Last month, the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq (KRG) signed a deal with Russia’s state-owned energy company, Rosneft, to extract and export natural gas from its territory. To Anna Borshchevskaya and Bilal Wahab, the deal is evidence that the KRG, losing faith in the U.S., is seeking Russian protection instead. Iraqi Kurds have felt betrayed by Washington since September 2017, when the America allowed Iran-backed militias to crush their bid for independence. Borshchevskaya and Wahab write:

From a purely economic standpoint, Moscow’s decision [to invest in Kurdistan] seems to make little sense, until one considers that Vladimir Putin views energy deals primarily as a foreign-policy tool. . . . [Also], it is important to remember that [Russia’s] relationship with the Kurds goes back about 200 years. Russia understood their importance during the days of Catherine the Great and began acting as their patron—while cynically using them toward its own ends. This pattern is apparently resurfacing with Putin. . . .

Erbil needs to be careful about its choice of bedfellows in the longer term. . . . In Syria, Moscow allowed Turkey to attack Kurdish forces and drive them from Afrin. And in Iraq, Russian energy companies may be using their operations in the KRG as a mere temporary lever to pry better contract terms out of Baghdad. Embracing internationally sanctioned Russian firms also goes against the aspirations of the Kurdish electorate, who have called for better governance and economic reform. More broadly, unlike the United States, Moscow has no regard for rule of law and human rights, so its patronage could be bad news for the Kurdish public.

In Washington, some officials may not consider rapprochement with the KRG to be urgent now that the fight against Islamic State is winding down, especially given Erbil’s decision to ignore U.S. warnings [against holding last year’s] referendum. Yet they should understand that so long as the future U.S. role in the Middle East remains unclear, more local actors will look to Russia as the main alternative for their survival, at potentially great harm to long-term U.S. interests.

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.