The past two weeks have seen the Middle East teeter on a knife’s edge. Although tensions have been high since Hamas attacks last October, developments over the past two weeks have been particularly worrying. Tensions began to rise on 17 September when a pager used by Hezbollah members suddenly exploded, followed by similar explosions in other communications devices.
These incidents occurred at a time when Israel shifted its attention to its northern border with Lebanon. Since then, tensions have escalated with the killing of Hassan Nasrallah and other top Hezbollah commanders. Iran’s airstrikes directly targeting Israel are a dangerous point of escalation.
As the threat of a major regional war looms, is there a way out of this crisis? Talks for a ceasefire have been going on for the last several months. Despite efforts, we are no closer to a negotiated solution. The crux of the matter is that Iran – along with its proxies and Israel – has taken a maximalist stance at the negotiating table. This makes it much more difficult to reach a negotiated solution.
Hezbollah cannot make a U-turn
Hezbollah entered the conflict almost immediately after the October 7 attacks last year. The group aims to put pressure on Israel by opening another front with Gaza. In this, talks with Israel have been linked to the current situation there. Any peace agreement on Israel’s northern border would depend on a similar agreement in Gaza. Hezbollah and its leadership have pushed themselves into a corner by adopting such a maximalist stance on this issue. The Israeli leadership knows this and has steadily pushed Hezbollah up the escalator. From Hezbollah’s perspective, any negotiations or agreement would mean a U-turn unless it is part of a larger agreement involving Gaza.
Iran in a bind
Iran is also in a very delicate situation. Like Hezbollah, the Iranian state has also linked talks with Israel to the ongoing situation in Gaza. More importantly, the events of the past two weeks have significantly weakened Iran’s major strategic and security position. From a military point of view, Iran cannot match Israel. Therefore, a conventional war against Israel is not in Iranian interests. Over the past few years, Iran has tried to overcome this challenge by creating a network of proxies such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. While Hamas has become quite weak after the October 7 attack, Hezbollah has also suffered a major setback in the last two weeks. The ‘axis of resistance’ that Iran had carefully constructed over the past several years has largely weakened.
This puts the Iranian state in a precarious position. Although she would like to avoid escalating tensions, she has little choice. The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil and the successful operation to oust Hassan Nasrallah were a major blow to Iranian prestige. Therefore, as many had predicted, the regime had no choice but to attack Israel directly. With a weak network of proxies, the Iranian regime will remain cautious when negotiating.
Why is Israel ready to move forward?
Israel has shown greater willingness to escalate the conflict. Over the past two weeks, it has almost completely removed Hezbollah’s top leadership and launched a ground campaign in Lebanon. There are two factors that have led the Israeli state to adopt a more maximalist stance. First, Netanyahu’s political future is uncertain. Before the Hamas attack on October 7, there were clear signs of Netanyahu’s declining public support. There were widespread protests from January to October last year against his government’s proposed judicial reforms. These protests subsided only after Hamas attacks.
Netanyahu faces an uncertain future after the conflict ends. Continued struggle and progress will benefit him because they will secure his authority. His popularity rating gradually increased as the war dragged on. Therefore, from Netanyahu’s perspective, there is little incentive to actively negotiate.
Second, Israel has gained ground in the last two weeks. With Hezbollah and Hamas severely weakened, increased tensions would force Iran to become directly involved. This is in Israel’s interest. Recent statements by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett underlined Israel’s stance. Since Iran’s proxies have been badly weakened, he sees this as an ideal opportunity to change the balance of power in the Middle East. Given these realities, Israel is unlikely to bring any major compromise to the negotiating table.
Negotiation is hard, but possible
Since all parties are adopting a maximalist stance, does it mean that a negotiated solution is impossible? Not necessary. Although this may be difficult, it is within the realm of possibility. The key will be to find off-ramps for the various parties involved. America in particular will play an important role in this. In April this year, when Iran launched a similar attack on Israel, the US played a decisive role in persuading Israel to reduce its retaliation. Can the Biden administration also do something similar? This will then provide a good starting point to start the conversation. The next few days are going to be important for this region. If further tensions are avoided, it is possible to bring all parties to the negotiating table.
(The author is Assistant Professor of International Studies at Flame University)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
