Escalation in the Middle East
Last week, world leaders, though not all, gathered in New York to engage in the annual high-level General Assembly debate to “explore solutions to intertwined global challenges to advance peace, security, and sustainable development” to use the UN language. Yet, nobody expected them to do much about the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
On September 22, 2023, two weeks before the Hamas onslaught of October 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly.[i] His remarks were characterized by praise for the Abraham Accords which he described as “a pivot of history”, expectations that Saudi Arabia would soon join the others, and harsh criticism for Iran’s “axis of evil”. This is what he said regarding the Palestinians:
“The Palestinians could greatly benefit from a broader peace…
“See, the Palestinians are only 2% of the Arab world… So when the Palestinians see that most of the Arab world has reconciled itself to the Jewish state, they too will be more likely to abandon the fantasy of destroying Israel and finally embrace a path of genuine peace with it.”
His mention of the Palestinians as “only 2% of the Arab world” was significant regarding his vision of peace, and the word “fantasy” was probably an indirect reference to the “two-state solution”.
Last Friday Mr. Netanyahu again addressed the UN General Assembly. His principal target was again Iran. He said that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power and that Israel will do everything in its power to make sure this does not happen. Threatening Iran and Israel’s adversaries across the region, he also said, “I have a message for the tyrants of Tehran: If you strike us, we will strike you. There is no place—there is no place in Iran—that the long arm of Israel cannot reach. And that’s true of the entire Middle East.”
On Saturday, IAF aircraft bombed ports used by the Houthis for military purposes in western Yemen, 1800 kilometers away from Israel. (Last July, when the Israeli fighter jets hit targets in Yemen for the first time it was said that Israeli fighter jets could only fly from Israel to Yemen with Saudi Arabia’s permission to use its airspace, an allegation Riyadh denied.[ii])
Regarding Gaza, Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel does not seek to resettle Gaza but is after a demilitarized and de-radicalized Gaza.
As for Lebanon, he reiterated that Israel would continue degrading Hezbollah until all its objectives are met. An hour later Hassan Nasrallah was killed. President Biden said, his death is a measure of justice for his many victims. In a message to Iran, he also directed Secretary Austin “to further enhance the defense posture of US military forces in the Middle East region to deter aggression and reduce the risk of a broader regional war.”
As airstrikes continue across Lebanon, a land operation by the IDF in the south seems likely.
Western leaders and media often express concern over escalation, a “widening Middle East conflict”. This depends on what is meant exactly by a “widening conflict”. If it means military action by Iran to avenge Nasrallah’s death, this is unlikely. Tehran would prefer to avoid an all-out war with Israel, but it would do its best to regroup and re-energize the “Axis of Resistance” to continue harassing Israel. And with Iraq and Syria no longer their former selves, there are no Arab countries to confront Israel. Thus, the immediate escalation could be more and more airstrikes and a land operation by the IDF causing further loss of Lebanese civilian lives particularly if the IDF chooses to eliminate Hezbollah battalions like the Hamas fighters in Gaza.
At this juncture, it is Mr. Netanyahu who decides what comes next. Lebanon is a barely governed country. The US and its allies have zero influence over Mr. Netanyahu’s decisions. And China and Russia are waiting for the day to blame them for a Middle East disaster.
However, if Mr. Netanyahu were to decide at some point that it is time for Israel’s long arm to reach and strike Iran, then the conflict would expand far beyond the Middle East.
Remarks by President Biden before the 79th session of the UN General Assembly were a valedictory speech, a summary of half a century of involvement as senator, vice-president, and lastly as president in America’s foreign and security policy. As could be expected, Mr. Biden highlighted his accomplishments.
He mentioned his meeting with the Vietnamese leadership in Hanoi last year adding that the US and Vietnam are partners and friends today proving that even from the horrors of war there is a way forward.
The war in Vietnam was a huge failure for the US. However, the Vietnamese people have been incredibly successful in charting a new course for their country after years of immense loss of life and suffering. And indeed, if there is a will there is a way forward, even between enemies.
President Biden later said that when he came to office as president, Afghanistan had replaced Vietnam as America’s longest war and he was determined to end it, and he did. He said, “It was a hard decision but the right decision. Four American presidents had faced that decision, but I was determined not to leave it to the fifth. It was a decision accompanied by tragedy. Thirteen brave Americans lost their lives along with hundreds of Afghans in a suicide bomb. I think those lost lives — I think of them every day.”
Afghanistan was another failure for the US. Tens of thousands of Afghans also lost their lives during those two decades. I am the same age as President Biden and when I look back I cannot but remember the pictures of the evacuations from Saigon and Kabul. They were so similar, so chaotic. And most regrettably, Afghanistan today is under the rule of the Taliban herd with Afghan women denied every human right. Their plight is more than a tragedy and a disgrace for the world community.
That is only one of the differences between today’s Vietnam and the Taliban’s Afghanistan of the Dark Ages.
At the end of his remarks, President Biden said:
“This summer, I faced a decision whether to seek a second term as president. It was a difficult decision. Being president has been the honor of my life. There is so much more I want to get done. But as much as I love the job, I love my country more. I decided, after 50 years of public service, it’s time for a new generation of leadership to take my nation forward.
“My fellow leaders, let us never forget, some things are more important than staying in power.”
With respect, Mr. President, you did not decide it was time for a new generation of leadership to take America forward. On the contrary, you were forced out of the presidential race. Your withdrawal from a second run for president on your own could have set an example not only for democracies but also for the Middle East’s authoritarian leaders with an insatiable appetite for power.
Minister Mr. Fumio Kishida, 67, Prime Minister of the world’s largest economy resigned last August. “I have come to this decision because I believe that the first step to show that the LDP has changed is for me to step down,” he said. “As the ruling party, I hope for the LDP to earn the trust of the people, and lead a dignified path in advancing its policies with the people’s understanding and sympathy.” Whatever developments led to his resignation this was a responsible act.
As for Türkiye, on September 24, President Erdoğan addressed the UN General Assembly. His main topic, expectedly, was the war in Gaza.
More interesting were his remarks to journalists later at the Turkish House. President Erdoğan made it clear that he sees no incompatibility between Türkiye’s membership in NATO and its joining BRICS.
Referring to the preparations for the AKP’s next congress, a journalist asked him, “You are giving strong signals of change. What are you planning to change?” The President said, “For the last 23 years we have been telling our people what is new and offering them what is new… The change we are talking about is a rebirth.”
Türkiye experienced its only rebirth under Ataturk’s leadership by rising from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, winning its War of Independence, and adopting fundamental reforms. This was why Lord Kinross titled his book, “Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation”.
Hopefully, under AKP’s rebirth, the party leadership would admit its many mistakes and return to the Republic’s traditional foreign and security policy prioritizing Türkiye’s national interests over those of others.