« Pax Americana » or permanent war
One year of genocidal war in Gaza, more than 42,000 dead, not counting those under the rubble, more than 100,000 wounded and amputees. And Gaza transformed into a heap of ruins.
Hamas is weakened but still present, still launching its rockets, whereas Israel claimed to be finished in a few months.
Massive bombardments in Lebanon have already caused over one thousand five hundred deaths and considerable destruction, but Hezbollah still has the capacity to launch projectiles and fight the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.
Netanyahu has long been waiting for the opportunity to attack Iran, even if it means provoking war by assassinating Ismail Haniyeh in Teheran and Hassan Nsrallah in Lebanon.
The war is gradually spreading throughout the Middle East. The next step would be the announced bombing of strategic sites in Iran. Nuclear, oil or infrastructure sites? The USA and Israel are discussing this. A war on a regional scale seems inevitable, and this is what Netanyahu is seeking - strongly encouraged by his allies and beyond - who have always condemned the Iran nuclear deal signed by Obama with Iran and then denounced by Trump.
Of course, Netanyahu has a personal interest in prolonging the war, hoping to escape the courts and investigative commissions, if not delay them. But the stakes go far beyond that: maintaining the hegemony of Israel and the United States (EU) over the Middle East.
A decline in US influence
In the Middle East, as in the rest of the world, countries are seeking to develop on the basis of their own interests rather than the hegemonic interests of the USA. Here are a few examples:
- In 2022, when Biden asked Saudi Arabia (SA) to increase production in order to lower the price of oil, OPEC+ took the opposite decision, with Saudi support. Biden, furious, threatened Saudi Arabia with retaliation, with the US indicating that the bilateral relationship needed to be reviewed to ensure US interests.
- The strengthening of economic relations between SA and China during Xi Jinping's visit in December 2022 was criticized by the EU as not likely to preserve the “international order”, i.e. the hegemonic will of the USA.
- Tensions between Iran and the Gulf states were resolved thanks to Chinese mediation, despite the drastic US boycott of Iran.
- The BRICS membership in January 2024 of several Middle Eastern countries, including SA and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), illustrates the desire to benefit from new margins of maneuver.
In September 2024, Trump declared: “The dollar is currently under siege. Many countries are leaving the dollar... You leave the dollar, you don't do business with the United States, because we're going to impose 100% tariffs on your goods”.
A campaign statement, to be sure, but the concern is there nonetheless.
The BRICS+, which account for 40% of the world's oil production, are planning to increase the proportion of their trade in national currencies. No upheaval is foreseeable in the short or medium term as regards the weight of the dollar in international transactions, but the long process of de-dollarization has begun. Sanctions against Russia and Iran can only accentuate this trend.
Reconfiguring the Middle East?
The role conferred on Israel by the USA was bluntly explained by Alexander Haig, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s:
“Israel is America's largest aircraft carrier, it is unsinkable, it carries no American soldiers, and it is located in a region crucial to U.S. national security”.
A crucial region indeed, since it accounts for almost 50% of the world's oil reserves and almost 40% of its gas reserves. Control of these resources, or at least the possibility of influencing the Gulf States' policy in this area, is a strategic issue.
The new situation after October 7 has brought the Palestinian question to the fore. It also put a stop to the “Abraham Accords”, peace treaties intended to normalize the situation between Arab countries and Israel. Saudi Arabia refused to join without the creation of the State of Palestine.
But for Netanyahu and Biden it's a completely different prospect: an opportunity to exploit in order to reconfigure the Middle East. Intervention in Lebanon is aimed at severing the link between that country and Iran, which presupposes defeating Hezbollah. A first step before confrontation with Iran.
The US needs Israel, both ally and “subcontractor”, to wage this war in the Middle East. In exchange, Israel gains alleged regional military supremacy, considerable financial aid, unfailing political and diplomatic support, and systematic impunity. It's hard to see what could unravel this strategic alliance other than the weakening of the US, whose military budget and public debt are reaching record heights.
Israel does the “work”, so it will have a say in this project. For example, colonizing more and more of the West Bank and maintaining its presence in Gaza?
In the face of these ambitions, the massacres in Lebanon and the genocide in Gaza carry little weight from the Western point of view. It's Israel's “right to defend itself”. The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah is described as a “measure of justice” by Biden and Kamala Harris.
Pandora's box
Sanctions have not been enough to bring Iran to its knees, nor have they prevented the development of important ties with Russia and China. Neither the US nor Israel consider the consequences of such a war for the region or the global economy. It's true that Europe and China in particular will bear the brunt of the consequences, while the US is self-sufficient in oil and gas. What will their reactions be, or those of Iran and the Gulf States?
Eradicating Hamas and Hezbollah is an illusory objective. It would require a permanent military occupation of Lebanon and Gaza, in the face of guerrilla warfare. How many more years of war? At what cost?
The Palestinian people are still there and will not disappear. To imagine that peace and security can be achieved by massacring and oppressing is a mystification. Only justice can bring peace. Accepting an immediate and permanent ceasefire would have enabled an agreement to end the war and move towards a definitive political solution in line with international law.
This is what the vast majority of the world's countries are calling for. This is what international public opinion is calling for. Peace versus “Pax Americana”. The force of law against the law of force.
October 8, 2024
Robert Kissous, community activist, economist
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)