Those celebrating the fall of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad are feeling the need to whitewash his replacement’s bloody past. With the assistance of President Biden’s foreign policy team, the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is assuming control of the Middle Eastern nation of nearly 25 million. Odds are that Mr. Biden will remove Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, from the terrorist watchlist. “The big guy” doesn’t want anyone to notice that he just handed Syria to an Islamist movement that is committed to jihad. Israel understands what’s happening, which is why its military sank every ship and bombing every plane in the Syrian arsenal “to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist elements.” Last year, our State Department wrote: “Armed terrorist groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham committed a wide range of abuses, including unlawful killings and kidnappings, unjust detention, physical abuse, deaths of civilians, and recruitment of child soldiers.” HTS’s commander, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, intends for the world to think otherwise. He recast himself as a moderate by wearing Western-friendly clothing for interviews with CNN. A decade ago, he was hard at work trying to kill U.S. troops in Iraq, prompting the U.S. government to place a $10 million bounty on his head. The man’s own words suggest he has yet to relinquish his passion for suicide bombings and beheadings. His goals remain to establish Shariah - Islamic law - in Syria, unify the groups fighting Mr. Assad and “protect the Jihad in [Syria] and assure its continuity using all Islamically legitimate means.” Those aren’t the words of a reformed terrorist.

North Korea is reportedly providing artillery shells, ballistic missiles and over 10,000 special forces troops to Russia. In return, Russia is likely to provide North Korea with food aid and energy assistance, with likely assistance to North Korea’s satellite and nuclear programs. But when the war in Ukraine ends, a heavily sanctioned Russia will likely walk away from North Korea, as it did in 1995 when Moscow renounced the 1961 treaty with North Korea and as it just did with Mr. Assad. History has a way of repeating itself, and it should be self-evident to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that Mr. Putin is using North Korea for military assistance in his war in Ukraine. Once North Korea ceases to be of value to Mr. Putin, North Korea will have to find its own way. And that way isn’t relying on Mr. Putin and Russia. Mr. Kim was correct in meeting with then-President Donald Trump in Singapore, Hanoi and the DMZ. He was correct in pursuing the goal his father, Kim Jong Il, and his grandfather Kim Il Sung pursued: normal diplomatic relations with the U.S. North Korea pursued that objective for over 30 years, Mr. Kim, his father and his grandfather knew that normal relations with the U.S. would permit North Korea to receive significant economic development assistance as a legitimate member of the international community. Today, North Korea is heavily sanctioned and is aiding Russia, a pariah state, with its war of aggression in Ukraine. Dealing with a fickle Mr. Putin, who will abandon North Korea as his predecessors did, is not in North Korea’s interest. Eventually, returning to negotiations with the Trump administration would be in North Korea’s best interest.

In July, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad visited with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and no doubt was told by Mr. Putin that Moscow would protect the Assad regime. But Russia didn’t protect the Assad regime. Russian Foreign Minister, on Dec. 7, said Hayat Tahrir al-Sham(HTS), the group that toppled the Assad regime, was a terrorist organization, while Russia’s Foreign Ministry used more diplomatic language, calling the group an “armed opposition group.” Since 2015, Russia has been militarily supporting the Assad regime, with a naval base in Tartus and an air base in Latakia. This gave Russia a presence in the region, something Mr. Putin coveted. It’s questionable whether HTS will permit Russia to maintain this military presence in Syria. Regardless, it’s apparent that Russia suffered a humiliating defeat in Syria and abandoned Mr. Assad. Russia’s abandoning the Syrian dictator shouldn’t be a surprise to North Korea. In 1985, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, inheriting a costly and eventual military defeat in Afghanistan, started to distance the Soviet Union from North Korea while moving toward formal diplomatic relations with South Korea, which were established in September 1990. The Soviet Union’s 1961 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with North Korea formally ended in 1995, replaced by a February 2000 treaty that emphasized trade and excluded military assistance, prominent clauses in the 1961 treaty. The New 2024 Treaty of Comprehensive Strategic Partnership states that if either country is invaded, the other must provide military and other assistance. Indeed, the treaty immediately benefits a revanchist Russia and its war of aggression in Ukraine.

