Joe Biden and Donald Trump square off for a historic US presidential debate this week, with the stage set for what could be a pivotal moment in the 2024 race as millions of potential voters tune in.

The showdown fires the starting gun on what promises to be a bruising summer on the campaign trail, in a deeply polarised and tense United States still convulsed over the chaos and violence that accompanied the 2020 election.

With only two debates this cycle, Thursday’s high-stakes clash takes on heightened significance, and both candidates have stepped up their personal attacks, with national polls showing the pair neck and neck.

“The debate is important because it’s an opportunity for two well-known candidates to ‘reintroduce’ themselves to a public that knows them well but hasn’t been paying attention,” said Donald Nieman, a political analyst and history professor at Binghamton University in New York state.

“The big question is how much of the public — beyond political aficionados — will pay attention to such an early debate.”

For Trump, the 90-minute clash is a chance to drive home worries about 81-year-old Biden’s mental alertness — although the Republican, 78, has faced age concerns of his own.

For Biden, the first ever debate between a sitting and former president will be an opportunity to underline the legal challenges engulfing Trump and to paint him as unfit for office.

The president will also be desperate to avoid any major gaffes — which, on this stage, could lose him the November election.

‘Insult-laden tirades’

The debate comes in the wake of a criminal trial that has consumed Trump’s attention for months — with his sentencing on 34 convictions for falsifying business records scheduled for July 11.

Both candidates shunned the bipartisan commission that has run debates since 1988, deciding instead to go with CNN for a first showdown unusually early in the year, and another on ABC on September 10.

Abortion, the state of US democracy and foreign conflicts are all issues of concern to voters, although inflation and border security are likely to loom largest.

The last debates between the two men in 2020 were fraught, with Biden at one point snapping “will you shut up, man?” as Trump repeatedly interrupted him.

This time, moderators have more tools than usual to maintain decorum, with the microphones muted except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak.

“Trump is notoriously undisciplined and is likely to chafe at not being able to dominate the event by talking over his opponent and drawing out time with his long-winded, insult-laden tirades,” said political scientist Nicholas Creel, of Georgia College and State University.

“Biden is also counting on this debate reminding Americans of the chaos that was the Trump presidency, so Trump being unable to abide by the rules and performing poorly as a result is a very striking possibility.”

More ‘presidential’?

But debates are about soundbites on social media as much as policy arguments, and both candidates will look for explosive viral moments.

“I’ll be looking for whether former president Trump tries to become more ‘presidential’ in any respect, though the campaign trail would suggest the answer to that is no,” said Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University.

The Biden campaign released an ad last week hitting Trump over his criminal convictions as the president headed to his mountainside retreat at Camp David to fine-tune attack lines and rebuttals.

Trump — who struggles in granular discussions of policy — huddled with aides and vice presidential hopefuls at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where the emphasis was more on tone and broad substance than detail.

Trump would benefit by sticking to a script, highlighting Biden’s weaknesses on inflation and immigration and dialling down the bombast, said Nieman, the Binghamton analyst.

“It would disappoint his base, but it would go far to make inroads with suburban, college-educated women,” he told AFP.

Regular puffs of smoke from missile intercepts over northern Israel and fires from air strikes in southern Lebanon are outward signs of a fear that the Gaza war may be expanding into a wider conflict, which analysts say poses risks for both sides.

The stark threats on Wednesday from Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, that nowhere in Israel would be safe in the event of a war, and that even Cyprus and other parts of the Mediterranean would be in danger was the latest salvo in a rhetorical barrage from both sides.

Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israel in solidarity with its Palestinian ally Hamas since the Gaza war erupted in October, forcing tens of thousands to flee homes in Israel, where political pressure is building for tougher action.

Tens of thousands of Lebanese have also fled their homes following Israeli strikes in south Lebanon.

Concerned at the risk of a slide into a war that could spread across the region, US President Joe Biden sent his special envoy Amos Hochstein to embark on a new round of diplomacy this week and Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Israeli officials to avoid further escalation.

On Thursday, Israeli jets hit targets in southern Lebanon and killed a Hezbollah fighter it identified as a commander of the group’s operations in the Jouaiyya area. Hezbollah acknowledged his killing but did not identify him as a commander. After a brief pause over the Eid holiday, Hezbollah fired dozens of missiles into Israel.

“None of the options is good but the big question is, how much can Israel suffer under this attack?” said Orna Mizrahi, a former official in Israel’s National Security Council. “I think most of the government don’t really want to get into a war, but it’s possible that we are getting there.”

In Lebanon, Nasrallah’s comments left many bracing for a wider war. But some diplomats and analysts said his threats were an attempt to match the escalating rhetoric from Israel.

“To me, now this is part of a deterrent strategy,” said Hubert Faustmann, political analyst and professor of history and international relations at the University of Nicosia.

