Welcome to Home & Away. A hot week in Europe (where I am writing this newsletter) and in the United States—and a busy one in the world of diplomacy. Plus, as ABC’s Wide World of Sports used to remind us, there was the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
Transition and Tough Talk
The war between Israel and Hamas, now in its ninth month, has entered a new phase. There was no formal announcement, but it is apparent nonetheless.
The signal was the Israeli military’s announcement that it will attempt to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza by introducing a daily tactical pause in military operations from morning to evening along a seven-mile designated aid corridor. Its military operations elsewhere in Gaza will continue, albeit at a lower level than has been the case over the past eight months. But the army’s chief spokesman is explicitly managing expectations about the feasibility of completely eliminating Hamas—and in the process bringing divisions between Israel’s civilian and military leadership further into the open.
This will be the new normal, one that could well last for months or even years. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will continue to go after Hamas leaders but allow enough food into Gaza to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. This will enable Israel to focus on the escalating security challenge in the north, on Iran, which is continuing to advance its nuclear program, and on greenlighting additional settlement activity in the West Bank, a priority for Netanyahu’s coalition partners.
What the new policy doesn’t do, by design, is provide an answer to the question: “What comes after the war in Gaza?” On the current trajectory, there will be no clearly demarcated “after.” Nor will the tweaked policy get the remaining hostages back, although there could still be short-term pauses negotiated that involve limited hostage and prisoner returns or future rescue efforts.
The Biden administration won’t love this new chapter, but it could learn to live with it as the number of civilian casualties caused by combat operations and food shortages will come down. Meanwhile, Biden’s ceasefire plan is either on life support or dead as neither Israel nor Hamas has embraced it. What remains a mystery is why it was launched and touted in the first place without either side’s unconditional support.
We are probably looking at a Gaza overseen by an unruly mix of Israel’s military, Hamas, local gangs and militias, and international organizations. It amounts to a new sort of occupation, not quite like the one in the West Bank. There is unlikely to be any Arab or international stabilization force or much in the way of rebuilding any time soon as most external parties have conditioned their involvement on a diplomatic roadmap (holding out at least some promise of peace) being in place. Given this context, it will be worth watching if the Saudis go ahead with their pre-October 7 plans to normalize relations with Israel, something they would very much like to do to gain a security pact with the United States, or whether the Crown Prince holds off based on the calculation that Saudi domestic opinion requires more from Israel in the way of satisfying Palestinian national aspirations before relations can be established.
One final item. It is impossible to write about the Middle East this week without noting the Israeli Prime Minister's totally unwarranted, gratuitous swipe at President Biden on Wednesday. He publicly criticized Biden for withholding arms and ammunition, channeling Churchill and suggesting that with them, Israel could finish the job against Hamas.
This is chutzpah on stilts. It is a false accusation, as the United States, with Biden’s blessing, has given Israel everything it wanted (at a rate of $3.8 billion a year) except for some 2,000-pound bombs that never should have been used in Gaza in the first place given their potential to cause civilian casualties. What Bibi is doing is laying the blame for his inability to eliminate Hamas on Biden when even his own military acknowledges it is a result of Netanyahu’s failure to introduce a political component into Israel's strategy. Five months out from the U.S. election, he is also effectively endorsing Trump.
As a result, Biden now is in the worst of all places: He has alienated the left, younger Americans, and Arab- and Muslim-Americans on account of all he has done to help Israel—and now he will pay a price domestically with the so-called friends of Israel for the one thing he didn't do. I would argue Biden is making a mistake letting only his spokesperson deal with this. I also wouldn't call off meetings meant to deal with all too real threats posed by Iran. What he should do is publicly call out Bibi, reminding him of all the US has done for Israel, explaining why the U.S. held back one shipment, and telling Bibi that he owes Americans a big thank you and an apology for playing politics with this relationship that remains critical to Israel’s security. Biden needs to show he is tough enough to deal with someone trying to bully him, especially as that someone might well remain in office for some time to come.
