Middle East risks

Conflict Origins and Regional Context

• Former U.S. Ambassador Edward Jerijian characterizes the October 7th attacks as a geopolitical inflection point comparable to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, fundamentally altering the Middle East's political landscape.
• Hamas selected the October 7 timeline based on a calculation that the Palestinian cause had been relegated to a "tertiary status" in regional politics.
• Pre-attack drivers included the Netanyahu government's continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
• Tensions were exacerbated by Israeli policies regarding prayer rights at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam.
• Hamas identified internal Israeli divisions, specifically the Netanyahu administration's judicial reforms reducing Supreme Court power, as a sign of weakness.
• The U.S. administration's push to expand the Abraham Accords, aiming to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, was viewed by Hamas as a threat that would permanently marginalize the Palestinian cause.
• IIS Senior Fellow Emile Hokeyem notes that Hamas aimed to assert its identity as the primary resistance movement against perceived Israeli complacency and the decline of the Palestinian Authority.
• Regional power shifts, including the relative strengthening of Gulf states and Israel's economic integration, created imbalances that fueled resentment among traditional Arab powers.
• Iran's perceived regional rebound, evidenced by Assad's victory in Syria, Houthi dominance in Yemen, and Hezbollah's growth in Lebanon, contributed to a favorable security environment for Hamas.

Strategic Objectives and Current Outcomes

• Hokeyem argues Hamas has already achieved key strategic goals: forcing Arab governments to justify relationships with Israel and placing Palestine back at the center of the "political psyche and imagination."
• Hamas views the conflict as a struggle for survival and legitimacy, defined by the ability to negotiate with Israel over hostages rather than by economic or governance metrics.
• Jerijian confirms Hamas succeeded in ending the marginalization of the Palestinian issue, making it the primary focus of global and regional attention.
• Israel's stated military objective remains the destruction of Hamas, though experts question whether a political movement embedded in society can be fully eliminated through military means.
• Israel also seeks to establish a demilitarized Gaza and expand buffer zones to prevent future attacks, alongside securing the release of hostages.
• Hokeyem observes that the conflict has already expanded regionally through near-daily attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq and Syria by Iran-aligned groups and cross-border strikes between Hezbollah and Israel.
• Houthi actions in Yemen have disrupted maritime traffic in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, a critical artery for global trade.
• Despite regional widening, Hokeyem suggests the immediate escalation into an all-out war remains unlikely as groups primarily use the conflict to settle domestic scores and harass the U.S.
• Hokeyem warns that Iran reserves Hezbollah as a deterrent against a potential direct attack on Iranian territorial integrity, only deploying it if Israel moves to destroy Hamas entirely.

Risks of Escalation and U.S. Involvement

• Jerijian warns that while no side currently desires escalation due to economic and political vulnerabilities, "the fog of war" creates a high risk of major miscalculation.
• Israel prefers to avoid a second front with Hezbollah unless the group initiates serious attacks on Israeli targets.
• Iran currently avoids using the "Hezbollah card" to preserve it for a scenario involving imminent Israeli or U.S. attacks on Iran.
• Geopolitical instability poses a direct threat to global oil flows, with potential price spikes that could destabilize the U.S. economy ahead of the presidential election.
• The Biden administration has deployed two carrier task groups to the region to deter escalation and serve as a safety measure for citizen evacuation.
• Experts caution against U.S. entrapment in another Middle Eastern land war, citing the destructive long-term consequences of the 2003 Iraq War and the rise of ISIS.
• The possibility of an escalatory spiral remains significant, where strategic decisions not to escalate are undermined by on-the-ground incidents.

Pathways to Resolution

• Jerijian asserts that a return to the pre-October 7 status quo is impossible and that any solution requires a political framework based on "land for peace."
• The expert consensus identifies the two-state solution as the only viable approach for a democratic Jewish state to coexist with an independent Palestinian sovereign state, though it currently appears illusory.
• Implementation of a two-state solution requires credible Palestinian leadership and an Israeli government with a national consensus to negotiate, both of which are currently lacking.
• Jerijian notes that Netanyahu's coalition with right-wing parties constrains his ability to make territorial compromises, mirroring the leadership deficits faced by past leaders like Yitzhak Shamir.
• Hokeyem describes a stable regional outcome—defined by a two-state solution, the defanging of Iran, and a new security architecture—as "fantastical" at present due to the identity-based and ideological nature of the conflicts.
• Hokeyem projects that the immediate future will likely involve continued regional instability, with significant second-order effects including migration, terrorism, and transnational security threats.