Is a Regional War at the Door in the Middle East?
Western support for Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses will unleash chaos in international politics.
the Palestinian flag flies as smoke from an Israeli airstrike appears in the background. Photo by Anadolu Images.
W
ill the conflict that began after Israel’s disproportionate and genocidal attacks on Gaza following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas on October 7 turn into a regional war? First, it is useful to emphasize that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood caused a major rupture not only in the Palestinian-Israeli issue, but in the Middle East as a whole. October 7 opened the door to a period in which many regional and global actors will have to rethink their policies. The Arab uprisings and revolutions that began in late 2010 and the processes of “restoring and strengthening despotism and normalizing Israel” that began after the weakening/collapse of the Arab states will also have to fail or evolve in a different direction.
The fact that Israel was unexpectedly dealt a heavy blow by Hamas and was unable to inflict serious damage on the organization despite its massive and endless attacks for almost four months has caused deep concern to Israel and its supporters. As a result, Israel has launched genocidal attacks against the civilian population of Gaza in the name of destroying Hamas. The fact that some 70% of those killed in Gaza so far have been children and women is an indicator not only of Israel’s brutality but also of its impotence: unable to reach the Hamas resistance, Israel targets their families and innocent people in order to deter the organization.
In the face of these negative developments, Western supporters, knowing that Israel would try to spread the conflict to the region in order to save face and change its image, made statements to prevent Israel’s efforts. The majority of Western states, especially the U.S., which unconditionally supports Israel, know that they will be seriously affected by the spread of the conflict and are trying to take precautions against the possibility of a significant blow to their presence in the region.
The fact that Arab regimes, under the influence of Israel and Western states, do not speak out against Israel’s brutality, which has great global repercussions, and in some cases even indirectly support it, creates a new situation in the regional balance of power. As Arab governments have failed to speak out, the response of non-state actors in the region to Israel’s brutality has come to the fore.
The most effective of these was the announcement by the Houthis in Yemen that they would attack ships passing through the Red Sea after the ceasefire they called for failed to materialize. The Houthis’ targeting of merchant ships passing through the Red Sea has become one of the most significant short-term consequences and costs of the Israeli attacks on a regional and global scale. The fact that the Houthis, one of the most effective actors in the civil war in Yemen, which is the world’s poorest country facing a humanitarian crisis, attacked merchant ships in response to Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians can be seen as an example of the widening of the conflict front.
In such times, it is highly likely that unexpected negative developments will occur as leaders both maintain their personal power and make miscalculations. For example, the efforts of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to maintain his power and the efforts of U.S. President Biden to be reelected are influencing the course of developments in the region. In such fragile situations, the conflicting decisions of leaders prioritizing personal or group interests are likely to plunge the region into a deep spiral of conflict.
Expectations of Regional and Global Powers
In order to assess the possibility that Israel’s brutality against Gaza, which is ongoing for about four months now, will turn into a major regional war, it is necessary first to look at the expectations and policies of the influential states and global powers in the region.
To begin with, let’s look at the expectations and policies of the Israeli occupation state. The expansionist policy of the Israeli state, which has been constantly extending its borders against the Palestinians since 1948, has suffered a serious blow. It has become clear that they will neither be able to achieve their expectations of de-Palestinization “from the river to the sea,” as they claimed, nor to destroy Hamas. In fact, Israel does not know what to do and has no clear strategy.
The current Israeli government continues to make all kinds of provocations to ensure that the conflict takes on a regional dimension. Unable to achieve the success and impact it expected from its attacks on Gaza, Israel began to target Lebanon, Syria, and Iran in order to gain more support from its backers and create new fait accompli. However, due to the reluctance of both regional actors and Israel’s supporters, the front of the conflict did not widen.
Second, the politics of Iran, a second state in the region that stands out with its confrontational politics, has been one of the topics giving rise to the most speculations. How would Iran react? Iran, which since the beginning of the Israeli brutality in Gaza has wished only success to Hamas, has not ( or perhaps could not) carry out any attacks against Israel, although it has been the direct target of Israeli attacks in Syria and Lebanon on several occasions. Although Iran’s political rhetoric is mostly anti-Israel, its military actions are directed against Muslim countries in the region rather than against Israel.
For example, Iran bombed parts of Pakistan under the pretext of fighting terrorism. A few days later, Pakistan retaliated by bombing some points in Iran. After this senseless attack by Iran and Pakistan’s response, the region suddenly faced a completely different axis of conflict. One of the actors targeted by Iran in this process was the Kurdistan Regional Government, which it has intimidated on several occasions with targeted bombings.
When it comes to the Middle East, Iran tries to be effective through its proxies in the region rather than through its own state institutions. For this reason, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarullah (Houthis) in Yemen, and the Hashd al-Shaabi militia in Iraq work with state and non-state actors who pursue positive policies towards Iran. To deal with regional threats, Iran mostly mobilizes regional proxy actors associated with it. The main reason for choosing this method is to prevent Iran from being directly blamed by other states.
Iran also has the potential to demonstrate its deterrent power through its proxy actors. For example, in response to Israel’s recent attacks, it created a major deterrent against Israel and its supporters by mobilizing the Houthis, the most effective actor in the Yemeni civil war. Indeed, the Houthis quickly turned the Gaza conflict into a regional and even global crisis by attacking ships passing through the Red Sea.
