If we accept that the United States has genuine concerns about the expansion of military conflict in Gaza to a regional level, then Washington’s worst fears are on the verge of realization. The U.S. administration had early on warned regional parties, specifically Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, against intervening in the ongoing war in Gaza. This warning was accompanied by the deployment of the U.S. aircraft carrier “Gerald Ford” and its accompanying forces to the Eastern Mediterranean, sending a clear deterrent message to these parties.
In parallel, U.S. diplomacy has been engaged in an ongoing effort to find solutions that could limit the escalation of the conflict in the Gaza Strip, prevent the war from spreading to northern Palestine between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, and halt the operations of the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the “Islamic Resistance” in Iraq. However, these efforts have not succeeded in preventing the escalation from reaching the brink of regional war, as the battle in Gaza intensified following Israel’s assassination of both Fouad Shukr, described as the head of Hezbollah’s military, and Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, within a six-hour span on the night of July 31, 2024.
These developments have placed the Middle East and the world at the edge of a potentially devastating regional war with international dimensions. Both Iran and Hezbollah have declared their firm intention to retaliate against the aforementioned assassinations (Hezbollah responded on August 25, 2024), raising significant doubts about Washington’s ability to confine the conflict to Gaza. This has prompted a renewed push from U.S. diplomacy to address this qualitative shift by reaching an agreement regarding the Gaza conflict. According to U.S. logic, such an agreement would break the cycle of regional escalation and grant Israel a victory extracted from the jaws of imminent defeat in this regard.
Diplomacy had been absent from the Gaza scene since Hamas accepted U.S. President Joseph Biden’s initiative on July 2, accompanied by UN Security Council Resolution 2735(1). Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set new conditions for accepting President Biden’s initiative, which stalled the initiative and left Israel with a free hand in Gaza to commit further massacres and forced displacements. This also gave Israel more leverage to challenge the U.S. administration, especially concerning efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a prisoner exchange deal.
This article first addresses the U.S. stance on Hamas and the resistance axis, which forms the basis of its actions and positions regarding the entire war since Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood”. It then examines the coherence and logic of U.S. assumptions in negotiations, as they provide a framework for ending the potential for regional escalation. The paper later evaluates the objectives of the U.S. administration in continuing the “negotiation game” and concludes with the predictions and scenarios that might arise from the negotiation and escalation paths.
Hamas in the Eye of Washington’s Regional Strategy
In every round of negotiations, specifically under Netanyahu’s leadership, the Israeli government adds new conditions and demands that are quickly adopted by the U.S. administration. This situation places Washington in the position of a negotiating adversary rather than a mediator. This stance has its roots in the U.S. strategic security assessment of the foreign policy challenges facing the U.S., as clearly expressed in the “U.S. Intelligence Community” report issued in February 2024. The report views Hamas as a significant threat to U.S. national security and its global superiority. It notes that the global system will be increasingly fragile in the coming years, facing transnational challenges and multiple regional conflicts with far-reaching consequences. In addition to challenges posed by China and Russia, the report mentions that some regional powers, like Iran, and some non-state actors with capabilities, challenge the established norms of the international system and the superior position of the U.S. within it.
According to this assessment, the U.S. position on the aggression in Gaza and the negotiating strategy it follows stem from two foundational and interconnected premises: First, that Hamas represents a direct threat to U.S. global dominance by challenging Israel’s growing hegemony in the region, particularly regarding the strategic implications of Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” on Israeli deterrent capabilities and the U.S. efforts to create a strategically favorable environment for Israeli influence through Arab-Israeli normalization agreements. Consequently, Washington fully agrees with Israel on the goal of defeating Hamas, or at least weakening it to the point where it no longer poses a threat to Israel, losing its ability to play any political or governmental roles in Gaza and the West Bank in what the U.S. refers to as “the day after the war”. The second premise is that dealing with Hamas is seen as part of Iran’s efforts to destabilize the international order. This dual focus is reflected in the current U.S. stance on the regional escalation created by Israel. Washington wants Gaza negotiations to serve as a necessary entry point for containing Iran and preventing it from altering the escalation dynamics in its favor, seeking to disconnect the escalation driven by the “Axis of Resistance” backed by Iran from the ongoing Gaza conflict.
