By Jajati K. Pattnaik & Chandan K. Panda

The Hamas-Israel conflict does not seem to end any time sooner, knowing its nature, objective, and causality. The October 7 invasion of Israel by Hamas was unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination and, therefore, invited a retaliatory offensive from the former. The gravity of the attack, as unleashed by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as a response to Hamas’ onslaught, has been severe and unforgiving. Its consistency and precision have invited the echoes of a ceasefire. Citing the human rights angle, there has been an attempt to bring the war to a halt. There is no doubt about the civilian casualty or collateral of the war. The peace proposal from the humanitarian point of view is an urgent and much-needed one. No refutation on this premise steers its spotlight on civilian lives and the importance of this intervention. But, Hamas’ embeddedness with the civilian people makes the civilians the collateral. Its charter and its stated vision are full of such terrifying stuff against Israel. Its river-to-sea project and the objective of annihilating the Jews explain Hamas’ non-interest in the two-states theory.

Iran’s role in the persistent volatility of the region requires no particular inquiry or cautious understatement. It is out in the open, and its anti-west and anti-Israel demonstrative behaviour establishes the axis of opposition that it ensures to exist in the region. Historically, Iran took this mantle of resistance since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which witnessed the replacement of the Pahlavi dynasty and the Shah rule, which was pro-western and pro-Israel. This revolutionary replacement saw the act of assertion of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a religious cleric who represented the rise of theocracy in Iran against the Shah-led kingship and its pro-west disposition. The ideological detachment or decoupling from the West seemingly found a firm footing in Iran. Iran, therefore, turned away from the Western sphere of influence and built its axis of resistance mainly through its Shia allies and non-state actors. Its support for Bashar al-Assad, an Alawite, and his dynastic dictatorship in Syria and its sympathies with Iraqi Shia and dreaded militia in both countries suggest its tactical role to keep its leadership intact in the Shia world. Its deep connection with the Sunni militant outfits and the sponsoring part it has taken up is designed to keep the Sunni world divided. Saudi Arabia, UAE. Qatar, Bahrain, and other Gulf countries are inching closer to the American sphere of influence as they realise the possible decoupling from global fossil fuel reliance. The diversification of economic space is an urgent necessity. In the process, the religious cause is neglected. The economy undermines the religious. This is a revolutionary socio-cultural shift the Middle East is experiencing at present. In the long run, this will inflict serious ramifications for the religious matter. While securing a stable economy other than fossil fuel, the Arab countries will have to make compromises with their religious rigidities. The trend has begun and may take some time to become a status quo.

Exercising its counter-intuitive posture, Iran weaponizes the growing deficit of religious thinking in the wealthiest countries in West Asia and their aspirations for economic prosperity. It intends to divide the Sunni world by sponsoring and supporting the Sunni cause. This exposes the Sunni duplicity and its stakeholders not to take up the Sunni cause. This helps Iran divide the Arab world and protect, in the process, its interests. It sponsors militant outfits irrespective of their contrary sectarian affiliations. This keeps the Arab world occupied with the litany of accusations and counter-accusations. This poses a severe difficulty for the US in countering Iran. Iran knows how to fish in the Middle East’s muddy waters. These murky geopolitics, vitiated by terrorism, fanaticism, and rivalries, aid Iran in pursuing its objective. It believes in the idea of keeping the US occupied in conflict settlement, and the process fails to direct its gaze on Iran and its activities. For this, it does not wish to distinguish to whom it pays and its political and ideological affiliation. As long as it serves its purpose, it continues paying anyone it thinks can trigger conflict. Its sponsorship of Hamas in Gaza has emboldened the latter to unleash an assault on Israel. Though it is pretty vocal in denying its role in the October 7 attack, its complicity cannot be whitewashed. The US warship stationed in the region in the event of the October 7 incident to counter any misadventure from Iran amply illustrates Iran’s complicity. Since it cannot expose itself further, it uses Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon to counter the IDF’s gradual penetration into Gaza. The tunnel network is a significant hurdle for the IDF, knowing its circuitous character and labyrinthine depth well. However, what is Iran’s objective? It is precisely to unsettle the Middle East. By doing so, it gets a little respite from the Shia-Sunni sectarian divide and presents an image of working for the cause of Islam. It keeps the Sunnis involved in mudslinging. More importantly, it tries to deflect the US’s attention away from Iran and its sphere of activity.

(The author Dr Jajati K Pattnaik is an Associate Professor at the Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Dr Chandan K Panda is an Assistant Professor at Rajiv Gandhi University, Itanagar)

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.