It’s no secret that there’s a growing rift between the Israeli prime minister and U.S. President Biden. But the Israeli leader faces an increasingly volatile political situation at home and now appears to have split with the Israel Defense Forces over the long-term goals of the country’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari told Israel’s Channel 13 on Wednesday that “this business of destroying Hamas, making Hamas disappear — it’s simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public,” he said, according to Israeli media.

“Anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong,” Adm. Hagari said. 

The comments prompted an immediate response from Mr. Netanyahu, who reiterated that Israel does indeed want to destroy Hamas and that the IDF “is committed” to that goal.

A public argument with the IDF over the war in Gaza is just the latest headache for Mr. Netanyahu. He’s facing widespread protests at home and calls for new elections. And earlier this week, he was forced to disband his three-man War Cabinet amid internal disagreements and the resignation from the Cabinet of Benny Gantz, former Israeli defense minister.

A driving factor behind the public anger with Mr. Netanyahu is the inability to secure the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. The Palestinian militant group took more than 250 hostages during its Oct. 7 attack on Israel. A few have been rescued, while others were freed during a brief cease-fire last year. 

Today, there may be as few as 50 hostages still alive, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. The already besieged Mr. Netanyahu could face even more public anger if additional hostages are confirmed to have died while in Hamas’ custody.

The U.S. has its own problems in Gaza. Military Correspondent Mike Glenn reports on the possibility that the American-built floating pier off the coast of Gaza, meant to deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, could be shut down as soon as July. It was scheduled to remain operational until September. 

The widely anticipated meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un resulted in a major new partnership deal between the two countries. And Pyongyang says the pact requires immediate, mutual military aid if either country is attacked. 

Such an agreement takes the Russia-North Korea alliance to a new level. And not surprisingly, it’s not playing well in South Korea, where the office of President Yoon Suk Yeol condemned the deal. 

But Seoul went much further, suggesting that it would reconsider its policy of limiting its support to Ukraine to nonlethal supplies. South Korea has refused to provide Ukraine with arms, ammunition or other lethal weapons of war. A change in that policy would mark a major shift by South Korea. 

Whatever benefits it may get from Russia, North Korea is now linked together with a country whose soldiers stand accused of beheading prisoners, among a host of other alleged war crimes. 

War crime accusations aside, Mr. Putin is working overtime to expand Russia’s alliances abroad. After leaving Pyongyang, the Russian leader traveled to Hanoi and met with Vietnamese leaders. The two nations reached their own agreement, one that will further cooperation on education, science and technology, oil and gas exploration and health.

It certainly seems as if America’s adversaries are getting bolder. China is no exception.

National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz is tracking the fallout from a collision between a Chinese ship and a Philippine vessel earlier this week. During the Monday incident, Chinese coast guard vessels forced a Philippine supply boat near the Second Thomas Shoal to yield. Its crew had their guns confiscated by the Chinese.

Mr. Gertz spoke to retired Navy Capt. Jim Fanell, former director of intelligence for the Pacific Fleet, who said Monday’s incident was the most aggressive action seen by the Chinese in trying to block supplies to a Philippine grounded ship on the shoal.

“The concern at this stage of the development is that Beijing is now confident enough to increase the amount of force required to physically displace the Philippines from holdings such as Second Thomas Shoal or Sabina Reef,” he said.

The Biden administration seems to have limited options to stop such Chinese aggression. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke to his Philippine counterpart on Wednesday and said China’s actions “undermine regional peace and stability.” The Philippine military is also demanding that China return several rifles and equipment seized by the Chinese coast guard in the disputed shoal and pay for damages in an assault that Philippine officials likened to an act of piracy.

With its enemies solidifying their alliances and getting more aggressive, the U.S. may have to grapple with a high-stakes question: Could it fight and win a major two-front war? Could the U.S. effectively fight and win in both Europe and the Pacific at the same time, for example?

The short answer is “no,” according to Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Cancian joined the “Threat Status Podcast” recently and told Mr. Wolfgang that America’s current wartime strategies don’t envision fighting and winning two full-blown wars in separate theaters at the same time.

“And that’s a huge problem,” Mr. Cancian said. “The idea that we could shift our focus and leave our allies to take care of these other problems just has not been born out.”

• June 21 — AUKUS: Taking Stock and Looking Forward, Center for a New American Security

• June 24 — Israeli-Saudi Normalization: An Effective Incentive for Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking? Middle East Institute

• June 25 — 2024 Freedom and Prosperity Indexes launch, Atlantic Council

• June 25 — AI in the Field of Economic Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies

• June 25 — Korean War Legacies: Healing the Trauma of Korean American Family Separation, U.S. Institute of Peace