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,

Terrorists murdered 11 Israelis in three recent attacks. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a racial conflict. It is a nationalist/religious conflict between two peoples over the same land. Israel holds most of the cards, which is why it is incumbent upon Israel--if it wants a two-state solution--to stop settlement expansion, which renders a two-state solution more difficult and calls into question its commitment to peace. But Israel needs a partner.

Those who support two states for two peoples must condemn terrorism, not simply because it is wrong, although that is reason enough, but because, as I wrote in 2014, "the goal of terrorism is to provoke and strengthen extremism on both sides...even though Israel needs peace, peace cannot occur without a partner that Israel can trust." What I wrote eight years ago remains true today. Only some of the names have changed.

President Biden "emphasized that the United States stands firmly and resolutely with Israel in the face of this terrorist threat and all threats to the state of Israel." Members of his administration, including Blinken, Sullivan, Nides the NSC, and the State Department also condemned the terrorist attacks.

The Abraham Accords will ultimately be judged not on normalization with Gulf monarchies for the sake of normalization but on whether, as Michael Koplow writes, "economic and security cooperation continue to proceed with increasing speed while more attention and effort are simultaneously devoted to leveraging these new relationships to help Israel and the Palestinians get to a similar spot." For more on last week's summit, read Alon Pinkus.

Biden sanctioned Iran's ballistic missile program. Last week's newsletter explained that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) will remain heavily sanctioned even if its Foreign Terrorist Organization designation is lifted as part of our re-entry into the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and that we would still retain the ability to sanction Iran and the IRGC for non-nuclear activities. We do not yet know whether the FTO designation will be lifted, but whether it is or isn't will have little practical impact on the U.S. or Iran.

On Wednesday, the Biden administration sanctioned key actors in Iran's ballistic missile program, including an Iran-based procurement agent and his network of companies that procured ballistic missile propellant-related materials for the IRGC.

With or without a new Iran nuclear deal, the administration will continue to sanction Iran and the IRGC for their malign non-nuclear activities. Preventing a nuclear Iran by reentering the JCPOA and combating Iran's other malign activities are not mutually exclusive, but combating Iran's other malign activities will be easier without the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran hanging over us. The sanctions announced on Wednesday will remain in place whether or not we re-enter the JCPOA.

As the Treasury Dept said on Wednesday, these new sanctions reinforce our "commitment to preventing the Iranian regime’s development and use of advanced ballistic missiles. While the United States continues to seek Iran’s return to full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we will not hesitate to target those who support Iran’s ballistic missile program. We will also work with other partners in the region to hold Iran accountable for its actions, including gross violations of the sovereignty of its neighbors.” 

But how can we make a deal that involves Russia? Sometimes enemies have common interests. A nuclear-armed theocracy on the other side of the Caspian Sea that could more effectively compete with Russia for influence in the Middle East is not in Russia's interests. That's why they supported the Iran Deal in 2015.

I wish we could ship Iran’s enriched uranium to France or Great Britain or better yet, Fort Knox, where we could keep it under lock and key. But Russia is closer, and Russia is a nuclear power with the technology to serve as custodian of Iran’s uranium. Under the deal, Russia will have some limited obligations to help dispose of nuclear material – a role they’ve played successfully for decades. Even if the fate of uranium in Russia were uncertain, we are better off with Iran’s enriched uranium in Russia under the JCPOA than in Iran, which is where it will stay if we don’t reenter the JCPOA.

Because Iran’s enriched uranium is declared fissile material, it is covered by the IAEA protocols and the IAEA will know where it is and its status when it is in Russia. If Russia ships it back into Iran, we will know because Iran's nuclear facilities are monitored by the IAEA under the JCPOA. 

The amount of uranium shipped into Russia from Iran is minuscule compared to what Russia already has. Russia has been a major nuclear weapons power for 70 years and even if used improperly, the uranium from Iran would not materially increase Russia's military capabilities. 

If anything, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only underscores the necessity of expanded arms control and nonproliferation efforts. Two nuclear crises are not better than one, and we will have two if we don’t act quickly to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. Our European allies, who are closer and at more risk from Russia/Ukraine than we are, support reentering a JCPOA that includes Russia because it would make them safer. After Trump walked away from the deal, our European allies stayed in and they want us to return, knowing that Russia is a party to the deal. 

