Speaking on Monday, two days after Israel blamed Lebanon’s Hezbollah for the attack that killed 12 people in the occupied Golan Heights, White House official John Kirby reiterated U.S. support for Israel but emphasized that Washington I still wanted regional de-escalation.
“We believe there is still time and space for a diplomatic solution,” Kirby said, as thoughts turned to what Israel’s next move would be and whether it would trigger a long-feared all-out regional war.
The United States has publicly declared that it does not want this eventuality, even when it sent forces to the Middle East after the October 7 attack on Israel and the start of the war in Gaza, in a show of support for Tel Aviv.
The Middle East and the rest of the world have held their breath on several occasions since then, most notably when Israel killed two Iranian generals in Tehran’s consulate in Damascus in April, followed by a telegraphed Iranian attack on Israel.
At the time, reports indicated that the US had worked to prevent Israel’s escalation and also to prevent Israel from launching a full-scale attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Meanwhile, the US has been one of the countries mediating a potential ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, although it appears to have encountered several obstacles in recent months.
Now, after the brazen murder of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran – which the Palestinian group and Iran blame on Israel – and the assassination of Hezbollah’s top commander, Fuad Shukr, in Beirut, all in the space of a few hours , the US’s twin goals of a ceasefire and regional de-escalation appear to be in tatters.
Brian Finucane, senior advisor to the International Crisis Group’s US Program, told Al Jazeera that regional de-escalation would eventually emerge following a ceasefire in Gaza, and that without it, the potential for an expanded conflict drawing in US forces parked in the region has always been present.
“If we are to avoid further escalation in the region, including an escalation involving US troops, it will be necessary to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. This is what is needed to calm things down with the Houthis [in Yemen]with Hezbollah, and continue the lull in attacks on US troops in Syria and Iraq,” Finucane said.
But with the recent attacks, Finucane believes current prospects for a US-brokered ceasefire have been complicated, if not derailed, in the short term.
Could the US do more?
Many feel, however, that the US can do more when it comes to trying to reach a ceasefire in a conflict in which its ally Israel has killed nearly 40,000 Palestinians, threatening to ignite an already volatile region.
“We haven’t really seen US pressure for de-escalation – US policy contradicts US actions,” said Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a think tank in Washington, DC. “The U.S. could have easily applied these types of de-escalation and ceasefire principles, stopping arms transfers, which would have led to a ceasefire months ago.”
“Israel could not have attacked all of these countries without US weapons, without US political support, without US military support and without US intelligence support,” Jarrar added. “Israel would not have the capacity to take the region to what we have now, which is a regional war.”
Following Haniyeh’s murder, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US government was “neither aware nor involved” in the murder, which occurred days after Netanyahu visited the US.
“It is very difficult to speculate and I have learned over many years never to speculate about the impact that one event may have on another. So I can’t say what that means,” Blinken said when asked for his assessment of what could come next.
“[That] it could very well be true,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a U.S. foreign policy think tank. “But in the region, the perception probably won’t be that, and that will be reinforced by the fact that just two days or so ago, the head of the Mossad was negotiating ceasefire negotiations with the head of the CIA. .”
US leadership
And if the US had no prior knowledge of the attack, what does this mean for US leadership in the region, and for Israel’s apparent disregard for the previously mentioned US objectives of a ceasefire and avoiding a regional war?
“It certainly does not suggest that Israel regards the US as a leader in the region, or that Israel is assuming leadership from the United States,” Finucane said.
He added that the US faces a “fundamental conundrum”, which is that it supported Israel with military power and support to deter Iran and its allies, “but at the same time wanted to avoid regional escalation”.
“The US needs to fundamentally rethink what it will do to achieve a ceasefire – what it will do to defuse the region beyond mere rhetoric,” Finucane said.
The US now heads into a tumultuous few months as it prepares for a presidential election that will see a transition to a new president, whoever wins, after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Uncertainty about what lies ahead in the US works well for Netanyahu, analysts said, ahead of a potential Kamala Harris presidency, which could further pressure the Israeli prime minister to end the war.
“Netanyahu is banking on his ability to corner the US and essentially forces his political leadership to constantly be in a position to embrace Netanyahu and protect and defend everything Israel does, claiming it is self-defense,” Parsi said.
That would mean a continuation of U.S. policies that many in the Middle East blame for the unrest and violence that have devastated the region in recent decades.
“Since October 7, blind US support for Israel has definitively affected the US position in the region and its ability to influence. The US has completely failed to demonstrate any kind of leadership,” said DAWN’s Jarrar. “[But] the US has [already] has lost its political capital in the region over the years and has been declining since the Iraq war.”
This story originally appeared on Aljazeera.com read the full story
