When US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in New York on Friday that the coming days would determine the future path of the Middle East, he could not have been more prescient, even if at the time he was hoping that Hezbollah and Israel could be persuaded to step back from the brink.
Now, with the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah confirmed killed, the region, after 11 months, has finally stepped over the brink and into a place it has truly never been before.
All eyes will turn to the response by Tehran. It faces the fateful choice it has always sought to avoid and one its new reformist leadership in particular did not wish to make.
If it simply angrily condemns Israel for the destruction of the centerpiece of the axis of resistance that it has laboriously built up over so many years, or calls on others to take unspecified action, Iran’s credibility is in jeopardy.
However, pragmatism might lead Iran to advise Hezbollah to absorb the losses and accept a ceasefire that does not also bring about a ceasefire in Gaza, Hezbollah’s stated objective.
If on the other hand Iran instead launches a direct military reprisal against Israel, it has to be meaningful. It knows it would be going into battle against a military that has proved the deadly value of its vastly superior technological and intelligence capabilities. Israel’s intelligence has clearly penetrated deep inside Hezbollah and might have done the same in Tehran.
For the new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, elected on a ticket of lifting economic sanctions partly by building better relations with the west, Nasrallah’s death could not come at a worse time.
Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sayeed Abbas Araghchi had just spent a full week in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, meeting European politicians such as German Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock and British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Lammy in an attempt to persuade them to reopen talks to restore the nuclear deal that was sealed in 2015 — and then-US president Donald Trump tore up in 2018.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi had been impressed by what he heard from the meetings, saying: “I think this is the moment when it is possible to do something about the nuclear issue. The advantage of Mr Araghchi is that he knows everything about this process, so he allows it to move faster.”
Nasrallah’s killing makes it that much harder for the reformists to persuade the Iranian military that an olive branch still makes any sense.
Pezeshkian had already been complaining that he had received little in return for listening to Western-inspired pleas not to seek immediate revenge for the killing of former Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh who was assassinated by Israel in Tehran.
Pezeshkian said he had been promised that a Gaza ceasefire deal that would see the release of hostages and Palestinian political prisoners was only a week or two away.
The deal never materialized because, in Iran’s eyes, the US refused to put the pressure required on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire terms.
Let down once, Pezeshkian is hardly inclined to believe US vows that it had no prior knowledge of the plan to kill Nasrallah — and, anyway, Netanyahu might have sanctioned his death from a hotel bedroom in New York, but it was US-supplied bombs that exploded in Beirut.
In what is likely to be a holding statement, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Muslims on Saturday “to stand by the people of Lebanon and the proud Hezbollah with whatever means they have and assist them in confronting the … wicked regime [of Israel].”
For Washington, this is a diplomatic humiliation and a display of its inability, or refusal, to control its troublesome ally.
Netanyahu hopes to have played US diplomats for fools in New York. The US Department of State insists it had a clear understanding on the basis of conversations with Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and Netanyahu that Israel would accept a 21-day ceasefire, and yet as soon as the plan was announced, Netanyahu reneged on the deal.
In some ways, it is the culmination of nearly 12 months of a US strategy that now lies in ruins. Time after time since last year’s Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, the US has asked Israel to adopt a different strategy over the delivery of food into Gaza, protection zones, a ground offensive in Rafah, the terms of a ceasefire and, above all, over avoiding conflict escalation.
Each time, Netanyahu acknowledged the US position, sidestepped a clear response and then ultimately ignored Washington. Each time, the US — vexed and frustrated — has expressed misgivings about Netanyahu’s strategy, but each time it has continued to pass the ammunition.
With a US presidential election near and Netanyahu enjoying a surge in domestic popularity — as well as few Arab states shedding tears about Nasrallah’s demise — the US appears to have few options available. Netanyahu insists he is winning and on course for total victory.
At the moment, unless Iran proves to be more decisive than it has been so far, it is Netanyahu the great survivor who is in the driving seat.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
RSS