Biden is lying about Iran's involvement in the attack on Israel.

Most of his reasons for lying are bad.

I want to add a few thoughts to Bill’s excellent post on who is lying about Iran’s role in Hamas’ attack on Israel, and why. When the administration denies Iran’s role, it varies the phrasing of the denial. On 60 Minutes, Joe Biden said “there is no clear evidence” that Iran had foreknowledge of the attack or helped plan it. However, in almost his next breath, Biden said there is “no evidence.”

Parsing the words of an 80-year-old who doesn’t seem to be all there may be a fool’s errand. Antony Blinken’s words may be more deserving of analysis.

He, too, has varied the wording of the denial. In an interview with NBC News, Blinken said “there is no direct evidence.” But he has also said the U.S. has “not yet seen evidence” that Iran “was behind the attack.”

The claim that there’s no direct or clear evidence of Iran’s foreknowledge or planning might be true. It’s quite possible that there’s no smoking gun — for example, an intercepted communication that proves Iranian foreknowledge or planning.

But there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence of Iranian foreknowledge. The undisputed fact that Iran is Hamas’ main funder is, by itself, circumstantial evidence. It’s most unlikely that Hamas would undertake a major military action — one that was bound to lead to an all-out Israeli response — without Iran’s knowledge and, indeed, permission.

In addition, I think it’s undisputed that Hamas leaders met in Beirut with officials of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps before the attack. It seems inconceivable that Hamas would meet with its patron but not disclose the major attack it was about to launch.

But the administration claims it has evidence that a couple of well-placed Iranian officials were “surprised” by Hamas’ attack. What should we make of this?

To fully evaluate the claim, we would need to know who these officials are and why we believe they were surprised. The administration can’t tell us because this is classified information. It’s likely, though, that we heard of the Iranian officials’ alleged surprise because Iran wanted us to hear of it.

Maybe we heard it from an intermediary, most likely Qatar. Maybe we saw or heard it in communications the regime believed we would likely intercept. The mullahs have an obvious incentive for us (and the world) to believe they didn’t know about the attack ahead of time.

It’s important to add that the administration isn’t claiming that the “surprise” of the Iranian officials ends the inquiry into Iranian involvement. White House spokesman John Kirby says that the administration is looking into that question. If the evidence of surprise were conclusive, that statement wouldn’t make sense.

In any case, when the Biden administration denies that there’s any evidence of Iranian foreknowledge of the attack, the Biden administration is lying.

As to the question of why it’s lying, there are multiple answers, all of which correspond to the administration’s incentives to have the public believe Iran wasn’t directly involved.

Bill identified what are probably the main two, which are closely related. Biden doesn’t want to end his policy of appeasing Iran. Worse, he wants to extend that policy by reviving the Iran nuclear deal. These twin goals can’t be pursued without a political cost to the administration if team Biden concedes that Iran knew in advance about an attack by its proxy that resulted in the killing of American civilians.

Another reason for lying is the Biden administration’s role in enriching a regime that’s the main source of funding for Hamas. It’s not just the $6 billion in revenue that Biden unfroze shortly before the attack took place. It’s the far greater sums that have accrued to the mullahs as a result of not enforcing sanctions.

Biden should pay a big price for enriching Iran — and therefore the terrorist groups his administration admits are funded by Iran — regardless of whether Iran knew beforehand about attacks that would cost dozens of Americans their lives. But clearly the price will be higher if the public believes Iran knew the attack was going to occur and didn’t veto it.

Finally, there’s a possible explanation for the administration’s denial that’s less damning than the others. Both the U.S. and Israel want to avoid a major attack on the Israeli north by Hezbollah, Iran’s senior terrorist proxy.

Avoiding accusations that Iran knew about and signed off on the attack sends a signal to the mullahs that Israeli retaliation for that attack will be limited to striking Hamas — provided that Hezbollah doesn’t open a second front in the war. The administration might believe that this signal, along with the threat of consequences in the event of a second front, will reduce the likelihood of Iran authorizing Hezbollah to wage full-scale war.

It’s important to note in this regard that Israeli rhetoric has not focused on claiming that Iran signed off on Hamas’ attack. Israel isn’t excusing or overlooking Iran’s responsibility, in one fashion or another., for the attack. It just wants to deal first with the immediate problem at hand in Gaza.

I would be okay with Biden downplaying Iranian involvement for this reason if I had any confidence that he will hold Iran accountable in meaningful ways once the war in Gaza is over. But I have no such confidence.

Biden seems wedded to his predecessor’s policy of appeasing Iran and to his predecessor’s nuclear deal. And he’s not the kind of guy who confesses error and changes gears. Perhaps Biden will impose a few more token sanctions on Iran if there’s enough pressure on him to do so, but he’s unlikely to alter the tenor of his Iran policy.

Any chance of meaningfully punishing Iran and preventing it from getting nuclear weapons lies with Israel and with the election of a Republican president who will back Israeli strikes against the regime’s nuclear program.