Global diplomacy has been hit hard by bombs, bullying and double standards this June. A “12-day war” was launched by Israel, with the support of the United States, against Iran. NATO marched on with plans to arm up against Russia. The carnage in Gaza continued as European leaders huffed, puffed and failed to take any action against Israel. Meanwhile, the UN minced words after two nuclear armed states – Israel and the US – flouted international law and bombed Iran, a state that does not have nuclear weapons.
At the annual NATO summit, leaders of states that are part of the security pact agreed to double their spending on “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035,” to five percent of their Gross Domestic Product. Yet there was no announcement of funding for diplomacy and programs for the peaceful resolution of conflict.
During the European Union summit, where the continent’s trade relationship with Israel was under scrutiny because of rights abuses in Gaza, member states called for a ceasefire but stopped short of taking action to compel Israel to end the war. Divisions in Europe between nations who back Israel, such as Germany and Hungary, and countries like Ireland and Spain, who are critical of abuses, continue. The continent deplored “the unacceptable number of civilian casualties and the levels of starvation,” yet maintained its pact with Israel, at least for now, indicating that Europe will continue to accept “the unacceptable.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled off a momentary coup, becoming the first Israeli leader to bring the US into direct conflict with Iran. While President Trump may have put an end to the conflict momentarily, bombing a state that was party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty sets a dangerous precedent for states considering the nuclear route. Some countries might now might see nuclear weapons as a means of defending their sovereignty in a world where international laws and norms are unable to protect them. Instead of being a nuclear deterrent, the attack on Iran is likely to be seen as a rationale to race to build a bomb as North Korea did. Ironically, the attack on Iran could motivate their leadership to now do the same.
While President Trump and his aides have lauded the attack on Iran, claiming it has dealt a blow to potential development of a nuclear arsenal, analysts have suggested this is a momentary setback and that Iran’s nuclear program is likely to go underground. Iran’s parliament has already voted to suspend cooperation with the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, who failed to clearly condemn the attack on Iran, shaking the foundations of nuclear diplomacy.
The attack on Iran came with its civilian casualties on both sides and also deflected from the ongoing slaughter that is taking place in Gaza. During the 12-day war around 800 Palestinians were killed and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel. Would President Trump, who ordered the Israelis to return their war planes when they were in violation of the ceasefire in Iran, make another call to Netanyahu to stop the slaughter in Gaza? The Trump administration managed to broker a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, while the UN remained out of the game. However, in the midst of handshakes a minerals deal was also made. After the deal in Ukraine and now in the DRC could we be seeing a new kind of US ‘Minerals Diplomacy’?
In this edition of Diplomacy Now we focus on the recent crisis in Iran and what it spells for the Iranian regime, nuclear diplomacy, the United Nations and the role of Gulf States in regional mediation.
As with every edition the views expressed by these authors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
Jamal Benomar
Chair of ICDI
Professor Shahram Akbarzadeh argues that rather than formenting regime change and acting as a nuclear deterrent, Israel and the US’ attack on Iran will likely consolidate the power of hardliners, lead to a crackdown on civil society and “make the already challenging task of finding a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program even more elusive.”
“The war was never a threat to the ruling regime. It simply vindicated the narrative of resistance against Israel and the United States and served to consolidate the regime,” he writes. “The consequences will likely be a more belligerent regime that challenges international rules and norms as tools of US hegemony and punishes civil society through accusations of Western infiltration.”
Israeli analyst Ori Goldberg explores the role that Iranian and US diplomacy played in ending the ‘12-Day War’ and points to potential signs of diplomatic divisions between Washington and Israel.
“Despite Israel’s overt and intentional flouting of international law and protocol (…) Iran pursued its case against Israel through various diplomatic means, from obtaining regional condemnation to statements in the United Nations, citing the relevant articles in international legal instruments and calling for their enforcement,” he writes, adding that Israel by contrast “rejected diplomacy.”
“It does not seem far-fetched to assume that Iran’s diplomatic endeavors played a part in shaping President Trump’s understanding of the evolving crisis. While President Trump chose to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, he did not do so repeatedly and did not join Israel’s offensive efforts on any other front.”
Palestinian UN correspondent Abdelhamid Siyam explores the body’s double standards when it comes to condemning acts of international aggression and naming perpetrators, drawing contrasts between statements on Ukraine and the attacks on Iran.
“The response of the UN leadership and the Security Council to the attacks on Iran has drawn into sharp focus the unfortunate reality that the UN system still serves the interests of the big powers and veto-holding member states, instead of upholding justice and international law regardless who is the victim. It is no wonder why the UN is now consistently a bystander to the world’s most significant conflicts and has lost credibility,” he writes.
Dr Andreas Krieg explores the role that Gulf states played in the crisis between the US, Iran and Israel and argues they should not “squander” this opportunity, but rather use it to play a more meaningful role in regional mediation and diplomacy.
“The Gulf states must now go beyond quiet shuttle diplomacy. They must use their access, their economic leverage, and their growing geopolitical weight to shape a new modus vivendi in the region — one where escalation is capped, diplomacy is the default lever of power, and military force above or below the threshold of war an act of last resort,” he writes.
“If they surrender this effort to those who have a comparative advantage in military power, they will find themselves not just cleaning up the ruins but living within them.”
Academic Farah N. Jan explores the consequences of the Israel-Iran conflict on nuclear escalation not just in Iran, but all over the world.
“This crisis marked the world’s first full-scale example of what I call a “threshold war” – a new and terrifying form of conflict where a nuclear weapons power seeks to use force to prevent an enemy on the verge of nuclearization from crossing that line. The precedents set during these 12 days may have permanently altered the landscape of nuclear proliferation and deterrence,” she writes.
“When military action becomes the primary tool for managing nuclear ambitions, the incentive for threshold states is clear: cross the nuclear threshold as quickly and quietly as possible, before the next preventive strike arrives,” she writes.
Nelson Mandela
