The podcast discusses the recent turmoil in the Middle East, including the shattered hopes of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the impact of normalization on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's involvement in the region, political dynamics in the Middle East, the APEC CEO Summit, and the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
The assumption that normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia would lead to stability in the Middle East was proven wrong due to misjudgments and overlooked risks.
The reliance on authoritarian regimes, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the growing influence of proxy groups undermined de-escalation efforts in the region.
Deep dives
US efforts for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia faced challenges
American officials were trying to broker an agreement for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, as part of a broader attempt to reduce the US role in the region and focus on other priorities. However, there were signs that the assumptions underlying this strategy were on shaky ground. The fires of conflict were steadily rising, and the hope for stability was shattered by Hamas' attack on October 7th. While the US had a reasonable strategy to prioritize other priorities and focus on China as a pacing threat, there were misjudgments in implementing the strategy. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and misjudged assumptions about other regional players' incentives contributed to the challenges faced in pursuing the exit strategy.
Normalization between Israel and Arab states sought as part of exit strategy
The US pursued the normalization between Israel and Arab states, considering it as part of the exit strategy from the Middle East. The idea was to create a different alignment of regional powers that would allow the US to step back and focus on other priorities. The hope was to reduce the US role in the region while promoting stability through agreements between Israel and Arab nations. However, the potential downsides and risks of relying on this approach were not fully appreciated. Moreover, the long-standing Palestinian issue posed challenges to this strategy as the conditions in the West Bank and Jerusalem continued to deteriorate.
Concerns about the durability of regional de-escalation
While there were signs of de-escalation in the region, it was not sustainable in the long term. Several tensions and risks were overlooked, resulting in a fragile equilibrium. The reliance on authoritarian regimes and their inability to address domestic problems added to the instability. Moreover, the lack of progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the vulnerability of the Palestinian people created an ongoing source of resentment and potential eruption. The growing influence of proxy groups like Hamas and the need for a more comprehensive solution were among the factors that undermined the durability of de-escalation efforts.
Risks and challenges in managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The recent crisis highlighted the risks and challenges in managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States and other regional players have tried various approaches, such as normalization agreements and diplomatic initiatives, but have faced limitations and misjudgments. The potential for a ground invasion of Gaza, the decapitation of Hamas, and the question of future leadership pose challenges for Israel. The Palestinian Authority's loss of legitimacy and the need for responsible indigenous leadership in Gaza add to the complexity. The situation calls for careful consideration of the humanitarian consequences, the prevention of further settler violence, and the potential for political renewal among the Palestinians.
Two weeks ago, there was reason to think that the Middle East was becoming more stable than it had been for years. Washington was pushing for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia as one piece of a broader attempt to reduce the U.S. role in the region and focus on other priorities. Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7 shattered those hopes.
But there had long been signs that all was not well—that key assumptions underlying U.S. strategy were on shaky ground. In the months before the attacks, Suzanne Maloney and Marc Lynch saw the lights flashing red. Maloney is vice president of the Brookings Institution and director of its Foreign Policy program. Lynch is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. As they watched the region over the past several months, both worried that another crisis was coming.