“Iran, the Middle East, and International Security“
Kayhan BARZEGAR (2009)
“Avoiding the Escalatory Trap: Managing Escalation during the
Israel-Hamas War“
C. Anthony Pfaff (2024)
ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israeli Defense Forces, Middle East Security, Global Security, Iran’s Geopolitics, Shiite Factor, 9/11, Al Qaeda Terrorism, Regional Crises
The article titled "Avoiding the Escalatory Trap: Managing Escalation during the Israel-Hamas War", explain Israel’s precarious situation in its conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The two options Israel has according to Pfaff, is choosing between escalation and maintaining the status quo. Escalation risks draw Israel into a broader regional conflict, while maintaining the status quo left a void for violent groups to continue their actions. Both options have their downsides for Israel. The article gives out the suggestion of a political solution, Israel needs to create deterrent factors for Hamas and Hezbollah to deescalate their actions, subsequently what this means for Iran is that its actions and control in the region will be limited.
Israel’s killing of Hamas leaders in Tehran introduced Iran as a visible party in this conflict. Responses to these attacks seemingly existent, did not have real tangible effect, considering the surface. This shows that Iran seeks to avoid direct conflict while continuing to support its proxies.
In the case of Israel escalating the military extent of the war, it may exceed its military capacity at certain point. If we consider the fact that IDF is funded by Israel’s allies, the country mostly has an uncertain position. United States’ almost unconditional support makes this position sturdy most of the time. But other allies such as European countries are backing down on that. The humanitarian side and how endless the war has become is a determining factor for this, more than it ever was for the Palestinian people. Pfaff sees this dilemma of escalation as a strengthening factor for Iran and Iran backed proxies. When we add another side to the story, the Palestinian people and Palestine, we can say that this situation can create a weak point for the government of Netanyahu. Which can signify a void to make a ceasefire deal.
It is hard to conduct a war against VEOs like Hamas because of their decentralized structure, making it hard to determine the deterrent factors. Pfaff argues that Iran’s backing of its proxies is the main cause of the ongoing and never-ending conflict. But the issue of Israel’s goal of reaching its desired boundaries of “promised lands“ are not seen as another fuel for the fire.
Targeted attacks on Hamas’s leadership have ceased attacks for certain periods of time as it was seen. Similar case is valid for Hezbollah also. However, Hezbollah’s situation is different from Hamas. Hezbollah has its own internal pressures since it has its operations under a functional state. But recent events show that Lebanon and Hezbollah now a part of the conflict. From the turn of events, it is clear that Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict is not an option. More fronts create more opportunities for Iran and Israel to have indirect conflict which makes Israel to face a war with a state that is not a state. This is a challenge from the international law perspective since Iran is not directly a party in this conflict. Although it becomes one when Israel kills a Hamas official in Tehran.
The article proposes that targeted killings of leadership, which have previously led to temporary stops to the repercussion from Hamas and Hezbollah, is an example for this third way between escalation and old balance of power, which is the strategic way for Israel. Pfaff continues to add that, these actions must be carefully calibrated to avoid regional escalation, which could have global economic and security consequences.
The conclusion of the article is that carefully carried out attacks and use of arms can help Israel to come out of this conflict with a victory. Force, if used properly, can de-escalate conflicts by establishing norms of resistance and deterrence. He adds that the very nature of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran is the core of the problem and with their existence in the region things can always escalate therefore, any military strategy must aim at creating conditions for a more stable status quo, while avoiding actions that could provoke further escalation. In summary the suggestion is, managing escalation without either compromising Israel’s security or triggering a broader regional conflict.
The article concludes that force can de-escalate conflicts if it is used to enforce norms of resistance and not simply to impose costs. The challenge is finding a balance where Israel can maintain security without spiraling into wider conflict. Reinforcing norms of legitimate resistance and deterring adversaries are necessary for a stable outcome.
The article by Barzegar examines Iran’s growing geopolitical influence in the Middle East, specifically after 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq crisis. It explores how Iran has become one of the main actors in regional and international security. Two main reasons are given for the regional rise of Iran, first is geopolitical and second is religious.
