3/20 – International News & Geopolitical Analysis

For two months, a fragile ceasefire was maintained in Gaza, offering an uneasy reprieve from the devastating conflict. However, in the early hours of March 18, that temporary peace shattered as Israel launched an intense airstrike campaign across Gaza, targeting Hamas military and political figures. The Hamas-controlled health ministry in Gaza reported over 400 fatalities from the latest attacks.

Since the truce was brokered on January 19, civilians had cautiously begun returning to the rubble of their former homes, attempting to piece their lives back together. The return of Israeli airstrikes has reignited the cycle of destruction, with harrowing images emerging of dead and wounded children being rushed to the few remaining operational hospitals.

The Breakdown of the Ceasefire Deal

The official justification for the renewed Israeli offensive, as stated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was Hamas’s refusal to release hostages and its rejection of ceasefire extension proposals. However, the reality is more complex.

Under the original truce agreement, mediated by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and officials from Qatar and Egypt, the ceasefire was structured into two phases. The first phase saw Israel withdraw from most of Gaza, the release of 30 living hostages and eight bodies by Hamas, and the freedom of 1,900 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. The second phase, set to begin after six weeks, was meant to involve a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a formal end to hostilities, and the release of all remaining hostages still alive.

However, when it came time to negotiate the second phase, Israel did not send its delegation to the talks in Qatar, delaying discussions and signaling reluctance to uphold its commitments. Instead, Israel attempted to pressure Hamas into further hostage releases while avoiding the obligation to withdraw or officially end the war. This tactical shift reflected Netanyahu’s political constraints, as his hardline coalition partners opposed any ceasefire that would leave Hamas intact.

American Complicity

Initially, the U.S. had pushed for Israel to honor the second phase of the agreement, but Washington has since adjusted its stance to align more closely with Israeli interests. The Trump administration, which has been deeply involved in the ceasefire negotiations, has explicitly threatened Hamas with severe consequences if it does not release the remaining hostages.

Ahead of the latest Israeli airstrikes, Israeli officials informed the U.S. administration of their plans, reinforcing the strong coordination between the two allies. This military escalation also coincides with U.S. strikes against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have launched missile and drone attacks against Israeli and commercial vessels in the Red Sea. Israel claims these attacks were orchestrated by Iran’s Quds Force, further fueling regional tensions.

Israeli forces have also expanded their military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Israeli officials warning the group against escalating hostilities. The renewed offensives signal a broader strategy to suppress all groups aligned with Iran, with the U.S. playing a key supporting role.

The continuation of the war in Gaza carries significant consequences, both for Israel’s internal politics and for the region as a whole. Within Israel, divisions are emerging over the potential consequences of resuming full-scale military operations, with critics arguing that Netanyahu’s aggressive strategy jeopardizes the remaining hostages still held by Hamas. Meanwhile, the Israeli military has issued evacuation warnings to Gazans living near the border, indicating potential preparations for a broader ground operation.

Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, the new IDF chief of staff, has advocated for a prolonged ground campaign, which could see tens of thousands of Israeli reservists redeployed to Gaza. If this plan is enacted, it will result in further destruction and displacement of Gaza’s population, forcing civilians into designated “humanitarian zones” along the Mediterranean coast, where conditions are already dire.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, faces political pressures at home. His government must pass a budget by the end of the month to avoid triggering early elections, and his far-right coalition partners demand that the war continue as a condition for their support. With Israeli domestic politics increasingly intertwined with military strategy, decisions about the war in Gaza are being shaped by Netanyahu’s need for political survival rather than clear military objectives.

Netanyahu faced intense backlash from demonstrators outside Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem, just a day after he reignited the war in Gaza, effectively ending the two-month ceasefire with Hamas.

The frustration among protesters was evident on Wednesday, following a heavy Israeli bombardment of Gaza that, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, resulted in over 400 deaths and left hundreds injured—making it one of the deadliest days of the conflict.

The Israeli military confirmed on Wednesday that it had initiated “targeted ground activities” in Gaza, reclaiming control over a key area within the territory.

For Netanyahu, the decision to break the ceasefire has served to reinforce his fragile coalition as he navigates an ongoing corruption trial and approaches a crucial budget vote.

