Matt Kroenig: Hi, Emma. Are you enjoying this winter wonderland? I just returned from a quick work trip to Florida, and the fresh fallen snow in Washington is marvelous, but I could do without the freezing temperatures.
Matt Kroenig: Hi, Emma. Are you enjoying this winter wonderland? I just returned from a quick work trip to Florida, and the fresh fallen snow in Washington is marvelous, but I could do without the freezing temperatures.
Emma Ashford: Florida sounds pretty nice right about now. Were you visiting the victor of the Iowa caucuses, or merely the second-place finisher? Apparently everyone who’s anyone in Republican politics lives in Florida these days.
But I’ve been passing my leisurely snow days—between snow shoveling and extra child care—wondering if National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan might have accidentally activated a curse or wished on the monkey’s paw. After all, in early October, he wrote that “The Middle East is quieter than it has been in decades,” and now look where we are. The entire region continues to slide into the abyss.
MK: Well, I didn’t get to meet with presidential candidates Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis, unfortunately—just their donors—but I did talk to a cab driver about foreign policy, which counts as a rigorous research method ever since Tom Friedman pioneered the technique. My cabbie was a Jordanian American Democrat who plans to vote against President Joe Biden because he is so upset about what is happening in the Gaza Strip.
So, perhaps the ongoing war in the Middle East is a good place to start. Fortunately, it looks like Biden reads our column. Last time, we had a rare agreement that he should strike back against the Houthis, and he did.
Just imagine—if we agreed more often, we could really change the world!
EA: Well, the limits of that change are also apparent. I think we both agreed that something needed to be done about the Houthi threat to shipping in the Red Sea, but as I also predicted, it won’t be quite as simple as a few military strikes. Biden really needs to couple those with some concrete policy change elsewhere in the region, and that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming from the administration.
So we have an escalating tit for tat with the Houthis—including the seizure of arms by U.S. forces in a raid on a ship a few days back—but no obvious plan for how to resolve the fundamental problem at stake in the region: Until Israel takes steps toward ending the war against Hamas in Gaza, things are likely to keep escalating.
There’s a genuine possibility that the conflict here could open a window for some kind of Arab-mediated two-state solution—something the Persian Gulf states have supported for years—but the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains stubbornly opposed. I’m not hearing anything from the administration about pressuring Israel—just confirmations of airstrikes that even U.S. officials acknowledge aren’t achieving anything.
MK: Well, I predicted correctly that just hitting the Houthis would not be enough to tamp down the violence. They and the Iranians have continued to conduct attacks. But the solution is not for Israel to stop defending itself. The solution is for Washington to make it clear that Tehran will pay an unacceptable price if the attacks continue. Some pinprick strikes on Houthi military depots are just not going to cut it. After all, the Iran-backed violence is not only happening in the Red Sea, but also in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and pretty much everywhere throughout the region.
EA: I don’t really understand why you think hitting Tehran will resolve the region’s issues more broadly; to be frank, it’s not primarily about the U.S.-Iran rivalry. Instead, we’ve got a cross-cutting list of escalation: between Israel and Lebanon, between the Houthis and international shipping, between Iran and Pakistan—I didn’t have that one on my bingo card!— and even Islamic State attacks inside Iran.
Much of this chaos is overspilling from the war in Gaza, or is enabled by it, but almost none of it could be resolved by a military focus on Iran.
Washington has been politely asking Iran to stop, but the overtures are failing because they are not backed by force.
MK: There is a common thread linking these conflicts: Israel is at war in Gaza with Hamas—which is backed by Iran; Israel has tensions in Lebanon with Hezbollah—backed by Iran; international shipping is being attacked by the Houthis—backed by Iran; and the Houthi attacks would not continue, for example, if Tehran told them to knock it off and stopped sending them weapons. The U.S. military said that the raid you mentioned, for example, was carried out to interdict arms shipments from Iran to the Houthis.
Sullivan has called for tough-minded diplomacy. I’m all for that. But, as 18th-century Prussian leader Frederick the Great said, diplomacy without armaments is like music without instruments. Washington has been politely asking Iran to stop, but the overtures are failing because they are not backed by force.
