, history will apologize and straighten itself out.

The Americans present their plan. It’s got phases. You need phases! Phase One, Phase Two—by Phase Three, everybody’s friends, there’s maybe a handshake, somebody orders better coffee. It’s beautiful. It’s also completely fictional. Because on the other side, they’re thinking, “This is very nice. We will now take this plan and put it in a very safe place… where all the other plans are… forever.”

I’m telling you, diplomacy is the only job where if you accomplish nothing, everybody keeps their job—and writes a book about it later!” “They came, they talked, they accomplished nothing—and they’re proud! You gotta admire it.

 

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/two-jews-and-a-gentile-walk-into-a-hotel-conference-room-in-pakistan-on-shabbos/

*

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

*A Little Slow Mr. President* "Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz."

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

So, there you have it, the meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not. Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will reach an “ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT” basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen by merely saying, “There may be a mine out there somewhere,” that nobody knows about but them. THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION, and Leaders of Countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted. I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will also begin destroying the mines the Iranians laid in the Straits. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL! Iran knows, better than anyone, how to END this situation which has already devastated their Country. Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft and Radar are useless, Khamenei, and most of their “Leaders,” are dead, all because of their Nuclear ambition. The Blockade will begin shortly. Other Countries will be involved with this Blockade. Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION. They want money and, more importantly, they want Nuclear. Additionally and, at an appropriate moment, we are fully “LOCKED AND LOADED,” and our Military will finish up the little that is left of Iran! President DONALD J. TRUMP

 

Donald Trump: If You Had Any Guts....and Sechel...

 

Donald Trump: Send American Tankers to The Strait of Hormuz and Block it to everyone:

Two ships from Iran’s shipping line IRISL — Shabdis and Berzin have departed from Gaolan Port in China, and it is being claimed that they may be carrying chemicals that can later be used to produce rocket and missile fuel. However, these ships leaving China will have to pass through the same region of the Indian Ocean where, on March 4, 2026, a US submarine sank the Iranian warship IRIS Dena.

In such a situation, if the United States attempts to stop this supply coming from China, the challenge will directly involve China. If that happens, China could completely halt the supply of rare earth minerals,  which would make it almost impossible for the US to manufacture intercepting missiles and all the world depends on for our current technological structure of energy, water, satellites...etc. In other words, no matter what happens, China is positioned to benefit either way. A global Depression in the making!

So Mr. Trump, if you had any guts, you would stop speaking like a man auditioning for the history books and start acting like one. The Strait of Hormuz is not some reality show talking point. It is the world’s pressure point, the narrow throat through which the global oil economy gulps for air. If Iran wants to strangle the region, threaten shipping, and play pirate with a modern state’s toys, then the answer cannot be another carefully worded statement, another tremble of “concern,” another little choreography of restraint for the benefit of diplomats who mistake caution for strength.

Send the American tankers. Block the straits to all traffic. Let them sail straight toward that choke point, and block it! Make the message impossible to misunderstand: this passage does not belong to Tehran, and it does not belong to any regime that thinks terror gives it ownership of international waters. Sometimes deterrence is not a memo. Sometimes it is a steel hull in the water, a flat refusal to blink, and a demonstration that America still understands how to draw a line and mean it. A civilization that cannot protect a sea lane is a civilization already rehearsing its own decline.

And let us be honest about the language of “escalation,” that favorite word of the timid. The same people who panic at the thought of resolve always seem strangely calm when tyrants, militias, and clerics are the ones escalating. They love tension when it is inflicted on everyone else. They call aggression “strategy” when it comes from the enemy, and call strength “provocation” when it comes from us. That is not prudence. That is surrender wearing a red necktie.

The point is not recklessness. The point is clarity. If the world keeps rewarding threats from Iran with patience, then Iran learns patience is weakness. If the West keeps answering force with lectures, then the mullahs will keep betting that nobody has the nerve to stop them. A nation that can move ships, protect lanes, and enforce consequences is a nation that still has a spine. A nation that cannot is just a press release with a flag on it.

So yes, Mr. Trump, the message should be simple: American power is not decorative, and the Strait of Hormuz is not up for negotiation by gangsters in turbans pretending to be statesmen. If you mean what you say, then act like it. History does not remember the cautious. It remembers the ones who had the nerve to move first and make the world adjust.

And when you're not mouthing off about some drunken nonsense, remember if America does not get the Iranians 1000 pounds of nuclear enriched uranium, your children and grandchildren lives will be endangered along with the entire planet's children, much sooner than you can imagine.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/donald-trump-if-you-had-any-guts-and-sechel/

“Excuse me Mr. President, could you start a regional conflict before lunch?”

 

A Gentile watches a war and says, “This is very complicated—history, religion, politics.” A Jew watches the same war and says, “Give it five minutes, we’ll be blamed. Iran has generals, missiles, oil fields—but the real power, according to the conspiracy theorists, is apparently a guy in Brooklyn who can’t get a decent parking spot.”

You turn on the news today, and already you know how the story ends. Missiles flying, diplomats arguing, experts explaining things nobody understands—and somewhere, somehow, this will become a Jewish story. Not a Middle Eastern conflict, not a geopolitical chess match—no, no. A Jewish story. Because in the grand tradition of human logic, whenever the world gets complicated, people immediately look for the smallest group available and say, “Ah, they must be running it.”

And you have to admire the efficiency. The Jewish people—what are we, a rounding error in the global population? Yet somehow we are credited with orchestrating wars between nations with armies larger than our entire census. This is not a community; this is a management consulting firm with supernatural reach. Iran has generals, missiles, oil fields—but the real power, according to the conspiracy theorists, is apparently a guy in Brooklyn who can’t get a decent parking spot.

