Dialectic of Converging Interests

By Dr Khairi Janbek

One’s experience has always been in peace building and not war mongering, therefore try to understand that to make a paradigm shift can make one fall into the transition gap.  

From the start I can say I have been wondering about the daily carnage, murder and destruction in the Middle East. Point one, how come a country like Israel, well-endowed with superior technology, can pinpoint the time and space accurately of the Hezbollah leaderships, same with Hamas, and assassinates them with impunity, fails to see the coming of 7 October from merely across the border? 

Some said that Israel has been fighting Hezbollah for a long time which enabled it to organize infiltrations and plans for assassinations, but isn’t its war against Hamas has been just for the same length of time?

So can Israelis accuse their own state with negligence, or is this so-called negligence carries notions that are more than meets the eye?

Now, what about Israel carrying out land operations across the border into Lebanon, for all intents and purposes, this would be the ideal time with the Hezbollah command in disarray? Or is it really that fact that Israel has no intention of doing so a priori?

To explain what I mean bluntly, after all the expected new leader of Hezbollah is Hashem Safi el Deen; he is through and through Iran’s man, his brother is also the bureau chief of Hezbollah in Tehran, all the top ranking commanders of the Iran allied groups in Syria and Iraq will be also through and through Tehran’s men and strictly under its direct command.

Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that Iran neither sold out Hezbollah nor any other its allies, but rather sold out the leaderships of those allied organizations in order to end their autonomy.

Which could mean also, Israel’s intentions are not actually the elimination of the allied organisations of Iran, but rather the elimination of their leaders in a dialectical formula of convergence with its Iranian enemy

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris and the above opinion is that of the author and doesn’t reflect crossfirearabia.com.

Related Posts

Can Israel Change The Middle East?

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

In the short term, Israel is no longer in a hurry to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, which it considers the grand prize in the Islamic world. Although its leaders view normalization as necessary, indeed inevitable, over the long run, what Netanyahu and his team currently see is an unprecedented historical opportunity that has not occurred since the founding of the State of Israel. They are thus pushing to implement sweeping and profound changes to the Palestinian situation, through displacement, expulsion, settlement expansion, annexation, and the Judaization of Jerusalem, from Gaza to Jerusalem and the West Bank. For the Israeli right, these policies take precedence over any other strategic interests.

It is not only about the Palestinians. The Israeli right’s ambitions today extend to constructing new and unprecedented spheres of regional influence and redefining Israeli security. This includes striking at any source of potential future threats and establishing Israel as the dominant regional power.

There are three key variables that must be taken into account when analyzing the current geopolitical shifts and the repercussions of Israel’s war on Gaza, not only in terms of the Palestinian issue, but also on a regional and global scale.

The first variable can be described as “Political Netanyahuism.” Today’s Israel is no longer the Israel of the past—this marks the era of Benjamin Netanyahu, especially post-Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood.” This era has unleashed the historical project of the Israeli right-wing in full force, with no intention of reversing course. The key features of this project include, first, a complete abandonment of the peace process, a rejection of the Oslo Accords and their consequences, and the annexation of large parts of the West Bank—effectively nullifying the Palestinian Authority’s political relevance and perhaps returning to a system of disconnected “cantons.” Additionally, this entails the Judaiztion of Jerusalem. Second, Netanyahuism is reflected in a complete structural shift of Israel toward the right, with the near-total erosion of the secular-leftist stream in Israeli politics. Third, it involves the deep penetration of religious ideology into Israel’s security and military institutions, leading to their full domination by religious-nationalist elements.

Even if Netanyahu were to exit the political scene, this would not alter the course of these policies or shift current events. Israel post-Netanyahuism will not be the same as it was before. The historical Zionist dream persists—ideologically, strategically, and religiously—even if tactical approaches differ. This new political reality is not merely shaped by individuals like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich; rather, they are products of a broader environment and not anomalies within it.

The second variable is the major Arab strategic collapse—a process that began decades ago but reached a far more dangerous stage in the past 15 years, especially after so called “the Arab Spring”. The resulting transformations led to the fragmentation and collapse of numerous Arab states and the weakening of the entire Arab geopolitical map—in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, and Libya. It now seems as though the Arab geopolitical landscape, shaped after World War I, is disintegrating. This has created a strategic opportunity for Israel to expand, particularly following the recent decline in Iran’s regional influence over the past year in the wake of the war on Gaza.

The third variable is the return of Donald Trump to the White House—this time accompanied by a team that is more Zionist and ideologically aligned with the Israeli right than ever before. The unprecedented genocide unfolding in Gaza, the (implicit) green light granted to settlers and Netanyahu’s government in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the statements made by Trump’s team concerning Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria all suggest an unprecedented alliance—perhaps even an organic one—between a hardline right-wing American administration and an extremist Israeli right. Although US policies have historically been biased in favor of Israel, the situation has never reached this level of alignment and support.

These three variables together shape a new political landscape, they significantly impact Jordan’s strategic perspective on national interests and security and necessitate a reevaluation by political elites who previously believed that there were multiple factions within Israel with whom one could engage, or that American influence could constrain the Israeli right, or that an effective Arab strategic space could be mobilized to counter such dangerous transformations.

