No images? Click here
Weekend Reads
The US flag projected on the wall of Jerusalem's Old City on December 6, 2017. (Lior Mizrahi via Getty Images)
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris offer vastly different visions of United States policy toward the Middle East.
Amid Israel’s war against Iran and its proxies, David Asher argued in the Wall Street Journal that Jerusalem “should first neutralize the immediate missile threat.” Israel did so last weekend, but it stopped short of Asher’s other recommendations: striking Iran’s leadership and nuclear facilities and targeting its financial infrastructure. One reason for this is the Biden administration’s restraints on Israel, argues Can Kasapoğlu.
Ahead of the presidential election, Michael Doran and Gabriel Scheinmann sat down with Zineb Riboua to discuss the key questions about the future of the region. More key insights from Hudson experts are below.
Key Insights
1. Will a Harris administration change course from the failing Biden administration policy?
“So far, her instincts . . . are to go toward the left. But since she ran for president, she has tacked to the center on Israel questions. The problem that she’ll have, I think, is the problem of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in general, or the Democratic Party in general, caught between the reality of American alliances, the realities of the Middle East, and the ideas that they have.”
2. What can the next administration gain from working more closely with Israel?
“As the Americans have responded to events, though, they have moved closer in some ways to the Israeli view of the world . . . which is Russia, China, and Iran against the West. . . . They realized that they could not restrain the Israelis from hitting the Iranians. So they tried to shape the Israeli response so that it would be as light as possible, and then they wanted to deter the Iranians from hitting back. And so they did that by carrying out a military operation, a significant military operation against the Houthis. The Iranians understood then that there was a level of coordination between Jerusalem and Washington with respect to Iran that they had not seen before. It hasn’t been reported like that, but that's what happened. And in order to get there, the administration had to move closer to seeing itself as Israel’s ally against Iran.”
3. How can Israel further dismantle Iran’s ability to threaten the US and its allies?
“Striking Iran’s leadership and nuclear facilities without simultaneously addressing Iran’s offensive missile capabilities would allow the regime to retaliate aggressively. . . . Next, Israel must attack the regime’s headquarters, command facilities and military. No key Iranian leaders should be spared. The precision killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in a Tehran apartment demonstrates that Israel can strike anyone, anytime and anywhere. Then Iran’s military training camps on the Iraq border should be smoked. For decades, these camps have been used to train Iranian, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi special-group operatives for campaigns against Israel, US forces in Iraq and Syria, and global antiterrorist operations. After that Iran’s central bank and oil export facilities should be destroyed.”
4. Will a weakened Iranian regime go nuclear to compensate for its conventional inferiority?
“The nuclear breakout option seems easier for Tehran to accomplish and more strategically compelling than ever before. Iran’s pursuit of initiatives from uranium enrichment to bomb design and missile production has brought Tehran to the brink of true nuclear capability. And Israel’s extraordinary strikes against Iran and its proxies demonstrate the limits of Iran’s ability to compete in the nonnuclear field. What America would do about a nuclearizing Iran is a complicated matter. Very few people in the US want another Middle East war. Yet without American help, it is possible that Israel’s only military option against the heavily fortified, regionally dispersed and deeply dug-in Iranian nuclear program would involve Israel’s use of nuclear weapons. Would Israel threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran as a last resort if Washington won’t help Israel block the program by conventional means?”
Quotes may be edited for clarity and length.
Go Deeper
Can Kasapoğlu gives an in-depth analysis of how Israel conducted its October 25 strikes, the geopolitical factors that affected Jerusalem’s decision-making, and what is likely to come next in the latest MENA Defense Intelligence Digest.
Michael Doran and cohost Gadi Taub engaged in a fierce debate on whether Israel’s latest round of strikes was sufficient to restore deterrence against Iran on the latest Israel Update.
Walter Russell Mead and H.R. McMaster break down the latest developments from the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Act Now
Be a part of promoting American leadership and engagement for a secure, free, and prosperous future for us all.
