The American Deal of the Century in a Race Between Democratic Hochstein and Republican Kushner Today’s Focus: Ending the Lebanese-Israeli Conflict

The Biden administration wants to secure a major strategic victory to bolster its presidential campaign. To this end, Amos Hochstein, the Special Presidential Coordinator for Global Infrastructure and Energy Security, has emerged as the Democratic counterpart to Jared Kushner, the former Republican presidential envoy. Recall Kushner's achievements in closing the "Deal of the Century," or the Abraham Accords between Arab nations and Israel during Donald Trump's presidency. Trump's election campaign is likely rooting for Hochstein's failure: While it does not oppose the delineation of land borders between Lebanon and Israel after Hochstein successfully brokered a historic agreement to demarcate the maritime borders between them, the campaign recognizes the exceptional significance of this regional breakthrough and its potential impact on the U.S. elections. Indeed, we are not merely discussing the resolution of a few square meters of disputed territory and carrying out land swaps. What we are talking about here is the potential end of the Lebanon-Israel conflict, achieved by securing Lebanon's independence from the path of negotiations that involved Syria. It's worth noting that Damascus had imposed what it termed the "twin-track" negotiations on Lebanon for decades, with the aim of preventing Lebanon from concluding its complex conflict with Israel before Syria resolved its own issues with Israel. This was intended to ensure that Lebanon remained a bargaining chip for Syria. However, today's circumstances have shifted towards a "first come, first served" approach. This shift is due to the Syrian government's diminished regional influence, its struggles to maintain control over its own territories, and the fact that the primary Arab player in regional and international affairs is not Syria but Saudi Arabia. The Biden administration is now actively engaging with Saudi Arabia, marking a sudden shift in strategy as Washington views Riyadh as the most viable path to engaging with Tehran.?

Both Jared and Amos are intelligent men, and they are friends, according to what a spokesperson said about Hochstein. In truth, neither of the two men is an ordinary presidential envoy, being at one time senior members of the National Security Council and of the inner circle of their presidents. Hochstein and Kushner are competing, in one way or another, to prove their competence, influence, and ability to deliver in front of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as they both realize that the "bonanza," or the grand prize, lies in achieving peace and normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. But they also understand that the conditions set by Saudi Arabia are not easy to meet due to Israeli intransigence vis-à-vis the Palestinians and their national rights.?

For the first time, Republicans and Democrats may not compete during the presidential campaign to appease Israel and shower it with gifts like a spoiled child. This does not mean that the organic relationship between the United States and Israel has ended, but it means that what rational policies require in the aftermath of the Ukrainian war and in the midst of Israeli divisions has forced Democrats and Republicans to think outside the box. The Middle East today is not as subject to Israeli priorities in Washington as it used to be. Washington has different economic and political calculations from its previous strategic calculations. It is a new era of geopolitics in the Middle East in the minds of decision-makers in the two ruling parties in America.?

Amos Hochstein's visit to Lebanon may seem insignificant in the context of America’s standoff with Russia, NATO's globalization, China, and the emerging alliances. But in reality, his investment in land border demarcation following his success in maritime border demarcation holds important strategic returns for the United States, that go beyond the extraction of oil and gas necessary for Europe in times of scarcity imposed by the Ukrainian war.?

The primary message that Hochstein conveyed to those he met with in Lebanon, including officials and non-governmental figures, is that the Biden administration is concerned about long-term stability and peace and is prepared to work on rectifying the irregularities in the Blue Line that separates the Lebanese-Israeli borders. However, the Blue Line is considered a withdrawal line, not a border line. Hochstein brought with him an American approach emphasizing conflict resolution in partnership with regional countries, rather than imposition of any agenda, as was the approach in the past.?

The main message was that the Biden administration wants to leave a mark in conflict resolution and achieve things that seemed impossible in the recent past. According to an advisor to one key Lebanese leader, the Americans came with a different approach, indicating measures towards a qualitative leap, suggesting that the Israeli side is prepared to withdraw from all occupied Lebanese territories.?

At this stage, the parties’ dossiers will be prepared before officially being presented. Yet negotiations on land borders will not be more challenging than negotiations on maritime borders, and they will not take 12 years to resolve. Unlike the issue of maritime borders that involved oil and gas interests, the issue of land borders has significant economic or geopolitical implications. There are 6 disputed points along the Blue Line, bearing in mind that UN-supervised negotiations between Lebanon and Israel resulted in the agreement of both parties on resolving 7 disputed points within one year. With the exception of the disagreement on point B1 in the Naqoura sector with an area of 500 square meters, and the Shebaa Farms, which fall under mandate of UNDOF between Syria and Israel, the other disputed areas are considered "minor," according to a Lebanese official directly involved in the negotiations, and they can be resolved through "land swaps."?

Hochstein has gained a reputation for being a negotiator who excels in bargaining and engineering deals. He made a name for himself by achieving the demarcation of the Lebanese-Israeli maritime borders, and he wants to expand his legacy to include the demarcation of the land borders between Lebanon and Israel, and possibly later the borders between Syria and Israel. But his ambition is not limited to the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli tripartite framework but extends to resolving a fundamental dispute that would greatly facilitate Saudi Arabia's normalization with Israel. This is where the "Democratic Deal of the Century" lies.?

