The U.S. Should Demand That Qatar and Turkey Hand Over Hamas’s Leaders

Not all terrorist leaders, however, can be given the death penalty. Take Ismail Haniyeh, the chief of the organization, to whom Sinwar is subordinate. Haniyeh presently resides in Qatar, along with other senior Hamas figures; yet others reside in Turkey. I have seen many arguments that Jerusalem and Washington should demand that these countries expel them. But then they will only relocate elsewhere. Orde Kittrie and Steven Pelak have a better suggestion:

Publicly available evidence demonstrates that Hamas’s principal leaders, including those residing in Qatar and Turkey, are responsible for the ongoing hostage-taking of U.S. citizens in violation of U.S. law. President Biden, acting through the Justice Department, should immediately announce and pursue the prosecutions of culpable Hamas figures. He should demand that Doha and Ankara provisionally arrest and detain them to facilitate U.S. custody for criminal prosecution.

Qatar has for years hosted Hamas’s principal leader, Ismail Haniyeh, whom the U.S. has designated a “global terrorist” since January 31, 2018. Video reportedly shows Haniyeh, his deputy Saleh al-Arouri, and other Hamas officials monitoring and celebrating the October 7 massacre in Israel from the group’s offices in Doha.

Read more at The Hill

More about: Hamas, Qatar, Turkey, U.S. Foreign policy, Yahya Sinwar

An American Withdrawal from Iraq Would Hand Another Victory to Iran

Since October 7, the powerful network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq have carried out 120 attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. In the previous year, there were dozens of such attacks. The recent escalation has led some in the U.S. to press for the withdrawal of these forces, whose stated purpose in the country is to stamp out the remnants of Islamic State and to prevent the group’s resurgence. William Roberts explains why doing so would be a mistake:

American withdrawal from Iraq would cement Iran’s influence and jeopardize our substantial investment into the stabilization of Iraq and the wider region, threatening U.S. national security. Critics of the U.S. military presence argue that [it] risks a regional escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. However, in the long term, the U.S. military has provided critical assistance to Iraq’s security forces while preventing the escalation of other regional conflicts, such as clashes between Turkey and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Syria.

Ultimately, the only path forward to preserve a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Iraq is through engagement with the international community, especially the United States. Resisting Iran’s takeover will require the U.S. to draw international attention to the democratic backsliding in the country and to be present and engage continuously with Iraqi civil society in military and non-military matters. Surrendering Iraq to Iran’s agents would not only squander our substantial investment in Iraq’s stability; it would greatly increase Iran’s capability to threaten American interests in the Levant through its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Read more at Providence

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy