More stories

  • in

    Israel is playing an outsized role in New York City’s mayoral race. Will it matter?

    Speaking from a Jerusalem bomb shelter last week as Iran and Israel exchanged fire, a New York state senator posted a video message to New York City voters: “There is a mayoral primary coming up this week where one of the candidates does not believe the Jewish state has a right to exist,” said Sam Sutton, the senator from Brooklyn. “We don’t want to be in a situation like this in America.”Sutton called on New Yorkers to elect a “great friend of the Jewish people”: Andrew Cuomo, New York’s former governor.The appeal was a stark illustration of the outsized role a foreign country and its conflicts have come to play in local elections. While Tuesday’s vote is just the primary, the winner of the Democratic contest historically has gone on to win the mayoral contest in November – though this year could be different.“This election has turned into a two-person contest between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mandani, two candidates with very stark views on this matter,” said Jacob Kornbluh, a senior politics reporter with the Forward Jewish newspaper.With New York City’s nearly one million Jews making up the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, mayors of the past have always claimed support for the country with little pushback. But the war in Gaza has fundamentally changed the dynamic. Mamdani’s outspoken support for Palestinians might have previously tanked his candidacy, but his insurgent campaign has galvanised voters. Cuomo has responded by portraying Mamdani as “dangerous” and himself as uniquely positioned to fight antisemitism, a growing source of anxiety among Jewish voters.Cuomo’s campaign – flush with millions from pro-Israel billionaires like Bill Ackman – has ramped up attacks against Mamdani as he surged in the polls, including by distributing mailers condemned as racist. The former governor has stated unequivocally that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”.It’s not just Cuomo appealing to the fears of Jewish voters. Eric Adams – the current mayor, who is running as an independent given his plummeting popularity – recently adopted a contentious definition of antisemitism and floated running on an “EndAntisemitism” party line.Mamdani grew emotional last week while discussing the personal toll of the attacks, including multiple death threats, and has invoked his experience as a Muslim New Yorker to say he understands the pain of the Jewish communities that he pledges to protect.“The attacks on Zohran are textbook post 9/11 Islamophobia,” said Sumaya Awad, a Palestinian New Yorker and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, one of the first groups to back his candidacy. She praised Mamdani for not “backing down”.Mamdani co-founded his college’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, and as a state assembly member, introduced legislation to stop the funding of illegal Israeli settlements. He has built an enthusiastic coalition of young, progressive, and unabashedly pro-Palestinain New Yorkers, as well as immigrants and many of the city’s roughly 800,000 Muslims.View image in fullscreenCity comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander, who is Jewish and has cross-endorsed Mamdani, has sought to find a middle ground and accused Cuomo and Adams of “using Jews as pawns”, he told the Guardian in an interview – “not with the intention of making Jews any safer, but with the intention of gaining political advantage for themselves”.“Thankfully it’s not the job of the mayor to find mutual recognition and peace and safety for Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. “It is incumbent on the next mayor, whatever their position is, to find ways to reach across the divide.”As some candidates stoke fears, anxiety around the election is palpable among many Jewish voters.Alex Kaufman, a leader of LGBTQ Zionists of NYC, which endorsed Cuomo, said he had always prioritized issues like housing affordability, sustainability, and racial inclusion. “But this year, my number one issue is antisemitism,” he said. “I’ve never felt this unsafe.”With election day around the corner, the race has turned into an Israel-Palestine proxy war of sorts, even as voters on both sides wish the focus remained on local issues. Candidates have been asked in mayoral debates about their support for Israel and whether they would visit – with Mamdani’s answers that he supports Israel’s right to exist as a state “with equal rights” and that as mayor he would stay in the city rather than travel to a foreign country drawing both praise and condemnation (including some from the left, who criticised him for recognising Israel at all). In recent days, Cuomo has seized on Mamdani’s position on the words “globalize the intifada”, saying they fuel “hate” and “murder”.Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace’s advocacy arm, which has been canvassing for Mamdani, said that his success challenges the long-held wisdom that a New York mayor must support the Israeli government. “If you believe in safety, freedom, dignity, and justice for people here at home, you can’t have a Palestine exception to that,” she said.‘The status quo is being bent’New York’s Jews are a diverse constituency – ranging from some anti-Zionists and others variously critical of Israel to orthodox communities traditionally voting as a unified bloc for more conservative candidates. A recent poll of the city’s Jewish Democrats showed 31% supporting Cuomo, 20% backing Mamdani, and 18% behind Lander.In the middle are New York Jews who consistently vote Democratic and espouse a host of liberal and even progressive causes. Many are still reeling from the 7 October 2023 attacks in Israel, are uneasy about the tone of US protests against the war in Gaza, and are increasingly worried about Jewish safety, pointing to recent violent attacks in Washington DC, and Colorado, and defacing of Jewish businesses and synagogues in the city.View image in fullscreen
    Kaufman, of LGBTQ Zionists, said he wished there were “better options” but that many of his acquaintances were coalescing around Cuomo even as they have reservations about his past conduct, including the sexual assault allegations that ended his governorship. Others gravitated toward Lander, but were troubled by his endorsement of Mamdani. Some said they were “terrified” of the latter, pointing to his refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and his presence at protests where Houthi flags were on display.Cuomo has promised to run as an independent if Mamdani wins on Tuesday. Because Adams is running as an independent, and Mamdani is also expected to remain on the ballot as the Working Families Party candidate, the contest is far from over.But to some, the fact that an openly pro-Palestinian candidate has made it this far is a sign of a profound shift in the city’s politics.“The status quo is being bent,” said Awad. She said she cried when filling in her ballot early. “Hope is such a rare thing to feel these days.” More

