Biden adheres to the old dictum: speak softly but carry a big stick

After Israel bombed Iran's consulate in Damascus in April, Iran retaliated by launching 300 rockets and drones, virtually all of which Israel and its Western allies intercepted.

But another escalation occurred when Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran, under the noses of its leaders, and Fuad Shukr, the elusive military commander of Hezbollah, in his stronghold in Beirut's southern suburb.

The region's three choices

There are now three possible scenarios. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who met Haniyeh hours before his killing, said Iran would seek revenge. This is the first option.

It could be coordinated attacks by Iran and its proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might then use it as a pretext to escalate the conflict, which he appears to want, given his lack of popularity in Israel.

Israel's response could involve strikes on Iran's nuclear sites and/or a large-scale, tunnel-deep assault on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Either would provoke a reply. It is not difficult to see how the US could get drawn in, given that it has pledged to "defend Israel's security".

The second outcome could be an Iranian delay, if a mediated prisoner exchange and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas seems imminent, perhaps also followed by arrangements in Lebanon under the mediation of US envoy Amos Hochstein.

In this scenario, a ceasefire would facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, support for displaced persons in the Gaza Strip, and their eventual return, as the region begins to understand what "the day after" Hamas looks like, and what its political implications are.

The third outcome is simply the status quo, whereby the region continues in its current state of tension, living under the constant risk of events spiralling out of control.

It would involve the continuation of military operations in Gaza through incursions and bombings, more assassinations of senior Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian figures.

The current tit-for-tat arrangement includes strikes by Iran-backed militias on US targets in Iraq and Syria, and an expansion of rocket attacks by Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas on targets in both the north and south of Israel.

Washington waning?

One of the key takeaways from the Gaza war is that the US remains the most influential international player in the region. Chinese and Russian influence has hardly been felt, beyond some token diplomatic initiatives.

From the day Hamas attacked Israel, the Biden administration has provided military, diplomatic, and intelligence support to its ally. When Iran threatened to bomb Israel in April, the US was fully engaged in defending it.

In recent days, amid talk of an Iranian response, Biden deployed three aircraft carriers to the Middle East. The region now hosts 40,000 troops, marking this the largest US military deployment of its kind in many years, led by Central Command (CentCom) Chief Gen. Michael Kurilla.

This represents Biden's "big stick," while the "soft words" are delivered by others, including: CIA director William Burns; US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (who is in Tel Aviv for his ninth visit to the region since October); US envoy Amos Hochstein; and White House Middle East Coordinator Brett McGurk.

These officials are touring Middle Eastern capitals from Beirut to Doha and Cairo and beyond, seeking to manage the crisis. Washington is using all its influence to push the parties toward a settlement, in Gaza and Lebanon.

Carrying vs wielding

Biden's dual approach of military and diplomatic pressure does not seem to fully align with Netanyahu's strategy. He seems intent on continuing and even escalating the war.

Many question whether Biden's big stick strategy will work with the non-state militias and proxies, as it might with conventional armies and sovereign states.

Does speaking softly work with those hidden in underground tunnels as it does with those in palaces? Can Iran fully control the actions of its proxies.

Biden wanted to extricate the US from the Middle East quagmire, but now faces new tests during a transitional period with multiple actors. His successor may want to quell talk of America's waning influence by not only carrying a big stick, but wielding it.