Biden is Incentivizing Iran’s Political Blackmail

Many analysts in the Middle East and elsewhere are wondering why the promises of “punishment” issued by Iran and the Lebanese terrorist army Hezbollah in the wake of the killings of the latter’s “chief of staff” Fuad Shukr, and Hamas’s leader Ismail Haniyeh (while in Tehran) have failed to materialize or were significantly delayed. (In the case of Hezbollah the retribution came just shy of a month after the attack on Shukr.)

The answer is straightforward— the mullahs and Hezbollah’s were given an inkling if not actually informed that their dire warnings would more beneficial than an actual military retaliation. This was so courtesy of the Biden administration.

The White House is horrified by the prospect of a regional flare up in the Middle East which would likely involve U.S. forces and interests there, and could doom the Democrats’ chances in the upcoming elections.

Washington communicated its strong disinterest in a regional conflict both through indirect talks with Iran held in Oman as well as publicly. In return, the mullahs, through their Lebanese proxy, have intensified attacks on Israel’s north to unnerve Washington. The attacks are meant to drive home the message that unless a ceasefire in Gaza is reached promptly, an all out conflagration may be Imminent.

Achieving a ceasefire in Gaza is without question a quintessential Iranian goal. The mullahs’ nightmare is for the IDF to eliminate Hamas—one of the components of the “ring of fire” they have erected around Israel aimed to confront it with multiple fronts—which would allow Israel to zero in on Hezbollah. Unsurprisingly, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has repeatedly declared that ending the fighting in Gaza will also  stop his terrorist army’s attacks on northern Israel and thus lead the IDF to  forgo any planned offensive as a result.

Under the circumstances it is almost certain that Iran’s warnings of a “ severe punishment“ coming to Israel was meant primarily for Biden’s ears. To boot the Iranians took steps to underscore their threats. The Wall Street Journal on August 6, cited “unnamed U.S. officials,” as reporting that Iran was moving missile launchers and carrying out military exercises, “in a signal to the West that it is planning an attack in the coming days.”

Subsequently it was reported by Axios on August 11, that Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned his US counterpart Lloyd Austin in a phone call that Iran was getting ready for a “ large scale attack.”

The Iranian message was received loud and clear in Washington. In response Biden ordered a massive buildup of U.S. naval and air forces to the region. The aim is twofold— first deter Tehran by signaling that the U.S. is fully prepared  to defend Israel in case of an attack. Second, make sure that if a bombardment does take place its impact would be limited so as to prevent Israel from going berserk and possibly igniting the entire region.

Simultaneously the Biden administration launched a full-scale diplomatic blitz to achieve a “comprehensive” deal that will include a ceasefire in Gaza and a hostage release.

By undertaking these two steps concurrently Washington was “telling” Tehran that its promised punishment could not only fail but backfire by provoking a devastating Israeli response.

But, if the Iranians hold off they might actually achieve their main strategic goal— i.e.  a ceasefire which would preserve their main regional proxy in intact, not to mention their own oil industry and  nuclear installations. That is a much more beneficial outcome compared to a pointless, potentially risky and unlikely to succeed  “revenge attack,” according to Washington. (U.S. officials, “who spoke on condition of anonymity” told the AP on September 2, that they assessed that 50% of the Iranian missiles fired in April failed at launch or crashed before reaching their target. Their accuracy proved much worse than the one advertised by the Iranians.)

To this end the White House hurried to issue a statement on August 16, declaring that “[a] comprehensive ceasefire and hostage release deal [is] now in sight, no one in the region should take actions to undermine this process.” In effect Biden was telling the mullahs and Nasrallah “stand aside and allow me to deliver Israel.”

With the Iranian-Hezbollah threats in its back the Biden administration sensed a golden opportunity to renew its pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire. Biden is not only worried that war in the Middle East would target American soldiers stationed there—a scenario likely to hurt the Democratic ticket.

Indeed the Kuwaiti paper Al-Jarida on September 2, quoted “ diplomatic sources” as  reporting that the American administration has reached an understanding with Iran to postpone the Iranian response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. This, in order “to help the candidate of the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris, in the presidential elections…”.

Whether the report is credible or not, Biden’s relentless pursuit of a “comprehensive deal” to “stabilize the region” is undoubtedly meant to boost the Democrats’ political standing by waving a “diplomatic achievement” equal to President Trump’s “Abraham Accords” once he is successful.

Yet there should be no mistake. In its urgent efforts to avert a regional conflict the administration is in fact “dancing” to the “tunes” of the mullahs and Nasrallah. Whether by design or default a deal reached in Gaza that involves a prolonged ceasefire would be tantamount to paying ransom to political blackmailers to eschew their threats of violence. Israel’s security would be the main victim of such a capitulation.

In fact such an “achievement” would serve Biden, the mullahs and Nasrallah at Israel’s expense.

What could the mullahs learn from their muscle flexing exercise if Biden has his way?

First, their past April missile and drone attack which supposedly failed, had accorded Tehran much credibility. In the wake of this assault, whose massive seize and risk-taking propensity was anticipated by few, Iran’s fresh wows to severely punish the “Zionist aggressor “ were taken much more seriously. Consequently, Iranian threats of military action could be heard more frequently, and its aggressive policies bfurther escalated.

It must be stressed in this regard that Hezbollah’s large-scale “avengement” attack August 25, did not alter the basic blackmail plot designed to force a ceasefire in Gaza. Indeed in its wake Nasrallah not only tied the attack directly to the Gaza talks by stating the Hezbollah’s response was delayed to give a chance for the ongoing ceasefire negotiations, but went on to declare the retaliation was “ preliminary “ and further attacks may follow depending if the results were “ satisfactory.”

The Hezbollah leader’s position amounts to a classic of a blackmailer. It is akin to hostage takers executing one of their hostages as a testimony to their credibility so as to intensify pressure on the hostage negotiators to yield to their demands.

Coincidentally, the Iranians have continued to warn that “Iran’s reaction to the Israeli terrorist attack in Tehran is definitive,” and will be carried out at a time and place of its own choosing.

Secondly,  the U.S. is ready to throw even its staunchest ally under the bus for political gain. This outcome is most likely during the American political season. Whenever the U.S. is in the grips of an election campaign all bets may be off. Thus, timing is of the essence in plotting a successful blackmail operation vis-a-vis Washington.