Published on: 2025-08-29

Intelligence Report: US ‘complicit’ in Gaza crimes over obstruction of UN resolutions against Israel Hamas – Globalsecurity.org

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The most supported hypothesis is that the US’s obstruction of UN resolutions is primarily driven by strategic alliances and geopolitical interests rather than complicity in alleged crimes. Confidence level: Moderate. Recommended action: Engage in diplomatic dialogue to address humanitarian concerns while maintaining strategic alliances.

2. Competing Hypotheses

1. **Hypothesis A**: The US is complicit in Israeli actions in Gaza due to its obstruction of UN resolutions, effectively supporting Israel’s military actions.
2. **Hypothesis B**: The US’s obstruction of UN resolutions is driven by strategic geopolitical interests, including maintaining a strong alliance with Israel and countering regional adversaries like Iran, rather than direct complicity in alleged crimes.

Using ACH 2.0, Hypothesis B is better supported due to historical patterns of US foreign policy prioritizing strategic alliances and regional stability over immediate humanitarian resolutions.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

– **Assumptions**: Hypothesis A assumes direct US intent to support alleged crimes, while Hypothesis B assumes strategic interests as the primary motivator.
– **Red Flags**: Lack of direct evidence linking US actions to intent of complicity; potential bias in source material from entities with vested interests in the conflict.
– **Blind Spots**: Limited insight into internal US decision-making processes and potential undisclosed diplomatic efforts.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

– **Geopolitical Risks**: Continued US obstruction could exacerbate tensions with other UN Security Council members and regional actors, potentially leading to diplomatic isolation or increased conflict.
– **Humanitarian Risks**: Failure to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza could lead to further destabilization and radicalization in the region.
– **Economic Risks**: Prolonged conflict may disrupt regional trade routes and energy supplies, impacting global markets.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• Engage in multilateral discussions to address humanitarian concerns while maintaining strategic alliances.
• Increase transparency in decision-making processes to mitigate perceptions of complicity.
• Scenario Projections:
  • Best Case: Diplomatic resolution leads to ceasefire and humanitarian aid access.
  • Worst Case: Escalation of conflict results in broader regional instability.
  • Most Likely: Continued diplomatic stalemate with incremental humanitarian improvements.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

– Benjamin Netanyahu
– Ramiz Alakbarov
– Hamas
– United Nations Security Council

7. Thematic Tags

national security threats, geopolitical strategy, humanitarian crisis, Middle East conflict