In the past several days, protests in Iran have grown in size and intensity, with crowds now chanting “Death to Palestine!” (an alternative to the usual “Death to Israel!”) and even “Death to the Dictator!” (in reference to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei). Meanwhile, writes Amir Taheri, there remain many Americans in positions of influence who refuse to believe the Islamic Republic is a brutal dictatorship and thereby perpetuate false alternatives for dealing with it:

The pro-Khomeinist chorus builds its case on [the] notion [that] in dealing with the Islamic Republic, the choice is only between surrendering to its every whim or total military invasion. In her latest book, Fascism: A Warning, the former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright reduces policy on Iran to a simple question: “Do we want to repeat the adventure in Iraq?” . . . Ben Rhodes, a former national-security assistant to President Barack Obama, [sees] Iran . . . as a model for the Middle East. . . .

Successive American presidents have worked hard to persuade the Khomeinist regime in Tehran to modify aspects of its foreign policy, so far with no success. The reason may be the inability or unwillingness of successive U.S. presidents, and a good part of the American political and cultural elite, to . . . understand the nature of the Khomeinist regime.

Jimmy Carter believed the Khomeinist seizure of power represented the return of religion to the center of public life. Members of his administration described Khomeini as “a holy man” and “the Gandhi of Islam.” . . . President Bill Clinton saw the Khomeinist regime as “progressivist,” a view shared by many American liberals who think anti-Americanism is the surest sign of progressive beliefs. . . .

This regime has executed tens of thousands of Iranians, driven almost six million into exile, and deprived the nation of its basic freedoms. It has also killed more Americans, often through surrogates, than al-Qaeda did on 9/11. Not a single day has passed without this regime holding some Americans, and others, hostages. . . .

The same lobbyists [in the West who portray the ayatollahs as benign] discourage any attempt by the major powers to adopt a policy aimed at helping, persuading, and cajoling Iran into restoring its identity as a nation-state and behaving like one by closing the chapter of a revolution that has plunged Iran and a good chunk of the Middle East into conflict and uncertainty.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.