Recently, North Korea publicly tested suicide drones that could be provided to Russia for its war with Ukraine. North Korea has publicly eschewed reunification with South Korea. I’ve often been asked why we should care about North Korea. My response hasn’t changed over the years: We don’t want another Korean War, this time with a nuclear North Korea with ballistic missiles capable of targeting our allies in South Korea and Japan and, most recently, with ICBMs capable of targeting the U.S. Although North Korea knows it would be suicidal to use nuclear weapons against Seoul or Tokyo, the likelihood of an emboldened North Korea, now aligned with Russia, using conventional weapons to incite conflict with South Korea, is greater now than at any time since the Korean War. We should not give up on North Korea. Except for the past four years, the U.S. has had routine senior-level contact with North Korea and discussed the normalization of relations . Kim Jong Un knows that North Korea’s allied relationship with Russia and its support for Moscow’s invasion of a sovereign nation will prevent North Korea from receiving the international development assistance it wants and needs and the international legitimacy it seeks. Aligning with a pariah state - Russia - that will again abandon North Korea, as it did in 2001 with the implosion of the Soviet Union, is not what Mr. Kim wants. Given the relationship Mr. Trump has with Mr. Kim, it’s likely North Korea will respond favorably to an overture that proposes the eventual lifting of sanctions on an action-for-action basis as North Korea halts the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and halts nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches.

Despite these setbacks, Iran remains the region’s most dangerous actor. With its proxy network significantly weakened, Tehran has accelerated its nuclear ambitions. According to recent reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has enriched uranium at unprecedented levels, bringing it within months of achieving a nuclear weapon. Increasingly, it appears that Iran has already decided to pursue nuclear weapons, abandoning even the pretense of restraint. This escalation demands a decisive response. The collapse of Iran’s proxy networks presents a rare and urgent opportunity to strike its nuclear program. While Israel cannot destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites on its own, it can deliver a significant blow to delay their progress. For such an operation to succeed, however, Israel requires American support ? both operationally and diplomatically. U.S. backing would not only enhance Israel’s ability to target critical sites but also help manage the likely fallout, including Iranian retaliation. This moment is pivotal not just for Israel but for the entire Middle East and the Western world. Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would embolden its leaders to escalate their aggression across the region and beyond. Tehran’s fundamentalist regime already sponsors terrorism on multiple continents. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the stability of Europe, the security of the United States and the safety of allies worldwide. The Middle East is at a crossroads. After years of bloodshed, there is an opportunity to reshape the region into one of greater stability and prosperity. But this future cannot be realized while Iran remains on the brink of nuclear capability.

This moment is a historic opportunity to reshape the Middle East and confront threats looming for decades. Yet this transformation will remain incomplete without addressing the most dangerous element of all: Iran’s nuclear program. Israel faces a direct and explicit existential threat. Iran’s leaders openly call for its destruction. But the threat extends far beyond rhetoric. Over decades, Iran has pursued its vision of regional domination through two main strategies: arming proxy militias across the Middle East and advancing a nuclear weapons program. These twin ambitions have destabilized the region and created persistent threats to Israel and its neighbors. Though this strategy partially succeeded, with multiple fronts opening against Israel, it also revealed the limits of Iran’s power and the resilience of the Israeli military. Hamas, once a formidable threat, has been decimated. Its leadership is shattered, its military infrastructure destroyed and its political control over the Gaza Strip dissolved. In the north, Hezbollah has suffered a similar fate. After months of fighting, much of its leadership has been eliminated, and its strategic capabilities - painstakingly built with Iranian support - have been significantly eroded. The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria marks the most dramatic shift in the region. This event not only liberated Syria from one of its most oppressive leaders but also severed a crucial link in Iran’s Axis of Resistance. Without Mr. Assad, Iran has lost a key ally and the vital land corridor through which it supplied Hezbollah with weapons and support. Hezbollah, now isolated and surrounded by adversaries, is no longer the threat it once was.

In Syria, rebels recognized the unique opportunity recent developments presented. Late last month, they attacked the armed forces of longtime dictator Bashar Assad in Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city. Those forces turned tail and ran. The rebels then marched south and on Sunday, they took Damascus, the Syrian capital. Hezbollah did not ride to Mr. Assad’s rescue. Nor did Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The Iranian leader Khamenei decided not to risk his own troops or those of his Shiite militias in Iraq. The defeat of the dynastic Syrian dictator, responsible for the slaughter of half a million of his countrymen and the displacement of millions more, deserves celebration, as does the cracking of Mr. Khamenei’s imperialist project. But in our world, there are no permanent victories. Remember the excitement over the Arab Spring? And who did not think that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia would have decent governments? Of the many Syrian rebel groups now vying for power, the strongest is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. It is supported by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of Turkey. Mr. Erdogan is also a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. He recently said Western civilization will collapse. While it’s too soon to say who will rule Syria, a land once known as the “cradle of civilization,” over the months and years ahead, the Israelis are shaping the environment. More specifically, they are demilitarizing Syria. The fall of the Assad regime and the fracturing of Mr. Khamenei’s anti-American and anti-Israeli axis have created a chance to restructure the Middle East.

