US officials subtly supported Israel’s military actions against Hezbollah
Officials emphasized the importance of caution and the necessity for diplomacy. However, they ultimately decided that the timing was appropriate for this military shift.
TroibNews 
Senior officials in the White House have privately informed Israel that the United States would support its decision to intensify military pressure on Hezbollah, even as the Biden administration publicly advised the Israeli government to limit its strikes in recent weeks, according to sources from both American and Israeli sides.
In recent discussions, Presidential adviser Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, conveyed to senior Israeli officials that the U.S. aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy to redirect Israel’s military efforts toward Hezbollah to encourage the group to enter diplomatic negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict, as reported by the officials to PMG.
However, not all members of the administration were in agreement regarding Israel’s change in focus. There were divisions within the U.S. government, especially from individuals in the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community, who were concerned that Israel’s engagement with the Iran-backed militia could lead to further entanglement of American forces in another Middle Eastern conflict.
PMG interviewed two Israeli and four U.S. officials for the story, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges.
When approached, the National Security Council declined to offer comments.
Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, was asked about the private discussions between Israeli leaders and U.S. officials involving Hochstein and others, but he did not provide specific comments. Danon remarked, “We don't always ask for permission for everything we do,” and added, “I think what they say publicly reflects the goal that they would like to see a diplomatic solution, which we are not against.”
During calls and meetings in mid-September, Israeli officials indicated that their military was gearing up for a strategic shift without disclosing specific details. Hochstein and McGurk communicated to their Israeli counterparts that, while they maintained a cautious approach, the current moment appeared favorable for such a change—particularly after Hezbollah's capabilities had been notably compromised in previous months.
Hezbollah has long maintained that it would only consider engaging with Israel after an agreement is reached regarding a cease-fire with Hamas, which it is concurrently fighting in Gaza. U.S. intelligence suggested that Hamas was unlikely to agree to a cease-fire deal in the near future, indicating it could be an appropriate time to concentrate efforts solely on Hezbollah and separate the two conflicts.
The hostilities regarding Hezbollah escalated on October 7, when the group began launching rockets into Israel, prompting mass evacuations from both sides. This offensive coincided with Hamas’s initiation of its assault on Israel from Gaza on the same day.
Although U.S. officials were unclear about Israel's exact operational plans, they supported Israel's pressure on Hezbollah while cautioning against overreach that could trigger a broader regional conflict—something the administration has sought to avoid for nearly a year. They emphasized that resolution of the conflict necessitates a negotiated diplomatic agreement.
Within the intelligence community, concerns were rising regarding the potential for direct confrontations between Israel and Hezbollah, as expressed in briefings and discussions with Congressional members last week. Similar concerns were echoed within the State Department, where officials were troubled by the rising civilian casualties in Lebanon.
Some administration insiders argue that the apparent divide represents the U.S. pursuing multiple strategies simultaneously. “Both things can be true — the U.S. can want diplomacy and support Israel’s larger goals against Hezbollah,” a senior U.S. official noted. “There’s clearly a line that the administration is toeing; it’s just not clear what that line is.”
Hochstein, McGurk, and other leading U.S. national security personnel have characterized Israel’s military operations in Lebanon as a pivotal moment that could positively transform the Middle East for years to come.
The prevailing view is that Israel's actions have significantly degraded Hezbollah's command capabilities and diminished Iran's influence, as Iran employs Hezbollah as a proxy to project power.
However, recent days have seen a decrease in the internal administration division, with senior U.S. officials convening at the White House with President Joe Biden to address the evolving situation. They largely concurred that while the conflict remains precarious, it could present an opportunity to diminish Iran's sway in Lebanon and the wider region.
Still, according to U.S. and Israeli officials, the White House is carefully balancing its support for Israel's actions against a U.S.-designated terrorist group while hesitating to fully endorse the Israeli campaign in order to avoid escalating the conflict into a larger war.
The administration’s ongoing public message to Israel stresses the importance of avoiding escalation and continuing diplomatic efforts with Hezbollah, particularly regarding a proposed 21-day cease-fire by the U.S. and France.
This messaging persists despite Israeli military developments, including targeted strikes against thousands of Hezbollah operatives and the elimination of key group leaders, such as the recent strike that reportedly killed Hassan Nasrallah.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also urged both Israel and Hezbollah to agree to a cease-fire, even as he, along with Biden and other officials, expressed satisfaction over Nasrallah's reported absence. “With regard to Lebanon, what’s the best way to achieve the stated objective of creating an environment in northern Israel that gives people confidence to return to their homes? As I said, we believe the diplomatic course is the best one,” he commented amidst reports about Nasrallah.
When President Biden was queried during a press conference about his comfort with Israel’s targeted ground operations in Lebanon, he responded, “I am comfortable with them stopping. We should have a cease-fire now.”
Nevertheless, negotiations surrounding the proposed 21-day cease-fire are essentially stalled, as one U.S. official indicated, while Israel continues to target Hezbollah’s positions along the Lebanese border.
The situation intensified Monday when Israeli special forces reportedly crossed the border to strike Hezbollah's tunnel networks and other command centers, as noted by another U.S. official speaking to PMG.
