Two leaders and their political twilight

Today, the world fears the final, dangerous act in the twilight of what has become the world's most consequential and controversial bilateral partnership. It is a partnership sustained by the overwhelming power of one benefactor, the United States, and the relentless disregard for international law and human values by its malefactor, the state of Israel. Today, both leaders confront mounting political uncertainty at home. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to secure a majority in the recently concluded Israeli elections, while opinion polls increasingly point towards a defeat for President Donald Trump in the upcoming US midterm elections.

What makes this political predicament dangerous is the possibility that the war against Iran could become a strategic gamble and disaster from which neither leader can afford to retreat. At 77, Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, is set to continue as interim prime minister until fresh elections next year seek to resolve the deadlock in the Knesset. This arrangement could persist if Likud and Gadi Eisenkot's party remain committed to their declared refusal to form a coalition with the Arab parties, which have secured 19 seats and consequently emerged as potential kingmakers. Netanyahu, popularly known as 'Mr Security', has already abandoned Israel's traditional security doctrine of fighting short, limited wars of defence. Instead, he has presided over the country's longest-running military campaigns, fighting on multiple fronts, including Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

The elimination of the Iranian regime has long been Netanyahu's overriding political objective. The 53 seats secured by his party in the latest elections suggest that a substantial section of Israeli society continues to endorse his approach. Now entering its ninth month, the US-Israeli war against Iran carries the danger of becoming something far more dangerous than a military confrontation. For two leaders facing electoral setbacks and eroding political credibility, the temptation to finish what they started may weigh heavier than the political wisdom of ending it.

The erosion of American influence and global credibility can be attributed to several factors, but one that stands out is the transformation of US statecraft into a system that increasingly divides the world into favoured and disfavoured regimes. Israel tops the list of US-favoured states, and the distinction in how the US treats the two categories has become an open secret. While the US routinely calls out governments it disapproves of for repression, tyranny and human rights abuses, it overlooks similar conduct by its allies and strategic partners.

Since 1972, the US has cast at least 45 vetoes against UNSC resolutions critical of Israel. American patronage, therefore, extends well beyond the economic and military assistance it provides to Israel. Its diplomatic protection has been equally consequential, shielding Israel from international accountability and emboldening it to pursue policies that contribute to global instability, disorder and an erosion of the international rules-based system.

One of the principal military justifications for going to war with Iran was to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. The nuclear ambitions of Iraq, Libya and Syria, similarly, were treated as matters of grave international insecurity. Yet Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal remains largely beyond the reach of the same international scrutiny. The only American president to openly challenge Israel over its nuclear ambitions was John F Kennedy. In 1961, Kennedy warned that American support for Israel could be seriously jeopardised if Washington's concerns over Israel's nuclear programme remained unresolved. He did not live long enough to witness the eventual trajectory of that programme.

Today, whenever an attempt is made to bring Israel's undeclared nuclear capabilities under discussion at IAEA, American influence becomes a big obstacle. The contrast is difficult to ignore as nuclear ambitions in adversarial states are presented as threats to global security. Such selective application of international norms not only speaks of an American inconsistency but also a wider failure of the US-led Western order to uphold the principles of justice, equality and accountability on which its legitimacy rests.

They say when you refuse to visit disorder, disorder eventually comes knocking at your own door. This is precisely the predicament confronting Europe and the wider West today. Having failed to uphold an international order grounded in justice, freedom and equality, the US and its European partners are now confronting the domestic consequences of their own political and strategic choices. The promises of the Western-led global order have hardly translated into meaningful benefits for much of the developing world, where poverty, inequality and political instability continue to persist. Nor has the Western world itself remained immune to the resulting consequences. Across Europe, political dissatisfaction is increasingly finding expression through the rise of populist and far-right movements. Countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Poland are witnessing growing political polarisation, while far-right parties have gained significant ground in countries including the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia and Croatia.

Public confidence in democracy and its ability to deliver is also showing signs of erosion. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 69% of respondents in France, 68% in Spain, 62% in Italy and 69% in the US expressed declining optimism about democracy. The West has invested far more political capital and military resources in fighting wars of questionable necessity than in strengthening democratic institutions and delivering the social and economic dividends that make democracy meaningful. No wonder a growing numbers of Western citizens are gravitating towards populist movements and far-right politics.

The greatest danger confronting the world today is not only the possibility of another war with Iran, but also the strategic miscalculation that could accompany its recommencement. For Netanyahu and Trump, resuming hostilities may offer them an opportunity to recover lost political ground, but the consequences could extend far beyond their domestic political fortunes. A war restarted to rescue two embattled political careers could plunge an already fragile international order into an even deeper crisis. The world cannot afford to become the collateral damage of two leaders unwilling to accept their political twilight.