Category Archives: Israel

Iran’s Secret Weapon

Our country and Israel have each used an array of advanced weaponry against Iran since February 28.

Three U.S. aircraft carriers deployed to the region have launched hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iranian sites; and aircraft, including B-2 stealth bombers, have pounded targets in the country. New systems like the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) have also been employed in attacks.

Israel brought the power of F-35I Adir stealth fighters, F-15I Ra’am jets and specialized precision-guided munitions to the fight.

The combined attacks have wrought significant degradation of Iran’s air defenses and missile production, and extensive destruction of military and civilian infrastructure.

Iran, for its part, has employed large numbers of kamikaze drones against U.S. sites and those of allies, as well as specialized anti-ship missile launchers stationed near the Strait of Hormuz. Its weapons inventory also includes some older U.S.-made equipment, like F-14 fighters, that the country was provided before the mullahs took over.

According to The Washington Post, Iranian strikes have damaged over 200 structures at U.S. military sites in the region.  And U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran could produce enough bomb-grade uranium in 3-6 months.

But the war of weapons is only one part of the conflict’s calculus. Iran possesses a secret weapon, and it resides here in the U.S.

No, it’s not some fifth column of sleeper cells (though the existence of such threats can’t be ruled out). And it’s not even the sophomoric, self-righteous and besotted-with-themselves demonstrators (of, above all, their ignorance) who chant their affection for Iran’s proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

No, the Iranian secret weapon is something else: the American public. Or, to be more precise, citizens’ increasing fear of rising gas prices – on which the mullahs are counting to wear down America’s determination to defang them.

Ludicrous as it might sound – and in a sane world would sound – the Iranian secret weapon is the price of a gallon of gasoline at American pumps.

That reluctance to make an economic sacrifice in order to prevent Iran, once and for all, from being able to obliterate entire cities, plays a large role in what a recent PBS News/NPR/Marist poll showed: Six in 10 Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran.

Even among Republicans, who overwhelmingly approve of the campaign against Iran, that support is down seven points from March.

Odious but influential right-wing voices like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones and Candace Owens have raised a hue and cry against the war, which Mr. Carlson has characterized as “absolutely disgusting and evil.”

Such opposition to de-nuclearizing Iran capitalizes on fuel pump fearfulness. James Fishback, who is currently running for the GOP nomination in Florida’s gubernatorial race, encapsulated the Carlson et al position when he declared that “My definition of America First is that if it does not benefit American citizens, it is not America First.” And if American citizens are distressed, well, that’s worse.

In May, 1942, when Nazi Germany was on the ascendant, Americans received ration cards. Among items rationed were: cars, tires, gasoline, fuel oil, coal, firewood, nylon, silk, and shoes. Not to mention household staples like meat, dairy, coffee and oils.

Sacrifice was embraced as a common good for the war effort, and it affected every American household. There were minor protests, but the dominant mood among the citizenry was that decisively winning the war, no pun intended, trumped all else.

American society has markedly changed since the 1940s. The unity of purpose that reigned at that era is all but absent in these polarized times. The idea of the common good has yielded to a “what’s in it for me?” mindset.

What’s more, many these days seem desensitized to the danger posed by Iran possessing nuclear weapons. The local chants of “From the river to the sea…” and “Globalize the intifida” have all but drowned out the far-away Iranian ones of “Marg bar America” (“Death to America!”).

All of which provides fertile ground for enemies of civilization like Iran to sow seeds of noxious weeds, to wear down an American public unused to sacrifice and terrified by the specter of $5-a-gallon gas.

© 2026 Ami Magazine

Pita and Propaganda

The Guardian lets down its guard

“First comes the hummus: studded with chickpeas, anointed with a little reservoir of olive oil, greedily smeared up with hunks of pitta [sic] bread and messy fingers. Then the tabbouleh, then some homemade falafels…”

Thus opened an article in The Guardian, the London daily that is considered Britain’s “paper of record,” like our country’s The New York Times. And, like The Times, it has a denied but evident bias against Israel and Jews.

The details of the sumptuous meal continued through several deliriously described courses and dessert (baklava and homemade chocolate, if you really must know). The writer, the paper’s sports writer and opinion columnist Jonathan Liew, was feasting at a successful North London Arab-run eatery called Cafe Metro.

He wasn’t writing a food column. It was, rather, a report on a controversy swirling around Cafe Metro and a new nearby branch of an popular upscale bakery called Gail’s.

The night before it was due to open, the bakery was vandalized with red paint. Less than a week later, all its windows were smashed in. Slogans reading “reject corporate Zionism” and various obscenities were scrawled on its walls.

Gail’s describes itself as “a British business with no specific connections to any country or government outside the UK,” but its parent company, Bain Capital, reportedly invests in military technology, including some Israeli security companies. Bad bakery!

Mr. Liew, after noting how Cafe Metro, “proudly blazons its Palestinian heritage” with a public display of flags, describes it lovingly as “a source of comfort and community in troubling times, resistance in its tastiest and most delicately spiced form.” And goes on to contend that “the very presence of [Gail’s] 20 metres away from a small independent cafe feels quietly symbolic, an act of heavy-handed high-street aggression.”

Gail’s, the writer seems to imply, has no business being a business.

Many people saw Mr. Liew’s description of the bakery’s opening, “an act of heavy-handed, high-street aggression” as, well, an act of heavy-handed Fleet Street aggression.

