Speaking to The National this week, Qasim Al Araji, Iraq’s National Security Adviser, was right when he said Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israel last weekend had created a “new deterrent policy” in the region. Indeed, there is widespread acknowledgement that the Middle East is confronted by a novel and unpredictable security paradigm. A major concern, however, is that deterrence has its limits and perhaps doesn’t quite offer the stability its proponents think it does.
An examination of deterrence in the Middle East reveals that building a security framework based on a dangerous game of bluff is not the path to the kind of peace that the people of this region aspire to. Neither does it provide Israel or Iran with the kind of security and freedom from attack that both states insist they want.
The limits of deterrence were obvious long before the current war that is spilling across the Middle East. Successive Israeli governments thought they had established deterrence with repeated attacks on Gaza over the years. Instead, this policy of responding to attacks from Palestinian militants with overwhelming and indiscriminate force, coupled with the immiseration and disenfranchisement of Palestinian civilians, led to complacency that left Israel vulnerable to the kind of brutal assault witnessed on October 7. In fact, most of the security Israel does enjoy has come from political treaties, not force of arms, and the country still faces many threats and considerable hostility.
For its part, Iran thought it had established deterrence with its extensive network of armed proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon, as well as building a large military at home. Instead, Tehran faces a great deal of international isolation, economic sanctions – more of which look likely from the EU soon – and perpetual insecurity that has left its military leadership appearing exposed and anxious. In addition, the bluff of Iranian deterrence has been repeatedly called in the form of strikes on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-linked bases in Iraq and Syria, the killing of scientists connected to Tehran’s nuclear programme, and the high-profile US assassination of Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in 2020.
Yes, the Israeli strike against IRGC targets in Iran’s Damascus embassy compound changed the calculus of Middle East security. It also started a cycle of tit-for-tat reprisals that has left the people of this region on tenterhooks, fearful of the next escalation.
Upping the ante in this way has offered few benefits for anyone; it is in no one’s interests for this regional escalation to continue. Israeli leaders may talk tough – radical Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s irresponsible call for a "disproportionate" attack on Iran is par for the course – but the truly security-minded in Israel’s leadership would understand that it is the time to make up for its previous strategic failures by standing down and focusing on the core issue: ending the conflict with the Palestinians, the horrors of which have been overshadowed by this renewed Israeli-Iranian rivalry.
As the UN Security Council debates fully admitting Palestine to the international community of states, it is a moment for clear and strategic thinking. The Gaza war, in large part due to the denial of Palestinian rights and statehood, is the crux of the biggest security problem in the Middle East. It is a problem that will not be fixed by Israel and Iran engaging in a dangerous stand-off in which there is no true winner. Deterrence is a form of political procrastination that puts off solving today’s problems for a tomorrow that may never come. The Middle East needs better.
The specs
Engine: 3.0-litre 6-cyl turbo
Power: 374hp at 5,500-6,500rpm
Torque: 500Nm from 1,900-5,000rpm
Transmission: 8-speed auto
Fuel consumption: 8.5L/100km
Price: from Dh285,000
On sale: from January 2022
It's up to you to go green
Nils El Accad, chief executive and owner of Organic Foods and Café, says going green is about “lifestyle and attitude” rather than a “money change”; people need to plan ahead to fill water bottles in advance and take their own bags to the supermarket, he says.
“People always want someone else to do the work; it doesn’t work like that,” he adds. “The first step: you have to consciously make that decision and change.”
When he gets a takeaway, says Mr El Accad, he takes his own glass jars instead of accepting disposable aluminium containers, paper napkins and plastic tubs, cutlery and bags from restaurants.
He also plants his own crops and herbs at home and at the Sheikh Zayed store, from basil and rosemary to beans, squashes and papayas. “If you’re going to water anything, better it be tomatoes and cucumbers, something edible, than grass,” he says.
“All this throwaway plastic - cups, bottles, forks - has to go first,” says Mr El Accad, who has banned all disposable straws, whether plastic or even paper, from the café chain.
One of the latest changes he has implemented at his stores is to offer refills of liquid laundry detergent, to save plastic. The two brands Organic Foods stocks, Organic Larder and Sonnett, are both “triple-certified - you could eat the product”.
The Organic Larder detergent will soon be delivered in 200-litre metal oil drums before being decanted into 20-litre containers in-store.
Customers can refill their bottles at least 30 times before they start to degrade, he says. Organic Larder costs Dh35.75 for one litre and Dh62 for 2.75 litres and refills will cost 15 to 20 per cent less, Mr El Accad says.
But while there are savings to be had, going green tends to come with upfront costs and extra work and planning. Are we ready to refill bottles rather than throw them away? “You have to change,” says Mr El Accad. “I can only make it available.”
Company%20profile
%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3ECompany%20name%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EXare%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EStarted%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EJanuary%2018%2C%202021%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EFounders%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EPadmini%20Gupta%2C%20Milind%20Singh%2C%20Mandeep%20Singh%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EBased%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EDubai%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3ESector%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EFinTech%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EFunds%20Raised%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3E%2410%20million%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3ECurrent%20number%20of%20staff%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3E28%C2%A0%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EInvestment%20stage%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3Eundisclosed%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EInvestors%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EMS%26amp%3BAD%20Ventures%2C%20Middle%20East%20Venture%20Partners%2C%20Astra%20Amco%2C%20the%20Dubai%20International%20Financial%20Centre%2C%20Fintech%20Fund%2C%20500%20Startups%2C%20Khwarizmi%20Ventures%2C%20and%20Phoenician%20Funds%3C%2Fp%3E%0A
Key findings of Jenkins report
- Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna, "accepted the political utility of violence"
- Views of key Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, have “consistently been understood” as permitting “the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society” and “never been institutionally disowned” by the movement.
- Muslim Brotherhood at all levels has repeatedly defended Hamas attacks against Israel, including the use of suicide bombers and the killing of civilians.
- Laying out the report in the House of Commons, David Cameron told MPs: "The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism."