In the wake of the 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah, the UN deployed its Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to keep the two armies apart, and to prevent Hizballah from operating in the area between the Litani River and the Israel-Lebanon border. But UNIFIL has failed spectacularly in the latter part of its mission—although that hasn’t prevented the various concerned parties from maintaining the illusion that it is doing its job. Assaf Orion writes:

European contributors [to the force] enjoy the political-military influence it confers; Beirut enjoys the revenues and veneer of legitimacy associated with hosting a sizable UN force; Hizballah leaders enjoy UNIFIL paying for projects in their southern heartland and hiring hundreds of local staff, so long as the force stays out of their business; and so forth. Another year of no change would please many of these actors, Hizballah most of all.

Yet this status quo is an illusion. . . . [T]he Lebanese government has stepped up its efforts to prevent UNIFIL from encountering or exposing Hizballah activities . . . and Hizballah has increased its strength and activities in UNIFIL’s area of operations. This state of affairs is more than just a mission failure—it represents a dangerous slope toward unwarranted escalation.

In August, the Security Council will hold its annual vote as to whether to extend UNIFIL’s mandate. Orion suggests steps the U.S. and its allies can take to reform the force, including, paradoxically, shrinking it.

The force should be immediately reduced by 10-20 percent, its maritime component decreased by one vessel, and its maximum authorized number cut from 15,000 to 8,000-10,000. . . . These reductions would show Beirut that military support is neither infinite nor unconditional, while prodding it to fulfill its commitments to [disarm Hizballah], reducing the risk to peacekeepers in the event of escalation, and curbing the amount of UN funding [that ends up in the hands of] Hizballah’s base of supporters.

Even more importantly, Orion argues, the Lebanese government must allow UNIFIL unrestricted access throughout its area of operations, which it does not now do. And the U.S. should make clear that it will use its veto to end UNIFIL’s mandate if such measures are not taken.

In a recent episode of 60 Minutes, a former State Department official tells the interviewer that U.S. support for Israel following October 7 has “put a target on America’s back” in the Arab world “and beyond the Arab world.” The complaint is a familiar one: Middle Easterners hate the United States because of its closeness to the Jewish state. But this gets things exactly backward. Just look at the rhetoric of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its various Arab proxies: America is the “Great Satan” and Israel is but the “Little Satan.”

Why, then, does Iran see the U.S. as the world’s primary source of evil? The usual answer invokes the shah’s 1953 ouster of his prime minister, but the truth is that this wasn’t the subversion of democracy it’s usually made out to be, and the CIA’s role has been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, Ladan Boroumand points out,

the 1953 coup was welcomed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, [the architect of the 1979 Islamic Revolution], and would not have succeeded without the active complicity of proponents of political Islam. And . . . the United States not only refrained from opposing the Islamic Revolution but inadvertently supported its emergence and empowered its agents. How then could . . . Ayatollah Khomeini’s virulent enmity toward the United States be explained or excused?

Khomeini’s animosity toward the shah and the United States traces back to 1963–64, when the shah initiated sweeping social reforms that included granting women the right to vote and to run for office and extending religious minorities’ political rights. These reforms prompted the pro-shah cleric of 1953 to become his vocal critic. It wasn’t the shah’s autocratic rule that incited Khomeini’s opposition, but rather the liberal nature of his autocratically implemented social reforms.

There is no need for particular interpretive skill to comprehend the substance of Khomeini’s message: as Satan, America embodies the temptation that seduces Iranian citizens into sin and falsehood. “Human rights” and “democracy” are America’s tools for luring sinful and deviant citizens into conspiring against the government of God established by the ayatollah.

Or, as George W. Bush put it, jihadists hate America because “they hate our freedoms.”