By using its extensive network of local militias to attack American troops and diplomats, Tehran has been trying to drag Washington into a war of attrition on Iraqi soil. To deter the Islamic Republic while preventing escalation, Eliora Katz and Eyal Tsir Cohen urge the U.S. to look to the Jewish state, which has for years been systematically targeting Iranian military installations in Syria. The IDF, waging what it calls the “campaign between the wars,” has conducted hundreds of air raids, degrading Iran’s military infrastructure in Syria, while provoking only very limited response by keeping enemy casualties low and maintaining deterrence. Katz and Cohen write:

The United States can deal with the militia threat in Iraq more effectively by pursuing a [strategy] informed by the principles of the campaign between the wars. Pursuing infrastructure and assets, as opposed to personnel, lessens political fallout, reduces the likelihood of retaliation, and exacts a higher financial toll on the Islamic Republic. In time, it sends a devastating message to Tehran that its investments in command-and-control centers, training campaigns, weaponry, and bases will be lost. A persistent campaign would handicap Tehran’s ability to retaliate given that the United States will have systematically degraded enemy capabilities, and more importantly, would reestablish deterrence.

Flaunting the vulnerability of Iran’s proxies is also a form of psychological warfare. The targeting of highly visible infrastructure denies militia the appearance of strength, tarnishing their public image among local populations. Hitting a militia office and having the image of the aftermath shared widely via traditional and social media is an effective way to humiliate Iran-aligned forces, lower morale, and display how much damage the United States can inflict. This is likely to be met with little resistance by Iraqi citizens who have themselves torched headquarters of Iran-back militias over the past two years.

At the same time, Israel maintains a measure of deniability for its own role in these airstrikes. Likewise, the United States should not rush to claim responsibility for harm inflicted on Iran-linked assets outside of Iraq. Anonymous strikes frustrate the adversary while minimizing the political cost since there is no smoking gun.

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.