We’ve discussed the current fragile situation and conflicts in the Middle East with Josef Kraus, Vice Head of the Department of Political Science at Masaryk University in the city of Brno, Czech Republic. His main focus is the Middle East and in particular the Islamic Republic of Iran. The conversation was conducted by Denys Kolesnyk, a French consultant and analyst based in Paris.
In general terms, how could you characterise the situation in the Middle East and the main trends shaping the situation in that region?
Well, I would say it’s a huge mess these days. It’s getting worse since the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7 and the Israeli revenge in the Gaza Strip. Since then, everything has been more and more complicated. And mainly it’s because of the involvement of new actors. Here many parallel games are being played by local, regional and global actors in the Middle East. And that is the main source of the mess, I would say. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just one part of it.
As for the trends, I’d like to highlight ongoing sectarian and ethnic violence and conflicts. I would mention the impact of foreign intervention or we can call it the internationalisation of local conflicts. And of course the struggle for resources, notably water and oil. And, I am afraid, that’s something we are going to observe for the years to come. And of course, additionally, alongside the influence of external powers, we can easily add the rise of non-state armed actors such as militant groups, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas or Houthis in Yemen. Those factors all together play a crucial role in shaping the region’s landscape.
Last but not least, I would mention the proxy wars or power competition among different actors, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and Turkey. They compete for regional leadership or even I would say dominance, and since they consider it a zero-sum game, they are trying to weaken other actors at the same time.
And one such actor is Iran. Teheran becomes more and more assertive in this region. We’ve seen that Iran was supplying arms to the Houthi rebels, proxy groups in Yemen, for example, to attack the naval vessels in the Red Sea.
Indeed, and just recently the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) simulated a strike on a major Israeli air base and made a show off of it, something like a PR campaign. What does Iran want to achieve with all these activities?
Iran has increased its influence in the Middle East primarily through its support for these allied groups or proxies in countries like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Sepah Pasdaran, in particular its Quds Force has been instrumental in this strategy, aiming mainly to expand Iran’s regional influence and counter the presence of the United States and the allies of the United States, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia. So that is the main strategy goal of Iran in the region. And I would call Iran a “puppet master” in all of this.
And Iranians also genuinely try to avoid direct confrontation with the US at the same time. So it’s much more fruitful, much more beneficial for them to be this “puppet master” and use proxies instead of going by themselves in the direct conflict with Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and of course the Americans.
In terms of Iran’s main objectives securing its borders is one of them and it’s been doing that for years since the main threat – Daesh – expanded to neighbouring countries. Then, as I have already mentioned, Iran’s priority is to achieve regional dominance, and of course, get rid of sanctions imposed by the West that undermine the Iranian economy.
In other words, one of the main motivations is to get rid of sanctions, maybe in exchange for something else, for instance, making the nuclear project more transparent or reaching finally some sort of a nuclear deal, opening to the outside world in exchange for withdrawing the sanctions.
And as for Iran’s simulation of a strike on Israel’s air base, that mainly reflects Iran’s ongoing confrontation with Israel. It is rather a demonstration of its capabilities and readiness to challenge and perceive threats. But to be frank, it is not in the Iranian interest to get into a direct military confrontation with Israel. It is much more profitable for Iran to be behind the curtain.
And since we are talking Iran, a few weeks ago, there was an exchange of strikes between Pakistan and Iran. Iranians also carried out a missile strike in the city of Erbil, Northern Iraq, claiming they attacked certain US facilities there. How could you explain this? I mean, what’s behind it?
First of all, those are separate issues. The Iranian-Pakistani clashes were motivated by something else. It has nothing to do with the current situation in the Gaza Strip, Iraq or even Syria. It’s a completely separate thing, which is based on the Baluchi separatism. And it is a huge problem not only for Iran but also for Pakistan. Both sides were just trying to weaken this Baluchi element, but unfortunately by this cross-border strike.
As for the Erbil strikes, we have to put it into context of what’s going on or has been going on in this area for many years. And here I mean the Kurdish element, which we can refer to as the separatist element of Iraqi Kurds. And of course, one of the key Iranian interests is to prevent Kurds from having their state.
So, fighting against Kurdish separatism, which might logically affect the Iranian territory as well, is one of the main strategic goals of Iran, which is technically holding its territory. And of course, competing or fighting any separatist tendencies at the peripheries. It’s not only about Kurds or Baluchi people. It’s about Azerbaijanis in Iran as well, Turkmen and many other nations that live at the Iranian peripheries.
