Leading the ongoing battle to free the Iraqi city of Fallujah from the clutches of Islamic State (IS) is a group of Iran-backed Shiite militias who have the support of Baghdad and are working in cooperation with the U.S.-led coalition. These militias have been executing locals Sunnis, and some 600 men are now reported missing. Max Boot writes:

This is not how the Iraqi forces should behave if they are interested in winning “hearts and minds” among members of the Sunni community. But that’s not what the militias are interested in—they want revenge for various wrongs done to Shiites by groups such as IS and they see all Sunnis, no matter how innocent, as equally guilty. Such behavior will make it impossible for the government in Baghdad to pacify the country. Sunnis will resist this kind of oppression long after IS is defeated.

This type of sectarian violence does not serve Iraq’s interests, but it is very much in the interests of Iran, which has become America’s de-facto partner in the anti-IS campaign. . . .

[L]ike Syria, Iraq may be consigned to a semi-permanent state of civil war [between Sunnis and Shiites, or among the various Shiite militias once IS is defeated]. That is terrible news for that country’s interests and our own, but it will suit Iran just fine. It will also be just fine for Sunni extremists, whether aligned with IS, Nusra Front, or some other organization. Extremists thrive on turmoil. . . .

[W]e shouldn’t make the mistake of defeating one Islamic state simply to make way for another one.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”