Latest news with #Alghannam
Leaders
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Leaders
INTERVIEW-Gaza War Serves Netanyahu's Political Interests: Dr. Hesham Alghannam (2-2)
A three-phase ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel in Gaza collapsed on March 18, 2025, after negotiations to move forward with the second phase stalled. Since then, Israel has resumed its air and ground operations in Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinians and displacing others. Israel has intensified its military campaign in the Strip, vowing to seize large parts of Gaza to pressure Hamas to release hostages and disarm. Moreover, the Israeli government imposed a blockade on the delivery of food, fuel and humanitarian aid, leaving Gaza's population in dire humanitarian conditions. The war in Gaza broke out after Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. The Gaza war has so far claimed the lives of more than 53,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Negotiations have been taking place between Hamas and Israel, with the mediation of Egypt, Qatar and the US, with several proposals made to restore the ceasefire, release the remaining hostages and end the war. Meanwhile, the US President, Donald Trump, has repeatedly proposed that the US takes control of Gaza, relocating its population elsewhere and transforming it into a 'Riviera of the Middle East.' In this part of this exclusive interview with Leaders MENA Magazine, Dr. Hesham Alghannam shares his perspectives on the recent developments in Gaza after the ceasefire collapse, the goal of the current Israeli operations in the Strip, and Trump's calculations regarding Gaza. Dr. Alghannam is a Saudi researcher and geopolitical expert with over 23 years of experience in consulting and research in politics and international relations. His research focuses on policy and strategy in Saudi Arabia and abroad. He is also is the Director of the Security Research Center and General Supervisor of National Security and Counter-Terrorism Programs at Naif Arab University for Security Sciences. Moreover, Dr. Alghannam is a fellow researcher and strategy consultant at various European, American and British think-tanks. He is a nonresident scholar at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center. He has worked with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and the Gulf Research Centre. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Exeter. Gaza Ceasefire Q: In your opinion, who is responsible for the collapse of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza? The collapse of the Gaza ceasefire agreement was neither accidental nor surprising, but rather the inevitable outcome of a process intentionally designed to fail from the outset. The agreement signed on January 15 outlined a clear roadmap, starting with a temporary ceasefire, followed by a phased Israeli withdrawal, and ultimately culminating in a permanent solution ensuring Gaza's reconstruction and transfer to civilian administration under international supervision, in exchange for the release of all prisoners and hostages. From the very first stage, which aimed at de-escalation, limited prisoner exchange, and opening crossings to allow humanitarian aid, Hamas demonstrated clear commitment despite considerable pressure. Hamas released hostages, returned bodies of soldiers, and swiftly responded to any accusations of violations. Conversely, from the outset, Israel deliberately undermined the foundations of the agreement. It failed to send any delegation to negotiate the second phase, even after the deadline had expired, refused to discuss its details, and instead promoted an alternative proposal, known as the Vitkov Plan, aiming to freeze the existing situation without conducting any actual withdrawal. The second phase of the agreement, crucial to future stability in Gaza, involved complete withdrawal from the Strip in return for the release of all hostages. However, Israel deliberately sabotaged this phase by refusing to withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor despite explicit stipulation, and maintained control over the Netzarim corridor, withdrawing later only for private reasons unrelated to agreement obligations. Furthermore, Israel failed to retreat to the agreed-upon contact lines east of Gaza, and did not transfer control of the Rafah crossing to Egyptian authorities as promised. On the humanitarian level, the agreement clearly allowed the entry of 600 aid trucks daily, 60,000 caravans, and 200,000 tents. Yet, Israel permitted entry of less than a tenth of these quantities and blocked entry of trailers and bulldozers under flimsy security pretexts. In March, Israel halted all aid deliveries entirely and completely cut off electricity, leading to the deaths of children from cold and thirst. Regarding the prisoners' issue, Israel repeatedly violated its commitments, consistently demanding Hamas release hostages first, while delaying Palestinian prisoners' releases for hours, and sometimes days, even punishing Palestinians for organizing welcoming ceremonies that did not breach any agreement conditions. This series of Israeli violations illustrates the lack of political will from Benjamin Netanyahu's government to achieve a lasting solution. What occurred was not merely direct rejection, but a systematic process of evasion and political and humanitarian blackmail, gradually leading to the complete collapse of the agreement. Matters did not end there. Recently, Netanyahu's official spokesman, Omer Dostri, exposed his prime minister's true intentions regarding abandoning the Israeli hostages. Dostri stated explicitly that 'it is impossible to return all hostages in a single deal,' and noted Hamas's demands for ending the war and Israel's exit from Gaza, making a comprehensive agreement unacceptable from Israel's perspective. These statements, reflecting Netanyahu's mindset, demonstrate how far the Israeli government is willing to sacrifice its own sons and daughters for narrow political interests. Furthermore, Netanyahu himself, in recorded statements, unequivocally rejected Hamas's terms, including ending the war, the movement's continuation in power, and Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza. He justified his stance by stating that accepting these conditions would send a message that Israel could be subdued. Israel's Military Campaign Q: Do you think that the current Israeli military operations in Gaza seek to create a new geographic reality that forces displacement? Any profound observer of Israel's current war on Gaza is compelled to acknowledge that this war was not initiated to achieve clear military objectives or fulfill pressing security needs. Instead, it increasingly appears as a means to reshape the sector's geography and demographics, paving the way for widespread forced displacement. Essentially, this war directly serves the political and coalition interests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than Israel's higher interests or national security, contrary to the official narrative. From the outset, Israeli rhetoric promised total and decisive victory, but it gradually retreated into vague phrases like 'negotiations under fire,' clearly indicating diminishing confidence in the ability for swift military resolution. This represents a shift toward managing a prolonged crisis, contradicting Israel's traditional security doctrine, which favors swift wars with specific and clear objectives. Yet the reality on the ground