Tweet Share Share Comment

President Biden has been walking a politico-military tightrope since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent bombing of Gaza. But he’s about to traipse an even narrower rope. He needs to respond to an Iranian-backed militia’s drone strike that killed three U.S. servicemen in a decisive, powerful way—without widening the war any further.

Some—including Sen. Tom Cotton and a few commentators—are urging him to widen the war. Iran is supplying the entire network of militias fueling the region’s wars—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and whichever wing launched the drone that killed three Americans—so it’s time, they say, to strike at the belly of the beast.

This is a bad idea. First, Iran is three times the size of Iraq, which some of these same war-criers thought would be a “cakewalk” back in 2003, before George W. Bush’s invasion set off an insurgency that kept U.S. troops there for eight years and destabilized the entire Middle East. Second, though many Iranian citizens, especially educated youth in the cities, like the United States and hate their Islamic regime, the scales would likely shift if the U.S. attacked or invaded their homeland. Third, Iran has denied playing any part in the attack (just as it also denied involvement in Hamas’ brutal murders of Oct. 7), and there is no evidence suggesting Iran played a part—not directly anyway.

But the Iranians have been walking their own tightrope—a daringly dangerous one. They have supplied, and in some cases trained, their network of proxy militias—the “axis of resistance,” it’s called—and, whether or not Iranian forces have taken part in the attacks, Iran’s leaders back in Tehran have done little to stop the mayhem and a great deal to encourage it.

Since Oct. 7, these militias have launched more than 150 drones or missiles against U.S. forces in the region. The vast majority have been shot down by anti-air weapons. The others inflicted little or no damage. But now, with the deaths and injuries in Jordan, the Iranians have slipped off the tightrope—the game has turned deadly—and they have to pay a price.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

In some ways, the Iranian leaders must realize this fact. On Tuesday, they issued a statement not just denying involvement in the attack on the U.S. base in Jordan but also urging President Biden to respond to the attack with diplomacy. (Oh, now they want to talk things over peacefully.)

Tuesday morning, on his way to a campaign event in Florida, Biden told reporters that he’d settled on a response to the fatal drone strike. Asked if Iran was to blame for the strike, Biden said that he didn’t want to widen the war, but added, “I do hold them responsible, in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.”

A modern Iranian spy ship, the Behshad, run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is said to be a command-control platform providing intelligence, navigation, and other assistance to the Houthis’ operations in the Red Sea. Bombing the Behshad is one possibility. Boarding it to capture all the intel gear might be a suitable sequel. The IRGC has lots of bases and advisers in Iraq and Syria. They could be hit too. (The drone strike on the U.S. base in Jordan was said to be in retaliation for the killing of an IRGC officer at a base in Iraq from which missiles had been aimed at an American base, which was in turn retaliation for some other attack.)

Advertisement

Advertisement

Yet at the same time, Biden needs to put a lot more steam and pressure in his already strenuous diplomatic efforts. The hot spots of conflict in the Middle East have been brewing, simmering, or raging for some time now, most of them well before Oct. 7, some generated by forces and tensions that have little to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Yet the events since Oct. 7 have intensified all of those conflicts, imbued their combatants with fiercer passion and the allure of international support or tolerance. The separate conflicts are bleeding into one another. The prospect of a regionwide war is very real. The results of such a war—in bloodshed, physical destruction, and geopolitical instability—would be gargantuan and completely counter to U.S. interests.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is why a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war is an urgent necessity—both for its own sake and to prevent the spread of war across the region and possibly beyond.

Then, those who say their violent acts of late are strictly a response to Israel’s bombing of Palestinians—the Houthis, Hezbollah, and the various Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria—must be pressed to cease fire as well. Part of this involves opening up a back channel of communications with Iran’s leaders, assuring them that the U.S. has no intention of attacking Iran, per se, and pledging a halt to attacks on Iran’s proxies as long as the proxies stop shooting off missiles too.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

And then, during the pause in the fighting, the powers in the region need to begin negotiations toward a longer-lasting truce and—in the long term—a political settlement of the conflict that has plagued the region for more than a century: the splitting or sharing of land that two peoples—Jews and Palestinians—claim.

