The IDF is conducting strikes in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut in response to Hezbollah fire toward Israeli territory, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed on Sunday in a joint statement.

“Israel will not tolerate fire directed at its territory,” the statement said.

The strikes precisely targeted one of Hezbollah’s command centers located within Dahiyeh used by the terror organization to “advance terrorist attacks against the citizens of the State of Israel and IDF soldiers operating in southern Lebanon,” the military added.

Israeli media reported that the targeted center was housing Hezbollah’s communication systems chief, while the result of the attack is still not clear.

According to Axios reporter Barak Ravid, the IDF notified CENTCOM shortly before conducting the strike.

The Israeli military notified CENTCOM shortly before the strike in Beirut took place, Israeli and U.S. officials say https://t.co/3VF8rUxG4q

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 14, 2026

Iranian parliament speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf responded to the strikes on Dahiyeh by commenting on the upcoming peace deal with the United States. In a post on X/Twitter, he stated that the strikes indicate that “America either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so.”

“If you can’t fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is impossible,” he added.

Ebrahim Rezaei, an Iranian lawmaker and the military advisor of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said in a post on X/Twitter following the announcement of the strikes that the only way towards any sort of agreement with the United States is to “discipline the Zionist regime.”

“If this rabid dog is not brought under control, it will bite our own feet before the ink on the agreement has even dried,” Rezaei wrote.

IDF maintains ‘high alertness and readiness in all arenas’

The IDF is maintaining “high alertness and readiness in all arenas,” IDF Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir said during a meeting with Division and Brigade commanders from the military’s Northern Command.

“The entire IDF is determined, alert, ready, and operating with varying intensities in all sectors. Lebanon is our main center of gravity, but we are also preparing for developments in other arenas,” Zamir said.

He also said that the operation in southern Lebanon is leading to “the continued erosion and disintegration of Hezbollah’s southern front,” with the improvements in the security situation being key to determining the “framework of negotiations mediated by the American political echelon and the Lebanese government.”

Since early Sunday morning, several drones launched by Hezbollah have crossed into Israeli airspace, prompting sirens to be sounded in northern Israel.  

In response, several Israeli ministers called on the government to intensify attacks against Hezbollah and Dahiyeh.

‘For every drone, Dahiyeh must tremble,’ Ben-Gvir says

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called on Netanyahu to implement his Dahiyeh doctrine with “determination and force and to demolish buildings in Dahiyeh today” in a post to X, adding that the government had “promised security to the residents of the north, and we must fulfill it!”

In his own X post, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir echoed the sentiment. 

“For every drone, a missile. For every violation, fire. For every drone, Dahiyeh must tremble. For every hair on the head of an IDF soldier, a thousand Hezbollah terrorists,” Ben-Gvir wrote. “Against terror, we do not contain, we crush!”

Last week, the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said in a statement published by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-run Fars News Agency that its several hours of attacks had come in response to Israel’s actions against Lebanon. 

Iran’s military had further threatened in its statement that should Israel continue to strike in Lebanon, “much more severe and crushing measures will be on the way.”

US-Iran deal set to be signed on Sunday

A deal with Iran is set to be signed on Sunday, and the Strait of Hormuz will open immediately afterward, US President Donald Trump announced in a Saturday Truth Social post.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” wrote Trump.

Trump emphasized that the deal was significantly different than that of the Obama administration, which he described as “an easy, beautiful, smooth road to a Nuclear Weapon, which Iran would have had six years ago, and would have used long before now.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif added on Saturday that the US and Iran have agreed to a framework for a peace deal to end the months-long conflict in the Middle East, with the final text of the deal reached.

Pakistan is now preparing for an electronic signing expected within the next 24 hours, followed by technical-level talks next week, Sharif added.

US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke on the phone on Sunday after Israel launched strikes against Hezbollah in Beirut, a source with knowledge of the matter told The Jerusalem Post.

Earlier on Sunday, Trump denounced the strikes.

“There should be no more attacks by Israel anywhere in Lebanon,” Trump said, “but there should also be no more attacks by any other party, including Hezbollah, against Israel.”

“This morning’s attacks should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump added that, while Israel has the right to “defend itself against threats,” the threat it was defending itself against was “very small and meaningless.”

Trump concluded his message by mentioning the potential peace deal with Iran, which is expected to be signed on Sunday evening, saying: “This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace – Let’s not blow it!”

‘Bibi has no f***ing discretion’

Trump told Israel’s Channel 12 on Sunday that he was unhappy with the IDF’s strikes on Beirut and with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s choices. 

“Bibi has no f***ing discretion,” he told the news outlet. “Why did [he] do this attack?” Trump also noted that he had conveyed his feelings to Netanyahu directly. 

“Hezbollah fired and hit the middle of nowhere,” Trump went on to say. “Nobody was hurt. And then he has to f***ing attack, and in Beirut. That made me very angry.”

Mohammad Mokhber, a former interim Iranian president and senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, warned Israel and the US, saying Tehran will make “no concessions” on defending Lebanon and anyone crossing Iran’s red lines will “learn a lesson” they regret.

IDF strikes Hezbollah command centers in Beirut’s Dahiyeh, hours before signing of US-Iran deal

The IDF conducted strikes in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut in response to Hezbollah fire toward Israeli territory, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed on Sunday in a joint statement.

“Israel will not tolerate fire directed at its territory,” the statement said.

The strikes precisely targeted one of Hezbollah’s command centers located within Dahiyeh used by the terror organization to “advance terrorist attacks against the citizens of the State of Israel and IDF soldiers operating in southern Lebanon,” the military added.

According to Axios reporter Barak Ravid, the IDF notified CENTCOM shortly before conducting the strike.

Walla contributed to this report.

US President Donald Trump confirmed that a peace deal between the US and Iran has been completed in a post on Truth Social on Sunday.

“The deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump stated, adding his “congratulations to all.”

“I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade,” Trump continued.

In a subsequent post on Truth Social, Trump clarified that the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened to allow the transit of commercial vessels on Friday after the agreement is signed.

Trump’s announcement came shortly after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stated the deal had been reached in a post on X/Twitter.

“Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” Sharif stated.

According to a Maariv report citing Israeli sources familiar with the matter, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump that Israel would not consider itself bound to the stopping of military operations in Lebanon.

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in…

— Shehbaz Sharif (@CMShehbaz) June 14, 2026

Sharif added that now that the deal has been agreed upon, mediators will facilitate a series of “pre-implementation discussions” this week to discuss further technical talks.

An official signing ceremony for the deal will be held on Friday in Switzerland.

Sharif thanked both the US and Iran for their “commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict,” and extended his appreciation to Qatar for their support in facilitating negotiations. 

Iran’s deputy FM says text of agreement will be released after signing

Iranian semi-official news outlet Tasnim reported that Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated that the full text of the agreement will be released after the official signing ceremony.

Gharibabadi also stated that after the deal is signed by both countries, a 60-day period of further talks will begin. The talks will cover topics including the termination of sanctions against Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, and the establishment of a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the deal’s terms.

There is a voter I keep meeting. He did his army service, or his son did, or both. He votes Right and always has. He believes Torah and the rifle belong together, the way the hesder yeshivot (programs that braid Talmud study with combat service) have insisted for two generations. And he has no party that he feels represents his values and ideals.

He will not vote Likud because the party he trusted spent this Knesset shielding haredi (ultra-Orthodox) draft evasion to keep its coalition alive. He will not vote for Bezalel Smotrich, who built his career on the national-religious service ethos and then let his party advance a Torah-study Basic Law that dresses up the same exemption. And he will not follow Naftali Bennett into Beyachad (“Together”), because Bennett owns the draft issue but sold it in a package with Yair Lapid, and that price is too high.

Too Right for the opposition, too betrayed for the coalition, too principled for the far Right. Call him the “homeless Right.” The data says there are at least six seats for him, and that he, not the slogans, decides the next election.

The numbers are not soft. A Channel 12 poll this spring found that 42% of Likud’s 2022 voters are no longer firmly committed to the party, and only 58% say they will definitely vote for it again. The instinct is to assume that they drift rightward, toward Smotrich or Itamar Ben-Gvir. They do not. Just 4% say they would move further Right. The exit is real, and it does not lead where the coalition assumes.

The one conviction the political market refuses to sell 

What unites these voters is one conviction the political market refuses to sell them. Roughly 60% of Israelis, veterans and first-time voters alike, say it will not back a party that preserves the current haredi exemption. For the national-religious voter, this is not policy. It is a body count. His community served, and it buried its sons at a rate the yeshiva world did not. He has run out of patience, and no party on offer matches his conviction with its conduct.

This is why he is decisive, and the math is brutally simple. The blocs have been frozen for months, the coalition stuck at around 50 seats and the Zionist opposition at around 60, neither side touching the 61 it needs. In a parliament that locked, the homeless seats are the only liquid votes left. They determine whether the right reassembles a majority or whether the deadlock hardens into another round of paralysis.

The leverage does not end on election night. The new right-wing efforts now circling these voters share one feature: a refusal to commit in advance to either camp. A party of six that pre-commits to no one is, in a 50-against-60 Knesset, the kingmaker. That is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the most concrete form of decisive there is.

So where is the party? This is the part the polls cannot show you. The demand is settled. The supply is a swarm. There are individuals and groups weighing a run, some with their names already in the papers, many more moving quietly, and a sizable share of them waiting to see what becomes of Netanyahu and his party before they move. The homeless Right is not waiting for a platform. It is waiting for a founder, and the founders are waiting on each other and on the prime minister. Demand certain, supply contingent.

Vacuums under this much pressure do not stay empty

That is the honest catch, and it belongs in this analysis rather than out of it. A bloc can be decisive in potential and inert in practice. These voters have told every pollster what they believe, and then parked their support, for now, with the very parties that betrayed their beliefs. Conviction has outrun behavior. The home has not been built.

But vacuums under this much pressure do not stay empty. The first credible entrant who is genuinely of the Right, clean of the extremists, free of Lapid, and willing to make haredi enlistment the whole campaign rather than a talking point, likely clears the field. Which is precisely why no one wants to move first and get it wrong.

The coalition is betting these voters come home out of habit and fear. The opposition is betting they can be rented through Beyachad. Both bets misread the man I keep meeting. He is not undecided. He is unrepresented. The seat that learns the difference will govern.

Amid Yair Lapid’s criticism over the premier’s handling of security as the country faces escalating tensions with Iran and Hezbollah, the opposition leader’s spokesperson confirmed to The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that no security meeting between the two leaders had been held since April. Under Knesset law, the prime minister is required to update the opposition leader on state matters “as necessary, and no less than once a month.”

Lapid sharply criticized the emerging US deal with Iran and on Sunday said that, if the reports of the deal were correct, it “would be one of the most shocking failures of Israeli foreign and security policy, and it would be entirely on Netanyahu’s account.”

“No press conference and no media spin or AI-generated video will conceal the failure,” Lapid said.

No productive strategy behind Israel’s attacks on Iran

He has said that there was no productive strategy behind Israel’s attacks on Iran, arguing that the country was failing to achieve its military objectives while continuing to draw its citizens into repeated rounds of conflict.

Lapid outlined various points on Sunday that he said were related to Netanyahu’s failures.

He said that Netanyahu “sold the Americans an overly optimistic scenario without fully presenting the risks involved, and lost their trust in the middle of the war.”

Lapid added that Netanyahu “failed to establish a professional team to work with the various power centers and decision-makers within the American administration,” and “failed to persuade the Americans to strike Iran’s oil and energy facilities and did not secure the issue in advance.”

The prime minister also failed to convince the Americans to include Iran’s ballistic missile program in the agreement, or even in the negotiations, Lapid said.

He added that Netanyahu had “underestimated the importance of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.” Although “the possibility that the Strait could be closed was raised before the war,” Lapid said, “no serious discussion was held on the matter.”

He further argued that Netanyahu “failed to consider the implications of rising oil prices in the United States just months before congressional elections,” as well as the consequences of lifting sanctions and “injecting tens of billions of dollars into the Iranian economy under the supervision of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

Additionally, Lapid blamed Netanyahu for failing to account for the possibility of attacks on Gulf states’ energy facilities and did not successfully leverage Israel’s ties with Gulf countries to bring them into a joint campaign.

‘We changed the Middle East.’ 

“He [Netanyahu] continues to tell everyone: ‘We changed the Middle East.’ The problem is that due to negligence, arrogance, the absence of an appropriate professional team, and judgment influenced by other considerations, he changed it for the worse,” Lapid said.

“The emerging agreement does not achieve any of Israel’s war objectives. The regime survives, the missile program remains intact, and Iran is able to rebuild its nuclear program,” he added.

“This is a complete failure by Netanyahu, and on the way, he is turning us into a client state that receives instructions regarding its own national security,” he added.

With upcoming elections currently scheduled for October, Lapid has vowed that the next government would have a “historic role: to repair the damage caused by Netanyahu’s inability to turn military achievements into strategic successes.”

Two helicopters crashed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Sunday, and American singer Oliver Tree, 32, was among the dead, local authorities confirmed.

According to local media, six people were killed, with Argentine YouTuber Gaspar Prim Díaz, 23, most known by his alias Gaspi, also among the dead.

The incident happened in the neighborhood of Recreio dos Bandeirantes, in the western area of the city, at 9 a.m. local time (12:00 GMT), when the helicopters crashed mid-flight.

One of the helicopters crashed inside a parking lot of a commercial district, destroying some 20 cars parked in the site, according to Rio’s rescue services.

The crash also produced several fragments that flew towards buildings in the area, with authorities reporting only material damage to windows and no more people wounded on the ground.

Oliver Tree, Gaspi among the dead

Tree, most known for his hit songs “Life Goes On” and “Miss You,” was in Brazil headlining a world tour for his fourth studio album.

He rose to fame in 2018 with his EP “Alien Boy,” with the song’s music video reaching 50 million views.

In 2020, his songs went viral when used in TikTok videos around the world, with “Life Goes On” featured in 3.7 million videos since its release and “Miss You” used 1.5 million times.

On the other hand, Gaspi was an Argentine influencer with almost 3 million YouTube subscribers, known for creating viral videos centered on street interviews.

According to Brazilian authorities, Argentine video producer Lucas Vignale was also among the dead.

This is a developing story.

A year after Operation Rising Lion, we must ask: was the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran as historic as it once seemed? At the time, Israelis were awoken in the early hours of the morning with emergency alerts on their phones. No one knew what was happening, nor why. However, having endured war since October 7, 2023, many were steeled for the conflict ahead. Soon, the news broke that Israel had carried out strikes against Iran.

Israel’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program is one of those “waiting for Godot” moments. It had been discussed for decades. In fact, it was such common knowledge that there had been mock discussions at Israeli universities about what would happen the “day after” Iran got a bomb. Israel’s prime minister had spent decades preparing for this eventuality, and even went to the UN with a cartoon drawing of a nuclear bomb with a red line.

The big question was not if, but when. US administrations had lurched back and forth on this topic. Some had sought ways to delay an Iranian bomb, via either technological means or a deal.

However, it was far easier to discuss scenarios than it was to actually do something. The nuclear program in Iran was well-known; the sites associated with it had become common knowledge, and we all heard about them via the media. Iran was often presented as being only a few weeks or months from breaking out a bomb.

Post-October 7 talk about the Iranian nuclear program

After the Israel-Hamas War began, there were continued discussions about the Iranian nuclear program. As it turned out, while Israel was focused on Iran, Hamas was the larger and more impending threat. Hamas was not viewed as a serious threat in most security circles.

The Iranians, meanwhile, had chosen to enrich uranium in response to US President Donald Trump leaving the nuclear deal during his first term. By 2024, the discussions were not about enrichment, but weaponization. Now, talks center on Iran’s ballistic missile and drone threats. Iran has used hundreds of ballistic missiles and long-range drones in its attacks on Israel in 2024.

Because of that, there were suddenly questions about whether the nuclear program was the main threat. After all, hundreds of ballistic missiles also posed a credible threat to Israel’s security. This was another example of how the laser focus on Iran’s nuclear program had led to Israel letting its guard down on other security threats.

When Operation Rising Lion was launched, Israel had the support of the Trump administration. The Iranian attacks in 2024 had proven that Israel’s new ties with US Central Command and other countries would help detect and intercept Iranian threats.

June 2025 inspired even more confidence. Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, was weakened in 2024. The Assad regime had fallen, and Hamas was similarly weakened.

Operation Rising Lion led to important achievements against Iran and its nuclear program. However, several goals didn’t pan out. Claims of myriads of missile launchers and launching sites being destroyed proved either to be too optimistic or outright false.

In fact, the problem Israel has faced since October 7 is a tendency toward optimism and a lot of premature claims of victory. For instance, just months after October 7, the IDF already claimed that Hamas was largely defeated in Gaza.

Israel also exaggerated its gains against Hezbollah and the Houthis, and it showed a similar tendency towards Iran. For instance, there were several claims in 2024 that Iran had suffered setbacks to its ballistic missile program because its “planetary mixers” had been destroyed.

The same hubris would return during Operation Roaring Lion in 2026, when there were claims that Iran could no longer enrich uranium or produce ballistic missiles. Iran, however, has always shown that it can find ways to rebuild its programs.

Operation Rising Lion was important because it has apparently clipped the wings of Iran’s nuclear program. The problem is that after the apparent victory in June 2025, the war in February 2026 occurred in response to purported ballistic missile threats.

The war in February and March was waged for a second reason: to push for regime change. Unfortunately, this didn’t pan out. 

Now, the conflicts with Iran present a new problem, because they have entered a familiar pattern Israel has seen on other fronts. This includes a series of extended conflicts and managing said conflicts amidst diminishing returns.

Air warfare has, historically, not won wars. Enemies can’t be bombed into submission. Israel knows this. It fought a decade-long conflict in Syria called the Campaign Between the Wars against Iranian entrenchment. Yet, the entrenchment remained, and Iran moved weapons to Hezbollah until the Assad regime was overthrown in December 2024. 

Israel has since shifted to carving out a buffer zone in Syria. In the early days of the new government, Israel resorted to bombing Syria. Iran was subsequently removed from Syria, but the bombings continued despite the new government that appeared more amenable to Israel. This shows that, even when a regime falls, it doesn’t necessarily result in peace or even a change in Israeli policy.

A grueling war that didn’t appear to have a clear strategy

The US has entered the picture to address the conflicts on Israel’s borders. The Trump administration got the Gaza deal that brought home the hostages. This helped end a grueling war that didn’t appear to have a clear exit strategy. The US also helped with ceasefires in Lebanon.

Currently, the Trump administration has become increasingly agitated with Israel’s strikes on Beirut. Iran, as a result, is trying to tie the conflict in Lebanon to itself. This means that a year after Operation Rising Lion, the region has shifted from a narrowly tailored conflict in June 2025 to a broad conflict stretching over thousands of miles.

The US and Israel’s strikes on Iran in February 2026 likely hope to replicate June 2025’s success. However, without a narrower scope and a clear, obtainable objective, these strikes have led to regional uncertainty. 

There was also controversy over talks of a Kurdish offensive in Iran. Iran is a large country, and the bombing campaign sought a large number of Iranian targets. Eventually, this led the US to threaten to attack bridges and other infrastructure. This kind of mission creep is the opposite of what has tended to win conflicts, such as the Gulf War in 1991 and the Six-Day War.

This means that Operation Rising Lion may be seen as a chapter in a long war, rather than a decisive conflict. There were rounds of strikes against Iran in 2024, and 2025 could be considered a second round. The latter is still important, as it weakened Iran’s nuclear program.

Now, the challenge is to see if the US will agree to a new deal and seek to remove the enriched uranium from areas that were bombed in 2025. As such, Operation Rising Lion was an usher for what comes next. History will judge whether it was particularly important or a step on the road to a broader strategy. 

Iran’s national soccer squad left their Tijuana base camp to a rousing sendoff on Sunday, with supporters lining five-deep on a packed sidewalk outside their hotel on the eve of their World Cup opener against New Zealand in Los Angeles.

Fans, pressed against green wire fencing, chanted “Team Melli” – Persian for “national team” – as the players emerged from the hotel and walked towards the waiting bus.

Staff in red Iran shirts had distributed small Iranian flags through the fencing to the assembled crowds, and they waved them furiously when the team emerged.

Many of the players, dressed smartly in navy blue polo shirts and beige trousers, waved and smiled at those who had gathered, while some members of the delegation took video of the scene with their phones.

One supporter held a yellow sign with black lettering reading “Iran, you will never walk alone. Mexico stands with you.”

‘Iran, brother, you are Mexican now’

A young boy perched on someone’s shoulders clutched the official Panini FIFA World Cup 2026 sticker album, open to the Iran squad page.

At one point, the crowd sang in Spanish, “Iran, brother, you are Mexican now.”

Iranian soccer federation President Mehdi Taj stood outside the hotel as the players left with many of the supporters following the bus down the street as it drove away.

The Iranian community in Tijuana is tiny – around 20 people – and much smaller than that of Los Angeles, which is home to the largest Iranian community outside Iran.

Tens of thousands of Iranian-Americans live in LA, where a distinct diaspora often referred to as “Tehrangeles” has taken root.

Coach Amir Ghalenoei and striker Mehdi Taremi are scheduled to take part in a press conference at Los Angeles Stadium at 6:45 p.m. ET (2245 GMT).

Members of the Iranian-American community have planned to gather near the Los Angeles Stadium later on Sunday to protest what they called the Iranian government’s ongoing human rights abuses.

Iran moved their World Cup base camp from a sports complex in Arizona to Mexico late last month after the US and Israel conducted joint strikes on Iran ​beginning in late February.

This is the first ‌World Cup ⁠since its inception in 1930 in which a host nation is set to receive a country with which it is at war.

Monday’s Group G fixture against New Zealand at Los Angeles Stadium will be played against the backdrop of the US war with Iran, adding a charged atmosphere to ​a contest between two nations that have never met at the World Cup.

The first annual Thai Festival in Israel was held on Friday, marking 72 years of Israeli-Thai diplomatic relations and highlighting Thailand’s culture, cuisine, traditions, and art.

“Today we are celebrating the 72-year anniversary of Thailand-Israeli diplomatic relations,” Thai Ambassador Boonyarit Vichienpuntu told attendees at the event, adding that the Thai government only holds the festival in major cities such as London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, and Mexico City. 

“We’re bringing the Thailand festival here because you are special. I promise that next year we will bring it again and again. It’s going to be an annual event for Israel,” he said.

Held at the D-One Conference Hall in central Israel, the festival brought out hundreds of attendees.

Thai musical and dance performances were staged both inside and outside the venue. Muay Thai practitioners also performed demonstrations of their martial art.

The event also featured performances by Thai transgender dancers, referred to in Thailand as kathoey, as well as a station where attendees could receive Thai massages. Concession stands were also set up where event-goers could purchase authentic Thai snacks.

Festival honors Thailand’s Princess Bajrakitiyabha after passing

The festival, though, kicked off after Thailand’s Princess Bajrakitiyabha Narendira Debyavati passed away at the age of 47 after spending more than three years in a coma.

