Conservative: Beijing Will Pay for Backing Iran

China “has for decades promoted itself as a nonjudgmental alternative to the U.S. and the West,” willing doing commerce with anyone. But with the war in the Persian Gulf, “that posture is now collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions,” contends UK Member of Parliament Tom Tugendhat at The Wall Street Journal. Beijing has “provided Iran with satellite imagery, components and intelligence” to attack targets in Gulf countries that have “helped Iran destroy” their refineries and docks and even kill civilians. “The Gulf Arab monarchies aren’t naive about great-power politics”; “relationships with China will change.” Across the Arabian Peninsula, “assumptions are already shifting,” and “China is no longer the indispensable partner unburdened by a history of war in the region.”

Israel beat: Palestinians Should Offer a Map

There is ample “proof that over the years Israel would have accepted the two-state solution,” notes Commentary’s Seth Mandel, but no proof “the Palestinian leadership would accept” it. Israel has published “end-game maps”; the “Palestinian leadership” too should be challenged to “produce an acceptable map.” But for now we still “don’t know if the Palestinians would be willing to end the conflict.” The Oct. 7 attacks were “aimed at torpedoing negotiations seeking a broad Arab-Israeli peace,” though the “Palestinians could disrupt their own unbroken pattern of rejectionism if they wanted to,” by “saying explicitly” they’re “prepared to consider the conflict resolved” if they achieve “statehood through negotiations with Israel.” This would “put Bibi on the spot” and force him to make a counteroffer.

Va. journal: Va. Democrats vs. Democracy

Virginia’s referendum on new congressional districts “shows how far our politics have regressed,” argues RealClearPolitics’ Carl Cannon. The move, if it stands, will turn the Old Dominion’s delegation of six Democrats and five GOPers into one of 10 Democrats and one Republican. “Did voters really know what they were getting?” The referendum’s wording claims it would “restore fairness,” but in truth, “it is not intended within Virginia to restore fairness at all. It’s intended to abrogate fairness.” Indeed, it’s “so egregious and so Orwellian,” it’s unlikely to “pass muster” legally. “If you cared about democracy — which Democrats say they do — you would fight this instead of pushing it.” It’s Democrats, again, “doing what they claim they dislike the most about Trump.”

From the right: The Left’s Break With Reality

“The crazy world of the Left increasingly bears scant resemblance to reality,” marvels American Greatness’ Victor Davis Hanson. In their bizarro world, “Eric Swalwell was a liberal icon” and “occasionally a serial sexual predator.” The Biden years are lionized although his “handlers obliterated the southern border, admitting 10–12 million unvetted aliens.” Democrats want “to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth” and plan “to restart their vendettas to punish their enemies.” James Carville wants to “pack the court,” add “two new blue states” and end “the Senate filibuster.” Meanwhile, “no Democrat outlines an immigration agenda,” “a way to balance the budget,” “an anti-corruption agenda” or “a new strategic plan abroad.” “Shrieking at Trump demons raging in their collective heads is no way to run a country.”

Mideast desk: Trump’s Iran’s Deal Isn’t Obama’s

At the Free Press, Eli Lake maintains that “any deal that may emerge from Trump’s war on Iran’s nuclear program will be fundamentally different from what the Obama administration negotiated.” Under Obama’s deal, Iran was allowed to keep its nuke facilities “in exchange for time-limited promises” not to weaponize its fissile material. Now, “even if Iran managed to further enrich the uranium trapped under its facilities,” it “would have a much harder time figuring out how to place that material into a nuclear warhead.” “If [President] Trump fails to get Iran’s regime to accept a nuclear deal, Iran will still be much further away from obtaining the bomb than it ever was under the JCPOA”: “The president has destroyed the nuclear program that Obama legitimized.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board