“There is a high danger of Israel escalating the confrontation with Hezbollah and an all-out, full-scale war, which I don’t think Hezbollah wants,” Faustmann added, saying Hezbollah was demonstrating what it “could do” if that were to happen.

Hezbollah has indicated it is not seeking a wider conflict, even as it has steadily drawn on more potent weaponry.

While Israel has the most powerful army in the Middle East, Hezbollah has thousands of fighters, many with experience in the Syrian civil war, and an arsenal of tens of thousands of missiles capable of hitting cities all over Israel.

It also has a large fleet of drones, one of which appears to have carried out an extended flight over the port city of Haifa this week, underlining the potential threat to key economic infrastructure including power systems.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned Israel would “turn Beirut into Gaza” in the event of a war. But a wider escalation could also overwhelm Israel’s famed Iron dome missile defence system that has so far intercepted most of the hundreds of missiles fired by Hezbollah.

“My sense is that Hezbollah feels it has some leverage over the Israelis, because an escalating war – as much damage as it might do in Lebanon and Syria – would create terror in Israel,” said Seth G. Jones, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “It would be a tall order for Israeli air defences to confront the widespread rocket arsenal coming from the north. It would be a huge problem.”

OPERATIONAL ORDERS

For weeks, Israeli commanders have been holding training exercises and assessments in preparation for what the military called “a reality where we will have to fight on a different scale in the north.”

Fighting in Gaza, the main theatre of war since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, has continued, and Israeli officials have assessed that the end of the main phase of fighting is weeks away.

Many units need rest and refitting after intense combat in Gaza, but this week, the army’s northern command said it had approved operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon.

Energy Minister Eli Cohen said on Thursday the military was working with energy authorities to ensure that Israel’s strategic electricity infrastructure was protected and said that Israel would retaliate strongly to any strike against it.

Lebanon’s power infrastructure is already crippled, a result of decades of poor government and conflicts, including with Israel.

Israel has had a bruising experience in Lebanon in the past. After its forces invaded in 1982, they were stuck holding a buffer zone for nearly two decades after a war which saw the birth of Hezbollah. A second war in 2006, started after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, left the Iranian-backed movement in place miles beyond the UN agreed ceasefire line on the Litani river and steadily strengthening.

But the political pressure on Netanyahu has swelled as summer begins, with no indication of when life will return to normal more than eight months after the beginning of the conflict.

Dozens of Israeli towns are deserted, with around 60,000 people evacuated to temporary accommodation, leaving empty streets with the occasional building scarred by rocket fire. Some 90,000 have also fled from southern Lebanon.

Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence official who runs a think tank that specialises on Israel’s northern border said that after the trauma for Israel of Oct. 7, few of those who have left their homes would be ready to return while Hezbollah remained entrenched over the border.

“For 17 years, we did nothing against the threat and now dealing with it will cost a very high price.”

A new agreement between Russia and North Korea reached by their leaders requires the countries to use all available means to provide immediate military assistance in the event of war, North Korean state media said.

The North’s official Korean Central News Agency on Thursday reported the language of the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement reached by its leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Pyongyang on Wednesday. The agency said Article 4 of the agreement states that if one of the countries gets invaded and is pushed into a state of war, the other must deploy “all means at its disposal without delay” to provide “military and other assistance.”

The deal could mark the strongest connection between Moscow and Pyongyang since the end of the Cold War. Both Kim and Putin described it as a major upgrade of their relations, covering security, trade, investment, cultural and humanitarian ties.

Russia and North Korea sign partnership deal, vowing closer ties as rivalry deepens with West

The summit came as the U.S. and its allies expressed growing concerns over a possible arms arrangement in which Pyongyang provides Moscow with badly needed munitions for its war in Ukraine, in exchange for economic assistance and technology transfers that could enhance the threat posed by Kim’s nuclear weapons and missile program.

Following their summit, Kim said the two countries had a “fiery friendship,” and that the deal was their “strongest-ever treaty,” putting the relationship at the level of an alliance. He vowed full support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Putin called it a “breakthrough document” reflecting shared desires to move relations to a higher level.

North Korea and the former Soviet Union signed a treaty in 1961, which experts say necessitated Moscow’s military intervention if the North came under attack. The deal was discarded after the collapse of the USSR, replaced by one in 2000 that offered weaker security assurances.

South Korean officials said they were still interpreting the results of the summit, including what Russia’s response might be if the North comes under attack, and whether the new deal promises a similar level of protection with the 1961 treaty. South Korean officials didn’t immediately comment on the North Korean report about the details of the deal.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest point in years, with the pace of both Kim’s weapons tests and combined military exercises involving the U.S., South Korea and Japan intensifying in a tit-for-tat cycle.

The Koreas also have engaged in Cold War-style psychological warfare that involved North Korea dropping tons of trash on the South with balloons, and the South broadcasting anti-North Korean propaganda with its loudspeakers.