You're welcome to read for free, but you want to chip in to defray the cost of the newsletter, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link lets you use a credit card. If you have trouble, let me know. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, last four phone digits are 9479).

Friends,

Nicholas Mulder, an expert on international sanctions, believes that “the history of sanctions is largely a history of disappointment,” noting that "in the 20th century, sanctions were partially successful or wholly successful just one-third of the time, with their efficacy degrading as their use has expanded in recent decades."

However, according to Mulder, "the key model for success here is the Iran deal that [Barack] Obama and [former Secretary of State John] Kerry negotiated. It’s the most successful use of American sanctions in the 21st century so far." The reason is that we were clear and realistic about our objectives: We told Iran that "You have the right to civilian nuclear reactors, not nuclear weapons. If you pursue the latter, we will impose sanctions, but if you give that up and make your stockpiles of nuclear fuel inspectable by a neutral UN international agency, we will remove the sanctions in stages." The deal worked--until Trump ripped it up and reimposed sanctions, after which Iran resumed its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Many questions, some designed to enlighten, some designed to distract, will be raised if we reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But no matter what the question and no matter what the answer, two follow-up questions are essential: 1) If you don't like the answer will you oppose the deal? and 2) If you will oppose the deal, what do you suggest instead, given that Iran is weeks away from breakout, sanctions have not deterred their progress, and military action can at best delay Iran's quest for nuclear weapons for one to three years? The inability of opponents of the JCPOA to coherently answer those questions is why Congress will not block it.

For example, the JCPOA will not address Iran's malign non-nuclear activities (those will be addressed separately after a deal is reached). Is that a reason to oppose the deal? The answer, as the State Department points out, is that Iran would be able to engage in these dangerous activities, "and potentially more, with far greater impunity if it were not verifiably and permanently constrained from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Another false flag is the manufactured controversy about the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC). We don't know yet if the deal includes removing its designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), but we do know that if it does, we are giving up little. Trump imposed the designation to get "Iran to do the simple thing like not launch missiles into Saudi Arabia, risking American lives each and every day," and as we know, the designation did not deter the IRGC. It was clear at the time that Trump's "designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group would have little practical impact on Iran’s military capabilities or its economic opportunities," and that assessment has proven correct.

The IRGC will remain subject to sanctions even if the FTO designation is lifted and more important, Iran will be verifiably blocked from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Critics will cite restrictions that expire sooner rather than later, but that's an easy one: Would you rather be without those provisions years into the future or right now? Many of the restrictions are scheduled to last for 10 years (until 2026), some for 15 years (until 2031), and some for 25 years or longer.

No one is suggesting that a bad deal is better than no deal. But many, here and in Israel, are suggesting that a deal that verifiably rolls back Iran's progress on nuclear weapons and gives us the time we need to address Iran's other malign activities without the imminent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is a good deal. They are right.

Instead of trying to undermine our best chance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, those concerned about the deal should work with the administration on legislation to improve our detection and military capabilities so that we can better monitor and enforce the deal.

For more on Iran, read these from Jon Wolfsthal, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and me.

What dressing would you like with your word salad? Two weeks ago, the Sierra Club heeded a call from seven organizations to cancel its trips to Israel. Last week, the Sierra Club kinda sorta backtracked with a word salad of jargon and buzzwords George Orwell could have used in Politics and the English Language as examples of how not to write.

The Sierra Club was wrong to cancel the trips, but nowhere in the Sierra Club's collection of cliches do the words "sorry" or "apologize" appear. The statement raises more questions than it answers, including when will the trips to Israel be reinstated and what was specifically was wrong with the itinerary that was originally planned.

If "the Sierra Club’s mission is to enjoy, explore and protect the planet" and it does "not take positions on foreign policy matters that are beyond that scope," why do they need further discussion? Weren't the trips already planned with that mission in mind?

Some Jewish groups are rushing to congratulate themselves for a job well done. Not so fast. Last month, the Sierra Club had two tours to Israel on the schedule. Today, they have none.

My advice for donors and potential donors is not to thank the Sierra Club for canceling the trips and then failing to immediately reinstate them, but to let the Sierra Club know that until donors can book their flights (and are satisfied with the itinerary), no further donations are coming. Tell them that in the meanwhile, you will be conducting a "holistic review" of your donations process.

No Amnesty for Amnesty. Last week, all 25 Jewish Democratic House members signed a letter condemning Amnesty International USA’s Executive Director Paul O’Brien for claiming that his “gut” tells him “what Jewish people in this country want” is that Israel “shouldn’t exist as a Jewish state.”

