What "Sells" as Jewish, Kabbalah, Torah and Mesorah today....

 

The Arizal Exorcises the Spirit of J.  from R. Hayyim Vital

 

On the road to Meron, where the Safed kabbalists believe Jesus is buried, R. Hayyim Vital (16^th cent.) encounters a dangerous spirit, who overpowers him in a moment of spiritual weakness. The spirit later tosses him in the air and exhausts him nearly to death, but Vital makes it to his master, the great R. Isaac Luria, the Arizal, who, fearing the spirit will kill Vital and thwart his plans to bring about the messianic age, exorcises it.

The Blind and Mute Man Possessed by Devils, James Tissot, 1886–1896. Brooklyn Museum

Luria’s Spirit Is Angry with Hayyim Vital

R. Hayyim Vital (1542–1620) was the chief student of R. Isaac Luria (1534–1572)—known popularly as the Ari or Arizal, the originator of Lurianic kabbalah.^[1] In Sefer Hezyonot [Book of Visions], Vital’s mystical diary,^[2] he tells of how a maggid (friendly spirit)^[3] possessed the daughter of his friend Raphael Anav.^[4] The maggid was the spirit Ḥakham Piso (probably R. Isaac Israel de Piso, an exile from Spain) who had died about 30 years earlier; he had committed some small sin that was still hanging over him, so his soul was sent to Damascus in order to bring messages to Vital.^[5]

Frustrated that none of these messages came from his deceased teacher,—Vital asked Anav to inquire of the maggid why Luria was not responding to him. He reports in his entry for that day (each entry begins with a date as is the style of diaries):

^{ספר החזיונות} יום י׳ לאב. שאלתי לה ע״י אביה: למה נמנע הצדיק הנודע לי לדבר עמי ומה שמו ואם יש תקוה להחזירו.

^{Book of Visions} “The tenth of Ab. I asked her via her father: Why does the righteous one (tzaddiq) known to me (=Luria) refuse to speak to me? What is his (=the spirit’s) name, and is there any hope that he (Luria) will return?

Vital had assumed that he would be able to communicate with Luria after his death through the yiḥudim (unifications, a type of mystical meditation) that he had been taught by Luria. Yet he had not been able to communicate with Luria. Now somebody comes who is a heavenly messenger, but is not Luria. Vital is confused and asks who is this messenger that he did not know?

Vital writes in his next entry that the maggid responds that Luria is angry with Vital:

ותשיבני כי ליל י״א לאב לא ראתה למורי ז״ל ויאמר לה: אמרי לו משמי, שלא ישאל עוד שאלות אלו כ״כ פעמים ואיני יכול להשיב לו תשובה כי אם זאת, הלא הם ג׳ תיבות אלו: אשר״י מתי״ם בבית״ך והוא יבין מעצמו פירוש הדברים.

She responded that on the night of the eleventh of Ab she saw my teacher and he said to her: “Tell him in my name, that he should not ask these questions so many times. I cannot answer him, except for these three words: ‘Happy are the dead in your house.’^[6] He will understand the meaning of these words himself.”

Vital, however, does not understand what Luria is referring to, and Anav’s daughter explains this to Luria in her next dream:

ליל י״ב אב: ראתה בחלום למורי ז״ל במערה א׳ ויאמר לה: מה השיבך הר׳ חיים? ותאמר לו: אמר לי שלא הבין אותן הג׳ תיבות.

The night of the twelfth of Ab. In a dream, she saw my teacher z"l in a cave, and he said to her: “What did R. Hayyim reply to you?” She said to him: “He told me that he did not understand the three words.”

This response annoys Luria’s spirit, who speaks contemptuously of Vital’s perspicacity here:

ויאמר לה: וכי דבר נקל כזה. נאטם שכלו ולא הבין? ואיה החכמה שלמדתיו?!

He said to her: “Such an easy thing. Has his intellect become so dense that he did not understand? Where is the wisdom that I taught him?”

Luria’s spirit continues by having her remind Vital of an incident that took place years before:

וזכור יזכור אותו הרוח רעה שהוצאתי ממנו...

Remind him of the evil spirit [ruaḥ ha-raʿah] that I expelled from him.

Luria’s spirit continues with his criticism:

והנה ד׳ שנים שאינו אותי בחלום. ועתה חשבתי לחזור אליו וכיון שלא הבין דברי תשובתי, איני רוצה לחזור אליו.

It has been four years that he has not seen me in a dream. Now I planned to return to him, but since he does not understand my response. I do not want to return to him.

Though Vital never really understands what Luria wants from him, he does, at least, finally understand that his master is referring to the incident near Kfar Akhbara, on the road from Safed to Meron:

ונ[ראה] לע[ניות] ד[עתי] פי[רוש] ענין הרוח רעה הנז[כר], שהוא ענין תחיית המתים. שהחייני בלכתנו לכפר עכברא, מפני שהזיקני אותו הרוח שנקבר הגוי...

In my humble opinion, the meaning of the above-mentioned evil spirit (ruaḥ raʿah) concerns the resurrection of the dead. He revived me on our journey to Kfar Akhbara (“Mouse Village”) because of the injury done to me by a spirit who was in the grave, the gentile…^[7]

The story of how this evil spirit attacked Vital appears in a different work, the שער הגלגולים Shaʿar HaGilgulim “Gates of Transmigration.”^[8]

The Spirit of Jesus Possesses Hayyim Vital

Vital describes how he and Luria passed by the grave of an ancient goy (gentile) whose spirit saw that of Vital’s:

^{ויטאל שער הגלגולים לח} בשנת של״ב, יצאנו אל השדה, ועברנו על קבר גוי אחד קדמון יותר מאלף שנים. וראה נפשי על ציונו, ובקש להמיתני ולהזיני.

^{Vital, Shaʿar HaGilgulim §38} In the year 5332 ^[1572], we went out in the fields, and we passed the ancient grave of a gentile [goy] that was more than a thousand years old. He saw my spirit (nefesh) from his tombstone and he tried to harm me and kill me.

Who is this thousand-year-old spirit, powerful enough to overcome Hayyim Vital? While Vital calls him a goy, according to Vital’s own kabbalistic understanding of the soul, only a Jew has a spirit [ruaḥ] that can possess another Jew,^[9] which would imply that goy here is meant as a dismissive insult and not as an actual description of the person.

