Trita Parsi: Is De-escalation Feasible in the Middle East?
Oct 20, 2023
auto_awesome
Trita Parsi, EVP of Quincy Institute, discusses the feasibility of de-escalation in the Middle East. Lack of pressure on Israel to de-escalate, Biden's remarks on Israel and Palestine, challenges of a two-state solution, domestic politics in Iran and Lebanon, US cultural domestic politics response to Hamas attack, Egypt's role in providing aid and taking in refugees, and reflections on George Floyd protests.
De-escalation in the Middle East is becoming increasingly unlikely due to the actions of all sides, despite clear interests against a regional war.
Neglecting the need for negotiations and genuine de-escalation only leads to more loss of life and worsens the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Biden administration's approach falls short in practice, and stronger diplomatic efforts are needed to prevent the US from being dragged into a wider regional conflict.
Deep dives
All sides are acting recklessly, increasing the risk of a regional war
Despite clear interests against a regional war in the Middle East, all sides are acting in a manner that makes such a war increasingly likely. There is a need for de-escalation, but talk of it remains off limits. Examples include the State Department memos instructing employees to avoid terms like de-escalation and ceasefire, as well as Israel mobilizing a large number of troops. The lack of pressure on all sides to de-escalate increases the risk of a broader regional conflict.
The idea of destroying Hamas is unrealistic
While there may be a desire to destroy Hamas, this goal has proven unrealistic in the past and is unlikely to bring about a better situation. Revenge-driven actions and mass bombings will not bring security or a solution. Neglecting the need for negotiations and a genuine de-escalation only leads to more loss of life and worsens the situation. A more realistic approach is recognizing the need for diplomacy, negotiating with the Palestinian Authority, and pursuing a two-state solution.
The US needs to play a stronger diplomatic role
The Biden administration's approach, while containing some valid remarks, falls short in practice. Rhetoric of supporting a two-state solution is contradicted by actions that bury the possibility of achieving it. To prevent the US from being dragged into a wider regional conflict, a stronger diplomatic effort is needed. The focus should be on de-escalation, securing a ceasefire, releasing hostages held by Hamas, and pressuring all sides to pursue real diplomatic negotiations for a lasting solution.
The Importance of Pursuing a Two-State Solution
The podcast episode discusses the importance of pursuing a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It suggests that a valid process towards a two-state solution would delegitimize Hamas and weaken their power. The lack of diplomacy and implementation of measures by Israel has led to an increase in settlement activity, which has made a two-state solution more challenging. However, a genuine process seeking a solution is the best way to weaken Hamas and create opportunities for new leadership in Gaza.
Reevaluating US Foreign Aid and Engagement in the Middle East
The podcast episode also explores the role of the US in funding foreign governments in the Middle East, specifically focusing on Israel. It questions the effectiveness of pouring money into a strategically unwise policy and emphasizes the need for a revisiting of foreign aid strategies. The episode argues that the US pursuit of military domination in the Middle East has resulted in an increase in conflicts in the region. It suggests that reducing US involvement and encouraging regional powers to take on the burden of stability themselves could lead to greater interregional diplomacy and resolve conflicts.
This is the audio version of The Reason Livestream, which takes place every Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern time.
"Despite clear interests on almost all sides against a regional war [in the Middle East], all sides are acting in a manner that makes such a war increasingly likely," writesTrita Parsi in an October 15 articlecalling for the Biden administration to push for "de-escalation" between Israel and Hamas. Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a D.C. think tank that promotes a more restrained U.S. foreign policy. He is the former head of the National Iranian American Council and the author of several books, including A Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.
Parsi says that although the Biden administration is "well aware" of "escalation risks" that might lead to a broader regional war, talk of de-escalation remains off-limits. HuffPost reported late last week that it has obtained State Department memosinstructing employees to avoid terms like "de-escalation/ceasefire," "end to violence/bloodshed," and "restoring calm" in press materials and statements.
Is de-escalation feasible after Hamas slaughtered Israeli civilians and continues to hold more than200 hostages? How should Israel respond to the worst terrorist attack in its history? What can U.S. policymakers do to make the prospect of a bigger war less likely?
We discussed these questions and more with Parsi. We also revisited the topic of domestic reactions to the Hamas attack, namely the comments of a Cornell professor who claimed to be "exhilirated" by it.