Preventing separatism is a crucial, essential goal of Iranian national security and national interest. Plus, there are some rumours, at least Iranians say so, that the targets in Erbil were very much connected to the state of Israel. They call it the centre of Mossad. I definitely cannot say whether it’s true or not, but that’s what the Iranians claim. And that might be another reason for such a strike.
And as for the strikes over the American installations in the region, again, it’s mainly the demonstration of strength. Just see, there has been only one incident, and that’s the American base in Jordanian territory, where they killed people, and there were casualties. Other strikes were carried out in a way not cause huge harm to the Americans and did not bring them into confrontation with the Iranian power or its proxies. So, Iranians or the Shia militia in Iraq and Syria, were very careful during these demonstrations of power and capabilities not to cause any casualties. It did, after all, in Jordan, I believe by mistake.
But until then, they were trying to avoid the confrontation. So, again, the basic motivation of Iran is to show off its strength and readiness, while still avoiding the confrontation that would be very unpleasant for the Iranian regime in Tehran.
And since you’ve mentioned Israel, Tel Aviv seems to be losing Western support over its operation in Gaza. And we’ve seen some declarations from the United States and the Western European countries about the operation in Rafah. How do you see the evolution of this conflict since the terrorist attack of October 7th on Israel? What does Israel try to achieve? And whether it is achievable.
That’s a very good set of questions. I mean, the essential problem, in my opinion, is that Israel suffers from the lack of a clear plan for how to end the conflict. If there are no reachable goals, you cannot simply declare the mission accomplished. In other words, the destruction of Hamas in Gaza is not a reachable goal, to be honest. So, it’s a political declaration, but not a reachable military goal. So, without it, it’s very difficult to finish the campaign.
In the beginning, Israel was getting huge support from the West in reaction to these horrifying terrorist incidents committed by Hamas. But now, there are signs of changing perspectives within parts of the Western public, among some political factions as well. Influenced by concerns over human rights, civilian casualties, the legality of the settlement issue, mainly at the West Bank etc. With losing the support, it would be more and more difficult for Israel to continue its military goalless campaign.
If you suffer the lack of an exit strategy, it can complicate things. Plus, Israelis are facing huge pressure, not only from the West in general, which might be ambivalent to say so but even from the main ally — the United States.
Americans are putting pressure upon Israel to finish the campaign and not ruin the whole region by the escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip. And of course, because it affects the US policy in the region a lot, complicates the relations with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and of course, even Iran. And all of that together can ruin years of diplomatic efforts to finally get Israel into official diplomacy and regional politics. All these efforts of developing official diplomatic ties with the Saudi Kingdom, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other states can be easily ruined by this.
From my perspective, I can understand the military campaign by Israel. There has to be done something, obviously, but from a long-term perspective, that would damage the Israeli strategic goal, which is really to be a part of the Middle East, legally. And now, they can risk isolation, and all these efforts that have been going on for five or six years might be ruined by that.
Another motivation here is, of course, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s primary motivation is to stay out of jail, I would say. So, he would do anything to prevail in the position of Prime Minister, otherwise, he would face the consequences of criminal charges, and of course, he’s been blamed for these huge security problems and threats that Israel is facing, and Israelis are facing right now, because he’s the guy responsible for that.
So, I think there is going to be important political damage for his person, and maybe he would face criminal charges, and that might be very, very unpleasant for him. But all of that can happen after the conflict ends. But right now, he would not benefit personally from finishing the conflict with no declaration of victory or no declaration of real goals being achieved.
And there are no real goals. If we don’t call the “revenge” to be a goal, that’s what Israelis are doing in the Gaza Strip right now. That’s mainly about revenge, not reaching real strategic goals, defeating Palestinian terrorists, or whatever it is.
Just before this terrorist attack, there was a trend for normalisation among the Arab countries with Israel. And just a quick question, how does this conflict affect this normalisation?
Right now, I think it’s in the stage of postponing. Currently, it’s impossible for the Saudi Kingdom or anyone else to seriously develop official diplomatic ties, recognise the state of Israel, open the Israeli embassy in Riyadh etc. Nobody would like to face the consequences of such a move by the Saudi, Qatari, or other public opinion.
