After over six months of escalating attacks on Washington’s allies and assets in the Middle East, Tehran has taken two steps too far: first, attacking a U.S. base in Iraq and killing an American citizen, and then responding to retaliatory airstrikes with an attack on the American embassy in Baghdad. The U.S. counterattack killed the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani and one of his most important Iraqi allies. In doing so, argues Assaf Orion, Washington has threatened the way of war that until now has brought the Islamic Republic so much success:

Suleimani’s demise came after multiple misjudgments by Iran’s leadership, [which, most importantly], failed to know its enemy. Mistaking a sleeping lion for a dead one, Tehran assumed that the United States’ reluctance to respond forcefully to its provocations extended linearly beyond the final red line: American blood.

Defying binary peace-or-war distinctions, . . . Iran’s way of war thrives in the gray zone. Tehran fights its enemies in a slow-burning, undeclared twilight war under its victims’ threshold of response. Fighting from other peoples’ lands keeps battles away from Iran’s territory. Attacking by other peoples’ hands saves Iranian blood. In its slow-motion campaign of expansion, Iran trains, funds, arms, and commands local proxy militias throughout the Middle East. While the proxies take the brunt of the battles, bearing the costs, Iran only covers expenses.

Iran’s success, however, depends on its enemies accepting its rules. . . . Iran has long been at war with the United States, though undeclared and unilateral. Until lately, this war was shaped by Iran’s strategy and fought in Iran’s comfort zone, to America’s detriment.

“The highest form of warfare,” said Sun Tzu, “is to attack strategy itself.” The American strike on Suleimani and its follow-up messaging did just that, not only depriving Iran of its top revolutionary diplomat-strategist but shaking the fundamentals of its strategy. The United States demonstrated that Iran’s attacks by proxy do not grant its forces, and possibly its territory, immunity from direct retribution. It showed that American restraint is not something to take for granted, and that a seemingly calculated challenge thought to be “below the threshold” may seriously misfire. . . . But most importantly, the U.S. finally recognized the undeclared state of war with Iran and began adapting accordingly.

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.