18 November 2024

Destructive US hegemony in the Middle East is the reason for the insolubility of the Middle East conflict

Irina Desyatnikova, Expert at CMES.

The United States has repeatedly demonstrated that its ambitions go far beyond carefully calculating the consequences of its actions. In the early 21st century, tragic events such as the invasion of Afghanistan and the military intervention in Iraq occurred. Many scholars have analyzed the consequences of these decisions, but the most prominent among them is John Joseph Mearsheimer, an outstanding American scholar in the field of international relations, best known for his offensive realism approach in international relations theory. Mearsheimer has repeatedly criticized the ill-considered foreign policy steps taken by the United States. On November 4, 2024, the scholar gave an interview to Al-Jazeera, addressing pressing global political issues such as the war in Gaza, Ukraine, and Lebanon, and how world and regional powers support and arm the warring sides.

The first topic of discussion was Mearsheimer’s theory of international relations from the perspective of offensive realism, developed after the Cold War, which is characterized by structural anarchy that drives countries to act aggressively based on their national interests. The author cannot fully agree that this theory is still relevant today. In the modern world, within various alliances such as BRICS, OPEC(+), ASEAN, the EU, the EAEU, and many others, issues are resolved through treaties in political, economic, and social spheres. It is hard to imagine that the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey would go to war if one side did not make concessions to the other. Within Russia’s support for the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey’s acute Kurdish issue, both countries push these disagreements beyond their bilateral relations, as cooperation—especially in such an unstable region—is important for both Erdogan and Putin. The tendency towards cooperation instead of confrontation is underscored by the recent BRICS summit in Kazan, where more than 20 countries have applied to join. Notably, these countries do not aggressively express their national interests or engage in wars to gain advantages. Modern international relations have moved more towards neoliberal theory than remaining within the bounds of neorealism.

However, at that time, there were those who opposed the theory of offensive realism. One such opponent was Francis Fukuyama, an American philosopher, political scientist, and political economist, who reflected in his work The End of History and the Last Man the rise of a liberal world order. According to Mearsheimer, this theory made sense only at the end of the 20th century, during the existence of a unipolar world and the total dominance of the United States on the international stage, but it no longer has any relevance in today’s world, where there is a trend towards multipolarity. It is hard to disagree with such a judgment, as decisions are no longer made by a single center across the ocean but by several major powers. Countries have emerged in each region whose opinions must be considered: China and India, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Russia. Recently, there has been frequent discussion about the transformation of the UN Security Council system, as global decisions cannot be made by a group of five countries, especially without representation from African, South American, and Middle Eastern countries, as well as Oceania. New strong players, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, have strict monarchies, rather than liberal systems with presidential elections. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in making decisions and conducting policies, also relies on religious components, which does not reflect the rise of democratic values under U.S. leadership. Another critic of offensive realism was Samuel Huntington, who published The Clash of Civilizations, noting that all conflicts arise from cultural rifts between civilizational countries, especially evident in the confrontation between Islam and the West. Undoubtedly, after the 9/11 disaster in New York, his theories gained approval in the eyes of many Americans, seemingly confirming his words. According to Mearsheimer, however, the most influential concept is nationalism, because the world consists of sovereign states or nation-states with their own national interests, which, in essence, represents nationalism. For this reason, Mearsheimer believes that it is inaccurate to say that wars occur only between different civilizations, rather than between countries with their own ambitions. Examples to support this argument can include the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990), the Korean War (1950–1953), or even the numerous wars in Europe where countries belonged to the same civilization.

The question arises: "Why did all this happen?" In all these examples, the national interests of countries took precedence over the unifying framework of any civilization. According to the author, with the election of the new U.S. president, Donald Trump, the trend of American foreign policy will only strengthen. Two questions arise: "How does this cooperation reflect the confrontation between the West and Islam?" and "How can conflicts occur within a single civilization?" The answer to these questions is equally simple: national interests.