Stalemate and New Dangers
The other war, that between Russia and Ukraine, is also in a new phase, more of a holding pattern. The Russian advance in the east appears to have been slowed following the resumption of U.S. military assistance. Still, no diplomatic progress can be expected until after the November elections here, as Putin has no incentive to compromise if he believes he can accomplish his goals thanks to a change in U.S. policy that could well result from a Trump victory.
This is not to say that nothing is taking place in the diplomatic arena. It was an especially busy week for Vladimir Putin; besides putting out some thoughts on "peace" in Ukraine that in reality amount to a demand for Kyiv to capitulate, he flew to North Korea and then Vietnam. The visit to Pyongyang, Putin’s first in a quarter of a century, demonstrated that he is increasingly a revolutionary actor, one devoted to choices and policies designed to bring down the existing international order.
While Putin once cooperated with international efforts to constrain North Korea’s nuclear program, he has now become a full-fledged enabler of North Korea's missile and nuclear program, apparently pledging to provide “military-technical” assistance that will help North Korea become a global nuclear threat, including to the U.S. homeland. In return, Putin gets much needed arms and ammunition to fuel his aggression in Ukraine. He also complicates defense planning for the United States and its allies, who now have to deal with a North Korea more difficult to deter on the peninsula.
There is as well the potential that Russia and North Korea will act in coordination. Indeed, the new “Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,” inked during Putin’s visit and in effect a revival of their mutual defense pact from the 1960s, states, “In case any one of the two sides is put in a state of war by an armed invasion from an individual state or several states, the other side shall provide military and other assistance with all means in its possession without delay.” And Putin signals to Chinese leaders that Russia can still be an effective independent player lest they think of him only as a junior partner.
There is no silver lining here. It is bad news for those seeking to bring the war in Ukraine to an end and prevent one from erupting on the Korean Peninsula. It also bodes poorly for the future of nuclear arms control, as current agreements with Russia are nearing their expiration. As if this were not enough, a growing North Korean nuclear arsenal, paired with closer Russia-North Korea alignment, will add fuel to growing calls in South Korea for Seoul to acquire an independent nuclear capability. If any reader doubts this is a world of mounting disarray, it may be time to reconsider.
As noted above, this week Putin also proposed an agreement in which Russia would agree to a ceasefire in exchange for control of the four eastern Ukrainian provinces it annexed in October 2022 as well as Crimea and a pledge from Ukraine not to seek NATO membership. This is an obvious non-starter with Ukraine.
There is only one way for this war to end on acceptable terms. It will require long-term U.S. and Western military aid to Ukraine in order to persuade Putin that time is not on his side. And it will require increased freedom for Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons systems against military and economic targets within western Russia so that Putin feels the pain of the war he began.
But Ukraine will also have to compromise, not on its goals but on how and when it seeks to realize them. At some point sooner rather than later, the United States and its NATO allies will want to have a genuine strategic dialogue with Ukraine over its war aims and the purposes to which military assistance is to be used.
I should add that an end to the war is not the same as peace. That is not in the cards given Russia and Ukraine’s mutually exclusive goals. Putin wants to gain permanent ownership of both Crimea and the eastern provinces and prevent Ukraine from becoming embedded in the West. President Zelenskyy, for his part, wants to liberate Crimea and the country’s eastern provinces. But an interim cease-fire or armistice, one that ends the fighting without requiring either side to give up its goals or its ability to rearm, is conceivable in 2025 if (and it is a big if) the right backdrop emerges.
Rise and Falls
Both the Middle East and Ukraine figured prominently at the recently concluded G7 summit in Italy. But the larger story of the conclave was arguably its dead man walking quality. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the UK will cease to be employed once the votes are counted on July 4. A few days later, French president Emmanuel Macron will have to learn to live with a parliament dominated by the opposition. Germany’s Chancellor leads a dispirited, battered coalition losing ground to the far right. Japan’s prime minister will face internal challenges this fall at a time when he has the support of just over one in five voters. Canada’s prime minister has fallen some twenty points behind his conservative rivals in the polls. Meanwhile, European Commission head Ursala Von der Leyen will have to deal with a parliament that has lurched to the right. Only the conservative host, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, showed up in a position of strength.
