In recent days, Israeli jets have hit (without civilian casualties) some more symbolic targets in Iran, including the clock that putatively counts down to the destruction of the Jewish state and the doors to the notorious Evin prison. In a supreme irony, Amnesty International—an anti-American, anti-Israel organization nominally committed to freeing political prisoners—condemned Jerusalem for a strike on one of the world’s most horrifying political prisons.

Jonathan Sacerdoti comments:

We should be clear-eyed and unambiguous: this is a welcome development. Israel is striking not only to defend itself but to undermine one of the most repressive systems on earth. If Evin’s walls are breached and its victims walk free, that will be a day of liberation, for Iranians and for the foreign hostages whose only crime was to enter a country run by sadistic, ruthless hostage-takers.

Evin is infamous for holding foreign hostages and dual nationals, many of whom are detained by the regime as part of what human-rights groups call “hostage diplomacy.” It has long been associated with arbitrary detention, torture, forced confessions, and inhumane conditions, especially for political prisoners and those accused of spying or threatening national security.

The stories are harrowing. . . . The mutilated corpse of Jamshid “Jimmy” Sharmahd was recently returned to his family after the German‑Iranian journalist and software engineer had been abducted by Islamic Republic agents from Dubai in July 2020, and reportedly held in Evin prison, enduring years of torture and the denial of medical care. He was murdered in October 2024, with neither the USA nor Germany having made appropriate efforts to free him and the other hostages.

The regime in Tehran does not act in isolation. It is emboldened by years of impunity. Western governments have, for too long, attempted to resolve these abductions quietly, bilaterally, and often secretively. The impulse is understandable: protect the hostages, avoid provocation, preserve diplomacy. But it has failed. Indeed, it has encouraged more detentions. The Islamic regime in Iran has learned that the West will negotiate, will relent, will pay. And so it has continued.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.