As first suggested by Pinchas Giller, the spirit seems to be none other than Jesus of Nazareth.^[10] In the previous section of Shaʿar HaGilgulim, where Vital describes how Luria wandered around the environs surrounding Safed with his disciples, “identifying” the graves of a wide variety of biblical, Talmudic, and Zoharic figures through mystical/kabbalistic means, one such grave was that of Jesus:

^{חיים ויטאל שער הגלגולים לז} לצפון צפת ת[בנה] ו[תכונן] ב[מהרה] ב[ימינו], בלכתך מצפת לצד צפון ללכת אל כפר עין זייתון, דרך אילן אחד של חרוב, שם קבור יש"ו הנוצרי.

^{Vital, Shaʿar HaGilgulim §37} To the north of Safed, may it be rebuilt and reestablished in our day,^[11] going from Safed in a northern direction to the village of Ein Zeitun [Spring of Olives], there is path to a carob tree, which is where Jesus the Nazarene is buried.^[12]

Kfar Akhbara is on the way from Safed to Ein Zeitun, so they would have passed this grave on the way.^[13]

Vital’s note that the grave is near a carob tree is likely related to the traditions concerning Judas Iscariot. The Gospel of Matthew (27:5) has Judas hang himself after betraying Jesus, and Christian folklore, going back at least to the 15^th century, says it was from a carob tree.^[14] Indeed, one species of carob tree is called “the Judas tree.”^[15] This “demonic” site was likely first understood as the burial place of Judas among local Christians, and then, with only a vague familiarity with Christianity and its characters, it morphed among local Jews to become the site where Jesus is buried. Given that Jews understood Jesus as the first Christian (rather than a first century Jew with heterodox beliefs), Vital calling Jesus a non-Jew is hardly surprising.

As the story continues, other Jewish spirits were present to defend Vital from this (Jesus’) spirit:

והיו מלאכים רבים, ונשמות צדיקים שלא ישוערו, מימיני ומשמאלי, ולא יכול לי.

There were many angels and innumerable souls [neshamot] of the righteous arrayed to my right and left and he was powerless to harm me.^[16]

Luria recommends Vital avoid that grave, but this does not help, since the spirit follows him:

ויצוני מורי ז״ל, שבחזרתי לא אחזור בדרך הזה עוד. ואח״כ הלך עמי נפש הגוי רחוקה ממני.

My teacher commanded me that when I return, I should not do so on that road. But afterwards, the spirit of that gentile followed me from a distance.

In a moment of spiritual weakness, when Vital succumbs to his anger in a fight with Rabbi Judah Mishan,^[17] the spirit is able to possess him:

ושם בשדה נכעסתי עם הרב יהודה משען, ותחל נפש הגוי להתחבר בי, ותחטאני עוד. ולא רציתי לשמוע דרשת מורי ז״ל.

There in the field I became angry with Rabbi Judah Mishan and the spirit (nefesh) of the gentile began to attach itself to me and cause me to sin^[18] even more and I did not want to listen to my teacher's z"l teachings.

Luria is distraught at Vital’s possession, worried that the spirit might kill him and thus end Luria’s quest to use Vital to bring the messiah, as Luria believed that he was the Messiah of Joseph and Vital might be the Messiah of David:^[19]

והתחיל לבכות ויאמר: "הנה כל הנשמות הצדיקים והמלאכים הלכו להם, ע״י הכעס. ולפיכך שלט בו הנפש ההיא. ומה אעשה, והלואי שיזקוהו ויניחוהו חי, כי אוכל לרפאתו. אבל ירא אני פן ימותוהו, ולא יתקיים כל מה שאני חושב שיתוקן העולם על ידו כנודע לי. ואיני יכול להגיד כי לא ניתן רשות להגיד, וכי לריק יגעתי, ונחרב העולם."

He began to cry and said: “All the souls and angels have left him because of the anger and as a result that spirit (nefesh) rules over him. What shall I do? I wish that he would [merely] harm him and let him remain living; then I will be able to heal him. However, I fear that he will kill him and everything that I think will repair the world will not be accomplished by him, as is known to me. I could not tell, since I had not been given permission, whether I have struggled for nothing and the world would be destroyed.”

Luria’s concern is that, if Vital dies, it would put an end to his messianic mission to bring repentance and redemption to the Jews.

ולא אכל כל הלילה מרוב צערו ודאגתו.

He did not eat the whole night out of anguish and worry.

Possessed, Vital returns to the gravesite of the possessing spirit, where he is sent flying in the air^[20] until he reaches total exhaustion, only barely able to drag himself to Luria’s home afterwards:

והלכתי וחזרתי הדרך ההוא לבדי. וכשהגעתי על קברו, רוח נשאתני ממש, וראיתי עצמי רץ באויר גבוה עשרים קומה מעל גבי הקרקע, עד שהגעתי בעת צאת הכוכבים, והניחוני שם. והלכתי לישן בריא עד אור הבקר. ורציתי לקום, והיו איברי נחלשים אחד לאחד והרגישו בי, והוליכנו עד פתח מורי ז״ל לאט לאט.

I returned on that road alone. When I reached his grave, the wind (or “the spirit”) lifted me^[21] and I saw myself in the air, running twenty stories above the ground until I reached (land again) at nightfall and was left there. I slept soundly until morning. I wanted to get up, but all of my limbs were very weak and painful, but they brought me slowly to the door of my teacher z”l.

Luckily, Luria is able to save Vital:

ובהגיע שם, לא נותרה בי נשמה כלל כענין יונה. והשכיבני מורי ז״ל על מטתו, וסגר הדלת, והתפלל. ואח״כ נכנס לאותו בית הוא לבד, והיה הולך בבית וחוזר על המטה, וגוהר עלי בה. וכה עשה עד חצי היום שהייתי מת לגמרי. ובחצי היום ראיתי בעצמי, כי חזרה נשמתי בי מעט מעט, עד שפתחתי עיני. וקמתי וברכתי ברכת מחיה המתים.