narrates a more tragic and complex story. Israel extensively destroyed Gaza's civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, power stations, schools, and oxygen facilities—without clear operational justification. Israeli authorities also blocked entry of most humanitarian aid, including caravans and tents, leaving over a million Palestinians homeless under conditions leading to children dying from severe cold and thirst. Additionally, Israel established the strategic Netzarim corridor, effectively dividing the northern and southern parts of the Gaza Strip, and retained control over the Philadelphi axis, blatantly violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed in January 2025. These actions clearly reflect Israel's intentions to manage Gaza's geography in a way that prevents any return to normal life. This situation is not merely field operations but rather a systematic policy that has ignited sharp internal divisions within Israeli society itself. The military establishment witnessed a wave of protests led initially by reserve pilots and subsequently joined by soldiers from armored and naval units, asserting that continuation of the war serves Netanyahu's political interests rather than Israel's strategic goals. In this context, retired General Dan Halutz notably criticized the war as a continuation of internal politics by military means. Similarly, thousands of Israeli doctors, academics, and intellectuals signed a petition condemning the war as a deceptive operation aimed primarily at preserving the ruling coalition rather than retrieving hostages. Security analyst Ronen Bergman also revealed facts confirming that a number of Israeli captives died due to Israeli military actions, clearly disregarding intelligence reports. A stark example occurred in August 2024 in the Tal Al-Sultan area, where six captives inside a tunnel were killed by bombing, despite prior intelligence confirming their presence. Within the Israeli Shin Bet security agency itself, disagreements have significantly intensified. Israeli society harshly criticizes what it perceives as extremist religious currents infiltrating security agencies, and Shin Bet's silence on this matter—supposedly to preserve 'state secrets'—is considered a serious internal threat to Israeli democracy. This contradictory approach—between the army viewing the operation as leverage for a prisoner-release deal and ending the war, and Netanyahu's vision aspiring to permanent occupation of Gaza—makes the situation extremely complex and dangerous. Netanyahu himself affirmed his intention to transform Gaza's landscape 'forever,' meaning a full occupation followed by widespread displacement and renewed settlement activities—a project clearly not aimed at achieving Israel's security but rather ensuring his political survival. Furthermore, daily reports issued by the Israeli army about 'neutralizing terrorists' and destroying 'terrorist infrastructure' starkly contradict international humanitarian reports coming from Gaza, exposing immense destruction and killings involving innocent civilians, including children, women, and international aid workers. These accounts raise genuine questions about the credibility of official Israeli statements and provoke serious concerns about systematic war crimes that cannot be ignored or concealed. All these facts clearly confirm that what is happening today in Gaza is not merely a deviation from traditional policies but a fundamental shift in the nature of war objectives—from security to control, from deterrence to displacement, and from defending the state to safeguarding Netanyahu's personal and political interests. Continuation of the war in this manner threatens not only Gaza's future and its residents but also exposes Israel itself to deep internal divisions and ethical and political crises that cannot easily be overcome. Trump's Position on Gaza Q: Hours before meeting Netanyahu, Trump had a joint phone call with the leaders of France, Egypt and Jordan, who urged for an immediate return to ceasefire in Gaza, and expressed their strong rejection of Palestinian displacement and their support for an empowered PA governance for all Palestinian territory. However, after meeting Netanyahu, he spoke about a new ceasefire agreement and again floated the idea of relocating Gaza's population. How do you see Trump's actions in this regard? The recent actions of U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the Gaza issue clearly illustrate how personal political considerations and immediate interests can override established national security standards, strategic principles, and long-term international alliances. Prior to his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump appeared aligned with a coherent international and regional stance shared by his European and Arab allies. During a joint phone call with the leaders of France, Egypt, and Jordan, Trump listened to clear demands for an immediate return to the Gaza ceasefire, unequivocal rejection of any attempts to displace Palestinians, and explicit support for establishing effective Palestinian governance with full authority and sovereignty over all occupied territories. This strengthened Washington's position as an acceptable and balanced mediator in the crisis. However, what happened after Trump's meeting with Netanyahu represents a sudden and radical shift, as the American president once again floated the dangerous idea of 'relocating Gaza's population,' in exchange for direct U.S. administration of the territory. This sudden reversal reveals the complexity and interwoven political calculations behind Trump's management of the crisis, clearly highlighting three interconnected levels of reasoning underlying this serious shift. The first level relates to Trump's personal and political considerations. He fully understands that a significant segment of his electoral base, particularly among the evangelical right-wing, views support for the Israeli right not merely as a political stance but as a non-negotiable ideological commitment. Thus, demonstrating such strong backing for Netanyahu—even at the expense of relations with Arab and European allies—yields clear electoral benefits for Trump domestically. It reinforces his image as a strong leader making decisive moves to protect Israel, enabling him to market this step domestically as part of a 'grand deal' aimed at ending the conflict and reshaping the entire region. The second level concerns the direct relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister is experiencing an acute internal crisis due to corruption investigations, declining popularity, and mounting protests among reserve soldiers. Consequently, raising the idea of mass Palestinian displacement provides Netanyahu with an effective tool to rally his right-wing base and divert attention from repeated military failures. By meeting Trump, Netanyahu successfully secured clear political endorsement that he can promote domestically as either full U.S. support or at least implicit acceptance of this extreme right-wing plan, even if it's merely a political trial balloon. The third and most serious level involves the implications of this move for American national security itself. Trump's positions severely weaken the credibility of the United States among strategic allies such as France, Egypt, and Jordan, who view mass Palestinian displacement as a direct existential threat. Egypt and Jordan fully recognize that any displacement would inevitably exacerbate their economic crises