MARK ALMOND: We are sleepwalking into a serious conflict within the Middle East

Overnight on Monday, a 100,000-ton leviathan the height of a 24-­storey building weighed anchor at Naval Station Norfolk in the US state of Virginia and set sail for the eastern Mediterranean.

With a crew of 6,250, a squadron of 90 aircraft and two escorting destroyers, the USS Harry S. Truman is the very incarnation of American military might.

If ever there were a sign that the US is taking the threat of an escalating ­conflict in the Middle East seriously, this was it.

The ship is sailing to ­Washington’s greatest ally in the region, Israel, which is locked in a conflict that has spread from the dusty plains of Gaza to the hillscapes of southern Lebanon.

Goaded into action by a pitiless bombardment of rockets and missiles from Hezbollah across its northern border, the Israelis have responded with a deadly combination of ruthless guile and brute force.

First came the 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 and wounding more than 3,000.

Then came a terrible wave of air strikes that took out thousands of Hezbollah’s 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 Hamas’s appalling ­terrorist attack on October 7 last year.

So there is no doubt that Israel’s prime minister ­Benjamin Netanyahu is – for now at least – winning the battle against the militant Islamists who would like to see his country wiped off the face of the earth.

But the truth is that the Middle East is a tinderbox that could erupt into flames at any moment and – if oil supplies are to be ­interrupted by the hostilities – drag the West into a full-scale war.

The horrifying ­consequences could extend to terrorism on the streets of Britain and attacks on ­military bases abroad, and might even tip the balance in the forthcoming US ­presidential election.

The first point to make is that it’s unclear to what extent the airborne arm of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has actually destroyed Hezbollah’s capacity to retaliate.

Many of the terror group’s biggest missiles, stationed further to the north in ­Lebanon, may well remain intact. This raises the ­spectre of Hezbollah responding in kind with a blitzkrieg of its own.

If such an attack overwhelmed Israel’s fabled Iron Dome defence system and hit, say, the Dimona nuclear power plant in the east of the country, or a residential tower block in the northern city of Haifa, ­Netanyahu might feel he had little option but to salve ­popular civilian fury over such a mass casualty event by mounting a land invasion of Lebanon.

Then, all bets would be off.

Given that the IDF has got bogged down in its war against Hamas in Gaza –around 100 hostages remain in captivity and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is still at large – the first question to be asked is: does Israel have the manpower to pull off such an operation?

After all, Hezbollah is a far more ferocious opponent that the scrappier Hamas, better-armed and better-trained.

Thousands of its soldiers are battle-scarred veterans of the fight to save Syria’s beleaguered President Assad in 2013.

Worst still, in the hilly ­terrain of southern Lebanon, Israeli ground troops will be far more vulnerable than fighter pilots in the sky. ­Jerusalem might like to think that it has decapitated Hezbollah by assassinating many of its most senior ­commanders.

But 18-year-olds armed with Kalashnikovs, mobile rocket-launchers and the sort of roadside IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) that proved so effective against British patrols in Afghanistan could prove to be formidable foes.

It’s worth remembering that Israel’s previous attempts to suppress its ­enemies in Lebanon using tanks and soldiers – notably in 1982 and 2006 – both ended in heavy death tolls and, ultimately, retreat.

If Hezbollah doesn’t crack this time, too, then the IDF could find itself fighting a war without end in Lebanon, as well as Gaza. And Hezbollah is unlikely to be short of allies.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad might feel it’s time to repay the group for its help in 2013, not least because he might suspect that he would be next on Israel’s hitlist if he doesn’t help neuter the IDF in Lebanon.

Iran’s proxies in Yemen (the Houthis) and Iraq (Shi’ite militias) would also be under severe pressure to mount armed responses.

Iran itself could even get involved directly. If the mullahs in Tehran were seen to bottle such a naked 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 rally popular support. And they are likely to be egged on by their superpower sugar daddies.

Russian president Vladimir Putin, a loyal ally and major weapons supplier, will see any such conflict as a good way to distract the West from his war of attrition in Ukraine.

China, too, will be ­gimlet-eyed for any ­opportunities to expand its influence half a world away.

It’s not putting it too strongly to say we are in ­danger of sleepwalking into a major war – and doing so while holding a live grenade.

Few people are even talking about perhaps the most ­serious potential flashpoint.

A third of the world’s ­liquefied natural gas and almost 25 per cent of its oil passes 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 blockade this critical choke point, the price of oil would soar and a global economic depression would not be far behind.

In such a context, Washington and, yes, London would be under great pressure to get involved militarily.

Throw in the clear threat to Cyprus, just 80 miles off the coast of Lebanon, which houses a key British air and naval base and has attracted many British retirees (not to mention holidaymakers), and the risk of serious terror attacks is obvious.

It doesn’t help that things are coming to a head in a US election year.

Is President Biden’s ­policy-making affected by the fact that younger Democratic Party voters – many of them virulently opposed to Israel’s war in Gaza – may well vote with their feet if he is seen to be too supportive of Jerusalem?

And is Netanyahu ­emboldened by the prospect of Donald Trump, who has offered Israel his ­unconditional backing at every stage, making a return to the White House?

Of one thing we can be sure: 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 Crisis Research Institute, Oxford