Although the Israeli military had initially intended to enact a larger ground incursion into Lebanon this week, officials in Biden's administration have advised against such moves, urging Israel to adopt a more focused strategy in its operations.
Sanya Singh contributed to this report for TROIB News
In recent discussions, Presidential adviser Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, conveyed to senior Israeli officials that the U.S. aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy to redirect Israel’s military efforts toward Hezbollah to encourage the group to enter diplomatic negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict, as reported by the officials to PMG.
However, not all members of the administration were in agreement regarding Israel’s change in focus. There were divisions within the U.S. government, especially from individuals in the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community, who were concerned that Israel’s engagement with the Iran-backed militia could lead to further entanglement of American forces in another Middle Eastern conflict.
PMG interviewed two Israeli and four U.S. officials for the story, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic exchanges.
When approached, the National Security Council declined to offer comments.
Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, was asked about the private discussions between Israeli leaders and U.S. officials involving Hochstein and others, but he did not provide specific comments. Danon remarked, “We don't always ask for permission for everything we do,” and added, “I think what they say publicly reflects the goal that they would like to see a diplomatic solution, which we are not against.”
During calls and meetings in mid-September, Israeli officials indicated that their military was gearing up for a strategic shift without disclosing specific details. Hochstein and McGurk communicated to their Israeli counterparts that, while they maintained a cautious approach, the current moment appeared favorable for such a change—particularly after Hezbollah's capabilities had been notably compromised in previous months.
Hezbollah has long maintained that it would only consider engaging with Israel after an agreement is reached regarding a cease-fire with Hamas, which it is concurrently fighting in Gaza. U.S. intelligence suggested that Hamas was unlikely to agree to a cease-fire deal in the near future, indicating it could be an appropriate time to concentrate efforts solely on Hezbollah and separate the two conflicts.
The hostilities regarding Hezbollah escalated on October 7, when the group began launching rockets into Israel, prompting mass evacuations from both sides. This offensive coincided with Hamas’s initiation of its assault on Israel from Gaza on the same day.
Although U.S. officials were unclear about Israel's exact operational plans, they supported Israel's pressure on Hezbollah while cautioning against overreach that could trigger a broader regional conflict—something the administration has sought to avoid for nearly a year. They emphasized that resolution of the conflict necessitates a negotiated diplomatic agreement.
Within the intelligence community, concerns were rising regarding the potential for direct confrontations between Israel and Hezbollah, as expressed in briefings and discussions with Congressional members last week. Similar concerns were echoed within the State Department, where officials were troubled by the rising civilian casualties in Lebanon.
Some administration insiders argue that the apparent divide represents the U.S. pursuing multiple strategies simultaneously. “Both things can be true — the U.S. can want diplomacy and support Israel’s larger goals against Hezbollah,” a senior U.S. official noted. “There’s clearly a line that the administration is toeing; it’s just not clear what that line is.”
Hochstein, McGurk, and other leading U.S. national security personnel have characterized Israel’s military operations in Lebanon as a pivotal moment that could positively transform the Middle East for years to come.
The prevailing view is that Israel's actions have significantly degraded Hezbollah's command capabilities and diminished Iran's influence, as Iran employs Hezbollah as a proxy to project power.
However, recent days have seen a decrease in the internal administration division, with senior U.S. officials convening at the White House with President Joe Biden to address the evolving situation. They largely concurred that while the conflict remains precarious, it could present an opportunity to diminish Iran's sway in Lebanon and the wider region.
Still, according to U.S. and Israeli officials, the White House is carefully balancing its support for Israel's actions against a U.S.-designated terrorist group while hesitating to fully endorse the Israeli campaign in order to avoid escalating the conflict into a larger war.
The administration’s ongoing public message to Israel stresses the importance of avoiding escalation and continuing diplomatic efforts with Hezbollah, particularly regarding a proposed 21-day cease-fire by the U.S. and France.
This messaging persists despite Israeli military developments, including targeted strikes against thousands of Hezbollah operatives and the elimination of key group leaders, such as the recent strike that reportedly killed Hassan Nasrallah.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also urged both Israel and Hezbollah to agree to a cease-fire, even as he, along with Biden and other officials, expressed satisfaction over Nasrallah's reported absence. “With regard to Lebanon, what’s the best way to achieve the stated objective of creating an environment in northern Israel that gives people confidence to return to their homes? As I said, we believe the diplomatic course is the best one,” he commented amidst reports about Nasrallah.
When President Biden was queried during a press conference about his comfort with Israel’s targeted ground operations in Lebanon, he responded, “I am comfortable with them stopping. We should have a cease-fire now.”
Nevertheless, negotiations surrounding the proposed 21-day cease-fire are essentially stalled, as one U.S. official indicated, while Israel continues to target Hezbollah’s positions along the Lebanese border.
The situation intensified Monday when Israeli special forces reportedly crossed the border to strike Hezbollah's tunnel networks and other command centers, as noted by another U.S. official speaking to PMG.
Although the Israeli military had initially intended to enact a larger ground incursion into Lebanon this week, officials in Biden's administration have advised against such moves, urging Israel to adopt a more focused strategy in its operations.
Sanya Singh contributed to this report for TROIB News
