[[link removed]]

THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL SET OUT TO REMAKE THE MIDDLE EAST, AGAIN
 
[[link removed]]


 

Mitchell Plitnick
October 5, 2024
Mondoweiss
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The mood in Washington today is similar to 2003 when the neocons of
the Bush administration sought to remake the Middle East. This time, a
joint vision shared by Israel and the Biden administration seeks to
remake the region in the West’s vision. _

President of the United States of America Joe Biden is welcomed by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International
Airport near Tel Aviv, October 18, 2023, Avi Ohayon/Israel Gpo via
ZUMA Press Wire APA Images

 

Twenty-two years ago, as the winds of war were gathering in
Washington, there was a strong sense of not just rage but of
over-confidence in the United States. The neoconservative movement was
at the height of its influence, both in and outside of government. The
world had rallied around the United States and its invasion of
Afghanistan, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and they had not
yet realized that the invasion force was already sinking into what
would become a twenty-year quagmire.

The neocons argued that it was time to remake the Middle East
according to the West’s vision. Ignoring the fact that the
region’s problems stemmed in large measure from post-colonial
conditions that traced their roots back to the Allied Powers’
decision to draw the region’s borders according to their colonial
ambitions in the aftermath of World War I, they seized the opportunity
to put their theories to the test. 

Iraq was the focal point of that test, but it was the entire region
that was the laboratory for these mad scientists’ experiments. The
repercussions of the disaster they brought to the region are felt to
this day.

The mood today in Washington is similar. This time, an attack on
Israel is the excuse and the catalyst that has sparked a renewed
ambition to reshape the Middle East, this time according to a joint
vision shared by the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the
administration of Joe Biden in the United States. 

Whether it’s State Department mouthpiece Matthew Miller bragging
that the United States was never interested in a diplomatic resolution
[[link removed]]
of the assault on the Gaza Strip or both Joe Biden
[[link removed]]
and Kamala Harris
[[link removed]]
calling the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah “a measure of
justice” while ignoring the hundreds of civilians Israel had killed
in Beirut in the attack, triumphalism and hubris are the order of the
day in Washington. 

That triumphalism is matched and surpassed in Israel. Netanyahu’s
assassination of much of Hezbollah’s top leadership, including
Nasrallah, has helped to shift attention away from Gaza, where Israel
has destroyed much of Strip, killed tens of thousands of innocents,
but, for all that blood, has yet to defeat Hamas.

Radical settler and former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett
called on Israel
[[link removed]]
to destroy Iran’s nuclear reactors. Another former PM, the
supposedly more rational Ehud Barak cautioned Israel
[[link removed]] not to try to
go to war with Iran until it secured the help it needs from the United
States. The idea of de-escalation is invisible in this discourse.

The mood in Israel and Washington betrays the reality behind
Israel’s genocidal program in Gaza. From October 7 to this moment,
the Netanyahu government’s sights were set not on Gaza or even the
West Bank, but on Iran. The utter lack of value that Israel, the
United States, and their European allies place on Palestinian lives
meant that these innumerable people in Gaza who have died directly
from Israeli attacks and indirectly from disease, exposure, lack of
clean water, malnutrition, starvation and all the other effects of
war, have all been sacrificed as an opening salvo in the latest
attempt to “remake the Middle East.”

Unfortunately, first Hezbollah and then Iran could only avoid the
confrontation for so long
[[link removed]]. Hezbollah
could not turn their backs on Hamas, although both they and Iran were
apparently caught unaware when Hamas launched its attack on October 7.
Iran’s strategy of patience and playing the long game may be the
wiser course, but neither they nor Hezbollah could afford to be
perceived as inactive in the face of the wholesale slaughter Israel
was unleashing on Gaza.

The real shift that Iran might have underestimated in its calculations
a year ago is the one in Washington. Joe Biden went farther than any
of his predecessors in refusing to restrain Israel to even the
slightest degree. In the past, American presidents had always worked
to keep Israel from embroiling the Mideast in a regional war that
would drag the U.S. and other countries in.

Donald Trump was something of an exception in his indulgence of Israel
and recklessness in dealing with Iran (the assassination of Qasim
Suleimani and the abrogation of the JCPOA being the most obvious
examples) but he was too mercurial and unpredictable for Israel to be
sure he would act as they wanted him to if they provoked a war with
Iran.

Biden moved the needle. He made it absolutely clear from the outset
that he was backing Israel to the hilt. Every time Netanyahu tested
the limits of Biden’s tolerance, he found it limitless. Every time
Netanyahu crossed a so-called “red line” of Biden’s, he not only
faced no consequences, he was rewarded with more money and weapons.
Even while Netanyahu has worked
[[link removed]]
to support Donald Trump in this election
[[link removed]],
Biden has remained steadfast in his complete devotion to Israel’s
program.

The danger of combining that kind of deference to Israel with the
Israeli far-right’s determination
[[link removed]]
to wage a wide scale war with no concern about the regional
consequences cannot be overstated. This is a moment that dwarfs the
American invasion of Iraq in 2003 for the potential upheaval it can
cause in the region. 

While there have been regular reports of dissension throughout the
Executive Branch, many of Biden’s key advisers are fully on board
[[link removed]]
with raising the stakes against Iran. The reactions we are seeing
right now to the latest escalation demonstrate this.

EAGER FOR WAR

After Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran promised
retaliation that never came. The most likely explanation is that Iran
was biding its time, knowing it was not in a position of military
strength and hoping that domestic American pressures might be
heightened by the new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s
demonstrated openness
[[link removed]]
to reestablishing détente with the West.

