A DECADE LATTER

Trump’s Two Terms Have Been a Direct Reversal of the Obama Doctrine

The foreign policy approach that defined the Obama years—and was largely continued under Biden—rested on the belief that limited U.S. pressure, sanctions relief, and selective engagement would moderate Iran, contain jihadist groups, and stabilize the Middle East without large-scale American commitments. The results fell short of those aims and left durable problems that subsequent administrations have had to manage.

Under Obama, the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran exchanged temporary constraints on enrichment for the release of tens of billions of dollars in previously frozen Iranian assets and broader sanctions relief. Tehran retained its nuclear infrastructure and knowledge base while using the financial breathing room to expand support for its proxy network. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen all increased their arsenals and operational reach during and after this period. At the same time, ISIS expanded rapidly after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and amid the Syrian civil war, seizing territory, declaring a caliphate, and directing or inspiring attacks far beyond the region. The administration’s response degraded the group but did not prevent its peak expansion or fully eliminate residual networks. Domestic border enforcement also loosened relative to earlier standards, contributing to rising illegal crossings that later accelerated.

Obama’s Third Term: A New President, the Same Playbook

In November 2020 during an interview by Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Obama said: 

“People would ask me, ‘Knowing what you know now, do you wish you had a third term?’ And I used to say, ‘You know what? If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony, I’d be fine with that.’” 

Then, with the help of the Russian Hoax—built on a fake intelligence report paid for by Hillary Clinton—Obama got his wish: the same officials and the same failed doctrine were installed under a stand-in president.

Biden’s term largely extended the same framework. Efforts to re-engage Iran on the nuclear file, combined with uneven sanctions enforcement, allowed Iranian oil sales and revenue streams to recover. Those funds continued to flow toward proxy groups that stockpiled missiles, drones, and rockets later used against Israel, U.S. forces, and commercial shipping. ISIS remnants persisted in remote areas. Illegal immigration across the southern border reached record levels for several years, straining resources and enforcement capacity. Critics labeled the administration’s internal decision-making process as heavily reliant on staff and automated tools—an “auto-pen” presidency—while core policy continuity with the prior Democratic approach remained visible on Iran, regional proxies, and border measures.

The Downstream Costs

Those policy choices carried measurable costs that extended well beyond the original theater.

Containing and ultimately confronting Iran’s nuclear program has required sustained diplomatic, economic, and military effort. Years of sanctions relief and incomplete verification left Iran with advanced centrifuges, enriched uranium stockpiles, and hardened facilities. Subsequent administrations have faced the expense of rebuilt sanctions regimes, intelligence operations, defensive systems for partners, and, more recently, direct measures to set back enrichment and related infrastructure. Each increment of Iranian progress raised the price of later action.

Iran’s financial and material support for Hamas enabled the group’s military buildup in Gaza—tunnels, rockets, and trained cadres—that culminated in the October 7, 2023 attack. That assault killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, took more than 200 hostages, and triggered a wider war whose regional effects continue. The resources Hamas used were not generated in isolation; they traced in significant part to the revenue and supply lines that remained available under the earlier sanctions posture.

In Europe, the combination of Middle East instability, jihadist networks, and large-scale migration has produced repeated security incidents, integration failures, and political strain. Terror attacks, grooming scandals, parallel societies, and rising support for parties demanding stricter controls have become recurring features of European politics. While not every migrant flow originated in the Obama-era conflicts, the incomplete containment of ISIS, the persistence of Iranian-backed militias, and the broader regional disorder contributed to displacement and radicalization that crossed into European cities.

Trump’s Reversal: A New Direction, a Different Playbook

Trump’s first term (2017–2021) and the opening phase of his second term have focused on reversing these specific elements. In the first term, the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, reimposed and expanded sanctions, and designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Iranian oil revenue declined and proxy funding was constrained relative to the post-deal years. Coalition operations accelerated the dismantling of ISIS’s territorial caliphate. Border policies were tightened through asylum restrictions, the Remain in Mexico program, and barrier construction, correlating with lower illegal crossing numbers.

Since January 2025, the second term has resumed and intensified sanctions enforcement against Iran, limited oil exports that had risen under Biden, and maintained pressure on proxy networks. Border enforcement has again prioritized deterrence, asylum limits, and removal capacity, reversing the sustained surge of the prior four years. Across both terms the pattern has been consistent: reject the nuclear-deal framework, apply sustained economic pressure on Iran’s revenue streams, prioritize the military defeat of ISIS-held territory, and enforce immigration statutes more strictly than the Obama and Biden approaches.

The earlier doctrine produced stronger Iranian influence, better-armed proxies, an early ISIS surge, and later border strains. The policy reversals under Trump have directly targeted those outcomes. Whether the corrections prove lasting depends on sustained enforcement and the responses of Iran and its partners, but the contrast in approach across the two administrations is clear and documented.

On November 3rd, I am voting for Trump to finish the job!

GOT THE TIME?

The Times They Are a-Changing!

By Jonah Ritter

There was a time when wearing a watch made more than a fashion statement. Telling time was a meaningful function.

A watch suggested you had places to be, responsibilities to fulfill, and people counting on you. Being “on time” mattered because your time—and other people’s time—had value. Of course, owning a watch didn’t make someone responsible. But it could convey that impression, along with the wealth to afford one.

A watch could also symbolize a privilege easily taken for granted: having some command of your own time. Many laborers and servants had little say over their working hours; enslaved people were denied that freedom far more completely. For those whose labor stretched from before sunrise until after sunset, the sky itself marked the working day. They needed no watch to tell them how little of their time belonged to them.

Of course, not everyone could afford a watch. But time mattered to the whole community, so towns and villages placed clocks on towers and public buildings. Erecting a clock was a gift to the people. It gave everyone a shared reference, helping them coordinate their work, keep appointments, and meet their obligations.

The village clock helped a community function by helping its people be on time.

Today, nearly everyone carries a watch. We call it a phone.

As phones took over timekeeping, putting on a wristwatch became less of a practical necessity. For some people, clipping a pocketknife to a belt or pocket offers more everyday usefulness than strapping on a watch.

Traditional watches became mostly a fashion statement. And the more they became a fashion statement, the more their appearance mattered.

Someone could easily spend thousands of dollars on a watch without needing it for any practical purpose. The watch might still communicate success, taste, or importance, but its owner could get the time by glancing at a phone.

Did that mean the buyer would settle for less accuracy?

Heavens, no! You still expected precision. Craftsmanship. The satisfaction of owning something that worked remarkably well—even if you rarely needed it to tell you the time. There was something comforting about knowing that the watch you hardly needed kept such precise time.

He’s watching the time. She’s watching him.

Then there is the pocket watch: A pocket watch takes too much time to use. You have to reach for it, pull it out, perhaps open its cover, check the time, and put it away again.

But a pocket watch is the ultimate fashion statement. It says, “Watch me watching time.”

A pocket watch was also a piece of men’s jewelry—a display of taste, wealth, and standing. To a woman attracted to those qualities, its appeal went well beyond telling time. In that respect, a pocket watch could be downright "sexy."

The times they are a-changing, though. The watch is making a comeback as something functionally relevant.

It will still tell you something you want to know to help you live and go about your day. Only now, that information goes far beyond the time.

It is about you—and what matters to you.

Your heartbeat. Your activity. Your sleep. Information that helps you pay attention to your health and well-being. Reminders about things you need to do. Text messages you can read or listen to without reaching for your phone.

And the possibilities keep growing.

Imagine trying to explain all of that to a watchmaker in the 1800s. A device on your wrist that receives messages, tracks your movements, and measures your pulse? What would that craftsman have made of it?

One thing the early wristwatch makers got right was the location. The wrist is a remarkably convenient place to put something useful: accessible, visible, and always close at hand.

They could never have imagined how useful it would become.

Ironically, the watch is still about time. A watch has always told us how much time has passed and helped us make better use of the time we have left. It still does, now with more ways to help us meet our responsibilities and care for ourselves.

And if paying closer attention to our health helps us live longer, a watch may even help us gain more of the very thing it measures.

Before we put time on our wrists, we found it in the rhythms of creation.

Technology opens possibilities in all things, and timekeeping is no exception. Yet beneath each new invention lies an ancient pursuit: since mankind first noticed the sunrise’s reliability, we have sought to understand the rhythms of creation and bring our lives into harmony with them.

Ultimately, seeking harmony with the rhythms of creation can become a way of seeking a relationship with the Creator. Seen in that light, we can appreciate one impulse behind early religious practice—and why some ancient sacred structures also served as monumental timepieces, marking the movements of the sun and the turning of the seasons. 

In a way, a wristwatch isn’t so far removed from Stonehenge. We’ve just made it considerably easier to carry.

Watches have changed with the times, but that aspect of their purpose remains: helping us make the most of time.

There is so much more to be said about staying on "God time." God gave us "appointed times." The bible, both stories, revolve around them. But I have run out of time—The End.

NETANYAHU

Benjamin Netanyahu’s official portrait, April 2009.
Photo: Avi Ohayon 

A Lifetime of Service Deserves a Fuller Accounting

The case for respecting Benjamin Netanyahu’s consequential service

By Jonah Ritter

I’m not writing another critique of Netanyahu. There’s no shortage of those. The criticism has become so one-sided that I decided the other side of his record deserved a voice. Fair-mindedness should mean examining the evidence—even when it complicates a favorite verdict.

Recently, I read Yossi Klein Halevi’s harsh assessment of Netanyahu’s legacy. Invoking King Saul, he portrayed Netanyahu as a gifted leader whose failures had eclipsed his promise. His description of a legacy of “scorched earth” prompted me to consider a fuller accounting of Netanyahu’s lifetime of service.

Benjamin Netanyahu has devoted decades—much of his adult lifetime—to Israel’s military, diplomatic, and political service. In my judgment, that record deserves better treatment than he receives from his detractors. That's what I aimed to do. 

The People of Israel Have Spoken

Netanyahu formed six governments across a political career spanning four decades. That repeated ability to secure parliamentary support, including returning to power after defeat, represents an extraordinary achievement in democratic political endurance. His critics must reckon with the enduring support that made it possible.

Apparently, the voters in the Middle East’s only liberal democracy keep failing to choose the leader his critics would prefer.

History’s final judgment is yet to be rendered. In my judgment, Netanyahu ranks among the most consequential leaders in Israel’s history, with an influence extending far beyond its borders.

We cannot know what another prime minister would have accomplished in his place. Another leader might have avoided some of Netanyahu’s mistakes. There is no guarantee that the same leader would have achieved his successes.

Human nature makes it easy to compare a real leader with an imagined replacement who avoids every mistake while delivering every achievement. It is like asking a spouse to compete with a fantasy: the real person has flaws; the imagined one never faces a test. A fair comparison requires a plausible alternative, not a perfect invention.

If a country’s failures are evidence against its leader, its achievements must also be admissible evidence in his favor.

On Netanyahu’s Watch

Throughout Netanyahu’s years in national leadership, Israel has faced enemies committed to wiping it off the map. Against that background, consider the country that exists today compared with the country he first led in 1996.

Netanyahu brought to government a clear commitment to free-market capitalism. Educated in the United States, he earned a bachelor’s degree in architecture from MIT in 1975 and a master’s degree in management from its Sloan School in 1976. That American business education provides important background to his economic outlook: private enterprise, competition, investment, and incentives were central to his approach to national prosperity.

Israel had developed an economy with socialist roots and extensive state ownership. Its move toward a more market-oriented system began before Netanyahu, but he became a major force in accelerating it. As finance minister under Ariel Sharon from 2003 to 2005, he pushed tax cuts, tighter government spending, privatization of state-owned businesses, and pension and welfare reforms intended to encourage employment and strengthen the economy. These were politically difficult changes aimed at giving private enterprise more room to grow.

This is more than assigning a politician credit for rising GDP. In its December 2004 assessment, the IMF credited the government’s reforms and commitment to competition with strengthening market confidence and laying foundations for future growth. The reforms had social costs, particularly for households affected by benefit cuts, and Israel’s economic transformation involved many leaders. Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s contribution was concrete: he helped move Israel further from state-directed economic management toward a more competitive economy driven by private enterprise. That belongs among his consequential achievements.

His approach also helped make Israel more attractive to investors and created more favorable conditions for entrepreneurship. Lower taxes, greater competition, and a larger role for private enterprise strengthened incentives to build businesses and invest in their success. The IMF’s December 2005 assessment explicitly credited the reforms with opening the economy, increasing competitiveness, and attracting foreign investment. Financial markets reflected the renewed confidence: the IMF reported a sharp stock-market recovery in 2003 and increased stock-exchange activity by 2005. Global recovery and improving security also contributed, but his policies helped create conditions in which Israeli enterprise could flourish.

Israel’s GDP grew from approximately $115 billion in 1996 to $611 billion in 2025. GDP per capita rose from approximately $20,200 to $60,300. These are current-dollar figures, not inflation-adjusted measures, and GDP per capita is not household income. They nevertheless document a substantial expansion of the economy and its output per person.

Despite years of boycott campaigns, exports of goods and services increased from roughly $28 billion to approximately $169 billion. Whatever costs BDS has imposed, it has not prevented Israel from greatly expanding its commerce with the world.

According to the Israel Innovation Authority, high-tech exports reached $85 billion in 2025. The sector employed approximately 400,000 people and generated 18.3 percent of GDP. Israel invests more than 6 percent of GDP in research and development, the highest rate in the OECD, which it joined in 2010.

Netanyahu’s tenure was not continuous, however, because of his unusually long leadership, the country's development belongs in the assessment of Netanyahu.

For a man accused of ruining Israel, Netanyahu has a rather inconvenient economic record.

Why the World Works with Israel

Countries buy Israeli software, electronics, medical devices, machinery, agricultural products, and natural gas. Israeli expertise helps address practical needs far beyond Israel’s borders.