  • in

    What a difference a week makes: Trump falls into the Netanyahu trap

    When he was elected, Donald Trump suggested he could hammer out a new relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who was used to getting his way with the White House. But after just over 150 days in office, it appears Trump has fallen into the same trap as his predecessors – and launched the most consequential strike on Iran in generations.From early suggestions that the Trump administration would rein in Netanyahu’s military ambitions, it now appears that the Israeli PM has manoeuvred the US into striking Iranian uranium enrichment sites directly after a series of military attacks that Washington was unable to deter the Israeli PM from. And the US is now bracing for a retaliation that could easily bring it into a full-scale war.Days before Trump’s inauguration, his envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, barrelled into Israel with a demand to meet Netanyahu on Shabbat in order to strongarm him into negotiating a ceasefire deal with Hamas in Gaza.Senior officials at the time chalked that up to the “Trump factor” – a reference to the unpredictability and dealmaking prowess of the US president – which could provide a decisive edge in dealing with the forceful Israeli PM.While Netanyahu had been able to manoeuvre previous administrations into supporting his military adventures in the region, some critics of Israel began to laud Trump for his ability to resist Netanyahu’s pull.But after the events of Saturday – when US B-2 bombers pounded targets in Iran for the first time since Israel began to launch strikes last week – it was clear that Trump’s intuition had changed. Members of his inner entourage also shifted from a Maga isolationist approach to foreign policy to a more hawkish stance.Trump’s public aversion to war and his promises as a candidate not to embroil the US in further conflicts abroad was evaporating less than 200 days after he re-entered office.When he appeared in public, Trump sought to put rumours of a troubled relationship with Netanyahu to rest. And he tried to show that US policy was in lockstep with Israel, rejecting suggestions that Israel had blindsided the US by pursuing an aggressive bombing campaign against Iran.“I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump said. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”It was a far cry from the initial US reaction to Israeli bombing raids on targets in Iran, when the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, called the strikes “unilateral” and said the US was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.What a difference a week makes. The US now appears to have fully endorsed the Israeli strikes and joined the attack, potentially setting the stage for a series of escalations that could lead to a new war in the Middle East.What does this mean for the future? Trump has claimed in public and private that the US strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan enrichment sites were one-off missions and could be contained. US forces in the Middle East have been warned of the potential for Iranian retaliation attacks, and Trump has told Tehran that the US is ready to carry out further strikes if it is targeted directly.Yet Trump’s own administration officials, including the vice-president, JD Vance, have warned of the potential for a limited strike to creep into a longer-term mission in Iran if Tehran retaliates.For now, Trump continues to try to tread a middle ground, launching strikes but suggesting that he can prevent an escalation leading to a protracted war.Yet the key US ally in the Middle East appears only emboldened by Trump’s raid.“Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said in a video statement. More

  • in

    Trump’s inner circle shifted view to support limited, one-off strike on Iran nuclear sites