and create profound demographic imbalances, directly threatening the stability of both regimes. Moreover, advocating population displacement blatantly violates international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Charter. This exposes the United States and Israel to international accountability for crimes against humanity and provides significant propaganda leverage to Washington's adversaries (Russia, China, and Iran) to undermine America's role as a leader of a rules-based international order. Practically, implementing such an idea is nearly impossible. Egypt and Jordan would categorically reject such a project, and no sufficient financial resources or logistical capabilities exist to execute it. Additionally, no occupying force, regardless of its capabilities, can manage a completely devastated and depopulated territory without descending into endless insurgencies. From the perspective of U.S. national security, the optimal scenario involves achieving a sustainable ceasefire, ensuring that Gaza's population remains in place under international supervision with robust security arrangements, followed by genuine reconstruction efforts and restoring Palestinian governance to the forefront. In contrast, mass displacement will inevitably ignite further regional instability, exposing U.S. forces and vital interests in the Middle East to continuous retaliatory attacks. Ultimately, Trump's actions in this instance not only represent a clear manifestation of short-sighted policies but also underscore the profound dangers of prioritizing electoral and personal political interests over long-term strategic objectives. This risks transforming a limited, manageable crisis into a deep strategic crisis, placing the United States and its allies in an unenviable international and regional position. Related Topics: INTERVIEW – US-Iran Deal Likely, Military Action Could Trigger Global Shock: Dr. Alghannam (1-2) Short link : Post Views: 16
Leaders
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Leaders
INTERVIEW - US-Iran Deal Likely, Military Action Could Trigger Global Shock: Dr. Alghannam (1-2)
The US and Iran have been engaging in indirect talks regarding Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program, raising hopes of a potential détente that could finally bring peace to the Middle East. However, the failure of negotiations carries potential risks to the region, as the US President, Donald Trump, has repeatedly threatened Tehran of a military action in case a deal is not reached. Also, media reports pointed to Israeli plans of striking Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. Few experts can provide a well-balanced view on the recent talks and their impact on the entire region. In the light of this, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out to Dr. Hesham Alghannam to delve deeper into the opportunities and challenges presented by the ongoing US-Iran talks and their broader regional implications. Dr. Alghannam is a Saudi researcher and geopolitical expert with over 23 years of experience in consulting and research in politics and international relations. His research focuses on policy and strategy in Saudi Arabia and abroad, as well as Iran's nuclear program and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. He is also is the Director of the Security Research Center and General Supervisor of National Security and Counter-Terrorism Programs at Naif Arab University for Security Sciences. Moreover, Dr. Alghannam is a fellow researcher and strategy consultant at various European, American and British think-tanks. He is a nonresident scholar at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center. He has worked with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and the Gulf Research Centre. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Exeter. In this exclusive interview with Leaders MENA Magazine, Dr. Alghannam shares his perspectives on the US-Iran talks, the prospects for reaching a nuclear deal, and the potential consequences of military escalation against Iran. Iranian Threat to US Interests Q: After the Israeli significant blows to Hezbollah in Lebanon, US military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, and Iran's declining influence in Syria following the fall of Assad's regime, does Iran still pose a major threat for the American and Israeli interests in the region? Analyzing the regional landscape based on recent developments clearly indicates a tangible decline in Iranian influence across several of its traditional arenas. However, it is premature to conclude definitively that this decline equates to the elimination of the Iranian threat to American and Israeli interests. As events demonstrate, the structure of the Iranian threat is not solely based on geographical presence but on Tehran's adaptability, repositioning capability, and employment of unconventional tools. Israeli strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon have succeeded in limiting some of the group's operational capabilities and imposing political costs internally. Moreover, Saudi political support and Qatari backing for Lebanon, indirectly bolster efforts to reduce Iranian dominance in Beirut. Nevertheless, Hezbollah has not been eradicated politically or militarily; it retains its missile arsenal, popular support base, and robust political networks. In Yemen, US strikes against the Houthis have disrupted supply and attack chains, diminishing Iran's ability to leverage the Red Sea strategically. Yet, the Houthis have not been defeated; instead, they have evolved into a stable local military player with considerable decision-making autonomy, even as ideological coordination with Tehran persists. Currently, they are more adept at managing conflict independently, indicating that neutralizing Iran doesn't directly neutralize the Houthis. In Syria, traditional Iranian presence has diminished due to the collapse of the Assad regime and the new agreement between Ahmed al-Sharaa and the Kurds, brokered by Turkey and the US, further limiting prospects for Iranian resurgence. Nonetheless, Iran still maintains networks of local militias and on-ground intelligence capabilities. The most significant threat remains Iran's nuclear file. Despite its geopolitical losses, Tehran entered the Rome negotiations in the strongest technical nuclear position in its history, currently holding uranium enriched to 60%, sufficient to rapidly assemble multiple bombs if desired. Any interim or weak agreement, as Israel warns, could solidify Iran's status as a 'nuclear threshold state' for an extended period. The core point is that the Iranian threat is no longer linear and cannot be dismantled by a single blow. Instead, it resembles an interconnected web of military, religious, media, and economic influence, capable of contracting and later expanding again. Even as traditional positioning retreats, the intention, capacity for long-term investment, and ideological foundation remain intact. Additionally, internal dynamics within the US administration remain unsettled. Analysis in The New York Times highlights contradictions in American rhetoric—between calls to fully dismantle the nuclear program (echoed by the National Security Advisor and Israeli commitments) and the practical discourse of Witkoff, who suggests returning to a 3.67% enrichment ceiling. Such ambiguity sends dual signals to Iran, granting it maneuvering space. Therefore, while Iran today is indeed weaker compared to previous years and its