While the Orthodox Union has officially announced its opposition to the nuclear agreement, the Union of Reform Judaism has declared its intent to remain neutral; meanwhile, letters have circulated, signed by large numbers of rabbis, both opposing and supporting the deal. Efrem Goldberg explains why he decided to publicize his opposition:

In my career in the rabbinate, I have never used the pulpit to endorse a candidate or promote a particular political position. And yet I do not hesitate in these critical days to use every opportunity to encourage our community to lobby our elected officials to vote against the Iran deal because to me, this issue is not one of politics, but potentially one of life and death, saving the Jewish people, and the preservation of the Jewish state. . . . [T]he stakes include weapons capable of effecting genocide against our people and the possibility of billions of dollars flowing to sworn enemies that surround Israel. These threats transcend politics and demand leadership from the pulpit even if those in the pews have diverse positions. . . .

[R]abbis are not categorically smarter, necessarily more qualified, or more insightful [than those in other professions]. However, I believe that rabbis, unlike, [for instance], plumbers, bear an awesome responsibility to be outspoken leaders on issues of historic significance to Israel’s security as well as to the well-being of the free world. Rabbis have been charged with being both students of Torah and of history and applying both our analytical skills and knowledge to try to guide our constituencies in an informed, educated manner.

While the Holocaust raged and millions of Jews were being slaughtered, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the American Jewish Congress rigorously debated the best course of action on behalf of the Jewish people. The former feared instigating anti-Semitism and therefore advocated for quiet, behind-the-scenes efforts, while the latter called for protests, rallies, and demonstrations. . . .

Nobody would look back and dismiss the debate between [the two organizations] as politics. Nobody would read a sermon of a rabbi from 1943, calling on his members to lobby their elected officials to intervene, and say it had no place in the synagogue.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.