Meanwhile, Hamas announced yesterday that it rejects the recent American and Israeli offer for a cessation of hostilities and an exchange of hostages for prisoners. The U.S. national security advisor Jake Sullivan, however, told NBC that the offer remains on the table and negotiations are still ongoing. Robert Satloff takes a close look at one of the problems with the proposed deal: the U.S. promises to “ensure” (in President Biden’s words) that Israel fulfills its end of the bargain, and Egypt and Qatar have “assured” the president that they will hold Hamas to its obligations:

Egypt and Qatar have shown themselves to be woefully incapable of influencing Hamas over the past eight months, so the idea that there is any value in their “assurances” regarding the group’s future behavior is risible. By contrast, any U.S. administration necessarily has considerable leverage on Israel’s actions given Jerusalem’s reliance on U.S. rearmament and diplomatic backing to sustain its military operations.

This imbalance—in which the United States guarantees Israeli adherence while other states ineffectually guarantee a terrorist group’s adherence—sets a worrisome precedent that problematic actors will be eager to cut-and-paste into future deals.

But, Satloff explains, some of these problems could be fixed. For instance, the U.S. could promise “to punish Hamas through measures such as securing the arrest and extradition of Hamas leaders who reside in Qatar and elsewhere.” Thus far, Washington has made no indication that such steps have even been considered.

In a recent episode of 60 Minutes, a former State Department official tells the interviewer that U.S. support for Israel following October 7 has “put a target on America’s back” in the Arab world “and beyond the Arab world.” The complaint is a familiar one: Middle Easterners hate the United States because of its closeness to the Jewish state. But this gets things exactly backward. Just look at the rhetoric of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its various Arab proxies: America is the “Great Satan” and Israel is but the “Little Satan.”

Why, then, does Iran see the U.S. as the world’s primary source of evil? The usual answer invokes the shah’s 1953 ouster of his prime minister, but the truth is that this wasn’t the subversion of democracy it’s usually made out to be, and the CIA’s role has been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, Ladan Boroumand points out,

the 1953 coup was welcomed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, [the architect of the 1979 Islamic Revolution], and would not have succeeded without the active complicity of proponents of political Islam. And . . . the United States not only refrained from opposing the Islamic Revolution but inadvertently supported its emergence and empowered its agents. How then could . . . Ayatollah Khomeini’s virulent enmity toward the United States be explained or excused?

Khomeini’s animosity toward the shah and the United States traces back to 1963–64, when the shah initiated sweeping social reforms that included granting women the right to vote and to run for office and extending religious minorities’ political rights. These reforms prompted the pro-shah cleric of 1953 to become his vocal critic. It wasn’t the shah’s autocratic rule that incited Khomeini’s opposition, but rather the liberal nature of his autocratically implemented social reforms.

There is no need for particular interpretive skill to comprehend the substance of Khomeini’s message: as Satan, America embodies the temptation that seduces Iranian citizens into sin and falsehood. “Human rights” and “democracy” are America’s tools for luring sinful and deviant citizens into conspiring against the government of God established by the ayatollah.

Or, as George W. Bush put it, jihadists hate America because “they hate our freedoms.”