We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Yuval Noah Harari on the perils of viewing Israel-Palestine through the 'victimhood' context
In a wide-ranging conversation with Ian Bremmer, filmed live at the historic 92nd Street Y in NYC, bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari discusses the profound role narratives play in conflict resolution and identity politics. It’s through this framing that Harari and Ian address the latest conflict between Israel and Gaza. Victimhood, Harari posits, often comes with an element of truth, but it carries the danger of absolving individuals or nations of responsibility. "If you think about yourself primarily as a victim, it relieves you of all responsibility," he explains.
Bremmer also presses Harari on the notion of narratives, and particularly, how to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Harari describes patriotism as the love for a unique group and a willingness to do more for them, akin to how we treat our families. Nationalism, however, turns perilous when it crosses into supremacism — when love for one's group becomes an excuse to despise and discriminate against others. Harari asserts, "It becomes dangerous when we start saying this group of people, they are not just unique. They are superior."
Harari defends the possibility of simultaneously supporting the rights and dignities of both Israelis and Palestinians. Holding dual narratives of both people's aspirations to live dignified lives in their homelands is not only possible but necessary, according to Harari. "Just because you are in favor of the rights of Palestinians doesn't mean you have to be also in favor of destroying Israel completely," he states.
Watch full episode: Yuval Noah Harari explains why the world isn't fair (but could be)
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
Israel, Hamas and US in impasse over cease-fire deal
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. And I want to talk a little bit about the Middle East because the war is very much still going on.
There's been hope, a lot of hope that we would have had a breakthrough deal for an extended cease fire, not a permanent cease fire, the cease fire of some six weeks, and that in return, significant numbers, dozens of the hostages that are still held after many months by Hamas in Gaza would have been released to their families in Israel. That has not happened. And it's not happened in large part because Hamas has refused to continue to negotiate. They basically said we want a permanent cease fire or nothing. And they are essentially daring the Israelis to go ahead with ground strikes in Rafah, where we have about 1.5 million Palestinians that are sheltering. “I have nowhere to go.” And the Americans are very unhappy with the idea that the Israelis would engage in that battle without having a plan for evacuation and protecting those civilians. Hamas is saying “go for it if that's what you want to do.” They're putting, as they have all the way through, their civilians at maximum risk. They're not trying to defend them.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, is trying to stay in power. What that means is he is more than willing to say “no” very loudly, very publicly to the United States. President Biden has said that an attack into Rafah by the Israelis would be a red line, would constitute a red line. And the Netanyahu government has said, “This is not a red line. The red line is destroying Hamas.” And so we're going to do absolutely everything in our power to do that. That includes taking on the tunnels and the military leaders that we believe continue to exist in that territory. Expectation is that is indeed going to happen. There’s going to be a lot more civilians that are killed. Biden is going to be under a lot more pressure, notwithstanding the fact that there is an effort by the Americans and others to provide more humanitarian aid on the ground to the Palestinians. But that is not close to the trucks that could be coming through that the Israelis have been unwilling to allow through.
So, I mean, you're at an impasse and you're an impasse basically until the Israelis feel like the war has been fought to their satisfaction and Netanyahu who is correct about one thing. This isn't just him that's calling the shots. It is the entire Israeli war cabinet, is the Israeli population. Whether or not they like Netanyahu and most of them don't. They want a war that destroys Hamas. They want a war that gets rid of the military capabilities on the ground and under the ground that finds the leaders and kills them. Hamas is very aware of that.
And that's part of the reason why you still have large numbers of hostages that continue to be held. It's quite plausible that the Israelis know where the Hamas leaders are, that they’re surrounded with a whole bunch of innocent civilians, Israeli civilians, and that's why they're still there. If you let them all go then what happens to them? Well, that's the end of them.
