Listen to the article
Ten days into the war between Israel and Hamas, Western diplomacy is taking precautions in order to avoid an uncontrolled escalation of the armed conflict. If Hezbollah chooses to place further military pressure on Israel, the conflict could continue and spread to Lebanon.
Up until now, Israel, which has been continuously bombing Gaza since the start of the conflict on October 7, has shown some receptivity to these diplomatic requests, especially from the US, France and Germany. It postponed the ground offensive against Gaza and partially alleviated the blockade on the enclave. However, caution remains imperative. At present, all signs suggest that this “pause” primarily serves one strategic goal: maximizing the chances of success in an operation with no less an objective than the obliteration of the political and military leadership of Hamas, as stated by Israeli officials.
If circumstances allow, we may find ourselves confronted with a complex and intricate problem to manage. The West, which has consistently provided support to Tel Aviv since the inception of Hamas’s unprecedented military operation, namely Al-Aqsa Flood, against Israel, appears to endorse the stated objective of the Hebrew State of terminating Hamas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s tour of Arab countries aligns with this approach. The American official, who was once again in Tel Aviv on Monday, sought to rally Arab countries, particularly those that have normalized their relations with Israel, against this pro-Iranian movement that controls Gaza.
The arrival of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Catherine Colonna, in Beirut on Monday afternoon after her visits to Tel Aviv and Cairo, also aligns with this goal. In Tel Aviv, Colonna used strong rhetoric while addressing Hamas, affirming Israel’s right to defend itself “against the monstrosities” of this group. The main objective of her mission remains “to prevent an escalation in the Middle East.”
However, the question arises as to what strategy the Western world has formulated to counter Iranian influence and deter Tehran’s involvement should Israel undertake a major operation against Hamas. It is currently impossible for anyone to answer this question, or predict the development of the situation in Gaza, knowing that analyses give entirely different perspectives.
Iran Maintains Ambiguous Intentions
These ambiguities arise from the fact that Iran, whose involvement in the Hamas attack is rumored, deliberately conceals its intentions. Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who accompanied his US and French counterparts on a regional tour of countries within Iran’s sphere of influence, has conveyed contradictory statements.
At various times, Abdollahian has hinted at both political and military options, indicating a signal from Iran to its Western counterparts about the need for negotiations that would undoubtedly consolidate its influence in the countries it controls, namely Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This occurs at a time when a growing number of Arab countries are advancing towards normalizing relations with Israel.
“There is still an opportunity to prevent a region-wide crisis,” Abdollahian warned during his press conference on Saturday, October 8, in Beirut, before adding that, “in just a few hours, it may be too late.”
On Sunday, Hezbollah started intensifying its artillery attacks against Israel.
Therefore, the subsequent inquiry arises: If the West opts for a political resolution to avert a significant conflict with uncertain outcomes, will Israel, which has suffered a significant blow since 1973 with the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, be prepared to revert to the pre-existing situation?
On Monday, Israeli President Isaac Herzog stated that “Israel is obligated to emerge from this conflict with significant alterations at the political, military and social levels.” This underscores the crucial significance of Israel’s response to the Hamas attack on Tel Aviv, which is also attempting to rectify the intelligence lapse that failed to anticipate the Hamas assault.
A Complicated Mission
All of these factors significantly complicate the task of Western diplomacy, which is deeply involved in the arduous battle against terrorism, aided by Iran in the name of “just” causes, all while being apprehensive about preventing a widespread escalation in the region.
It is widely acknowledged that once conflicts begin, they frequently develop their own uncontrollable dynamics, until a path towards resolution becomes apparent.
The potential for a widespread conflict could loom from Lebanon, specifically from the southern (or northern, from Israel’s perspective) front. It is feared that this potential outbreak could occur if Iran decides that the time is ripe for escalating pressure on the Hebrew State and extending the conflict for its strategic objectives.
The diplomatic dynamic of the West operates on two parallel fronts: one in the south, with the objective of mitigating the consequences in the event of an Israeli offensive in Gaza, and one in the north, with the aim of preventing Lebanon, which has limited resources for its policies and is unable to withstand the Israeli military force, from being dragged into a conflict that is not of its making.
Since October 7, countries including the US, France, Germany and Italy as well as the United Nations have continuously warned Beirut against further escalation on the southern front.
In the face of the limited response from the official Lebanon, whose authority is constrained by Hezbollah, it is the diplomacy of these countries that resonates with the slogan “Not my war,” adopted by numerous Lebanese individuals on their social media platforms, signaling their reluctance to be pushed into a war primarily serving Iran’s interests.
