September 24, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
• The day before yesterday, Washington, through the White House and the State Department, announced its intention to contain the ongoing escalation on the southern Lebanon front, calling for a diplomatic solution that would lead to a ceasefire and the return of residents on both sides of the border. Yesterday, Washington added to this call by reiterating its support for what it always terms the “right of Israel to defend itself” a phrase often used to cover up Israeli crimes and shield the occupying government from accountability.
• Before the Israeli massacres that claimed hundreds of lives, injured nearly 1,500 people, and destroyed hundreds of homes and facilities in southern Lebanon, American efforts were focused on a ceasefire and the return of displaced people from both sides of the border. For nearly a year, these efforts were met with firm resistance from both official Lebanese authorities and the resistance movement, who demanded a ceasefire on all fronts and insisted that no ceasefire on the Lebanese front could occur without an end to the open aggression on Gaza. This position was reiterated by the Lebanese Foreign Minister during a recent UN Security Council meeting on the escalation at the southern border of Lebanon.
• Before this American stance resurfaced once again, Washington had repeatedly expressed its belief that reaching a ceasefire in Gaza would naturally lead to a parallel ceasefire in Lebanon, thus paving the way for the return of the displaced. Yet now, Washington has backtracked from this position, returning to its earlier policy of separating the ceasefire in Lebanon from any efforts to end the war on Gaza. Simultaneously, it has reaffirmed its support for what it terms the “right of Israel to defend itself”, renewing the call to separate the two fronts in ceasefire talks. In practice, this so-called “self-defence” translates into massacres in southern Lebanon, while Washington pushes forward with its mediation efforts, branding it as “containing the escalation”.
• One would have to be either naive or foolish to believe that the recent round of escalation, like those before it, was not orchestrated by the U.S. Washington enabled Benjamin Netanyahu to carry out assassinations in Tehran and the southern suburbs, targeting leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Fuad Shukr as part of a plan aimed at shifting the terms of negotiations. However, the resistance’s response, particularly with the 8200 Unit strike, dealt the entity a shock that brought it to the brink of collapse. Subsequently, its leaders adopted a tone of reluctance toward war, declaring that there would be no confrontation with Hezbollah in the near future. In response, the U.S. provided assistance in the form of sabotaged communications devices and later, involvement in the assassination of Ibrahim Aqil – a matter that raises many suspicions. It is widely believed that Washington not only supplied the necessary data for the operation but may have carried it out directly. The announcement of an airstrike by an F-15 was accompanied by conflicting reports about the use of an F-35, which the occupying army has not yet deployed. There are also serious doubts regarding the availability of the bombs used in the operation by the occupying forces, once again pointing to a broader agenda of changing the terms of negotiation.
• Washington manages the war through a strategy that American strategists call “dual management” – fueling the war from behind the scenes while advancing mediation efforts to steer negotiations based on the evolving dynamics imposed by the war and assessing shifts in the balance of power.
