Western sincerity in leading regional de-escalation efforts has come under scrutiny as they engage in their double standards. While advocating for reduced tensions in the West Asia region, they approved increased sanctions against Iran by G7 states. This move coincides with the US House of Representatives' approval of substantial aid to Israel.
European countries and the United States have called for restraint amidst recent actions by Iran and the Zionist regime, emphasizing the need to reduce tensions. Josep Borrell, the EU's top diplomat, urged all G7 nations to exhibit maximum restraint. Western diplomats claim their primary focus is on preventing heightened tensions.
De-escalation within unilateral framework
However, Western de-escalation efforts lack coherence with their proclaimed intentions. They adhere to a decades-old strategy inherited from post-World War II international developments, characterized by unilateralism or US-led unipolarity or unilateralism. This perspective overlooks the complexities and realities of the West Asia region, with outcomes not necessarily favorable to the region's nations, particularly those pursuing more independent policies.
Their desired outcome, especially for the US, is to maintain and strengthen Western hegemony in the region, represented by Israel. Under the guise of US de-escalation, all countries, based on their resources, interests, and national power, do not have an equal share in shaping the region's stability. It's not without reason that some countries, traditionally defined within Western and US spheres of influence, have begun to diversify their foreign policies and cooperation, notably Saudi Arabia, which has increased its engagements with China and even Russia in recent years.
This inclination partly reflects genuine concerns based on realistic calculations. According to these, the US has not only failed to bring security and stability to the region but also hasn't fulfilled the security needs of its allies or partners.
The US generosity in selling military equipment to regional countries continues until it does not jeopardize the military hegemony of Israel in the region. These military expenditures, purportedly to counter the fabricated threat posed by Iran, only serve to keep regional countries preoccupied.
In fact, Western de-escalation efforts in West Asia falter because they misdirect the source of tension in the region or, at least, deliberately turn a blind eye to the primary tension center, namely the Zionist regime.
This biased approach, aimed at securing unilateral interests, becomes evident in the two recent instances, such as the Gaza war and the recent tit-for-tat actions between Iran and the Israeli regime.
Concern for Palestinians with $26 billion aid to Israel
The pinnacle of US humanitarian policy and concern for human rights observance in Gaza, along with their so-called de-escalatory activities, has culminated in pressuring Israel or persuading Netanyahu to make a distinction between militants and civilians in their destructive attacks! Or allow more humanitarian aid to reach the people of Gaza! But alas, there is no condemnation of the ongoing crimes of the Israeli regime. Anyway, for public opinion, even these Western countries supporting Israel raise questions about how they can continue political and military support for Israel while simultaneously showing no effort to nullify proposals for ceasefire and cessation of war, and indeed pushing international institutions like the United Nations and the Security Council into deadlock?
The outcome of this Western de-escalation for the Palestinian people will ultimately be what, when the US-months-long promotional campaign for recognizing the independent Palestinian government falls flat at the Security Council and Washington also vetoes full Palestinian membership in the UN? A benevolent gesture for the people of Palestine. However, even civilians ultimately find themselves face to face with the bill for a new $26 billion aid bill to Israel, showcasing the US insistence on unilateral support for one side of the conflict, which happens to be the main source of tension.
Josep Borrell stated, "We must stop the war in Gaza and prevent its spread to other parts of the region." The world is seeking to halt the war in Gaza, but Mr. Borrell knows well why the war in Gaza doesn't stop. According to American views, de-escalation means raising Hamas's hands as a sign of surrender and abandoning arms and resistance by groups and Palestinian people. An experience repeated once and resulted in the Oslo Accords. However, this tried initiative couldn't shadow the tension over the Middle East crisis as neither Israel is committed to international agreements nor these de-escalation initiatives have had any benefit for the Palestinian people.
Double standard against Iran and Israel
The same unilateral de-escalation based on unilateralism has been observed in the recent confrontations between Iran and the Israeli regime. A double standard based on the same unilateralism in dealing with both sides. While the Islamic Republic of Iran, adhering to its principled policy from the beginning of the Gaza war to prevent the escalation of tensions and the expansion of the war, had no involvement in the war, it faced continuous threats from the Israeli regime and provocative actions and tensions from the West, such as deploying fighter jets and warships to the eastern Mediterranean.
While Americans acknowledged Tehran's non-involvement in initiating or continuing the Gaza war, they consistently emphasized the need to prevent the war from spreading, which clearly meant preventing Iran from entering the war. Nevertheless, they didn't take a proper stance against Israel's provocative actions against Iran, even turning a blind eye to the regime's blatant terrorist activities against Iran's positions in Syria. The peak of this double standard was witnessed in the confrontation between the US and other supporters of Israel like the UK and France in Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, resulting in the death of several Iranian military advisors.
This action by Tel Aviv was a clear and vivid example of tension or provocation. The least expectation was the condemnation of this terrorist act and its violation of international law to prevent an escalation of tensions. However, instead of condemning Israel's military action, the Western front supporting Israel resorted to diplomacy to persuade or threaten Iran to refrain from a legitimate right, namely defending itself against Israel. Furthermore, when these threats and recommendations failed, and Tehran exercised its right to legitimate defense, a flood of condemnations against Tehran poured from Western countries into the media.
The utmost sincerity of the West, led by the US, in de-escalating tensions in West Asia can be seen in their double standards; where simultaneously with preparations for increased pressure and sanctions against Iran under the G7, a $26 billion aid bill to Israel is approved in the US House of Representatives.
It's no wonder that what the West, especially the US, has termed de-escalation over the past 7 months, hasn't led anywhere, and this reflects the Persian proverb: " poisoned chalice." Their supportive policies for Israel and their silence against the genocide in Gaza have escalated tensions not only in Gaza but also to southern Lebanon, the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandab Strait, Iraq, and Syria, and led to reciprocal actions between Israel and Iran.
Therefore, what the West has done in the past few months, whatever it's called, doesn't have much compatibility with de-escalation, in addition to raising the level of tensions. The approval of multi-billion-dollar aid bills for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan delineates the US strategy for the world towards maintaining and strengthening Western unilateralism led by the US. What is evident is that this strategy's outcome isn't the reduction of tensions in the aforementioned three regions.
Diplomacy with what agenda?
After Iran's drone and missile strikes on Israel and unveiling its deterrent power against Iran and, simultaneously, Israel's vulnerability, whispers about paying more attention to diplomacy have emerged in the media. As an English medium cited a source close to the US government, "The White House is considering a new nuclear agreement with Iran in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions against Tehran to prevent a full-scale war in the region. An inside view in the government is that the president sees an opportunity to start diplomatic negotiations to revive the Iran nuclear deal."
International relations experts have said that when the repercussions of a crisis reach their peak, it's time for diplomacy to enter and take the field. Tensions in West Asia have reached a boiling point, and it's likely that diplomats' role will become more significant and serious. However, the important point is whether diplomats will come to the field with the same agenda and failed previous experiences or whether the region's new developments and events have enlightened them with some realities. Just as US de-escalation within the framework of strengthening unilateralism to maintain Israel's hegemony hasn't extinguished the fire of tensions, American diplomacy in the service of Israel won't lead to the signing of any sustainable agreement.
NOURNEWS