The Potential for Conflict Escalation in the Middle East and the demise of Pax Abrahamica

Jared Kushner, former President Donald Trump's son-in-law and special advisor, harbored ambitious aims for the Middle East. Renowned for his ties with Israel, he aspired to quell the historic hostility between Israel and its Arab neighbors, leading to the inception of the Abraham Accords. Signed between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, these accords were projected as the bedrock of a 'New Middle East'. This concept had predecessors, notably within the George W. Bush administration post-September 11 and following the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, leveraging on his family bonds with President Trump, Kushner succeeded where all others failed.

The Accords extended their embrace, with Morocco and Sudan joining the Pax Abrahamica, and with discussions underway with other countries like Oman and Qatar, known for their proximity with Iran, and for their role as power-brokers in the Middle East. The Trump Administration's role was instrumental, offering significant political capital to Israel's longstanding Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The pace of normalization was nothing short of breathtaking, especially when viewed against the backdrop of historical upheavals such as the Second Intifada in 2003, the Lebanon war in 2006, and the attacks on Gaza in 2014. Many analysts contend that the growing influence of Iran, especially following Donald Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA, was a significant catalyst for this shift.

On his return to power, in 2022, Netanyahu's attention and focus shifted to one key player: Saudi Arabia. Starting from 2016, the Saudi kingdom has embarked in a multi-pronged economic transformation dubbed Vision 2030. It has ever since been looking to turn Saudi Arabia into a regional economic powerhouse, by engaging foreign investors and regional and global partners. Positive signals abounded in the days preceding the unexpected Hamas strikes and attacks on Israel.

The foundation of Pax Abrahamica rested on several assumptions:

1. The Palestinians’ aspiration to recover their UN-endorsed rights was deemed to be a minor concern in comparison with regional RealPolitik. The primary goal of Netanyahu was normalization with major Arab nations, later to be extended to the broader Islamic world. The strategy was that “Peace inside will come from Peace outside” and that until that eventually happens the Palestinians - especially in the Gaza - should be confined in a situation of “stable instability”.
2. Tensions between Iran and its Gulf neighbours would naturally push the latter toward an alliance with Israel, all the more so as Israeli companies have over the last two decades quietly become providers of surveillance software and other dual use technologies to the Arab states. The practice of intelligence sharing between countries supposedly without any diplomatic relations became a mainstay practice in the post 9/11 world.
3. The belief that the U.S. would remain the sole steadfast security guarantor in the Middle East, providing unwavering support to its allies.
4. The belief in a Western-dominated world where the Middle East would always prioritize the West for technology, defense, and financial assets.

These assumptions have been shattered.

(Read the Substack version of this article to get the detailed analysis).

Assumption 1 in particular has been proven wrong. Don’t get me wrong. The indiscriminate killing of more than a thousand of Israeli civilians by Hamas radical operatives is appalling - regardless of whether they were instructed to do so by the attacks planners or whether they went beyond their orders and instructions. Israel has every right to go after the perpetrators of this massacre and to make them pay a very heavy price for these crimes.

However, this cannot justify a collective punishment inflicted to over 2 million Palestinians. Every life counts whether it is an Israeli life or a Palestinian life. This should be the basic principle underlying any political decision and military strategy. The spiralling death toll following the Israeli bombardment on Gaza after October 7, and the even larger death toll that would occur in a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza will radicalise even more the most radical elements in the strip’s besieged, impoverished and traumatised society.

The growing chasm between the West and the Global South

By rushing to showcase their support and commitment to the security of Israel, a number of European Leaders such as the UK’s Rishi Sunak, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, widened the existing chasm between the West and the Global South.

The perception of an enduring Western bias and and selective compassion with Israeli victims but not with Palestinian victims will come back to haunt the West for years to come. The long lasting reputation damage incurred to Western nations should have been better weighed against the short term political gains for a few individuals.

Western public opinions were shocked by the images and videos of the Hamas Attacks and are very sympathetic to Israelis. This is understandable, as the Western countries themselves have been exposed for decades to Islamist terrorism.

However, the Western public opinion does not want a conflict that could escalate and grow out of control. They know this will eventually backfire, as did the US intervention in Irak and Afghanistan in 2001-2003, and as the catastrophic Western interventions in Libya and Syria have shown.

A war of attrition not a Blitzkrieg

Little can be said at this stage about the success chances of an Israeli ground offensive on Gaza, as per the principal objective assigned of rooting out Hamas from the strip. As Palestinian civilian casualties rise by the numbers, the international and domestic pressure will also tremendously grow on the Netanyahu led government, especially on the issue of the hostages. What is supposed to be a Blitzkrieg might well turn into a war of attrition extending over several months. Critical decisions will have to be made in order to prioritise some targets and to achieve whatever could be achieved before the international and domestic political capital of Netanyahu is completely eroded. This is all the more true as Netanyahu is held responsible for the disastrous security and intelligence breaches or blind spots that allowed the Hamas attacks to happen in the first place.

As time goes by so is the potential for the conflict to escalate and get out of control.

The opening of a second front in Lebanon, through a more active involvement of Hezbollah in the war, could be imminent. The fear of a reprisal later on could encourage an early - preemptive - engagement of “the party of Allah” in the conflict, at a time when Israeli forces are concentrated on their Gaza operations.

The third front is a direct confrontation between Israel and the US on one side, and Iran and Iran-backed militia in neighbouring Iraq. The targeted assassination in January 2020 of former Qods Force Chief Commander Qaseem Soleimani ordered by President Donald Trump left these militias and the IRGC itself screaming for vengeance.

Meanwhile, despite the Iraqi experience, some "Iran Hawks" in Washington look at this conflict as an opportunity to topple the Iranian regime once and for all. Reliable surveys show that although many people in Iran are dissatisfied with the government, the Iranians are overwhelmingly against regime change. In this context, a hardline stance against Israel and any military achievements will support a candidate’s and its supporting faction’s ascent to the Supreme Leadership.

The quest for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

How could the conflict escalate and get out of control? There are actually two case figures:

1°) Iran already has nuclear weapons and then it is untouchable. Any wars with Israel or the United States will be waged through its proxies. Nobody can say if Iran has a nuclear weapon, but there is now serious evidence that the Islamic Republic has enough enriched uranium to build several warheads.

In this MAD scenario, the risk of an escalation moving beyond some acceptable “nuclear threshold” is very limited although it cannot be ruled out. Indeed, as argued by Prof. Kenneth Waltz, one of America’s most prominent scholars in international affairs, in a controversial essay published more than ten years ago in Foreign Affairs: “a nuclear-armed Iran would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East”. 

2°) Iran does not have nuclear weapons as of today and then every wild card is on the table.

Even in that latter case, for the United Stated, for Israel, for the GCC countries and for the broader world, the consequences of any direct conflict will be extremely damaging. Here are a two channels, by order of magnitude, through which this could go:

A) Following a strike on some key non-nuclear military facilities, Iran could block the Hormuz Strait to force the Global Powers to negotiate a settlement to the crisis. The impact on oil prices will be instantanous with prices jumping above 200 dollar per baril. This is likely to cause a stock market crash and flight to safety to US Treasuries.

B) Following a strike by Israel say on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran could attack on Israeli cities with intermediate range ballistic missiles. This would raise the toll of civilian casualties and provoke an instant reaction from Israel, potentially using its nuclear warheads.

This could lead to anything from a Global depression to World War III. Let us hope this “tail risk scenario” does not materialise itself.

>>> A more extensive version of this article is available on Substack.