Israel’s planned ground incursion into Lebanon underscores a stark new strategic reality: the United States, once the dominant power in the Middle East, is now largely powerless to restrain its key ally or significantly influence other major players in the rapidly worsening regional crisis.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government launched what the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) described as a “limited ground operation” into Lebanon on Monday, marking the next phase of its offensive against Hezbollah. This move comes after weeks of urging from Washington for restraint and familiar but ignored calls for de-escalation.

This escalation occurred just hours after President Joe Biden, responding to questions about Israeli special forces raids into southern Lebanon, called for a ceasefire. “We should have a ceasefire now,” Biden said, adding, “I’m comfortable with them stopping.”

Biden’s comments highlighted the widening gap between the U.S. and Israeli governments, as Netanyahu broadcasted a message to the Iranian people, declaring, “There is nowhere in the Middle East Israel cannot reach.” This disconnect comes at a time when the U.S. is approaching a high-stakes presidential election, with Biden’s ability to maneuver limited by concerns about domestic political ramifications stemming from the escalating conflict in the Middle East.

While Vice President Kamala Harris has largely aligned with the administration’s stance, she has previously hinted at taking a harder line toward Netanyahu, emphasizing the plight of Palestinian civilians. This nuanced difference raises questions about how closely the Democratic ticket’s position on Israel will evolve in the final weeks before the election.

A Repeated Pattern of U.S. Powerlessness

The U.S. has found itself in a recurring situation of impotence and Israeli defiance ever since the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, which left around 1,200 people dead. This brutal assault prompted an intense Israeli military response against Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Netanyahu often acting first and informing the U.S. later. This approach has consistently undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts, raising concerns that the U.S. could be dragged into a broader regional war.

For example, Israel did not inform the U.S. in advance of the airstrike that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah last Friday, despite the predictable global shockwaves. This lack of coordination has often left the Biden administration appearing as a bystander rather than an active participant, despite the U.S.’s status as a superpower. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s tireless shuttle diplomacy has yielded few results, and the U.S.’s consistent push for a ceasefire in Gaza has been ignored by both Israel and Hamas.

The diplomatic costs of being spurned by Israel are significant. When a U.S. president is publicly defied by an ally, it damages their prestige and undermines the perception of U.S. power globally. For Biden, who campaigned as a foreign policy expert, the escalating war in the Middle East could tarnish his legacy if he leaves office with the conflict unresolved.

However, Netanyahu’s calculation that the Biden administration will continue to guarantee Israel’s security appears to have paid off. In April, the U.S. and its allies helped Israel repel a massive missile and drone attack by Iran following an Israeli strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus that killed eight senior Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers. As Biden has a long record of being one of the most pro-Israeli politicians in U.S. history, he has so far refrained from leveraging U.S. military aid to force Israel to back down, a move that would have significant political consequences ahead of the election.

Netanyahu seems to have calculated that Biden’s instincts will prevent him from acting too harshly, even in the face of Israeli provocations. Ironically, a CNN analysis found that U.S.-made 2,000-pound bombs were likely used in the airstrike that killed Nasrallah, a strike that could ignite a regional war—precisely the outcome the Biden administration seeks to avoid.

The Price of U.S.-Israeli Tensions

Israel’s repeated disregard for the Biden administration’s concerns has severely strained the relationship between the two countries. Tensions between Biden and Netanyahu have often spilled into the open, as seen when U.S. officials expressed outrage after Netanyahu dismissed a ceasefire proposal led by the U.S. Washington later demanded that Israel release a statement to resolve the diplomatic embarrassment, according to CNN reports.

Retired Colonel Cedric Leighton, a CNN military analyst, commented on “CNN This Morning” that discussions between U.S. and Israeli officials about the impending ground incursion were “pretty tense… especially at the upper levels.” He explained that Israel has deliberately kept the U.S. in the dark regarding the details of their military operations. Leighton further noted that while the U.S. is trying to limit Israel’s military actions, Israel’s objective is to eliminate Hezbollah as a threat, viewing the current conflict as a military, not a diplomatic, challenge.

