If you ask the average citizen of any country whether their leaders should start wars, almost all would give a resounding “No.” The public, overall, opposes war, but tolerates leaders who prioritize power, legacy, and special interests over the wishes of their own people.

This is how we find ourselves recklessly stumbling toward a global conflict that could erupt out of the regional crises currently unfolding.

With its early Saturday morning attack, Israel is on the verge of dragging the U.S. into a regional war with Iran.

Let’s start with the Middle East. With its early Saturday morning attack, Israel is on the verge of dragging the U.S. into a regional war with Iran. The plans were drawn up weeks ago and, despite U.S. warnings, Israel went ahead with the bombing.

Though, for the moment, Iran seems to be exercising restraint, U.S. leadership seems to not be up for the challenge of averting this conflagration. The Biden administration has proven ineffective. Not only has it failed to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, the administration is also emboldening Israel by providing military assistance against retaliatory attacks from Iran.

For its part, Israel keeps pushing the envelope, ignoring U.S. pleas for restraint, confident that powerful Israel lobby groups will ensure American politicians will continue to supply them with money, weapons, and intelligence.

Enter Russia and Ukraine

A regional Middle East conflict could itself grow into larger war — by dragging in Russia. Given its presence in Syria, there is no predicting exactly how Russia might react to a regional war with U.S. involvement. What we do know is that Russia has issued ominous warnings to Israel about attacking Iranian nuclear sites — warning that will now be tested.

The Russian stance is not difficult to understand. For the U.S., a regional Middle East war would mean jumping into Israel’s fight. For Russia, isolated on the world stage, the region holds the key to a web of interlocking interests. Russia buys drones and ballistic missiles from Iran for use against Ukraine, and Iran, for its part, is perpetually a potential customer for Russia’s sophisticated defense systems. 

Then there is the war in Ukraine itself, where the sides for a global conflict were drawn up. NATO members, bound by a mutual defense pact, are supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. As a response, four countries are coming together as “the axis of resistance” — against, as how Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refers to it, the new “axis of evil”: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

As part of its alliance, the West continues to supply military equipment with more offensive capabilities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants long-range missiles that can attack deeper into Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that if certain red lines get crossed, he will retain the right to use tactical nuclear weapons.

So far, the West has crossed a few of Putin’s red lines without consequence. The question we might ask is: How long do both sides want to play this Russian roulette? 

Both the Middle East and Ukraine conflicts create a growing risk that the U.S. and NATO and end up in direct confrontation with Russia and its allies — the new world war. 

Snowball in the Far East

If this world war breaks out along the lines of the Middle East war and Ukraine conflict, there is no reason to think the conflagration would be contained.

Any number of miscalculation or military accident in either the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea could trigger direct confrontation between China — unlike Russia, an ascendant world power — and the U.S.

A wider war in Easter Europe or the Middle East could, for instance, give China an opening to go to war over Taiwan. So far, China seems in no rush to invade, tacitly accepting the U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” — where the U.S. remains deliberately vague on whether it would defend Taiwan militarily.

A wider war in Easter Europe or the Middle East could give China an opening to go to war over Taiwan.

If the West becomes embroiled in a full-scale war with Russia or in the Middle East, that calculation could change.

Even short of an invasion of Taiwan, China is likely to leverage a distracted West into ever more aggressive actions in the South China Sea, where the potential for conflict is high.

The burgeoning Eastern power is already carrying out its own version of the Monroe Doctrine. Flouting international law, China is flexing its muscle by claiming control over navigation pathways that threaten the neighboring countries of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines — the latter of which bears the brunt of Chinese harassment and, ominously, has a mutual defense pact with the U.S.

History as Our Guide

There are two absolute truths about war. Once started, the outcome is unpredictable. Secondly, and more importantly, wars always escalate. We are witnessing conflicts on three fronts that are exhibiting both characteristics.

History is a powerful teacher, and it’s time we dust off a few history books. Much of what is occurring on today’s geopolitical chessboard has analogues to events that unfolded in the early 20th century. 

Due to arrogance and sheer folly, the relationships between the three cousins — King George V of Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia — deteriorated due to a mix of personal, political, and national factors. This ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the colossal sibling squabble we know as World War I.

Much like today, several key factors set the stage for the First World War. Militarism and nationalism were on the rise, and an arms race between major powers raged. European empires were engaged in intense competition for global dominance and access to resources, particularly in Africa.

As it is today, the powers divvied up into alliances: The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria–Hungary, and Italy (though Italy later withdrew) on one side, and the Triple Entente, with a surrounded Russia joining France and the United Kingdom. In a scenario with echoes today, these alliances were meant to provide mutual defense but also created a precarious situation where a conflict involving one member could quickly spiral into a wider war.

Many of today’s politicians cater to the donor class and special interests that favor conflict.

Those were empires. Their subjects could be excused for their inability to sway their leaders, whose sheer stupidity they would always be subject to. Today, some of the players fit this bill — but not all.