Read: Nakba 2023 in Gaza
Inactivity in the Arab Streets
Third, the response of the Arab states is very important. To date, there has been no influential Arab state that considers the Palestinian issue to be an important part of its foreign policy. Most Arab regimes want developments in the Palestinian-Israeli issue to continue in a way that will affect them as little as possible. In other words, they avoid becoming a party to the Palestine-Israel issue to the extent that they can. Only when situations directly affect them, like Israel’s project to remove the Palestinians from Palestine, do Arab states tend to oppose Israeli policies.
The expected reaction from the Arab streets could not be given because the Arab regimes have put the Arab people under serious pressure and dispersed or pacified the organized social structures in the Arab world. The fact that the Arab regimes are trying to preserve the status quo, on the one hand, and are supporting the actor(s) that are changing the status quo, on the other, is also a serious paradox. For example, with the so-called Deal of the Century, which was developed under the auspices of the U.S., and the Abraham Accords, which were also signed under the auspices of the U.S., the Arab regimes wanted to completely shelve the Palestinian issue.
The Hamas attack on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli brutality put the Palestinian issue back on the regional and global agenda. In fact, in order to pursue a more flexible foreign policy and successfully complete their ongoing projects, the Arab regimes do not want the Palestinian issue to be discussed. That is why, they oppose Israel’s harsh policy. However, they do not have a position to say against Israel and the U.S.
Turkey’s Policy in the region
Fourth, it is necessary to look at Turkey’s policy in the region. By using its hard power to respond to national and/or regional threats against it and regional projects that harm its interests, Turkey pursues a relatively independent policy. Turkey pursues such a policy by emphasizing that it defends regional stability. During the normalization process over the past five years, it has sought to improve its relations with all regional states and non-state actors, including Israel and Iran. After October 7, Turkey has shown its aim, intention, and efforts to cooperate with all actors except Israel.
On the Palestine-Israel issue, Turkey argues that a response to Israel should go beyond diplomatic condemnations. However, to date, it has not been able to form a regional coalition to ensure the implementation of the guarantor model proposed by its officials, especially since the Arab states have not accepted it. With its own limited national potential, it has not been able to act effectively against the continuation of Israeli brutality, except for the delivery of humanitarian aid and efforts to create a global anti-Israeli front.
Turkey tries to follow a more comprehensive policy, thinking that the way to take an effective stance on this issue is to cooperate either with Arab states or with Western/global states. While pursuing this policy, it does not prefer to have conflictual relations with any state in the region. On the contrary, it advocates that all regional states form a common front and respond to Israel and its supporters. Therefore, it does not refrain from taking the necessary initiatives to prevent the conflict from spilling over into the wider region.
Global powers and Gaza
Finally, it is necessary to look at the impact of global powers’ policies on the course of developments in Gaza as all Western world powers continue to support Israel unconditionally. Western states clearly support Israel’s genocidal attacks at the expense of offending both world public opinion and a significant part of their own public opinion.
Western states’ support for Israeli war crimes and human rights offences, which are in violation of almost all international norms, principles of international law, and decisions of international organizations, will unleash more chaos in international politics in the coming period, and Israeli brutality will continue to have a profound impact on the politics of both today and tomorrow.
The future policies of Western states under the influence of a common pro-Israeli stance will lead to deep debates, and Western governments that defend the interests of aggressive Zionism and do not listen to their own people’s calls for justice will face more criticism and instability.
Given these developments and possibilities, Western states do not want the conflict in Palestine to spread further. However, it is not clear to what extent pressure from pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli lobbies in their own countries will prevent them from doing so. More to the point, there is still a very real possibility that Western politics, which have been taken hostage by the pro-Israeli lobby, will go in the wrong direction despite the reasonable reactions of the Western publics.
The Future of the Middle East
Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of both proxy wars and direct interstate conflicts in various regions and countries of the Middle East. The main reason for this is the chaotic breakdown of the global system. Israel’s ongoing atrocities against Gaza and the Western states’ support of this offensive are both a result and a confirmation of the bankruptcy of the global system. It is inevitable that some regional actors will react to Israel’s disproportionate attacks and the genocide it has carried out on live television.
What is more, the complete disregard for the principles of international law and universal norms/values by the global actors, especially Western states, is leading to an increase in reactions against the West and the international system. Since the principle of “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” one of the principles developed in the context of the United Nations, or, for that matter, any other principle of international law cannot be applied, Israel can continue its policy of genocide with impunity.
Meanwhile, as in the rest of the world, states in the Middle East have begun to put power politics at the center of their foreign policies. As a result, it is inevitable that the number of conflicts will increase. Concepts such as “soft power” and “smart power,” which have been much talked about recently, have been shelved and almost all states have started to invest in military power, i.e., hard power. States now believe that this is the only way to survive and protect their national interests.
Considering all these negative developments and at a time when global power imbalances are gradually increasing, it is hard to believe that good days await the Middle East, the most unstable region in the world. The shifts in power that have taken place and will continue to take place at both regional and global levels have shaken and will continue to shake the balances in the region. It would not be wrong to foresee a more conflict-ridden and unstable Middle East in the period ahead.