This recent intelligence assessment comes amid a decade-long debate in U.S. political, security, and academic circles regarding the optimal foreign policy strategy for the U.S. in the Middle East. The talk of U.S. withdrawal from the region or its decreased priority on the regional agenda reflects a noticeable decline in its influence, allowing the rise of regional powers seeking to establish their alliances and defend their interests. This does not necessarily mean that Washington has abandoned its interests and roles in the Middle East, but rather it indicates a rearrangement of priorities and a strategic adaptation to the complexities of the international political arena, as evidenced by the policies of Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. To focus on countering the challenges posed by China’s rise and Russia’s aggressive policies, Washington has pushed for the creation and strengthening of a regional alliance defending its interests, with the Arab-Israeli normalization agreements known as the Abraham Accords at its heart. These agreements seemed to Washington as the antidote to regional challenges, establishing a geopolitical map that provides a protective shield for U.S. and allied interests in the region against the fluctuations of the international system and the rise of Iran as a regional power.
This strategy deliberately ignored the Palestinian issue, reducing it to a manageable noise, giving Israel a historic opportunity to escalate its “aggressive policies” against Palestinians on all fronts, based on the belief that there were no longer any barriers to crushing Palestinian will and rights. Benjamin Netanyahu declared at the UN General Assembly in 2022 that “the Palestinians can no longer veto peace with the Arabs and in the region”. He returned to the same platform in 2023, less than a month before Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, to announce that there is no such thing as Palestine, presenting a map of Palestine colored blue to declare, “This is Israel. It was so in 1948, it is so today, and it will remain so forever.”
This American strategy, along with the power arrogance it granted Israel, received a severe blow from Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood,” which undermined what appeared to be the consolidation of Tel Aviv’s position as the “dominant” power in the region at the head of an alliance ensuring American superiority.
Returning to the concerns of the U.S. intelligence report from 2022, the Hamas operation on October 7, 2023, seems to represent all combined strategic threats to continued American dominance. The report illustrates its assessment of threats by stating that regional crises and the presence of capable “non-state” actors can have global repercussions. It emphasizes this by saying, “Just look at the Gaza crisis initiated by a ‘non-state terrorist actor’ with capabilities—Hamas—partially driven by Iran’s regional ambitions, exacerbated by a narrative encouraged by China and Russia to undermine the United States’ position on the global stage.”
From this perspective, the U.S. negotiating strategy regarding Gaza places the Gaza issue in a secondary position relative to the more significant issue of regional escalation, while maintaining its stance that Hamas is an inherent threat. This strategy is driven by a global vision through which Washington seeks to regain control of the region, as this is seen as a necessary condition for the U.S. administration to counter the expanding Chinese influence in the region and to contain the changes arising from improved regional relations between Iran and Russia. In this sense, the expanding and escalating regional conflict requires U.S. attention and intervention, given its impact on its international standing and regional stability, rather than due to its relevance to Washington’s fundamental strategy aimed at reshaping the region at the Palestinians’ expense. At the same time, Washington seeks to achieve its shared goal with Israel—defeating Hamas and removing it from the Palestinian scene and the regional equation, which will also lead to weakening Iran and what is known as the “Axis of Resistance”.
These are the complex and challenging equations facing Washington’s current negotiating efforts. The U.S. aims to reach what is described as a “swap deal” between the Palestinian resistance and Israel to prevent regional escalation, turning this crisis into an opportunity to expand the Arab-Israeli normalization agreements and thus complete the building of the regional alliance sought by Washington.
U.S. Negotiating Assumptions
Based on U.S. strategy and its requirements, it can be said that there are three American assumptions guiding Washington’s negotiating behavior to avoid the dangers of regional conflict expansion following the assassinations of Fouad Shukr and Ismail Haniyeh, and to achieve results that serve U.S. and allied interests.
The first assumption is that reaching some agreement on the Gaza conflict would break the cycle of regional escalation and grant Israel a “victory” in this regard. The U.S. administration links the negotiations for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange in Gaza to dissuading both Iran and Hezbollah from responding broadly to the assassinations, as successful negotiations would serve as an incentive to refrain from or limit retaliation,
maintaining a lower level of regional escalation and preventing the war from spreading beyond Gaza. This assumes that negotiations leading to a resolution of the Gaza conflict could influence the escalation behavior of other regional players, thus acting as a pressure point to control or at least mitigate regional tensions and the extent of the conflict.
