A war without end: Escalation in West Asia serves no country's interests

Israel’s ability to target and assassinate top leaders of Hamas and the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon may have shocked and awed the world with its formidable intelligence and defence capabilities. Whether these actions will bring peace to West Asia, achieve Tel Aviv’s aims of facilitating a return of its own citizens held hostage by Hamas, or enable the return of 70,000-odd Israelis displaced from their homes after Hamas’ attack on October 7 last year are all a matter of doubt. Less in doubt is the fact that the region is likely to see an unpredictable escalation of the conflict for the foreseeable future, with Hezbollah warning Israel to prepare for a long war after its leader of 32 years, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed last Friday. Israel’s superior intelligence capabilities and enormous arsenal of sophisticated defence equipment, thanks to its ally, the US, will give it staying power in any prolonged conflict as it has done in the past. But a long-drawn conflict serves neither its purposes nor those of its traditional enemies. Certainly, the world is unlikely to gain from prolonged hostilities in a region that produces a third of the world’s oil and holds nearly half of global reserves. The Suez Canal, which the Houthis, Hamas’ allies, in Yemen have been ambushing, accounts for a third of the world’s container traffic.

All told, in almost a year since this latest conflict with the Palestinians broke out, Israel has tracked down and killed seven top Hezbollah leaders, three Hamas commanders, and one senior commander of the elite Quds Force following an attack on Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria, in April this year. Iran’s response to the latter attack was unexpectedly muted, raising hopes of de-escalation in hostilities. But attacks on Palestinian civilians have not abated, with the official death toll rising to 41,000, mostly women and children, and most of Gaza’s civic infrastructure such as schools and hospitals destroyed. With ceasefire talks stalled, and medical aid and supplies reaching the conflict zone intermittently, Israel is reportedly equipping demobbed Israeli settlers to grab Palestinian territory on the West Bank. These moves may render the international community’s panacea of a two-state solution moot. But Israel’s turbulent history since its founding in 1948 has shown that destruction and conquest have not been viable ways of achieving a durable peace.

Meanwhile, the notable lack of response from the Arab nations, traditional allies of the Palestinians, to Israel’s destruction of Palestinian territory is concerning. It is possible that realpolitik plays a part since several authoritarian regimes in the region source sophisticated surveillance and defence equipment from Israel. The risks of self-interested inaction must be weighed against the consequences of the palpable discontent on Arab Street against Israel’s onslaught on Palestinian civilians as refugees, many of them radicalised youths, flood into their territories. This would be an opportunity for India to insert itself into the peace process as it is seeking to do in Ukraine. New Delhi’s traditional close political and societal ties in West Asia, where nine million Indians live, and the current regime’s good relations with Israel, make it a more credible interlocutor than almost any other negotiator at the table at Doha.