Yesterday was the twentieth anniversary of the coordinated truck-bombings, carried out by al-Qaeda, of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania—which left 224 dead and thousands wounded. In planning the bombing, its most deadly attack prior to September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda received help and training from Iran and its proxy Hizballah, and it seems that Osama bin Laden deliberately modeled the attack on Hizballah’s 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Thomas Joscelyn writes:

In early November 1998, the U.S. government indicted various al-Qaeda members for the embassy bombings. The indictment included this sentence: “Al-Qaeda also forged alliances with . . . the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hizballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.” . . . [O]fficial sources continued to build upon [this allegation] in the years that followed. . . .

Ali Mohamed agreed to a plea deal as part of the embassy bombing proceedings. . . . Here is . . . what Mohamed said about al-Qaeda’s relations with Iran and Hizballah: “I was aware of certain contacts between al-Qaeda and . . . Iran and Hizballah on the other side. I arranged security for a meeting in the Sudan between [Imad] Mughniyeh, Hizballah’s chief [of operations], and bin Laden. Hizballah provided explosives training for al-Qaeda. . . . Iran supplied Egyptian Jihad [an affiliated organization that later merged with al-Qaeda] with weapons. Iran also used Hizballah to supply explosives that were disguised to look like rocks. . . .

Some commentators, including a former Obama administration official, impugn the motives of anyone who raises the issue of Iran’s relationship with al-Qaeda. They argue that this is all about justifying a war with Iran. That is an attempt to change the conversation.

But facts are stubborn. The evidence [of collaboration between Iran and al-Qaeda] comes from Clinton-era federal prosecutors, al-Qaeda witnesses, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, and Clinton-era intelligence reports. To this list we may add a string of additional official pronouncements. Between July 2011 and July 2016, the Obama administration’s own Treasury and State Departments repeatedly pointed to a separate “agreement” between the Iranian regime and al-Qaeda. This arrangement allows al-Qaeda to operate its “core facilitation pipeline” on Iranian soil.

This is not all there is to Iran’s dealings with al-Qaeda. There have been multiple antagonistic episodes between the two sides. . . . Yet some al-Qaeda leaders have managed to maintain a foothold inside Iran despite of the conflict between the [two].

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.