Iran’s influence has increased over time as this fact is accepted widely, in the article this dates back to the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq crisis. These events have tied Middle Eastern security more closely to global security concerns. The rise of Shiite power in Iraq, Lebanon, and other areas has heightened Iran’s regional influence.
Iran’s strategic location, with its proximity to Iraq and Afghanistan, has made it central to resolving regional crises. Iran played a significant role in the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and continues to influence the political dynamics in Iraq. The shift from a Sunni-dominated Iraq to a Shiite-majority government has particularly strengthened Iran’s position.
The emergence of Al Qaeda and the inevitable sectarian turmoil, particularly between Sunni and Shiite parties, have intensified instability in the region. The rise of Al Qaeda and its influence in Iraq has further solidified Iran’s strategic role, especially in supporting Shiite factions against Sunni extremists.
The concept of the “Shiite Crescent“ stretching from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon has become a significant geopolitical concept. This alignment of Shiite forces challenges the Sunni Arab states and Israel, leading to a reconfiguration of power dynamics in the region.
Iran’s position in the Middle East security architecture connects it directly to global security concerns, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and regional crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Iran’s rising influence has prompted global powers, such as Russia and China, to engage more deeply in Middle Eastern affairs.
The global need for scarce resources and the fear of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of terrorist groups have drawn attention to Iran’s role in regional stability. Iran’s strategic alliances with regional actors and its ability to influence the outcome of crises in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned it as a key player in international diplomacy and security. The Iranian state has in the past shown some interest in creating a diplomatic and reconstructive relationship with the west. This interest died down in the Trump administration and deteriorated further after the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
Iran’s geopolitical and ideological strengths have allowed it to exploit the opportunities created by regional crises. The rise of Shiite power across the Middle East, coupled with Iran’s strategic location, has increased its regional bargaining power. This has positioned Iran as a crucial player in linking Middle East security to international security, ensuring that any significant shift in the region’s dynamics directly affects global interests.
In the post 9/11 Middle East the balance of power in the region has changed in favor of Iran. By this it is meant that Iran had an arena for itself that previously did not exist at least to this extent. Previously balance of power in the region consisted of US led actors. Un-balancing this hegemonic power, which treated the region as like a chessboard left a void for a moving power.
Considering Iran’s geopolitical, cultural, racial and religious position this void was very much in favor of the Iranian state. What is now known as the Iranian model of resistance or axis of resistance is the product of this void to a certain extent. Of course, the background and the other factors for this facts dates back further.
Concept of security since 9/11 in the Middle East and in the world has changed for good. It is safe to say that AL Qaeda put terrorism on the map like no other group has done before. The group also had an effect on the nation states of the region such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which were US allies. So, in this sense it directly and indirectly challenged the US hegemony in the region. War against terror became a priority for the western world.
The crises in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks led to new geopolitical changes in the region. This new climate in the Middle East tied the region into the international security concerns. This has two aspects; one it changed the role of non-state actors two the ways these actors operate.
These shifts also brought a change in the interconnectedness of states in the region and on a global level. Supra-national factors became a determiner of what may become a security threat. Sectorial factors were the more predominant of them all.
Iran enters the picture at this state. When we discuss the Iranian effect in the region, it is nearly impossible to skip the Shiite factor. It is singlehandedly one of the most important element of the Islamic Republic. What interconnectedness mean for the region is that it changed the concept of Middle East In this sense it brought the region closer together.
Iraq is a great case to examine since it consists of issues such as Sunni Shiite rivalry, Arab and Kurdish identities and non-state actors. These subcategories opened Iraq for many nations and groups from United States to Saudi Arabia to Turkey and of course Iran.
