Israel

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a political minefield and the United States has placed itself right in the middle of it. U.S. diplomatic ties and historical sympathies for Israel have repeatedly antagonized Palestine, and by extension the entirety of the Arab world. The Palestinian question is one of many issues that drive a stake between the U.S. and its Arab allies, although the issue of Palestine has potent nationalistic implications for Arab countries. This in combination with other points of conflict with the Middle East threaten U.S. access to important resources like oil with larger implications for greater global security.

Hamas is an Islamist militant group in the Gaza strip, which is also known as Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement). Hamas is a Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States Government and many other countries due to its armed resistance against Israel.

The Abraham Accords are a groundbreaking step in warming Arab relations with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu went as far as to describe it as, “a pivot of history. It heralds a new dawn of peace.” It was a significant policy switch for the United Arab Emirates. The Arab world had long refused to make any formal relations with Israel as part of the Khartoum Resolution in 1967, agreeing to have no peace, no negotiations, and no recognition of Israel until the Palestinian conflict was resolved. If anything, the conflict has only gotten worse from a Palestinian perspective, so why the change in policy from the UAE? The Gulf nations have a lot to gain from exchanging technology, trade, and tourism with Israel, but the military tensions and the shifting power struggle in the region are the main motivating forces of the agreement. This does mean that the United States can continue to soften its military presence in the Middle East, and work with Arab countries as partners against rival influences rather than as the sole protector of the region.

On Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad accused the United States and “internal enemies” of waging a “psychological war” against Iran in an attempt to stop Iranians from ditching the weakening rial for U.S. dollars. This “war” refers to the significant problems Iran faces, including the U.S.-led economic sanctions, a threatened Israeli military strike, and now internal protests. While this perceived psychological war against Iran has yet to turn into a physical conflict, the United States and Israel must be aware that increasing pressure may cause the Iranian military and government to act erratically, which may lead to Iranian military action.

Iran’s nuclear program has again entered the spotlight of U.S. foreign policy debates in a election cycle in which foreign policy has taken the backseat. The current debates often result in three scenarios: 1) Iran gives up its nuclear program, 2) Israel (with or without U.S. assistance) makes a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, postponing Iran’s progress, or 3) The parties involved wait until Iran develops nuclear weapons and thus assure a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. Essentially, these scenarios ultimately result in either Iran ending its nuclear program or an unavoidable war between Israel (and therefore the U.S.) and Iran. These scenarios leave no room for the possibility of a nuclear Iran without war.

The events in Syria in past weeks show that the civil war has transformed into a greater regional sectarian conflict. Because of the nuanced and complex nature of this conflict, a deeper look at many aspects is required for an adequate analysis. This analysis is the second of two parts. The first focused on al-Qaeda operations and Iranian influence in Syria; this second part focuses on the Balkanizing of the Syrian state, Kurdish autonomy, and the implications of potential US intervention in Syria after the large-scale use of chemical weapons.