Palestine Tet – 121 – Transcript – Kazerooni Prince Dialogues: Post Gaza? What’s In Store for the Middle East? Part Two.

Yahia Sinwar

_____________________________

And by the way if you look at Friedman’s article, the third point he raises in that article is that the Israeli government and the United States has no other alternative, if they want to recoup at least some of the standing that they have lost in the region is to accept reality and to go for a two state solution that will be equitable. This is a call that is being made by various representatives, political as well as military as well as members of Parliament in various countries around the world.

The Palestinians are unifying their approach concerning how they should pursue and press the issue of the recognition of a Palestinian state as a reality and, at the end of the day, the United States has no other alternative but to recognize the fact that their role has been reduced to a marginal power in the region rather than a dominating power.

Ibrahim Kazerooni

This would have consequences, Ibrahim, don’t you think, in any international initiative to resolve the conflict. It’s not going to look like Oslo or Camp David in the sense that in those agreements the United States had a defining influence deciding the shape and political framework of the agreements. But given the changing balance of forces in the world – not just the Middle East there will be other players who participate in any serious peace process.

I’m not sure whom they will be – I assume at this point that the Chinese and the Russians will definitely be involved and have a certain role. There is no way for a Middle East settlement that is not going include them, Iran in some manner.

Do you have any sense at all of the framework for what a serious Middle East peace negotiations would look like? Or what they won’t look like?

Rob Prince

_____________________________

Part One

Transcript – Kazerooni Prince Dialogues: Post Gaza? What’s In Store for the Middle East? Part Two.

Tapped on March 3, 2024.

(This part is mostly commentary from Rob Prince. In Part One Ibrahim Kazerooni gave his thoughts)

Ibrahim Kazerooni: (finishing his remarks)

And now we are beginning to see at least the beginning of the consequences: the Israeli economy, military, tourism, internal dynamics are all severely damaged and the resignation of various military and intelligence leaders. In all these ways there will be consequences “the day the war comes to an end”.

Despite the tight Israeli control of the media, these problems, crises for Israel are becoming clearer and clearer, particularly if inquiries are going to be held (as after the 2006 debacle for Israel in S. Lebanon at the hands of Hezbollah).

Do you want to add something Rob?

Rob Prince: I want to talk about U.S. policy and what it’s experiencing at present where it concerns the Middle East.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is described in the mainstream media as a war. It’s not a war; it’s a slaughter. It’s a struggle between a colonial power, Israel and an anti-colonial movement, the Palestinians. Israel is an example of settler colonialism. The colonized people, the Palestinians, are defending their rights for national self determination.

So there’s that.

But the other point I would make that people often forget is that Israel is essentially a proxy for the United States in the Middle East. Israel is Washington’s “man on the spot in the region” which is there to enforce U.S. policy.

Throughout the world, the United States prefers, when it can, to have a proxy to do its dirty work.

Ibrahim Kazerooni: Can I just interject?

I remember many months ago I was checking some of Biden’s comments earlier on when he was a young Congressman and Senator. He said that if Israel didn’t exist we (the USA) would have had to have created one.

That clearly underscores your point.

Rob Prince: Yes.

People don’t think about the meaning of that comment but it’s exactly right: the United States needs proxies.

The notion that some people have – the tail is wagging the dog – that Israel controls U.S. policy … that’s quite inaccurate. Israel is a part and parcel of U.S. Middle East policy.

Having said that, U.S. policy in the Middle East right now is a mess and in complete confusion. It’s in chaos. In their own language the Administration refers to U.S. policy as “controlled chaos”. I don’t know if the policy was ever in great control; now essentially the policy is out of control.

Here are just a few examples that I would cite to give a sense to the degree to which the United States is losing the handle – certainly in terms of dictating policy in the region. It’s in trouble now.

 It’s not able to manage Israel, its proxy and has trouble controlling it. Some of the photos of Blinken going to Israel, talking to Netanyahu, almost begging him “ You can kill Palestinians – but not so many each day! – There is something so pathetic, degrading about that. Netanyahu simply looking at Blinken and saying “No”!
 There is virtually no diplomatic initiatives to end Israel’s war on Gaza; or to address the growing challenges to U.S. hegemony in the region. U.S bases are being targeted, former allies like Saudi Arabia are distancing themselves some from Washington; Netanyahu government is not being reigned in – to the contrary, given a “green light” to continue their genocidal war of ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
 Secondly – it wasn’t just an Israeli goal; it was also a U.S. goal to defeat, “annihilate,” “obliterate” Hamas. Hamas has not been defeated. There is a strange contradiction here that many people don’t understand: on the one hand the civilian casualties in Gaza are unspeakable tragic and horrible but actually in terms of the fighting forces of Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups, they are still standing strong and giving the IDF something of a beating it did not expect.
 Thirdly the United States has been completely incapable of controlling or neutralizing the activities of the Axis of Resistance. Whether we’re talking about the Yemenis targeting Israeli-bond ships in the Red Sea, Iraqis or Syrians increasingly targeting U.S. bases; whether we’re talking about “reining in Hezbollah” – both Israel and the United States up until now has been quite cautious about triggering a major military conflict with them.

