On Wednesday, the IDF chief-of-staff Aviv Kochavi took the unusual step of commenting publicly on an airstrike last month, in which Israeli jets struck a convoy carrying Iranian weapons from Iran to Lebanon via Syria. Although the number of such strikes on targets in Syria over the past decade probably reaches into the thousands, Israeli officials rarely acknowledge specific incidents or discuss the details. These are all part of a larger “war between the wars” fought by the Jewish state and the Islamic Republic, one which extends into the high seas and cyberspace. Jonathan Schanzer writes:

Until now, the war between wars has been a somewhat limited strategy to combat future Iranian threats. Questions now linger about its long-term viability as a vehicle for broader strikes to address the immediate existential and strategic threats from Tehran and its proxies. Former officials note that the strategy may help contain the problem in Syria, and even beyond, but that Jerusalem has been deterred from handling the true threats: Hizballah’s growing precision-guided-munitions (PGM) stockpile in Lebanon, the appearance of additional PGM production facilities in Lebanon, and the construction of additional Iranian covert nuclear facilities, or, indeed, the overall advancement of Tehran’s nuclear program.

Such criticisms do not negate the impact of the daring and successful Israeli operations in the undeclared war over the course of a decade. But these dangers cannot be ignored. Jerusalem may thus soon find that it must test the unwritten rules of engagement with Tehran. It may need to conduct riskier, asymmetric operations, especially as Hizballah amasses additional PGMs and Tehran approaches Jerusalem’s red lines on the nuclear front.

Until then, the war between wars cannot stop.

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.