Nick Zotos | ads manager |

The age-old mantra “cooler heads prevail” has never been more relevant with Israel on
the brink of a full scale war with Lebanon.

With The Times of Israel calling the most recent campaign the “Third Lebanon War” and Israel significantly increasing its aerial campaign in Lebanon, it’s reasonable to wonder if the United States might become militarily involved in the region.

With the presidential election less than a month away and the Israeli government set on increasing hostilities, our nation is on a disastrous path toward an unavoidable conflict — a path that Israel is forging for us.

For the past year, Israel has been waging war with Hamas in retribution for the attack on Oct. 7, 2023, where 695 civilians were killed according to Israeli social security data. However, that number pales in comparison to the over 40,000 Palestinians who have been killed over the past year, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza.

With tens of thousands dead, the situation on the northern border is escalating. Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Shiite militia group within Lebanon, has repeatedly expressed their disdain for Israel’s campaign in Gaza. Their criticisms have only grown louder resulting in further hostilities along Israel’s northern border. These hostilities finally reached a boiling point after the assassination of Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. As if the assassination was not enough, Israel planted explosives in Hezobllah’s communication devices, which killed around three dozen people and injured nearly 3,000, according to Lebanese health authorities.

The American response to the assassination was essentially an endorsement, with President Joe Biden stating, “The United States fully supports Israel’s right to defend itself.” He later announced that he had directed the Secretary of Defense to bolster the U.S. military presence in the Middle East to deter aggression.

Further U.S. involvement was seen this Tuesday when 100 soldiers were deployed to the region to operate the new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THADD) system. Iran ‘s foreign minister responded to the move by posting on the social platform X that the U.S. was putting the lives of its troops “at risk” warning that there were “no red lines in Iran defending its people or interests.”

Sending more soldiers only advances aggression, especially after endorsing the assassination of a militia group’s leader. While the killing of Nasrallah may have been justified, the timing has only heightened tensions in the region. In response to the attacks on its proxies, Iran has launched its greatest barrage of missiles at Israel to date.

While attacks on both Hamas and Hezbollah rage throughout the region, Israel is also contemplating striking back at Iran, possibly targeting their energy or military infrastructure. With all this “attacking” going on, the only questions our politicians should be asking are what, if any, are Israel’s objectives?

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an American think tank out of Washington, D.C., Israeli attacks are meant to successfully coerce Hezbollah to accept a ceasefire and move forces away from the border. However, a ceasefire does not seem to be the goal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Rather, the total destruction of Hezbollah seems to be the only objective Netanyahu and his coalition are interested in.

Just last week, Netanyahu threatened the people of Lebanon:“… the Lebanese people should stand against Hezbollah … a war would only lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza.”

Hezbollah is not Hamas. Lebanese civilians can do little, if anything, to deter a war as Netanayu suggests. With strikes exchanged between Iran and Israel, and Netanahyu determined to eliminate a force that will fight to ensure its survival, there is a clear sense of all-out conflict. The U.S. seems not to care.

With the elections coming up, it seems natural to wonder if one candidate can avert the possibility of U.S. involvement. The answer is unpleasant.

Former President Donald Trump over the past couple of weeks has insinuated that Iran was behind the attempts on his life, even though there is no evidence to support this.

“If I were the president, I would inform Iran — that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens,” he said.

Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous as it only heightens the worries of those who are already anxious about sending troops to “ease” the conflict in Lebanon and Gaza.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ stance, though not as extreme, comes across as lukewarm. When asked about her views on addressing Israel, she simply responded with a question of her own: “I think, with all due respect, the better question is, do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people?” Harris said. “And the answer to that question is yes.”

It appears that, regardless of who wins the election in November, that the U.S. is willing to sail into a course of war that Israel is currently charting, regardless of whether the American public supports this course of action. Given the risk of all-out war, especially in Lebanon, U.S. officials must increase their efforts in ceasing hostilities in the region, even if that means jeopardizing the “strong alliance” the U.S. has with Israel.

In terms of policy, the U.S. has multiple treaties with Israel including a Status of Forces Agreement signed in 1994 reaffirming that the U.S. will help Israel “counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors.”

Given the wording of this legal agreement, it is naive to believe that the U.S. will not be directly involved in the event Hezbollah and Israel were to wage a full scale war. However, a Status of Forces agreement is not the same as a treaty like NATO. The United States has discretion in determining if the host country, Israel, is acting as an instigator to these attacks. Moreover, the agreement outlines the U.S. sustaining minimal casualties to its forces as a priority of the treaty.

If the U.S. does not clarify its position on Israel, Netanyahu’s desire to eliminate Hezbollah will ultimately result in our involvement in a costly conflict. With escalation looming, the message for the candidates in this upcoming election is clear: Will they bring with them cooler heads, avoiding deeper U.S. involvement in the region and reign in Israel, or will they increase U.S. troop presence ensuring Israel’s right to “defend itself”? The answer could impact the lives of thousands of American soldiers.