Before you read this article, try hard to click on "Attention", which is both convenient for you to discuss and share, but can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Edited by: Admiral
The U.S. on the military chessboard in the Middle East, can always get out of the unfathomable chess path. for a moment the thunderstorm is a little, and for a moment it is like the calm before the storm.
Recently, a piece of news about sending a 200-member military team to the Middle East once again stirred public opinion, and the White House was also busy clarifying that this was not a "troop increase."
But if we pull the camera away and move the timeline forward a little, we will find that behind the "understatement" of these 200 people, there is a frighteningly large "thunderstorm" hidden.
These two completely different military postures jointly stage a dual narrative about "peacemakers." But can this play really continue?
Not long ago, the U.S. Secretary of Defense issued a highly unusual order. He ordered hundreds of high-ranking U.S. military generals to gather at a Marine Corps base in Virginia within a week.
The scale and urgency of this gathering have made the outside world smell an unusual smell. The official remained tight-lipped about this and did not give any clear explanation. This silence itself was full of tension.
Coincidentally, just two days before this order was issued, Indonesia, far away in Asia, announced a high-profile military plan. Indonesian leaders say they are ready to send a 20,000-strong peacekeeping force to the Gaza Strip, provided that they obtain a UN resolution.Their motto is “ensuring peace.”
Twenty thousand soldiers, from a big Muslim country, this news is not light. Looking back at the mysterious rally of generals in the United States, the deterrent meaning behind it is ready to come out.
Some analysts speculate that the real purpose of this meeting may be to plan a large-scale troop mobilization. After all, the United States deploys approximately 300,000 troops in the Asia-Pacific region all year round.
If a new point of conflict arises outside the Israeli front with Yemen at the time, the situation may become difficult to resolve. That gathering, which is limited to seven days, is likely to be simulating an emergency window, Exercise how to quickly deploy the vast Asia-Pacific military force to the Middle East to support Israel.
However, the picture turns, and the United States shows the world another completely different side. A military team of only 200 people was sent to the Middle East, officially to "monitor" a ceasefire agreement.
To avoid the risks, the group did not move to Gaza, but was deployed within Israel, just a few kilometers from the border. This is a carefully calculated location that shows a sense of presence and does not exaggerate, perfectly embodying a “light footprint” remote operation mode.
U.S. officials have repeatedly stressed that their soldiers will not step into Gaza.This word game played in geographical locations is to find a delicate balance between intervening and avoiding immediate risks.
Whether it is the secret gathering of hundreds of generals or the public deployment of 200 soldiers, there is a sophisticated strategic calculation behind it. The former exerts invisible pressure by demonstrating global force deployment capabilities, while the latter exchanges the lowest cost for the greatest regional influence.
To make their intervention behavior look reasonable, military action alone is not enough, but they have to tell stories and sing on the stage.
On the one hand, when the United Nations Security Council attempts to adopt a ceasefire resolution that is not conducive to Israel, the United States will not hesitate to exercise its veto power.The arrogant attitude of its representatives when voting against it left a deep impression on the world.
In turn, they can shake themselves and become the leaders of the "stop-fire surveillance" operation, striving to shape themselves as the defenders of peace.
In order to make this play seem more realistic, it is not enough to have the protagonist alone, but also to have supporting roles. Therefore, the United States invited Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and other regional countries to participate in this supervision group, creating a lively scene of "multinational participation."
This will not only share responsibilities, but also put on a legal cloak of "international consensus" for the United States 'unilateral intentions. In the meantime, it will also leverage the power of these regional powers to check and balance opponents like Iran.
After this combination boxing, a seemingly neutral and authoritative supervision mechanism was set up.
At home, when reporters asked President Trump about the mysterious meeting attended by hundreds of generals, He initially acted less informedly, and subsequently described it as a “friendly exchange” with foreign officers.
Later, he added, the meeting could involve “military equipment review,” a reason clearly incompatible with the enormous scale and urgency of the meeting, but the president continued to insist on being a “peace president.”
This huge gap between speech and action leads many observers to believe that he is lying.Making a strategic plan that may involve a global mobilization of troops into a routine inspection that is unrelated to it, this information manipulation is the key part of its narrative construction.
However, no matter how beautifully the stage is set and how moving the script is written, there is a fundamental contradiction that cannot be concealed: How can a player who is deeply involved in the cardboard play a fair judge at the same time?
One fact is that the United States is Israel's main source of military assistance, providing as much as $3.8 billion in aid every year.This profound bond of interests determines that its position cannot be neutral.
Look at the 200-member supervisory team, whose command system directly belongs to the U.S. Central Command. There is a long-standing and close cooperation between the Central Command and the Israeli Defence Forces.
Letting such a team supervise the ceasefire is full of irony in itself. What's more, the ceasefire agreement's provisions on how to define violations are very vague, giving supervisors huge room for interpretation.
By one stakeholder to define what is “infringement”, which is where the supervision is, clearly is the mastery of the final interpretation of the rule.
This kind of partiality by the United States will naturally trigger a chain reaction in the international community.
Indonesia’s announcement of preparedness to send 20,000 peacekeepers appears to be a response to the humanitarian crisis, in fact, a public challenge to the U.S.-led regional order.It is this external countermeasure that, in turn, forces the United States to adopt a more urgent and deterrent military posture, thus forming a vicious circle of escalating tension.
For the 200 American soldiers on the front line, their situation is also quite awkward.
They are caught between Hamas and hardliners within Israel, and both sides have very different positions on the war.Any wiping out of fire could turn them from a high-level “supervisor” to a “hostage” or passive participant in a new round of conflict.
By then, the identity of the United States as both a referee and an athlete will be completely exposed, and the carefully built image of "peacemaker" will collapse.
Whether it’s an emergency gathering of hundreds of generals or a “light footprint” deployment of 200 soldiers, all U.S. military operations in the Middle East point to one core goal: While maintaining the absolute advantage of its allies and their own regional dominance, try to play a positive and constructive role as much as possible.
However, this role positioning itself is full of internal contradictions. When the most powerful military force is also the staunch supporter of one party to the conflict, any peace process it leads will inevitably not be put into a huge question mark by the outside world.
True peace requires an impartial publicist, not a heavyweight athlete dressed in a judge’s suit.
Otherwise, all mediation and supervision could eventually turn into a well-organized drama on the geopolitical stage that serves its own interests.