WASHINGTON, D.C. After weeks of intense efforts to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States has adopted a markedly different approach: allowing the conflict in Lebanon to continue without direct intervention. This shift reflects the U.S.’s evolving goals in a region where the dynamics have rapidly changed.
As recently as two weeks ago, both the U.S. and France were calling for a 21-day ceasefire to prevent a full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon. However, those efforts were upended by key developments, including Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Syed Hassan Nasrallah and the launch of Israeli ground operations on October 1, along with airstrikes targeting the group’s leadership.
With the conflict escalating, the U.S. has now ceased its calls for a ceasefire. “We do support Israel launching these incursions to degrade Hezbollah’s infrastructure so ultimately we can get a diplomatic resolution,” stated U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller earlier this week.
This strategic pivot is driven by the U.S.’s dual objectives: weakening Hezbollah, a powerful Iran-backed militia, while also managing the broader conflict in the Middle East. By supporting Israel’s military campaign, Washington hopes to dismantle Hezbollah’s capabilities, although this course of action carries the risk of escalating the conflict into a wider regional war.
Hezbollah’s Role and U.S. Concerns
The current phase of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict began after Hezbollah launched missiles at Israeli positions in response to the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, swiftly retaliated, escalating both ground and air operations against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Jon Alterman, a former U.S. State Department official, explained that the U.S. wants to see Hezbollah weakened but is wary of creating instability. “If you can’t change the Israeli approach, you might as well try to channel it in a constructive way,” he said.
This “virtue of necessity” approach, as former U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller described it, suggests that Washington is now prioritizing strategic outcomes over immediate ceasefire negotiations. The administration likely sees this as a moment to weaken Hezbollah while reserving leverage to restrain Israel if needed, particularly after a recent ballistic missile attack by Tehran.
A Risky Bet on Military Pressure
Washington believes that by supporting Israel’s military actions, it could achieve two primary goals: curbing Tehran’s influence by weakening Hezbollah and possibly paving the way for a new government in Lebanon. Hezbollah, which has played a dominant role in Lebanese politics for decades, is seen by many as a key proxy for Iran’s influence in the region.
“On the one hand, many Lebanese people bristle under the weight of Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon. But at the same time … this change is being foisted upon Lebanon through a very violent campaign,” noted Jonathan Lord, a former Pentagon official now with the Center for a New American Security in Washington.
However, this strategy comes with significant risks. While U.S. officials emphasize that their long-term goal is to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701—which mandates a peacekeeping mission (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon to keep the area free of weapons outside of the Lebanese state’s control—the fighting risks destabilizing Lebanon further.
As Alterman highlighted, Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu, feels emboldened by recent gains. “Netanyahu sees all of his gambles paying off, and it strikes me as a hard moment for Israel to feel like it should stop pressing its advantage,” he said.
Fears of a Broader War
The escalation of hostilities in Lebanon has also heightened fears of a regional war, especially given Iran’s recent missile strike and the potential for further retaliation. While Washington has cautioned Israel against repeating the Gaza scenario—where over a year of military operations has turned the enclave into a wasteland with nearly 42,000 casualties, according to local health officials—analysts warn that Lebanon could suffer a similar fate.
With no meaningful ceasefire talks underway, and Israeli operations expected to continue for “weeks if not months,” as U.S. and European officials suggest, the conflict remains at a critical juncture. The U.S., by allowing the situation to unfold, is betting on a military solution that could reshape the region—though not without considerable risk.
