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

If Iran Goes Nuclear, the U.S. Will Be Forced Out of the Middle East

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in May that Iran has, or is close to having, enough highly enriched uranium to build multiple atomic bombs, while, according to other sources, it is taking steps toward acquiring the technology to assemble such weapons. Considering the effects on Israel, the Middle East, and American foreign policy of a nuclear-armed Iran, Eli Diamond writes:

The basic picture is that the Middle East would become inhospitable to the U.S. and its allies when Iran goes nuclear. Israel would find itself isolated, with fewer options for deterring Iran or confronting its proxies. The Saudis and Emiratis would be forced into uncomfortable compromises.

Any course reversal has to start by recognizing that the United States has entered the early stages of a global conflict in which the Middle East is set to be a main attraction, not a sideshow.

Directly or not, the U.S. is engaged in this conflict and has a significant stake in its outcome. In Europe, American and Western arms are the only things standing between Ukraine and its defeat at the hands of Russia. In the Middle East, American arms remain indispensable to Israel’s survival as it wages a defensive, multifront war against Iran and its proxies Hamas and Hizballah. In the Indo-Pacific, China has embarked on the greatest military buildup since World War II, its eyes set on Taiwan but ultimately U.S. primacy.

While Iran is the smallest of these three powers, China and Russia rely on it greatly for oil and weapons, respectively. Both rely on it as a tool to degrade America’s position in the region. Constraining Iran and preventing its nuclear breakout would keep waterways open for Western shipping and undermine a key node in the supply chain for China and Russia.

Diamond offers a series of concrete suggestions for how the U.S. could push back hard against Iran, among them expanding the Abraham Accords into a military and diplomatic alliance that would include Saudi Arabia. But such a plan depends on Washington recognizing that its interests in Eastern Europe, in the Pacific, and in the Middle East are all connected.

Read more at National Review

More about: Iran nuclear program, Israeli Security, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy