The Risk of a Middle East War in 2011

The Obama administration’s greatest foreign policy failure of the past year is very likely the Palestinian issue. The deadlocked Middle East peace process was re-initiated thanks to the personal efforts of President Obama. Leaders from Egypt, Jordan, Israel — as well as Mahmoud Abbas, representing the Palestinian Authority — were invited to Washington. The first indications that these meetings would not lead to a tractable solution were evident with Hamas’ lack of representation and Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman’s failure to attend the talks. And sure enough, despite Hillary Clinton’s full-fledged efforts, after a few meetings, the process had come to a halt. The basic issue was over settlements. Even after Obama granted extensive and generous concessions and military aid, the Netanyahu government refused to abandon its policy of settling on Palestinian land. Even a 90-day moratorium proved impossible. As a result, Obama and the United States has fallen into a weak position, derided by the rest of the world as a superpower unable to induce Israel to get in line with its policy goals.

At this point it is difficult to determine how much time Obama will devote to the Palestinian issue in 2011. After all, the most pressing concern has become the tangle of issues involved in the Iran-Syria and Hezbollah-Israel imbroglios. The media missed some important developments in this area by devoting most of its attention to Iran’s nuclear policy and the Arab-Israeli issue. Foremost among these missed developments is the substantial transfer of missile ordnance to Hezbollah by Iran and Syria. According to the latest issue of The Economist, since the conclusion of the 2006 conflict, these countries have resupplied Hezbollah with 50,000 high-power and range missiles (most likely SCUD).

These missile transfers are not being widely discussed in the media, but intelligence agencies in the region, as well as U.S. intelligence, are well aware, and the alarm bells are ringing. With these missiles, Hezbollah will be capable of reaching every Israeli city if war breaks out. This means that a potential conflict would be far costlier for both sides, with casualties in the thousands in a conflict bloodied by escalating mutual retaliatory strikes. As The Economist comments, when acute eruptions of violence break out, it is almost inevitable that the conflict zone will expand quickly. This opens the possibility of Syrian involvement, which could draw Iran into the conflict. If we take into account Hezbollah’s volatile political structure and Israel’s habitual use of disproportional force, the danger of a regional conflict breaking out seems to be mounting.

So what should the U.S. do in the face of such a serious risk of war? All the Middle East issues are interconnected: Iran’s nuclear program, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Israeli-Palestinian issue are not exclusive from each other. For this reason, placing sole importance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and indexing progress according to Abbas and Netanyahu is not going to bring a solution. Regional dynamics necessitate wider international participation. We need another Middle East conference like the one organized in 1991 just after the first Gulf War. And it is important that all actors and stakeholders are represented; without Syria and Iran, we cannot expect to get anywhere in the peace process. Even if the U.S. has lost much of the prestige it held in 1991 after the first Gulf War, only Obama will be able to organize another conference of this sort. What role will Turkey — with its leadership still embroiled in crisis with Israel — play? I’ll address this issue next week.