Since his arrival in Washington on Monday, the French president Emmanuel Macron has already spoken with President Trump about the future of the nuclear deal with Tehran, which the White House has committed itself either to strengthen or to abandon. Undoubtedly, the two have also spoken in private about the subject. Richard Goldberg urges the president not to compromise on the most important issues:

[L]ess than three weeks before Trump’s deadline [for extending the nuclear agreement], critical gaps [between Europe and the U.S.] remain. Europe won’t explicitly endorse the elimination of sunset dates and objects to any mechanism that would automatically re-impose sanctions if Iran cut the time in which it could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuke.

Europe is also willing to agree to powerful sanctions on Tehran only for the testing of long-range missiles that the regime doesn’t yet possess. As for missiles capable of wiping out Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or the United Arab Emirates, the Europeans are willing to apply only mild and ineffectual sanctions. To avoid a transatlantic rift, Trump will face enormous pressure to follow suit. . . . Europe’s thirst for trade with Iran is so intense, apparently, it’s willing to sacrifice Israel and its Gulf allies to keep the money flowing. . . .

When Barack Obama sold the nuclear deal to Congress, he claimed that nothing would preclude the West from re-imposing sanctions [on Iran] for illicit non-nuclear activities. But it never happened, and without a formal transatlantic political agreement, the fear of jeopardizing the deal will always prevent it from happening. This sanctions paralysis regarding non-nuclear threats is one of the deal’s unspoken fatal flaws. That’s why Trump must ask Macron not only to acknowledge the legitimacy of such actions but pledge his support for them. If he won’t, Trump would be better off nixing the deal entirely.

Macron reportedly has a fallback plan in case Trump opts to nix the deal altogether: ask him not to enforce U.S. sanctions involving Europe and, instead, let Europe keep doing business with Iran. Trump should forcefully reject this request as well. Not enforcing sanctions lets the Iranian regime get wealthier and stronger, leading to increased funding for Bashar al-Assad, terrorism, proliferation, regional expansion, and repression. And North Korea will think Trump can be manipulated and will adjust its diplomatic strategy accordingly.

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.