Caught between competing goals in Lebanon, US stays on the sidelines
US drops calls for immediate ceasefire in Lebanon
Change reflects desire to see Hezbollah weakened
New strategy risks fueling broader war, say analysts
By Simon Lewis and Humeyra Pamuk
WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) -After weeks of intensive diplomacy aimed at securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah militants, the United States has settled on an altogetherdifferent approach: let the unfolding conflict in Lebanon play out.
Just two weeks ago, the United States and France were demanding an immediate 21-day ceasefire to ward off an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. That effort was derailed 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 have wiped out much of the group's leadership.
Now, U.S. officials have dropped their calls for a ceasefire, arguing that circumstances have changed.
"We do support Israel launching these incursions to degrade Hezbollah's infrastructure so ultimately we can get a diplomatic resolution," State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a press briefing earlier this week.
The course change reflects conflicting U.S. goals - containing the ever-growing Middle East conflict while also severely weakening Iran-backed Hezbollah.
The new approach is both practical and risky.
The US and Israel would benefit from the defeat of a common enemy - Hezbollah, which Tehran uses to threaten Israel's northern border - but encouraging Israel's widening military campaign risks a conflict that spins out of control.
Jon Alterman, a former State Department official, said the U.S. 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, seems to be: "If you can't change the Israeli approach, you might as well try to channel it in a constructive way."
A VIRTUE OF NECESSITY
Israel's latest fight with Hezbollah started when the group fired missiles at Israeli positions immediately after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas gunmen on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Hezbollah and Israel have been exchanging fire ever since.
As months of indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas went nowhere, Israel in September began ramping up its bombardment of Hezbollah and landed painful blows on the group, including remotely detonating Hezbollah pagers and radios, wounding thousands of the group's members.
After Nasrallah's death - which the U.S. called "a measure of justice" - U.S. President Joe Biden called again for a ceasefire along the Israel-Lebanon border.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched its groundinvasion anyway and within a few days theU.S. had dropped its calls for a ceasefire and expressed support for its ally's campaign.
Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East negotiator, said Washington had little hope of restraining Israel and saw potential benefits in the operation.
"It certainly created momentum in which the administration probably thought, 'Let’s make a virtue out of necessity'," he said, adding that U.S. officials were also likely reserving leverage to try and curtail Israel's retaliation for a ballistic missile attack that Tehran carried out last week.
Today, no meaningful ceasefire talks are underway, said European sources familiar with the matter, adding that Israelis would press ahead with their operation in Lebanon "for weeks if not months." Two U.S. officials told Reuters that might well be the timeline.
For the U.S. the Israeli campaign could bring at least two benefits.
First, weakening Hezbollah - Iran's most powerful proxy militia - could curb Tehran's influence in the region and lower the threat to Israel and to U.S. forces.
Washington also believes that military pressure could force Hezbollah to put down 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 now with the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said that would be hard to achieve.
"On the one hand, many Lebanese people bristle under the weight of Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon. But at the same time ... this change is being foisted upon 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 keep its southern border area with Israel free of weapons or armed personnel other than those of the Lebanese state.
U.S. officials say the conversations with parties to achieve these goals can take place as the fighting continues, even though analysts warn the conflict greatly increases the risk of a broader war, particularly as the region awaits Israel's response to Iran's missile strike.
Beyond the chance of a war that could draw in the United States, there is the fear that Lebanon becomes 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.U.S. officials openly warn Israel's offensive in Lebanon should not at all resemble that ofthe Gaza Strip.
Despite those dangers, Alterman, who now heads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the diplomacy is unlikely to stop the fighting anytime soon.
"Netanyahu sees all of his gambles paying off and it strikes me as a hard moment for Israel to feel like it should stop pressing its advantage,” he said.
Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick in Washington and John Irish in Paris;
Writing by Humeyra Pamuk; Editing by Don Durfee and Deepa Babington
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
