Voices from the Arab press: The US elections and the Gaza war

The US elections and the Gaza war

Al-Ittihad, United Arab Emirates, October 25

Will the recent killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in northern Gaza pave the way for a political breakthrough in the ongoing conflict in the region? Some optimists suggest that this development might ease the path toward negotiating a ceasefire, facilitating the mutual release of hostages, and initiating discussions on Gaza’s reconstruction.

Against the backdrop of relentless terrorism and Israeli air strikes, the demand for a compromise has reached a critical point. However, there are several reasons for a more skeptical outlook in the short term. Key figures within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition are opposed to a ceasefire, as are some remaining members of Hamas. 

On Monday, October 21, right-wing Israeli activists organized a rally advocating for the construction of new Jewish settlements in Gaza. This rally featured members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The event called not only for settlements but for the expulsion of the entire Palestinian population.

Although this group represents a minority and does not reflect the stance of the Israeli government or the majority of Israelis, its refusal to make concessions to the Palestinians poses a threat to the stability of Netanyahu’s coalition. This hard-line faction could withdraw support at any moment, potentially triggering new elections that Netanyahu risks losing. Such a political shift would expose him to legal jeopardy due to previous charges he faces in Israeli courts. 

Furthermore, significant obstacles emerge from other stakeholders who may be averse to an early conclusion of the hostilities. A ceasefire would compel Lebanese Hezbollah to consider an agreement with Israel, aiming to end the ongoing conflict and repeated Israeli strikes on Lebanon. In such a scenario, Hezbollah, Iran’s primary proxy, might be less inclined to initiate large-scale attacks on Israel if Iran were to enter a direct confrontation. 

Moreover, a peace process involving Israel, the Palestinians, key Arab states, and the US could unsettle certain regional actors opposed to peace, as well as international players who might benefit from the US being ensnared in a prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Achieving a ceasefire in Gaza would mark a notable triumph for Biden-Harris diplomacy, diminishing the potential for renewed regional violence and turmoil in the energy markets ahead of the US elections. 

Given Netanyahu’s strained relations with the Biden administration and his aspirations for a Trump presidency, he is unlikely to provide Kamala Harris with a favorable “October surprise.” It seems probable that a ceasefire will only be brokered after the US election results are finalized. The president-elect, whether Harris or Trump, will likely be driven to end the violence and have significant influence to pressure both parties, once it is clear who will direct US security policy for the forthcoming four years. 

Should Trump emerge victorious, he would swiftly seek to prove his capability to effect change, distinguishing himself from President Biden, and would be keen to avoid a prolonged crisis at the outset of his term. His positive rapport with Netanyahu may enhance his diplomatic efforts. 

Conversely, should Harris win, it would present a challenge for Netanyahu, who would face pressure to resolve the crisis and engage in dialogue with the Palestinians. Harris, like Trump, is averse to being embroiled in further conflicts, and her fresh mandate would enable her to exert more decisive pressure on Netanyahu than Biden has been prepared to apply. – Geoffrey Kemp

Leaking the Israeli plan of attack

Al-Ahram, Egypt, October 25

For those closely monitoring international affairs, there was little groundbreaking in last Friday’s leaks about Israel’s plans to launch a significant strike against Iran. Israeli leaders have openly stated their intentions, and President Joe Biden has publicly expressed his support. What is truly startling, however, is the context within which these revelations have surfaced. 

The leaks, consisting of highly confidential documents, disclose that the US gathered crucial information by conducting satellite surveillance on Israel – a nation it considers its most trusted ally. This raises serious questions about the degree of trust between the two nations, especially given the proximity of the upcoming US elections next week. There are concerns in Washington that Israel’s military actions could jeopardize the electoral prospects of Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate.

The documents reveal that the objectives of Israel’s intended strike are far graver than the past skirmishes between Israel and Iran. These include plans to assassinate high-ranking Iranian officials and dismantle Iran’s air capabilities, such as airports and missile sites. Essentially, Israel aims to dominate Iranian airspace, creating a pathway potentially leading to strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. There are even preparations underway to ready missiles equipped with nuclear warheads, highlighting Israel’s willingness to escalate regional tensions dramatically. Such aggressive moves could easily draw in major powers, obliging the US to intervene on Israel’s behalf at a highly inconvenient moment. 

Analysts are divided over the source, motive, and objectives behind the leak. It could be a strategic move by the US to place Israel in a challenging position under these volatile circumstances. Alternatively, the leak could originate from Iran, aimed at exposing America’s complicity in Israel’s perilous plan to potentially compromise global security, thereby pressuring the US to rein in Israel. 

There’s also the possibility that an insider, aware of the operational details and concerned about the outbreak of a large-scale conflict, decided to leak the information in hopes of averting a scenario that could spiral into a world war. – Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab

Respecting states’ sovereignty – fundamental to good neighborly relations

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, October 24

Amid regional tensions, recent statements by Iranian leaders have resurrected longstanding histories of meddling in the internal matters of Arab nations. Remarks by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, about engaging in negotiations with France over the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 –which pertains directly to Lebanon – reflect interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs and reopen old wounds that many in the region have been striving to heal. 

The Lebanese interim prime minister, Najib Mikati, did not hesitate to voice his astonishment at this stance, characterizing it as an attempt to impose an unacceptable guardianship over Lebanon. Mikati’s reaction mirrors the sentiments of numerous Lebanese citizens who feel frustrated and outraged by persistent foreign intrusion into their country’s affairs.

