Through a network of proxy forces and regional allies, together with its own special forces, Iran has established indirect or de-facto control over much of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. David Daoud explains the history of this empire and the ideology behind it:

Most [of Iran’s proxies] are Shiite Islamists who adhere to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s extremist concept of “Absolute wilayat al-faqih” (guardianship of the jurist). . . . In many ways at odds with traditional Shiite jurisprudence—which emphasized political quietism—Khomeini’s innovative ideology declared Islamic jurists to be the only true source of religious and political authority. Their pronouncements must be obeyed “as an expression of obedience to God,” and their rule takes “precedence over all secondary ordinances [of Islam] such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage.” . . .

Hatred of the West and combating its various founding ideologies—capitalism, secularism, communism, and Zionism—was integral to Khomeini’s ideology. . . . [He] singled out the United States for special opprobrium. This was a theme he constantly preached over the course of his religious and political career. . . .

Ayatollah Khamenei [Iran’s current ruler], has not abandoned his predecessor’s ideological path, and over the past three decades—first as president and then as supreme leader—he has expressed his contempt for the U.S. with remarkable consistency. Many . . . of his closest confidantes have claimed that this is an outgrowth of his adherence to Khomeini’s belief that the Islamic Republic and the United States can only have a relationship akin to that between “a wolf and a sheep,” with Khamenei emphasizing that “the conflict and confrontation between the two is something natural and unavoidable. . . .”

Iran’s anti-Western animosity and enmity—particularly focused against the United States and Israel—is a critical component of the Islamic Republic’s political culture and policies. Its Shiite proxies, which by and large have sworn fealty to the Iranian Supreme Leader, echo the views of the man whose words they view as, in essence, the vicarious and infallible word of God.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.