Since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, accompanied by horrific scenes of civilian killings and severe human rights violations committed by the Israeli war machine, much has been said about the United States’ stance toward these violations and the extent of its role in pressuring Israel to stop actions that have tarnished its image as the leader of the Western world and its value system, which is based on supporting freedoms and protecting human rights. This escalation comes under a Democratic U.S. administration, reflecting a complex set of calculations that are not solely governed by the moral dimension of American foreign policy—shown to have relatively minimal influence on decision-making. Instead, it is dominated by the realism of American interests in maintaining its regional and global hegemony by ensuring the survival and influence of its strategic allies, especially Israel.
Features of the American Position Since the Outbreak of the War
From the onset of the current war, several defining characteristics and determinants have shaped the U.S. response to the crisis, as follows:
Unconditional Support for Israel and the Strategic Relationship: The U.S. position, from the first moments of the war, reaffirmed its unwavering and unconditional support for Israel. This was reflected in an unprecedented visit by a sitting U.S. president to Israel during wartime. President Joe Biden visited on October 18, 2023, stating that his presence in Israel was “to show the world that the United States stands with her,” adding, “the U.S. will ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself.” This was followed by several actions by the Biden administration to provide Israel with comprehensive political and military support. In early November 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives approved Biden’s request for $14.3 billion in aid to Israel, and in April 2024, an additional $17 billion in military aid was granted. Politically, Washington used its veto power to block several international resolutions condemning Israeli violations and calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Additionally, the U.S. deployed naval forces and aircraft carriers to the region to activate an “extended deterrence” umbrella for Israel against threats from Iran and its proxies surrounding Tel Aviv. These indicators collectively reflect Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security and its provision of unlimited support, affirming Israel’s role as America’s most important strategic ally in the Middle East.
Balancing Support with Mediation Efforts: Parallel to this support for Israel, Washington sought to balance its stance by promoting mediation efforts and advancing its vision for resolving the conflict, especially through what became known as post-war scenarios. This vision is based on the “two-state solution” principle, supported by most of the international community, though it clashes with the extreme vision of the Israeli coalition, which aims to expand its occupation by annexing the West Bank and Gaza, and to displace Palestinians to neighboring countries.
In this context, the U.S. actively participated in negotiations. President Biden’s proposed ceasefire on May 31, 2024, passed as an Israeli proposal, did not break the negotiation deadlock between the conflict parties. Later attempts followed, most recently during negotiations held in Doha from August 15-16, 2024. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken described these talks as potentially the “last chance” to secure a truce. However, the outcome appeared lackluster, given statements from mediators and the parties involved. Israel, in particular, persisted in evasion tactics, fragmenting the solution to extract different costs for each issue and steering negotiations towards side details rather than focusing on the core (ceasefire and truce). Thus, the negotiation became an end in itself rather than a tool for resolution.
In contrast, Hamas adhered to the previously mentioned American ceasefire proposal, which, according to its estimates, offers minimum guarantees during the phased truce. These phases would lead to a complete ceasefire, though this does not seem to align with the goals of the Israeli coalition, which relies on imposing facts on the ground, especially after the new reality formed following the invasion of Rafah. Simultaneously, Israel neutralizes any pressures that could lead to halting the war, using escalations like the events in “Majdal Shams” as leverage, where it conducted provocative assassinations of resistance leaders. These actions aim to neutralize regional pressures, particularly from the “Axis of Resistance” led by Iran. Israel seeks to establish new deterrence rules without crossing the threshold of “total war,” especially with Hezbollah, which appears successful following Hezbollah’s August 25, 2024 announcement of completing the “first phase” of airstrikes on Israel in response to the killing of Fouad Shukr.
Enhancing Regional Hegemony and Balancing Rivals’ Influence: Beyond providing support to Israel and ensuring deterrence against Iranian proxies, Washington has broader geopolitical objectives. These include repositioning itself in the region and reaffirming its influence in response to the growing presence of opposing powers like Iran, Russia, and China, who are attempting to fill the vacuum left by the U.S.’s relative retreat.