So there are many reasons to believe that the war is going to persist for a long time. And I'm not just talking about a month or two. I'm talking about like still happening when US elections are in place in November. That's a real problem for Biden, did a good job with the State of the Union last week, better than most expected. The Middle East is one of the areas that he is most vulnerable right now. He kind of squished it towards the end of the speech, didn't talk about it very much, and is trying to distance himself from the Israeli prime minister. There's only so much he can do given that he's going to continue to provide military support no matter what. He's going to continue to support Iron Dome, no matter what. Israel is going to continue to be America's top ally in the Middle East, no matter what. So on the one hand, he has large numbers of Americans in his own party that are increasingly sympathetic with the Palestinian position, in particularly with the civilian position on the ground. And yet he has very little leverage over his top ally.
That's a serious, serious challenge for him going forward. As long as that persists, you're going to continue to have attacks on ships in the Red Sea. We just saw the first casualties as a consequence of that, price is going to continue to be inefficient and up on the back of that, and you're going to see concerns about broader instability, radicalization particularly from the Palestinian population, but also the broader Arab street, the Muslim population in the Middle East, in Europe, even in the United States.
That's a reality and that's a very big downside for Biden himself. The good news, very good news. He has a little bit of good news, which is that America's efforts against the Houthis, which has degraded their military capabilities by between 30 and 50% of what they are known to have, that's not what they're not known to have, has meant that we have not seen attacks by Iranian proxies against American forces or British forces on the ground. That's a big deal. That is a win and it’s not a huge win, but in the context of so many other things in the Middle East that are going badly, you'll take it.
So anyway, that's where we are right now, and I hope everyone's doing well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Yuval Noah Harari explains why the world isn't fair (but could be)
In a wide-ranging conversation with Ian Bremmer, filmed live at the historic 92nd Street Y in NYC, bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari delves into the foundational role of storytelling in human civilization, the existential challenges posed by artificial intelligence, the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine war, and the most pressing questions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Harari argues that unlike other species, humans have thrived on their unique ability to construct and believe in shared stories, which has underpinned the formation of societies, governments, and laws. However, this same capability has led to wars, inequality, and exploitation. “Humans don't fight over territory and food,” Harari tells Bremmer. They fight over imaginary stories in their minds."
Harari and Ian discuss the current global crises, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as moments where humanity's collaborative superpower appears to falter. On the Ukraine war, he says that the implications of a Russian victory would spell the end of the global order as we know it. "We could already be in the midst of World War III that started on the 24th of February 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and we just don't know it yet."
They discuss AI's emerging role in creating and disseminating stories, which represents a new frontier. Harari warns that AI could eventually dominate the world's narratives, making democracy untenable and posing unprecedented challenges to both autocracies and democracies alike. "For the first time in history, we are losing power as a species at a very rapid pace, and similarly, we are also losing control of the stories that we believe."
He also specifically addresses the critical situation in Israel, criticizing government attempts to undermine democratic institutions and pointing to an ideological battle that risks altering the essence of Judaism and Israeli identity. Harari also stresses the importance of reconciling support for Palestinian rights with the defense of Israel's existence, challenging the narrative that these positions are inherently contradictory.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week online and on US public television. Check local listings.
- Modern antisemitism on the rise ›
- The surprising history of disaster ›
- Why do Black people feel "erased" from American history? ›
- Why human beings are so easily fooled by AI, psychologist Steven Pinker explains ›
- Steven Pinker shares his "relentless optimism" about human progress ›
- From CRISPR to cloning: The science of new humans ›
- Yuval Noah Harari: Netanyahu's 'Deep State' fears enabled Oct 7 attack ›
- Israel, Hamas and US in impasse over cease-fire deal - GZERO Media ›
Yuval Noah Harari: Netanyahu's 'Deep State' fears enabled Oct 7 attack
Author and historian Yuval Noah Harari believes that the Israeli government's policies under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu allowed for Hamas’ Oct 7 attack to be as deadly as it was. He points specifically to Netanyahu's efforts to undermine the judiciary and other democratic institutions.
