On Monday, two days after Israel blamed Lebanon’s Hezbollah for an attack that killed 12 people in the occupied Golan Heights, White House Press Secretary John Kirby reaffirmed America’s support for Israel but stressed that Washington still wants to ease regional tensions.
“We still believe there is time and space for a diplomatic solution,” Kirby said, speculating about what Israel’s next move might be and whether it would trigger the long-feared all-out regional war.
The United States has expressed support for Tel Aviv since the Israeli attack on October 7 and the start of the war in Gaza, sending troops to the Middle East while officially stating that it does not want this to happen.
Since then, the Middle East and the world have held their breath on several occasions, most notably in April when Israel killed two Iranian generals in Tehran’s consulate in Damascus, after which Iran cabled Israel that it was planning an attack.
According to reports at the time, the United States was trying to prevent Israel from escalating the situation and launching a full-scale attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Meanwhile, the United States has been one of the countries mediating a potential ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but it appears to have hit a snag in recent months.
Now, just hours after the brutal assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, which the Palestinians and Iranians blame on Israel, and the killing of senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut, the twin goals of the United States – a ceasefire and a de-escalation of regional tensions – appear to have been shattered.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser for the Americas program at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that a ceasefire in Gaza would be the only thing that would lead to a regional easing of tensions, otherwise there is always the risk of the conflict escalating by deploying US troops stationed in the area.
“If we want to avoid further escalation in the region, including a possible US military intervention, we need to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, which is necessary to defuse the situation with the Houthis and Hezbollah, and to continue the deceleration in attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq,” Finucane said.
But Finucane believes the recent attacks could complicate or derail current prospects for a U.S.-brokered ceasefire in the short term.
Can America Do More?
But many believe the U.S. could do more to achieve a ceasefire, with Israel threatening to kill 40,000 of its Palestinian allies and set fire to already volatile areas.
“We haven’t really seen the US push for de-escalation. US policy contradicts its actions,” said Raed Jarrah, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. “The US could have easily implemented this kind of de-escalation and ceasefire principle by stopping arms transfers, and if it had done that, there would have been a ceasefire months ago.”
“Israel would not have been able to attack all these countries without American weapons, American political support, American military support, American intelligence support,” Jarrar added. “Israel would not have been able to bring this region into the regional war that we are in now.”
After Haniya’s assassination, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. government had “no knowledge or involvement” in the killing, which came days after Netanyahu visited the United States.
“It’s very hard to speculate, and I’ve been taught over the years not to speculate about the impact of one event on another. So I can’t tell you what that means,” Blinken said when asked to give his assessment of what might happen next.
“(It) could very well be true,” said Trita Parsi, a senior vice president at the Quincy Institute, a U.S. foreign policy think tank. “But there’s probably no perception of that in the region, and it’s reinforced by the fact that just two days ago the head of Mossad held ceasefire talks with the head of the CIA.”
American Leadership
And if the United States had no prior knowledge of this attack, what does that mean for the US leadership in the region and Israel’s disregard for the aforementioned US goals of a ceasefire and avoidance of regional war?
“This does not imply that Israel views the United States as a leader in the region, nor does it imply that Israel is taking the lead in the United States,” Finucane said.
He added that the United States faced a “fundamental dilemma”: supporting Israel with military force and aid to deter Iran and its allies, but “at the same time wanting to avoid regional escalation.”
“The United States needs to fundamentally rethink what it’s going to do to achieve a ceasefire, what it’s going to do to ease tensions in the region beyond mere rhetoric,” Finucane said.
The United States now faces a tumultuous few months ahead of the presidential election. After President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, it is expected that a new president will be appointed, although it is unclear who will win.
Analysts say the uncertainty about what will happen in the United States is to Netanyahu’s advantage, as a Kamala Harris presidency could make the Israeli prime minister more determined to end the war.
“Netanyahu is betting on his ability to corner the United States, essentially forcing the American political leadership to adopt a posture of constant coddling of Netanyahu, protecting and defending everything Israel does as self-defense,” Parsi said.
This means a continuation of the US policies that many Middle Easterners blame for the unrest and violence that has ravaged the region for decades.
“Since October 7, America’s blind support for Israel has certainly affected America’s position and ability to exert influence in the region. The United States has failed to demonstrate any kind of leadership,” said DAWN’s Jarrar. “(But) the United States has lost political capital in the region over the years, and it has been in decline since the Iraq War.”