Now here is where you see the difference between Jews and Gentiles, and it’s not what anybody expects. A Gentile watches a war and says, “This is very complicated—history, religion, politics.” A Jew watches the same war and says, “Give it five minutes, we’ll be blamed.” Not because he’s cynical—because he’s experienced. This isn’t paranoia; this is pattern recognition with a 2,000-year data set.

They say, “The Jews control everything.” Everything? Jews can’t even agree on what to order in a restaurant. You put three Jews at a table, you get four opinions and nobody pays the bill without a discussion that qualifies as a minor treaty negotiation. And yet these same people are supposedly coordinating global oil prices, military alliances, and media narratives. If Jews had that kind of control, at the very least flights would leave on time and deli sandwiches would be cheaper.

And then come the accusations, dressed up like insight. “The Jews pushed America into war.” This is my favorite fantasy. As if there is a quiet meeting somewhere: “Excuse me, Mr. President, if it’s not too much trouble, could you start a regional conflict before lunch?” America can barely pass a budget on time, but somehow it is being steered like a shopping cart by a handful of overcaffeinated intellectuals arguing about hummus.

But here’s the deeper truth hidden under the jokes. When Jews argue, they argue with each other—endlessly, passionately, sometimes loudly enough to qualify as a public event. When the rest of the world argues, somehow the Jews get invited into the disagreement whether they RSVP or not. War breaks out—Jews. Economy shifts—Jews. Weather changes—give it time, someone will connect it to a rabbi with a suspicious umbrella.

And what you begin to see, if you’re paying attention, is that none of this is really about Jews at all. It’s about the human need for simple answers to complicated problems. War is frightening. Chaos is overwhelming. So people reach for a story that reduces it all to something manageable. And the oldest, most convenient story in the book is to point at the Jews and say, “There. That explains everything.” It never does—but it always satisfies.

So what do Jews do in response? The same thing they’ve always done. They complain, they debate, they write long essays nobody finishes, they eat something comforting, and then they go on living. Because if history teaches anything, it’s that survival is not built on winning arguments—it’s built on outlasting them.

And maybe that’s the final irony. The same people who accuse Jews of controlling everything can’t understand the one thing Jews actually do well: endure. Not because of power, not because of secret influence, but because after generations of being blamed for things both real and imagined, you develop a kind of resilience that no conspiracy theory can explain.

So if you want to do Jews a real favor, it’s very simple. Don’t love them, don’t praise them—just give them a little less credit. Because if they were truly responsible for everything they’re accused of, they wouldn’t be exhausted from suffering. They’d be exhausted from success—and believe me, nobody is that well-rested.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/excuse-me-mr-president-could-you-start-a-regional-conflict-before-lunch/ 

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

Only a fool, an ignoramus, or a useful idiot could suppose that the current wave of hatred against Israel and the West will stop with the Jews.

Christians, mark my words: after the Jews, Islamists will come for you! 

---

ChristiansIslamistGiulio Meotti

• 2 minutes

Bethlehem - 

Israel is not on the list of the 50 countries that persecute Christians.

Zero political outrage, zero clerical mobilization, and zero digital uproar for the Christians killed in Nigeria on Palm Sunday. Where are the fiery sermons, the hashtags, and the worldwide denunciations?

The Kotel, holiest place for Jews in Jerusalem, the closest point to what remains of the Temple, always crowded, day and night, has been empty for a month. Empty because of the war and Iranian missiles. But it seems that an antisemitic missile is not a missile, but a message of peace.

Thus, Israel closing the Church of Sepulchre to Cardinal Pizzaballa out of fear of Iranian attacks caused more noise and scandal than the Iranian missile that fell near the Sepulchre a few days earlier.

Antisemitism truly seems to be the socialism of fools (including Christian ones).

In the end, Prime Minister Netanyahu intervened to guarantee Pizzaballa safe passage to the Sepulchre for prayer and Mass. Case closed? Not so fast.

350,000 posts in 10 hours about the cardinal’s access to the Holy Sepulchre for security reasons, compared to 9,100 posts two weeks earlier, when a fragment of an Iranian missile had struck the same church.

This is called antisemitism, and we will pay dearly for it, as we all do every time. Because if left-wing and Islamic antisemitism have their own twisted “logic" (Jews as a symbol of the West and dhimmis to be erased), Christian antisemitism in 2026 is both pathological and masochistic.

Christians who today revel in antisemitism-whether from the nostalgic right or the third-worldist left-will discover too late that the Islamist enemy makes no fine theological distinctions. It wants to uproot Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then come for Peter and Paul.

There is only one place in the Middle East where Christians are growing rather than declining: Israel. They are 185,000 out of 10 million, whereas in 1948 they were 34,000.

In Syria, out of 25 million? 300,000 remain. In Jordan, out of 12 million? 200,000. In Iraq, out of 48 million? 250,000. Algeria? Fewer than 100,000 out of 48 million. And we are talking about countries that were historically cradles of Christianity: the Syria of Paul, the Jordan where Jesus was baptized, the Iraq of the Chaldeans, the Algeria of Augustine.

Within a decade, Israel will have the largest Christian population in the Middle East.

Not a single Israeli church in nearly 80 years has been attacked, as regularly occurs in every surrounding country.

Israeli Christians sit in Parliament and serve as judges on the Supreme Court. In which other Islamic country are there Christians in the highest court?

Haifa is the most multicultural city in the Middle East. There are Jews, Christians, Sunnis and Shiites, Druze, Arameans, and Baha’i, the community originally from Iran that has its headquarters in Israel. The syncretic Baha’i minority, persecuted by Iranian ayatollahs, has found refuge in that small state-smaller than Tuscany-with its twenty thousand square kilometers, compared to the 13 million square kilometers of the surrounding Arab-Islamic countries. The splendor of the Baha’i temple in Haifa testifies to this.

