While cautioning against jettisoning the nuclear agreement with Tehran, John Allen and Michael O’Hanlon urge the U.S. to act more aggressively to contain the Islamic Republic, and outline some of the particulars:

[O]ver the last generation, no foreign government has more American blood on its hands than Iran’s post-1979 revolutionary theocracy. It orchestrated the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996. In Iraq since 2003, Iran’s Quds Force has provided weaponry to both Sunni and Shiite insurgents who have killed hundreds of Americans. . . .

[A] security strategy to contain and challenge Iran regionally needs to include, [first], a pledge to maintain a U.S. military presence in Iraq for a longer period of time and extend the aid package for the country. . . . A stronger, more stable Iraq will be much better positioned to resist domination by Iran. . . .

[In Syria], the United States and like-minded states—as well as global aid agencies—need to help provide security and economic assistance to regions free of Bashar al-Assad’s rule as well as of Islamic State’s. Some of these regions should be treated as temporary autonomous zones and help govern themselves as well. Additionally, more Western and [Arab] military strength and support for moderate insurgents is needed in northwest parts of the country, such as in and around Idlib, where the al-Qaeda affiliate formerly known as Nusra Front is still active. Otherwise, either the latter group or Assad’s forces backed by Russia and Iran will be the likely victor.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.