It’s not putting it too strongly to say we are in danger of sleepwalking into a major war – while holding a live grenade – writes MARK ALMOND

On Monday night, a 100,000-ton vessel as tall as a 24-story building weighed anchor at Naval Station Norfolk in the U.S. state of Virginia and headed for the eastern Mediterranean.

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

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

The ship is sailing to Washington’s biggest ally in the region, Israel, which is embroiled in a conflict that stretches from the dusty plains of Gaza to the hills of southern Lebanon.

The Israelis have been spurred into action by a relentless Hezbollah rocket barrage across the northern border, and they have responded with a deadly combination of ruthless cunning and brute force.

Last week, news broke 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.

A horrific wave of airstrikes followed, knocking out thousands of Hezbollah rockets and killing more than 500 people, Lebanon’s Health Ministry said, making Monday the deadliest day of the conflict since it was sparked by a horrific Hamas terrorist attack on Oct. 7 last year.

There is therefore no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is – for now at least – winning the battle against the 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 can burst into flames at any moment and – if the oil supply is disrupted by the hostilities – drag the West into a full-fledged war.

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

First of all, it is unclear to what extent the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Airborne Division has actually destroyed Hezbollah’s ability to launch counterattacks.

Many of the terror group’s largest rockets, which are based further north in Lebanon, may remain intact, raising the specter of Hezbollah responding in kind with a blitzkrieg of its own.

If such an attack were to overwhelm Israel’s legendary Iron Dome defense system and hit, say, the Dimona nuclear power plant in the east of the country or a residential tower in the northern city of Haifa, Netanyahu might feel he had no choice but to assuage public anger over such an event with so many casualties by launching a land invasion of Lebanon.

Then everything would be off the table.

Now that the IDF is bogged down in its war against Hamas in Gaza – with about 100 hostages still held and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar still 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 the belligerent Hamas. It is better armed and better trained.

Thousands of soldiers are war-scarred veterans of the 2013 battle to rescue beleaguered Syrian President Assad.

Worse, in the hilly terrain of southern Lebanon, Israeli ground troops are far more vulnerable than fighter pilots in the air. Jerusalem would like to think it has decapitated Hezbollah by killing many of its top 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 be formidable foes.

It is worth remembering that previous attempts by Israel to suppress its enemies in Lebanon with tanks and soldiers – notably in 1982 and 2006 – both ended in high death tolls and eventual withdrawal.

If Hezbollah does not break this time, the IDF could find itself locked in an endless war in Lebanon and Gaza. And it is unlikely that Hezbollah will be short of allies.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad may feel it is time to repay the group for its 2013 aid, not least because he suspects he will be next on Israel’s hit list if he does not help take out the Israeli army in Lebanon.

Iran’s allies in Yemen (the Houthis) and Iraq (the Shiite militias) are also said to be under intense pressure to launch armed counter-responses.

Iran itself could even become directly involved. If the mullahs in Tehran were to see such an open threat to Iran’s power and influence, they could face challenges to their rule.

An armed response may be the only way to maintain the prestige of their theocracy and gain popular support. And they will likely be encouraged by their superpower sugar 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 eager to see opportunities to extend its influence to the other side of the world.

It is no exaggeration to say that we are in danger of sleepwalking into a major war – and we are holding a real grenade in our hands.

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

A third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and nearly 25 percent of its oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, the body of water between Iran and Saudi Arabia that runs from the Persian Gulf to international waterways.

If Tehran were to block this critical choke point, oil prices would soar and a global economic depression would soon follow.

In such a context, Washington and, yes, London would be under enormous pressure to intervene militarily.

Add to this the clear threat to Cyprus, which lies just 80 miles off the coast of Lebanon and is home to a major British air and naval base and attracts many British retirees (and holidaymakers), and the risk of serious terrorist attacks is obvious.

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

Will President Biden’s policies be influenced by the fact that younger Democratic Party voters – many of whom strongly oppose Israel’s war in Gaza – might vote with their feet if he turns out to be too pro-Jerusalem?

And is Netanyahu heartened by the prospect of Donald Trump, who has offered Israel his unconditional support at every stage, returning to the White House?

One thing we can be sure of: when the USS Harry S. Truman drops anchor in the Mediterranean this weekend, it will not have been a moment too soon.

Mark Almond is director of the Crisis Research Institute in Oxford