“He was trying to systematically destroy the institutions of Israeli democracy,” Harari tells Ian Bremmer in a live interview at the 92nd Street Y in New York City. He links these domestic political maneuvers to the failure to heed warnings from military and intelligence services about external threats leading up to October 7, arguing that this negligence was influenced by conspiracy theories about a so-called “deep state.”
The problem, Harari says, goes deeper than Netanyahu. He talks about the ideological infighting within the Israeli government as a battle for the country's soul and for Judaism itself. He contrasts the principles of Zionism with those of a rising messianic movement that espouses Jewish supremacy, warning of the dire implications should this faction's vision of a deeply stratified society. “This will change the very meaning of Judaism all over the world.”
So what kind of outcome could both Israelis and Palestinians live with? Harari advocates for defending Israel's right to exist while also ensuring Palestinian rights. He rejects the notion that these positions are mutually exclusive, arguing for a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live dignified lives within their homelands. “Just because you are in favor of the rights of Palestinians doesn’t mean you have to be also in favor of destroying Israel completely.”
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- How Netanyahu used Hamas to avoid talks of a two-state solution ›
- Netanyahu’s failed Gaza strategy ›
- Why the Israel-Hamas war is so divisive ›
- Ian Bremmer: Understanding the Israel-Hamas war ›
- Israel, Hamas and US in impasse over cease-fire deal - GZERO Media ›
- Why the world isn't fair: Yuval Noah Harari on AI, Ukraine, and Gaza - GZERO Media ›
US inching away from Israel on Gaza war
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. And the war in Gaza continues apace. We don't yet have an agreement between Israel and Hamas for a near-term cease fire and for more hostages to be released. Everyone is saying that it's imminent. The Israelis essentially have accepted the terms that have been put forward now by the United States, by Qatar, by Egypt.
Hamas has not yet. But it looks very close. Meanwhile, the United States continues to publicly inch further away from the war position of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. This is hurting the US on the global stage with its allies, with the Global South. It's hurting the United States and Biden in particular at home as well with his constituents in an election year.
The United States now at the Security Council, still vetoing permanent cease fire calls, but now pushing for a temporary cease fire. Vice President Kamala Harris for the first time over the weekend calling for an immediate, though temporary cease fire on the ground in Gaza. Biden saying that he opposes any ground war on the ground in Rafah until it is clear that there is a mechanism to ensure the safety of the over 1 million Palestinian civilians that are presently taking shelter there. And there's nothing close to that from Israel right now. And the United States has decided to start airdropping food to the Palestinians against the protestations of the Israel government, who says that they cannot control the safety of the humanitarian aid and cannot ensure that Hamas doesn't have a hold on them. So in an alliance that has had the two countries in lockstep in the days after October 7th, there is now significant gap between them.
The Israeli position is that Hamas, of course, is wholly responsible for the attacks on October 7th and that that justifies Israeli attacks against Gaza to completely destroy Hamas. Hamas operates in civilian areas. They are the ones putting the Palestinian civilian population at risk. And therefore, Hamas is singularly and solely responsible for all Palestinian deaths. Hamas steals resources that come into Gaza both before October 7th and after, massive amounts of aid pre October 7th had come in, but the Palestinian population there was not able to develop in part because of the kleptocracy represented by Hamas leadership. Therefore, they are responsible for the fact, Hamas, that food and medicine and power are not available for civilians. And finally, Hamas is holding hostages still months after October seven civilian hostages. And that humanitarian aid should not come in unless those hostages are released. It’s a point of leverage that the Israelis have over Hamas to get those hostages released.
And again, from Israel's perspective, it's not 50:50, it's not 80:20, it's not 90:10. All of these, the 30,000 plus deaths in Gaza, a majority of which are civilians, are Hamas's responsibility. The US position is not that. The US position is that Israel is far stronger militarily than Hamas's military capabilities. Israel is capable of defending itself, including from ongoing Hamas attacks and therefore should be able to allow aid in to Palestinians on the ground in Gaza without creating more vulnerabilities for Israeli civilians, that the Israelis have a responsibility for doing everything possible to limit Palestinian civilian deaths. And that while there's scope for disagreement and leeway between the US and the Israeli position, the Americans certainly believe that Israel has not done close to enough to ensure that fewer civilians are in harm's way, that fewer civilians are killed, and therefore that Israel is partially responsible for civilian deaths on the ground. Further, that the Palestinians must have a pathway to govern themselves and to have security, and that needs to be done through a two state solution, a two state solution that presently is rejected by the Israeli prime minister.
