Through its intervention in Syria’s civil war, the Kremlin has acquired a significant foothold in the Middle East. Its regional adventures also include a close alliance with Iran, building a nuclear power plant in Egypt, providing support for one side in the Libyan civil war, and much else. Russell Berman suggests that Moscow may now have its sights on Lebanon, a country sinking into ever-deeper economic and political crisis:

Along the highway that leads from Beirut north to Baalbek, the ancient city of Heliopolis and the site of the spectacular ruins of the temple of Zeus, you reach a point where suddenly a series of billboards lines the road, and the familiar face of Vladimir Putin stares down at you as you drive past. It would be hard to describe his expression as friendly exactly, but the Arabic-language text on the signs conveys a warm greeting from Russia. . . . Three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is actively trying to reacquire its former spheres of influence, returning as a major player in the Levant. This assertion of power on the part of Putin poses a direct challenge to the network of U.S. partners in the region.

Most obvious, the further collapse of Lebanon would unleash a new wave of refugees, presumably traveling into Cyprus or Greece or otherwise into Europe. . . . An influx of refugees from Lebanon will inevitably pose a threat to the political stability of America’s European allies. In order to avoid far-right electoral victories in Europe—far-right and therefore pro-Russian—the challenges in the Middle East and especially Lebanon need attention. The Biden administration’s diplomats should be worrying about this connection.

Those billboards of Putin on the road to Baalbek are clear indications of Russian ambitions and a direct challenge to American influence. Lebanon is a front in the war with Russia: at this point, Lebanon may not be an active theater like Ukraine, but it is an important piece in the puzzle of the Russian strategy to expel the U.S. from the region.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”