Yesterday, Israel was attacked by Hizballah drones in the north (injuring two civilians), as well as rocket fire from Gaza. Yet Israelis, along with the Pentagon, expect that these are just a prelude to the larger and more dramatic assault Iran is planning. Among the various groups likely participating in such an attack would be the network of Iran-backed Shiite militias operating in Iraq. These same militias fired two rockets at a U.S. base in western Iraq on Monday, injuring seven Americans. Yaron Schneider takes a close look at these groups:

Since early November 2023, . . . Iraqi militias have claimed responsibility for more than 100 missile and drone launches targeting Israeli targets and have carried out some 200 strikes against bases in Iraq and Syria where both U.S. forces and those of the international coalition against Islamic State are stationed. The attacks against U.S. targets have declined considerably after an incident in late January 2024, in which three U.S. soldiers were killed by a drone at a base in Jordan.

Another development that poses a high security risk for Israel is the efforts of Iraqi militias to infiltrate into Jordan to carry out cross-border terrorist acts into Israeli territory. This is in addition to, and possibly part of, attempts by Iran and its agents to smuggle arms through Jordan and provide assistance to Palestinian terrorist organizations in the war against Israel.

[An] analysis of current trends shows that the attacks from Iraq since the beginning of the war have been on the rise, as has the severity of the threats from the Iraqi militias with Iranian encouragement. Even if Israel is currently focused on the main fronts in the south and north, it should prepare to deal with all these scenarios, including working together with the United States and its allies in the region, as part of the regional confrontation against Iran.

In 2003, the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, spooked by the American display of might in Iraq, decided to destroy or surrender his entire nuclear program. Informed observers have suggested that the deal he made with the U.S. should serve as a model for any agreement with Iran. Robert Joseph provides some useful background:

Gaddafi had convinced himself that Libya would be next on the U.S. target list after Iraq. There was no reason or need to threaten Libya with bombing as Gaddafi was quick to tell almost every visitor that he did not want to be Saddam Hussein. The images of Saddam being pulled from his spider hole . . . played on his mind.

President Bush’s goal was to have Libya serve as an alternative model to Iraq. Instead of war, proliferators would give up their nuclear programs in exchange for relief from economic and political sanctions.

Any outcome that permits Iran to enrich uranium at any level will fail the one standard that President Trump has established: Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Limiting enrichment even to low levels will allow Iran to break out of the agreement at any time, no matter what the agreement says.

Iran is not a normal government that observes the rules of international behavior or fair “dealmaking.” This is a regime that relies on regional terror and brutal repression of its citizens to stay in power. It has a long history of using negotiations to expand its nuclear program. Its negotiating tactics are clear: extend the negotiations as long as possible and meet any concession with more demands.