“For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace,” reads an oft-quoted verse from the book of Isaiah. But Moshe Hauer, responding to the hyperbolic pronouncements from prominent American Jews over recent political developments in Israel, urges his fellow rabbis and communal leaders to ignore the prophet’s advice, and occasionally to hold their peace:

Whatever our view on the proposed legal reforms and other issues, and whether we choose to advocate for our positions, we are not well served by collecting signatures on letters that exaggerate our differences and sow self-fulfilling prophecies of gloom and doom about the future of Jewish and democratic Israel. And though some Israelis ask us American Jews not to be silent for the sake of Zion, for the sake of American Jewry, a bit more silence on our part will be helpful.

Caution in Israel is warranted, as well. While those on both sides of Israel’s political divide must continue to advance their policy [platforms] vigorously, they must recognize that on the sidelines of their political battlefield sit America’s Jews, watching carefully and deciding whether they will be able to identify with the outcome. To paraphrase Ahad Ha’am, more than American Jewry has maintained Israel, Israel has maintained American Jewry.

For the vast majority of Diaspora Jews, it is not Judaism but Israel—both concern for its safety and pride in its accomplishments—that has united and galvanized them as Jews and served as the most effective anchor of their Jewish identity. Preserving that sense of identity between American Jewry and Israel is a paramount responsibility that both Israeli and American Jewish leaders must have at the top of their minds because at this moment, that sense of identity is seriously at risk.

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.