Barzegar gives two main reasons for Iran’s heightened say in the region. First one is the geopolitical position of the country. He analyzes this aspect from the points of views of Iraq and Afghanistan crises, but we can argue a similar thesis is also true for the current situation between Israel, Hamas, Lebanon and Hezbollah. The second reason is related to the sectorial divisions among the Muslims of the Middle East. We can adapt this to a certain extent to the current situation since both Hezbollah and Hamas has a strong Islamic undertone. But sectorial division theory does not apply as the same as the recent-post 9/11 world. Hamas is a Sunni organization and this seems like a not an issue for the Iran’s baking of it. Islamic rhetoric is more important in this case. Although in a broader regional sense, rivalry between Arab world and Iran is continuous it is more complex than a sectorial division. Rise of Shiite power in Lebanon is another case where Iran had a chance to have a say. This became one of the many gateways Iran had created non-direct fronts against United States, Israel and their allies.
Conflict in the middle east provided Iran with a stage to have a say in the regional security issues and subsequently the international security issues. And we can say that this benefited in a way that Iran now is a dominant actor in the region. This of course has both sides; the other not so bright side shows itself in Iran’s domestic climate. With tariffs, there is a limited number of nations that Iran can work with. This takes a toll on the economy of Iran.
These articles examine two different aspects of the Middle East's security landscape. Pfaff's article focuses on Israel and gives out a solution for this current conflict to end in the countries benefit. Iran’s involvement in the conflict makes it a broader matter for the Middle East region and this makes it an issue that is harder to manage. Objective of the article is how Israel keep the conflict from spreading while managing it. “Thoughtful“ use of force is presented as way of maintaining Israel’s hegemonic status in the region. In contrast, Barzegar's article put an emphasis on Iran’s role in the Middle east and highlights the countries strategic importance. While the article touches on the importance of the countries serious say on the issue, it does not highlight the non-state actors thoroughly on the current state. The two perspectives combined perfectly explain the situation we are facing in the region as of 2024. There is of course a past that has shaped this environment and molded its people in a way that is highly stratified. The very nature of the regional dynamics which are formed after the world wars, create a deeper problem than what we are facing today. Together, these works highlight the complex interplay of geopolitical, ideological, and security factors shaping the region.
Kayhan BARZEGAR (2009)
“Avoiding the Escalatory Trap: Managing Escalation during the
Israel-Hamas War“
C. Anthony Pfaff (2024)
ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israeli Defense Forces, Middle East Security, Global Security, Iran’s Geopolitics, Shiite Factor, 9/11, Al Qaeda Terrorism, Regional Crises
The article titled "Avoiding the Escalatory Trap: Managing Escalation during the Israel-Hamas War", explain Israel’s precarious situation in its conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The two options Israel has according to Pfaff, is choosing between escalation and maintaining the status quo. Escalation risks draw Israel into a broader regional conflict, while maintaining the status quo left a void for violent groups to continue their actions. Both options have their downsides for Israel. The article gives out the suggestion of a political solution, Israel needs to create deterrent factors for Hamas and Hezbollah to deescalate their actions, subsequently what this means for Iran is that its actions and control in the region will be limited.
Israel’s killing of Hamas leaders in Tehran introduced Iran as a visible party in this conflict. Responses to these attacks seemingly existent, did not have real tangible effect, considering the surface. This shows that Iran seeks to avoid direct conflict while continuing to support its proxies.
In the case of Israel escalating the military extent of the war, it may exceed its military capacity at certain point. If we consider the fact that IDF is funded by Israel’s allies, the country mostly has an uncertain position. United States’ almost unconditional support makes this position sturdy most of the time. But other allies such as European countries are backing down on that. The humanitarian side and how endless the war has become is a determining factor for this, more than it ever was for the Palestinian people. Pfaff sees this dilemma of escalation as a strengthening factor for Iran and Iran backed proxies. When we add another side to the story, the Palestinian people and Palestine, we can say that this situation can create a weak point for the government of Netanyahu. Which can signify a void to make a ceasefire deal.
It is hard to conduct a war against VEOs like Hamas because of their decentralized structure, making it hard to determine the deterrent factors. Pfaff argues that Iran’s backing of its proxies is the main cause of the ongoing and never-ending conflict. But the issue of Israel’s goal of reaching its desired boundaries of “promised lands“ are not seen as another fuel for the fire.
