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 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.