Looking at what is happening in the region and looking at U.S. policy, it’s not going well at all at the moment. One of the more vibrant aspects of this U.S. confusion – I had to check to make sure it’s really happening – the United States has had to try to speak to Iran (through the Swiss Embassy) to rein in the Yemenis, Hezbollah. Washington acting like it can talk to Iran as if it’s a partner!

The whole pattern is of a foreign policy out of control and one which, when examining it more closely, the question emerges: what’s the vision here? Is there a vision at all or is it simply a policy of reacting with the only tools it has: sanctions, military might, proxies.

That’s pretty much how I see it. Yes, a policy of chaos, but controlled chaos? Far from it.

Ibrahim do you want to add anything here? Do you want to discuss how you see the situation lining up in the future?

Ibrahim Kazerooni: No I would like to echo most of the things that you said regarding the Axis of Resistance, the fact that they have no realized that the cause of the problem is at the heart: American foreign policy. They all talk about Israelis as being a marginal regional kind of power that the U.S. supports.

The contradiction between what the U.S. does and what it talks about has become so obvious for the world to see. On the one hand we see them (U.S.) dropping a few bags of flour for the Palestinians. On the other hand it provides the Israelis with hundreds of tons of the most sophisticated weapons to be used against whom – the same people. The crocodile tears are shed for when Palestinian civilians are being targeted.

So now everything has become clear.

Because in the Middle East, or at least in the region, winner takes all, or what are zero sum games, a reduction of U.S. power in the region results in an increase of the other powers, the Chinese and the Russians.

I’m sure you are familiar with the call that Putin made to the Palestinians inviting them to Moscow to sit down for discussions to see if that movement can emerge from such discussions more unified with the goal being to keep an eye on what should happen after the war coming to an end.

Rob Prince: Have there been any reports on what came out of that Moscow meeting?

Ibrahim Kazerooni: Yes, there were a number of reports, positive in a sense that Fateh as well as the other (Palestinian) parties involved agreed to a degree of rapproachment and unification of their approach regarding how the crisis can be resolved.

One of the consequences of October 7, in addition to the regional/global issue is the call for recognizing a two state solution.

And by the way if you look at Friedman’s article, the third point he raises in that article is that the Israeli government and the United States has no other alternative, if they want to recoup at least some of the standing that they have lost in the region is to accept reality and to go for a two state solution that will be equitable. This is a call that is being made by various representatives, political as well as military as well as members of Parliament in various countries around the world.

The Palestinians are unifying their approach concerning how they should pursue and press the issue of the recognition of a Palestinian state as a reality and, at the end of the day, the United States has no other alternative but to recognize the fact that their role has been reduced to a marginal power in the region rather than a dominating power.

Rob Prince: This would have consequences, Ibrahim, don’t you think, in any international initiative to resolve the conflict. It’s not going to look like Oslo or Camp David in the sense that in those agreements the United States had a defining influence deciding the shape and political framework of the agreements. But given the changing balance of forces in the world – not just the Middle East there will be other players who participate in any serious peace process.

I’m not sure whom they will be – I assume at this point that the Chinese and the Russians will definitely be involved and have a certain role. There is no way for a Middle East settlement that is not going include them, Iran in some manner.

Do you have any sense at all of the framework for what a serious Middle East peace negotiations would look like? Or what they won’t look like?

Ibrahim Kazerooni: Rob, it’s an excellent question.

As far as Iran is concerned, Iran has made it clear right from the beginning that if there is a peace movement or at least a process that would lead to a just and equitable solution to the Palestinian issue, and the creation of some kind of a Palestinian state on the basis of the U.N. Security Resolution 242 – or whatever the Palestinians would agree to – Iran would agree to it. That is not an issue.

Iran doesn’t need to be present at the negotiating table if such a goal could be guaranteed by the presence of the Russians, Chinese, Brazilians or any others. There is no need for Iran to be present.

Even recently there have been a number of indications of the United States heeding to this approach, having presented some kind of watered down version of such an agreement, or consent for an “undefined” Palestinian state with Netanyahu flatly rejecting this saying that there is not going to be any state for the Palestinians. Still, the Americans have started to revive the idea of some kind of two state solution.

But ultimately the Palestinians are the ones to decide.

If peace negotiations for the settlement of the Palestinian situation is to be organized under the auspices of, say, the United Nations or another international body (BRICS?) in which the Americans become only one partner among several, or one component of a negotiating team, the crisis for the United States is it would lead to shrinkage of or the end of the presence of the United States in the region.

The Syrian issue is going to come up; Palestinian rights cannot be negotiated without taking into consideration the occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights. The Iraqis have already tabled and passed resolutions calling for the end of U.S. military bases in their country; that will have to be negotiated. The presence of American troops in Syria has to be negotiated.

If these issues are to be settled, it would result in a region in which the United States plays a much more marginal role than it does today and it is very hard for a superpower to swallow such a development. This is why the United States is incapable of resolving the crisis in Gaza because they understand that the resolution of the Gaza crisis must lead to other developments that the Americans don’t want to address.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX