While the Biden administration has perhaps been more supportive of Israel’s efforts than Hamas expected, it decided on Tuesday not to stop the release of $10 billions dollars in withheld funds to Hamas’s patrons in Tehran. Surely the best way to prolong the fighting in Gaza would be to fund both sides—but that is precisely what the White House has opted to do. Richard Goldberg writes:

The Biden administration argues that the $10 billion sanctions relief is not significant since Iran will be restricted to using the funds for “humanitarian” or “non-sanctioned” purposes only. The administration used this same argument to defend the transfer of $6 billion of Tehran’s assets in September from South Korea to Qatar. Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill both rejected the administration’s claim because money is fungible. If the regime receives billions to cover non-sanctioned expenditures, that frees up an equivalent amount for illicit programs. Iran also has a long track record of processing phony humanitarian transactions for illicit purposes.

In the wake of October 7 and non-stop Iran-directed attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, Congress should swiftly enact legislation that freezes all cash made available in Iraq, France, Germany, Oman, and Qatar and all other accounts where Iranian funds are held.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”