Escalation Over Diplomacy: Conflict Spreads from Gaza to Golan Heights

Israel Failed Mission

Let’s examine the U.S. policy briefing and reflect on today’s wars. Israel has repeated the mistake in Gaza that the George W. Bush administration made in Iraq and Afghanistan and failed to marry its military action to achievable political goals at the outset.

According to “Stuart Eizenstat,” there wasn’t a lesson learnt when the U.S. acted in Iraq and even today. This highlights the long army intervention with no fundamental objective, meaning the decision, timing, and acting were miscalculated as many factors played.

Intelligence failed, and the idea of strategizing against Hamas by the IDF was unrealistic. Firstly, the reason for the Jewish lobby plays a significant role in shaping Israeli leadership. Their prime minister, Netanyahu, and their military cabinet resolved their problem in one direction, which would destroy proxies and build a peaceful land for the Jews.

Eizenstat highlights the long army intervention with no fundamental objective, meaning the decision, timing, and actions were miscalculated as many factors influenced the situation. After one year, the Israeli army does not have a concrete plan to scrutinize and help the hostages.

We faced both propaganda coming from the Zionists and Hamas; this ideological sense mixed with the wrong military objectives led to Israel’s failure to condemn threats effectively. This creates a geopolitical split with more proxies involved in defending their people and ideology.

This is not about making social policy that stands grounded in today’s reality and acting pragmatically. This is just recreating the same scenario year after year. Why did the U.S. act unilaterally without understanding the context of the enemy and their land? 

    With more resistance, we need more funding and wars. The U.S. didn’t learn the military lesson and acted foolishly when dragging everyone along. 

Nuclear Withdrawal Possibility

When understanding Turkey’s foreign policy and Syrian rebel groups, first, President Erdogan played a key role in the Muslim Brotherhood and supported the Palestinian cause. Still, his strategic interests are creating tension with Israeli territorial expansion at the Golan Heights.

Relations between the two countries, Jerusalem and its military actions in Gaza, take no clear resolution. As these extremists keep their presence in Syrian territory, they become global threats.

Netanyahu enumerated several instances in which the administration delivered on campaign promises favoring the Israeli leader, including U.S. “withdrawal from the nuclear deal” with Iran.

How can we interpret this possible outcome? Firstly, we can expect the Iranian regime to take this role seriously as the U.S. disrespects Iran’s sovereignty and legal norms. That would mean the war would split East Asia, causing an arms race involving China and Russia.

With more military leverage, Israel would ask the U.S. to act unilaterally on Iran and its allies. Again, this is dangerous and ultimately leads to failure to reach security. Tehran is prepared for an Israeli strike, but Iran will pursue diplomacy and ‘reason will prevail,’ according to “Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.”

The U.S.-Iran rivalry has not only shaped the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East but also had far-reaching consequences for global energy security and non-proliferation regimes. Each instance of their conflict demonstrates the interplay between regional disputes and international power structures.

Reflecting on this event, we can see that most of the failed negotiations and the possibility of being pressured to act on national and global levels cause strategic surprises that shape Near East policy with unexpected events and surprises.

Let’s consider the Arab-Israeli war of 1973; the strategic justification given for that action was that Israel must have a response even in the most extreme and unlikely scenarios.

However, it is widely believed that Israel does possess a nuclear arsenal of at least 80–100 warheads, according to the report Too Close for Comfort: Cases Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy. This only showed a sense of distrust, not reaching any point for the best