This is evident from the significant military moves by the U.S., including the deployment of naval forces and aircraft carriers to the region. Some reports suggest that these actions contributed to the unprecedented absence of an American aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean since 2001 (of six Pacific fleet carriers, five are unavailable due to various reasons, including maintenance, and the sixth is currently stationed in the Middle East). This display of strength is not only intended to deter Iran and its regional proxies but also to serve as part of the broader U.S. strategy of balancing rival influences (China and Russia) in various regions around the world, thereby ensuring the continuation of American global dominance.
Current Calculations and Changing Contexts
Recent comments from U.S. President Joe Biden, made in the last few hours, suggested that he doesn’t believe “Netanyahu is doing enough to secure an agreement.” These remarks appear to be directed over the heads of Israeli coalition leaders, aimed instead at the Israeli public, particularly the families of prisoners and displaced individuals. These families have responded to Biden’s statements by criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government for not doing enough to save the lives of their loved ones. This comes especially in light of the discovery of the bodies of six Israeli prisoners.
The question arises: Are we witnessing a shift in the U.S. administration’s position based on these remarks? Could they represent an attempt to exert further pressure on Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire agreement, which has been circulating over the past two days as a “last chance” proposal? This seems increasingly likely, given the apparent realization among U.S. officials that Netanyahu may be using the current escalation in the region to stall negotiations through evasive tactics, potentially to boost the chances of former U.S. President Donald Trump—Tel Aviv’s preferred candidate—at the expense of the current Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.
However, this uncertainty about the motives and direction of U.S. pressure on Tel Aviv, which has been reluctant to engage with U.S., Egyptian, and Qatari ceasefire proposals over the past few days (and potentially in the days ahead), can be understood through the following key factors:
1. U.S. Presidential Elections and Domestic Balances
The upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5 imposes specific calculations on the current U.S. administration’s stance regarding pressure on Israeli coalition leaders. These leaders have the ability to appeal to American lobbying groups and interest groups, particularly AIPAC, which can sway public opinion in the U.S. above the heads of current American leaders. They do this to secure support for their hardline positions on solutions and negotiations. These positions are framed as necessary while Israel is engaged in what it portrays as a war against the “Axis of Evil.”
Thus, any American stance that applies pressure on Tel Aviv can be easily portrayed by these lobbying groups as a betrayal of allies during wartime. This may explain the occasional mild criticism from the U.S. administration toward the Israeli government—criticism that doesn’t reach the level of condemning Israeli violations—regarding its settlement expansion in the West Bank and the violent actions of extremist settlers against Palestinians.
Nevertheless, these calculations haven’t entirely removed the U.S. administration’s room to maneuver in facing these pressures. This is partly driven by the need to neutralize any countermeasures the Israeli government, led by Netanyahu, might take to indirectly interfere in the U.S. elections by favoring the Republican candidate over the Democratic one. Such interference could involve sabotaging the current administration’s efforts to break through in negotiations and rejecting ceasefire proposals—most notably, the one announced by the U.S. president on May 31, 2024, which led to the failure of the latest negotiation round. This aligns with reports suggesting that presidential candidate Donald Trump has been trying to convince Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt peace talks in Gaza until after the U.S. elections.
2. Israeli Domestic Politics and Coalition Legitimacy
Inside Israel, protests are expanding, with the Israeli Federation of Labor (Histadrut) calling for a general strike. These protests come on the heels of the discovery of the bodies of six Israeli prisoners, reflecting widespread anger among a large portion of the Israeli public regarding the government’s hardline stance and its refusal to reach a ceasefire agreement that could lead to the release of Israeli prisoners and the return of displaced people from northern and southern areas. This internal pressure on the coalition’s legitimacy presents an opportunity for the U.S. president to address the Israeli public directly, applying pressure on Netanyahu and his partners under the pretext of safeguarding Israeli lives and the interests of the state.
