The Case for War

The president declaring the US cease-fire with Iran - over

The cease-fire between the United States and Iran is apparently over. The memorandum of understanding has been broken. So said the president this morning, expressing frustration with trying to deal with people who lie, cheat, and cannot be trusted.

Whether that means a return to full-scale war remains to be seen. I hope it does, although I have my doubts. Public opposition is simply too great.

I don’t get it. I really don’t. Much as I try to understand the opposition to war against Iran, it escapes me. Some objections are certainly legitimate. But they pale in comparison to what I believe is the overriding issue.

It can be summed up with one question: What alternative is there to defeating a regime determined to finish the genocide against the Jewish people that Hitler failed to complete?

Iran’s rulers regard that objective as a religious obligation. They have already begun pursuing it by arming terrorist proxies to commit atrocities against Jews in Israel. Hamas’s October 7 massacre and kidnappings were not an isolated event. They were the opening volley in Iran’s long-declared war against the Jewish state.

Iran’s leaders openly proclaim their devotion to this cause. Their cries of Allahu Akbar after acts of terror reflect their belief that they are carrying out God’s will. Can anyone seriously believe that such a regime can be negotiated out of what it considers a divine mission? Even if it agreed to a deal, deception in pursuit of a higher religious objective is hardly viewed by its leaders as immoral.

If there is an alternative to defeating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—the military arm responsible for exporting Iran’s revolutionary ideology—I would genuinely like to hear it. But if preventing genocide ultimately requires destroying the IRGC’s ability to wage war, what choice do we have?

Yet much of the American public opposes further military action, as do most Democrats in Congress, a few Republicans, and many governments around the world.

A ground invasion would undoubtedly come at an enormous cost. American lives would be lost. The economic consequences would be significant. Protests could rival those seen during the Vietnam War. The political fallout would likely be severe.

Still, considering the stakes, I find the opposition difficult to understand.

Most of the reasons offered have little to do with Iran itself. They center on higher gasoline prices, rising grocery costs, and fear of another long Middle Eastern war.

Others argue that Congress was not consulted before military action was taken. That is a serious constitutional question. But it does not answer the more fundamental one: What is the alternative?

Negotiations have repeatedly failed. Sanctions have damaged Iran’s economy for years, yet they have not altered the regime’s priorities. Its leaders have consistently demonstrated that their ideological mission outweighs the suffering of their own people. They continue to chant “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” despite the hardship those policies impose on ordinary Iranians.

In my view, much of the opposition stems from a failure to appreciate the nature of the Iranian regime. This is not simply another hostile government pursuing ordinary geopolitical interests. It is a revolutionary theocracy driven by an uncompromising religious ideology that openly embraces Israel’s destruction. Should such a regime ever acquire nuclear weapons, the threat would extend far beyond Israel.

Many Americans seem content with the status quo. They ask why the president disrupted a fragile peace instead of leaving matters alone. Israel’s security, they believe, is Israel’s problem, not America’s…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

 

Freedom, Culture, Identity, and Torah

Although a bit late to the party (America’s 250th birthday celebration has come and gone), I would be remiss if I didn’t add a superb series of essays in Mishpacha Magazine about what it means to be a Jew in America at this point in time.

The package consists of four essays by what Mishpacha describes as its contributors: Rav Aharon Lopiansky, Rabbi Yisroel Sapirstein, Rav Yisroel Reisman, and Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger. Each article is worth reading for its unique insights.

First, as true as much of what Rav Lopiansky wrote is, his essay left me disappointed.

He begins by expressing profound gratitude…

“to the American people for that freedom, which has indeed allowed us to pursue what we believe to be right,” (adding that the) “ideal of liberty is an extraordinary leap forward for humanity, and speaks volumes about those who established this wonderful country.”

He then proceeds to criticize the American ideal of freedom itself. He describes it as a “negative freedom” because it rejects any authority over one’s personal choices. His point is that Judaism views freedom differently. Not as freedom from authority to do whatever we please, but as the freedom to serve God, what he calls “positive freedom.”

While I understand the distinction he is making, the negative spin he places on the very freedom for which he expresses such gratitude makes American liberty sound more like a vice than a virtue. I found that disappointing.

I had almost the opposite reaction to Rabbi Avrohom Neuberger’s essay. His perspective is much closer to my own. He views the American cultural Jew in a positive light. One can be proud to be an American and use that identity to enhance one’s service of God. His prime example is an icon of the Caredi world:

“That observation finds its fullest expression in the monumental life of Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel ztz”l. Rav Nosson Tzvi arrived in Eretz Yisrael at 14—a middle-American kid, through and through. Throughout his years in Eretz Yisrael, including three decades of near-anonymous toil in Yeshivas Mir, he never shed the personality traits of his upbringing. He remained, unapologetically, middle-American.

“And when he assumed the mantle of rosh yeshivah, he remade Yeshivas Mir in his own image: accepting and tolerant, warm and unguarded, emotionally honest and non-elitist.”

Rav Reisman offers his own observations about how Orthodox Judaism in America evolved from its humble beginnings into what it is today:

American Jewish communities began before the Holocaust…(Early immigrants) came for the modernity and freedoms of America. The new arrivals, to a very large degree, joined the action. Yiddishkeit sank to terrible lows. Culturally, Yiddish was still the spoken language and Jews still wore suits and ties on Shabbos. But the observance was a mile wide and an inch deep…

Eventually, however, halachic observance became much more serious, evolving into the Orthodox community we know today. Rav Reisman says he is not entirely sure how that transformation occurred.

I think the answer is fairly obvious…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

 

Observant Queer Jews - Acceptance Versus Celebration

The headline of a recent eJewish Philanthropy article reads as follows:

Aviv Foundation grants $1 million to expand operations of Orthodox LGBTQ inclusion group Eshel

Donation, which will allow the group to work in new areas and hold more events, comes amid both a surge in interest and pushback.

I hate to sound like a broken record. But remaining silent about a development as significant as this - would, in my view, amount to condoning it. I do not. And as an Orthodox Jew, I feel obligated to respond.

The question of accepting LGBTQ Jews - whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender - into the Orthodox community is a very complicated one. First, however, it is important to point out that homosexuality and transgender identity are two radically different issues with very different halachic implications. The one thing they have in common is the way society has historically treated them and how societal attitudes toward both have evolved.

For purposes of this essay, I will limit my comments to homosexuality and discuss how observant gay Jews should be treated by the Orthodox community. That has always been a difficult question for me to answer, and it has become increasingly so as society has moved toward greater acceptance - and even celebration of it.

I have expressed my views on this subject many times. Ad nauseam, some would say. But in light of this latest development, I feel compelled to repeat them for the sake of clarity.

The act of male homosexual intercourse is a serious Torah prohibition. By definition, therefore, it cannot be celebrated by an Orthodox Jew. That does not mean that someone who experiences same-sex attraction should be condemned. It is one thing to be attracted to behavior the Torah forbids. That attraction is not itself sinful. Acting upon it is.

A gay individual who refrains from homosexual relations has done nothing wrong. At the same time, celebrating a homosexual identity—even if one never acts upon those desires—is problematic. Whether a gay person succumbs to that temptation in private is not our business. Judaism teaches us not to judge people based on what we suspect they may do, but on what they actually do.

Therefore, if someone says he is attracted to members of the same sex, that alone does not disqualify him from being a full-fledged member of the Orthodox Jewish community in good standing. What is not acceptable is celebrating desires that the Torah explicitly forbids.

Enter Eshel…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

The 'War' Against Charedim

Is there a Shidduch crisis in the Chasidic world?

The list of “severe atrocities” the Israeli government is supposedly inflicting upon its Charedi population keeps growing. The latest was recently reported by Ynet:

“(Charedim) who have not reported to IDF enlistment offices are unable to leave Israel… Haredi public figures warned that it is also creating a crisis in matchmaking, particularly within Hasidic communities that maintain close ties with communities abroad.”

Surprisingly, the reaction from much of the American Charedi community was right on target:

“However, the focus on matchmaking during wartime has triggered a wave of criticism among ultra-Orthodox communities in the United States. Many argued that while soldiers are being killed in combat and tens of thousands of reservists are spending months away from their families, concentrating on international matchmaking difficulties reflects a disconnected sense of priorities.”