1. Israeli-founded Netafim serves farmers in 110 countries. NVIDIA acquired Mellanox for $6.9 billion, bringing Israeli networking expertise further into advanced computing infrastructure. NVIDIA also operates an AI research laboratory in Israel.
2. Consider energy. Commercial production began at Tamar in 2013 and Leviathan in 2019. Israel became a natural-gas supplier to Egypt and Jordan. Those relationships give neighboring countries a material interest in continued cooperation.
3. Consider water. By the end of 2025, operational desalination facilities supplied approximately 760 million cubic meters annually. Israel recycles nearly 90 percent of its wastewater, supporting agriculture in a region where water scarcity is a fundamental constraint.
4. Under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel made cybersecurity a national priority. His 2010 initiative led to the creation of the National Cyber Bureau in 2011, connecting government, academia, and private industry. The credit belongs to the researchers, entrepreneurs, and security professionals who built Israel’s capabilities, and also to leadership that helped turn their expertise into a source of national protection, economic opportunity, and international influence.
5. Netanyahu has used intelligence cooperation to strengthen international partnerships, sharing warnings that help other nations confront terrorist threats. The credit belongs to the intelligence professionals who do the work, and also to leadership that makes those capabilities an instrument of diplomacy and shared security

These accomplishments represent resilience, usefulness, and influence. Israel has become a country whose capabilities other nations have practical reasons to value.

For a country its detractors insist the world should boycott, Israel certainly has a lot of customers. Perhaps Netanyahu deserves a Salesman of the Year award—though his critics would probably boycott the ceremony.

Taking Israel’s case to the world

Netanyahu’s personal diplomacy also broke new ground, with historic visits that expanded Israel’s international reach:

- U.S. Congress: Four addresses to joint meetings—1996, 2011, 2015, and 2024—more than any other foreign leader. 

- Latin America, 2017: First sitting Israeli prime minister to visit the region, with stops in Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico. 

- Australia and Singapore, 2017: First sitting Israeli prime minister to visit either country. 

- Sub-Saharan Africa, 2016: First official visit by an Israeli prime minister in approximately thirty years. 

- India, 2018: First Israeli prime-ministerial visit in fifteen years; nine cooperation agreements signed. 

For a leader accused of isolating Israel, that is quite a record of opening doors.

Israel's Voice on the World Stage

Another part of Netanyahu’s service deserves recognition: his ability to rise to historic occasions when representing Israel before the world. He has delivered speeches of extraordinary force before the United Nations and joint meetings of the United States Congress, bringing the Jewish people’s history, Israel’s security dilemmas, and the dangers confronting his country into the center of international debate. His 2015 address to Congress challenging the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran stands as a defining example. These were more than routine diplomatic appearances; they were moments when Israel’s prime minister commanded the world’s attention and made his country’s case with conviction, clarity, and commanding oratory. His fluent English and ability to frame an argument have helped him carry that case directly to audiences far beyond Israel’s borders.

For a small Jewish state whose actions are scrutinized worldwide, that ability matters. Israel needs leaders who can explain its security dilemmas, articulate its historical claims, and challenge the assumptions behind accusations against it. Netanyahu has repeatedly shown the confidence and skill to undertake that responsibility under intense pressure.

A powerful speech does not settle every policy dispute, and audiences have not always accepted his arguments. But disagreement with his positions should not obscure his effectiveness as an advocate. In my judgment, he belongs among Israel’s most accomplished public spokesmen. The voice with which a nation presents itself is part of leadership, and his has been a consequential voice for Israel.

Security Beyond the Headlines

Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of the US Congress, March 3, 2015. Photo: Caleb Smith

October 7 exposed catastrophic failures in intelligence, preparedness, and civilian protection. Those failures demand accountability. But they do not erase the transformation of Israel’s defensive capabilities.

• Iron Dome became operational in 2011. David’s Sling and Arrow 3 entered operational service in 2017. Alongside Arrow 2, they form a layered missile-defense architecture unavailable when Netanyahu first took office. Greater capability does not guarantee sound judgment or readiness on every front. It remains a consequential achievement.
• Other countries recognize its value. Defense export agreements reached a record $19.2 billion in 2025, more than double their value five years earlier. Europe accounted for 36 percent, and Asia and the Pacific for 32 percent.
• In December 2025, Israel handed over Germany’s first operational Arrow 3 system. Consider that historical reversal: Germany now turns to the Jewish state for technology to protect its population against ballistic missiles.
• The American relationship also requires a fuller accounting than political friction alone provides. In January 2023, Israel and the United States conducted their largest joint military exercise to that date: more than 140 aircraft, approximately 6,400 American troops, and 1,500 Israeli troops. The CENTCOM commander described the military partnership as stronger than ever.

Disagreements between governments matter. Operational cooperation is also evidence of the relationship’s depth.

Apparently, when national survival is at stake, Israeli expertise becomes considerably less controversial.

Israel: A Regional Superpower

Under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel has demonstrated the reach, intelligence capabilities, and military strength of a regional superpower. Its enemies have learned that distance, fortified headquarters, and clandestine communications do not guarantee protection.

Consider the consequential decisions made under his leadership:

- Approving the pager operation against Hezbollah, striking an organization that depended on those devices for communication. 

- Targeting Hezbollah’s senior command, including the strike that killed Hassan Nasrallah. 

- Taking the fight directly to Iran, including Israel’s first openly acknowledged military attack on Iranian territory in October 2024. 

- Leading the government’s full-scale campaign against Hamas after October 7.

Soldiers, intelligence officers, and commanders deserve credit for planning and executing these operations. Netanyahu bore political responsibility for momentous decisions—and the risks of failure, escalation, and international confrontation. If leadership bears responsibility when decisions fail, it deserves recognition when they succeed.

Countries around the world are turning to Israel for security cooperation and military technology, including some of the world’s most battle-proven weapons and defense systems. Israel has become more than a nation fighting for its survival; it helps other nations defend theirs.

For the first time since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, I see the collapse of the IRGC’s machinery of terror as a possibility within reach. Alongside the dismantling of Hamas’s military power and the breaking of Hezbollah’s grip on Lebanon, that would represent a historic benefit to the region and the world. For Israelis, it offers the prospect of finally lifting the cloud of nuclear annihilation threatened by a regime committed to their country’s destruction. Netanyahu’s determination has helped bring that possibility into view.

Israel’s enemies promised to erase it from the map. On Netanyahu’s watch, they have instead been forced to contemplate their own downfall. That, too, belongs in the accounting of his leadership.

Building Peace, Bringing Our People Home

President Donald Trump, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan. 

The Abraham Accords signing on September 15, 2020 should not be just a ceremonial bow. Normalization with the UAE and Bahrain, was followed by Morocco, and opened relationships beyond Israel’s existing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. They demonstrated that Arab-Israeli cooperation could advance without waiting for a final resolution of the Palestinian conflict.

Consider Aliyah

The Jewish Agency’s decade summary, published in 2019, recorded approximately 130,000 immigrants from the former Soviet Union, more than 38,000 from France, approximately 36,000 from North America, 13,420 from Latin America, and nearly 10,500 from Ethiopia. Netanyahu was prime minister for almost that entire decade.

His governments took specific actions as well. In 2015, his cabinet approved a NIS 180 million plan to encourage immigration and improve absorption from France, Belgium, and Ukraine.

Operation Dove’s Wings, completed in 2013, brought approximately 7,000 Ethiopian immigrants. Operation Zur Israel, launched in late 2020, brought another 2,150 people during its first phase, completed in early 2021.

These were practical undertakings to bring people home and reunite families while Israel continued confronting threats to its own population.

Service, Sacrifice, and Allegations

Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu at the memorial for his brother Yoni, Mount Herzl Military Cemetery, Jerusalem, July 6, 1997. Photo: Amos Ben Gershom.

An honest portrait should remember Netanyahu’s personal history.

