On Monday, Sept. 22, the Bates Initiative for Government Studies (BIGS) hosted a panel on the politics of the Middle East. BIGS co-president, Karan Kuppa-Apte ‘27, moderated the discussion between students and Professors Senem Aslan and Mayumi Fukushima of the politics department.
The discussion roved between various questions but centered around the effect of popular opinion on the actions of the major players in the Middle East, the US-Israeli relationship, as well as the implications of recent events in the region.
The panel began with a discourse on the U.S. bombing of alleged Iranian nuclear facilities. Professor Fukushima attested that this bombing would likely cause a delay of up to a year for the Iranian nuclear program.
Professor Fukushima added that this delay served a symbolic purpose of showing American support for Israel rather than a strategic goal of annihilating the Iranian nuclear program. However, Professor Aslan noted that the consequences were far from certain at this point.
The moderator asked if this would lead to Iran rushing the development of nuclear weapons. Fukushima responded that this would be unlikely, as Iran has no urgent need to build nuclear weapons.
Fukushima added that the Iranian regime is reliant on a “forward defense strategy,” whereby Iran supports various militias that are seen as its agents in its vicinity. She explained that the strategy is meant to have its opponent attack the agents first rather than Iran’s soil should war occur.
The discourse shifted to questions on the state of the U.S.-Israeli alliance in light of the Sept. 9 Israeli attack on Palestinian officials in Qatar, which blindsided American leadership.
Aslan explained that prior to 1967, America was not much of a supporter of Israel. After Israel proved its military capabilities in the Six-Day War, Israel became an important U.S. strategic asset in the region.
Aslan added that with Israel acting more autonomously from the US, many scholars debate whether Israel remains an effective strategic asset for the U.S.
When asked about the significance of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, Fukushima explained that they were developed in the context of the Cold War and before American backing was offered. Israel was cornered into a position where it felt existential threats.
“There are things you can deter with nuclear weapons if your survival is at stake,” Fukushima clarified further, arguing that Israel’s nuclear weaponry does not serve as an effective deterrent when Israel’s adversaries are largely militias and terrorist organizations.
She further argued that Israel’s nuclear capabilities actually present a disadvantage as the U.S. military is generally reluctant to plan on joint operations with allies armed with nuclear weapons.
Both panelists felt that it would be unlikely for the U.S.-Israeli alliance to come to a close in the near future. Both agreed, however, that the American commitment to Israel has been wavering over the last decade and will likely continue to do so.
When asked about the future of the alliance, Aslan answered, “What kind of an alliance? That’s a different question.”
When questioned about why Israel continues their war despite domestic and foreign criticisms, both professors said that it was necessary to keep fighting, partly for Netanyahu to stay in power.
Aslan explained that Netanyahu still suffers from a low approval rating, and the protests that were rampant before the conflict are still ongoing. She illustrated that the Israeli public largely wants the safety of the country as well as family and friends who are military members, and the assurance that they won’t be arrested for war crimes when travelling abroad.
The safe return of the remaining hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, is also of high concern, and many see Netanyahu as potentially obstructive to these goals, Aslan stated. The efficacy of Israeli free elections is strong, Aslan continued, and the elections in 2026 will provide a litmus test for the popularity of Netanyahu.
Aslan mentioned that historically, over the last decade, the public in most other Middle Eastern states had been growing less concerned with Israeli-Palestinian disputes, but that the present conflict has aroused more sympathy for Gaza. Despite this, Aslan states it is unlikely a large shake-up of regional politics will occur as the decision-making of the authoritarian states of the region are more divorced from public sentiment.
On the recent recognition of Palestine as a state by major countries such as the UK and France, Fukushima suggested that this recognition primarily acts as a symbolic gesture and is unlikely to be overly influential on the current war between Israel and Hamas.
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story misspelled Karan Kuppa-Apte’s name. The error has since been corrected.
