In February, while holding an ice cream cone, President Joe Biden of the United States stated that a ceasefire in Gaza was imminent, potentially occurring within days.

However, over seven months later, Israel’s military actions in Gaza have not only persisted but have intensified, with Israeli forces conducting invasions and airstrikes in Lebanon as tensions and violence escalate throughout the Middle East.

The Biden administration has consistently called for de-escalation while simultaneously offering political backing to Israel and maintaining a steady flow of munitions to support its military operations.

Washington has largely endorsed Israel’s aggressive actions this year, including the targeted killings of Hamas leaders in Beirut and Tehran, the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the incursion into southern Lebanon.

More than a year into the conflict in Gaza, Israel continues its relentless offensive in the besieged territory, resulting in nearly 42,000 fatalities, while also conducting daily bombings in Beirut and gearing up for potential military action against Iran.

As the situation in Gaza escalates and extends throughout the region, the disparity between US rhetoric and its actual policies is becoming more pronounced.

Is the Biden administration merely unable to restrain Israel, as many liberal commentators argue? Or is it actively contributing to the escalation, using the turmoil to further a more aggressive stance towards Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah?

The concise answer is that through its ongoing military and diplomatic backing of Israel, the US continues to play a significant role in the violence in the region, despite its public statements advocating for restraint and a ceasefire, according to analysts. While it is challenging to ascertain the administration’s true motives or intentions, there is an increasing amount of evidence indicating that the Biden administration is closely aligned with Israel, rather than being a passive ally facing defiance.

What actions and statements have been made by the US thus far?

Following an extensive public campaign advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza, the US has redirected its attention towards backing the Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Last week, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed support for an Israeli ground offensive in southern Lebanon, which has the potential to escalate into a comprehensive invasion of the nation.

“I have made it clear that the United States stands behind Israel’s right to defend itself,” Austin stated on September 30 after a discussion with his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant.

“We concurred on the importance of dismantling the attack infrastructure along the border to prevent Lebanese Hezbollah from executing attacks similar to those on October 7 against Israel’s northern communities,” Austin remarked, referencing the assault by Hamas on southern Israel that resulted in the deaths of at least 1,139 individuals.

The Lebanese group initiated attacks on Israeli military targets in October of the previous year, claiming it was a strategy to compel the Israeli government to cease its military actions in Gaza, which were launched in response to the Hamas assault.

For several months, the frequent clashes were primarily confined to the border region. This violence has caused tens of thousands of individuals from both sides to flee. Hezbollah contended that residents of northern Israel could only return once the country halts its military operations in Gaza.

In response to a targeted assassination campaign against Hezbollah’s senior military leaders, Israel commenced a significant bombing campaign across Lebanon, resulting in the destruction of civilian homes in numerous villages and towns starting on September 23.

Since that time, Israeli military actions have forced over 1 million individuals to flee their homes in Lebanon.

Prior to this escalation, the White House had been asserting for several months its commitment to finding a diplomatic resolution to the tensions at the Lebanon-Israel border. US envoy Amos Hochstein made numerous trips to the area, primarily to caution against further escalation.

As the ongoing low-level conflicts escalated into full-scale warfare in Lebanon, the Biden administration sought support from Arab and European nations, proposing an “immediate” 21-day ceasefire on September 25 to halt the violence.

However, just two days later, Israel carried out an airstrike that killed Nasrallah, destroying multiple residential buildings in Beirut and effectively eliminating any chance for a swift ceasefire. The White House praised the operation as a “measure of justice.” This assassination was authorized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while he was in the United States for the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Osamah Khalil, a history professor at Syracuse University, expressed skepticism regarding the authenticity of President Biden’s diplomatic initiatives, casting doubt on media claims that Hochstein had advised Israel to exercise restraint.

Khalil emphasized that the United States has been an active participant and supporter of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the broader region. He argued that the Biden administration utilized ceasefire discussions as a strategy to deflect domestic criticism.

“These negotiations were merely for appearances, especially as public sentiment towards the war grew increasingly negative,” Khalil remarked in an interview with Al Jazeera last month.

Transforming the Middle East

Recent reports from US media lend credence to Khalil’s claims.

On September 30, Politico cited unnamed sources indicating that high-ranking US officials, including Hochstein and Brett McGurk, the National Security Council coordinator for the Middle East, have discreetly endorsed an Israeli military initiative against Hezbollah.

