More Fire and Blood Next Year?
Published in El País
(Spain) on 31 December 2018
by Sami Naïr (link to original)
(Spain) on 31 December 2018
by Sami Naïr (link to original)
Translated from
by Madeleine Ramsey.
Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.
Whichever the chosen option, the encroaching military noise is terrifying for the Middle East.
For Amos Oz, man of peace, in memoriam
The recent surprise retreat of the U.S. Army from Syrian territory, and the resignation of top military officials in response, may indicate an Israeli military intervention, of which an attack using civilian aircraft and missiles against Syria is only a prelude. Israel considers U.S. military presence a guarantee against the growth of Iranian influence in the Middle East. Due to this, Donald Trump’s decision could be a blow to Tel Aviv, leaving more space open for Iranian troops. However, it can also be interpreted as tacit authorization (perhaps agreed to in secret) to trigger a total war against Iran, a strategic objective Israel has expressed various times in recent years.
It is a route that Benjamin Netanyahu could choose, corralled by serious accusations of corruption that could soon be settled in the courts. It is not known whether this will happen before or after the legislative election lined up for March.
The resulting panorama is predictable: Israel, on attacking Syria, will inevitably provoke a Russian reaction; if it bombs Iranian territory, it will provoke a chain reaction from Tehran on Israeli territory itself. Not to mention that Lebanese Hezbollah will enter the contest, opening another front with Israel. In any case, it would be a very dangerous gamble, which nobody could control — above all because Iran employs a military strategy extremely difficult to defeat, and a capacity for human resistance superior to Israel.
It remains to be seen what role the U.S. will play. Israel, as in all its wars in the region, and in the case of dangerous conflict, knows that Washington will end up intervening on its side. Good for avoiding danger and to assure a temporary victory. This, of course, is one possible interpretation of the U.S. U-turn in Syria. However, the fact that Trump is planning a possible reduction in the troops stationed in Iraq — in his visit last Wednesday, he declared that the U.S. should stop being “the policeman of the world” — does not indicate any wish to enter an international conflict. For him, since the damaging results of the midterm election, the objective has been to concentrate on internal problems. Whichever the chosen option, the encroaching military noise is terrifying for the Middle East.
As far as relations between the U.S. and Russia are concerned, the horizon is not looking encouraging either: The refusal of the American president to update agreements on nuclear disarmament, despite Russia’s repeated demands, generated a sinister omen from Vladimir Putin, who a few days ago warned of a possible nuclear war. Ever since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, no senior official in either country has dared talk like this. The Middle East could be a starting point for a 2019 of fire and blood.
For Amos Oz, man of peace, in memoriam
The recent surprise retreat of the U.S. Army from Syrian territory, and the resignation of top military officials in response, may indicate an Israeli military intervention, of which an attack using civilian aircraft and missiles against Syria is only a prelude. Israel considers U.S. military presence a guarantee against the growth of Iranian influence in the Middle East. Due to this, Donald Trump’s decision could be a blow to Tel Aviv, leaving more space open for Iranian troops. However, it can also be interpreted as tacit authorization (perhaps agreed to in secret) to trigger a total war against Iran, a strategic objective Israel has expressed various times in recent years.
It is a route that Benjamin Netanyahu could choose, corralled by serious accusations of corruption that could soon be settled in the courts. It is not known whether this will happen before or after the legislative election lined up for March.
The resulting panorama is predictable: Israel, on attacking Syria, will inevitably provoke a Russian reaction; if it bombs Iranian territory, it will provoke a chain reaction from Tehran on Israeli territory itself. Not to mention that Lebanese Hezbollah will enter the contest, opening another front with Israel. In any case, it would be a very dangerous gamble, which nobody could control — above all because Iran employs a military strategy extremely difficult to defeat, and a capacity for human resistance superior to Israel.
It remains to be seen what role the U.S. will play. Israel, as in all its wars in the region, and in the case of dangerous conflict, knows that Washington will end up intervening on its side. Good for avoiding danger and to assure a temporary victory. This, of course, is one possible interpretation of the U.S. U-turn in Syria. However, the fact that Trump is planning a possible reduction in the troops stationed in Iraq — in his visit last Wednesday, he declared that the U.S. should stop being “the policeman of the world” — does not indicate any wish to enter an international conflict. For him, since the damaging results of the midterm election, the objective has been to concentrate on internal problems. Whichever the chosen option, the encroaching military noise is terrifying for the Middle East.
As far as relations between the U.S. and Russia are concerned, the horizon is not looking encouraging either: The refusal of the American president to update agreements on nuclear disarmament, despite Russia’s repeated demands, generated a sinister omen from Vladimir Putin, who a few days ago warned of a possible nuclear war. Ever since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, no senior official in either country has dared talk like this. The Middle East could be a starting point for a 2019 of fire and blood.
Previous article![]( "Trump’s Public Image Is Deteriorating")
Next article![]( "Why a Judge’s Health Matters to US Politics")
