Strategic Diplomacy: Shaping a New Middle East Order

In the immediate aftermath of the tragic events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a devastating surprise attack on Israel, analysts across the globe drew comparisons to the Yom Kippur War of 1973. This comparison was rooted in several striking similarities: the attack on October 7th occurred exactly 50 years after the Yom Kippur War, and like in 1973, a significant intelligence failure preceded the assault. Both events have deeply traumatized Israeli society, marking some of the worst attacks on its soil in history.

However, beyond these obvious parallels, there is another, more strategic connection to be made—namely, the way the United States has used its diplomacy to prevent a major conflict from spiraling out of control and to leverage the ensuing chaos to shift the balance of power in the region.

Back on October 6, 1973, the Middle East was also engulfed in war as Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel during Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. The conflict, later known as the Yom Kippur War, quickly escalated beyond the region, drawing in the United States and the Soviet Union on opposing sides. As Israeli forces fought to regain control, the US found itself in a critical position—supporting its key ally, Israel, while also managing the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict. The war became a pivotal moment for US diplomacy, particularly through the efforts of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who saw an opportunity amidst the chaos to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.

Kissinger’s strategy was not merely about resolving the immediate conflict; it was about redefining the region’s alliances in a way that would weaken Soviet influence and pull Arab nations into the American sphere. Through a diplomatic approach known as shuttle diplomacy, Kissinger -and a young senator called Joe Biden- engaged in a series of intense negotiations, flying back and forth between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. His goal was to leverage the situation to create a new order in the Middle East, one where key Arab states would shift their allegiance away from the Soviet Union and towards the United States. This was a classic example of containment—not just containing the conflict, but containing Soviet influence by realigning the region’s political landscape.

One of Kissinger’s most significant diplomatic achievements was his ability to persuade Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to distance Egypt from the Soviet Union. Sadat, frustrated by the limitations of Soviet military support and recognizing the potential benefits of US backing, was open to Kissinger’s overtures. Kissinger made it clear that if Egypt wanted to recover the Sinai Peninsula and achieve lasting peace, it would need to reduce its reliance on Soviet aid and instead seek American support. By capitalizing on the war’s outcome and the geopolitical tensions it exposed, Kissinger effectively began the process of shifting Egypt—and eventually other Arab nations—into the US orbit, fundamentally altering the power dynamics of the Middle East.

Fast forward to late July 2024, tensions in the Middle East escalated dramatically with the targeted eliminations of two high-profile figures: Fuad Shukr in Lebanon and Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil. These eliminations, carried out by Israel, provoked immediate threats of retaliation from Hezbollah and Iran, who both vowed to avenge what they described as heinous crimes. Intelligence sources widely agreed that an Iranian attack on Israel was likely imminent, expected to occur between Friday, August 2nd, and Saturday, August 3rd. The situation appeared to be on the brink of spiraling into a full-scale conflict that could engulf the entire region.

However, as the anticipated timeframe for the Iranian response approached, the United States began a significant military mobilization in the region. On the night of August 2nd, US military assets started moving into position, with Italy, the United Kingdom, and France quickly following suit. The military base in Cyprus and the Mediterranean Sea soon became densely packed with Western military forces, creating a formidable presence that sent a clear signal to Iran: any attack could lead to a direct confrontation with the United States and its allies, potentially sparking a broader conflict in the Middle East.

This show of military power had an immediate impact. The rhetoric from Tehran began to shift, with official Iranian media suggesting that the target of any retaliation might change. Rather than attacking Israeli soil directly, reports indicated that Iran might focus on targeting those directly responsible for the killings, thereby avoiding a large-scale conflict. This change in tone reflected a careful recalibration by Iranian leaders, who recognized the high stakes involved in confronting a coalition of Western powers.

To understand how the situation moved from the brink of war to a more cautious approach by a nuclear-armed state, it’s crucial to examine the dual strategies employed by the United States. On one hand, the deployment of military assets in the region significantly raised the cost of an Iranian attack, making it clear that any such action could result in an all-out war involving the US and Iran directly for the first time. On the other hand, Western diplomacy played a critical role in delegitimizing an Iranian attack on Israeli soil, especially one that could endanger civilian lives.

Diplomatic channels were in full operation as the US leveraged its relationships with Iraq and Jordan to relay messages to Tehran. Additionally, Turkey, which had recently brokered a deal between Russia and the US, acted as a mediator, conveying a crucial message to Moscow: an all-out war in the Middle East was in no one’s interest. This diplomatic effort led to a notable development—Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly advised Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to exercise restraint, particularly in avoiding attacks on Israeli civilians.

Simultaneously, reports emerged of growing internal divisions within Iran’s leadership. The newly elected President, Masoud Pezeshkian, who had assumed office amidst an economic crisis and public dissatisfaction with the establishment, appeared to have differences with the Supreme Leader regarding the appropriate response to Israel. Pezeshkian’s administration, facing economic turmoil, had recently secured a natural gas deal with Russia, highlighting Iran’s reliance on Moscow’s support. This dependency may have influenced the more cautious stance, as Pezeshkian sought to avoid actions that could further destabilize Iran’s already fragile situation.

The division between Iran’s President and Supreme Leader was evident not only in their differing views on whether to strike Israeli soil but also in their distinct approaches to gaining legitimacy for any potential response.

