Surveying the entire history of the Jewish state’s relations with the Soviet Union and then Russia from 1948 to the present, Micky Aharonson investigates some of its many paradoxes. Most recently and notably, these include the two countries’ close military contacts and maintenance of at least a façade of friendship despite the fact that their strategic interests in Syria are diametrically opposed. Also, there is Moscow’s persistently expressed opposition to Sunni Muslim terrorist groups coupled with its diplomatic recognition of Hamas’s Sunni terrorist regime in Gaza:

Russian policy on the Palestinian issue and relations with the various Palestinian organizations are directly related to its interests in the Middle East and its desire to achieve the status of a superpower that mediates in regional negotiations. In recent years, Russia has . . . proposed an international conference in Moscow to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the participation of all the involved parties. . . .

Russia was [also] the first country to recognize the Hamas government in Gaza and received Hamas representatives for an official visit to Moscow. . . . The Russians have continued over the years to maintain open dialogue with Hamas. According to the Russians, their goal is to [integrate Hamas into the peace process] and to [garner its] support for the PLO and an Arab peace initiative. . . . In contrast to the [U.S. and even the EU], it did not . . . define [Hamas] as a terror organization. . . . This attitude is not the result of any particular sympathy for the organization but rather the Russian fear of a change in leadership by external intervention. The Russians are consistent in adopting [this] line . . . out of fear that such events will become legitimate in other [countries as well], including Russia itself.

Hamas, however, is not the main obstacle to Russo-Israeli concord:

Russia has an economic and even strategic interest in selling advanced weaponry and nuclear capability to countries that constitute a direct threat to Israel, while Israel has an economic and strategic interest in the sale of advanced weaponry to countries that are militarily and strategically sensitive from Russia’s viewpoint. [I]n the Second Lebanon War, for example, Hizballah made use of weapons provided by Russia to Syria, including Kornet and Metis missiles, which managed to damage even the latest model of Israel’s Merkava tank. . . . [T]he media later reported that Russia had provided intelligence to Hizballah during the war and that the Russian communication station on the Syrian border conveyed information to Hizballah forces. Since those events, Israel has continued to warn Russia—at dozens of meetings and at all diplomatic levels—of the “leakage” of weapons that had been shipped to Syria or Russian weapons that make their way from Iran into the hands of Hizballah. . . .

Russia for its part is highly sensitive to the sale of military knowhow and advanced weapons by Israel to former Soviet countries with which Russia has [poor] relations. Georgia is a prime example. In 2008, during the war between Russia and Georgia, Russia accused Israel of supporting Georgia by supplying it with arms. . . .

With the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program damaged, and its regional influence diminished, the U.S. must now prevent it from recovering, and, if possible, weaken it further. Benjamin Baird argues that it can do both through economic means—if Congress does its part:

Legislation that codifies President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” policies into law, places sanctions on Iran’s energy sales, and designates the regime’s proxy armies as foreign terrorist organizations will go a long way toward containing Iran’s regime and encouraging its downfall. . . . Congress has already introduced much of the legislation needed to bring the ayatollah to his knees, and committee chairmen need only hold markup hearings to advance these bills and send them to the House and Senate floors.

They should start with the HR 2614—the Maximum Support Act. What the Iranian people truly need to overcome the regime is protection from the state security apparatus.

Next, Congress must get to work dismantling Iran’s proxy army in Iraq. By sanctioning and designating a list of 29 Iran-backed Iraqi militias through the Florida representative Greg Steube’s Iranian Terror Prevention Act, the U.S. can shut down . . . groups like the Badr Organization and Kataib Hizballah, which are part of the Iranian-sponsored armed groups responsible for killing hundreds of American service members.

Those same militias are almost certainly responsible for a series of drone attacks on oilfields in Iraq over the past few days