In the democratic West, we are supposed to have a voice. Yet, many of today’s politicians, with the help of the mainstream media, seem indifferent to the desires of their voters, catering instead to the donor class and special interests that favor conflict.

In this dizzying milieu of crisscrossed global interests and unaccountable leadership, our odds can look daunting. Yet those of us bestowed with the right to press our governments must continue to press policymakers to stop this madness before it’s too late.



Israel’s Limited Strikes On Iran Show The Enormous Constraints Faced By Netanyahu

October 26, 2024

Source: Informed Comment

“Fighter Jet,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024.

The limited strikes on Iran carried out by Israeli fighter-jets early on Saturday morning Tehran time above all demonstrated the constraints under which even this extremist Israeli government has to operate. The bombings are said to have been limited to military targets, including missile manufacturing facilities.

The first constraint Israel faced was logistical. The Netanyahu government could not have its fighter jets fly straight to Iran, which would have allowed a more extensive set of attacks. Israel could not gain overflight permissions from Turkey, Iraq or any of the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman). Sean Matthews at Middle East Eye points out that as a result, the Israelis would have had to fly down the Red Sea, go west across the Gulf of Aden, and approach Iran from the Arabian Sea. It is a long way around. They would have had to bring along large hulking refueling planes. This long, clumsy flight path limited what the Israelis could accomplish.

Extremist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had earlier not ruled out hitting Iran’s nuclear facilities or its oil fields. Iran, however, essentially held the GCC countries hostage, warning that if US-backed Israel hit Iranian oil fields, Tehran would retaliate against US-backed Arab oil monarchies in the Gulf such as Saudi Arabia. The Biden administration is trying to woo those countries into recognizing Israel, and having a berserker Israeli government draw them into hostilities with Iran would instead make these Arab countries flee both the US and the possible Israeli embrace. For some diplomatic purposes, as with detente with Iran, Saudi Arabia has already gone to China instead.

According to Middle East Eye, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, had announced Tuesday that Iran had been promised by the Gulf Arabs that they would not allow their air space or soil to be used for Israeli attacks on Iran.

At the same time, Joe Biden pressured Israel not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities or oil fields.

I view Netanyahu as an adventurer who has been attempting to widen the war so as to force the Biden administration to support him. Although Iran backs Hamas, the CIA assessed that the ayatollahs had no idea Hamas was planning to carry out the October 7 attacks, and, indeed, that the Iranian leadership had declined to support Hamas during the past year precisely because they were furious that Yahya Sinwar had tried to drage them into a war without so much as consulting them. Iran also put pressure on Hezbollah not to provoke a war with Israel.

That is, though Iran certainly supports anti-Israel guerrilla groups in the region and enjoys harassing the Israelis through them and their rockets and drones, it doesn’t appear to have acted aggressively given the ferocity of Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza.

Netanyahu struck the Iranian embassy in Damascus last spring in an obvious attempt to bring Iran into the war, and Iran replied with a missile barrage that the US shot down.

Then this summer Netanyahu assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, the civilian head of the Hamas Party politburo (which is no the same as the al-Qassam Brigades paramilitary). The assassination was carried out in Tehran, in a clear attempt to get Iran’s goat. Likewise, Netanyahu’s creepy pager booby trap attack on Hezbollah personnel (and some Iranians, such as the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon) and his assassination of Hassan Nasrallah in September were in part aimed at humiliating Iran.

Iran’s October 1 missile barrage at Israel was mostly shot down by the US, but some missiles got through and one hit an Israeli military base. This attack was revenge for the killings of Haniyeh and Nasrallah.

Israel’s riposte was so limited that it might well not elicit any response from Iran, drawing a line under this phase of the Israel-Iran conflict.

But Netanyahu was forced into a limited response by the Arab Gulf states (two of which –Bahrain and the Emirates– recognize Israel) and by the Biden administration. The refusal of oveflight permissions by the GCC states also limited what Israel could accomplished with its F-35s.

I view Iran’s missile program as largely defensive. They have used it against Israel twice this year, and both came in response to Israeli provocations (provocations that I believe to be deliberate on Netanyahu’s part). Israel has made the point that its jets can now reach Iran with extensive refueling. Iran has made the point that a swarm of missile attacks can penetrate Israel’s missile defenses and hit an Israeli military base.

Each side is seeking some form of deterrence against the other, a deterrence that has broken down this year because of Israel’s aggression in Gaza and Lebanon and its anti-missile defenses.

I think Iran will be satisfied if it feels that a restoration of deterrence has been achieved. I don’t think Netanyahu is defending; I think he is attacking and attempting to expand his influence in the region. For that reason, it will be difficult to reestablish deterrence between the two countries.

For the moment, however, all-out war seems to have been averted.



Juan Cole
Juan R. I. Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three and a half decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context, and he has written widely about Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and South Asia. His books include Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires; The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the Middle East; Engaging the Muslim World; and Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East.