Feed aggregator

Pence Slams Trump’s Iran Deal as ‘Appeasement,’ Warns Tehran Can’t Be Trusted

Matzav -

Former Vice President Mike Pence sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s emerging agreement with Iran on Tuesday, arguing that the proposed arrangement raises serious concerns and resembles a policy of appeasement toward a longtime adversary.

Appearing on CNN’s “The Source,” Pence said he supported Trump’s past decisions to take military action against Iran’s leadership but expressed deep skepticism about any agreement that would ease pressure on the regime.

Pence said, “Iran has been at war with the United States, and our cherished ally Israel, for 47 years. And I strongly supported, the president’s decision for the first time in modern history to take the fight directly to the mullahs in Tehran last year. And then again, this year. And I do believe the president has earned some latitude in negotiating an end to hostilities. But I have very real concerns. I look like apparently an awful lot of people on this, I just don’t trust the Iranians. I’ve been quite close to those issues from my time in the White House, many briefings in the Situation Room, as well as my years on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House. So I’ve been the Iranians, particularly with regard to their nuclear ambition, have essentially a legacy of lies.”

While acknowledging that Trump has earned the right to pursue diplomatic efforts after confronting Iran militarily, Pence cautioned that Tehran’s long record of deception should make any agreement subject to intense scrutiny.

He added, “At least what we’re hearing echo out of this, this potential memorandum of understanding, it smacks of appeasement. I mean, it sounds a bit like what I write about in my book that, the progressive left has long embraced, appeasement against our adversaries like Iran. But there are voices on the populist right that would have us pull back from our role as leader in the free world. I don’t think this is the time to pull back. I don’t think this is a moment for appeasement. And I think, I would urge the president to stand firm on the fundamental elements that Iran has to dismantle and abandon its nuclear program, dismantle its ballistic missile program, renounce the support of terrorist organizations, and restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Pence argued that the United States should maintain a hard-line approach toward Iran and insisted that any final agreement must require the regime to permanently end its nuclear ambitions, eliminate its ballistic missile capabilities, stop supporting terrorist groups, and guarantee free passage through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

{Matzav.com}

Knesset Advances Bill to Seize PA Terror Funds for October 7 Victims

Matzav -

The Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee moved forward Tuesday with legislation that would withhold certain funds destined for the Palestinian Authority and redirect them toward compensating victims of terrorism, including families affected by the October 7 massacre.

The proposal, which cleared the committee for a first reading, was advanced under the leadership of committee chairman MK Boaz Bismuth and sponsored by MK Moshe Passal. Under the bill, Israel would annually freeze an amount equal to the funds the Palestinian Authority transferred to Gaza during the previous year. The withheld money would then be allocated to compensate victims of terrorism originating from the Gaza Strip.

The hearing opened with testimony from bereaved families whose relatives were murdered in the October 7 attacks. Family members urged lawmakers to approve the measure. Following the public portion of the session, committee members held a closed-door discussion in which representatives of relevant government agencies and ministries presented their assessments.

Ben Zoherman, whose father was killed at the Sha’ar HaNegev Junction during the October 7 assault, described the uncertainty his family continues to face. “I don’t know where the terrorist who murdered my father is today. We know that some of the terrorists operating at that junction returned to Gaza that same day. I don’t know if justice will ever be served, and I don’t know who can be held accountable.”

Zoherman also said that some victims’ families fall outside existing support programs, leaving them feeling abandoned and without sufficient assistance. Galit Shopen, whose brother Ziv Shopen was murdered in Kibbutz Be’eri, voiced support for the legislation, saying, “No amount of money will fill the void Ziv left behind, nor can it restore what we lost. But if there are funds originating from entities that for years encouraged, supported, or rewarded terror-related activities, I believe it is right and just that these funds be channeled to compensate the families of terror victims and aid those harmed by acts of terror.”

Moshe Saville of the OneFamily organization told committee members that his group assists thousands of victims of terrorism and war and believes the legislation addresses a real and pressing need among bereaved families.

“Nothing will bring back those we lost. No amount of money in the world can erase the pain or blur the loss. But it can grant the families a modicum of peace, a bit of stability, and some breathing room amid the harsh reality they live in,” said Saville.

