Plans are being put into motion that would dislodge Hamas battalions in Rafah so that the militants cannot attempt a comeback or continue to smuggle weapons into the enclave. A mandatory step for ending the war and paving the way for a new political authority in Gaza. This Rafah strategy, is one that Israel has vowed to pursue despite the dismay of some U.S. officials.

Rafah is now the center of a growing rift between Israeli and U.S. political leaders. On Monday, the proverbial levee broke when Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu abruptly canceled a high-level delegation’s trip to Washington. A trip specifically requested by President Biden, to discuss U.S. concerns about Israel’s plans for a major military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Where Hamas fighters are making a final stand. The U.S. has repeatedly blocked Security Council resolutions that put pressure on Israel but earlier this week chose to abstain from a ceasefire resolution, rather than to veto.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, however, proceeded with his meetings at the White House and Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday, which had been previously scheduled. Gallant is part of Israel’s three-member war cabinet that includes Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, the prime minister’s chief political rival. 

In Gallant’s closed-door meetings in Washington, a more pragmatic conversation began to emerge in which the discussions were on conducting a phased operation to reduce the potential harm to civilians while still ensuring that Israel dismantles Hamas’s four battalions in Rafah. 

“I think there is an understanding we have to dismantle Hamas,” Gallant said, following his White House meetings. 

“There is a sequence,” a U.S. defense official said. “The military aspect of the operation should not proceed until the humanitarian aspects have been fully addressed.”

A critical question is whether American officials will regard Israel’s preparations—including moving Rafah’s civilians out of harm’s way before an operation is launched and ensuring they receive humanitarian aid—as adequate.

The Israeli-Hamas War is only one front. While Israel has no political ulterior motives vis-à-vis the aggression from the North other than reaching a modicum of peace reminiscent of what followed the Second Lebanon War, it is still ready and able to conduct occasional strikes on Hezbollah assets in Syria. Mostly to deny passage of advanced weaponry from Iran via Syria to Hezbollah. Then there’s Yemen and the Houthis.

The nuclear capabilities of Iran are also in question. Today, Iran has the technology to enrich enough Uranium to produce a nuclear weapon in about a week.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program. IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi said on Feb. 13 that Iran is “not entirely transparent” regarding its nuclear activities, which “increases dangers,” particularly given the “accumulation of complexities” in the Middle East.

So, beyond the submission of Hamas, a greater threat from the Northern front could extend this war into a longer operation with even more casualties and subsequent losses. Even a third Lebanese War.