With U.S. support, Iraqi forces are now preparing to drive Islamic State (IS) from the city of Mosul, its main Iraqi redoubt, and the rest of the province of Nineveh. David Petraeus is confident that they will succeed, but less confident that America and its local allies can keep the peace and avoid the rise of what he terms “Islamic State 3.0.” Drawing on his experiences subduing the same province in 2003, Petraeus outlines the necessary steps for bringing stability:

Nineveh’s Sunni Arabs, in particular, will need considerable reassurances that their interests will be adequately represented. . . . But so will the Kurdish citizens of Nineveh (of multiple political parties), as well as Shiite Arabs, Shiite and Sunni Turkmen, Yazidis, Christians, Shabak [another religious minority], and numerous tribes.

The best vehicle for carrying this out would be a provincial council like the one set up in 2003. . . Importantly, [the Iran-backed] Shiite militias should play no role in post-IS security and governance. . . . [Furthermore, the central government led by] Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi will need to be prepared to make more explicit commitments about resources, and also perhaps grant the region greater autonomy in determining spending priorities. . . .

The process . . . will be difficult and intense. But having enabled the defeat of the Islamic States, . . . the United States, together with its numerous coalition partners, will have considerable influence over the resolution of the issues. It will have to exercise that influence.

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.