Why Congress Should Invite Benjamin Netanyahu for a Fourth Speech

In 2015, the Israeli prime minister addressed a joint session of the House and Senate. The editors of the New York Sun recommend that the new Congress ask him to return:

Mr. Netanyahu is, after all, one of only two foreign leaders to have addressed a joint meeting three times. Winston Churchill used his third speech to dilate on, among other things, how he himself had become a Zionist early in the 20th century and to kvell over Israel’s progress. That speech was in 1952, when Harry Truman was still in office. Were Mr. Netanyahu to be invited back, he’d be the only four-timer.

Mr. Netanyahu could also talk about Israel’s democracy, given the way the latest election is being portrayed in the pro-Democratic press. . . . So Netanyahu could pick up from where he ended his speech last time he addressed Congress. That was where he gestured to the bas-relief of Moses, whose exodus from Egypt helped inspire America’s own early settlers and whose image now overlooks our legislature and whose laws have served as a kind of constitution of the Jewish people. We don’t want to press that point to any inappropriate degree, but neither would we ignore it.

We are struck that in recent years not a single world leader—including Presidents Biden and Macron, say, or Prime Minister Johnson or Chancellor Merkel—has given a major strategic speech or call to global action. Who better to do that than Mr. Netanyahu, a combat veteran, a son of one of the West’s greatest historians and, by time in grade, a senior statesman? What an opportunity for the 118th Congress to get off on a historic footing.

Read more at New York Sun

More about: Benjamin Netanyahu, Congress, U.S.-Israel relationship, Winston Churchill

 

Iran’s Options for Revenge on Israel

On April 1, an Israeli airstrike on Damascus killed three Iranian generals, one of whom was the seniormost Iranian commander in the region. The IDF has been targeting Iranian personnel and weaponry in Syria for over a decade, but the killing of such a high-ranking figure raises the stakes significantly. In the past several days, Israelis have received a number of warnings both from the press and from the home-front command to ready themselves for retaliatory attacks. Jonathan Spyer considers what shape that attack might take:

Tehran has essentially four broad options. It could hit an Israeli or Jewish facility overseas using either Iranian state forces (option one), or proxies (option two). . . . Then there’s the third option: Tehran could also direct its proxies to strike Israel directly. . . . Finally, Iran could strike Israeli soil directly (option four). It is the riskiest option for Tehran, and would be likely to precipitate open war between the regime and Israel.

Tehran will consider all four options carefully. It has failed to retaliate in kind for a number of high-profile assassinations of its operatives in recent years. . . . A failure to respond, or staging too small a response, risks conveying a message of weakness. Iran usually favors using proxies over staging direct attacks. In an unkind formulation common in Israel, Tehran is prepared to “fight to the last Arab.”

Read more at Spectator

More about: Iran, Israeli Security, Syria