On Monday night, a 100,000-ton leviathan, the height of a 24-story building, left Naval Station Norfolk in the U.S. state of Virginia and headed toward the eastern Mediterranean.
With a crew of 6,250, a squadron of 90 aircraft and two escort destroyers, the USS Harry S. Truman is the very embodiment of American military might.
If ever there was a sign that the United States is taking the threat of escalating conflict in the Middle East seriously, this is it.
The ship is sailing toward Washington’s biggest ally in the region, Israel, which is embroiled in a conflict that has spread from the dusty plains of Gaza to the mountainous landscapes of southern Lebanon.
Spurred into action by a relentless barrage of Hezbollah rockets and missiles across their northern border, the Israelis have responded with a lethal combination of ruthless cunning and brute force.
First came news last week that thousands of booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah fighters had been blown up as part of an Israeli intelligence operation, killing at least 50 people and wounding more than 3,000.
Thousands of civilians flee southern Lebanon after devastating Israeli missiles hit Hezbollah fighters
Then came a horrific wave of airstrikes that destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rockets and killed more than 500 people, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry, making Monday the deadliest day of the conflict since it was sparked by a horrific Hamas terror attack on Oct. 7 last year.
So there is no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is – at least for now – winning the battle against militant Islamists who want to see his country wiped off the face of the earth.
But the truth is that the Middle East is a powder keg that could erupt at any moment and – if hostilities disrupt oil supplies – drag the West into a full-scale war.
The horrific consequences could extend to terrorism on the streets of Britain and attacks on military bases abroad, and could even tip the balance in the next US presidential election.
The first point to note is that it is unclear to what extent the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) airborne arm has actually destroyed Hezbollah’s ability to retaliate.
Many of the terror group’s larger missiles, stationed further north in Lebanon, may remain intact, raising the possibility that Hezbollah could respond with its own blitzkrieg.
If such an attack were to bypass Israel’s legendary Iron Dome defense system and hit, say, the Dimona nuclear plant in the east of the country or a residential block of flats in the northern city of Haifa, Netanyahu might feel he has no choice but to calm civilian anger over such an event by staging a ground invasion of Lebanon.
Then all bets would be off.
More than a dozen people, many of them young children, are crammed into the back of a pickup truck as they seek shelter in the capital, Beirut.
As the IDF has reached a standstill in its war against Hamas in Gaza (around 100 hostages remain in captivity and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar remains at large), the first question to ask is: does Israel have the manpower to carry out such an operation?
After all, Hezbollah is a much fiercer opponent than Hamas, better armed and better trained.
Thousands of its soldiers are battle-hardened veterans who fought to save embattled Syrian President Assad in 2013.
Worse still, in the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon, Israeli ground troops will be far more vulnerable than fighter pilots in the air. Jerusalem would like to think it has decapitated Hezbollah by assassinating many of its most senior commanders.
But 18-year-olds armed with Kalashnikovs, mobile rocket launchers and the kind of roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices) that proved so effective against British patrols in Afghanistan could prove formidable foes.
It is worth remembering that Israel’s previous attempts to suppress its enemies in Lebanon using tanks and soldiers (notably in 1982 and 2006) ended in high numbers of deaths and, ultimately, a retreat.
If Hezbollah does not relent this time, the IDF could find itself fighting an endless war in Lebanon and Gaza, and Hezbollah is unlikely to lack allies.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may feel it is time to repay the group for the help it provided in 2013, especially since he may suspect that he would be next on Israel’s hit list if he does not help neutralize the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon.
Iran’s proxies in Yemen (the Houthis) and Iraq (the Shiite militias) are also said to be under severe pressure to mount armed responses.
Iran itself could even be directly involved. If Tehran’s mullahs were seen to suppress such a flagrant threat to Iran’s power and influence, they could find themselves facing challenges to their rule.
An armed response may well be the only way to maintain the prestige of their theocracy and gain popular support, and they are likely to receive encouragement from their superpower daddies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, a loyal ally and major arms supplier, will see any such conflict as a good way to distract the West from its war of attrition in Ukraine.
China will also be on the lookout for any opportunity to expand its influence halfway around the world.
It is no exaggeration to say that we are in danger of inadvertently entering into a major war, and doing so with a grenade in our hands.
Few people even talk about what is perhaps the most serious potential flash point.
One-third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and nearly 25 percent of the world’s oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the stretch of water between Iran and Saudi Arabia that leads from the Persian Gulf to international waterways.
If Tehran were to block this critical choke point, oil prices would skyrocket and a global economic depression would soon follow.
Fire rages at site of Israeli airstrike, death toll rises to 500
In that context, Washington and, yes, London, would be under great pressure to get involved militarily.
Add to this the clear threat posed by Cyprus, just 80 miles off the coast of Lebanon, which hosts a major British air and naval base and has attracted many British pensioners (not to mention tourists), and the risk of serious terrorist attacks is obvious.
It doesn’t help that the situation is coming to a head in an election year in the United States.
Is President Biden’s policymaking affected by the fact that younger Democratic voters – many of them virulently opposed to Israel’s war in Gaza – might well vote with their feet if he is perceived as too pro-Jerusalem?
And is Netanyahu emboldened by the prospect of Donald Trump, who has offered Israel his unconditional support throughout, returning to the White House?
One thing is certain: When the USS Harry S. Truman drops anchor in the Mediterranean this weekend, it won’t have arrived a moment too soon.
Mark Almond is director of the Oxford Crisis Research Institute.