The US wants Israel to scale back the Gaza war. What influence does it have?

In recent days, US officials have said they want Israel to consider scaling back its massive ground and air campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. President Biden has criticized Israel for its “indiscriminate bombing” of civilians. And Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, traveled to Israel to discuss the next phase of the war.

This signals a change in how Biden and his advisers have handled the US-Israel relationship since the October 7 attack.

“We’ve seen a shift from the behind-the-scenes pressure that the government put out very early on, to now, a lot more public exhortations and leaks and more public calls,” said Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at the University of Israel. the University of California at Los Angeles. “It is clear that the government’s patience is running out.”

The United States has a number of strategies it could pursue to convince Israel to change its tactics, although all of these would come at political and diplomatic costs for Mr. Biden.

Here’s a look at some of the key points of US leverage.

Billions in security aid

The United States could impose conditions on the money it gives to Israel.

As part of a 10-year security assistance agreement created during the Obama administration, Israel receives approximately $3.8 billion from the United States each year, a figure that has represented up to 15 percent of the Israeli defense budget.

The State Department must agree if Israel uses that money to buy major weapons or tranches of ammunition so that the government can find ways to object to the slow delivery of weapons.

On the other side is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the ability to bypass Congressas it did last week when it approved $106 million in tank munitions for Israel.

Since most U.S. arms sales come with strings attached — for example, Ukraine is banned from firing U.S.-made missiles into Russian territory — Biden could impose a similar restriction on how U.S. bombs are used in densely populated civilian areas like Gaza. But doing so could put him at odds with the pro-Israel lobby with which he has sympathized for years.

On Friday, a senior administration official said that attaching conditions to US aid is not part of the current strategy. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal policies.

Political pressure on Netanyahu

Israel needs the Biden administration’s support not only to continue supplying its armed forces, but also to protect the country from international pressure from other quarters, including the United Nations.

The United States, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, used its veto power last week to block a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The United States could decide not to use its veto power in that way in the future.

Mr. Biden could also continue to speak out about the need for a two-state solution, which could put political pressure on Mr. Netanyahu.

But all these actions would come at a significant cost to Mr. Biden, who has placed great value on his 50-year relationship with Mr. Netanyahu. In the past, he has sometimes tried privately to convince the Israeli leader to reconsider his approach. With an election year approaching, the president should also consider what criticism he might endure if the fighting continues.

“He could clearly make things more difficult for Netanyahu at home and within his own government by being more explicit and vocal,” Mr. Waxman said. But, he added: “I don’t think Biden wants a public confrontation with Netanyahu.”

Diplomacy behind the scenes

Mr. Biden’s strategy has largely consisted of supporting Israel’s right to defend itself publicly while issuing sharper criticism in private.

Administration officials say the president and his advisers have relied on behind-closed-doors diplomacy to encourage the Israelis to flow humanitarian aid into Gaza, restore telecommunications in the Gaza Strip, broker a hostage deal and mount a smaller and more focused military operation to encourage. Officials said this on Friday Israel’s decision to open its border crossing at Kerem Shalom to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza, the latest agreement reached through intensive diplomacy.

The work behind the scenes had been effective in some respects, Mr Waxman said, but he added that “in terms of the actual conduct of the war itself, they seem to have less influence on that.”

Mr. Sullivan, the national security adviser, on Friday downplayed differences between the United States and Israel over the war. But according to a senior White House official, Mr. Sullivan has emphasized to Israeli leaders that the United States wants a short-term timeline of Israel’s plans to begin more “limited, surgical” operations.

Dennis B. Ross, a veteran Middle East peace negotiator, said in an interview that Mr. Sullivan appeared to be walking a careful line and not dictating anything to the Israelis.

“I think we are in a context where the ability to move or influence the Israelis requires the initial sense of trying to engage with them,” said Mr. Ross, who is in Israel. “We say: ‘Please bear in mind that the way you run this campaign will impact those important to you in the region.’ It never hurts to be reminded of that.”

Yara Bayoumy in Tel Aviv and Michael D. Shear And Karoun Demirjian in Washington contributed to the reporting.