Rather than tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) upon taking office, writes Lee Smith, Donald Trump would do better to follow its terms, and wait for Tehran to renounce it:

The Obama administration told Congress that the deal did not eliminate non-nuclear sanctions, like those related to terrorism, ballistic missiles, and human rights. After it was signed, however, and Iran was emboldened throughout the Middle East, the White House blocked congressional efforts to enforce existing non-nuclear sanctions and impose new ones. If the Trump administration doesn’t block Congress from reinstating and imposing sanctions, as member have wanted to do over the last year, the regime will crash the deal.

The same holds for overlooking Iranian violations of the JCPOA. Last week’s transgression was a repeat of the regime’s February violation of the heavy-water threshold. When the White House coughed up cash for the 32 tons, it legitimized a state sponsor of terror as a nuclear supplier. If the Trump administration merely stops overlooking Iranian violations of the JCPOA, the regime will very likely opt out of President Obama’s chief foreign-policy achievement. . . .

At that point, the next administration will have an important decision to reach, one made even more urgent by the mendacious tactics of its predecessor. What happens if the master of the art of the deal can’t get Iran back to the table for an agreement that better suits American interests? What if the regime pushes ahead with its nuclear-weapons program? Estimates suggest the Iranians are about a year from a nuclear breakout. Will the next White House take action to stop them or will it, too, push a phony agreement and put American citizens, allies, and interests at risk?

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.