At the stumbling point of a ‘red line’ it is often presidents who stumble

When President Biden declared this weekend that he was drawing a “red line” on Israel’s military action in Gaza, he appeared to be trying to raise the potential costs for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as their relationship plummets to new depths.

But he never said what exactly would happen if Netanyahu ignored him and continued Israel’s military operation by invading the southern city of Rafah, a move that Biden has — repeatedly — said would be a big mistake. It is unclear whether he hesitated because he did not want to indicate what response he might prepare, or because he did not want to be criticized if he backed away from whatever action he was considering.

Or perhaps he remembered, given his long experience in the Senate and the White House, that drawing red lines turned out badly for Barack Obama when it came to Syria and for George W. Bush when it came to North Korea and Iran . America’s allies in the Middle East were stunned by Obama’s reversal. It was later judged that Mr Bush had invaded a country that had no nuclear weapons – Iraq – while the North was testing its first nuclear weapon under his watch.

Mr. Biden’s line drawing was immediately dismissed — and matched — by Mr. Netanyahu, who shot back: “You know, I have a red line. Do you know what the red line is? That October 7th will no longer happen.” The prime minister was, of course, referring to the Hamas attack that killed 1,200 people in Israel, left dozens of others as hostages and sparked a war now in its sixth month.

Such talk of red lines is not exactly new: leaders of all stripes, from the leaders of democracies to brutal autocrats, often invoke the phrase to describe steps that another country should not even consider because the consequences would be more painful than they could imagine. The strange thing in this case is that the lines are drawn by two allies who regularly celebrate how close they are, but whose dialogue is starting to become somewhat toxic.

The seemingly obvious implication of Mr. Biden’s threats was that if the Israelis went ahead with their plans and carried out another military operation with many civilian casualties, Mr. Biden would, for the first time, impose restrictions on how Israel could use the weapons that the United States has used. States supply. So far, Biden has rejected such a move — even as Washington puts conditions on almost every arms sale, including demanding that Ukraine not fire U.S. missiles, artillery or drones at Russia.

But Mr. Biden appears to be slowly reconsidering his aversion to restrictions on how Israel could use the weapons it buys, some U.S. officials say. He has not made a decision and appears to still be debating the issue in his own mind, according to officials who spoke with him.

The White House will not discuss the subject publicly. During a briefing with reporters on Air Force One on Monday, as Mr. Biden headed to New Hampshire for a campaign event, a White House spokesman declined to say what price Israel would pay if it defies Mr. Biden would exceed. And Mr. Biden himself ruled out cutting off defensive weapons such as Iron Dome, the U.S.-Israeli missile defense project that has intercepted short-range missiles fired into Israel by Hamas.

“It’s a red line, but I’m never going to leave Israel,” he said in an interview with MSNBC last week. “Israel’s defense is still crucial. So there’s no red line: I’m going to cut off all the weapons, so they don’t have an Iron Dome to protect them.”

“But there are red lines that if he crosses,” he added, drifting away from completing the sentence – or the threat. “You can’t let another 30,000 Palestinians die.”

By using the red line, with its vivid suggestion of some kind of tripwire, Mr Biden also waded into dangerous territory for American presidents. Over the past few decades, Mr. Biden’s predecessors have repeatedly described lines that America’s adversaries or allies could not cross without inviting the most dire consequences.

And time and time again they have regretted it.

Consider Obama’s statement in August 2012, when intelligence reports suggested that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria may be preparing to use chemical weapons against his own people. Mr. Obama had avoided internal unrest in Syria, but one day in the White House press room he told reporters that if Mr. Assad were to move or use large quantities of chemical weapons, he would cross a “red line” and ” my calculation would change’. .”

By the spring of 2013, it was clear that Assad was doing just that, and when a senior Israeli intelligence official stated as much, the Israeli government had to distance itself from the comments, fearing that the intelligence findings would ensnare Mr. Assad. Obama came in. By early summer it became clear that the weapons were being actively used, but Obama called off a planned attack on Assad’s facilities because he feared it could lead to even more chemical attacks — and drain the United States . in a new major conflict in the Middle East.

Mr. Bush found himself in a similar situation in 2003 when he declared that he would not “tolerate” a nuclear-armed North Korea. That summer, he used the same word to say he would not tolerate Iran gaining the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

During his presidency, the North Koreans tested a nuclear weapon — they have since tested five more — and the Iranians have made progress toward that capability. And while the United States has both tightened sanctions and threatened military action, the North now has such a substantial arsenal that U.S. officials have all but given up on the idea that it will ever disarm.

Iran’s capabilities — which seemed neutralized, at least for a while, after Obama struck a nuclear deal in 2015 — have surged again since President Donald J. Trump abandoned that deal three years later. Today, the country has a stockpile of enriched uranium that can be turned into weapons fuel within days or weeks, and a weapon within about a year.