Even as Saudi Arabia has discontinued its massive military aid to Lebanon due to Hizballah’s success in infiltrating and coopting the Lebanese armed forces, America just sent Beirut $50 million worth of armored vehicles, artillery, and grenade launchers. “Something,” notes Max Boot, “doesn’t add up”:

Does Washington believe that the Lebanese armed forces can be [sufficiently] bolstered as an independent military to stand up to various terrorist groups, including Hizballah—and if so, how does it imagine that will happen? Or does the U.S. government simply not care about the Hizballah-Lebanese armed forces connection?

I hesitate to leap to the conclusion that Washington simply doesn’t care, but if so that would be of a piece with the Obama administration’s de-facto tilt toward Iran since the completion of the nuclear deal. . . . President Obama seems to imagine that the Iranian-backed forces can be an American ally against Sunni terrorist groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

If so, he is making a tragic miscalculation, one that I and others have repeatedly warned against. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, because he is able to marshal the resources of a large, oil-rich state with a nuclear program, is a greater long-term danger to the West than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who heads a relatively small, ramshackle state that is losing ground. . . .

The U.S. should be helping anti-Hizballah organizers in Lebanon to reduce that organization’s power instead of funneling arms to the politically compromised Lebanese military.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.