Amos Yadlin and Carmit Valensi argue that although Vladimir Putin’s precise goals in Syria are unclear, he either intends to maintain Bashar al-Assad’s control over all or part of the country or to replace him with someone who will remain loyal to existing alliances with Russia and Iran. None of these outcomes serves Israel’s interests:

If once there was hope that the [Syrian] regime would collapse in the course of events, without Israeli intervention, Russia’s active support for Assad weakens the chances of ousting him. . . . Russian involvement underscores the need to examine the issue at the systemic level rather than at the level of individual actors. The system—the radical axis—includes Iran, Syria, and Hizballah, with Russia, at least for now, seen as [its] sponsor. Hizballah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has stressed the stability of the Assad regime as a condition for the survival of the radical axis. . . .

The members of the radical axis and Russia share intelligence and a systemic rationale, providing a foundation for coordination between the Russian aerial force and Iran-Syria-Hizballah ground forces. If [Assad remains in power], Israel will find itself in an inferior strategic position because Russia’s involvement is liable to provide a seal of approval for Iranian activity in Syria in years to come, as well as for Hizballah forces armed with the best of Russia’s weapons on Syrian soil. . . .

Israel must gear up for active efforts to topple Assad, based on the understanding that, beyond the moral imperative, Assad’s ouster will lead to a strategic loss for Iran and Hizballah in the bleeding Syrian state.

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.