In addition to its military buildup in Syria, and its longstanding presence in Lebanon, Iran has begun sending medium-range missiles to its Shiite proxy militias in Iraq—which could be used to retaliate against future Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure in Syria. Alex Fishman explains the dilemma this move creates for the Jewish state:

[M]issile fire from Iraq would not give Israel just cause to attack Syria or Lebanon. [Yet a retaliatory] attack on Iraq requires coordination with the U.S., which has already informed Israel that any military action it takes in Iraq would endanger the lives of Americans protecting the Baghdad regime. It would also require coordination with neighboring countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia to allow the Israel Air Force warplanes to fly in their airspace. It’s obvious these countries will [be reluctant] to cooperate openly with Israel in attacking a neighboring Arab nation.

This threat reminds Fishman of Israel intelligence’s discovery in April 1990—before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait—of Scud missiles positioned in the same part of Iraq. When, in January of the following year, Saddam Hussein began firing these at Israeli cities, the IDF considered responses ranging from attacks on Iraqi shipping to the intensive bombing of Baghdad, together with the insertion of ground troops. But a combination of operational uncertainty and U.S. pressure prevented Jerusalem from responding, leaving repercussions to this day:

In total, some 40 missiles were fired from Iraq, most of them at the [northern] Dan region. Israel didn’t respond, and it is paying the price in psychological deterrence to this very day. The enemy learned Israel’s Achilles’ heel. Even Hamas [now] dares to launch rockets at Tel Aviv, and still remains standing. The Gulf War created the “ethos of restraint,” which in the years that have passed has become a doctrine. . . .

Today, as [the new IDF chief-of-staff] Aviv Kochavi prepares the army for the post-civil-war era in Syria, he must take into account the fact that Israel will always be subject to political pressure from a power that would deny it freedom of action—whether it is the Americans in Iran or the Russians in Syria.

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.