In an official act reinforcing this stance, the Lebanese Foreign Affairs Ministry summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires in Beirut to formally protest Ghalibaf’s statements, clearly indicating that the Lebanese government, despite its challenging circumstances, continues to strive for the independence of its national decision-making. 

Iranian declarations have not been confined to Lebanese matters but have also touched upon the issues of the three Emirati islands: Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa, as well as queries concerning Bahrain’s independence and Arab identity. In this vein, statements by Kamal Kharazi, chairman of the Iranian Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, further fanned the flames, eliciting strong rebuke from the Gulf Cooperation Council, which dismissed them as irresponsible.

These comments undoubtedly reflect the perspective of peoples and governments across the region, given the historical tensions in Arab-Iranian relationships – tensions exacerbated by Tehran’s persistent meddling in Arab affairs. Such a policy has only deepened instability in the region, underscoring the need for serious dialogue between the parties involved, but contingent upon respecting state sovereignty and halting interference. 

The region is grappling with a highly intricate situation, owing to mounting tensions, the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, and attacks on Hezbollah, alongside the escalating likelihood of an Israeli-Iranian confrontation. Amid these volatile circumstances, Iran must reassess its foreign policies and avoid repeating past mistakes. Persisting along the current trajectory will adversely impact the Iranian people more than any other group. 

Stability is crucial for the region, and Iran is obligated to contribute toward achieving this objective rather than undermining it. The Lebanese scenario serves as a glaring illustration. Legitimate authorities, represented by the speaker of Parliament and the prime minister, have concurred on implementing Resolution 1701, with opposition forces convening in Maarab and spiritual leaders meeting in Bkerké also advocating for its enforcement. 

This decision aligns with the goals of Resolution 1559, which calls for the disbandment of militias, chiefly Hezbollah. The principles applicable to Lebanon extend to all Arab nations.

Iran cannot continue obstructing regional stability. The challenges currently confronting the region demand unity and cooperation, not increased discord and meddling. If Iran truly aspires to contribute to solutions, it must begin by ceasing interference in neighboring states and halting the support of militias, as regional stability would benefit everyone, Iran included. – Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali

Iran exploits Sudanese crisis to enhance regional influence

Al-Arab, London, October 25

Due to its geographical positioning and political-ideological leanings, Iran is actively pursuing expansion beyond its borders, particularly during times of turmoil in neighboring regions. The longstanding Sudanese crisis is no exception to Iran’s ambitions. 

Amid Sudan’s increasing internal chaos, Tehran identified a strategic opportunity to solidify its presence in this pivotal nation and exploit its geographical significance to further Iran’s reach into Africa – a continent it has been eyeing for political, economic, and ideological expansion for decades. 

One prominent avenue through which Iran strives to achieve its objectives is education. By establishing schools and universities across various African nations, including Sudan, Iran seeks to disseminate the Shi’ite doctrine and fortify its bonds with these communities. These educational institutions transcend mere academic purposes, functioning instead as platforms for propagating Shi’ite ideology and embedding Iranian influence within local societies. In this sense, education emerges as one of Iran’s soft-power tools, deftly wielded to extend its influence into regions where direct military intervention proves challenging. 

On the Sudanese front, some factions of the Muslim Brotherhood maintain a historical connection with Iran. Although these organizational ties lack robustness, a small faction within the Brotherhood expresses strong loyalty to Iran and is influenced by Shi’ite ideology and the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini. This ideological alliance first manifested visibly at the Khartoum branch of Cairo University, where such ideas were propagated through student activities and wall publications. Although this movement has until now remained marginal and ineffective, Sudan’s evolving landscape may provide a conducive environment for its resurgence, particularly if Iran succeeds in entrenching its presence in the nation. 

Sudan’s ongoing predicament – with international isolation and sanctions stemming from its internal conflicts and political disarray – drives its government to seek external alliances for support. In these circumstances, Iran is well-positioned to present itself as a strategic ally, capitalizing on Sudan’s blockade and isolation. For Tehran, forming such an alliance represents an opportunity to reinvigorate its regional and international profile via Sudan. This move would bolster Iran’s global standing, especially amid persistent tensions with Western powers and rival regional entities. 

The strategic geographic allure of Sudan, with its vantage point over the Red Sea – a crucial global waterway – propels Iran’s quest for influence. Control over or influence within this maritime artery presents Tehran with a strategic advantage to monitor or potentially disrupt international shipping. Establishing a formidable presence on Sudan’s coast would enable Iran to exert control over this vital passage. By strengthening alliances, particularly with the Houthis in Yemen, Iran poses a direct threat to Red Sea maritime security, amplifying concerns among regional powers, chiefly Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. 

Beyond the geographical and strategic implications, bolstering Iranian sway in Sudan through military aid or armament supplies could elevate regional tensions. The presence of Iranian armaments in Sudan would exacerbate conflicts and transform the Red Sea into a focal point of international discord, complicating the regional security landscape and imperiling global navigation. Additionally, this military support might augment Iran’s capacity to directly challenge the Gulf states, which view Iran’s proximity as a national security threat. 

Conversely, by stoking instability in Sudan, Iran aims to relieve its internal pressures. Tehran is contending with an acute economic and political crisis due to international sanctions and domestic challenges related to social stability. Thus, projecting conflict beyond its borders by extending into Sudan allows the Iranian regime a reprieve from internal strains. Simultaneously, this expansion brings Iran closer to nations it perceives as threatening its interests, enabling it to address potential threats to its regional security more directly. 

Iran, therefore, views Sudan not merely as a tactical geopolitical venture but as a springboard for long-term strategic gains, encompassing African expansion and control over the Red Sea, thereby consolidating its regional power. – Abdelmonem Hemat

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.