Widening the war in Middle East will have consequences for every nation on Earth and the finger of blame will be pointed at Israel

By Tom Arms

The Gaza War has escalated to become the Middle East war.

The Israeli government’s strategy is based entirely on total military victory over Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and their backer Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—pushed by his ultra-orthodox allies—has left no room for political compromise or any consideration of the wider consequences.

At the UN General Assembly this week, the Israeli Prime Minister declared: “There is no place” In the Middle East that Israel’s “long arm cannot reach.” He then left the chamber to make a phone call ordering the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He and a large slice of Hezbollah’s senior command structure were dead within the hour.

Shortly afterwards, Israel launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

Iran could be restrained no longer. They were being humiliated. Tehran launched the largest ever missile attack on Tel Aviv. Thanks to Israel’s iron dome and American and British jets, only a handful of the missiles broke through. Netanyahu responded by pronouncing: “Iran made a big mistake…and it will pay for it.”

How will Israel make Iran pay for their attack? What will be America’s response? How about Russia, China and the Arab states? What are the likely consequences of what appears to be the start of a Middle East war?

First of all, we should examine the role of Hezbollah in the context of the wider relationships of the Middle East. Hezbollah is, first and foremost a creature of Iran. Its primary purpose is to act as a deterrent defensive shield against a threatened Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Its estimated 45,000-strong military force and 100,000-plus missiles were thought to be enough to keep Israel off balance and occupied but not nearly enough to invade the Jewish state and defeat it in a proper war.

But even as a defensive shield, Hezbollah has been weakening in recent years. Lebanon’s multiplying political and economic problems have been largely blamed at the party’s insistence of working as a state within a state while at the same time attempting to control the legitimate Lebanese political apparatus. Hezbollah is unpopular with the Lebanese people.

Analysts now expect Israeli to attack either Iran’s oil infrastructure, its military installations, the Iranian leadership and/or its nuclear facilities. An assault on any of these would have consequences for the rest of the world.

Then there are the missile attacks it has launched on northern Israel since 8 October. It may have started with 100,000 rockets and drones, but military analysts believe that at least half of Hezbollah’s arsenal has been either fired or destroyed by Israeli counterattacks.

Finally, there is Israel’s infiltration of Hezbollah’s communications system and the assassination of key figures. The destruction of pagers and walkie talkies indicates that Mossad has the ability to tell where almost every Hezbollah fighter is at any given time and the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has the ability to destroy them with sophisticated guided missiles.

As for the assassinations, Hassan Nasrallah was not the only Hezbollah figure killed when the Israeli bomb hit an apartment block in a Beirut suburb this week. In the same room were the Hezbollah’s number two, chief of security and the head of the southern command. And they were only a handful of a few dozen key Hezbollah figures whom Israel has killed in recent months.

So, Iran’s proxy/defensive shield is seriously weakened. Now, key figures in the Israeli government are arguing, is the time to attack what Netanyahu has called “the greatest danger to peace in the Middle East”—Iran. And Iran, has provided the Israeli prime minister with the casus belli to do just that.

Analysts now expect Israeli to attack either Iran’s oil infrastructure, its military installations, the Iranian leadership and/or its nuclear facilities. An assault on any of these would have consequences for the rest of the world.

If Israel focused on Iran’s oil infrastructure it would probably target Kharg Island through which 90 percent of the country’s oil exports flow. Tehran’s biggest customer is China. At least 10 percent of Chinese oil needs are supplied by Iran. To date, China has managed to stay aloof from the Middle East quagmire. An attack on its oil supplies could change that.

A wider Middle East War could also put paid to China’s critical Belt/Road Initiative as any fighting would straddle the link between the Chinese workshops and the European markets that the BRI wants to reach.

Iran is responsible for roughly 4 percent of the world’s oil production. At the moment there is a surfeit of oil supplies. But a disruption in production could push up world oil prices just as the West is starting to tackle inflation caused by covid and the Ukraine War. This aspect could be exacerbated by the possibility of Iran countering an attack by closing the Straits of Hormuz through which 20-25 percent of the world’s oil passes.

Russia is also a player as an unofficial ally of Iran.  Tehran and Moscow are both propping up Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and Iran is a key supplier of drones that are being used against the Ukrainians. Both the Kremlin and Beijing have joined the chorus for restraint.

The leaders of the Arab states are in quandary. They don’t like Tehran. Neither do they have friendly feelings towards its proxies Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. But their populations feel differently, especially in the rich oil fields of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province which is dominated by Shia Muslims.

Crippling Iran’s nuclear capability must be Israel’s ultimate goal. After Iran’s missile attack, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, wrote on X that Israel should immediately attack Iran’s nuclear installations. He said: “We have the justification. We have the tools. Now that Hezbollah and Hamas are paralyzed, Iran stands exposed.”

Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability may be a task too far for Mossad and the IDF. Iran’s nuclear facilities are spread over at least eight different sites and they are hidden deep underground and heavily protected

The problem there is America. President Joe Biden has categorically said that the US would not support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear capability. But what exactly does that mean? Biden and Harris have both said they would defend Israel and have—with British help—done so at least twice in recent weeks. By protecting Israel from counterattack they are enabling their attack. At least, that is how the rest of the world will see it. So will the Arab voters in the key swing state of Wisconsin who could determine the outcome of the November presidential election.

