Now that Islamic State (IS) has lost the battle for Mosul, Iraq is preparing for a national election—which the Islamic Republic of Iran hopes will put a friendly government in power. To this end, Tehran is encouraging the Shiite political parties it has long backed to start billing themselves as liberal, non-sectarian, and wedded to a sense of Iraqi identity that transcends religious and ethnic divisions. Amir Taheri explains:

The apparent de-sectarianization of pro-Iran Shiite parties will make it difficult for Ayyad Allawi and other genuinely non-sectarian Shiite politicians, who are hostile to Iranian influence in Baghdad, to appeal to the Shiite majority on the basis of citizenship and uruqah [or “Iraqiness”].

The new de-sectarianization gambit will also put pressure on Kurdish parties at a time when some of them are campaigning for a referendum on whether to declare independence. It would be more difficult to sell the idea of an “independent” mini-state of Kurdistan to international public opinion at a time that Iraq is seen to be moving toward a non-religious democratic and pluralist political system. The gambit will also make it more difficult for Arab Sunni sectarians to garner support in the name of resisting a Shiite sectarian takeover of government in Baghdad.

But, Taheri continues, there is more to the ayatollahs’ plan, as is made clear by Iraq’s notoriously pro-Iranian vice-president, Nuri al-Maliki, during his recent trip to Moscow, where he invited Vladimir Putin to establish “a significant presence” in Iraq as a counterweight to the U.S.:

[Iran’s] strategy is to draw Russia into Iraq as a façade for Iranian influence. Iranian leaders know that the vast majority of Iraqis resent the emergence of Iran as arbiter of their destiny. Russia, however, is seen as remote enough not to pose a direct threat to the internal balance of power in Iraq. Yet, because Russia has no local support base in Iraq, it would have to rely on Iranian guidance and goodwill to play a leading role there.

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.