Sometimes, geopolitical outcomes are better measured by the avoidance of further pain than the prospect of some fantasized ideal. That may well be the case right now in the Middle East.

Two deeply flawed elections have taken place in recent days: Syrian dictator Bashar Assad gained another seven-year term in a mockery of a vote, while Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, the former military chief who ousted Muslim Brotherhood member and President Mohamed Morsi from office in a coup, was elected president of Egypt.  

Now  that these two autocratic leaders are in office for  extended terms, what impact are they likely to have in both their own nations and the Middle East region?  

Assad presently seems to have the upper hand in the Syrian civil war, in which 150,000 have been killed and millions forced to abandon their homes. Sisi’s formal election represents a throwback to Egypt’s rule by military leaders, from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s rise in 1952, through his successors, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.

With the ever-shifting sands of alliances and uprisings in the Middle East, these elections pose some stabilizing prospects. Sisi, despite the rigged nature of his election, is widely popular among a large swath of Egypt’s population, and his taking office could bring some welcome calm. The nation has endured continuous turmoil since the demonstrations in Tahrir Square leading to Mubarak’s ouster and the subsequent unrest culminating in the coup that deposed Morsi.  

Sisi, like Mubarak, is known to be committed to honoring the Egypt-Israel peace. Egypt’s military has cooperated with Israel in curbing Iranian arms shipments into Hamas-controlled Gaza and containing the lawlessness among rebellious Bedouin extremists in  the Sinai.

So it’s relatively easy to see why the deeply flawed military dictatorship in Egypt has some potential benefit to Israel and the region, at least in the short run. Less death, destruction and terrorism is good, even given the awful price of severe restrictions on civil and political liberties. Compared to the United States, Egypt looks radically restrictive. Compared to Syria, Sisi’s presence looks like a less-atrocious alternative.

Which brings us to Assad. How could there be any credible argument made that the regime’s continued leadership is a good thing?

Assad has so much blood on his hands that the United States and most of its allies list forcing the despot to leave office as a major goal. Yet that desired scenario seems unlikely to happen, at least in the short term, in the absence of international intervention.  Meanwhile, Assad’s loyalists have gained a substantial upper hand in the civil war, retaking the key city of Homs and pounding rebel strongholds.

Why have the world’s nations failed to directly intervene with military force? A previous strike was called off after longtime Assad ally Russia offered to secure Syria’s cooperation in the destruction of all of its chemical weapons  stockpiles.

U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice has stated that 92.5 percent of the declared chemical weapons are gone, more than any “number of airstrikes that might have been contemplated would have done.”

Not so fast, says Paul Wolfowitz, a former deputy U.S. secretary of defense and currently a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “(I)t seems likely that more remains than just what was declared by Syria last year. For one thing, it appears that the regime is now using chlorine gas as a kind of poor man’s chemical weapon even though, as Time reported on May 23, it has made no declaration about its chlorine stocks.”

So lots of abominable chemical stockpiles are gone, which Assad might or might not have ultimately used without the agreement, while more may remain. During the removal period, however, many of the anti-Assad rebel factions have been taken over by Al Qaeda-linked extremists. If Assad were forced from office near term, it is a distinct possibility that Syria will break up into several mini-states controlled by warring terror-laden factions. This could result in a situation analogous to a warlord-dominated nation like Somalia.

That could not be better than Assad’s presence, and it most definitely could be worse, particularly with respect to Israel’s well being. From that perspective, and we say this with a certain cringe, continued rule by Assad may be preferred to his sudden ouster; even Israeli defense officials have suggested as much.

While there is little cause for celebration over the elections of strongmen Sisi and Assad, it can be said that there are worse alternatives than what the status quo offers. And given the moral depravity of the leaders involved, that’s about as sad a state of affairs as one can imagine.