Last week, Iranian forces, together with allied Iraqi Shiite militias, began an offensive to take Fallujah from Islamic State (IS). The campaign’s success, writes Lee Smith, depends on American aerial support, but while the U.S. and the Islamic Republic do share a common enemy in IS, the administration’s policy of cooperation ignores the differences between their goals and is bound to end poorly:

The White House says it is fighting IS, but its Iranian and Iranian-backed partners say the war is about killing Sunnis. “There are no patriots, no real religious people in Fallujah,” said the leader of one Shiite militia. “It’s our chance to clear Iraq by eradicating the cancer of Fallujah.” That doesn’t sound like the kind of ally the United States should be embracing. That sounds like the United States taking sides in a sectarian war against the Sunni Arab regional majority.

There is no way to defeat IS unless the administration can get Sunni Arab leaders, especially tribal sheikhs, to join the fight. Only they have the local forces and knowledge to root out IS. But obviously no tribal leaders will enjoin their brothers to open up a Sunni civil war so that the Shiites and Iranians may profit from their spilling each other’s blood. To destroy IS, the United States will have to move against the Shiite groups that are terrorizing Sunnis. . . . But that hasn’t happened with this White House for the same reason that the administration never moved to topple Bashar al-Assad—President Obama doesn’t want to get their Iranian patrons mad. . . .

Barack Obama is not a bystander [in this conflict], an impartial observer who just decided to let American allies—or, in his words, “free riders”—twist in the wind while America turned to its domestic issues. He switched sides.

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.