Stephen Walt: The world after the Gaza war will be different than before

According to the international group Tasnim news agency, Stephen Walt, a prominent theorist of political science and international relations in A note in the Foreign Policy magazine examined the consequences of the Gaza war and the writing of the world after the end of this war will be different from before.

Walt writes: “Will the latest war in Gaza have far-reaching consequences? I think that as a rule, conflicting geopolitical events are usually balanced by various kinds of countervailing forces, and events in one small part of the world have wide echoes elsewhere. “Crisis and wars happen, but usually calmer minds prevail and limit their consequences.”

Walt has clarified: “However, this is not always the case, and perhaps the current war in Gaza is one of these exceptions. Of course, I don’t think we’re on the brink of World War III, in fact I’d be surprised if the current war turns into a wider regional conflict. Although I do not completely reject this possibility, so far, none of the governments or groups on the sidelines of this conflict (Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Turkey, etc.) have shown any desire for a direct conflict, and American officials have also tried to limit this conflict. Since a regional conflict would be even more costly and dangerous, we should all hope that these efforts will succeed, but even if the war remains confined to Gaza and ends soon, there will be significant consequences around the world. This university professor adds: “To understand what the wider consequences of this war will be, it is important to recall the general geopolitical situation of the world, just before the surprise attack of October 7 by Hamas. Before the attack by Hamas, the US and its NATO allies were waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Their goal was that Ukraine could push Russia out of the territories it conquered after February 2022 and weaken Russia to the point that it would not be able to do so in the future. But the war has not gone well: Ukraine’s summer counter-offensive has stalled, and the balance of military power appears to be gradually shifting in Russia’s favor, with hopes that Kiev will be able to regain its lost territories either by force of arms or through negotiations. If he takes it back, it will lose its color.” Also, the United States had practically launched an economic war against China, the aim of which was to prevent China from dominating the leading peaks of semiconductor production, artificial intelligence, the quantum realm, and others. Technological fields are advanced. Washington saw China as its main long-term adversary, and the Biden administration decided to focus more and more attention on this challenge. US government officials described economic restrictions against China as “highly concentrated” (a “small yard with high fences”) and insisted that they wanted other forms of cooperation with China. But this small yard was getting bigger, despite growing skepticism about whether its high fences will be able to prevent China from taking the lead in at least some areas of technology.

In the Middle East. , the Biden administration was trying to achieve a difficult diplomatic goal: it wanted to dissuade Saudi Arabia from getting closer to China and give Riyadh some form of security guarantee, possibly allowing the Saudis access to sensitive nuclear technology. normalize relations with Israel. However, it was not clear that this agreement would reach a final result, and critics had warned that ignoring the Palestinian issue and turning a blind eye to the increasingly violent acts of the Israeli government in the Palestinian territories would eventually lead to an explosion.

He continued to discuss the consequences of the October 7 incident for geopolitics and American foreign policy.

Walt writes: “First, this war put an important obstacle in the way of American efforts to normalize Saudi-Israeli relations (which was undoubtedly one of the goals of Hamas). Of course, this obstacle may not be permanent because the initial motives behind this agreement still remain and will continue to exist after the Gaza war. Even in this case, the obstacles to this agreement have clearly increased, and as the death toll increases, these obstacles will become even higher.”

Second, this war will interfere with America’s efforts to reduce the cost of its time and attention in the Middle East and focus its attention and efforts on East Asia. Jake Sullivan, the White House National Security Adviser, in an article published in Foreign Affairs just before the Hamas attack – and now infamous – claimed that an orderly approach by the US government in the Middle East would increase the resources needed for other global priorities. and reduces the risk of new conflicts in the Middle East. October showed that this was not exactly the result that was actually achieved.

He adds: “The appointment of Kurt Campbell, an expert on Asian issues, as the deputy secretary of state, may reduce the burden of this problem a little. But the recent crisis in the Middle East still means a reduction in the American political and military capacity for Asia in the short and medium term. The internal protest uprising of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which the middle officials of this ministry were raised against the unilateral response of the American government to the Gaza war, makes this problem more difficult. And it will show the diplomatic weakness of Europe, if not its lack of character, and will also lead to the weakening of a bigger goal, that is, the unification of the democracies of the world in the framework of a strong and effective coalition.

Walt wrote: “This is bad news for the West but very good news for Russia and China.” From their perspective, anything that diverts US attention from Ukraine and East Asia is a good thing, especially when they can sit by and watch the damage mount. As I said in the previous article, this war also provides a good justification for Moscow and Beijing in favor of the multipolar order, which they have long declared against the US-led order. All they have to do is point out that America has been the main superpower running the Middle East for the past thirty years, and the results have been a disastrous war in Iraq, a hidden nuclear capability in Iran, the rise of ISIS. , a humanitarian disaster in Yemen, chaos in Libya and the failure of the Oslo peace process. They can add the Hamas attacks on October 7th to this list to show that Washington cannot spare even its closest ally from terrible events.” But they have an enthusiastic audience in many parts of the world. It is not surprising that the media campaigns of Russia and China are now using this conflict to challenge the concept of the “irreplaceable country” (ie America).

This theorist has stated: “There was already a big gap between the US and the West’s view of the Ukraine crisis and the approach of many southern countries whose leaders clearly did not support Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but what Their view is the double standards and the selective attention of the western political elites, they were angry. Israel’s extreme reaction to Hamas attacks widens this gap, partly because in the rest of the world, compared to America and Europe, there is much more empathy for the general suffering of the Palestinian people. The more the war goes on and the more Palestinian civilians are killed, the more this sympathy increases, especially when the US government and some prominent European politicians have such one-sided support for Israel. As a senior G7 diplomat told the Financial Times last month: “We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South. Everything we had done in this part of the world [on Ukraine] has been lost. Forget about international law, forget about world order. They won’t even listen to that anymore.” Perhaps this description is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is not wrong.” According to Walt, people outside the comfortable confines of transatlantic society are offended by the selective gaze of the West. A new war has broken out in the Middle East and the western media have devoted all their capacity to it, and expensive newspapers have filled countless pages with its reports and interpretations, and television channels have dedicated hours of airtime to its events. . But in the same week that the war broke out, the United Nations reported that about seven million people had been displaced in the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly because of the violence. This report attracted less attention, even though the number of people who were displaced was more than the number of victims in Israel or Gaza. Walt writes at the end of his note: “Finally, this incident is unimaginable.” , does not polish America’s reputation as a foreign policy prowess. Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to protect Israel may stain his reputation forever, but the US foreign policy apparatus could not see that such bloodshed was coming, and its reaction has not helped much until today. If this latest failure is accompanied by an unpleasant outcome in Ukraine, other countries will not only question the credibility of the United States, but also American arbitration. This is the second quality that is considered more important because if other governments believe that American leaders have a clear understanding of the events and know how to react and at least pay some attention to the values ​​they claim. If they have, then they listen to Washington’s advice and follow it. If this is not the case, why should they pay attention to America’s recommendations in any field?”

end of message/