How does Washington play the cards of contradictions in Gaza?

International and regional efforts and contacts continue to seek to reach a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. Discussions focus on technical and political details regarding outstanding issues, most notably the fate of the Israeli presence in the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing, in addition to the Netzarim crossing, and the comprehensive withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza.

Diplomatic backstages indicate serious pressure to reach a ceasefire, in light of Israeli leaks indicating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on continuing the war after completing the prisoner and hostage exchange deal. It is no coincidence that news leaked that Netanyahu asked the Americans for clear pledges to resume fighting after completing the deal.

Politically, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is returning to the region for the ninth time since the outbreak of the war in Gaza. Despite mounting US pressure on the far-right government in Israel, there is no indication that a ceasefire agreement is imminent in the Strip.

This can be inferred from the occurrence of horrific massacres that coincided with the start of negotiations in Doha, one of which was in southern Lebanon and dozens in Gaza, which reflects a desire to increase field tension to provoke Hezbollah and Hamas, and thus abort all Qatari and Egyptian efforts to achieve a ceasefire.

This negative reading of Netanyahu and his extremist government’s intentions does not stop here, as former US National Security Advisor John Bolton, a close friend of Netanyahu, expressed his skepticism about the possibility of reaching positive results from the current negotiations to achieve a sustainable ceasefire.

Although American officials spoke about the possibility of reaching an agreement soon within the next month, and indicated that Blinken's visit may remain open until Washington's goals of stopping the war, even for a long truce, are achieved, the clear truth is that Netanyahu is seeking to buy more time.

Netanyahu continues to talk about the gains that must be achieved by exploiting the historical circumstance, through the continuation of the war. What increases the possibility of his non-response is his knowledge that this historical circumstance may extend for additional months before the new American president enters the White House.

Despite Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’ lead in most recent polls, Netanyahu is convinced that his political fortunes are at stake. Trump even advised Netanyahu during a media interview that he must win quickly because “the killing in Gaza has to stop.” Trump seems to want to start his new term, if he wins, without bloodshed in Gaza or a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Accordingly, some Western capitals responded to American pressure, as did the Israeli army leadership, which announced that the combat operations in the Gaza Strip had ended at the operational level, indicating that the time had come for an agreement, a position that has its internal Israeli contexts and the extent of Washington’s influence on the Israeli interior.

These positions are consistent with what US Presidential Envoy Amos Hochstein indicated during his closed meetings in Beirut, where he spread an atmosphere of optimism about the possibility of stopping the war, while stressing that Washington will exert great pressure to consolidate the ceasefire decision in Gaza.

At the same time, Hochstein warned Presidents Najib Mikati and Nabih Berri against slipping into responding to Israel, noting that Netanyahu is fishing for reactions to turn them into a regional disaster.

These American positions towards Iran indicate that there is no intention to support the escalation that Netanyahu is waiting for, and that Washington will not support the Israeli army militarily. Therefore, the White House is pressing to avoid direct confrontation; in order to preserve American interests in the Middle East, which will be harmed in the event of any major tremor.

While Netanyahu seeks to escalate matters, to achieve additional gains against Tehran's influence, and to disrupt the US-Iranian negotiations under the auspices of Muscat and Doha, he is thereby serving the opponents of the Democrats in the United States, especially the Republican Party, which exploits Iran's relationship with the Democrats in its election campaigns.

In parallel, Iran and Hezbollah’s calculations to achieve regional gains based on what is happening behind the scenes cannot be ignored. The Iranians, along with Hezbollah, will work to strengthen their position by imposing any ceasefire in Gaza, which will directly reflect on the situation in Lebanon. Stopping the war will demonstrate Iran and its allies’ support for Hamas and prevent its defeat, while retaining the right to respond to targeting Tehran or the southern suburbs of Beirut, without giving up this card. Any cessation of Israeli aggression will restore Hamas’ ability to rebuild its military infrastructure and develop its strength.

Therefore, Washington seeks to exploit the current fundamental contradictions to employ them in the service of its greater policy and to protect its interests. This requires maintaining the internal stability of the countries of the region, which some analysts in Washington consider the most appropriate time to forge unofficial or non-public understandings with the Iranians and their allies in the Middle East.
But any understandings will be drawn with a fine line by Washington, so as not to establish Iranian influence that would give Tehran a foothold in strategic sea lanes, especially in the Red Sea. This would conflict with vital American interests and increase factors of concern and danger, such as the naval presence of the Russian fleet in Syria and Libya.