Last week, Vasily Nebenzya, the Russian representative to the United Nations, had the opportunity to deliver a statement that gave him the moral high ground. He sharply criticized Washington's opposition to a permanent ceasefire in the war to displace the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Personally, I believe that the general mood in the Arab world was sympathetic to the Russian representative’s speech denouncing the US’s insistence on hollowing out the UNSC Resolution and Washington's unconditional support for the ongoing Israeli war.
However, emotions are one thing and political reality is another. Although Moscow is playing the humanitarian and ethical card today. In the recent past - specifically, since Moscow obstinately opposed the Syrian uprising and repeatedly used its veto against it - demonstrated that the whole thing is a question of a “conflict of interests” and an extension of the polarizing dispute of the Cold War.
In conflicts and disputes of this sort, we learn that there is no place for ethics or principles... interests alone have the final say.
Moreover, we now find ourselves facing a broad spectrum of explicit considerations and implicit calculations. The parties involved are the crucial players in Palestinian-Israeli situation. Despite nearly 80 days having passed, the situation remains obscure. There is genuine debate within Israel itself about the extent of progress the war has made thus far, and the prospect of realizing all the objectives set by Benjamin Netanyahu and the war cabinet he leads.
Also, while it has become evident that there are no limits to US support for Tel Aviv, political and military, serious questions remain about the approach the US will take to dealing with Iran. The US is faced with difficult questions following military attacks carried out by Tehran's proxies in the region, starting from Hezbollah across the borders with Lebanon and Syria, through the Shiite militias in Iraq, and finally through the Houthis in Yemen.
It is worth noting the US initially tried to leave these militias, who move to Tehran's rhythm and in service of its interests, out of the conflict, in order to allow Israel to focus on Gaza. Indeed, since the first days of the Israeli attack, Washington has been reiterating that "it has no evidence of Tehran's involvement in the Hamas attack on October 7..." despite being fully aware of the close relationship between the two sides.
Furthermore, Washington has stressed - and repeatedly called for - avoiding the expansion of military operations beyond Gaza, particularly on the northern front with Lebanon. Here, both parties, namely the Hezbollah militia and the Israeli army, have been complying with what has come to be known as the “rules of engagement.” Indeed, the fighters on both sides adhered to a precisely calibrated set for their skirmishes... which have been more political messages aimed at “saving face” and showing that “duties are being fulfilled” than serious battles that could change the course of the battle in the reoccupied Strip.
For those who follow Lebanese politics, recent developments are still fresh in the memory. Hezbollah welcomed US presidential envoy Amos Hochstein’s initiative to demarcate the maritime borders with Israel. Another Hochstein initiative, this time to demarcate the land border, is expected soon.
The same applies to the Iranian proxy militias in Iraq, although some observers see this as a new "bargaining" in the Iraqi theater. The Iranian wing of the Shiite forces, represented by the Coordination Framework, has managed to strengthen its grip on power in Baghdad. It is well known, of course, that the rise of the Shiite militias backed by Iran in Iraq began after the American invasion in 2003. As we recall, the influx of forces exiled to Iran began as soon as Baghdad fell at the hands of American forces. A phase of coexistence between Washington and the new rulers of Iraq then began... and their interactions ranged from agreement and coordination to extortion.
What is indeed new, however, with regard to Iran's regional proxies today, is the increasing intensity of the Houthis' military operation in the Red Sea. Their unprecedented attacks demanded US actions ostensibly to protect maritime routes. It will be interesting to see the repercussions of Washington establishing an international coalition to protect navigation in the Red Sea and ships passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Gulf of Aden.
Naturally, several international powers are involved. Among them is China, which has an interest in allowing gods to move freely. Another player is Russia, which benefits from the US being bogged down in the sand and seas of the Middle East, while it fights in Ukraine. Amid all this, the countdown has begun for the US presidential elections next November.
In these elections, it is crucial that we do not underestimate the potential “dynamics” that the Gaza displacement war could introduce into the electoral battle between a Democratic president, whose popularity appears to be declining in influential states and closely contested districts, and a leading Republican candidate facing prosecution.
As a result, the new year that begins in a few days brings with it doubts and fears whose repercussions leaders seem unable to control. It will be a turbulent and worrying year, and a turbulent and worried world awaits it, trying to confront its fears by fleeing forward.
