Last week, Iraq’s president named Adnan al-Zurfi to serve as the new head of government, ending a political crisis that began in November when the then-prime minister stepped down due to mass protests. The nomination of Zurfi—a pro-American Shiite who appears acceptable to protestors—represents a defeat for Tehran, which had tried and failed to force the more pliable Mohammed Allawi into the position. To John Hannah, Zurfi has a chance to get his country out from under the thumb of the Islamic Republic:

Already, in the days leading up to Zurfi’s nomination, Iraqi militias [controlled by Tehran] targeted U.S. troops and diplomats in multiple rocket attacks, a significant escalation of their efforts to force an American withdrawal and claim some semblance of strategic victory for Iran. Efforts to intimidate, blackmail, and, if necessary, violently attack those supportive of Zurfi’s candidacy—including Zurfi himself—are not only possible, but likely.

The Trump administration should understand that Zurfi’s nomination is a sign that Iran is now on the defensive in Iraq. This situation carries great dangers of violent escalation as Iran flails to reassert its dominant position, but it also offers a strategic opportunity. Whether Washington has the bandwidth to take advantage as it rightly focuses on America’s own coronavirus crisis is an open question—a fact that no doubt gives Iran great heart.

Of course, if pro-Iranian militias continue to escalate their targeting of U.S. personnel, the administration will have little choice but to respond in some fashion. It should err on the side of strength, not restraint. Prominent militia leaders should be targeted à la the strike [on the senior Iranian general] Qassem Suleimani. Sanctions should be imposed on Iran’s most prominent allies, particularly [the Shiite cleric and militia leader] Muqtada al-Sadr.

Making clear that Iran’s proxies will pay a painful price for their aggression offers the best means not only of deterring further attacks on Americans, but also of keeping the pro-Iran camp on the defensive while exacerbating its divisions. The fact that it would also weaken the forces that now have a bullseye on Zurfi’s candidacy would be an added benefit, albeit one of potentially great strategic consequence for both Iraq and 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.