The contemporary tenure of Sir Ephraim Mirvis as Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth represents a pivotal shift in the operational scope and rhetorical focus of the British rabbinate. While the office has traditionally functioned as a bridge between the Jewish community and the British state—focused primarily on domestic integration, religious freedom, and pastoral care—Sir Ephraim Mirvis has increasingly articulated a worldview where the spiritual continuity of British Jewry is inextricably bound to the hard-power dynamics of the Middle East. Central to this paradigm is a sophisticated, theologically infused geopolitical stance regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike the specialized, often compartmentalized approach of secular diplomats, Chief Rabbi Mirvis presents a holistic doctrine wherein the safety of Jews in London or Manchester is not merely influenced by, but is contingent upon, the neutralization of what he terms the “Regime of Terror” in Tehran.1 This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this geopolitical theology. It examines how Mirvis constructs Iran not merely as a rogue state, but as a metaphysical “force of evil” 1 that threatens the “moral civilisation of the West”.2
Furthermore, this analysis interrogates the institutional mechanisms through which this worldview is propagated. It scrutinizes the Chief Rabbi’s intersection with the ecosystem of neoconservative and center-right think tanks—specifically the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) and Policy Exchange—and evaluates the extent to which these organizations provide the empirical and ideological scaffolding for his interventions. While his predecessor, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, maintained deep intellectual ties to American conservative bastions like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Mirvis’s engagement appears more distinctively operational, focusing on the domestic policing of “extremism” and the delegitimization of anti-Zionist protest movements which he characterizes as “proxies” of the Iranian worldview.3
Finally, the report addresses the crucial question of military escalation. Through a close reading of his public statements—ranging from his silence on the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani to his explicit theological endorsement of Israeli airstrikes in 2024—we identify a consistent trajectory toward the sanctification of kinetic force against the Iranian axis. In Mirvis’s lexicon, the defense of the West requires a willingness to “roar like a lion” 4, a metaphor that bridges the gap between biblical imperative and modern military strategy.
In the discourse of Chief Rabbi Mirvis, the Islamic Republic of Iran is rarely discussed through the prism of standard international relations theory—balance of power, rational state actors, or containment. Instead, Iran is categorized through a theological lens that evokes the binary struggles of biblical narrative. The terminology employed—”regime of terror,” “forces of evil,” “savage rulers”—suggests that Tehran is viewed as an irredeemable entity, comparable to the archetypal enemies of the Jewish people throughout history.
This framing is most potent during Judaism’s most solemn commemorations. By integrating the Iranian threat into the liturgy of Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), Mirvis performs a powerful act of memory-transference. He posits that the historical trauma of the Holocaust and the contemporary threat of Iran are continuous chapters in the same saga of survival.
In a landmark address at the Yom HaShoah UK ceremony, Mirvis explicitly connected the Nazi genocide to the current leadership in Tehran:
“The calls for our destruction have not stopped and today they come from the regime of terror in Tehran. We must prevent the forces of evil from gaining strength as soon as possible. The Jewish state must ensure that it has the power to defend itself against any enemy and threat.” 1
This juxtaposition serves a dual strategic function. First, it elevates the threat of Iran to an existential level, implying that any policy short of total neutralization (such as the JCPOA nuclear deal) is morally equivalent to appeasing the Nazis in the 1930s. Mirvis explicitly warns against “any nuclear agreement with Iran that would pave the way for nuclear weapons” 1, framing diplomatic engagement not as a political calculation but as a moral hazard.
Second, it universalizes the obligation to oppose Iran. If Tehran represents “forces of evil” comparable to the Nazis, then opposing Iran is not solely an Israeli interest but a duty for all “civilized” nations. The rhetoric strips the Iranian regime of political legitimacy, positioning it outside the normative bounds of the international community and placing it squarely in the category of a metaphysical enemy that must be defeated “as soon as possible”.1
A critical innovation in Mirvis’s geopolitical rhetoric is the dissolution of the boundary between the “Near Enemy” (domestic extremists) and the “Far Enemy” (Iran and its regional militias). He argues that the safety of British Jews is directly compromised by the “axis of proxies” that Iran has cultivated across the Middle East—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—and that the ideology of these proxies has permeated British society.
The term “proxies” appears frequently in his analysis of the security situation facing Israel, but he extends the concept to describe the ideological affiliation of protesters on British streets. In an op-ed for The Times, Mirvis drew a direct line between the atrocities committed by Hamas and the political expressions found in London:
“At the very moment when it should be clearer than ever what is meant by Hamas’s ‘resistance’, ‘jihad’, ‘uprising’, or ‘intifada’, more and more people are now openly calling for these things in cities across Britain and the world. This is hateful extremism. We must have the moral courage to call it by its name and to face it down.” 3
Here, the “proxy” is not just a gunman in Gaza but a demonstrator in London. By categorizing the use of terms like “intifada” as “hateful extremism,” Mirvis is arguing that the Iranian axis has effectively opened a front within the United Kingdom. The “safety of British Jews” is therefore contingent on the “geopolitical defeat” of these ideas and the groups that champion them, both in the Levant and in London.
This “Axis of Proxies” narrative allows the Chief Rabbi to intervene in domestic policing debates (discussed further in Section 3) under the banner of communal security. If the protesters are viewed as ideological extensions of the “regime of terror,” then their suppression is not a matter of limiting free speech but of national defense.
The user query asks for evidence linking Jewish safety to the “geopolitical defeat” of Iran. The evidence suggests that Mirvis views “defeat” as the only viable outcome. His rhetoric consistently rejects the notion that the Iranian regime can be managed or contained.
In his critique of the nuclear negotiations, he stated that money from any deal would “flow into the very nuclear project the deal is intended to stop and, of course, into the coffers of Iran’s terrorist proxies around the world”.5 This statement reflects a deep skepticism of Western diplomatic engagement with Tehran. He argues instead for supporting “Iran’s dissidents, who are so courageously putting their lives on the line to overthrow their savage rulers”.5
This is a call for regime change, phrased in the language of moral solidarity. By aligning with the dissidents and characterizing the rulers as “savage,” Mirvis signals that the “defeat” of the current regime is a prerequisite for regional and global safety. He posits that if Israel “takes its eyes off the Iranian ball” 6, it risks not just a tactical setback but an existential catastrophe.
To understand why Sir Ephraim Mirvis views the defeat of Iran as a British interest, one must understand his conception of “The West.” Unlike secularists who might define the West through the Enlightenment or the Industrial Revolution, Mirvis adheres to a historiography that places Judaism at the very foundation of Western moral identity.
In writings for the United Synagogue, he articulates this foundational claim:
t and small, are all equal before God.” 2
This assertion serves a potent geopolitical purpose. If the “moral civilisation of the West” is essentially Hebraic in origin, then Israel is not a foreign entity in the Middle East but the vanguard of Western values in a hostile region. Consequently, an attack on Israel by Iran is an attack on the foundational values of the West itself.
This framework creates a “civilizational” obligation. The West is not merely an ally of Israel due to shared strategic interests (such as intelligence sharing or technology); it is an ally by virtue of shared soul. The “regime of terror” in Tehran, by opposing Israel, is therefore positioned as the antithesis of “civilization”—a force of chaos, barbarism, and regression that threatens the sacredness of life and the equality of individuals.
The defense of this “civilization” requires rigorous policing of language. Mirvis has identified what he terms “moral inversion” as a primary tactic used by the enemies of the West to undermine its confidence and moral clarity. This concept is deployed most vigorously in his rejection of the “genocide” accusation against Israel.
Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mirvis argued that the application of the term “genocide” to Israel’s military actions was a deliberate strategy to weaponize Jewish trauma against the Jewish state:
“It is a moral inversion, which undermines the memory of the worst crimes in human history… It is a term deployed not only to eradicate any notion that Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens, but also to tear open the still gaping wound of the Holocaust.” 7
By framing the accusation as a psychological assault (“tear open the still gaping wound”), Mirvis shifts the debate from international law to moral psychology. He argues that those who accuse Israel of genocide are not merely factually incorrect but morally corrupt, participating in a “disingenuous misappropriation” 7 of language that threatens the integrity of Western historical memory.
He attempts to reverse this inversion by redirecting the charge back toward the Iranian axis:
“If there is indeed a genocidal force in this conflict, it must surely be Hamas… whose founding charter makes it clear that killing Jews is among its very reasons for existing.” 7
In this binary, the “West” (represented by Israel) uses force to protect life, while the “East” (represented by Iran/Hamas) uses force to destroy it. Any confusion between these two postures is, for Mirvis, a symptom of a civilization that has lost its moral anchor.
The threat to “civilization” is not only external (Iran) but internal. Mirvis has famously described the position of British Jews as being trapped between two forces that reject the values of the moderate, civilized center.
“Many in the British Jewish Community are feeling trapped between the anvil of the hateful far right and the hammer of the conspiratorial extreme left.” 8
This metaphor is significant. The “anvil” (Far Right) is static and hard, representing traditional xenophobia. The “hammer” (Extreme Left/Islamist alliance) is active and striking. Mirvis frequently links the “conspiratorial extreme left” with the anti-Zionist movement, which he views as having been infected by the propaganda of the Iranian axis.
By labeling this political faction as “conspiratorial,” Mirvis delegitimizes their critique of Israel, categorizing it as a form of irrationality or “poison” 9 that has “taken root” in British institutions. The defense of “civilization,” therefore, requires the purging of this “poison” from British political life—a stance that led to his unprecedented intervention in the 2019 General Election against the Labour leadership.10
Sir Ephraim Mirvis’s ability to articulate this geopolitical worldview is buttressed by a network of relationships with influential think tanks. These organizations provide the data, the platforms, and the policy language that translate rabbinic concerns into state security priorities. The user query highlights three organizations: The Henry Jackson Society, Policy Exchange, and the American Enterprise Institute.
The relationship between Chief Rabbi Mirvis and the Henry Jackson Society appears to be the most robust and operationally significant of the three. The HJS is a neoconservative think tank known for its interventionist foreign policy, hawkish stance on Iran, and focus on domestic Islamism.
A report by Byline Times makes the specific and notable claim that Mirvis was “one of the founding members of the Henry Jackson Society”.9 This assertion, if accurate, places Mirvis at the very inception of the UK’s primary neoconservative organ, suggesting a deep and long-standing ideological commitment to its principles. While official biographies 11 do not typically list this status, the alignment in his public interventions suggests, at minimum, a profound affinity with the HJS worldview.
Mirvis does not just share platforms with HJS; he relies on them as a source of truth regarding the sociology of British Muslims. In a high-level discussion on the Abraham Accords, Mirvis explicitly cited HJS research to validate his concerns about antisemitism:
“Citing the Henry Jackson Society, he added that 44 percent of Muslims embrace antisemitic conspiracy theories. ‘This is an alarming rate, it’s nearly half of the Muslims in the UK,’ he said.” 12
This act of citation is significant. By accepting HJS data as the baseline for reality, Mirvis adopts the HJS diagnostic framework: that a significant portion of the British Muslim community is radicalized and hostile. This informs his security-first approach to interfaith relations, where dialogue is welcomed but vigilance against “extremism” is paramount.
The operational overlap is further evidenced by shared platforms. At a major rally against antisemitism, Mirvis appeared alongside Douglas Murray, an Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society.13 While sharing a stage is not an endorsement of every view held by a co-speaker, the willingness to coalition-build with HJS figures at flagship communal events demonstrates a normalization of the HJS agenda within the mainstream Jewish institutional framework.
If HJS provides the ideology on Islamism, Policy Exchange appears to provide the framework for the policing of protest and the definition of extremism. Policy Exchange is arguably the most influential think tank within the UK Conservative establishment.
Mirvis’s sharp criticism of the Metropolitan Police for failing to protect Jews during pro-Palestinian marches 14 mirrors the critiques formulated by Policy Exchange. Reports indicate that senior Met officials, such as Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, have engaged with Policy Exchange to discuss the difficulties of policing these protests.
“He told the right-wing Policy Exchange think tank, ‘On occasion we did not move quickly to make arrests…'” 14
The synchronization of narratives is striking. Mirvis identifies a “failure of duty” 14 and a feeling of unsafety; Policy Exchange produces reports arguing for tougher policing of “hate marches”; and the government moves to expand the definition of extremism to encompass these groups. While there is no snippet showing Mirvis delivering a keynote at Policy Exchange, the presence of Israeli Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely at Policy Exchange events—during trips where she also meets privately with Mirvis 15—suggests a triangulated relationship where policy ideas circulate fluidly between the Embassy, the Rabbinate, and the Think Tank.
Mirvis’s emphasis on “British values” and the duties of citizenship 16 aligns with Policy Exchange’s work on “Citizenship and Civic Engagement.” Both institutions argue for a “thick” conception of citizenship that requires active adherence to liberal democratic values, implicitly excluding those (like the “conspiratorial left” or Islamists) who challenge the state’s foreign policy or historical narrative.
The user query asks specifically about the American Enterprise Institute. The research indicates that the deep connection to AEI is largely a legacy of Mirvis’s predecessor, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, rather than a primary platform for Mirvis himself.
Rabbi Lord Sacks was a recipient of the AEI’s highest honor, the Irving Kristol Award, and was deeply integrated into the American conservative intellectual scene.
“Receiving The Irving Kristol Award from the American Enterprise Institute… A society of individualists is unsustainable.” 17
There is no evidence in the provided material of Sir Ephraim Mirvis participating in AEI panels or conferences in the same capacity. AEI scholars like Frederick Kagan are mentioned in contexts discussing Iran alongside Mirvis 18, but they appear as distinct voices in the media landscape rather than collaborators.
This shift suggests a strategic reorientation. While Sacks operated as a global public intellectual focusing on moral philosophy, Mirvis operates more as a national religious leader focused on the specific security environment of the UK and Europe. His think tank engagement is therefore more localized (HJS, Policy Exchange) and operationally focused on British legislative and policing outcomes.
| Organization | Level of Engagement | Nature of Connection | Key Strategic Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| Henry Jackson Society | High / Direct | Cited source of data 12; Shared platforms (rallies) 13; Alleged “Founding Member”.9 | Provides empirical/ideological basis for claims on Muslim antisemitism and domestic extremism. |
| Policy Exchange | Medium / Indirect | Ideological alignment on policing/protests; Hosting of Israeli officials (Hotovely) who meet Mirvis.15 | Framework for challenging the policing of anti-Zionist protests; definition of extremism. |
| American Enterprise Institute | Low / Historical | Legacy of predecessor Lord Sacks (Irving Kristol Award).17 No direct Mirvis participation found. | Historical link to global neoconservative thought; less relevant to Mirvis’s UK-centric operations. |
The question of whether Chief Rabbi Mirvis supports escalatory military actions—such as assassinations or direct strikes—requires a careful chronological analysis. The user query specifically asks about the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.
A review of the available records from January 2020 shows no direct public statement by Sir Ephraim Mirvis explicitly celebrating or endorsing the US strike on Qasem Soleimani at the time it occurred.
While snippet 19 contains the text “The Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, intervened,” a close textual analysis reveals this appears in a “Portrait of the Week” summary where multiple distinct news items are listed sequentially. The “intervention” likely refers to his ongoing involvement in the Labour antisemitism controversy or other domestic matters, while the “Soleimani” reference is a separate item in the same column. Therefore, it is accurate to state that there is no evidence of a specific public endorsement of the Soleimani assassination by Mirvis at the time.
