In late January, the Islamic Republic tested a ballistic missile. As the nuclear deal makes no mention of such missiles—despite the fact that they are designed to deliver nuclear warheads—and the deal’s accompanying UN resolution loosens previous restrictions on Tehran’s missile program, the ayatollahs could press the claim, however dubious, that the test was legal. But after a firm reaction from the American government, Iran canceled a subsequent planned missile test. Emily Landau sees this as a sign that the new U.S. approach is working:

The Trump administration is not buying Iran’s excuses—and for good reason: Iran’s attempt to explain away any wrongdoing through such legalistic gymnastics rests on very shaky ground. The reality that Iran refuses to acknowledge is that it actually did work on [an illegal] military nuclear program in the past and it never demonstrated that it left those ambitions behind. . . . [Thus] there is no reason to believe that Iran will never equip its nuclear-capable missiles with a nuclear warhead; therefore, these missiles could very well have been (and most likely were) designed with that in mind. . . .

[T]he Trump administration responded to the latest missile test quickly and firmly. It immediately called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the test, and the national security adviser, Michael Flynn (who has since resigned), then issued a statement that “put Iran on notice” while informing the Iranians that the U.S. will no longer be turning a blind eye to their provocations. Sanctions were quickly imposed on 25 Iranian individuals and companies involved in Iran’s ballistic-missile program and with connections to terrorist activities. . . .

“Putting Iran on notice” puts Tehran off balance—a desired result. It means Iran must be very careful because it does not know what action will trigger which response. From initial Iranian reactions, it seems that the deterrence is working: Iran is not sure what Trump might do, and Iranian media, [which in fact reflect the opinions of the government, have “advised”] Iran’s leaders not to do anything that might give President Trump an excuse to attack. . . .

It is, indeed, the absence of response that has emboldened and strengthened Iran. . . . Provocations necessitate a firm response, which is what the Trump administration has finally provided.

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.”