In the space of mere hours, Israel killed the lead Hamas ceasefire negotiator, Ismail Haniyeh; assassinated one of the most senior figures in Hezbollah, Fuad Shukr; saw its citizens, including Knesset members and at least one government minister riot for their “right” to rape Palestinian prisoners; and announced that it had killed the head of Hamas’ Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Mohammed Deif earlier this month, a claim Hamas neither confirmed nor denied.
That’s a lot of events. In their wake, the world waited to see how the United States would react.
Washington’s silence in response to these actions has been deafening, and it does not speak well of the American position in the region or its own policy decisions.
Neither President Joe Biden nor Vice President and presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris have commented on these events. What we have heard from administration officials offers little insight into their real reactions.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemed caught off guard when asked about the assassination of Haniyeh. “This is something we were not aware of or involved in. It’s very hard to speculate,” was Blinken’s response.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin gave a token response about the United States being read to defend Israel, while White House spokesperson John Kirby came the closest to a criticism, saying “These reports over the last 24, 48 hours certainly don’t help with the temperature going down. We’re obviously concerned about escalation.”
On Friday, the United States began moving naval and air force resources closer to Israel, in an effort to contain a major escalation when the response from Iran, Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, and other groups in the region hits Israel, as everyone expects.
Clearly, the more effective way to avoid escalation — by cutting arms shipments to Israel and stopping it once and for all from pursuing its endless course of reckless actions throughout the region — is off the table, which is no less than anyone would have expected.
The U.S. Reaction, or Lack of One
While Kirby included the strike in Lebanon that killed Fuad Shukr in his critique, it is unlikely that Shukr’s killing and Haniyeh’s elicited the same response in Washington.
Fuad Shukr was a leader in Hezbollah from the first days of that group. As a young man, Shukr was involved in both the planning and execution of the bombing of a barracks in Beirut in 1983 housing foreign soldiers, killing 241 American and 58 French troops. That attack would put Hezbollah on the map, and made Shukr a wanted man for the United States.
His killing, therefore, must have come as welcome news in Washington, even if they might have been concerned that it might escalate the fighting along Israel’s northern border.
The timing of the strike on Beirut and the bombing of Haniyeh’s hotel room in Tehran suggest that these were coordinated actions, although the United States may have been made aware of only one, both, or neither.
This should not suggest, however, that U.S. actions were not indirectly involved in Israel’s decision to carry out these assassinations. On Wednesday, the U.S. launched air attacks on militants with the Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, in response to attacks the previous weekend and the day before on Iraqi bases where U.S. soldiers are stationed.
The exchange marked the first major escalation in nearly six months since the Iraqi government had called for the resistance groups to de-escalate their attacks on American targets in Iraq. Iraq’s prime minister responded to the latest American action by renewing his demand that the U.S. leave Iraqi soil, a demand that has been repeatedly made and repeatedly ignored by Washington.
Given the heightened tension on that front, along with the generally diminished attention to the region, as American eyes turn toward its own presidential elections, Israel may well have decided that, since the U.S. had broken a period of relative quiet with the Iranian-supported militias, it was a good time for a series of strikes. That decision could have come without any consultation with the U.S., at least on the Haniyeh murder.
If the United States truly was kept in the dark, Biden would be even less inclined than usual to take any action against Israel. The last thing he wants to clarify, either to the Israelis, the greater Middle East, or American voters, is how little influence he has over Netanyahu, given his absolute refusal to use the coercive tools at his command.
Killing Ceasefire Talks by Killing the Negotiator
While killing Shukr might have seemed an acceptable risk given Hezbollah’s reluctance, which they have repeatedly made clear, to escalate the conflict, the assassination of Haniyeh dealt a significant blow to the Biden administration’s attempt to broker a ceasefire or, failing that, to at least obscure Israel’s exclusive role in thwarting one.
Blinken’s recent quip about “being inside the ten-yard line” indicated that he believed an agreement was very close. The pressure to reach an agreement within Israel has grown considerably, as more people, including Israel’s military and intelligence leadership, have realized that the hostages are not going to be freed by the Israeli military. Israeli negotiators have even gone public with their frustration over Netanyahu’s obstruction of a deal.
By killing Haniyeh, Israel eliminates not only the leader of Hamas’ negotiating team but also perhaps the most moderate voice in Hamas. Haniyeh had suggested just three months ago that Hamas would accept a Palestinian state next to Israel and would, in such a circumstance, disband its military wing.
Haniyeh was not only relatively moderate, but he had the cache with Hamas supporters and enough respect from more militant figures like Yahiya Sinwar for his view to have some influence. One might even suspect that this was a major factor in Israel’s desire to eliminate him.
