The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) establishes what it calls a “procurement channel”: a series of procedures and regulations for monitoring and restricting Iran’s purchase of goods that could be used for the illicit development of nuclear technology. In theory, write David Albright and Andrea Stricker, these procedures allow the U.S. and other concerned parties to stop suspicious purchases before they are completed. In practice, however, the procedures are riddled with complexities and obstructions. What’s more, Albright and Stricker argue, Russia and China have already begun to exploit the deal’s weaknesses:

Given the short time frames to act to block a [proposed purchase], efficiency and speed in the process are critical. According to P5+1 officials, Russia attempted to exploit the lack of clarity about procurement-channel rules and functions to weaken [the JCPOA’s] effectiveness, and has been supported by China in some of those endeavors. One official accused Russia of attempting to manipulate the whole process. Russia’s action may also polarize decision making at the Procurement Working Group (PWG) [the international committee tasked with implementing the procurement-channel regulations] by creating de-facto voting blocs, with Russia, China, and Iran on one side and the United States, Britain, France, and Germany on the other. Russia’s role overall appears to be to complicate the rejection of [procurement requests] within the tight guidelines imposed by the JCPOA and isolate certain sensitive exports from the procurement-channel process. . . .

[Furthermore], Iran has tried to argue, with Russian support, that anything military-related is not the business of the PWG. This argument in essence states that the PWG does not have jurisdiction over any imports by Iran’s military or missile industries, all of which need a considerable amount of dual-use equipment. Iran appears to be arguing that it will seek to buy banned equipment under a civilian cover, and if caught by the PWG, the PWG can only send the issue to the UN Security Council for a decision. It cannot stop the sale on its own authority.

Of course, the United States would be expected to block any approval for a sale at the Security Council. So, in that sense, the Iranian effort will not be successful. But Iran, with Russian support, may be seeking to reduce the PWG’s credibility internationally and hinder its operations.

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.