Separately, 11 Jewish members, in a letter led by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), called O'Brien's comments "a tacit attempt to delegitimize and ultimately destroy Israel as the only Jewish state in the world" and called "on Amnesty International to clarify its position, whether or not it seeks to advance peace for both Israelis and Palestinians; whether or not it accepts Israel as a democratic, Jewish state; and whether or not it supports a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel with mutual security, peace and prosperity." That should not be a heavy lift.

Here is the transcript of O'Brien's comments.

No Amnesty for AIPAC. On Friday, AIPAC defended its endorsement of 37 insurrectionists, claiming that it "would base decisions about political contributions on only one thing: whether a political candidate supports the U.S.-Israel relationship. Not on any other issue – just this one."

Putting aside that AIPAC will undoubtedly fail to endorse every member of Congress who meets that criterion (even members who support conditioning or restricting aid to Israel support the U.S-Israel relationship), the main problem with AIPAC's claim that its goal is "to make America’s friendship with Israel so robust, so certain, so broadly based, and so dependable that even the deep divisions of American politics never imperil that relationship and the ability of the Jewish state to defend itself" is that its endorsements push us further from that goal.

AIPAC claims to be a single-issue PAC, but as Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) CEO Halie Soifer writes in her must-read analysis of AIPAC's endorsements, AIPAC spoke against the insurrection on January 6 even though January 6 had nothing to do with Israel, and "AIPAC came out strongly against the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, as well as Trump’s 'good people on both sides' equivocation and his failure to condemn it."

But now AIPAC is ignoring the very issues it previously (and appropriately) took positions on, telling us "that support of candidates it regards as 'pro-Israel' requires supporting those who attack our democracy, align with insurrectionists, and even echo white supremacist ideology. Nothing will erode bipartisan support for Israel more than the perception that support of Israel equals tolerance for hatred and insurrection at home...AIPAC’s decision to play a zero-sum game with America’s democracy and support of Israel suggests it should either get out of electoral politics or immediately rescind its endorsement of insurrectionists and right-wing extremists who endanger the security and values of Americans, and especially American Jews."

It's true: Organizations that want to support candidates from both parties when most members of one party voted to overturn the results of a free and fair election hours after the leader of that party incited a deadly insurrection have a problem. The answer is not to close our eyes. The answer is to acknowledge reality and live into our values. Any "single issue" that does not implicitly or explicitly include the existence of a democratic United States of America is the wrong issue.

We don't need any of those insurrectionists to get a majority in Congress that supports Israel. The Democratic Party overwhelmingly supports Israel. The votes in Congress prove it. Democrats fast-tracked Iron Dome by calling a special, stand-alone vote on September 23. The bill would have passed even had every insurrectionist voted against it. It took six months to reach Biden's desk because Republican leadership slow-tracked it by allowing Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to block it in the Senate.

A strong majority in Congress supports both Israel and democracy. Let's strengthen that majority instead of supporting those who tried to tear down our democracy.

Douglas Bloomfield, who spent nine years as the legislative director and chief lobbyist for AIPAC, wrote last week that "endorsing those who sided with the insurrectionists, opposed certification of Biden’s election and question the legitimacy of his presidency is a blunder of the first order."

AIPAC claims to be bipartisan, but by giving its hechsher to Republicans who stand against the basic values of American democracy, AIPAC is legitimizing them and giving the Republican Party unearned and undeserved redemption. As Bloomfield writes, "that makes a mockery of AIPAC’s attempts to claim neutrality and undercuts any talk of repairing damaged relations with Democrats and the majority of Jewish voters."

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Why we need a new nuclear deal with Iran.

Tweets of the Week. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Jon Wolfsthal, and Nicholas Miller.

Facebook Video of the Week. When Purim falls on St. Patrick's Day (as it did on Thursday and apparently at least once before).

Purim Video Clips of the Week. Miriam Anzovin Megillah Reactions and Rabbi Bolton's Purim Rap.

Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here. 

Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link allows you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box). Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four 9479) is fine too.

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print: This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. If you receive it as an ICYMI on Wednesday it's because you didn't open the one sent on Sunday. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. I am willing to sacrifice intellectual consistency for intellectual honesty. I might be wrong: Read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. I'm happy to read anything, but please don't expect me to watch videos of any length--send me a transcript if the content is that important. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. Dedicated to Ariel Sheffey, Ayelet Sheffey, and Orli Sheffey z''l. ©2022 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.