MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
Well, let's hear more about how the U.S. may be trying to influence Israel. U.S. officials all the way up to President Biden have helped steer many rounds of cease-fire talks over the last year, and yet, here we are, with fighting ongoing in Gaza, with Israel now invading Lebanon and Iran launching another direct attack on Israel. So what leverage does the U.S. have on where events go next? Well, to answer that, we have called longtime U.S. diplomat Richard Haass. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hi there, Richard.
RICHARD HAASS: Good to be with you.
KELLY: Just a few days ago, President Biden told reporters, and I quote, "I don't think we need a wider war." Then yesterday, his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said this.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JAKE SULLIVAN: We have made clear that there will be consequences, severe consequences for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case.
KELLY: Richard Haass, what is the U.S. saying to Israel about what its response to this Iranian attack - what it should look like?
HAASS: Well, the National Security adviser, Jake Sullivan, I think made it pretty clear that the United States is sympathetic in principle - that Israel ought to respond to the Iranian ballistic missile attack.
KELLY: Did you hear in his words almost a blessing to retaliate?
HAASS: Absolutely. What I think, though, is up for grabs is the scale and nature of the retaliation. And I would think, more than anything, there is a conversation about the target set. Should it, for example, focus on what you might call relevant or germane systems - go after the factories that are producing the missiles and rockets that Iran and Hezbollah are using? That would be one kind of response.
An escalation from that, though, would be to go after their energy installations, where I guess my guess would be the administration would have real qualms. I think the most interesting question would be whether the United States green-lights the idea of going after their nuclear-related targets. And regardless, just the question of whatever the preferences are of the Biden administration, what does the Israeli government choose to listen to?
KELLY: Yeah. I mean, understanding neither of us is inside of these conversations happening right now at top levels at the White House and beyond, is your best guess that the U.S. is counseling restraint?
HAASS: That would be my best guess - that the administration has agreed, in principle, for an Israeli response to restore deterrence but is trying to shape it, to put something of a ceiling on it. Because what they would worry then is the possibility that Iran would take several steps - for example, making it impossible for any oil-related shipping to move.
KELLY: To the next question, which you touched on - to what extent does Israel care what the U.S. wants? What leverage does the U.S. have?
HAASS: Unlike Gaza, which divided Israelis the more and more October 7 was in the rearview mirror - issues about hostages and the rest - when it comes to Hezbollah and Lebanon, when it comes to Iran, Israel is largely united. There is a sense that when, rather than if, this showdown has to come - so my view is U.S. leverage will be quite limited, given how united Israel is. It's also limited by the fact that Joe Biden is a lame duck.
KELLY: To what extent do U.S. arms to Israel play into this conversation? Israel is able to make some of the military decisions it's making because it has U.S. weapons.
HAASS: Absolutely, and the United States has facilitated it through weapons, through intelligence-sharing. One of the other things that limits our inclination to lean on Israel is the fact that there's considerable agreement when it comes to dealing with Hezbollah and Lebanon or dealing with Iran. That's different than was the situation with Hamas and Gaza.
KELLY: Ah. Last thing - U.S. officials, including and all the way up to President Biden, keep saying they want to see a diplomatic resolution to a war that is not only not ending, but we see it widening. Is a diplomatic resolution still possible, or do things get worse before they get better?
HAASS: The short answer is no. I don't see the basis of a diplomatic resolution because you don't have parties that are like-minded. The interests do not overlap. One of my few rules of the Middle East is things often get worse, not before they get better, but before they get even worse. And I think it's quite likely we'll see continued Israeli military activity in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah. There will be no peace deal for the foreseeable future when it comes to Hamas and Gaza. And I think we're in the early stages, potentially, of growing clashes directly between Israel and Iran. So I actually think the Middle East could be poised not on the brink of some type of resolution, but rather a serious breakdown of order. And the question then is, how far does it go? What does it look like, and what does it lead to?
KELLY: Richard Haass is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is now senior counselor at Centerview Partners. Richard Haass, always a pleasure.
HAASS: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF ELMIENE AND BADBADNOTGOOD SONG, "MARKING MY TIME") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
