Last week, the White House re-imposed hundreds of sanctions on the Islamic Republic in addition to creating new ones. But it also made a number of exceptions. Perhaps the most puzzling of these were the waivers allowing cooperation with Iran’s civilian nuclear projects—all of which have been tied to its clandestine efforts to build nuclear weapons. Jacob Nagel and Jonathan Schanzer write:

The Europeans, in their tenacious bid to save what is left of the nuclear deal, argue that providing Iran overt access to nuclear technology under Western supervision is better than Iran secretly making advances without oversight. This is a line also repeated by think tanks in Washington. But . . . Iran would almost certainly pursue both. And if the goal is to prevent Iran from accruing nuclear knowledge, for fear that it may make a dash for the bomb at a later date, providing assistance seems unwise, to put it mildly.

For now, it appears the Trump administration has adopted the European view—perhaps as a concession for effectively inducing the Europeans to rejoin the American sanctions regime. But instead of cementing this policy, Washington should take the opportunity to impose a more restrictive one. This should include more rigorous oversight and real accountability for countries selling dual-use goods. . . .

To stymie Iran’s continued quest for nuclear weapons, the red lines must be clear, [including with regard to] Iran’s quest for nuclear expertise. Washington should return to its previous policy of preventing civilian advances [in nuclear technology]. This should include preventing universities and research institutions, both in the United States and around the world, from teaching, training, or employing Iranian students and researchers in the fields of nuclear physics or related fields. The United States should further request that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) terminate investments and technical assistance for Iranian nuclear projects and end IAEA-hosted seminars and conferences in Iran as well. Indeed, until Iranian behavior changes, the goal should be to prevent Iran from [cultivating] a new generation of nuclear scientists and missile engineers.

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.