“The state of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles,” reads the Israeli declaration of independence. Yet, drawing on his experience sitting on the Knesset’s Aliyah and Absorption Committee, Michael Oren argues that the Jewish state isn’t doing enough to encourage and facilitate Jews to settle in its borders. He writes:

Miraculously, it would seem, in the throes of the coronavirus and in the face of continuing terrorist attacks, aliyah from the North America climbed last year by an astonishing 31 percent. The increase reflects several factors, among them expanding employment opportunities in Israel, especially in high-tech, and the relative strength of the Israeli economy. The major cause, though, is anti-Semitism. The sharp rise in Jew-hatred both from the right and the left has convinced a growing number of American and European Jews that their only secure future lies in the Jewish state.

Olim from countries such as France, Belgium, and the United States, over half of whom are young and educated, bring both skills and capital to the country. Within a year, on average, their economic contributions more than pay the costs of their absorption. The 18,000 Americans who made aliyah between 2002 and 2008, for example, brought in more than a billion shekels. Olim improve medical and educational standards in Israel, enrich our cultural life, and defend our borders.

Yet, far beyond the professional, educational, and military benefits brought by olim, aliyah was and remains a central Zionist tenet. Without it, we are in danger of devolving into just another developed country concerned only with sealing its borders to immigrants. Precisely at a time of rampant anti-Semitism, Israel will fail to fulfill its primary historical mission of providing shelter for oppressed Jews worldwide. . . . Aliyah is not just immigration but part of the moral underpinning—the raison d’être—of our state.

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.