In October, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated Joe Biden’s campaign promise to reopen the American consulate in Israel’s capital—the functions of which have been taken over by the new U.S. embassy in the city—so it can serve as a de-facto mission to the Palestinian Authority. Such a move would run counter to diplomatic precedent, undermine Israeli sovereignty, and—as Shany Mor and Enia Krivine point out—violate American law. But there are other reasons to avoid it:

In theory, an American diplomatic mission to the Palestinians makes plenty of sense. It signals American commitment to a negotiated peace and helps to shore up the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, led by the aged and ailing President Mahmoud Abbas, whose popularity compares unfavorably to that of Hamas. A consulate would facilitate communication to the Palestinian government and Palestinian people, crucial not just as it relates to the conflict with Israel but a range of issues, from global jihad to vaccine transfers.

The practical solution to this problem is to open a new U.S. consulate at the center of Palestinian life in the West Bank where commerce, civil society, and government reside: Ramallah. It would not be the only such mission. More than two dozen countries have diplomatic missions in Ramallah, including China, India, and several Arab states.

However, placing the U.S. mission in Ramallah would be wildly unpopular with the Palestinians and would cause problems for Biden domestically, as the far left would perceive the decision as ceding Jerusalem to Israel in toto. As such, the Palestinians demand an American mission in eastern Jerusalem, the hoped-for capital of a future Palestinian state.

There are no good moves available to the Biden administration. Upsetting America’s closest regional ally over the placement of a consulate that is both impractical and legally incoherent is a bad move. Placing the consulate in Ramallah would cause the president problems with the Palestinians and domestically. The only credible option for the administration is to maintain the status quo in Jerusalem and hope this blows over.

Noah Rothman provides a worthwhile reminder of why a nuclear Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the United States:

For one, Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism on earth. It exports terrorists and arms throughout the region and beyond, and there are no guarantees that it won’t play a similarly reckless game with nuclear material. At minimum, the terrorist elements in Iran’s orbit would be emboldened by Iran’s new nuclear might. Their numbers would surely grow, as would their willingness to court risk.

Iran maintains the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the region. It can certainly deliver a warhead to targets inside the Middle East, and it’s fast-tracking the development of space-launch vehicles that can threaten the U.S. mainland. Even if Tehran were a rational actor that could be reliably deterred, an acknowledged Iranian bomb would kick-start a race toward nuclear proliferation in the region. The Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and others would probably be compelled to seek their own nuclear deterrents, leading to an infinitely more complex security environment.

In the meantime, Iran would be able to blackmail the West, allowing it occasionally to choke off the trade and energy exports that transit the Persian Gulf and to engage in far more reckless acts of international terrorism.

As for the possible consequences, Rothman observes:

Iranian retaliation might be measured with the understanding that if it’s not properly calibrated, the U.S. and Israel could begin taking out Iranian command-and-control targets next. If the symbols of the regime begin crumbling, the oppressed Iranian people might find the courage to finish the job. If there’s anything the mullahs fear more than the U.S. military, it’s their own citizens.