disruptive operations face intensive intelligence monitoring from Israel and the Trump administration, the Iranian threat has not disappeared but transformed. It has become more complex and adept at concealment, making confrontation increasingly difficult and prolonged. In conclusion, Iran has lost some influence, but its proxies remain active, and it continues to represent a significant threat to US and Israeli interests, albeit in a changed form and employing different tactics. Rebuilding Iran's capacities requires time, but time alone does not ensure the threat's disappearance. Instead, it might offer Tehran an opportunity to regain strength and act when vigilance wanes. US-Iran Talks Q: What are the prospects for reaching a nuclear deal between the US and Iran, in light of the ongoing talks? The announcement by US President Donald Trump of direct talks with Iran regarding its nuclear program marks a significant turning point in US-Iran relations, presenting both substantial opportunities and complex challenges. Given the current circumstances, the prospects for reaching a realistic agreement between the two sides appear relatively high, although closely linked to their ability to overcome fundamental differences and offer mutual realistic concessions. Iran enters these negotiations in a very strong nuclear position, currently possessing a sufficient stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, enough to produce one bomb per month, according to the latest reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This nuclear strength clearly enhances Tehran's negotiating stance, but it is coupled with significant regional and economic weaknesses due to severe U.S. sanctions and internal collapse, making Iran more inclined to demonstrate flexibility to alleviate economic pressures. On the American side, there is internal strategic ambiguity. While National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, demand the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, shows willingness to accept limited enrichment levels under strict international oversight. This internal division, although confusing, provides Trump with ample room to maneuver, allowing him to finalize an agreement that can be marketed domestically as a significant political and electoral achievement. Iranian statements, voiced by chief negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, highlight Tehran's readiness to offer limited yet essential concessions: accepting restrictions on enrichment levels and full cooperation with the IAEA in exchange for solid American guarantees against future withdrawal from the deal and immediate lifting of sanctions on its oil and financial sectors. This formula seems achievable if the United States provides sufficient guarantees to Iran, especially as Tehran insists on excluding its missile program from negotiations, limiting the scope for further concessions. On the other hand, despite Israel's strong opposition to any agreement not involving a complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu's government today has significantly lost its previous influence over Washington's decisions. This is particularly evident given Trump's explicit declaration that he is not rushing into military action, prioritizing instead a diplomatic agreement to prevent widespread regional conflict. Indeed, Trump's announcement freezing military attack plans signals a genuine preference for diplomacy, marking a crucial shift in regional power dynamics. Public sentiment in Iran adds additional pressure towards settlement, as a large segment of Iranian society supports an agreement to alleviate economic pressures and prevent a broad regional war. This factor can serve as an additional negotiating tool for the United States, particularly if Washington invests in clear and actionable economic guarantees. Regarding timing, Trump has set a two-month deadline to conclude the agreement, compelling both sides to move swiftly toward tangible progress. Moreover, upcoming international pressures in October regarding the potential re-imposition of international sanctions on Iran provide additional momentum for current negotiations, making Tehran more serious about quickly finalizing an agreement before this deadline. Considering all these factors, the likelihood of reaching a new nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran appears high, provided both sides offer realistic concessions, coupled with clear US guarantees and effective management of regional pressures, particularly concerning Israel and other US allies. These circumstances create an opportune negotiating moment that could lead to an agreement preserving Iran's civilian nuclear capabilities while ensuring the regional security sought by Washington and its allies. Thus, the prospect of reaching a genuine agreement is possible but conditioned by three elements: Washington's ability to provide a guarantee mechanism—through a rapid treaty or third-party uranium hosting—that reassures Tehran that withdrawal will not recur. Iran's acceptance of quantitative and qualitative enrichment limits allowing the IAEA to regain 'continuity of knowledge.' Israeli restraint during the negotiation period, contingent upon Washington providing a deterrence and security compensation package addressing Tel Aviv's concerns. If these conditions are met by the end of Trump's specified deadline, the agreement becomes likely. However, if any element falters, the scenario of military escalation returns to the forefront. Military Escalation Q: Given the recent US military movements to the Middle East and reciprocal threats between Washington and Tel Aviv on one side and Tehran on the other, do you expect a joint US-Israeli military action against Iranian nuclear sites in case of negotiations' failure? Given the current regional dynamics, rapid military developments, and the profound divergence in priorities between Washington and Tel Aviv, the likelihood of a joint US-Israeli military confrontation against Iran, should nuclear negotiations fail, remains possible but is constrained by political and strategic limitations. Clearly, military confrontation is prominent among complex and open-ended options but is not favored by either Washington or the Israeli security establishment at its core. Starting from the top, Netanyahu is escalating tensions on all fronts not due to purely strategic justifications but driven by personal and ideological motivations. His escalation against Hezbollah, intensification of the Gaza conflict, and attempts to disrupt the Rome negotiations between the United States and Iran are driven by immense internal pressure, attempts to evade ongoing investigations and trials, and the containment of political dissent within Israeli society, including within the military itself. This escalation is not surprising, aligning with Netanyahu's ideological background influenced by the extreme right-wing factions ruling alongside him, which perceive Iran as an existential threat rather than merely a regional adversary. Thus, escalating tensions with Iran serves multiple objectives for Netanyahu, and pushing toward military confrontation at a critical moment, despite high costs to Israel itself, cannot be ruled out. Conversely, the United States under Trump's leadership sees things differently. Trump does not want to become embroiled in another war, especially during an election year, and particularly in a confrontation that could drag the US into direct conflict with Iran and its proxies across