The Biden administration remains immersed in intense diplomatic activity in the Middle East, trying to avoid a regional war while enthusiastically selling the idea that a Gaza deal is possible.
The region seemed to be tipping closer to all-out war after the latest provocative extrajudicial killings ordered by Israel in Beirut and Tehran, with crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah intensifying last weekend. Avoiding this war is a good cause in itself.
With US elections looming and policies toward Gaza, Israel and the Middle East unpopular with the Democratic electorate itself and a potential drag on elections in key states, there are also compelling political reasons for a Democratic administration to avoid another war and seek a diplomatic edge. Countering domestic political criticism in the hope of a deal was a useful resource to deploy at the Democratic convention in Chicago and will be needed through November 5.
The Biden team is looking for a complicated three-way shot. First, it needs to convince the Iranian axis to refrain from any further reaction after the latest selective assassinations ordered by Israel in Beirut and Tehran. Joe Biden wanted to maintain the possibility of a ceasefire, which Iran would prefer not to break, thus buying time to strengthen the American military presence in the region, which would in turn increase its bargaining and threatening power against Iran.
With the balance of power tilted in Israel’s favor in the current conflict, the United States is also trying to help its main ally in the region regain its deterrent power and the operational capability of its military.
Second, the Biden administration wants to arrive on Election Day with positive news, trying to end a conflict that divides the electorate or, at the very least, avoid the escalation of a confrontation that could lead to a regional explosion where the United States could be dragged down by its alliance with Israel.
Third, although there is a greater degree of speculation on this, the Democratic administration may want to end the brutal devastation and slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and the hellish ordeal endured by Israelis detained in Gaza and their families. Another benefit of a cessation of hostilities is that it would avoid further damage to U.S. interests and reputation, due to the political cover and weapons it has provided to Israel throughout this war.
Under normal conditions, an acceptable achievement would be to meet the first objectives by checking two of the three boxes. Iran, the leader of the resistance axis,’s refusal to fall into the trap of total war makes this goal more achievable. But failure to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza jeopardizes everything else and increases the risk that the region will continue to boil. In the current context of rising expectations, de-escalation in the Middle East and political tranquility in the United States will be much harder to maintain if negotiations for a Gaza settlement fail again.
Unfortunately, that is the direction things are headed, especially following a US diplomatic move that has been exposed as clumsy or insincere. Or both.
It goes without saying that ending the unprecedented suffering that Palestinians in Gaza endure every day and returning Israelis detained there to their homes are more than sufficient reasons to make every effort to achieve a ceasefire, but the Biden administration has been remarkably inept at treating Palestinians as equal in humanity and dignity to Israeli Jews, one of the reasons why Biden’s Gaza policy works so against him within the Democratic base.
The glaring shortcomings of the Biden administration’s approach, exacerbated by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s latest trip to the region, are very significant and deserve examination.
Alarm bells should have been ringing when Blinken announced at his recent press conference in Jerusalem that Benjamin Netanyahu had accepted the US “bridge proposal,” when the Israeli prime minister himself had said no such thing. Within hours, it became clear that Israel’s chief negotiator, Nitzan Alon, would not be participating in the negotiations in protest at Netanyahu’s watering down of the deal.
Then, senior security officials from the U.S. and Israeli governments spoke. unofficially with the press to say that Netanyahu was blocking the deal. Major Israeli hostage family forums have reached similar conclusions and stated so publicly.
On his ninth visit to Israel since the October 7 attack, Blinken failed again. Not only as a mediator between Israel and Hamas, but also in his attempt to bridge the gap between the warring parties in the Israeli system.
The US refusal to take seriously the legitimacy of Hamas in some of the negotiating positions that will make up the agreement (with which the US appears to agree in substance, such as Israel’s complete withdrawal and a lasting ceasefire) has condemned the US-led talks to successive failures.
Repackaging Israeli proposals as American may have a retro feel, but that doesn’t mean it’s a positive thing. And it won’t help move things forward (or even maintain Israel’s support, given Netanyahu’s strategy of constantly changing his demands to avoid a deal).
The US’s lack of credibility as a mediator is one problem, but the fact that it conspired to make its contributions not only useless but counterproductive is devastating. Even Itamar Eichner, who writes about diplomatic affairs for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth, described Blinken’s visit as a display of “naivety and amateurism… effectively sabotaging the deal by aligning himself with Netanyahu.”
It’s a modus operandi of the American government that Netanyahu knows well and that fits perfectly into his comfort zone. Netanyahu knows that he has won once the American mediator is ready to shift the blame to the Palestinian side, regardless of the real facts (Arafat, during the Oslo negotiations; Hamas, today).
Biden and senior US government officials are pushing their disinformation campaign, claiming that Hamas is the only problem and the only party that needs to be pressured, even though the US had to change its proposal to please Netanyahu and the prime minister continues to stray from the agreed terms, just as his own defense apparatus disfigures him.
Netanyahu may have personally angered several US administrations, but the truth is that White House policies serve to entrench Bibi in the Israeli government.
Although there are internal pressures to reach an agreement (which would allow the return of the hostages and put an end to the military operation), Netanyahu has been convinced from the beginning of this war of the predominance of other more disastrous consequences: an agreement that would put an end to the extremist coalition with which Netanyahu governs and would put an end to the main political shield that he has built for himself by imposing himself as the supposedly indispensable leader of Israel in times of war.
Ideologically, Netanyahu would prefer to displace the Palestinians and leave them without rights, in addition to drawing the United States into active participation in the regional confrontation against Iran. In the short term, his political goal is to fuel an open war that can have varying degrees of intensity, but which cannot be sustained in the event of an agreement.
Where then can change come from? Given the current tensions, it is still possible that something resembling an all-out war could break out in the region. Without neglecting the dangers and losses that this entails, this larger conflagration could subsequently increase external pressure for a general ceasefire. Internal dynamics within the coalition government could also put Netanyahu in difficulty, with tensions between the allied parties and, in particular, with the ultra-Orthodox parties over the issue of military conscription.
But the surest way to de-escalate the region and end the horrors in Gaza remains to significantly challenge Israel’s incentive structure by imposing legal, political and economic sanctions and pressure measures. And above all, to withhold arms shipments.
Netanyahu is a runaway cannon that Kamala Harris had better not reload just ten weeks before the election.
