As the latest round of Israeli military actions against Iran concludes, analysts and former diplomats have noted a significant shift: Israel, for better or worse, is shaping events in the Middle East, with the United States now in a supporting role as its ally engages on multiple fronts.

This represents a marked change. Historically, the United States has been the dominant force in the Middle East, making bold moves to influence the region’s trajectory — whether in military or diplomatic arenas, from Iraq’s battlefields to Camp David’s negotiating tables.

Today, as Israel carries out strikes on various adversaries, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and their supporter Iran, President Biden finds his ability to shape events limited. Unlike prior U.S. administrations that initiated large-scale interventions or peacemaking efforts, Biden’s focus has been more on managing fallout and preventing further escalation.

While American diplomacy has had some impact — Israel, for example, refrained from attacking sensitive Iranian nuclear sites and oil infrastructure following U.S. warnings — larger efforts, like brokering a truce with Hamas in Gaza, have so far yielded little progress. The United States has yet to outline a substantial plan to avert a broader Middle Eastern conflict.

Moreover, it seems the U.S. has limited sway over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has intensified actions against Hezbollah and Iran and sustained military operations in Gaza despite the recent death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

A Strategic Shift in Alliances

Netanyahu’s strategy, experts suggest, is to capitalize on the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks to subdue Israel’s regional adversaries. Israel’s supporters describe this as a rare chance to secure its position, while critics argue it risks prolonged instability with no clear endgame.

“There’s a disconnect in which the junior partner in the alliance has a larger vision for the region than the senior partner, who’s left reacting to events,” said Vali R. Nasr, a former State Department official and professor at Johns Hopkins University. “This is a challenging situation for the U.S.”

Geopolitical rivals, including China and Russia, are closely observing America’s limited capacity to restrain Israel or contain the conflict. This could, Nasr suggests, embolden figures like President Vladimir Putin to further pursue objectives in Ukraine or encourage President Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan.

The U.S. is already increasingly involved: it has sent warships to the Mediterranean to deter Iran and Hezbollah, assisted Israel with missile defense, and deployed commandos for hostage and Hamas leader searches.

“Israel’s core assumption is that, in a larger war, the U.S. would inevitably be pulled in,” Nasr said. “The United States is slowly sliding into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.”

Domestic Political Uncertainty

This intensifying Middle Eastern conflict occurs amid U.S. domestic political uncertainty. Israel’s recent strikes on Iran came just days before a highly competitive presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

Harris has aligned closely with Biden on the Gaza conflict, even as unwavering support for Israel has created challenges on the campaign trail. Trump, despite past disagreements with Netanyahu, has expressed strong support for Israel’s actions against Hamas and Hezbollah in recent statements and discussions with Netanyahu.

“Biden is trying to rein him in,” Trump remarked to reporters last week, referring to Netanyahu. “He’s holding him back, but maybe he should be encouraging him instead.”

Israel’s restrained strike on Friday could leave its options open post-election; a more aggressive action might have strained relations with a potential Harris administration, whereas a Trump win could see stronger Israeli action, possibly targeting Iranian nuclear and energy assets.

Analysts also speculate that a Trump presidency might prioritize expanding the Abraham Accords, but without a two-state solution, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to join. Under a Harris presidency, a more integrated approach addressing Palestinian and regional relations might be pursued, but Biden’s limited progress dims immediate prospects.

According to Michael B. Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Biden and Netanyahu share aspects of a vision for peace, but differ on the means. “The White House believes its goals are attainable without overwhelming force, while Netanyahu believes otherwise,” Oren observed.

Prospects for Peace Amid Conflict

Historically, the U.S. has leveraged Middle Eastern conflicts to drive change. The 1973 Yom Kippur War laid groundwork for the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, while the first Palestinian intifada paved the way for the Oslo peace talks during the Clinton years.

“There’s a glimmer of hope here,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “If Israel perceives it has weakened its main adversaries, it could seize this as a step toward peace and stability.”

However, the brutality of the Hamas attacks and uncertain leadership in multiple key nations add new challenges. Iran’s reaction has been inconsistent, influenced by internal issues, succession concerns, economic troubles, and the strain on its proxies.

In Israel, Netanyahu faces potential prosecution and leads a coalition with far-right ministers, some of whom view Gaza as an opportunity to push out Palestinian populations.

“There is a vision here,” Kurtzer remarked, “but it risks only entrenching the conflict further.”