Before and after his election, the president has signaled his intention both to improve relations with Moscow and to take a harder line than Barack Obama against Tehran. These two goals, as Reuel Marc Gerecht points out, are contradictory, although it remains to be seen how various statements will translate into policy. Examining the close alignment of Russian and Iranian goals, Gerecht surveys America’s options:

Vladimir Putin’s alliance with Shiite Iran is . . . a smart strategic move since Persian power has no effective Arab counterweight. All the Sunni Arabs combined—even imagining such a coalition seems surreal—are weaker than the Islamic Republic. The closer Iran is to Russia, the more Arab states, particularly the oil-rich Gulf states, must treat Russia with greater respect and deference. . . . [For its part, Iran’s] clerical regime—especially the Revolutionary Guard Corps—sees Putin’s Russia as anti-American. [Meanwhile, the influential head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization], Ali Akbar Salehi—ever the clever boy—highlights the growing tension between Trump’s pro-Putin sentiments and his maintenance of sanctions against Russia. . . .

If the Republican Congress and president implement new [anti-Iran] sanctions and Tehran responds by reconnecting centrifuges or throwing out International Atomic Energy Agency monitors, the French, British, and even the Germans are unlikely to cheer the Iranians on. As much as they may hate and blame Trump for destroying the short-term tranquility of the Iran deal, if the mullahs start enriching [uranium] again to dangerous levels or excluding the IAEA, reality will return. Fear of American and Israeli military action will snap back. The Europeans, who are paralyzed with fear of America abandoning the defense of the Old World, will, however reluctantly, support the re-imposition of sanctions against Tehran. They have no other choice. . . .

Ultimately, [however], there is one overriding question: does President Trump believe that preventive military strikes against the clerical regime’s atomic sites would be better than living with Obama’s agreement, with all its flaws and constraints on American action?

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.