The snow falling over Washington this week did more than slow traffic and empty sidewalks. It seemed to mirror the cautious mood inside policy circles across the capital, where discussions about Iran were measured, hesitant, and far from the sense of urgency felt back in Israel.
For Israelis, the danger feels close, real, and urgent. Warships are in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean, and F-22 Raptors landed at Uvda Air Force Base in the South. War seems imminent. In Washington, though, the conversation was more restrained – shaped by geographic distance, overall American war fatigue, and lingering skepticism about whether military action is really needed to solve some faraway problem.
For example, just hours after US President Donald Trump gave his State of the Union address and said that he prefers diplomacy and that the door was still open – albeit not indefinitely – for negotiations, at the Knesset on Wednesday the beating of the war drums continued as Education Ministry officials gathered to explain what would happen if war with Iran broke out.
Schools, the officials explained, would likely shut down for several days. Remote learning would probably also not take place. As one official put it, parents and children would simply not be “emotionally available” for Zoom classes. It was a small moment but a telling one.
For five weeks now, Israel has been preparing for the worst while not even knowing whether Trump will ultimately order a strike, what will emerge from diplomatic talks, or whether Iran – if attacked – would retaliate directly against Israel. Preparation is, of course, the responsible course of action. But the intensity of the anxiety reflects something deeper – the trauma Israel has endured over the past two-and-a-half years.
Israelis are scarred and scared. In the absence of reassurance from our leadership, people are left to fill the vacuum themselves, spending time imagining worst-case scenarios without knowing whether any of them will materialize. The media, too, carries part of the responsibility. Doomsday scenarios dominate the news, and editors keep demanding more alarming headlines to continue to collect the clicks.
And while preparedness is essential, needless anxiety is not. Israel is a strong and capable country. It knows how to defend itself, and it is operating alongside the largest American military presence in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq – a fact that should instill confidence, not deepen fear.
At the same time, Trump’s hesitancy to make a final decision has highlighted the widening perceptual gap between Jerusalem and Washington.
In Israel, support for a strike is widespread, but in the US, there is a far more hesitant mood. Many Americans struggle to understand why war is necessary if diplomacy remains possible. They recognize the brutality of the Iranian regime and might be horrified by the murdering of tens of thousands of people, yet they still question whether military action will even resolve the problem or simply open the door to a longer regional conflict. Even within conservative circles, there is unease – a fear that another Middle Eastern war will produce more conflict rather than less.
Geography explains part of this divide: Israel is within missile range of Iran, while the US is not. But there is another factor as well: Until recently, the administration had not fully articulated its case for military action.
That finally began to change on Tuesday night. During his address to Congress, Trump for the first time clearly outlined what he sees as the justification for a potential strike.
The first reason was nuclear. The president said that following the 12 Day War in June, Iran was explicitly warned not to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure; however, intelligence now indicates that reconstruction is underway. Allowing that to continue, he argued, would contradict longstanding American policy preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The second justification – and the newer one – was the ballistic missile threat. Iran, he said, already possesses missiles capable of covering the Middle East and reaching parts of Europe. But Trump revealed that Tehran is advancing toward capabilities that could eventually threaten the American homeland itself.
This reframes the debate. The issue is no longer solely about the nuclear breakout timeline or the freedom of the Iranian people. This is now about a future missile threat to the United States.
What happens next remains unclear. Much will depend on the outcome of diplomatic efforts, including the Geneva talks. Still, one important distinction should not be overlooked.
Americans may seek an agreement that halts Iran’s nuclear program and places limits on missile development. Israel has made clear that it is looking for something broader – a framework that also stops Iran’s support of terrorist proxies across the region.
What we should not forget, though, is how all of this began – with brave Iranians who took to the streets to fight for freedom. They were not protesting the enrichment of uranium or the development of ballistic missiles. They want something that almost all of us take for granted – freedom, liberty, and basic rights.
That is how this moment began, and it is something the world should remember when thinking about how it should end.
Israel continues to insult Diaspora Jews amid fight over Western Wall
In 2013, I was working with then-Diaspora affairs minister Naftali Bennett when we built and opened Azarat Yisrael – the egalitarian prayer plaza at the Western Wall. In the beginning, the project – initiated to try and heal the rift with Diaspora Jewry – was met with deep skepticism. I had the honor to give Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union of Reform Judaism, his first tour of the site and to work closely with the head of the Conservative Movement at the time, Rabbi Steven Wernick.
It wasn’t exactly what Women of the Wall or the progressive Jewish movements wanted, but over time, it became a frequently used prayer space for Jews who felt they had no place at the commonly used Kotel.
The Netanyahu government later passed a cabinet decision formally recognizing the plaza and promising to transform it into a proper site, with a dignified entrance, physical upgrades, and a self-governing committee representing the different Jewish streams. But roughly a year later, under pressure from ultra-Orthodox parties and hardline religious-Zionist voices, the prime minister reversed the decision.
Since then, the situation has steadily deteriorated. Extremist rabbis, including former Jerusalem chief rabbi Shlomo Amar, deliberately held prayer services there to signal opposition to egalitarian worship. In 2018, a falling boulder damaged the site. Despite repeated promises to repair and upgrade the area, little to nothing was done.
A few days ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaza must be repaired, reopened for egalitarian prayer, and respected by the state, which must allow free access to the site. And yet, almost immediately, the coalition moved in the opposite direction: ministers slammed the court, vowed to fight it, and even advanced a bill in the Knesset, which passed an initial vote today, that would effectively outlaw egalitarian prayer and potentially carry with it a prison sentence of up to seven years.
It is impossible to ignore the cumulative message successive Netanyahu-led governments have sent to Diaspora Jewry. Jews around the world are basically being told by the Israeli government that their right to pray at one of Judaism’s holiest sites is conditional, that their religious expression is unacceptable, and that when coalition politics collide with Jewish unity, politics win.
This is shameful and wrong and is a direct insult to most of the Jewish people. No one has a monopoly over Judaism, and no one has a veto over how other Jews choose to pray. This is anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist, and it must change.
The writer is a co-founder of the MEAD policy forum, a senior fellow at JPPI, and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His newest book is While Israel Slept.