During the deliberations, a representative of the Justice Ministry raised several legal concerns regarding the application of the bill to victims of the October 7 attacks. She explained that existing law already allows the Palestinian Authority to be sued for damages when it can be demonstrated that it transferred funds to an individual who carried out a terrorist attack. According to her, court precedents have established that even a single payment to a terrorist may be sufficient to create the legal connection required for liability.

The ministry representative added that significant legal and factual questions remain regarding the Palestinian Authority’s direct connection to the October 7 massacre and whether any of the attackers had previously received payments from the PA. Based on information currently available, she said, many of the terrorists involved in the attack likely did not receive such payments, making it difficult to establish the legal link necessary to connect the frozen funds to those who participated in the massacre.

{Matzav.com}

Senate Shields Trump’s Iran War Authority in Nail-Biter Vote

Matzav -

The Senate narrowly rejected an effort Tuesday to limit President Donald Trump’s authority to conduct military operations against Iran without prior approval from Congress, preserving the White House’s flexibility to act in the escalating regional conflict.

Lawmakers backing the proposal sought to require the president to obtain explicit authorization from Congress before launching any additional military action involving Iran.

The measure failed by the slimmest of margins, with senators voting 48-47 against advancing the War Powers resolution for floor consideration. Democratic Senator John Fetterman crossed party lines and voted against the effort, providing the decisive vote. Meanwhile, Republican Senators Rand Paul, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins broke with their party and joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.

Tuesday’s vote represented the Senate’s ninth consideration this year of legislation aimed at reining in presidential war powers related to Iran. Most of those initiatives have fallen short, although one proposal succeeded in clearing the chamber last month by a vote of 50-47.

The debate follows action in the House of Representatives earlier this month, where lawmakers approved legislation intended to restrict Trump’s authority to undertake military operations connected to the conflict with Iran.

That House vote came after three previous attempts to pass similar legislation had failed to gain enough support.

The measure ultimately passed the House by a 215-208 margin. Four Republicans — Representatives Thomas Massie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Tom Barrett, and Warren Davidson — joined Democrats in backing the effort, voting against their party’s leadership on the issue.

{Matzav.com}

Vance Stresses: Iran Won’t Get Unfrozen Funds Without Behavior Changes

Matzav -

Vice President JD Vance sought to ease concerns Tuesday over the emerging agreement between the United States and Iran, arguing that critics are mischaracterizing the arrangement and insisting that Tehran will not gain access to financial benefits unless it demonstrates meaningful changes in behavior.

During an interview with Megyn Kelly, Vance emphasized that any economic incentives tied to the agreement would be conditional and closely tied to Iran’s actions moving forward.

“It is a regional peace deal. It’s going to include the Gulf. It’s going to include Israel. It’s going to include Lebanon,” explained Vance, who also stated, “If Iran is funding Hezbollah, we’re not going to allow a bunch of unfrozen assets to flow to the Iranians.”

To illustrate his point, Vance pointed to the United Arab Emirates, describing the nation as “one of the best allies that we’ve had in the region.”

JD Vance on the Iran peace deal:

Somebody said, I forget who, but somebody said, you know, this is like doing the Marshall Plan when the Nazis are still in control. And that's wrong on a few different ways.

Number one, the Marshall Plan was a lot of American tax money. This is… pic.twitter.com/0zWIhJBh8j

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 16, 2026

“Let’s say that they want to invest in a nuclear power plant in Iran. They really can’t do that without us lifting some of the sanctions that exist in the global financial system to make that possible. Now, are the Emiratis going to invest in Iran, or is America going to let the Emiratis invest in Iran? Unless the Iranians change their behavior? No.”

Vance argued that opponents of the agreement are incorrectly portraying the arrangement as a direct financial windfall for Tehran.

“So all these people say, ‘Well, you know, you’re giving Iran money.’ No, no, no. We’re saying that if the Iranians change their behavior, we’re gonna let some of these other countries invest in rebuilding their country and creating some prosperity for their people. That’s like a good thing, right?” Vance asserted.

The vice president also dismissed comparisons between the proposed Iran arrangement and the post-World War II Marshall Plan, responding to criticism that has circulated in recent days, including remarks from Lindsey Graham, though Vance did not identify him directly.