A history lesson: State Department spokesperson Ned Price pointed out on Thursday that "From January of 2016 until May of 2018, [the JCPOA] was in full effect. Iran was complying with it, and Iran’s nuclear program was verifiably and permanently constrained...between 2019 and 2020 [after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA], the number of attacks from Iran-backed groups went up 400 percent. This was in the aftermath of the decision to abandon the JCPOA. It was in the aftermath of the decision to apply the FTO designation to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. It was in the aftermath of the killing of Soleimani, the IRGC chief." We've seen the world with and without the JCPOA. The world is better with the JCPOA, and applying the FTO designation to the IRGC did not make anything better.

Let's be clear on what this is about. If Biden reaches an agreement to reenter the JCPOA, Congress will not stop it. Even if the House initially votes to block a deal and the Senate musters 60 votes to end a filibuster, Congress will sustain a veto by President Biden. I'm as sure of this as Joe Namath was sure of his Super Bowl victory in Super Bowl III, except Biden--and common sense--winning this fight should surprise no one.

This is about Republicans fighting a fight they cannot win to score points in the midterms and some "pro-Israel" organizations whose donors dislike the deal going along for the ride. Democrats in some districts will be pressured by opponents of the deal, and they should remember that despite threats (and realities) of canceled fundraisers and prices to pay in 2015, not one Democrat who supported the deal in 2015 lost to an opponent who opposed the deal in 2016.

We need to let those Democrats know that we have their back and the choice is between no JCPOA and Iran doing everything bad it is doing today under the protection of a nuclear umbrella or reentering the JCPOA and Iran doing everything bad it is doing today (and yes, with more money from sanctions relief to fund those bad activities) but without nuclear weapons and not on the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. If you're concerned about existential threats to Israel's survival, it should be an easy choice between two admittedly less than ideal options.

To be clear, any economic relief Iran receives under the Iran Deal will not be funded by U.S. taxpayers and under the Iran Deal, while certain limits do phase out over time, several key provisions, including more intrusive monitoring and restrictions on activities relevant to weaponization, are permanent.

What about Dan Shapiro? Contrary to reports suggesting Shapiro left the administration over disagreements on Iran policy, he told Jewish Insider on Tuesday that he is “absolutely not” leaving because of any policy differences. “There’s no story there.” As Joel Rubin noted, the false stories about Shapiro's departure speaks volumes about those spreading them.

Want some good news? After eight months of Republican obstruction, the Senate confirmed Dr. Deborah Lipstadt as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism with the rank of Ambassador.

Amnesty Answers. Amnesty International USA’s Executive Director Paul O’Brien responded to a statement from all 25 Jewish Democratic House members, saying he "regrets" representing the views of the Jewish people but defending Amnesty's contention that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid.

Amnesty International responded to a letter from 11 Jewish House members, reaffirming "that Amnesty International recognises the right of Jewish people to self-determination. We do not take a position on the international political or legal arrangements that might be adopted to implement this right. We have reaffirmed, including in the context of the launch of our report on Apartheid, that there is nothing under international law to prevent the state of Israel identifying itself as Jewish, as long as the government does not discriminate between its citizens on the grounds of religion or race."

Nothing from the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has not reinstated any of the trips to Israel that it canceled.

Anything new last week on AIPAC? Israeli Knesset member Alon Tal of the centrist Blue & White Party condemned AIPAC's decision to endorse 37 insurrectionists, writing that "even a bi-partisan organization needs to draw the line at politicians who would corrode the very foundations of the democratic system of government. Theirs is a friendship we don’t need...I see looming generational problems for young secular diaspora Jews when AIPAC aligns with explicit GOP talking points and brushes aside the great assault on democracy that the United States only narrowly survived...being pro-Israel needs to mean being categorically pro-democracy, pro-decency and pro-freedom." 

Separately, several current and former Jewish members of Congress condemned AIPAC attacks on Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI).

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Timna Sheffey: There is no guidebook for grief.

Tweets of the Week. David Frum/Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Paul Rudnick.

Video Clip of the Week. David Letterman reacts to the Academy Awards. (I thought he was good when he hosted in 1985.)

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.