Following developments in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, the basic American interest continues to be preventing further escalation, especially avoiding a regional war with Iran’s direct involvement.
However, the relatively limited remarks by the US administration’s spokespersons regarding the developments indicate that Washington generally understands Israel’s actions and recognizes that Hezbollah’s conduct left the decision-makers in Jerusalem with no choice but to intensify Israel’s response. Publicly, the administration, including President Biden in his speech before the UN General Assembly on September 24, continues to maintain the position that achieving calm in the north requires adopting the hostage deal and achieving a ceasefire. However, it’s not clear how much the administration believes that it can promote such a move at this time.
Since the US administration has not had an alternative plan until now, it has been forced to formulate its policy “on the fly” with the upcoming presidential elections in mind, understanding that any action it takes could negatively affect the Democratic candidate’s chances of winning in the close race underway. Consequently, and considering the longstanding animosity the United States has with Hezbollah, the administration is unwilling (and seemingly unable) to pressure Israel at this stage. As long as Israel’s military effort continues to focus on undermining Hezbollah’s capabilities without causing extensive damage to Lebanese infrastructure or civilians, the administration should be able to contain the move. It should be noted that a ground invasion can also adversely affect the administration’s position.
A key question is to what extent the United States will be able, with the current data, to play a significant role in shaping the diplomatic settlement that will end the war and define the subsequent reality. So far, efforts by President Biden’s special envoy, Amos Hochstein, have been unsuccessful. For Israel, the administration’s role is of critical importance it is the one expected to represent its interests. It is possible that the United States, which has so far succeeded in deterring Iran from intervening in the fighting, will try to leverage Iran’s desire to renew the dialogue with the West, as evident from statements by the new president and his foreign policy team, to pressure on Tehran, which apparently is also not interested in regional escalation, and influence Hezbollah to agree to a political settlement separate from the hostage deal. However, it’s doubtful whether this will be feasible in the immediate future in a way that prevents an even broader escalation in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Following developments in the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, the basic American interest continues to be preventing further escalation, especially avoiding a regional war with Iran’s direct involvement.
However, the relatively limited remarks by the US administration’s spokespersons regarding the developments indicate that Washington generally understands Israel’s actions and recognizes that Hezbollah’s conduct left the decision-makers in Jerusalem with no choice but to intensify Israel’s response. Publicly, the administration, including President Biden in his speech before the UN General Assembly on September 24, continues to maintain the position that achieving calm in the north requires adopting the hostage deal and achieving a ceasefire. However, it’s not clear how much the administration believes that it can promote such a move at this time.
Since the US administration has not had an alternative plan until now, it has been forced to formulate its policy “on the fly” with the upcoming presidential elections in mind, understanding that any action it takes could negatively affect the Democratic candidate’s chances of winning in the close race underway. Consequently, and considering the longstanding animosity the United States has with Hezbollah, the administration is unwilling (and seemingly unable) to pressure Israel at this stage. As long as Israel’s military effort continues to focus on undermining Hezbollah’s capabilities without causing extensive damage to Lebanese infrastructure or civilians, the administration should be able to contain the move. It should be noted that a ground invasion can also adversely affect the administration’s position.
A key question is to what extent the United States will be able, with the current data, to play a significant role in shaping the diplomatic settlement that will end the war and define the subsequent reality. So far, efforts by President Biden’s special envoy, Amos Hochstein, have been unsuccessful. For Israel, the administration’s role is of critical importance it is the one expected to represent its interests. It is possible that the United States, which has so far succeeded in deterring Iran from intervening in the fighting, will try to leverage Iran’s desire to renew the dialogue with the West, as evident from statements by the new president and his foreign policy team, to pressure on Tehran, which apparently is also not interested in regional escalation, and influence Hezbollah to agree to a political settlement separate from the hostage deal. However, it’s doubtful whether this will be feasible in the immediate future in a way that prevents an even broader escalation in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.