Iran, writes Benjamin Runkle, has developed formidable capabilities for electronic spying and hacking, and has carried out sophisticated cyberattacks on Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Israel. Nor is the Islamic Republic the only Middle Eastern threat to American cybersecurity: Hizballah, Islamic State, and the self-styled Syrian Electronic Army (which works for the Assad regime) are all engaged in cyberwarfare. Runkle writes:

[W]hereas Russia and China have the resources to build conventional [military forces] unthinkable for most Middle Eastern actors, the entry costs to acquiring a significant cyber capacity are low enough to allow the Middle East’s weaker states—or non-state actors—to obtain capabilities that threaten U.S. and allied interests. . . .

[C]yberattacks [also] allow potential adversaries to bypass America and its regional allies’ military forces in order to target civilian infrastructure and economic targets directly. . . . Iran’s hackers are targeting critical infrastructure and developing the ability to cause serious damage to the U.S. power grid, hospitals, or the financial sector. . . . In fact, recent history suggests that Tehran’s offensive cyber capacity has dramatically evolved in sophistication and scope. . . .

In sum, Iran’s demonstrated willingness to conduct destructive cyberattacks, its ability to offset U.S. and allied military superiority in the region through cyberwar, its dearth of equivalent targets for deterrence or retaliatory attacks, and the Islamic Republic’s strategic culture favoring asymmetric or indirect conflict over conventional war mean that it poses at least as great a threat of initiating a “catastrophic” attack against U.S. or allied critical infrastructure as [the otherwise] technically superior Russian and Chinese hackers.

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.