Was Oct 7 Iran’s stratagem to mask the breakout towards the bomb?

 

Dr. Michael Oren on the link between the IDF Rafah strike and the camp ammunition explosion

Dr. Michael Oren, 2:04 into the video

“I had to go on the news yesterday and actually show that the two very small bombs, the smallest bombs in the Israeli Air Force's arsenal, used to take out these two Hamas commanders,  exploded 200 yards from this camp!. 200 yards.  No one ever reported this. 200 yards from the camp!. How does that result in the entire camp going up in flames? And clearly, clearly there was ammunition beneath this camp.  How that ammunition went off is another problem. “  

  

Did Hamas blow up the ammunition themselves by making sure that any minor explosion 200 yards away from the ammunition would ignite it? The time between the first  explosion from the Israeli strike on the two Hamas commanders and the second explosion of the ammunition under the camp should help determine what happened.     

President Biden’s ‘ironclad’ support of Israel - "Israel Security Assistance Support Act" vs Biden's veto

 

"Israel Security Assistance Support Act"

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A BILL  

 To provide for the expeditious delivery of defense articles and defense services for Israel and other matters. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Israel Security Assistance Support Act’’

.SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

 Congress finds the following: 

(1) On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists launched a massive, unprovoked war on Israel, killing over 1,200 innocent people and taking over 240 2 hostages, including American citizens. 

(2) Since October 7, Israel has faced attacks by Iran and its proxies including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, which have required significant  military responses. 

(3) Under the terms of a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding, the United States provides Israel with $3.8 billion per year in security assistance and missile defense funding from fiscal years 2019 through 2028, which is subject to the approval of Congress. 

(4) Thus far in fiscal year 2024, Congress has enacted regular and supplemental legislation appropriating $12.5 billion in security assistance and missile defense for Israel without any additional conditions

(5) Congress plays a vital role in oversight and approval of direct commercial sales and foreign military sales to security partners around the world, including Israel.  

(6) In May 2024, it was reported that President Biden ordered a pause on certain defense articles ready for imminent delivery to Israel, without having consulted with Congress. 

(7) On May 8, 2024, President Biden stated regarding Israel, ‘‘We’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells’’

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

Congress— 

(1) condemns the Biden Administration’s decision to pause certain arms transfers to Israel as Israel faces unprecedented threats from Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis; 

(2) calls on the Biden Administration to allow all previously approved arms transfers to Israel to proceed quickly to ensure that Israel can defend itself and defeat threats from Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis; 

(3) calls on the Biden Administration to utilize all congressionally appropriated funds for security assistance for Israel as Congress intended; 

(4) stands with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists; and 

(5) reaffirms Israel’s right to self-defense

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION. 

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any Act appropriating funds for the Department of Defense or the Department of State for fiscal year 2024 or any prior years may be made available—   

(1) to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles or defense services from the United States to Israel; or 

(2) to pay the salary or expenses of any officer or employee of the Department of Defense or the Department of State who takes any action to support or further the withholding, halting, reversal, or cancellation of the delivery of such defense articles or services. 

SEC. 5. PROMPT DELIVERY.

(a) PROMPT DELIVERY OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES.—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall ensure prompt delivery of all defense articles and services for Israel which are expected to be delivered in fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including— 

(1) those contracted through the Foreign Military Sales system; 

(2) those supported by prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of Defense; and 

(3) those provided pursuant to a declaration in section 506(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

(b) PROMPT DELIVERY OF DIRECT COMMERCIAL SALES.—The Secretary of State shall ensure prompt approval and delivery of all direct commercial sales of defense articles and services for Israel which are expected to be delivered in fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including those for the Ministry of Public Security.

 (c) PROMPT DELIVERY OF WITHHELD ITEMS.—Any defense article and defense service described in subsection(a) or (b) of this section that were withheld from delivery  as of the date of the enactment of this Act shall be delivered to Israel not later than 15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 6. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS.

 (a) WITHHOLDING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS.—None of the unobligated balances of funds made available by prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of Defense under the heading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ for the immediate Office of the Secretary of Defense that are available as of the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of Defense certifies and reports to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate that the requirements of section 5(c) have been met

(b) WITHHOLDING OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE FUNDS.—None of the unobligated balances of funds made available by prior Acts making appropriations for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs under the heading ‘‘Diplomatic Programs’’ for the Office of the Secretary that are available as of the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of State certifies and reports to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate that the requirements of section 5(c) have been met. 

