The Broader Geopolitical Context of the Israel-Hamas War

The broader geopolitical context of the Israel-Hamas war is explored by Shirvan Neftchi of The Caspian Report in the above video.

Rather than looking at the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Shirvan’s analysis focuses on more recent geopolitical developments as the catalyst for the current conflict. It also considers the current internal political considerations inside Israel itself.

In terms of geopolitics it sees the conflict in the context of the Abraham Accords and the recent rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The potential to normalise relations between the two countries has unsettled Iran.

As the main state sponsor of Hamas, Iran is suspected to be behind the recent invasion.  The theory is that Iran wanted to create chaos in order to drive a wedge between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Iran is terrified that a strategic alignment between its two main adversaries will considerably weaken its influence in the region as well as its own national security.  The invasion and the chaos that has followed in its wake certainly serves Iran’s broader regional strategic interests. 

The United States, as a great power, has broader global strategic interests, and is mainly focused on its rivalry with China and Russia. It’s policy in the Middle East inevitably reflects such considerations. This is why it wants to help facilitate Israeli-Saudi rapprochement in order to facilitate the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor that was agreed to at the recent G20 Summit in India. This is an infrastructure project to create a Western backed ‘new silk road’ to rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative and perhaps draw the affected countries away from China and Russia.

Shirvan points out that better relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia also creates the potential for a regional military alliance that would allow the US to withdraw its expensive presence in the region. Such an alliance could effectively contain Iran without the need for American ‘boots on the ground’. This would free up American strategic resources for other parts of the world.

In terms of the domestic political situation inside Israel, Shirvan looks at the composition of the governing coalition. He suggests that this has created the possibility for the formal annexation of the West Bank. This comes about because Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party needs the support of Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power Party, and Bazalel Smotritch’s Religious Zionist Party in order to rule.

Of course, such an annexation would mean that any prospect of rapprochement with the Saudis would evaporate. Before committing to such a course of action, Israel would have to consider the possibility that better relations with the broader Arab world might be more useful to its long term interests.

If Isreal committed to taking the annexation route, Shirvan suggests that other geopolitical problems would likely emerge. In particular, Palestinian refugees would flood into Jordan. As the country is already at breaking point with regard to refugees, the influx of such a large group would likely push Jordan into a situation of extreme instability that could undermine its ability to function as a state. Pro Iranian militant groups would inevitably infiltrate Jordan during the chaos and cause mayhem the country. Iranian influence in Jordan would create even more geopolitical worries for Saudi Arabia and cause instability there too.

—

My own thoughts:

The Middle East is an area of contention between what I see as the Davos Bloc and the Sino-Russian axis. As with India, it is an area that each wants to co-opt to its side. 

We have seen the emergence of competing economic initiatives such as the Davos Bloc’s India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor versus China’s Belt and Road Initiative.  We have seen the recent expansion of the BRICS grouping which could develop as an alternative to the international regimes controlled by the West.

The strategic importance of the Middle East in the emerging great power rivalry between the nascent Davos Bloc and China-Russia should not be underestimated.  Iran is definitely more friendly to China-Russia and regime change in Iran would be a serious blow to their global strategic interests as well as to their political prestige.  In the event of an attempt at regime change by the Davos Bloc there would inevitably be significant opposition by China-Russia.

In view of the strong desire of the Davos Bloc for regime change in Iran I doubt Iran will get directly involved in the current conflict against Israel.  Such a move could provide the Davos Bloc with a suitable casus belli for realising its ambitions regarding Iran. Direct Iranian involvement would therefore be too much of a risk and endangers the existence of the regime.  Instead, Iran will take the longer term strategic view and continue to consolidate its links with Russia and China.

That is not to say Iran won’t encourage its non-state proxies. For instance it might try to activate Hezbollah in Lebanon. This in turn could bring Syria into the conflict. However, I very much doubt Bashar al-Assad’s regime would want to get involved as it has its own problems and Syria is already unstable. I think Syria will continue to remain close to Russia and stay aloof. Like Iran, the ruling regime will not do anything to risk its ability to stay in power.