His brother Yoni commanded Sayeret Matkal and died during the 1976 hostage rescue at Entebbe. Benjamin was not prime minister; the operation took place under Yitzhak Rabin. It cannot be counted as Benjamin’s achievement. But his family’s sacrifice belongs in our understanding of him. Terrorism, hostages, and Jewish vulnerability were matters of profound personal loss long before they became arguments over his political legacy.

The Discussion of Corruption also Deserves Precision.

Netanyahu’s reported annual base salary for 2026 was approximately NIS 738,000 (US $239,000), before taxes and excluding benefits and allowances.

A man with his education, intelligence, communication skills, international experience, and connections could plausibly have earned tens of millions of dollars over a lifetime in the private sector. Nobody can prove that alternative career. It is nevertheless reasonable to consider the earnings he might have pursued elsewhere when assessing his motives for decades of public service.

The gifts in Case 1000 were principally cigars, champagne, and some jewelry, valued by prosecutors at approximately NIS 700,000—roughly $200,000—over several years. Netanyahu says they were gifts between friends and denies wrongdoing.

Cigars, champagne, and some jewelry—give me a break! Compared with the wealth he could plausibly have accumulated over a lifetime in business, I regard those as trinkets. They are hardly evidence that his entire public life was devoted to amassing a fortune.

That comparison does not determine whether accepting the gifts or his dealings with the donors crossed legal boundaries. Prosecutors allege improper assistance to a donor; other cases concern alleged exchanges involving official favors and favorable media coverage. Those questions must be judged on the evidence. It is also fair to ask whether partisan agendas have shaped the pursuit and portrayal of these allegations—and whether political hostility has displaced a fair assessment of his overall record. Potential private-sector earnings neither prove nor disprove misconduct.

Specific allegations should not become a substitute for examining an entire lifetime. I reject the casual leap from disputed conduct to the sweeping portrayal of his service as an enterprise in personal enrichment.

Would another leader have received more grace?

I also question the implied assumption that another prime minister would necessarily have secured greater international understanding.

What would Israel have needed to forgo? The pager operation against Hezbollah? Strikes intended to reduce Iran’s and its proxies’ capacity to attack Israel? Would another leader confronting the same enemies have escaped accusations of genocide, apartheid, and colonialism? Would Israel’s ancient connection to Judea and Samaria have received a more sympathetic hearing?

These questions do not settle whether every policy or operation was justified. They challenge the assumption that international hostility can be explained primarily by Netanyahu’s personality. Israel’s adversaries have purposes of their own. A more agreeable prime minister would not necessarily have produced a more forgiving world—or a safer Israel.

We should also examine the lens through which his legacy is presented. In my judgment, much of Netanyahu’s coverage reflects a sustained hostility familiar to anyone following left-leaning media treatment of Donald Trump. Failures become defining characteristics; achievements receive brief acknowledgment before the prosecution resumes.

Neither man should be exempt from scrutiny. Journalists should scrutinize their own assumptions too.

History’s judgment is larger than an indictment

Consider Nixon. Watergate rightly remains central to his legacy. Yet it did not erase his opening to China or his other consequential foreign-policy achievements. The circumstances differ, but the principle applies: a leader’s gravest failures do not make his accomplishments disappear.

October 7 will forever weigh heavily on Netanyahu’s legacy. He was prime minister, and his responsibility must be examined. The military and Shin Bet investigations also acknowledged grave institutional failures. Political and institutional responsibility can coexist.

But if every success belongs exclusively to soldiers, scientists, entrepreneurs, diplomats, allies, or ordinary citizens, while every failure belongs to Netanyahu, the verdict is predetermined.

There are No saints in Politics

Halevi’s harsh “Scorched earth” critic is too sweeping a description of Netanyahu’s record.

Alongside the failures stand a much larger economy, expanded exports, formidable technological capabilities, new Arab relationships, regional energy ties, the continuing ingathering of our people, and defense systems that other nations purchase to protect their citizens.

The King Saul analogy is powerful writing but it supplies an ending that history has not yet written.

I cannot deliver history’s final verdict. I can insist that the case for respect be heard.

There is much more that could be said about Netanyahu’s contributions. No single article can do justice to a lifetime of consequential service. But the record presented here should make one thing clear: any fair assessment of his failures must also reckon seriously with his achievements.

If every Netanyahu failure confirms your judgment and every achievement requires an excuse, you’re protecting a prejudice, not practicing critical thinking.

Sources

Economic growth, investment, and technology:

• World Bank data, via the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Israel’s GDP and GDP per capita.
• Israel Export Institute: historical economic and export statistics.
• Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 2025 export figures.
• Israel Innovation Authority: 2026 High-Tech Status Report.
• OECD: Israel country profile and research-and-development statistics.
• MIT News: Netanyahu’s degrees in architecture and management, November 7, 2001.
• Knowledge at Wharton: “Can Privatization in Israel Get Back on Track?” July 9, 2015.
• International Monetary Fund: assessments of Israel’s economic reforms, competition, investment, and financial markets, December 2003, December 2004, and December 2005.
• Netafim: company history and international operations.
• NVIDIA: Mellanox acquisition announcement and Israel AI Research Lab.

Energy, water, and cybersecurity:

• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Israeli natural-gas production and regional exports.
• State of Israel: national disclosure filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2026.
• Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies: January 2022 briefing on Israel’s cybersecurity policy.
• Government of Israel: Resolution 3611, “Advancing National Cyberspace Capabilities,” August 7, 2011; reproduced by George Washington University’s National Security Archive.

Defense and military operations:

• Israel Defense Forces: operational histories of Iron Dome and David’s Sling.
• U.S. Department of Defense: Arrow 3 missile-defense testing and development.
• Israel Ministry of Defense: 2025 defense-export figures and the December 2025 Arrow 3 handover to Germany.
• U.S. Department of Defense: Juniper Oak joint military exercise, January 2023.
• Reuters: “Netanyahu Approved Pager Attacks Against Hezbollah, Spokesman Says,” November 11, 2024.
• Reuters: “Israel Had Real-Time Intelligence Nasrallah Would Be at Meeting, Military Says,” September 28, 2024.
• Associated Press: “Israel’s First Open Attack on Iran Targets Missile Sites and Apparently Spares Oil and Nuclear Ones,” October 26, 2024.
• Reuters: Shin Bet’s acknowledgment of failures surrounding October 7, March 4, 2025.

Diplomacy, travel, and democratic tenure:

• Israel Democracy Institute: “30 Years Ago, This Week: When Mr. Netanyahu Became PM Netanyahu,” 2026.
• U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian: Foreign Leader Fast Facts and records of Netanyahu’s four addresses to joint meetings of Congress.
• U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian: Visits by Foreign Leaders—Israel.
• The Times of Israel: Netanyahu’s first official Latin American tour as a sitting prime minister, September 11, 2017.
• The Times of Israel: “Netanyahu Embarks on First Trip to Singapore and Australia,” February 2017.
• ABC News Australia: Netanyahu’s first visit to Australia as a serving Israeli prime minister, February 22, 2017.
• The Washington Post: Netanyahu’s first official visit to sub-Saharan Africa in approximately thirty years, July 5, 2016.
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “Israel, India Sign Nine Cooperation Agreements at Start of Netanyahu Visit,” January 15, 2018.
• Reuters: “What Are the Abraham Accords?” September 15, 2025.