The demarcation of maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel practically eliminated the logic of resistance and thus managed to restrain Hezbollah after it agreed to the deal with Iranian approval. Some argue that this is the most important achievement of the Biden administration in the Middle East, and replicating this success on the land border could become an electoral asset, with the selling point being peace between Israel and its Lebanese neighbor, and the neutralization of Hezbollah and the logic of resistance, all with Iran's consent.?

The Islamic Republic of Iran wishes to contribute to the Democratic electoral campaign because it fears the return of former President Donald Trump to the White House, carrying the sword of sanctions and sternness with Tehran's men. Distrust between the two sides is mutual. The Trump administration did not trust the promises of the Iranian regime and will not show it lenience if it returns. It may resume its policy of maximum pressure to force the regime to abandon its ideology, which is incompatible with the recent signs of flexibility and adaptation shown by the Iranian government.?

The common factor between the Republican and Democratic camps is the major importance they both assign to Saudi Arabia's regional and international role as framed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The difference lies in how this role is interpreted concerning Iran, not from the perspective of the Saudi-Iranian agreement brokered by China, as both parties acknowledge it and do not interfere in it, but in terms of Saudi Arabia's role in bridging US-Iranian relations.?

The Trump camp intends to continue its crackdown against the Islamic Republic of Iran as long as the Revolutionary Guard remains responsible for formulating and implementing its foreign policies, both regionally and internationally, through direct intervention and militias and non-regular forces under its command operating inside countries like Lebanon, in violation of their sovereignty. The Trump camp does not seek nor want to normalize US relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It does not want to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran and does not accept its domestic behavior of suppressing uprisings, or its external behavior of exporting its revolutionary and authoritarian model.?

The Biden camp sees the new Saudi-Iranian relationship as an avenue for reopening discussions on reviving the nuclear agreement, with Saudi efforts. This is ironic because during the Obama-Biden administration, the Democrats had made the decision to exclude Saudi Arabia and all Arab states from nuclear negotiations with Iran and had acquiesced to Iran's condition of excluding its regional behavior from the negotiations. Today, this camp wants to inform both Saudi Arabia and Iran that the Biden administration has pivoted from the Obama administration's approach by making a fundamental correction regarding the strategic partnership with the Arab Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, which Obama had ended in favor of rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.?

Reforming these relations is not limited to resetting the strategic relationship with the Arab Gulf states to its alliance status but also includes the Biden camp's need for Saudi Arabia, in addition to Qatar, Oman, and the UAE, to reset the relationship with Iran, which had been suspended during the nuclear negotiations. Iran understands this and is determined to assist the Biden administration in every way possible because its interests are best served by keeping this administration in power and preventing Trump's return to the White House.?

Therefore, recent statements by Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah regarding the "sovereignty" of the Lebanese state and not interfering in the decisions of the people of the village of Ghajar could reflect an Iranian direction that aligns with the diplomacy of flexibility, openness, and assistance in finding solutions to regional problems. This new soft diplomacy is represented by the Iranian president and his foreign minister, with the silent consent of the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard.?

Hezbollah has shown a measure of goodwill regarding the demarcation of the land borders between Lebanon and Israel, and the Iranian message to the Biden administration is that Tehran is ready to facilitate the resolution of border disputes. Regardless of whether this is a gift to the Democratic Party for its election efforts, within the framework of Iran's positive diplomacy in Yemen and Bahrain, the Republican Party cannot object to its outcomes if it truly leads to resolving the conflict between Lebanon and Israel.?

The United Arab Emirates' presidency of the United Nations Security Council this month contributed to securing the resolution to extend the mandate of UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon. But its role went beyond facilitating the adoption of the resolution, to affirming the authority of the Lebanese state in working to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories. If Israel agrees, this could lead to a new chapter in Arab-Israeli conflict resolution and further expansion of normalization with Israel.?

The UAE has spearheaded efforts for reintegrating Syria into the Arab fold, alongside its pioneering steps towards normalization with Israel with the successful Abraham Accords, crafted during the Trump administration by Jared Kushner. Syria in turn could be placed on a path to resolving its conflict with Israel, if innovative approaches are followed regarding the issue of the Golan Heights, which was annexed by Israel despite international resolutions.?

In the era of drones and new military technology, spaces like the Golan Heights or the Shebaa Farms no longer hold the strategic significance they once did. Syria was on the verge of signing a peace treaty with Israel two decades ago, but it was stalled due to the issue of Lake Tiberias. But the importance of that lake has since diminished due to climate change, and perhaps peace could have been achieved if decision-makers had considered the implications of climate change, drone technology, and modern warfare.?

There is an opportunity for a fresh perspective on the matter. Regardless of whether it's the Democratic Party or the Republican Party leading efforts to resolve conflicts in the Middle East, the Iranian question remains at the forefront. Here, the historically conciliatory relationship between Iran and Israel raises many questions: What if this covert conciliation were to become part of an openly negotiated deal, in line with the aspirations of both Democrats and Republicans, under the banner of the "Deal of the Century"??

Just a question. Just an inquiry. Just an idea.?