Reuters Analytical Report on 'U.S. Strategy' Regarding Lebanon Conflict and 'Israel's Approach'

Reuters reports that after weeks of intense diplomacy aimed at establishing a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah militants, the United States has turned to a completely different approach: 'Let the conflict in Lebanon run its course.' Just two weeks ago, the U.S. and France called for an immediate 21-day ceasefire to prevent an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. This effort failed after the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, by Israel and the initiation of Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon on October 1, as well as Israeli airstrikes that eliminated many leaders of this group. According to the report, U.S. officials have now set aside their ceasefire requests and argue that circumstances have changed. U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller announced earlier this week at a press conference that 'we support Israel's attacks to weaken Hezbollah's infrastructure so that we can ultimately reach a diplomatic solution.' The U.S. and Israel will benefit from the weakening of their common enemy, Hezbollah, which the Islamic Republic uses to threaten Israel's northern borders. However, encouraging Israel to expand its military operations carries the risk of creating a conflict that could spiral out of control. John Alterman, a former U.S. State Department official, stated that the U.S. seeks to weaken Hezbollah but must weigh this against the risk of creating a 'power vacuum' in Lebanon or provoking a regional war. He added that Washington's approach seems to be: 'If you can't change Israel's approach, you might as well try to guide it constructively.' Diplomatic opportunities from wartime conditions After Nasrallah's killing, which the U.S. called 'justice served,' President Joe Biden once again called for a ceasefire at the Israel-Lebanon border. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government launched its ground invasion, and just days later, the U.S. set aside its ceasefire requests and supported Israel's operations. Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator in the Middle East, said that Washington had little hope of controlling Israel and saw potential gains in Israel's operations. He noted that 'this certainly created a moment that the government likely thought could create an opportunity.' He added that U.S. officials probably kept leverage to limit Israel's response to the Islamic Republic's ballistic missile attack. Reuters further adds that today, there is no meaningful dialogue about a ceasefire, and according to European sources familiar with the matter, Israelis will continue their operations in Lebanon 'for weeks, if not months.' Two U.S. officials told Reuters that this is likely the timeline for operations. According to Reuters' analysis, for the U.S., this Israeli operation could have at least two benefits. First, weakening Hezbollah, the strongest proxy group of the Islamic Republic, could reduce Tehran's influence in the region and lessen the threat to Israel and U.S. forces. Second, Washington also believes that military pressure could force Hezbollah to lay down its arms and pave the way for the election of a new government in Lebanon that would oust this powerful militant group, which has been a significant player in Lebanon for decades. Jonathan Lord, a former Pentagon official now at the New American Security Center in Washington, said that this goal is difficult. He stated, 'On one hand, many people in Lebanon are under pressure from Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon. But at the same time, this change is being imposed through a very violent operation in Lebanon.' High-risk strategy U.S. officials said this week that the ultimate goal is to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which established the mission of UN peacekeeping forces (known as UNIFIL) to assist the Lebanese army in maintaining the southern border area with Israel and to prevent the presence of weapons or armed forces other than the Lebanese state forces. U.S. officials say that negotiations with the parties to achieve these goals can take place while hostilities continue, although analysts warn that this conflict significantly increases the risk of a broader war, especially given expectations of Israel's response to the Islamic Republic's missile attack. Beyond the risk of war that could embroil the U.S., there are concerns that Lebanon could become a situation similar to Gaza. A year of Israeli military operations has turned Gaza into ruins, killing nearly 42,000 people, according to Gaza health officials. U.S. officials explicitly warn that an Israeli attack on Lebanon should not resemble operations in the Gaza Strip in any way. Despite these risks, Alterman, who now heads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that diplomacy is unlikely to stop the war anytime soon. He said, 'Netanyahu sees that all his conditions are being met, and I think this is a difficult moment for Israel to feel it must ease its pressure.' U.S. officials say that Israel has 'limited' its goals for attacking Iran. An American official stated that the transfer of the 'THAAD' system to Israel is under consideration, but a final decision has not been made. The Israeli foreign minister defended his country's decision to ban the UN Secretary-General's entry into Israel. The New York Times reported that Hamas had attempted to persuade the Islamic Republic to attack Israel alongside it.