An Israeli organization called V15 has been conducting a vigorous “Anyone but Netanyahu” campaign in advance of the March elections—while being careful not to endorse any particular alternative candidate. Adi Ben Hur examines V15’s organizers and sources of funding, and concludes that something is amiss:

[D]espite the strident denials, the people behind [the V15] campaign are a long list of known Labor activists. They understand that Labor’s uncharismatic leader, Isaac Herzog, can’t do the job alone, and so they’ve decided to lend a hand. V15 is funded by the resource-rich One Voice, which is based in the U.S., where it’s known as the Peace Network Foundation, supported by a holding company known as Peaceworks, which is run by a businessman named Daniel Lubetzky. The organization is defined as an “international organization” whose goal is “solving” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . .

Even if all this activity is technically legal, it’s still very problematic. What makes it worse is the massive funding from foreign governments. Democracy means rule by the people, and the intervention of foreign countries is nothing short of subversion. . . . Christina Taylor, in charge of grants to One Voice in the U.S., said . . . that One Voice had received two grants from the U.S. State Department in 2014. Taylor claimed that the money was not meant to assist intervening in Israeli elections. The present heightened activity and presence of V15 in elections makes this disavowal dubious, to say the least.

In addition, the list of “partners” to One Voice on the English website includes the European Union, the U.S. State Department, and the British Labor and Conservative parties. Strangely, none of these last appears on the Hebrew-language website.

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.