Israel and Hamas: Why the deal could have dangerous consequences

Once upon a time there was a US presidential election campaign. The two leading candidates – a reserved peanut farmer who ran as the Democratic incumbent and a glamorous Republican Western actor who challenged him – fought a very close race for the White House.

But the rivalry between the two unlikely men was overshadowed by a drama that, from Washington’s perspective, took place on the other side of the world. In the Middle East. Dozens of innocent people have been held hostage by Islamist extremists there for months. And all of America suffered with them.

Whoever managed to free the hostages would become a folk hero and would most likely win the election on November 8th. This was clear to the candidates and their campaign managers.

In the challenger’s camp there was fear of an “October Surprise”. A surprising breakthrough by the incumbent in the negotiations shortly before the election. But that didn’t happen. Instead, a team of special forces he sent failed spectacularly in its attempt to free the hostages militarily.

Election day came. The hostages were still in custody. The incumbent lost the election, his challenger triumphed. And as if to make the victory perfect, just a few weeks later there was a miraculous breakthrough that had not been possible until the election despite intensive efforts by the US government. On January 20th, shortly after 12 noon Washington time, the new man in the White House took office. Minutes later, the news went around the world: the hostages were free.

History doesn’t repeat itself. And yet: the past is always a prelude to the present.

That’s why, in view of the Doha deal, which Israel and Hamas agreed on Wednesday after months of struggle, a comparison to this more than 40-year-old story comes to mind. The protagonists at the time: US President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and his challenger Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The protagonists today: Joe Biden from the Democrats and his nemesis Donald Trump, to whom Reagan’s Grand Old Party has submitted.

The 52 US diplomats had spent 444 days as hostages in Iran until Reagan was able to crown his inauguration with the news of their liberation. 467 days passed between the Hamas terror of October 7, 2023 and the deal now concluded, which is intended to return the 94 children, women and men still in the hands of the terrorists to their families, dead or alive. And like his famous predecessor, Donald Trump can now boast of being the man who brought about the breakthrough. . This deal gives the start of his term the pathos and glamor that Trump craves.

Despite all the relief about the now hopefully foreseeable end of the ordeal for the surviving hostages and the consolation for those relatives who will now at least be able to bury their dead relatives: the Doha deal is full of dangers for the future of the Middle East. History teaches that too.

Then as now, there is increasing evidence that the fight for the White House delayed the release of the hostages for months. The deal that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas have now agreed to was already on the table, down to the last detail, over six months ago. Many hostages who are dead today were still alive then. So why did it take another eight months for a breakthrough?

History doesn’t repeat itself. And there are many differences between the situation at the beginning of the 1980s and today. But the experience back then fuels a monstrous suspicion: that this drama was not primarily about the lives of the hostages.

The same suspicion was already in the air in 1980/1981 and was spectacularly confirmed years later: powerful intermediaries around Reagan’s campaign manager William Casey had systematically thwarted the Carter team’s hostage negotiations and signaled to the regime in Iran: If you take the hostages If you hold on after election day and help undermine Carter’s chances of victory, then the reward awaits you under Reagan. That’s exactly how it happened: The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to the alleged arch-enemy Iran. The CIA used the proceeds to finance right-wing rebels in Nicaragua who were attempting to overthrow the left-wing government there in a bloody guerrilla war.

The central mastermind of the operation: William Casey, who had since become CIA chief. At least once, Reagan’s national security adviser personally traveled to Tehran. In his luggage: a Bible, a cake in the shape of a key and a load of anti-tank missiles. The action, which was exposed in 1987, went down in America’s annals as the Iran-Contra affair.

Similar to the case of the recently deceased Jimmy Carter, one must assume that Joe Biden’s fate would have been different if he had managed to free the hostages last May. Of course, that doesn’t mean that Trump’s people can be accused of actively thwarting the negotiations, like Reagan’s team. But the question arises: Why Netanyahu and his right-wing extremist allies said no to the identical agreement then and yes today?

The answer, it is to be feared, may have less to do with the superior negotiating skills of the Trump emissaries who were at the table for the last few meters. And more: The extremists in the Middle East can expect concessions from the Trump presidency that is now beginning that a President Biden would not have been willing to make, even after a successful re-election.

Israel’s Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, whose threats to break the coalition have repeatedly torpedoed the negotiations, have two central political goals: the annexation of the occupied West Bank and the re-establishment of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. Joe Biden – as well as Kamala Harris – would have opposed both after an election victory. This cannot be expected from Donald Trump. After all, it was he who, as US President, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights. In the fight for his re-election, he has also shown great proximity to the goals of the Israeli right. Major donations from their camp significantly paved his way back to the White House.

After his concessions to Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu can also hope for very close cooperation with the new US government before he takes office. This should help him to stay in power despite all the accusations for Israel’s defenselessness on October 7th and despite the ongoing corruption trials. But that’s not all. Netanyahu’s big political goal is to go down in history as the man who finally averted the danger of Iran’s nuclear program. Over the past year, under his orders, Israel’s air force and intelligence service have significantly weakened Iran’s most important ally, Hezbollah in Lebanon – and destroyed much of Iran’s anti-aircraft defenses in a wave of airstrikes in October.

Iran would be more defenseless against a direct attack from Israel today than ever before. With Trump, the man who has Iran in his sights like no other US president before him returns to power. Will he give the green light for an attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, possibly even with the participation of the US Air Force? Experts believe this is already possible in Trump’s first months in power. The fact that he sent his close advisor, retired US General Keith Kellogg, who is supposed to be working on peace for Ukraine, to a meeting of a paramilitary Iranian opposition group in Paris last weekend does not bode well.

Annexation of the West Bank, repopulation of Gaza by Jewish settlers, attack on Iran: each of these developments would lead to a new spiral of violence in the Middle East. Combined, they could create a perfect storm. Its foothills would also affect Europe.

In any case, the Reagan people’s dirty deal should serve as a cautionary tale for everyone involved. Because it fueled the conflicts in the Middle East for years to come, especially the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq. And taking hostages of Western citizens in the region became even more fashionable afterwards. The extremists had learned: it was worth it.