The publication noted, “Behind the scenes, Hochstein, McGurk, and other senior U.S. national security officials are framing Israel’s operations in Lebanon as a pivotal moment—one that will positively reshape the Middle East for years to come.”

In a separate report, Axios highlighted that the US is seeking to capitalize on the recent setbacks Israel has inflicted on Hezbollah by advocating for the election of a Lebanese president aligned with Washington’s interests.

The Lebanese presidency has remained unfilled for nearly two years, as the parliament struggles to reach a consensus on a new leader.

On Tuesday, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller characterized the conflict in Lebanon as an “opportunity” for political transformation. He expressed that Washington aims for the Lebanese populace to have “the ability to elect a new president [and] the ability to break the stalemate that Hezbollah has maintained over the country.”

Hezbollah and its allies hold numerous seats in the Lebanese parliament due to the outcomes of free elections.

The ambition to reshape the region has long been a cornerstone of the US neoconservative agenda, which advocates for support of Israel and the promotion of US-aligned governments through assertive foreign policy and military actions. This strategy was particularly evident during the administration of former US President George W. Bush.

Eighteen years ago, during the Bush administration, Israel engaged in its last significant conflict with Hezbollah, prompting then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to describe it as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

Khalil pointed out that many neoconservatives from the Bush era have since aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, now supporting Vice President Kamala Harris in her presidential campaign for the upcoming November election.

Harris has received the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney, a prominent figure behind the “war on terror” and the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States.

As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President Biden also supported the Iraq war, a stance shared by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a Democratic staff member on the committee at that time. McGurk, who was an adviser in the Bush White House, played a significant role in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, while Hochstein has a background in the Israeli military.

Khalil remarked, “There is a neoconservative agenda within the Democratic administration.”

Gaza Failures

As the conflict intensifies in Lebanon and global attention shifts to a potential confrontation between Iran and Israel, numerous analysts argue that President Biden’s inability to resolve the situation in Gaza has contributed significantly to the current instability in the region.

Khalil Jahshan, executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, emphasized that the Biden administration’s unwavering support for the Netanyahu government is leading the entire region into uncertain territory.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Jahshan remarked that over the past year since the onset of the Gaza war, the US has demonstrated “total blind support” not only for Israeli policies but also for “Israeli excesses.”

“This outcome stems from a one-sided approach that has dismissed any rational considerations from the outset of this conflict,” he stated.

Following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Biden quickly expressed steadfast support for the US ally.

He supported a “swift, decisive, and overwhelming” military response from Israel against Hamas. The White House also quickly sought additional funding from Congress to bolster military aid to Israel in order to support the ongoing conflict.

Despite increasing calls for a ceasefire amid a worsening humanitarian crisis, Washington maintained that Israel had a “right” to pursue Hamas.

Recent investigations by ProPublica and Reuters revealed that the Biden administration received and disregarded internal alerts regarding potential Israeli war crimes in Gaza while continuing arms transfers to Israel.

As both domestic and international criticism mounted following Israel’s extensive destruction in Gaza, which displaced nearly all of the 2.3 million residents and pushed them to the brink of famine, Biden began to adjust his rhetoric.

In recent months, the U.S. has started using the term “ceasefire” to advocate for an agreement that would halt the fighting in Gaza and facilitate the release of Israeli captives held by Palestinian factions in the besieged area.

However, there has been minimal pressure on Netanyahu to agree to such a deal.

Whether Biden and his team genuinely sought a ceasefire but were unsuccessful, or if they employed the diplomatic initiative as a diversion from the grim realities of the U.S.-backed conflict, the outcome remains the same—an escalating war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent individuals.

The evidence indicates that it is politically beneficial for them to publicly advocate for a ceasefire while failing to take any meaningful steps to achieve it, stated Ryan Costello, a policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), an organization in the United States that encourages diplomatic relations with Tehran.

Jahshan further remarked that the Biden administration has not presented equitable ceasefire proposals while simultaneously supplying arms to Israel.

“What is the purpose of a ceasefire if those proposing it are still providing military support to one of the involved parties?” he questioned. “That does not constitute a ceasefire; it merely serves as an invitation to prolong the conflict.”