“Somebody said, I forget who, but somebody said, you know, this is like doing the Marshall Plan when the Nazis are still in control. And that’s wrong on a few different ways,” said Vance.

“Number one, the Marshall Plan was a lot of American tax money. This is not American tax money. Number two, we’re saying you only get the benefits of the bargain if you change your behavior. If that happens, we’re talking about a transformed Middle East. That’s a great legacy for the president, but more importantly, it’s a great one for the American people,” he stated.

As debate over the agreement intensified, the Saudi-based news outlet Al Arabiya published what it said was the full text of a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran. The document reportedly lays out a broad package of economic incentives and commitments that could significantly benefit Iran.

Among the provisions described in the report are steps by the United States to end restrictions on Iranian maritime activity, facilitate the restoration of shipping routes, and allow the export of Iranian crude oil, petrochemicals, and related products through sanctions waivers that would reportedly take effect immediately after the agreement is signed.

The reported memorandum also outlines a massive economic development initiative, under which the United States and regional allies would help create a reconstruction and investment program for Iran valued at no less than $300 billion.

Additionally, the document claims that Washington would work toward the eventual removal of all sanctions imposed on Iran—including U.S. sanctions and international penalties—according to a schedule that would be negotiated at a later date.

President Donald Trump on Monday forcefully rejected reports claiming that the agreement would provide Iran with an unconditional $300 billion payout.

Writing on Truth Social, Trump also asserted that Iran had committed to permanently forgoing nuclear weapons.

“Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon! Also, the story that the U.S. is paying Iran 300 million Dollars is Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats!!! President DJT,” he wrote.

{Matzav.com}

Hillary’s Stunning Rebuke: Biden’s 2024 Run Was a ‘Terrible Mistake’

Matzav -

Hillary Clinton is openly blaming President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection in 2024 for the Democrats’ loss to President Trump, arguing that his choice damaged both the country and his own historical legacy.

Speaking during a conversation with New Yorker editor David Remnick at the 92nd Street Y in New York, Clinton delivered one of her sharpest critiques yet of Biden’s decision to remain in the race despite growing concerns within his party.

“He made a terrible mistake,” Clinton told Remnick. “He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy, and for the country.”

According to Clinton, a competitive Democratic primary would have produced a stronger nominee capable of defeating Trump in the general election.

“We would have had a real contest,” she mused about what would’ve happened if Biden didn’t run. “And very sadly I believe whoever emerged from that contest, whether it was the vice president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, would have beaten Donald Trump.”

She concluded that Biden’s political judgment on the matter was deeply flawed.

“So I think it was a terrible miscalculation on the part of President Biden.”

Clinton’s comments mark a significant shift from her earlier stance. In 2023, when asked whether Biden should pursue a second term, she voiced support for whatever decision he chose to make.

“I think he’s done a really terrific job and so yes, I want him to run if that’s what he wants to do, and of course, I’ll support him,” she told Forbes in 2023.

Even after Biden’s widely criticized debate performance against Trump in 2024 intensified concerns among Democrats, Clinton continued to stand by him publicly while pressure mounted within the party for him to withdraw.

The political backdrop was especially notable given Clinton’s own history with Trump. She was defeated by him in the 2016 presidential election, while Biden later defeated Trump in 2020. Many members of Biden’s inner circle believed he remained the Democrat best positioned to defeat Trump again.

In the months since the election, however, a growing number of Biden allies have acknowledged that seeking another term may have been a mistake.

Among them is former first lady Jill Biden, who recently indicated that, if given another chance, she would have encouraged her husband not to run again.

Clinton also referenced Biden’s pledge during the 2020 campaign that he would serve as a transitional figure for the Democratic Party and help usher in a younger generation of leaders.

“Once he didn’t move and did not admit that he had said he was going to step aside and decided not to and held on for as long as he did, we were in a terrible dilemma,” she stressed.

Biden eventually ended his campaign on July 21, 2024, leaving then-Vice President Kamala Harris just 107 days to mount a presidential campaign against Trump as the Democratic nominee.

{Matzav.com}

Keren Olam HaTorah Unveils Plan to Protect Yeshiva Funding Amid Donation Crisis

Matzav -

As concerns mount over the future of charitable giving to yeshivos, Keren Olam HaTorah is quietly advancing a new strategy designed to preserve financial support for Torah institutions despite the growing controversy surrounding Section 46 tax benefits.

