The global game of chess:
Implications for Israel
Written by the Institute for Policy and Strategy Team, IPS
Executive Director
Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilead
Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilead
February, 2022
Photos: pixabay.com | maxpixel.net
The crisis in the Ukraine is exacerbating, and evolving into the severest one between Russia and the West since the end of the Cold War. Its outcomes would have implications on world order, the strategic competition between the United States and China, as well as the Middle Eastern architecture.
The current crisis is in line with Russia's policy whereby it protects its "strategic borders" and is willing to use force, and even risk going to war, to do so. Thus, the Russian force buildup around the Ukraine allows Moscow to invade the entire country, according to U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, instead of conducting a limited military maneuver. Although President Biden has announced that he will not send forces to the Ukraine, a non-member of NATO, which Washington is not committed under any agreement to defend, he did not rule out the possibility that he would send military forces to U.S. allies in Eastern Europe. The U.S. President had emphasized that a Russian incursion into the Ukraine would be “the most consequential thing that’s happened in the world, in terms of war and peace, since World War Two”. The White House seems to be aware in recent days of the harm caused to its power of deterrence, and is actively pursuing its return, even at the price of making severe threats against Moscow.
Concretely, Russia is threatening to cut off Europe's gas supply, for over 40% of the continent's natural gas is controlled by Russia. The United States is attempting to create a short-term solution by supplying energy from alternative sources, but experts predict these proposed countermeasures would only address part of the problem, if at all, in view of the Russian monopoly. The immediate implication would be a daring rise in energy prices, and a split among western countries' positions on the steps that should be taken vis-à-vis Russia. Europe is also displaying weakness and a split stance on Russian aggression in view of its broad economic ties with it (beyond energy), military weakness (a limited investment in defense budgets), and the disinclination to deviate from the diplomatic course of action. This state of affairs strengthens Russia's position in the current crisis, especially since America's image of power has also been eroded in view of Washington's focus on diplomacy and economic instruments (sanctions), as well as its desire to avoid threatening to use force.
At present, the U.S. believes that Russia will invade the Ukraine although Moscow is denying such intentions. At the same time, the latter is projecting force vis-à-vis NATO and the United States through a series of comprehensive large-scale, unprecedented training sessions and exercises at sea, in the air and on land, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean. The joint Russian-Syrian air patrol along Syria's airspace, including the Golan Heights (24 January) must be understood in this context too, as is Russia's desire to convey a strategic message of deterrence to Israel that it should refrain from siding with the United States in this European crisis, while signaling to Jerusalem that its demands should be taken into consideration with regard to the way Israel conducts its war between wars in Syria.
- The outcomes of the crisis between Russia and the United States have lasting global implications that will directly impact Israel's national security. In the immediate timeframe, Jerusalem should avoid intervening in the evolving crisis in the Ukraine in view of the political and military prices it stands to pay if it did, particularly in relation to maintaining its freedom of action in the war between wars in the northern arena, and keeping up its strategic coordination axis with Moscow.
- The American image of weakness manifest in its inability to curb Russia's maneuver in the Ukraine is projecting onto the Middle East, as well as Israel's and the moderate Sunni states' strategic grapple with Iran. The accumulative combination of the strategic American support's perceived weakness in the international and Middle Eastern arenas, along with an aggravating Iranian challenge, poses a growing threat to Israel's national security. Israel should strengthen its strategic alliance with Washington while making an effort to maintain its strategic coordination with Russia, and deepening its security and military ties with the Sunni camp.
Meanwhile, the Vienna nuclear talks are progressing to a crucial stage as delegations return to their respective countries to decide how to proceed with the negotiations. Russia plays a key role in advancing the negotiations as it mediates between the European and American stances and the Iranian one. Paradoxically, the Russian delegation to the Vienna talks, headed by Ambassador Ulyanov, is collaborating closely with the American and European delegates as it leads the negotiations with Iran with their agreement, while, at the same time, Moscow is on the verge of war with the Ukraine, and engaging in an unprecedented crisis with the West.
Concretely, Ambassador Ulyanov has stated that progress has been made in the negotiations, and the process has now reached a stage where political leaderships are required to make tough decisions about where the talks should go from here. The probability of drafting an interim agreement seems to be rising, which would center on restricting uranium enrichment, having the uranium that has already been enriched and accumulated in Iran turned over to Russian custody, and reinstating IAEA supervision. In exchange, the United States would lift some of the sanctions, and unfreeze the Iranian funds frozen in international banks.
