Anyone with enough experience in the tumultuous history of the Middle East and the role of Israel in the ups and downs of the region could sense that war is becoming a near certainty. The next war will not be limited to one foe, nor to a limited front. It would be a regional military confrontation that would upset the regional balance of power to the advantage of a new sort of alliance, unprecedented in Middle Eastern history since the establishment of the state of Israel. During the US presidential campaign of last year, candidate Donald Trump made it clear that Iran would be in his crosshairs if elected. Now that he is president, he has not reneged on his campaign promise. The priority of the Trump administration in the Middle East has become the containment of Iran and its proxies as well. The peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question is becoming part of a region-wide plan that aims at creating an Arab-Israeli coalition of sorts to face Iran and all the groups and forces that are loyal to it or acting under its direct authority. One of these groups and forces is, undoubtedly, Hizbullah in Lebanon. The Arab-Muslim-American Summit 21 May in Riyadh was a counter-terrorism summit. However, the Saudis and the Americans made it clear that Iran and its proxies are also targeted — a position that is in complete alignment with that of Israel. The Israelis these days are involved in a propaganda campaign against Iran and Hizbullah. Israeli sources as well as the media in Israel keep talking about growing Iranian threats to the security of Israel, and that Israel will never coexist with a permanent Iranian presence in Syria. In this respect, it was surprising to see the about-face of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, concerning the Russian-American-Jordanian agreement last week to impose a ceasefire in southern Syria. It was widely reported that the negotiations over this agreement were carried out in consultation with the Israeli government. However, Netanyahu criticised it days after it went into effect, despite the fact that one of its unannounced aims was to keep the Israeli borders near the area safe for Israeli security interests. One top strategic priority for Israel has become to prevent Iran from securing a permanent military presence in Syria if and when the Americans and Russians come to a final agreement on how to end the Syrian conflict. It seems that such an agreement is no longer a distant option. The ceasefire agreement in southern Syria was announced after the first meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that took place early July in Hamburg, Germany. Although the Trump administration has certified that Iran is in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement between the P5+1 group and Iran in July 2015, it has put Iran on notice that it is violating Security Council resolutions concerning its ballistic missile programmes, in addition to its active support for “terrorist” groups in the Middle East and the Gulf, such as Hizbullah and Hamas. Lately, Washington asked the Iranians to release all Americans in Iranian prisons, in a move seen by some as maximising the amount of pressure on Tehran. The flash point that would presage this region-wide war would be Lebanon and Hizbullah. The Israelis have started preparing international public opinion for a possible war with Hizbullah. The similarities and differences of such a confrontation with the July-August 2006 war is always present in the statements of Israeli officials and in articles in the media. One highly worrying sign is talk about the blurring of the lines between Hizbullah as a Lebanese political party, and Lebanon as a country. In other words, the Israelis are forewarning everyone that the next war will not be limited to the Israeli-Lebanese border but could engulf all of Lebanon. It will be a war against a country and not a limited military confrontation with an armed militia like the 2006 war. So far, the major Arab powers have kept silent on the increasing Israeli threats. Not only would some Arab powers not object to Israel taking out Hizbullah as a means to contain Iran in the Middle East, but the Qatari crisis has concentrated their attention on how to find a solution to this serious crisis. It is too early to say whether there is a complete agreement between the Americans and the Israelis on when and how to wage this war against Hizbullah. But one thing is clear: both the United States and Israel are set to confront Iran aggressively during the first term of the Trump administration. The question centres around their ability, first, to form a regional alliance that would provide a rationale for such a confrontation and, secondly, whether Europe would fall into line, which should not be taken for granted. Moreover, the Russians with their growing military presence in Syria are a factor to reckon with. As long as the confrontation with Iran is limited to tactical considerations, for instance securing Israeli borders with both Syria and Lebanon, the Russians would go along, but if the strategic takes over the tactical, then the Russians would never be willing partners or silent observers. So far, Israeli strikes against Hizbullah in Syria have been carried out with advance notice afforded to the Russians. Another question deals with the long-term goals of such a war. Would it aim to contain Iranian influence within the Middle East by taking out pro-Iranian groups, or would it aim at regime change in Tehran? Judging by the statements of President Trump after he entered the White House in January, and his positions on the campaign trail last year, the United States under his watch is no longer interested in regime change in the Middle East. Nor for that matter is Israel, at least for now. American and Israeli positions could change, however, depending on the moves and policies the Iranians would make and adopt in reaction to the war drums in the Middle East. They have to watch their next steps in post-Islamic State Iraq, in Syria, and in Yemen. If they are really interested in averting war, Yemen is the place to prove it by pushing the Houthis to negotiate a peaceful way out of the present destructive stalemate. And to stop pushing for a foothold on the Mediterranean. If a regional war erupts, hardly anyone would control what would come out of its ashes. For that matter, Egypt should and must keep itself, by all means, out of such a war, regardless of any economic and financial considerations. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