When I arrived, I was barely alive, like Jonah, and my teacher laid me on his bed, closed the door, and prayed. Afterwards, he entered the house alone, walked around the house, returned to the bed, and stretched himself over me.^[22] He did this until noon, when I was almost dead, and at noon I saw myself that my soul was slowly returning to me until I opened my eyes, got up, and recited the blessing “He who resurrects the dead.”^[23]

וכל זה אמת ויציב^[24] בלי שום ספק.

All this is absolutely and undoubtedly true.

The spirit’s tenacity in following Vital implies that the great kabbalist was purposefully targeted.

Inverting the Trope of Jesus as Exorcist

One irony in a story about Jesus as a possessing spirit is that, in Christian tradition, Jesus performs successful exorcisms. For example, the Gospel of Mark tells how Jesus travelled over the Sea of Galilee to the region of the Gerasenes, where he was met by a man possessed by a demon:

^{Mark 5:2} And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. ^5:3 He lived among the tombs, and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain, ^5:4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces, and no one had the strength to subdue him. ^5:5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. (NRSVue)

The demon, however, knows he cannot resist Jesus:

^{Mark 5:6} When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him, ^5:7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” ^5:8 For he had said to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” ^5:9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” ^5:10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the region.

Jesus removes the demons from the man, but agrees to allow them to possess a local herd of pigs. The man himself, however, is cured, and return to his town to tell everyone of the miracle.^[25]

While Vital’s story concerns possession by an evil spirit (ruaḥ raʿah) rather than a demon,^[26] it is a polemical inversion of the gospel story. In Christianity, Jesus begins as a Jewish itinerant prophet from the Second Temple period, famous for his powers of removing demons, and eventually revealed to be the messiah, son of God. In contrast, these kabbalists present Jesus as a dangerous and powerful “gentile” spirit, who haunts local Jews by none other than demonic possession.

The spirit targets Vital, perhaps because of the pivotal role Vital plays in Luria’s plan to bring the messiah, a plan which undermines the Christian belief that Jesus, the messiah, has already come. And who could have enough spiritual power to exorcise a being as powerful as Jesus? None other than the great kabbalist, the Arizal, whose goal was to bring forward, through Vital, the “real” messianic age.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-arizal-exorcises-the-spirit-of-jesus-from-r-hayyim-vital

Regardless of the timing of or forethought put into the conflict, America is currently engaged in a war, and it is better for us, our allies, and the world as a whole that it is resolved with an American victory rather than the perception of an Iranian one.

 

From ‘Unconditional Surrender’ to ‘Please Make a Deal’

 

President Trump may look too eager to end the war in Iran, regardless of the consequences. 

 

When I attended SERE (survival, evasion, resistance, escape) school, a course intended for service members at greater risk of finding themselves behind enemy lines, the portion of the course that simulated captivity in a prisoner of war camp included a metaphorical Whitman’s Sampler of the kind of sadism and punishment one might expect if one fell into the hands of America’s enemies.

These covered various kinds of discomfort and displeasure, usually exposing the student to each different punishment once—that is, unless the student showed obvious fear, pain, or dislike of one of these or another. In other words, if you let your captors know the specific thing they could do to you to elicit an adverse reaction, they are more likely to do it if they wish to pressure you. No matter how bad something is, do not let the enemy know what bothers you most.

Most Americans will never experience anything like SERE training, but the lesson is broadly applicable: It’s best not to demonstrate in either words or actions that your adversary has you over a barrel, unless you want that adversary to continue to use that leverage. This obvious lesson seems to have escaped the grasp of the man who has labeled himself a master dealmaker, as he, in both words and actions, lets the Iranians know that, to use a phrase of which he is so fond, the one card they do hold is the one that elicits the pain and discomfort that may motivate him to agree to a wholly unsatisfactory ending to the conflict: threatening shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Operation Epic Fury, initiated over nine weeks ago via nocturnal social media announcement, has ground to an odd pause. Our forces remain in theater, the combatants’ respective navies restrict passage through a critical waterway, and we are not making progress toward bringing about any of the various conditions that the Trump administration claimed would exist at the end of it. A war that started muddled in its purpose has now become muddled in its progress. 

Just over a month into the conflict, and seemingly frustrated with Iranian resistance in general and blocking the Strait of Hormuz in specific, President Donald Trump had issued a series of escalatory threats, declaring that he would order the destruction of everything from power infrastructure to Iranian civilization as a whole, and that this level of wholesale carnage might be accomplished in as little as four hours if the Iranian regime did not accede to his demand to open the strait. His original deadline of 48 hours was extended for five days, then that deadline was extended for 10 days, then that deadline was extended for an additional day, then, two hours short of the final final—for real this time final—deadline, the president announced a Pakistani brokered, two-week ceasefire to allow for talks and negotiations. All these extensions came with no substantive concessions from the Iranians.

More than three weeks into the two-week ceasefire, which began April 8, the two sides are at an impasse. An initial attempt at in-person talks in Islamabad that weekend proved largely performative and half-hearted, as the two parties each showed up with a list of non-negotiables that would be difficult to overcome through weeks of negotiations and therefore impossible with an effort wherein Vice President J.D. Vance spent more time in transit to and from the meeting site than in Islamabad itself. 

The only indications of Iranian eagerness to seek peaceful resolution come from Trump—who has a less than firm relationship with the truth—claiming that the Iranians have told him privately they are desperate to give in to each of our demands. 

After the failed Islamabad meeting, the Iranians demonstrated no earnest desire for negotiations. In the face of this Iranian intransigence, the administration could have allowed the April 22 deadline, and with it the ceasefire, to expire. Instead, it showed an amateurish eagerness, making contradictory statements about Vance’s imminent departure the day before the deadline for follow-up negotiations. One could imagine Vance moving to and from his motorcade like he was doing the hokey pokey with each new pronouncement. Ultimately, he stayed in Washington, and Trump extended the ceasefire. 

Even the alternate plan of special envoy Steve Witkoff and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner leading negotiations last weekend was halted at the last minute, potentially as a face-saving measure when Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi departed Pakistan without any interest in meeting with the American representatives.