multiple fronts. Trump is a dealmaker, not a proponent of open-ended conflicts. He sees a deal with Iran—even if partial—as potentially ending years of tension, earning him political credit as the person who 'stopped Iranian nuclear arms without war.' Therefore, one cannot ignore the clear divergence between the two positions: Netanyahu seeks a military resolution to halt Iran's program and weaken its regime, whereas Trump seeks a settlement achieving US objectives without triggering regional escalation. Supporting this assessment is that Iran, despite its aggressive rhetoric, has not shut the door on negotiations. Statements by Abbas Araghchi, as documented by the New York Times, clearly indicate Tehran's intent to participate 'calmly and cautiously,' awaiting developments from closed-door discussions rather than public statements. This implies that diplomatic avenues remain cautiously open, with Tehran exploiting internal contradictions within the US administration—between the National Security Advisor demanding complete dismantlement and Witkoff's acceptance of a 3.6% enrichment ceiling. Thus, should negotiations fail, will Washington and Tel Aviv jointly head towards war? The answer is not a definitive yes but rather 'possibly Israel alone.' Trump may resort to economic and political pressure, perhaps permitting a limited strike, but he would not engage in a full-scale regional war unless absolutely forced to. Netanyahu, however, might attempt to forcibly involve Washington through a unilateral military operation or broader conflict provocation, particularly in southern Lebanon or within Syria. This risky venture, however, is fraught with dangers. Military action not pre-coordinated with Washington could result in Israel losing political cover and logistical support. Worse, Israel might find itself isolated against Iran, Hezbollah, potentially the Houthis, and Popular Mobilization Forces, without guaranteed rapid American support. Such a catastrophic scenario is untenable for Israel now, especially given the fragmented domestic front, societal divisions, and widespread protests among military reservists. Therefore, while all options remain on the table and the military threat from both sides is genuine, comprehensive military action remains the riskiest but least realistic scenario if the Trump administration effectively manages the situation. The more American negotiation pressure increases on Iran, and Netanyahu's provocations decrease, the smaller the chances of a military explosion. Ultimately, military confrontation is neither ruled out nor inevitable. The outcome will be determined in Rome and behind-the-scenes negotiations between Trump and Netanyahu. If Trump decides a deal is preferable to escalation, he will pressure Netanyahu to curb aggression. However, if Washington fails to contain Netanyahu or if he acts independently, the world might awaken to an unwanted confrontation, with Israel bearing the highest cost. Regional Balances Q: How would a potential military action against Iran affect regional balances? And could it lead to the formation of new blocs? If the United States and Israel undertake direct military action against Iran, regional balances will not only experience temporary disruption but could also enter a phase of complete reconfiguration, affecting the national security of countries across the region and reflecting upon the international system as a whole. From a national security perspective, such an attack cannot be viewed as an action with limited impact; rather, it would serve as the spark for a wide-ranging conflict, given Iran's central strategic and geographic importance. Iran is not an isolated state; it is a pivotal actor controlling multiple global strategic routes and possesses a cross-border influence network. Any direct targeting of its facilities or defensive structures will provoke coordinated responses from its allies and proxies across the Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, leading to simultaneous multi-front engagements. Let's consider the critical aspect: the strategic geographic dimension. Approximately 20% of global oil trade—over 21 million barrels per day—and about 25% of global liquefied natural gas trade pass through the Strait of Hormuz, primarily headed toward Asia and Europe. Located entirely within Iranian territorial influence, this strait would immediately become the primary target in any confrontation. Closing or threatening navigation in this vital artery would instantly disrupt global energy supplies, and alternative routes, such as pipelines through Saudi Arabia or the UAE, could only cover a fraction of daily capacity. Additionally, the Suez Canal, accounting for 12% to 15% of global trade, represents another critical chokepoint immediately vulnerable to tensions extending into the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The recent experience in late 2023, when Iranian-affiliated militias threatened navigation in the Red Sea, led to a 67% reduction in container ship crossings through the canal within weeks, forcing international carriers to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope. This increased shipping costs by approximately $500 per container within one week and doubled transit times to Europe by about 10 to 15 days. The eruption of a comprehensive war in this region would create an unprecedented international logistical crisis: disrupted shipping lines, port congestion, surges in insurance costs, and increased carbon footprints due to extended navigation routes. These consequences alone could significantly disrupt global supply chains essential to modern industrial economies. In the energy markets, merely heightened tensions in recent months—without actual conflict—led to a rise in Brent crude prices by over $10 in just one week, nearly reaching $95 per barrel before later declining. Imagine the scenario of actual conflict. The International Energy Agency has already signaled readiness to release global emergency reserves (approximately 1.2 billion barrels), a measure typically reserved for complete disruptions or wars. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund warned that an oil price shock resulting from a full-scale war could raise global inflation by around 0.7% and slow growth by 0.2%, potentially tipping the world into stagflation. Yet the greater catastrophe may lie not only in supply disruptions but also in demand collapses. The Gulf countries—specifically Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait—represent massive consumer markets and major importers of food, goods, services, and technology. War would prompt these states to reduce public and private spending, postpone projects, and halt non-essential imports. This would directly impact the economies of exporting countries—from Turkey, which exports billions to Iraq and the Gulf, to India, Egypt, and the Philippines, heavily reliant on remittances from hundreds of thousands of workers in Gulf states. These remittances could abruptly stop if evacuations occurred or if ongoing projects ceased operations. A demand collapse in these markets would exert dual pressures: on industrialized countries exporting goods and developing nations dependent on remittances. Worse still, hundreds of thousands of families' stability in developing countries would be threatened if their Gulf-based incomes vanished, turning the conflict from a purely military crisis into a catalyst for global social and economic turmoil. Amid these challenges, alliance structures would