Criticizing Jewish or Israeli opponents of the Iran nuclear deal often comes with accusations of anti-Semitism. Critics are branded as perpetuating the “dual loyalty” trope—an antiquated notion suggesting that Jews have divided allegiances. But in today’s globalized world, where people hold dual citizenships, mixed heritages, and transnational identities, the very concept of dual loyalty is outdated.
I, for one, embrace dual loyalty. As both an American and an Israeli, I’m proud to have deep ties to both countries. My loyalties aren’t in conflict; they complement and enrich one another. While the interests of the U.S. and Israel often align, there are moments when they diverge. In those moments, acknowledging both perspectives is not a liability—it’s a strength.
Take the Iran nuclear deal as an example. Israel’s security concerns were integral to the global negotiations, and rightly so. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dire warnings about an apocalyptic Iran may be politically motivated, but that doesn’t negate the reality: a nuclear-armed Iran could destabilize the Middle East, embolden groups like Hezbollah, and exacerbate the regional arms race. These are legitimate concerns that the deal seeks to address.
The deal, however, comes down to a simple, stark choice: diplomacy or war. President Obama made this clear when he said, “It’s this or war—there is no third option.” Netanyahu’s infamous speech before Congress earlier this year was an elaborate attempt to sidestep that reality. While he rallied against the deal, he conspicuously avoided offering a viable alternative, particularly regarding the military option. Yet just a few years ago, Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak openly advocated for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The risks of such a war are chilling. A direct conflict involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran would ignite the Middle East, isolate Israel and the U.S. from Western allies, and escalate proxy wars across the region. Iran, emboldened by a direct attack, would likely retaliate through state and non-state actors worldwide, with terror attacks in places far beyond the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and other regional powers would amplify their own proxy conflicts, turning the region into a tinderbox.
Even worse, a military strike would be ineffective. At best, it would temporarily delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions while eliminating the possibility of inspections and transparency. Israeli security experts have long warned that military action can only set back, not dismantle, Iran’s nuclear program. The current deal, while imperfect, institutionalizes inspections and oversight for decades.
As an Israeli, I’ve seen firsthand the horrors of war. After three wars in Gaza, rockets still rain down on Israeli cities, and innocent lives continue to be lost. A war with Iran would be orders of magnitude worse—an inconceivable state-to-state conflict with devastating consequences for Israel, the U.S., and the entire region.
Here’s my proposal to those who oppose the deal: Don’t cut the U.S. and Israel adrift from our allies. Don’t drag us into a catastrophic war that will devastate my region and destabilize the world. If you reject this deal, you are choosing war—one that will have far-reaching consequences for Israelis and Americans alike.
Dual loyalty isn’t a betrayal—it’s a bridge. Let’s use it to advocate for peace, not war.
