McGurk and Hochstein: The American diplomats creating chaos in Middle East

The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil not only devastated the two Muslim-majority countries but also dented the prestige of the world’s biggest military power.

Despite the bitter experiences in the recent past – that includes the hasty and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and signing the ill-conceived deal with the Iraqi government to end the American combat mission – the Biden administration has steadfastly backed Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and also approved the invasion of Lebanon, allowing Tel Aviv to escalate tensions across the Middle East, according to recent reports.

Many analysts blamed the ill-planned US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan on neoconservative political circles in Washington, which aimed to wreak havoc across the Eurasian region to redesign the Middle East.

While neoconservatism clearly failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is interesting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu currently employs a similar neocon-like language, promising to create a “New Middle East” out of the war on Palestine, Lebanon and possibly other countries in the region.

But how can Netanyahu find so much support from the US for his war-mongering? Which forces are pulling the strings behind the scenes for the US’s pro-Israeli Middle East policy?

Two top hawkish diplomats, Brett McGurk, the head of the US-led anti-Daesh global alliance, and Amos Hochstein, the US envoy to the Middle East, have been identified as two critical players shaping Washington’s Middle East policy, according to a recent Politico report.

According to US and Israeli officials, both Hoschtein, an Israeli army veteran, and McGurk, who backed the YPG/PKK terror group in the name of fighting Daesh, told Tel Aviv that Washington “agreed” with the hardliner Netanyahu government’s “broad strategy to shift” the embattled country’s military focus to the north against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the report said.

The media outlet also noted that the two top officials had conveyed the US’s ironclad support to Israel, which also means greenlighting a possible war between Iran and Israel, despite deep divisions within the Biden administration on the prospects of a wider conflict across the Middle East.

“Behind the scenes”, Hochstein and McGurk – and backed by other pro-Israel top national security officials – see Israel’s Lebanon attacks “as a history-defining moment, one that will reshape the Middle East for the better for years to come”, according to the Politico.

Who are McGurk and Hochstein?

McGurk, who was the main force behind the emergence of the new Iraqi constitution after the US invasion, has been long criticised for creating sectarian and ethnic divisions across the Middle Eastern country. Iraq has large Shia and Sunni populations alongside Arab and Kurdish groups.

In 2015, McGurk was also instrumental in the formation of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an umbrella group run mainly by the YPG, the Syrian wing of the PKK, which is recognised as a terror group by Türkiye, the US and NATO.

Like Iraq, McGurk has played into ethnic lines in Syria to foment divisions between Arabs, Kurds and others, acting like the new Lawrence of Arabia, who sowed the seeds of discord among the multi-ethnic and multi-lingual communities of the Arab lands to provoke rebellion against the Ottoman Empire during WWI.

Now, McGurk might apply his divisive agenda in Lebanon, a country which has a large Christian population alongside its Sunni and Shia communities, facing Israeli aggression.

Compared to McGurk, Hochstein is no less divisive.

Born in Israel, Hochstein served in the country’s military as a tank crewman in the 1990s. Before his current role as the leading US peace envoy to the Middle East, the businessman Hoschtein was a middleman between Israel and the US, particularly concerning the energy sector.

Three months before Tel Aviv’s invasion of Lebanon, Hochstein warned his Lebanese counterparts that Hezbollah will be mistaken if the Iran-backed group thought that Washington would stop the Netanyahu government from invading the Mediterranean state.

But now the same “peace” envoy has tried to downplay the US role in Israel’s growing aggression against Lebanon, accusing the media of “lots of wrong, irresponsible reporting these last few days” and claiming that Washington “did not ‘green light’ military operations in Lebanon”.

“Ultimately, only a diplomatic resolution will allow residents to return home. We continue to work [with the] governments of Israel & Lebanon on [the] best path to restore calm,” Hochstein added.

‘Diplomatic solution!’ Really?

While the Biden administration has urged a diplomatic solution to growing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, Washington has continued to arm Tel Aviv and even approved the assassination of the group’s longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah.

“Lebanon, the region and the world is safer without him,” said Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, who backed the Iraq invasion in 2003.

In May, Blinken reportedly lied to Congress on Israel’s deliberate prevention measures of US-backed humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians in Gaza, according to State Department officials.

However, some experts specialising in Hezbollah, the world’s biggest non-state armed group, believe that killing Nasrallah can not “paralyse the group for long” due to the group’s deep roots in Lebanese society and its connections with Tehran’s Axis of Resistance, an alliance of Shia forces ranging from Syria, Iraq to Yemen.

US statements concerning a diplomatic solution might also be misleading. Prior to Nasrallah’s assassination, the Hezbollah leader reportedly “agreed” to a 21-day ceasefire with Israel, according to the Lebanese foreign minister, after Washington and 11 other states backed the deal.

But later, Israel informed Washington that it had “an opportunity” to kill Nasrallah, who called a large meeting with his top advisers and Hezbollah commanders to discuss the group’s positions, including the ceasefire deal. On September 27, Israel killed Nasrallah and other high-profile Hezbollah members in his hideout using American bunker buster bombs.

The flip-flops have naturally raised many questions.

Did Blinken really advocate a 21-day ceasefire between Hezbollah and Tel Aviv? Or did he lay the diplomatic ground to allow Israel to kill Nasrallah?

“Both things can be true — the US can want diplomacy and support Israel’s larger goals against Hezbollah,” a senior US official told Politico. “There’s clearly a line that the administration is toeing, it’s just not clear what that line is.”