In withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration reinstituted U.S. sanctions that include penalties on European corporations that do business with the Islamic Republic. While these measures certainly have their utility, argue Michael Doran and Peter Rough, Washington would be better served by trying to persuade European governments that they ought to join in efforts to contain the Islamic Republic:

It has been more than a decade since senior American officials traveled to Europe with the explicit purpose of explaining the threat Iran poses and the necessity of extraordinary Western actions to counter it. Whereas America had a vigorous debate around the Iran deal, European elites sanctified it, and the Obama administration praised them for it.

Over the past year, the Trump administration’s message about the deal has been less than consistent. . . . [European leaders’] current complaint, that President Trump turned over the card table and pulled out his revolver, is self-serving but understandable. Trump should now make it an urgent priority to dispel this image. . . .

In addition to blasting the supposed brazenness of the U.S. withdrawal, European leaders allege that it violated international law, as they claim Iran had complied with its terms. That charge is specious, and the U.S. should refute it vigorously. Israel’s daring capture in January of information on Iran’s nuclear program confirmed that Tehran had violated the nuclear deal and the international nonproliferation treaty. The captured information proves that Iran never offered a full accounting of the past military dimensions of its nuclear program.

Instead of launching a public-diplomacy campaign to inform Europeans of these revelations, however, U.S. and Israeli officials allowed critics to mobilize and dismiss the Israeli discoveries as inconsequential. Energy Secretary Rick Perry should respond now by launching a road show to highlight Iran’s alarming deceptions. . . .

Even a successful campaign of persuasion will never convince the Europeans that they aren’t being coerced. It can, however, soften their resentment. And a high-level overture to Europe would in itself send a positive message. It would show Europeans that despite the disagreement about Iran, the U.S. still respects them. Especially after the bruising G-7 summit, a little tenderness could go a long way.

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.