The Islamic Republic recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the revolution that brought it into being. While many Iranians may have felt this nothing to celebrate, the German government—fond though it is of speaking of its commitment to human rights on the international stage—eagerly rushed forward with its congratulations. Michael Rubin comments:

The German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier sent a congratulatory telegram to the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. Both the state minister of the foreign office Niels Annen and an Iran desk officer attended the celebrations [in Tehran]. The irony, of course, is that [their superior], Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, has said he went into politics “because of Auschwitz” and now celebrates a regime whose official position is to deny the Holocaust occurred and that has repeatedly stated its goal to eradicate the Jewish state. . . .

What explains Germany’s enthusiasm for ties to one of the world’s most murderous regimes? . . . The answer is simple: for German authorities across the political spectrum, human rights are only a tool with which to dress the country’s foreign-policy rhetoric. The German public may care about human rights, but few [members of the German political elite], from the right or from the left, do. For German authorities, the primary goal is commercial benefit. The execution of gays, repression of Jews and other minorities, and terrorism are inconveniences to ignore. . . .

It was the German foreign minister Klaus Kinkel who, in 1992, entered office trumpeting human rights while simultaneously seeking to expand trade with the Islamic Republic. At the time, most European countries stood in solidarity against Iran due to the contract the regime had issued on the life of author Salman Rushdie. By promising to tie trade with a substantive discussion of human rights, Kinkel provided an excuse to return German firms to the Iranian market.

Iranian officials understood they could use Germany to break the Western consensus. . . . By the end of [1992], the European Union endorsed Berlin’s “critical dialogue” which, in theory, would reward Iranian improvements on human rights with greater trade. The cynicism of the move is readily apparent in hindsight: by every possible metric, human rights declined as German trade increased. . . . [L]ess than a year and a half after Kinkel assumed his role, the Iranian government resumed its hostage diplomacy, seizing the Iran-Germany Chamber of Commerce member Gerhard Bachmann.

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.