Last week, Iran-backed militias launched a drone and rocket attack on the American military base in al-Tanf, Syria. The base, located at a strategic point near the border with Jordan and Iraq, was established in 2016 during the fight against Islamic State, and serves as a check on Russian and Iranian ambitions to extend their influence into southeastern Syria. Until now, Iranian proxies have frequently attacked U.S. positions in Iraq, but stayed away from al-Tanf. Yoni Ben Menachem examines the strike’s implications:

The barrage was carried out using five drones of the pro-Iranian militias in the region. Three drones flew from Syria, and another two came from Iraq, indicating the high coordination and accuracy of the pro-Iranian militias in the operation of attack drones. According to various assessments in the United States and Israel, the attack on the al-Tanf base was an Iranian response to two raids last week on Iranian targets in Syria attributed to Israel in the area of Homs and Palmyra.

Iran appears to be changing its retaliation strategy regarding Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syrian territory. . . . Iran, Syria, and Russia oppose the presence of the Americans on Syrian territory. The barrage against the base in al-Tanf was intended to send messages to Israel and the United States and to expedite the American military withdrawal from Syria.

The Iranian action against the al-Tanf base comes as Russia and Turkey continue political efforts to bring about a full U.S. withdrawal from Syria. Turkey claims that the U.S. military in Syria protects the Kurds, while Syria claims that the U.S. military presence is an “occupation.” . . . Following the attack on the al-Tanf base, Washington must carefully consider the policies it has adopted recently, which have eased the economic sanctions imposed on Syria.

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.