In honor of the princess, the event began with a minute of silence.

The latest round of confrontation with Iran once again demonstrates the determination of the regime not only to avoid capitulation, but also to continue fighting for its interests and national honor. 

Following the unexpected loss of Syria, the regime is making every effort to project control and coordination with its remaining proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shi’ite militias in Iraq. 

This coordination is intended to signal that despite the severe blows suffered by the “Axis of Resistance,” it continues to play a role in the struggle against the United States, Israel, and their allies.

Israel’s response so far has been that what has not been achieved through force will be achieved through greater force – unless, of course, US President Donald Trump stops it. One quote attributed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a cabinet meeting preceding the June 2025 attack on Iran (Operation Roaring Lion) was that “only force works, when they fear you.”

But what happens when force does not intimidate the enemy, as in the case of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Houthis? Then greater force is applied. 

This solution, as has already been demonstrated in conflicts with states and organizations driven by fervent religious or nationalist ideologies and determined not to surrender – a situation perceived by them as worse than death – does not produce a “final victory.” 

This happened to the Americans in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; it happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan; and it will most likely happen to Putin in Ukraine as well.

So, is there a solution, and if so, what is it? 

The first step is recognition that conflicts of this kind do not end with a quick decisive blow. They take time. 

Second, there is a possibility that they will not end at all, but rather continue at varying levels of intensity. 

Yet there is a third path: adopting an indirect and covert approach that employs subversion and maneuvering to destabilize the enemy from within, to weaken it and, perhaps in the long term, even toppling it.

In practice, this method has been used mainly against Iran. The logic behind focusing on Iran is that a substantial blow to the heart (Iran) would also critically damage the limbs (the proxies).

For years, the Mossad operated both inside and outside Iran to sabotage its nuclear development – including assassinations of nuclear scientists. This framework also includes Mossad activity inside Iran and among the Kurds aimed at advancing regime change. 

Despite many tactical successes, the ultimate goals – preventing a nuclear Iran or toppling the regime – have not been achieved yet, partly due to an underestimation of the difficulty of the mission on the one hand, and an overestimation of Kurdish willingness to fight the regime on the other.

Thus, the objective should be to weaken the proxies – but by different means. In fact, the transformation that took place in Syria and led to its removal from the circle of proxies may serve as a case study, insofar as it was primarily the outcome of an internal process that began with the 2011 uprising, while Israel contributed by weakening the regime.

In other words, the process must be internal, with Israel assisting it through means tailored to each specific arena.

Confronting Hezbollah

The principal challenge is Hezbollah. As long as Israel occupies Lebanese territory there, it fuels the organization’s ideology, reinforcing its narrative as the “protector of Lebanon.”

Israel should assist the internal Lebanese process aimed at limiting Hezbollah’s power. The shift in Lebanese discourse regarding a settlement with Israel is dramatic, particularly since it is being led by the president and the government. 

This is a process that should enlist regional states along with the international community and its institutions, including the United States, the European Union, and the World Bank. 

Any effort to curtail Hezbollah’s power must encompass far more than simply disarming the organization and supplying more weapons to the Lebanese army; it requires a comprehensive, long-term political and diplomatic strategy.

Israel should persist in attempts to reach an agreement with the official Lebanese state, thereby driving a wedge between it and Hezbollah. 

An Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon could be quietly presented as conditional upon Hezbollah’s disarmament, thereby creating a “political horizon” for official Lebanon, while Shi’ites displaced from villages in the south would most probably apply pressure on Hezbollah. 

At present, the Lebanese army is incapable of disarming Hezbollah. To this end, it must be strengthened with manpower and advanced equipment. A combination of Western weaponry financed by Gulf money, together with training of units in Jordan or Egypt, could provide a viable solution. 

The ultimate goal is not merely to strengthen the army militarily, but to transform it into an institution capable of carrying out the basic functions of a state military controlling territory; a body trusted by both sides; and financially attractive to recruits (today, for example, a Hezbollah operative earns far more than a Lebanese soldier). 

The key constituency is the Shi’ite community, and the key figure is Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, leader of the Amal movement. Whereas Berri previously fully supported Hezbollah’s position, signs of fissures within the Shi’ite community are now emerging. 

This process should be strengthened to produce an attractive alternative to Hezbollah infrastructure. Israel and the international community can support this process by providing financial and logistical assistance for rebuilding the south, in contrast to what Hezbollah did with Iranian money after 2006. 

Hezbollah is not only missiles and weapons – it also consists of banks, clinics, subsidized supermarkets, schools, and more. The entry of the Lebanese state into this vacuum, in cooperation with Shi’ite actors outside Hezbollah, is the key.

Such an Israeli policy in Lebanon and Yemen would operate below the radar and would not provoke the antagonism generated by the overt and blunt use of military power. 

There is a strong likelihood that, in the long term, the results of such a policy would prove more beneficial from both Israeli and regional perspectives. Such a strategy could also help Israel reintegrate into the region after once again becoming a “pariah state.”

In this sense, “less force” may ultimately produce “more power” – but this time, diplomatically.

Prof. Elie Podeh teaches in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is a board member of Mitvim, and a member of the Coalition for Regional Security. 

Eitan Yishai is a PhD candidate at the Hebrew University, Head of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Mitvim, and a Lebanon expert.

The Islamic regime detained 130 people accused of rioting during January’s protests and the war with Israel, Iranian media outlets reported on Sunday, citing the regime’s Intelligence Ministry.

According to the reports by IRGC-linked Fars News and semi-official Tasnim News, four people were arrested for “terror-affiliated groups” that worked in espionage operations with Israel and the US.

Additionally, 126 people were detained by the regime over “sabotage operations and rioting” during the January protests in Iran.

Khamenei pardons 139 people sentenced to death

Also on Sunday, experts told The Jerusalem Post that the Islamic regime’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, pardoned 139 people who were sentenced to death.

The Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) reported that detainees convicted of security-related offenses, espionage, actions against Iran’s internal or external security, and crimes threatening public security were not eligible for the pardon.

Iran’s police chief, Ahmadreza Radan, claimed last month that the regime’s security forces had arrested over 6,500 individuals accused of espionage since the war started on February 28.

Many of those who demonstrated during the January economic protests and the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom protests were also convicted of national security offenses and would therefore likely not qualify for the amnesty.

Danielle Greyman-Kennard contributed to this report.

Dozens of families of those imprisoned by the Islamic regime for participating in the December demonstrations have been targeted by a series of costly fraud schemes, Dadban, a network of pro-bono lawyers and jurists that provides legal counsel, education, and support to political prisoners, protesters, and rights activists in Iran, claimed on Saturday.

A wife of one of the protesters detained in December, referred to as Mrs. M, told Dadban that she received a call from an unknown number. The caller claimed to be cooperating with the IRGC, and claimed she needed to pay 400 million tomans, nearly $300, to persuade the judge to grant her husband bail. The funds were not immediately available to Mrs. M, who was forced to raise the money and suffer “considerable hardship” in doing so, but were instead handed over to an individual at an established location. Once the payment was made, Mrs. M said the individual turned off their phone and disappeared, leading her to believe she had been the victim of fraud.

In another case reported on by Dadban, the sister of a detainee was contacted via Telegram about her brother’s case. The individual, who is understood to have had access to at least part of the case file based on confidential information he had in his possession, promised to have her brother’s charges reduced from espionage, which could lead to the death penalty, to a lesser charge for the price of 50 Bitcoin. In this case, the sister did not fall for the attempted fraud, according to Dadban.

In another reported case, several detainees were assigned a lawyer by the regime’s Criminal Investigation Department. When their families met with the lawyer for consultation and follow-ups on the case, he demanded several billion tomans in legal fees, claiming that through his special connections, he could secure the detainees’ release.

The fraudsters had access to private case information

Dadban noted that in many of the cases, the fraudster claimed to have close ties with judges, investigating magistrates, or other judicial officials and, in the majority of cases, had access to information not publicly available.

“These individuals possessed details that ordinary people could not have accessed,” the group confirmed. “This strongly suggests that they had access to at least part of the case file or had obtained information from within the system.”

The legal group stressed that depriving families of detainees of information about legal processes, their loved one’s well-being, and their cases makes these families more vulnerable. With the added emotional and psychological strain impacting their decision-making processes, fraudsters are taking advantage of families, some of whom have been forced to sell their homes to fund the scammer’s promises, the group asserted.

“There is little doubt that financial corruption exists within parts of Iran’s judicial and security systems. The more important question, however, is whether influential individuals are actually capable of interfering in national security cases and changing the course of legal proceedings in favor of the accused. This is a question that many families ask Dadban after receiving such deceptive offers, wondering whether paying these sums could actually make a difference,” the group stated.

Families of protesters hoped to sway legal proceedings 

Dadban confirmed it reviewed dozens of cases where families were promised an improvement in a detainee’s case, whether through changing the charges to a lesser crime or the granting of bail, but none of the payments have resulted in success.

Rebin Rahmani, a director at the Kurdistan Human Rights Network, confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that such scams are “very common, both for [the families of] political and non-political detainees.”

“Individuals often approach families claiming they can help secure a detainee’s release or reduce their sentence, and they ask for money in return. In many cases, however, they do not actually do anything meaningful,” Rahmani said.

“A common pattern is that people present themselves as intermediaries with judges, prosecutors, or other officials and collect money from desperate families based on promises of influence or special access. In practice, many of these promises never materialize, and the families lose significant amounts of money.”

There’s good news and bad news. The good news is that, perhaps, the most pro-Israel administration ever is governing America at a time when the Jewish state is faced with its greatest existential threat.

So, what’s the bad news?

US President Donald Trump seems to be convinced that it is preferable to negotiate with Iranian mullahs, military hardliners, and Hezbollah terrorists rather than take them down once and for all. 

Who knew that in 2026, the thought of decisively defeating an enemy would be seen as uncivilized, relegated to a time when the act of killing evil men was the only way to resolve conflict?

Replaced by the more respectable negotiating table, today’s adversaries are expected to find enough common ground as each agrees to the invariable painful concessions needed to bypass the dreaded military option. 

Unfortunately, when one side is committed to the eventual annihilation of the other nation, or in this case, “nations,” any peace deal will, at best, be the purchase of more time to regain the advantage. But never underestimate their true intent! They will return with a vengeance to finish their long-awaited goal the moment they smell enough weakness.

That’s because Iran, run by the IRGC and a few extremist mullahs, is not Germany of the 1940s, captivated by a madman, without whom it would return to a sane country that could, once again, be trusted. 

Iran is not Nazi Germany

Behind today’s IRGC is a deep, inculcated belief system that has been propagated for nearly half a century, convincing the military and the ruling classes that an Islamic regime is the only path for all mankind, either voluntarily or by force. Anything else must be eradicated.

When that hard truth is internalized and fully understood, the negotiating table can be seen for exactly what it is – a mere band-aid to stop a gushing hemorrhage. 

Hezbollah terrorists, acting as Iran’s proxy fighters willing to do the heavy lifting when it comes to battling Israel, also have no reason to negotiate in good faith, because they, too, are fighting for the same cause – an Islamic caliphate.

These warriors do not go away after the talks are wrapped up. Nor do they abandon their religious aspirations, this time, ready to honor the commitments they made on what, to them, is a worthless piece of paper.

And anyone sitting across from them thinking that they will is simply delusional. 

If ever there was a time in history when a military battle had to be fought, it is now. When nuclear weapons are the coveted prize which, once attained, will be the ultimate coup for determining who controls the earth and all of its population, when has war been more imperative? 

We are literally at a critical point between deciding how we all live in the future – as free people or as coerced and enslaved captives? Choosing the negotiating table will only delay the inevitable bondage under which we will find ourselves. 

Negotiating serves to empower an enemy that was nearing defeat since it sends a clear message that the West no longer has the stomach for war. What other conclusion are we supposed to reach when each deadline is automatically renewed, extending more time for a deal that never materializes?

It’s gotten to the point that Iran and its proxies have gotten used to the idea that there is no such thing as a final deadline. It’s only a hollow threat that becomes an ineffectual warning, rendering the one making it to be viewed as the proverbial paper tiger.

When a leader becomes all bark and no bite, it provides the needed edge to an opponent who has come to realize that no harm will befall them. How did the world’s most formidable superpower succumb to that type of inaction?

IT’S NOT too difficult to construct the pieces responsible for the ideological change in how conflicts are resolved these days. As social constructs have made their way into our daily lives, we were told that anything seen as too aggressive should be avoided at all costs.

The toxic masculinity assertion, intended to force men to behave with more sensitivity, softness, and consideration, is what they were expected to do if they wanted to be worthy of feminine acceptance. 

Trans people had to be accommodated, at the expense of others, to avoid the transphobic label; geographic borders had to be erased, allowing for free movement, lest you risk the possibility of being called a xenophobe; and law enforcement had to overlook criminal behavior so as not to fall into the category of being the “bad apples” in the police force who were too heavy-handed in their dealings with lawbreakers.

In short, everything was designed to avoid conflict by simply lowering our standards, expectations, and forming opinions of right vs wrong. If that was the path which society was systematically taking, why would it not also spill over into the way that governments confront major threats?

That was when the negotiating table became the greatest asset, looked upon as a useful tool which would make war obsolete and killing barbaric. But here’s the dirty secret: that standard is a one-way street, solely intended for the upholders of freedom. It is not the option that would be used by the side that hopes to control the masses.

Their battle begins once you agree to abandon the need for war. Getting America to forfeit its defense, for the sake of temporary peace, is only the first step. They will wage war against anyone who refuses to bend the knee to Islam. No negotiations will take place as they strive to realize their objective of world dominance.

When violent terrorists believe that America has lost its appetite for war, no longer having the stomach to fight the bad guys, they will have achieved the beginning of real victory.

So, even as the secretary of war declares that America’s war machine is “locked and loaded,” without a commander-in-chief who gives the order to go to battle, the once-feared image will quickly wither away.

Because when you signal your reluctance to fight, as Trump has repeatedly done, it becomes clear that America no longer has the stomach for war. 

That’s music to the ears of terrorists who lucked out by being the bad guys in 2026!

The writer is a former Jerusalem elementary and middle school principal. She is the author of Mistake-Proof Parenting, available on Amazon, based on the time-tested wisdom found in the Book of Proverbs.

Russia is bumping up its already intense recruitment campaign for soldiers as the war in Ukraine rages on. 

Signing bonuses pushed by the Kremlin are at an all-time high, some up to four times the national annual salary. However, with Ukraine launching mass drone attacks on Russian soil, recruitment numbers are trending negatively. 

The Kremlin’s drives for recruitment are down 20% this year, compared to years prior, Russian economic expert Janis Kluge wrote in April. She stated in June that the regional drive in Russia recruited approximately 71,216 soldiers in the first quarter of the year, as compared to 89,601 in the first quarter of 2025.

According to Ukrainian intelligence, cited by the Kyiv Independent, Moscow is now prepared to call up tens of thousands of soldiers for duty but is reportedly considering a vastly unpopular forced mobilization rather than increasing recruitment through other means.

What happened in the last partial mobilization? 

In 2022, Russia launched a wave of “partial mobilization,” drafting at least 300,000 soldiers. Some were lured in by promises of large signing bonuses and positions away from the front lines.

Some went under questionable circumstances. Russia launched a mass recruitment initiative in prisons, sending convicts to the front lines in exchange for pardons. Hundreds of thousands of draft-age Russian men fled the country.

But the Kremlin was able to withstand the blowback in 2022. Now, however, as the war enters its fifth year and as Russians grow more war-weary, dissent to a mobilization order could be harder to contain.

“If Russia does trigger military mobilization, it is a sign that the regime is under tremendous strain and is politically trapped,” Analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Max Bergmann told the Kyiv Independent.

He told the Ukrainian outlet that it would be a “huge gamble for Putin, a bet that could put himself and his regime at risk.”

Notably, the Ukraine-Russia War is the first war in Russia’s history in which it has not technically imposed conscription, Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), wrote in a recent report.

Instead, the Kremlin moved to promising hefty bonuses, some more than four times the average annual salary. Ironic, seeing as Russia maintains that the war is still a mere “special military operation.”

But now, analysts like Gould-Davies believe that the Kremlin’s financial incentives are no longer working for younger Russians.

“There are signs that this incentive may no longer be working effectively, and that Russia has begun to lose more troops than it can recruit,” Gould-Davies wrote.

Will Russia be able to last the war in Ukraine?

Russia’s strategy so far has been to simply outlast Ukraine in a slow, grinding war. But now that one of its major advantages, its sheer manpower, is dwindling, analysts are unsure how Russia can keep up in the war. 

“Russian casualties have started to surpass the Russian recruitment rate as of late 2025, meaning that the Kremlin will need to recruit more personnel just to sustain ground assaults at the rate that Russia used to conduct in 2025,” Institute for the Study of War analyst Kateryna Stepanenko told the Kyiv Independent.

There have been countless reports of how Russian soldiers are mistreated on the frontlines. Ukrainian intelligence has released reports of Russian soldiers resorting to cannibalism after supplies ran low in the dead of winter in remote Ukrainian villages.

Some have been called back to combat with significant injuries, CNN reported in 2025.

But beyond that, Russia has reportedly lost around 1.2 million soldiers since the onset of the war in 2022, the CSIS wrote in January. The institute added that Russia is advancing only 70 meters per day at most, which it said is slower than most other campaigns in modern military history.

Some analysts believe that Putin will not risk a partial mobilization in the very near future for political reasons, despite the negative data. Mikhail Komin, an analyst at the Center for European Policy Analysis, told the Kyiv Independent that he only saw it happening in two scenarios. 

The first is a massive frontline crisis. The second would be a decision by Putin to “escalate the war to a new level for Russia, with the declaration of martial law, a full-scale shift of the economy to a war footing, the unleashing of provocations on the borders with NATO countries, and the buildup of combat units there for a potential invasion.”

Still, Komin told the Ukrainian outlet that if a mobilization were to occur, it would be widely unpopular among Russians. 

“Today, the backlash would be even greater (than in 2022), as war fatigue has increased, while the Kremlin has failed to explain to a significant portion of the population why this war is necessary and why it should be considered just,”  Komin said. 

Russia’s economy during the Ukraine war

On the Russian home front, the recruitment drive is causing a major economic issue for the Kremlin.

“It’s not just struggling to find people to go to the front,” Gould-Davies told CNN.  “They’re [Russia] struggling to find people to employ.

“The whole Russian economy is suffering from the most severe labor shortage in history.”

The Jerusalem Post previously reported that the Kremlin is spending up to half of its federal budget on the war.

Russia’s total expenses directly related to the war in Ukraine reached approximately 11.1 trillion roubles ($137.9 billion), Meduza, an independent Russian news outlet, reported. The Economic Ministry estimated Russia’s 2025 GDP at 217.3 trillion roubles ($2.7 trillion).

On top of this, Russians’ support for the war is reportedly wearing thin. Data from the independent Levada Center suggests that six out of 10 respondents believe that peace talks are necessary.

With the mounting war costs and dwindling support for the war, Russia faces a crossroads.

“The Kremlin will soon face a fundamental choice over whether to radically escalate its demands on Russia’s economy and society or to scale back its war aims,” Gould-Davies said.

The Middle East, and particularly the Gulf states, are waiting to see if an Iran deal with the US will actually materialize this week. For months, there have been reports of a potential deal, followed by an inevitable letdown when it didn’t happen.

Regional reporting reflects talks of a potential deal. “Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan [Al Saud] and his counterpart from Pakistan Muhammad Ishaq Dar spoke on the phone on Saturday,” the Saudi Press Agency reported. The report, also at Arab News in Saudi Arabia, noted that “during the call, they discussed the latest regional developments and the efforts being made in this regard.”

The ministers discussed the progress in deal talks and the optimism now forming around the potential new reality. “The statement came shortly after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose government has mediated between Iran and the US, said that a peace deal to end the US-Iran war would ‘likely’ be finalized within 24 hours.”

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are key allies. They are working together to manage the complex situation that has developed in the wake of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. Pakistan, which has good ties with the Trump administration, has been a key mediator.

The leaders are keen to get a deal signed quickly

Now Al-Ain media in the UAE notes that “the anticipated agreement between America and Iran will be signed ‘electronically’ and not in person.”

Why? The report says that “informed officials confirmed to CNN that the plans for an electronic signing of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran are aimed at quickly finalizing the agreement and avoiding any last-minute obstacles.”

The report goes on to add that “President [Donald] Trump and Vice President [JD] Vance do not travel abroad at the same time for security reasons and to ensure business continuity, although Trump is scheduled to leave for the G7 summit in France on Monday morning. It was difficult to transport Vance to and from the signing event in Europe in time for Trump’s departure.”

An electronic signature is expected, Al-Ain says. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry announced via X/Twitter that an electronic signing ceremony was scheduled for Sunday. But Al-Ain says that, in contrast, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told the IRNA news agency, “We have to wait to find out the exact date of the signing. It won’t be tomorrow.”

Al-Ain goes on to add that “the agreement, also called a memorandum of understanding, is supposed to pave the way for negotiations on outstanding issues between the two sides, most notably Iran’s nuclear program and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.”

As the deal is being discussed, countries are also looking to Lebanon to see if tensions there will be reduced. This might mean Israel reduces its advance and returns to a new buffer zone near the border, which would create a new security zone. This deal has been in the works for months. Iran has sought to link Hezbollah and Lebanon to any Iran deal.

This is another part of the “wait and see” challenge the Middle East faces. Will a potential deal lead to more efforts in Lebanon to reduce Hezbollah’s influence, or will the terror group feel empowered? What about Iranian-backed militias in Iraq? All of these issues are now up in the air as the talk of a deal continues.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that under a final draft memorandum of understanding with the US, Tehran agrees that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons.

This comes shortly after Qatari mediators flew to Tehran this morning to help facilitate a deal.

The official said that the US has agreed in the draft memorandum for Tehran to dilute its highly enriched uranium stockpile inside Iran. The mechanism for this will be discussed over the next 60 days.

The US will also work with regional allies to prepare a reconstruction and development plan for Iran, to be negotiated and agreed with Tehran within those 60 days.

In US President Donald Trump’s original announcement of the deal, posted on Truth Social on Thursday, multiple countries in the region were listed as having approved it, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Pakistan and Qatar, both of which have been operational in mediating negotiations between the US and Iran, were also listed.

Until a final deal is reached, Iran has agreed not to maintain the nuclear status quo, including no uranium enrichment or expanding nuclear facilities.

US to release $25 billion in frozen assets, Strait of Hormuz to be reopened

Additionally, the US is set to waive all oil sanctions on Iran for a specified period and will release $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets, including through direct cash transfers. 

This comes a day after Trump claimed that the deal required that “no money will exchange hands,” attempting to further differentiate the deal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with Trump accusing then-president Barack Obama of paying “Hundreds of Billions of Dollars” to Iran, “including 1.7 Billion Dollars in green, cold cash.”

The draft also calls for the US to lift its blockade on Iran’s ports and for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.  

