Since late 2016, Moscow and Riyadh, with help from other OPEC countries, have reduced oil production and raised prices, which are now nearing $70 per barrel. John Hannah urges Washington to pressure Saudi Arabia to change course, not just for the sake of the American consumer but for strategic reasons as well:

[A]nything that would invariably end up strengthening the oil-dependent economies of both Russia and Iran, two of America’s most dangerous international adversaries, should be deeply troubling. It’s hard to view a scheme as benign if it guarantees more cash with which Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can threaten vital U.S. interests.

Strangely, [the tightening of oil markets] comes from a Saudi regime that blithely claims that Iran’s supreme leader, if not stopped, will prove more dangerous than Adolf Hitler. Even setting aside the hyperbole, the long-standing Iranian project to destabilize and take down the House of Saud is real and pressing—as is the Iranian origin of many of the 100-plus missiles that Houthi rebels in Yemen have rained down on Saudi cities and installations in the past few years. Russian military firepower has also joined in a murderous alliance with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s genocidal regime, kill hundreds of thousands of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni co-religionists, and put Iran on the threshold of dominating the Levant. . . .

The Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman has been desperate for U.S. help not only to manage the Iranian threat abroad and economic modernization at home but also to legitimize his brazen bid for absolute power within the royal family. In exchange for that help, the United States ought to press continuously its own set of concrete demands with the Saudis, including combating the ideology of jihadism, containing Iranian aggression, and . . . not colluding with Putin in a scheme to manipulate global oil markets. It’s high time the president’s agenda with the Saudis moved beyond the endless quest to sell them ever greater quantities of advanced weaponry that they really don’t need and can’t effectively use.

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.