Targeted attacks on Hamas’s leadership have ceased attacks for certain periods of time as it was seen. Similar case is valid for Hezbollah also. However, Hezbollah’s situation is different from Hamas. Hezbollah has its own internal pressures since it has its operations under a functional state. But recent events show that Lebanon and Hezbollah now a part of the conflict. From the turn of events, it is clear that Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict is not an option. More fronts create more opportunities for Iran and Israel to have indirect conflict which makes Israel to face a war with a state that is not a state. This is a challenge from the international law perspective since Iran is not directly a party in this conflict. Although it becomes one when Israel kills a Hamas official in Tehran.
The article proposes that targeted killings of leadership, which have previously led to temporary stops to the repercussion from Hamas and Hezbollah, is an example for this third way between escalation and old balance of power, which is the strategic way for Israel. Pfaff continues to add that, these actions must be carefully calibrated to avoid regional escalation, which could have global economic and security consequences.
The conclusion of the article is that carefully carried out attacks and use of arms can help Israel to come out of this conflict with a victory. Force, if used properly, can de-escalate conflicts by establishing norms of resistance and deterrence. He adds that the very nature of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran is the core of the problem and with their existence in the region things can always escalate therefore, any military strategy must aim at creating conditions for a more stable status quo, while avoiding actions that could provoke further escalation. In summary the suggestion is, managing escalation without either compromising Israel’s security or triggering a broader regional conflict.
The article concludes that force can de-escalate conflicts if it is used to enforce norms of resistance and not simply to impose costs. The challenge is finding a balance where Israel can maintain security without spiraling into wider conflict. Reinforcing norms of legitimate resistance and deterring adversaries are necessary for a stable outcome.
The article by Barzegar examines Iran’s growing geopolitical influence in the Middle East, specifically after 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq crisis. It explores how Iran has become one of the main actors in regional and international security. Two main reasons are given for the regional rise of Iran, first is geopolitical and second is religious.
Iran’s influence has increased over time as this fact is accepted widely, in the article this dates back to the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq crisis. These events have tied Middle Eastern security more closely to global security concerns. The rise of Shiite power in Iraq, Lebanon, and other areas has heightened Iran’s regional influence.
Iran’s strategic location, with its proximity to Iraq and Afghanistan, has made it central to resolving regional crises. Iran played a significant role in the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and continues to influence the political dynamics in Iraq. The shift from a Sunni-dominated Iraq to a Shiite-majority government has particularly strengthened Iran’s position.
The emergence of Al Qaeda and the inevitable sectarian turmoil, particularly between Sunni and Shiite parties, have intensified instability in the region. The rise of Al Qaeda and its influence in Iraq has further solidified Iran’s strategic role, especially in supporting Shiite factions against Sunni extremists.
The concept of the “Shiite Crescent“ stretching from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon has become a significant geopolitical concept. This alignment of Shiite forces challenges the Sunni Arab states and Israel, leading to a reconfiguration of power dynamics in the region.
Iran’s position in the Middle East security architecture connects it directly to global security concerns, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and regional crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Iran’s rising influence has prompted global powers, such as Russia and China, to engage more deeply in Middle Eastern affairs.
The global need for scarce resources and the fear of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of terrorist groups have drawn attention to Iran’s role in regional stability. Iran’s strategic alliances with regional actors and its ability to influence the outcome of crises in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned it as a key player in international diplomacy and security. The Iranian state has in the past shown some interest in creating a diplomatic and reconstructive relationship with the west. This interest died down in the Trump administration and deteriorated further after the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
Iran’s geopolitical and ideological strengths have allowed it to exploit the opportunities created by regional crises. The rise of Shiite power across the Middle East, coupled with Iran’s strategic location, has increased its regional bargaining power. This has positioned Iran as a crucial player in linking Middle East security to international security, ensuring that any significant shift in the region’s dynamics directly affects global interests.
