October 29, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• For years, and especially during Al-Aqsa Flood War, American diplomacy has relied on a single formula: forewarning of an “Israeli” frenzy, a wildfire consuming all in its path, annihilating both life and land. The question posed was if it was possible to calm this madness by offering a political alternative acceptable to Tel Aviv, instead of Israel launching a destructive war, be it against Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran. Washington claimed to be doing everything it could to rein in Israeli fervour, but its hands were tied due to internal pressures, particularly in an election year, limited its ability to pressure Tel Aviv directly. However, the U.S. could propose a political solution to appease Tel Aviv’s fears as a war alternative, a “war that no one wants,” especially since it could escalate into a regional conflict that Washington seeks to avoid.
Upon questioning what is meant by “regional war” and U.S. involvement, the response is clear: a full-scale confrontation that could bring Israel and Iran face-to-face, forcing the U.S. to enter on Israel’s side. To avoid this scenario, Washington’s advice was not to retaliate against Israeli strikes, as Tel Aviv would respond, risking a regional war. The message: do not give Tel Aviv the war it seeks – grant it its objectives without a battle.
• For years, hundreds, if not thousands, of diplomats, politicians, journalists, and Arab writers were mobilised to propagate this diplomacy, crafting an Arab public opinion shaped by defeatism – an acquiescence to Israeli dictates for the sake of averting an irrational war. Washington would alternate between threatening Israel’s wrath and direct U.S. involvement, claiming that it would be forced to fight alongside “Israel”. However, this strategy failed to penetrate the resistance and its allies. For the first time, Washington encountered a force ready to face threats, pay the price, and let actions on the ground speak for themselves.
For a year, a fierce war unfolded where “Israel” wielded the might of its military, intelligence, diplomatic, and media superiority, backed by U.S. support and direct involvement. Israel engaged in assassinations, bombings, and destruction with America at its side, pushing the region to the brink of an Iranian fury that could upend the regional order. But despite the calculated Israeli-American insanity, Tel Aviv failed to achieve any substantive field or military accomplishments to restore the deterrence it lost on October 7, gain control over Gaza, dismantle the resistance there, or reclaim captives without negotiation. Its land operations on the Lebanese front, bolstered by American pressure, yielded no victories against Hezbollah’s tenacity.
• Today, we enter a new phase. The American discourse signals that this stale diplomacy no longer suffices. What can Washington now threaten? To destroy already-ruined cities, kill the already-dead, dismember children already in pieces, displace refugees yet again? Or threaten a war with Iran, which would collapse the global economy through energy markets and stock exchanges, demolish America’s regional bases, and perhaps lead Iran closer to nuclear arms?
• Washington now recognizes that despite full-scale U.S. backing, Tel Aviv has exerted its utmost effort, with no achievement to negotiate. Meanwhile, the resistance has not yet reached its limits, and the occupation army is showing signs of fatigue and wear, particularly in a ground war where resistance forces hold sway from Gaza to Lebanon. And in Lebanon especially, the U.S. and Tel Aviv must temper their ambitions and admit that halting the war is no longer a victory for the region’s people – it’s a necessary step to spare Tel Aviv from witnessing its army’s demise.
The resistance remains humble, with modest goals: end the war by recognizing the futility of attempting to crush its will, allowing coexistence. Fantasies of imposing further constraints on the resistance’s arms in Lebanon or isolating it in Gaza are mere illusions that would require an impossible Israeli victory.
• We are entering an era where diplomacy has lost its power to threaten. Yet, we have not arrived at diplomacy willing to pay the price for ending this war, a price essential for the occupying entity’s survival. Soon enough, Washington will have to reopen its archives and trace back the steps of its July War ceasefire negotiations: from a “New Middle East”, to multinational forces, to Chapter VII powers, to an empowered UNIFIL – all of which concluded in a pragmatic version of Resolution 1701, which has been around for eighteen years.
