Iran’s oil exports have already dropped precipitously in anticipation of the reintroduction of U.S. sanctions, and this month its ministers of finance and labor, along with the head of its central bank, have been pushed out of office. These and other, similar signs suggest that the Islamic Republic is already suffering from Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. Now, argue Richard Goldberg and Jacob Nagel, the U.S. ought to take even harsher economic measures, which could—notwithstanding the supreme leader’s avowed refusal to hold talks—force Tehran to accept effective restrictions on its nuclear program:

Iran’s rejection of talks makes sense for now. The toughest sanctions suspended under the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, are not scheduled to return until November. That gives Germany, Turkey, Russia, and other countries doing business with Iran two more months to find workarounds that can help the regime survive, including pressuring the Belgium-based SWIFT financial-messaging service to keep Iran’s Central Bank connected to the international financial system. Iran, therefore, will want to wait for November to see whether any countries are successful in evading U.S. sanctions and, most importantly, whether their banks remain connected to SWIFT.

In addition to plotting various sanctions-evasion schemes, Iran’s leaders also might try to expand their nuclear and missile activities in hopes of regaining leverage. The Trump administration would be wise to focus on both tracks. Maximum pressure should come with maximum isolation, particularly in nuclear and missile sciences, to slow any regime attempt to advance its weapons program.

Though often overshadowed by high-profile oil and financial sanctions, key restrictions targeting civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran will return in November, too. Hundreds of people inside Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Defense Ministry, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will return to the U.S. Treasury Department’s blacklist. Under U.S. law, the procurement channel to Iran established by the nuclear deal will be off-limits to all foreign companies, including banks and insurers. Stopping the sale of dual-use equipment will again become a U.S. priority. . . .

These steps, alongside a sustained financial-warfare campaign, could be enough to convince the supreme leader that his regime’s only chance of survival is behavioral change. To increase the pressure, the Trump administration should target SWIFT’s board members with sanctions unless the cooperative disconnects Iranian banks. Trump should also consider imposing sanctions on the financial sector of Iran in its entirety, and blacklisting any other economic sector in Iran that has ties to the IRGC.

While the current Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has never been friendly to Hamas, his government has objected strenuously to the Israeli campaign in the southernmost part of the Gaza Strip. Haisam Hassanein explains why:

Cairo has long been playing a double game, holding Hamas terrorists near while simultaneously trying to appear helpful to the United States and Israel. Israel taking control of Rafah threatens Egypt’s ability to exploit the chaos in Gaza, both to generate profits for regime insiders and so Cairo can pose as an indispensable mediator and preserve access to U.S. money and arms.

Egyptian security officials have looked the other way while Hamas and other Palestinian militants dug tunnels on the Egyptian-Gaza border. That gave Cairo the ability to use the situation in Gaza as a tool for regional influence and to ensure Egypt’s role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would not be eclipsed by regional competitors such as Qatar and Turkey.

Some elements close to the Sisi regime have benefited from Hamas control over Gaza and the Rafah crossing. Media reports indicate an Egyptian company run by one of Sisi’s close allies is making hundreds of millions of dollars by taxing Gazans fleeing the current conflict.

Moreover, writes Judith Miller, the Gaza war has been a godsend to the entire Egyptian economy, which was in dire straits last fall. Since October 7, the International Monetary Fund has given the country a much-needed injection of cash, since the U.S. and other Western countries believe it is a necessary intermediary and stabilizing force. Cairo therefore sees the continuation of the war, rather than an Israeli victory, as most desirable. Hassanein concludes:

Adding to its financial incentive, the Sisi regime views the Rafah crossing as a crucial card in preserving Cairo’s regional standing. Holding it increases Egypt’s relevance to countries that want to send aid to the Palestinians and ensures Washington stays quiet about Egypt’s gross human-rights violations so it can maintain a stable flow of U.S. assistance and weaponry. . . . No serious effort to turn the page on Hamas will yield the desired results without cutting this umbilical cord between the Sisi regime and Hamas.