Even though it is in the stage of postponement, if the military campaign in the Gaza Strip continues having more horrific effects on the civilians and causing a humanitarian catastrophe, there is a catastrophe looming right now that might be even worse. So, in that case, in a matter of months, I think that the whole process might be simply ruined. And that would prevent Israelis from improving their situation and settling down diplomatically in the Middle East in the following 5 or 10 years.
That would be sad, indeed. But let’s talk about the US and British airstrike campaign against the Houthis in Yemen to prevent them from attacking the naval vessels in the Red Sea. How could you explain that no other Western country joined them?
So, let’s start with European states and their non-participation on the mission. I believe if the mission had been settled down as, let’s say, the policing mission of securing the lines for the ship, that would have worked for the Europeans and they would have participated in it.
But if the mission is to bomb the targets in Yemen, that’s something else. And that’s the mainly, I would say, American style. And of course, the British are in, as usual, they’re being asked by Americans to help and to be partners in such a mission.
But you cannot ask the French for that, since they would disagree. And the context of what’s going on in the rest of the world should be understood. For instance, the French are stuck in Africa and they have a lot of business there and many issues and problems in Mali and the Sahel in general, especially with the arrival of the Russians. While the rest of Europe is focusing on the situation in Ukraine. Even their military capabilities are focusing on the so-called Eastern flank more than the Red Sea.
And since the American military presence is significant in the Middle East, it is obvious that the Americans are those who can target the Houthis in their heartland while nobody else can do so except France. But in the future, if there would be some escorting mission or protection mission for the ship, I believe more European states would participate in that without bombing the foreign territory.
As for Houthis, well, they are aligned mainly with Iran getting support and they’ve been fighting the official Yemeni government. But, okay, what is the official Yemeni government? The exiled government, the exiled president?
Well, I would call Houthis being right now the official government of Yemen, even though it’s very difficult to say so. And of course, Houthis have conflicted with a Saudi-led coalition that was aiming mainly to damage Houthis and of course, weaken the Iranian influence in that territory.
The main goal of the Houthis is to secure its political power and territorial control within Yemen. So, their key priorities include gaining recognition from the international actors, becoming legitimate actors and legitimate representatives of Yemen itself, and of course, securing its economic resources. That’s mainly it.
Still, there is a civil war in Yemen. So, they are one of the competing parties. And again, for these last few months, there’s been a huge discussion about the involvement in this area that maybe even Saudis would be into signing down the peace agreement with Houthis and finish the civil war in Yemen. That would help Yemenis to reach more humanitarian aid from abroad because the situation in the country has been desperate for many, many years.
The locals suffer from the lack of pharmaceutical products. They suffer from the lack of clean water. There’s a famine. There’s a huge child mortality. So, being accepted by the international community and getting more humanitarian aid is one of the main goals of Houthis who are de facto representing the government.
And you’ve mentioned Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have one of the best military equipment in the region, supplied by the West. But at the same time, they didn’t manage to achieve their goals in Yemen. How would you explain this?
I think that is very much similar to the scenario now we are following with Americans. Having a very strong air campaign against the enemy which is underdeveloped from the matter of infrastructure, hence making the air strikes quite ineffective.
And I think that without boots on the ground, there is nothing you can do in Yemen. You can do as many airstrikes as you wish, but it doesn’t mean you can win the war with Houthi tribes there. This is not how it works in a pretty much underdeveloped place which is Yemen.
Just an example, if you shoot a Tomahawk missile which costs about $2 million to some place, a cottage made of mud, killing dozens, well, it doesn’t affect the situation in the civil war of Yemen at all. Therefore, without boots on the ground, there is nothing you can do. The Saudi military strength is mainly based on Western and American high-tech equipment. However Saudi strength is not recognisable in the field.
And I’m afraid the Saudi army wouldn’t be capable of fighting even for a month with Yemeni Houthis on the ground. So, without the boots on the ground, there would be no change in Yemen at all. They can just finance the other side, they can do the air campaign, but that’s it. You definitely cannot win the war in Yemen limiting to only these actions.
Egypt is one of the most important countries in the region. What is the role of Egypt in the region? How can you describe Cairo’s foreign policy priorities?
Egypt plays a pivotal role in the Middle East’s stability, and it’s been like that for decades, mainly by leveraging its strategic position, military strength, and diplomatic influence as well.
