Spike in violence in Lebanon raises new questions about U.S.-Israeli relations

Editor's note: Anthony Moretti, a special commentator for CGTN, is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University in the U.S. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The death toll from the coordinated attacks on pagers in Lebanon is at least 30, and hundreds more people are still recovering from their wounds. One of the injured is the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, and Tehran has said, "Iran will duly follow up on the attack against its ambassador in Lebanon."

One day after the tampered pagers exploded, walkie-talkies also blew up.

There is no other way to say it: The tension between Israel and Hezbollah is at dangerously high levels. An Israeli general has said that his country is "at the start of a new phase in the war," which began almost one year ago. Those comments echo what the Hezbollah leader said – that the attacks [in Lebanon] were a "declaration of war."

That Israel carried out the attack is not in question, but how the Israelis were able to tamper with the devices remains a mystery. What is also known is that a small company based in China's Taiwan region, Gold Apollo, is at the center of events because the pagers came from its facility. The company's president deflected attention from the company, saying that "an agent in Europe whom we have cooperated with for three years" made the pagers.

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. government has been briefed by their colleagues in Israel about the attacks. Those words would suggest that the Americans were not aware of the planned operations before they were carried out. Should evidence to the contrary become known, the many U.S. statements asking all participants to rein in the violence would look empty. Recognizing that America's public standing throughout the Middle East remains low, the U.S. must appear to be clean, for lack of a better word, relating to this week's events in Lebanon in order for it to have any credibility in trying to foster a ceasefire or peace deal that might end the conflict.

U.S. credibility in the Middle East is not good. And U.S. policy vis-a-vis the Middle East also remains fragile. Note what Middle East Eye reported earlier this summer: "[R]ather than recognising that true stability in the Middle East requires addressing the root causes of tension and conflict – including the Palestinian issue – the U.S. has persisted with an approach rooted in force, alliance with oppressive regimes, and disregard for human rights." The Washington Post also exposed a bitter truth about U.S. policy in the region when it reported this: "The decision to elevate Israel's security interests above almost everything else, however well-intentioned, has distorted American policy. Even though it is the region's only established democracy, Israel is a staunch opponent of democracy in the rest of the Middle East."

The comments from Middle East Eye and the Washington Post cut to the crux of the problem America faces in the Middle East: With the exception of Israel, one nation after another does not see the U.S. as an impartial and honest broker. Unless and until that changes, there will be questions about what Washington knew about Israel's plans and when. Such inquiries might seem unfair in Washington's eyes, but reality is reality.

The doubts about America are compounded by the recent successes China has had in brokering a deal between long-standing rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia. Georgetown University, one of America's premier institutions, has noted that "China's involvement in the Middle East has reshaped the region's landscape, expanding beyond traditional energy sources to encompass economic, geopolitical, and strategic considerations. The country's "non-interventionist" approach is appealing to Middle Eastern states, which view their growing ties with Beijing as a means of diversification.

With domestic attention focused on the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden might be able to avoid a barrage of questions about the events in Lebanon. Remember, since his decision to abandon his re-election campaign, his public schedule has been reduced. At the same time, he will be under pressure to avoid making any comments that might suggest his policies and that of Vice President Harris differ. Republicans would pounce on any such space between the two as a sign that either he no longer is running the country or that she is already acting as if she is commander in chief.

The rhetoric is clear: Israel and Hezbollah are ready to expand their war. Should that happen, Washington will be under increased pressure to demonstrate that although it speaks often of a special relationship with Israel that it is seeking a solution that benefits more than one country. It is not unrealistic to suggest that with Washington distracted by the presidential election, whatever Israel does will not face the scrutiny other nations in the region demand.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)