(c) WITHHOLDING OF FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS.—None of the unobligated balances of funds made available by prior Acts making appropriations for Financial Services and General Government under the heading ‘‘Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated To the President—National Security Council and Homeland Security Council’’ that are available as of the date of the enactment of this 20 Act may be obligated or expended until the President certifies and reports to the Committee on Appropriations of he House of Representatives and the Senate that the requirements of section 5(c) have been met. 

SEC. 7. OBLIGATION REQUIREMENT.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall obligate any remaining unobligated balances of funds appropriated or otherwise made available for assistance for Israel not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. REPORTS.

 (a) INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Department of State shall jointly submit to Congress a report on any actions taken by executive branch officials before the date of the enactment of this Act to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles and defense services to Israel. 

(b) MONTHLY SECURITY ASSISTANCE REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter through fiscal year 2025, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide a written report to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate describing United States security assistance provided to Israel since October 7, 2023, including a comprehensive list of the defense articles and services provided 2 to Israel and the associated authority and funding used 3 to provide such articles and services: Provided, That such 4 report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may 5 be accompanied by a classified annex. 

(c) REPORT ON PRIORITY DEFENSE ARTICLES AND 7 SERVICES.—Not later than 30 days after the date of en8 actment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide a written report to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate describing urgent and high priority defense articles and defense services for Israel and steps taken or planned to expedite the delivery of such articles and services. 

To provide for the expeditious delivery of defense articles and defense services for Israel and other matters. 

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY H.R. 8369 -

Israel Security Assistance Support Act (Rep. Calvert, R-CA)

 The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 8369, the Israel Security Assistance Support Act, which seeks to limit the President’s discretion to ensure that the delivery of certain defense articles and services aligns with U.S. foreign policy objectives. The bill would undermine the President’s ability to execute an effective foreign policy. This bill could raise serious concerns about infringement on the President’s authorities under Article II of the Constitution, including his duties as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive and his power to conduct foreign relations. We strongly oppose attempts to constrain the President’s ability to deploy U.S. security assistance consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. 

The bill is a misguided reaction to a deliberate distortion of the Administration’s approach to Israel. The President has been clear: we will always ensure Israel has what it needs to defend itself. Our commitment to Israel is ironclad. The Administration will continue to use all funds appropriated for Israel consistent with legal requirements, including in the recent supplemental, rendering this bill unnecessary and unwise. Furthermore, this bill, if enacted, could lead to spiraling unintended consequences, prohibiting the United States from adjusting our security assistance posture with respect to Israel in any way, including to address unanticipated emergent needs, even if Israel and the United States agree that military needs have changed and supplies should change accordingly.

 If the President were presented with H.R. 8369, he would veto it. *

Senator Lindsey Graham shows moral clarity over delay in US weapons shipments to Israel

 

Show restraint? Here is how Churchill reacted to Pearl Harbor:

 

Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Rishi Sunak, David Cameron, Emmanuel Macron, Annalena Baerbock - all urged  Israel to show restraint after the Iranian attack on Israel on April 15, 2024 with 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles. To put things in perspective, here is how Winston Churchill reacted to Pearl Harbor.  

“No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war -- the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand's breadth; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutilated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.”

...

“Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

Winston S. Churchill: The Second World War, Volume III, pages 539-540

Boris Johnson shows moral clarity. Bravo, Boris!

Finally a politician in the West displays moral clarity!  Bravo, Boris!  Shame on President Biden!  

BORIS JOHNSON: It would be insane for Britain to ban arms sales to Israel. The sooner we denounce the idea, the better

By Boris Johnson, Daily Mail  

If you want an example of the death wish of Western civilisation, I give you the current proposal from members of the British establishment that this country should ban arms sales to Israel.

If you want evidence of government madness, it appears that Foreign Office lawyers are busily canvassing the idea — which has not, as far as I can tell, yet been rejected by the Foreign Secretary himself. He seems to have gone into a kind of purdah on the subject.

More alarming still, we are told that an Israeli arms ban is the subject of an active row in Cabinet, with only a handful of ministers positively sticking up for Israel.