Unfortunately, Pezeshkian’s pragmatism—which, given anti-Iranian
hostility in the United States was always going to be greeted with
skepticism—is largely unknown to Americans, as it has been ignored
by most of our media. 

Instead, we get spectacles like the one we had during the vice
presidential debate on Tuesday, where the very first question
[[link removed]]
posed to the candidates was not how to defuse regional tensions but
whether they would back an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear
facilities. 

The salivating over the prospect of war is not at all confined to the
media. A report in _Politico_
[[link removed]]_
_stated that Biden’s top advisers Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein
were pushing hard for a major attack on Lebanon and, by extension,
Iran. 

According to _Politico_, “Behind the scenes, Hochstein, McGurk and
other top U.S. national security officials are describing Israel’s
Lebanon operations as a history-defining moment — one that will
reshape the Middle East for the better for years to come. The thinking
goes: Israel has obliterated Hezbollah’s top command structure in
Lebanon, severely undercutting the group’s capabilities and weakened
Iran, which used Hezbollah as a proxy and power projector.”

The report suggests that this view has triumphed in the White House,
and that expanding an operation against Hezbollah “could offer an
opportunity to reduce Iran’s influence in Lebanon and the region.”

THE REALITY OF IRAN’S MISSILE STRIKE

[Iranian ballistic missiles head toward Israeli military and security
targets on October 1, 2023. (Photo: Fars News Agency)]

Iranian ballistic missiles head toward Israeli military and security
targets on October 1, 2023. (Photo: Fars News Agency)

We need to be clear about where each side stands on this. While the
Biden administration has insisted for the past year that they want to
avoid a regional war, their actions have pushed the region toward
one. 

To be sure, this was a risk Hezbollah took as well when they opened a
northern front with Israel to help Hamas withstand the Israeli
onslaught by trying to divide Israel’s forces. Yet, when push came
to shove, Hezbollah recognized the threat Israel posed and was willing
to compromise. Lebanon’s acting foreign minister, Abdallah Bou Habib
told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour
[[link removed]] that Hezbollah had
agreed to the U.S.’ and France’s proposal for a 21-day ceasefire
shortly before Israel killed him. 

Habib is no Hezbollah mouthpiece. He is a long-time World Bank
economist and former Lebanese Ambassador to the United States. He made
it clear that the Americans and Israelis knew that Hezbollah had
agreed to the ceasefire.

Iran as well has been trying to avoid an escalation. But the Islamic
Republic was facing criticism
[[link removed]]
over its “strategic patience,” and was in danger of seeming
impotent in the face of Israeli aggression while Hezbollah,
Ansarallah, Hamas and other, smaller groups were taking action. 

After Nasrallah’s assassination, Iran had to respond
[[link removed]]. Yet even
when it did, it targeted Israeli military sites
[[link removed]],
and, as it did in April, it warned the United States beforehand. This
time around, Iran used high-quality missiles and gave the U.S. much
less lead time to prepare themselves and the Israelis to defend
against the missiles. There has been considerable secrecy
[[link removed]]
under Israel’s system of military censorship about the extent of the
damage Iran might have done with this latest barrage.

Iran had clearly stepped up its response, recognizing that both its
inaction after Haniyeh’s killing and its very restrained missile
attack back in April had encouraged, rather than deterred, Israeli and
American adventurism. Yet they still made sure to minimize the
response, hoping to avoid further escalation by the U.S. and Israel. 

Biden said on Wednesday that the United States did not support
[[link removed]]
a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This isn’t as much of a
concession as it might sound. 

Iran’s nuclear program is not concentrated in a single site as
Syria’s was in 2007 or Iraq’s in 1981, when Israel bombed those
sites. Iran’s facilities are scattered throughout the country, some
of them deep underground. A strike at any of them is not going to
cripple the program as a whole, but it certainly would entice Iran to
speed up their nuclear development as much as they can.

The more pertinent question is whether Israel will refrain from
targeting the kind of civilian areas as they have in Gaza, the West
Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Extensive civilian harm would force a
much stronger Iranian response. 

Or Israel might strike Iranian oil fields in hopes of inflicting major
damage to an Iranian economy that is already weak. If Israel does
pursue that course, it raises the distinct possibility that Iran might
strike at oil fields in Arab countries that are key to the American,
Israeli, and European energy supply. Either of these scenarios
significantly raises the likelihood of a major regional war.

The other possibility is that Israel would settle for a token
response, one that, like Iran’s this week, demonstrates its
capabilities but does relatively little damage. This would be the most
rational course, but the question is, with a license to shoot given to
it by the Biden administration again, would Israel pursue a rational
course? 

Given the eagerness with which the Biden administration seems to be
pressing forward with another doomed attempt to “remake the Middle
East,” rationality seems like a pipe dream. Every time this has been
tried, whether with the Sykes-Picot Agreement after WWI, the invasion
of Iraq, or Israel’s attacks on Lebanon in the 1970s and 80s, it has
always ended in disaster and in planting the seeds of yet more
conflict and bloodshed. 

There is no reason to believe this time would be any different. 

===

MITCHELL PLITNICK
Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is
the co-author, with Marc Lamont Hill, of _Except for Palestine: The
Limits of Progressive Politics_. Mitchell’s previous positions
include vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace,
Director of the US Office of B’Tselem, and Co-Director of Jewish
Voice for Peace.

You can find him on Twitter @MJPlitnick
[[link removed]].

* US Mideast policy
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]