Yesterday, the Associated Press confirmed that international inspectors have discovered 83.7-percent-enriched uranium near an Iranian nuclear reactor. The 2015 nuclear agreement allowed the Islamic Republic to enrich to a maximum of 3.67 percent; 90 percent is considered the minimum necessary for building atomic weapons. Richard Goldberg notes that the same UN resolution that ratified the 2015 deal also gives its signatories a way to respond—one that they have uniformly refused to implement in the wake of past violations, and show little interest in implementing now:

UN Security Council Resolution 2231 replaced all prior resolutions on Iran—removing the international demand that Iran halt all enrichment activities, striking the outright UN prohibition on Iranian ballistic-missile testing, and establishing a series of expirations dates on other key international restrictions. . . . But UNSCR 2231 came with one condition: if Iran ever violated its own commitments under the nuclear deal, any party to the agreement could notify the Security Council and restore all prior sanctions and restrictions in 30 days. This process is called “snapback,” and France—like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany—has the individual power and prerogative to trigger it.

If the recent confirmation that Iran has enriched uranium to just-under the 90-percent weapons-grade threshold—a line many analysts long believed to be a trigger for military action—does not force Paris, Berlin, or London to complete the UN snapback process—a political action—Jerusalem should finally accept the reality that Israel will need to confront this threat on its own terms, in its own ways, and on its own timelines. There is no cavalry coming from Paris or any other Western capital.

Tehran knows the difference between deterrence and deference, between pressure and platitude. Today, it fears only one country: Israel. This tiny democracy of nine million people will soon be forced to act in a manner that preserves freedom and prosperity for every American and European threatened by the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The best Benjamin Netanyahu can hope for is a “thank you” when the job is done.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.