Among the many forces that have vied for power in the Syrian civil war is the Nusra Front, a local franchise of al-Qaeda. In 2016 it changed its name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and repositioned itself as an independent organization that remained dedicated to jihad and an extremist interpretation of Islam. Whether this was a real break with the parent organization or merely a public-relations exercise remains unclear. The group now has thousands of fighters holed up in the Syrian province of Idlib, where they are under sustained assault from Bashar al-Assad and his allies. Eli Galia and Yoram Schweitzer discuss their fate:

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham will [likely] face two main options: one is to fight to the bitter end, followed by the break-up of an organization that is built on a strong chain of command and structured hierarchy into a network of autonomous guerrilla and terrorist cells that would operate in northwestern Syria. This would mean postponing the realization of [its goal of] territorial control of a piece of land under an Islamic way of life. . . . Its cells [would] continue to operate on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border, attacking . . . military targets and even essential infrastructure sites such as oil fields and natural-gas facilities. There would then be military instability and a lack of security in northwestern Syria for an extended period of time.

The second option is a conscious decision to dissolve the organization and merge its operatives within other Islamist and revolutionary frameworks as part of a future political arrangement [in Syria]. This step, even if it is considered drastic, could, in accordance with the circumstances, be based on pragmatic reasoning as well as ideological considerations.

For Israel, the fate of jihadists in Idlib is not an immediate source of military concern. There is the possibility, [however], that groups from the jihadist camp will relocate to [the Syrian portion of] the Golan Heights, or an enclave of such forces [could] remain holed up in remote places in the Syrian desert far from Israel’s borders. Another disturbing possibility is well-trained jihadist forces fleeing Syria to various places around the world and reinforcing the manpower serving the global jihadist camp. If there is a renewed international wave of terrorist attacks, “Syrian alumni” could also pose a danger to Israeli and Jewish targets abroad.

While the far left and the extreme right have responded with frenzied outrage to Israel’s attacks on Iran, middle-of-the-road, establishment types have expressed similar sentiments, only in more measured tones. These think-tankers and former officials generally believe that Israeli military action, rather than nuclear-armed murderous fanatics, is the worst possible outcome. Garry Kasparov examines this mode of thinking:

Now that the Islamic Republic is severely weakened, the alarmist foreign-policy commentariat is apprising us of the unacceptable risks, raising their well-worn red flags. (Or should I say white flags?) “Escalation!” “Global war!” And the ultimate enemy of the status quo: “regime change!”

Under President Obama, American officials frequently stared down the nastiest offenders in the international rogues’ gallery and insisted that there was “no military solution.” “No military solution” might sound nice to enlightened ears. Unfortunately, it’s a meaningless slogan. Tellingly, Russian officials repeat it all the time too. . . . But Russia does believe there are military solutions to its problems—ask any Ukrainian, Syrian, or Georgian. Yet too many in Washington remain determined to fight armed marauders with flowery words.

If you are worried about innocent people being killed, . . . spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution. Or the hundreds of thousands of Syrians whose murder Iran was an accomplice to. Or the Ukrainian civilians who have found themselves on the receiving end of over 8,000 Iranian-made suicide drones over the past three years. Or the scores of Argentine Jews blown up in a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994 without even the thinnest of martial pretexts.

The Democratic Connecticut senator Chris Murphy was quick and confident in his pronouncement that Israel’s operation in Iran “risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.” Maybe. But a regional war was already underway before Israel struck last week. Iran was already supporting the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Russia in Ukraine. Israel is simply moving things toward a more decisive conclusion.

Perhaps Murphy and his ilk dread most being proved wrong—which they will be if, in a few weeks’ time, their apocalyptic predictions haven’t come true, and the Middle East, though still troubled, is a safter place.