Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, to take one example – an obviously well-intentioned and erudite example – insists that the path to peace may be to pressure Qatar to reject Hamas's new leader, Khaled Meshal to be extradited to the United States where he could be charged as a criminal. Khaled Meshal et al. are criminals in the same sense as Adolf Hitler et al. were arsonists and thieves – yes, of course, but crime itself plays a subordinate role. The right thing to do with Khaled Meshal is not to put him on trial, but to put him in the ground and then do the same to his successor be Successors and so on until Hamas ends up in the dustbin of history with the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. This can and should happen in Qatar if necessary: ​​Qatar is a 53-year-old state with fewer residents than the residents of Wichita, Kansas. It is an annoying, sometimes ally. Active cooperation with Qatar would be welcome, but not actually necessary.

It is not wrong to view Tehran's proxies as a kind of mafia, which is of course one aspect of what they are. (Understanding the Taliban as an organized crime syndicate might have helped the United States somewhat in Afghanistan a few years ago.) But simply removing senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders would leave a pool of Iranian (as well as Russian and Chinese) resources could rebuild these organizations in a relatively short period of time. Israel's goal, whether articulated or not, is to leave little or no basis for reconstruction. Washington should be upfront about what that means: a lot more fighting.

This brings us to the most pressing item on our list: A armistice should be the last thing Israelis want right now, and this fact has little to do with Benjamin Netanyahu's self-serving political calculations. The October 7 attack on Israel was an atrocity, but it was also a half-measure and a strategic miscalculation that presented Israel with an opportunity that it wanted to seize. Instead of a coordinated attack by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran's regular armed forces – the combined impact of which would have been devastating – Hamas (with Tehran's help and blessing) carried out the kind of operation the world has come to expect from the Palestinians' champions: One rooted in opportunism and cowardice. They rape and murder and kidnap women and children and unarmed civilians, and then when the Israelis respond, they cower, beg for humanitarian aid and, above all, demand an immediate ceasefire. The October 7 planners apparently believed that Israeli fear of Hezbollah would limit the scope of the Israeli response. The Israelis have decided to hand the fight over to Hezbollah rather than allow themselves to be intimidated.

As Kenneth Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute explained in a recent study rest Speaking to Jonah Goldberg, this miscalculation means that Tehran and its allies have given Israel the opportunity to respond to the next threats one at a time: first rout Hamas; He then turns his attention to Hezbollah, which has now lost significant numbers of fighters, senior leaders and about half of its missile arsenal. and next, probably a broader and more punitive campaign against Iran proper. The Israel Defense Forces have not only defeated their enemies, but have also humiliated them, such as with the Paging disaster and other acts that made Israel's enemies feel exposed. And Israel has done this with relatively few casualties. Under these circumstances, a ceasefire makes no sense – continuing the fight entails much more. With Hezbollah on its knees and the clouds of Iranian missiles and drones having relatively little effect, Tehran's ability to carry out this much-feared “escalation” – that's such a misleading word – is limited.

Washington should immediately put a stop to this silly, sentimental talk of a ceasefire.

And we Americans may remember that while it was not Americans who were the targets of racial annihilation or national subordination in World War II, it was Americans who set the simple terms of peace: unconditional surrender. The alternative offered to Japan in the Potsdam Declaration of 1945: “immediate and utter destruction.” Punctual and utter destruction is the necessary policy for Hamas and Hezbollah, and it would also be exemplary. Tehran, whose main deterrent against Israeli and U.S. action has just been destroyed, would do well to learn the lesson.

The last question – and it is, in my opinion, very much The final question concerns the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Help is coming from all sides: from Israel, of course, and from the United States, from Europe and from parts of the Arab world. Distributing this aid in the middle of war and in the presence of a horde of genocidal terrorists is predictably complicated. The situation in Gaza is indeed a crisis – a crisis created by Hamas, Tehran and their creators. The situation in Gaza was not created by Israel or the United States, although the Israelis and Americans are doing considerably more to provide relief to Gazans than most of the Palestinians' supposed allies. (Despite Antony Blinken's carping.) I hope that Palestinians will one day discover such self-respect enough to rise up against their oppressors, which can be found in Gaza, the West Bank, Qatar and Tehran. They are growing in relative security, while Palestinians suffer from poverty and persistent mismanagement. I am sure that the whole world would be very happy if the Arabs of Palestine threw off this yoke. They should fight Hamas and Hezbollah twice as hard as the Israelis.

The Middle East is incredibly complicated. But the American interest is fairly straightforward: Israel is our only reliable ally in the region, and Washington should work to ensure that it emerges from the conflict stronger and dominant; Iran is our worst and most implacable enemy in the region, and every missile and warplane it loses is good. That this is happening Now– before Iran has a nuclear weapon in use – the opportunity knocks very, very loud – louder than bombs – if anyone has ears to hear.