
Diplomacy of several countries is placed at strange crossroads by continuity of wars in two regions- one is the Israel-Gaza-Lebanon war and the other is Ukraine conflict with Russia. Chances of both the wars coming to any end in the near future seem extremely remote. What does this really suggest? In both the cases, while one of the key involved parties seems willing to seriously consider a ceasefire, the other is not. The other views continuity of the two wars of greater advantage than a ceasefire and/or diplomatic end to the same. This also implies that diplomacy is deliberately not being seriously considered by certain parties preferring continuity of both wars. A larger game seems to be on the cards. Regarding Gaza-crisis, if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not seem passionately desperate about his political prominence, the war may not have reached this stage. But this is one side of war being engaged in.
As is well known, Israel is extremely dependent on United States for arms’ supply and diplomatic support. Israel is not fighting the war alone. The reaction following assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah strongly suggests that Israel’s war is not limited to Gaza. The same message is conveyed by nature of its repeated strikes on Lebanon. The strategic aim of Israel and its key supporters probably extends to practically forcing Iran into an all-out open conflict. Since Nasrallah’s assassination, speculations are being voiced on possible reaction of Iran.
In this context, it may be noted, the Arab diplomacy is playing a key role. Notwithstanding tension between a few of them, particularly Saudi Arabia, and Iran, they have chosen to restore and/or maintain their diplomatic ties with Iran. This is perhaps a manner of their conveying their message to Washington about their being against attempts being made to engage Iran in the conflict. Besides, irrespective of ties with USA, the Arab countries cannot close their eyes to Arab public’s stand against Israel and support for Palestinians. The Arabs are also opposed to US and Israel’s anti-Iran policies. In addition, all are strongly conscious of the impact of so-called Arab Spring in the Arab world. The devastated Arab countries may not recover from the same for several generations. The ones, which have not been directly affected by the same are apparently strictly against the same being repeated elsewhere, including Iran, if not in the name of democracy than in name of fighting terrorists, suspect nuclear-plants and so forth.
From this angle, Israeli prime minister is not the only one to be held responsible for continuity of the Gaza crisis. A lot is apparently suggested by it extending beyond Gaza, to Lebanon at a devastating scale. Iran is probably well aware of pressure tactics being used to agitate it into an all-out war. But this is not the first time that it has faced this situation. Iran, well aware of its own limitations, having witnessed fate of leaders such as Saddam Hussain (Iraq) and Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), countries affected by Arab Spring as well as diplomatic caution displayed by regional leaders, would probably prefer exercising restraint than being provoked into an all-out war. Strategically, Israel has more to lose by a long-lasting war. It is directly engaged in Gaza and has now extended the war against Lebanon. Iran is not directly involved but yes is a supporter Hezbollah. Iran apparently prefers a long-drawn conflict. Rushing into an all-out open war would be equivalent to falling into Israeli trap, which Hezbollah and its key supporter Iran are against. There is greater meaning behind signals suggesting a ceasefire and restraint coming forth from Iran and Hezbollah. This apparently is fairly frustrating for Israel, Netanyahu and their supporters. Think of this from another angle. This is not simply the question of Hezbollah being short of arms or supporters. It is not, according to reports. Hezbollah can probably drag on the war for perhaps decades, which also implies more than a generation. Palestinians have been engaged in their struggle for their land for more than a generation. At present, with Israelis, as reports suggest, preferring to leave Israel than be involved in this crisis, for how many years can Israel afford to drag on this conflict?
Assassination of Nasrallah, followed by more Israeli strikes against Lebanon, cannot be assumed to be the key to command over regional diplomacy Israel appears to be desirous of. Arab countries are certainly not oblivious of these aims of Israel and US. Washington is apparently still longing to see its success against Iran similar to what it “achieved” in the name of Arab Spring. Diplomatically, ties of Arab countries with Iran may be viewed as fairly stable. In fact, recent history is witness to Arab countries and Iran making extra efforts to improve their diplomatic ties. This is, as mentioned earlier, a strong signal to their being against to another country in the region falling victim to moves similar to impact of Arab Spring.
Interestingly, Arab countries seem to be exercising diplomatically an extremely wise approach regarding Ukraine-war too. They have not let the same disturb their ties with Russia. Besides, Washington’s policy towards China has hardly affected their relations with Beijing. Many more countries can be named, which have not allowed their support for Palestine and diplomatic ties with Russia as well as China be affected by United States’ stand towards these two countries. At the same time, Arab countries have also maintained their ties with United States. The same may be said about India.
United States’ support for Ukraine may also be viewed in reality its aim to further reduce the strength of Russia. Strangely, this move has indirectly strengthened China’s command in the area. Be it the Gaza-crisis or the Ukraine-war, the key targeted parties – Iran and Russia- seem to have no qualm about continuity of the conflict the two are indirectly and/or directly engaged in. As suggested earlier, they have not refused options of ceasefire as US has in case of Ukraine-crisis and apparent unwillingness of Israel regarding Israel-Gaza-Lebanon war.
It may be noted, continual strikes of Israel has to date led to strong criticism of Israel along diplomatic as well as humanitarian lines in greater parts of world, including American universities. This may also be prompting Hezbollah and other groups supported by Iran to favor continuity of the crisis. Nature of Israel strikes also spell loss of diplomatic prestige for Israel. On the other hand, true, Russian President Vladimir Putin has earned criticism for Ukraine-war but this is largely from US and its allies. The same cannot be said, as suggested earlier, about countries choosing to maintain &/strengthen ties with Russia.
Continuity and aggravation of the two conflicts spells diplomatic dilemma for Israel as well as Ukraine and of course United States. Israel and Ukraine have more to lose by a long-lasting war. Naturally, they’d favor an end as they desire. But herein they are caught at diplomatic crossroads. This would happen if the other parties were as weak as they were probably expected to be by this time. As mentioned earlier, this isn’t the case. Nor are they diplomatically isolated. Perhaps, change of President at White House may prompt the new leader to seriously consider a reasonable diplomatic way out rather than remain caught at what seem crossroads regarding United States’ own gamble on both fronts!
Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books. These include:– Modi’s Victory, A Lesson for the Congress…? (2019); Arab Spring, Not Just a Mirage! (2019), Image and Substance, Modi’s First Year in Office (2015) and Ayodhya Without the Communal Stamp, In the Name of Indian Secularism (2006).