The great Algerian novelist Boualem Sansal defined Israel as “the vector of a terrible contradiction: that of the uniqueness of Islam. Israel is like the Gallic village that resists in a land that prevents it from being Islamic from beginning to end. It goes beyond politics and religion. It is ontological."

As the independent intellectual Michel Onfray put it: “Since, ten years ago, I began going to Israel, I have had the intimate conviction that those who have not been there reason only in the realm of ideas. My first awakening in Tel Aviv, with the call of the muezzin broadcast over loudspeakers, also heard in East Jerusalem, shows in practice that the two peoples already coexist in Israel. I am not aware that in Palestinian territories synagogues are open and safe."

In the so called “Palestinian West Bank" and Gaza there is not a single open and safe synagogue. Not one in Bethlehem, Nablus, Jenin, or Ramallah. The only ones are in the Israeli part of Hevron, the city of David, Rachel's tomb and the grave of the biblical patriarchs, but only thanks to a strong Israeli military presence.

By contrast, there are 400 mosques in Israel, all open and all safe, including 73 in Jerusalem.

Israel is not on the list of the 50 countries that persecute Christians.

In 1964, when Pope Paul VI arrived in Jerusalem for the first historic visit of a pontiff, the city was divided by barbed wire. Jordanian snipers were stationed on rooftops, landmines everywhere in the “no man’s land," seven kilometers long. The only passage between the two parts of the city, Israeli and Jordanian, was Mandelbaum Gate, named after the couple Esther and Simcha Mandelbaum, owners of the house where the border passed.

There were neighborhoods, like Abu Tor, with houses that had one entrance in the Jordanian section and one in the Israeli section. But while Paul VI and his entourage could move freely through Jerusalem to pray in holy sites, Israelis and Jews could only look across the barbed wire at the walls of the Old City and dream of the Kotel.

When three other pontiffs (John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis) later visited Jerusalem, they found an Israeli city open to all three religions. A city where anyone can come to pray and honor their God-even many Wahhabi Muslims arriving from Saudi Arabia to visit the Mosque Esplanade.

The holy city has been conquered by Jebusites, Jews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans, British, and Jordanians. But in thousands of years, Jerusalem was divided only for nineteen years, from 1948 to 1967-and it was a nightmare.

During the years under Jordanian rule, every vestige of Jewish presence in the Jordanian part of the city was erased. Jews were never allowed to visit their holy sites in the occupied part of the city, in violation of international law and armistice agreements. The ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was systematically desecrated; ancient synagogues, such as the famous Hurva, and most buildings in the old Jewish quarter were deliberately destroyed.

For the first time in a thousand years, not a single Jew or synagogue remained in the Old City. It was a kind of ISIS before its time.

In 1947, Christians in Bethlehem-the birthplace of Jesus-made up 85 percent of the population; today they are less than 15 percent. In 2002 Palestinian Arab terrorists besieged the Church of the Nativity, held dozens of parishioners hostage, looted, and set fires.

When Barack Obama visited Bethlehem in 2013, even the ultra-liberal NBC reported on the “Islamization" of the city.

Only a fool, an ignoramus, or a useful idiot could suppose that the current wave of hatred against Israel and the West will stop with the Jews.

As Fabrice Hadjadj writes in Le Figaro:

“The ‘Al-Aqsa flood’ takes place in this alignment of stars, giving voice to a famous jihadist cry: ‘After Saturday comes Sunday,’ in other words: after the Jews, the Christians. The hour is decisive. It had to come. Israel could only end up producing a Dreyfus Affair on a global scale, in which everyone is called to take part. If the Hebrew Scriptures are our source, the Jewish state is our estuary. If Israel falls, Europe can only fall."

That is why I despise an antisemitic Christian more than a progressive or Quranic antisemite.

Also because, as it is said in “Submission" by Houellebecq, “there is no Israel for us".

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist with Il Foglio and writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and the author, in English, of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter and of "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books, in addition to books in Italian. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Gatestone, Frontpage and Commentary.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/424926

Passover Message To Israel: Free Yourselves From American Financial Aid

 

Passover is not a holiday for the timid. It is the season of rupture, of memory, of refusal. It is the night we remember that freedom was never handed to the Jewish people by a sponsor, a committee, or a powerful patron with strings attached. Freedom came from God, from courage, and from the stubborn decision to walk out of Egypt before Pharaoh had the courtesy to approve it. That is why this Passover is as good a time as any to say to Israel: if you want to be truly sovereign, then think seriously about the crippling habit of depending on American financial aid.

This is not an argument against friendship. America has been, and remains, a vital ally. The bond between the two countries is real, strategic, and often deeply moving. But friendship is not the same as dependency, and alliance is not the same as tutelage. A nation that receives billions year after year from abroad does not merely receive help; it also absorbs expectations, warnings, pressures, and limits. The money arrives with invisible paperwork attached, and over time that paperwork can become a leash. A sovereign Jewish state should ask itself whether its strategic choices are always fully its own when so much of its security budget is subsidized by Washington.

Passover teaches a harsher lesson than comfort culture likes to admit: redemption requires sacrifice. The Israelites did not leave Egypt with a grant package and a bipartisan farewell ceremony. They left in haste, with unleavened bread on their backs and faith in their hearts. That is the model. Not the model of permanent assistance. Not the model of national life organized around foreign generosity. Real independence means paying a price for independence. It means building a military, an economy, an industrial base, and a political culture strong enough to stand when the world gets fickle, which it inevitably does.