Ankara’s opposition to Kurdish autonomy complicates U.S. efforts to support its Kurdish allies, which were pivotal in the fight against IS. A Turkish-Kurdish conflict could undermine regional stability and inadvertently strengthen IS. The U.S. will need to balance Turkey’s NATO status with the need to protect Kurdish forces ― a dilemma that risks alienating both allies. Donald Trump’s insistence on the U.S. staying out of Syria’s quagmire seems prescient. Mr. Trump’s critics deride his reluctance to engage in deep military intervention as isolationist. Syria remains a deeply fractured nation, and any attempt at nation-building would likely be futile and costly. The battle between IS and Kurdish forces for power will raise both the financial and human costs of nation-building. The weakening of Mr. Assad’s key backers ― Russia and Iran ― has reshaped the Middle East’s power dynamics. Russia, bogged down in its war in Ukraine, was unable to maintain its military and economic support for Mr. Assad. Iran, meanwhile, has been battered by relentless Israeli operations targeting its assets in Syria, Lebanon and beyond, including the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. While the diminishing influence of these adversaries creates openings for the U.S. and its allies, it also leaves a dangerous void. The absence of Russian and Iranian control could lead to greater instability, with extremist groups and competing militias vying for dominance. The U.S. must revisit whether it will continue to watch from the sidelines. The stakes are high, and history will not be kind to those who fail to act decisively.

The swift collapse of Mr. Assad’s regime in the absence of Russian and Iranian support highlights how fragile his hold on power was all along. A resolute and timely U.S. response in 2013 could have changed the course of Syrian history and spared millions from the horrors of war. Mr. Obama’s legacy in Syria will remain a cautionary tale of what happens when rhetoric outpaces action. As Mr. Assad’s regime fell apart in a matter of days, the Biden administration has been cautious to speak with authority. This vacuum of American initiative or even voice allows regional powers such as Israel and Turkey to dictate the terms of Syria’s future. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proactive strategy - including precision strikes on Iranian targets in Syria and swiftly moving troops into the buffer zone in the Golan Heights in the aftermath of Mr. Assad’s fall - will outpace Washington’s slow-moving policy apparatus. Meanwhile, Turkey’s maneuvers in northern Syria, particularly against Kurdish groups, reflect Ankara’s ability to pursue its agenda without significant U.S. oversight. The Biden administration has yet to articulate a cohesive strategy, leaving the U.S. playing second fiddle to regional actors focused on shaping the post-Assad landscape in ways that may not align with American interests. Mr. Assad’s fall does not signify peace for Syria. Instead, it starts a new and perhaps more complex conflict. The Islamic State group, emboldened by the power vacuum, is already said to be resurging. Kurdish groups are scrambling to secure their position against both IS and a potentially aggressive Turkey.

In Asia, similar reasoning keeps the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which only pushes nations such as Malaysia and Indonesia closer to China. U.S. trade with China continues to grow, even though its share of U.S. imports has declined. And this robust commerce supports China’s growth and America’s vulnerabilities - we are terribly dependent on the Middle Kingdom, for example, for the processing of the minerals and metals needed to build EV batteries. It’s time to abandon the notion that Ukraine can oust the Russians and stop bleeding U.S. and European munitions’ stockpiles without the aircraft and missile systems necessary to establish control of the skies over Ukraine and destroy critical targets in Russia. We have lots of options if Moscow threatens nuclear retaliation. We must also abandon our “one size fits all” approach to trade and industrial policy. The U.S. should embrace free trade with the U.K. and Europe and reenter the TPP while imposing a more robust tariff regime on China. We can’t end import dependence overnight, but we could require import licenses that gradually rebalance trade. U.S. imports from China exceed exports by 2.3 to 1. The Commerce Department could gradually reduce the ratio to 1-to-1 over several years. The rising cost of imports from China would also accelerate the growth of U.S. imports from alternative sources in Asia and strengthen their ability to purchase U.S. products through the TPP. This would slow China’s growth and shift that progress to domestic industries and more friendly nations.