The recent ceasefire agreement between the Israeli government and Hamas may give the Palestinian population a brief respite but there is a strong possibility that the return of an enthusiastic pro-Israeli Donald Trump to the White House may be the spark that lights the fire across the Middle East, writes Steve Bishop
The recent ceasefire agreement between the Israeli government and Hamas, to halt the genocide in Gaza, may give the Palestinian population a brief respite but it is far from being the end of the conflict.
While the BBC and British media insist on dating the start of hostilities to 7 October 2023 the reality is that the dispute over the appropriation of Palestinian land by the state of Israel goes back to the forceful displacement of Palestinians in 1948, while the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West Bank goes back to the 1967 war.
Over this period the state of Israel has treated international law with impunity, refused to recognise the rights of Palestinians to their own state and actively annexed Palestinian land to create a Greater Israel, as part of the Zionist project of expansion.
While Palestinians are, under the terms of the current ceasefire, being ‘allowed’ to return to their homes many will find that these homes have been reduced to little more than rubble, along with health and education services in Gaza. Right wing fundamentalists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who currently prop up the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, opposed the ceasefire deal and have vowed to quit the government if the war does not resume after the current six week phase ends.
While the recent Israeli Defence Force (IDF) incursions into Lebanon, Syria and attacks upon Iran have changed the balance of forces in the Middle East, plans to reshape the region go back at least to the speech made by then United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in July 2006, when she stated that the US was seeking major change in the Middle East.
Under successive US Presidents the concept of a Greater Middle East Plan has evolved. President Obama developed the United States’ New Middle East Plan, to reassert influence and bolster resource control in the region. Obama’s version of the Plan resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in 2015, and a more nuanced approach to containing the perceived threat of Iran to the regional power balance.
In his first term as President, Donald Trump took a more belligerent approach, tearing up the JCPOA in 2018, taking a clear position of supporting the objectives of Israel to be the region’s dominant military power and protector of US ‘interests’. The appointment of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, known for his belligerent views on foreign policy, reinforces the likelihood of the United States taking a hardline on any opposition to its strategic goals in the region.
There is a strong possibility that the return of an enthusiastic pro-Israeli Donald Trump to the White House may be the spark that lights the fire across the Middle East. In relation to the ongoing Israeli action in in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, Trump has made clear his unswerving support for Benjamin Netanyahu and the actions of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), resulting in thousands of deaths over the past year. Trump’s election victory was greeted enthusiastically by Netanyahu and his supporters in Tel Aviv.
Israel, as the regional superpower proxy certainly sees that, in order to assert its dominance, a significantly weakened Iran would be to its advantage. While US approval would be essential for such action, with Trump as President there is every chance that Netanyahu and his fundamentalist Cabinet will be given the green light.
The rapid fall of the Assad regime in Syria is also a key factor in determining how the regional balance of power will develop. The support of the Turkish government for the terrorist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) offensive from its stronghold in Idlib in effect torpedoed the consensus reached in Astana, by Russia, Iran, and Turkey, that recognised and upheld the integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The HTS Islamists, currently posing as nationalist saviours in Syria, have previously been denounced as terrorists by the US in public, while receiving covert backing in private. The EU is also seeking to develop stronger links with the new Syrian government.
It is clear that Turkey has become a major player in the new situation in Syria as the chief backer of those who have taken power in the country. There is speculation that Turkish President Erdogan may be prepared to seek some form of détente with the Kurdish PKK in peace negotiations. Some elements see the USA as a potential ‘peace broker’ with its proxies among the Kurds forming a counterweight to the Islamist forces in the region.
The future of Russian bases in Syria, previously the only external military in the country at the request of the government, is clearly in doubt and are unlikely to be sustained as Turkey and the US, allies as part of NATO, tighten their grip.
For Israel, the removal of Assad in Syria, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the pounding of both Hamas and the civilian population in Gaza, has been part of a strategic breaking down of the Axis of Resistance, built up over many years by Iran. Given the mindset of the current Israeli Cabinet the weakening of Iran’s proxies in the region makes Tehran the next logical target. The adventurist foreign policy carried out by the Iranian dictatorship has not helped, fuelling the perception that a direct conflict with Israel is inevitable at some point.
The desperate position of the dictatorship in Tehran is highlighted by the fact that the Islamic Republic is now trying to restart negotiations for a deal with the US government. An adviser to President Pezeshkian has been quoted as stating that all key players with access to the levers of power in the theocratic regime are in agreement that it is time for direct negotiations with the US. In effect, the Islamic Republic has dropped all pre-conditions for direct talks with the US for the first time in forty years.
However, it is unlikely that the US is going to alter its position of seeking change it regards as favourable in Iran. Any short-term deal may be seen as an opportunity to lure Iran into its orbit but, long term, the US will seek a more compliant regime in line with its own wider objectives in provoking Russia and China. Whether that is the wish of the Iranian people, keen to see regime change on their terms, is something that the US may well have to contend with.
Given the spread and location of imperialist military bases in the Middle East the danger of war drawing in NATO powers more directly is significant. Despite twice having been asked to withdraw troops it still deploys in Iraq, 21 years after the illegal US-British invasion, the United States has not done so. US soldiers could be in the firing line if the war spreads.
Attacks on Cyprus, where RAF bases play a logistical role in supporting Israel and facilitate the continued flow of US weaponry to the IDF, are also a distinct possibility. The danger of further escalation of conflict in the Middle East spreading beyond its borders is very real.
Steve Bishop is a Liberation member, regular contributor to Liberation journal and member of UK-based CODIR, which campaigns for human rights in Iran.
This article was first published in Liberation Journal. Read the journal here
The views expressed in the articles published on this website do not necessarily represent those of Liberation
Support our work – donate, become a member, affiliate your local organisation’s branch or volunteer
Image: President Donald J. Trump, left, greets FEMA Administrator Brock Long, center, and Sen. Marco Rubio shortly after arriving in Fort Meyers, Fla., Sept. 14, 2017. It was his first stop on a visit to thank service members and first responders and meet with victims of Hurricane Irma. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Kelley
