During the eleven days of fighting between Israel and Hamas last May, the White House faced intense pressure from the left wing of the Democratic party to interfere with the Jewish state’s attempts to defend itself. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representatives Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued predictable anti-Israel statements, while Representative Rashida Tlaib confronted the president directly. In an excerpt from his recent book on the Gaza war, Jonathan Schanzer labels these legislators the “Hamas caucus,” and explains Joe Biden’s response:

Today’s toxic and polarized political atmosphere in Washington grants the most outrageous political flamethrowers an outsized megaphone. . . . Twitter and Facebook have completely transformed the way politicians engage on issues and relate to their constituents. Rather than avoiding conflict, legislators now run toward political feuds on these and other platforms. The Hamas caucus of today understands that expressing overt animosity toward Israel comes at little cost.

Biden clearly understood that his left flank was a problem. Even if he wanted to support America’s ally in a war it did not start, against an Iranian proxy that sought nothing less than its destruction, the president had to play politics. As the 2021 Gaza war dragged on, Biden began to talk tough to Israel. However, a careful examination of the timing of this rhetoric reveals that the toughest talk came only after the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was reported on Israeli television. With roughly two days until the ceasefire was to take effect, the American president had a blank check to cash. He could call upon the Israelis to halt their operations in Gaza, with the full knowledge that they had already agreed to do so.

From Israel’s perspective . . . Biden’s tough talk was not a problem. The reality was that he gave the IDF exactly what it needed: the political cover to neutralize Hamas’s military assets. In retrospect, the American president handled the Hamas caucus with the expertise that only someone with four decades of experience in Washington could wield.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.