    Donald Trump’s move to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran came as those inside his orbit who were opposed to US intervention in the conflict shifted their views in favor of a limited and one-off strike.The US president had been under immense pressure from Republican anti-interventionists not to engage in any action against Iran out of concern that the US might be dragged into a protracted engagement to topple Iran’s leadership, or that strikes on facilities might have limited success.Some advisers both inside and outside the White House tried to dissuade him from becoming entangled in what they characterized as a conflict started by Israel. They initially suggested the US could continue to help Israel with support from the intelligence community.But in recent days, as Trump increasingly considered the prospect of strikes and told advisers he had no interest in a prolonged war to bring about regime change, some advisers shifted their public arguments to suggesting the US could do a quick bombing run if Israel could do nothing further.The evolving views gave Trump some cover to order a bombing run that targeted the three nuclear facilities in Iran. A US official said on Saturday that the strikes were complete, the B-2 bombers used in the raid were out of Iranian airspace and no further follow-up attacks were planned.However, the strikes will inevitably be seen by some as a victory for hardliners in the US who have pushed for a tough stance on Iran, a firm backing of Israel’s attack on the country and direct US military involvement in that effort.The US strikes in the end were limited to Iran’s nuclear uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, the facility buried deep underground that is seen as the most difficult to take offline, and a third site at Isfahan, where Iran was believed to have stored its near-weapons-grade uranium.It was unclear whether the bombing run did enough damage to set back Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, and whether Iran had already moved the weapons-grade uranium out of the Isfahan laboratory as some officials suggested.Trump appeared to view the bombing run as comparable to his drone strike to assassinate Gen Qassem Suleimani of Iran, one of his proudest accomplishments from his first term and one he mentioned repeatedly at campaign rallies, despite his denouncements of US military action in the Middle East.Like he did after the Suleimani operation, Trump posted a giant graphic of the American flag on his Truth Social account shortly after he described the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities as “very successful” in a post announcing details of the operation.The comparison appeared to be an additional effort to underscore his intentions that he does not want a wider war with Iran and was only focused on the necessary steps to ensure Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon.Whether that hope plays out could depend on large part on how Iran interprets the strikes and its ability to retaliate. If Iranian leaders perceived them to be limited, it could lead to a more measured response. But if seen as too disproportionate, and with little to lose, Iran could open frontal attacks on numerous US bases in the region. More

  • in

    U.S. Military Is Pulled Back Into Middle East Wars

    The strikes on Iran ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation against American forces in the region.The U.S. strikes on nuclear sites in Iran are an extraordinary turn for a military that was supposed to be moving on from two decades of forever wars in the Middle East, and they put the United States back on war footing.Across the region, where more than 40,000 American troops are on bases and warships, the strikes ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation from Iran.President Trump announced on social media that three Iranian sites were hit, including the mountain facility at Fordo. The bombs used in the strikes are believed to include “bunker busters,” which are designed to destroy deep underground bunkers or well-buried weapons in highly protected facilities.A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence said that multiple 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordo, and that initial damage assessments indicated that the facility had been “taken off the table.”The strikes, whether successful or not, are likely to trigger a fierce response. Tehran has vowed to strike at American bases in the Middle East, and American intelligence agencies confirmed before the strikes took place that Iran would take steps to widen the war and hit U.S. forces in the region. U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence, said the strikes against the three nuclear sites were complete. The official said no follow-up attacks were expected, although commanders were ready to respond to any Iranian retaliation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    With Decision to Bomb Iran, Trump Injects U.S. Into Middle East Conflict

    By bombing three nuclear sites in Iran, the United States has joined Israel’s war against the country. Now it is bracing for Iranian retaliation.President Trump announced on Saturday that the U.S. military had bombed three of Iran’s nuclear sites, including its uranium-enrichment facility deep underground at Fordo, injecting the United States directly into a war in the Middle East.The president made the announcement on his social media website, Truth Social, shortly before 8 p.m. in Washington.“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space,” the president wrote. “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!”The bombing came two days after the White House said Mr. Trump would make a decision “within two weeks” about whether to move ahead with such an attack. Israeli officials were told about the bombing beforehand, and Mr. Trump spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel afterward, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.Mr. Trump said he would address the nation on Saturday night from the White House at 10 p.m.It was not immediately clear how many bombs were dropped, or how much damage was caused to Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and potentially pursue a nuclear weapon. And Mr. Trump, who had been debating whether to join Israel’s war against Iran, immediately suggested that a diplomatic resolution was still possible. But it was far from clear that Iran would be interested in that.Since making clear that he was considering striking Iran, Mr. Trump has faced pressure from Republican critics and supporters of such of a move, highlighting a split within his own party.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    No U.S. Decision on Joining War Yet, Though It Could Come in Days, Israeli Officials Say

