Examining the State Department spokesman Ned Price’s remarks on Monday regarding Washington’s approach to the Islamic Republic, Elliott Abrams detects two crucial points on which the administration has been unclear. The first relates to Price’s comment that, “if Iran returns to full compliance with the
[2015 nuclear] deal, the United States would be prepared to do the same.”

A return to the [nuclear agreement] would mean the lifting of the most significant economic sanctions on Iran. Once they are lifted—for example, sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, and on oil sales—how will the administration force or induce Iran to negotiate a new agreement that is “longer and stronger,” much less “negotiate follow-on agreements to cover other areas of concern, including Iran’s ballistic-missile program,” [as Price also promised it seeks to do]? Iran obviously does not want to do so and will agree only under enormous pressure, but the administration says its goal is to relieve that pressure.

The second question involves the spate of militia attacks American forces in Iraq. To his credit, Price was forthright that these militias are backed by Iran, but again the message was mixed. Abrams continues:

[S]ooner or later an American will be killed, sharpening the administration’s dilemma. . . . If Iran kills Americans and the president does not retaliate in some effective manner, he will be criticized for weakness—and rightly so.

As to [his statement that the U.S. will not] “risk an escalation,” Mr. Price is on dangerous territory indeed. . . . [I]t is very dangerous for the United States to appear to fear “escalation.” Price’s comment will be read around the world. . . . Iran has a great deal to lose from escalating a confrontation with the United States. If Iran appears fearless and the Biden administration by contrast fearful, there will be a price to pay for the United States. Price’s phrasing gives Iran every incentive to escalate its attacks on Americans in Iraq.

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.