And make no mistake, the world gets fickle fast. Today’s sympathetic administration may be replaced by tomorrow’s hostile one. Today’s alliance may become tomorrow’s lecture. Today’s aid may become tomorrow’s condition. Israel cannot afford to build its future on the hope that American politics will remain favorable forever. That is not strategy. That is wishful thinking dressed up as realism. The Jewish people survived because they learned, repeatedly, that no empire is permanent, no benefactor is guaranteed, and no external protector can be counted on more than one counts on Providence and oneself.

So this Passover, let Israel hear the message in the oldest language we have: be free enough to say no. Free enough to fund what must be funded. Free enough to endure temporary discomfort for long-term dignity. Free enough to make decisions from strength rather than dependence. That does not mean severing ties with America. It means ending the childish illusion that aid is the same as autonomy. A truly strong Israel should welcome partnership, but reject paternalism. It should accept friendship, but not need permission.

Passover is the holiday of leaving behind what enslaves us. Sometimes slavery is chains, and sometimes it is habits. Sometimes it is a master, and sometimes it is a grant. Israel should take the holiday seriously. If it wants to walk in the full light of national destiny, it must stop living as though its survival depends on the benevolence of another capital. The road to sovereignty is not easy, but then, neither was the Exodus.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/passover-message-to-israel-free-yourselves-from-american-financial-aid/

 *

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

 

Why America Never Let Israel Win A War

 

America has long spoken the language of alliance when it comes to Israel, but too often it has acted in the language of restraint, delay, and managed conflict. Washington likes a strong Israel in theory, so long as that strength does not become too decisive, too independent, or too embarrassing to American strategy in the region. That is the great contradiction: the United States wants Israel to survive, but often does not want Israel to finish the job.

Part of this comes from America’s permanent fear of escalation. Washington is always looking over its shoulder at oil markets, Arab regimes, European opinion, the United Nations, and the next headline cycle. Israel, by contrast, lives in the real world of survival, where hesitation can be fatal and restraint can become a luxury reserved for people who are not being hunted. The American instinct is to freeze a battlefield into “containment.” Israel’s instinct is to make sure the enemy cannot rise again. Those are not the same doctrine.

There is also the problem of American self-image. The United States likes to see itself as the global referee, the adult in the room, the sponsor of “stability.” But stability in the Middle East often means preserving the very forces that threaten Israel. Every time Israel moves toward a clean victory, there is a chorus demanding “proportionality,” “de-escalation,” and “postwar planning.” These are not always bad ideas, but in practice they often become a bureaucratic leash. Israel is told to fight, but not too hard; to defend itself, but not decisively; to win, but not in a way that upsets the regional chessboard.

And then there is the uncomfortable truth that a total Israeli victory would expose something Washington does not always want exposed: that many of America’s Middle East policies have been built on illusions. Illusions about moderates who never moderate, about regimes that promise calm while sponsoring terror, about negotiations that become cover for enemy rearmament. A decisive Israeli win would force a reckoning with the fact that endless management has often been a substitute for strategy. It is easier to slow Israel down than to admit the policy itself failed.

America also has its own imperial habits. It does not merely support allies; it manages them. Israel is treated not just as a partner, but as a dependent variable in a larger American design. That design may include détente, arms sales, Arab normalization, domestic political balancing, and the desire to keep every front “under control.” In that framework, Israel’s battlefield needs are always competing with Washington’s diplomatic theater. The result is predictable: Israel is permitted strength, but denied freedom.

There is no mystery, really. A victorious Israel is an Israel that proves small nations can act with clarity when their enemies are committed to annihilation. That is inspiring to some people and deeply inconvenient to others. It is inconvenient to diplomats who worship process. It is inconvenient to strategists who think perpetual conflict is manageable. And it is inconvenient to great powers that prefer allies who take instructions rather than set their own course.

So the issue is not that America has never helped Israel win anything. It has. The issue is that America often prefers an Israel that remains dependent, contained, and unfinished. A winning Israel is a problem for those who benefit from Israeli vulnerability, regional ambiguity, and the myth that peace can be manufactured by pressure on the victim rather than defeat of the aggressor.

That is why so many American “supports” for Israel come with invisible strings attached. Help, but not too much. Victory, but not too complete. Self-defense, but not sovereignty of action. In the end, Washington often does not oppose Israel’s survival. It opposes Israel’s conclusion.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-america-never-let-israel-win-a-war/ 

Charles Kushner Wanted To Go To The Rabbis - He Knows How To Buy Them: Ask Hershel Schachter and Other Zonas! (More About The Rabbis Than Kushner)

 

Most Hide - Some Fight! “Faith On The Frontline” IDF’s Ultra-Orthodox Hashmonaim Brigade Enters Lebanon War

 The IDF's ultra-Orthodox Hashmonaim Brigade, under the 300th Baram Formation, conducted its first combat raids in southern Lebanon on March 23, 2026, shifting from Gaza, West Bank, and Syria ops. Commander Lt. Col. S hailed it as a milestone for haredi fighters balancing combat and religious life, while launching an officers' course. This expands Israel's multi-front strategy against Hezbollah and Iran-backed threats, emphasizing specialized units.

Trump's 16th Point: I'll Throw In Gaza

 

Where have all the Rabbis gone?

Borrowing the title of Pete Seeger's song to hammer home a message to Diaspora Jewish leaders.

Old timers like me probably still remember the Pete Seeger song “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" The title inspired the title to this article, although the themes differ.

Given the fact that Israel has been in engaged in difficult wars for three years now, one would have expected Diaspora Rabbis to urge their able-bodied congregants to rush to bolster Tzahal’s manpower shortage which has placed a heavy burden on reserve soldiers and on the home front in Zion. In addition, because of the undeniable increase in antisemitism throughout the world, one would have expected Diaspora Rabbis to urge their congregants to pack up their bags and make Aliyah.

