Last week, the Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri resigned, following intense protests against government corruption and a declining economy. The demonstrations are ultimately a threat to Hizballah’s dominance in the country. Therefore, writes Tony Badran, Washington should not help the terrorist group stay in power:

Hariri’s gambit is to return as the head of a new government, in partnership with Hizballah, to present a plan for some reforms, and to hope for a bailout from international donors. For the United States, this is not a desirable outcome. . . . The current protests, which have included varied criticism of Hizballah, only came about due to impending economic and financial collapse. It is unlikely that they would have surfaced had the system been floated yet again, for instance, through the injection of capital by well-meaning but misguided Western powers or Gulf Arab states, which in previous crises had made large deposits in Lebanon’s Central Bank.

More to the point, such an investment in the survival of the existing political-economic order would be an investment in the Hizballah-dominated status quo. Hizballah, the most powerful actor in Lebanon, had orchestrated the formation of the previous government. . . . It will similarly be the decisive force in the formation of any new government. It is no coincidence that the person who has spoken most forcefully in defense of the status quo during the two weeks of protests, while issuing directives to the government, is Hizballah’s chief, Hassan Nasrallah.

There is a longstanding conceit in Washington and in Europe that Lebanon must be “saved”— an impulse undiminished by the fact the country is dominated by Hizballah, and serves as a hub for its operations and criminal enterprise. . . . For the United States, the conclusion ought to be clear: the claims that Washington should back off its sanctions policy lest Lebanon break, that instability would only benefit Hizballah, and that the U.S. should continue instead to invest in Lebanon’s “state institutions,” are deluded.

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.