So US and Israel are, you know, US is closest ally, strongest ally of Israel globally. But those two positions on the war in Gaza, the war against Hamas, are significantly different and they're widening over time. Now, of course, I'm talking about the two countries that are closest here. I'm not talking about the rest of the world. When you talk about most of the countries in the world that are voting against Israel in the Security Council, in the General Assembly resolutions.
When you talk about the Global South, that position is very different. The majority of the world, of course, believes that Hamas is wholly responsible for the civilian terrorism that they engaged in October 7th. But they also believe that Israel is wholly responsible for the Palestinian death, civilian deaths since then. Again, not the US position, not the position of, say, the Germans and the French, but the position of most countries in the world, and indeed increasingly, the position of most countries in the world that Israel is committing a genocide on the ground in Gaza. And the opposition to Israel as a consequence of that is very great indeed. The gap between those two positions, you could drive hundreds of trucks through with humanitarian aid every day into Gaza. And that, of course, is a big part of the problem, that it is true that the idea of a two state solution is now more urgent and is now more on the table for most around the world than it was before October 7th.
It's also true that both the Israeli population and the Palestinian populations are much more radical lies today towards each other, against each other than they were before October 7th. The former is a win for the international community and perhaps for Palestinians on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza. The latter is a win for Hamas, is a win for Netanyahu, and is a loss for pretty much everywhere else.
And how do you decide what the balance is going to be going forward? It's going to take a very long time. Look, I mean, radicalized populations can change. I was talking to Yuval Harari just yesterday, wrote that book, Sapiens and Homo Deus, and he talked about the fact that, you know, we had a million people killed in the genocide in Rwanda, and this was only 30 years ago. This was, you know, 10,000 people massacred every day, ten times the number of Jews that were massacred on October 7th. And it didn't just happen on one day. It happened for 100 days, day after day after day, a million people slaughtered. And yet, 30 years later, these two populations are living in peace and stability. So it doesn't mean it can't happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but it does mean we are farther away today in many ways than we were before the atrocities of October 7th.
And that's something the entire world needs to pay a lot more attention to, needs to work a lot more on. That's it for me and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Why Iran is pulling back from the brink
As Israel threatens an offensive into Rafah, its regional nemesis Iran is pulling itself away from the brink of war – and may even welcome a cease-fire in Gaza.
Since an attack by one of its Iraqi proxies killed three American servicemen in Jordan on Jan. 28, Iran has been signaling its allies in the Resistance Front to cool it and avoid actions that might prompt retaliation from Israel or the United States.
The commander of Iran’s Quds Force, the elite branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, traveled to Iraq in January and ordered Iran’s allies there to hold off on attacking US forces. The pressure from their patron in Tehran seems to have worked, at least for now: Since Feb. 4, no US troops have been targeted in militia attacks. Iran has also told its closest ally, Hezbollah, to avoid provoking Israel at a time when tensions on Israel’s border with Lebanon remain high.
While the Houthis, Iran’s ally in Yemen, have continued their attacks on commercial shipping, Iran took a notable step to protect its own assets in the Red Sea. The Iranian observation ship, the MV Behshad, widely believed to be assisting Houthi targeting, has dropped anchor near a Chinese squadron in Djibouti and isn’t actively involved in Houthi operations anymore. There’s even been tentative signs that Iran’s enrichment of uranium has slowed a little – though Iran continues to enrich at a rapid pace, it doesn’t seem as interested in building a bomb as it once was.
Iran continues to talk tough, but actions speak louder than words. And for the moment at least, those actions seem geared toward keeping the Middle East conflict from spreading any further than it already has.