The Islamic Republic of Iran has announced a move to grant amnesty to 139 individuals previously sentenced to death, in a strategy aimed at easing international and domestic pressure as part of Tehran’s wider struggle to create a perception of legitimacy, experts told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Those 139 individuals were reportedly pardoned by the regime’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, along with close to 2,000 others, ahead of the Shia religious holiday Eid al-Ghadir.

The Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) reported that detainees convicted of security-related offenses, espionage, actions against Iran’s internal or external security, and crimes threatening public security were not eligible for the pardon.

Iran’s police chief, Ahmadreza Radan, claimed last month that the regime’s security forces had arrested over 6,500 individuals accused of espionage since the war started on February 28. Many of those who demonstrated during the January economic protests and the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom protests were also convicted of national security offences and would therefore likely not qualify for the amnesty.

IRGC pardons minor offenses to placate the people

Menahem Merhavi, a fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained to the Post that the regime’s pardons come at a time of precipice for renewed unrest.

Students have begun demonstrating on campus in recent weeks, Iran’s economy has only declined since January, and the regime is “very concerned” that the situation will reach a boiling point “once this agreement is finalized, and the harm to Iran is exposed.”

“On the domestic level, it has to do with the regime’s dire need and understanding that it has a problem of legitimacy; and the need to deal with it, so I think it’s trying to deal with it, trying to better their image domestically,” Merhavi said.

On the international stage, the Islamic regime’s execution spree and mass human rights violations have also created significant issues. Some Members of the European Parliament called for military intervention in January in response to the mass killing of demonstrators, and the EU Parliament banned Iranian diplomats and representatives from its premises. The EU has formally added the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to its official terrorism list.

Two separate non-governmental organizations have reported that the Islamic regime has executed the highest number of detainees since 1989, with the figure estimated at around 1,639 people last year alone, according to a report by Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHR) and Paris-based Together Against the Death Penalty (EPCM).

Amnesty International also reported last month that the regime was using wartime conditions as an excuse to repress Iran’s civilian population, suppress dissent, and vilify those who do not immediately fall in line.

“To maintain their grip on power, the authorities have unleashed an all-out assault on people in Iran, targeting anyone who dares to criticize the Islamic Republic, share information about the US or Israeli air strikes or human rights violations with the outside world, or simply attempt to break through what became the longest recorded internet shutdown to communicate with loved ones or access independent information,” Erika Guevara Rosas, senior director of Research, Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns at Amnesty International, said.

Why pardon people now?

While the damage the regime has done to its reputation has been significant, and was not helped by the unprovoked attacks against its Gulf neighbors, Merhavi suggested that the pardons were part of an attempt to “polish” the regime’s image.

For Ben Sabti, an Iran expert and researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), the move by the regime is nothing more than “propaganda,” not dissimilar to the choreographed moves of Khamenei’s father and predecessor, killed by Israel in the Operation Roaring Lion in February.

Sabti, noting that the regime has failed to confirm the identities of those released or identify their crimes, suggested it was likely those who committed minor economic infractions who were pardoned, and in a democratic country, they likely wouldn’t have been imprisoned to begin with. Without publishing the identities of those pardoned, it isn’t even clear that the regime’s own claims and figures are accurate, he added.

Khamenei wants to show himself as a kind leader and the regime as merciful, Sabti explained. “They free a few hundred in every celebration, every festival, and it seems from [the] outside that they are a kind and democratic and merciful regime… but they are taking hostages. They take the hostage, and after that, free him, so they seem kind.”

Rebin Rahmani, a director of the Kurdistan Human Rights Network, told the Post: “From what I understand, these kinds of amnesties in Iran are often announced on significant religious occasions. In many cases, over the years, they have mainly applied to prisoners convicted of ordinary criminal offenses rather than those facing political charges. Because the exclusions are generally based on the type of offense rather than ethnicity or religion, I would be cautious about interpreting the policy itself as primarily creating ethnic or religious divisions.”  

Rahmani added, “The main distinction tends to be between ordinary criminal cases and cases categorized as political or similar offenses. As a result, those convicted of ordinary crimes are usually the primary beneficiaries, while individuals facing political charges are often excluded.”

Renowned medical journal The Lancet has published a petition calling for the suspension of the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) from from the World Medical Association (WMA).

On Saturday, The Lancet published a petition by health organizations such as the People’s Health Movement (PHM), Artsen voor Gaza (Doctors for Gaza), and Health Advisory Council of the Jewish Voice for Peace calling for the IMA to be suspended from the WMA over “its failure to speak out against the genocide of Palestinians, the destruction of health-care infrastructure, and the torture and killing of health-care workers in Gaza.”

The WMA Congress will now meet in Rotterdam in October to consider the petition.

Leslie London, Emeritus Professor of Public Health at the University of Cape Town and a member of PHM South Africa, told The Lancet that the IMA has “colluded in the unspeakable treatment of Palestinians during this war.”

The British Medical Association already suspended ties with the IMA in June, 2025.

WMA distances itself from calls to suspend Israel

The WMA however told The Lancet that it stands against exclusion of any of its members for the actions of their governments as “doing so diminishes our ability to call out injustices, and threatens shrinking the dialogue among physicians at this critical time when consensus in support of our medical ethics is so needed”.
 
It also pointed out that the IMA is one of the founding members of the WMA and is a “strong advocate for WMA ethics and policies.”

Following the publication of the petition, Iranian-Jewish cardiologist Dr Afshine Emrani wrote an open letter to The Lancet.

“I’m a cardiologist. I’m an Iranian Jew who grew up under a regime where medicine was subjugated to the state. What The Lancet just did is a disgrace to my profession,” he said.

He listed things that the boycott would actually destroy, including PillCam (revolutionized GI diagnosis), ReWalk (robotic exoskeletons for paralyzed patients) and breakthrough AI diagnostics for cardiac imaging and cancer detection, all of which are developed in Israel.

“Israel has among the highest per-capita rates of medical innovation on earth. These technologies save lives in London, Johannesburg, São Paulo, and New York. Suspending the IMA doesn’t punish a government. It severs research collaborations and training partnerships.”

Votes for Israel to be kicked out while Iran, Russia, and North Korea remain

Emrani also highlighted the double standards of singling out the IMA when the medical associations of Iran, North Korea and Russia do not face similar boycotts.

“The [Iranian] regime has executed physicians. Imprisoned doctors for treating protesters. Denied healthcare to political prisoners as policy. No petition. No Lancet article. No campaign.”

“The moment we expel medical bodies based on political litmus tests is the moment we destroy the neutrality that makes global medicine possible,” he said.

Emrani also noted that the WMA was established in 1947 mainly as a response to the atrocities committed by doctors in Nazi Germany during World War II.

This is not the first time that The Lancet has come under fire for its publication of articles relating to Israel.

Notably, in July 2024, The Lancet published a piece authored by doctors Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee and Salim Yusuf, which claimed that “it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.”

Despite the fact it was designated as a “correspondence” or a letter to the editor rather than a peer-reviewed academic article, the article was disseminated on mass, and shared by figures such as UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese.

Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, retracted from the digits he co-provided in his piece, claiming that they were “purely illustrative” and that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.” 

The IDF is ready for a potential Iranian ballistic missile attack in the coming hours, and the home front should be on high alert, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir said on Sunday at 5:07 p.m.

Zamir acknowledged that the attack would be a retaliation for the IDF’s airstrikes in Beirut earlier Sunday, which itself was in retaliation for Hezbollah drone launches against Israeli towns in northern Israel.

A statement said that Zamir was getting running updates on the heightened security situation.

Although Zamir stated that there were no immediate home front restrictions, there could be in the coming hours in the event of an Iranian attack.

If Iran attacks Israel, Israel will respond with airstrikes

It is expected that if Iran attacks Israel – as it did with around 25 missiles last week, which did not cause any deaths – that Israel would respond with airstrikes, as it did with two waves of dozens of fighter jets last week.

It is also expected that US President Donald Trump would step in after a relatively short time, and that a larger war would not be reignited.

British right-wing activist Tommy Robinson said he was detained at Heathrow Airport on Saturday and had his phone seized, after a week during which he posted heavily online about racist and anti-immigrant riots in Northern Ireland.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said on X that he was held on Saturday evening for around three hours under the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act.

“My phone has been seized by the police,” he said on X. “Please help kick off my legal fund for defence”.

Belfast violence, protests

Robinson tweeted repeatedly last week about violence that swept Belfast after a video went viral showing the brutal stabbing of a man, who lost an eye in the attack. A Sudanese man has been charged with attempted murder. Police have said they are not treating the attack as terrorism.

In the days that followed, rioters targeted homes and businesses owned by ethnic minorities or foreign residents in what the British minister for the province called racist thuggery.

Local politicians have said far-right agitators online had helped to coordinate or promote the violence.

Without naming him, a police spokesman said officers had stopped a man in his 40s at Heathrow Airport on Saturday, following his return to Britain from Russia via Turkey.

“The man was interviewed by officers, and his communication devices were seized. He was subsequently released,” the spokesman said.

The Taliban has continued to employ excessive force against protesters and abduct women over what it claims are violations of the country’s Islamic dress code, according to the United Nations, multiple NGOs, and international media reports.

Taliban authorities in Afghanistan’s western city of Herat arrested at least 30 women, accusing them of violating dress rules imposed by the Taliban government, the UN agency for women’s rights confirmed late last week, adding that some of the women were later released.

Among the 30 women, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), known as Doctors Without Borders, confirmed on Friday that a staff member was held for two days in early June after she was stopped by representatives of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Ministry on her way to Herat Regional hospital over allegations she was failing to comply with the Taliban’s dress code for women.

The staff member was released on June 8 after she, her husband, and her family signed a commitment to wear clothes specifically selected by the ministry.

Protests broke out in Herat before being violently suppressed

Local anger over the Taliban’s mistreatment of women led to protests breaking out in Herat, which were violently suppressed by the Islamist terror group. They were said to have called for “Work, Education, and Freedom.” These protests were met with violence.

“According to the independent experts, Taliban security forces allegedly opened fire on protesters – men, women and children – administering beatings to some,” the UN agency added in a statement. “At least two people, including a boy, were killed and more than 20 were injured.”

One witness told Human Rights Watch, “When the shooting began, people started to escape, and I saw the Taliban shooting toward those attempting to flee. I witnessed some people getting injured. The Taliban even went to the streets and beat children to send them home. Everyone was terrified … some of the wounded [said] they didn’t go to the hospital [for fear of arrest]. I saw the 11-year-old who had been killed. He was bleeding terribly.”

Local sources told the diaspora media site Afghanistan International that, after suppressing the protests, Taliban forces conducted house-to-house and hospital-to-hospital searches for injured protesters.

Despite the various media reports, credible witnesses and footage of the incidents, the Taliban has denied the reports of mass human rights violations, dismissing them as rumors.  The Prevention of Vice Ministry added that the “hijab is a divine command, a law that we are obliged to implement.”

Under the Taliban’s morality law, a woman’s face is considered awrah (intimate parts of the human body), so women are forced to wear clothing that fully covers their faces.

“The Taliban authorities fear any dissent and so are escalating their repression of free expression and other basic rights,” said Fereshta Abbasi, Afghanistan researcher at Human Rights Watch.

Afghan women have experienced increasingly restrictive policies

Since the Taliban seized control in 2021, Afghan women have seen increasingly oppressive policies restrict their individual freedoms. Only last month, the Taliban introduced a decree which experts warn will prevent child brides from obtaining a divorce.

Article 5 instructed that “Upon reaching puberty, the minor has the option to dissolve the marriage” that a relative may have contracted for her, and that if she does not openly object, it will be treated as consent.

Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban’s spokesman, told The New York Times that, “A marriage proposal is something that a girl may feel shy or embarrassed about, and she may not be able to openly say that she agrees to marry. Therefore, her silence is regarded as consent.”

Girls are also now restricted from attending school above sixth grade, largely forbidden from entering public spaces, and husbands are permitted to beat their wives so long as the beating does not cause broken bones, bruising or injury.

Under Article 32 of the penal code, “If a husband strikes his wife with excessive beating resulting in fracture, injury, or the appearance of bruising on her body, and the wife proves her claim before the judge, the husband is deemed a criminal; the judge shall sentence him to fifteen days of imprisonment,” while under Article 70, those who cause animals to fight can receive a five month sentence.

“The Taliban authorities appear determined to silence those who try to speak out against their abusive practices,” Abbasi said. “By punishing people for exercising their free expression rights, the Taliban authorities aren’t silencing the message but only adding to their mounting list of human rights abuses.”

According to public statements, we are approaching the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Iran. Until we see the document itself, we cannot know with certainty what it contains. In my view, even after it is released, people will interpret it widely, especially if they discover undisclosed understandings or side agreements. Some will describe it as a catastrophe (as I do), while others, including President Trump and several European leaders, may portray it as an excellent agreement. The debate, however, will focus not only on what the agreement contains but also on what it does not address.  

For President Trump, the question is whether he wants to be remembered as the leader who corrected former US president Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, or as the one who signed an even worse agreement when Tehran was at its weakest.

The successful Israeli-American campaign against Iran destroyed significant portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile capabilities, and drone programs, but not all of it. It may have initiated a process that could eventually lead to regime change, but it could also trigger greater radicalization. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which effectively controls Iran and Supreme Leader Khamenei, now understands that only the acquisition of nuclear weapons can provide it with a true “insurance policy,” and it will do everything possible to achieve that objective. 

By contrast, the emerging understanding between Iran and the United States, as I understand it, is hollow, devoid of substantive substance, and completely detached from the core issues. It addresses only what currently matters to the Trump administration and the Iranian regime: partially reopening the Strait of Hormuz to ease pressure on the global economy, particularly on the Gulf states, and enabling the flow of funds into Iran, including the removal of some sanctions.  

Iran’s unprecedented weakness

All other provisions merely describe what the parties will discuss in future negotiations. Each side will interpret these provisions as it sees fit and claim victory. We are already witnessing this through Iranian statements regarding the agreement’s 14 principles and American responses dismissing those claims as fake news. In any case, it is difficult to believe that a good agreement will emerge from future negotiations.  

Following the military campaign’s success and Iran’s unprecedented weakness, the United States should have continued its maximum-pressure campaign in Hormuz, expanded the naval blockade with an aerial component, and conducted extensive strikes against the regime’s main interests while simultaneously holding discussions regarding a future settlement.  

To pursue such a strategy, President Trump needed the full support of his closest advisers, particularly Vice President Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner. Instead, he received the opposite. Domestic political pressures ahead of the midterm elections, concerns about fuel prices, pressure from Gulf allies, and military assessments suggesting that further pressure would take time to yield results all pushed him in the wrong direction.  

Once the President mistakenly chose to pursue a hollow memorandum of understanding despite Iran’s consistent contempt and arrogance, he should at least have instructed his negotiating team to present one clear demand, one that Iran would almost certainly reject initially, but eventually accept when it had no alternative as pressure intensified: the complete dismantlement of everything that remains of Iran’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and drone programs, alongside an end to its support for terrorism and domestic repression, and the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Classic Iranian delay tactics

These measures should have been implemented in practice, not merely discussed in negotiations scheduled to begin after signing the memorandum and the start of the release of funds to Iran. Iran would naturally oppose such demands, and in prolonged negotiations it has historically excelled at delaying and outmaneuvering its counterparts.  

On the nuclear issue, it is not enough merely to suspend enrichment—even for decades—or to remove the enriched material (all levels) from Iran. Certainly, it is not enough to dilute it within Iran. What is required is the complete dismantlement of all enrichment facilities and capabilities, the destruction of all enriched material, the demolition of all existing and future underground enrichment facilities, and the closure of all weapons groups and supporting laboratories.  

The emerging understanding appears to allow Iran to do exactly what it does best: engage in diplomatic maneuvering and delay tactics while projecting an illusion of victory that exists only in rhetoric and propaganda.  

It is critical to acknowledge that Iran’s highest priority is the removal of crushing sanctions and the inflow of billions of dollars into its collapsing economy. Even a relatively modest influx of funds, combined with continued oil and gas exports, would enable the Revolutionary Guards, the de facto rulers of Iran, to suppress domestic dissent while using those resources to rebuild terrorist networks and proxy organizations, restore military capabilities and missile programs, including those capable of threatening the United States, and continue preparations for a future nuclear breakout after 2028.  

A memorandum of understanding that consists only of meaningless Iranian declarations renouncing nuclear weapons while providing sanctions relief, financial resources, a partial solution to the Hormuz issue, and postponing all other critical matters to future negotiations would be a catastrophic mistake, and a deal it would have been better not to reach at all.  

Such an agreement would also send a message to the Iranian people that the American president has once again abandoned the millions who took to the streets expecting the support President Trump had promised them. It would reduce the likelihood of regime change.  

Linking this memorandum to the developments in Lebanon, if such a connection exists, and I sincerely hope it does not, would be highly problematic, particularly if it were binding. I am convinced that Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear to President Trump that Israel will not accept any such commitment.  

The Iranian dirty game

The Iranian regime will continue to play the “dirty game,” at which it excels. Only sustained and credible military pressure, combined with an intensified blockade, may persuade the Iranian leadership to alter its behavior. Continued pressure may also convince the Iranian people, who remain burdened by economic collapse and the destruction now visible before them, to renew their protests, as they did months after Operation Rising Lion. Ultimately, only the Iranian people themselves can replace the regime.  

BG. (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a professor at Technion. He served as National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu and as the head of the National Security Council (acting).

The popular streaming platform YouTube has continued to broadcast content by individuals and companies sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for supporting or participating in the Islamic regime, according to a new report by the Tech Transparency Project published last week.

TTP, a research initiative established by the nonprofit group Campaign for Accountability, identified numerous sanctioned entities operating on YouTube, including Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian and Iran’s Assembly of Experts cleric Mohammed Mehdi Mirbagheri.

The entities included Babak Zanjani, an Iranian businessman sanctioned for helping the IRGC evade sanctions by laundering funds; an Iranian special forces unit accused of using lethal force on unarmed protestors; Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Iran’s new supreme leader who threatened US forces in the region and sanctioned in 2019 for both oil sales to the Assad regime and his role in the 1994 antisemitic attack in Buenos Aires; Naji Sharifi Zindashti, an Iranian official sanctions in 2024 who was accused of targeting regime opponents abroad for kidnapping and assassination; and multiple official and semi-official Iranian state broadcasters, including the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting which has been sanctioned by the US for more than a decade.

Zanjani owns multiple YouTube channels, according to TTP, including two for his holding company, DotOne. Under OFAC’s 50% rule, any company owned or controlled 50 percent or more by a sanctioned individual is also subject to sanctions.

The report found many accounts linked to sancctioned individuals and groups

Nobitex, Iran’s largest digital asset exchange, which was sanctioned on June 2 for “facilitating payments tied to Iran’s terrorist activities, sanctions evasion efforts, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-linked transactions,” also has a YouTube channel, as does Wallex, Bitpin, and Ramzinex.

Additionally, TTP found that Surabaya Hobby CV, an Indonesian company that was sanctioned for providing Iran with drone components, has had a channel since October 2024 despite OFAC sanctioning the company in December 2023.
In one case, an advertisement was played on the channel for Iran’s Cultural Heritage Ministry, encouraging people to apply for jobs with US Customs and Border Protection.

While it is unclear if the channels have profited from their uploads, TTP stressed that YouTube may have violated US sanction laws by allowing the channels’ presence. Through allowing advertisements on the channels, YouTube has also likely profited from their presence.

“Until YouTube cleans up this problem, advertisers will be vulnerable to having their ads run on content from individuals and organizations deemed a threat to U.S. national security,” TTP concluded.

The Jerusalem Post has contacted YouTube’s parent company, Google, for comment.

While Google has not yet responded to The Post, Google spokesperson Nate Funkhouser told Wired,  “Google is committed to compliance with applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws… If we find that an account violates our policies, we take appropriate action.”

In the hours after TTP published its report, 63 of the channels were removed.

Twenty haredi (ultra-Orthodox) air force technicians were recruited last week at Tel Nof Air Force Base, following a two-month technician training course at a base in Haifa, the IDF announced on Sunday.

Following a two-month technician training course at a base in Haifa, the 20 haredim will begin working on F-15 aircraft in the 106th Squadron.

This is the first religious data center on the base.

The IDF is working to allow haredim to maintain their way of life while also completing mandatory military service, as Israel’s military manpower crisis is expected to deepen unless legislation extending mandatory service advances separately from the haredi draft bill. The IDF faces a widening gap between wartime operational needs and the number of soldiers available to meet them.

The army is operating across multiple arenas while also dealing with heavy casualties, high reserve use, and growing erosion among both regular and reserve forces.

Many reservists who once served far more limited periods have been called up repeatedly since the war began, with annual reserve burdens now reaching roughly 80 to 100 days for some combat soldiers.

Officials warn of manpower crisis if haredi draft is not enforced

In March, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, warned that the IDF will collapse due to lack of manpower, and raised “ten red flags.”

Former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot (leader of Yashar) said that implementing a law for mandatory service for all “is the need of the hour. It is a moral imperative. Only it will return Israel to the right path, fulfill the IDF’s mission, and safeguard Israel’s security.”

Reservist Party leader Yoaz Hendel stated, “The chief of staff is right. Listen to him. Victory requires soldiers. The government repeatedly uses the reservists as a resource and wears them down to the limit.”

“Even if they [the government] told the cameras that they froze the draft evasion law, in practice they continue to transfer money to institutions that encourage evasion and do not enforce the existing law,” Hendel added.

Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi and Somaliland First Lady Fardowsa Mohamed Roble arrived in Israel on Sunday for a landmark state visit, opening a new chapter in relations between the two countries.

It is the first by a Somaliland head of state and the first since Jerusalem formally recognized Somaliland’s independence in December 2025.

Abdullahi had originally planned to make his first official visit to Israel at the end of March, The Jerusalem Post reported in February, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

Even so, this will not be his first time in the country. The president previously made a discreet visit to Israel during earlier diplomatic contacts that led to Israel’s formal recognition of Somaliland in December 2025. 

The current visit will include the opening of Somaliland’s embassy in Jerusalem and a series of government meetings aimed at expanding cooperation in security, trade, water technology, renewable energy, and regional development.

Somaliland’s president and first lady received an official welcome ceremony from President Isaac Herzog and First Lady Michal Herzog at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem at 11:30 a.m.

Following this, Abdullahi and Herzog conducted a diplomatic meeting and will attend a state luncheon alongside Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar.

Later in the day, Abdullahi is slated to lay a wreath at Mount Herzl, visit Yad Vashem, and plant a tree with the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael-Jewish National Fund (KKL-JNF) at the Grove of Nations.

Sunday will conclude with a dinner bringing together senior representatives of Israel’s business community, reflecting both sides’ efforts to deepen economic ties.

Somaliland’s Jerusalem embassy to open on Monday

On Monday, Abdullahi will hold talks with Sa’ar and later meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The highlight of the visit is expected on Monday evening, with the official opening of Somaliland’s embassy, marking the establishment of full diplomatic relations following Israel’s recognition of Somaliland’s sovereignty.

