Thucydides, in his book “The History of the Peloponnesian War,” noted that “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Since there are no world police to turn to for help in this anarchic world system, a state’s primary goal is therefore survival. The more powerful a state is, the better its chances of surviving. Following this pattern, Israel has been building up its military power to influence the regional environment in the Middle East and establish hegemony over its weaker neighbors. Israel’s recent major actions — attacks on Iran and the genocide in Gaza — demonstrate the expanding scope and increasing severity of its impact on neighboring countries, confirming Thucydides’s observation.
Israel, the only nuclear power in the Arab region, has always maintained, because of geopolitical rivalry, its foreign policy goals and several other reasons, that Iran is the only Middle Eastern country actively trying to develop nuclear weapons for deterrence and second-strike capability. Israel recognizes that nuclear capability is the ultimate form of deterrence and also an offensive weapon and there can be no existential threat to Israel or US interests in the region without a nuclear-armed state in the Middle East. Therefore, Israel, especially its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been warning since the 1990s about the threat of an Iranian-led “nuclear Holocaust” aimed at wiping Israel off the map. His drive to reshape the power dynamics and “live by the sword” in the Middle East never ceased.
In response to the perceived Iranian nuclear threat, Israel’s defense strategy has consistently been to prepare for a preemptive strike against Iran to destroy its nuclear arsenal and programs. Consequently, it has — on several occasions — carried out both cyber and conventional attacks on Iranian infrastructure, nuclear sites, scientists, and military leaders. Thus, the series of attacks in June this year on Iranian nuclear facilities was not unexpected at all; from Israel’s perspective, these attacks were justified actions for the country’s survival. But many may wonder why Israel attacked Iran in June; the answer is: the timing was strategic on multiple levels for several reasons including three main reasons.
First, the Israeli Defense Forces had already significantly reduced the offensive capabilities of Iranian proxies in the region: Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran-backed insurgents in Syria. As a result, Iran’s military strength and political influence over its proxies have been considerably weakened. This strategic foresight in weakening Iran’s influence is a key aspect of Israel’s geopolitical maneuvering.
Credit: https://edition.cnn.com/.
Second, Israel aimed to undermine — if not entirely derail — the ongoing talks on the possible US-Iranian nuclear deal. In the previous agreement, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was later withdrawn, the US agreed to permit Iran to enrich uranium for energy purposes under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, Israel viewed that deal as flawed and that Iran would use the enriched material to develop a nuclear weapon in the future. Therefore, Israel wanted the US to abandon any future negotiations at any cost, and provoking the US into a joint attack on Iran during negotiations was a clear way to achieve that.
Third, the Iranian population has long been upset with the ruling regime due to corruption, its failure to lift Western sanctions, and a persistently struggling economy. Israel took advantage of these internal vulnerabilities to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in June.
Realizing it could not devastate the facilities alone, Israel probably sought the US’s assistance to launch aerial attacks, which the United States eventually carried out. This collaboration with the US reflects a crucial part of Israel’s strategy to maintain its dominance in the region. Although the attacks have — to some extent — damaged the facilities, they have not been ‘obliterated,’ as President Trump vociferously determined. Nonetheless, Israel now also has an open path into Iranian airspace, which is a significant advantage for launching future attacks. But the key question is, what are the likely implications if Israel maintains its current dominance in the Middle East?
The answer is complex, with many factors. Israel will make efforts to realize its interests and the US is likely to support Israel for its interests, due to its interests and lobbyists’ efforts. Israel is likely to continue to engage in ongoing conflicts, including attacking its enemies, and prevent any other Middle Eastern countries from developing nuclear weapons with the US support. But Israel’s actions will also help the US to realize its different interests including securing its energy supplies from the Middle East and keeping its military bases in the region. The US lobbying firms, which have extensive and well-organized influence in the country and coordinate campaigns to support “all things good for Israel,” including trade, foreign policy, military aid, and political donations, will encourage such support.
Dhaka Opinion Magazine is a global/international opinion magazine. It publishes for you all. The magazine publishes with the aim to help address concerns, improve conditions, solve problems and mitigate conflicts all over the world. Your support is important for the esteemed magazine. You can sponsor the magazine and/or donate to it…
The interrelation of Israel’s influence, from lobbying to foreign policy, not only has been facilitating Israel’s hegemony but also underlines the extent of its impact as a hegemon in the Middle East. But many nations, provided that they want a strong bond with the US, are highly likely to support Israel, which believes that other Western countries are likely to follow suit if the US continues its diplomatic support, and accept most of its actions, even if they are genocidal. The permanent members of the UN Security Council haven’t yet taken any “consequential” steps against Israel, though voices have been growing in some European countries against Israeli aggression, while the Gaza genocide continues, emphasizing this point.
Both Israel and Iran understand that survival is their primary concern, which drives them to compete fiercely. For years, many in the West believed that a nuclear-armed Iran threatened Israel’s existence. However, after Israeli strikes in June, Iran is now considerably weaker. To regain its strength, Iran will likely accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons or face further threats from Israel. Unless the anarchic structure of the world changes, which is less likely, weak states will remain vulnerable to stronger ones, and this reality cannot be avoided. A hegemon benefits from such dynamics, and as a result, Israel — empowered by shifting power balances — will probably act ruthlessly toward its weaker neighbors. Such an undesirable development is a concerning development that warrants serious attention.
Effective measures should be taken to prevent Israel from its aggressive actions against weaker countries. The European Union members, either individually or collectively, should immediately recognize Palestine as a state; this could trigger a chain reaction against Israel. Canada, France, and the UK are considering such actions, and they should move forward now. Furthermore, the pressure from the signatories of the Abraham Accords to stop Israel’s aggression or threaten to withdraw from the agreement may be helpful. Collaboration between regional and other nations will be helpful.
Saudi Arabia should send a clear message that the normalization of relations cannot happen if Israel continues its genocide in Gaza and carries out indiscriminate attacks on neighboring countries; additionally, a two-state solution should be a prerequisite for any normalization of relations. Strengthening China-Iran strategic cooperation will also serve as a strong deterrent in the Middle East.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine and its editorial team. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