Though it’s hard to know for sure what’s going on inside the head of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, my bet is Iran’s moves are down to self-preservation and risk management. As is often the case, the leadership of the Islamic Republic is worried first and foremost about its own survival. While it’s made some gains from the crisis so far, Iran is now trying to avoid a bigger fight that could endanger its regional position and put more pressure on its own shaky domestic security.
Iran is winning – and wants to keep it that way
When Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, Iran stood to benefit from its proxy sowing chaos.
The horrific attack pulled Israel into a domestic security crisis and bogged the Israel Defense Forces down in a war in Gaza from which it has yet to emerge. Iran is confident that Hamas will survive this war–battered, perhaps, but still present. Israel, on the other hand, will emerge badly damaged diplomatically and morally (if not also economically and militarily).
Iran is also happy to see progress on Israeli normalization with Saudi Arabia delayed or scuttled since the grand bargain was clearly aimed at containing the spread of Iran’s regional influence. For their part, Iran’s diplomats have loudly denounced Israel’s operations in Gaza and tried to leverage the crisis into closer ties to other Middle Eastern states. Meanwhile, its Resistance Front coalition has proven it can coordinate on grand strategy like never before. Iran’s allies have launched hundreds of attacks to signal solidarity with Hamas, and the Houthis have effectively closed the Red Sea to Western shipping.
On balance, then, Iran has been coming out ahead in this war.
But that balance could change if the conflict expands further. Iran talks tough, and its regional allies have grown bolder, but a conventional military conflict with Israel would not go its way – apart from its impressive array of ballistic missiles, most of Iran’s military is built upon Cold War-era hardware. Iran is well aware of the Israeli threat to Hezbollah, Iran’s largest and strongest ally. Should war break out along Israel’s northern border, Iran would feel obligated to step in and support its ally, risking more of its forces in a knock-down fight with Israel.
The same holds true for a fight with the United States. Iran wants to get the US out of Iraq and Syria and has backed a variety of militias and proxies to support that goal. These groups are chomping at the bit, but Iran – or, more specifically, Supreme Leader Khamenei – has always favored “strategic patience” and has been waiting things out, confident that gradual pressure will force the US out in time, without the need for a big, bloody fight.
Iran’s leaders are eager to keep the war from coming home
Tehran is wary of the conflict expanding due to the impact it would have on the home front. With the memory of the 2022 protest wave still fresh, the regime is anxious to keep a lid on domestic violence and instability, especially as a succession crisis could happen at any moment – after all, Khamenei is 84 years old, in poor health, and lacks a clear successor.
That doesn’t mean it has avoided the escalating crisis, which has grown in new and unexpected ways. A massive terrorist attack in Kerman in early January revealed gaps in the regime’s security apparatus, prompting it to lash out against its neighbors – including Pakistan, which it bombarded with missiles (Tehran and Islamabad made up quickly, fortunate given that Pakistan is a nuclear power). Public concern over security was further heightened following the deaths of US servicemen in Jordan. Iran’s media was filled with reports of impending US direct air strikes against Iran, Khamenei called an emergency meeting of the Supreme National Security Council, and the national air defense system was put on high alert. On Feb. 14, twin explosions shut down the nation’s largest pipeline, shutting off gas to millions. Reports confirmed that Israel was probably behind the attack.
Faced with the threat of escalation, Iran has pulled back
Faced with a potential escalation cascade, Iran’s response has been to pull back – a little, if not entirely – to avoid getting entangled in a bloody fight that could have consequences for its own domestic stability.
And it’s gotten some help from an unexpected corner: The United States, also anxious to avoid a bigger fight, has been working to contain the crisis. Following the attack in Jordan, President Joe Biden signaled that there would be US retaliation but waited a week to strike back, giving Iran plenty of time to withdraw its forces from Syria. Other US strikes – including a drone attack on an Iraqi militia commander in Baghdad and a cyberattack against the MV Behshad – have stayed within the escalatory threshold.
