If one had turned to the New York Times rather than John Spencer for an analysis of Sinwar’s death, one would find a headline describing the arch-terrorist as “on the run, hurt, alone, but still defiant.” But even that overly optimistic view of Hamas’s condition is exceeded by what can be found at other major publications, and on social media. Andrew Fox takes a close look at the twisted reporting and misinformation that has appeared around this story in recent days. After dismissing the purely false or propagandistic, Fox finds two primary narratives: that “Sinwar died a hero fighting on the frontline” and that “Israel has just condemned the remaining hostages.” Neither is credible:

Sinwar was forced out of one tunnel and died trying to get to another. The IDF disrupted the tunnel system to force him above ground, then closed a noose around him. He ran into the cordon and died wounded and defeated.

There is an argument that the IDF should not have released . . . images and videos [of Sinwar’s last moments and of his corpse] as it gives fuel to the fire of the “hero” narrative—I disagree. Sinwar’s death was always going to lead to his lionization as a martyr, and at least having the videos shows the lie to the myth.

As for the claims about the hostages, Fox writes:

There has been no indication since the November 2023 ceasefire that Hamas have ever been willing to make a deal on the hostages. There is a possible argument that Hamas may exact retribution for Sinwar’s death by harming the remaining hostages, but that strikes me as further testimony (as if any were needed) to the fact that . . . this war is just, rather than representing a criticism of the IDF’s prosecution of Sinwar as a target.

We will see the strategic fallout from Sinwar’s death over the coming days and weeks. My guess is that it will go one of two ways: it will either make no difference at all, or we will see small movement [toward compromise] on the Hamas side.

Yesterday, Israel’s Channel 12 reported that Israeli representatives have been involved in secret talks, brokered by the United Arab Emirates, with their Syrian counterparts about the potential establishment of diplomatic relations between their countries. Even more surprisingly, on Wednesday an Israeli reporter spoke with a senior official from Syria’s information ministry, Ali al-Rifai. The prospect of a member of the Syrian government, or even a private citizen, giving an on-the-record interview to an Israeli journalist was simply unthinkable under the old regime. What’s more, his message was that Damascus seeks peace with other countries in the region, Israel included.

These developments alone should make Israelis sanguine about Donald Trump’s overtures to Syria’s new rulers. Yet the interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa’s jihadist resumé, his connections with Turkey and Qatar, and brutal attacks on minorities by forces aligned with, or part of, his regime remain reasons for skepticism. While recognizing these concerns, Noah Rothman nonetheless makes the case for optimism:

The old Syrian regime was an incubator and exporter of terrorism, as well as an Iranian vassal state. The Assad regime trained, funded, and introduced terrorists into Iraq intent on killing American soldiers. It hosted Iranian terrorist proxies as well as the Russian military and its mercenary cutouts. It was contemptuous of U.S.-backed proscriptions on the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, necessitating American military intervention—an unavoidable outcome, clearly, given Barack Obama’s desperate efforts to avoid it. It incubated Islamic State as a counterweight against the Western-oriented rebel groups vying to tear that regime down, going so far as to purchase its own oil from the nascent Islamist group.

The Assad regime was an enemy of the United States. The Sharaa regime could yet be a friend to America. . . . Insofar as geopolitics is a zero-sum game, taking Syria off the board for Russia and Iran and adding it to the collection of Western assets would be a triumph. At the very least, it’s worth a shot. Trump deserves credit for taking it.