A Harris election win could hinge on Biden's last-ditch peace effort in Gaza

Even as Israel launched retaliatory strikes against Iran on Saturday morning, the administration of US President Joe Biden has been making a last-ditch effort to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. Its primary goal is to bring respite to the Middle East, which could in turn bolster Vice President Kamala Harris’s chances in next month’s presidential election.

Meanwhile Mr Harris’s opponent, former president Donald Trump, has also been courting key Middle Eastern powers in an attempt to present himself as a champion of lasting peace rather than temporary ceasefires.

For the first time, the significance of the Arab-American vote in key swing states such as Michigan has emerged, prompting the Biden-Harris team to make a last-minute attempt at securing peace, by balancing diplomacy and military escalation amid a crisis of trust between the US and Israel. Indeed, the Biden administration has shifted between endorsing some Israeli actions and expressing dissatisfaction with its leadership over other decisions.

The administration seemingly feels it has no choice but to push for a preliminary agreement for a temporary ceasefire now. This isn’t surprising, given that success could secure Mr Biden’s legacy, but also because the President believes that the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar presents an opportunity to be seized.

During his most recent visit to the Middle East, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken took his modest proposals to Qatar and Egypt, aiming to convince Hamas to accept a ceasefire proposal accompanied by transitional arrangements that would pave the way for a “day after” vision for Gaza.

This vision involves details such as the administration of Gaza, including who will take on the task from a Palestinian perspective, and who will participate in gradually rehabilitating Palestinians as they return to their homes. It also involves contributors to reconstruction efforts. However, all of this would come later, as it requires time and difficult commitments from all parties.

Speaking to reporters in Qatar, which has served as a mediator between Israel and Hamas, Mr Blinken said negotiators would return to Doha to renew the talks.

America’s top diplomat, meanwhile, addressed Israel with the need to “climb down the ladder”. He said it had achieved most of its war objectives in Gaza, and it that it is time to turn these successes into lasting gains. This particular comment appears to be a hint that Washington gave Israel moral, political and military support to achieve its goals in Gaza and in Lebanon, where it is fighting Hezbollah, and now it’s time to end its war.

But for Israel to lay the groundwork for a qualitative shift in its relationships with key regional powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, it needs to declare its intent to not remain in Gaza as an occupying force, nor to plant settlers there. It also requires acknowledging the principle of a two-state solution and ensuring that the enclave is handed back to its people, contributing to the security of areas from which it withdraws and allowing a Palestinian-led authority to take charge of matters ranging from security to improving living conditions and building state institutions.

In other words, for this to happen, it needs to shift from the tactical to the strategic in the way it is thinking about the crisis.

The Trump team will surely be watching the Biden administration’s moves with interest. With the conflict having begun under his opponent’s watch, and with Jewish and Arab voters – especially the younger generation – angry, the former president knows he won’t be taking the blame for it.

Trump criticises Harris over rally as Israel strikes Iran

00:41

Ms Harris, on the other hand, knows that the optics of an Israeli multi-front war being fought with US-supplied weapons, leaving trails of destruction and civilian casualties, are terrible for her. It is why her team presumably believes that securing the release of Israeli hostages from Hamas custody and reaching a ceasefire in Gaza are preferred to a continued war.

The key question, however, is whether Iran responds to Israel’s strikes on some of its military assets that killed four soldiers.

The Biden-Harris team had previously hinted to the Iranian leadership that delaying, easing, or potentially cancelling Israeli strikes on its country would require it to seriously pressure Hezbollah to withdraw from southern Lebanon and impose a halt to its operations against Israel, effectively a ceasefire from both sides.

But the repercussions of Israel’s actions, on the prospects for peace in the region and on the result of the US election, remain to be seen.

Iran’s strategic dilemma today is whether to continue supporting its proxies in the Middle East – no matter the cost in destruction to the countries in which they operate – or to abandon this strategy in its bid to end international sanctions against itself and improve relations with the US. Tehran’s government sometimes pretends to be ready to adapt to the needs of the desired relationship with the West, but at other times appears unwilling to walk away from a doctrine that is central to its existence.

If Iran ends up opting for the former and pressures Hezbollah to withdraw from southern Lebanon and implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, it may contribute to Ms Harris’s presidential bid, but more importantly, make tangible gains for itself. Such a step might even serve to diminish the rationale for some of Israel’s own destructive actions in Lebanon and elsewhere.