While we should not trust any public pronouncements made by the Iranians (nor should our government take private ones at face value either), the regime has effectively acted in keeping with the perception it wishes to create: Iran’s leaders are not impatient for negotiations, nor do they seem willing to make accommodations in advance of any, while simultaneously demanding preconditions from the United States. The only indications of Iranian eagerness to seek peaceful resolution come from Trump—who has a less than firm relationship with the truth—claiming that the Iranians have told him privately they are desperate to give in to each of our demands. 

That would strain credulity under any circumstances, but especially after the president has made many, many claims of Iranian surrender or concession over the course of the nine-week conflict, all of which have proven to be demonstrably false. From promising a complete surrender of retained nuclear material, to saying the Iranians would halt executions that have continued, to assurances that the Strait of Hormuz was open as international ships came under attack, the sad truth is the American people can put no stock in anything the White House claims about Iranian compromise and, in fact, should probably assume the opposite is true in most cases. 

Trump is obviously aware that the Iranians, whom he is supposed to be pressuring to create a satisfactory resolution, know he is lying. But these statements aren’t meant to influence the Iranian regime; they are meant to try, just one more time, to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, to whom he never made the case for war, upon whom the increased economic burdens fall, and from whom a growing disapproval is making urgent the president’s desire to move past a conflict he believed would be simple. 

It is true that the United States has done exponentially more damage to the Iranian military than it has done to ours. And it is true that the recently imposed American reciprocal blockade is far more deleterious to the Iranians than their original one is to the U.S. But neither of those may matter in adjudicating an end to the war. The Iranians seem willing to endure more military damage than our president is willing to inflict and more economic pain that our president is willing to absorb—and this is far more likely to be the determining factor. 

With each new over-the-top proclamation of pending violence, every deadline extension rewarded with nothing in return from the Iranians, and all the false claims of Iranian backchannel surrender, the Iranians’ belief that they can outlast the president is reinforced.

It’s worth remembering any of the myriad reasons for war that Trump and his acolytes have articulated and vacillated between. In January, we were going to stand up for the Iranian people, yet now there is no discussion of their fate. In February, we were going to end Iranian support to their proxy networks, yet the president has pressured Israel to stop striking Hezbollah. In March, we needed to degrade the Iranian missile and drone systems so they would number fewer than our interceptors in theater, yet the Iranians retain more of these capabilities than previously thought—while we have depleted key stocks of our interceptors and precision guided missiles. 

Meanwhile, the Iranians are not publicly backing down from their maximalist demands, having submitted a new 14-point proposal that includes many of the unreasonable conditions they had previously submitted in Pakistan, including withdrawal of American forces in theater, significant financial reparations, protection for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and some recognition of Iranian control over the strait. This Iranian proposal would also separate discussions about reopening the strait from those regarding the disposition of its nuclear weapons program. While the president originally seemed to reject this proposal outright on Friday, by the next day he seemed to be softening to the idea of entertaining portions of the Iranian language. It does not seem likely the White House would agree to all, or even most, of the Iranian demands, but any of these should be viewed as unacceptable—and even entertaining them as a basis for negotiation plays into Iran’s game plan.

We have gone from grand proclamations of “unconditional surrender” and telling the Iranian people “the hour of (their) liberation is at hand” to now sheepishly looking for any agreement, including one that does not liberate the Iranian people, does nothing to diminish Iranian support for its proxies, likely will not not end the Iranian ballistic missile program, may not secure the remaining highly enriched uranium, and at best, reopens the strait to a condition less advantageous for the U.S. and international community than status quo ante. 

The president is now dealing with the realities of neither explaining to the American people why the war was necessary and what its goals were, nor focusing on those goals himself. The former has created a domestic reaction that pressures the president to make a hasty deal. The latter means he may be willing to give away the farm to secure that deal. 

Regardless of the timing of or forethought put into the conflict, America is currently engaged in a war, and it is better for us, our allies, and the world as a whole that it is resolved with an American victory rather than the perception of an Iranian one. As of yet, the means Trump thought would be adequate to bring about this victory have proven insufficient, and he should adjust accordingly—generally speaking, this would likely require a long-term imposition of the mutually painful blockade or an escalation of combat operations, potentially including ground-based options. However, escalation or resumption of combat operations may now be complicated by the president’s attestation to Congress that the war has “terminated”—his short-term cute trick to skirt the War Powers Act potentially hindering his options over the longer term. 

Either one of these requires him to do two things he has, as of yet, been unwilling or unable to do—explain to the American people the sacrifices and difficulty to come, and why those sacrifices are worth it, and demonstrate to the Iranian regime that he is willing to endure them.

Mike Nelson

Mike Nelson is a retired Army Special Forces officer and a member of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Project. He is formerly of the Institute for the Study of War and the National Security Institute. You can find him on x.com at @mikenelson586.

https://thedispatch.com/article/trump-iran-war-negotiations-strait-hormuz-nuclear/?

What kind of man do we want possessing that much power?

 

Donald Trump’s character matters because character is not decorative. It is not a ribbon you pin on after the work is done. Character is the machinery inside the man. It is the hidden engine that drives judgment, loyalty, impulse, patience, pride, and restraint. And when a man sits in the Oval Office, that engine is not his private business. It becomes public property.

The modern trick is to pretend character is old-fashioned, almost quaint, as if it belongs to schoolbooks and Shabbat sermons, not to the hard business of power. We are told to ignore manners, overlook honesty, shrug at temperament, and focus only on outcomes. Nonsense. Outcomes do not float in the air like weather. They come from a person’s habits of mind. A leader who lies casually will govern casually with the truth. A leader who loves applause more than principle will trade principle for applause. A leader who is ruled by ego will eventually make the nation pay for his ego.

Trump’s defenders often say that critics are obsessed with his style because they cannot stand his victories. There is some truth in that. The establishment did not merely dislike Trump’s character; it feared what his character made him willing to do. He disrupted sacred cows, mocked fake respectability, and treated the ruling class with the contempt it had long earned. Fine. Good, even. But there is a deeper question that cannot be waved away by a rally crowd or a television panel: what kind of man do we want possessing that much power?

