The battle of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the reactions to it progressively advance into new phases. Naturally, these stages are not only related to military escalation and potential escalation within the Palestinian territories or on the southern borders of Lebanon.
The issue remains tied to strategy, in the political and media game directly managed by the United States, and President Joe Biden's administration.
Practically, the stance taken by the US president, expressing full and unconditional support for Israel, is a historical commitment to provide protection.
However, the most dangerous thing Biden said is his characterization of Hamas, likening it to ISIS. If taken seriously or implemented, this aims to support the Israeli operation and involve direct US intervention in the process of eliminating Hamas.
Eliminating Hamas?
This goal seems impossible to achieve given the capabilities, positioning, and popularity of Hamas.
While the Israeli side has described the Al-Aqsa flood operation as an "Israeli 11th of September," no party, state, or Islamic organization has condemned Hamas, unlike the Islamic and Arab response to the events of September 11.
The condemnation was directed at the operation, expressing solidarity with America. This means that in the Arab public opinion, there is clear solidarity with Gaza and Hamas. In contrast, there is significant international sympathy and support for Israel.
The focus is on the operations committed by Hamas against "civilians." Consequently, political, military, and media mobilization against Hamas is underway in an attempt to weaken or dismantle it, as announced by Israeli officials.
In this context, Americans seek to adopt greater political and military escalation against Hamas, perhaps even against the Palestinian cause as a whole, and even against Hamas allies in the Axis of Resistance.
Some argue that Biden resorts to this escalation to reaffirm America's relationship with Israel on one hand and consider the American public opinion on the other, especially since he will face presidential elections months from now.
Following this theory, it is later suggested that Americans will give Israel the opportunity, time, and support to carry out the most severe military operations against Hamas and the Gaza Strip.
Afterward, the field will be left for negotiations led by various countries, especially with some military convictions that Israel will not be able to invade and control Gaza or forcibly displace Palestinians. Otherwise, the region will face a regional war, as other fronts will open against Israel.
Who will negotiate?
If this perspective is correct, it will establish an equation that America and Israel do not want Iran to emerge as a winner from the battle.
While direct American involvement recognizes the capabilities of Iran and its allies in the region, especially after statements from the US deter Iran and Hezbollah. Based on these facts, it will ultimately lead to a new phase, where Hamas is the strongest Palestinian party, and Iran has the upper hand in the region, directly engaging in negotiations. Iran may not be alone at the negotiating table; Hamas and Hezbollah may also be present.
In case this perspective is not accurate, and US and Western support for Israel is absolute and serious in achieving military objectives, the American intervention would aim to support these goals. This could lead to an expansion of the battles and fronts, especially since Hezbollah and other Iranian allies cannot remain neutral and will be more involved in the conflict. This means the battle will encompass multiple fronts, evolving into something resembling a regional war.
There is another issue that must be carefully considered—the combination of Israeli recklessness and aggression seeking revenge.
Coupled with Western attempts to demonize Hamas and the Axis of resistance as a whole, this could lead to Israeli and US targeting of other forces in the Axis of resistance. The aim would be to achieve strategic goals, change equations, and seek to weaken Iran in the region. However, this remains uncertain, as the experience of 2006 still lingers in memory.