International politics, according to the realist perspective is in a state of perennial tumult, thanks to the absence of a ‘Leviathan’, to quote Thomas Hobbes. This idea applies to almost all geopolitical regions of the world, but is most applicable in the context of the Middle East or West Asia.
For a long time, particularly since the end of the Second World War the Middle East has been dominated by Islamic extremism on one hand and the oil monopoly of the Gulf kingdoms, on the other. Another key aspect of the Middle Eastern geopolitics has been the protracted Palestine-Israel conflict that has been going on for the past thousand years if the history of the region is taken in its entirety.
Having said that, the dastardly terror attack by Hamas on Israel on 7th October that claimed the lives of over 1,400 civilians and injured thousands was an attack of pure terror.
This was followed by the merciless retaliatory action by Israel, and such actions and counter-actions are sure to change the geopolitics and international relations of the region in a manner that was unimaginable in the recent past.
It is difficult to ascertain the future of international politics from any one perspective, but some predictive models like the ‘reference frames’ with which the brain uses to visualise our surroundings can be used to make observations.
In the light of that, the Middle East will undergo some large-scale changes.
It is difficult to ascertain the future of international politics from any one perspective, but some predictive models like the ‘reference frames’ with which the brain uses to visualise our surroundings can be used to make observations, like the Middle East will undergo some large-scale changes
No further Abraham Accords
The Abraham Accords was a landmark agreement that Israel had signed with four Muslim countries i.e. UAE, Morocco, Sudan and Bahrain under the diplomatic stewardship of the United States in 2020. The accords led to the normalisation of its relations and establishment of diplomatic ties with the four countries.
This pact was hailed as a watershed moment in West Asia in terms of establishing lasting peace and opening a path to the potential solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. However, the 7th October attack and the swift Israeli retaliation poured cold war on all such prospects. Saudi Arabia, which was seen as the most important country that would have normalised ties with Israel has signalled that there would be no compromise with Israel.
Similarly, countries like Egypt and Jordan, which had signed peace agreements with Israel earlier have come under mounting pressure from the public opinion in their respective countries to condemn and take punitive action against Israel.
Even if the conflict doesn’t escalate, there is little doubt that the Islamic countries in the Middle East would think twice before normalising their ties with Israel given the large-scale loss of lives due to the relentless Israeli bombing in Gaza.
Further, the Arab public opinion has once again turned against Israel and doesn’t want any negotiations with the Jewish state.
Saudi Arabia, which was seen as the most important country that would have normalised ties with Israel through Abraham Accords has signalled that there would be no compromise with Israel
New nature of terrorism
The terror attack by Hamas involved the use of para-gliders, sophisticated rocket attacks and other assault vehicles. This has changed the very dimensions of terrorism in the world; bringing into attention the external support that Hamas is receiving, most probably from Iran, which however, has openly declared its support for Hamas.
Further, the recent bomb blast in Kerala at a religious event shows how globalised the nature of terrorism has become. This threat of radicalisation has led to the cementing of the belief among many scholars that what is happening in the Middle East is symptomatic of its tumultuous past.
Clash of Civilizations?
The unequivocal support among several countries (predominantly Christian) for Israel and the strong support shown by Hindu nationalists in India and elsewhere is lending credibility to the thesis of ‘Clash of Civilizations’, propounded by the late Harvard University political scientist Samuel P Huntington.
Even if the conflict doesn’t escalate, there is little doubt that the Islamic countries in the Middle East would think twice before normalising their ties with Israel given the large-scale loss of lives due to the relentless Israeli bombing in Gaza
The condemnation among Arab public opinion of Israel’s action is showing the globally polarised public perception. In fact within the West people are divided over whom to support.
Scholars are arguing that culture as a flashpoint between nations continues to remain a sticking point in this conflict; while the nature of the war is completely political, but the right-wing forces in several parts of the world have painted this war in civilisational terms.
They argue that if Israel doesn’t defend itself against Hamas and the other terror groups then the outcome could be deadly for the Jewish people, maybe a second ‘Holocaust’.
Oil politics is back
Iran called upon the Islamic community to impose an oil embargo on Israel. Whether they heed this appeal is debatable, but what is undeniable is the return of oil politics. The 1973 Yom Kippur war saw the OPEC countries imposing an oil embargo on the West leading to several economic repercussions for them.
The unequivocal support among several countries (predominantly Christian) for Israel and the strong support shown by Hindu nationalists in India and elsewhere is lending credibility to the thesis of ‘Clash of Civilizations’
The conflict could usher in a similar situation unless deft diplomacy by countries like India and China manages to contain the fallout.
Though, the current conflict continues to attract different analyses. But one thing is very clear – the Middle East will no longer remain the same.
– The writer is currently working as a Research Associate at Defence Research and Studies (dras.in) and is a columnist. The views expressed are of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
