The 2015 “Iran deal,” as it has come to be known, in fact consists of two parts, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—an agreement among Iran, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China—and UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which encoded elements of that plan into international law. Should Iran violate the terms of the agreement, any one of the parties can unilaterally trigger “snapback”—that is, the immediate re-imposition of sanctions—through the Security Council. Richard Goldberg explains why the time has come to take such a measure:

The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran has enriched uranium to a purity greater than 3.67 percent; increased its low-enriched uranium stockpile to more than 300 kilograms; stored excess amounts of heavy water; tested advanced centrifuges; and restarted enrichment at the Fordow enrichment plant. At the same time, the agency reports that Iran is refusing to allow international inspectors into suspected nuclear sites and may be concealing undeclared nuclear materials and activities.

Yet neither the Europeans, nor Russia and China—both of which are eager to sell arms to Iran—want to punish this misbehavior with renewed sanctions. If the U.S tries to do so, the deal’s defenders may claim, contrary to the letter of Resolution 2231, that by withdrawing from the JCPOA, it has forfeited its right to trigger snapback. Goldberg goes on to explain the complex legal machinations available to the JCPOA’s proponents to enforce their interpretation. If France and Britain endorse such steps, he argues, they will fatally undermine the Security Council itself, and their own position on it.

Meanwhile, in less than three months, the JCPOA’s “sunset clauses” will start to go into effect, and the restraints on Iran’s nuclear program will begin to vanish.

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.