Aliyah and personal history:

• Jewish Agency for Israel: decade-of-aliyah summary, 2019, and historical accounts of Ethiopian immigration, including Operations Dove’s Wings and Zur Israel.
• The Times of Israel: cabinet approval of a NIS 180 million immigration and absorption plan, 2015.
• National Library of Israel: historical account of Operation Entebbe and Yoni Netanyahu’s role.

Salary and corruption allegations:

• Calcalist: 2026 official salary update.
• Investing.com: USD/ILS representative exchange rate, October 16, 2026; used for the approximate dollar conversion of annual salary.
• Reuters: reporting on Case 1000, including the alleged gifts, prosecution claims, and Netanyahu’s denial of wrongdoing; explanatory reporting on the three criminal cases.

Economic figures describe national developments across multiple governments and do not assign Netanyahu sole credit. Assessments of his historical standing and possible future outcomes concerning Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah are the author’s judgments.

WHEN RESTRAINT BECOMES LEVERAGE

My Prediction: Iran May Take the Bait

My assumption is that Trump’s public remarks about avoiding an attack on Iran before the midterm elections are strategic. 

Trump has a recognizable habit of using public statements to shape events, create pressure, and provoke reactions. In The Art of the Deal, he described promotional exaggeration as “truthful hyperbole,” and in his 2016 foreign-policy speech, he explicitly advocated unpredictability. His 2019 tariff threats against Mexico also illustrate how a threatened action can become leverage toward a different objective.

That pattern informs my reading of his remarks about Iran. I suspect his words are doing more than announcing a timetable: they are shaping his opponents’ calculations. What appears to be restraint may itself be a strategic move.

Trump is giving Iran the impression that renewed fighting would cost Republicans the election, encouraging its leaders to believe that provoking him would work to their advantage.

I predict that Iran and its aligned forces will continue escalating attacks on shipping and regional interests, increasingly drawing Saudi Arabia into the confrontation. The Saudis will then press for stronger American involvement, bringing Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States into closer cooperation against their shared threat.

Recent Events Seem to Support the Pattern

Recent developments appear consistent with my theory. Reuters reported on October 8 that tanker attacks around the Strait of Hormuz had reached their highest weekly level since the war began, accompanied by Iranian threats against alternative oil-export routes. The pressure on shipping and regional economies is increasing.

Meanwhile, the Iran-backed Houthis are putting Saudi Arabia directly under attack. Reuters reported that the October 10 strike on Riyadh’s international airport killed at least 12 people and wounded more than 300—the third attack on that airport that week. Trump subsequently said Washington was considering joining Saudi strikes against the Houthis.

These developments involve two distinct maritime fronts: Iranian pressure around the Strait of Hormuz and Houthi operations around the Red Sea’s Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Houthi advances along Yemen’s coast have also threatened Saudi oil-export routes.

In my reading, this is the sequence taking shape: escalating aggression, Saudi Arabia increasingly drawn into the confrontation, and growing pressure for American involvement. Whether Trump responds before or after the election, that aggression strengthens his public case for action. His restraint allows him to appear measured while Iran and its aligned forces supply further reasons for a response.

That is why I see these events as early support for my prediction: Iran may believe it is increasing pressure on Trump while actually strengthening his position.

Either way, Iran’s escalation strengthens Trump’s position. If he responds before the election, those attacks give him a stronger defensive rationale. If he waits until afterward, Iran’s continued aggression will have built a stronger case for action, with greater regional support. My prediction does not depend on Trump striking before Election Day.

The objective I envision is a focused campaign to cripple Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities and weaken the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Weakening the regime’s machinery of repression would give the Iranian people an opening to rise up and say, “No more.”

Between now and the November 3 elections, I will be watching for continued Iranian escalation, increasing threats to Saudi interests, Saudi calls for American action, and closer cooperation among Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States. After the election, I will watch whether those developments lead to the focused military response I anticipate.

My prediction is that Iran, believing it is exploiting Trump’s electoral vulnerability, will instead help create the conditions for a stronger coalition and a more politically justifiable and defensible response—whether that response comes before or after the election.

Speaking to the Right

Trump gains another advantage by holding off. As pressure mounts for military action, his restraint makes him appear more measured—the leader resisting kinetic action while others urge him forward. Supporters of Israel may increasingly criticize him for waiting, but that criticism could strengthen his standing with the anti-interventionist far right, demonstrating that he is making his own decisions rather than following Israel’s demands.

If he ultimately orders strikes, he can present them as a reluctant response to continued Iranian aggression after giving restraint every opportunity. Waiting therefore offers him both a public relations advantage and a stronger case for eventual action.

In my reading, this is what “3D chess” looks like: one move positioning Trump for several possible outcomes. Holding off encourages Iran to overreach, draws Saudi Arabia toward closer cooperation with America and Israel, and makes Trump appear measured as pressure to attack increases. Criticism from supporters of Israel could even strengthen his standing with the anti-interventionist far right by demonstrating his independence.

Whether he acts before or after the election, continued Iranian aggression builds a stronger case for the focused response I anticipate. Restraint itself becomes leverage: Iran believes it is exploiting Trump’s weakness while helping strengthen his position.

HISTORY'S GREATEST EVIL

One of history's greatest evils is the slave trade. Who can we thank for that?

Some self-righteous people who blame the Jews for practically everything, conveniently overlook this reality. 

Which people or what country took the leadership to start to abolish the slave trade? 

1. Britain took the leading role in the sustained international campaign to suppress the transatlantic slave trade, while Denmark–Norway enacted an earlier ban. Christian abolitionists and Black campaigners were central to the movement.
2. Denmark–Norway: Passed a ban in 1792, effective in 1803—the first European slave-trading nation to enact a prohibition on its transatlantic trade. This did not free people already enslaved in its colonies. 
3. Britain: Abolished its slave trade in 1807, following decades of campaigning. William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian, led the parliamentary effort; Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharp, and Quakers helped organize the movement. Black abolitionists such as Olaudah Equiano supplied testimony and mobilized public opinion. 
4. British enforcement: Britain then used naval patrols and diplomatic pressure to suppress the trade internationally. Between 1808 and 1869, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron seized more than 1,600 slave ships and freed approximately 150,000 Africans. 
5. United States: Congress prohibited overseas slave importation in 1807, effective January 1, 1808, although domestic slave trading and slavery continued. 

Christian conviction was a major driving force in British abolitionism. Britain’s leadership in suppression also followed its earlier role as one of the largest slave-trading powers. Abolishing the trade and abolishing slavery itself were separate struggles.

DOES THE SLAVE TRADE EXIST TODAY?

Yes! People are still bought, sold, trafficked, and forced into labor or sexual servitude today. It occurs worldwide, although its forms and concentration vary.

The latest global estimate I found concerns 2021, not a count taken today: approximately 50 million people in “modern slavery”—28 million in forced labor and 22 million in forced marriage. That broader category includes people who were never literally bought or sold. 

Where is it most concentrated?

- Largest total numbers: Walk Free’s 2023 estimates place India first, followed by China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia. Population size partly explains these rankings. 

- Highest proportion of the population affected: North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey lead the same index. These estimates include forced labor and forced marriage, rather than counting slave markets or trafficking transactions alone. 

