American scenarios for the Middle Eastern crisis

The intense discussions that took place inside America last week showed that there is a deep state of anxiety surrounding America regarding the current conflict crisis in Gaza and the fate of the Strip after the end of the military confrontations.

The starting point of the questions: “What is the future of Gaza politically, after the destruction of (Hamas) and its military structure?” This matter depends, without a doubt, on the successes of the possible Israeli ground invasion, and the complete elimination of “Hamas” this time, in person and in stone, unlike previous times.

Does the hypothesis in itself go beyond the possible reality, especially since “Hamas” is an idea that mixes trends of ideological resistance to the occupation with a dogmatic view of the land of Palestine, which gives the conflict a sanctity beyond what is relative?

Certainly, there are those who fear a vacuum in the Gaza Strip in the event of a rapid Israeli withdrawal after achieving the military objective, which makes it a hotbed for similar groups. There are previous experiences, including the vacuum in Afghanistan, which created forces more extreme than the Taliban, such as Al-Qaeda. And in Africa, where ISIS took advantage of the weakness of the structures of a number of African countries or their absence in the Sahel region to grow and expand.

The greatest American fear is that Iran will take advantage of the power vacuum and succumb to the temptation to use new methods, or the emergence and advancement of new allies, to complete the mission of launching attacks on Israel.

This premise prompted US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to express explicitly last week, during a hearing of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee, to say that Washington is seriously seeking to formulate options for possible alternatives for the future of the Strip, even if he used a conditional sentence: “If Hamas is isolated.”

Blinken’s speech resulted in a preliminary understanding of Israel’s refusal to manage the Gaza Strip again, after the end of the military operations, and the clear inclination towards the presence of an effective and united Palestinian authority to govern Gaza, although the question to which the relevant Washington circles do not have an answer is whether or not this is possible. .

Blinken did not reveal the alternatives that Washington is approaching at this time, while Bloomberg played this role... What about those options?

The first option: is to provide temporary control over Gaza by the countries of the Middle East, with the support of the forces of the United States of America, Britain, Germany and France, and at the same time this approach goes towards the presence of Arab forces.

However, this option does not seem to have a successful chance, especially in light of statements by White House spokesman John Kirby, that there are no plans or intentions to deploy American military forces on the ground in Gaza, either now or in the future.

In addition, the majority of Arab capitals tend to prefer not to engage in any military form in this crisis, one way or another.

The second option: is to deploy peacekeeping forces and international observers on the ground in Gaza, which is an option that Israel sees as studyable, even if only in a preliminary manner.

However, America, which is thinking boldly in this regard, is the one that declares its reluctance to do the same, which was evident in the statements of Adrian Watson, the American spokesman for the US National Security Council, to the same “Bloomberg” agency, in which he said: “Sending American forces to Gaza as part of a force “Peacekeeping is not a matter under discussion.”

The third option: It revolves around a temporary administration of the Gaza Strip under the auspices of the United Nations, but Israel, especially after Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ statements about the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, sees the UN body as of little use and useless.

Where does the US State Department officially stand regarding these disparate options?

It is clear that the state of discord and separation in the corridors of the US State Department has become clearly heard and read abroad, because in light of the official silence to comment on alternatives to Gaza after the battles, there were those who confirmed that very preliminary talks are already taking place regarding what the future of Gaza might look like. According to Matthew Miller, US State Department spokesman.

Is there an inherent element absent in these options, which distances them from political realism and the possibility of real implementation on the ground?

Definitely yes, as no one cares about the residents of Gaza themselves, which raises the question of what right the Americans or Europeans have in deciding the fate of citizens on their lands, and is this something consistent with international laws, especially since the Gazans will view the matter as a kind of infringement of their rights to sovereignty over Their land?

However, whatever the outcome of all these alternatives, it is too early to be certain of the effectiveness of any option, as long as there is a battle going on on the ground, and for this reason the military confrontation scenarios remain the ones that will determine the future political scene in Gaza.

Options for battles on the ground will not depend on one of four things:

First: That Israel implement a comprehensive ground invasion scenario, destroy what remains of Gaza and attempt to forcibly displace its residents. At that time, hundreds of thousands of civilians will fall victim, and Tel Aviv will reap thousands of deaths.

Second: Turning Gaza into a monument by blowing up Hamas’s basements and tunnels with advanced weapons, including unconventional tactical types, although this does not mean eliminating Hamas forever.

Third: An incomplete ground operation, followed by the entry of UN and Arab forces to take charge of the situation inside, thus saving the face of Hamas, but the Israeli right will consider the matter a betrayal and Netanyahu’s failure to implement what he promised.

Fourth: Hamas will hand over its weapons to a trusted international party and end the war, which is an almost non-existent possibility.

What do the above four scenarios mean?

It means that uncertainty is the master of the situation, and that the unfolding events on the ground are what will determine the next step, and it is the worst possible situation in times of random wars.

Source: Al-Sharq Al-awsat