No. of Recommendations: 8
Hamas knew damn well that an attack of that magnitude would provoke a response. The attack wasn't what was going to scuttle any relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel; it was always Israel's response and the inevitable pressure among the Arab nations to push back against the horrors Da Joos were unleashing on the hapless Palestinians.
Of course. Hamas expected a response - but they didn't expect their attack would be "successful" enough to prompt a full invasion. Pick up some hostages to trade for things, get some counter-attacks to fire up the Arab street, and give Hezbollah an opening to also poke Israel. Put violence and conflict, rather than peace and cooperation with Saudi, back on the agenda.
But notice that plan doesn't depend on whether U.S. policy towards Israel is Trumpian or Bidenesque. They will make the decision to fire off that plan whether Trump is there or Biden is there, because it doesn't matter whether the President is 100% on board with Israel or not. Since they can accomplish their goals even with a maximalist Israel supporter in office, having a maximalist Israel supporter in office wouldn't stop them from pulling the trigger on the attack.
That's why we're not a factor - not because we've taken ourselves out of the situation, but because it doesn't matter what we're choosing to do in that specific scenario. Hamas' choices are being driven by tons of local and regional factors, and not on any potential future responses by the U.S.
Sometime the world's on fire just because there's a lot of flammable parts - and not because of who the U.S. President is at that moment. It's not something you can control just by turning "Perception of U.S. Willingness to Project Strength" up to 11 (not that I think Trump does that nearly as much as his supporters seem to think he does). Sometimes no matter how high you dial that number up, things will still happen in the world - so pretending they wouldn't have happened if a different person had won an election is foolhardy.