It is refreshing to see this reaction from the same community that strongly supports Keren Olam HaTorah, the fundraising initiative launched by Israeli Charedi leaders that has raised many millions of dollars on behalf of a community. Leaders that have yet to express any meaningful public empathy for those very same soldiers “being killed in combat and tens of thousands of reservists... spending months away from their families.”

It seems that every week I read another story in the Charedi media about a representative of the Israeli Charedi world insisting that “they are out to get us”. That there is a conspiracy, a “war” against Charedim that has nothing to do with Israel’s manpower shortage. But is instead a coordinated effort by a left-wing - aided by a likeminded judiciary - to destroy the Torah world.

There is an astonishing disconnect between these competing narratives. On the one hand, they surely know the realities of war and the enormous burden being borne by those serving on the front lines and in reserve duty. Same as do their American counterparts as noted. On the other hand, they never acknowledges those sacrifices.

One would think that this lack of empathy might affect the willingness of American donors to continue contributing. Yet, judging from the fundraising success of Keren Olam HaTorah, it apparently does not.

I understand why this “bill of goods” is being sold to the American Charedi public. They are told that this is not about military necessity but about a left-wing campaign against Torah itself, and that their financial support is therefore essential to preserving Torah study in Israel.

As I have said many times before, I do not question for a moment the immense value of Torah study to the Jewish state. It deserves generous communal support. What I find deeply objectionable is the implication that Torah study is the only thing that matters. And that Charedim are its exclusive guardians.

The argument repeatedly made is that drafting Charedim would destroy the Torah world, as though no one else in Israel studies Torah. As though religious Zionists who combine serious Torah learning with military service somehow don’t count.

That is what angers me…

Proud to be an American

Declaration of Independence - oil painting by John Trumbull

As we prepare to celebrate America’s Independence Day, marking 250 years since the nation’s founding, I have been reflecting on the extraordinary blessings this country has bestowed upon the Jewish people. Chief among them is the freedom to practice our faith without fear of persecution. A right not merely tolerated, but embraced by the nation’s founders and woven into America’s very DNA. It is a right guaranteed to people of every faith and tradition.

Not even during the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry, which lasted nearly five centuries, did Jews enjoy such freedom as a matter of fundamental law. We were often tolerated and, at times, even welcomed. But our rights depended upon the goodwill of rulers and could be revoked at any moment. In America, by contrast, religious liberty has been guaranteed since the nation’s birth and permanently enshrined in the Constitution with the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Emes Ve-Emunah is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Some Americans argue that because the Founding Fathers were Christians, their vision of religious liberty was intended primarily to protect their own Protestant forebears, many of whom fled religious persecution in England. They contend that America was meant to be a Christian nation and that the First Amendment was never intended to create a secular state. Some activists today invoke this argument in an effort to “make America Christian again,” believing that was the founders’ original intent.

While most of the Founders identified as Christians, many were far from orthodox believers. In fact they have been described as Deists, Believing in God as the Creator – Who grants humankind inalienable rights. But not much more beyond that. Thomas Jefferson famously produced his own edition of the Bible, removing all references to miracles because he rejected their supernatural claims. Several leading founders also questioned traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity. What they deeply believed in, however, were the moral principles found in the Bible. Principles drawn largely from the Hebrew Bible, our Torah. They also firmly rejected the idea of an officially Christian nation that favored one religion over another.

Perhaps no Founder articulated that principle more eloquently than George Washington, without whom there likely would have been no United States.

On August 18, 1790, President George Washington responded to a welcome address from the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. The congregation’s leader, Moses Seixas, had expressed hope that Jews would enjoy equal citizenship under the new Constitution. Washington’s reply affirmed that hope in words that have become one of the defining statements of American religious liberty.

He declared that the United States “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Those few words represented a revolutionary idea. Washington did not describe Jews - - r any other religious minority - as merely being tolerated. Instead, he affirmed that all Americans possess equal rights as citizens under the law. Religious freedom was not an act of governmental generosity; it was an inherent right.

