Surveying the Obama administration’s overall Middle East policy in light of its dogged pursuit of the deeply flawed nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic, Emily Landau asks if the damage can be repaired:

President Obama has left the Middle East a far more dangerous place than it was eight years ago. Not merely because the nuclear agreement opens the door to the terrifying prospect of a nuclear Iran within ten-to-fifteen years, and perhaps even sooner, but because the administration then enabled an emboldened Iran to emerge over the course of 2015-16, unchallenged by Washington. In fact, while negotiating the deal, the U.S. president was already helping to transform the Islamic Republic, with its extremist, hegemonic agenda, into the region’s preeminent power at the expense of traditional U.S. allies.

For example, despite Barack Obama’s pretense of focusing exclusively on the nuclear issue by way of securing the deal, . . . the president resisted upholding the redline he had set with regard to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons due to a warning issued by Tehran: if the U.S. resorted to military force in Syria, it could scuttle the nuclear negotiations. Obama continued to shun the Syrian crisis to his final days in office so as not to upset Tehran and risk rattling the nascent nuclear deal. [Thus] Washington left Syria to Iran (and Russia) in return for the nuclear deal, a tradeoff that the administration denies. . . .

Obama’s only achievement lies in kicking the nuclear can down the road to future administrations. But he created a reality in which it will be far more difficult to stop Iran down that road. With its nuclear program legitimized by the deal, Tehran is much better poised to forge ahead at a time of its choosing. For, contrary to Obama’s emphatic statements, the agreement does not end Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, nor has it lived up to the president’s hope of ushering in a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations.

The challenge for the Trump administration is to try to reverse some of these negative trends. In making the best of a bad situation, the preferred route at this point—after Tehran has already pocketed billions of dollars—would be neither to renounce the deal nor try to renegotiate it but rather to enforce it strictly as well as strengthen its provisions. Much can be achieved by reversing the Obama administration’s approach to Iran—recognizing Tehran’s overt hostility to U.S. interests and responding with firm determination to its provocations.

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.