Herod the Great, who ruled Judea as a Roman vassal from 40 to 4 BCE, is primarily known today from the New Testament and Christian art, which portray him as a brutal tyrant. He doesn’t come off much better in the Talmud, in the writings of Josephus, or in other Jewish sources. Yet Herod, who was of Edomite and Arab ancestry and dubious Jewishness, saved Judea from foreign invasion, renovated the Temple (building what is now the Western Wall), and maintained an uneasy modus vivendi with the Pharisees. Antonio Piñero writes:

Having at first received the blessing of Rome, the independent Jewish kingdom [created by the Maccabean revolt] increasingly felt the pressure of the Roman republic’s expansion into the region. When Judea became its vassal state in 63 BCE, Rome found a willing collaborator in the form of Herod’s father Antipater, who was made procurator—financial governor—of the new province.

Divided over whether to fight the Romans or join them, civil war broke out among the [ruling] Hasmonean dynasty [established earlier by Judah the Maccabee]. Antipater’s son Herod appealed to Rome for aid, and was appointed king of Judea in 40 BCE. . . . With Roman help King Herod retook the city in 37 BCE, from where he developed excellent relations with high-ranking imperial figures, including Mark Antony.

[After defeating Mark Antony in the Roman civil war that followed], Octavian demanded an audience with Herod. Fearing for his life, the Judean king swore allegiance to Octavian [soon to be styled the Emperor Augustus], who confirmed Herod’s place as king. . . .

In the eyes of his pious, Jewish subjects, however, Herod’s loyalty to the pagan Romans and admiration of Hellenistic style smacked of treachery. He had been put on the throne of Judea only after considerable Jewish blood had been shed by Roman forces. . . .Worst of all, Herod rode roughshod over the customs and laws of the Jewish religion.

If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons, the war in Gaza, let alone the protests on college campuses, will seem like a minor complication. Jonathan Schachter fears that this danger could be much more imminent than decisionmakers in Jerusalem and Washington believe. In his view, Israel seems to be repeating the mistake that allowed it to be taken by surprise on Simchat Torah of 2023 and Yom Kippur of 1973: putting too much faith in an intelligence concept that could be wrong.

Israel and the United States apparently believe that despite Iran’s well-documented progress in developing capabilities necessary for producing and delivering nuclear weapons, as well as its extensive and ongoing record of violating its international nuclear obligations, there is no acute crisis because building a bomb would take time, would be observable, and could be stopped by force. Taken together, these assumptions and their moderating impact on Israeli and American policy form a new Iran concept reminiscent of its 1973 namesake and of the systemic failures that preceded the October 7 massacre.

Meanwhile, most of the restrictions put in place by the 2015 nuclear deal will expire by the end of next year, rendering the question of Iran’s adherence moot. And the forces that could be taking action aren’t:

The European Union regularly issues boilerplate press releases asserting its members’ “grave concern.” American decisionmakers and spokespeople have created the unmistakable impression that their reservations about the use of force are stronger than their commitment to use force to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to enforce its own sanctions comprehensively: Iranian oil exports (especially to China) and foreign-currency reserves have ballooned since January 2021, when the Biden administration took office.

Israel’s response has also been sluggish and ambiguous. Despite its oft-stated policy of never allowing a nuclear Iran, Israel’s words and deeds have sent mixed messages to allies and adversaries—perhaps inadvertently reinforcing the prevailing sense in Washington and elsewhere that Iran’s nuclear efforts do not present an exigent crisis.