Since 2012, relations between Hamas and its erstwhile patron Iran have been chilly, mainly because of the latter’s support for Bashar al-Assad. The Islamic Republic briefly tried to cultivate Palestinian Islamic Jihad as its main Gazan client, but found it insufficiently pliable. Now, writes Ehud Yaari, Iran is investing in an Islamic Jihad splinter group:

Over the past year and a half, the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, assisted by . . . Hizballah, has financed and provided media exposure to the al-Sabirin (“the Patient Ones”) movement in the Gaza Strip. This new militant group seeks to emulate Hizballah and Iraqi Shiite militias such as the Badr organization, known for its blatant pro-Iranian sentiments. Iran hopes that al-Sabirin will become a reliable proxy militia in Gaza.

Al-Sabirin is headed by Hisham Salem. . . . Salem, now in his early 50s, is a little-known former mid-level commander of Islamic Jiahd. . . . Rumors among Islamist circles in Gaza claim that Salem receives an annual budget of $10 million from Iran, typically smuggled in suitcases through the tunnels along the border with Egypt. . . .

It seems that Salem’s sponsors in Tehran and Beirut are disappointed . . . with how little progress he has made. Al-Sabirin remains nearly unrecognized by most Palestinians. . . . Nevertheless, Iran most likely regards al-Sabirin as an extremely useful tool to help keep Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in line by signaling to them that it has alternatives. Thus, the survival of Salem’s project seems guaranteed for the foreseeable future. In that regard, the United States should keep an eye on this group before it becomes the powerful militia that Iran and Hizballah are seeking to create, and before al-Sabirin obtains a solid foothold in the Gaza Strip.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”