The close cooperation between Iran and Russia, countries that cemented their alliance when their forces fought side by side in Syria, is a geopolitical reality that has little purchase in the American political conversation. Thus, observes John Podhoretz, neither candidate was able to make much of a coherent foreign-policy statement in Tuesday’s presidential debate:

Simply put, Kamala Harris cannot say that America wants Israel to win its war in Gaza, and Donald Trump cannot say he wants Ukraine to win the war with Russia. Both effectively said the same thing about these different conflicts.

On Gaza, Harris said we need a ceasefire now, today, right this second, immediately, forthwith, so that we can get right back on that path to a two-state solution, which is a little like saying we need to get on a path to a sequel to Howard the Duck. She claims to be a supporter of Israel’s defense and its right to protect itself. She says she wants an end to the killing in Gaza.

[But] what an immediate ceasefire in Gaza today, this second, means is this: Israel will not finish the job. Israel will not complete its task of finishing off Hamas. It means it will have gotten 80-90 percent of the way there and then halted before unconditional surrender.

Harris cannot say she wants Israel to win because she does not want Israel to win.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.