A republic does not run on charisma alone. Charisma can rally a crowd, but it can also excuse bad judgment. It can turn a flaw into a slogan. It can persuade people that aggression is strength and noise is leadership. Trump understands something important about politics: people are tired of elites who speak softly while destroying trust. But the fact that elites are rotten does not magically sanctify every counter-reaction. A nation cannot survive by replacing polished hypocrisy with unfiltered chaos and calling it honesty.

That is why character matters. Not because we demand sainthood. Not because we expect presidents to be monks. But because when pressure rises, character is what remains after the spin is gone. Crisis strips away the costume. Then you find out whether a leader is guided by duty or vanity, discipline or impulse, truth or convenience. The office of president magnifies everything in the man who holds it. Strength becomes resolve—or recklessness. Confidence becomes courage—or narcissism. Skepticism becomes prudence—or corrosive distrust. The same trait can save a leader or ruin him.

And this is the part Americans keep trying to forget: character is contagious. A nation led by a serious man behaves differently from a nation led by a showman who thinks every day is a stage. Institutions absorb the tone of the top. Staffs adapt. Allies and enemies read signals. Citizens learn what kind of behavior is rewarded. If the chief executive treats truth as a negotiable asset, the entire culture gets a little more cynical. If he treats loyalty as personal rather than constitutional, the entire government gets a little more tribal.

This does not mean Trump is uniquely unfit in some mystical sense. It means that in his case, the debate was never just about policy. It was about what happens when an extraordinarily powerful office is occupied by a man whose instincts are often smart, often useful, and sometimes self-destructive. That is exactly why the argument over character cannot be dismissed as pearl-clutching. The stakes are too high. A president is not merely a technician. He is a model, a symbol, a pressure point, and a test.

A serious conservative should understand this instinctively. The old language of virtue did not come from nowhere. It existed because civilization is fragile, and power without discipline eventually devours itself. The old American idea was not that leaders must be perfect, but that they should at least possess enough steadiness to know when not to indulge themselves. Character was supposed to check power, not decorate it.

Trump forced a national argument that is still unresolved: do we judge leaders by whether they flatter us, or by whether their inner nature can bear the burden of office? That question matters because history does not remember merely what leaders said they wanted. It remembers what they were. And sooner or later, the country pays for that answer.

*

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-kind-of-man-do-we-want-possessing-that-much-power/

A yeshiva administrator who fled Israel ahead of his arrest has been taken into custody in the United States on suspicion of committing sexual offenses against minors between 2020 and 2023, authorities said.

 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

@ICEgov

ICE HSI and the U.S. Marshals Service arrested Yechiel Yehoshua Farkash, a foreign fugitive from Israel who was wanted in his home nation for alleged sex crimes against children. Our team arrested him at his home in Lakewood, N.J. ICE HSI Atlantic City will coordinate with ICE

@HSINewark

Victim Assistance Program to conduct any additional interviews and identify other possible victims related to the case. If you or someone you know were victimized, please call: 866-DHS-2-ICE

 

U.S. authorities arrested Yechiel Yehoshua Farkash, a fugitive in New Jersey, after Israel requested his arrest and extradition.

The 43-year-old was wanted on charges of sex crimes against children, immigration officials said on Wednesday.

Farkash, a resident of Lakewood, N.J., was arrested on April 17 by Homeland Security Investigations agents—federal law-enforcement officers within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responsible for investigating transnational crime—and the U.S. Marshals New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force.

“Israeli authorities sought to prosecute Farkas for attempted rape and indecent acts involving children based on acts committed in Israel between 2020 and 2023,” officials said. “Pursuant to the U.S.-Israel extradition treaty, the government of Israel requested provisional arrest with a view toward extradition, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey obtained a provisional arrest warrant in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.”

Michael McCarthy, HSI Newark special agent in charge, said his team is committed to “ensuring the United States does not become a haven for criminal fugitives.”

 

https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/fugitive-wanted-in-israel-arrested-in-new-jersey?

By turning our communal centers into well-fortified bunkers, we’re teaching our children that it is normal to associate Jewish life and identity with anxiety, with insecurity, with lack of confidence in ourselves and in our neighbors

 

Armed Guards Aren’t the Answer

Jews must stop being dependent on others for our safety

Liel Leibovitz

On a recent Sunday in New York City, my family and I went on a walk that turned from a nice neighborhood stroll into a survey of our current state of institutional security.

First, we passed a synagogue with three armed guards outside; they had earpieces firmly in place and looked furtively around. Another shul had two armed guards, a set of locked doors, and more security cameras than your average bank vault. The Jewish community center had concrete bollards on the sidewalk—the sort you’d find in front of the American embassy in a European country—and a metal detector greeting you as soon as you walked in the door. According to recently available data, a typical Jewish organization spends about 14% of its overall budget on security, with the total communal expenditure now reaching $765 million—every year.

It doesn’t take a brilliant strategist to understand why these measures are in place. We all know the statistics showing a sharp spike in antisemitism, and we can all speak intelligently about the most recent attempt—in Detroit, in Denver, you name it—to harm Jews wherever we congregate.

What I want to propose here, without everyone losing their minds, is that our approach to communal security is creating more vulnerability—of all kinds.

Spend some time in the real world, and you realize that communities tend to fall into one of two categories: Paris or Texas.

Step back for a moment and think about the meaning of a heavily fortified synagogue guarded by professional sentries. This image sends two clear messages. To our fellow citizens, it says that it is normal for Jews in the United States to require extensive security in order to safely practice their religion. This is a radical departure from this country’s self-conception; indeed, Jewish vulnerability is part of a wider collective of societal trends—district attorneys that don’t prosecute criminals, mayors doxing private citizens, etc.—all threatening America’s claim to be the freest nation in the world.

Perhaps even more toxically, though, is the message it drills into Jewish children. By turning our communal centers into well-fortified bunkers, we’re teaching our children that it is normal to associate Jewish life and identity with anxiety, with insecurity, with lack of confidence in ourselves and in our neighbors. Faced with such conditions, we should not be surprised when smart kids run as fast and as far away from our airless fortresses as they can, while others remain depressingly in place, too afraid to find any joy or meaning in their faith.

I can already hear you freaking out. But Liel, the threats are real, and getting realer every day. Are you suggesting we live in la-la land and pretend otherwise? What kind of parent would send their child to a shul, a school, or a center unguarded and exposed? And what kind of community would we be if we didn’t have a similar strategy?

I am not, of course, suggesting mindlessness or irresponsible bravado. What I am encouraging you to accept—because it is true—is that we American Jews have gotten ourselves into a moral, spiritual, and tactical arms race, one in which there can never be enough security because the vulnerability we are allowing is ever expanding. More money for more guards and bigger barricades isn’t the answer. There’s a better way, one that not only delivers comparable protection but also does so while instilling in ourselves and in our children a sense of agency, purpose, and pride, and in our neighbors a sense of respect, however begrudging.

Put simply: We Jews must get serious about protecting ourselves. This doesn’t mean firing every hired armed guard right away; it means meaningfully transitioning into accepting that you are personally responsible for protecting your institutions—a responsibility that includes overcoming the psychological crutch of being protected by others and then getting trained, armed, and involved.

Float this idea at your average Manhattan Shabbat table, and you’ll encounter a flurry of standard objections: You’re talking about guns, right? Guns are dangerous! And bad! And useless to boot: You expect the shul’s elderly gabbai to whip out his Glock and shoot a bunch of bad guys?

These objections are delivered almost as punch lines, as if the idea of an armed and competent Jew defending his or her domain is so outrageous as to be insane, even humorous.

The answer to these objections is simple. Spend some time in the real world—an undertaking that requires leaving New York City—and you realize that communities tend to fall into one of two categories: Paris or Texas.

In the former, la vie en rose means going to shul and being greeted by a security detail right out of a Jason Statham movie. Police cars, guards with Kevlar vests and helmets and powerful rifles, trained dogs: The experience feels like walking into a war zone, not a house of worship.

And then there’s Texas, where some synagogues have a guard posted somewhere on campus but don’t really need it because multiple gentlemen davening inside have sidepieces tucked neatly into their tallis bag. As a result, the entire experience feels more open, normal, and free.

To this general observation, allow me to add one more report from the field.

These past few months, I’ve been introducing my 12-year-old to firearms. Anytime we tell this to certain Upper West Side friends, they look at us as if we had confessed to child abuse. Instead, here’s what he’s experienced at the range: First came the requisite lessons about safety. Then the basics: grip, stance, aim, etc. Then familiarity with the terrifying yet exhilarating experience of a small explosion unfurling in his hands. And, finally, an emphasis on greater accuracy and competence.

The results are evident: The kid can shoot. Even more importantly, he doesn’t fetishize guns, as so many of his inexperienced peers do. He now understands them to be exactly what they are: incredible tools of self-protection, to be used responsibly and only as needed. Raise a kid that way, and chances are he or she will feel comfortable enough stepping in, stepping up, and partaking in communal protection that isn’t purchased, paranoid, and paralyzing, but integral and organic.

Here, then, is my crazy idea. Imagine if instead of another influencer campaign or conference about fighting anti-Zionism, we invested in sending our children—at seventh grade or eighth or ninth—to Texas for a week. Imagine that there, in some spacious ranch in Hill Country, these kids spent a week with IDF and U.S. Marine Corps veterans learning the foundations of self-defense. Imagine two or three days of intensive Krav Maga basics. Imagine a day or two of learning to shoot.

What would such an endeavor achieve?

First, it would show our children what we truly value. Just as so many of us spend so much on tutors and tuition to ensure that our sons and our daughters get into the best schools, so, too, we should now invest in something without which that fancy education is worth nothing: a sense of self-worth, mastery, and empowerment. I can’t think of anything better to give a young adult about to enter the moment of massive societal flux that our kids are currently facing.

Second, it would help transform the community from one reliant on bloated and comically inept organizations that fetishize victimhood to one invigorated both by the spirit of service at every level and by the understanding that the true promise of Zionism was never for Jews to be safe—it was for Jews to be free.

Finally, it would also very likely help deliver superior security solutions. Consider the attack, last Yom Kippur, on the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester, England: The attacker, Jihad al-Shamie, began his rampage by ramming his vehicle into the security guard outside the shul at 9:30 a.m. It took the police eight precious minutes to arrive on the scene, open fire, and kill al-Shamie, eight minutes during which the best the congregants inside could do was hold the door tightly shut and hope that the demon on the other side did not possess a weapon strong enough to force his way in. What would have happened if he did? And what would have happened if the cops had taken even longer to arrive?

If it becomes widely understood and accepted that most synagogues are filled with frightened, unarmed Jews who outsource their security, the only barrier to a successful attack is getting through that one single—and nowhere near impregnable—layer. If the public perception is that most synagogues are stacked with well-regulated minyans of trained shooters inside, that’s a much less appealing target.

There’s little we can do to keep the barbarians from our gates. But we do have a choice: Retreat into ever more guarded bunkers, cowering behind taller walls and hiring the services of a growing phalanx of guards, or stand tall and alert, vigilant and independent and unsubdued. It’s not very hard to figure out which way lies true freedom.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/armed-guards-jews-safety? 

When Your Rabbi is an Idiot....If You Ask Them Medical Questions --- So Are You!

 

Children at Risk as Measles Cases Rise - “I would not wish measles upon my fiercest enemy,” a reader writes of the recent resurgence.

 

 

A photo illustration based on a photograph of Renae Walker that was provided by the author, her mother, Rebecca Archer

 

“I would not wish measles upon my fiercest enemy,” a reader writes of the recent resurgence.

To the Editor:

Re “My Daughter Died of Measles,” by Rebecca Archer (Opinion guest essay, April 25):

I had measles when I was 12. I almost died. I am now 78, and I remember every horrific moment … well, except when I was hallucinating with a 104-degree fever and unable to recognize my parents. It is the sickest I have ever been in my now long life, and being shut in my darkened bedroom, unable to bear even the slightest light for days, boiling hot with recurring chills, has stayed with me forever.

Measles vaccines weren’t an option then, but we now can prove the efficacy of vaccines in the near eradication of measles, along with a number of other potentially fatal diseases. And yet we have Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a lawyer, not a doctor! — telling people to reconsider and even to forgo vaccinating their young children, spitting in the face of proven medical science.