- Forced labor by region: Asia and the Pacific have the largest number of victims; the Arab States have the highest rate relative to population. 

- Hereditary slavery and actual buying and selling: These practices remain documented in parts of Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan. In some communities, children inherit enslaved status; girls may be sold into domestic and sexual servitude. 

Slavery persists globally, with the largest numbers in Asia, especially high rates in several authoritarian states and Arab countries, and continuing hereditary slavery in parts of Africa. 

THEY HATE TRUMP MORE THAN THEY FEAR A NUCLEAR IRAN

Set aside the hatred, follow the reasoning, and ask whether Israel was obligated to wait until proof arrived in the form of a crater.

WHEN HATRED REPLACES THOUGHT

The problem is not that the political left disagrees with Donald Trump. Disagreement is necessary in a free country.

The problem is that many on the left hate Trump so intensely that they can no longer follow his reasoning. They reject his conclusions before considering how he reached them. If Trump believes something, they assume it must be foolish, dishonest, or dangerous. Any argument leading to the possibility that he might be right is dismissed before it can be heard.

That is not critical thinking. It is the abandonment of critical thinking.

A conclusion does not become false because Donald Trump reached it. An argument must be judged by its facts, logic, risks, and alternatives—not by the personality of the person making it.

What follows is not an argument that Trump must always be trusted or that every decision he makes is correct. It asks only that the reader do what so many of his critics refuse to do:

Set aside the hatred, follow the reasoning, and decide whether he is right.

The Argument in Brief

Iran was not a hypothetical enemy. It armed forces attacking Israel, launched drones and ballistic missiles at Israeli territory, restricted nuclear monitoring, and accumulated enough 60-percent-enriched uranium—if enriched further—for approximately ten nuclear weapons.

Israel was not required to wait for a bomb or proof that the order had been given. You do not owe a pursuer the last five minutes.

Iran’s rulers have shown what they are willing to sacrifice: their citizens, their economy, their neighbors, and peace. Israel could not assume that leaders willing to impose such suffering would become cautious once protected by nuclear weapons.

The Iranian people are not Israel’s enemy. They are victims of the same regime.

The war should end not with Iran destroyed, but with its nuclear, missile, and drone programs dismantled, its power weakened, and its people given an opportunity to reclaim their country.

The full argument—and the reasoning behind this conclusion—follows below.

FINISH THE WAR—AND GIVE IRAN BACK TO ITS PEOPLE

Israel was not required to wait for proof to arrive in the form of a crater. Now the war must end with the Islamic Republic stripped of the weapons it uses against Israel, its neighbors, and its own people.

The question is not whether war is terrible. It is.

The question is whether a nation that has already been attacked, repeatedly threatened with destruction, and confronted with an advancing nuclear capability must wait until its enemy assembles a finished weapon—or until intelligence confirms that the final order has been given.

Israel was not required to make that gamble.

This Was Not a Hypothetical Enemy

Iran was not merely developing a dangerous capability while maintaining peaceful relations with Israel. It armed, financed, and trained forces attacking Israel from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Then Iran crossed another line. In April and October 2024, it attacked Israel directly with waves of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

That fact fundamentally changes the argument.

Israel was not contemplating military action against a country that might someday become hostile. It was confronting an enemy already conducting armed attacks while simultaneously approaching the nuclear threshold.

Iran’s nuclear program could not be separated from Iran’s demonstrated willingness to use force against Israel.

The Duty Not to Wait for the Final Blow

A nation does not have to wait for the pursuer to complete his intended act. You do not owe a pursuer the last five minutes.

Jewish law does not treat self-defense as a courtesy extended only after the knife has entered the body.

Pikuach nefesh places the preservation of human life above nearly every other commandment. The law of the rodef permits the stopping of a pursuer before the intended murder is completed.

These principles do not automatically settle every military or legal question. War threatens innocent life, too. Any use of force must still be judged by its necessity, proportionality, objectives, and available alternatives.

But the moral principle remains: the threatened are not required to surrender the last safe moment to the one threatening them.

A regime that rejects Israel’s legitimacy, arms forces dedicated to killing Israelis, attacks Israel directly, and builds the means of nuclear coercion is not a neighbor engaged in a tariff dispute. Under those circumstances, delay can cease to be prudence and become dereliction.

You do not owe a pursuer the last five minutes.

Iran’s Purpose Did Not Have to Be Imagined

Iran’s rulers did not need to be mind-read.

Their government maintained an eliminationist policy toward Israel. It supported organizations committed to Israel’s destruction. Iran had also conducted an undeclared, structured nuclear program involving activities relevant to the development of nuclear weapons.

In 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had failed to declare nuclear material and nuclear-related activities at three undeclared locations connected to that earlier program. This did not prove that Iran had issued a current order to assemble a bomb. But it established that Iran had concealed weapon-related work and had never provided a complete and technically credible account of it.

That distinction matters.

The case for action does not require claiming that a completed weapon already existed. It rests upon the convergence of hostile intent, previous weaponization work, advanced uranium enrichment, restricted verification, an operational missile force, and direct attacks against Israel.

The Material Facts Had Transformed the Risk

Enriched uranium, restricted monitoring, ballistic missiles, and drones were not separate dangers. Together, they created a loaded interval.

Immediately before the June 2025 strikes, Iran possessed approximately 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent.

If enriched further to weapons-grade, that stock contained enough nuclear material for approximately ten weapons under the IAEA’s standard measurement.

Uranium enriched to 60 percent is not a completed bomb. Nuclear material is not the same thing as a tested warhead mounted on a working missile. But enriching uranium from its natural state to 60 percent accomplishes most of the difficult enrichment work required to reach weapons-grade purity.

No other non-nuclear-weapon state had accumulated uranium enriched to that level.

At the same time, Iran had sharply restricted the additional monitoring arrangements associated with the nuclear agreement. The IAEA’s ability to reconstruct a continuous picture of Iran’s centrifuges, components, facilities, and enriched material had been seriously degraded.

Delivery was not some distant engineering project. Iran already possessed ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel—and had already fired them at Israeli territory.

The danger was not any single piece of evidence. It was the combination:

• Near-weapons-grade uranium in unprecedented quantities 
• Industrial enrichment capacity
• A history of concealed weapon-related activity
• Reduced international visibility
• An operational ballistic-missile force
• Declared hostility toward Israel
• Direct attacks demonstrating a willingness to use that force

None of these facts, standing alone, proved that Iran was about to assemble a nuclear weapon. Together, however, they created a danger that Israel could not responsibly judge as though each fact existed in isolation.

It was a loaded interval.

Diplomacy Delayed the Danger but Did Not Resolve It

Diplomacy was not meaningless.

The 2015 nuclear agreement imposed genuine restrictions and provided substantially greater international visibility into Iran’s nuclear activities. Iran initially remained within many of those restrictions, and the United States’ withdrawal in 2018 helped begin the sequence through which those limitations eventually collapsed.

That history should be acknowledged. Overstating the failure of diplomacy only weakens the argument.

But by 2025, the relevant question was no longer whether diplomacy had once slowed Iran’s nuclear progress. It had.

The question was whether another round of negotiations could reliably eliminate the advanced stockpile, restore intrusive verification, resolve the unanswered questions about undeclared sites, limit Iran’s missile forces, and prevent the regime from rebuilding the same capabilities later.

