In a world full of unimaginative strongmen we should be lauding those leaders who are capable of de-escalation.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
We have enough historical understanding of how and why wars (including world wars) occur to not make the similar missteps as those in the past. And yet the political climate of today has parallels with those of the 1900s or 1930s in two big ways.
First, we see the rise of nationalism, which is fuelled by hate. Nationalist politics identify another group of individuals as a threat and then draws supporters together on this shared belief to direct problems toward this other.
We saw this with social Darwinism prior to the First World War, with fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, and Soviet Communism in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.
These ideologies can quickly escalate, especially when they start siding off against one another.
Nationalism, or populism as we call it today, relies on having a strongman at the helm. What makes this so dangerous is that it does not give this person much scope for responding to crisis events on the world stage.
The expectation is that the strongman will respond with force. For other world leaders the scary question becomes: how much force?
Within this broader context then, US President Joe Biden's unwillingness to condemn the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed seven people did nothing to de- escalate the situation in the Middle East. Perhaps more importantly, it also represented a violation of a key social norm underpinning the rules based international order.
Whether or not you are in ideological conflict with another state, at some point you must uphold the rights of all states. Either states have rights, or they do not; Iran or not, attacking this embassy was to step well over a line. And while Israel did not claim credit for the attack, they did not deny it either.
We must not apologise for Iran's behaviour in launching a direct attack on Israel but we should try to understand it. It is not surprising that when you provoke a strongman, they will be forced to respond in order to maintain domestic political support.
But while the American, French, and British prime ministers reassure Israeli - as they rightly should, given the spectacular failure of the April 14 attack-they should not be so quick to forget that this latest set of reactions began with the attack of an Iranian embassy.
This initial attack should be seen as the major escalation event that it was. If Israel was determined to assassinate these Iranian generals they did not have to do it at an embassy, a place traditionally considered to be a no-go zone.
They have killed several high-profile Revolutionary Guard members recently while Operation Wrath of God speaks to the various tools that the Israel government has on hand for more precise elimination of high profile targets.
It is not the case that embassies have lost their importance as safety zones.
Last week we saw governments worldwide speak out against an Ecuadorian police raid on Mexico's embassy in Quito. But it is concerning that perhaps they are just sacred for some? To facilitate the avoidance of war, countries must have the ability to talk to one another. This is an essential function of embassies.
Israel's international standing
The Israel war on Gaza has been a twofold win for both Hamas and Iran. First, the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza has surely sown the seeds for a new generation of terrorists. Second, people are protesting in countries across the world against the actions of the Israeli state, and Israel is at its lowest favourable rating in the United States in two decades.
It is not in Israel's interest to launch a retaliating attack against Iran as it plays into the hardliner agendas in Tehran. Evidence now indicates that the Iranian government gave advanced warning of the attack; that it was designed to be successfully defended by Israel.
Tehran has knowledge of Israel's capabilities. Likely this failed attack was a compromise within the regime to save face without tremendous physical injury to civilians.
READ MORE:
And if this was not an intentional failure, it is certainly a stunning example of Israel's defence capabilities.
Either way, it should be clear to Tehran that the destruction of Israel is highly improbable, while the destruction of Iran in a major conflict looks more likely.
But the added complication is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a strongman, which means he is likely to see escalation as a policy rather than a means to an ends.
There is nothing to be gained by demonstrating Israeli's superior force, except to force Iran to do something it should not. Currently the peace with Egypt is holding, as is the Israeli relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Israeli leaders (especially those of the settler-colonising faction) need to separate their own interests from those of the state. That is what successful leaders, as in those looked upon favourably by future generations, are able to do. Many strong men have wound up as horrendous failures.
If Israel cannot de-escalate this situation it does not bode well for how they will respond if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.
Although President Biden has said that US commitment to Israel is unwavering, the administration would not support a retaliatory strike, Israel knows they have the backing of the US in any defensive action.
The question now is: How much deterrence does Israel need?
- Meighen McCrae is an associate professor in the strategic and defence studies centre at The Australian National University, and deputy director in the Coral Bell school of Asia Pacific affairs.
