On May 9, the head of one of the many Tehran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq gave a speech accusing Israel of support for Islamic State and, moreover, threatened that once his group and its allies had vanquished their Sunni enemies, they would turn to the task of destroying the Jewish state. These threats, writes Jonathan Spyer, should not be taken as mere bluster, especially amidst the rising tensions in the Persian Gulf:

[T]he area encompassing Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon today constitutes a single arena from an Iranian operational point of view. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) [and its proxies] have freedom of action in each of these areas. . . .

Iran is making use of its Iraqi militia clients to deploy short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) in the deserts of western Iraq—with the intention that these could be launched against Israel at a time of Iran’s choosing. . . . Tehran has also established facilities for missile production in western Iraq, and is employing Iraqi citizens to carry out this work. . . .

The ability of Iran to operate a de-facto contiguous line of control across Iraq, and thence to Syria, Lebanon, and the borders with the Golan Heights, is thus not under serious doubt. It appears that Tehran has begun to station SRBMs along this route, directed at Israel, and manned by the IRGC-directed militias—an arrangement intended to provide Iran with deniability in the event of their being used. . . . In the remote deserts of western Iraq, Iran’s servants are busily at work preparing a new front against Israel.

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.