The biggest question is the likely fate of the U.S. representative at the G7, Joe Biden. We are less than a week away from the first debate. The president continues to be dogged by claims (some legitimate and some deliberately misleading) that he is too old and unfit for the job. Despite his recent policy announcements on the border and relative accomplishments in containing inflation, he is still hurt by his immigration policies and higher prices. In the face of his stubborn poll numbers on these issues, he is smart to be highlighting the possibility that whoever wins will make several Supreme Court appointments.
Meanwhile, his opponent is no longer forced to spend his days in a New York courtroom. This might prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump, as the more he speaks, the more he will make gaffes and the more he will remind swing voters that he is anything but presidential in his demeanor. Trump comes off as an aggrieved angry man with scores to settle. How to deal with all he throws out—what to challenge and what to ignore—will be a critical decision for Biden as he prepares for what could be a pivotal showdown on June 27.
Summer School
A few weeks back, I suggested here that university deans debating what to do about students who violated school rules, or in some cases the law while protesting the war in Gaza should consider something other than punishment or letting bygones be bygones. What I had in mind was requiring them to pass exams in two areas: civics and Middle East history. I developed the idea into an op-ed I wrote for the Boston Globe, which happens to be published in a city replete with colleges and universities.
Whatever schools do with those who protested, there is a strong case for adding a requirement that all new and returning students attend a one-day session on free speech and how it relates to other rights and obligations. I would also suggest schools gin up a special program on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, as there is no reason to believe peace is at hand or will be anytime soon.
Gimme Shelter
I am still recovering from the final few holes of Sunday’s final round of the U.S. Open. (I should make clear my problem has nothing to do with the poor showing of Scottie Scheffler, who for the first time in memory was not in contention.) That said, I expect my recovery will be complete long before that of Rory McIlroy…if he ever recovers. He had the title in his grasp. Two strokes ahead with just a handful of holes to play. Then he blew it. Three bogies in four holes. Missing two putts so short that on most Sundays playing with my buddies we’d have conceded them to one another (known as a gimme), although as Rory’s collapse demonstrated, we should stop doing that, as there is no such thing as a sure thing in golf, or in life for that matter.
Rory didn’t help himself by electing to go with a driver on the last hole when he could and should have played it more conservatively, trading some distance for greater accuracy. Every golfer is allowed to carry fourteen clubs around the course, but many refer to one’s brain and the judgment it is meant to provide as the fifteenth club. Rory clearly left his at home Sunday, and if he wasn’t a head case before Sunday, I expect he is now. Although I was glad to see he posted a reassuring message online on Monday, one that was gracious toward the winner and honest as to his own disappointment while highlighting his resilience and noting his plan to take a few weeks off from the tour to reset before the final major tournament of the year.
Now that I’ve reached paragraph three of my golf musings, it seems only right to show some love to Bryson DeChambeau. He won on the 18th and final hole with a sandy: a 55-yard bunker shot that traveled 54 yards, leaving him with a short putt that, unlike McIlroy, he managed to make. Those who golf can attest that long bunker shots are among the trickiest—take too much sand and the ball won’t even make it to the green but don’t take enough and the ball will sail over the green and out of play. Add the pressure of the final hole on a Sunday during a major championship and needing to make par to secure victory and it was as clutch as it gets.
DeChambeau rightly called this the greatest shot he has ever hit. He is one of the quirkiest players out there, from his body-building to his 3-D printed irons of equal length and his rigid putting stance. My favorite detail is that he floats golf balls in salt water before heading to the course and only plays with those that are perfectly balanced. It was impossible not to smile at his excitement at winning and his homage to the great Payne Stewart, another SMU golf alumnus, a truly likable man who won the U.S. Open on the same course in memorable fashion but died way too young in a plane crash at the age of 42.
I also think what took place at the U.S. Open has implications for the golf war between the PGA and LIV circuits. Bryson defected to the Saudi-financed LIV tour several years ago, and his victory this past week in one of the four tournaments on the PGA tour that LIV golfers have access to demonstrates how wrong it is to prevent some of the best players in the world from competing with one another week in and week out. It is long since time for a truce.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Monday, June 17: Fox Business: The Claman Countdown
Article
Tuesday, June 18: In the wake of campus protests, school administrators must educate students (Boston Globe)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens