In late January, the Islamic Republic tested a ballistic missile. As the nuclear deal makes no mention of such missiles—despite the fact that they are designed to deliver nuclear warheads—and the deal’s accompanying UN resolution loosens previous restrictions on Tehran’s missile program, the ayatollahs could press the claim, however dubious, that the test was legal. But after a firm reaction from the American government, Iran canceled a subsequent planned missile test. Emily Landau sees this as a sign that the new U.S. approach is working:

The Trump administration is not buying Iran’s excuses—and for good reason: Iran’s attempt to explain away any wrongdoing through such legalistic gymnastics rests on very shaky ground. The reality that Iran refuses to acknowledge is that it actually did work on [an illegal] military nuclear program in the past and it never demonstrated that it left those ambitions behind. . . . [Thus] there is no reason to believe that Iran will never equip its nuclear-capable missiles with a nuclear warhead; therefore, these missiles could very well have been (and most likely were) designed with that in mind. . . .

[T]he Trump administration responded to the latest missile test quickly and firmly. It immediately called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the test, and the national security adviser, Michael Flynn (who has since resigned), then issued a statement that “put Iran on notice” while informing the Iranians that the U.S. will no longer be turning a blind eye to their provocations. Sanctions were quickly imposed on 25 Iranian individuals and companies involved in Iran’s ballistic-missile program and with connections to terrorist activities. . . .

“Putting Iran on notice” puts Tehran off balance—a desired result. It means Iran must be very careful because it does not know what action will trigger which response. From initial Iranian reactions, it seems that the deterrence is working: Iran is not sure what Trump might do, and Iranian media, [which in fact reflect the opinions of the government, have “advised”] Iran’s leaders not to do anything that might give President Trump an excuse to attack. . . .

It is, indeed, the absence of response that has emboldened and strengthened Iran. . . . Provocations necessitate a firm response, which is what the Trump administration has finally provided.

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.