inevitably shift, giving rise to unconventional blocs: Alliances focused on energy security. Others dedicated to securing international navigation. Potential situational alliances among former adversaries (such as Turkey and Gulf countries, or even China and the West) aiming to maintain minimum global stability. However, the fundamental truth underlying this security assessment remains that no party will emerge victorious from such a war, regardless of their objectives. Unlike the Russia-Ukraine war, which affected specific markets (wheat and European energy), a conflict in the Middle East would strike at the infrastructure of the global economy itself. Today's world, as frequently stated, functions as a single interconnected body. Disrupting a strait, port, or energy source anywhere would harm every component of the global economic system. Thus, military action against Iran today would not only collapse regional balances but also threaten to reorder international interactions chaotically and unprecedentedly. It is not merely an attack but a global political-economic earthquake with boundless and inevitably costly consequences. Short link : Post Views: 7
Leaders
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Leaders
INTERVIEW-Saudi Arabia Plays Pivotal Role in Promoting Regional Stability: Dr. Hesham Alghannam
For almost 15 months, the Middle East has been a powder keg, as a result of the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel in Gaza which risked an all-out regional conflict. The devastating war, which followed the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, claimed the lives of more than 46,000 Palestinians, injured over 110,000 others, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Meanwhile, the widespread destruction caused by the war displaced 90% of the enclave's population, according to UN figures. Moreover, the war in Gaza sparked tensions across the region, escalating the fighting between the Lebanese-based group, Hezbollah, and Israel. After intensified regional and international diplomatic efforts, led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the US, Hezbollah and Israel reached a ceasefire agreement in November 2024. This was followed by a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel in Gaza on January 19, 2025. In response to the regional crises, Saudi Arabia spearheaded diplomatic efforts to end the conflicts and restore stability in the region. To this end, the Kingdom hosted several high-level meetings and summits to end the conflicts Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Sudan, and alleviate humanitarian suffering of their peoples. In the light of this, Dr. Hesham Alghannam shares his perspectives on the recent geopolitical developments on the regional and international arenas. Dr. Alghannam is a Saudi researcher and geopolitical expert with over 23 years of experience in consulting and research in politics and international relations. His research focuses on policy and strategy in Saudi Arabia and abroad. Dr. Alghannam is the Director of the Security Research Center and General Supervisor of National Security and Counter-Terrorism Programs at Naif Arab University for Security Sciences. Dr. Alghannam is also a fellow researcher and strategy consultant at various European, American and British think-tanks. He is a nonresident scholar at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center. He has worked with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and the Gulf Research Centre. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Exeter. In this exclusive interview with Leaders MENA Magazine, Dr. Hesham Alghannam offers in-depth insights on the Middle East crises, the return of Donald Trump to the White House, and the leading role of Saudi Arabia to end conflicts and promote regional stability. Ceasefire Agreements in Gaza and Lebanon Q: Is the region heading for de-escalation after the ceasefire agreements in Lebanon and Gaza? And do you think these agreements will hold? After the recent ceasefire agreements in Gaza and Lebanon, the region seems to be witnessing a temporary calm. However, this calm appears fragile and reflects a complex reality that lacks fundamental solutions to the core issues. In Lebanon, despite the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, recent events, such as the targeting of civilians attempting to return to their homes, highlight the fragility of the situation and the ongoing tension along the southern border. For its part, Hezbollah continues to demonstrate its strength, affirming that the conflict has not ended but has been deferred, as various parties await international and regional developments. Meanwhile, in Gaza, the ceasefire offers a chance to catch a breath after violent clashes, but it remains fraught with challenges. The ambiguity surrounding some provisions of the agreement, along with mutual distrust between Israel and Hamas, increases the likelihood of renewed conflict. Israel views the truce as an opportunity to reorganize its strategies, while Hamas uses this time to rebuild its capabilities and strengthen its internal and external influence, making the next conflict only a matter of time if unresolved issues persist. In this context, the United States plays a critical role in shaping the course of events, especially under the administration of President Trump, whose Middle East policies are marked by ambiguity and sudden shifts. Decisions such as tightening sanctions on Iran or pushing for new peace agreements could reshape the regional equation, further deepening the uncertainty among active players. These conditions make the region appear to be in a 'warrior's respite,' as parties use the time to reassess their positions and prepare for potential new rounds of escalation. Ultimately, the future of these agreements depends on the commitment of the involved parties and the international community's ability to provide guarantees for calm. Nevertheless, the situation remains open to all possibilities, given the overlapping regional and international interests and the difficulty of achieving lasting resolutions to the region's protracted conflicts. The ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon was the result of political and humanitarian pressures rather than an agreement to resolve the fundamental conflict. Core issues such as the blockade, occupation, and Palestinian demands remain unaddressed, leaving the agreements vulnerable to collapse at the first breach or escalation. The presence of powers like Iran and Israel, which maintain conflicting interests in Lebanon and Gaza, along with the lack of a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, renders the truce fragile. Israel's Crackdown on the West Bank Q: Israel has started a major military operation in Jenin just days after the Gaza ceasefire came into force. Why at this time and what are the objectives of this operation? A few days after the Gaza ceasefire came into effect, Israel launched a major military operation in Jenin, reflecting a strategic shift in focus toward the West Bank. The timing of this operation suggests Israel's intent to take advantage of the relative calm in Gaza to address what it perceives as pressing security threats in other areas. Jenin, known as a stronghold for armed groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, has been a source of repeated attacks on Israeli targets, making it a key focus for dismantling infrastructure and preventing future attacks. At the same time, the