After more than two years of crippling sanctions, the Islamic Republic got “a new lease on life” once Joe Biden entered the White House, write Richard Goldberg and Jacob Nagel. The current administration, hoping to return to the 2015 nuclear deal or renegotiate a “longer and stronger” version, has unfrozen Iranian assets and shielded the ayatollahs from international censure over their nuclear program. But, argue Nagel and Goldberg, it’s not too late to change course:

In coordination with U.S. allies in Europe, the Biden administration should request an immediate special meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board—before its November meeting—to hold Iran accountable for its wide range of illicit conduct. This should be followed quickly with a formal resolution, at next month’s quarterly board meeting, that censures Iran not just for its [elevated uranium] enrichment and the limited access [it has allowed] to inspectors, but also for its non-compliance with a now three-year-old safeguards investigation.

Biden and his senior advisers need to recognize that after more than eight months of squandering U.S. economic leverage and allowing Iran vastly to increase its nuclear leverage, [any further attempt to appease Iran] leads back neither to the 2015 nuclear deal nor to a longer and stronger deal. Instead, it leads to something even worse: the so-called path of “less for less,” where the U.S. provides “partial” sanctions relief for “partial” Iranian nuclear concessions.

“Partial sanctions relief” for “partial nuclear steps” may sound appealing on its face but when dealing with a regime whose expertise is hobbling along with limited financial resources, partial sanctions relief is the very outcome the mullahs now seek. It will allow them to continue their supporting terror all over the world and bag their nuclear advances as a new baseline for future negotiations. As we saw in 2013, an interim agreement that grants partial sanctions relief and removes all U.S. leverage ends up becoming a flawed final deal.

The Biden administration is fond of saying that U.S. leadership at multilateral institutions like the IAEA “is back.” The world will be watching . . . to see if that’s really true.

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.