Stephen M. Walt
Israel’s far-reaching attack on Iran is the latest round in its campaign to eliminate or degrade every one of its regional opponents. In the wake of the Hamas attack in October 2023, it has waged a brutal campaign to destroy the Palestinian people as a meaningful political force, an effort that has been described as a genocide by leading human rights organizations and numerous academic experts. It has decimated the leadership of Hezbollah in Lebanon through airstrikes, booby-trapped cellphones, and other means.
It has attacked the Houthis in Yemen and bombed post-Assad Syria to destroy weapons caches and prevent forces it sees as dangerous from exercising political influence there. And the latest attacks on Iran aim to do more than just damage or destroy that country’s nuclear infrastructure. At a minimum, Israel wants to end the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program;
cripple Iran’s ability to respond by killing top Iranian leaders, military officials, diplomats, and scientists; and, if possible, drag the United States deeper into the war. At a maximum, it hopes to weaken the regime to the point where it collapses.
Given that each of these actions has been at least partially successful—at least in the short term—should we now think of Israel as a regional hegemon? If such a state is defined as “the sole great power within a particular region,” such that “no other states (or combination of states) could mount a serious defense in an all-out test of military strength,” does Israel now qualify? If so, should we also expect its neighbors to act as others have when facing a hegemon: “recognize its superior power and defer to it on matters of vital interest to the hegemon”?
No comments:
Post a Comment