If you or someone you know has not vaccinated his or her kids because of misinformation, please, please listen: I would not wish measles upon my fiercest enemy.

Sally McBee
Stonington, Conn.

To the Editor:

My heart breaks for Rebecca Archer, whose daughter, Renae, died at age 10 as a consequence of exposure to measles earlier in her life. The family lives in England, where vaccination for measles is not compulsory.

This family’s tragedy should be read as a warning to all Americans that mandatory vaccination requirements for measles are the best remedy for keeping your own children safe as well as your fellow citizens’ children. We need to start listening to our doctors again.

Gerri Stewart
Montclair, N.J.

To the Editor:

My mother was exposed to measles when she was pregnant with me in 1947. As the current measles outbreak has spread across the United States, I’ve been puzzled about why I haven’t seen more coverage of the potential impact of this disease on pregnant mothers and their unborn children until reading this piece. My heart goes out to Rebecca Archer for her loss.

I was born without an optic nerve, essentially making me blind in one eye. This was diagnosed early, and I was fortunate to have 20/20 vision in my left eye, but my right sees nothing.

I’ve learned to live with this limitation, but it has made life challenging. I have no depth perception and little capacity to judge distances or read small print.

I hope greater attention can be given to the impact of measles on pregnant mothers and their unborn children. Perhaps those who oppose vaccines for measles will reconsider.

To the Editor:

In the early 1990s I was persuaded by folks around me to forgo vaccinations for my children. But during Covid my daughters convinced me that the science behind vaccines was sound and told me that they wanted me to get the Covid vaccine. That was the turning point for me, and I now avail myself of all the appropriate shots and encourage others to do the same.

Thank you to The Times for your excellent journalism and all it does to combat dangerous disinformation.

Elizabeth Rivera
McKinleyville, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “Measles Is Back. It’s a Sign Worse Things Are Coming” (editorial, April 26):

I’m glad your editorial board is acknowledging that the resurgence of measles could be “a harbinger of something even worse.” However, you call for state officials, members of Congress and doctors to speak out without giving credit to those who have already been shouting this from the rooftops.

West Coast and Northeastern states have formed their own health alliances. Multiple members of Congress, including several Republicans, have spoken out repeatedly. Most major professional physician groups (pediatricians, family medicine doctors, internists, obstetrician-gynecologists, infectious diseases specialists and the American Medical Association) as well as new groups of doctors such as Defend Public Health have joined together specifically to speak out for scientifically based public health policies, including recommending vaccines to save lives.

You meekly state that “so long as Mr. Kennedy remains health secretary … the options will be limited.” Why not state it like it is: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a threat to our nation’s health and should be ousted immediately from his position as secretary of health and human services. Period.

Lisa Plymate
Seattle
The writer is a retired internist.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/28/opinion/letters/measles-children.html

Haredi Leaders that are intellectually & morally handicapped is history repeating itself

 

For two thousand years, the great tragedy of Jewish history was not only hatred, but helplessness. 

 Jewish blood was cheap because Jewish power was absent. From the massacres of the First Crusade, to the butcheries of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, to the pogroms of Czarist Russia and the furnaces of the Holocaust, the lesson was repeated with merciless cruelty: defenseless Jews were dead Jews. That is why there is something profoundly disturbing—morally and intellectually—about leaders among the Charedim who seem incapable of grasping that without the Israel Defense Forces there would likely be no Israel at all. This is not a secondary political question. It is the central fact of modern Jewish existence.

The psychology of such leadership deserves scrutiny. There is a kind of moral ignorance that grows in sheltered worlds, where dependence on others is mistaken for spiritual superiority. Protected by soldiers, some speak as though soldiers are unnecessary. Living beneath the shield of sacrifice, they convince themselves the shield is incidental. Gratitude gives way to entitlement; realism dissolves into theological fantasy. This is not piety. It is historical amnesia elevated into doctrine.

No serious Jew acquainted with history can indulge the illusion that Torah study alone guards Jewish life. Did prayer stop Crusaders at the gates of Mainz? Did holiness prevent Cossack massacres? Did piety halt the trains to Auschwitz? The martyrs of Jewish history were often righteous beyond measure. They were also unarmed. Their tragedy was not lack of faith, but lack of power. The rebirth of Jewish sovereignty was meant to end precisely that condition.

The Israel Defense Forces is not merely another institution of the modern state. It is the negation of exile. It is the answer to Kishinev and Treblinka. It is the declaration that Jews will no longer entrust their survival to the mercy of others. When the founders of Israel built a state, they were not rebelling against Torah; they were rebelling against helplessness. They understood what some insulated religious leaders seem determined to forget: in a violent world, Jewish continuity requires Jewish force.

History itself has already judged the matter. In the Six-Day War, Israel survived because Jews fought. In the Yom Kippur War, Israel survived because Jews fought. When enemies mass on the borders, when rockets fall, when terrorists infiltrate communities, no one survives by abstraction. They survive because young Israelis stand watch, bleed, and sometimes die. To enjoy that protection while diminishing its necessity is not merely hypocrisy; it is a kind of moral blindness.

There is also an intellectual provincialism at work, a refusal to understand that sovereignty changes religious responsibility. Categories forged in exile cannot govern a Jewish state under siege. A Jew in the ghetto could dream of survival without power. A Jew in Jerusalem cannot afford such illusions. To speak casually about a society defended by others, while treating military service as spiritually inferior, reveals not elevated wisdom but a catastrophic failure to understand the age we live in.

Even Jewish tradition itself refutes this false dichotomy. Moses had Joshua. King David had warriors. The Maccabean Revolt was not won through study halls alone. The guardians of Jewish continuity were often scholars with swords when history demanded it. Torah and defense were never enemies. Only in the distortions of modern ideological rigidity have they been made to appear so.

What is most painful is that this blindness insults the memory of defenseless Jews throughout history. Every victim of a pogrom, every mother who watched her children dragged away in Europe, every martyr abandoned by a powerless people, stands as a warning against precisely this complacency. “Never Again” was never meant to be a slogan. It was meant to mean armed Jewish responsibility.

One may debate burdens of service, civic arrangements, or the role of religious communities. But one cannot honestly deny this foundational truth: without the Israel Defense Forces, there may be no Jewish state in which Torah can flourish. To refuse to appreciate that fact is not merely an error in judgment. It is a failure of moral imagination.

