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,

Do you want to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in perpetuity, 100% guaranteed? I've got the answer: Invade and occupy Iran forever. It's that simple.

If you don't want to do that, you are left with options that are imperfect and time-limited. If we stick with the status quo, which is Trump's maximum sanctions pressure approach, we have what we have now: Iran weeks (or less) from breakout. Military action might buy us one to three years (and prove to Iran why it needs nuclear weapons). That leaves us with a return to the JCPOA.

Many of the JCPOA's restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities last for ten years, some for 15 years, and some for 25 years or longer, including forever. After ten years, the risk increases, which is why it is imperative that we use those ten years to develop contingencies, to negotiate follow-on agreements, and to focus on Iran's other malign activities. Of all the options available to us, returning to the JCPOA is the option most likely to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for the longest time period.

If reentering the JCPOA, rolling back Iran's nuclear program, and verifiably preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons for at least ten years (maybe longer, albeit with more work, given the other restrictions that will remain in place), is kicking the can down the road, then it's kicking the can down the road longer than any other option and is better than leaving the can where it is now.

The larger problem with the "kick the can" analogy is that it implies that once we reenter the JCPOA, we'll forget about Iran for ten years. The administration has made clear that returning to the JCPOA, which is urgent because Iran is dangerously close to breakout, is the first step toward a longer and stronger deal. Once the immediate threat is lifted, we can then move to follow on negotiations to strengthen the deal, as well as negotiations on Iran's other malign activities.

But what about the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp? Even if the IRGC is removed from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list it will, as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, "remain heavily sanctioned."

Paul Pillar details that "the main reason that being or not being on the FTO list will not have material effects is that the IRGC still would be subject to numerous other sanctions, the consequences of which go beyond any consequences of being on the FTO list. These other sanctions concern weapons proliferation, human rights abuses, and election interference as well as terrorism."

But if listing the IRCG as an FTO has little effect, why is the IRCG on the list in the first place? Pillar explains that "the Trump administration’s placement of the IRGC on the FTO list in April 2019 was part of the effort under its 'maximum pressure' campaign to throw everything it could at Iran, as well as make it as difficult as possible for a successor administration to undo the damage. This move was a clear misuse of the FTO list. Of the 73 organizations currently on the list, 72 are — as creators of the list intended — non-state groups. The IRGC is the only one that isn’t.

"The list was always intended to apply to non-state actors — not to the arms of a state. There is a separate U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Iran is on it, and no one is making any noises about removing it."

If you read Matthew Levitt's article in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy opposing removing the FTO designation, you owe it to yourself to read this point-by-point response. The bottom line: "Removing the designation in no way changes the legal or political status of the IRGC, but it does enable the restoration of the Iran nuclear deal. For those who care about US national security, the choice is clear."

If it is true that the Biden administration is hardening its position on delisting the IRGC because it is "increasingly concerned about the domestic political fallout of some kind of a deal with Iran regarding the IRGC" and the deal falls through because of this issue, then those in the U.S. who politicized it will be to blame for the consequences, although the ultimate blame lies with Donald Trump and those who did not oppose his withdrawal from the original JCPOA.

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

Iron Dome won't help Ukraine. Sam Sokol explains that Ukraine's large size and the sophistication of Russia's projectiles mean that exporting Israel's coveted Iron Dome defense system would be unlikely to protect Ukraine from bombardment.

Dov Waxman explains that "there are significant differences between the war in Ukraine and the occupation of Palestinian territories," noting that a large majority of Palestinians (71 percent) "want the Palestinian Authority to remain neutral in the war, and only 10 percent think it should stand with Ukraine."

The little PAC that couldn't. It keeps getting worse for AIPAC, whose PAC recently endorsed 37 insurrectionists. AIPAC justified its endorsements on the grounds that it is single-issue pro-Israel (as if attempting to overthrow the lawfully elected government of the United States was pro-Israel and/or not cause for an exception), but Ron Kampeas reported last week that AIPAC's Super PAC says nothing about Israel and mentions only democracy--yet it is backing 37 opponents of democracy.

Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described AIPAC's endorsement of politicians who “undermine democracy” as “morally bankrupt and short-sighted."

Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC from 1980-1993, said AIPAC's efforts to defend its endorsements with “no apologies” are “bullshit."

Laura Adkins writes that "I cannot support AIPAC’s decision to endorse candidates that undermine the strength of the only country I’ve ever called home...I understand that AIPAC is an organization single-mindedly committed to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But without a strong and vibrant democracy in the United States, there is no U.S.-Israel relationship to defend."

Put another way, as Ivan Rothman suggests, it is "reasonable to question AIPAC’s moral fitness to serve as a legitimate political home for American Jews who care deeply about both the future of Israel and the health of American democracy and the liberal principles and values upon which it rests."

All this on the heels of texts that reveal the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows not to concede the election because "It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back.” AIPAC should be demanding that these insurrectionists be defeated in November, not endorsing their reelection.

Senate Republicans painted a false portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson. David Leonhardt writes that Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing turned into a "case study of how disconnected from reality large parts of the Republican ecosystem have become."

Leonhardt explained what readers of this newsletter, and everyone in the reality-based universe, already know: "There is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. False claims regularly flow from the leaders of the Republican Party — including its most recent president, several of its likely future presidential candidates and the most influential media figures aligned with the party...There is no comparable list of false information coming from senior members of the Democratic Party."

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Timna Sheffey: Speaking Openly About Mental Illness Won’t Bring My Daughter Back — But It Could Help Others Suffering In Silence.

Tweets of the Week. Jeff Teidrich and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Video Clip of the Week. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

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.