To be sure, the crisis is nowhere near over, and escalatory risks remain very much present. The Houthis continue to lob missiles at passing ships, and they have been upping their game to include drone submarines that are tougher to detect. The Iraqi militias may have stopped their attacks on US forces, but there’s no guarantee the pause will last. Tehran has proven it has influence over these groups and can issue orders to them, but it lacks control. If a Houthi missile hits a US warship, there’s not much Tehran can do to prevent a US retaliation and a spiraling conflict.
But Iran preferring restraint to escalation is still welcome news for a region – and a world – that could use some.
As Israel presses conflict, US frustration grows
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. Of course it is the Middle East that we are first and foremost exercised about. Not the biggest topic in Europe for the Munich Security Conference. That was Navalny and Russia and Ukraine. But back in the United States and for most of the rest of the world, it is still the Middle East.
And that is in part because there is less optimism about an imminent deal on the remaining hostages, which has led the Israeli government to step up the pressure, saying if you don't give all of the hostages back, in short order, that they're going to engage in ground warfare against Rafah, where over a million Palestinians are sheltering, if we can call it that, having already been resettled from other parts in the rest of Gaza, and they have nowhere to go.
The Americans are deeply concerned about this. And that's why you see the United States shifting towards support of a Security Council resolution that would call for a temporary cease fire. Now, that's not all that much a temporary cease fire and it's, you know, not necessary really going to lead the Israelis to take a different position. But it does show frustration, public frustration from the Biden administration that the war is not going where they want, that it continues to see massive amounts of civilian casualties.
And the Israeli government isn't listening to their quiet pressure. Of course, that's causing difficulties for Biden at home during an election year. I also see the Israelis pushing on Rafah because they are hoping that that's going to force Hamas into a more acceptable deal on how many hostages are freed, with how many Palestinian prisoners they have to give up, all of that stuff. But if it doesn't work, of course, that means that the pressure on Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet to go in to Rafah with tanks, with troops, with far more civilian casualties, far more pressure on the Palestinians to get the hell out, no matter the consequences. Some getting into Egypt, potentially breaking the Egypt-Israel peace deal. You also see that with the Saudis, who publicly are saying there's no chance that they are willing to engage in a breakthrough normalization of diplomatic relations with the Israelis as long as Netanyahu is in power, as long as there's no two-state solution, as long as there are any Israeli troops on the ground in Gaza, that is considerably more pessimistic than they were even a few weeks ago. So the general travel of this conflict continues to be negative and towards escalation, towards more conflict across the region.
We also see that in West Bank. We also see that with the skirmishing and the missiles going from Israel into Lebanon, from Lebanon and Hezbollah into Israel. Look, I am still, on balance optimistic that a deal is going to get done, but that deal is not going to end the fighting. It's a temporary reprieve that will allow the Americans and others to do everything they can to try to extend the cease fire, to try to create conditions for political and security, you know, leadership on the ground in Gaza.
I think the ability to stick that landing is virtually zero. The other thing that's happening is Israel is getting more isolated. The Europeans continue to support Israel, but they're under the same pressure that Biden administration is. Their youth are just as angry at what's happening on the ground and just as supportive of the Palestinians as they are in the United States. That surprised a lot of European leaders I spoke with last week, especially the Germans who have been very outspoken in their support for Israel and are feeling a lot of pressure from their domestic constituencies to dial that back. And then you see the rest of the world where Israel is increasingly isolated. That was reflected with President Lula from Brazil, who compared the war in Gaza to the Holocaust.
It's an appalling comparison. No matter what you think about the war in Gaza, this was Hitler trying to kill, trying to exterminate the Jews with millions dead and Israel is calling Lula persona non grata. They're demanding an apology. I hope that he will give one. But the broader point here is that what Lula is saying publicly is what a lot of leaders from the Global South have a sentiment privately. They believe this is a genocide being committed against the Palestinians. They are angry with the Israelis. They feel like everything needs to be done to stop the fighting, that they're acting with impunity, that they're the villain, they're the bad guy. And this is, again, only a few months after the acts of October 7th, the Israelis, from my perspective, have lost the information war globally and they've lost the political support from a majority of the world's governments around the world. They never had that strongly, but they had opportunities. Certainly they were in a stronger geopolitical position before October 7th. They really aren't now and Lula's announcements, intemperate announcements reflect that change.