    Israel on Saturday struck sites in southwestern Iran that would most likely be on any potential flight path used by U.S. warplanes on the way to attack a key Iranian nuclear facility.The Trump administration has not told the Israeli military whether the United States plans to join the war on Iran, two Israeli defense officials said on Saturday.But the two officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss security matters, said they believed that Washington was likely to enter the war and that it was already making preparations to do so.Based on Israeli conversations with their American counterparts over the past two days, the officials said, a U.S. strike on Iran could take place in the coming days.President Trump was scheduled to meet with his national security team at the White House on Saturday evening to discuss the possibility of joining Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. While the White House has said Mr. Trump has not made a final decision on an attack, the United States has dispatched several Air Force B-2 bombers from an American base and across the Pacific.The bombers can carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs Mr. Trump is considering dropping on Fordo, the heavily fortified underground nuclear facility in Iran that is critical to its nuclear program.The planes could provide options to the president, even if they are not ultimately deployed. In moving the B-2 bombers — and allowing the public to know about it — the White House may also be seeking to pressure Iran to come to the negotiating table.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Israeli Attacks in Iran Kill Three More Commanders, Israel Says

    The claims by the Israeli military came as aircraft tracker data indicated American B-2 bombers might be moving into position for joining the assault on Iran.Israeli warplanes struck and killed three Iranian commanders, Israel’s defense ministry said Saturday, including the head of the force that supports the Palestinian group Hamas and other proxy militias around the Middle East.The reported killing of the commanders expanded Israel’s tally of assassinated Iranian officials in the nine days of war between the two countries. Israel identified the commander of the force that coordinates with proxy militias as Mohammed Said Izadi, and said he was killed in an assault on the holy city of Qum.The new attacks came amid fears that the war could expand with the involvement of the United States, a prospect that President Trump has kept vague, leaving the world guessing his intentions.Mr. Trump was scheduled to travel late Saturday afternoon from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., to Washington, where he was to meet with his national security team in the evening and then again on Sunday. The president typically spends both weekend days out of town at one of his properties. Before Mr. Trump’s return to the White House, flight tracker data suggested multiple B-2 military aircraft had taken off from a Midwestern military base. Defense analysts took note of flight movements amid the president’s deliberations about whether to join Israel’s efforts to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. Only Washington possesses the 30,000-pound bomb many consider essential to an air assault on Fordo, a deeply buried nuclear complex — and the aircraft, the B-2, capable of delivering the munition.The movement of the B-2s, however, did not mean a final decision had been made about whether to strike. It is not unusual to shift military assets into position to provide options to the president and military commanders even if they are not ultimately deployed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Markets Are Balancing on a Knife’s Edge

    The world has been anything but peaceful, but you wouldn’t know that from looking at the markets.The calm in the markets has been unnerving.You might think the world has been enjoying a season so tranquil that the stock, bond and currency markets have fallen asleep.Yet the world has been anything but peaceful lately, whether in the United States, Ukraine or the Persian Gulf. And the Federal Reserve gave the markets another reason for concern on Wednesday when it held interest rates steady. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said that the economy faced the risks of both higher inflation and stagnating economic growth, but that the central bank needed more evidence before it could decide where the greatest dangers lay.“Right now, it’s a forecast in a foggy time,” he said. Even more than usual, the path ahead isn’t clear. Still, there was barely any reaction in market prices. Nor has anything else seriously disrupted major markets.That’s noteworthy, when you consider the crises that are looming: the highest tariffs in decades; a contentious crackdown on immigration and a swelling budget deficit in the United States; and, in the Middle East, an escalating war between Israel and Iran that could sharply reduce global oil supplies.This isn’t to say all markets have been entirely placid. The price of oil has oscillated since Israel launched a barrage of air attacks on Iran last Friday, setting off a new, heightened stage of conflict between the two longtime adversaries. President Trump has warned Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that the United States might intervene directly, saying, “Our patience is wearing thin.” The start of a much bigger war, with the United States joining the Israeli effort to eliminate Iran as a potential nuclear threat, would undoubtedly wake the markets from their apparent slumber.High StakesThe economic risks in the Persian Gulf are enormous. If Iran were desperate enough, in addition to targeting U.S. forces in the region it could throttle the oil supplies that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping through the strait encompasses one quarter of “total global seaborne oil trade,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and protecting that oil route has been a preoccupation of U.S. military planners since the days of the shah of Iran, who was deposed in 1979.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More