Founded just after the 1979 revolution, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fields elite military and paramilitary units (now deployed throughout Iraq and Syria), engages in clandestine activities and support for terror abroad, and is responsible for the country’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. It also exerts sizable political influence and controls a significant portion of the Islamic Republic’s economy. In a comprehensive study, Emanuele Ottolenghi, Saeed Ghasseminejad, Annie Fixler, and Amir Toumaj explain the various avenues through which the nuclear agreement grants the IRGC new sources of funding, and what can be done to restrict these without violating the deal’s terms:

Neither the U.S. nor the EU has sanctioned the vast majority of IRGC-linked companies. We have identified at least 229 companies with significant IRGC influence, either through equity shares or positions on the board of directors. The U.S. Treasury, however, has only sanctioned 25 IRGC individuals, 25 companies, and two academic institutions as owned or controlled by the IRGC. . . .

[As the nuclear deal is implemented and] export and trade restrictions are lifted, previously prohibited Western technology will make its way back to Iran. The challenge of denying the IRGC access to banned technology—including dual-use technology and equipment for monitoring dissidents—will become even more arduous. The demise of sanctions may also facilitate the acquisition of advanced weaponry that will improve Tehran’s conventional military capabilities, including the capabilities of the IRGC, which in turn may trickle down and enhance its ability to support the Syrian regime, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Houthi rebels in Yemen, to name a few.

[Furthermore], the United States and European Union have lifted specific sanctions against strategic sectors of the Iranian economy. We judge that [these] sectors are important for two reasons: the IRGC has an overwhelming stake in these sectors, and the sectors combined account for nearly half of Iran’s total GDP. Additionally, . . . these sectors are important to Iran’s ballistic-missile development.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.