In the post 9/11 Middle East the balance of power in the region has changed in favor of Iran. By this it is meant that Iran had an arena for itself that previously did not exist at least to this extent. Previously balance of power in the region consisted of US led actors. Un-balancing this hegemonic power, which treated the region as like a chessboard left a void for a moving power.
Considering Iran’s geopolitical, cultural, racial and religious position this void was very much in favor of the Iranian state. What is now known as the Iranian model of resistance or axis of resistance is the product of this void to a certain extent. Of course, the background and the other factors for this facts dates back further.
Concept of security since 9/11 in the Middle East and in the world has changed for good. It is safe to say that AL Qaeda put terrorism on the map like no other group has done before. The group also had an effect on the nation states of the region such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which were US allies. So, in this sense it directly and indirectly challenged the US hegemony in the region. War against terror became a priority for the western world.
The crises in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks led to new geopolitical changes in the region. This new climate in the Middle East tied the region into the international security concerns. This has two aspects; one it changed the role of non-state actors two the ways these actors operate.
These shifts also brought a change in the interconnectedness of states in the region and on a global level. Supra-national factors became a determiner of what may become a security threat. Sectorial factors were the more predominant of them all.
Iran enters the picture at this state. When we discuss the Iranian effect in the region, it is nearly impossible to skip the Shiite factor. It is singlehandedly one of the most important element of the Islamic Republic. What interconnectedness mean for the region is that it changed the concept of Middle East In this sense it brought the region closer together.
Iraq is a great case to examine since it consists of issues such as Sunni Shiite rivalry, Arab and Kurdish identities and non-state actors. These subcategories opened Iraq for many nations and groups from United States to Saudi Arabia to Turkey and of course Iran.
Barzegar gives two main reasons for Iran’s heightened say in the region. First one is the geopolitical position of the country. He analyzes this aspect from the points of views of Iraq and Afghanistan crises, but we can argue a similar thesis is also true for the current situation between Israel, Hamas, Lebanon and Hezbollah. The second reason is related to the sectorial divisions among the Muslims of the Middle East. We can adapt this to a certain extent to the current situation since both Hezbollah and Hamas has a strong Islamic undertone. But sectorial division theory does not apply as the same as the recent-post 9/11 world. Hamas is a Sunni organization and this seems like a not an issue for the Iran’s baking of it. Islamic rhetoric is more important in this case. Although in a broader regional sense, rivalry between Arab world and Iran is continuous it is more complex than a sectorial division. Rise of Shiite power in Lebanon is another case where Iran had a chance to have a say. This became one of the many gateways Iran had created non-direct fronts against United States, Israel and their allies.
Conflict in the middle east provided Iran with a stage to have a say in the regional security issues and subsequently the international security issues. And we can say that this benefited in a way that Iran now is a dominant actor in the region. This of course has both sides; the other not so bright side shows itself in Iran’s domestic climate. With tariffs, there is a limited number of nations that Iran can work with. This takes a toll on the economy of Iran.
These articles examine two different aspects of the Middle East's security landscape. Pfaff's article focuses on Israel and gives out a solution for this current conflict to end in the countries benefit. Iran’s involvement in the conflict makes it a broader matter for the Middle East region and this makes it an issue that is harder to manage. Objective of the article is how Israel keep the conflict from spreading while managing it. “Thoughtful“ use of force is presented as way of maintaining Israel’s hegemonic status in the region. In contrast, Barzegar's article put an emphasis on Iran’s role in the Middle east and highlights the countries strategic importance. While the article touches on the importance of the countries serious say on the issue, it does not highlight the non-state actors thoroughly on the current state. The two perspectives combined perfectly explain the situation we are facing in the region as of 2024. There is of course a past that has shaped this environment and molded its people in a way that is highly stratified. The very nature of the regional dynamics which are formed after the world wars, create a deeper problem than what we are facing today. Together, these works highlight the complex interplay of geopolitical, ideological, and security factors shaping the region.
