Will Munich Security Conference bring an end to war in Middle East?

Editor's note: Andrew Korybko, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Moscow-based American political analyst. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Munich Security Conference (MSC) released its yearly report on Monday ahead of its annual event that'll run from February 16 to 18. Provocatively titled "Lose-Lose?", the premise is that the latest "Zeitenwende" – or historical turning point – brought about by the Russia-Ukraine conflict might lead to all international stakeholders experiencing varying degrees of losses. As explained in its Introduction, the return of a zero-sum mindset obsessed with relative gains and losses could spur lose-lose dynamics.

According to the report, "Amid geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty, many countries are now distrustful of others and thus more sensitive to the distribution of gains and losses. In their economic and security relations, they increasingly begrudge their counterparts gaining an advantage, concerned with being the relative 'winner' – even at the expense of joint absolute gains." This trend is influencing international relations and is the paradigm through which several regions of the world are analyzed.

The Middle East portion of the MSC's report was written by Amadée Mudie-Mantz and Sophie Witte, who are the group's policy advisor and junior policy advisor respectively, and it's important to draw attention to this part due to the immense suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Although the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been going on for a lot longer and involves a geographically larger area, the civilian toll has surprisingly been less than the latest Middle East war that only began in early October last year.

The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine estimated in November 2023 that over 10,000 civilians had been killed since early 2022, while Gaza's Hamas-run Health Ministry just reported that 28,000 Palestinians had been killed. The last-mentioned statistic accounts for over 1 percent of the pre-war population and has led to allegations of genocide that Israel denies but was warned by the International Court of Justice to be careful to avoid committing.

Having explained the humanitarian reason behind focusing on the Middle East portion of the MSC's report instead of the Ukrainian, Asia-Pacific, Sahelian, and other ones, it's now time to summarize the insight that was shared therein so as to discover whether it can help end that ongoing war. Regrettably, the chapter's contents mostly cover pre-war regional dynamics, which are important but nevertheless fail to provide much insight into what can be done to stop this conflict and alleviate civilian suffering.

The authors titled their section "Abraham Discord" to emphasize the risks of regional rapprochement being reversed in the aftermath of the past one-third of a year's events. Prior to Hamas' sneak attack against Israel that they described as a terrorist attack, the Abraham Accords were in full swing, Saudi Arabia and Iran had repaired their ties, and Syria returned to the Arab League. The region was also being courted by external players like China, India, and the EU, who all have an interest in stability.

Nevertheless, these positive trends masked the fact that the Abraham Accords neglected the plight of the Palestinians, and regional opinion in the signatory Arab states and speculatively aspiring signatory Saudi Arabia remained much more in their favor than Israel's. Furthermore, regional dynamics continued to allegedly be influenced by the fears that countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel have toward Iran's influence among some states and non-state actors that are referred to as the "axis of resistance." 

These negative trends resurfaced after Hamas' sneak attack and Israel's disproportionate military response, the latter of which was only meekly referenced at the end of this chapter. The authors simply warned that Israel's ability to alleviate civilian suffering can play a role in what comes next alongside whether Iran escalates the de facto regional proxy war or not. They also alluded to possible U.S. influence over Israel in this respect after Washington began criticizing the way in which Tel Aviv wages this war.

The MSC's report was published as all eyes are watching the southern Gazan border town of Rafah where Israel declared that it'll soon commence a military operation despite warnings from neighboring Egypt and nearby Saudi Arabia to reconsider this plan of action. Those two and others are concerned that civilians don't have any place to go, unlike what Israel claims, and that this will in turn worsen their suffering and thus extend further credence to claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The MSC's attendees are therefore naturally expected to discuss this particular dimension of the Middle Eastern war during this weekend's annual event and debate the most effective ways to promote peace. The problem is that while they're all influential thought leaders, their argument might not have any influence on American policy towards this conflict.

Unilateral action is unlikely owing to Israel's suspected nuclear weapons that it wields as a Damocles' sword over its neighbors' heads to deter them from initiating conventional hostilities, though it also can't be ruled out if the Rafah crisis provokes an Egyptian response that spirals out of control. In any case, the point is that only the U.S. has the influence required to stand any chance of convincing Israel to de-escalate so as to avert a larger war, which it could back up by supporting relevant UN Security Council Resolutions.

For instance, an arms embargo and sanctions could be codified into international law if America agreed to support this, though it could also utilize bilateral channels and its characteristically unilateral approach towards the aforesaid – whether publicly or discretely – to the same end. Its interests in doing so wouldn't be humanitarian ones, but political and economic interests related to resuming talks on Saudi Arabia's possible inclusion in the Abraham Accords in order to pioneer a new regional trade corridor.

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, which was announced on the sidelines of last September's G20 Summit in Delhi, won't ever reach anywhere near its full potential without Saudi Arabia establishing formal ties with the self-professed Jewish State. It's in America's grand strategic interests to promote this trade corridor in which it also participates, which in turn should compel it to pressure Israel to relent in its assault on Gaza, though it also can't be taken for granted that it will do either.

To wrap it all up, while the MSC won't end the Middle Eastern war, its latest report's emphasis on the region's pre-war political and economic dynamics could influence American policymakers to debate amongst themselves back home whether it's worth letting Israel continue risking this progress. Failure to decisively intervene in pressuring their ally to de-escalate could lead to the hard-earned Abraham Accords either unraveling or at the very least Saudi Arabia remaining outside of them indefinitely.

Either outcome would be detrimental not only to the U.S.'s interests, but also Israel's and the region's as a whole, thus embodying the theme of this year's report about "lose-lose" dynamics. As the only state-level combatant in this conflict and its top ally, Israel and the U.S. must realize that continuing this war due to the zero-sum mindset through which they're both operating threatens their objective interests. Hopefully they'll dwell on this after reading the MSC's report and recalibrate their policies accordingly.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)