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,

The oldest trick in the book is to attack a proposal by asking one seemingly reasonable question after another, some which cannot be answered with certainty and others which will stick in the public's mind even if they later prove irrelevant. The goal is to plant doubt by flooding the zone with details that will cause us to lose sight of the bigger picture.

If the United States and its allies reach an agreement with Iran to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), expect to see this level of questioning on two levels. The first level will be about what we are giving up in return for a return to the JCPOA. The details matter, but first ask yourself this: What answer would cause you to conclude that you'd rather live in a world where certain sanctions were kept in place and Iran had nuclear weapons as opposed to a world where Iran had more money but no nuclear weapons?

The second level of questions will be about the constraints the JCPOA puts on Iran's nuclear weapons program, including when various restrictions sunset. The details matter, but first ask yourself this: Given that the choice is the deal on the table or no deal at all, is there any restriction that you would rather lose (or not have) right now instead of in the future, albeit not as far into the future as you might like?

When you look at the forest instead of the trees, you see that a return to the JCPOA, which will buy us at least ten years, makes a nuclear-armed Iran less likely than the status quo, under which Iran is at most weeks away from breakout. A return to the JCPOA makes a nuclear-armed Iran less likely than continued or increased sanctions, which have proven not to inhibit Iran's nuclear arms program, or military action, which at most can set Iran back three years and would prove to Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons. Knowing what color leaves the trees have will not change those facts.

Look at it this way: If you need heart surgery, if your choice is heart surgery or death, are you going to ask what type of scalpel the surgeon plans to use? Even if you have the expertise to distinguish one scalpel from another, are you going to decline surgery if you disagree with the surgeon's choice of scalpel? The scalpel matters. No question. But you're going to have the surgery regardless of, or whether you even know, what scalpel will be used, who the nurses will be, what floor you'll be on, and the names of every resident who will be assisting.

Of course, if someone wants to talk you out of having surgery and forget that your life depends on it, those are great questions to raise with you, just as some of the questions raised about the JCPOA, as important as the details are, are designed to dissuade us from supporting the JCPOA, regardless of the answers to those questions.

The status of the Iran Deal is unclear following last-minute objections from Russia (so much for false claims that the deal was good for Russia or that Russia somehow negotiated a deal to its advantage).

The State Department has been clear that "the new Russia-related sanctions [regarding Ukraine] are wholly unrelated to the JCPOA and should not have any impact on a potential mutual return to compliance with it or its ultimate implementation. We also have no intention of offering Russia anything new or specific as it relates to these sanctions, nor is anything new required to successfully reach an agreement on a mutual return to full compliance with the JCPOA."

We don't know if a deal is possible without Russia, which is a member of the UN Security Council and was previously a party to the JCPOA. We do know that enemies can have common interests and allies can have differences. Secretary of State Blinken said last week that it's "in Russia’s interest irrespective of anything else for Iran not to be able to have a nuclear weapon or have the capacity to produce a weapon on very, very short order. That interest remains, again, irrespective of where we are in our relationship with Russia as a result of its aggression in Ukraine."

The State Department reiterated that its goal is "an Iran that is permanently and verifiably barred from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is not only our objective; the Russian Federation was and is a party to the P5+1. Russia was there when the JCPOA was negotiated and consummated in 2014 and 2015. It is manifestly in our interest, it is manifestly in the interest of our close European allies, it is also – happens to be manifestly in the interest of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation to see to it that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon."

The same self-proclaimed pro-Israel organizations that opposed the Iran Deal in 2015 might oppose it again. But in 2015, Jewish members of Congress supported the Iran Deal by more than a 2-1 margin. There will always be outliers, but expect that margin to be even greater in 2022, mainly because we have now seen the world with and without the JCPOA. What were hypotheticals in 2015 are history in 2022.

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

Congress approved security assistance to Israel last week. The spending bill included the $3.3 billion annual security assistance and $500 million missile defense spending promised in President Obama's ten-year Memorandum of Understanding with Israel as well as the $1 billion in emergency Iron Dome replenishment that President Biden promised Israel last year and that the House passed on September 23 but blocked until Thursday in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

The bill also includes Rep. Brad Schneider’s (D-IL) legislation to build on the Abraham Accords and promote further normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Iron Dome “was held up by one Republican senator for too long, but we knew this was the way we could get it done.” 

Amnesty International and the Sierra Club are taking anti-Israel positions. The Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) spoke out against a statement from Amnesty's USA director that Israel "shouldn't exist as a Jewish state." JDCA called the statement "deeply offensive and fundamentally false" and noted that "Jewish Americans - and most Americans - strongly support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state." Other Jewish and pro-Israel groups across the spectrum also condemned these remarks.

Separately, the Sierra Club canceled trips to Israel. If you support the Sierra Club, please make your views known to them.

No ideology is immune to antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment. The difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties is that antisemitism anti-Israel activity is marginalized and condemned within the Democratic Party but it is a mainstream view within the Republican Party. We must oppose antisemitism and anti-Israel policies from all sides, but we cannot forget that antisemitism has found a home in only of our parties, the Republican Party.

Supporting insurrectionists is not pro-Israel. Former AIPAC legislative director Douglas Bloomfield writes that AIPAC's decision to give "its endorsement and contributions to 37 Republicans who tried to trash the Constitution and overthrow the 2020 presidential election is politically and morally unacceptable, and it is unlikely to play well with those American Jews who fear for the future of our democracy."

The 37 endorses included Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who "has refused to testify before the January 6 investigating committee and joined failed lawsuits to block certification of Biden’s election," and "two far right Republican nativists who tout white supremacist population replacement conspiracies."

Ben Samuels reported on other criticism of AIPAC's decision, including from "Daniel Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under President George W. Bush [and] said it is 'very disappointing that AIPAC has turned a blind eye to the damage that these people have done to our democracy. Their support of Israel cannot ever trump that damage.' Kurtzer said the pro-Israel group, which he had worked with in the past, 'should reconsider and do the right thing for America'.” Samuels also reported on the AIPAC endorsements here.

I served for seven years on the Board of CityPAC, a single-issue pro-Israel PAC, back in the 1990s, including two years as its president. We all prioritize certain issues or even single issues, and nothing is wrong with that. But there are limits. If your single issue does not preclude you from backing candidates like these, you need to redefine your issue--or risk losing whatever credibility you have left. We should not give any organization that supports any of these 147 Republicans, let alone 37 of them, "a dime," as former AIPAC Executive Director Tom Dine said.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Tom Kahn: What is the Point of Saying "Never Again"?

Tweets of the Week. Andy Ryan and Tammy Golden.

Twitter Thread of the Week. The Byzantine Scotist.

Video Clip of the Week. Wordle. Play it, love it, beat it.

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.