That letter became one of the foundational texts of American civic life, even though it was written before the First Amendment was ratified.

For nearly two and a half centuries, that promise has endured. Jews have enjoyed unprecedented freedom to believe, worship, educate our children, build institutions, and contribute fully to American society.

The result has been unprecedented prosperity and opportunity… 

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Transformation in the Charedi World

JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem (JNS)

I wish it were so. But I'm afraid that reality points in a distinctly different direction.

According to a JNS article by Atara Beck, there is a quiet shift taking place in Israel's Charedi world. One that positively addresses many of the issues that have concerned me and many other religious Jews for years. A shift toward a more proactive role in serving the country through enlistment in the IDF and a greater openness to secular studies throughout one's educational life. All while maintaining their value of Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam—the Mishnah's teaching  (Peah 1:1). Which places the highest value on Torah study.

A panel was convened by JNS consisting of Charedim who have made it their mission to advance what they see as an evolutionary change by actually doing something concrete about it.

As I read the names of the participants, I recognized two of them: Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer and Rabbi Menachem Bombach. I consider both of them heroes for their efforts to solve what are among the most divisive issues in Israel.

The arguments they make for the changes they advocate are, in my view, the solution to many of the problems I - and so many others - have with the current direction of the Charedi community. The fact that thousands of Charedim have listened to their arguments and acted upon the options they present is encouraging.

If only their numbers came anywhere close to those who regard these two individuals and their ideas as bordering on heresy with respect to traditional Charedi values and lifestyle.

Sadly, most Israeli Charedim look to Rabbi Moshe Hillel Hirsch and Rabbi Dov Lando as their sole spiritual guides. And they vastly outnumber those who have opened their minds to a more rational approach while remaining loyal to the essential values of the Charedi world.

When Bombach's name comes up, he is viewed by many as an outcast for the "audacity" of opening a yeshiva high school that teaches both Torah and secular subjects. They consider it an affront to the traditional ‘no secular studies at all’ approach to the Yeshiva world -  chutzpah akin to  ‘spitting in the face of the Gedolim’ who forboid it!  

Charedi Gedloim see no value in  preparing students to pursue higher education. since it takes away valuable time that would have been used for Torah study. The goal of earning a respectable living to better support their typically large families cannot come at the expense of sacrificing any time that could have been spent learning Torah...

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Heterodox Jewish Education

The headline of a recent eJewish Philanthropy column reads:

New Study Finds Jewish Day School Enrollment Ticking Up

The survey was conducted by Prizmah - a network of Jewish day schools and yeshivas in North America whose mission, in its own words, is to “invest in talent, advance the financial vitality of schools, and enhance educational excellence so schools can thrive.”

As part of that effort, Prizmah surveys enrollment trends in Jewish day schools. Breaking it down by denomination. As one might expect, Orthodox schools (Charedi school were not included in the survey) experienced the largest percentage increase. But enrollment increased across all denominations last year.

Why? The article notes, however, that the initial growth began during the pandemic. My own view is that what has primarily sustained that growth has been the dramatic rise in antisemitism since then.

That raises several questions, one of which is whether increased enrollment in heterodox Jewish schools is necessarily a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about it.

On the positive side, an education that fosters pride in one’s Jewish heritage and teaches the essential values of the Torah is obviously beneficial. Jewish ignorance is one of the primary reasons so many Jews have abandoned their Jewish identity, viewing Judaism as having little or no relevance to their everyday lives. Any education that instills pride in one’s heritage makes it far less likely they will abandon it as an adult.

There is also the benefit of learning the basics, such as reading Hebrew studying Torah texts, and reciting daily prayers. Even if those prayers are inappropriately abridged, students will have a much easier time adapting to the world of Orthodoxy should they eventually choose that path.

But then there is also a downside…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

The New Face of the Democratic Party

New York’s progressive anti-Israel mayor, Zohran Mamdani

Sometimes it seems that the worst antisemites among us are some of our own people. That may sound like an exaggeration, but it reflects a disturbing reality. It also makes the claim that antisemitism has dramatically increased since October 7 seem more complicated than it first appears.