The Supreme Leader sought the endorsement of the Islamic Cooperation Organization (ICO), which convened at his request in Jeddah to discuss a response to the killing of the Hamas leader. Despite Iran’s efforts, the ICO issued a statement holding Israel responsible for the attack and condemning it as a violation of Iran’s sovereignty, but it stopped short of providing any legitimacy for a retaliatory strike. In fact, reports suggest that during a private meeting on the sidelines, Jordan—a country that had already declared it would not allow its airspace to be used for conflict—warned Iran that it would intercept any missiles crossing its airspace. This diplomatic defeat was swiftly followed by the Biden administration’s announcement to lift a ban on US sales of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, a move likely designed to further pressure Iran by strengthening its regional adversaries.

Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian, facing internal challenges and a need to secure external support, turned to Russia. While Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly advocated for de-escalation, Iran was reportedly receiving advanced air defense and radar equipment from Moscow, underscoring the strategic alliance between the two nations. However, this support came at a time when Ukraine launched a significant offensive in Russia’s Kursk region, marking the largest cross-border incursion since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This development suggested a shifting focus for Russia, as the conflict in Ukraine increasingly demanded its attention and resources. In a further twist, reports emerged that Russian military personnel were being trained in Iran to operate the Fath-360 close-range ballistic missile system, with expectations of imminent deliveries of these weapons to support Russia’s war effort in Ukraine.

Finally, on Thursday night, the United States, Qatar, and Egypt issued a joint statement calling for immediate relief for the people of Gaza and the release of hostages and detainees, declaring that “the time has come to conclude the ceasefire and hostages and detainees release deal.” Israel responded positively, agreeing to cooperate and stating that they would convene on August 15th at a location determined by the mediators. Hamas also expressed a willingness to negotiate, though both sides attached conditions to their responses. Notably, Israel’s official statement emphasized their desire to reach an agreement, prompting Iran to issue a statement as well. Iran declared that its retaliation for the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh—an action that, after all these developments, remains uncertain—would be carefully calibrated so as not to jeopardize the ongoing negotiations. This moment underscores a critical shift in focus: the animosity that has driven the conflict, particularly since October 7th, has been centered on the war in Gaza. For the Iranian axis, the primary objective remains the resolution of this conflict, making the ceasefire negotiations a pivotal juncture in the broader geopolitical landscape.

The theory of containment through diplomatic isolation and diversionary tactics is rooted in the broader strategy of containment that was developed during the Cold War. This approach was initially articulated by George F. Kennan in his famous “Long Telegram” of 1946, which laid the groundwork for the United States’ policy of containing Soviet expansion without direct military confrontation. Kennan’s ideas evolved into a comprehensive strategy that combined military alliances, economic pressure, and diplomatic efforts to limit the influence of adversarial states. Diplomatic isolation, as a component of containment, seeks to deprive an adversary of international legitimacy and support, effectively reducing its ability to project power or pursue aggressive policies. By ensuring that a state is diplomatically isolated, its leaders are forced to reconsider the costs of unilateral action, particularly when it involves potential military conflict.

In conjunction with diplomatic isolation, diversionary tactics are used to shift an adversary’s focus away from a particular conflict or objective. By creating or exacerbating challenges elsewhere, these tactics can stretch an adversary’s resources and attention, making it less capable of responding effectively to a specific situation. This strategy has been employed in various forms throughout history, often to prevent an adversary from gaining the upper hand in a particular region.

In the context of recent events involving Iran, these theories were put into practice with remarkable precision. The US, leveraging its strong ties with key Middle Eastern nations such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, successfully influenced the Islamic Cooperation Organization (ICO) to withhold legitimacy from an Iranian attack on Israel. This diplomatic isolation was crucial in preventing Iran from rallying broader support for a retaliatory strike. Simultaneously, by reportedly arming Ukraine and intensifying the conflict on Russia’s doorstep, the US effectively diverted Russia’s attention away from the Middle East. With Russia preoccupied and Iran diplomatically isolated, Tehran found itself without the necessary backing to escalate the situation into a full-blown regional conflict, demonstrating the continued relevance and effectiveness of containment through diplomatic isolation and diversionary tactics in contemporary geopolitics.

The culmination of these diplomatic efforts came with the joint statement issued by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, which not only called for Hamas and Israel to agree to a ceasefire and a hostage exchange deal but also pushed for a comprehensive settlement proposal addressing the post-war scenario in Gaza. This proposal, as reported multiple times since the conflict began, includes several transformative elements: the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, a complete overhaul of the Palestinian Authority, and the creation of a NATO-like Middle Eastern military alliance aimed at countering Iran. This ambitious plan underscores the United States’ ability to leverage chaos in a region on the brink of total war, using diplomacy to prevent a direct confrontation with nuclear powers—whether Iran or potentially even Russia—and to reshape the geopolitical landscape, altering the balance of power in the Middle East.

In an ironic twist of history, the junior senator who shuttled between Egypt and Israel in 1973 is today the President of the United States, once again navigating a complex and volatile situation in the Middle East.

The current moment presents Israel with a critical choice: continue a costly and potentially endless war of attrition, which could escalate into a larger conflict that Israel may not be prepared to face alone or seize the opportunity to secure significant gains and fundamentally change the dynamics of the Middle East. This decision could redefine the region for generations to come, with the potential to establish a new order that prioritizes stability and cooperative security over perpetual conflict.