According to officials familiar with the program, Abdullahi will remain in Israel until Thursday to meet with ministers, government officials, and business leaders. 

He is also expected to visit the Knesset and the Nova music festival memorial site, while holding discussions with Israeli companies specializing in water management and renewable energy technologies.

Supporters of closer ties between the two countries argue that cooperation between Israel and Somaliland could strengthen economic development, maritime security, and technological innovation, while providing Somaliland with expanded international engagement.

Shir Perets and Miriam Sela-Eitam contributed to this report.

The US’s retaliation to the downing of the helicopter over the Strait of Hormuz both exposed US President Donald Trump’s strategy towards Iran and displayed why the goals of the US may be at odds with those of Israel. 

Trump still believes in negotiations, for a variety of reasons and considerations that have been discussed extensively. Trump wants a deal, still prefers the diplomatic path, and is looking for the moment when he can stand before the cameras and announce that he has restored order to the region and the world. 

But in the Middle East, as usual, the road to an agreement first passes through smoke, fire, statements, denials, leaks, and phone calls that none of the participants will be eager to describe in full. 

The incident over the Strait gave Trump a clear justification for a strike that was easy to explain to the public. 

A US Apache helicopter crashed near one of the world’s most sensitive shipping routes. Two crew members were rescued. Trump blamed Iran. US strikes on Iran followed. 

US strikes easily explained to public

The White House had little difficulty explaining the strike. A US president, even one who prefers peace to war, cannot spend weeks issuing threats, watch one of his helicopters go down near Hormuz, and respond only with expressions of concern. Trump said that Iran had “taken too much time” in negotiations and warned it would pay a price. He later spoke of a “very strong” attack if no agreement is reached.

It is worth remembering that while one possibility is that an Iranian aircraft collided with the helicopter, the circumstances are still under investigation, with no certainty regarding intent behind the event, according to the Iranian version of the incident. That detail matters: Trump treated it as a clear act of war by Tehran, even though the operational reality was somewhat less orderly and definitive than the political declaration suggested. 

This is exactly his method: raise his voice, deploy aircraft, and then leave the door open for a deal. He does not appreciate long wars, certainly not with midterm elections approaching. Fuel prices affect every US household, and his campaign promise was to end wars and make deals, not open another Middle Eastern quagmire. 

One of the most intriguing details Trump provided this week was not about bombs but about oil tankers. He said the US military had secretly helped move more than 100 million barrels of oil through Hormuz aboard 22 vessels that sailed at night without lights after Iranian radar capabilities had been damaged. Even after stripping away Trump’s usual layer of exaggeration, one central fact remains: nearly every component of the crisis converges around Hormuz, including oil, trade, energy prices, and political pressure on the White House. Therefore, any disruption is felt very quickly in Washington. 

This is also why Americans continue talking with the Iranians even after the strikes. Qatar has once again assumed the role of intermediary, shuttling between negotiating rooms and bombing zones. 

US, Iran negotiate while keeping up strikes

Both the US and Iran strike while keeping mediators involved. This has long ceased to be classical diplomacy. It is a negotiation conducted somewhere between a US Central Command statement and a presidential post on social media, between an American refueling aircraft over the Gulf and a phone call in Doha. That is how Trump operates, and by now it seems many have grown accustomed to the style. 

Anyone looking for clean logic in this episode will be disappointed. Trump wants the Iranians to understand that time is running out, but not to the point that talks collapse. The Iranians want to show they are not intimidated, but not to the point that they invite a large-scale attack. The Qataris want to remain indispensable mediators. The Gulf states primarily want tankers to keep sailing. Europe does not want to wake up to oil prices reminiscent of the 1970s. And Israel, as usual, wants the US to finish the job, but the US defines the word ‘finish’ differently. 

Iran does not appear ready to surrender. The leadership in Tehran has suffered serious blows, but regimes like this do not always soften under fire. Sometimes they harden. They look for external enemies, close ranks, and raise the price of compromise. 

Uranium critical to Israel but may end up pushed to the side of US priorities

The recent decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors demanding that Iran report its enriched uranium stockpile and allow verification adds genuine pressure. The resolution passed by a vote of 21 to three, with 10 abstentions. 

According to the IAEA, Iran possessed 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% before the strikes. For Israel, that is the critical test. In Trump’s pursuit of a deal and a photo opportunity, it could end up pushed to the sidelines.

Officials in Jerusalem understand this gap very well. Israel wants heavy American pressure on Iran, preferably military pressure. There is no substitute for American aircraft in the Gulf, no substitute for a credible American threat against Iranian facilities, and no substitute for Tehran facing the president of the United States, not just the Israeli Air Force. Yet that same American presence can also create complications for Israel. Trump may use force in order to secure a quick agreement without fully dismantling the Iranian threat.

This is where the real drama in Trump-Netanyahu relations lies. Not in press conferences, videos, or mutual praise designed largely for domestic audiences, but in the conversations where Trump reins Netanyahu in.

Trump reportedly blocked an Israeli strike in Beirut after Iran warned that continued operations in Lebanon would jeopardize contacts with Washington. In one conversation, according to sources familiar with the matter, he called Netanyahu “crazy” and warned that a strike in Beirut would further isolate Israel.

It was the kind of conversation Netanyahu does not enjoy, not because of the sharp tone, but because of the message. This time, Washington was not asking Jerusalem for advice. It was demanding restraint.

Trump is unwilling to let Netanyahu manage his own timetable. The Israeli prime minister sees Iran as the project of his lifetime and one of his last major political assets. Trump sees Iran as a file that must be closed before it consumes his presidency and his midterm elections.

As long as the use of force serves Trump’s diplomatic objectives, the differences between him and Netanyahu remain manageable. But once the discussion shifts to how far pressure should go and how long military pressure should continue, the American president reminds Jerusalem who sets the boundaries.

That is why extending calm on the Lebanese front fits neatly into the broader American effort toward Iran. From Washington’s perspective, every additional front is noise in the system. If an Israeli strike in Beirut gives Tehran an excuse to walk away from negotiations, the Americans will pressure Jerusalem instead. From Israel’s perspective, that is frustrating and at times dangerous. Hezbollah does not disappear simply because Trump wants quiet. But when Washington is trying to negotiate an agreement with Iran, Lebanon becomes a place where Israel is expected to swallow more than it would prefer.

The question is what exactly Trump is trying to achieve. If the goal is a limited agreement, reopening Hormuz, reducing attacks, securing a general Iranian commitment on the nuclear issue, and maintaining oversight, then he has a chance. Iran needs economic oxygen. Gulf states want stability. Trump wants a photo. Preferably one with a grand statement, a broad smile, and as few missiles in the background as possible.

If the goal is a deeper solution addressing the nuclear program, uranium stockpiles, missile capabilities, proxy networks, and Iran’s ability to rebuild, the road is much longer. Threatening a radar site or an air defense battery will not be enough. It would require a rigorous verification mechanism, access to facilities, timetables, automatic sanctions snapbacks, and above all, a willingness by the United States to remain focused on Iran even after the cameras are gone.

That is precisely where Israel worries about Trump. He loves the moment of the big announcement. The painstaking work that comes afterward, monitoring mechanisms, timelines, and technical clauses, has never been his strongest suit.

US administration divided on path forward

Even the US administration is not completely unified. Some see the strikes as temporary leverage on the road to an agreement. Others argue that any deal would merely allow Iran to recover. 

Security officials understand how quickly an incident in Hormuz could escalate into an attack on an American base, a ship, or global energy markets. Republican politicians are already thinking about November and how to sell voters on strength without war, military action without body bags, and fuel prices that do not turn a geopolitical victory into an electoral defeat.

Tehran is making a similar calculation from the opposite direction. Iranian leaders know Trump wants a deal. They know he does not want a prolonged war. They also understand that even without physically closing the strait, merely threatening freedom of navigation is enough to unsettle markets and pressure Washington. Iran does not need to defeat the US Navy. It only needs to prove that efforts to squeeze it will impose costs on everyone.

That reality creates Israel’s dilemma. A small agreement may be good for America, good for markets, good for Gulf states, and good for Trump. It may be bad for Israel if it leaves Iran battered but not neutralized, weakened but still possessing uranium that has not been fully accounted for. More cautious, perhaps, but also convinced that the lesson of the war is that it must reach a strategic insurance policy more quickly.

Israel understands that danger well. The threat does not disappear simply because an American president declares that he has solved it.

For Netanyahu, there is little room for maneuver. He can praise Trump, leak reports of close coordination, and argue that American pressure validates the Israeli approach. In reality, he depends on the American president more than he would like to admit. Trump is the one who enables Israel’s freedom of action, and he is also the one who can limit it with a single phone call.

There is a certain irony in that. The American president, often considered Netanyahu’s closest ally, is also the one most willing to restrain him when White House priorities require it.

Four possible futures for US, Iran

The four main possible scenarios ahead are relatively clear.

The first, and most likely, is continued limited strikes alongside intensive negotiations. Another military target, another threat, another Qatari envoy, another defiant Iranian statement designed to preserve national pride.

The second is a deadly incident involving Americans, an attack on a base, a ship, or US personnel, which would require a far broader response.

The third is the collapse of negotiations and a return to open regional war, with Israel directly involved and its civilian population once again paying the price.

The fourth, and from Jerusalem’s perspective the most troubling, is success that comes too quickly: an agreement that calms Hormuz, lowers oil prices, delivers Trump a victory, and leaves the nuclear question for another day.

In that scenario, Israel would need to act quietly but firmly. Do not fight publicly with Trump. Not appear to sabotage an American agreement. Not to give Iran an excuse to leave the negotiating table. At the same time, it would need to work through every available channel to ensure that any agreement is more than simply clearing a traffic jam in Hormuz.

The boring details will be the decisive ones: Where is the uranium? Who verifies it? When is it verified? What happens if Iran refuses? Who restores sanctions? What remains of Iran’s missile arsenal?

The reality that has emerged is far more complex than the simple headline of “America versus Iran.” It is the United States striking Iran in order to bring it back to the negotiating table; an Iran willing to talk but unwilling to appear defeated; an Israel that wants the Americans to go all the way, while discovering that Washington defines the finish line differently; and a Netanyahu trying to ride Trump’s momentum only to discover that Trump does not like anyone else holding the reins.

The helicopter near Hormuz was the trigger. The real struggle is over the story told afterward. Trump will want to say it was the moment Iran finally understood. Netanyahu will want to say it was the moment America truly entered the fight. Iran will want to say it was simply another round that it survived.

Israel’s task is to ensure, without unnecessary speeches and without becoming enamored with victory photos, that it does not end up with a polished agreement, calm oil prices, and an Iranian nuclear capability still patiently waiting for the next chapter.

Israel must work to form a coalition of Zionist parties from the Right and the Left after the upcoming election, Blue and White chairman and former defense minister Benny Gantz told 103FM in a Sunday interview.

“Yesterday I stopped at a coffee cart in Kibbutz Ruhama. I spoke with a nice woman who came up to me in tears and great excitement, and told me she supports me and is very worried about what will happen here,” Gantz said.

“She said to her daughter: If Netanyahu remains in power, you’re not going to officers’ course. I told her that there is someone else in the country who says: If [Naftali] Bennett, Gadi [Eisenkot], or [Yair] Lapid becomes prime minister, you’re not going to officers’ course.”

“The rift in the country is killing us,” he said. “I have no shadow of a doubt that if we do not want more of the same, we must form a Zionist unity government, because the Zionist majority in the country is the one truly carrying the wagon. Let it take the right to lead. That is what I am working on, and I hope to succeed.”

The former IDF chief of staff and defense minister did not sound enthusiastic about the framework of an agreement between the US and Iran.

“The feeling is not one of failure, because the military and operational achievements are very high, but of a strategic missed opportunity, because we did not manage, on our own against Lebanon and with the Americans in Iran, to strategically realize the major military achievements,” he said. 

“We need to prepare to deal with these things in the years to come as well, including militarily, that seems absolutely clear to me.”

Gantz remained pessimistic regarding Lebanon, Iran deal

Asked about reports that the ceasefire in Iran would also stop Israeli offensive activity in Lebanon, Gantz said that “we will need to insist in the next 60 days that Beirut is not the same as Tehran.”

“I can accept arguments for and against when it comes to Iran, but Lebanon and Israel are two neighboring countries, and we should not be dependent on others in everything related to it,” the Blue and White chairman stressed. “We cannot take security risks, and we need to act with all our strength and independence. October 7 changed the regional and conceptual reality, and we cannot agree to that. I explained this to the Biden administration, which opposed entering Gaza, and Netanyahu did not do this successfully.”

After he was asked whether he thought Netanyahu had caved to pressure from Washington, Gantz answered yes.

He argued that the prime minister erred when he changed Israel’s conduct toward the US and preferred Republicans over Democrats.

“We are the only Western democratic outpost in the Middle East. When we moved toward one direction, we remained captive to one direction, and that is Netanyahu’s failure,” he said.

Writing his first book, We

Gantz then spoke about his new status: author. “This was the first time I was at the book fair from the writer’s side. It was a beautiful experience in Jerusalem,” he said excitedly. 

“The book is based on material I wrote over the years, and on conversations I had with my wife, Revital. It had been a dream of ours to write a book from two points of view, but unfortunately, Revital fell ill, and then I told her story.”

He was asked whether he feels guilty that, as a man in the military and later a military man, he was not present enough at home.

“There are also those feelings. It is natural to have guilt feelings,” he replied. “But I learned to deal with the three axes: taking care of Revital, taking care of my family, and taking care of my country. I learned to handle this braid, and I am trying to deal with it as much as I can.”

Why is his book called We? “I called the book that because I am not only talking about Revital and me, but also about me and society, and the society within it,” Gantz answered.

Several Israeli ministers called on the government on Sunday morning to intensify attacks against Hezbollah and Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighborhood in response to the terror group’s ongoing bombardment targeting Israel’s soldiers and northern communities.

Hezbollah continuing to launch drones and rockets at northern communities despite the ongoing ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is a “test of the prime minister’s Dahiyeh doctrine,” wrote Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionist Party) in a Sunday post to X/Twitter. 

“I call on him to implement it with determination and force and to demolish buildings in Dahiyeh today as well,” said Smotrich. “We promised security to the residents of the north, and we must fulfill it!”

In his own X post, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said he would clarify his position to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday regarding the ongoing fighting in Lebanon. 

“For every drone – a missile. For every violation – fire. For every drone – Dahiyeh must tremble. For every hair on the head of an IDF soldier – a thousand Hezbollah terrorists,” Ben-Gvir wrote. “Against terror, we do not contain, we crush!”

Aliyah and Integration Minister Ofir Sofer (RZP) affirmed that “Israel must attack Dahiyeh” in his own post to X on Sunday.

Neither Shlomi nor any other settlement in Israel will become a normalized target in the hands of Hezbollah,” he wrote.

IDF reportedly preparing to stop Lebanon ground advance amid pending US-Iran deal

Israeli public broadcaster KAN News on Saturday, citing security sources, reported that Israel is preparing for the possibility that the pending US-Iran agreement will result in calls to stop the IDF ground advance against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Per the sources, the IDF is readying to halt attacks deeper in Lebanon to avoid harming the deal, but will not withdraw from the security zone as part of that agreement.

The sources also said that the issue of the IDF’s full withdrawal will be discussed with Lebanon during talks in Washington later in June.

The IDF’s 36th Division has continued to push north in Lebanon, according to KAN, with some reports saying they have neared the large Lebanese city of Nabatieh.

Iranian hardliners took to the streets in Tehran and Mashhad on Saturday night to protest the emerging agreement with the United States, directing their anger at Iran’s negotiating team and senior officials, according to the Qatari-owned Arabic newspaper Al-Araby Al-Jadeed.

Demonstrators in Tehran gathered in a central square and chanted slogans against Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“Araghchi, be ashamed and leave the country,” protesters shouted, according to the report. Others chanted: “Ghalibaf, Araghchi – what about the blood of our leader?”

A separate demonstration was held in the eastern Iranian city of Mashhad outside a Foreign Ministry office, where participants also raised slogans against Araghchi. Social media accounts reported localized friction in some areas between supporters and opponents of the proposed deal.

According to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, most activists and lawmakers who have publicly opposed the emerging agreement belong to Iran’s conservative camp, particularly circles close to Saeed Jalili, the former secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Editorial criticizes deal framework, questions opening Strait of Hormuz

Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of the hardline Iranian newspaper Kayhan, also criticized the proposed framework in an editorial titled “A letter to Messrs. Ghalibaf and Araghchi.”

“Did closing the Strait of Hormuz really block the commercial and economic breathing route of the enemy?” he wrote, questioning the logic of giving up what he described as one of Iran’s most important bargaining chips in the war.

Shariatmadari wrote that securing compensation “was and remains” one of the demands announced by the leader of the revolution, and questioned how Iran would be able to extract such compensation from the US and its partners if it agreed to reopen the strait. Opening the waterway under the proposed framework, he argued, would limit Tehran’s ability to press that demand.

The conservative Fars News Agency, considered close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported Saturday that US President Donald Trump’s “strange insistence” on signing a memorandum of understanding with Iran on Sunday constituted a test for Iran’s negotiating team.

Fars noted that Trump had repeatedly said the memorandum would be signed on Sunday, while Iranian officials involved in the negotiations had said that the understandings had not yet been completed and that a signing on that date would definitely not take place.

The agency also pointed out that Sunday, June 14, is Trump’s birthday, arguing that he sought to use the date symbolically and turn it into a propaganda event.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in this context that any possible understanding with the United States would amount only to a framework for continuing talks, rather than a final agreement between the two countries.

Hamas on Sunday praised the reported shooting of an IDF Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) during an operation to arrest a suspect in Dhahiriya, near Hebron, over the weekend. 

The incident was reported by Israeli public broadcaster KAN News on Sunday morning. According to KAN, the NCO was lightly wounded, but did not provide further details.

The Jerusalem Post reached out to the IDF for comment.

In a Sunday statement, the terror organization took responsibility for the alleged incident, claiming that the NCO was wounded by one of its operatives.

It noted that it “salute[s] the pure hands that confront the occupier and resist.”

Additionally, Hamas said that the incident comes in response to Israel’s “crimes” against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, as well as Israel’s plans to “seize West Bank lands and displace” Palestinians.

The terror group ended with a general call to Palestinians in the West Bank and east Jerusalem to “escalate resistance in all its forms to respond to the occupation’s crimes with painful operations that will disrupt its calculations and thwart its plans.”

IDF captures over 50 terror suspects in West Bank, seizes weaponry

Last week, the IDF conducted several counterterrorism operations across the West Bank, captured over 50 suspects, who were wanted for inciting terrorism, advancing terror activities, and possessing and trading weaponry.

Some 250,000 NIS intended for terrorism were also confiscated by the IDF, as well as a lathe used to manufacture weapons, a drone, military equipment, ammunition, and more than 10 weapons, including handguns and improvised Carlo weapons.

On June 14, 1906, at least 70 Russian Jews were killed, and 90 were injured in the three-day-long Bialystok Pogrom.

Bialystok, located in modern-day Poland, was a western city in the Russian Empire with a majority Jewish population.

In the 1910 census, four years after the pogrom, around 68.5% of the population was Jewish, according to data from the Jewish Virtual Library.

The pogrom became the bloodiest incident against Russian Jews that year. It is worth noting that because multiple victims were taken to other towns, different hospitals, and private homes, the exact number of victims will never be truly known.

Bialystok was known for its textile industry. A large number of the fabric mills around town were owned by Jews and employed Jewish workers.

As such, the Jewish Labor Bund, a Yiddishist, secular, socialist Jewish labor organization, had a stronghold in the community. Jewish anarchist movements and the Polish socialist party also had strongholds in the city.

Why was there a pogrom in Bialystok?

Three days before the pogrom, the city’s police chief, named Derkatcheff, was killed. He was generally viewed as benevolent towards the city’s Jewish population. Chief Derkatcheff notably said that a pogrom would happen over his dead body. That is almost exactly what happened.

Derkatcheff’s rival, Police Commissioner Sheremetev, and the rest of the police force, were viewed as violently antisemitic.

Sheremetev blamed Jewish anarchist groups for Derkatcheff’s killing. Then, local officials spread rumors and distributed leaflets that Jews would bomb Catholic and Orthodox churches.

In preparation, Jewish leaders went to the governor in Grodno, over 100 knm away, to ask for Sheremetev’s removal. The governor refused, but promised the Jewish delegation that no pogrom would happen in June.

What happened in the Bialystok pogrom?

On June 14, authorities allowed a Catholic procession through the town’s market square on Pentecost. During the procession, a bomb went off and killed one person in the procession.

Simultaneously, an Orthodox Christian procession was occurring in town, during which shots were fired.  Russian authorities then claimed that Jews had attacked both and called for retaliation against Jews.

Thus, the pogrom began. For three days, Russian troops and policemen attacked Jewish homes and businesses.

On the third day, Russia’s minister for internal affairs ordered tsarist forces to stop the pogrom.

The pogrom came after the 1905 Russian Revolution, during which the city was a center of the anti-tsarist labor movement. It is part of the second wave of pogroms that eventually led to World War II.

Historians view the pogrom as a response to the labor movement by local authorities and government employees, who were later held accountable by Russia’s state Duma for the incident.

After the State Duma investigation, Bialystok’s industry and trade suffered a notable, prolonged decline.

Israelis need a reality check on the impending Iran deal and understanding the winners and losers.

It all depends on the question you ask.

If you ask why Israel and the US haven’t already succeeded at regime change, then everyone has lost except for Iran.

If you ask why Israel is not only not dominating the direction of negotiations, but being pushed to the side, then Israel lost big time.

But if you speak to top IDF and Mossad officials, immediate regime change was never in play.

Regime change was never achievable with current war

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump made a mistake when, in the opening days of the war, they were excited and added that as a goal and a real, imminent possibility. 

Top IDF and Mossad officials across-the-board will tell you that the most the current war could achieve was to help improve conditions for regime change.

The real goals of the last two wars with Iran in June 2025 and early 2026 were to push back the two existential threats by a couple of years: nuclear weapons and massive ballistic missile volumes, which could overwhelm Israel’s air defense shield.

If you ask: Were those two primary goals achieved, the answer is unequivocally yes.

The first proof is that we are now a full year since the June 2025 war, and predictions by pessimists that the Islamic regime would have a nuclear weapon within a few months were not only proved wrong, but Iran is basically still around two years from nuclear weapons, and the impending deal will probably push it off even more. 

If Iran never gets nuclear weapons, then looking backward in 25 years, historians will probably credit Netanyahu with pushing off the nuclear threat during this time period.

But, looking back, a win will not help him much in the present and upcoming election when much of the country is sour about the failure to secure immediate regime change.

Iran expected to give up uranium

There is a twist here that if Trump loses his attention completely, the Iranians could end up keeping some 60% enriched uranium, but all signs are that that uranium will be removed or diluted.

In terms of leverage, once Iran opens up the Strait of Hormuz and the US keeps even some of its forces in the region, Trump will have more leverage, not less, to get the Iranians to give up the uranium.

