In response to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic, one of the top generals of its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, which separates the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman, which in turn leads into the Indian Ocean. Ariel Cohen explores the likely consequences should Tehran attempt to do so:

A recent oil-industry analysis shows that if Iran chose to cordon off the [strait], nearly 20 million barrels per day of crude oil—roughly 40 percent of global seaborne oil exports—would stop flowing from the [Persian] Gulf. The IRGC—the country’s premier military branch—has a myriad of options at its disposal to conduct a blockade. . . . Even a porous closure of the strait would prove effective, as global shipping insurers would refuse to protect any ship risking the journey. Iran may also target oil fields in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and other Gulf states, which would mean other producers, including Russia, would have to stand by and fill any deficit in the oil markets.

[Currently] Tehran plays an even more destabilizing role in regional conflicts in the Middle East than North Korea plays in the Asia-Pacific. . . . Iran also stands in violation of international law vis-à-vis its territorial waters. An Iranian law passed in 1993 requires that vessels identify themselves before exercising innocent passage through its shared portion of the Gulf—in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Threats of closing the Strait of Hormuz are just the most recent illustration of Iran’s subversive behavior. . . .

Tehran cannot, however, dominate the entire Gulf and it is unable to target traffic with guided weapons without evoking an overwhelming reaction by the U.S. and the UK, which are much more significant naval powers than Iran. Furthermore, . . . if Iran shoots missiles at U.S. forces in the Middle East or those of American allies, . . . President Trump would have to decide whether to eliminate Iran’s aerial defenses, ballistic-missile systems, and air force, as well as its nuclear infrastructure. Plans to do so have been in Pentagon drawers since the hostage crisis in 1979 under Jimmy Carter.

The mullahs would be wise to support the free shipping of oil and the healthy global economy, and not risk a potentially catastrophic confrontation they have no hope to survive.

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.