This is reminiscent of the U.S. administration’s warnings to Israeli coalition leaders before the outbreak of events on October 7 last year, urging them to abandon their plans for judicial reform, which had almost led to a civil war and threatened Israel’s democratic model—according to the U.S. at the time. Coalition leaders are again bypassing this democratic model during the current war, pushing their vision of an extreme nationalist Jewish identity as part of their approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3. Regional Context and Escalation Drivers
In recent weeks, the region has witnessed heightened escalation between Tel Aviv and factions of the so-called “Resistance Axis.” This escalation has created uncertainty regarding whether the involved parties might head toward a broader regional confrontation. Such uncertainty has led regional and international players, particularly the United States, to intensify efforts to de-escalate the conflict. The U.S. is especially invested in preventing the conflict from widening, as this could harm its own interests and those of its allies in the region. These efforts have included launching a new round of negotiations concerning Israel’s war on Gaza, which is seen as one of the main causes of the recent escalations on multiple fronts.
Israeli coalition leaders, especially Netanyahu, are betting on Iran’s pragmatic approach to regional escalation, expecting that Iran will avoid pushing for a full-scale confrontation. Israel also relies on the “extended deterrence” provided by the United States to prevent regional fronts from engaging in a full-scale war. This has emboldened Israel’s evasiveness and lack of flexibility in responding to proposed ceasefire formulas. Instead, Israel has set new conditions, knowing full well that they would be difficult to meet. Netanyahu is also currently complicating matters by attacking mediators and turning them into part of the problem rather than the solution.
This has led some observers to doubt the seriousness of U.S. intentions in reviving these negotiations, questioning whether there is genuine interest in reaching a ceasefire agreement that Israel would accept. U.S. efforts might even be seen as a tactic to buy time, delaying any Iranian retaliation for the assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
In conclusion, these calculations impose fluctuating complexities on the U.S. stance, particularly regarding pressure on Tel Aviv to show flexibility in any negotiation pathways. Washington is currently betting that such pressure will emerge internally within Israel, driven by the expanding protests that challenge the legitimacy of the Israeli government coalition. This, in turn, makes it easier to criticize and exert regional and, to a greater extent, international pressure on Israel. This trend became evident when the British government decided, over the past two days, to immediately suspend arms export licenses to Israel. However, relying on these factors to effect a change in the Israeli position faces obstacles, especially given the constant political maneuvering of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This maneuvering cements the military path and its continuation as a reality for domestic policy, especially since Netanyahu is counting on his extremist coalition partners, who provide a popular base from the far-right, occasionally seeking to court this base by expanding settlements in the West Bank and pushing towards the occupation of the Gaza Strip.
Additionally, the absence of stronger influencing factors plays a role here, as Israel has sought to neutralize their impact, aided by U.S. support in deterring the possibility of a broader regional escalation. Tel Aviv gambles that this deterrence will either establish new rules to neutralize the “unified front” strategy or drag the U.S. into a confrontation with Iran, thereby preventing Tehran from reviving negotiations on its nuclear program or lifting economic sanctions. This scenario could also be guaranteed if the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, were to win the presidency. Thus, Netanyahu and his coalition partners seem uninterested in reaching any de-escalation agreements at the moment, waiting instead for the outcome of the U.S. presidential election on November 5, 2024. By doing so, they aim to neutralize any anticipated political cost of such an agreement and maximize their electoral gains among their far-right voter base in future elections.
These calculations raise numerous questions for the current U.S. administration. Will it free itself from these narrow political considerations and uphold its international responsibility as the leader of the global system, a role it seeks to maintain through various movements, partnerships, and initiatives to confirm its continued dominance? This would involve restoring trust in the Western ideological model, which has long promoted the protection of human rights as a fundamental principle. This focus on human rights would be a crucial aspect of reaffirming U.S. leadership, perhaps starting with halting Israel’s war on Gaza, even though any action on this front would be delayed. From this point, the U.S. might begin dealing with the extremist Israeli coalition, recognizing it as a true burden given its efforts to impose its far-right vision, evident in its current escalation in the West Bank and desire to maintain its occupation of Gaza. Or will the situation remain unchanged, with narrow political calculations continuing to dominate, driven by the same considerations shaping the current Israeli coalition leadership?
In other words, could the most important step during the remainder of President Joe Biden’s term be to enforce a de-escalation and end the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza? Could it also be to neutralize the drivers of conflict escalation that are currently taking shape as a result of this raging war, which the leaders of the Israeli coalition wish to continue?