However, the absence of a statement on Soleimani does not imply a pacifist stance. In the context of the direct military confrontations between Israel and Iran in 2024 and 2025, Mirvis abandoned diplomatic ambiguity in favor of explicit theological endorsement of military force.
Following an Israeli strike on Iranian targets (likely in response to Iranian aggression), Mirvis released a video reflection recorded in Israel. In this statement, he utilized potent biblical imagery to sanctify the military action:
“There were some occasions when the nation needed to be ‘like a lion that rises and roars’ and goes after its prey. That is exactly the situation we have found ourselves in overnight. Bravely and courageously, Israel has stood up. The IDF has roared and has protected the people of Israel in such an extraordinary manner.” 4
This statement is a definitive answer to the user’s question regarding “similar escalatory actions.” By characterizing the Israeli military as a “lion” (a reference to Numbers 23:24: Behold a people that riseth up as a lioness, and as a lion doth he lift himself up; he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey), Mirvis frames the escalation not as a regrettable necessity but as a glorious assertion of divine strength.
He further justified this aggression by stripping the conflict of political nuance, asserting that Iran “was not interested in negotiated peace” but solely in “the destruction of the Jewish state”.4 This binary logic—where the enemy seeks total destruction, and therefore the only moral response is the “roar” of overwhelming force—provides a theological blanket for preemptive and retaliatory strikes.
This stance was reinforced during his visits to Israel, where he offered “prayerful calls for victory” 20 in the context of expanding conflicts. The shift from “prayers for peace” to “prayers for victory” marks a significant hardening of the rabbinic stance, aligning the spiritual power of the Chief Rabbinate with the kinetic objectives of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The geopolitical defeat of Iran is not, for Mirvis, a goal confined to the Middle East. It is a necessary condition for the safety of British streets. He argues that the toleration of pro-Iranian or pro-Hamas sentiment in the UK constitutes a direct threat to the Jewish community.
Mirvis has been a vociferous critic of the mass protests that erupted in London following the October 7 attacks. He refuses to view these demonstrations as legitimate political expression, categorizing them instead as manifestations of “hateful extremism”.3
By linking the chants of “Jihad” and “Intifada” in London to the ideology of the “Regime of Terror” in Tehran, Mirvis argues that the “proxies” of Iran are effectively marching in the UK capital. This framing serves to securitize the issue of antisemitism. It is no longer just a matter of discrimination; it is a matter of national security and public order.
This perspective has led Mirvis into direct conflict with the operational decisions of the Metropolitan Police. He stated that the police had failed in their duty to the Jewish community, creating an environment where Jews “no longer feel safe walking to and from their synagogues”.14
This intervention is highly significant. By leveraging his moral authority to critique the police, Mirvis aligns himself with the government’s push to tighten protest laws and redefine extremism. He effectively argues that the “civil rights” of protesters must be balanced against—and perhaps curtailed by—the “security rights” of the Jewish community, which he views as under siege by the domestic arm of the Iranian axis.
The clarity of Sir Ephraim Mirvis’s geopolitical stance has created a polarized landscape for interfaith relations. While it has strained relations with some sectors of the Muslim community, it has facilitated new alliances with Arab states that share his anti-Iran posture.
Mirvis’s reliance on Henry Jackson Society statistics and his unwavering support for Israel’s security imperatives have alienated significant portions of the organized Muslim community in the UK.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPACUK) issued a counter-statement rejecting an interfaith peace pact specifically because of Mirvis’s involvement. They cited his “public statements supporting Israel” as a disqualifying factor for genuine reconciliation.21
“MPACUK stressed that it could not acknowledge the pact with Chief Rabbi Mirvis, who ‘has made public statements supporting Israel despite the horrific actions of the Israeli Occupation Forces.'” 21
This rupture highlights the cost of the “geopolitical defeat” doctrine. By framing the conflict as a battle between “Civilization” and “Terror,” Mirvis makes it difficult to maintain neutral ground with communities that identify with the Palestinian cause. The “anvil and hammer” rhetoric 8 further entrenches this divide, as it casts political opponents as extremists rather than partners.
