Last week, President Biden told reporters that he hoped Hamas would accept what he called “a rational offer” for a ceasefire, to which he added, “There’s got to be a ceasefire because [of] Ramadan,” and if there isn’t the situation could become “very dangerous.” Hamas rejected the ceasefire offer, so anti-Israel activists are now trying to portray Israel’s continuation of the war during Ramadan, which began Sunday evening, as evidence of Israeli evil. Of course, Hamas had no scruples about attacking Israeli civilians on Simchat Torah.

The truth is that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, wants the war to continue through Ramadan because he hopes the fighting will spread to the West Bank and Lebanon while sparking an Arab uprising within Israel. Dan Diker and Khaled Abu Toameh explain:

Since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 240 others, the Iran-backed terror group’s leaders in Gaza have been trying to drag other Arabs and Muslims into a confrontation with Israel. To this end, Hamas’s branding of the October 7 massacre as the “Aqsa Flood” followed Palestinian Authority leader Yasir Arafat’s similar branding of the “Aqsa intifada” that began in 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. . . . Sinwar views himself as a great Muslim warrior who successfully planned an invasion of Israel, giving him “street credit” with Palestinians.

To Diker and Abu Toameh, Washington is responding precisely the wrong way:

The Iranian regime and its Palestinian, Lebanese, and Yemeni proxies are counting on American pressure on Israel to stop the war. Instead, the United States should place pressure on the Iranian regime. Sinwar is betting on the upcoming November 2024 elections in the United States to pressure Israel for a ceasefire. Hamas and Iran interpret their close observation of American administration statements by the likes of Biden and Harris to mean that their long-term strategy is working.

Noah Rothman provides a worthwhile reminder of why a nuclear Iran is a threat not just to Israel, but to the United States:

For one, Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism on earth. It exports terrorists and arms throughout the region and beyond, and there are no guarantees that it won’t play a similarly reckless game with nuclear material. At minimum, the terrorist elements in Iran’s orbit would be emboldened by Iran’s new nuclear might. Their numbers would surely grow, as would their willingness to court risk.

Iran maintains the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the region. It can certainly deliver a warhead to targets inside the Middle East, and it’s fast-tracking the development of space-launch vehicles that can threaten the U.S. mainland. Even if Tehran were a rational actor that could be reliably deterred, an acknowledged Iranian bomb would kick-start a race toward nuclear proliferation in the region. The Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and others would probably be compelled to seek their own nuclear deterrents, leading to an infinitely more complex security environment.

In the meantime, Iran would be able to blackmail the West, allowing it occasionally to choke off the trade and energy exports that transit the Persian Gulf and to engage in far more reckless acts of international terrorism.

As for the possible consequences, Rothman observes:

Iranian retaliation might be measured with the understanding that if it’s not properly calibrated, the U.S. and Israel could begin taking out Iranian command-and-control targets next. If the symbols of the regime begin crumbling, the oppressed Iranian people might find the courage to finish the job. If there’s anything the mullahs fear more than the U.S. military, it’s their own citizens.