Caught Between Conflicting Objectives in Lebanon, the US Remains on the Sidelines

WASHINGTON – After weeks of intense diplomacy aimed at securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah militants, the United States has adopted an entirely different approach: letting the ongoing conflict in Lebanon play out.

Just two weeks ago, the United States and France demanded an immediate 21-day ceasefire to prevent an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. That effort was hampered by Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Syed Hassan Nasrallah, the Oct. 1 launch of Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon, and Israeli airstrikes that eliminated much of the group’s leadership.

Now, US officials have abandoned their calls for a ceasefire, arguing that circumstances have changed.

“We support Israel in launching these incursions to degrade Hezbollah’s infrastructure so that we can ultimately achieve a diplomatic resolution,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said at a press conference earlier this week. .

The change of course reflects contradictory US objectives – containing the growing conflict in the Middle East while at the same time seriously weakening the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

The new approach is practical and risky.

The US and Israel would benefit from defeating a common enemy – Hezbollah, which Tehran uses to threaten Israel’s northern border – but encouraging Israel’s ever-widening military campaign risks a conflict that spirals out of control.

Jon Alterman, a former State Department official, said the US wants to see Hezbollah weakened, but must weigh that against the risk of “creating a vacuum” in Lebanon or provoking a regional war.

Washington’s approach, he said, appears to be: “If you can’t change the Israeli approach, you better try to channel it in a constructive way.”

A VIRTUE OF NECESSITY

Israel’s latest fight with Hezbollah began when the group fired missiles at Israeli positions immediately after the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas gunmen on Israel that triggered the war in Gaza. Hezbollah and Israel have been exchanging fire ever since.

While months of indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas went nowhere, Israel began in September to intensify its bombardment of Hezbollah and dealt painful blows to the group, including the remote detonation of Hezbollah pagers and radios, injuring thousands of group members.

Following Nasrallah’s death – which the US called “a measure of justice” – US President Joe Biden again called for a ceasefire along the Israel-Lebanon border.

In any case, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched its ground invasion and, within days, the US abandoned its calls for a ceasefire and expressed support for its ally’s campaign.

Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East negotiator, said Washington has little hope of containing Israel and sees potential benefits from the operation.

“That certainly created momentum where the administration probably thought, ‘Let’s make a virtue of necessity,'” he said, adding that U.S. officials were also likely reserving influence to try to restrain Israel’s retaliation for a ballistic missile attack. that Tehran accomplished. last week.

Today, no meaningful ceasefire negotiations are underway, European sources familiar with the matter said, adding that the Israelis would continue their operation in Lebanon “for weeks, if not months.” Two U.S. officials told Reuters that could well be the timeline.

For the US, the Israeli campaign could bring at least two benefits.

First, the weakening of Hezbollah – Iran’s most powerful proxy militia – could reduce Tehran’s influence in the region and lessen the threat to Israel and US forces.

Washington also believes that military pressure could force Hezbollah to lay down its arms and pave the way for the election of a new government in Lebanon that would oust the powerful militia movement, which has been a significant player in Lebanon for decades.

Jonathan Lord, a former Pentagon official who now works at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said that would be difficult to achieve.

“On the one hand, many Lebanese chafe under the weight of Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon. But at the same time… this change is being imposed on Lebanon through a very violent campaign,” Lord said.

RISKY STRATEGY

The ultimate goal, U.S. officials said this week, is to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which mandated a U.N. peacekeeping mission — known as UNIFIL — to help the Lebanese army hold its ground. southern border with Israel free of weapons or armed personnel. than those of the Lebanese State.

US officials say talks with the parties to achieve these goals could take place as the fighting continues, although analysts warn that the conflict greatly increases the risk of a wider war, especially as the region awaits Israel’s response. to Iran’s missile attack.

In addition to the possibility of a war that could drag in the United States, there is the fear that Lebanon will become another Gaza.

A year of Israeli military operations have reduced the enclave to a wasteland and killed nearly 42,000 people, according to Gaza health officials. US officials openly warn that Israel’s offensive in Lebanon must in no way resemble that in the Gaza Strip.

Despite these dangers, Alterman, who currently directs the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said diplomacy is unlikely to stop the fighting anytime soon.

“Netanyahu sees all his bets paying off and it seems to me a difficult time for Israel to feel like it should stop pressing its advantage,” he said.