Two weeks ago, Prince Charles arrived in Israel for the funeral of Shimon Peres, after which he privately, if not secretly, went to the Mount of Olives to visit the grave of his grandmother, Princess Alice of Battenberg—who, among other things, had sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Greece. This was Charles’ second time in the country, the first being for the funeral of Yitzḥak Rabin, but neither he nor his mother has ever paid an official state visit. The editors of the Jerusalem Post urge the royal family to reconsider its apparent policy:

It was alleged . . . that the royal family has refrained from visiting [Princess Alice’s resting place] because of its location in the eastern part of Jerusalem, and its desire to remain neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The fact that the British consulate is located in eastern Jerusalem has never been cited as a danger to British neutrality. Similarly, the Commonwealth Cemetery on Mount Scopus, housing the remains of British soldiers from World War I, regularly commemorates their sacrifice. And as far as neutrality goes, Charles had no problem attending the Peres funeral on Mount Herzl, which the Palestinian narrative lays claim to no less than to Tel Aviv and the rest of the “occupation.” . . .

[I]t is strange that in 68 years, the royal family has not visited Israel in an official capacity—this despite the long history the Jewish people shares with the United Kingdom.

The royal family will have an opportunity soon to make amends. Next year, Israel and the UK will mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which supported the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Balfour wrote the letter in the name of “His Majesty’s Government.” After 100 years, it is time for the current majesties to show where they stand.

Steve Witkoff, the American special envoy leading negotiations with the Islamic Republic, has sent mixed signals about his intentions, some of them recently contradicted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Michael Doran looks at the progress of the talks so far, and explains why he fears that they could result in an even worse version of the 2015 deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA):

This new deal will preserve Iran’s latent nuclear weapons capabilities—centrifuges, scientific expertise, and unmonitored sites—that will facilitate a simple reconstitution in the future. These capabilities are far more potent today than they were in 2015, with Iran’s advances making them easier to reactivate, a significant step back from the JCPOA’s constraints.

In return, President Trump would offer sanctions relief, delivering countless billions of dollars to Iranian coffers. Iran, in the meantime, will benefit from the permanent erasure of JCPOA snapback sanctions, set to expire in October 2025, reducing U.S. leverage further. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps will use the revenues to support its regional proxies, such as Hizballah, Hamas, and the Houthis, whom it will arm with missiles and drones that will not be restricted by the deal.

Worse still, Israel will not be able to take action to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons:

A unilateral military strike . . . is unlikely without Trump’s backing, as Israel needs U.S. aircraft and missile defenses to counter Iran’s retaliation with drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles—a counterattack Israel cannot fend off alone.

By defanging Iran’s proxies and destroying its defenses, Israel stripped Tehran naked, creating a historic opportunity to end forever the threat of its nuclear weapons program. But Tehran’s weakness also convinced it to enter the kind of negotiations at which it excels. Israel’s battlefield victories, therefore, facilitated a deal that will place Iran’s nuclear program under an undeclared but very real American protective shield.