From the first moments of the announcement of the assassination of the head of the political bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Ismail Haniyeh, the US administration rushed to focus on the issue of ceasefire negotiations and prisoner exchange, in an effort to contain the expected reactions from Iran and its allies in the region.
The assassination of Haniyeh coincided with the assassination of the prominent military leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Fouad Shukr, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, and was preceded by the targeting of the Yemeni port of Hodeidah, which is under the control of the Houthi Ansar Allah group, in what was considered an unprecedented Israeli escalation at the regional level. The dawn massacre at the Tab’een School in Gaza came to complete the bloody scene in the manner desired by the extremist Israeli government.
In its first response to the assassination of the martyr Haniyeh, the US State Department refused to comment on the assassination, and its spokesman, Matthew Miller, said, “An agreement to release the hostages is possible, and Washington is still working to close the gaps in the agreement between Israel and Hamas.”
American strategy
In its quest to contain regional escalation, the US administration worked to weave an integrated strategy based on military and technical readiness to repel any Iranian attack on Israel. It deployed its defense system, summoned aircraft carriers, and strengthened its coordination with its allies in the region.
It also intensified its diplomatic efforts and mediated with Iran and Hezbollah with the aim of preventing the strike or reducing its level in a way that would not allow for a broad regional escalation.
Given that the war on the Gaza Strip is the main cause of escalation in the region, President Joe Biden's administration has activated the ceasefire and prisoner exchange negotiations in Gaza.
But activating the exchange deal was not intended to achieve a real breakthrough, and was not in fact a serious effort to reach an agreement to stop the war, given that the Biden administration is more aware than others that the conclusion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned with from Washington was to release all the marginal pressures that were being imposed on him, and to move towards escalation in Gaza and the region.
Tripartite statement
The tripartite statement by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt was the culmination of American efforts to place the negotiation process at the heart of the regional scene with the aim of influencing the position of Iran and its allies regarding the scope and size of the potential response.
The United States sought to isolate the position of Iran and its allies by portraying them as the ones who wanted escalation in light of the “positive” atmosphere represented by the call for the parties to resume negotiations in the middle of this month.
This reading is reinforced by Netanyahu’s direct welcome of the tripartite statement and his readiness to send a negotiating delegation to Cairo on the date set by the tripartite statement for the launch of a new round of negotiations.
Netanyahu's quick welcome of the statement also indicates his belief that the United States wants to serve a strategy of regional containment rather than efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, and in this context, Biden administration officials acknowledged that the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh would hinder mediation efforts.
Hamas response
For its part, Hamas expressed in a statement a clear position in its focus on any effort to open a path to a ceasefire and an exchange deal being a practical effort to implement the previously approved proposals presented by the mediators.
The movement said in its statement that it “demands that the mediators submit a plan to implement what they presented to the movement and approved on 7/2/2024 based on Biden's vision and the Security Council resolution, and obligate the occupation to do so.”
She considered that this was better “than going to more rounds of negotiations or new proposals that provide cover for the occupation's aggression and give it more time to perpetuate the war of genocide against our people.”
Hamas' statement indicates that it is aware of the real purpose of the American pressure to move the ceasefire negotiations process forward and the direct Israeli welcome.
Dawn Massacre
The massacre of the Tabeen School in Gaza came to restore the scene to its true image and quickly put an end to the American maneuver of proposing a ceasefire negotiations path amid the rising flames of the region, as escalation is Netanyahu's only option in the months before a new president takes power in the White House.
The horrific massacre, which claimed the lives of more than 100 martyrs and wounded more than 200 civilians, was considered Netanyahu's real and practical response to any attempt at a serious negotiation process aimed at stopping the war and reaching a prisoner exchange deal.
This scene that Netanyahu is imposing on the Biden administration and the region has brought the US strategy to contain regional escalation to the highest levels of fragility and uncertainty.
Netanyahu's bets on the Biden administration's inability and unwillingness to exert any serious pressure on him to stop the war seem strong and succeed every time, as the edge of the American position is the one that Netanyahu actually imposes.
Thus, Netanyahu has succeeded in harnessing American efforts, including the ceasefire negotiations track, to serve his strategy of prolonging the war.
Iran's commitment
However, the commitment made by Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen to respond to the recent Israeli escalation puts Netanyahu’s bets on playing on the edge of the abyss to a serious and perhaps unprecedented test, as Iran’s equation has gone beyond the war in Gaza, and is now related to its national security, sovereignty, and the safety of its territories and officials.
Crossing new red lines with Hezbollah by targeting its leadership in the heart of Beirut's southern suburbs also takes the escalation on Israel's northern front to an advanced stage.
The element of synchronicity in provoking the elements of the axis of resistance – including the Houthis in Yemen – may constitute one of the scenarios that Netanyahu did not want to face, and it is a scene that complicates the task for the United States and increases the possibility of its failure to control the pace of escalation.
It seems that the main diplomatic tool that the Biden administration wanted to employ to contain the escalation was drowned in the blood of Palestinians by Netanyahu at the School of the Subordinates.
Iran's experience in responding to the targeting of the Iranian consulate in Damascus last April was not encouraging for the axis of resistance in terms of the final outcome.
The nature and scope of the Iranian strike, which avoided targeting residential areas and vital facilities deep inside the occupying state, showed that Iran had responded relatively to the de-escalation efforts led by the United States at the time, in the hope that this round of mutual escalation would deter Israel from repeatedly targeting Iranian interests and undermining its sovereignty.
But the assassination of Haniyeh in the middle of Tehran and in facilities belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is pushing Iran to reconsider its calculations regarding the American position, whether its ability to control the occupation or its desire to do so.
Involvement in the region
The Biden administration's limited tools to containing escalation in the region by doubling military efforts to repel a potential Iranian attack increases the likelihood that the United States will return to a state of involvement in military conflicts in the region.
On the other hand, the US military efforts will require effort and cooperation from its allies in the region, which will cause them great embarrassment and may lead to further tensions between these countries and Iran.
Jordan was the first to move in an attempt to de-escalate, given the extent of the embarrassment and pressure that would be placed on the kingdom if it contributed to efforts to confront the potential Iranian attack, which the Biden administration is taking into account and is working to avoid burdening its allies with more pressure that Netanyahu is imposing on everyone.
The most sensitive aspect of this potential round of escalation is that the course of the conflict may depend more on Iran’s calculations than Israel’s, which is one of the biggest obstacles facing the United States, which may find itself faced with two options: a broader regional escalation or a greater Iranian role in shaping an approach to de-escalating the regional situation, including the war on Gaza.
There is no doubt that the Biden administration did not want to reach either option. The option of Iran entering into the comprehensive understandings to reduce escalation and stop the war on Gaza may improve the conditions of the Palestinian resistance and gain Iran an effective role.
But the worst thing for the United States and Netanyahu is for Iran to impose the option of escalation for an extended period of time during which it will restore its prestige and the deterrence equation, and at the same time employ this option to support the Palestinians’ negotiating position.