After going two years without a president, Lebanon’s parliament selected Michel Aoun for the post on Monday. Aoun, a Christian, was once one of his country’s most anti-Syrian politicians; but since 2006, he and his Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) have unabashedly sided with Syria, Hizballah, and Iran. While Tehran has, quite reasonably, proclaimed the election “a victory for Hizballah,” David Schenker notes that it is not a complete one:

Given current realities, Hizballah will continue to possess a massive arsenal of weapons outside the government’s authority for the foreseeable future. It will also continue deploying into Syria at will to fight on the Assad regime’s behalf, with or without Beirut’s consent. . . .

For these and other reasons, many in the United States and the region are declaring Aoun’s election a victory for Hizballah and Iran. Yet . . . it is difficult to imagine an Aoun presidency being worse for [the anti-Syrian] March 14 [alliance]—or for U.S. interests—than the ongoing vacuum. Aoun may even surpass the extremely low expectations for his presidency. . . . Most importantly, the agreement to elect him apparently received Saudi Arabia’s blessing [and] perhaps will spur Riyadh to reengage in Lebanese politics as a useful counterbalance to Iran. . . .

Finally, . . . with or without Aoun, Hizballah and Iran remain the country’s dominant political actors. Absent an effective U.S. policy that deals Tehran and its proxies a setback in Syria, Lebanon will remain on the precipice of crisis.

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.