Afrasianet - A former US Department of Defense adviser who worked in the administration of former US President Donald Trump warned of the regional and international repercussions of the Israeli-led war against the people of the Gaza Strip, which has left nearly 12,000 martyrs for more than a month.

In a tweet on his X account  , Colonel Douglas McGregor said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had "no clear plans," dragging the United States into a possible war.

McGregor added: "There is no real understanding of the risks Israel finds itself in. Israel has theoretically begun trying to  destroy Hamas, and they are now facing an increasingly unified Muslim world, for the first time Shiites and Sunnis are uniting, and instead of containing it, the president of the United States is escalating this."

In another tweet, the former Trump adviser noted that America has a role in fueling the war in Gaza, writing: "Eyes are on Israel in Washington thanks to the distribution of wealth, and a large number of people have signed up in the Senate and House of Representatives because they have already been bought, their votes are 100% with Israel, there is also a certain amount of sub-mentality associated with that, but I will not underestimate the impact of feeding this approach in Washington."

In an article for U.S. News, Douglas McGregor warned that the U.S. military is on the verge of igniting a "war of the apocalypse."

McGregor said the stage is now ripe for a battle of annihilation in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He warned that the United States was about to stumble into the conflict and urged Biden to break with Washington's ruling political class and support a ceasefire.

"With U.S. naval power, Washington is certainly prepared to falter into the conflict if it widens, but the use of U.S. naval power won't end it. The Biden administration should consider taking the lead in supporting a ceasefire, even if that means cooperating with the Turks, Egyptians and Russians to secure humanitarian access," McGregor wrote.

All these statements mean only one thing, which is to emphasize that the United States of America is the one who is fighting the war and behind it the Atlantic and NATO.

It is the United States, which rushed from the first day of the flood of Al-Aqsa and the collapse of the "invincible" army to send its fleets, planes, ministers and even its president to the rescue of the broken entity.

These warnings undoubtedly represent little of the criticism suffered by the Biden administration within his administration and even by the American public opinion, but according to the interests of the military administration of his administration, he tries not to listen to all these criticisms, when in fact this does not seem to be the case.

President Joe Biden has yet to send troops to join the conflict in the Middle East, but the possibility of U.S. involvement in the war is now "more likely than most people realize," according to Michael Dimino, a defense researcher who has worked as a counterterrorism analyst at the CIA during several regional crises.

Responsive Statecraft is an online journal of the Quincy Institute, Responsive State Craft, which publishes analysis by experts discussing global developments and their relationship to U.S. interests.

Tel Aviv's response received confirmed support from the United States, which gave the green light for emergency arms shipments to Israel, moved an aircraft carrier group to the eastern Mediterranean, and pledged logistical and intelligence support to Tel Aviv. Washington also warned "Hamas allies — including Iran and Hezbollah — against getting into the fighting."

Once that box is opened, even if it's due to an accident or miscalculation, it can't be easily closed, Dimino said, adding that he doesn't think this administration wants to get involved in a new hot war in the Middle East for several reasons, "but sometimes the intention isn't enough to keep things from getting out of hand."

Dimino explained that U.S. commitments to its partners and allies are being tested, and that is already putting pressure on policymakers to take a position where they don't want to lose U.S. credibility or deterrence.

He promised Israel to intervene intensively if Hezbollah decided to send its troops and the prospect of that could "exacerbate the situation."

At that point, it would not be surprising if U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria became targets for Shiite militia groups in those countries, and then there would be pressure from Israel to try to support limited action against Iran.

Clearly, that would be a disaster for all parties involved, especially the United States. Although this Administration does not want to do that, once these events begin and the decision matrices and timelines to be made for those decisions become narrower and narrower, that kind of thing can happen.

The United States is talking maliciously about the aftermath of the war on Gaza and at the same time trying to throw balloons that have already become exposed when it says that it does not advise the Zionist entity to invade Gaza, which it has not been able to do so so far.

"A currency that has no effect, stamped with the term two-state solution." Perhaps this is the best thing that has been said about this wide circulation of the phrase "two-state solution" between Israelis and Palestinians by a journalist and politician who was once part of the Palestinian Authority structure that rushed to Oslo, but the results may have taken him out of the game.

This term has returned once again with the continuation of this brutal and crazy war on Gaza, slowly creeping into the talk of Arab and international officials, albeit timidly, after practically turning into a mantra that reverberates without reverence, especially every time the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories explodes.

When it explodes, this spell is often repeated as a kind of extinguishing effort by waving that it is the real solution, and when the situation calms down, it becomes a kind of painkiller, and in both cases it has no credibility.

The reason behind this is that the two-state solution entails, a priori and necessarily, an end to the Israeli occupation of the territories it seized by force in the 1967 war, namely the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, so that a Palestinian state can be established on it after the Palestinians, especially after the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared in 1988 in Algeria, the establishment of their state on this area of historic Palestine to be next to the State of Israel with known and recognized borders this time.

As long as there is no will, and perhaps desire or ability, to make Israel withdraw from territories classified as "occupied" by international law, the frequent repetition of the "two-state solution" does not go beyond the rhetoric intended to raise the threshold or the illusion of not forgetting the desired political settlement, but nothing is practically being embodied until it gradually became just a slogan that evades the frequent lifting without translating it, or even just striving to do so.

In a television interview with UN Secretary-General Guterres, I asked him why no one explicitly advocates Israel for an end to its 56-year occupation. He replied that demanding a two-state solution implies that. This is the dilemma, then, and it turns the broad title of a settlement that almost the entire world has unanimously agreed upon into a mere pun on the basic demand on which it is based: the need to end the Israeli occupation and return to the pre-June 1967 war.

Worse, Israel is not willing to respond and is acting exactly the opposite, not only by formally annexing East Jerusalem since 1981 and officially declaring it their "eternal capital" recognized by Washington itself, but also by consolidating this occupation by intensifying settlement inside these occupied territories, so that the number of settlers has quadrupled since the signing of Oslo in 1993, which was supposed to be the gradual beginning of translating the establishment of a Palestinian state after five years.

The problem with all this is that America continued this "game" until it became like a pacifier given to a crying baby so that he would stop screaming annoying in the absence of food to be given to him until he was satisfied, silent and sleeping.

Washington has resorted a lot to this lollipop in the wake of every war or crisis that shook the region and embarrassed it about international law and its selectivity in dealing with it, especially now in light of what it did after the Russian invasion of Ukraine:

It did so after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as in the 2000 intifada, in the aftermath of all previous Gaza wars, and in every tension and clash in the West Bank. Recently, US President Joe Biden renewed his commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state despite the ongoing war in Gaza, admitting during his solidarity visit to Israel after what happened on October 7 that the establishment of peace is "very difficult, but we must continue to pursue it, we must continue to pursue a path that empowers Israel and its people." "For me, this means a two-state solution," he said, adding at the end of the visit, as did his Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he said, "Help us reach this solution.!)

Preventing the spread of war will exclude the prospects for a two-state solution and peace in the entire region."  The problem is that the whole world has found comfort in such a fluid situation, as well as the Palestinian Authority itself and all Arab countries, including even the countries that have recently normalized their relations with the Israeli occupation state and that we have seen trying to  "market" this as a service to the desired two-state solution! Does this mean that a two-state solution is neither needed nor worthless?

The two-state solution should not turn into a comedy or laughter on the chins, as it is now, nor will it be achieved because international law stipulates it, nor will it come on a silver platter, but rather through resistance to occupation until the balance of power imposes that against the will of the Israelis and those behind them. Otherwise, it is a lie to the soul of those who agree to be stung a million times From the same burrow.