The writer is a columnist in the Jordan Times

Continue reading
Netanyahu Has Irked Trump. Why?

What should one make of the recent White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Well, this time Netanyahu was almost summoned to the White House to be told few home truths. This meeting was not like the first time when Netanyahu came to the White House in early February when it was all glow to be unexpectedly told that Trump wants the USA to take over Gaza.

This time around, the meeting was more subdued, almost in a rush, like an after-thought on the part of Trump who keeps chopping and changing as he figures out how he wants to conduct America’s foreign policy in his second “robust” administration.

This time around, although Trump displayed the usual friendliness to Netanyahu, he was somewhat distant because of the tariffs the White House is set upon to start imposing on the rest of the world including best-friend Israel. Its leaders, businessmen are still in shock because Washington has slammed a 17 percent tariff on its products entering the United States.

Israeli industrialists continue to be up-in-arms. It was they who appealed to Netanyahu to seek Washington clarification because they argued that the new tariffs will cost them up to $3 billion in losses, reduce Israeli exports by 26 percent and increase unemployment by 26,000. They are already in a bad situation because of the war on Gaza but this latest step will surely cripple them.

At the White House meeting last Monday, with a chitchat in front of the cameras that looked as if it was a rehearsed meeting with Trump dominating the conversation and everyone taking their que to speak only when they are told, he pointed out to Netanyahu that he “may not” consider reversing tariffs on Israeli exports because “we give Israel $4 billion a year. That’s a lot.” He really sounded like lecturing to the Israelis.  

For a man considered to be greatly influenced by the Israeli lobby that seemed to be tough talking for in the immediate conversation Trump told Netanyahu that there would be and for the first time direct face-to-face talking with Iranians about their nuclear file.  

This seemed to be another unsuspecting blow. If there was a “shock” on his face, Netanyahu didn’t show it as he just nodded; the Israeli Prime Minister was looking for a tough military stance on Iran, possibly going to war and striking the country’s nuclear facilities. It was he, who persuaded Trump in 2018 to exit from the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by the UN with other world powers of Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany at the behest of the Barack Obama administration.

Now with Trump in the driving seat, and wanting a “tainted-Donald” deal, Netanyahu couldn’t but agree with an alluring American president. If he had any misgivings, he kept them to himself except to say Tel Aviv and Washington had an objective not to let Iran have nuclear weapons, but Tehran constantly said and throughout the past years that their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes unlike the clandestine extensive Israeli nuclear program.

Although he may not have outwardly shown it, Trump may have been a little irritated by Netanyahu in other ways. Take Gaza for example when Israel restarted its war on the enclave on 19 March exactly two months after a ceasefire took effect ending a 15-month genocide and which was brokered by Trump and his team lead Steve Witkoff.

The recent talks in the White House, and shown in front of the cameras suggest Trump would have like more time for the Doha negotiations to take hold between Hamas and Israel to see the release of the 59 remaining hostages – which include one American who is still deemed to be alive – hidden in the Gaza enclave.

The relaunching of the war, and so quickly, and with the breaking of the 19 January ceasefire is adding to the tension between Washington and Tel Aviv and is sending signals that Netanyahu wants to continue the war in Gaza and doesn’t particularly care about the remaining hostages, and whether they come out of their nightmare dead or alive.

Trump, and as shown by the White House meeting, is showing a diversion from thoughts projected by Netanyahu. As well as Iran, he has told Netanyahu, he favors Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and that he has a ‘very, very good relationship with Turkey and with their leader…”, adding that “I happen to like him, and we never had a problem” and he offered to mediate between Israel on any problem between the two countries.

Such words may have suddenly added to the glum mood of the Israeli PM who fears that Turkish influence in Syria despite the fact it is Israel that is today bombarding different Syrian cities and occupying parts of their territory, a situation that increased after the toppling of the Bashar Al Assad regime on 9 December, 2024 by a new government in Damascus, and which is seen as a threat to Israeli security by Tel Aviv.

What is worrying Netanyahu is the fact Trump recognizes Turkish influence and Syria and Ankara’s relationship with the new government in Damascus, and apparenty the man in the White House, is “ok” with it.

With all this going on, Netanyahu is not sure anymore of the way the White House is going despite the fact that Washington continues to be the main supplier of weapons to Tel Aviv. But with Trump as “fickle-minded” as he is, all cards are on the table for a new and changing relationship between the USA and the rest of the world with the strong possibility of including Israel in the new international set of thinking.

This comment is written by Dr Marwan Asmar, chief editor of the crossfirearabia.com website. 

Continue reading

You Missed

Can Israel Change The Middle East?

Can Israel Change The Middle East?

UK MP Calls For Expulsion of Israel’s Ambassador

UK MP Calls For Expulsion of Israel’s Ambassador

Talk of Resistance Weakness is Wrong – Military Expert

Talk of Resistance Weakness is Wrong – Military Expert

Netanyahu Has Irked Trump. Why?

Netanyahu Has Irked Trump. Why?

Iraq Announces November Elections

Iraq Announces November Elections

Guterres: ‘…Time to End the Gaza Dehumanization’

Guterres: ‘…Time to End the Gaza Dehumanization’