The contagion has spread pretty wide, and very fast. The proposed embargo is now supported by MPs on all sides, by the former head of MI6, by some former Supreme Court Justices, and by about 600 members of the legal profession, all of them clamouring for us to turn our backs on the only democracy in the Middle East.

We are being asked to shun the Israelis, to mount a total moral repudiation of Israel — when that country has only recently suffered the biggest and most horrifying massacre of Jewish people since World War II; and when 130 hostages, including, for heaven’s sake, a baby, are being kept in dungeons in Gaza by their jihadi captors; and when the release of those hostages, it cannot be stated too often, would mean the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Forces and the end of the conflict.

How can we get things so wrong, so upside down? What has come over us?

Let us be clear what it would mean, to ban arms sales now, when Israel is under a greater existential threat than at any time I can remember.

If we ban the sale of arms ourselves, it surely follows that we do not think any self-respecting country should be arming the Israelis.

And if we are willing everyone, including the U.S., to end their military support, be in no doubt what that means. There is only one logical conclusion.

We are willing the military defeat of Israel and the victory of Hamas. Remember that in order to win this conflict, Hamas only has to survive. All they need at the end is to hang on, rebuild, and go again.

That’s victory for Hamas; and that is what these legal experts seem to be asking for. So let’s just remind ourselves what this war is about, and why Israel has been forced to act.

Israel has no choice but to defend itself because the charter and aim of Hamas is to destroy Israel, and indeed to liquidate the entire Jewish people. The Hamas massacre on October 7 was plainly designed to further that end: the moral and political destruction of Israel.

There was a reason why they meticulously planned and then performed those unspeakable murders and rapes. There was a cold logic to the barbarism seen that day, to the beheadings and the burnings. They wanted to show Israelis, and anyone thinking of coming to Israel, that this was a place where ordinary and innocent families could be enveloped in violent catastrophe.

They wanted to evoke global feelings of repulsion about events in Israel, and, of course, they wanted to provoke the Israelis into a violent response, because they knew that retaliation would inevitably forfeit sympathy for Israel around the world.

That’s why they took the hostages: to give Israel no choice but to fight. That’s why they refuse to give the hostages back. That’s why they prepared so carefully for the war, cynically designing their very defences so as to provoke the greatest loss of Palestinian life, and the greatest possible loss of Western support for Israel.

That’s why they built 400 miles of tunnels, and that’s why they made sure to conceal themselves beneath mosques, hospitals, schools and other civilian targets.

They are actively using the death and suffering of their own citizens, maximising their pain and grief so as to rally international opinion against Israel — and we are falling for it.

I do not for one minute deny the immense suffering of the people of Gaza. I just ask you to consider who is really to blame for it.

It was shattering to see the recent killing, by the Israelis, of three British and other Western aid workers. There must be an inquiry.

The Israelis must explain what happened, and bring to justice those responsible for what must surely have been a hideous mistake. But in all our grief and rage about what is happening on the ground in Gaza, we should not forget the essential moral difference between Hamas and Israel.

It is still true, in all the chaos and carnage of war, that Israel is sending warnings of its attacks — by phone or text or leaflet. Israel is trying to use precision munitions. Israel is trying to make sure that there is some kind of proportionality between the military objectives and the risk of human suffering. Israel is trying to winkle out the Hamas terrorists, while doing its best to spare the surrounding population.

Israel is trying to minimise casualties. Hamas is trying to maximise them — including on their own side. Hamas know that it is this awful spectacle, of the suffering of Palestinian women and children, which breaks our hearts in the West and weakens our resolve.

At the moment they can see us melting, and weakening, and in our voices — both in London and Washington — they can hear our growing irresolution.

They listen to this sudden discussion of boycotting Israel, and they think they can succeed in their objective: to deprive Israel of Western support and make it impossible for the Israelis to complete their mission.

If the West continues to crumble — and especially if Britain and the U.S. crumble — then the Israelis will be prevented from getting into Rafah. They will be prevented from achieving their objective: of finishing Hamas as a military force in Gaza.

The Hydra’s heads will be allowed to regrow. Hamas will be able to do another October 7, and then another. Above all, the rest of the world — where they are already so dubious about the willpower of the West — will see that, when it came to it, we did not have the guts, the fibre or the strategic patience to stick up for a democracy; and that we were willing to let the jihadis win.