The main problem caused for Israel by an interim agreement is that, in exchange for temporarily freezing its nuclear program, Iran would be allowed to preserve the technological know-how and advanced capabilities it has accumulated in nuclear, set the wheels of its economy in motion by partially lifting the sanctions and unfreezing its locked-up funds, build up its military force, invest in bolstering the power of its proxies and militia groups, and entrench itself in the region, while developing fire and missile capabilities, transporting advanced weapons and more, all the while being unrestrained and unconditioned by the United States.
The progress made in the negotiations in Vienna, as well as the U.S. desire to "sign and seal" the nuclear issue, coupled with Washington's disinclination to get entangled in yet another military campaign in the Middle East, even when its own regional allies are under attack (the drone attack against Abu Dhabi) are leading to rising aggression on the part of Iranian proxies in the Middle East, whether in the form of direct strikes against U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq, or hitting strategic targets in Saudi Arabi and the UAE.
Iran's overall strategy is to push the United States out of the Middle East, establish a deterrence equation vis-à-vis the Gulf states that combines a dialogue on regularization and economic partnership ("carrot") and kinetic or cyberattacks against strategic targets via proxies ("stick"), disintegrate the Abraham Accords, as well as tighten the noose around Israel's neck through military entrenchment, and the establishment of fire bases in the first, second, and third circles. All the while preserving the advanced capabilities reached in nuclear, and continuing to invest in technological R&D, offensive cyber, and advanced firing capabilities.
- The United States' unwillingness to use military tools in the Middle East due to its focus on the growing strategic rivalry with China and Russia is enhancing Iranian aggression, as well as the scope of the threat posed to regional stability (drones, ballistic firing capabilities, offensive cyber, etc.). The current state of affairs requires Israel to invest in the development of its security-strategic relations with the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan to establish strategic depth, project regional power, and form a regional coalition that would curb Iran.
- Israel should try to influence Washington to refrain from signing an interim agreement with Iran, despite the low expected value of such an effort. An interim agreement would enable Tehran to preserve the knowledge and advanced technological capabilities it has accumulated in nuclear, accelerate its conventional military buildup processes, strengthen its Middle Eastern proxies, as well as increase the peripheral threat posed to Israel and the moderate Sunni camp. This would lead to a regional arms race, and make direct conflict between Iran and Israel more likely.
- Nevertheless, Israel should prepare for a scenario whereby the nuclear deal signed does not align with its security interests. Jerusalem should therefore avoid engaging in crisis with the U.S. administration forming its primary source of support, and leverage the emerging agreement to increase U.S. security aid, purchase platforms that would help establish the IDF's qualitative military edge (QME), and enable it to take independent action against Iran if need be.
The Palestinian issue seems to have been dropped from the international agenda, and the promotion of political steps is no longer urgent in view of the stalemate in talks, division in the Palestinian arena, and absence of regional or American energy to exert pressure on both parties to return to the negotiating table. Israel's "conflict minimization" strategy, whereby it invests in economic development and the Palestinians' standard of living, while avoiding entering a peace process, increases the likelihood of the "one state" vision being realized organically, and establishes Hamas' status as a legitimate national political force. Under the current circumstances, Hamas has the flexibility to use force against Israel in the West Bank and Jerusalem without paying a toll, while promoting arrangement and rehabilitation processes in the Gaza Strip that help it establish its rule, and bolster its status as a legitimate national force in the Palestinian arena in preparation for the "morning after" Abu Mazen.
Thus, the attempt to maintain the status quo in the Palestinian arena at all cost adds to the explosiveness and in-depth processes in Palestinian society that could further consolidate and become a concrete threat to Israel with broad international support.
Thus, the attempt to maintain the status quo in the Palestinian arena at all cost adds to the explosiveness and in-depth processes in Palestinian society that could further consolidate and become a concrete threat to Israel with broad international support.
- Israel should form an overall strategy indicating the promise of a peace process that would implement the separation perception to curb the creeping process of "one state" realization under the cover of "conflict management", as well as the loss of legitimacy in the international arena, and particularly in Washington in a way that jeopardizes interests that are at the heart of Israel's national security. Israel cannot afford to ignore the Palestinian issue, for it poses as strategic a threat as the Iranian one to Israel's security.