Compromising with troublemakers not the way to achieve regional peace
https://arab.news/88fkw
The rapid escalation in violence between Israel and Hezbollah is firm evidence that the conflict since Oct. 7 has a broader regional dimension that cannot be resolved locally. The limited ceasefire that has been proposed and other temporary arrangements serve to postpone the explosion and set the scene for the relevant players. What matters most is the context within which the conflict is framed and also resolved.I have always been bad at predicting invasions. In 2003, I thought that the US invasion of Iraq would never happen. I even placed a bet with a friend in Oxford.
I only won because he put a date on it and he still owes me a pizza. On July 12, 2006, I put my family on a night flight from London to Beirut. All the planes were full as there was a border incident that morning, but I thought it would all be over by the time they landed. However, Beirut airport was bombed soon after they had made their way out and that was the start of the third Lebanon invasion.As I write this, in the mountains overlooking Beirut, I still cannot believe that Israel would be so foolish as to launch another ground operation in Lebanon. Its battle is not with Lebanon, nor is it solely with Hezbollah.
The Lebanese state and its society have no say in this war. Hezbollah is also not alone in attacking Israel, but rather is part of a broad coalition of regional forces. The regional aspect cannot therefore be ignored, nor can it be resolved militarily by invading Lebanon for a fourth time.Hezbollah is part of a broad and regional “Gaza Support Front,” as declared by Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Oct. 8, 2023, the day after Hamas had launched the Al-Aqsa Flood operation in Gaza, with the predictable Israeli response. It gradually became clear that this support front had several participants, including the so-called axis of resistance led by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
In addition to Hezbollah, this also included militias in Syria and Iraq, as well as the Houthis in Yemen and of course the IRGC itself, to which these various militias/non-state actors are affiliated to varying degrees.Since then, in addition to Lebanon, there have been missiles and drones sent to Israel from Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. Israel has been hitting the whole region too. There were the targeted assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas commanders in Lebanon and that of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran; the bombing of the port of Hodeidah in Yemen in August; and attacks on IRGC targets in Syria and Iraq. In one of his many speeches, Nasrallah explained that fighters from all over the Muslim world would be coming to join the fight in Lebanon as part of the support front.In a bullring, the matadors attack from various directions, confusing and exhausting the bull until it collapses and is given the final coup de grace. But in this arena there is more than just one bull.
The regional aspect cannot be ignored, nor can it be resolved militarily by Israel invading Lebanon for a fourth time
Nadim Shehadi
The IRGC, through its Yemeni proxy the Houthis, has attacked the UAE and Saudi Arabia and threatened the whole region. The Houthis are also threatening maritime shipping, supported logistically by an Iranian observation ship in the Red Sea.At the beginning, there was complete denial about any coordination with Iran over Oct. 7. Visitors whispered in diplomats’ ears in Beirut that both Hezbollah and Iran were surprised by the Hamas attack and unhappy that they were not consulted or coordinated with. It was claimed that missiles launched across the border by Hezbollah on Oct. 8 were just to save face, to show solidarity with Hamas, and were never intended to trigger a full-blown war. At the same time, Nasrallah used his speeches to continuously issue threats to bomb Haifa, Tel Aviv or Israeli oil and gas installations in the Mediterranean.
Efforts to resolve the crisis have also been fragmented, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accumulating air miles by traveling between Washington, Jerusalem, Cairo and Doha in an attempt to solve the Israel-Hamas war, but to little effect. Meanwhile, US envoy Amos Hochstein has flown back and forth attempting to contain the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. There was always talk of preventing a regional war, but no effort at dealing with it within a regional framework.While Iran’s IRGC is playing bad cop in the region, the country’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is playing good cop at the UN General Assembly’s annual meetings in New York. He presents himself as the firefighter to the IRGC’s arsonist.
Rumors are flying that Iran is offering to lay down its arms if Israel is willing to do the same. Contradictory statements by his foreign minister add to the confusion. The bottom line is that he is offering Iran as an interlocutor to help the US resolve the problems of the region, in return for a seat at the table in all regional affairs.If such a deal were to be successfully reached tomorrow, with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as the counterparts, it would be a victory for Iran and its proxies over the US’ allies in the region. The IRGC would have established itself as the power that controls the region and makes all the key decisions.
There was always talk of preventing a regional war, but no effort at dealing with it within a regional framework
Nadim Shehadi
The current stalemate in Gaza is not so much to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but rather it is between Hamas and Benjamin Netanyahu. It is also not between Lebanon and Israel, but between Hezbollah and the current Israeli government. Compromises between two sides that want to completely obliterate each other are impossible.The mechanisms of any negotiations are a key element, in that they reveal the interlocutors that matter and sideline those who do not. Whatever the outcome, the winners within both sides will be those sitting at the table. Negotiations, no matter whether they fail or succeed, will determine who will be the future players in the region.If we cannot solve the problems that Yahya Sinwar and Nasrallah have with Netanyahu, all the better.
It is not their vision of perpetual conflict in the region that is the most desirable.A game changer would be to let the other players in and treat the conflict as what it is: a battle between two visions for the future of the region. One vision of perpetual war, held by Iran and implemented through its regional proxies. And one held by the Gulf states, despite their differences, of solving the problems of the region, rather than exploiting them, and moving on. There is too much at stake and a fragmented approach of compromising with the troublemakers is not the right approach.
What is needed is a comprehensive regional approach to find long-term solutions to the region’s conflicts, possibly through a regional conference led by the Gulf states and involving the key states of the region, including Turkiye and Israel, to build on positive achievements such as the Abraham Accords and the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement. The US and the EU would also be key participants — they have as much at stake in the bigger picture than any of the local actors.
• Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser. X: @Confusezeus
