Ironically, the Israelis and the Iranians pursue an almost identical strategy: war-mongering rhetoric combined with the use of proxy conflicts that help them increase their leverage in the region and attain strategic goals. In reality, neither party is interested in fighting each other directly, nor is even seeking to put an end to "the threat" of the other.

If the "Iranian threat" were to be totally removed, Tel Aviv would lose its most cherished pretext, which is always at the ready for exploitation domestically, regionally and internationally. Similarly, if the "Israeli threat" and "resistance" were to be subtracted from Iranʹs discourse, Tehran would lose its powerful king in this regional chess game.

Feeding the spectre of war

The prime intention of the Israeli-American "Iran war process" is to engage Israel with the Arab Gulf countries. The core of this process is the manipulation of Saudi and Emirati fears, their resentment of Iran and the latterʹs increasing regional influence. An unspoken premise of the process is that Israel – and only Israel – can stand up against Iran, and thus the Gulf Arabs should succumb to its leadership with gratitude!

Essayist and media scientist Khaled Hroub was formerly director of the Cambridge Arab Media Project. He also works as a consultant for the Oxford Research Group's (ORG) Middle East programme (photo: Birzeit University)
Forget the pomposity of "erasing Israel": Iranʹs position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is ultimately to accept what the Palestinians would accept. At the 2017 summit meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation in Istanbul, Iranʹs president Hassan Rouhani and foreign minister Javad Zarif voiced no objection to a statement issued by the meeting that called for a two-state solution, writes Hroub

The trade-off for Israel is the gradual and public normalisation of political and commercial relations across the Gulf. The Israeli contribution to this trade-off is negligible to say the least. Realistically and in a nutshell, Israel would never fight a war on behalf of and for the Gulf States, nor would it risk its resources to serve their interests.

All this is helped by the short-sighted politics of both the Gulf countries and Iran, which effectively play out in the interest of Israel. If a fraction of their wasted effort in regional rivalry was spent in serious thought and diplomatic dialogue aimed at establishing security arrangements that safeguard their mutual interests, they would not have ended up being played off against each other by the U.S. and Israel. The enormous resources allocated for building military arsenals benefit none except American and Western manufacturers.

Figures indicate that the Gulf countries are spending more than $100 billion on weapons this year, not to mention the astonishing figure of $450 billion worth of military deals that the Saudis signed with Trump in 2017. It is no exaggeration to suggest that keeping the region boiling in conflicts, tensions and wars is a vital American interest.

Thanks to sky-high arms expenditure, money continues to pour into U.S. banks. The best way to protect these huge investments for years to come is to invest in a process that maintains the spectre of a Middle East haunted by war.

Khaled Hroub

© Qantara.de 2019

Khaled Hroub is professor of Middle Eastern Politics at Northwestern University/Qatar.

More on this topic
In submitting this comment, the reader accepts the following terms and conditions: Qantara.de reserves the right to edit or delete comments or not to publish them. This applies in particular to defamatory, racist, personal, or irrelevant comments or comments written in dialects or languages other than English. Comments submitted by readers using fantasy names or intentionally false names will not be published. Qantara.de will not provide information on the telephone. Readers' comments can be found by Google and other search engines.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Comments for this article: For ʹPalestinian peace processʹ read ʹIran war processʹ

Yes, good. I would add one important element though: control of the region by the U.S., a hegemon, and Israel, an ally, has to be viewed vis-a-vis a rival or rivals. Iran is one, but China and Russia are two others and it is very crucial that their power is undermined. The U.S. is losing its primacy in Southeast Asia. The Middle East has to remain as leverage for its geo-political and economic primacy, not for oil (America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil), and not only for the arms industry (arms sales are still a fraction of the American GDP), but for capital outflows (as the author mentioned, assisting more or less the stagnating Western, especially European economies and maintaining domestic consent/stability/wealth) and hegemony and/or over others.

Nadeem17.05.2019 | 13:30 Uhr