The same is true with enforcing the 15-20 years uranium enrichment freeze. And Iran is a long-term planner. Many forget that while Iran broke aspects of the 2015 nuclear deal, for the first four years, it stayed within the uranium enrichment limits.

Many Israelis are rightly enraged that the upcoming deal means that Iran will have new large funds to help its regime survive and to try to help rebuild Hamas and Hezbollah.

But with a reality check, this was always the deal Trump was going for: remove the nuclear threat in exchange for money.

The thought of regime change, even with Trump, was brief and passing, and he did not even allow the Mossad’s plan with the Kurdish Iranians and Iraqis staging a ground advance against the regime in parts of Iran to go forward.

Yet once again, anyone who thought he would let that go forward was not thinking about who Trump is and his aversion to messy and long wars, especially with ground troops.

Stunningly, top Israeli officials have told The Jerusalem Post exclusively that since former US president George Bush had supported this move in Iraq in 2033, they thought Trump would in 2026. 

These officials needed a reality check on the mentality of Americans and the US president right after 9/11, compared to those persons in 2026 under the banner of “America First” and with no attacks on the US mainland.

Is this funding bad news for Israel on all fronts between Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas? Yes.

But are the apocalyptic warnings of how bad it will be over the top? Also, yes.

Israel has failed to completely defeat any of those enemies – that is a loss.

But by the same token, Israel has thoroughly bludgeoned and weakened all of those enemies in ways that cannot be restored in a year or two, and may not be fully restorable.

Hamas, Hezbollah weakened

It is looking more and more like Hamas will make some kind of partial disarmament move to allow rebuilding in Gaza to start.

If they do not, they still are utterly isolated from receiving weapons from outsiders, have zero rockets, essentially zero ability to threaten Israeli civilians (they can threaten forward IDF troops in Gaza), and have been reduced from a powerful and sophisticated national military to the guerrilla warfare organization they were in the 1990s.

Hezbollah has dropped from 150,000 rockets to maybe as few as 10,000 rockets. They can threaten Israel’s North, but not the rest of the country. Even the North cannot threaten at nearly the same level. Israel may be able to use a withdrawal from most of southern Lebanon to normalize relations with the Lebanese government, completing a historic process which could isolate Hezbollah much more than at any time since its founding.

For over 18 months, Hezbollah has been largely cut off from Iran, smuggling weapons by land, because the Syrian regime is now Sunni and as anti-Iran as Israel.

None of this means that Hamas and Hezbollah will fade away, and they are still threats, especially Hezbollah.

But getting more money from Iran is not going to help them restore their former powers and threats, especially since Israel will not stand by and allow them to rearm with long-range weapons, even after a ceasefire and even after a potential partial withdrawal.

Iran likewise will not restore its power overnight. 

In the upcoming stages of the expected deal, it is expected to get unfrozen funds (its own money held overseas) of between $6 billion and $24 billion, some of which will be conditioned on nuclear progress.

It lost hundreds of billions of dollars in its defense sector and some other sectors during the recent wars.

The biggest problem then is actually the ballistic missile program.

This threat of overwhelming volume has been pushed off by a couple of years.

But nothing in the deal prohibits Iran from trying to restore its 500-1,000 missiles to its pre-war 3,000 number, or worse, to jump to the 5,000-6,000 range, the prospect of which made Israel decide to go to war again in 2026.

Had Israel played its diplomatic cards better, including incorporating Europeans into some major decisions and strategy, maybe an upper limit and range of missile range could have been reached since Europeans would be threatened by Iranian ballistic missiles much sooner than the US, as they are only somewhat out of Iran’s current range, whereas for Iran to strike the US, it would need years more to master intercontinental ballistic missiles.

This is the largest and most under-covered loss for Israel in the deal.

The only, but relatively simple solution for Israel is to send a direct message to the Iranians that Israel will respect the ceasefire until Iran crosses whatever missile volume point the IDF deems as too many to handle. If Iran crosses that point, Israel must be clear that it will attack again.

All of this misses one of the largest threats to Israel today: the massive loss of support from its allies in the US, in Europe, and among some Arab countries in the Middle East. One positive of an end to the years of war, or even a pause for some years, is a chance to fix those issues.

This more complex analysis of wins and losses is not where the average Israeli is right now, having been sold the new “conceptcia” idea that after October 7, a two-plus-year war and with Iran, air power alone, could end all threats to the Jewish state. 

But at some point, it will be wiser if Israelis focus on the enhanced security they have achieved, while awakening to the largest dangers confronting Israel in the future: a return of Iran’s ballistic missile threat and Israel’s cratering diplomatic status, which, over time, will have severe military implications as well if the trajectory is not reversed.

Cinderella (in the original French version, Cendrillon) by Jules-Émile Frédéric Massenet is the latest production of The Jerusalem Opera in cooperation with The Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra. After many months of preparation, it will be shown only once, on June 18, at the Jerusalem Theatre, the Henry Crown Hall, at 7:30 p.m.

French composer Jules-Émile Frédéric Massenet (1842-1912), known for his operas, songs, and oratorios, based his Cinderella on a story written by the French author Charles Perrault (1628-1703).

We all know the fairytale as a children’s story, though Massenet composed it for an adult audience as a full-length opera. It had its world premiere at Opéra-Comique in Paris in 1899.

Massenet approached the subject with humor, sensitivity, enchanting arias, and glowing musical nostalgia for the French Baroque. Yet his opera, despite being shown at many significant opera houses – including major European theaters, Opera Australia in Sydney, and the New York Metropolitan Opera – is not commonly known, even among opera lovers.

“This was another reason why to show it in Jerusalem,” affirmed Jerusalem Opera co-founder Omer Arieli, serving as its music director and conductor.

He decided to introduce Massenet’s Cinderella this year, as “one of the most magical works in the operatic repertoire, with beautiful musical harmonies.” With much of the audience familiar with the basic storyline, he said, they can focus primarily on the music.

Alternative story of ‘Cinderella’

But do we really know the story of Cinderella? Or is there just one story of this famous fairytale? Talking to the creators of the Jerusalem Opera performance, I had the notion: no. Or rather, each of us who grew up on it has our own favorite version.

Although it is based on the well-known fairytale, Massenet was not content with the children’s story; he designed a gentle, dreamy, and sometimes melancholic world, alighting on shifts from external events to the universe of inner emotion, such as loneliness, longing, and love, or at least the possibility of loving.

Massenet, Arieli told In Jerusalem, underlined the role of a father. That, to some opera viewers, could be a surprise, because in many popular versions of Cinderella, the father has already passed on. In Massenet’s take, he is still in the picture – as pointed out by the show’s stage director, Daniel Lasry, though “not fully present in the life of his daughter.” 

Lasry, 32 and a former opera singer, also takes a fresh approach to the story: “It’s about dating life, a very relevant story; I based it on my dating experiences, and of people I know,” she shared. 

“The center for me is the internal fire,” noted Lasry. “Like the fireplace is also part of their home.”

Cinderella will be performed by respected soprano Mima Millo, who is based in Berlin and returns to Israel especially for the show; the stepmother by Noa Hope Sion; the stepsisters by Shlomit Kovalsky and Yahav Dagan Gersht; and Prince Charming by Nadezhda Gaidukova. 

It is interesting to notice that the prince is written not, as might have been expected, for a tenor, but for a mezzo-soprano, a female voice. “Massenet emphasized the prince’s sensitive nature this way,” said Lasry.

Talking about the father’s character (the role entrusted to Ivo Yordanov, a Bulgarian baritone, the soloist of Varna Opera House, who flew to Israel to perform at The Jerusalem Opera), Lasry noted: “He is a widower after his first wife [passed away], the mother of Cinderella. 

“About the stepmother, we don’t know much, but we know it’s her second marriage, because she brings her daughters. So, this is a house with a lot of emotional baggage. There’s some pain, some memories of the past. The stepmother promotes her daughters, but the father doesn’t have enough strength to do the same for his daughter.”

This comes to a head with Cinderella: “So Cinderella is left alone. She’s by herself; she doesn’t have anybody to take care of her. She has to take care of herself. But when she goes to the ball…” And there the story continues.

The Fairy Godmother grants Cinderella a new identity for the ball with her magic, but the magic is temporary, and at the decisive moment, Cinderella chooses to obey the fairy’s instructions and leave the palace.

Here we arrive at another, non-traditional interpretation of the story. Lasry’s view on the character of the Fairy Godmother, sung by award-winning Israeli soprano Nofar Yacobi, is surprising to me.

“I see the Fairy Godmother as a witch, rather than a fairy,” she said. She is not even sure whether the Fairy Godmother existed or was only dreamed by Cinderella. The audience can decide for themselves after seeing the show.

Thus, Massenet’s Cinderella, as interpreted by Arieli and Lasry, with choreography by Yasmin Gariv, is not only a story about the princess and the glass slipper but also a work about love and inner exploration, inviting us to return to a familiar fairytale and discover that true magic lies in what already exists within us. 

Beyond the familiar plot, the opera offers a story about identity, boundaries, and choice.

This one-time opera show took a long time to prepare. 

While Arieli asserts that “every world’s capital deserves an opera house,” The Jerusalem Opera – which he co-founded in 2011, with a gala debut in 2012 – still doesn’t have its own stage or permanent building. Working on each opera requires additional efforts, at various locations and stages.

Moreover, unlike other opera houses, The Jerusalem Opera doesn’t have, for example, a permanent choir or a dance corps.

Arieli personally cast 12 members of the opera choir especially for this production and rehearsed with them for many months. 

“Each of them has a solo part to sing,” he said. What will also be visibly different from other opera performances is that the orchestra – in this case, the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra – will be on the stage. 

This creates some challenges for the creators, Arieli shared, but can also be a special treat for the viewers to observe the musicians during the opera performance.

As for the Arieli-Lasry duo, Lasry met the maestro (in Italian, a conductor but also a teacher) Arieli when she was a 17-year-old singing student, as her teacher and accompanying pianist. So they have known each other for many years and also hold a long-term professional connection.

In the case of collaborating on Cinderella, Arieli played the entire opera for Lasry on the piano, thereby explaining the role of particular instruments in the opera. Afterward, for months, they worked separately – Lasry on the stage interpretation, Arieli on the musical side. They joined their efforts only recently, a few weeks before the Jerusalem premiere.

Arieli’s own road to Jerusalem began in Florence, Italy, where he was raised and educated. He first came to Israel in the mid-1990s as a young man. “When I served in the IDF, I decided to settle in Jerusalem,” he recounted. “I knew I wanted to start a family, work, and live in Jerusalem.”

Post-IDF, he spent several years in Europe building his musical career. 

“But I knew I would eventually come back to Jerusalem” – and some years later, he did. One of his dreams was to give opera lovers in Jerusalem the opportunity to hear the best operas without having to travel to other cities.

The Jerusalem Opera seeks to provide opportunities for performers and artists at the beginning of their careers to collaborate with experienced artists. Arieli wanted “to create a stage for Israeli singers and musicians, including new immigrants, and other artists from Jerusalem and throughout Israel.”

It manages to do so with support from the Culture and Sport Ministry, the City of Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Foundation. Donations from other foundations and private donors comprise about 80% of its annual budget. Despite the pandemic and war, The Jerusalem Opera continues to create new performances.

“Since the tragic events of October 7, cultural activity has been a source of compassion, support, and strength,” Arieli noted. 

Over the last 15 years, The Jerusalem Opera has performed classics from the world’s opera repertoire and seeks to expand it with operas based on Jewish themes and to commission new works. Its first major production in 2013 was Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni staged in the majestic surroundings of David’s Citadel, using the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City as a natural backdrop. 

In the following years, opera productions included The Marriage of Figaro, The Barber of Seville, Hansel and Gretel, and La Canterina. Last year, a Puccini evening offered a double bill of Il tabarro and Act II of Tosca.

The Jerusalem Opera collaborates with leading musical institutions, including, as in this case, the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra (JSO). In spring 2023, they joined with the JSO to show the opera Thérèse Raquin by Israeli composer Aharon Harlap.

The Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, for its part, is in its 88th season. 

Legendary musicians have been giving concerts with the JSO for several decades, including Igor Stravinsky, Otto Klemperer, Arthur Rubinstein, Yehudi Menuhin, Mstislav Rostropovich, Isaac Stern, Pablo Casals, Igor Markevitch, Henryk Szeryng, Yo Yo Ma, Pierre Boulez, Neville Mariner, Christa Ludwig, Tabei Zimmermann, Martha Argerich, Radu Lupu, José Carreras, Jean Pierre Rampal, Maxim Vengerov, and Yefim Bronfman.

There is no history without culture, art, and music, so we can easily say the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra built Israeli history.

The most outstanding premieres performed by the orchestra include Milhaud’s opera David (1954); the cantata Abraham and Isaac by Stravinsky, conducted by Robert Craft (1964); and Krzysztof Penderecki’s Seven Gates of Jerusalem, conducted by Maestro Lorin Maazel, commissioned to conclude the 3000th anniversary celebrations of Jerusalem (1999). 

Supported by the Culture and Sport Ministry and the City of Jerusalem as well, the orchestra regularly performs at the Israel Festival, and also frequently tours Europe and the US – performing in famed concert halls such as Vienna’s Musikverein, the Cologne Philharmonic, and New York City’s Carnegie Hall.

This one-off performance of Cinderella is generating great anticipation among music lovers, especially opera enthusiasts. This take on the famous story is not just for children, and it is ripe for all of us to explore. 

When longing for love, warmth, and understanding has no age limit, a fairytale can happen to anyone.

The opera will be performed in traditional costumes, in French with Hebrew and English subtitles. jerusalemopera.com/cinderella-
cendrillon/?lang=en

NEW JERSEY – Lance Dunlop was, the day I met him, technically still a soldier in the United States Army. By the time you read this he will not be. He told me it was his last day in uniform almost in passing, the way you might mention you’d skipped lunch, and then he got back to the more pressing business of explaining how he had arranged to move to Haifa.

Dunlop is a psychiatrist. He lives in Alaska, where there is a great deal of snow and a large military presence, and he runs a medical practice there. In August, he will start work as an attending physician at Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, where there is very little snow. He already has the job. He already has his Israeli medical license and his board certifications. What he does not quite have is a tidy explanation for why a man with, by his own account, a very good life in Alaska would give it up for a country that spent much of the last two years under rocket fire.

“Part of it’s scary,” he said. “I love my life here. I have a really, really good life. But I know that I’m not going to be happy unless I’m in Israel.”

He is sixty, give or take, and the story doubles back forty years. In 1984 he came to Israel at eighteen on a year program at Tel Aviv University. He was meant to leave after a year. He didn’t. He stayed, made Aliyah, and served four years in the IDF as a paratrooper, including combat in Lebanon. He did not get into medical school in Israel. “You have to be freaking brilliant,” he said, and waved the memory off. So he went to the University of Pennsylvania instead, became a doctor in America, and joined the US Army Reserve. He did not expect to go back to Israel. Then, a year ago, the Army sent him to Israel as part of an American air-defense unit protecting the country from missiles, and somewhere on the tarmac at Ben Gurion the thing he had buried for forty years came back up.

There is a story he tells about that deployment. An Israeli sergeant, the one in charge of discipline, took him aside to ask why he was wearing an American army uniform. “Because I’m an American soldier,” Dunlop told him. He said it was an eye-opening moment for both of them. He was wearing the colors of one country and standing, he felt, in another.

A ballroom that doubles as a departure gate

I met Dunlop at MedEx, an annual event run by Nefesh B’Nefesh, in partnership with Israel’s Ministries of Aliyah and Integration; Health; and the Negev, Galilee and National Resilience; as well as the Jewish Agency for Israel. It has quietly become the single most efficient on-ramp into the Israeli healthcare system that exists anywhere in the Jewish world. This year’s edition, in a hotel in New Jersey with a Starbucks next door, drew some 350 medical professionals from across North America. It was the largest international MedEx to date, according to the organizers, with physicians from roughly 31 specialties alongside dentists, nurses, genetic counselors, psychologists and the rest.

The room was a strange and rather wonderful hybrid. The main ballroom was dim and a little party-ish, with tables of food and a low hum of conversation, and people drifting off to talks happening in other rooms. But it also had the unmistakable energy of a transit hub. Everyone had somewhere to be: a desk, a table, a station in the room next door where you could get your medical documents and certificates scanned. People moved through it with the butterflies-in-the-stomach look of travelers about to board a flight they have wanted to take their whole lives, except that the flight was a country and the boarding pass was a stack of notarized paperwork.

Nefesh B’Nefesh’s pitch is that it removes the stack. A medical professional can walk in and, over a single day, walk out with a license conditioned on making Aliyah, a job lined up with an Israeli hospital or health fund, and (new this year) a Hebrew proficiency test already behind them.

“That means when you hit the ground you have four or five days until you have a license in hand,” Rabbi Yehoshua Fass, the organization’s co-founder and executive director, told me. “And you have a job lined up, because the hospitals and the medical clinics have been fighting for you during the day to offer you a position. It is a dream.”

Fass, who co-founded Nefesh B’Nefesh in 2002 with its chairman, Tony Gelbart, has been doing this for twenty-four years, and he talks about the medical track the way an engineer talks about a system he is proud of. The bureaucracy used to take a new doctor almost a year on arrival: a year of forms and licensing and the supervised clinical period Israelis call the stage, a year in which you could not work or earn while the paperwork ground on. “You would be twiddling your thumbs,” he said. MedEx compresses that year into a day, or close to it.

This year they added two things. The first is a small technological flourish: every registrant wears a QR code that holds their entire CV, so that when a doctor sits down at a hospital’s table the representative scans the badge and the whole resume (specialties, residencies, subspecialties) loads into the system, instead of being scribbled out by hand. The second is more consequential. A new rule requires doctors to pass a Hebrew proficiency test, and rather than make people wait until they reached Israel, Fass had the examiners brought to New Jersey. Upstairs, in a classroom on the second floor, olim-to-be sat the YAEL exam.

I had been on the receiving end of the problem that test is meant to solve. I have sat in an Israeli doctor’s office where the doctor’s English ran out before my Hebrew began, and we sort of met in the middle and hoped. “So in this kind of environment,” I said to Fass, “you’re making sure the Israelis who live in Israel are going to get the same service from the people who’ve just arrived.” He nodded. “That’s the Ministry of Health that added that level this year.”

Why a country needs to import its doctors

Behind the optimism in the room sits a hard arithmetic. Israel’s universities train fewer than a thousand doctors a year, and by the reckoning of the Aliyah and Integration Ministry the country needs closer to two thousand. The gap has a demographic edge to it: the enormous wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s brought with it a generation of doctors who staffed Israeli hospitals for three decades and are now retiring, all at roughly the same time. A steady number of Israeli-trained doctors also leave to work abroad, a long-running feature of the system that no one ministry has quite made its own. The shortfall is felt most acutely in the northern and southern districts the program is trying to staff.

That is the gap. Western Aliyah is one of the ways Israel is trying to close it.

In 2024 the ministry launched the International Medical Aliyah Program, IMAP, with a target of bringing 2,000 doctors to Israel by 2029. It is backed by the Marcus Foundation, the Gottesman Fund, Jewish Federations of North America, the Azrieli Foundation and the Arison Foundation. Since its launch the program has, by the ministry’s own account, brought more than 1,100 doctors in about two years, past the halfway mark. Of those 1,100-plus, 179 came from North America. The bulk came from elsewhere, much of it from the east, and some of that was, as Minister of Aliyah and Integration Ofir Sofer put it to a group of us, a windfall: doctors leaving Eastern Europe because of the war in Ukraine, some of whom were “on the road” anyway and whom Israel simply caught as they passed.

That is what an event like MedEx is partly for: to grow the North American share, in a part of the world the program is still working to reach.

The model leans hard on geography. The grants are bigger if you go where Israel most needs you. A new oleh in the center of the country might get a token housing subsidy that shrinks each year; one who moves to Dimona, or Karmiel, or up into the Galilee, can have the state cover something like 40 percent of the rent. “Today, more than ever, the State of Israel needs quality doctors in Safed, Metula, Kiryat Shmona, Beersheba and Dimona,” the Minister for the Negev, Galilee and National Resilience, Yitzhak Wasserlauf, said in a statement. The ministry pours additional money into hospitals in those regions to make the hires worth their while.

Reena Pankower, who was there representing that ministry, put the sell more plainly. The periphery offers a quieter life, she said, and less competition. “There’s more room for growth, there’s more room to establish themselves.” And there is something else, harder to put on a grant form. “There’s also a certain sense of shlichut,” she said. Mission. The people who choose Safed over Tel Aviv, in her experience, are the ones who wanted to feel needed.
Every stage of the same journey, in one room
What made the day absorbing was that the room held people at every point on the road at once.

Some had only just stepped onto it. Nina Epstein, a pediatrician, and her husband, Yoni, an anesthesiologist, had come because a daughter is making Aliyah and they have decided to follow her. They had been to exactly one lecture. “We just went to one lecture, so we have a lot of questions,” Nina said. They were not at the document stage. They were barely at the deciding stage, except that they had, clearly, already decided. When I asked whether it was the pull of Israel or a push out of America, Yoni thought about it. “I think the pull factor is stronger than the push,” he said, and then, after a beat, “although, has it gotten a little more uncomfortable? Yeah.”

Others were nearly done. David Sloan, an allergy and immunology physician, is moving to Haifa at the end of July with a fourteen-year-old daughter for whom he has already found a school. He has finished his documents. He came to the event to talk to hospital systems about academic medicine and medical education, and he wanted me to understand that none of it would have happened without help. “I’m one of those guys who almost didn’t go to college because I cannot fill out forms,” he said. Without Nefesh B’Nefesh walking him through every step, he reckoned, the move would have been almost impossible. Before their help, the process had been “just a morass of, how am I possibly going to navigate all this bureaucracy.”

And some were essentially at the finish line, signing off on a decision made long ago. Dr. Chava Blybis, a trauma and critical care surgeon, was at her third MedEx, mostly because she had been missing a document last year and wanted it done right. She did not need much convincing about the move; she has been working in Israel since October 7, operating on soldiers and civilians at Barzilai Medical Center and Ziv Medical Center. Trauma, she said, is a language of its own. “No matter where you go in the entire world, we’re all taught the same A, B, C, D, E.” The Hebrew sorts itself out. The work doesn’t change.

Talia Kupferman, a genetic counselor who works in an IVF clinic, was somewhere in the hopeful middle, five years into a five-year plan, documents in hand, waiting in line to open her file. At one point she lifted two diplomas to show me, a bachelor’s from Stern College and a master’s in human genetics from Sarah Lawrence College, and I noticed they were still in their photo frames. She had taken them straight off the wall to bring them, I noted. “Literally,” she replied. There is something about a person carrying their framed degrees through a hotel ballroom that captures the whole enterprise: the proof of a life’s work, held against your chest, on its way to being translated into another country’s language.

She had been preparing for that translation for years without quite calling it preparation. During COVID she had shadowed the genetics team at Hadassah, and she kept a notebook: every Hebrew word she didn’t know went in it, and after each session she asked a doctor or counselor what it meant. The same medical words kept recurring, and slowly but surely they stopped being foreign.
The ones who aren’t going, and the one who can’t not
Not everyone in the room was leaving, and the honest ones were worth listening to most.

Dr. Brian Smolarz, an endocrinologist from New Jersey, came purely to find facts. He has no Aliyah plans. He is, he said, a planner by temperament, the sort of person who likes to know what he would need to do before he ever needs to do it. But when I asked whether the changing climate for Jews in America was pushing him toward Israel, the question nearly everyone else answered with some version of yes, he gave the opposite answer. “Not really for me,” he said. His job, as he saw it, was “to be a proud American Jew” and to demonstrate his Judaism openly at home, as a kind of pushback. He loves Israel and wants to support it. He just does not, for now, plan to live there.

Talia Kupferman, for all her certainty about her own move, was just as firm that it was hers and no one else’s. People in her community feel the pressure, she said, and she will not judge anyone who feels it differently. “If you want to, that’s great. You go at the time that’s right for you. There’s no point in going if it’s not right.” The time, for her family, is now. That it is not now for someone else is, to her, simply a fact about that someone else.

And then there was Dunlop, who could not have answered Smolarz’s question if he tried, because for him there was never really a question. Late in our conversation he got his phone out to show me photographs from Lebanon in the 1980s, his unit, a submachine gun, a hill above Nabatieh he and his comrades had just retaken, and the phone froze, and we spent a companionable minute trying to force-restart it. He is a child psychiatrist now, and he had his own combat trauma once, untreated for years, which is most of the reason he became one. He was careful to say he was not arriving with all the answers for a traumatized country. “It’s not just this thing where, hey, I’m coming with all the answers, I know everything. No. It’s a relationship. It’s dynamic. We do it together.”

What he would say to someone on the fence, he told me, was simple. Go and look. Reach out. “If it feels right to you, or even if it halfway feels right, or a quarter feels right, then you can’t let that fire go away. You have to explore it.” Maybe it won’t be for you. But you have to find out.
‘The right place on the ship’
One of the first people I spoke to all day was Howard Winter, a dentist from New York who is about to turn 62 and who has been dreaming of this for thirty-six years. He chose dentistry, partly, because it was a good profession to carry to Israel, and then life got in the way, as it does, and the dream waited. His three daughters are all in America. His apartment in Netanya is nearly finished. He is not coming to drill teeth; he has ideas about building businesses, a medical referral service, work that uses his head more than his hands, “because my body hurts me a lot.”

I asked him what made now the time, after a difficult few years for the country. He did not flinch.

“It’s been difficult all the time. I think now it’s just different difficult,” he said. “I do believe we’re living in very unusual times. If you’re going to go down with a ship, you might as well go down in the right place on the ship.”

I said it sounded like an optimistic message, and he agreed. He was not being grim. “I’m pretty optimistic. I think the best years are yet to come.”

By late afternoon, the ballroom was thinning out. The QR codes were still being scanned. Upstairs, somewhere, a few last people were finishing a Hebrew exam they would not have had to take a year ago, in a country that needs them more than it can comfortably admit. The diplomas were going back into their bags. And the doctors were going home to New Jersey, and Alaska, and New York, for now, to pack.

The writer attended MedEx New Jersey as a guest of Nefesh B’Nefesh.

The smell of fresh oil paint still hangs in the air at “No Way Around It,” the first comprehensive solo exhibition by Broken Fingaz in Tel Aviv. Presented at the Nassima Art Foundation, the works were created specifically for the show, marking a new phase for the internationally acclaimed collective.

While Broken Fingaz has exhibited internationally for years, from major street art festivals and public commissions to group shows and institutional exhibitions, this presentation explores the act of painting itself and the physical experience of working with oil on canvas.

Broken Fingaz is composed of core members Tant, Unga, and Deso. The artists have worked together since the early 2000s, forming a continuous collaborative structure that has remained intact across geographies, working conditions, and production formats. That continuity reads less like stability and more like a line repeatedly drawn over itself, thickening rather than breaking.

For this exhibition, the collective has produced a body of oil paintings, drawings, and wooden sculptures. The works were developed within their shared studio pracwtice rather than as individually authored works. The production process, according to the collective, is collaborative and iterative, with works often evolving through internal exchange rather than a linear process of individual execution.

Throughout its practice, Broken Fingaz has worked in multiple formats, including large-scale murals, screen printing, animation, and installation. These formats are used in parallel rather than sequentially, forming a practice that moves between street-based production and institutional display, without fully abandoning either. Its practice behaves less like a ladder than a circuit – images returning in altered form, depending on where they appear.

According to the exhibition materials, the works in “No Way Around It” mark a shift in medium and approach. Earlier works associated with the collective often relied on graphic clarity and narrative structures developed for public visibility and reproduction. The new works combine figurative and abstract elements within layered compositions, in which forms are continuously reworked within the painted surface.

The shift into oil painting introduced different conditions from those that characterized earlier street and graphic production. Oil painting requires slower development, longer production cycles, and a more layered accumulation of decisions over time. If graffiti operates like a fast wound that closes as soon as it opens, oil painting behaves more like scar tissue, thicker, slower, resistant to erasure. Within this context, the works are presented as studio-based objects rather than public interventions.

In recent canvases like Unga’s Broken Wing and Lake Atitlan, along with Deso’s Egg Thief and Soul Rescue, this material shift is laid bare. Figures stretch and melt into dense color fields, showing a departure from clean digital outlines. Similarly, Tant’s Silver Lake and Depth Charged extend this intuitive and experimental approach to figuration, where the paint itself carries an atmospheric weight. The canvas becomes a dense ecosystem where images rarely breathe, oscillating between carnival and collapse.

In an interview ahead of the exhibition, Tant and Unga describe the show as a consolidation of the collective’s current working phase.

“I feel, in a way, that this is kind of our first exhibition,” he says, “or at least the first exhibition in our current incarnation, where we became kind of obsessive about painting.”

He continues: “It’s the first time we managed to somewhat package everything that happens with us in the studio and bring it out and say to people: ‘Here, this is what we do.’”

The move into a gallery context fixes this studio process within an institutional frame. Works that were previously developed in relation to public space and temporary conditions are now presented as objects intended for sustained viewing. The wall, once a surface of urgency and disappearance, becomes containment.

A shared beginning

For Broken Fingaz, working almost as one unit felt natural from the start. The origins of that approach are tied to the childhood environments of two of its core members, Tant and Unga, who grew up in Haifa within an experimental artistic collective known as the Tav Group.

The Tav Group consisted of several families that lived and worked together in a valley near the foot of Mount Carmel.

“They were architects, designers, artists,” Tant recalls. “They created installations in nature, sculpture in the woods. They also designed exhibitions and buildings, and they lived together.

“We lived together, five families,” he says. “I was born there and grew up there until age 10, until the authorities made us leave.

“It was a very, very special place, a way of life, very communal, completely amazing, perfect as a child, at least from our experience.”

Within this environment, creative work was integrated into daily life. Work occurred in shared spaces and involved collaboration among adults who operated collectively.

“They were always doing projects, and we were part of it; we saw dad working in the studio, and dad and his friends creating installations together.

“It was very, very, very natural that this is how you create art, and it is together.”

Artistic production was continuous and collective, without clear division between authorship roles.

After the dissolution of the Tav Group environment and the relocation of the families, this model of shared production did not disappear. It reemerged later in different forms, first in graffiti practice during adolescence and later in the formal structure of the collective.

What had been a domestic ecology of making became, under different conditions, an urban one, less protected, more exposed, but structurally similar in its insistence on “together.”

Say my name

Broken Fingaz began operating formally in 2001 in Haifa within the local graffiti scene. At this stage, the members were working outside institutional frameworks and without formal artistic training. The formation of a graffiti crew was based on functional and material conditions of production rather than a defined artistic program.

“In graffiti, there is this thing called a crew,” Tant explains. “It has to be, because there has to be someone who watches your back while you do a piece.”

The crew structure functions as a practical system for collaboration in public space, particularly in environments where graffiti is executed quickly and often under conditions of illegality or risk.

“And then that thing is formed,” he continues, “and then when you pour the values or aesthetics we grew up on into this thing, something new is created that is unique to us and that we sort of nurtured over all the years.”

Graffiti, both Unga and Tant agree, operates through repetition, visibility, and spatial placement. It involves the repeated marking of names or symbols within the urban environment.

“The basic essence of doing graffiti is writing your name as many times as possible,” Tant says. “It is not political. I see it as a sort of game.”

“The graffiti that was created in the late ’70s, early ’80s, before the social messages and all kinds of street paintings… specifically this graffiti we are talking about. Its goal is to put your name as big as possible in the most central place, as many times as possible.”

For the graffiti crews, the city functions as a field of competing visual systems, including advertising, signage, and other forms of public communication. Graffiti operates by occupying space without authorization. The city becomes a layered surface that is constantly overwritten, where visibility is temporary and contested.

“It happens in the city; it cannot happen in a village,” Tant notes. “Because you are surrounded by so many advertisements and images and signs, and then you come and take your space, because nobody will give it to you, and you don’t have money to buy a billboard. So it is political in the anarchist sense, or in the activist sense of: I come and simply take direct action. Every such action is a political action of sorts.”

The practice is also shaped by its temporal conditions. Works are often removed, overwritten, or painted over shortly after execution.

“You paint something, invest time, think, and the next day they buff it. You get used to it,” Tant recalls. “After it happens for years, it really affects you. You are like, okay… you become a bit numb in a good way. You saw they erased your work there – also good, fine. I had fun painting it, I even have a photo; fine.”

That repeated erasure functions almost like a training system: it removes attachment before it can stabilize.

Moving outward

As the collective expanded from local graffiti into international mural production, animation, and institutional exhibitions, its working method developed into a distributed practice operating across geography and time.

Broken Fingaz has exhibited at institutions including the Royal Academy of Arts, Saatchi Gallery, Urban Nation Museum in Berlin, MIMA in Brussels, and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, as well as in group exhibitions such as “Beyond the Streets,” which focuses on graffiti and street practices in institutional contexts.

Throughout this expansion, the collective maintained anonymity regarding individual authorship.

“By our very nature we are quite anonymous people – we don’t like our faces preceding us,” Unga says. “It is just something that feels natural to us.”

“Originally, it comes from not wishing to expose your identity because what you are doing is illegal,” explains Unga. “But it became a habit, a part of who we are. It also gives the art more space to shine. If you Google ‘Broken Fingaz,’ the results show our art, not our photos. We think it’s cool.”

The collective operates across multiple geographic locations. Unga is based in London, while Tant lives in Klil in northern Israel, and Deso lives in Switzerland. Despite this physical separation, the collective maintains continuous communication.

“We got used to it,” Tant explains. “There was the Haifa period, in the beginning, where we lived together, created together, traveled together.” After that, for almost a decade, they operated almost like a single body moving from project to project.

“Now we meet only a few times a year, but we talk on Zoom almost every day. We show things to each other, share all the time, and talk about directions and insights.”

He describes the collective as a shared system of visual production rather than a set of individual practices.

“As a group, we created a language, a ‘bag of imagery,’ and a message – this whole thing that we share. It belongs to all of us. We can take from it, and we can contribute to it. It is the entity that we created.

“Within that, everyone has space to express themselves and to reflect their character and individual issues. It is a personal expression. There is absolute freedom in the sense that you can bring anything, you can use this pool, and there is no sense of mine and yours – this was my idea; I want it.

“No, it is the opposite; everyone brings. In the end, everyone benefits. There is no hierarchy of authorship. Nobody really knows who did what; and that, even on an ego level, usually doesn’t matter.”

When called to produce a mural for a festival or a city, execution often diverges from initial sketches during production, with adjustments made on site as the work develops.

“The process is very dynamic; it can happen in different ways,” Tant explains. “A lot of times we approach a project, and we all work on it at the beginning, sending sketches to each other, bringing ideas. Sometimes we leave the choice to the festival, and we are fine with whatever they choose. Then we execute it together, and even in execution, there is no one-to-one relationship with the sketch.

“On the last wall we did in Italy, there was a sketch by Deso, and when we arrived, everyone added something along the way. ‘Wait, maybe here it is better like this, let’s erase that, let’s change this.’ In the end, even if it starts as one person’s idea, it becomes something else entirely.

“You do need to let go. You think you had a plan, but then the work shifts. It’s a matter of dynamics: we know each other well, so sometimes someone has a clear vision, and the others let go, and sometimes we all adjust together.”

On occasions, they have to respond to scale limitations, adapting materials to the requirements of large architectural surfaces.

“In the last painting we did in Italy, we had to invent new tools,” Tant says, describing how, after being immersed in studio work for a long period, they had to adjust to working out in the street again. “We were released with all this energy to bring our new art from the studio out, but suddenly we were stuck because there were no brushes in that size.

“So we started experimenting, went to the hardware store and bought everything. In the end, we connected two brooms with screws and used them as a brush. We used rags and giant sponges, and we called it the octopus because it looked like a strange creature. You work standing on a lift, so your movement is limited. You dip the octopus in a bucket of paint with both hands and move it on the wall to the person standing on the lift next to you, who takes it from there and continues the line. Then, when you step back, it looks like a single continuous line.”

Away from the digital world

By the mid-2010s, the collective encountered the influence of digital circulation systems on visual production. Works that translated effectively into online formats often received higher visibility and engagement, introducing a feedback loop between image production and platform reception.

“If you look at our Instagram page, the work was so consistent; everything was very coherent, and got many likes.

Everyone loved that sort of thing, those images. Then, suddenly, we upload images that receive maybe two likes. Our audience doesn’t understand what is going on with us,” Unga explains.

“That is the negative effect of social media, because everything is so immediate. There are a lot of artists who are affected by this.

“If you are used to receiving many likes, and then you upload something and it doesn’t get them, the algorithm kind of pushes you to do things that people like. What that creates is doing things that work – meaning, things that look good on a screen, things that are familiar because people like that. It becomes very clear. So it is a bit of a struggle.”

In response, the collective shifted toward oil painting.

During this period, the collective also studied informally with instructors in Haifa. These studies focused on composition, structure, and painting technique.

“Not formally, but we had different teachers along the way. “We studied with Gennady, a high school teacher a lot of people in Haifa had studied with,” Tant recounts.

“Later, about seven years ago, Anna Lukashevsky from the Barbizon group moved to Haifa, and that was at the time when we wanted to start doing oil paintings. We took lessons with her, which was for a short period, admittedly, but at least for me it had a strong influence.

“Technically she had a lot of knowledge, and also she opened my mind to artists I didn’t understand before, or [whose works, I] thought, were, like, disgusting stuff, and she laughed at me, like I was a child. And slowly I started to understand.”

The shift in medium also changed the way earlier artistic influences resurfaced in their work.

“We always loved art. We knew a bit, we had books at home by David Hockney and Matisse and so on, but that didn’t feel relevant when we were kids. Now, from our perspective at this time, it is much more relevant,” Tant says.

He describes this process as a reversal of influence tracing:

“In music, you listen to hip-hop and then you start looking for the samples, and then you realize it comes from punk bands, and then who influenced them, and you dig backward.

“It happened to us, too. Over time, what we did didn’t give us the satisfaction we needed, the excitement, the challenge, the depth, and we found all that in painting.”

The transition also resulted in a period of reduced digital visibility, which they chose to accept as a necessary condition for their stylistic development.

Having to dig deep, Tant admits that the group helps. “Also now, because we do work separately and there are days, hours, when you are by yourself and so on, there is always support. There are three minds working together, in partnership, toward a specific goal.”

When one looks at the works in “No Way Around It” at Nassima, there is a sense of joy, of painting as something done for its own sake, of the pleasure of creating an image through the act itself.

“When you say that, it is really the best compliment we can get,” say Unga and Tant. “It is saying to us ‘Wow, how fun it was to have this color in the studio,’ and yes, that is what it feels like to us.”

At the same time, the process carries its own internal tensions, with moments of difficulty and doubt, held alongside a steady sense of direction.

“There is suffering, and there are dilemmas, and anger, and crises, and the sketch isn’t moving forward, and what I thought doesn’t work – of course there are. But still, this joy fits perfectly here,” Tant explains.

“Being here at the opening and seeing young guys who don’t necessarily go to exhibitions coming and enjoying it, that was really cool for us, because it is as if we managed for a moment to carry you into our passion for painting, and make it look relevant.”

The exhibition will run until June 24 at Nassima Art Foundation, 55 Ahad Ha’am Street, Tel Aviv. Tel: (03) 612-6969, nassimalandau.com. Opening hours: Monday-Thursday, 10:30 a.m.-6 p.m.; Friday, 10:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.

Rafael Advanced Defense Systems has introduced Hunter Eagle, a compact kinetic interceptor designed to counter the rapidly expanding threat of low‑altitude unmanned aircraft on the modern battlefield. First shown publicly at Defence Security and Equipment International  (DSEI) 2025 and now presented in its serial configuration at ILA Berlin 2026, the system marks an expansion of Rafael’s layered counter‑UAS (C‑UAS) portfolio.

Low‑altitude drones (those that range from hobby‑class quadcopters to larger Group 3 platforms) have become one of the most disruptive technologies on the modern battlefield. Their ability to fly low, evade radar, and deliver precision‑guided or improvised munitions has forced militaries to rethink air defense from the ground up. The proliferation of cheap, expendable drones has also overwhelmed traditional point‑defense systems, creating demand for interceptors that are fast, precise, and cost‑effective.

IDF troops operating in southern Lebanon have been facing low-altitude drones launched by the Lebanese Shia terror group Hezbollah, with over a dozen soldiers and reservists killed and numerous more wounded. 

Israel’s Defense Ministry, through MAFAT and the defense-tech ecosystem, has been rushing to find solutions to the threat and Hunter Eagle is Rafael’s answer to that challenge.

A compact, reusable hard‑kill interceptor

The interceptor is a vertical‑takeoff‑and‑landing (VTOL) drone standing roughly 0.4 to 0.5 meters tall and weighing between 5 and 10 kilograms. Its cylindrical fuselage houses an electro‑optical seeker, while cruciform wings carry electric motors with three‑blade propellers at each tip. The design allows for rapid vertical launch from a four‑legged ground support unit, followed by autonomous terminal guidance once the seeker locks onto the target.

Unlike loitering munitions or explosive‑laden interceptors, Hunter Eagle uses a pure hit‑to‑kill mechanism. It carries no warhead, eliminating the risk of collateral damage-an increasingly important requirement as drone engagements shift closer to urban areas, critical infrastructure, and friendly forces. If it misses or the mission is aborted, the interceptor can return to its launch point and land vertically, ready for re‑tasking.

The system can be deployed as a single interceptor or launched in coordinated swarms to counter multiple simultaneous threats. It is engineered to engage Group 1 through Group 3 unmanned aerial systems, covering the spectrum from small quadcopters to larger fixed‑wing drones commonly used for reconnaissance, strike missions, and kamikaze attacks like those seen in Lebanon.

The system integrates into Rafael’s broader Drone Dome suite, extending the company’s detection‑classification‑neutralization chain into a hardened kinetic layer. Drone Dome includes electronic‑warfare and directed‑energy effectors, while Hunter Eagle adds a reusable hard‑kill option for drones that are resistant to jamming or require physical destruction.

A response to the low‑altitude threat environment

According to Rafael, the company developed Hunter Eagle under a new internal directorate focused specifically on low‑altitude threats – a domain that has grown in importance as state and non‑state actors adopt drones for surveillance, targeting, and precision attack. Conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus have demonstrated that small UAS can strike armored vehicles, artillery positions, and logistics nodes with minimal warning.

Hezbollah’s fiber‑optic drones have emerged as one of the most challenging threats on the northern front. Unlike traditional UAVs, these systems are physically tethered to their operators, making them effectively immune to electronic warfare and jamming. Their low cost, often under $1,000, enables mass deployment by Hezbollah, and their onboard autonomy allows them to navigate and target with minimal external guidance. 

The company positions Hunter Eagle as a mature, near‑term solution, with delivery readiness targeted for 2026.

A World Cup bus was set alight and a teenager suffered a gunshot wound during chaotic scenes in Midtown Manhattan as thousands of basketball fans poured into the streets late on Saturday to celebrate the New York Knicks’ historic win in the NBA Finals.

Some fans set off fireworks and fired smoke grenades after spilling out of packed bars and outdoor venues, chanting “Knicks in five!” to mark their team’s victory in the fifth game of a possible seven.

The New York Knicks have not won a title since 1973, and this was just their third appearance in the finals after losses in 1994 and 1999 – to the Houston Rockets and the San Antonio Spurs, whom they defeated on Saturday night.

World Cup shuttle buses swarmed

At about 2 am, a 17-year-old was shot in the foot during celebrations in Times Square, a New York police officer told Reuters. Three persons of interest were in custody, he added.

As the celebrations ran into the night, hundreds of mostly young people swarmed a convoy of about 15 shuttle buses in Times Square after they transported soccer fans from the first World Cup game in the New York City area between Brazil and Morocco, which ended in a draw.

Some of them climbed onto the roofs of the buses, got inside and sat in the driving seats. One of the yellow school buses the city government hired to help transport soccer fans was set on fire, according to a Reuters video journalist who witnessed it in flames. It was not immediately clear if anyone was injured in the incident. At least three more shuttle buses were badly damaged by crowds.

A bicycle was hauled onto the roof of another bus and supporters of the Brazilian soccer team joined Knicks fans on the roof of a bus, waving their national flag. A man with a bleeding face walked through the crowds, but Reuters could not determine what caused his injury.

“They are expressing their happiness, a little bit violently, but it is what it is,” said Youssef Sabbr, a 49-year-old Canadian of Moroccan descent, who had got off one of the World Cup game buses before it was surrounded by crowds.

“That’s what happens everywhere around the world when a team wins,” Sabbr said.

Police move in, chase fans

Police fenced off some streets and after holding back for about two hours, officers in riot gear moved in, chasing fans down the streets.

Some officers on horseback pushed crowds back, clearing streets around Madison Square Garden, the Knicks’ home court.

Carol Marino, a real estate agent from New York in her 50s was taking a breather on a sidewalk after watching the game in a bar.

“Oh my God. It’s like New Year’s Eve times twenty,” she said about the celebrations.

Elsewhere, jubilant fans played drums, hugged each other, and climbed scaffolding and traffic lights.

New York couple Dean and Christina Smiros said they have been Knicks fans all their lives and were happy to see their team win the first time in their lifetime.

“They have not won since before we were born,” Christina said.

For more than three decades after the Cold War, defense procurement operated under a relatively stable set of assumptions. Large-scale wars between major powers appeared unlikely, technological change moved at a manageable pace, and military planners focused primarily on maintaining readiness through stockpiles accumulated during peacetime.

Governments purchased weapons, ammunition, and military platforms designed to remain operational for decades. Production lines were optimized for efficiency rather than speed, and procurement cycles often stretched across many years. Defense industries built systems intended to be stored, maintained, and used only if a major conflict emerged.

