The new U.S. strategy on the Lebanon conflict is to see Hezbollah weakened

File: Israel says it attacked southern Lebanon to ‘preempt’ a Hezbollah attack on northern Israeli towns.

The new U.S. strategy on the Lebanon conflict is to see Hezbollah weakened

After weeks of intensive diplomacy aimed at securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah militants, the United States has settled on an altogether different 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 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 ground invasion anyway and within a few days the U.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 of the 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.

Reuters