Please do not misunderstand.. Antisemitism has unquestionably surged since October 7^th. Much of it is disguised as anti-Israel activism - a fig leaf for deep-seated hatred of Jews that has finally emerged from the shadows. Whether one distinguishes between hatred of Jews and accusations that Israel is committing genocide hardly matters when the result is the same: Israelis are portrayed as “baby killers,” and by extension, so are those of us (Jews) who support them.

People who use the term “New York liberal” are sometimes accused of using “liberal” as a euphemism for “Jew.” Since New York has America’s largest Jewish population, some argue that the phrase is an antisemitic dog whistle.

There is some logic behind that claim. Although New York is overwhelmingly liberal regardless of religion, a disproportionately large share of its Jewish population also identifies as politically liberal. Whether the phrase is antisemitic therefore depends largely on who is using it and in what context.

I recall when Senator Ted Cruz used the expression. He was immediately accused of antisemitism. That accusation was absurd. Cruz has consistently been one of Israel’s strongest supporters and one of the Senate’s most outspoken opponents of antisemitism. Still, because so many New York Jews identify as liberals, it is understandable why some heard the phrase differently.

The extent to which progressive politics has become intertwined with the identity of many New York Jews was made abundantly clear by the city’s recent elections. The most anti-Israel mayoral candidate in New York City’s history won decisively, receiving support from the many progressive Jewish voters. These are Jews whose political ideology defines their Judaism. Thereby making Israel an easy target.

The same trend appeared in New York’s Democratic congressional primaries. Progressive candidates who harshly condemned Israel defeated more moderate Democrats. Longtime Congressman Dan Goldman, among the party’s pro-Israel voices, lost his primary, while candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America or at least their agenda enjoyed major victories.

These victories were enthusiastically supported by mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a democratic socialist. Recently, Democrtatic Senator Elissa Slotkin (who is Jewish) warned that the Democratic Party is changing rapidly and that its traditional political formula may no longer be enough to win elections. Whether one agrees with her assessment or not, the party is clearly moving to what seems like the hard left.

Ironically, many of these same politicians insist they oppose antisemitism while relentlessly condemning Israel and attacking AIPAC, America’s leading pro-Israel advocacy organization. It is difficult to reconcile those positions. Constantly portraying Israel as uniquely evil inevitably fuels the growing hostility toward Jews, whether intended or not.

Meanwhile 13 moderate Democrats issued a “Promise to America” manifesto rejecting socialism. The document champions capitalism, strong borders, and patriotism, Ironically, these principles sound remarkably similar to positions that today’s conservative Republicans would readily endorse.

All of this raises an important question: what will become of the Democratic Party…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

A Chilling Description of Reality

One of the many massive Charedi protests against the draft in Israel

It doesn’t really change much. But at least it demonstrates a measure of common sense and consistency in Hashkafa on the part of one of the two Roshei Yeshiva of Slabodka in Bnei Brak. Both of whom are considered Gedolei HaDor in the non-Chasidic Charedi world.

Rav Dov Lando opposes participation in the Charedi protests against the draft—and the arrests of draft dodgers—that have become increasingly common in Israel. He argues (correctly, in my view) that these demonstrations accomplish nothing except further inflame an already angry public. They are counterproductive. Instead, yeshiva students should spend their time learning Torah, which he believes is the greatest merit for the Jewish people.

While I strongly disagree with the Charedi position on the draft, at least Rav Lando understands how destructive these protests are. His directive that students remain in the beis medrash is entirely consistent with his belief that the best way to protect Torah is through Torah study itself.

Not so Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch.

He supports the protests and has even described them as a Kiddush Hashem. According to that view, one must interrupt Torah study in order to publicly demonstrate opposition to the draft. In the process, however, these protests add to the misery of a nation already burdened by an extended war and the prolonged reserve duty made necessary, in part, by the lack of Charedi participation in military service.

The irony of these positions is not lost on me.

Rav Moshe Hillel (Milton) Hirsch was born in Brooklyn and raised in an American yeshiva culture that, in those days, was considerably less rigid than it is today. As a student of Rav Aharon Kotler during Beth Medrash Govoha’s early years, he would have been part of a generation in which students often wore baseball caps instead of black fedoras. One might therefore have expected his approach to be more measured and less confrontational.