The next aspect of the interview dealt with the assessment of the war between Palestine and Israel. As Mearsheimer explains, his theory is based on the relations between the Great Powers, and the problem of Israel and Palestine, in the view of the American scholar, lies in a more complex framework – the internal-state one, since the Palestinian National Authority is located within Greater Israel, a concept present in the events of the sacred scriptures – the Torah and the Bible. The author cannot agree with this statement, as on the lands of Palestine, there have long been holy sites not only for Jews but also for Christians and Muslims. So why do Israeli Zionists believe that the complex housing the mosque, whose wall is a holy site for them (the Western Wall), should be handed over to the Israelis? Moreover, the future of post-mandate Palestine was decided by the UN body in the framework of creating two independent subjects of international relations with specific national interests. How, then, can one argue that this is an internal conflict?

In light of the two intifadas (1987 and 2000) and the events of October 7, 2023, the solution to the conflict through the creation of two sovereign states is no longer possible. This is facilitated by Israel's policy and its lack of interest in resolving the conflict, which has lasted for over 75 years. As Mearsheimer notes, the West supports the Israeli viewpoint that they have given the Palestinians numerous opportunities to create a state, which the Palestinian people have always rejected. However, this is a lie, as Israel has never been interested in forming an independent Palestinian state and has prevented these attempts by all means, often through armed force. The author agrees with the scholar's conclusions, as the study of such 20th-century events as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and their forcible expulsion from lands where their families had lived for centuries, the subsequent intifadas, and the ongoing conflicts, which continue to this day, show the execution of a long-planned expansion of Israeli territories. The International Court of Justice, at the request of the UN General Assembly, opened a case about the illegal construction of the Separation Wall, known among Palestinians as the "Apartheid Wall" and among Israelis as the "Security Wall," and the illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. According to the beliefs of Israeli Zionists, the current Israel is only part of Greater Israel, so the sacred goal of righteous Jews is the expansion of borders and the creation of a unified monotheistic Jewish state. Therefore, from an Israeli ideological point of view, all Palestinians must be expelled from the lands that rightfully belong to them, which raises the eternal question of Israeli security. Mearsheimer emphasized that Israel previously fought wars with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, but now it fights against groups and rockets, which is why they rely on military-economic support from the U.S. According to the scholar, we are at the stage where peaceful coexistence is impossible. The author cannot fully agree with the political scientist’s viewpoint, as international relations also have cycles of development, described by Kondratiev. According to the beliefs of the realism and neorealism schools, peace in the world is merely an interval between wars. However, the resolution of the war between Palestine and Israel is driven by Zionism and the unconditional support of the U.S., not by a natural respite between clashes. Of course, within any state with a heterogeneous population, misunderstandings and conflicts arise, but before the creation of Israel, there were no significant outbursts of violence, as lobbying in the U.S. was not yet a powerful tool in promoting Zionism and the creation of a separate Jewish state, nor were its radical applications. Mearsheimer emphasizes that there are only two ways for its resolution: the isolation of Israel or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River. This began with the event known as the Nakba (from Arabic – "shock, catastrophe, cataclysm") in 1948, continued in 1967, and is still ongoing in 2023–2024. The goal of these ethnic cleansings has been and remains the forced relocation of Palestinians from their lands, as affirmed by the UN General Assembly’s decision in 1947. All military actions and their tragic consequences, broadcasted and continuing to be shown on screens, have been perceived passively by the American administration, or even, in some respects, approvingly. This can be explained by the pressure of the powerful Israeli lobby in the presidential administration, promoting the national interests of Israel and Zionist policy, viewing the United States as one of the great world powers, the former center of unipolarity, with enough resources to intervene if necessary.

Additionally, the author would like to note that although the U.S. Congress follows the path of subordinating to the interests of the Jewish lobby, support rallies have taken place in major cities across America, Europe, and Asia. Over 100,000 people have protested against Israel’s actions and the complicity of American authorities in Washington, Chicago, and many other cities. People around the world have been boycotting companies that contributed part of their profits to strengthening the Jewish state. Moreover, in the opinion of the political scientist, this support is not a strategic national interest of America; therefore, the presidential administration should support Israeli positions only when the goals of both countries align. If the pursued ambitions differ, the U.S. should pressure Israel to adjust its behavior. The author fully agrees with the political scientist on this aspect, but believes that this is unlikely to happen in the near future.

