After the U.S. moved its embassy to Israel’s capital, it closed down its consulate in the city because the new embassy had subsumed its functions. But two months ago, the State Department announced that it intends to reopen the consulate, which will function as a mission to the Palestinian Authority. Elliott Abrams and Amanda Rothschild write:

There is no case in the entire world where a consulate general exists in the same city as a U.S. embassy, and in 2019 all American diplomatic activity [in Jerusalem] was consolidated into a single mission. This was logical, efficient, and followed the universal pattern; the U.S. embassy opened a Palestinian Affairs Unit, and most of the staff from the former consulate general continued in the same jobs.

Opening a new U.S. consulate now is . . . a stark departure not merely from the Trump administration’s policies, but also from the consistent position of the U.S. government over many decades. The move may in fact be illegal, and the United States likely needs permission from the Israeli government to proceed.

Most jarring, however, is that it amounts to a de-facto division of Israel’s capital and represents a distinct infringement on the sovereign rights of the Israeli state. In simple terms, the Biden administration is seeking to open a diplomatic mission serving a foreign entity in what the United States now rightly recognizes as Israel’s capital city. The consulate could instead be opened in Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority is headquartered. The decision to open it in Jerusalem delivers a dangerous and ambiguous signal that this administration may well support a divided Jerusalem.

The fact that the United States is even considering such a move is another unfortunate example of Israel being held to a different and discriminatory standard by the international community.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”