Financial Times: Four steps Washington should take on Iran and Israel
The Financial Times published an article by former US diplomat Richard Haass, who says that the Middle East has reached a stage where it’s difficult to distinguish between action and reaction.
On the Palestinian front, Haass makes it clear how difficult it’s for the Gaza talks to succeed at this point, even before the assassinations, so much so that he expects the most that can be achieved now is the continuation of the war in Gaza but at a lower frequency.
On the Iranian front, the article notes that the United States succeeded in convincing Israel a measured response to Tehran’s escalation when it directed its missiles and drones into Israel last April.
The former US diplomat advises the administration to take four steps:
First, to continue calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, no matter how difficult they may seem now, especially since Israel, in Haass’s view, lacks a military reason to continue the war, faces internal pressure to free the hostages, and wants to rearrange its ranks on other fronts.
Second, pressure the Israel to remain open to a diplomatic approach to dealing with the situation in southern Lebanon in order to make mutual withdrawal of forces possible, with the main goal being to enable the residents of northern Israel to return to their homes.
Haass argues that the Hezbollah has an arsenal of about 100,000 missiles capable of reaching residential areas and harming the Israel’s weak economy, on the one hand.
On the other hand, any Israeli occupation of Lebanon wouldn’t yield positive results.
Third, pressure on China, which relies on Iranian oil, to encourage Tehran to respond to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh on its soil.
Fourth, not to abandon the larger and longer-term goal of finding a political alternative to Hamas that is willing to address reasonable Palestinian political goals and live in peace with Israel.
Haass’s article refers to normalization with Saudi Arabia, which could have a real impact on Israeli political talks.
At the end of the article, the article stresses the need for Washington to continue arming Israel, to emphasize the strong American support for Israel and that armed escalation won’t achieve the desired ends.
On the other hand, the article draws attention to the fact that US arming Israel would increase US influence over how Israel uses it.
