Feed aggregator

Sen. Ted Cruz said the United States should press forward with its military campaign against Iran until the current leadership is removed, arguing that recent operations have already dealt a major blow to the regime.

Cruz made the remarks during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Jesse Watters Primetime,” where he was asked about the direction of negotiations in the coming days.

“Senator, these negotiations, what do you expect this week?” host Jesse Watters asked.

Responding, Cruz pointed to what he described as significant military achievements over the past three weeks. “Well, listen, the first three weeks of this military conflict have been incredibly successful. In three weeks, we have taken out all of Iran’s air defenses. We’ve taken out virtually every one of their short range and medium range ballistic missiles. We’ve taken out their missile production capacity. We’ve taken out their drone capacity. We’ve taken out their drone manufacturing. You look at what we’ve done to the Navy. We’ve had over 8,000 strikes in Iran and on the Navy, we have sunk more than 120 ships. This is the largest naval defeat, the most ships sunk since World War II. That’s in three weeks. And in addition to that, we have decapitated the regime, taking out not just the Ayatollah, but the senior military leaders, the mullahs, who have been tyrants in that country for 47 years. The outcome, I believe, should be simple and straightforward.”

He went on to describe what he believes should follow from the military campaign, emphasizing the need for a different type of leadership in Iran. “We want to see a government in Iran that is not run by crazed Islamists who lead mobs chanting, ‘Death to America,’” he continued. “We want a government that is not the largest funder of terrorism in the world, that is not giving 90 percent of the funding to Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and we want a government that is not murdering Americans. The Iranian regime has killed nearly 1,000 Americans. The Ayatollah twice hired hit men trying to kill President Trump, and so President Trump has reacted with strength that is making America much safer. As you noted, the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has been trying to put economic pressure on the world, and the President responded with an ultimatum, you open the Strait of Hormuz or you will face crushing economic blows to Iran. I think that got their attention, and the President said, we made some progress. I’m hopeful that’s right.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday that he regrets describing Israel as an “apartheid” state, while at the same time making clear his strong opposition to the leadership of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

The initial comments came earlier this month during an appearance on a political podcast, where Newsom indicated agreement with claims labeling Israel an “apartheid state” and raised questions about continued U.S. military assistance.

In that discussion, Newsom also suggested that Israel’s role in influencing U.S. strikes against Iran was obvious, and he directed pointed criticism at Netanyahu.

“The issue of Bibi is interesting because he’s got his own domestic issues. He’s trying to stay out of jail, he’s got an election coming up, he’s potentially on the ropes, he’s got folks, the hard line, that want to annex the West Bank,” said Newsom, adding that “others are talking about it appropriately as sort of an apartheid state.”

When asked during the podcast whether Washington should reconsider its military support for Israel, Newsom responded, “It breaks my heart, because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice.”

In remarks published Tuesday in an interview with Politico, Newsom struck a more measured tone and clarified his views.

Responding to a question about whether he identifies as a Zionist, Newsom said, “I revere the state of Israel. I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far-right as it relates to what’s going on in the West Bank.”

Pressed on whether he regretted using the term “apartheid,” Newsom acknowledged that he did, explaining the context in which he used it. “I do in this context. I said it, and I referenced why I used it – a Tom Friedman article – in that same sentence where Tom used it in the context of the direction that Bibi is going.”

Newsom was referring to a column by New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, who argued that if the conflict with Iran helps Netanyahu secure victory in upcoming elections, it could accelerate policies he believes would fundamentally alter Israel’s character.

In that piece, Friedman wrote that such an outcome would “be a major propellant to his efforts to annex the West Bank, cripple the Israeli Supreme Court and make Israel an apartheid state.”

Expanding on that point, Newsom told Politico that he shares those concerns about Israel’s trajectory under its current leadership.

“That is a legitimate concern I have, that I share with Tom – that that direction, if that vision and that direction of the far right that Bibi is indulging, that if they see the full annexation of the West Bank, then that’s not something – that’s a word you may hear others use.”