The fund, which has played a key role in helping yeshivos and kollelim offset severe budget cuts resulting from the ongoing battle over the draft law, is now working to ensure that support for Torah institutions continues even as legal and regulatory challenges threaten a major source of donations.

Tax Benefit Freeze Sparks Concern

The current crisis began at the end of May, when Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara ordered an immediate halt to tax credits for donations made to chareidi institutions that include students classified as eligible for military service.

The decision sent shockwaves through the yeshiva world, where many institutions feared a substantial decline in donations tied to the tax incentives provided under Section 46 of Israeli law.

A New Framework Emerges

Now, for the first time, details are emerging about a framework being developed by Keren Olam HaTorah to help prevent disruptions to the flow of charitable contributions.

According to a letter sent to roshei yeshiva and institutional leaders, and obtained by Kikar HaShabbos, the fund consulted extensively with accountants and professionals specializing in nonprofit organizations and tax law before formulating its approach.

The letter explains that institutions which, based on individualized legal advice, choose not to include certain students on reports submitted to government authorities will not lose their eligibility for support from the fund.

Funding Will Continue

According to the letter, even an institution that elects to continue omitting such students from its official enrollment reports will remain eligible for assistance from Keren Olam HaTorah.

The fund indicated that it would explore alternative mechanisms for transferring support to those institutions, ensuring that funding can continue despite the evolving legal landscape.

At the same time, the organization stressed that it is not instructing institutions to adopt any specific course of action.

Providing Options, Not Directives

Fund officials emphasized that the initiative should not be viewed as a recommendation or directive. Rather, they described it as an effort to provide institutions with practical tools to navigate the complex legal realities that have emerged following the attorney general’s decision.

The move comes amid significant disagreement among legal advisers and accountants serving chareidi institutions, many of whom have offered differing opinions regarding how best to respond to the new restrictions.

As uncertainty continues to surround the future of donation-related tax benefits, Keren Olam HaTorah’s proposal represents the first major attempt to establish a broad-based solution aimed at protecting financial support for the yeshiva world.

{Matzav.com}

Iran Insists US Agreement Hinges on Israel Leaving Lebanon

Matzav -

A fragile agreement aimed at ending the war between the United States and Iran has encountered a major new obstacle after Tehran insisted that any final settlement must include an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon — a demand Israel has already rejected and one that threatens to unravel the entire accord.

Although the proposed U.S.-Iran agreement has not been officially released, portions of what is believed to be a draft surfaced in media reports Tuesday. At the same time, conflicting statements from various officials have fueled uncertainty about the deal’s actual terms.

While Israel is not a signatory to the agreement, it remains deeply involved in the broader conflict after joining the United States in strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. Israel has also been engaged in combat against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terror organization in Lebanon, and currently controls significant territory there.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared Tuesday that Israel’s continued military presence in southern Lebanon is incompatible with the proposed agreement.

“Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end,” Araghchi said.

That position directly contradicts statements from both Washington and Jerusalem. A U.S. official familiar with the framework of the agreement, speaking anonymously, said the deal contains no provision requiring Israeli forces to leave Lebanon. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated Monday that Israeli troops would remain there “as long as necessary.”

Efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict have repeatedly run into disputes of this kind. Previous disagreements resulted in an extended but fragile ceasefire that never evolved into a lasting peace agreement. The uncertainty has also left the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most important energy corridors — effectively closed.

Meanwhile, Switzerland announced that a formal signing ceremony is expected to take place Friday at the Bürgenstock resort near Luzern. Swiss officials said the venue was jointly proposed by mediators from Pakistan and Qatar, along with representatives from the United States and Iran.

Pakistani officials have maintained that the framework agreement requires a halt to military operations across the region, including in Lebanon, a longstanding Iranian demand. Araghchi’s latest remarks, however, suggest that the issue remains unresolved.

The dispute places Israel in a difficult position as it seeks to continue weakening Hezbollah while avoiding a clash with a diplomatic initiative strongly backed by the United States. Israel entered southern Lebanon after Hezbollah launched missile attacks across the border during the opening days of the war. Since then, Israeli forces have expanded their operations dramatically and carried out strikes deep within Beirut.

Despite suffering significant setbacks, Hezbollah retains substantial military capabilities, raising ongoing questions about whether Israel’s campaign has achieved its long-term objectives.

As of Tuesday evening, Netanyahu had not yet reviewed the memorandum of understanding negotiated between Washington and Tehran, according to an individual familiar with the matter who spoke anonymously. A second source said Israeli officials had not requested a copy of the document from American negotiators.

Netanyahu’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The White House likewise declined to say whether Israeli leaders had examined the agreement.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter told NPR that Israel remains unaware of the deal’s full contents but argued that any linkage to Lebanon is “unnecessary and unhelpful.”

The situation has at times exposed tensions between Israeli leadership and President Trump. Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Trump criticized Israel’s conduct in Lebanon and expressed frustration with the ongoing campaign.

“not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah.”

“It just goes on forever,” he said of Israel’s strategy.

The fighting has taken a heavy toll. Israeli operations in Lebanon have reportedly killed nearly 4,000 people, including hundreds of civilians, and forced more than one million residents from their homes.

“Israel’s fighting Hezbollah too long, and too many people are being killed,” Trump said.

Separately, Israel and the Lebanese government have held direct talks under American mediation. Hezbollah has not participated in those discussions. Although several ceasefires have been announced through those channels, none have been fully implemented.

At the outset of negotiations, Lebanese officials sought to distance themselves from the broader U.S.-Iran talks, hoping to avoid the perception that Beirut was acting under Tehran’s influence. More recently, however, they have welcomed indications that any regional settlement could include a ceasefire on Lebanese territory.

Araghchi’s comments appear consistent with the understanding of two regional officials who have direct knowledge of the negotiations. According to those sources, the agreement would require Israel to withdraw from nearly all territory captured during the conflict, while allowing it to retain several strategic hilltop positions near the border.

Those officials also said Iran made Lebanon a central issue during the final phase of negotiations and insisted that it be incorporated into the accord.

The United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, reported that hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah continue, though at a far lower intensity than earlier in the conflict. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Tuesday that exchanges of fire remain ongoing but at a “significantly reduced level.”

Lebanon remains just one of several unresolved issues hanging over the proposed agreement before its anticipated signing ceremony.

The accord is intended to halt a months-long conflict that has claimed thousands of lives throughout the Middle East, including senior figures within Iran’s ruling establishment, while also driving up the cost of fuel, food, and other essential goods around the world.

According to a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters Monday, the agreement calls for the “immediate” reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the removal of the American naval blockade surrounding Iranian ports.

Pakistani officials involved in the negotiations similarly described a coordinated reopening of the strait and an end to U.S. maritime restrictions.

Following that step, the United States and Iran are expected to enter a 60-day negotiating period focused on Tehran’s nuclear program and the possible easing of sanctions, according to Pakistani officials familiar with the unpublished text.

The agreement also reportedly includes provisions that could unlock frozen Iranian assets and establish a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran if the regime satisfies specific requirements. Senior U.S. officials discussed those possibilities Monday, though Trump later emphasized that the United States would not “invest” funds in Iran.

Regional officials said the release of frozen assets would be tied directly to Iran’s compliance with the agreement. They added that Gulf Arab nations have committed to investing billions of dollars in Iran’s economy if the accord moves forward.

Questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities remain among the most contentious aspects of the deal. U.S. officials have yet to explain how compliance would be verified, who would oversee inspections, or how highly enriched uranium stored beneath damaged nuclear facilities would be removed or destroyed.

According to regional sources, Iran has signaled a willingness to discuss options to “dilute or remove” the uranium. Whether Tehran ultimately agrees to such measures remains uncertain, particularly given resistance from hard-line factions within the country. Vice President JD Vance said Monday that international nuclear inspectors would return to Iran as the agreement advances.

Trump also indicated he would be willing to submit the developing agreement to Congress for review.

Speaking during the Group of Seven summit in the French Alps, Trump said, “I like the idea, send it to Congress please.”

He added, “I mean who wouldn’t approve it.”

Republican lawmakers have urged the administration to provide additional details about the agreement, with some expressing doubts that the proposed framework will be sufficient to prevent Iran from eventually obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Pages

Subscribe to NativUSA Portal aggregator