However, Mirvis has sought to bypass these local tensions by engaging directly with the state-level leadership of the Arab world. He has been a vocal champion of the Abraham Accords, viewing the normalization of relations between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain as the template for a new regional order.
He participated in a high-level roundtable hosted by the Emirates Society, alongside Ban Ki-moon and UAE Minister Reem Al Hashimy.
“Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis commented, ‘The Abraham Accords have unlocked a range of exciting opportunities… I am particularly hopeful that they will also herald a new era of Muslim-Jewish interfaith dialogue.'” 22
In this forum, Mirvis articulated a vision where “faith leaders must be courageous” in breaking taboos. This strategy allows him to maintain the mantle of an interfaith leader while simultaneously isolating the “Iranian axis.” By aligning with the UAE—a state that is also hawkish on Iran and skeptical of political Islam—Mirvis finds partners who share his geopolitical diagnosis, even if they are geographically distant from the streets of London.
The tenure of Sir Ephraim Mirvis represents the consolidation of a specific geopolitical theology within the Office of the Chief Rabbi. It is a doctrine that views the world as bifurcated between the “Moral Civilisation of the West” (anchored in Judaic values and defended by Israel) and the “Regime of Terror” (led by Iran and its proxies).
This worldview dictates his domestic and international interventions. It explains why he cites the Henry Jackson Society on Muslim radicalization; why he critiques the Metropolitan Police for tolerating “extremist” protests; and why he sanctifies Israeli military strikes as the “roar of the lion.”
While he may not have issued a statement on Qasem Soleimani in 2020, his subsequent rhetoric confirms that he views the “geopolitical defeat” of Iran not just as a strategic preference, but as a religious imperative. For Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the safety of British Jewry cannot be secured through domestic integration alone; it requires the kinetic and ideological victory of “Civilization” over the “Forces of Evil” in Tehran.
| Term used by Mirvis | Context & Meaning | Strategic Implication | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Regime of Terror” | Used to describe the government of Iran, particularly on Yom HaShoah. | De-legitimizes the state; frames it as a criminal/terrorist enterprise rather than a sovereign nation. | 1 |
| “Lion that Roars” | Used to describe the IDF striking Iran. | Sanctifies military aggression as a righteous, biblical act of strength and self-defense. | 4 |
| “Hateful Extremism” | Used to describe pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist protests in the UK. | Links domestic protest to foreign terrorism; justifies stricter policing and surveillance. | 3 |
| “Moral Inversion” | Used to describe the accusation of genocide against Israel. | Frames human rights critiques as psychological warfare and antisemitism. | 7 |
| “Moral Civilisation” | Describes the West, rooted in Judaic tradition. | Creates a civilizational obligation for the West to defend Israel as its own origin point. | 2 |
| Institution | Nature of Engagement | Key Evidence | Impact on Mirvis’s Policy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Henry Jackson Society (HJS) | High / Operational | Cited HJS statistics on Muslim antisemitism 12; Shared rally platform with Douglas Murray 13; Byline Times alleges “Founding Member” status.9 | Validates the “threat within” narrative regarding Muslim communities; reinforces hawkish foreign policy. |
| Policy Exchange | Medium / Aligned | Shared critique of Met Police; Hosting of Israeli officials (Hotovely) who meet Mirvis concurrently.15 | Provides the intellectual framework for “tough policing” of protests and redefinition of extremism. |
| American Enterprise Institute (AEI) | Low / Legacy | Historical link via Lord Sacks (Irving Kristol Award).17 No direct participation found for Mirvis. | Represents the intellectual lineage of the office, but Mirvis has pivoted to UK-based think tanks. |
| Emirates Society | Diplomatic | Participation in Abraham Accords events with UAE Ministers.22 | Facilitates the “moderate Arab” alliance strategy to isolate Iran. |