Instead, there is a thundering silence. I can’t recall any Diaspora Rabbi of stature rallying his troops to come to the aid of Israel. Nor have I heard any Diaspora Rabbi or Diaspora leader call to the millions of Jews in the exiles of the West to make Aliyah. \

In fact, the Rabbis of Australia vow to preserve Jewish life in the Outback no matter how much the Jews are hated, and Chabad opens giant new centers in Miami and Los Angeles, and new Chabad houses all over the world, giving Diaspora Jews the message that Jewish life will thrive forever amongst the gentiles no matter how much their presence is despised. There was a Rabbi in France who told his congregation that there was no future for French Jews in France, but an immediate backlash from other French Rabbis and Jewish leaders caused him to retract his words the next day.

Is it possible that so many Diaspora Rabbis can err? In the Torah portion of Vayikra we encounter a situation where the Torah Scholars who comprise the Sanhedrin make a mistake in judgment which causes all of the community of Israel to sin (Vayikra 4:13, Rashi). This teaches that even great Torah Scholars are not immune to mistakes.....

HaRav Tzvi Yehuda Kook stated: “After the Holocaust, during which almost his entire Hasidic movement was murdered, when the Rebbe of Belz came on aliyah, he said, ‘We realize now that we erred in our estrangement from Eretz Yisrael.’ Other Gedolim also repented over their shortsightedness. If this repentance had occurred 30 years before, preceding the Holocaust, prompting the mass aliyah of devout God-fearing Jews, the spiritual situation is Israel would be very different today."

“The beginning of the Zionist awakening was filled with uncertainty in the eyes of many Rabbis, but today there aren’t any doubts. We see eye-to-eye the acts of Hashem revealed in the ingathering of the exiles and the incredible rebuilding of the Nation in the Land. And it has become increasingly clear that those who supported the return to Zion were right."

READ MORE:

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/424389

Shabbos Hagadol Drasha - Haredi Rabbis In Israel To Followers : Get Smartphones!

 

In Arad, where the desert air carries both silence and warning, a strange and dangerous contradiction has taken root. On one hand, the modern State of Israel—through the IDF Home Front Command—has built one of the most sophisticated civilian alert systems in the world, designed to shave seconds off catastrophe and turn chaos into survival. On the other hand, in the name of spiritual insulation, thousands carry “kosher” cellphones that are, in moments of אמת—truth—functionally deaf. The collision is not theoretical. It is measured in seconds, and sometimes in lives.

The problem is not rumor; it is physics and infrastructure. Many of these approved devices rely on aging 2G and 3G networks, stripped of internet capability and modern data reception. They were engineered to block temptation, not to receive real-time digital alerts. But the rockets do not care about engineering intentions. The alert system—designed for smartphones, apps, and modern broadcast protocols—simply does not always reach these devices. The result is as absurd as it is tragic: a nation racing forward technologically, and pockets of its own population standing still, waiting for a warning that never arrives.

There is something profoundly Jewish in the desire to build fences—to guard the vineyard, to preserve קדושה in a world that does not value it. But fences, our tradition teaches, must serve life, not endanger it. When the fence becomes a wall that blocks a life-saving signal, it is no longer a protection; it is a liability dressed in piety. The illusion that less technology equals more safety collapses the moment reality intrudes—and in Israel, reality intrudes with sirens.

And so the state improvises. Workarounds are created. Special systems, alternative alerts, patched solutions—all acknowledgments, quiet but unmistakable, that the original model failed under pressure. This is not heresy; it is פשוט—the simple truth. You cannot opt out of the modern world’s dangers while selectively opting out of its defenses. The missile travels at the speed of modernity whether you accept modernity or not.

The deeper question, then, is not technological but moral. What does responsibility look like in a society where the threat is constant and the margin for error is measured in heartbeats? Is it enough to say that a device is “kosher” if, at the decisive moment, it is not functional? Or must we admit—however uncomfortable it may be—that safeguarding Jewish life requires tools that work in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be?

In the end, the argument writes itself in the stark language of survival. קדושת החיים—the sanctity of life—is not an abstraction. It is a commandment that demands clarity, not confusion; action, not symbolism. In a place like Arad, where the horizon can shift from calm to crisis in an instant, nonsense and safety cannot coexist. One will give way. The only question is which one we are prepared to surrender.

*

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/shabbos-hagadol-drasha-haredi-rabbis-in-israel-to-followers-get-smartphones/

History For Antisemites --- We Learn From Our Serious Errors in Judgment --- October 8th, 1973. Third day of the Yom Kippur War. Israel was losing on two fronts simultaneously. Egyptian forces had destroyed Israeli armor in the Sinai. Syrian tanks had broken through on the Golan Heights and were looking down at the Israeli heartland below.

 

The Truth About AI, God, and the Future of Judaism - A Sober & Intellectual Torah Perspective Of The Future....Make The Time To Watch/Listen In Its Entirety...

 

Israel, Netanyahu, Jew - Israel and its supporters must combat the slanderous claim, from right and left, that Jews are dragging America into a futile war

 

A new war revives a hateful old lie

The world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford 

 

What do New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, antisemitic podcaster Tucker Carlson, Progressive politician Bernie Sanders, and the lunatic influencers Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes all have in common? Each has accused Israel, Netanyahu, and the Jews of dragging the United States into yet another endless and unwinnable war in the Middle East. 

Not much nuance separates Friedman’s assertion that “Bibi is playing both President Trump and American Jews for fools. And if the US lets him get away with it, we are fools,” from Carlson’s claim “This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war. The United States didn’t make the decision here. Benjamin Netanyahu did.” Sanders’s statement that “US cannot continue to be complicit in Netanyahu’s wars,” is virtually indistinguishable from Owens’s “Trump has betrayed America and expects you to die for Israel,” and “Trump launched a war on Zionist vibes.”

Of course, there is nothing new about the right-left alliance against Israel. The 1960s Weather Underground described Israel as “a Nazi state” and a “racist atrocity,” and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke accused the Zionists of controlling the US government, “lock, stock, and barrel.” Nor was the claim that Jews manipulate American leaders into going to war remotely original. Henry Ford blamed the outbreak of World War I on “German Jewish bankers,” and before America entered World War II, Charles Lindbergh singled out the Jews for “pressing this country toward war.”

Ford and Lindberg’s ranting ultimately had little impact on American policy, but that is not the case for the critics of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them still blame the failure of those campaigns on the neocons, a number of them Jewish, who openly pressed for war. “Virtually all neoconservatives are also deeply committed Zionists who believe that the United States should use its military power to promote Israel’s interests,” wrote Professor Stephen Walt. “It is no accident that in 1998 the neoconservatives started pushing hard for war against Iraq, not against Afghanistan or North Korea.” But while the trauma of Iraq and Afghanistan continues to plague Americans, the burgeoning charges of Jewish complicity in persuading America to attack Iran have less to do with those earlier conflicts and more with the recent war in Gaza.

Israel, Netanyahu, Jew

Raging at a time when the memory of the Holocaust was rapidly fading and the social strictures against Jew-hatred had virtually collapsed, the war completed the fusion between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

Raging at a time when the memory of the Holocaust was rapidly fading and the social strictures against Jew-hatred had virtually collapsed, the war effected the final fusion between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Demonizing Israel gave latent antisemites the language and the license they needed to hate Jews openly. The words “Israel,” “Netanyahu,” and “Jew” became sinisterly synonymous. Convinced at some not-so-subliminal level that Jews are inherently evil, many millions of people accepted the statistically impossible claim that 70% of Gaza’s casualties were women and children, and Israel has killed more than 230 reporters in Gaza. “Lust for this kind of genocide doesn’t just halt,” declared Candace Owens. “This is utterly satanic.”

The impact on American politics and public opinion has been profound. To be a Democratic candidate today increasingly means vowing never to accept a cent from AIPAC and to consider cutting off military aid to Israel. The MAGA movement, meanwhile, has fostered the rebirth of the rabidly anti-Israel Pat Buchanan branch of the GOP. For the first time, the majority of Americans support the Palestinians more than they do the Israelis. More than 50%  believe that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And for many in both parties, fearing a rise in gas prices and confused about the goals of war, the easiest way to explain the morass – much as during the Great Depression and the bubonic plague – is to blame the Jews.

Ironically, these accusations are emerging at a moment of unprecedented US-Israel strategic coordination. Far from manipulation, the partnership reflects shared threat assessments developed over multiple administrations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised Israel as a “steadfast partner” that displays“unmatched skill and iron determination.” With none of America’s other allies willing to join the effort or even defend themselves against Iranian threats, and with NATO revealed as a toothless tiger, Israel is today America’s only dependable military ally.

Nevertheless, if left unanswered, and if the Iran war’s outcome proves less than ideal, the accusation that the Jews orchestrated this war would likely intensify the dangers to American Jews and jeopardize the future of the US-Israeli alliance. Israel, together with our supporters in the United States, non-Jews and Jews alike, must join in combating this slander and exposing the age-old hatreds driving it. At the same time, we must stress the nonpareil contribution Israel makes to America’s security and the paramount regard with which the US military holds the IDF. 

Trump and Netanyahu conceived and coordinated Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion not as a result of Jewish subterfuge but as partners addressing a common intolerable threat. Six American presidents, we must recall, viewed Iran as a national threat. The one who finally decided to act did not have to be dragged.

 Michael Oren, formerly Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Knesset Member and Deputy Minister for Diplomacy in the Prime Minister’s Office, is the founder of the Israel Advocacy Group and the author of the Substack, Clarity.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-new-war-revives-a-hateful-old-lie/

War with Iran and 5 billion Shekel to Haredim

 

The remedy for the abuse of power is persistence!

 

 

A Judge Handed Us a Victory Against RFK Jr. Will He Follow the Rule of Law?

 

— The remedy for the abuse of power is persistence

 

In our civic imagination, a court order is supposed to end the argument. A judge hears both sides, rules, and the government complies. That is the assumption of a constitutional republic. But lately, that assumption has started to wobble. 

 

by Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH

Recent reporting by the New York Times counted 198 lawsuits pertaining to federal funding holds under the current administration. Many plaintiffs have won, yet the administration has often kept pushing -- slow-walking compliance or simply repackaging the same approach under a new label.

This creates a cynical paradox: If the executive branch can ignore the law to enact a policy, and then ignore the court to maintain it, is there still a point in going to court?

The answer is yes, because the failure to follow process and the refusal to follow court orders are not separate issues -- they are symptoms of the same disease.

Where the Law Meets Public Health

I've spent my career believing that the law is a shield for the vulnerable, advocating that policy follow science. I went to law school with a specific, perhaps narrow, ambition: to improve access to healthcare and ensure the rules governing our health were built on a foundation of rigorous, transparent evidence.

Today, however, I find myself in a role I never sought: a reluctant litigator leading a lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his dismantling of the childhood immunization schedule. I did not take this step because I enjoy the adversarial nature of a courtroom. I took it because we are witnessing a collapse of the fundamental agreement that holds our government together: the requirement that power must explain itself.

Public health makes the consequences of that collapse impossible to ignore. When rules governing vaccines change without evidence-based processes, the consequences are not abstract. They show up in pediatric clinics, emergency departments, and public health surveillance reports. They show up as preventable infections, outbreaks that ripple through schools and communities, and parents forced to navigate uncertainty about what should be a stable, science-based standard of care. In public health, the rule of law is not merely a procedural safeguard; it is part of the infrastructure that protects life and health.

