Sadly, the Middle East will keep being a hotbed of tensions. A history of deadly clashes suggests that Israel’s relations with its neighbours is unlikely to be anything but peaceful and relaxed.
Israel’s political assassination of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh perpetrated in Tehran will inevitably flare things up in the Middle East. Although we cannot say for a certainty how exactly Iran is going to retaliate, the indications are that the strike is coming soon. These exchanges understandably fuel concerns about the future of the region – and of the world, for that matter.
A marked downturn in Israel’s relations with its neighbours started almost a year ago. Even before the recent high-profile assassination, Iran had spearheaded a violent fight against Israel and its Western allies. But there are two important things to consider. One is that objectively, the potential for a major regional war is not that obvious. Secondly, this conflict will only have a limited impact on global affairs.
It is ‘safe’ to assume that the Middle East will not be enjoying a peaceful stint anytime soon. True, several years ago, the US capabilities to influence the politics in the region seemed to have dwindled, which led some to believe that the Middle Eastern nations would somehow figure out a sustainable solution to their feuds. But today, these hopes prove to be overly optimistic.
The turmoil on Israel’s domestic political scene has pushed its government towards a more belligerent stance on its neighbours, while the other governments’ response only seems to be hamstrung by their limited capabilities.
Still, it does not look like a major regional war is quite on the cards – objectively so, to reiterate. Unlike the 20th-century armed conflicts involving Israel, the odds are, the neighbouring states and the country’s opponents will be pursuing a more restrained policy.
Above all, these countries’ foreign policies are so far falling short of being aggressive. Up until the mid-1970s, most Arab nations in the region were busy forging and consolidating their budding statehood. This prompted a rise in nationalism, which traditionally leads to armed conflicts. Israel, in turn, was also enjoying a growth spurt, and the violent wars with its neighbours were only an extension of the prevailing domestic sentiment.
Now things are different. Some of Israel’s neighbours have already cemented their statehood, whereas others are going through a turbulent patch domestically. Even the seemingly determined Iran is now a far cry from the Iran of the 1980s and the early 1990s following the 1979 Revolution. In other words, Israel’s neighbours have no sound reason to cheer for a major war given the dicey repercussions. But it takes two to tango, does it not?
Likewise, there is no good reason to believe that either the Arab nations or Iran would be pleased to have the Jewish state intact in the longer term. But they can be waiting for their chance to strike. However desperate the Israeli government may be acting now, the other nations are not going to get embroiled in a full-blown war until they absolutely have to. Besides, none of those capable of sustaining the war effort have any territorial disputes with Israel.
That is why a serious armed conflict can only be caused by Israel trying to blitz one of its neighbours, which at the moment sounds rather implausible.
But even if a major war is going to break out against all odds, its potential impact on global economic and political processes is highly debatable. It may indeed affect the international balance of power, which may end up ushering in a raft of opportunities as well as problems in disguise. But it is unlikely to push anyone towards stirring up existential challenges to themselves.
Nuclear-weapon states are uniquely positioned in the sense that they can only be jeopardised by their counterparts. For instance, the US and Russia may only contemplate the use of their deadly capabilities in case they consider their counterpart’s actions an existential threat worth the enormous risk of duking it out.
Being a nuclear-weapon state is a huge responsibility. The leaders of these countries are above all responsible for the security of their respective nations. Considering this, the odds are slim of these countries entering a direct confrontation over a regional conflict, no matter their indirect involvement.
During the Cold War, the USSR and the US were openly supporting the belligerents in the Middle East conflicts. Moscow was providing the Arab states with both weaponry and professional counsel. Washington was, in the meantime, doing its utmost to shore up Israel’s efforts. And yet, it did not lead to the new Cuban Missile Crisis when the world would have been on the brink of a horrendous war. The events of 1962 escalated the tensions precisely because the USSR and the US were targeting each other. However, the other conflicts, including the Korean War, never spiralled disastrously out of control.
This line of reasoning may be flawed, of course, especially because of a flagrant lack of strategical acumen felt worldwide. That being said, the relations between the nuclear-weapon states have always followed a different pattern parallel to the conventional course of international politics, which includes even the most ferocious regional conflicts that, thankfully, fail to put the survival of the superpowers on the line.
Hence the nuclear-weapon states’ ability to compartmentalise the feuds of their allies. The odds of, God forbid, a major war in the Middle East imperilling the existence of humanity are vanishingly low.
The same goes for a potential regional clash between the US and China over Taiwan. Perhaps that is why China sticks to a particular restrained and even-keeled policy even despite the US leadership fanning the flames of hostility.
Sadly, the Middle East will keep being a hotbed of tensions. A history of deadly clashes suggests that Israel’s relations with its neighbours is unlikely to be anything but peaceful and relaxed. But in all fairness, Israel is not the only source of contention and flare-ups in the region. Iran, for one, has territorial disputes with Persian Gulf nations too.
It goes without saying that we should all be alarmed by and concerned with any violations of international law and multiple civilian casualties. All governments should be united in their diplomatic efforts to hammer out a peaceful resolution of the conflict. But the eventual de-escalation will certainly hinge upon the regional states that are parties to the conflict.