For approximately two decades, the world had tried negotiations, sanctions, inspections, temporary agreements, diplomatic warnings, and economic incentives. Yet Iran emerged with advanced centrifuges, an unprecedented stockpile of highly enriched uranium, unresolved safeguards questions, a mature ballistic-missile force, and reduced international monitoring.

“One more round of negotiations” was therefore not a cost-free position.

Time was the very resource Iran’s nuclear program consumed—and the one resource Israel could never recover.

The Regime Has Shown What It Is Willing to Sacrifice

Iran’s rulers have shown that they are willing to impose almost any cost in pursuit of their ideological and strategic objectives.

They have slaughtered and imprisoned their own citizens to preserve the regime. They have sacrificed Iran’s economy rather than abandon policies that brought sanctions and international isolation. Through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other armed organizations, they have helped drag Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and the wider region into recurring destruction.

The regime is willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian, the last Lebanese civilian, the last Yemeni child—and, increasingly, to the last Iranian.

Current events have made the pattern impossible to dismiss. The Islamic Republic will endanger its neighbors, impoverish its citizens, and accept staggering national losses before surrendering the ambitions upon which its authority rests.

That record matters when judging the nuclear danger.

Deterrence depends upon the belief that an adversary values the consequences it is threatened with more than the objective it is pursuing. But Iran’s rulers have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to make other people bear almost any consequence.

Israel could not safely assume that leaders willing to sacrifice their citizens, their neighbors, and their economy would suddenly become cautious and conventional once protected by nuclear weapons.

The danger was not merely that Iran might someday use a nuclear weapon. Nuclear possession could give a demonstrably reckless regime much greater freedom to conduct conventional and proxy warfare beneath a nuclear shield.

The Two Possible Errors Were Not Equal

Suppose Israel overestimated Iran’s proximity to a nuclear weapon.

The consequences of acting would be severe: deaths, regional escalation, economic disruption, diplomatic isolation, and the possibility that Iran would attempt to rebuild its nuclear program deeper underground.

Those costs cannot simply be waved away.

But suppose Israel underestimated the danger. It could then confront a nuclear-armed enemy that had already attacked it, surrounded it with armed proxies, and repeatedly denied its right to exist.

The two mistakes were not equal.

The first could produce a costly and possibly temporary military setback. The second could place the continued existence of a small country in the hands of a regime that had already demonstrated both the intent and capacity for aggression.

Israel’s leaders were not required to bet their country on the most reassuring interpretation of every uncertainty.

The People Suffering Most Are the People of Iran

The Iranian people are not Israel’s enemy. They are the longest-suffering victims of the Islamic Republic—and the rightful heirs to Iran’s future.

The people who have suffered longest under the Islamic Republic are the Iranian people themselves—the Persian majority and Iran’s other ethnic and religious communities.

They have endured repression, executions, economic ruin, international isolation, and wars pursued in the name of a revolutionary regime they did not freely choose.

The Iranian people are not Israel’s enemy. They are also victims of the same regime threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East.

For that reason, the most humane course may not be to prolong the conflict through a succession of limited exchanges that leave the regime’s war-making machinery intact. It may be to complete the military task decisively: destroy the remaining nuclear, ballistic-missile, and drone capabilities; severely weaken the armed forces and command structures used to threaten Iran’s neighbors; and cripple the repressive machinery used to keep the regime in power.

The objective should not be the destruction of Iran.

It should be the liberation of Iran from the machinery that has impoverished its citizens, destabilized its neighbors, and protected a revolutionary dictatorship from its own people.

Give the Iranian People Their Opportunity

Military force cannot manufacture a free government. Foreign nations should not occupy Iran or attempt to choose its next rulers. Another externally imposed regime would merely replace one form of domination with another.

But military action can remove the weapons and institutions that make meaningful resistance nearly impossible.

The Iranian people have repeatedly shown that they want a different future. They have taken to the streets knowing they could be arrested, beaten, tortured, or killed. Women have defied the regime openly. Workers, students, merchants, religious minorities, and families of murdered protesters have demonstrated extraordinary courage.

They do not need foreigners to determine their future. They need an opportunity to determine it themselves.

If the regime can no longer protect itself through terror at home, aggression abroad, ballistic missiles, armed proxies, and the threat of nuclear breakout, the people of Iran may finally have the opening they have been waiting for.

No one can guarantee what they will do with that opportunity. But the possibility of an Iran reclaimed by its people is more humane—and ultimately more stable—than preserving a dictatorship that sacrifices them to sustain its revolutionary ambitions.

Finish the War

The case was never simply that Iran might someday build a bomb.

Iran was already waging war against Israel directly and through proxies. It had accumulated the hardest material ingredient for multiple nuclear weapons, possessed missiles capable of delivering them, concealed important parts of its earlier nuclear work, and reduced the international community’s ability to verify its activities.

Force was therefore not the first impulse. It was the conclusion that the remaining interval could no longer safely be donated to the other side.

Now the war should not be prolonged through indecision or ended with the regime’s most dangerous capabilities still intact.

It should be finished by destroying Iran’s remaining nuclear, missile, and drone programs; weakening the military and leadership structures responsible for aggression and repression; and ensuring that the Islamic Republic cannot simply pause, rebuild, and begin the cycle again.

That conclusion does not require pretending that war is costless, that every target is legitimate, that every strike will be proportionate, or that military power alone can permanently erase scientific knowledge or political fanaticism.

It requires accepting this:

A nation already under attack is not obligated to wait for courtroom certainty about the weapon that could make its destruction irreversible. When the cost of waiting may be national annihilation, proof cannot be required to arrive in the form of a crater.

And the Iranian people should not be condemned to another generation beneath a regime that has sacrificed their freedom, their prosperity, and their children to its dream of revolutionary conquest.

The war should end not with Iran destroyed, but with the Islamic Republic stripped of the weapons it uses against Israel, its neighbors, and its own people—and with the people of Iran finally given the opportunity to take back their country.

Sources and Documentation

The factual claims in this article are based primarily upon reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations and other official records. The conclusions and arguments drawn from those facts are my own.

1. International Atomic Energy Agency, “Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2025/50, September 3, 2025.

   Reports that, as of June 13, 2025, Iran possessed 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent U-235.

   "Read the IAEA report" 

2. International Atomic Energy Agency, “NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2025/25, May 31, 2025.

   Provides the IAEA’s comprehensive assessment of Iran’s earlier undeclared structured nuclear program and undeclared nuclear material and activities at Lavisan-Shian, Varamin and Turquzabad. The report also states that the IAEA had no credible indications of an ongoing undeclared structured program of the same type.

   "Read the IAEA report" 

3. International Atomic Energy Agency, “Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2025/24, May 31, 2025.

   Documents Iran’s enriched-uranium inventory and the loss of monitoring and verification measures previously provided under the nuclear agreement.

   "Read the IAEA report" 

4. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, Statement to the United Nations Security Council, June 20, 2025.

   Confirms that Iran possessed more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent and identifies Fordow as Iran’s principal location for enrichment to that level.

   "Read the statement" 

5. Reuters, “Much of Iran’s Near-Bomb-Grade Uranium Likely to Be in Isfahan, IAEA’s Grossi Says,” March 9, 2026.

   Reports the IAEA estimate that Iran’s 440.9-kilogram stockpile, if enriched further, could provide sufficient fissile material for approximately ten nuclear weapons under the agency’s measurement.