Resuming the conflict helped Netanyahu regain the support of far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who had previously exited the government in protest of the January ceasefire agreement. On Tuesday, shortly after the renewed strikes on Gaza, Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party declared its return to Netanyahu’s coalition. Along Highway 1—the main route linking Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—protesters held banners with the message: “The future of the coalition or the future of Israel.” The return to conflict has left many Israelis feeling disillusioned and outraged at the government, while for Palestinians, it marks the abrupt end of a brief period of relative calm.

Moreover, the decision to resume fighting contradicts the desires of many Israelis. A recent poll from the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute indicated that a significant majority of Israelis supported the ceasefire. More than 70% backed negotiations with Hamas to bring an end to hostilities and secure the release of remaining hostages through an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Even within Netanyahu’s own Likud party, 61.5% of voters supported continuing the second phase of the ceasefire deal, the poll revealed.

As Netanyahu doubles down on his military strategy, concerns are mounting over the long-term impact on an already divided society.

Trump’s Aggressive Posture Toward Iran Risks Dragging the U.S. Into Another Middle East Quagmire

The breakdown of the truce highlights Israel’s strategic calculus: by maintaining military pressure, it seeks to weaken Hamas while simultaneously navigating domestic political pressures. However, this approach carries significant risks, particularly if it provokes further regional escalation.

For the Palestinian population, the renewed offensive means a return to displacement, destruction, and humanitarian suffering. The absence of a clear pathway to peace suggests that this cycle of violence is unlikely to end soon. The growing civilian toll raises pressing questions about the sustainability of Israel’s military strategy and the potential long-term consequences of continued aggression in Gaza.

On the international stage, the U.S. finds itself balancing strategic interests with diplomatic constraints. While maintaining support for Israel’s security, Washington must also manage global scrutiny and the broader geopolitical fallout. Trump’s alignment with Israel’s military objectives signals a continuation of the strong bilateral alliance, yet the lack of a coherent diplomatic solution means that the crisis remains unresolved.

While Israel’s military campaign in Gaza unfolds, a broader and more dangerous dynamic is playing out in the region, with the United States edging dangerously close to direct military confrontation with Iran. The recent U.S. airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen, combined with Trump’s explicit threats to Tehran, are steering American policy toward an inevitable and costly entanglement in the Middle East—one driven largely by Israeli security concerns.

Trump’s rhetoric and military actions have made it clear that his administration views Iran as the ultimate adversary in the region. By striking Iranian-backed groups and issuing direct warnings to Iran itself, the U.S. is effectively drawing a red line that, if crossed, will push Washington into a full-scale confrontation. This escalation plays into the hands of Israeli hardliners, who have long sought to bring the U.S. into a direct conflict with Iran to weaken its regional influence. However, this strategy serves Israeli interests at the expense of American taxpayers and military personnel, who will bear the costs of another prolonged conflict.

The U.S. is already financially and militarily stretched from its involvement in Ukraine and ongoing commitments in Asia. A direct war with Iran would not only be economically disastrous but would also embroil the country in another decade-long Middle Eastern conflict, draining resources and further destabilizing the region. The American public has grown weary of such engagements, with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars providing painful lessons about the limits of military intervention. Yet, the current trajectory suggests that Washington is once again allowing itself to be pulled into a conflict dictated by Israeli security imperatives rather than U.S. national interests.

Trump’s actions are setting the stage for a military crisis that could easily spiral out of control. If Iranian-backed groups retaliate aggressively—whether in Yemen, Lebanon, or Iraq—Trump will be politically compelled to respond with even greater force. At that point, the U.S. will be locked into an escalation cycle that risks an all-out war with Iran, a scenario that would reshape the geopolitical landscape for decades to come.

This reckless course of action is neither strategic nor sustainable. The U.S. must reassess its priorities and recognize that military intervention on behalf of Israeli security interests is not an American obligation. A smarter approach would be to pursue de-escalation and diplomacy rather than blindly following Israel into a conflict that will have devastating consequences for the region and beyond. If Washington does not change course soon, it will find itself once again trapped in a costly and unwinnable Middle Eastern war—this time, not by choice, but by the reckless maneuvers of an administration that refuses to learn from history.