Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
President Joe Biden's Middle East policy hangs in the balance. Negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza have reached a critical stage. Attacks by the Houthis in Yemen are snarling maritime traffic and straining the US Navy. Biden's support for Israel remains strong, but after months of building tension, his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is publicly devolving. And as November approaches, a war that has had tragic humanitarian consequences is hurting the president's standing with his progressive backers at home.
But things can always get more complex — and uglier — in the Middle East, and they probably will. The war in Gaza could simply be the prologue to two additional crises, which could prove more disruptive still.
The first potential crisis involves the risk of war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group. When those combatants clashed in 2006, southern Lebanon was devastated. Since then, Israeli officials have watched with alarm as Hezbollah — a first-class paramilitary force, akin to Hamas on steroids — has accumulated more advanced weaponry, reportedly including some 150,000 rockets.
Netanyahu's government nearly struck Hezbollah preemptively after the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, for fear the group would exploit Israeli preoccupation with Hamas. The Israelis desisted, in part because Biden dispatched a powerful naval task force to show Israel — and everyone else — that the US had its back. But the deeper problem has not been solved.
Few Israeli citizens want to take the risk that Hezbollah could do to them what Hamas did to their compatriots in the south. Many communities in northern Israel have become ghost towns; tens of thousands of residents are living elsewhere or have simply moved away. Israel is facing a de facto reduction in its national territory, something no government, under Netanyahu or any plausible successor, can accept.
The result has been a violent back-and-forth, below outright war but inching closer to it. Hezbollah is using antitank rockets and other weapons to target Israeli soldiers and civilians. Israel is responding with strikes against Hezbollah's military infrastructure, some of its key commanders, and its Iranian backers. The most dramatic was the recent airstrike on April 1 that killed high-ranking Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps officials at Tehran's consulate in Damascus — and brought ominous, if vague, threats of retaliation by Iran.
An all-out war between Hezbollah and Israel would be an order of magnitude more destructive than the conflict in Gaza. Because Hezbollah is Iran's most critical ally, it could draw in Tehran, as well. Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, have good reasons to avoid such a conflict, not least of which is the pounding the organization took in 2006. But Nasrallah may not want to pull his fighters back to the Litani River, in southern Lebanon, as Israel demands.
Count on this much: A crisis on Israel's northern border is coming, probably once the heaviest fighting in Gaza is over and the Israeli government can turn its attention to other threats. Whether that conflict is settled by diplomatic compromise, of the sort Biden's team aims to broker, or by force, as Israeli officials threaten, is not yet clear.
The second crisis also involves Iran, as does so much of the Middle East's trouble. Iran, like Hezbollah, would prefer to avoid a full-scale face-off with Israel and the US. But that's partly because the status quo offers many advantages.
Chaos in the Middle East is impeding, if only temporarily, rapprochement between Iran's key enemies: Israel and Saudi Arabia. It allows the Houthis, which Tehran armed and empowered, to bait and bleed the US. It also creates a smokescreen behind which Iran can push toward a bomb.
Some recent bobbing and weaving notwithstanding, Iran's nuclear program is now so mature that Tehran could have enough highly enriched uranium for perhaps three nuclear weapons in as little as two weeks. Making a usable nuclear weapon would take longer, perhaps a year, and there is no hard evidence that Iran is taking the necessary steps. But concerns on this point are growing — in March the Guardian reported that "in recent months senior Iranian figures have questioned Tehran's commitment to a solely civilian nuclear program."
General Michael Kurilla, head of US Central Command, says an Iranian bomb would "change the Middle East … forever." It would give Tehran a nuclear shield behind which it could support proxies and coerce enemies. It would terrify leaders in Jerusalem, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and elsewhere. It would reshape regional power dynamics even if Tehran never fired a nuclear-tipped missile.
The US and Israel may soon have to decide whether to let Iran keep creeping toward the nuclear finish line or to stop it short using harsher measures, from stronger sanctions to military strikes.
The Biden administration has mostly gone quiet about the Iranian nuclear issue. Perhaps it is trying, behind the scenes, to negotiate some standstill arrangement. Or perhaps it has no good answers to a devilishly difficult challenge and is trying to focus on one problem at a time.
Whatever the case, it's wishful thinking to expect that an end of the war in Gaza will lead to any sustained regional decompression. More likely, it will usher in the dangerous next phases of a deep, protracted crisis of Middle Eastern security.
(COMMENT, BELOW)
Brands is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Most recently, he is the co-author of "The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order."
Previously:• /04/19/23 Republicans will regret not helping Ukraine
• /04/19/23 What went wrong in the Afghan pullout? Biden's not saying
• /02/22/23 Ukraine's future is NOT in NATO
• /11/29/22 Ukraine's victories may become a problem for the US
• /08/04/22 Al-Zawahri killing was a great success of a bygone era
• /06/17/22 Sweden's faux neutrality couldn't survive Putin's Ukraine war
• /06/17/22 The coming global chaos?
• /06/02/22 The world does NOT need a more restrained America
• /10/01/21 Afghanistan debacle aside, US isn't done with nation-building
• /09/02/21 The Afghanistan war wasn't a cynical misadventure
• /11/11/19: How Russia could force a nuclear war in the Baltics
• /01/15/19: America's Cold Warriors hold the key to handling China
• /12/10/18: Putin's Saudi bromance is part of a bigger plan
• /11/12/18: Three reasons to fear another 'Great War' today