It was also an example of utterly corrupt journalism. Mr. Liew wasn’t quoting the Arab owners of Cafe Metro – who would be misguided enough to characterize Gail’s as an aggressor for simply existing. It was the columnist’s own ostensible statement of fact.

Making matters even more outrageous, the piece, which included no quotes from anyone connected to Gail’s, dismissed the window-smashing and paint smearing as “small acts of petty symbolism.”

A slew of complaints about the column was registered by, among many others, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who called the column “disgusting,” “appalling” and “ridiculous.”

With typical droll British humor. Senior Barrister Simon Myerson referenced the paper’s record of bias, writing: “I see the Guardian is having an antisemitic moment. Sorry, another antisemitic moment.”

The Guardian later edited the piece, “repositioning” the objectional “aggression” wordage “to clarify it meant to refer to the described fears about the chain’s impact on small traders.”

Also, “to avoid misunderstanding,” the paper removed the “small acts of petty symbolism” phrase, which, it explained, “was not intended to minimize local vandalism but rather to suggest its misdirected futility.”

All of which really misses the real point. It was the framing of the entire piece that was, and remains, journalistically objectionable.

After hundreds of words extolling the gustatory delights of Arab cuisine, Mr. Liew dwells for hundreds more on how the family of one of Cafe Metro’s operators “once lived in the city of Beit Hanoun in Gaza, and now lives out a precarious and hunted existence in one of Gaza’s many temporary refugee camps…”

And he contrasts that with how “Gail’s has long been feted as a purveyor of luxury baked goods and is an unmistakable barometer of local affluence.” Even though the chain is not currently owned by Jews or Israelis, the insinuation is as obvious as it is odious.

And Mr. Liew concludes with the observation that the two businesses “have found themselves on the frontline of a war. A deeply asymmetric war, defined by gross imbalances in power and resources and platforms.”

There is in fact a gross imbalance here. It lies in the shameless portrayal of a vandalized victim as an aggressor, opposite a reverent, adulatory portrayal of an imagined victim.

(c) 2026 Ami Magazine

Letter Bomb

Just over a year ago, President Trump nominated Joe Kent, a former Army Special Forces soldier and two-time Republican candidate for Congress, to be director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). It was a decision the president has come to regret.

Although Mr. Kent was a Trump loyalist, even to the point of endorsing the discredited “stolen election” of 2020 claim and asserting that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was an FBI plot, he turned his back on Mr. Trump last week, resigning his position in protest of the current Iran war.

The content of his resignation letter should concern us all.

Mr. Kent is entitled to believe, as he wrote, that the current war was not warranted because there was no “imminent threat” to the U.S. that would permit an American president to order to attack another country.

It’s a risible stance, considering Iran’s “Death to America” drumbeat and accelerated ballistic missile and nuclear programs – not to mention the mullahs’ employment of proxies over years to kill American citizens. But people are entitled to be short-sighted, even myopic, even stupid.

The gist of Mr. Kent’s letter, however, was not an insistence on Congressional approval or some pacifist plea. It was contemporary blood libel. And aimed at such slanders’ perennial targets.

The former security official lays responsibility for what he considers an illegitimate war squarely at the feet of Israel and her American supporters. It was they, he asserted, who forced a helpless, impressionable President Trump to attack Iran. “It is clear,” he wrote, “that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

He blames the Iraq war, too, on Israel, which “cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women.”

That Mr. Trump might be vulnerable to outside pressure is a laughable notion. If there is anything that both supporters and detractors of the president agree upon, it’s that the man has a mind of his own and is about as pliable as a steel rod.

But Mr. Kent seems to harbor an unshakeable belief in the Jewish ability to… control things, including the president.

Mr. Netanyahu certainly made the case to Mr. Trump that Iran is an imminent threat not only to Israel, its “Little Satan,” but also to the U.S., its “Great Satan.” But Mr. Trump has regarded Iran as a threat for decades. Well before he first became president, he actually called for troop deployments to the country and seizure of control of Iranian oil. In 2018, he famously withdrew from the Obama-era JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran.

Sharing an interest with Israel – and acting in unison with her to head off the mullahs’ desire to Islamify the world – isn’t some dark conspiracy. It’s responsible leadership.

What’s more, Israeli leaders have lobbied every president in memory to go to war in Iran. That Mr. Trump decided to do so is not a sign of some gullibility but of his judgment that the time had come to remove a threat to the Western world.

Mr. Kent should never have been in a governmental position, much less a counterterrorism post. That should have been evident from the start. The evidence would have included his 2021 call to the odious white nationalist Nick Fuentes to get advice on social media strategy for a Congressional run. And his interview by neo-Nazi blogger Greyson Arnold. And his hiring of a member of the neo-fascist “Proud Boys” as a campaign consultant.

And then there’s the large tattoo on his arm, revealed in a relative’s innocent posting of him in a swimming pool, that reads: “Panzer.” The name, of course, of a famed Nazi tank.

Now, since his resignation, he has appeared on Jew-baiting Tucker Carlson’s podcast and has been lauded by the likes of Candace Owens, a reincarnation of rabid antisemite Charles Coughlin. “May American troops take [Kent’s] lead,” she posted on social media, “and look into conscientious objection to Bibi’s Red Heifer War. Goyim stand down.”

Birds of a feather…

While we can feel relief that Mr. Kent has left the NCTC, it’s deeply concerning that he was ever part of it. One has to wonder if other bigots may be lurking in government bodies.

(c) 2026 Rabbi Avi Shafran