Since the end of July, the Middle East has seen a rapid escalation of tensions. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and several senior commanders of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were killed in Israeli strikes. After a major explosion in Lebanon’s communication infrastructure, Israel launched a full-scale ground offensive, which did not spare the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, the peacekeeping troops. Most alarming is the potential retaliation by Israel, which could provoke a significant escalation from Iran in both the intensity and speed of counterattacks. This raises the risk of a broader regional conflict and the possibility of the situation spiraling out of control.
No red lines
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to retaliate against Iran, threatening to exact a “deadly and heavy” toll against its nuclear and energy infrastructure. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that Iran would “retaliate tenfold,” saying there is no red line when it comes to protecting Iran’s people and interests. Amid these threats, Iranian hardliners are urging the country’s supreme leader to lift the ban on developing nuclear weapons. Lines are quickly blurring that were once seen as inviolable. Military deterrence is faltering as both sides approach or even overstep boundaries that were previously respected.
The real danger is the rapid erosion of established red lines in the Middle East, amid a dire security dilemma where mutual trust is scarce and there’s no effective mechanism for managing disputes. With old boundaries breached and new ones not yet defined, the risk of accidental escalation to a larger conflict is high. In late September, Netanyahu openly challenged the Iran regime’s security. If Iran suffers another catastrophic strike and retaliates without restraint, the region could face not just the threat of war, but also the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the actual misuse of weapons of mass destruction and the disruption of key international energy shipping routes. These are pressing issues that must be confronted.
Chaos without rules
From Gaza to Lebanon, international law is frequently flouted. In the Arab world, Israel’s siege of Gaza and its excessive military strikes are seen as undeniable collective punishment. The conflict’s spread to Beirut resonates deeply with the Lebanese. Israel labels Dahiyeh as Hezbollah’s stronghold, but locals view it as a peaceful, vibrant Arab neighborhood in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Israel deems any facility used for military purposes as “a legitimate target,” a capricious criterion. Many have been killed and injured in schools, hospitals and shelters in Gaza and Lebanon, with countless others displaced repeatedly. While Israel claims compliance with international law, UN agencies and the global community must see it differently. Allegations of violations of international and humanitarian laws, along with principles of warfare, have severely damaged Israel’s international reputation, and it now finds itself in the most unfavorable moral bind and external environment since its founding.
It is a clear fact that the principles of international law have not been observed by all parties in this round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the core role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security has not been respected. If anything, it has been further eroded. The violence in the Middle East has once again brought shame to humanity. Israel’s designation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East as a terrorist organization, and its intent to make laws banning its presence within Israel, will directly endanger the survival of millions of Palestinian refugees and harm their basic human rights. The repeated strikes by Israel on UNIFIL camps will further weaken the authority of the United Nations. Netanyahu’s talk of building a “new order” in the region suggests that there may not be much room left for the United Nations.
U.S. influence diminished
Undoubtedly, the United States remains the sole nation with significant sway over Israel. But even though America’s unconditional support for Israel is a recurring theme in discussions about their relationship, the U.S. has other options. Over the past year, the Biden administration has identified key issues but has refrained from taking decisive action. The U.S. has the ability to influence Israel, but the same cannot be said of its willingness to do so.
Although bipartisan support for Israel seems unwavering, the notion of a unified U.S. Middle East policy is increasingly being revealed as a myth. The politicization of Middle East policy is now the reality. Republicans, following Trump’s transactional approach and focusing on immediate national interests, have effectively given Israel a free pass, disregarding previous political constraints. For the Democratic Party, adherence to the fundamental international consensus is essential, especially since many of these agreements were forged during previous Democratic administrations. The two-state solution remains the Democrats’ long-term stance on the conflict, yet its core principles have been largely emptied of substance. The Biden administration has been reluctant to impose even the slightest constraint on Netanyahu.
Indeed, President Biden is keen to avoid the subject of regional conflicts in the Middle East, driven both by a broader strategy of U.S. retrenchment in the region and his personal ambition to leave a lasting diplomatic legacy. Yet, confronted with escalating military action there, Biden finds himself with little alternative but to voice support repeatedly. The statement that the United States was not informed beforehand and did not participate, but that it stands firmly behind Israel has become the standard U.S. response in recent times. While this rhetoric has helped the U.S. distance itself from sensitive military engagements and avoid direct entanglement in war, it also underscores the absence of U.S. influence over Israel. The self-proclaimed helplessness of the U.S. in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a consequence of long-standing bias toward Israel.
Recently, the deployment of the THAAD missile system to Israel has significantly bolstered that country’s air defense capabilities and potentially heralds a new phase of retaliatory actions against Iran. In this context, where the risk of conflict remains high, the diplomatic efforts of various nations are particularly precious. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has engaged in successive conversations with his Israeli and Iranian counterparts, focusing on facilitating a cease-fire and addressing the underlying issues on their own merits. If we remain fixated solely on the cycle of retaliation, the escalation of conflict is all but certain and the prospects for peace in the Middle East will be severely jeopardized.
The Palestinian issue lies at the heart of all challenges in the region and must be approached with a comprehensive and historical perspective and a view toward a political resolution. While there may not be a perfect solution, the two-state solution continues to represent the broadest international consensus. It serves as the final pressure valve for peace and stability in the Middle East and should not be lightly discarded.