Is that really what you want, all you legal experts who say that Israel’s actions now necessitate an arms embargo? Do you want to hand victory to a bunch of murderers and rapists?

You talk of humanitarian law. Where was the humanity of Hamas on October 7? Show me the operation of humanitarian law in the Gaza of Hamas — a place ruled by fear and summary execution, where homosexuality can carry the death penalty.

Humanitarian law? They are laughing at us. If we ban arms to Israel now, it would, of course, be absurdly hypocritical. I don’t remember many qualms about loss of civilian life during the Nato strikes on Libya.

We sustained — very sensibly — our vast arms deals with Saudi Arabia throughout the war in Yemen.

But it’s not the hypocrisy I mind. It’s the implication: that good, clever, kindly people in this country are actually willing to take away, from Israel, its means of defending its citizens against Hamas.

That is insane. That is shameful — and the sooner the Government formally denounces the idea, the better.

Schumer vs. Netanyahu | Potomac Watch Podcast: WSJ Opinion

MY COMMENT: 

There are times in history when the moral fiber and integrity of one man determines the history of humankind. The best example is May 28, 1940 when Churchill won over the extended cabinet of 25 MPs in his decision not to negotiate a separate peace with Hitler. 

Three days ago we had the example of a similar moment,  except this time the lack of Chuck Schumer’s integrity  may end up having far reaching negative consequences for the democracies of the West.  Why? Because Israel is fighting Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran alone and throwing Israel under the bus at this crucial moment may push Iran towards nuclear breakout.

I'm Kate Bachelder Odell. I'm hosting today and I'm about to talk to my colleague, Elliot Kaufman, who is fresh off a trip to Israel about the developments there in Israel's war and Israel's relationship with the United States. So, Elliot, thank you so much for joining us. I believe you're relatively fresh off a plane, so hopefully you've had a moment to figure out what time and day it is and where you are, but we're glad to have you. In the past 24 hours, the biggest news item in the US-Israel relationship has obviously been the Democratic majority leader, Chuck Schumer who went to the US Senate floor and basically called for Netanyahu's ouster from Prime Minister of Israel. So, let's listen to a quick clip of what Chuck Schumer had to say.

Chuck Schumer: There needs to be a fresh debate about the future of Israel after October 7th. In my opinion, that is best accomplished by holding an election. Now, if Prime Minister Netanyahu's current coalition remains in power after the war begins to wind down and continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance, then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course.

Kate Bachelder Odell: Well, Schumer really waded right in there to Democratic allies electoral process. So, Elliot, I've got a small idea of how this perhaps went over in Israel, but why don't you give us some more detail on how Mr. Schumer's remarks are being received so far?

Elliot Kaufman: Sure. Thanks for having me on Kate. There are plenty of Israelis who would agree with Senator Schumer. There are plenty who would disagree, but I think what they would all say is that it's not his place, it's not his country. He doesn't get to say when Israel has an election, when a government has to fall, when the country's policy has to change. So, you've seen Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leading opponents, people who would usually be more than happy to say bad things about him have to come and rally to his side here, Benny Gantz, Netanyahu's chief opponent coming out and saying that, this is a decision for Israelis to make, not an American Senator, no matter how powerful. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, another Netanyahu opponent coming out and saying, Israel is not a banana republic. America doesn't get to dictate what happens in this way. So, if the intent was to undermine the Prime Minister, I don't think it has succeeded in Israel. Israelis don't like to hear their country given orders about basic democratic processes.

Kate Bachelder Odell: Right. One of the things I find fascinating about this speech from Schumer is that if you read the full text of it, the first half of it is actually a remarkably cogent defense of Israel's existence, that it's not a 20th century invention and a very clear-eyed description of Israel's enemies and what they face against Hamas and Schumer recalls things like when he was younger listening over the radio about whether Israel was going to win the Six-Day War. So, what boggles my mind is that he kept going, and obviously the speech is not remembered for any of those features that I'm describing now. So, this is I guess, more of a question about the American left, but there's clearly some sort of change going on among Democrats, among the Biden administration and their posture toward Israel. Can you give us any more understanding of how maybe America's bent toward Israel has changed over the past couple of weeks?