For more than a week, U.S., Egyptian, and Qatari diplomats—with some involvement by Saudis on the side—have been devising a plan for a cease-fire lasting several weeks, during which Hamas releases all the remaining Israeli hostages and Israel frees an as-yet-undetermined number of Palestinian prisoners. The negotiators claim progress. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, along with other Sunni Arab nations in the region (notably Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan), would very much like to resume (or, in some cases, restore) “normalized” relations with Israel. Qatar has a problematic relationship with Israel, but it would like to resume wholly good relations with Washington. (It hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, has cooperative arrangements with U.S. intelligence, and has been declared “a major non-NATO ally.”)

Advertisement

Advertisement

The problem is that the two combatants, Israel and Hamas, don’t want to get on board. Hamas’ leaders say the cease-fire needs to be permanent. (Otherwise, they know that once the last hostage is let go, Israel will bomb their tunnels to smithereens.) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right members of his governing coalition say they will not end the war until Hamas is crushed. There is also disagreement on who controls Gaza’s security after the war. Meanwhile, the Saudis say they won’t normalize relations with Israel unless Israel at least starts down a path toward creating a Palestinian state. To that, Netanyahu says that he opposes any such entity.

Advertisement

Since the start of the war, Biden has walked the tightrope of giving Israel full support—while also pressuring Israel to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza. His strategy has had mixed results. Without Biden’s pressure, Israel probably would not have opened up a humanitarian corridor or engaged in the weeklong hostages-for-prisoners exchange of November–December. But his leverage has been less effective than he’d hoped, and he has been reluctant to exert much more. He hasn’t, for example, withheld military aid or threatened to vote in favor of resolutions critical of Israel in the U.N. Security Council.

Advertisement

It is time for Biden to step up his leverage, to harden his policy toward the Israeli government. This week, several members of Netanyahu’s far-right coalition, including a few government ministers, took part in a rollicking conference—full of singing and dancing—that called on Israel to annex all of Gaza. (Israel did occupy Gaza after the 1967 war, but pulled out—even evicting 8,000 Jewish settlers, some of them forcibly, in 2005.) Not even Netanyahu has called for reoccupation. He needs to condemn, and possibly expel—in any case, fully dissociate himself from—those who took part in the convention.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Related From Slate

Fred Kaplan

This May Be the Only Way to Avoid a Broader Regional War in the Middle East

Read More

But Netanyahu has no desire to accommodate even an essential ally like the United States on any of this. Among other things, he fears that if he gets too dovish, a few of his most extremist coalition partners will leave the government—enough that he loses his majority, at which point new elections will be held, and his party will not win. (It may be that his far-right partners are bluffing: They must know that whatever coalition succeeds Netanyahu’s will not include them. Leaving his government means leaving power forever.) In a sense, then, Netanyahu needs the war to go on in order for his regime to go on.

Advertisement

At the same time that Biden presses down on Netanyahu, Qatar needs to press down on Hamas. While a Western ally in many ways, Qatar has also been Hamas’ chief supplier, funneling the movement money, arms, and advisers, as well as providing lavish homes for their leaders. It’s time for the Qataris to decide which side they’re on.

