Middle East Report

James discusses on Radio Islam this week’s anxiously awaited White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, next week’s Board of Peace gathering in Washington focussed on Gaza, and the future of US-Israeli military relations.

To listen to the podcast or watch the video, go to https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com/p/middle-east-report-19a

Transcript

[Anchor] Well, in today's Middle East report, we discuss the so-called Gaza peace plan and what the U.S., who is initiating and seemingly heading that particular plan, has in mind, as well as what's happening in the Middle East, especially the Persian Gulf or the Straits of Hormuz, with a continuing piling up of U.S. military personnel. Is a strike on Iran imminent, or is this bluster that the U.S. feels that amassing troops would be enough of a deterrent upon Iran? Exactly a deterrent for what?

Is it going to be regime change anytime soon? That seems to be highly unlikely. But where is this confrontation between the U.S. and its ally, especially Israel, and the Iranian regime going? Joining us this morning for us here in South Africa is James M. Dorsey, an award-winning scholar and journalist with a different perspective on the Middle East and a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

You can follow James, of course, and subscribe to James' newsletter, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey, or https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com. Good day to you, James. Thank you for joining us.

[James M. Dorsey] As always, it's wonderful to be with you. James, talk to us.

[Anchor] U.S. President Donald Trump is deliberately vague about the upshot of his talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Iran. What are we to expect out of that conversation or that dialogue, James?

[James M. Dorsey] Trump has left everybody guessing what the outcome of his talks with Netanyahu is, beyond stating that he wants a negotiated agreement with Iran. Tellingly, Netanyahu has been conspicuously silent too. It's not clear what Trump wants to negotiate—an agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme or a package deal that would also include curbs on the Islamic Republic's ballistic missiles and relationships with groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemen's Houthi rebels, and Iraqi Shiite militias, which Netanyahu wants to see.

Trump and Iran have wiggle room to negotiate a nuclear deal that would allow both parts to claim victory without losing face. Including ballistic missiles at this point would mean no deal and a likely military conflagration that could spark a regional war. For now, Trump has suggested that negotiators have a month to conclude whatever deal before he would consider military action with a U.S. armada already in Middle Eastern waters.

[Anchor] James, even so, Jerusalem is the joker in the deck, meaning that, you know, many may say the wild card over here. Israel has already warned that it could unilaterally strike Iranian ballistic missile sites, not, you know, considering the fact that negotiations may be on that month type of a, you know, timeline has been posted by President Trump. But the reality is that Israel may not consider any timeline possible.

What are we to expect out of coming out of, you know, that particular side, the Israeli side?

[James M. Dorsey] Netanyahu is the wild card. If Trump does not seek a deal on ballistic missiles or makes concessions on nuclear, such as Iran's right to limited uranium enrichment, Netanyahu could decide that Israel will strike unilaterally. The risk of a nuclear deal that is not to Netanyahu's liking is enhanced by the fact that Trump needs to make a nuclear deal that he can claim is better than the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran's nuclear programme.

Trump withdrew from that agreement in 2018 during his first term in office, declaring that it was the worst agreement ever concluded. Israel has already said that it reserves the right to strike unilaterally at Iranian ballistic missile facilities. The risk of Iranian retaliation at either Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf that could spark a regional war is equally high whether the U.S. hits Iran or Israel acts on its own.

[Anchor] James, this week's meeting, when Trump was the first instance in which U.S. and Israeli positions may have diverged, many people noticed the divergent views. Differences could again emerge at next week's Board of Peace meeting in Washington on the implementation of the second phase of Trump's Gaza ceasefire plan. Certainly that peace meeting or the Board of Peace meeting is a worthy discussion to have next week, whether it's really a Board of Peace.

Many already, even U.S. allies, are critical of its makeup, etc., but no doubt that's a topic for another week, very likely next week. The issue of the implementation of the second phase of Trump's Gaza peace plan, what are we to make of the divergent views that the U.S. and Israel seem to have in this current buildup?

[James M. Dorsey] It's hard not to assume that Trump and Netanyahu did not see eye to eye on Iran during this week's meeting. That is likely to have been the case not only regarding Iran, but also Gaza. Israel's security cabinet adopted several measures on the eve of the White House meeting that enhanced Israeli control of the West Bank, diminished the authority of the internationally recognised Palestine Authority, and constitutes a likely prelude to annexation.

That is unlikely to have gone down well with Trump, who has ruled out Israeli annexation. Trump is preparing for next week's meeting in Washington of his Board of Peace that is supposed to oversee implementation of the second phase of the president's Gaza ceasefire plan. Key elements of that plan are an international stabilisation force that would police Gaza as Israel withdraws and reconstruction.

With the prospect of annexation, rather than progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state, Arab and Muslim-majority states are likely to remain reluctant to contribute to the stabilisation force or invest in reconstruction.

[Anchor] James, finally, looming in the background is a potential paradigm change in the U.S.-Israeli military relationship. And, you know, of course, this doesn't give, it's given less attention that they have got, no doubt, a 10-year relationship, a military relationship, as the two countries prepare to negotiate new arrangements for when the current 10-year memorandum of understanding expires in 2028. With all likelihood, there will be a renewal of that agreement, whether it's 10 years or five years, it's anybody's guess.

However, what are we to expect in the years ahead, or should I say in the months ahead, as we come to the expiration of the 2028 memorandum of understanding?

[James M. Dorsey] Indeed, the U.S.-Israeli military relationship is likely to change significantly in coming years, as the two countries negotiate a deal that would replace the current expiring arrangement. Trump's America First supporters are proposing an agreement that would wean Israel off a yearly subsidy of some $3.8 billion to be spent on buying U.S. military hardware, and turn Israel into a strategic partner rather than an aid recipient who increasingly buys U.S. weaponry. Wanting to preempt U.S. moves, Netanyahu sought to put the horse in front of the cart by saying he wants Israel to be self-sufficient within 10 years. That's a far shorter period than the 21-year timeline proposed by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, widely seen as the Trump administration's brain trust. In a sign of which way the wind is blowing, influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded to Netanyahu, saying the process could be sped up to achieve the transition in less than 10 years.

[Anchor] James Dorsey, thank you for your time this morning for us here in South Africa. Have a good weekend ahead of you, James.

[James M. Dorsey] Thank you for having me. Have a good weekend and happy Ramadan.

Thank you for joining me today