Since nuclear negotiations between Iran and the U.S. began, the White House has insisted on “decoupling” the issue of atomic weapons from Tehran’s support for terrorism, attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, and meddling in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere. Now, writes Stephen Hayes, the administration has reversed this stance, and—as with so many others—not for the better:

[T]he administration is effectively ending [its] decision to “decouple” nuclear talks from broader regime behavior, not in order to hold Iran to account for its many offenses but as something of a reward for its supporting a nuclear deal. . . . In his Rose Garden statement less than three months ago, the president declared that under the terms of any agreement, sanctions on Iran “for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic-missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.” But the Associated Press reported earlier this month that “the Obama administration may have to backtrack on its promise that it will suspend only nuclear-related economic sanctions” and will do so by redefining what it means to be “nuclear-related.”

Under the new interpretation, sanctions unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program may be deemed “nuclear-related” if they helped push Iran into nuclear talks or if they overlap with “previous actions conceived as efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program.” . . . We can’t yet know all the [other] concessions the United States has made in order to secure a deal, but the list of those that are known is long and embarrassing.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.