Yet, in our case, the government's lawyers have argued that Secretary Kennedy is not bound by rules. As he works at a frenetic pace to dismantle key elements of vaccine policy, they wave it off as just a difference of opinion about how to promote public health.

Public health depends on trust, and trust depends on rules that are predictable and transparent. When vaccine schedules are altered without the evidence-based processes the law requires, it isn't just a "difference of opinion." I argue it is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which exists specifically to prevent high-ranking officials from making life-altering decisions based on whim rather than work.

When an official treats evidence like a menu -- selecting what flatters a conclusion and dismissing what complicates it -- they are breaking the law before they even enter a courtroom. If we then allow a subsequent court order to be treated as a "suggestion," we have effectively surrendered the separation of powers. We are left with a one-branch system where the law is whatever the person in charge says it is.

Separation of powers is not an abstract civics lesson; it is a guardrail against arbitrary power. Congress writes the laws and controls the purse. The president executes the laws. Courts resolve disputes about what the law permits. When the executive overrides Congress's spending choices by "pausing" appropriated funds, or overrides the courts by ignoring an injunction, they are rewriting the Constitution in real time.

Not Accepting a New Normal

We have been to this precipice before.

In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson treated the Supreme Court with indifference, musing about how Chief Justice John Marshall would enforce his decision that Georgia could not impose its laws within Cherokee territory. A century later, southern resistance to Brown v. Board of Education showed that rights are only as real as the willingness of the executive to enforce them.

Manufacturing this kind of futility is a governing tactic. If an administration can outlast its critics and ignore the courts long enough, it can convert unlawful actions into a "new normal." By treating court-ordered funding as a negotiable "pause" and the vaccine schedule as a matter of personal preference, the administration is shifting the boundaries of what's possible until the defiance of both judges and scientists becomes an unremarkable feature of governance.

Not to litigate is to accept that this "new normal" is valid.

Going to court is about insisting on a baseline: the government must follow the law, explain itself on the record, and accept that it cannot simply will outcomes into existence. Law and science both demand reason. Both create a record that can be tested. The shared promise of both is simple: show your work.

On Monday, a federal judge granted a stay in our case challenging the dismantling of the childhood immunization schedule. This means the schedule must be restored as our litigation proceeds. Will the ruling actually be followed?

That uncertainty tells the broader story of this moment. When compliance with court orders becomes uncertain, the constitutional system is already under strain.

If we accept an executive branch that can both disregard the laws of Congress and treat court orders as optional, that imbalance will not stay neatly confined to "politics." It is revealing itself now as providers, states, and families struggle to rely on the federal government as a source of stable, evidence-based standards. Over time it will reveal itself in poorer public health outcomes -- measured not only in statistics but in preventable illness, long-term disability, and lives cut short.

There will always be reasons not to sue. Lawsuits can be expensive, slow, and frustrating. Litigation alone will not save the rule of law. It must be paired with congressional oversight and public scrutiny.

But abandoning the courts because an administration tries to evade them is like abandoning elections because a candidate lies. The remedy for the abuse of power is not surrender; it is persistence. The alternative is to teach every future president that the law is a suggestion and court orders are merely obstacles to be routed around.

In the end, this isn't only about one president, one health secretary, or one vaccine schedule. It's about whether we will remain a country where rights are governed by law -- and where the government must follow the same rules that protect the health and lives of the people it serves.

That is a bargain we cannot afford to make.

Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH, is lead counsel for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in AAP v. Kennedy. He is also an advisor in the biopharma sector, with a particular focus on vaccines. He was vice president of public policy at Moderna during the COVID-19 pandemic and teaches vaccine law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/120337?

Beware the Dangerous Bedtime Story About Iran, in particular, there was no shortage of the stories we told ourselves. --- Michael Oren

 

There is a great expression in colloquial Hebrew that defies translation into other languages. It goes like this: “These are bedtime stories that we tell ourselves.” Though the image comes to mind of parents putting their children to bed and reading them an illustrated book, the expression has nothing to do with parenting and certainly not with children. Rather than evoking a warm family scene, it describes a reality in which those families, led to believe that a major threat has disappeared, instead find themselves putting their children to bed in bomb shelters.

Certainly, the most terrifying bedtime story we told ourselves was in the years before October 7. We repeated the same myth that Hamas was deterred, focused on developing Gaza, and had no intention of attacking. 1,200 Israelis were killed on October 7, soldiers and civilians, and 800 since then. But the storytelling didn’t end there. Following the brilliant pager and walkie-talkie operations, the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, and the IDF’s successful sweep of southern Lebanon in the fall of 2024, we told ourselves that Hezbollah was finished. Now we know how far from finished Hezbollah is. It is still capable of pounding northern and central Israel with hundreds of rockets. Had the story been even remotely true, the army would not be preparing as it is now for a major ground incursion into south Lebanon.

About Iran, in particular, there was no shortage of the stories we told ourselves. The regime’s leadership was cracking, their missile arsenals were almost exhausted, and the Iranian people were ready to rise up and reclaim their freedom. Not exactly true and, in some critical cases, not remotely true. Writing this article on the 16th day of the war, I had to run repeatedly to my safe room.

Though politicians may blame the generals and the General Staff of the government, no branch of Israel’s government has a monopoly over storytelling. Nor is the phenomenon new. Remember how Yasser Arafat, in signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, had definitively sworn off terror? Remember how the IDF’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 was going to transform that country into a pacified neighbor? And remember how the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 would usher in an era of Middle East peace!

