On November 8, Amman, Washington, and Moscow concluded an agreement to expand the “de-escalation zones” in southern Syria that had been created in a July 7 deal among the three parties. A key provision designates an “exclusionary zone” from which foreign forces—in this case those of Iran and Hizballah—must withdraw. But, even if Iran and Russia abide by their part of the bargain, these terms “will ultimately preserve rather than roll back Iran’s long-term position,” write Genevieve Casagrande, Patrick Hamon, and Bryan Amoroso. The experience of the July agreement shows how:

The [newly created] buffer zone at its maximum extent places foreign forces up to 30km away from the Syrian-Jordanian border and Golan Heights. . . . [But] Iran has set conditions to preserve its safe haven in southern Syria. Iran and Lebanese Hizballah initially withdrew many of their foreign forces from areas along the Syrian-Jordanian border after the [first] “de-escalation zone” went into effect in July. However, Iran left behind friendly local paramilitary groups and a small number of foreign fighters to continue to cultivate and recruit local groups not covered by the exclusion zone but ultimately subordinate to Iran. Iran is also continuing its build-up on the outskirts of this zone, which places its forces less than an hour drive from the Golan Heights. . . .

The deal likewise will not prevent Iran from developing permanent military basing in Syria, another Israeli redline. . . .

Al-Qaeda, [meanwhile], has exploited the de-escalation zone to develop a new durable safe haven along the Syrian-Jordanian border. Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham will capitalize on the diminishing external support for vetted anti-Assad-regime opposition groups to expand its footprint in southern Syria. The Trump administration issued orders that will reportedly end all covert support to opposition groups in Syria by December 2017. The cutoff will lead to the cancellation of salaries for thousands of rebel fighters even as opposition groups and affiliated governance structures are already struggling to maintain basic security and infrastructure—such as prisons and courthouses—across southern Syria. . . .

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.