Amid fears of a broader war in the Middle East, observers searching for glimmers of hope have suggested that a decisive victory by Israel over its adversaries could create the conditions for the next U.S. president to push for new peace talks in the region.
One argument holds that Israel may listen to international calls for a post-war plan that could include the creation of a Palestinian state if it ends the war in a position of undisputed strength, having severely weakened Hamas and Hezbollah and the militant groups’ main benefactor, Iran.
Whenever the fighting is over, the thinking goes, the U.S. and its allies can take advantage of a newly reshaped Middle East to pressure Israel to resolve one of the most intractable conflicts in the world.
“The premise [is] interesting, but it assumes all of this is going to give Israel greater strength,” said John McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA under President George W. Bush. “That’s plausible, but we don’t know yet where it’s going.”
One year into the war, Israel has decimated Hamas in a relentless military campaign in Gaza that has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians, according to authorities there. They do not say how many of those are fighters. Hamas sparked the war with an attack inside Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 that killed 1,200 people.
Hamas is still actively fighting Israel in Gaza and still holds roughly 100 hostages. But its military capability has been drastically reduced and it does not pose the same threat to Israel that it did before the war.
Israel has also exacted a heavy toll on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Roughly half of the group’s vast weapons arsenal has been destroyed by Israeli airstrikes in recent days, according to military experts, and the ground operation Israel launched in southern Lebanon is expected to reduce Hezbollah’s ability to fire rockets into northern Israel.
Escalating tensions following an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel have raised fears of a regional war. But even with the outcome of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah and standoff with Iran unclear, Middle East analysts and military experts said Israel has already succeeded in reestablishing its military deterrence after the Oct. 7 attack.
“They certainly restored their deterrence,” said Mohammed Hafez, an expert on Middle East politics at the Naval Postgraduate School.
Still, “we’ve seen this play out before, where Israel tactically wins the war or battle and a few years later the same groups rise again from the ashes, and sometimes stronger,” Hafez said. “Ultimately, [resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] requires a political solution.”
Hafez and other Middle East observers, former U.S. national security officials and diplomats said that a stronger Israel won’t necessarily open the door to a diplomatic breakthrough down the line — especially with internal Israeli and American politics likely standing in the way.
“You’ve got some dramatically different regional dynamics and stakeholders whose stakes may have shifted some over the past year,” said Mara Rudman, who served as a Middle East peace envoy in the Obama administration. “That presents an opportunity [for] resetting the table for the next U.S. president.”
“But that president will continue to face some of the same hurdles and challenges” as before, she added.
Contrasting Middle East agendas
The direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East may be very different depending on who wins the 2024 presidential election.
Former President Donald Trump has called for an end to the fighting in Gaza, and last week he called the escalation between Israel and Hezbollah “unacceptable.” Trump has stopped short of explicitly calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, however, and he has also not laid out a detailed plan for the region once the war is over.
As president, Trump helped broker a set of agreements, known as the Abraham Accords, that normalized relations between Israel and two Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Trump also recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a move that was heavily criticized by his opponents as a setback to future peace talks.
Trump also forged close ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has opposed a Palestinian state for much of his decades-long political career.
Vice President Kamala Harris is a vocal supporter of the Biden administration’s post-war plan for Gaza, which calls for an independent Palestinian state. Harris has expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself, while also voicing concern for the suffering of Palestinian civilians caught up in the fighting.
“The scale of suffering is heartbreaking” in Gaza, Harris said in her Democratic convention speech, adding that she supports a post-war future where “the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.”
While Harris may be more likely than Trump to push for a comprehensive peace plan, experts said the next U.S. president — whoever it is — will run into resistance from Israel in charting a path forward in the Middle East.
Israel unlikely to ‘see the light’
The Biden administration’s struggle to influence Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas has highlighted the challenges the United States faces in the region, said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
“It’s a reminder of the need to be humble about how much the United States can shape events,” he said.
Netanyahu’s right-wing government is opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Popular support for a long-term peace plan is down among Israelis, public opinion polls show, and polls show the sentiment is shared among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority is also widely viewed as corrupt and incapable of governing a future state, both internally and abroad.
All those issues will carry over to the next U.S. administration. Netanyahu faces opposition at home, but not a serious anti-war political challenger from the left or internal pressure to reverse his stance on a two-state solution. As long as he remains in power, Netanyahu will likely reject any efforts by either Trump or Harris to force him to the negotiating table, Hafez said.
Israeli society is also divided over what a secure future might look like.
There is an open debate about whether Israel needs to exert total security control over Gaza after the war. It remains to be seen how long Israeli troops will stay in both Gaza and southern Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iran, which is developing its nuclear weapons program, is viewed by many Israelis as the country’s greatest threat.
“There’s nothing to support the idea that a triumphant Israel will somehow see the light and decide let’s take this window of opportunity to make peace with the Palestinians,” Hafez said.
Others questioned the notion that a clear Israeli military victory over its foes will fundamentally alter the region’s balance of power.
“Israel already was the strongest power in terms of its immediate neighbors. That’s not a dramatic change,” said Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University. However the war ends, Byman added, it’s unlikely that Iran will drop its strategy of backing proxy groups against Israel. “Iran doesn’t have many [other] good options,” he said.
McLaughlin, the former top CIA official, said if Netanyahu left office after the war it’s possible to “imagine any opening” for new diplomatic negotiations. But he added, “it’s always dangerous to be optimistic about the Middle East.”
Read the full article here
