The heated exchanges in the ongoing battle between Israel and Iran are powered by two flawed strategic doctrines from both sides. President Donald Trump now has a unique opportunity to correct these ill-conceived strategies, thereby paving the way for potentially stabilizing the Middle East in a long while, assuming he can leverage that chance. Iran’s faulty strategic mindset, often embraced by its ally – Hezbollah, has consistently led to unsatisfactory outcomes. I refer to this approach as trying to ‘out-crazy’ an opponent.
Under this doctrine, Iran and Hezbollah always operate on a ‘go-big-or-go-home’ basis, intent on outperforming their adversaries at every turn. Their actions range from orchestrating the assassination of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, executing the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, to aiding Bashar Assad in slaughtering thousands of his own people to hold on to power. Both Iran and Hezbollah, individually or collectively, bear the hallmarks of these extreme acts, signaling their intent to the world that they will always outdo anyone daring to cross their paths.
The Iranian approach successfully propelled Hezbollah to force Israel out of southern Lebanon. However, it failed to deliver when Iran and Hezbollah fantasized about driving Israelis from their ancestral homeland. Both parties are misguided in this aspect, along with Hamas. They persistently view the Jewish state as an alien colonial presence devoid of any real links to the territory. Consequently, they believe the Jewish state will eventually share the same destiny as Belgian colonists in the Belgian Congo, on the assumption that intense pressure will induce them to retreat to a ‘Belgium’ of their own.
However, there is no ‘Belgium’ for Israeli Jews. They are as rooted in their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, irrespective of the decolonization rhetoric propagated in elite academic institutions. Thus, no one can really out-crazy the Israeli Jews. In desperate circumstances, they will play by the regional rules, which starkly diverge from the Geneva Conventions, following what I term the Hama Rules, named after the brutal Hama attacks launched by Hafez Assad’s Syrian government in 1982.
The Hama Rules take their name after I covered the aftermath of the Hama attacks where Hafez Assad’s Syrian government brutally put down the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad eradicated the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama by ruthlessly flattening vast regions of the city, turning entire apartment blocks into a giant parking space. In essence, the Hama Rules are a brutal case of ‘anything goes’.
Mired in their own flawed strategic thinking, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with his radical government, subscribes to the doctrine of the final resolution or ‘once and for all’. The doctrine presumes only two solutions to the tumultuous situation. One of them would entail Israel taking permanent control of West Bank, Gaza Strip, and potentially Iran, akin to what America did in Germany and Japan post World War II, with the intent of transforming the political culture. A complete eradication of their opposition is the other impossible possibility.
However, from a realist perspective, a perfect deal for peace would necessitate two simultaneous approaches. Firstly, Trump should equip Israel’s air force with B-2 bombers, 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, and experienced U.S trainers, enabling Israel to dismantle Iran’s subterranean nuclear facilities, provided Iran doesn’t consent to let International Atomic Energy Agency teams do it instead, and recover all fissile material generated by Tehran.
In parallel, Trump’s administration should recognize Palestinians as a nation entitled to self-determination but under the condition they can exhibit their readiness to shoulder the responsibilities statehood comes with. The Palestinians would need to nurture a new leadership for the Palestinian Authority that the United States deems credible, incorruptible, and committed, whose focus is both on efficiently serving Palestinian citizens in West Bank and Gaza, and co-existing peacefully with Israel.
The strategy of out-crazying the crazies may have served Israel to survive in the Middle East, but it cannot suffice for long. Continued reliance on this strategy just perpetuates the status quo, as seen in the Gaza war. A peace-loving nation, no matter how daunting the challenge appears, must always be open to exploring alternatives, embracing a combination of force and diplomacy.
Not only would this serve as the best approach for Israel in its relationship with Palestine; it would also prove most effective in isolating Iran, jointly by Israel and America. The prerequisites for peace in the Middle East that could reduce but not terminate America’s military presence in the region include forcing Iran to establish a well-defined western border, ceasing its intent to colonize Arab neighbors and annihilate Israel with a nuclear bomb.
Israel, on the other hand, needs to be compelled to delineate a clear eastern border and cease colonizing the entirety of the West Bank. The Palestinians also need to be made to draw clear eastern and western borders between Israel and Jordan, halting the ‘from the river to the sea’ rhetoric. In essence, the current war has created a perfect opportunity for a shrewd statesman to implement what Dennis Ross refers to as ‘coercive diplomacy’ in his new book, ‘Statecraft 2.0.’