Elliot Kaufman: You're absolutely right about there being two sides to Senator Schumer's speech, and I think you have to read it in the context of a campaign by President Biden over the past several weeks, months, maybe a month and a half, to really up the rhetorical ante against Israel, except he would put it differently. He would say it's against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The truth is, that plays well with American liberals, not only the anti-Israel left, but American liberals in general who have come to a situation where you can really say anything about Prime Minister Netanyahu and it's okay. The problem is what Netanyahu is being attacked for aren't things where he is on one side and the Israeli people are on another. That's what President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have tried to argue, but on every issue they pick, those are the issues where Netanyahu is actually aligned with Israelis on issues like what to do about Rafah, Hamas' final stronghold in Gaza. On issues like a Palestinian state now. Israelis find that idea absolutely crazy. They can't believe an American would think that's a good idea right now, even on things like humanitarian aid, where I would argue the Prime Minister is actually out in front of where Israelis are. Most Israelis don't like the idea of sending in humanitarian aid while their hostages are still suffering there 150 days in. Netanyahu is sending aid, and so by attacking the Prime Minister on these issues, they're really undermining their argument that the US problem is just with Netanyahu and not with Israel.

Kate Bachelder Odell: I thought your point in your piece for us Elliot was brilliant that, folks assume that if Netanyahu were gone, that they'd get somebody who were closer in agreement with the Biden administration, but in turn the reality might be quite the opposite. You mentioned Rafah and President Biden declared it would be a red line, which is an odd thing to say to an ally of any variety as opposed to an adversary, but maybe you could give us a little bit more insight into what Israel is planning in Rafah, what the potential for Israel to go into Rafah is, and how that pressure not to go into Rafah is actually playing there, whether it's having any effect or maybe the opposite effect in giving more Israel resolve, that it really does need to finish the job of eliminating the threat of Hamas.

Elliot Kaufman: Yes, so the Israeli war effort has two goals. One of them is to destroy Hamas. The other is to free the hostages that Hamas has been holding. These two objectives sometimes go hand in hand and sometimes not. So Rafah, the argument is, you can't destroy Hamas if you're going to leave it, an entire city as a stronghold where it has an estimated 40% of its military forces sitting where its senior leadership is believed to be hiding and where the hostages are believed to be held, most of them. So, the argument from an Israeli perspective is very clear for why there has to be some sort of military operation against Rafah. However, there are all kinds of other strategies being pursued at the same time, the Biden administration, President Biden really doesn't talk about destroying Hamas anymore. He did at the start of the war, and it really gave Israelis a boost of morale. President Biden went there to Israel, gave some very powerful speeches, but these days he just never mentions it, victory defeating Hamas, that's simply fallen off of his list of priorities, instead, he talks about humanitarian aid and he talks about bringing the war to a close. Now, the way to do that for him is with some kind of hostage deal and talks have been going on and there's some progress lately, but one can never know. The way that these two issues intersect is that President Biden would like a hostage deal that comes with a six-week pause in the fighting and then use that to get a larger ceasefire. He's been fairly open about this. Now his way to get there has been to pressure Israel, new policy measures, threats about suspending weapon shipments, escalating anti-Israel rhetoric. It's been pressure on Israel, Israel, Israel to try to get this hostage deal. The problem is Hamas has seen that too, and so in the last several weeks, we've seen Hamas harden its negotiating stances and move further away from a deal. Why after all should Hamas go to a deal if Israel's threat of an invasion of its final stronghold Rafah, is no longer credible? So, the Biden administration's actions are in some ways working at cross purposes with its goals.

Kate Bachelder Odell: Your point about victory just completely being absent from the discussion is a great larger point about the Biden administration's foreign policy in general, and reminds me of Ukraine where victory has also dropped off as any sort of objective the US should have. But we'll take a quick break and we'll be back talking more with Elliot about the war in Israel.

Speaker 7: Don't forget. You can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast.

Audio: From the Opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is Potomac watch.

Kate Bachelder Odell: Welcome back to Potomac Watch. I'm Kate Bachelder Odell chatting here with my colleague Elliot Kaufman about war in Israel. Elliot, one thing you mentioned in your last remarks was about these potential threats to cut off US weapon support for Israel. Now, the Biden administration has been saying all of these bromides about we will never abandon Israel, but then leaving it open to the possibility that they would cut off some weapon support or put restrictions on weapons or maybe supply things like Israel's Iron Dome interceptors to help it protect its cities, but lay off some more active support. My understanding of my own reporting is that Israel really could benefit and needs US support on items like precision-guided munitions, whether that's artillery or guided bombs. I guess my question for you, having spent the week there is, how seriously are the Israelis taking those threats that maybe US support won't be there, and what are Israel's options if that were to happen? How are they thinking about the potential unreliability of the Biden administration?

