In his address to the UN General Assembly two weeks ago, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared that “Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is at a critical point” and that “all red lines have been crossed.” This is no mere rhetoric, argues Joab Rosenberg; Tehran’s recent decision to enrich uranium to 60 percent and to begin work converting the substance into a metal bring it is perilously close to having a nuclear bomb. To understand what it might do next, Rosenberg turns to the nuclear program’s history:

Despite Iran’s ongoing denials, it is very clear that it was running a broad-ranging nuclear-weapons program in the 1990s and up until around 2004. . . . In 2003–2004, in a major shift, the leadership in Tehran changed the course of its nuclear program. It froze [much of the program at that point], while continuing to work on dual-use projects rather than on the direct development of nuclear weapons. [This] change of course . . . was driven by the impact of events of 9/11 and the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Iraq; it was meant to deflect Iran’s inclusion in the “axis of evil” by President Bush.

In 2021 Iran has seen the U.S. leave Afghanistan, and Washington may soon be withdrawing its forces from Iraq. . . . Little is left of the . . . once looming threat that led Tehran to wonder whether Iran may be next. . . . Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can already judge that his major decisions—to allow enrichment to 60 percent and to start working on enriched uranium metal—did not lead to a firm response from the international community, other than empty declarations and statements.

It is still possible to pray that good diplomatic skills will bring Iran back into the 2015 nuclear deal, or a version thereof. But it is now just as probable that the Iranians are actually “breaking out,” . . . despite the fact it is a different “break out” than any of the experts had predicted: acquiring military-grade fissile material while still avowing that they do not seek a weapon. . . . The time for stopping Iran may be running out as we speak.

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.