Backed by Iran and deeply entrenched in Lebanon, Hizballah possesses military capabilities far greater than Hamas’s. Israeli officials have made clear, on and off the record, that they will no longer tolerate the terrorist group’s existence on their northern border. To this end, French and American diplomats have been working on a negotiated solution that involves Hizballah’s withdrawal north of the Litani river, which divides the southernmost tip of Lebanon from the rest of the country. Israel in exchange would cede Har Dov and few other small parcels of land—based on Hizballah’s extremely tenuous claims that these are in fact Lebanese territories. David Wurmser explains why the deal should be a nonstarter:

Hizballah has been in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701—the resolution that terminated the 2006 Second Lebanon War—since its signing. . . . In many ways, the U.S. proposal only asks of Hizballah to implement one part of UNSCR 1701 and completely ignores [the others, along with previous resolutions]. This itself constitutes a major victory for Hizballah. [Moreover], under the plan proposed by the U.S. and France, Hizballah is rewarded—and its resistance validated and continued existence as an armed militia legitimized—by a full Israeli withdrawal in all of the areas in addition to other disputed parcels.

The U.S. and France have also proposed under this agreement that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) secure the border and the buffer zone south of the Litani River. Indeed, UNSCR 1701 had called for that, but [the LAF] has long been proven to be an entirely dysfunctional fiction as a sovereign force. It cannot in any way cross Hizballah, and to believe it can . . . is simply delusional.

The U.S. and France are pushing for an agreement to avoid escalation on Israel’s northern border which must be understood in effect as part of a larger effort to appease Iran on substance and strategy while giving Israel hollow tactical scraps. It is a deal Israel must refuse.

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.