The Growing U.S.-Israel Split

Over the past year, the U.S. and Israel have found themselves at odds, with their national interests in conflict. The Netanyahu government views the October 7 Hamas attacks as evidence of an existential threat to Israel’s survival. This perspective allows Israeli leaders to justify actions that lead to significant Palestinian civilian casualties, even if they are condemned as disproportionate by much of the world.

On the other hand, the U.S. sees Israel’s short-term victories as unsustainable. Washington’s concerns go beyond Israel’s immediate security. American leaders are deeply worried about being drawn into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, especially after spending two decades disentangling U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. military personnel still stationed in the region remain vulnerable to attacks from Iranian proxies, as demonstrated by the deaths of three U.S. service members in a drone attack in Jordan earlier this year.

The broader global and political implications of the escalating violence are also significant. Attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea by Iran-backed Houthi rebels have disrupted supply chains, while U.S. naval forces have come under fire while attempting to protect commercial vessels. These clashes are expected to continue as Israel’s military operations in Gaza and Lebanon escalate, raising the likelihood of a regional war that would have disastrous economic and political consequences for the U.S.

Israel’s Perception of Victory and Reluctance to Halt

From Israel’s perspective, the current conflict has led to significant strategic gains. The Israeli military has successfully eliminated some of its most dangerous enemies, including Hassan Nasrallah, who had led Hezbollah for over 30 years. Additionally, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was reportedly killed in a strike in Tehran, although Israel has not confirmed its involvement.

Given these successes, Netanyahu appears intent on continuing Israel’s military campaign, regardless of Washington’s concerns. Israel has achieved its most significant strategic victories in decades, prompting Netanyahu to push forward, even if it risks widening the rift between the U.S. and Israel.

The U.S.’s Broader Concerns

While Israel focuses on eliminating its immediate enemies, the U.S. is grappling with the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza and Lebanon. Thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians have died, and the destruction has sparked international outrage, placing immense pressure on the U.S. from its global allies.

Moreover, the prospect of a direct conflict between the U.S. and Iran looms larger as the war drags on. A multi-front regional war would have catastrophic economic consequences and derail the Biden administration’s efforts to pivot toward its growing rivalry with China.

Shifting U.S.-Israel Relations

The political landscape in both countries has also contributed to the widening rift. Historically, Israel’s leaders could not afford to alienate the U.S., its most important ally. However, Netanyahu’s shift to the far right and reliance on ultra-orthodox political parties has made appeasing these domestic factions his top priority.

At the same time, the weakness of Israel’s centrist and left-wing parties has left few alternative leaders who share the ideological and diplomatic views of past Israeli prime ministers like Yitzhak Rabin or Shimon Peres. With no comparable partners on the Palestinian side, U.S. peacemaking efforts face unprecedented challenges.

The U.S.’s political dynamics have also changed. Netanyahu’s years of interference in U.S. politics, particularly regarding the Iran nuclear deal, have alienated many Democrats. The party’s shift to the left has further cooled support for Israel, making the U.S.-Israel relationship more politicized than ever before.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s close alignment with Netanyahu’s policies further entrenched this politicization. Pro-Trump Republicans have encouraged Netanyahu’s aggressive actions, using the conflict as a wedge issue to undermine Biden and Harris ahead of the U.S. election.

Political Ramifications for Biden and Harris

Biden and Harris find themselves in a precarious political situation just weeks before the election. The administration’s failure to rein in Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon has deepened divisions within the Democratic Party, with progressive and Arab American voters, particularly in swing states like Michigan, expressing frustration. At the same time, any attempt to take a tougher stance on Israel could alienate moderate voters, who are being targeted by Trump’s campaign ads, accusing Biden of weakness and escalating global conflicts.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s willingness to expand the conflict, regardless of how it affects the U.S., underscores the extent to which Israel’s strategic objectives now diverge from America’s broader geopolitical concerns. This dynamic has made it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to project power in a region where it was once the dominant force, leaving Washington with limited options as the conflict intensifies.