For much of the past ten years, Beijing has systematically expanded its influence into the Middle East, particularly through its Belt and Road infrastructure and investment initiative. It seeks, according to Eyck Freymann, to become a major player in the region while minimizing its investment of blood and treasure. And while it has not yet started to challenge the U.S. directly, Freymann argues that its ultimate aim is to gain at Washington’s expense:

If China’s goal is to achieve influence without entanglement in the Middle East, the Belt and Road is succeeding brilliantly. The list of countries that have endorsed the initiative and committed in one form or another to partnering with it includes Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. That alone should be a wake-up call to Washington. These countries agree on almost nothing—but they all want closer ties with China.

Most problematic for U.S. national interests is the strategic partnership between China and Iran. Iranian domestic politics is divided between a moderately pro-China reformist faction and an ultra-pro-China hardliner faction that has enthusiastically embraced the Belt and Road. . . . China has made large purchases of Iranian crude oil and sold telecom supplies to Iran, in violation of sanctions, and it is currently negotiating an agreement for Jask, a port outside the Strait of Hormuz.

The two countries were supposed to conduct joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean last week. (China pulled out at the last minute, citing its New Year’s holiday.) Whether or not the money materializes on the promised timetable, the expectation of Chinese backing will induce Tehran to drive a harder bargain in nuclear negotiations with the Biden administration.

[Moreover], the United States has an extremely important interest in preventing China from backing Hizballah and hostile Shiite factions in Iraq that threaten U.S. allies and assets in the region. China did not unleash the torrent of investment in Lebanon that Hizballah requested last summer, but the United States should continue to communicate to Beijing that it will face costs if it backs Hizballah.

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.