During the current war in Ukraine, Russia has launched some 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles. A barrage of this scope and scale, as Maya Carlin points out, is “unprecedented in the realm of 21st-century warfare.” It may also serve as a model for the Islamic Republic:

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Russian military bear parallel strategy and tactical capacity to some degree. Iran has witnessed Russia’s inability to project air superiority over Ukraine and observed its consequential reliance on its missile arsenal to maintain an upper hand over its perceived enemy. In recent years, the IRGC has depended on the development of its missile arsenal to serve as a critical tool of deterrence. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proved the merits of this strategy.

In the last five years or so, Iran’s missile arsenal has greatly expanded to include highly accurate ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. While Iran perhaps first began to prioritize its missile development with the ultimate ambition of using them as nuclear delivery systems, the regime’s success in utilizing these weapons in recent conflicts and missions has proved ulterior usefulness. The IRGC has used its newly advanced arsenal to conduct attacks targeting Islamic State in Syria, oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. Iran has also been supplying its militias across the region with more lethal explosive-laden drones.

Iran’s emphasis on its missile capabilities is even spelled out in an internal bulletin from the IRGC. It reads, “Missiles, by building the balance of fear, can prevent war and will force adversaries to resort to diplomacy.” While this push to advance its missile arsenal began years before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing conflict has strengthened Iran’s assertion.

Of all its proxy militias, Iran has provided Hizballah with the most missiles—an estimated 130,000—some of which are quite sophisticated, and all of which are aimed at Israel.

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.