Very interesting article, @MissConductUS! I'll admit it would have been much easier reading this at any time before the last month, for me.
The writer talked about the strategic straitjacket imposed on Israel, largely due to what he called "American strategic irrationality". That does worry me as another expert, John Spencer also former US military & Dr Jacob Stoil, said Hamas' goal was to separate Israel from the USA:
"So why has Hamas refused a ceasefire now in Gaza?
Simple: They think their strategy is going to work.
They believe the United States will keep Israel out of Rafah, or that if Israel operates in Rafah, it will risk a strategic rupture with its only ally in the United Nations Security Council. Either way, Hamas potentially walks away with a strategic victory.
Without operations in Rafah, Israel will be forced to accept outlandish demands for the return of the hostages. Moreover, Hamas will survive and emerge as the only Palestinian organization to defeat Israel.
As it becomes increasingly clear that the United States has little stomach for an Israeli incursion into Rafah, Hamas has no reason to negotiate the terms of a ceasefire. It does not care about the interest of the Gazans. Hamas can maximize its gains with faith that the United States will ultimately impose a ceasefire on Israel. In the unlikely event that the Hamas assumptions about the United States start to prove false, they could attempt further delays of the Israeli offensive into southern Gaza by coming back to the table.
As long as the United States seems opposed to an Israeli entry into Rafah, Hamas' leadership can sleep relatively soundly in their tunnels and refuse to negotiate.
Ultimately, Hamas' strategy and unwillingness to negotiate is entirely dependent on the United States acting as Hamas wants—an outcome that looks increasingly likely. This means that the key actor in determining whether Hamas will come to the table and whether a ceasefire is possible is not Israel but the United States.
Without the realistic threat of an Israeli operation in Rafah, Hamas has no reason to seek a ceasefire, and given Hamas' strategy, there can be no truly lasting ceasefire if Hamas can return to control Gaza.
In other words, while the road to a lasting ceasefire in Gaza may run through Rafah, its first stop is in Washington."
I agree it's very difficult to fight a war on two or more fronts - military history has plenty of examples where it often fails. Sometimes it doesn't fail, e.g. galvanises a previously dithering ally into action.
But, on balance, I think he's right that "The strategic conditions aren’t ideal, but waiting won’t make them any better."
Taking the bull by the horns and all that.
For those of us here who know at least person in the IDF they care about, the prospect of a direct war with Hezbollah is worrying. It's a very anxious time.