Having fled Iraq after having their home seized by a Shiite militia taking orders from Tehran, Hussain Abdul-Hussain’s family relocated to Lebanon—another Arab nation under the thumb of Iran-backed guerrillas—where the recent bank collapse eliminated their savings. To Abdul-Hussain, who now lives in the U.S., the Lebanese economic woes are the direct result of over a decade of domination by Iranian proxy Hizballah. He urges presidential candidate Joe Biden to keep this in mind when formulating his policies toward the Islamic Republic:

The continued presence of Hizballah, a terrorist organization under U.S. law, kept Lebanon in a state of perpetual war. This stifled growth and forced the government to fund itself by borrowing from local banks, thus using depositors’ money. And to buy off the local oligarchy and make it support its unconstitutional militia, Hizballah used the state to reward loyal oligarchs. Reform thus became impossible, and corruption inseparable from the terrorist group’s very existence.

This is why my sister, my wife, myself, and many of our Lebanese-American friends felt disappointment when reading Biden’s promise to rejoin the nuclear deal with Iran, and give Israel more arms to defend itself against Iranian proxies. Biden’s statement signaled that he does not plan to help the Lebanese and the Iraqis get rid of Iranian militias, but only to manage and to contain them.

Contrary to what the media often claim, a two-state solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians is not the key to “true peace” in the Middle East. In fact, whatever happens to Palestinians does not affect our families and friends in Lebanon, Syria, or Iraq. What happens to the Iran regime, however, does. In our world, Israel is not the enemy, the Iranian regime is.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.