That's it for me. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
US-Iran tensions complicate Biden's Middle East strategy
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. We are still very much focused on the Middle East. That is the top priority. Tony Blinken, Secretary of State, for his fifth trip to the Gulf since October 7th, those horrible terrorist attacks, Ukraine very far down the priority list compared to the engagement the Middle East is presently getting. It certainly feels that way. But that's what we're focusing on.
And the big issue is the American military response to that nightmare scenario that came to pass when US servicemen and women, dozens injured, three killed in Iranian proxy attacks on the Jordan-Syria border. The United States had to respond militarily, did respond militarily, but they also did not want to precipitate an Iranian war with the United States. So they tried to have their way on both sides of the equation and probably end up getting nothing that they want. What do I mean by that? Well, the United States did attack direct Iranian military assets, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps military capabilities on the ground in Syria and Iraq, but also telegraphed that very clearly, very publicly, for about five days before they started the attacks, which meant that proxy leaders and most importantly, Iranian leaders were able to get out of Dodge and potentially protect the most sensitive equipment information from those US strikes.
That meant that the Americans got to show that they would take significant military action, but also did not precipitate an Iranian military response. We aren't going to see war right now between the US and Iran, but we also aren't going to see deterrence by the Iranian proxies or by the Iranians in continuing to engage in strikes in civilian tanker traffic through the Red Sea or against Americans on the ground in the region.
Now, if it doesn't resolve any of that conflict that continues to get worse, what does it resolve? Well, it continues to give the Americans a little bit of time, maybe to get a temporary cease-fire in Gaza. That's really where the effort is right now, particularly being engaged with Qatar in coordinating with the Israelis and with Hamas. The hope is that in the next week or two, you get a month of committed cease-fire from the Israelis and you get large numbers of remaining hostages being held by Hamas released to Israel.
Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the war cabinet are nowhere close to succeeding in their war on the ground against Hamas. And that means they have months minimum before they're willing to think about wrapping up that conflict, irrespective of all the international pressure. So what does a month accomplish? While the hope is that a month accomplishes movement towards a Saudi-Israel peace deal where the Americans would proactively recognize a Palestinian state together with the UK and others. The Israeli war cabinet would outline the potential for such a political recognition while security would be provided by somebody else. Don't have to have your own security forces to have your own state, and nobody says that's a requirement. Would it be provided by the Israelis? Well, that wouldn't be acceptable, though. They could have a buffer zone perhaps, would need to be worked out with the Gulf allies, with Egypt, with Jordan. Can that be done in a month? In terms of sticking the landing, that's about the highest degree of difficulty you'd see in gymnastics. And certainly I would take the under in terms of expectations of a peace deal here.
But does Biden feel like he has any better alternatives at this point? And the answer to that is no. Meanwhile, he's being squeezed by the Republicans at home who are pushing for more aid for Israel, not linked to anything. And he's getting squeezed by the progressives that are his own Democratic supporters that are more aligned towards the Palestinians than they are Israel. This is feeling like a no win situation for Biden. And so if he can get a cease-fire and get a few weeks, engage diplomatically, see what shakes loose. Still at the end of the day, there are far more actors around this war, both in Gaza and also more broadly in the Middle East, that are interested in finding ways not to have a lasting cease fire than to see a peace agreement work out. That's true certainly for Hamas. It's true certainly for Netanyahu. It's also true for the Iranian government and the so-called axis of resistance.
And for all of those reasons, I fear that we are still heading for further escalation as opposed to a window that would end this war. Really tough for Biden in an election year, really tough for those in the Middle East living with this at any time.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.