On October 31, the American envoy to Iran Robert Malley stated that the U.S. does not wish to “waste [its] time” pursuing a renewed nuclear deal with Tehran. Yet Washington has not formally broken off negotiations, nor has it invoked the “snapback” mechanism that would restore international sanctions to their pre-2015 state. David Albright and Henrik Rasmussen argue that, with public opinion turning against Iran due to its support for Russia and violent repression of protests, America and its European allies should do just that. But sanctions should only be the first step:

Second, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be empowered to investigate and monitor Iran’s nuclear program more fully. Today, Iran can produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon in less than two weeks, and the IAEA has demonstrated Iran’s violations of its commitment to . . . declare its nuclear activities and maintain a purely peaceful nuclear program. Iran is steadfast in not cooperating with the inspectors, which suggests the regime is protecting a secret nuclear-weapons program and waiting for the right time to build nuclear weapons. . . . Iran’s noncooperation and violations of its safeguards agreement should lead to an IAEA Board of Governors’ referral to the UN Security Council, further isolating Iran.

Third, the West must develop a credible strategy of deterrence by denial, including robust missile-defense capabilities. These capabilities are woefully inadequate to confront Iran’s drone and missile fleets, whether in Ukraine, the eastern flank of NATO, or the Persian Gulf region.

Fourth, the Western powers should get serious about offensive military options to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities if Iran moves to divert nuclear material, kicks out the inspectors, withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or moves to build nuclear weapons.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal rightly call the Biden administration’s new policy an arms embargo. (Subscription required.)

The administration would like to focus on the denial of 2,000-pound bombs, which it says are too destructive. Never mind that a professional force can employ them in a manner that restricts the radius of damage. Mr. Biden is also halting a shipment of 500-pound bombs and holding up Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which convert unguided bombs into precision “smart” bombs. Politico reports that small-diameter bombs are being withheld. The Journal adds that the Biden administration has been sitting on a deal that includes tank shells and mortar rounds.

The message from the White House, in other words, is that Israel shouldn’t have large bombs or small bombs, dumb bombs or smart bombs, and let it do without tanks and artillery too. Now isn’t a good time to send the weapons, you see, because Israel would use them.

But it’s even worse than that: withholding the JDAMs in effect encourages Israel to use dumb bombs in instances when precision weapons would be more effective, and less likely to cause harm to bystanders. And then there is the twisted logic behind the decision:

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other U.S. officials explain that the goal of the embargo—which they present as a “pause” or “review”—is to prevent a wider Israeli attack on the Hamas stronghold of Rafah. This is the terrorists’ reward for using civilians as human shields.

It hasn’t been four weeks since Iran attacked Israel directly, in the largest drone attack in history, plus 150 or so ballistic and cruise missiles. . . . Israel needs to be ready now, and its enemies need to know the U.S. stands behind it.