US
Adam Garfinkle has a lot of unanswered questions about the Iran negotiations:
Dear readers, there are a lot of people out there who claim to know the unknowable, understand the contingent, and be able to read the minds of people like Khamenei and Obama. I am not one of them. I wish I were half as certain about anything as many people claim to be absolutely certain about everything. Oh, these damned negotiations: What a long, strange trip it’s been.
Lee Smith compares between today’s nuclear talks and the 1815 Congress of Vienna:
The real subject of the nuclear talks is the role that Iran will play in that order. The White House seems to be hoping that if it keeps feeding Tehran concessions, the Iranians will finally see it is in their interest to help stabilize the Middle East. Obama is counting on Iran to be a cornerstone of a regional peace similar to what the Congress of Vienna built in 1815. The more likely result is that he has unleashed a monster.
Israel
Haviv Rettig Gur examines the attempts to tighten religious restrictions in Israel:
Israeli attitudes toward individualism, gay rights and religious diversity are by and large not the product of a self-conscious educational or cultural project, but of the aggregate collective sensibilities of millions of individuals who, through sheer numbers, cannot really be restrained by the formal state bodies that claim that power. Israeli liberalism is, in short, more permanent and robust than our stilted national debate is really equipped to imagine.
Mazal Mualem writes about what she sees as Netanyahu’s excessively conservative attitude to leadership:
Netanyahu’s speech at the Rabin Center revealed the enormous gap between what he considers to be proper leadership and the way he actually leads. He now has 10 years and four terms as prime minister under his belt, and he has yet to make a single major and historic decision as leader. Facing a Middle East full of risks, but also full of opportunities, the chairman of the Likud presents a conservative style of leadership that lacks initiative and daring. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of the type of leadership shown by senior government officials during Operation Entebbe.
Middle East
The Washington Institute’s Patrick Clawson offers an interesting take on the importance of the economic gain Iran will have from nuclear deal:
Iran is a substantial economic power that has developed inexpensive ways to challenge the U.S.-aligned camp, from soft-power broadcasting and bribes to low-cost tools of war such as terrorism and extremist militias. Therefore, the constraints on its foreign policy have not been, and are unlikely to be, primarily economic. Tehran's calculations about whether to be even more assertive abroad are less likely to be influenced by economic calculations than by the prospects it sees for political success of one form or another, e.g., increased influence in the countries where it intervenes or domestic reinforcement of the leadership's position. The additional resources unleashed by a nuclear deal will put Iran in a better position to spend more on foreign adventurism, but the basic factors determining the scope and nature of such expenditures will remain political, not economic.
Bruce Riedl writes about the death of an extremely influential Saudi diplomat:
Today, the kingdom is in the midst of its own war, in Yemen, which has become a dangerous stalemate. The Saudi blockade is creating a humanitarian catastrophe, with some 20 million Yemenis at risk amid acute shortages of food and water. The situation cries out for smart diplomacy and clever policies. His Royal Highness’s hand will be missed.
Jewish World
How serious is Iran about its Jew-hatred? Matthew Duss takes tries to figure out:
And so it is with the Iranian government. Its leaders hold deeply offensive views of Jews, but any look at the history of the Islamic Republic doesn’t show that they are willing to risk national suicide in order to achieve anything, whether it’s the destruction of Israel, the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s, or obtaining a nuclear weapon. As with Nixon, and unlike Adolf Hitler, there’s no evidence that hatred of Jews is so foundational to the Islamic Republic’s governing ideology that they would drop everything else to pursue it.
Abraham Foxman writes about the challenges today's Jews have are facing when it comes to utilizing power:
What share of what Israel does justifies criticism, and what share does not, are subject to interpretation and consideration. But part of the discussion must always be: What can Israel do, what does it need to do better, how can its actions have an impact, not on the haters who will always be there but on the many non-anti-Semites who are troubled by some of its policies?
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.