{Matzav.com}

Iranian officials have conveyed to the Trump administration that they are unwilling to resume negotiations with special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, instead indicating a preference to deal with Vice President JD Vance, according to two regional sources who spoke with CNN on Tuesday.

The communication, delivered through indirect diplomatic channels, reflects Tehran’s view that talks involving Witkoff and Kushner would likely be unproductive. Iranian leaders reportedly believe that trust has eroded following the collapse of earlier negotiations that preceded military action by Israel and the United States.

Sources said that Vance is seen differently by Iranian officials. Compared to Witkoff, Kushner, and even Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he is perceived as more inclined toward ending the conflict.

“The perception is that Vance would be intent on wrapping up the conflict,” one of the sources told CNN.

At the same time, regional observers acknowledge that involving Vance carries its own challenges, noting that reaching a resolution to the conflict would be complex and difficult regardless of who leads the talks.

Despite Iran’s stated preferences, Witkoff continues to play a central role in U.S. diplomatic efforts. The sources added that Tehran may ultimately have little choice but to negotiate with whichever representatives are appointed by the Trump administration.

Reports surfaced last week claiming that a direct line of communication between Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had been reopened. However, Araghchi publicly rejected that assertion.

Witkoff recently disclosed that during discussions over a potential nuclear agreement, Iranian officials claimed they had the capability to produce 11 nuclear weapons.

In an appearance on Fox News with Sean Hannity, Witkoff also said it was evident from those discussions that Iran had no real intention of reaching an agreement.

Earlier Tuesday, President Donald Trump stated that all senior members of his diplomatic team are taking part in the ongoing negotiations.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that the decision over who represents the United States rests solely with the president.

“President Trump and only President Trump determines who negotiates on behalf of the United States. As the President stated today, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Witkoff, and Mr. Kushner will all be involved,” Leavitt said.

Looking ahead, a potential meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials later this week in Islamabad remains under consideration. However, even those supporting the idea are doubtful that it will ultimately take place, according to the sources.

In a separate report, Axios indicated that Iranian officials have told mediating countries that they feel they have already been misled twice by Trump and are wary of repeating that experience, saying “we don’t want to be fooled again.”

{Matzav.com}

A political and religious dispute intensified following the Knesset’s approval of a law expanding the authority of rabbinical courts, after former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett vowed to repeal the legislation if he returns to power.

The law, which passed its second and third readings in the Knesset plenum, allows rabbinical courts to adjudicate financial disputes as arbitrators with the consent of both parties. Bennett sharply criticized the measure, labeling it a “disgrace law” and declaring that he would act to overturn it immediately upon forming a new government, warning against what he described as the creation of “a state within a state.”

MK Moshe Gafni, chairman of Degel HaTorah, responded forcefully to Bennett’s remarks, calling them an embarrassment and defending the law as a measure that simply grants individuals the option to resolve disputes according to Torah law. He argued that the legislation respects both the Jewish and democratic character of the state. “It would be appropriate for opposition leaders to first focus on building public trust before making declarations about repealing laws in a desperate attempt to stand out,” Gafni said.

Gafni also pointed out that earlier proponents of similar legislation included prominent figures from the religious Zionist camp, such as Rabbi Yitzhak Levy and Rabbi Zevulun Orlev, who come from the same ideological background as Bennett. He compared the current opposition to past resistance against legislation regulating chametz in hospitals, arguing that it reflects an ongoing anti-Jewish agenda presented under the guise of democracy.

According to Gafni, Bennett is deliberately misleading the public about the nature of the law, emphasizing that it is based solely on voluntary consent and does not impose religious adjudication on anyone. He reiterated his criticism, stating: “It would be appropriate for opposition leaders to first focus on building public trust and bringing in voters, before making declarations about future coalitions and repealing laws, in a desperate attempt to stand out within the opposition bloc.”

{Matzav.com}