Over the past many months, a number of retired high-ranking Israeli security officials have been cited as supporters of the nuclear deal with Iran. The problem, writes Emily Landau, is that their words are often taken out of context and, what’s more, some of them may not be great authorities on the subject:

There are Iran experts, nuclear experts, and Iran nuclear experts who have been following every detail [related to the Iranian nuclear program] for years [and] have vastly more relevant credentials to discuss the ins and outs and implications of the Iran deal than the ex-head of the Shin Bet. . . . Expertise on this topic does not automatically come with high-ranking military service. . . .

But that’s not all that is wrong with the recent attempt to recruit these so-called dissenting Israeli voices for political purposes in the United States. Some of the figures—those that are [most] authoritative—have been quoted as opposing the government’s position on the deal when they are actually trying to convey a more nuanced message than the one being framed by the media. Their message seems tailored primarily for internal consumption. [They are effectively telling] the Israeli public: yes, this deal is bad, but it is not a disaster. We are strong and will be able to deal with the adverse implications.

Moreover, they say, Israel’s strategic ties with the U.S. are of paramount importance and cannot be jeopardized by trying to influence an internal American debate. These . . . are not arguments in favor of the deal. They are arguments saying that we in Israel have no choice but to try to make the best of a bad situation over which we have no direct control. . . .

The recent attempt to say to Americans that they should listen to one set of Israelis rather than another is one more attempt to divert attention from what should be the only focus of attention in the current debate over the nuclear deal: its serious flaws, which will legitimize Iran’s dangerous nuclear-threshold status and could ultimately pave the way to Iran becoming a nuclear state.

While conventional wisdom in the Western press believes that the war with Hamas has left Jerusalem more isolated and scuttled chances of expanding the Abraham Accords, Gabriel Scheinmann points to a very different reality. He begins with Iran’s massive drone and missile attack on Israel last month, and the coalition that helped defend against it:

America’s Arab allies had, in various ways, provided intelligence and allowed U.S. and Israeli planes to operate in their airspace. Jordan, which has been vociferously attacking Israel’s conduct in Gaza for months, even publicly acknowledged that it shot down incoming Iranian projectiles. When the chips were down, the Arab coalition held and made clear where they stood in the broader Iranian war on Israel.

The successful batting away of the Iranian air assault also engendered awe in Israel’s air-defense capabilities, which have performed marvelously throughout the war. . . . Israel’s response to the Iranian night of missiles should give further courage to Saudi Arabia to codify its alignment. Israel . . . telegraphed clearly to Tehran that it could hit precise targets without its aircraft being endangered and that the threshold of a direct Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear or other sites had been breached.

The entire episode demonstrated that Israel can both hit Iranian sites and defend against an Iranian response. At a time when the United States is focused on de-escalation and restraint, Riyadh could see quite clearly that only Israel has both the capability and the will to deal with the Iranian threat.

It is impossible to know whether the renewed U.S.-Saudi-Israel negotiations will lead to a normalization deal in the immediate months ahead. . . . Regardless of the status of this deal, [however], or how difficult the war in Gaza may appear, America’s Arab allies have now become Israel’s.