Elliot Kaufman: It's a good question. Lack of ammunition is one of the most serious threats to the Israeli war effort, and it has been almost right from the start. Now, this is talked about all the time in Israel, but not so much in America. When you talk to senior Israeli officials about this, political officials, military officials, ammunition is the one thing where they will signal to you how serious it is, so much so that they really can't say much. Now, what I've been able to hear is that in the first two weeks of the war effort, Israel was running dangerously low. I've spoken to reserve soldiers who were told their unit could only fire 10 rounds of artillery that day. They had a set quota they simply could not exceed. The question is how did they get into a situation like this? There are a few reasons. One of them is completely inadequate Israeli planning. They weren't ready for a real war, especially not on two fronts, because Israel has to hold so much ammunition in reserve for Hezbollah in the north. They can't simply use all of it on Hamas in the South. The second point though is that many of these US ammunition stocks that were held in Israel were sent to Ukraine during that war. Now, that was a perfectly legitimate choice, but Israel found itself scrambling for these weapons that would've otherwise been on its own territory, US weapons. The third thing I would point to is Israeli officials will say that US ammunition transfers, well, there were many more of them at the start. They've been slower. There's been some stalling by the US and now there are leaks every day in the US press about weapons being cut off, conditioned, there was a US policy change adding all sorts of strings to how the weapons can be used and so forth, not in a way that would take them away from Israel, but in a way that was aimed at Israel seemingly to make it nervous. So, when you talk to Israelis, this is one of the number one issues that they say is holding up an operation on Rafah, holding up the war in general, they say that the war in Gaza would've been over months ago if the ammunition had arrived on the pace that they would've liked, and so it's in America anyway, one of the untold stories of the war and definitely one to watch going forward.

Kate Bachelder Odell: Fascinating stuff Elliot, but slightly alarming. We've talked a lot on this podcast about the US' ammunition shortages and struggle to provide enough for Ukraine in artillery, so there's a global run on artillery, it seems like. One quick thing I want to ask you about here towards the end, we have this week the Biden administration renewed that $10 billion sanctions waiver on Iran. A great theme of this podcast in our pages has been discussing the ways in which the Biden administration doesn't quite appreciate how Iran is driving events in the region and how Hamas is a subsidiary of Iran. How has that news, has that had any effect in Israel, and is there any sense in Israel that the Biden administration is doing this two-step sanctions relief for Iran while supporting Israel? What is your view of that decision and how is it being received in Israel?

Elliot Kaufman: Well, the first thing that came to mind is something that an Israeli minister told me, and that is that, strategically, the US Is still in October 6th. Israelis talk this way. They speak about the October 6th army, or if they're talking about the future, the October 8th army, what is it going to look like? The US, I'm afraid he's right. Strategically, the Biden administration is still in October 6th. It hasn't changed its perception of Iran. It hasn't fundamentally changed its policy toward Iran. It still thinks that concessions can be made to sort of buy quiet, or if not quiet totally, then quieter than it might otherwise be. So a $10 billion sanctions waiver when Iran is financing a war against Israel on so many fronts, when its proxies are shooting on US troops and have been shooting on US troops. It's hard to understand how the US could think it's a good idea to allow more funds to go to Iran because we know what it's going to do with it. One other point is that just lately, there have been these reports that the US is threatening sanctions on Iran if it signs a ballistic missile deal with Russia to send ballistic missiles for Russia's use in Ukraine. Now, what Israelis have been saying is that these two policies in combination don't make any sense. Why is the US with one hand giving a $10 billion sanctions waiver and with the other hand threatening ballistic missile sanctions? The policy just seems incoherent, and I think until the US, really the Biden administration changes the way it conceives of this war. Not of Hamas starting a war, Hezbollah joining in, but of the Iranian axis going to war with Israel and the US in the region, we're going to continue to see this policy incoherence.

Kate Bachelder Odell: Well Elliot, it sounds like a fascinating and productive trip. Thanks so much for coming to fill us in. That's all for this week on Potomac watch. We'll be back on Monday.