For any development, the interested parties will have to wait for the uncertain result of the American elections: the victory of Donald Trump or that of Kamala Harris could change the approach to the lack of stability of the Middle East and predict new scenarios for the future of nearby. It applies to this region, as it does to many others: the war in Ukraine, the future of NATO, the weight of the European Union, to the tension in the China Sea and Taiwan
This game between Israel and Iran of who strikes last, without causing disaster that politics and realism cannot fix, is like a childish bullfight. However, it manages to deflate the pride of the contenders and offer a semblance of normalcy amidst the chaos: to prevent an all-out war. At least in this case Joe Biden’s pressure had an effect. It took Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month to respond – a rather unusual amount of time for Israel. The original intention was to strike nuclear targets and crude oil extraction sites, the only source preventing Iranian economic collapse. In this case it would be a real fight.
Military targets were selected after adequate notice. As Iran had done twice in recent months when it fired missiles at Israel. And as the Israelites had done.
For any development, the interested parties will have to wait for the uncertain result of the American elections: the victory of Donald Trump or that of Kamala Harris could change the approach to the lack of stability of the Middle East and predict new scenarios for the future of nearby. It applies to this region, as it does to many others: the war in Ukraine, the future of NATO, the weight of the European Union, to the tension in the China Sea and Taiwan. In this strange war, the tensions and potential causes of a real conflict all remain intact and on the ground: Israeli ambition to topple the Iranian regime; Iranian ambition to remain a protagonist in the region; Hezbollah and Hamas that Netanyahu cannot eliminate; doubts about what superpower America will be after the November 5 election.
In Foreign Affairs magazine, Karim Sadjapour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, compares the Saudi Arabia of Mohammed bin Salman (age 39) and the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Khamenei (age 85); “Vision 2030”, the economic and social modernization of the former, and 1979, the year of Khomeini’s revolution from which the latter continues to draw inspiration.
After trying for decades an impossible separation from the crises of the Middle East, today Saudi Arabia is becoming the main protagonist in the region. A game changer: the country that can change the static dynamics of the Middle East, the age-old issue between Israel and the Palestinians, the succession of failed Arab states, tribalism and the chronic economic crises of many countries; endless conflicts. What the Middle East will need is a grand agreement on collective security among all countries. Something similar to what was created for Europe by the Helsinki Conference of 1975: it prevented the Cold War from spreading into a real conflict on the old continent.
However, looking at the political map of the Middle East, Helsinki is a far-fetched hypothesis: too many armies (what the geopolitical bureaucracy calls “non-state actors”), too many national ambitions, too much interference from religions, to even think of a structure collective security, accepted by all. Even the reforms of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, which may become a new fact, in reality have not yet been accepted by the Saudis: the transition from the rigid religious extremism of Wahhabism to social modernization is not yet a certainty.
