“it’s just not clear what that line is”
By 
At this point, I’m mystified by what exactly the Biden administration is trying to accomplish with its Middle East policy:
Senior White House figures privately told Israel that the U.S. would support its decision to ramp up military pressure against Hezbollah — even as the Biden administration publicly urged the Israeli government in recent weeks to curtail its strikes, according to American and Israeli officials.
Presidential adviser Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, told top Israeli officials in recent weeks that the U.S. agreed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s broad strategy to shift Israel’s military focus to the north against Hezbollah in order to convince the group to engage in diplomatic talks to end the conflict, the officials told POLITICO.
Not everyone in the administration was on board with Israel’s shift, despite support inside the White House, the officials said. The decision to focus on Hezbollah sparked division within the U.S. government, drawing opposition from people inside the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence community who believed Israel’s move against the Iran-backed militia could drag American forces into yet another Middle East conflict.
POLITICO spoke to two Israeli and four U.S. officials for this story, most of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about sensitive diplomatic talks.
The National Security Council declined to comment.
Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, declined Monday to comment on private talks between Israeli leaders and U.S. officials when asked about Hochstein and others’ exchanges.
“We don’t always ask for permission for everything we do,” he said of the two countries, adding, “I think what they say publicly reflects the goal that they would like to see a diplomatic solution, which we are not against.”
In mid-September calls and meetings, Israeli officials outlined broadly that their military was preparing to make the shift. They didn’t offer details. Hochstein and McGurk relayed to their Israeli counterparts that — while they still urged a cautious approach — the timing was likely opportune for such a move, especially after Hezbollah had been significantly degraded in the months prior.
While Hezbollah had long said it would only engage with Israel if it reaches a cease-fire with Hamas militants it is battling in Gaza, U.S. assessments indicated at that point that Hamas wasn’t likely to agree to a cease-fire deal anytime soon. And that meant it could be a moment to focus more on Hezbollah alone – and to decouple the two conflicts.
This latest fight with Hezbollah began the day after Oct. 7, when the group began firing rockets from Lebanon into Israel — eventually forcing tens of thousands of civilians to flee the area on both sides. Hamas launched its war on Israel from Gaza on Oct. 7.
The U.S. officials knew little of exactly what Israel was planning, but even as they supported Israel pressuring Hezbollah, they urged caution. They warned that if Israel went too far it could risk escalating the situation into an all-out regional war — something the administration has been trying to avoid for nearly a year. They also stressed that the only way to end the conflict was through a negotiated diplomatic agreement.
Officials in the intelligence community, in briefings and talks with members of Congress last week, had said they were increasingly worried about the potential for a direct ground confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. Similar conversations were occurring in the State Department, where officials were concerned about the mounting civilian death toll in Lebanon.
Some in the administration say that what looks like a rift is just the United States pursuing multiple routes at once.
“Both things can be true — the U.S. can want diplomacy and support Israel’s larger goals against Hezbollah,” a senior U.S. official said. “There’s clearly a line that the administration is toeing, it’s just not clear what that line is.”
If I understand correctly, the US position is:
–Encourage Israel to invade Lebanon, escalating the conflict
–?????????
–??????????
–???????????????????
–Have this lead to a “diplomatic resolution” although Israel is being led by a bloodthirsty crackpot who faces the certainty of leaving office and the strong likelihood of being thrown in jail when the wars end.
On Afghanistan, Biden had the good instincts not to trust what The Blob was telling him. On Israel, he seems hopelessly stuck in the 90s. I don’t know if changes in policy could have stopped the latest escalation, but I do know the US should not have encouraged it.
Like “restoring deterrence,” "de-escalation through escalation" is a phrase the foreign policy priesthood uses because it sounds better than “we’ve lost control of the situation and are going to try and regain the initiative by doing more of the same.” https://t.co/HJdAFMPD4H— Matt Duss (@mattduss) September 22, 2024