With Trump’s inauguration, in the author's view, the lobby may not exert as much effort in promoting its ideology, since the president himself is interested in the success of the Israeli state. This is confirmed by the fact that during his previous term in 2017, D. Trump officially declared the U.S. stance on the capital, which, according to the UN plan, is divided into East and West Jerusalem. According to his words, America recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will move its embassy from Tel Aviv, which had previously been considered the de facto capital of the Jewish state, to Jerusalem. The author also agrees with Mearsheimer's conclusions that the rebellious youth are currently powerless, as the older generation is in power and unwilling to change its views and policies. Mearsheimer emphasizes that the United States has the power to give the Jewish state two paths for resolving the conflict: by recreating Greater Israel with a democratic development path, where every individual, regardless of their national affiliation, has a voice, or by creating two independent states within the borders established in 1949, or the temporary borders of 1967, including the territories occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War. The author agrees that the U.S. has the resources to pressure Israel, but doing so could cost them one of their main allies in the Middle East. By providing military ships to Israel in the Mediterranean, they ensured their presence in the region when there was an opportunity to influence the unfolding events. From this, it can be concluded that such cooperation is actually beneficial to both sides. In the author's view, Mearsheimer portrays a Great Power, which took control of world order after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as something that can be manipulated by lobbyists, which does not reflect the reality.

Samantha Power, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, known for her work in the field of genocide studies, stated that genocide is something the U.S. must pay attention to. Samantha Power also published the book A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, in which she argued that the U.S. should have facilitated processes that exclude such "resolutions" to conflicts, for which she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2003. Under the Biden administration, setting aside her previous biases, she maintains a firm stance that the U.S. should not intervene in the events taking place in the Gaza Strip. It is reasonable to ask: "How do the U.S. assess supporting genocide from a rational perspective?" Mearsheimer asserts that the answer is simple — many people do not view these events as genocide, either because they wear rose-colored glasses or because they are hiding from the harsh truth.

The author cannot agree with the theorist, as the countless support actions for the Palestinian people and the boycotts of products from a number of companies outside the country vividly demonstrate the population’s disagreement with the policies pursued by their governments. In the author's view, many in Congress may morally oppose such decisions by the authorities, but they prefer to remain silent to avoid being removed from office. Let us not forget that in America, individualism is promoted, which focuses on personal gain rather than collectivism, as is common in the East. Statements that Iran is contributing to the prolongation of this problem are unfounded, as "Iranians are not the main cause, but the Israelis are."

The scholar emphasizes that the forces of Israel and Palestine are unequal, comparing the former to Godzilla and the latter to the fawn Bambi. The author fully supports this assessment. How can a state, whose technologies are on par with both Western and Chinese ones, whose weaponry is among the best, and whose GDP in 2022, prior to the events of October 7, reached more than $527 billion, be compared to Palestine? For comparison, according to the World Bank, in the same year, the GDP of Gaza and the West Bank was just over $19 billion. Moreover, the "Iron Dome" technology only protects Israeli territory from rockets, but not Palestinian civilians, who are carefully monitored.

The Israeli state believes it can change the region through the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, eliminating the "Hezbollah" threat, and neutralizing Iran, with the support of the U.S. playing a key role. Israel understands that it cannot handle all of its tasks alone in the region, but the U.S. can. For example, the United States can intervene in Iran's nuclear program and influence European members of the nuclear agreement, or provide impeccable diplomatic and economic support. The author cannot fully agree with this assessment, as in the era of multipolarity, an alliance of India, China, and Russia may counterbalance the U.S., as confirmed by the BRICS summit in October 2024, where more than 20 countries applied to join the bloc, and Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine, opposing NATO’s eastward expansion, despite countless sanctions packages, some of which are now being reconsidered.

According to Mearsheimer, the U.S. is as responsible for the genocide in Palestine as those who directly initiated it, which the author fully agrees with, as sponsoring terrorism is also terrorism. The political scientist emphasizes that neither Iran nor the U.S. wants to go to war with each other, but Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are contributing to the escalation of the conflict. This is why the best option for “dealing” with the Jewish state, from Iran's perspective, is to sponsor the Hezbollah group in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as armed groups in Iraq and Syria. According to the political scientist, Iran has not openly intervened in the conflict because there was no truly compelling reason to do so. He points out that although Israeli intelligence killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, Iran waited until October 1, as it did not want to take revenge on either the Americans or the Israelis. Moreover, according to Mearsheimer, the U.S. promised the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease fire in the Gaza Strip, with the understanding that Iran would not take revenge on Israel and would not get involved in the conflict, which of course did not happen.

The tipping point for the Islamic Republic of Iran was the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, by the Israelis, after which it became clear that maintaining neutrality was no longer possible. As a result, Iran aimed ballistic missiles at Israeli territory, particularly targeting oil facilities and state-important infrastructure, which will leave a negative mark on the global economy.

Thus, a chain of revenge and counter-revenge is being formed between the two states. The author cannot agree with the statement that Iran and the U.S. do not have enmity or even animosity. These two countries have a long history of confrontation, starting from the events of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1978. Since 1980, the two countries have severed diplomatic relations and have not resumed contact. Endless sanctions, obstacles to the development of nuclear weapons, strong opposition to the statehood of Israel, expressions of concern at the UN General Assembly about the illegal U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the destruction of U.S. drones in Iranian territory, the killing of members of the Quds Force and General Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, all cannot demonstrate any peace talks or Iran’s neutral stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. According to the author, the relatively long period of “inaction” by the Islamic Republic could be linked to careful preparation and planning for entering an active open conflict. Iran cannot prepare for an invasion of another country in two weeks as the U.S. did in 2003. It is also worth noting that Iran has successfully enriched uranium to 60%, which means it has the potential to further enrich it to 90%, thus enabling the creation of several nuclear bombs. If this happens, John Mearsheimer predicts two possible outcomes: the spread of this idea among other Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt, and the beginning of a large-scale nuclear war between Israel and Iran.

The author agrees with this statement, as Iran also has adversaries in the region, but it should be emphasized that bilateral wars are rare in modern times. The author is convinced that many contemporary wars are proxy wars. Examples include the civil wars in Libya, Yemen, and Syria.

Mearsheimer also asserts that the U.S. should not only follow its national interests and resist the immense pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, but also normalize relations with Iran, as this could help establish stability in the Middle East, which would align with U.S. national interests in the region. Another threat to the U.S. is the growing partnership between Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author agrees with the political scientist’s opinion but believes it is important to emphasize that historical trends have shaped the situation in which a change of course is no longer possible, as too many events have linked together to determine the current and future state of relations between these countries.

Thus, according to the scholar, Israel, in its dreams of restructuring the Middle East to serve its goals, is digging itself further into the hole it is already in. The author shares this viewpoint. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, but their extradition has currently been suspended due to Britain’s intervention. Therefore, according to the author, no matter how much Israel commits genocide, punishing the state for its actions presents an obvious difficulty.

The future of the Palestinians is tragically uncertain. Without external supporters, they are left only with uprisings and drawing attention to their plight. Many Arab leaders are powerless to establish a military balance in the region. Countries like Egypt and Jordan rely on U.S. economic support for their own survival. The author fully agrees with this judgment of the theorist. Many countries, lacking a strong state structure and a stable economy, experienced the Arab Spring, during which power was shifted to regimes more favorable to the West.

Mearsheimer, like the author, is convinced that the Middle East will not become a cradle of peace and cooperation between countries in the near future. The Middle East will always attract the attention of many countries, not only because of its cultural and economic aspects but also because of its rich natural resources, which many countries will want to control. Returning to the beginning of the 21st century, the author would like to emphasize again that one of the first mistakes of the U.S. was its invasion of oil-rich Iraq under the pretext of developing chemical weapons. At present, the Middle East is merely the surface of a volcano, intermittently erupting with violence and war.

The opinion of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies may not coincide with the author's view.