Rav Lando, by contrast, was born in Poland. His family escaped to Mandatory Palestine before the Holocaust. Needless to say, life there was anything but relaxed.

One might have expected Rav Hirsch to oppose these demonstrations and Rav Lando to support them. Instead, the exact opposite occurred.

Why? I don’t know. Perhaps because of his American background Rav Hirsch felt the need to reinforce his Charedi credentials. But I digress.

Viewed in isolation, Rav Lando’s position is sensible. If Torah study is the solution, then students should remain in the beis medrash instead of marching in the streets.

But when viewed in the broader context of a country at war and suffering from a severe manpower shortage, it continues to trouble me greatly: Why do neither of these great Roshei Yeshiva ever address that reality? Even more troubling is their apparent lack of public empathy for the enormous sacrifices being made by the rest of Israeli society.

Those sacrifices include soldiers killed or permanently wounded in battle, lifelong PTSD, families separated for months at a time, careers interrupted, businesses damaged, and hundreds of thousands of reservists repeatedly called away from home because there simply are not enough soldiers.

Yet the public statements of these Roshei Yeshiva rarely, if ever, acknowledge those hardships…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free

The Art of the Deal?

This AI generated images was once thought unimaginable. Now… who knows?!

With every passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran represents far more of a victory for Iran than for America. I don’t understand how anyone looking at the facts objectively could conclude otherwise.

What began as a courageous joint effort by the United States and Israel to confront a regime openly committed to the destruction of both countries—beginning with Israel and acting through terrorist proxies like Hamas—has been turned on its head.

In the opening days of the war, Iran’s military was devastated. Much of its leadership was eliminated, its military infrastructure severely damaged, and it appeared to have been brought to its knees. That was certainly the impression many observers had, and I suspect both Washington and Jerusalem believed the same.

But appearances can be deceiving.

Iran responded by playing its strongest card: seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz. That single move sent shockwaves through the global economy. Oil shipments slowed dramatically, shipping traffic was disrupted, fuel prices soared, and the cost of countless consumer goods increased. What had been an American economy poised for remarkable growth was suddenly facing serious headwinds.

To make matters worse, Iran retained enough military capability to continue attacking Israel and other regional countries hosting American bases. Despite the destruction it had suffered, Tehran remained as belligerent as ever, boasting of its defiance while continuing to threaten its enemies.

The United States had concluded its military campaign, but the conflict had reached an uneasy stalemate.

Then, almost overnight, the President began insisting that Iran was “begging” for a deal. That claim never seemed plausible given Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and the damage it was inflicting on the world economy. Nevertheless, the President repeatedly argued that America’s military success had placed him in a position of overwhelming strength from which he could negotiate.

Soon afterward, a memorandum of understanding was signed. The President hailed it as a tremendous victory, promising that after sixty days of negotiations America would achieve all of its original objectives.

Since then, however, events have suggested something quite different.

Even by the President’s own description, the emerging agreement falls short of the goals he originally declared non-negotiable. Perhaps the most striking reversal concerns Iran’s ballistic missile program. Initially, the objective was to eliminate it entirely. Now the President says Iran may retain some missiles because, in his words, “it’s only fair” if other countries have them.

There has also been far less emphasis on ending Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East. Although the issue is occasionally mentioned, it no longer appears central to the negotiations.

There is even discussion of allowing Iran to retain enriched uranium buried beneath the ruins of facilities destroyed in earlier American strikes. Reports have also suggested that uranium enrichment could eventually resume after a waiting period—perhaps twenty years instead of the ten years permitted under President Obama’s nuclear agreement, the JCPOA.

President Trump was right when he called the JCPOA a terrible deal. What is remarkable is that the agreement now being discussed does not appear dramatically different in substance. The President argues that this deal is being negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness, but if the end result is largely the same, that distinction may prove meaningless.

Worse still, Iran has now demonstrated that it possesses enormous leverage over the international community. By threatening the Strait of Hormuz, it has shown that it can inflict worldwide economic pain whenever it chooses…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.