Cairo’s foreign policy priorities include mainly the security of its borders, particularly with Libya and Sudan, and maintaining the peace treaty with Israel, which is very much helping the Egyptians, while supporting the Palestinian state at the same time. That might be a bit confusing, but that’s the reality of the Middle East.
Another strategic point is definitely to control the Sinai Peninsula against militant groups, against Daesh, and against any radical extreme elements that might appear in Egypt itself. Egypt seeks to balance its relationship with major powers as well, including the US, Russia, and the Gulf states, while still promoting the interest of regional stability and economic development.
And last but not least, Egypt wants to stay out of this current mess in the Middle East as much as possible. It doesn’t want to accept the Palestinian refugees for natural reasons, I would say. Let’s be frank, the neighbouring countries, I mean the countries around the state of Israel, have their own experience with Palestinian refugees.
If we speak about the Jordanian kingdom, they had their “Black Friday”, they were trying to push away the PLO in history, and they moved the PLO into neighbouring Lebanon. The PLO was one of the main sources of the Lebanese civil war at that time.
Still, there are so many Palestinian refugees outside the Palestinian territory, and the neighbouring states, they just have to take care of those. It costs a lot. It brings a lot of tension to the world. It’s something you don’t want to get involved in.
Of course, Egypt suffered a lack of resources to take care of Palestinians, and it wouldn’t be a matter of months taking care of the refugees. It would take generations, so it’s costly. So, that’s why I think the main motivation for Egypt is to be away from the conflict as much as possible, to receive the US support they need to be the mediator, to improve its situation and position within the diplomacy of the Middle East. But nothing else. Not getting involved, definitely not being forced to choose the side, whether Palestinian or Israeli and not accepting the Palestinian refugees.
And since you’ve mentioned the US support for Egypt. What are the foreign powers’ interests in the region? Here I mean the US, China and Russia.
Well, I would call Americans the dominant external power in the whole region of the Middle East, having a lot of interest there, not only resources. They are an important partner of the state of Israel, have special ties to the Saudi Kingdom, and develop their ties with smaller emirates in the Persian Gulf. All of those are connected somehow, but again, facing the rise of the influence of the competitors.
And from a global perspective, the main competitor to the United States is Russia, and the second one is China. Both are getting involved in the situation in the Middle East. Russians, they suffering the global isolation right now, and it’s very difficult for them to get involved in the Middle East while suffering the lack of resources for that.
But still, for local states getting closer to Russia might be the tool to balance the American power, or to have leverage over Americans to finally reach their own goals. Just have a look at Turkey, which is capable as a NATO member-state to negotiating with Russians for buying military equipment, and not buying in reality, but mainly using this negotiation as leverage for the Americans to sell different kinds of weapons for a lower price, or maybe even receive it for free.
And the rest of the states in the region try to proceed in the same way. And, we do have Chinese, who are mainly interested in plundering the local natural wealth to get energy from the Persian Gulf, and of course, to limit the power of the Americans in general as well. So, the Chinese are very quiet in reaching their goals, but they can negotiate or do business with anyone willing to provide what the Chinese want. And in the case of the Middle East, that’s energy. Beijing while staying away and being silent about this current situation, keeps the door open for them to enter in case the American position would be damaged or significantly declining.
And talking again about the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th. Different ideas exist and one of such ideas is that Russia massively benefited from this attack. In your opinion, did Russia benefit from it and how?
Well, Russians still do see the global competition as a zero-sum game with the United States, meaning if there is a loss of Americans, that means a gain for Russians.
Therefore, if this conflict means the worsening of the position of the United States in the region or image of the United States, and it’s getting worse while Americans support Israel and the rest of the region is against it, that might be the benefit for Russians.
And it’s opening the doors. And what Russians are doing is competing with the American image and trying to push away a bit, maybe turn around the public of countries like Lebanon, Syria Iraq, or even Iran on its side. Everything that goes against the West is now pro-Russian. It’s really like the Cold War from the perspective of Russia. And that’s it.
But on the other side, Russians are focusing on their issues. They want to get out of the international isolation caused by their war against Ukraine. What they do is very much limited based on their low potential to do something in the Middle East, suffering the lack of history in this region, suffering the lack of resources they might put in. But still, at least they are benefiting out of American loss in this region.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
