The Lame Duck That's Setting the Region on Fire | Politics

In less than two weeks, Israel carried out three qualitative military operations. The first was targeting the port of Hodeidah in Yemen via F-16 and F-35 aircraft that flew nearly 1,900 kilometers from the Negev desert, which led to the explosion of an oil tank and a power station. The second operation was the assassination of the senior Hezbollah military commander, Fouad Shukr, in the southern suburb of Beirut, which according to Hezbollah’s standards is one of the red lines in the conflict with the Zionist entity. The third and most dangerous operation was the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, head of the political bureau of Hamas, in the heart of the Iranian capital, Tehran.

The three Israeli operations aim to achieve three things:

• An attempt to restore part of its prestige and image that fell on October 7, when its military, security and intelligence agencies failed to predict the attack by the Palestinian factions, especially Hamas, and to confront it, which constituted an unprecedented security and military failure in the history of the entity.
• An attempt to rebuild the regional deterrence equation with opponents, especially Iran and its allies in the Arab region, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has changed significantly to the entity’s disadvantage since October 8.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to create an image of achievement to escape his disastrous failure in his war on the Gaza Strip.

In these three operations, the administration of US President Joe Biden was strongly present, not only through its prior knowledge and awareness of these operations, but also through military, intelligence and logistical support. It is inconceivable that Israel would undertake or that Netanyahu would dare to undertake these operations without prior US approval, not only for the purpose of coordination, but also to protect its back in the event of any reactions to what it did, and in anticipation of any consequences that may result from carrying out these operations.

But the important question is: Why does Washington seem to be surrendering to Netanyahu’s logic, which apparently seeks to expand the circle of conflict in the region, which could lead to a large-scale regional war, the bill of which the United States may pay, and which would negatively affect its interests in the region? Several factors lie behind this American position:

1. The current US administration agrees with Israel in seeking to restore the deterrence equation that fell ten months ago, which negatively affected America's image as the main ally and supporter of the Zionist entity, and therefore there is a common interest with Tel Aviv in this regard.
2. Washington is trying to punish Iran and its allies in the region, in revenge for their failure of the normalization plan that was in full swing before October 7, and which President Biden was counting on as one of his foreign policy achievements, especially in light of his failure in all other files, such as: the file of the Russian war on Ukraine, and the file of the relationship with China, as well as to become part of his legacy after his retirement from political work.
3. The administration's desire to establish a new regional system that seeks to integrate Israel into the region through an alliance with some Arab countries in the face of Iran, in which Tel Aviv plays the role of the spearhead, in light of Washington's efforts to reposition itself in the region in order to focus on the China and Russia files.
4. The current administration is one of the weakest US administrations to have had relations with Tel Aviv in the last three decades, to the point that Netanyahu has blackmailed it in an unprecedented manner to obtain military, diplomatic and political support. More importantly, the war comes during a heated election season, and amid an unprecedented atmosphere of polarization and division in the American domestic arena, which Netanyahu is cleverly exploiting, not only to keep the war in Gaza, but also to expand it abroad.
5. Neither the US President nor Congress has the luxury of pressuring Israel at this time, especially a few months before crucial elections, whether at the presidential or congressional level, in which the President is called a lame duck, meaning that neither of them can take fateful decisions regarding the relationship with the entity at this sensitive time.

In light of these considerations, it becomes logical for the US administration to get involved in the current war and its developments. But these are also the same calculations that could threaten US interests in the region and beyond in the medium and long term.

On the one hand, the expansion of the war and its spiraling out of control means greater American involvement in the region, at a time when it is trying to turn its attention to other more dangerous and important conflicts, such as the conflict with Russia and China.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that America's role will shift from merely defending Israel to becoming involved in an offensive war against Iran and its allies, which could lead to the region actually igniting and the possibility of casualties increasing, and thus the political cost domestically in America increasing.

On the third hand, the US administration’s submission to Netanyahu’s logic weakens America’s image in front of its other allies and shows it as a weak state that cannot impose its vision on these allies in light of Netanyahu’s refusal and rejection of the various demands for the necessity of reaching an agreement to stop the war.

In other words, Washington, which seems largely subservient and submissive to Netanyahu's adventures, bears a major part of the responsibility for the region's ignition and the regional fireball's rolling, in a way that will make it pay the price for that sooner or later.