The year-long confrontation between Israel and the Iran-backed Hizbullah group in Lebanon almost came to a head last week. From 17 to 19 September Israel escalated its confrontation with the group through a series of explosions of beepers and walkie-talkies and the targeted assassination of leading military commanders from Hizbullah’s elite Radwan Force.

Those following the war that has been going on for almost a year now in Gaza, which started after the attacks by Hamas on 7 October last year, have been trying to predict Israel’s next move in the wake of its spectacular attacks on technology used by Hizbullah last week.

Were they intended as a warning to Hizbullah to back down and agree to the return of more than 60,000 Israeli civilians to their homes in northern Israel, evacuated owing to rocket attacks by the group? Or were they intended as a prelude to a major military attack aiming at establishing a security zone for Israel in Southern Lebanon 30 km deep in Lebanese territory?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 2 September that his country has every right to take the appropriate measures for the safe return of its citizens to their homes. The Israeli military also said that if diplomacy fails, the military option would become the only recourse available for the return of the tens of thousands of Israelis displaced in the northern part of Israel.

Ironically enough, the Israeli escalation last week took place when the US Biden administration’s envoy to Lebanon had just concluded a round of talks in the hope of reaching a diplomatic solution that would end the ongoing attacks along the Lebanese-Israeli border.

On the US channel ABC’s programme This Week on Sunday on 22 September, US National Security Spokesperson John Kirby said that the Biden administration does not believe that “escalating this military conflict is in the best interest of Israel],” adding that there are “better ways than war” to return the displaced Israelis to their homes in the north of the country.

US mediation between the Israeli government and Hizbullah has not achieved its objective of sealing a diplomatic deal in Lebanon because the war on Gaza has shown no signs of abating. The mediation efforts by the US administration, Egypt, and Qatar have also floundered on the lack of the political will to bring the war to an end.

It seems that Israel, Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran believe that with presidential elections due in the US on 5 November a ceasefire deal in the war can wait another month or two. They would then chart a course of action that takes into account the expected policies of the new US administration.

However, this could prove shortsighted, for the chances of an unintended military escalation have become greater since the Israeli attacks last week and the retaliatory missile attacks by Hizbullah on military targets in Israel. The mutual escalation could prove uncontrollable. This is the reason why the UN, the EU, and various European countries have voiced concerns that the situation in the Middle East could get out of hand and warned that there are no military solutions to the multiple crises in the region  

The consensus, and rightly so, is that a ceasefire and hostage-release deal in Gaza is of the utmost urgency to save the Middle East from a major military conflict.

But the US administration doubts that such a deal is on the cards over the next few weeks. Kirby told reporters on 18 September that the prospects of a complete deal were “daunting,” adding that “we aren’t any closer” to a deal “than we were… a week ago”. Nevertheless, he reiterated, I would say unconvincingly, that the US administration will still work towards such an elusive deal.

The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed US officials on 20 September to the effect that there are still some months left to “garner a breakthrough” and a lot could change between now and the inauguration of the next US president in January. They urged “all sides to demonstrate leadership and compromise” in order to agree on a deal.

The lack of leadership and the absence of political will on all sides, more particularly on the part of Israel and Iran, have led the Middle East into a dangerous quagmire. Perhaps the next US president will be the decider of whether there is war or peace in the Middle East.

Regardless of the damage that Israel caused to the communications networks of Hizbullah last week, in addition to its elimination of commanding officer of the Radwan Force Ibrahim Akil, it still lacks a clear strategy going forward.

The UK Financial Times on 23 September quoted a former Israeli intelligence officer, Michael Milshtein, as saying that “without a strategy, we will find ourselves in an unclear war with heavy prices, a lot of crises with allies, and without very concrete goals.”

He concluded that this would be a “catastrophe.”

On 23 September Israel demonstrated once again that its interests lie in more military escalation after Israeli fighter bombers pounded hundreds of targets in Southern Lebanon and around Beirut. The bombing campaign resulted in less than 24 hours in killing hundreds of innocent Lebanese and led to thousands of Lebanese looking for safer areas.

Sadly enough, though not surprising, the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, in a phone call with his Israeli counterpart Yaov Gallant, stressed the right of Israel to defend itself against Hizbullah’s attacks, and calling in the meantime for a diplomatic solution.

I doubt that the Israelis would heed the second part of his message, and I guess the Americans know that, notwithstanding their 11-month calls for a diplomatic solution. The Biden administration either lacks the political will or power to broker such a solution.

The writer is former assistant foreign minister.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 26 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly