Just before deciding on Wednesday to remove U.S. forces from Syria, President Trump had a long telephone conversation with his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It appears some sort of agreement between the two—including a commitment by Ankara to purchase anti-missile missiles from Washington rather than Moscow—influenced the decision. The American president reported another conversation with Erdogan yesterday. Steven A. Cook examines the role Turkey will play in the future of Syria.

Donald Trump’s announcement betrays Washington’s primary partner on the ground, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which control nearly one-third of Syria. It leaves other regional allies, especially Israel, more vulnerable to Iran and Hizballah, which have a presence in Syria. Without the United States in Syria, regional actors will depend on Russia to achieve their interests.

Trump’s decision also boosts Turkey. The Turkish government has sought an end to the United States’ military and diplomatic relationship with the SDF. Ankara argues, [credibly], that the SDF’s primary component, the Peoples’ Protection Units (YPG), are part of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged a terrorist campaign against Turkey for almost 35 years. Yet the advantages to Turkey may be short-lived. . . . [I]f the Turkish military does invade [northeastern Syria] to try to destroy the YPG and render Syrian Kurdish autonomy moot, Turkey could find itself locked in an irregular war in a foreign country. . . .

In addition, the YPG is likely to turn directly to the Syrian and Russian governments in the wake of the Trump administration’s decision. . . . That would raise the possibility of a confrontation between Syria and Turkey. . . . Russia, which provides diplomatic and military support to Syrian Kurdish forces, can be expected to play all sides of the issue, ensuring it has maximum leverage with Ankara and further weakening Turkey’s already frayed ties with NATO and Europe. . . .

Vladimir Putin . . . is now the undisputed broker of the future of Syria, but Moscow will have to handle the competing interests of Syria and Turkey. If Putin can manage this complicated situation without a major confrontation between the Turks and Kurds, and between the Turks and Syrians, he will solidify his role as a regional leader.

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.