| |
Testing time for the Mideast
Comment
Patrick Seale
THESE are dangerously unsettled times in the Middle East. There are
so many bitter scores to settle, so much violent dissension, such
implacable hatreds, that it would take only a spark to set the whole
region alight. Or so it would seem. Many observers predict a hot and
bloody summer. What they have in mind is not only a continuation of
the calamitous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible
extension of the Afghan conflict to the tribal areas of Pakistan,
but rather a major war in the Levant.
The fear in the region is of another war breaking out between Israel
and its neighbours - a war which would engulf Lebanon, Syria and the
occupied Palestinian territories, and even risk an intervention by
Iran. In view of America’s close alliance with Israel, American
interests would inevitably be affected.
In a new warning this week, the US State Department urged Americans
to defer travelling to Lebanon and advised those in the country to
“consider carefully the risk of remaining”. So how imminent is the
threat of war?
Could the Arabs start a war? That must be judged highly unlikely.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have the ability to provoke
Israel with pinpricks, but whatever they might manage to do - say,
in the way of Qassam rockets or hit-and-run cross-border attacks -
the initiative to escalate the conflict into a major war would
always lie with Israel.
Syria is the only one of Israel’s neighbours with any serious
military capability. Might Syria then start a war? This, too, is
highly implausible because Israel is so much stronger. Indeed,
Syria’s current stance would seem to be merely defensive. It failed,
or was unable, to respond when the Israeli air force, in a surprise
and unprovoked attack - no doubt intended to intimidate Damascus -
destroyed a military installation in eastern Syria last September.
Far from wanting war, Syria has on the contrary sought to defuse
tensions by calling repeatedly for peace talks with Israel - most
recently in the message it conveyed last week through former US
president Jimmy Carter. Syria’s President Bashar Assad told Carter
that he believed that “about 85 per cent” of the issues between
Syria and Israel had been resolved in negotiations in the 1990s, and
that he was eager to conclude a deal “as soon as possible”.
The answer, therefore, to the question of whether war will break out
this summer must lie with Israel. In particular, it will depend on
whether Israel continues to choose to resolve some of its strategic
dilemmas by force.
Three of these dilemmas seem particularly pressing. They relate to
the unprecedented rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a major
regional power; to the challenge posed by Hezbollah and Hamas, two
militant non-state actors on Israel’s borders; and to the possible
changes which a new American president might make next year to
America’s Middle East policy.
Iran has emerged as a regional rival, not only of Israel but also of
the US. Its influence is huge in Iraq, increasing in Syria and
Lebanon, and is now reaching into the Palestinian Territories and
the Gulf States. It poses a threat to the regional hegemony the US
has enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Foolishly, the
US did not foresee that by attacking and destroying Iraq - with
Israel’s eager encouragement - it would create the conditions for
Iran’s emergence. The US and Israel must now live with the
consequences of their strategic blunder.
Contrary to Israeli fears and propaganda, Iran’s nuclear programme
poses no known “existential threat” to the Jewish state. But it
could knock Israel off its perch as the Middle East’s most powerful
nuclear and military state, thereby limiting its freedom of action
against such local adversaries as Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Will Israel - with or without US help - attack Iran’s nuclear
facilities? In spite of the bellicose rhetoric of some Israeli
leaders, this seems highly unlikely. The predictable consequences
for the region of such an act, for Israel itself and for American
interests, are too horrendous to contemplate. The US and Israel will
probably have to make do with containment and deterrence, while
continuing their efforts to undermine Iran’s economy and to mobilise
Arab states against it - as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
was attempting to do in Kuwait this week.
Israel would, of course, like to destroy both Hezbollah and Hamas.
But this is no easy task, since the two movements are deeply
implanted in the local populations and wage a form of “asymmetric”
guerrilla warfare, with which a conventional and increasingly
disenchanted army like Israel’s is ill-equipped to deal.
Israel tried - and failed - to smash Hezbollah in its costly Lebanon
war of 2006. Only a very rash Israeli leader would try again in the
present circumstances. Israel will no doubt have to live with a
powerful Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, dictating the
political order in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Israel continues to attempt
to bring down the Hamas government by besieging, starving and
bombarding the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza. But this brutal
policy shows no sign of success. For Hamas to accept the siege would
eventually mean a slow death. It is, therefore, challenging the
blockade by attacking Israeli crossing points when it can, much as
it did last January when it brought down the fence on the Egyptian
border, leading to a mass break-out of some 700,000 hungry
Palestinians.
A further major worry on the Israeli horizon is that the next
American president might not be as aggressively pro-Israeli as Bush
has been. The possibility of an American withdrawal from Iraq and of
a US “grand bargain” with Iran must also be a source of great
anxiety. It is not surprising that US-Israeli lobbyists, including
the big guns of the Washington Institute, strongly support John
McCain, smear Barack Obama and have mounted a venomous campaign
against Carter.
Has Israel got an alternative? Yes, the alternative is a
comprehensive peace. But Israel is unwilling - indeed unable - to
pay the price of such a peace, which would require a withdrawal to
the 1967 borders. No Israeli leader has the political vision or the
moral authority to contemplate such a move. Nor can Israel consider
accepting the terms proposed by Hamas, which are an exchange of
prisoners, a lifting of the Gaza siege and a mutual ten-year truce.
To accept such terms would mean accepting a form of mutual
deterrence, something Israel has traditionally rejected. The truth
would seem to be that Israel can neither wage a full-scale war
against its opponents nor make peace with them. It is therefore
condemned to continue to rely on its present policies of besieging
Gaza, intimidating its opponents by long-distance air and commando
strikes, and decapitating hostile resistance movements by
assassination.
Such skirmishes seem bound to continue, keeping the region in a high
state of tension and taking a heavy toll on civilians, especially
Palestinians. Barring a miscalculation by one side or another, this
low-level warfare would, however, have the merit of sparing the
region a major conflagration. The summer may not, after all, be as
bloody as some fear.
— Gulf News |
