Subtle US messages fall on Netanyahu and Israel’s deaf ears

A US decision to dial back its reinforced military presence in the Middle East suggests that America’s commitment to defend Israel could be less ironclad than the Biden administration would like the world to believe.

The United States has not officially framed its decision to redeploy the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier to the Indo-Pacific after several weeks in the Middle East as a subtle message to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that US support is not unconditional.

Nor has the US suggested that the withdrawal constitutes a warning to Israel not to escalate tension with Iran and/or Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite militia.

As a result, any suggestion that there is more than meets the eye to the withdrawal of the Theodore Roosevelt amounts to reading tea leaves.

Even so, earlier this month, some US officials privately suggested that the drawdown of forces could pressure Mr. Netanyahu to be more flexible in US-Qatar-Egypt-mediated Gaza ceasefire talks.

If so, it’s a message Mr. Netanyahu is likely to ignore. Based on the 11 months of the Gaza war, the prime minister has good reason to assume that the Biden administration may express frustration but will not match words with deeds in ways that Mr. Netanyahu would have to listen up.

The Gaza ceasefire talks are Exhibit A. The talks have all but broken down because Mr. Netanyahu insists on a post-war Israeli presence along the Philadelphi Corridor, which runs parallel to the Egyptian-Gazan border, while Hamas demands a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces.

The administration has refused to make support for Israel contingent on Israel agreeing to a ceasefire as initially proposed by President Joe Biden and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Netanyahu’s belief that he can ignore Mr. Biden is reinforced by the fact that the administration is unwilling to take him on, even if his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and military command insist they can ensure Israel’s security without maintaining a presence along the Egyptian-Gazan border.

The administration expected the rare simultaneous deployment of two aircraft carrier groups to the Middle East to deter Iran from attacking Israel in ways that could spark a full-fledged Middle East war.

This suggests that the withdrawal of the Theodore Roosevelt is about politics rather than an altered threat perception, given that, if anything, the risk of hostilities in the Middle East spinning out of control has increased, not diminished, recently.

The heightened risk is due to the apparent breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks, Israel’s assertion that its military focus is shifting from Hamas to Hezbollah, and fears that Jordan could become the next covert Israeli-Iranian battlefield.

The US likely feels that the continued presence of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier group in the Middle East is enough to deter Iran.

“We remain intensely focused on working with regional partners to de-escalate tensions and deter a wider regional conflict,” said Pentagon spokesman Air Force Maj. General Pat Ryder.

Iran has vowed to retaliate against Israel for the July 31 assassination in Tehran of Hamas political leader and Gaza ceasefire negotiator Ismail Haniyeh. Maintaining thinly veiled plausible deniability as a way of constraining a potential Iranian response, Israel has not confirmed or denied responsibility for the killing.

So far, Iran has refrained from retaliating to give the ceasefire talks a chance to succeed and avoid being blamed for a potential breakdown. Going a step further, Iran indicated that a truce could persuade it not to take revenge.

Iranian restraint may also be driven by a desire to await the outcome of the United States’ November presidential election, hoping that Kamala Harris, as president, would create more opportunities for a narrowing of differences than Donald J. Trump.

Moreover, Iran may fear that a full-fledged Middle East war would advantage Mr. Trump and disadvantage Ms. Harris in the run-up to the election

Even so, Hossein Salami, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), told a rally in western Iran in late August to expect “good news about Iran’s revenge.”

Last week, Mr. Salami insisted Israel “will taste the bitterness of revenge,” but the “revenge will be different this time” compared to Iran’s response to the killing of a senior Revolutionary Guard commander in an Israeli attack in in April on the Iranian consulate in Damascus.

Mr. Salami may have been signaling that Iran cannot or will not continuously exercise restraint.

Iran has multiple options, including launching another barrage of missiles and drones against Israel as it did  in response to the attack on the consulate, enlisting its non-state Arab partners in syncrhronised attacks on Israel from multiple directions, and attacking Israeli facilities elsewhere in the world.

Last week, Israel insinuated that the killing of three Israelis at a border crossing linking the occupied West Bank and Jordan was instigated by Iran.

Iran’s problem is that an escalation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel sparked by an all-out Israeli effort to significantly degrade the group’s military capabilities and force it to withdraw to the Litani River, 30 kilometres north of the Lebanese-Israeli border, could force its hand.

In the case of a full-fledged war between Israel and Hezbollah, Iran would need to be seen as supporting the group with arms and funds in ways it cannot aid Hamas because of Israel’s control of access to the Gaza Strip.

An escalation of hostilities would also increase pressure on Iran to retaliate against Israel for the Haniyeh killing.

If there is one thing most parties, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the United States, agree on, it is that reducing tensions hinges on a Gaza ceasefire.

Israel is the one party determined to gamble and go against the grain.

Reflecting widespread support for the Netanyahu government’s threat to take on Hezbollah more forcefully, former war cabinet member Benny Gantz told an audience in Washington, “The time for action in the north has come—if we do not reach a deal for the hostages within days or a few weeks, we will have to go to war in the north. We must ensure that residents can return to their homes. We can achieve this goal, even if it means damaging Lebanon itself.”

Mr. Gantz was referring to tens of thousands of Israelis evacuated from their homes along the border with Lebanon.

With up to 100,000 people having fled their towns and villages on the Lebanese side of the border, Hezbollah feels a similar heat.

So far, US efforts to get Israel and Hezbollah to dial down the tension have come to naught.

In its own twisted way, the Biden administration has signaled that it may not back a Gaza-style campaign against Hezbollah by refraining from pledging support for an assault on Lebanon and the Lebanese group.

It’s a message that has fallen on deaf ears in Israel, much like what the US may have wanted to signal with the redeployment of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.