Some analysts have speculated that killing Haniyeh, coupled with the Israeli claim that Deif’s killing has been confirmed allows Israel to weave a victory narrative and opens a path for Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire.
Although Netanyahu remains unpopular in Israel, he is more popular than he has been at any time since October 7, and analysts speculate that he may be starting to believe he can withstand the end of the Gaza genocide.
This is wishful thinking. Netanyahu remains unpopular and still faces corruption charges. It’s going to be extremely difficult to sell a victory to the Israeli right if it doesn’t include the death or capture of Yahiya Sinwar and the elimination of the military capabilities of Hamas and other groups in Gaza. While Sinwar could, theoretically, be found and assassinated at any moment, the ability of Palestinian fighters to continue fighting remains more potent than the destruction of Gaza might lead some to assume.
What Does It Mean for Biden and Harris?
On Thursday, President Biden spoke with Netanyahu. The readout of their conversation was terse and brief, and it reflected a position from Biden that has been consistent throughout his presidency.
That readout in full was:
President Biden spoke today with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. The President reaffirmed his commitment to Israel’s security against all threats from Iran, including its proxy terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. The President discussed efforts to support Israel’s defense against threats, including against ballistic missiles and drones, to include new defensive U.S. military deployments. Together with this commitment to Israel’s defense, the President stressed the importance of ongoing efforts to de-escalate broader tensions in the region. Vice President Harris also joined the call.
Biden made it clear that the United States would defend Israel against the consequences of its actions. This was immediately manifested in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s orders for additional air and sea power to be sent to guard Israel’s borders.
While Biden did mention a need to de-escalate tensions in the region, some things were conspicuously absent.
One was any mention of Israel’s actions that precipitated the heightened tensions. Usually, there is some mention of affirming Israel’s right of “self-defense” (which, it should be noted, does not cover extrajudicial killings), but that was absent here.
There was also no mention at all of ceasefire talks, or even of the Israeli hostages being held in Gaza. That’s a very notable omission, given Haniyeh’s position in those talks. There is a sense that the United States has, at least for the moment, dropped the pretense of those talks being obstructed by anyone other than Netanyahu.
The talks, for obvious reasons, have been paused. On Friday and Saturday, reports leaked out that Biden told Netanyahu to stop “bullshitting” him about Israel engaging seriously in ceasefire talks and to cease escalating. Yet the American ships and planes were speeding to Israel’s defense while he said it.
One reason for the duality is that Vice President Kamala Harris was also on the call, though her role seems to have been largely one of an observer. This would seem to be another sign that Harris will not depart from Biden in terms of policy on Israel, but wants to shed the image Biden projected of complete indifference to the lives of Palestinians.
Despite the rhetoric, though, Netanyahu clearly feels emboldened, and rightly so.
It seems unlikely that Biden was aware of Israel’s plan to take out Haniyeh. There is no good reason for Biden to simply allow Israel to take such an action, undermining efforts to secure a ceasefire, something Biden wants to accomplish before the election. But the state of play for Biden is no different than it has been for at least the past two months: he wants a ceasefire deal that sees the Israeli hostages released but is not prepared to put material pressure on Netanyahu to make it happen. And appearances aside, Harris seems to be on board with that, at least as long as she’s still Biden’s vice president.
Biden is counting on the protests in Israel and the increasing anger among many of Israel’s leaders to push Netanyahu to stop obstructing the deal. But Netanyahu has shown no sign of weakening his resolve to push on with the genocide and with the vision he shares with the far right in Israel of finally striking a blow that will defeat not just the Palestinians, but the Axis of Resistance once and for all.
The very idea is lunacy. It will ignite the region and Israel will be battered as it never has been before. The coalition of countries that helped thwart Iran’s attack in April is not going to help Israel if it starts a regional war. There will be no winners in such a war, very much including Israel.
Netanyahu knows very well that between now and Election Day, the President will do nothing that will be seen as a major shift in policy on Israel, regardless of Biden’s or Harris’ rhetoric. Biden may talk tougher, he may even dress Netanyahu down, but the money, the weapons, and the political cover is not going anywhere.
While Harris has shown some desire to try to win back some of the voters Biden lost with his policy on Gaza, she has not shown herself to be willing to take risks to do so. It will remain to be seen how risky it is to remain more concerned with pro-Israel donors than with those young, Arab, Muslim, and progressive voters. But that seems to be the course she’s taken.
YOUR HELP urgently NEEDED
We missed our July fundraiser goal and need to keep fundraising to make up the difference.
The next few months are going to be pivotal and your tax-deductible donation will go far in helping us do our work.
Please do what you can today.