This model was neither irrational nor inefficient. It reflected the strategic reality of its time. Today, however, that reality has fundamentally changed.

The wars and geopolitical crises of the past several years have exposed weaknesses in a procurement philosophy built around long-term storage and slow replenishment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the conflicts in the Middle East, rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and the broader return of great-power competition have demonstrated that modern warfare consumes resources at a pace few Western nations had anticipated.

At the same time, the speed of technological innovation has accelerated dramatically. Artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, advanced sensors, electronic warfare, and software-defined capabilities are evolving far faster than traditional acquisition systems were designed to accommodate.

As a result, defense organizations around the world are being forced to rethink a fundamental question: what does military readiness actually mean in the twenty-first century?

The answer increasingly points toward a shift from stockpile-based readiness to capability-based resilience.

The end of the stockpile era

For decades, the effectiveness of a military procurement strategy was often measured by the size of its reserves. Governments sought to ensure that sufficient quantities of ammunition, spare parts, and platforms were available should a crisis emerge.

The assumption was that inventories accumulated during peacetime would provide the necessary buffer during wartime.

Recent conflicts have challenged this assumption.

Ukraine has demonstrated that high-intensity warfare can consume enormous quantities of munitions in a matter of months. The conflict exposed significant limitations in Western production capacity and revealed how difficult it can be to rapidly replenish inventories once large-scale combat begins.

The lesson extends far beyond artillery shells.

Modern conflicts consume not only traditional munitions but also drones, loitering munitions, communications systems, sensors, electronic warfare equipment, and software-driven capabilities. In many cases, these systems are evolving so quickly that stockpiling them for 20 years no longer makes strategic sense.

A drone purchased today may be technologically outdated within a few years. An artificial intelligence model can become obsolete in months. The pace of innovation increasingly competes with the logic of long-term storage.

This reality is forcing defense planners to think differently about readiness.

The critical question is no longer simply how much equipment is stored in warehouses. Increasingly, it is how quickly a nation can adapt, produce, and field new capabilities when circumstances change.

The numbers behind the transformation

The scale of this shift can be seen in global defense spending.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure reached a record $2.718 trillion in 2024, representing a 9.4% increase over the previous year and the largest annual increase since the end of the Cold War.

The United States accounted for approximately $997 billion of that total, maintaining its position as the world’s largest defense spender. China followed with roughly $314 billion, continuing its long-term military modernization efforts.

Europe has undergone an equally significant transformation. Defense spending among European Union member states reached approximately €343 billion in 2024 and is expected to rise further to around €381 billion in 2025. Compared to 2020 levels, European defense expenditure has increased by nearly two-thirds.

Israel has experienced one of the most dramatic increases. According to SIPRI, military spending rose by approximately 65% in 2024, reaching around $46.5 billion as the country responded to a rapidly evolving security environment.

These figures reflect more than increased budgets. They signal a broader reassessment of how nations prepare for conflict and where they choose to invest.

The rise of defense tech

One of the most visible outcomes of this reassessment has been the emergence of the modern Defense Tech ecosystem.

Historically, innovation in defense was dominated by large prime contractors operating through long acquisition cycles. Today, a growing share of innovation is coming from startups and DeepTech companies capable of developing and deploying new capabilities at unprecedented speed.

Many of these companies operate using methodologies borrowed from the commercial technology sector. They emphasize rapid iteration, software-driven development, continuous updates, and close interaction with end users.

Their focus areas include artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, edge computing, advanced sensing, communications, and autonomous systems.

The battlefield in Ukraine has become a powerful demonstration of this model. New drone designs, software upgrades, electronic warfare countermeasures, and autonomous capabilities are being developed and deployed in cycles measured in weeks or months rather than years.

This pace would have been difficult to imagine under traditional procurement frameworks.

Investors have noticed. Venture capital funding directed toward defense, national security, and resilience technologies has grown dramatically over the past decade. What was once a niche sector has become a major area of interest for governments, investors, and technology entrepreneurs alike.

Yet the long-term significance of Defense Tech is not simply that it produces new products. Its real contribution is changing how defense organizations think about innovation itself.

From inventory to industrial capacity

Perhaps the most important shift occurring today is the growing recognition that production capacity may be as strategically valuable as inventory.

For decades, military planners focused on the question: How much do we have?

Increasingly, they are asking: How fast can we make more?

The distinction is critical.

A nation with moderate stockpiles but highly flexible manufacturing capacity may ultimately prove more resilient than a nation with larger reserves but limited ability to replenish them. Production lines, supply chains, engineering talent, software development teams, and manufacturing flexibility are becoming strategic assets in their own right.

The ability to scale production rapidly during crisis is no longer merely an industrial concern. It has become a national security requirement.

This trend is likely to reshape procurement strategies for years to come. Governments will continue to purchase weapons and maintain inventories, but they will increasingly invest in the industrial ecosystems capable of sustaining prolonged competition and adapting to changing threats.

The emergence of joint resilience

Another major lesson of recent conflicts is that no nation can realistically maintain complete self-sufficiency across every critical capability.

Modern defense systems depend upon complex global supply chains, specialized components, advanced semiconductors, software, communications infrastructure, and manufacturing networks that often span multiple countries.

As a result, a new concept is beginning to emerge: Joint resilience.

Rather than relying exclusively on national stockpiles, allied nations are increasingly exploring models based on shared industrial capacity, cooperative production, and collective supply-chain resilience.

These arrangements may include shared inventories, multinational manufacturing programs, reciprocal supply agreements, interoperable standards, and distributed production networks.

In many ways, this evolution mirrors the logic that originally drove military alliances such as NATO. Just as collective defense strengthened military deterrence, collective industrial resilience may become a critical component of future security architectures.

In the coming decade, the strength of a nation’s industrial partnerships may become as important as the strength of its military forces.The key question may no longer be how much a country can produce alone, but how effectively it can mobilize a trusted network of partners when required.

What happens when the wars end?

This brings us to the most important strategic question facing the Defense Tech sector. What happens when today’s conflicts eventually subside?

Will governments continue investing at current levels? Will Defense Tech remain a defining force in national security? Or will the industry contract once immediate pressures diminish?

History suggests that some degree of consolidation is inevitable. Not every company benefiting from today’s environment will survive over the long term. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the broader transformation will disappear.

The companies most likely to endure are those built around genuine DeepTech capabilities rather than narrow wartime demand. Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced communications, autonomy, edge computing, semiconductors, cognitive systems, and advanced sensing technologies are not exclusively military capabilities. They are foundational technologies for the broader economy.

The same technologies enabling autonomous military systems can support industrial automation, logistics, transportation, energy infrastructure, smart cities, and next-generation robotics.

This dual-use character gives such companies a resilience that extends beyond defense budgets alone. For them, defense represents one important market among several, rather than a single source of demand.

A new model of readiness

The future of defense procurement is unlikely to be defined by a choice between stockpiles and innovation. Successful nations will require both.Strategic reserves will remain essential. No military can operate without sufficient inventories of critical equipment and munitions.

At the same time, inventories alone are no longer enough.

The defining advantage of the next decade will belong to countries capable of combining strategic stockpiles with flexible manufacturing capacity, trusted international partnerships, and vibrant ecosystems of DeepTech innovation. Military readiness is increasingly becoming a function not only of what a nation possesses today, but of what it can develop, produce, and deploy tomorrow.

That shift – from stockpile-based readiness to capability-based resilience – may ultimately prove to be the most important transformation in defense procurement since the end of the Cold War.

US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that a deal with Iran is set to be signed on Sunday and that the Strait of Hormuz will immediately open following the signing, according to a Truth Social post.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” wrote Trump.

Trump emphasized that the deal was significantly different than that of the Obama administration, which he described as “an easy, beautiful, smooth road to a Nuclear Weapon, which Iran would have had six years ago, and would have used long before now.”

“My Agreement with Iran is the exact opposite, A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON!” said Trump. “In fact, they no longer want a Nuclear Weapon, nor will they have one, either through purchase, development, or any other form of procurement.”

He added that “no money will exchange hands,” attempting to further differentiate the deal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with Trump accusing then-president Barack Obama of paying “Hundreds of Billions of Dollars” to Iran, “including 1.7 Billion Dollars in green, cold cash.”

“At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States,” Trump added.

“We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future,” continued Trump. “Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!”

Opposition leader Yair Lapid condemned the potential deal, calling it a complete failure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

ההסכם המתגבש לא משיג אף אחת ממטרות המלחמה של ישראל. המשטר שורד, תוכנית הטילים קיימת, ואיראן יכולה לבנות מחדש את תוכנית הגרעין.

זה כישלון מוחלט של נתניהו ובדרך הוא הופך אותנו למדינת חסות שמקבלת הוראות לגבי הבטחון הלאומי שלה.

שום מסיבת עיתונאים ושום ספין תקשורתי או סרטון AI לא…

— יאיר לפיד – Yair Lapid (@yairlapid) June 13, 2026

“He is turning us into a client state that takes orders about its national security,” he criticized. “No press conference, no media spin, no AI video will hide the failure. The next government will have a historic role: to repair the damage caused by Netanyahu’s inability to turn military achievements into strategic successes.”

Pakistan PM: US-Iran deal signing expected within 24 hours

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said earlier on Saturday that the US and Iran have agreed to a framework for a peace deal to end the months-long conflict in the Middle East, with the final text of the deal reached.

Pakistan is now preparing for an electronic signing expected within the next 24 hours, followed by technical-level talks next week, Sharif added.

Also on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei denied that the Islamabad memorandum would take place on Sunday, according to state media.

Baghaei said the possibility of signing the Islamabad memorandum in the coming days could not be ruled out, but cautioned against commenting on the signing date, given the other side’s hesitation.

He later added that the regime will charge for services provided in the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency, saying that the steps taken by the Islamic Republic to manage safe traffic in the strait align with the protection of national security and the common good of the world community.

Iran: Release of frozen funding part of deal

According to Fars, Baghaei further stated that the release of Iran’s frozen funds is an integral part of the pending agreement.

Baghaei added that the presence of foreign militaries and their bases in the region must end.

At the end of October, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will once again face the Israeli electorate, perhaps for the final time in a political career spanning nearly four decades. 

Despite bearing responsibility for the failure of October 7, 2023, many Israelis continue to credit Netanyahu for his conduct in the aftermath of the massacre and his determination to confront the threats that had long hovered over the State of Israel. 

Indeed, after nearly three years of the war, Israel’s enemies, from the Iranian regime to Hezbollah and Hamas, have suffered severe blows. The elimination of senior figures such as Khamenei, Nasrallah, Haniyeh, Sinwar, and others is viewed by his supporters as evidence of Netanyahu’s determination to advance Israel’s security objectives despite considerable international pressure.

These security achievements have undoubtedly strengthened Israel’s strategic position, although they have not yet produced the complete victory over Israel’s enemies that Netanyahu repeatedly promised throughout the war. 

However, alongside these accomplishments, the past week witnessed an affair that bears the prime minister’s unmistakable signature: the process of selecting the state comptroller. 

Although retired Supreme Court justice Yosef Elron, considered one of the leading critics of Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, was a candidate for the position, Netanyahu chose to support his personal attorney, Michael Rabello, who has represented him in numerous proceedings before the High Court of Justice.

Historically, the position of State Comptroller was usually entrusted to senior figures from the judiciary. This was the case with former Supreme Court justices Yaakov Maltz, Miriam Ben-Porat, and Eliezer Goldberg, as well as district court judges Micha Lindenstrauss and Yosef Shapira. 

The appointment of Matanyahu Englman, who came from academia rather than the judiciary and previously served as director-general of the Technion and the Council for Higher Education, already represented a departure from this tradition. 

Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between appointing a professional figure from outside the legal system and appointing Rabello, a partner in the law office of David Shimron and Yitzhak Molcho, who have accompanied Netanyahu since his first term in office and have been involved in sensitive diplomatic and legal matters. 

The potential conflict of interest is therefore difficult to ignore.

Despite what many perceive as a troubling departure from statesmanlike conduct, Netanyahu’s political standing has remained relatively stable. Polls continue to place Likud at 23 seats, compared with 21 for Naftali Bennett and 19 for Gadi Eisenkot. 

The affair may generate resentment among many voters in the political center in the short term, but its long-term electoral consequences are likely to be limited. Unlike political-security themes, issues of governmental integrity and public ethics have historically exerted only a limited influence on voting behavior in Israel. 

As evidence of this pattern, the Shas Party increased its representation from 10 to 17 seats in the 1999 election shortly after its leader, Arye Deri, was convicted in court. 

Similarly, Ariel Sharon led Likud to a dramatic electoral victory of 38 seats in the 2003 election despite the ongoing Cyril Kern affair. Netanyahu himself has repeatedly led Likud to significant electoral achievements despite the criminal proceedings against him.

Lack of statesmanship

Ultimately, the controversy extends beyond the problematic voting process in the Knesset, during which some legislators filmed themselves casting their ballots in an attempt to demonstrate their loyalty to the coalition leadership, creating scenes that appeared more characteristic of authoritarian political systems than of a mature parliamentary democracy. 

The fact that Netanyahu’s personal attorney, regardless of his professional qualifications, was seriously considered for the position of State Comptroller and received the prime minister’s support should serve as a warning sign. 

Despite the efforts of Netanyahu and his supporters to dismiss concerns raised by opponents of judicial reform, namely that political loyalty could become a decisive criterion in appointments to sensitive institutions, the Rabello affair has strengthened rather than weakened those criticisms. 

With great regret, much like the dismissal of Yoav Gallant in March 2023, this episode reflects a profound lack of statesmanship.

The writer is a lecturer and research fellow at the University of South Wales, UK. Author of Collapse: Israeli Labor Party 1992-2024.

The New York Knicks have won their first NBA finals in 53 years on the back of their beloved star, and team captain, Jalen Brunson.

Twenty-seven years after their last Finals appearance, the Knicks defeated the same franchise that denied them a title in 1999, beating the Spurs in five games to end one of the longest championship droughts in professional sports.

Victory Wembanyama opened up the scoring with a transition dunk 9:46 into the game.

The Knicks would miss on their first 4 possessions of the game. 

Their first points would come three and a half minutes into the first with a Jalen Brunson wide-open 3-pointer to give the Knicks the lead at 3-2. 

But, as in the previous four games, the Spurs would retake the lead and push it to double digits. 

A few moments later, Stephon Castle would complete a put-back dunk at 8:46 and put the Spurs back up by one (4-3 Spurs).

The next few possessions would be face-based and back and forth. 

Karl-Anthony Towns would pick up his first foul against Wembanyama at the 7:49 mark of the first. He would be in foul trouble all game. 

Wemby would go to the line and hit both, to give San Antonio a 6-5 lead. 

Ensuing possession, Wembanyama would complete a ferocious put-back dunk to give the Spurs an 8-5 lead. 

Knicks struggle to score from the start

The Knicks would go 1-10 from the field through the first 6 minutes. 

Rookie Dylan Harper was sensational tonight off the bench. He’d open up his scoring with a 3-pointer to give the Spurs an 11-5 lead. 

Next possession, Game 4 hero OG Anunoby gets a clean look at a bench-side corner 3. 11-8 Spurs 6:19 into the first quarter.  

The Knicks are shooting 56% from 3 at this point. 

With Wemby on the bench at the 5:46 TV timeout, Harper would stay aggressive. He’d finish a reverse layup off an out-of-bounds,  to give the Spurs a 15-8 lead. Harper would have 7 points in 3 minutes, going 3-3 from the field. 

By the 4:18 mark of the quarter, the Knicks were 2-15 from the field, and zero points in the paint through 3:40 into the quarter.

The Spurs were securing second chances, picking up loose balls, and grabbing offensive rebounds, something the Knicks have been great at throughout the playoffs.

At this point in the game, Brunson would have 3 points on 1-4 shooting. 

Keldon Johnson would give the Spurs their first double-digit lead of the game, and for the fifth time in the series,  with a bench corner 3, at 3:05 in the quarter, score 18-8, Spurs up 10.

At the 2:07 mark in the game, the Knicks were 3-19 from the field, while the Spurs were 7-17. 

The Knicks would only have 10 points with 1:40 remaining in the quarter. 

De’Aaron Fox hits a crossover in-the-paint short jumper to give the Spurs a 10-point lead (20-10, Spurs).

Jalen Brunson would immediately respond with another 3, cutting the Spurs’ lead back down to 7. 

At this point, the Knicks would be 13-20 from the field, 3-8 from 3-point range, and only 1-13 from 2-point range.

Bruson would have eight of his 40 points (2-2 3pt), 

Julian Champagnie would close the quarter with a 3-pointer of his own.

The first quarter comes to an end with the Spurs up 23-13.

The Knicks shot 4-22 from the field, 18%, while the Spurs shot  9-21 from the field. 

Like games prior, Spurs would push the lead to double digits

The second quarter would start with Wembanyama’s 4th block of the game on Knicks forward Jose Alverado, who was standing 4 feet away from him, a kind of play only he is capable of making.

Spurs Champagnie would open up the scoring with  his second 3-pointer on their next  possession. 

Spurs push the lead to eight points, 26-13, 10:57 into the quarter. The 

Knicks continue their rough start into the second quarter. They only have 13 points through 14 minutes of play and can’t seem to find any baskets in the paint. 

Dylan Harper continued to stay aggressive, going coast-to-coast, to the foul line for a mid-range two-point make at the 9:29 mark. He’d be 2/2 on the game. Harper was the youngest player with over 20 points, he finished with 24 points, the youngest in finals history in Game 4.

OG Anunoby and Jalen Brunson would be the only Knicks to score through 9:09 into the second quarter. 

Karl-Anthony Towns, who had played minimally to this point with foul trouble, would get his first points at 9:01 into the second quarter. Spurs up by 13, with the score 28-15.

Wembanyama would come right back down the floor to hit a 3-pointer at the 8:25 mark – 31-15, Spurs take a 16-point lead. 

On the ensuing possession, Wemby picks up a foul, but it is overturned to an offensive foul on Towns on the coach’s challenge, it would be KAT’s second foul of the game. 

Next Knicks possession, Mikal Bridges hits a bench corner 3-pointer, 7:43 into the quarter. It was his first points of the game. Cuts the Spurs’ lead to 13, 31-18 San Antonio. 

Harper would come right back down the floor to knock down an elbow free throw line pull-up jumper, at 6:40 to give him 11 points  off the bench.

Ensuing possession, Knicks Josh Hart comes down the floor and hits another top-of-the-key 3-pointer. Score, 33- 21 San Antonio. Knicks down by 12 points. 

The Knicks would cut the lead to nine points on their next possession on a second-chance 3-pointer by Brunson. 33-24, Spurs. 

Ensuing possession, Wemby misses a top-of-the-key jumper.

The Knicks secured the rebound and pushed the ball ahead to Mitchell Robinson, who appeared to have an easy dunk but missed at the rim. However, the officials whistled Devin Vassell for goaltending. San Antonio leads by 9 points,  35-26.

A few possessions later, Brunson comes down the floor and hits a mid-range 2-pointer at the 4:08 mark. The Spurs have the lead  35-28.

Knicks go on a run

The Knicks would be on a 10-2 run over the last 2:41, cutting the 16-point lead to 7 points.

Knicks and Spurs would trade baskets over ensuing possessions. 

But at 2:34, Towns would pick up his 3rd foul on a Castle drive. 

Wembanyama and Towns would both go to the bench.

Castle hits both free throws, giving the Spurs a 40-32 lead. San Antonio shot  6-6 from the line through the first half. 

Josh Hart converted an and-one fast-break layup on the ensuing possession after drawing a push from De’Aaron Fox, trimming the Spurs’ lead to 40-34 with 1:18 remaining in the first half.

The foul would be upgraded to a flagrant-one on Fox, and the Knicks retain possession. 

Hart would make the free throw, and Bridges would follow with a mid-range floater, cutting the Spurs’ lead to 3 points, 40-37, with 1:08 remaining in the half. 

In the waning seconds of the half, Devin Vassell hits a mid-range jumper to push the Spurs’ lead back up to five points. 

42-37 Spurs at the half. 

Some key stats at halftime: The Knicks shot just 29% from the field compared to the Spurs’ 34%. Jalen Brunson led all scorers with 16 points, while Victor Wembanyama recorded nine points, nine rebounds, and five blocks,  accounting for all of San Antonio’s blocks in the half. Rookie Dylan Hardler paced the Spurs with 11 points. The Knicks also struggled to generate interior offense, trailing the Spurs 18-6 in points in the paint.

Spurs maintain a double-digit lead into the third quarter

The Spurs opened the third quarter with possession, and Karl-Anthony Towns quickly picked up his fourth foul just 15 seconds into the period. Towns headed to the bench while Victor Wembanyama remained on the floor for San Antonio.

Neither team can score on the first two possessions. 

Mikail Bridges opens up the scoring with a floater at 10:54 in the quarter.  Bridges now with 10 points, Spurs leading 42-39. 

Following possession, Julian Champagnie hits a bench corner 3, his third 3-pointer. Spurs extend the lead to six points, 45-39. 

A few possessions later, Champagnie, the New York native, would hit another 3-pointer at the 9:23 mark. Pushes the Spurs’ lead to 10 points, 51-41.

The Knicks and Spurs would exchange baskets over the next several possessions. 

Rookie Dylan Harper, right off the bench, drives to the basket for a layup to extend San Antonio’s lead to 55-46 with 7:38 remaining in the third quarter. The rookie had 13 points in just 15 minutes of action.

A few possessions later, Harper would get his 15th point of the contest on a tough mid-range jumper, giving the Spurs a 2-point lead, 57-55. 

The Knicks would go quiet over the next several minutes. 

Harper struck again, converting a putback layup for his 21st point of the game to extend San Antonio’s lead to 68-53 with 3:09 remaining in the third quarter.

The basket capped a dominant stretch for the Spurs, who closed the quarter on a 9-0 run over the final 2:23.

Through this point in the game, the Spurs held a commanding 24-0 advantage in bench scoring over the Knicks.

OG Anunoby would pick up his 4th foul on the next possession, putting him in foul trouble. 

Jordan Clarkson finally got the Knicks’ bench on the scoreboard, knocking down a floater in the paint with 39.5 seconds remaining in the third quarter. The basket trimmed San Antonio’s lead to 72-63, pulling New York back within nine points.

Mitchell Robinson closed out the third quarter with a tip-in, trimming San Antonio’s lead to 72-65 heading into the fourth. The Spurs had led by as many as 15 points during the quarter.

The fourth quarter began with Karl-Anthony Towns back on the floor after playing just 15 minutes through three quarters, while Victor Wembanyama remained in the game for San Antonio. 

Keldon Johnson opened the scoring with a three-pointer to push the Spurs’ lead back to 10 points, but Josh Hart and Landry Shamet answered with triples of their own to keep New York close. 

Wembanyama responded with a powerful baseline dunk, and Devin Vassell added a deep three at the 9:09 mark, as San Antonio maintained control with an 81-71 lead. 

The Spurs continued to lean on rookie Dylan Harper, who returned midway through the quarter alongside Jalen Brunson. 