EA: But how does striking Iran end the war in Gaza? Because that is the biggest concern, and the biggest risk of escalation right now.
What I see is that the Biden administration is enabling the Netanyahu government to continue this costly and damaging war, without any real effort to rein in Israel’s worst impulses, setting the stage for further regional chaos. Netanyahu said publicly again just on Thursday that he will not accept any kind of Palestinian state, something that directly contradicts the U.S. government line on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
MK: I see U.S. policy as wobbly. Biden first said he has Israel’s back in its war to eliminate Hamas, and then he says the Israeli military needs to limit civilian casualties—even though it is already going to great lengths to comply with the laws of armed conflict.
What would you propose as an alternative? What do you mean by reining in Israel’s worst impulses?
EA: I think most Americans intuitively understand, given their own experiences after 9/11, that sometimes governments make poor strategic choices in anger. So it is perhaps understandable that support for the war in Gaza is still quite high inside Israel itself. But it has also reached the point where the diminishing returns of continuing the conflict are massively outweighed by the horrific humanitarian consequences that it’s creating. Ten thousand children have now died in Gaza, and much of the population is homeless.
The United States is the only actor with the capability to pressure Israeli leaders to step back. Washington has leverage from arms sales in particular, which it could be using more effectively to pressure Israel on the humanitarian front: to allow more aid to enter Gaza, to stop the bombing, etc.
Even some of those who support Israel in the U.S. Congress are expressing concerns about the humanitarian situation: Sen. Chris Coons, who is a strong supporter of Israel and voted against the resolution calling for an aid freeze presented by Sen. Bernie Sanders the other day, just released a statement arguing that we cannot “ignore the tragic suffering of Palestinian civilians.”
Instead, the Biden administration continues to say nothing publicly. Much smaller and poorer countries than the United States are stepping up; South Africa, for example, has brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Now, it’s true that there has been bad blood between Israel and South Africa for years. Didn’t one of the editors at Foreign Policy actually write a great book on the curious history of cooperation between South Africa’s apartheid regime and Israel, using declassified documents from military archives? Who was it?
[Ed: It’s classified.]
EA: Despite the bad blood, however, the case the South Africans make is surprisingly persuasive.
MK: I disagree. The case is ludicrous. South Africa is accusing Israel of genocide. Israel is not trying to eliminate the Palestinians. It is trying to eliminate Hamas—a terrorist group. If Hamas had never attacked on Oct. 7, none of this would be happening. If Hamas stopped cowardly hiding behind women and children, Palestinian civilian casualties would dramatically drop. And if Hamas surrendered now, this would all be over immediately.
On the contrary, it is Hamas that is aiming for the genocide of the Jews; just read the group’s charter and take their word for it.
I do think the geopolitics of the case are notable, however, and indicative of the fault lines between the free world and the “swing states” in the global south. The U.S., German, and British governments, for example, have said the case is preposterous. But South Africa has the backing of Brazil, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Namibia, and many other countries in the developing world.
And how can you possibly think the case is persuasive?
To what extent is the West actually representing humanitarian values or the so-called free world if it’s willing to overlook these crimes?
EA: I certainly don’t think it amounts to genocide, which is a frequently overused term. And the ICJ has fairly limited abilities to hold states to account. But I think it’s relatively clear that Israel is at least engaging in behavior that has the potential to be classed as war crimes. Various members of the Netanyahu government, for example, including cabinet members, have called for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza alongside dehumanizing statements. That’s ethnic cleansing. The South African lawyers presented a litany of hundreds of cases of similar statements from those in positions of authority within Israel’s government and military.
And there’s no doubt that the Israelis are still blockading food and aid from entering the Gaza Strip, which is the use of starvation as a weapon of war. That’s also a war crime, and it’s a problem so widely known that the French have actually begun airdropping food aid into Gaza directly, without going through the Israelis or the Egyptians.
You’re right that we’re seeing a divide emerging between much of the global south and the West on this, which raises a big question. To what extent is the West actually representing humanitarian values or the so-called free world if it’s willing to overlook these crimes? It’s not lost on me—and I’m sure it’s not lost on leaders in the developing world—that if these crimes were being committed by any other state, such as Russia or China, Washington would be loudly condemning them.
