Appeasement Didn’t Bear Good Fruit in the Middle East

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, made several unprecedented incendiary comments during a speech on June 19. He threatened war on Cyprus if they assisted Israel in an attack on the militia and pledged to wage a war “without constraints, rules or limits” on Israel. The man who initiated the ongoing eight-month conflict between his militia and Israel is now threatening to transform limited daily attacks largely relegated to a border area into a deadlier, more destructive regional war.

Nasrallah’s provocative words are a product of a flawed U.S. approach to the Middle East. Instead of mitigating the region’s dynamics, the Biden administration’s approach has made a challenging situation worse by enabling its enemies through diplomacy. As the 1938 Munich Agreement demonstrated, mollifying an aggressor is not a path to peace, it is a roadmap to war. (READ MORE: US Navy Works to Deter Full-Scale War)

Since arriving at the White House, President Biden has been keen to temper and contain conflict in the Middle East. His administration wants to prevent and limit conflict so they can devote more time, energy, and resources to Asia and the growing Chinese threat. Mitigating conflict in the Middle East has entailed pursuing ceasefires, truces, and mediated settlements between long-time enemies. The idea is that one agreement will engender additional agreements and cooperation. Through these measures, the administration believes the region can eventually be shared between competing powers.

The approach is backfiring.

Appeasement Plays Into the Hands of Our Enemies

The administration’s fear of conflict, escalation, and zeal for achieving diplomatic solutions have played into the hands of its enemies. To the detriment of its allies, American-mediated settlements and truces did not engender a culture of cooperation and a climate of co-existence in the Middle East. Allies made concessions, but aggressors were only temporarily satisfied. An environment has emerged that placates escalatory demands and enables impunity.

Nasrallah’s June 19 remarks are manifestations of the climate cultivated by the Biden administration. Nasrallah recognizes the flawed U.S. approach to the region, knows his audience, and seeks to exploit it. He knows that President Biden fears an escalation of violence and the outbreak of a regional war. He is calculating that his threats will motivate the Biden administration to increase pressure on Israel to declare a ceasefire in Gaza (Hezbollah has made ending its 9-month almost daily attacks on Israel contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza) and restrain Israel from launching a major offensive on Lebanon. (READ MORE: UK Parliament Gets Its Own Pro-Palestinian Squad)

A ceasefire and restraint are a win-win for Nasrallah. His nine-month conflict waged against Israel and threats would be vindicated. His militia escapes a devastating Israeli invasion and his threats go unpunished. Nasrallah and Hezbollah survive to foment conflict for another day because they do not seek co-existence with the Israeli state, only its demise.

Why is Nasrallah willing to threaten a broader, deadlier, more destructive war?

He learned the behavior. He indulged in similar rhetoric and actions in 2022 and got rewarded.

Positive Reinforcement Works in Foreign Policy Too

On July 13, 2022, the leader of Hezbollah declared “All the options are on the table” after his militia launched drones at an Israeli gas rig in the Mediterranean Sea. The actions and comments occurred as U.S.-mediated negotiations between the Israeli and Lebanese governments over a disputed maritime boundary and ownership of gas fields in the Mediterranean appeared to be floundering. Nasrallah threatened that if Americans “don’t give us our rights that are demanded by the state and if you don’t allow companies to extract (oil) God knows what we will do. We will turn over the table in the face of the world.”

Within weeks of Nasrallah’s actions and threats, a settlement was being finalized. He called the settlement a “great historic victory.” Lebanon achieved a favorable outcome and Hezbollah went unpunished for its actions and threats. President Biden ignored the events leading to the settlement. Instead, he focused on the outcome tweeting: “My Administration was proud to facilitate this deal, an anchor for regional stability and prosperity.” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken complimented Biden’s tweet by stating that the resolution demonstrates the “power of regional cooperation” and “the transformative power of American diplomacy.”

I spoke with @IsraeliPM and @LBPresidency today to congratulate them on a breakthrough agreement to establish a maritime boundary for the first time between Israel and Lebanon.

My Administration was proud to facilitate this deal, an anchor for regional stability and prosperity.

— President Biden (@POTUS) October 11, 2022

The president and secretary of state’s words now ring hollow. The maritime boundary and gas field agreement proved to be little more than appeasement. As demonstrated by the last eight months, Nasrallah and Hezbollah are not interested in cooperation or the merits of co-existence with Israel. Appeasement has empowered them to launch an eight-month conflict and make further threats because they ultimately seek the demise of Israel. Nasrallah’s behavior and rhetoric will continue until Hezbollah is militarily defeated. (READ MORE: Keir Starmer’s Win Signals the UK’s New Leftist Course)

As Europe learned with the 1938 Munich agreement, settlements with individuals or entities who do not desire co-existence quickly become meaningless. An agreement only contributes to the prospect of a more destructive and deadlier conflict. The approach of appeasement in the Middle East is not bearing the intended fruit for the Biden administration.

Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development.

The post Appeasement Didn’t Bear Good Fruit in the Middle East appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.