A recent trip by the American national security adviser to Saudi Arabia is but one piece of evidence that the White House is trying to broker an agreement between Jerusalem and Riyadh. To Enia Krivine, such an agreement, despite facing “myriad but surmountable challenges,” would be a “boon to regional stability and security” as well as “consistent with U.S. interests.” Yet any deal would necessarily result from three-way negotiations, and involve concessions on all sides. Krivine fears the Biden administration might ask for too much:

Saudi Arabia is seeking a NATO-level defense treaty with America, U.S. approval of a civilian nuclear program, and advanced missile-defense capabilities from the U.S. military. The Biden administration is asking for an end to the Saudis’ involvement in the war in Yemen, a massive Saudi aid package for the Palestinians, and the curtailment of Saudi-China relations. If Washington and Riyadh agree to these terms, Saudi Arabia would normalize ties with Israel, while the Jewish state would make concessions to the Palestinians.

[At the same time], the emerging picture of what the Biden administration is negotiating with the mullahs in Tehran . . . would reportedly allow the Islamist regime to continue enriching uranium to 60-percent purity in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Yet 60-percent-enriched uranium is only a short turn of the screw to weapons-grade, constituting 99 percent of the effort needed to reach that threshold. Iran would undoubtedly channel any sanctions relief to its expeditionary forces in the region, threatening both Israel and the Saudis.

The U.S. is the lynchpin of any future normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Biden administration should doggedly pursue normalization because of the benefits it would bring to America and our regional allies. At the same time, the administration must abandon talks with Iran and apply maximum pressure on the mullahs to halt their race towards nuclear weapons. Above all, Washington should not expect Israel to accept a normalization agreement with the Saudis as a consolation prize for a bad Iran deal.

On the same day the cease-fire went into effect along the Israel-Lebanon border, rebel forces launched an unexpected offensive, and within a few days captured much of Aleppo. This lightening advance originated in the northwestern part of the country, which has been relatively quiet over the past four years, since Bashar al-Assad effectively gave up on restoring control over the remaining rebel enclaves in the area. The fighting comes at an inopportune moment for the powers that Damascus has called on for help in the past: Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and Hizballah has been shattered.

But the situation is extremely complex. David Wurmser points to the dangers that lie ahead:

The desolation wrought on Hizballah by Israel, and the humiliation inflicted on Iran, has not only left the Iranian axis exposed to Israeli power and further withering. It has altered the strategic tectonics of the Middle East. The story is not just Iran anymore. The region is showing the first signs of tremendous geopolitical change. And the plates are beginning to move.

The removal of the religious-totalitarian tyranny of the Iranian regime remains the greatest strategic imperative in the region for the United States and its allies, foremost among whom stands Israel. . . . However, as Iran’s regime descends into the graveyard of history, it is important not to neglect the emergence of other, new threats. navigating the new reality taking shape.

The retreat of the Syrian Assad regime from Aleppo in the face of Turkish-backed, partly Islamist rebels made from remnants of Islamic State is an early skirmish in this new strategic reality. Aleppo is falling to the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS—a descendant of Nusra Front led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani, himself a graduate of al-Qaeda’s system and cobbled together of IS elements. Behind this force is the power of nearby Turkey.