Read More
The Biden administration has been curiously silent on the gravest threat in the Middle East: attacks on global shipping.
|
A month of attacks on commercial shipping has surprisingly left energy markets unmoved.
|
The decision to bomb the Houthis was likely the administration’s least bad path.
|
MK: I see it differently. Israel is going to extraordinary lengths to limit civilian casualties. It notifies civilians to clear out of neighborhoods before military operations begin, for example, but this severely hampers military effectiveness (After all, Hamas is notified too and can prepare to fight back) in order to save civilian lives.
But coming back to your alternative strategy. Stop the bombing? And then what? Let Hamas regroup and wait for them to rape and kill their way through Israel again?
EA: Israel admits publicly that it’s killed two civilians for every member of Hamas. That’s a horrifying ratio. And there will never be a purely military solution to wiping out Hamas, particularly given the operational challenges in the Gaza Strip. You kill militants, and new ones rise up.
That’s why it’s important to have a political strategy as well as a military strategy, something the Netanyahu government seems unwilling to even consider. Just yesterday, Netanyahu told reporters that he won’t accept anything other than “absolute victory,” which includes Israeli control over all the land between the Jordan River and the sea. What political solution can grow in that environment?
I’d argue that instead of further immiserating the population of Gaza, it might help to create a political space where Palestinians can choose their own government and live their lives free of blockade. Hamas—or any extremist group—will always have less of a foothold among a population that is happy and not oppressed. For Israel, long-term security will require a political solution to the Palestinian question.
That’s exactly the kind of thing the administration could be pushing on, but instead, rather strangely, they’re arguing that any peace deal or solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be linked to Israeli-Saudi normalization. It rather feels like they’re trying to jam their preferred policy framework into the existing situation regardless of whether it actually has any chance of success.
MK: I did want to come back to Iran’s strikes on Pakistan. What was that? Foreign Policy published a piece a few weeks ago on under-the-radar conflicts to watch out for in 2024. I wrote on Russia-NATO tensions in the Arctic.
But none of us foresaw a showdown between Tehran and Islamabad. What do you make of this unexpected development?
EA: Well, I am rather enjoying the cognitive dissonance of those inside the Beltway who argue that Iran shouldn’t violate Pakistan’s sovereignty to strike militant terrorist groups. After all, Washington has been there, done that.
They’re not the best of neighbors, honestly. Iran shelters militants who then attack in Pakistan, too. In short: Iran has a terrorism problem, and Pakistan is often willing to shelter militants who engage in attacks on its neighbors. That’s the crux of the matter in this case, whether or not the group actually does have ties to Israel, as Tehran claims. Hopefully this won’t escalate. Chinese leaders—who have good ties with both countries—have called for restraint on both sides.
MK: Iran has a terrorism problem. Well said.
EA: Not what I meant, Matt.
MK: It is interesting watching China try to manage the tension. China has a long-standing strategic partnership with Pakistan—including helping it to build its nuclear weapons program in the 1980s and as a major recipient of Belt and Road Initiative investments today. And now China and Iran are deepening their partnership in the—wait for it—new axis of evil. So, this is problematic for Beijing to have two of its partners in a dispute with each other. It somewhat reminds me of the U.S. attempts in the past to soothe relations between bickering allies, like Tokyo and Seoul.
If only China were willing to use its influence over Iran to tamp down the violence in the Red Sea and elsewhere. After all, it too depends on global trade, but instead of helping to uphold global norms, it’s free riding on U.S. efforts to protect global shipping lines.
EA: It reminds me more of the United States’ foreign-policy choices for most of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s! Pakistan as a problematic partner? Policymaker fears that Arab-Israeli hostilities could escalate and imperil energy supplies? The Chinese are stuck with the choices that the United States had several decades ago. I sure hope they play their hand better than we did.
MK: Play their hand better? America and the free world are holding on a royal flush. China and the new axis of evil are going all in on a pair of nines.
It’s time to call their bluff.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
