It’s a pity that another TV debate between US presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump isn’t on the cards. The US is not just the guardian of today’s world order, it is also Israel’s chief backer, and so the stance of its future leadership on the war in West Asia matters to the rest of the world.
As Israel and Iran face off, amid the usual White House defence of Israel’s right to defend itself, we have not heard from either leader what they might do to resolve the crisis.
“I’m clear-eyed that Iran is a destabilizing, dangerous force in the Middle East,” said Harris this week in support of President Joe Biden’s order to intercept Iran’s fusillade of rockets fired at Israel. “I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist militias.”
Late last year, in the context of Gaza, Harris had affirmed US backing for a ‘two-state solution,’ asked for the safety of Palestinian civilians and outlined five principles for post-conflict Gaza: No forcible displacement, no re-occupation, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory and no use of Gaza for terror.
Now with Iran drawn deeper into this conflict by an Israeli offensive against its proxy forces in Lebanon, Harris’s stern tone is no surprise. No US politician can go ‘soft’ on Tehran, whose post-1979 defiance of America endures. On his part, Trump has claimed this war would not have happened on his watch.
“The world is on fire and spiralling out of control. We have no leadership,” he alleged, arguing that Iran was held “in check” when he was president. “They were starved for cash, fully contained and desperate to make a deal.”
Political rhetoric apart, what is to be done now? Having shrugged off a US ceasefire call and launched a blitz against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel now looks poised to strike Iranian targets in retaliation to Iran’s latest volley.
As speculation has it, Tel Aviv may seek to cripple Iran financially by bombing its oil apparatus, which could choke estimated exports of 2 million barrels per day and send crude prices up. Even more reckless would be attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
With Tehran probably on the verge of acquiring nukes, a pre-emptive strike may look tempting to Israel, but what about the fallout? At one level, it could irradiate the region.
At another, even if Israel’s ‘bunker-buster’ explosives somehow penetrate the deep caverns that are reckoned to host Iran’s nuclear factory, Israeli action may fail to keep nukes out of its reach.
Iran has the know-how to start from scratch and an attack might just harden the regime’s resolve to push ahead with horrific weapons as deterrents—with grim consequences for the region’s security.
That Iran hasn’t gone nuclear yet, at least not overtly, can be attributed to the prospect of a patch-up with the US. And this is why West Asia needs to be America’s focus of debate. In 2018, as president, Trump had scrapped Barack Obama’s 2015 deal under which Iran would stop enriching fissile material in lieu of relief from US sanctions.
Post-Trump feelers from Washington on exploring the Obama deal’s revival may explain Tehran’s dilemma over war escalation. If Iran sees scope for diplomacy easing US curbs on its economy, its calculus could drive it to show restraint in search of a new bargain.
But not if it views Israel as driving America’s geopolitical agenda in the region. Peace prospects thus depend on how a Harris or Trump White House would use its leverage over today’s adversaries. So far, sadly, neither has said anything to inspire hope.
#West #Asia #flareup #TrumpHarris #debate #prevent #allout #war
