Meanwhile, the American government appears poised to treat Ukraine the way the progressive left wishes to treat Israel: undermining its democratic legitimacy, withholding condemnation of those who seek to destroy it, and promising to “end a war” in a way that encourages further aggression by America’s enemies—rather than speaking of victory for allies. Anna Borshchevskaya explains the consequences Ukraine’s defeat could have for the Middle East:

If Russia emerges as the winner, America’s credibility and global leadership will be diminished, and regional leaders will have additional incentive to court Moscow as the more reliable partner. Putin will also have far more time and resources to devote to the Middle East—including arms deliveries—as well as more avenues to undermine U.S. interests there.

For example, a Russian win could diminish the U.S. position on future Iran nuclear negotiations, despite the fact that Tehran’s power-projection capabilities have been severely diminished over the past year. Going forward, Washington should realize that Moscow and Tehran must be treated as one strategic set—if either of them is empowered, the other will be empowered as well. Although the fall of Syria’s Assad regime was a major failure for them, the relationship between Iran and Russia now stretches beyond that front.

It’s worth recalling that the Kremlin’s intervention in the Middle East protected Iran and kept the Assad regime in power for years—allowing Syria to become a primary conduit of arms and other support from Iran to Hizballah. Russia has also hosted Hamas representatives in Moscow.

Addressing a recent meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Central Committee, Mahmoud Abbas criticized Hamas more sharply than he has previously (at least in public), calling them “sons of dogs.” The eighty-nine-year-old Palestinian Authority president urged the terrorist group to “stop the war of extermination in Gaza” and “hand over the American hostages.” The editors of the New York Sun comment:

Mr. Abbas has long been at odds with Hamas, which violently ousted his Fatah party from Gaza in 2007. The tone of today’s outburst, though, is new. Comparing rivals to canines, which Arabs consider dirty, is startling. Its motivation, though, was unrelated to the plight of the 59 remaining hostages, including 23 living ones. Instead, it was an attempt to use an opportune moment for reviving Abbas’s receding clout.

[W]hile Hamas’s popularity among Palestinians soared after its orgy of killing on October 7, 2023, it is now sinking. The terrorists are hoarding Gaza aid caches that Israel declines to replenish. As the war drags on, anti-Hamas protests rage across the Strip. Polls show that Hamas’s previously elevated support among West Bank Arabs is also down. Striking the iron while it’s hot, Abbas apparently longs to retake center stage. Can he?

Diminishing support for Hamas is yet to match the contempt Arabs feel toward Abbas himself. Hamas considers him irrelevant for what it calls “the resistance.”

[Meanwhile], Abbas is yet to condemn Hamas’s October 7 massacre. His recent announcement of ending alms for terror is a ruse.

Abbas, it’s worth noting, hasn’t saved all his epithets for Hamas. He also twice said of the Americans, “may their fathers be cursed.” Of course, after a long career of anti-Semitic incitement, Abbas can’t be expected to have a moral awakening. Nor is there much incentive for him to fake one. But, like the protests in Gaza, Abbas’s recent diatribe is a sign that Hamas is perceived as weak and that its stock is sinking.