In the past several years, Tehran has transformed Lebanon, Syria, and the Houthi-dominated parts of Yemen into client states, and has come close to doing the same with Iraq. Meanwhile, Tajikistan, which in 2015 began to grow close to Saudi Arabia and has carried out a massive crackdown on the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood has now also showed signs of reverting to the Iranian sphere of influence. James Dorsey writes:

Driving the patching up of differences [between Tehran and Dushanbe] is the fact that landlocked Tajikistan, like its neighbor Uzbekistan, needs access to Iranian ports, including the Indian-backed one in Chabahar at the top of the Arabian Sea, which offer the cheapest and shortest transportation options. Iran’s attractiveness to Central Asian nations increases the Islamic Republic’s importance to the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s infrastructure-, transportation-, and energy-driven plan to connect the Eurasian landmass to Beijing.

In nearby Uzbekistan, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has been slowly moving his country into the Iranian orbit as well:

Already a vital node for Uzbek exports and imports, Iran is written all over Mirziyoyev’s new transportation-infrastructure plans. A decree issued in late 2017 identified Uzbekistan-Turkmenistan-Iran-Oman, China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan, and three trans-Afghan corridors as key to the . . . Uzbek plans [that] envision extending [a] rail line being extended to the Afghan city of Herat, from where it would branch out to the Iranian ports of Bandar Abbas, Chabahar, and Bazargan.

Thus, despite U.S. sanctions, Iran may be outmaneuvering Saudi Arabia in the contest for influence in these Muslim-majority countries.

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.