Just two weeks ago, the United States and France demanded an immediate 21-day ceasefire to stave off an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. But these efforts faltered due to Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, the start of Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon on October 1, and Israeli air strikes that eliminated most of the group’s leadership.
Now, American officials have withdrawn their calls for a ceasefire, claiming that circumstances have changed.
US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a press conference a few days ago: “We support Israel “In launching these attacks with the aim of destroying Hezbollah’s infrastructure so that we can ultimately reach a diplomatic solution.”
This change in course reflects the conflict in American goals, which are to contain the growing conflict in the Middle East, while at the same time significantly weakening the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.
Risks
The new approach is practical for Israel and America, but at the same time it is fraught with risks, as encouraging an expanding Israeli military campaign risks an out-of-control conflict.
John Alterman, a former US State Department official, said: “The United States wants the Israeli campaign to weaken Hezbollah’s capabilities, but it must balance that with the possibility of creating a vacuum in Lebanon or igniting the fuse of a regional war.”
He added that Washington’s approach appears to be as follows: “If you cannot change the Israeli approach, it is better to try to direct it in a constructive way.”
Necessity or investment in despair?
The latest fighting between Israel and Hezbollah broke out when the Lebanese group fired rockets at Israeli positions following the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel that sparked the Gaza war.
In light of the lack of progress in indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas for months, in September Israel began to intensify its bombing of Hezbollah and dealt painful blows to the group, including detonating walkie-talkies and pagers used by the group, which led to one injury. Thousands of Hezbollah members.
After the killing of Nasrallah, which the United States described as a “just measure,” US President Joe Biden renewed his call for a ceasefire along Israel’s borders with Lebanon. But the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu carried out its ground invasion, and within a few days the United States abandoned its calls for a ceasefire and expressed its support for the campaign of its ally Israel.
Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator for the Middle East, said that Washington has little hope of restricting Israel, and that it sees potential benefits in the process.
He added, “It certainly created a momentum in which the administration may have seen this belief, ‘Let’s make necessity a virtue,'” adding that it is also likely that American officials maintain an advantage in trying to limit the Israeli response to the Iranian missile attack that Tehran carried out last week.
Informed European sources said that there are no meaningful ceasefire talks today, and they added that the Israelis will move forward with their operation in Lebanon “for weeks, if not months.” Two US officials told Reuters that could be the time frame.
At least two benefits
For Washington, the Israeli campaign may bring at least two benefits. The first is that weakening Hezbollah may limit Tehran’s influence in the region and reduce the threat to Israel and American forces.
Washington also believes that military pressure could force Hezbollah to lay down arms, paving the way for the election of a new government in Lebanon that would marginalize the Lebanese group that has played a major role in Lebanon for decades.
Jonathan Lord, a former Pentagon official who now works at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said this would be difficult to achieve.
Lord added: “On the one hand, many Lebanese feel very disturbed by the presence of… Hezbollah In Lebanon. But at the same time (…) this change is being imposed on Lebanon through a very violent campaign.”
US officials said last week that the ultimate goal is to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which mandated the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to help the Lebanese army keep its southern border area with Israel free of weapons or any militants other than those affiliated with the state. Lebanese.
US officials say talks with the parties to achieve these goals could take place as fighting continues, although analysts warn that the conflict significantly increases the risk of a broader war, especially as the region awaits Israel’s response to the Iranian missile strike.
Aside from the possibility of a war that could drag the United States in, there are fears that it could transform Lebanon To another Gaza.
Despite these risks, Alterman, who currently heads the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says diplomacy is unlikely to stop the fighting anytime soon.
He added: “(Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu sees that all his bets are paying off, and I think it is difficult for Israel to feel at this moment that it has to stop its (military) pressure.”