But destroying Iran’s nuclear capability may be a task too far for Mossad and the IDF. Iran’s nuclear facilities are spread over at least eight different sites and they are hidden deep underground and heavily protected. On top of that, Israel cannot destroy the know-how that the Iranians have acquired with their development program.

And that is why Israel’s emphasis on the military solution will ultimately lead to failure. Destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations would be a major setback. But the Iranians will retain the knowledge and if Israel attacks it will be harnessed to a determination fueled by vengeance. Hezbollah is on the back foot, but it is not eliminated. There are still 45,000 fighters who are world renowned experts at urban street fighting. They proved it in 2000 when they pushed Israel out of Lebanon.

Widening the war will have consequences for every nation on Earth and the finger of blame will be pointed at Israel.

World Review

The Chinese leadership is worried. Their country’s long history is peppered with instances of the “Mandate of Heaven” falling from the rulers’ shoulders because of economic problems.

On top of that there is the obvious fact that autocracies run the risk of violent dissent because the non-violent avenues of protest are banned.

Paramount Leader Xi Jinping has warned of “potential dangers” and added that the Chinese Communist Party must be “well-prepared” to “overcome grave challenges.” In Xi-speak this means a crackdown on dissent accompanied with measures to help the middle classes and criticism of wealthy people who flaunt their riches.

In this week alone. The party has authorized cash hand-outs, tried to shake up the ailing property market and held a surprise meeting to kick start the economy. But three years of economic slowdown and Covid lockdown have taken a toll and economists believe that it is unlikely that China will hit the relatively modest (for China) target of 5 percent growth in the economy.

The Chinese young people have been particularly hard hit. Unemployment among the 16 to 24 year olds hit 21.3 percent in 2023. In January this year the government stopped issuing figures which implies that the youth jobless statistics have soared even higher. Also impacted has been the promotion prospects for those fortunate enough to be in employment.

For decades the Chinese have been admired – and feared—for their extraordinary work ethic. The changes in the economy, however, have created a shift in attitudes towards work. According to a recent survey by American online pollsters, in 2013, 63 percent of recent graduates said hard work paid. Ten years later the figure had dropped to 28.3 percent.

The survey by N. Aliskey, S, Rozelle and M. Whyte also revealed a fear for the future. In 2014, 76.5 percent of those polled were optimistic about the future and said that the economy and their lives had improved over the past five years. In 2023 the figure was 38.8 percent.

According to the think tank Freedom House, in the second quarter of 2024 there has been an 18 percent rise in protests and three-quarters of these were based on economic grievances. From June 2022, Freedom House has logged 6,400 incidents of dissent, and their research does not include Xinjiang or Tibet where dissent is the strongest.

__________________

J.D Vance won the vice-presidential debate. That was the general consensus. That consensus is not good news for J.D. Vance. Donald Trump does not like the spotlight being shifted away from him.

And it is shifting more and more as the former president’s rallies are increasingly exposing his weaknesses.  Trump’s speeches were always difficult to follow. But they are becoming longer, increasingly incoherent and filled with blatantly false statements and conspiracy statements, hatred and just plain nonsense. As a result more and more people are simply walking away from his rallies.

This week he has accused Kamala Harris of murder, although he was vague about who the victim was. He also said that the Vice President had a special phone app that people smugglers can phone for information about where to drop illegal immigrants.

American soldiers who suffered traumatic brain injuries when their base in Iraq was attacked by Iranian missiles had “only headaches” and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was trying to assassinate him.

For more than half a century, the American TV program 50 minutes has interviewed the presidential candidates. This week Trump pulled out. His campaign managers clearly thought that the least said by their nominee the better.

The official reason given for the pull-out was that 60 Minutes insisted on live fact-checking. This determined effort by journalists to deal with the truth does not go down well with either Donald Trump or J.D. Vance. During the vice-presidential debate Vance made false statements about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. He was corrected by moderator Margaret Brennan and immediately retorted: “The rules were that you weren’t going to do any fact-checking.”

A primary purpose of any media organization is to speak truth to power.

_______________

Europe’s far-right chalked up another election victory this week. This time it was in Austria where the Freedom Party led by Herbert Kickl emerged from elections with the biggest share of the vote—29.2 percent.

However, Kickl’s extreme policies may make it difficult for him to achieve his stated goal of become Austria’s Chancellor. He does not have an absolute majority and all of Austria’s other political parties are united in their refusal to join a coalition which gives him the top job.

A quick look at his manifesto explains their reluctance. For a start, Kickl says he will want to be called Volks Kanzler (English translation: People’s Chancellor). This was the same term used by Adolf Hitler. Kickl also wants a “remigration of uninvited foreigners” to achieve a more “homogenous” nation. He is opposed to sanctions against Russia, military aid to Ukraine and wants to drop out of a proposed missile defense shield for Europe.

It has not, however, all been good news this week for Europe’s extreme right. On Monday Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally (RN) went on trial along with 20 other members of her party. Ms. Le Pen and co. are accused of hiring assistants with EU funds who then worked on party business rather than the business of the European Parliament.

If she is found guilty. Ms. Le Pen faces fines, imprisonment and a bar from seeking elected office for up to ten years. This would effectively put an end to her political career.

Her lawyers and RN officials, however, are confident that they will win the case. An RN spokesperson said: “We are going to prove that it is possible to be an assistant to a Member of the European Parliament and at the same time be involved in the life of the party.”

Read: No end in sight to the ‘war on women’ in Gaza

_______________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

Read – Observations of an Expat: Suspend Arms Shipments to Israel