According to the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement, the U.S. was obligated to decide last Wednesday whether to renew a waiver of sanctions against Iranian oil exports or declare Tehran in violation of the agreement and allow the sanctions to go back into effect. President Trump chose to sign the waiver, despite his campaign rhetoric condemning the deal. But, writes John Hannah, this decision hardly means that the Trump administration has gone soft in dealing with the Islamic Republic; on the same day, the White House issued seven new sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Iran’s ballistic-missile program. And that’s not all:

The clear message [of America’s actions]: while holding its nose to grapple with the detritus of Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, the Trump team won’t hesitate to punch the mullahs in their collective schnoz. Obama seemed paralyzed from taking action to counter Iran’s malign activities for fear of jeopardizing the nuclear deal. So long as the Iranians didn’t cheat too egregiously on their nuclear commitments, they had a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for their broader assault on U.S. interests—from aiding and abetting mass murder in Syria to the development of long-range ballistic missiles. With Wednesday’s designations and the damning human-rights report [recently released by the State Department], the administration is signaling that the days of U.S. self-deterrence with respect to Iran are numbered. . . .

Limited as [last week’s] punitive action was, it came just two days before Iran’s presidential elections. . . . No more misguided efforts to modulate U.S. policy to strengthen some band of faux “moderates” over the dreaded hardliners. . . .

[Furthermore], none of this comes in a vacuum. Putting Iran “on notice.” Cruise-missile strikes and nearly 300 new [sanctions] designations against the Assad regime. The revitalization of U.S. alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states. . . . [Last week’s] waiver renewal should be cold comfort for the mullahs.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”