To read the critics of the Trump administration’s current Iran policy, one might think that Tehran had fully observed the terms of the 2015 agreement until well after the U.S. renounced it, or even that it has not yet violated the terms at all. Not so, writes Emily Landau. While the Islamic Republic abided by limits on how much uranium it could enrich and on the size of its stockpiles of heavy water and already-enriched uranium, it violated the deal in ways that are in fact of greater concern, among them:

[T]he underground and heavily fortified uranium-enrichment facility at Fordow has not been reconfigured as stipulated by the deal. [Moreover], the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found traces of radioactive material from soil samples that were taken from the nuclear warehouse in Tehran in April 2019. [Such] incriminating evidence of radioactive material being stored there up until 2018 clearly [demonstrates] violation of the deal. Oddly enough, the IAEA has not yet released an official statement on this finding, nor did the agency include reference to it in its June 2019 report.

[There have, moreover, been] several reports from German intelligence services over the past few years regarding Iran’s continued efforts to procure equipment or materials that can be used in a nuclear-weapons program. The efforts were thwarted, but it is not clear why these ongoing Iranian efforts—including using front companies to hide the identity of the end user, Iran—are not garnering more international attention.

Iran has [also] installed 33 advanced IR-6 centrifuges, which is more than it should at year four of the deal. This issue exposes another difficulty with the agreement—language that is not entirely precise about whether this constitutes a violation of the deal or not, although it is surely not in line with the spirit of the deal.

The picture of Iran as the innocent party complying with the agreement, while the U.S. is in breach, is thus clearly inaccurate. The current tensions are not due to the Trump administration leaving the deal, but rather to the serious flaws in the deal that led the U.S. to withdraw, as well as Iran’s non-cooperative and bad-faith behavior that has continued since [the deal was finalized].

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.