operation has raised significant international concern, with the United Nations warning of the potential use of excessive force by Israel, which could harm civilians and deepen the humanitarian crisis. These developments highlight the fragility of the ceasefire and the complexity of the security challenges Israel faces on multiple fronts. The escalation in Jenin appears to be part of a broader Israeli strategy to reshape the political and demographic landscape of the West Bank and Gaza, supported by US backing, including funding and political cover. Israeli actions, including settlement expansion and military operations, aim to gradually erode the Palestinian presence. Economic pressures, such as the blockade on Gaza, are employed to push Palestinians toward forced migration, while military operations are carried out to intimidate civilians and destabilize their daily lives. This policy is implemented within a long-term strategic vision that consolidates Israeli dominance at the expense of Palestinian rights. In light of this reality, the importance of international pressure on Israel to ensure its adherence to international law and halt violations becomes evident. Conversely, Palestinian unity and the development of a comprehensive vision for political and popular resistance remain essential to counter these policies and safeguard Palestinian rights in the long term. Gaza Ceasefire Impact on Israel's Domestic Politics Q: How will the ceasefire agreement in Gaza affect Netanyahu's government and Israel's domestic politics? The Gaza ceasefire has cast a heavy shadow over Israeli domestic politics and Benjamin Netanyahu's government, exposing deep political and social divisions. While the temporary security calm may seem like an achievement, it has sparked a storm of controversy both within and outside the government. The resignation of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right figure, in protest of the agreement's terms—including the release of Palestinian prisoners and concessions to Hamas—has highlighted ideological fractures within the ruling coalition. This move not only threatens the stability of the government but also raises concerns about the potential collapse of the coalition and the possibility of early elections. On the popular level, public opinion is sharply divided between those who view the ceasefire as a welcome opportunity for calm and those who see it as capitulation to Hamas' demands. Protests that erupted across the country reflect this anger, particularly among families affected by the attacks. Public demands for stricter terms and greater guarantees before any prisoner exchanges are amplifying pressure on Netanyahu's government. Internationally, the ceasefire has placed Netanyahu in a precarious position, particularly in his relationship with the United States. President Trump's proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza faced widespread condemnation and sparked criticism both domestically and abroad. This tension risks undermining US diplomatic support, adding another layer of complexity to an already challenging situation. Ultimately, the Gaza ceasefire has created a state of political and social tension in Israel, presenting Netanyahu's government with a critical test. Success in navigating this phase depends on Netanyahu's ability to maintain coalition cohesion, pacify Israeli public opinion, and manage international pressures effectively. However, the future of the government and the ceasefire agreement remains uncertain amid these intertwined challenges. The prisoner exchange deal has caused significant internal divisions in Israel, particularly from the opposition and far-right factions, who see it as a concession to Hamas. This situation threatens the stability of Netanyahu's government. There are increasing calls to establish an investigative committee into Israel's shortcomings during the Gaza war, putting Netanyahu in direct confrontation with the opposition and the public. Israel's acceptance of the ceasefire bolsters Hamas' image as a capable force able to dictate terms, weakening Israel's deterrence in the eyes of its own citizens and increasing pressure on the current government. Syria's Future Q: What are the challenges facing the new administration in Syria? And do you think it will be able to address them? Syria today stands at a historic crossroads, with its new administration facing a complex political, security, economic, and social landscape inherited from decades of authoritarianism and a devastating war that has left the country in a state of total collapse. This administration is confronted with the daunting task of rebuilding the state in a balanced manner that restores citizens' trust, addresses foreign interventions, and establishes a just and inclusive system of governance. Security challenges are among the most pressing obstacles, as remnants of the previous regime may seek to destabilize the country through their entrenched networks. Additionally, divisions among armed factions, each pursuing divergent agendas and relying on external support, further complicate the security landscape. Achieving stability requires precise strategies, including unifying weapons under state authority and building inclusive national security institutions that represent all citizens. Politically, the new regime faces the significant challenge of regaining legitimacy after decades of repression and authoritarianism. This necessitates promoting transparency, holding free and fair elections under international supervision, and crafting an inclusive political discourse that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people in all their diversity. Economically, rebuilding the country's devastated infrastructure is an urgent priority, but international sanctions and limited resources complicate this endeavor. Addressing institutional corruption and reforming economic structures are essential pillars for restoring trust and attracting local and international investments. The administration must strengthen partnerships with donor countries, while focusing on reforming financial institutions and combating corruption effectively and transparently. Socially, the fractured social fabric resulting from war and sectarian divisions poses a significant threat to long-term stability. National reconciliation, ensuring the safe and dignified return of refugees, and promoting education and coexistence programs are critical steps toward rebuilding the society. Syria is currently in what can be described as a 'recovery phase,' where the success of the nascent government depends on regional and international support for emergency aid and long-term developmental projects. However, the state may face retaliatory actions from harmed entities aiming to destabilize it through sporadic attacks, although these are likely to have only short-term effects if the government responds decisively and effectively. The long-term vision relies on the administration's ability to strike a balance among security, politics, economy, and society, offering the country a genuine opportunity to reshape its identity as a stable, sovereign state. The new Syria faces a critical test; success will require wise leadership, constructive international partnerships, and collective willpower to achieve the desired transformation. The Return of Donald Trump Q: How will the US President, Donald Trump, deal with the following issues: (Middle East conflicts, Iran, Russia-Ukraine war, and China)? With Donald Trump's return to the US presidency, significant shifts in American foreign policy are anticipated, characterized by a focus on national interests and a more isolationist approach. Regarding the Middle East conflicts, Trump is likely to bolster his support for Israel, continuing his previous policies that included moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. However, such unconditional support for Israel could escalate tensions with Palestinians and further complicate the peace process. As for Iran, Trump is expected to revive the 'maximum pressure' campaign by imposing even stricter economic sanctions to curb its nuclear program and regional influence. Additionally, he may adopt strategies aimed at weakening the growing alliance between Russia and Iran, particularly in light of recent strategic agreements between the two nations. This approach could heighten regional tensions, increasing the likelihood of indirect confrontations between the US and Iran. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump is likely to pursue direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the conflict, prioritizing a quick settlement. This could involve offering concessions to Russia, such as recognizing its influence in certain areas in exchange for its withdrawal from others. Such a strategy may alarm US allies in Europe, who fear it could undermine NATO's unity and security. When it comes to China, Trump is expected to continue his tough trade policies, focusing on reducing the trade deficit and countering what he perceives as unfair trade practices. This may include imposing additional tariffs on Chinese imports and pursuing economic decoupling in strategic sectors. Overall, Trump's foreign policy is expected to prioritize immediate American interests, reduce international commitments, and renegotiate existing agreements to align with US priorities. This approach could reshape global alliances and prompt a reevaluation of the US role on the international stage. Sudan's Conflict Q: Why is the conflict in Sudan not getting enough attention from the international community? And in your opinion, how and when will this conflict come to an end? The lack of significant international attention to the conflict in Sudan can be attributed to a combination of factors tied to geopolitical priorities and economic interests. Despite the deep humanitarian crisis engulfing Sudan, major powers have approached the situation with a narrow utilitarian perspective. Once they evacuated their citizens, Sudan dropped in priority, as these countries shifted their focus to issues they consider more pressing, such as the Russia-Ukraine war and tensions in East Asia. This marginalization has also been evident in Sudan's absence from the agendas of major international and regional summits, such as the African Union summit in February 2024, reflecting a lack of global political will to address the crisis. Additionally, international institutions, including the United Nations, suffer from structural weaknesses in their ability to protect civilians and uphold human rights in Sudan, further undermining their effectiveness in responding to the crisis. The situation is exacerbated by a decline in commitments from donor countries, with the humanitarian response plan receiving only 21% of the required funding. This shortfall has deepened the humanitarian crisis, leaving millions of Sudanese without adequate assistance. On another level, the global perception of Africa, including Sudan, is often reduced to economic interests. International powers view Sudan primarily as a source of natural resources such as gold and rare minerals. Ongoing conflicts are managed in a way that allows certain countries and corporations to exploit these resources with minimal restrictions, taking advantage of weak central governments and internal divisions. As a result, prolonged conflicts serve the agendas of these actors, who see chaos as a means to access resources at lower costs and with limited impact on state sovereignty. Sudan's lack of direct strategic threat to major powers further explains the tepid international response. However, some regional and global actors benefit from the ongoing conflict through arms trade or by enhancing their political and economic influence. This dynamic suggests that the absence of swift solutions is not coincidental but rather part of a more complex set of interests. Ending the conflict requires a more serious international effort, including applying effective diplomatic pressure on the warring parties, providing urgent humanitarian aid to those affected, and bolstering regional and international mediation efforts to reach a comprehensive political solution. However, the timing of the conflict's resolution depends on the willingness of Sudanese parties to cooperate and the level of international pressure to achieve peace. Until then, Sudan remains trapped in a cycle of chaos, perpetuated by economic and political interests that benefit from the ongoing instability. Saudi Arabia's Regional Leadership Q: Saudi Arabia has played an effective and active role in mobilizing a unified Arab and regional stance to end the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, support Syria, and resolve the Sudan conflict, how do you see this role? And how will it impact the regional dynamics? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has played a pivotal role in unifying Arab and regional positions to end conflicts and promote stability in the region, with a particular focus on crises in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Sudan. In Lebanon, Saudi Arabia responded positively to political developments by supporting the election of President Joseph Aoun and strengthening cooperation through the visit of the Saudi Foreign Minister to Beirut. This move aims to restore trust and reinforce Lebanese sovereignty amidst ongoing reform efforts. Regarding Gaza, the Kingdom, in collaboration with Egypt, has actively worked to advance ceasefire efforts, expressing deep concern over the humanitarian catastrophe resulting from the conflict, reflecting its unwavering commitment to supporting the Palestinian cause. In Syria, following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime, Saudi Arabia has demonstrated a commitment to rebuilding relations and promoting stability, emphasizing the importance of Syria reclaiming its regional role within a comprehensive vision to enhance Arab solidarity. As for Sudan, the Kingdom's efforts have been marked by quiet and effective diplomacy, bringing adversaries to the negotiation table to prioritize the interests of the Sudanese people and work toward a sustainable resolution. However, the absence of strong international will to take decisive steps toward ending the fighting remains a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace. These persistent efforts highlight Saudi Arabia's dedication to its leadership role in the region, driven by religious and strategic imperatives to preserve the region's identity and prevent fragmentation. Riyadh has shouldered significant political and economic burdens to foster Arab solidarity and has demonstrated its ability to achieve tangible results despite immense challenges. The Kingdom's unseen efforts may outweigh what is visible, but it continues its work with determination, fully aware that meaningful change requires patience and perseverance, guided by a strategic vision to protect the region from disintegration and secure a better future for its people. Short link : Post Views: 33
