In addition to its military interventions in Syria and Libya, the Kremlin has in the past few years increased its involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, cultivating friendly relations with Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas, and the Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These initiatives, writes Oved Lobel, are all part of Vladimir Putin’s quest to make his country the Middle East’s “indispensable intermediary.” Now Moscow has turned its sights on Lebanon:

[U]ntil the recent explosion in Beirut and subsequent resignation of the government, Russia was simply not a significant actor in Lebanon. The political vacuum that has now developed, and Moscow’s close relations with all sides, may have opened a door for Russian influence in Lebanese politics.

For instance, on August 17, the former Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri sent an adviser to consult with Putin’s Middle East envoy Mikhael Bogdanov on future political developments in the country. Bogdanov also had phone conversations with Hariri, the Druze powerbroker Walid Jumblatt, and the Free Patriotic Movement’s Gebran Bassil, and met in Moscow with . . . an adviser to the Lebanese president Michel Aoun.

What will certainly help [Russia in gaining influence in the country] is its increasingly close partnership with France, which has taken the leading role in Lebanon after the Beirut explosion across a spectrum of political and military issues, as well as its alliance with Iran, Syria, and Hizballah, the most relevant actors in the country.

As Lebanon sets out to rebuild its capital, Russia, the only country to maintain close relations with every state and non-state actor involved, could become supreme arbiter as it effectively has in Syria and Libya.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.