Department of Strategic Security and Military Research and Studies 11-10-2024

While Washington has publicly called for a ceasefire in the region, it continues to extend both political and military support to Israel. Is the growing conflict a result of failed diplomacy, or is it part of the United States’ broader strategy?

In Washington, DC, back in February, President Joe Biden, holding an ice cream cone, confidently stated that a ceasefire in Gaza was imminent, hinting it could happen within days. Yet, more than seven months later, Israel’s military actions in Gaza have not only persisted but also expanded into Lebanon, with increasing violence across the Middle East.

Despite the Biden administration’s verbal appeals for de-escalation, it has consistently backed Israel, providing both political endorsement and a steady stream of military supplies to fuel its war efforts. Washington has shown approval for almost every aggressive step Israel has taken in the past year, including high-profile assassinations of Hamas leaders in Beirut and Tehran, the killing of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the invasion of southern Lebanon.

A year after the war in Gaza erupted, Israel continues its harsh military campaign in the Palestinian territories, resulting in almost 42,000 deaths, while also launching daily bombings of Beirut and planning a potential assault on Iran. As the violence in Gaza grows and spreads throughout the region, the gap between U.S. rhetoric and action is widening. Is the Biden administration merely failing to control Israel, or is it actively contributing to the escalation, using the chaos to pursue a more aggressive agenda against Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah?

In short, analysts believe that despite the U.S. calls for restraint and ceasefire, its continued military and diplomatic support for Israel makes it a key player in the region’s violence. While it’s difficult to definitively determine the administration’s true objectives, mounting evidence indicates that the Biden administration is closely aligned with Israel, rather than being a passive partner.

 What Has the U.S. Said and Done?

After months of advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza, the U.S. has now shifted its focus towards supporting Israel’s offensive in Lebanon. Last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin gave his approval for Israel’s ground operation in southern Lebanon, which risks turning into a full-scale invasion. Following a discussion with Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Austin reiterated Washington’s backing for Israel’s right to defend itself, stating that they had agreed on the necessity of dismantling Hezbollah’s attack infrastructure along the border to prevent further strikes on Israel’s northern regions.

The violence along the Israel-Lebanon border, initially contained to the area, has displaced tens of thousands on both sides. Hezbollah maintained that Israel’s northern residents could only return home once the war in Gaza was over. However, after a series of targeted assassinations of Hezbollah officials, Israel unleashed a massive bombing campaign across Lebanon in late September, leading to the displacement of over one million people.

Despite the U.S.’s previous claims of working toward a diplomatic resolution at the Lebanon-Israel border, including numerous visits by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, the Biden administration’s recent actions have largely supported the escalation. In late September, Washington proposed a temporary 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon, but this diplomatic effort quickly faltered after Israel assassinated Nasrallah in a large-scale bombing that destroyed residential areas in Beirut. The White House hailed the assassination as an act of justice, casting doubt on its commitment to de-escalation.

Osamah Khalil, a history professor at Syracuse University, questioned the sincerity of the U.S.’s diplomatic stance, arguing that Biden’s ceasefire efforts were largely driven by domestic politics rather than a genuine desire to resolve the conflict.

 Shaping the Middle East

Recent reports from U.S. media seem to support Khalil’s perspective. Politico revealed that key U.S. officials, including Hochstein and Brett McGurk, privately backed Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, viewing it as a pivotal moment that could reshape the region for the better. Axios similarly reported that the U.S. is looking to capitalize on Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah by pushing for the election of a new, pro-Washington president in Lebanon, a position that has remained vacant for almost two years.

The U.S. has long sought to influence the political landscape in the Middle East, particularly through its support for Israel and its aim to install favorable governments in the region. This approach is reminiscent of the neoconservative strategies of the George W. Bush era, during which U.S. officials, like then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, spoke of a “new Middle East” emerging from the region’s conflicts.

Notably, many figures from the Bush administration’s neoconservative movement are now aligned with the Democratic Party, with some backing Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming presidential election. Khalil highlighted that individuals like Dick Cheney, a key architect of the Iraq war, have endorsed Harris, underscoring the continuity of a hawkish foreign policy within the current administration.

 Failures in Gaza

As tensions continue to mount in Lebanon and fears of a wider conflict involving Iran grow, many analysts believe that the Biden administration’s failure to end the war in Gaza has set the stage for this broader escalation. Khalil Jahshan, executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, criticized the administration’s unwavering support for Israel, warning that it is driving the region toward an unpredictable and dangerous future.

Since the start of the Gaza conflict, the U.S. has shown “blind support” for Israel’s actions, ignoring concerns about the humanitarian impact and refusing to consider more balanced diplomatic solutions. In response to Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, Biden immediately backed a forceful Israeli military response and sought additional funding from Congress to aid Israel in the conflict.

Although calls for a ceasefire have grown, particularly in light of the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the U.S. has consistently argued that Israel has the right to pursue Hamas. Reports from ProPublica and Reuters indicate that the Biden administration received internal warnings about potential Israeli war crimes but proceeded with arms shipments to Israel regardless.

Even as pressure mounted both domestically and internationally, Biden softened his rhetoric, eventually using the term “ceasefire” while continuing to provide arms to Israel. Critics like Ryan Costello of the National Iranian American Council suggest that the U.S.’s calls for peace were more about political appearances than genuine efforts to stop the war.

Ultimately, the Biden administration’s stance, both diplomatically and militarily, has contributed to the continued bloodshed in the Middle East. By arming Israel while simultaneously calling for a ceasefire, the U.S. has sent conflicting signals, making peace seem more elusive than ever.