The year 2024 begins under very heavy skies. Ukrainians and Palestinians continue to experience the daily pain of bombings against civilians in their flesh. Other forgotten wars — Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma — continue to take their daily toll of human flesh and shattered lives.
Against a backdrop of political uncertainty, these wars threaten to spread, and others to explode in turn (Koreas, Taiwan). An “authoritarian international” advances, coordinates (more or less) and gains points against self-doubting democracies.
A significant fraction of the peoples of Europe and North America, in confused revolt against the “elites” and the “supranational forces”, would be ready to put anyone in their place.
Authoritarianism threatens even in the United States, where the November 5 election could have immense geopolitical consequences, from the abandonment of Ukraine to the implosion of NATO.
If we want to write a “plausible” prospective chronicle, made of summed up worst-case hypotheses, leading to a sort of Third World War… nothing could be easier. Bad combinations abound; ChatGPT can create 50 such scenarios for you in just a few seconds.
However, trying to remind and demonstrate that the worst is never certain, and that a series of (real) localized tragedies does not necessarily lead to general conflagration… that is more difficult.
When, in the early hours of January 16, Iran struck targets in Pakistan, alleging that the targeted “Baloch separatists” were also in league with “Zionist elements”, and 48 hours later Pakistan responded with more or less symmetrical strikes, also against separatist elements on the other side of the border… alarmist headlines have multiplied: “Regional conflagration! »
With the publication of disturbing infographics on which appeared, from the Mediterranean to the borders of Central Asia, dozens of small explosion symbols on beautiful color maps…
But media juxtaposition is not causation. While tension is falling again between Tehran and Islamabad, and, on Friday evening, the Pakistani Minister of Foreign Affairs and his Iranian counterpart agreed on a “de-escalation” to “defuse tensions”, it is important to see all these episodes certainly in their broader context, but also in what is punctual, singular and bilateral.
Another dimension of these “cycles of reprisals”: the theatrical, symbolic dimension of “performance” in the eyes of the adversary… but also in the eyes of its own audience. All in a dynamic which most often remains marked by “self-restraint”.
For example, the Pakistani army, even if it has a common enemy with Iran, on both sides of the border, which is called “Baloch separatism” (the real target of these shots, in both directions), had to, for its honor – even if innocent people paid the price of this “reparation” with their lives – respond militarily and punctually. But without having any desire to then go to war with “the other”.
Similarly, we should not see mechanically, in the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, or in the Lebanon-Israel skirmishes – sustained and deadly, but always localized – a fatal general escalation that would sweep away Lebanon, then the entire region. .
Of course, a cycle of retaliation can always extend beyond the intention of the protagonists.
But restraint remains the main characteristic of several actors in this drama: Iran and Pakistan will undoubtedly consider that after last week’s strikes and counter-strikes, the incident is closed. And if we look at Iran, as well as its closest and most loyal ally, Hezbollah, what do we see? Yes, we respond to the enemy. Yes, we want to show that we are a regional power which “does not let pass”, for example, the horror of the attack by the Islamic State on January 3 in Kerman.
But, both in the choice of targets and in the communication that we then make about these strikes, we feel a caution, a de facto self-limitation behind the martial declarations… And we easily guess that Hassan Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah) , and Iran behind, do not want a frontal war with Israel. Nasrallah did not miss an opportunity to say that he had nothing to do with October 7, “pure initiative of the Palestinians”.
Strong in ranting, Nasrallah systematically “overplays” his communication on the “blistering replies” (sic) that its armed militia inflicts on Israel in the border areas. Iran also, claiming responsibility for its recent actions in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan, wanted to give them an “anti-Zionist” meaning… undoubtedly exaggerated in relation to the targets actually affected.
Of course, everything here is not just theater and limitation: the atrocious butchery in Gaza is all too real. In this specific case, Israel is not motivated by self-restraint.
The Hebrew State, faced with hesitant and cautious enemies, is perhaps seeking to test their limits: witness this cascade of targeted assassinations of leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Guards: in Beirut, South Lebanon and in Syria — at Christmas, and then again this weekend.
The majority of actors in this drama have brakes and know how to use them. Will the United States be willing and able to impose curbs on Israel?
François Brousseau is an international affairs columnist at Ici Radio-Canada. [email protected]