Throughout his campaign, and in his first months as president, Donald Trump repeatedly rejected the idea that America should continue to play a leading role on the world stage. The strike on Syria last week, writes Elliott Abrams, represents a welcome departure from such rhetoric:

[T]he strike at Syria had at its heart precisely that kind of global leadership, to enforce the century-old ban on chemical warfare in the interest of decency and peace. . . . This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Donald Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Barack Obama did in all his years in office. . . .

Trump’s decision may [also] create an opportunity for negotiations over Syria. The talks have never been serious because one can never achieve at a conference table what one has failed to achieve on the battlefield. But the battlefield may look a bit different now; it may be worth a try. Trump is right in saying that there were earlier opportunities in Syria and that he inherited a mess, but perhaps some kind of real cease-fire or truce is attainable this year. He has certainly boosted the chances.

The president has obviously not solved the problem of war in Syria, or that of Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or a rising China and an aggressive Iran and a hostile Russia. Of course not. Moreover, he may waver in the coming months, and lead analysts to wonder if the Syria strike was a one-time emotional response to the sarin-gas attack. But he has put us back on the map in a new way; he has created some new space.

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.