Popular in News & Politics

  1. Trump’s Lawyers Made Some Very Odd Strategic Choices in the Supreme Court Ballot Case
  2. Trump’s Courtroom Behavior Helped Cost Him $83 Million. Next Time Could Be Worse.
  3. The Supreme Court Blessed an Experimental Execution in Alabama. It Went So Wrong.
  4. After $80 Million Verdict, Trump Has a Jury Problem Ahead of Criminal Trial

Meanwhile, the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia detest Hamas and were prepared to advance relations with Israel. (Egypt has observed a peace treaty with Israel since 1979.) Both are losing a lot of money, and forgoing diplomatic opportunities, as a result of this war. The departure of commercial vessels from the Red Sea, as a result of Houthi attacks, will cost Egypt an estimated $12 billion in fees over the course of this year. But public sentiment in both countries is heavily pro-Palestinian, and the leaders probably fear that criticism of Hamas or too-cuddly an embrace of Israel might set off mass protests or worse. These countries haven’t ever done much to help the Palestinians. Egypt has a higher wall on the Gazan border than Israel has, and, before Oct. 7, was more restrictive about keeping Gazan Palestinians out of Egyptian territory. Yet they can’t appear to be less than sympathetic with the Palestinians’ plight. (Neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia even condemned Hamas’ attack that killed 1,200 Israelis.)

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

But now they and Qatar have to figure out some way to accommodate all these pressures—to help stop the war and restore stability without alienating their own populations. Some of this may involve letting in some Palestinians—those who want to be let in. They may also have to provide refuge for Hamas leaders—who, if they really do free all the hostages, will want to leave Gaza to avoid almost certain death by Israeli missiles or commandos.

These steps are not at all easy. In fact, they are among the hardest steps that many of these leaders have ever had to contemplate. But this is the test of their leadership. If they fail at this, then a wider war becomes more and more likely, and their losses from that will be incalculable.

Tweet Share Share Comment

QOSHE - How Biden Can Avoid Broadening the War in the Middle East - Fred Kaplan
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

How Biden Can Avoid Broadening the War in the Middle East

9 0
31.01.2024
Tweet Share Share Comment

President Biden has been walking a politico-military tightrope since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent bombing of Gaza. But he’s about to traipse an even narrower rope. He needs to respond to an Iranian-backed militia’s drone strike that killed three U.S. servicemen in a decisive, powerful way—without widening the war any further.

Some—including Sen. Tom Cotton and a few commentators—are urging him to widen the war. Iran is supplying the entire network of militias fueling the region’s wars—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and whichever wing launched the drone that killed three Americans—so it’s time, they say, to strike at the belly of the beast.

This is a bad idea. First, Iran is three times the size of Iraq, which some of these same war-criers thought would be a “cakewalk” back in 2003, before George W. Bush’s invasion set off an insurgency that kept U.S. troops there for eight years and destabilized the entire Middle East. Second, though many Iranian citizens, especially educated youth in the cities, like the United States and hate their Islamic regime, the scales would likely shift if the U.S. attacked or invaded their homeland. Third, Iran has denied playing any part in the attack (just as it also denied involvement in Hamas’ brutal murders of Oct. 7), and there is no evidence suggesting Iran played a part—not directly anyway.

But the Iranians have been walking their own tightrope—a daringly dangerous one. They have supplied, and in some cases trained, their network of proxy militias—the “axis of resistance,” it’s called—and, whether or not Iranian forces have taken part in the attacks, Iran’s leaders back in Tehran have done little to stop the mayhem and a great deal to encourage it.

Since Oct. 7, these militias have launched more than 150 drones or missiles against U.S. forces in the region. The vast majority have been shot down by anti-air weapons. The others inflicted little or no damage. But now, with the deaths and injuries in Jordan, the Iranians have slipped off the tightrope—the game has turned deadly—and they have to pay a price.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

In some ways, the Iranian leaders must realize this fact. On Tuesday, they issued a statement not just denying involvement in the attack on the U.S. base in Jordan but also urging President Biden to respond to the attack with diplomacy. (Oh, now they want to talk things over peacefully.)

Tuesday morning, on his way to a campaign event in Florida, Biden told reporters that he’d settled on a response to the fatal drone strike. Asked if Iran was to blame for the strike, Biden said that he didn’t want to widen the war, but added, “I do hold them responsible, in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did........

© Slate


Get it on Google Play