After Shamet scored to make it an eight-point game, Harper attacked the rim for a tough layup to give San Antonio an 83-73 lead and reach 23 points. 

Moments later, Shamet appeared to suffer a leg injury at the 8:32 mark and was escorted to the locker room after the Knicks intentionally fouled to stop play. He would return later in the game.

Brunson takes over the game

Brunson then began to take over. He drew a foul on a three-point attempt, converted two of three free throws, and followed with a one-handed scoop layup that cut the deficit to six. 

With Towns limited by foul trouble and Wembanyama controlling the paint, Brunson continued to find ways to get to the rim, trimming the Spurs’ lead to four points with 6:28 remaining.

The game turned on a controversial sequence involving Wembanyama and Towns. An offensive foul initially called on Wembanyama was challenged by San Antonio and overturned, with Towns instead assessed his fifth foul. 

Brunson capitalized shortly afterward, earning two free throws to cut the lead to 83-81. Wembanyama then headed to the bench with 5:18 remaining, opening the door for a Knicks rally.

New York seized the opportunity. Brunson scored 10 consecutive points, including another scoop layup that tied the game at 83-83 with 4:47 left. 

Knicks eases 16-point deficit on 10-0 run

The Knicks had erased a 16-point deficit with a 10-0 run, while San Antonio struggled offensively. 

Vassell briefly restored the Spurs’ lead with a jumper, but Brunson answered by drawing another foul and sinking three free throws to give New York its first lead since the opening minutes of the game.

With both teams in the bonus and key players battling foul trouble, defense took center stage. 

Mike Brown used a timeout to take Mitchell Robinson out of the game and avoid a potential Hack-a-Mitch strategy. 

After more than two scoreless minutes, a goaltending call on Vassell during an OG Anunoby dunk attempt extended New York’s lead to 88-85. By then, the Knicks were on a 15-2 run, and the Spurs had missed nine of their previous 10 shots.

The drama continued in the final two minutes. 

Wembanyama drew Towns’ sixth foul and split a pair of free throws, cutting the deficit to two. 

After a Knicks shot-clock violation, Harper tied the game at 88-88 with 1:16 remaining. 

Brunson immediately answered with a floater in the lane to restore New York’s lead, giving him 43 points and further cementing one of the greatest Finals performances in Knicks history.

The Knicks held their nerve in the closing seconds. 

Hart made a free throw after a key offensive rebound by Robinson, Anunoby split a pair at the line, and Mikal Bridges added another free throw after being fouled. 

San Antonio had one last chance, but Wembanyama missed a deep three before Stephon Castle followed with a put-back dunk.

After Harper missed two critical free throws with 7.7 seconds left, Anunoby sealed the game at the line, giving New York a 94-90 victory and completing a remarkable fourth-quarter comeback.

Knicks beloved superstar, Jalen Brunson, was named NBA Finals MVP, and after 53 long years, the Larry O’Brien Trophy returns to basketball’s mecca, New York City.

The Prime Minister of Iraq, Ali al-Zaidi, plans to visit Washington in July. His visit is expected to “discuss strategic ties between Iraq and the United States, with economic cooperation topping the agenda, according to an Iraqi government spokesperson,” according to Rudaw media in Erbil in the Kurdistan autonomous Region of northern Iraq.

This is an important upcoming visit for the Iraqi leader. He has been an officer for several months and was appointed only after six months of political struggles in Iraq following an election in November 2025. As such, he came into office with many hoping he could resolve Iraq’s problems. Iraq is facing economic hardship due to the current blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Zaidi is also attempting to rein in Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. As such, he faces major hurdles at home and will want US support.

At the same time, there have been reports that Syria’s president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, had also hoped for a visit to the White House. He has enjoyed a good relationship with the Trump administration. The administration has sought to reduce sanctions on Syria. This is important because Syria seeks investment in reconstruction. Syria is also trying to improve its economic situation amid the current Iran conflict, as land trade routes now appear more secure.

The US has the same envoy for Iraq and Syria. US Ambassador Tom Barrack, who is the ambassador to Turkey, is also the envoy to both countries. As such, it’s possible both countries might angle for a visit coordinated with Barrack. This would be important for Iraq and Syria, as well as for US policy. It could help stabilize both countries.

Currently, a visit by Sharaa has not been confirmed. Nevertheless, it is possible it could happen. The Trump administration will want to end the Iran conflict and get a deal while trying to show it can stabilize Iraq and Syria. The US anti-ISIS mission has wrapped up in Syria and is expected to wrap up in Iraq in September 2026.

Iraq seeks to strengthen economic ties with US

“Speaking to Rudaw on Saturday, Haider al-Aboudi said the visit [by Iraq’s prime minister] would focus on strengthening bilateral relations through an economic lens,” Rudaw noted.

The report goes on to note that “the files concerning the strategic relations between the two countries will be discussed during the visit. The agenda begins with economic issues because the current Iraqi government’s vision is that the economy is the engine of the state,” Aboudi said.

Rudaw further noted that “Zaidi’s anticipated visit comes as Iraq seeks to balance its strategic partnership with Washington while expanding economic cooperation and attracting foreign investment. Baghdad and Washington have maintained regular dialogue through mechanisms such as the Higher Coordinating Committee under the Strategic Framework Agreement, with security, energy, and economic issues featuring prominently in bilateral discussions.”

Meanwhile, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ibrahim Olabi, announced on Saturday that Syria has joined the “Group of Friends for combating Technology- facilitated  Trafficking in Persons,” Syrian state media SANA noted. Syria has also proposed a “Four Seas Initiative,” which Syrian state media notes is “an ambitious plan to transform the country into a regional hub for energy, transport and trade connectivity, received renewed attention this week during a policy discussion in Washington that brought together Syrian officials, energy experts, and regional analysts.”

What’s worse than giving Iran $6 billion? Giving it two $6 billions.

The United States and Iran signaled last week that they were close to a deal, with reports suggesting it could be signed in Geneva this week.

Alongside those announcements came accounts of what the framework may entail: a memorandum of understanding that would open another 60-day period of technical negotiations; the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz; possible access to frozen assets; discussions over dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and disposing of enriched uranium; and broader understandings affecting Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel has not been a party to the talks, while Israeli officials have been left to repeat that US President Donald Trump understands Israel’s concerns and conditions.

If those reports are true, Trump’s Iran framework is a disaster.

An MoU can be useful when it locks in firm obligations. It is dangerous when it becomes the price of admission for concessions before the hard questions are answered.

A 60-day process may sound orderly, but in the Middle East, 60 days is enough time for facts on the ground to change. Iran can move material, harden facilities, pressure mediators, and present every delay as proof that the other side is acting in bad faith.

Reports of Iran booby-trapping tunnel entrances

Previous reports have stated that Iran has already taken steps to seal off enriched uranium, including collapsing tunnels and booby-trapping entrances. If accurate, it seems like Tehran is preparing to back out after US forces in the region have diminished and there isn’t much to be done.

Leaving ballistic missiles outside the core bargain would make the framework even weaker. Iran does not threaten Israel only through uranium enrichment. It threatens Israel through missiles, drones, Hezbollah, the Houthis, militias in Iraq and Syria, and the infrastructure that allows those forces to keep Israel under fire.

A deal that speaks about nuclear material while failing to confront the delivery systems and regional networks built around it cannot credibly claim to guarantee Israeli security.

The reported possibility of roughly $12b. in financial relief is troubling. Even if the Trump administration insists that money will be released only after Iranian performance, many of those who condemned the Biden administration for unfreezing $6b. in Iranian assets should view this as twice as dangerous.

Tehran does not need a financial lifeline to become moderate. It needs one to rebuild, rearm, stabilize the regime, reward loyal security forces, and restore the proxy networks that Israel and the United States worked to degrade.

Such relief would also betray the Iranian people. They were told that the free world understood the character of the regime ruling over them. They were told that pressure on Tehran was aimed at the men who jail dissidents, brutalize women, impoverish citizens, and spend national wealth on foreign wars.

A repeat of Obama-era agreement

This smells like JCPOA 2.0. The original nuclear deal was sold as a pragmatic way to delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In practice, it gave Tehran time, money, and legitimacy while leaving too much of its regional aggression intact.

The current framework risks repeating the same mistake under a new label: early concessions, vague sequencing, delayed technical talks, hopeful enforcement, and a refusal to confront the full architecture of Iranian power.

It is not enough for Israeli officials to say that Trump understands Israel’s position.

Understanding is not the same as agreement, and agreement is not the same as enforceable language. Israel will face the consequences if Iran cheats, if Hezbollah is strengthened, or if the northern border becomes another arena where Jerusalem is pressed to show restraint while enemies reload.

The reported Lebanon component is deeply troubling. Any concession that pressures Israel toward a cessation of fighting in Lebanon without hard guarantees on Hezbollah disarmament, Iranian funding, and cross-border fire would weaken Israel’s right to defend its citizens.

No state can be expected to outsource the security of its northern communities to promises made by Tehran.

All of this remains speculative. Predicting Trump is difficult even after he announces something, and reported terms can shift quickly.

But if the reports are true, this is not a great deal. It is a dangerous one, and it risks undercutting the enormous American and Israeli effort to weaken Iran’s regime, disrupt its nuclear ambitions, and reduce the threats it poses to Israel, the region, and the world.

US President Donald Trump was assessed by 22 medical specialists in his latest annual medical examination at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on May 26, according to a memorandum released by the Physician to the President, Sean Barbabella. 

This marked the largest number of physicians any president has been examined by in a single checkup, raising concerns among some medical analysts and political commentators about the president’s health as he approaches his 80th birthday, according to a Washington Post analysis.

For reference, this is nearly double the number of specialists who assessed Trump during his prior checkups as president, and more than four times as many as those who assessed former president George H.W. Bush.

A White House official said that the number is necessary to fulfill a “complete and preventative evaluation,” and that “the involvement of multiple specialists reflects a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation consistent with best practices for executive-level medical care,” the Washington Post reported.

“We have nothing to hide,” the official said in the face of public concern over the president’s health.

Physical concerns like bruising, swelling at center of public observation

The three-page memorandum detailed several physical metrics that have been the subject of ongoing public observation.

Trump’s weight was recorded at 238 pounds, reflecting a 14-pound weight gain since his previous examination, and  Barbanella noted lower leg swelling, though the report reflected all-around good health for the president.

Bruises on the president’s hands, which caused concern when they were revealed a few months ago, were described away in the report as consistent with irritation “related to frequent handshaking in the setting of aspirin use for cardiovascular prevention,” representing a “common and benign effect of aspirin therapy.”

“President Trump remains in excellent health, demonstrating strong cardiac, pulmonary, neurological, and overall physical function,” Dr. Sean Barbabella wrote in the memo, adding that Trump is “fully fit to carry out all duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State.”

The United States plans to significantly reduce the aircraft and warships it makes available for NATO operations in Europe, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing two senior European officials.

The decision would limit NATO’s ability to launch long-range strikes and conduct surveillance, the report said.

The US plan includes cutting the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100, reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15, and removing all eight aerial refueling tanker jets it previously made available to Europe, the report said.

The US also aims to redeploy a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions, the New York Times said, adding that one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense may also be reallocated.

“Historically, there has been an over-reliance on US forces and capabilities,” NATO spokesperson Allison Hart told Reuters, adding that as Europe and Canada invest more in defense and develop greater capabilities, the balance of responsibility can shift.

Abandoning singular reliance on US may strengthen NATO 

This would strengthen NATO’s defense by reducing reliance on a single ally and reflect a broader change happening within the alliance, Hart said in an emailed statement.

The US Department of Defense did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The US European Command said in a statement last week that it would “rightsize” its contributions to the NATO Force Model, without providing further details.

Reuters reported in May that the US planned to scale back the military capabilities it would make available to its alliance allies during a major crisis.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has repeatedly accused European governments of underinvesting in ​their militaries and relying too heavily on US protection, while urging both Europe and Asian allies ⁠to boost defense spending to 3.5% of GDP.

The National Parents’ Leadership Association called on the Education Ministry to reject the Teachers’ Union’s ultimatum to limit the integration of children with disabilities into classrooms on Friday.

While teachers are threatening strike action over staffing shortages, parents are attacking the demand and describing it as dangerous discrimination.

In response to threats by Teachers’ Union chairwoman Yaffa Ben-David, the National Parents’ Leadership Association appealed to the Education Ministry’s director-general, demanding that the move be rejected.

“The Parents’ Leadership Association views the Teachers‘ Union’s letter with great concern,” the organization said in a statement. “This is an improper, discriminatory, and dangerous demand that cannot be accepted in an education system committed to the values of equality, inclusion, and acceptance of others. Instead of fighting for additional staffing positions, the Teachers’ Union has chosen to direct the spotlight at the children themselves.”

Parents’ Leadership Association chairman Oren Ozen stated: “The state’s role is to provide teachers with the tools needed for successful integration, not to remove children from the classroom. The education system cannot afford to send a message of exclusion.”

His deputy, Tzofit Golan, added that Ben-David’s message was “outrageous, dangerous, and unacceptable. Anyone lacking a budget should fight for resources, not for the removal of children.”

Teachers’ Union defends objection to student inclusion law

The Teachers’ Union, however, rejected the criticism. Anat Dadon, chairwoman of the union’s Early Childhood Department, responded by saying that the Inclusion Law in its current form is “a tragedy in the making.”

According to Dadon, “The intention behind the law is worthy, the problem lies in the way it is implemented. When a classroom includes five to seven students entitled to individualized support packages, without enough assistance hours and professional staff, educational teams find themselves facing an impossible task. The agreement was for up to two such students per class, but in practice there are two or three times that number.”

She also called on parents to direct their criticism at the government: “The kindergarten teachers and teachers are not the problem. They are doing far more than what is required under impossible conditions. The anger should not be directed at those on the front lines, but at those who made decisions without providing staffing positions and manpower.”

Dadon stressed that the situation primarily harms the students themselves: “This is not a failure of kindergarten teachers, teachers, or parents. It is a failure of policy that was not backed by resources.”

On February 9, 1413, in the third session of the Tortosa Disputation, a converted Jew named Gerónimo de Santa Fé (Yehoshua ben Yosef) stood before Antipope Benedict XIII and produced a line from the Talmud which, he said, proved the Messiah had already come. 

The pope agreed with him. 

A rabbi from Daroca, in the province of Zaragoza, named Joseph Albo cried out, somewhat violently, that it changed nothing. 

“If it was proven to me that the Messiah had already come,” he said, “I would not consider the Jew is worse off.”

It is tempting to read the book Albo wrote afterward as a long version of that outburst, a wall thrown up against Christian pressure. However, Sefer Ha’ikkarim, the Book of Principles, is much more than that; it is one long work in four books, more than 1,700 pages, and the disputation occupies almost none of it. 

Faith, not philosophy, at the center of salvation 

What Albo built is a complete system of Jewish belief, and an unusually readable one. His own foreword says the purpose was not to win an argument but to show what a divine law is and to guide a person toward true happiness.

It reaches English readers in Joseph Albo: Collected Writings, a volume built on Isaac Husik’s complete translation, which has been the standard English text for nearly a century, with a new introduction, as well as the first English version of Albo’s only surviving responsum.

Maimonides had fixed the principles of faith at 13. Hasdai Crescas brought them down to six, and Albo went further still, to three: the existence of God, revelation, and reward and punishment. He meant them as roots, the few truths a divine law cannot stand without, the ones everything else grows from. Reducing them was not a retreat into minimalism. It was an argument about where the weight of the whole structure rests.

Maimonides had placed the perfected intellect at the center of religious life and made knowledge the road to immortality. Crescas rejected that and put the love of God in its place. Albo took the same turn and argued it across hundreds of pages.

What saves a soul, he held, is not speculation but faith, devotion, and the performance of the commandments. “Faith stands higher than speculation,” he wrote, and “miracles are performed for men of faith, and not for men of speculative knowledge.” Eternal life is open to the ordinary believer, not reserved for the philosopher.

To a community that had just watched its scholars dragged onto a stage and its neighbors pressed to convert, unsure of what they still believed, that was no fine distinction. It was a door held open. 

Maimonides had made the mind the path to God. Albo made it faith. That turn, more than any shared persecution, is the real inheritance the two volumes carry.

The longest of the four books is given to the hardest question a believer faces, which is why the faithful suffer. Albo returns to it through Job, through Jeremiah, through the bitter psalm of Asaph. “I cannot forget the sorrow I feel,” he writes there. “Why do the ways of the wicked prosper?”

A scholar who had lived through the massacres of 1391 dedicated his longest book to why the good are afflicted and what in them outlasts the body. That, far more than any polemic, is the book’s center of gravity.

The path he maps is not a grim one. The highest service, he insists, is from love and not from fear, and even the commandments the mind resists should be performed with joy, the way a person digs gladly for buried treasure. 

Albo wanted a faith a person could live inside, not merely assent to.

Husik, whose translation this is, calls Albo a compiler, and the charge has weight. He drew whole discussions from Crescas, from Simeon ben Zemah Duran, who had already named the same three principles, and from Aristotle, often without credit. The originality of the Ikkarim is not in its raw materials. It is in the order he imposed on them and in the plain preacher’s voice that carried hard ideas to people who needed them.

The polemic is present, but it is one room in a large house. 

In the 25th chapter of the third book, Albo takes apart the Trinity, the incarnation, and the Eucharist on rational grounds, and for centuries censors cut that chapter from the printed editions, keeping his praise of the Torah and deleting his attack on Christianity. Husik’s critical text restores it. 

The single responsum that closes the volume shows the same mind in Halacha. A woman twice widowed, one husband killed in the 1391 massacre at Valencia, is freed to marry again because, Albo rules, a death decreed upon a whole community is not the verdict of one woman’s fate. He learned the ruling, he notes, from Crescas.

Albo ended his book on the priestly blessing, on the last three words, “and give you peace.”

Material prosperity and the perfection of wisdom pull against each other, he writes, and a person is the place where they collide. Peace is the name for their reconciliation, and it is also a name of God.

JOSEPH ALBO: COLLECTED WRITINGS
Edited by Shira Weiss 
Library of the Jewish People/Koren 
1,766 pages; NIS 180

In the 1850s and ’60s, countries throughout the world experienced an unprecedented economic boom. The GDPs of England, France, Germany, and the United States almost doubled, while global trade expanded fivefold. Capital investment, in the form of bonds, often for railroad construction, fueled the surge. In the early 1870s, what had become a speculative bubble burst; markets crashed, railroads and governments defaulted. This was followed by a global depression and decades of deflation.

In 1873, Liaquat Ahamed (a former investment manager based in London and New York and author of Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World) provided an informative and accessible analysis of the first international financial crisis of the modern era.

Throughout his research, Ahamed reported, “one name kept reappearing: Rothschild.” 

The Rothschild family, having made its fortune during the Napoleonic wars of the early 1800s, had established banks in London, Paris, Vienna, and Frankfurt, playing a dominant role in raising capital for governments and private corporations. The richest family in the world by the middle of the 19th century, the Rothschilds owned 41 mansions in the most coveted locales in Europe. Via their reputation and power, Ahamed writes, they evoked an “aura,” often perceived as an “ominous presence,” as the crisis – which, he writes, “offers unsettling parallels to our current economic woes” – unfolded.

Determined to preserve cohesion and accumulate capital across the generations, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, Ahamed indicates, mandated that Rothschild women receive modest dowries. Their husbands could not join the business, and only direct male descendants could become partners. 

Although brothers and cousins were not obliged to do so, they were encouraged to co-invest with one another. And to plow profits back into their banks.

Mayer also strongly supported marriages within the wider family.

Most importantly, the Rothschilds burnished their reputation by doing due diligence to satisfy themselves that their investments would produce results; and backing this judgment with their own money in cases of financial stress. Of 41 bonds their banks underwrote between 1860 and 1885, not a single one defaulted.

For these reasons, perhaps, the Rothschilds were considered “on par” with the great royal families of Europe before the depression of ’73. 

At the funeral of James Rothschild in 1867, for example, 40,000 Parisians lined the three-mile route from his home to the cemetery. La France praised him as “the king of bankers and the banker of kings.”

Although the deflationary impact of the depression persisted throughout the 1870s, exacerbated by the demonetization of silver in several countries, the Rothschilds weathered the storm remarkably well.  

Rothschild bankers made substantial profits, for example, by supplying prime minister Benjamin Disraeli with funds to purchase shares in the Suez Canal from Khedive Ismail Pasha and by underwriting French indemnity bonds. In the 1880s and ’90s, the family branched out even further with investments in South Africa, South America, Burma, Bengal, railways in the Mediterranean, and subways in New York City.

That said, a growing number of Europeans blamed Jews for the depression. In Germany, where Jews owned many banking houses, newspapers and wholesale and retail companies, “antisemitism rose as the stock market fell.” 

Surprisingly, however, most critics focused on Gerson von Bleichröder, Bismarck’s personal banker, rather than the Rothschilds. Alleging an 18,000 year-long Jewish conspiracy to control the world, Wilhelm Marr coined the term “Antisemitismus.” His book became a bestseller.

Nonetheless, the furor died down in 1880, when dozens of distinguished citizens publicly opposed anti-Jewish legislation.  Antisemitism would remain dormant in Germany, Ahamed writes, “only to erupt in more venomous form during a later time of crisis.”

Rothschilds prevented collapse of Paris

In France, even though a $20 million bailout, funded predominantly by the Rothschilds, prevented the collapse of the Paris Bourse, brokers arrested for fraud claimed they were victims of a cabal of German Jewish bankers. 

Their allegations were taken up by journalist Edouard Dumont in a two-volume, 1,200-page screed that also became a runaway bestseller. Attacking hundreds of Jewish families by name, Dumont reserved a special place in hell for the Rothschilds, who, he declared, “despite their billions have the air of second-hand clothes dealers. Their wives, despite all the diamonds of Golconda [a metaphor for inexhaustible wealth], will always look like merchants in their toilet.” 

In 1892, Dumont founded a newspaper, La Libre Parole, which broke the story of Alfred Dreyfuss’s arrest for espionage and became the loudest antisemitic voice in France.

In the aftermath of another depression, which began in 1893, a loan brokered by J.P Morgan and the Rothschilds stabilized the finances of the United States. Nonetheless, Populists charged that the demonetization of silver had been a plot by government bondholders, Treasury Department officials, and Jewish foreign bankers, “tacking on an elaborate fantasy about the malevolent influence of the Rothschilds,” who until this time were not all that well known. 

“Coin’s Financial School,” a pamphlet by William Hope Harvey, a journalist in Chicago, featured a cartoon of a giant octopus, labelled “The Rothschilds,” sucking wealth out of every part of the world. William Jennings Bryan, who would be the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 1896, asserted, “We cannot afford to put ourselves in the hands of the Rothschilds, who hold mortgages on most of the thrones of Europe.”

By then, Ahamed points out, massive discoveries of gold in South Africa and the United States ended the drought that “had weighed so heavily on the global economy since 1873, and the great deflation that it had wrought was finally over.”

In the 20th century, however, the scourge of antisemitism was neither gone nor forgotten.

The reviewer is The Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.