For the first time since the destruction of the Siege of Jerusalem, Jews possess both Torah and power. To disdain one in the name of the other is civilizational folly. Without Torah, Israel loses its soul. Without those who defend it, Israel may lose its life. A leadership unable to recognize both truths is not preserving Judaism. It is misunderstanding the very miracle it inhabits.

 

REPUBLISHED

 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haredi-leaders-that-are-intellectually-handicapped-is-history-repeating-itself/

How We Got Iran's Nuclear Secrets --- Why Iran Wants the Bomb! Yossi Cohen - First Agent Who Joined the Mossad With a Yarmulke ("He can Recruit a Chair & Convince the Chair To Become a Table")

Yossi Cohen—the former director of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency—spent most of his 38-year spy career in the shadows. He was known only by a letter: Y, or sometimes “The Model,” apparently for his looks. He was, as he writes, “a ghost, never to be seen and unable to be heard. I was invisible, a breath of wind in human form.” Cohen operated under dozens of different identities in some of the most dangerous places for an Israeli, and he personally orchestrated some of the most daring operations in Israel’s history: stealing half a ton of Iran’s most secret nuclear documents from a warehouse in Tehran; assassinating Iran’s top nuclear scientist using an AI-powered machine gun operated remotely via satellite; setting the stage for the pager attack that crippled Hezbollah last year; creating secret relationships with Arab leaders—relationships that changed the direction of the Middle East.

 

Because sexual abuse prevention doesn’t happen all at once—it happens in everyday moments. And it starts with adults who are prepared to act.

 

Hi Paul,  Not everyone knows where to start when it comes to protecting children. But it doesn’t have to be complicated. This Child Abuse Prevention Month, taking action can be as simple as learning something new, starting a conversation, or making one small change. Because prevention doesn’t happen all at once—it happens in everyday moments. And it starts with adults who are prepared to act. Here are a few ways to get started: Learn 👉 Start our free training Join thousands of adults learning to recognize the signs of abuse and take action to protect children. Apply 👉 Download the guide Get simple, practical steps you can use today to create safer environments for children. Spread the word 👉  Share the campaign Start conversations. Raise awareness. Help more people take action by sharing this campaign.   We believe childhoods are worth protecting. What’s worth protecting to you—and what will you do next? Protect a Childhood →

The Iranians Take Trump for a Sucker - Iran Takes America Hostage By Another Name - This will be the Iranians’ third swindle...So far...

 

Jimmy Carter #2

 TRUMP APPROVAL: 32%
MATCHING CARTER LOWS
IRAN GUNBOATS MENACE HORMUZ
SEIZE SHIPS AS 'CEASFIRE' EXTENDED
USA BLOCKADE COLLAPSES

 

How many times will President Trump pay Iran for the same real estate? Twice he has announced the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and twice he has given up U.S. leverage in exchange. Yet the strait remains closed, as Iran’s regime demands more.

On April 7, Mr. Trump announced a two-week cease-fire—“subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.” This implied that Iran hadn’t quite agreed to it yet, and two sources familiar with negotiations told me gaps remained. But Iran’s foreign minister eased concerns: “For a period of two weeks,” he wrote that evening, “safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible” within certain limits.

By the next morning, Mr. Trump was ebullient. “A big day for World Peace! Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough!” he wrote. “We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds.” When the Journal’s editorial board warned against declaring “premature victory,” the president was dismissive. “Actually, it is a Victory, and there’s nothing ‘premature’ about it!” he wrote on April 9. “Very quickly, you’ll see Oil start flowing,” he added. “The Wall Street Journal will, as usual, live to eat their words.”

But the oil didn’t flow. Tanker traffic declined even further. “That is not the agreement we have!” Mr. Trump would complain. This was Iran’s first swindle.

After the cease-fire, Iran’s regime insisted on a new condition: Israel would have to stop attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon before negotiations could advance. This wasn’t part of the deal, Mr. Trump replied. Hezbollah had started the war, and by smashing Iran’s most important terror proxy, Israel was adding to the pressure on the regime and thus to U.S. leverage.

Then again, pausing would be seen as an Israeli concession, politically easier for the president. “I spoke with Bibi [Netanyahu], and he’s going to low-key it,” Mr. Trump said on April 9.

April 10-11 negotiations followed in Pakistan, and the U.S. walked away when Iran resisted key nuclear concessions. Mr. Trump now needed a new way to force the regime’s hand. In the absence of military strikes, a blockade of Iran’s ports would be America’s stick; its carrot would be an Israeli cease-fire in Lebanon.

Direct Israel-Lebanon talks, previously scorned by Washington as pointless given Beirut’s inaction against Hezbollah, were arranged hastily for April 14. The spectacle could distract some from the fait accompli: To smooth U.S. negotiations, Mr. Trump had dictated that Israel give Iran the reprieve it wanted in Lebanon. This second cease-fire was announced April 16.

Iran’s foreign minister again acknowledged what had been agreed. “In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon,” he wrote on Friday, “the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open.” A day after granting the concession, however, the regime withdrew it. This was the second swindle.

On Saturday Iran’s military said the strait was closed. Approaching it “will be considered cooperation with the enemy,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned. It even attacked a few vessels. The regime says it won’t open Hormuz until the U.S. ceases blockading its ports.

This will be the Iranians’ third swindle—if Mr. Trump goes along. The regime wants the strait closed and U.S. leverage diminished for nuclear negotiations. “They can’t blackmail us,” Mr. Trump said on Sunday. But they think they can. Certainly, they are comfortable embarrassing the president. What’s stopping them from playing the same games over their stockpiles of enriched uranium?

Mr. Trump first suspended attacks on Iran, then on Hezbollah. Iran now presses him to give up U.S. economic leverage too. Sometimes, diplomacy can lock in military gains. This time, it has been set up to give them away.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-iranians-take-trump-for-a-sucker-8a211f94?

Mr. Kaufman is a member of the Journal’s editorial board and a co-author of “In the War Room: The Inside Story of Israel’s Fight Against Hamas and the Iranian Axis.”