Geopolitics Review - 7th October 2024
Israel Moves Into Lebanon and Iran’s Missile Attack
Contents
Introduction
The Background
The Latest Escalation
The Iran Response
Netanyahu Needs War
An Emboldened Israel, And An Iran With Few Cards To Play
Axelrod’s Tournament
Applying Axelrod’s Tournament
Concluding Remarks
Bitesize Edition
The October 7th attack unfolded one year to this day, as Hamas crossed into Israel, killing over 1200 people. Many were in their family homes, or attending a music festival. These were everyday people living their lives, and they were murdered without remorse. Today we’ve seen many Israelis gather today to hold a memorial at the festival site.
Many things changed on that unforgivable day for millions of people. One thing that has been clear since that day, is that Israel will not forget.
Since that day, we’ve continued to escalate in the Middle East. Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran itself have all joined Israel, Palestine, and Hamas in this conflict, along with many other geopolitical players who have direct or indirect connections to the conflict.
I wrote most of this piece before October 1st, upon which date we saw Iran launch 180 missiles at Israel. With Israel’s moves into Lebanon itself, I had enough to discuss regarding the Middle East. However, this conflict’s latest chapter with the Iran missile attack took me back into a deeper exploration of the background of the Middle East’s history, the Israel-Iran conflict, and game theory of the present conflict.
In a regional conflict that has continued to escalate for an entire year, how can we even begin to look forward towards a reduction of tensions? How can we avoid the current direction of travel towards an irreversible conflict, or are we inevitably driving uncontrollably down that road? Find out more below.
Introduction
One year to the day, October 7th, we saw the heinous, unforgivable attack from Hamas on Israel. Much has unfolded since that dreaded day, including 41,000 Palestinian deaths, many of which were innocent children and civilians. A special thanks to
for the recent piece I’ll link below that certainly inspired many parts this piece. One quote stood out for me:“The scene is a tragic reminder that in the theatre of human suffering, the innocent often pay the highest price for the sins of the powerful.”
The piece dives into the humanitarian crisis in Gaza in detail and is worth a read to highlight the unimaginably harsh environment the Gaza Strip has now become, as well as where Israel finds itself today. It’s clearer today more than ever, that innocents are paying the highest price.
We recently saw the news that Israel har amassed tanks on the Northern border with Lebanon, but today this seems like a lifetime ago. Thousands have fled the country in recent days, indicating some escalation was expected after the death of Hezbollah leader, Nasrallah.
A ground operation into Lebanon by Israel has since commenced. Key questions that arise are what happens next. Is Hezbollah in flux, and how will Iran and the rest of the world react to this next escalation in the Middle East?
Note: I wrote parts of this piece before the Iranian missile attack on Israel. If I contradict myself anywhere, don’t hesitate to let me know. I’ve spent time making corrections and editing but there’s a chance I miss some parts that require edits.
The Background
I’ve previously covered the history of Israel in a 13-part series and recently updated this in a 3-part series which can be found in written or podcast form. All can be found through the link below, but since my most recent update in July, there are some more thoughts I’d like to get out.
Firstly, Israel itself wants to be a majority Jewish state. This in my view, is one reason why a one-state solution is unrealistic. It would see victims and aggressors living in the same environment. Would that create an environment of stability? In my view, it wouldn’t. It would create an environment similar to the one we see today, where Israel calls the shots and the future of the Palestinian people remains threatened and undetermined by themselves.
The two-state solution has geographical problems as seen below. How do you navigate the passage of land between the West Bank and Gaza that would travel through Israel? This is only looking at the issue on the surface level. Books could be written on the two-state solution alone. It is clear, however, that adjustments need to be made.
Would a three-state solution work? It seems support is weak for this scenario.
One thing is clear, each solution has problems that need to be addressed. Both sides must be incentivised to pursue cooperation if we want a solution to be reached. This certainly isn’t occurring today. In my opinion, this requires some international pressure on Israel. They have a right to defend themselves and to ensure their security, but they don’t have any right to indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians.
Another aspect of the deep-routed background of this conflict involves the wider Middle East. Saudi Arabia has backed Palestinian statehood, stating that no normalisation of relations with Israel will occur without Palestinian statehood. Hence, normalisation is conditional on the statehood of Palestine. Why can’t normalization and Palestinian statehood occur in sync, as part of a regionwide pursuit of peace and an end to conflict in a region in flux? Ending conflict in the Middle East at present is unrealistic. Iran still sits to the East, and its proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis continue to act more freely than Iran, which is restricted through its strategy of strategic patience. But, by normalization between Israel and other Arab States, an environment of neutrality is better than one of hostility, and it’s a foundation upon which greater cooperation can be built.
Yet, we find ourselves in an environment where we seem to find bad actors at every turn. An important distinction here is between Hamas and Palestine. Hamas is a terror group, that launched a heinous attack on Israel and hence need to be removed from power, to ensure they can’t launch such an attack again. In contrast, Palestine is a state that has been subject to violence at the hands of Israel, and internally from Hamas who has weaponised the harsh conditions of individual Palestinian citizens for its own selfish gain. Hamas have to be removed from power, but not at the cost of innocent Palestinians.
Israel for decades has delayed a solution because it is in a position of power. They continue to destroy Palestinian settlements in the West Bank without repercussions and hence gain further power at the expense of Palestinian citizens. Political leaders in Israel are incentivized to continue a war, gain more power, and maintain their own political careers. Netanyahu without a war would face his corruption charges. All these bad actors contribute to why no peace deal has been reached in the past that would stand the test of time. All that seems like an agreement is temporary. Some political leaders have even faced assassination attempts for pushing for peace between Israel and Palestine, and some attempts were successful. If you’re Israel in the driver’s seat, gaining more power, why divert from your main route and change approach? There’s no incentive for Israel to, especially when the policy of the West is to support Israel, whether via attempts to weaken Iran or as a consequence of a relationship with the United States, which is seemingly pursuing the same goal. There’s also no incentive to pursue peace when as history has shown, your own life could be at risk.
Iran is also bad actor in this region. Some have defended Iran for being backed into a corner by the assassination of Haniyeh on Iranian soil, the pager incident in Lebanon, and the death of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah. Some view that Iran had to respond to the moves being made against it. But, Iran has been acting via its proxies for the last year of this conflict. This allows Iran itself to maintain strategic patience. To sit back and paint a picture of a state that seeks de-escalation. Yet, “death to America” and “death to Israel” are damning statements. Whether pursued directly by Iran, or via its proxies, the statements indicate Iran’s intentions and will continue to as we move forward, whether seen directly through Iranian policy, or via its proxies.
In summary, the Middle East is incentivized for war. This is especially true in Israel and Palestine, where the far-right government and Hamas exist at the extreme ends of this conflict, as both further their individual interests with this conflict. Fatah, the Palestinian Authority, and some in Israel are more open to peace. It’s this midground that should be pursued, but this takes time and education, as I’ve detailed previously. A solution to conflict in the Middle East won’t happen quickly. It will require decades to change attitudes and convince those in the Middle East that the benefits of peace outweigh the instability of war.
The history of previous centuries has contributed to creating this environment. Power isn’t grabbed by one state in the Middle East today, and so geopolitical moves see member nations of the region grapple for power vacuums that were created during previous geopolitical environments, such as the age of colonialism. Skyes-Picot saw the British and French distribute a region between themselves.But this region has a deep, rich ethnic history. This ethnic history continues to drive decisions from geopolitical players today, but the British and French leaving the Middle East left the region in flux. The United States’ activity in the region, and also Russian and Chinese influences continue to drive the region down the same road today. The civil war in Syria is one such example where multiple players contribute to the conflict. This is one contributing reason as to why the Syrian Civil War is described as a proxy war.
One example of positive progress in the volatile Middle East is China’s brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The deal is holding longer than some expected and hence leads me to ponder the question of why are both incentivized to maintain this peace. How can an entire region that has been embroiled in power-grabbing and emerging vacuums be incentivised to pursue peace as Iran and Saudi Arabia seemingly have, after decades of being geopolitical rivals? Is it economic benefits, or even going as far as economic interdependence? Do Saudi Arabia and Iran both benefit from China’s large energy needs, and hence benefit from maintaining peace with each other? It’s this same strategy that has driven the Abraham Accords forward. An economic relationship with Israel is by decades of technological development fuelled by the United States, an economic relationship with the United States. Hence an incentive for peace arises.
We’re reaching a global geopolitical environment where the Palestinian statehood question especially is receiving global attention, as it should be. However, for any progress to be made when actors such as Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are incentivized to continue the war, we need more powerful actors to step in or a re-alignment of incentives. The Middle East often benefits from instability and the power changes that come with it. Hence, the underlying cycle of conflict needs to be broken by incentivising peace in the Middle East, as is seen through the China-brokered deal. The latest escalation between Israel, and Hezbollah and Iran takes us away from this scenario.
The Latest Escalation
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Geopolitics Explained to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.