On Friday, the U.S. struck 85 Tehran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria in retaliation for the killing of three of its soldiers in Jordan. The next day, America was joined by the UK in bombing military facilities belonging to the Houthis, another Iranian proxy, throughout Yemen. The guerrillas likely had the opportunity to remove essential equipment and personnel from the targets beforehand, given that the White House spent a week warning that the attacks were imminent.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, in an article published just before last weekend’s strikes, examines what actions Washington would have to take to deter further attacks. Measured against his suggestions, the American response seems feeble indeed:

It’s hard to imagine any scenario—apart from a direct attack on Iran—in which the clerical regime ceases and desists. And any assault would need to be highly destructive, as a direct Western strike that leaves Iran’s nuclear-weapons program unscathed doesn’t make much sense.

Tehran will surely keep pushing the envelope unless the United States or Israel pushes back far harder. The clerical regime may pause its operations or claim that proxies are beyond its control—but success breeds aggression. So does the regime’s conception of itself as an Islamist paladin battling American and Zionist imperialism.

As a result, if Washington responds to the attack in Jordan with just another air strike against Iranian-supported militias, or even Iranian deployments in Syria, this likely won’t alter Ayatollah Ruhollah Khamenei’s calculations. Only something shockingly different—U.S. attacks against Revolutionary Guard targets inside Iran, and the openly declared threat of insurmountable American escalation—has a decent chance of convincing the clerics that the past is no longer prologue.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”