Though these and other stories caused incalculable harm, one can hardly blame our leaders for telling them. Just like children who need to feel safely tucked into bed at night, people—and Israelis especially—need hope. But together with our army’s truly historic achievements, the most important outcome of this war must be the end of bedtime stories. Tonight, we can read them to our children in the bomb shelters, but we must never again allow them to put us, their parents, to sleep.

---

This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Ynet on March 17, 2026.

The Message Is So Clear For American Jews --- Regardless Of The Yarmulke Color Of The Messenger!

 

The American Public Has No Clue What Is At Stake With Iran

 

There are moments in history when a civilization faces a threat so clear that one assumes the public must understand it. Yet again and again, democratic societies drift in a fog of distraction while danger gathers beyond the horizon. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not merely another unpleasant regime in a faraway desert. It is the central ideological engine of modern radical jihadism, the primary sponsor of terror stretching from Beirut to Gaza, from Iraq to Yemen. And yet the American public, judging by polling data and political discourse, barely grasps the magnitude of what is at stake.

Recent surveys from organizations such as Gallup and Pew Research Center reveal a striking disconnect between the strategic reality and public perception. Only roughly four in ten Americans describe Iran as a “critical threat” to the United States. A large share of the public places it in the vague category of a “serious but not urgent” concern. When Americans are asked to rank foreign policy priorities, Iran consistently falls well below domestic issues such as the economy, healthcare, or immigration. The result is a dangerous complacency: a population that recognizes Iran as problematic but not as the epicenter of a revolutionary ideological project.

This misunderstanding begins with a failure to grasp what the Iranian regime actually is. The Islamic Republic is not simply an authoritarian state seeking security or regional influence. It is a revolutionary theocracy founded in 1979 with an explicit mission: the export of its Islamic revolution across the Muslim world. The regime’s ideological architects did not conceal this goal. They declared it openly and wrote it into the structure of the state. The Iranian system was designed not merely to govern a country but to transform an entire region.

Over the past four decades, Tehran has built a network of militant proxies that function as an informal empire. Groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have received funding, weapons, and training from Iranian forces. In Iraq and Syria, militias tied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps operate as extensions of Iranian strategic power. In Yemen, the Houthis have been transformed from a local insurgency into a regional menace with missiles capable of threatening shipping lanes and neighboring states. This network is not a loose alliance. It is a coordinated system of influence and coercion directed by Tehran.

Yet when Americans think about terrorism, they often focus on groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda as if jihadist movements exist independently of the regimes that sustain them. In reality, Iran has served as one of the most consistent state sponsors of militant organizations in the modern era. The regime perfected the strategy of indirect warfare—attacking its enemies through proxies while avoiding the consequences of direct confrontation.

Polling data reflects how little this reality penetrates public consciousness. Surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and other research institutions show that many Americans still prefer diplomacy and economic engagement with Iran rather than strategies aimed at dismantling the regime’s power. Even after decades of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. personnel and allies, a significant portion of the public continues to view Tehran primarily as a difficult negotiating partner rather than the command center of a regional revolutionary movement.

History offers ample evidence of Iran’s hostility. In 1983, Iranian-backed militants from Hezbollah carried out the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen. During the Iraq War, Iranian-supplied explosives known as explosively formed penetrators were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. Across the Middle East, Iranian-backed militias have destabilized governments, threatened shipping lanes, and launched rocket attacks against American bases and allies.

Yet these acts have largely occurred in the shadows—through proxies, militias, and deniable operations. The Iranian regime has mastered the art of waging war without triggering a decisive response. It is a strategy of constant harassment, calibrated carefully to remain below the threshold that would provoke overwhelming American retaliation.

The most dangerous illusion surrounding Iran concerns nuclear weapons. While most Americans oppose Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities, polling shows that many underestimate the regional consequences if it succeeds. An Iranian nuclear arsenal would not simply alter the balance of power; it would ignite a cascade of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and potentially Egypt would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs. A region already scarred by instability could suddenly contain several rival nuclear powers.

From a Jewish historical perspective, the stakes are painfully clear. The Iranian leadership regularly calls for the destruction of Israel, while funding organizations dedicated to that goal. Jewish history has taught, often through tragedy, that genocidal rhetoric must never be dismissed as mere propaganda. When regimes openly proclaim their intentions, the prudent course is to believe them.

The American public, protected by geography and absorbed in domestic concerns, often treats Middle Eastern conflicts as distant and inscrutable. But the reality is far simpler than the abstractions suggest. The Islamic Republic survives by exporting instability. Revolutionary struggle is not a side effect of the regime; it is the regime’s central purpose.

The collapse of that system would reshape the entire strategic map of the Middle East. Hezbollah would lose its patron. Hamas would lose its principal financial backer. Militias across Iraq and Syria would lose their logistical hub. The web of Iranian influence stretching across the region would begin to unravel.

And yet the American public does not perceive the stakes with that level of clarity. Poll after poll suggests a nation that views Iran as one problem among many rather than as the ideological nucleus of a decades-long campaign against Western influence in the Middle East.

History repeatedly shows that certain regimes poison entire regions through their revolutionary ambitions. Nazi Germany once did so in Europe. The Soviet Union attempted to do so across much of the globe. The Islamic Republic of Iran represents a modern variation of that same phenomenon: a state driven not merely by national interest but by ideological mission.

The tragedy is not simply that such a regime exists. The tragedy is that the American public has not yet fully grasped how decisive the defeat of that regime could be—not only for the Middle East, but for global stability itself.

Until that realization emerges, American policy will continue to drift between hesitation and half-measures. And history has rarely been kind to civilizations that recognize a threat only after it has grown too powerful to ignore.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-american-public-has-no-clue-what-is-at-stake-with-iran/