The second assumption is that the ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal in Gaza would help the U.S. administration achieve its broader regional goals by ensuring the “victory” of the Israeli military operation. This deals a blow to the “Axis of Resistance” led by Iran, thereby eliminating a major threat to U.S. strategic interests in the region. By achieving these goals, Washington expects to consolidate its position in ongoing diplomatic efforts, expand the Arab-Israeli normalization agreements, and enhance its regional alliances in alignment with the U.S.’s broader strategic objectives.
The third assumption is that the U.S. administration intends to use the negotiation process as a means to stabilize the situation and prevent further escalation in the region. This involves maneuvering to secure an agreement that provides a temporary respite and allows time for further strategic planning and alliance-building. The U.S. may use the ongoing negotiation dynamics to buy time and recalibrate its strategies to address the growing regional challenges posed by Iran and other actors.
U.S. Negotiation Tactics
In practice, U.S. negotiations with Israel have involved several key tactics to implement its strategic goals while managing the challenges arising from the Gaza conflict and its regional implications. These tactics are designed to maximize U.S. leverage and achieve its objectives within the complex and volatile context of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Incremental Concessions: The U.S. has employed a strategy of incremental concessions in negotiations, gradually offering compromises to both Israeli and Palestinian parties to achieve a ceasefire and address humanitarian concerns. This approach aims to build trust and create a foundation for more substantial agreements, such as prisoner exchanges, while managing the broader regional implications.
Leveraging Diplomatic Channels: Washington has used its diplomatic channels to engage with key regional players, including Arab states, European allies, and international organizations. By coordinating with these actors, the U.S. seeks to build a coalition that supports its negotiating position and exerts pressure on parties involved in the conflict to reach a resolution.
Managing Public Perception: U.S. negotiators have also focused on managing public perception and media narratives to shape the diplomatic discourse in favor of Washington’s objectives. This includes framing negotiations as efforts to achieve humanitarian relief and prevent further escalation, while downplaying or mitigating criticisms of U.S. and Israeli actions in the conflict.
Balancing Regional Interests: The U.S. has worked to balance the interests of various regional actors, including Israel, Arab states, and Iran. By addressing the concerns of these stakeholders, Washington aims to create a conducive environment for negotiations and reduce the risk of regional escalation that could undermine U.S. strategic goals.
Strategic Patience: In some cases, the U.S. has adopted a strategy of strategic patience, allowing time for negotiations to unfold and for conditions to stabilize before pushing for more definitive agreements. This approach provides room for diplomacy to operate and for the U.S. to assess and adapt its strategies based on evolving developments.
Potential Scenarios and Predictions
The U.S. negotiating strategy and its assumptions about the Gaza conflict and regional escalation lead to several potential scenarios and predictions for the future of the conflict and its broader implications.
Successful Negotiation Outcome: If U.S. negotiations result in a successful ceasefire and prisoner exchange deal, the immediate regional escalation may be contained, and the U.S. could achieve its goal of limiting further conflict. This outcome would also provide a temporary respite for Israel and create a foundation for continued diplomatic efforts to address broader regional challenges.
Continued Escalation: If negotiations fail to produce a meaningful resolution and the conflict in Gaza continues to escalate, there is a risk of further regional involvement by Iran and Hezbollah. This scenario could lead to increased tensions and a broader regional conflict, challenging U.S. efforts to maintain stability and advance its strategic objectives.
Diplomatic Stalemate: A prolonged diplomatic stalemate could result from the U.S. struggling to balance the conflicting interests of various regional actors and manage the complex dynamics of the conflict. This scenario may lead to continued instability and uncertainty in the region, with potential implications for U.S. strategic goals.
Geopolitical Shifts: The evolving situation in Gaza and the broader Middle East may prompt shifts in regional alliances and geopolitical dynamics. Changes in regional alignments could impact U.S. strategies and require adjustments to its approach to managing conflicts and advancing its interests.
In conclusion, the U.S. negotiation policies in Gaza reflect a complex interplay of strategic considerations, regional dynamics, and international objectives. While Washington seeks to achieve specific goals in managing the Gaza conflict and its regional implications, the evolving nature of the conflict and the broader geopolitical context will shape the outcomes and future trajectories of U.S. diplomatic efforts.
References
- United Nations, Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, 10 June 2024, Accessed 24 August 2024: https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15723.doc.htm
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S Intelligence Community. Washington DC, Feb 2024. Pp 5-6.
- The White House. Fact Sheet: Advancing the Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific. Washington, Nov 2015 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-s…
