Consider domestic politics in Middle East conflict

SEOUL—As Israel proceeds with a ground offensive against Hezbollah, the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate, with the prospects for ending the war dim, and the number of lives lost escalating. Absent this time is US intervention to manage the crisis. Has the international order led by the United States since the end of the Cold War collapsed?

Most analyses, including that of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, have pierced the essence of the current Middle East conflict as a struggle between the “coalition of inclusion” and the “coalition of resistance.” But they overlook one crucial element: the importance of domestic politics.

In Israel, this centers on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who faces responsibility for failing to prevent last year’s surprise attack by Hamas. Over 41,615 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died in Gaza due to Israeli military actions, adding to his burden. Israel, once seen as a victim of the Holocaust, is now increasingly viewed as a perpetrator of war crimes.

Netanyahu also faces legal issues related to corruption charges. Given these circumstances, he may feel the need to secure an image of overwhelming victory to push for an end to the war. Otherwise, a conclusion to the war could signal the beginning of him being found legally or politically accountable.

Thus, it’s natural to suspect that Israel’s provocative military actions against Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah may be driven more by Netanyahu’s personal political interests than by the broader struggle between the teams of “inclusion” and “resistance.”

Iran’s domestic politics show a different picture. Its missile attack toward Israel on Tuesday might be interpreted as a skillfully compromised operation. The attack comes belatedly as retaliation for the death of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, killed on Sept. 27, and of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader assassinated on July 31. The strike was more a show of force rather than angling for real damages because Iran is aware that most of the missiles would be intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome.

Iran’s halfway response implies that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who is representing the reformists, has a voice in the decision-making process, and is trying to avoid a full-scale war with Israel and improve relations with the US.

Domestic politics in the US also contribute to the situation in the Middle East, with the US’ inability to act possibly influenced by the strong pro-Israel lobby within the country.

However, the national security guidelines of its Indo-Pacific strategy might also be a significant factor. While this strategy aligns with the general American public’s displeasure with China, it has led to a perception that issues in other areas are of secondary importance.

As a result, misunderstandings about the US’ global role have spread, leading to neglect in dealing with other regions.

This neglect has erupted in various crises, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s continued military operations. The Indo-Pacific strategy, which harms US hegemony and reputation, was a product of domestic political focus. After winning in 2016, then President Donald Trump boosted his popularity by noting that contradictions in the US economy and society stem from cheap Chinese products and illegal immigrants. As a result, China-bashing became a political trend no US politician could resist. Even the Biden administration had to adopt a foreign policy focused on checking China to survive in the domestic political arena.

By reconstructing the Middle East situation through the lens of domestic politics in the US, Israel and Iran, one can derive a somewhat different picture from Friedman’s grand narrative that the clash between the “coalition of inclusion” and “coalition of resistance” is inevitable. The cohesion within both camps is weak, and painting Iran, Iraq, or Hezbollah as villains does not help, nor is it necessary to argue that eliminating them would connect the Asia-Pacific and Europe.

While understanding the rivalry between Friedman’s coalitions of inclusion and resistance is important for comprehending and resolving the Middle East crisis, it is equally critical to account for the changes, if not distortions, caused by domestic politics. This perspective allows us to urge the US to adopt and implement a global-scale strategy focusing on universal values and norms, rather than a China-centered regional response like the Indo-Pacific strategy.

Additionally, it is essential to pressure Netanyahu to abandon his reckless war initiatives and instead champion strategies for peace and coexistence in Israel and the wider Middle East. —The Korea Herald/Asia News Network