While the U.S. has at last taken on Iran’s proxy in Yemen, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon continues to attack the Jewish state: yesterday, Hizballah fired an antitank missile at a house, killing a seventy-six-year-old civilian and her son. The same day, the IDF thwarted an attempted cross-border raid from Lebanon. Jerusalem, meanwhile, is continuing its efforts to undermine Tehran’s terror network in Syria, which have been going on for more than a decade.

This campaign has so far operated according to unwritten “rules of the game,” whereby both sides respect certain red lines, keeping retaliation from spinning out of control. Since October 7, Israel has gotten bolder, according to the Tal Avraham and Carmit Valensi, “attacking weapons transfers and strategic targets more frequently and in a deadlier manner,” and sometimes breaking the rules:

The most powerful operation attributed to Israel so far took place on December 25, when Sayyed Razi Mousavi, a senior commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Damascus who was entrusted with the transfer of weapons from Iran to Syria and Lebanon, was killed. . . . Attacking him means attacking Iran, which so far has not paid the price for operating its agents against Israel.

So far, except for a few UAV launches attributed to pro-Iranian militias in Syria or Iraq, the attacks attributed to Israel in Syria have not been met with significant responses by the [Iran-led] axis. The considerations of Syria’s President Assad are clear—he is not interested in dragging Syria into a widescale war, which could also endanger his position. So far the Iranian leadership and Hizballah have accepted this and refrained from responding from his territory.

In other words, Jerusalem’s boldness has paid off.

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.