   "Read the report" 

6. United Nations Secretary-General, Remarks to the Security Council, April 14, 2024.

   Records Iran’s direct launch of hundreds of drones and missiles from Iranian territory toward Israel.

   "Read the UN statement"

7. United Nations Security Council, “Deadly Cycle of Tit-for-Tat Violence Must Stop,” October 2, 2024.

   Records Iran’s October 1 launch of approximately 200 ballistic missiles toward Israel and the Secretary-General’s condemnation of the attack.

   "Read the UN record" 

8. U.S. Department of State, “Country Reports on Terrorism 2023.”

   Documents Iran’s material, financial and training support for Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and other armed groups operating across the Middle East.

   "Read the State Department report" 

9. United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, March 14, 2025.

   Documents the Iranian government’s continuing systematic repression, surveillance, executions and persecution connected to the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests.

   "Read the UN human-rights report" 

WHEN THE MESSENGER MATTERS MORE THAN THE MESSAGE

ANOTHER HEADLINE, ANOTHER INDICTMENT

Fauci was treated as beyond question. RFK Jr. is treated as beyond consideration. Neither approach serves science—or the American people.

Some Are So Determined to Discredit the Messenger That They Refuse to Consider the Message.

A recent New York Times headline declared that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received $4 million in book advances from a publisher who also “monetized MAHA.” The article also reported consulting payments made to Kennedy’s wife, Cheryl Hines.

Those financial relationships are fair subjects for investigation. No public official should be shielded from legitimate questions about possible conflicts of interest. If laws or ethics regulations were violated, the facts should be established and appropriate action taken.

But a large book advance is not, by itself, proof of corruption. More importantly, the headline tells us nothing about whether Kennedy’s ideas are right, whether his policies are working or whether the Make America Healthy Again movement is addressing problems that have been neglected for decades.

The article investigates the man. Who is investigating the merits of his mission?

America’s chronic-disease crisis demands an honest examination of what we eat, how we regulate food and how we approach health.

What Kennedy Is Trying to Change

America faces an enormous chronic-disease problem. Obesity, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, allergies and other illnesses affect millions of families and consume an ever-growing share of our healthcare resources. American children obtain much of their daily nutrition from highly processed foods, while food companies have been permitted to introduce many ingredients under a regulatory system that deserves much closer scrutiny.

Kennedy has made those issues impossible to ignore.

Under his leadership, the Department of Health and Human Services has focused attention on highly processed foods, synthetic food dyes, questionable additives, childhood chronic disease and the influence of powerful industries over health policy. The administration has also revised federal dietary guidance around a simple message: eat real food and reduce highly processed foods and added sugars.

HHS reports that 37 states have enacted legislation advancing parts of the MAHA agenda, 18 SNAP waivers have been signed, and companies representing approximately 40 percent of the food industry have pledged to remove synthetic dyes. Kennedy has also directed the FDA to reconsider the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, process that has allowed companies to introduce some ingredients without formal premarket review by the agency. These are actions, not merely slogans.

People can disagree with Kennedy’s methods, priorities or scientific conclusions. I do not agree with everything he has said or done. But confronting chronic disease, improving nutrition, examining food additives and questioning entrenched institutional interests are legitimate objectives. They deserve serious consideration.

Science advances through questions and competing evidence—not by silencing those who challenge official conclusions.

When Fauci Became “The Science”

We witnessed the opposite version of this problem during COVID.

Anthony Fauci was treated by much of the media as if questioning him meant questioning science itself. People who challenged official claims, government mandates, school closures or shifting public-health guidance were frequently dismissed as irresponsible. Some were vilified as conspiracy theorists, and some discussions were restricted or censored on social-media platforms.

Fauci even declared, “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.” But no person is science—not Fauci, not Kennedy and not any government official.

Science is a process. It requires questions, competing hypotheses, transparent evidence and a willingness to revise earlier conclusions. It becomes weaker, not stronger, when authorities treat disagreement as disinformation merely because it challenges the prevailing position.

We now know that government pressure on public discussion was not imaginary. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg later acknowledged that senior Biden administration officials repeatedly pressured Facebook to suppress certain COVID-related content, including humor and satire. Zuckerberg said the pressure was wrong and expressed regret that his company had not been more outspoken against it.

Several questions once portrayed as too irresponsible to discuss eventually became legitimate matters of investigation. The origin of COVID remains unresolved. A laboratory incident has not been established as the cause, but neither has it been conclusively ruled out. Even the World Health Organization has maintained that the possibility requires further investigation.

That does not mean every COVID skeptic was correct. Some claims were unsupported, exaggerated or demonstrably false. It means the authorities were not infallible, official certainty was sometimes overstated, and some people who raised difficult questions had legitimate reasons for doing so.

We should have learned something from that experience.

From Unquestioning Trust to Automatic Rejection

With Fauci, skepticism was treated as dangerous. With Kennedy, skepticism has become so absolute that nothing he says or accomplishes is permitted to have value.

Fauci was treated as though questioning the man meant rejecting science. Kennedy is treated as though considering the man means rejecting science.

These may look like opposite reactions, but they arise from the same intellectual failure: judging evidence according to our feelings about the messenger.

Opposition to Kennedy—and especially his association with Donald Trump—too often settles the question before his work is examined. Every flaw becomes disqualifying. Every controversy becomes defining. Every positive accomplishment is minimized or ignored. Critics do not merely question particular policies; many appear determined to prove that nothing worthwhile can possibly come from this administration.

The New York Times headline fits that pattern perfectly. The financial questions may be legitimate, but the framing supplies Kennedy’s opponents with precisely what they are seeking: another reason to dismiss the man without confronting the substance of his agenda.

The messenger deserves scrutiny, but the message must ultimately be weighed on its evidence and merits.

Apply One Standard to Everyone

I am willing to judge Kennedy critically. I am also willing to judge him fairly.

If evidence demonstrates that he is wrong, then his position should be challenged. If his financial relationships cross legal or ethical lines, they should be investigated. If one of his policies creates more harm than good, it should be reversed.

But the same standard must operate in the other direction.

If removing unnecessary synthetic dyes improves the food supply, acknowledge it. If closing regulatory loopholes produces greater transparency, acknowledge it. If encouraging Americans to eat real food instead of heavily processed products improves public health, acknowledge it. If Kennedy forces government, industry and medicine to take chronic disease more seriously, acknowledge that too.

The question should never be whether we like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Donald Trump. The question should be whether a particular idea is sound, whether a policy is supported by evidence and whether it benefits the American people.

Will Critics Recognize Success?

If Make America Healthy Again produces worthwhile reforms, will its critics acknowledge them? Or will they simply move on to the next accusation, controversy or negative headline?

That question reaches far beyond Kennedy.

A healthy society must be able to investigate misconduct without using every allegation as an excuse to discard worthwhile ideas. It must be able to respect expertise without turning experts into unquestionable authorities. It must also be able to reconsider unpopular arguments without automatically endorsing everything said by the people making them.

Fauci should never have been treated as the embodiment of science. Kennedy should not be treated as its enemy merely because he challenges established institutions.

When hostility toward the messenger prevents us from examining the message, that is not critical thinking. It is confirmation bias.