The Role of the United States in the Middle East

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. On today's show, we'll take a closer look at Mayor Eric Adams's new proposal for a Department of Sustainable Delivery for New York City. Did you hear about that? Can the mayor and City Council work together to tame the Wild West e-bike and moped free-for-all we now have on New York City streets and sidewalks? Can they do it while respecting and supporting the delivery workers and maybe even making their jobs and their vehicles safer for them?

We'll also talk about what should come next after the attack on US troops in Jordan. We'll have our Climate Story of the Week as we do every Tuesday and how today's generation of parents raising kids is grappling with the eternal tension over how strict or permissive to be from Dr. Spock to Dr. Becky. The debate goes on and is taking new forms. Parents will have a guest and take your calls later in the show. Before all that, I would like to invite a few of you to sign up for a short round table that we're planning for the show.

This would be for some of you who live in the former George Santos congressional district where, of course, the special election to replace him is now taking place between Democrat Tom Suozzi and Republican Mazi Pilip. You know who you are in those parts of Northeast Queens, the North Shore of Nassau County, and a few other Nassau towns. We're hoping to put together a small group of you who are politically diverse to participate in a half-hour round table on the show on Monday, February 12th, the day before election day.

Here's what we're looking for; voters who are definitely for Tom Suozzi, definitely for Mazi Pilip, and some of you who are undecided as of now. What will we do in this round table? We will give you a chance to talk a little bit about the candidates but more about the issues that are important to you in deciding on who you would like to represent you in Congress. Right now, we'll talk a lot about the issues, the quality of life in your district, how that pertains to what you want from the federal government, which is, of course, what this election is. It's a federal election. This is not county executive. This is not City Council.

If you're interested in being considered for the February 12th round table, again, we're looking for voters who are definitely Tom Suozzi, definitely Mazi Pilip, and definitely some of you who are undecided as of now. Undecided, especially, encouraged to apply. Here's what we want you to do in advance of February 12th. Please go to wnyc.org/swingdistrictvoters, and you'll see a short form you can fill out. Again, that's wnyc.org/swingdistrictvoters, if you live in the former Santos district and you would like the opportunity to be on a round table on the show on February 12th.

The deadline to apply is the end of the day this Friday, February 2nd. End of the day, this Friday. Go take a look and see if you want to try to sign up for it at wnyc.org/swingdistrictvoters. Now, the attack in Jordan that killed three Americans and wounded dozens more raises a number of questions. One of them is, did you know we had US troops in Jordan? Did you know that they were part of something called Operation Inherent Resolve? What? Who ever heard of that? Most Americans have not, and I'm not sure if Congress ever debated or explicitly authorized it.

How militarily involved in the Middle East should the United States be? Not just in terms of military aid to countries there, the US wants to support, that's one thing, but how militarily involved with American bodies and American blood, and why? Most Americans probably thought the Iraq War and ISIS war periods were over. Next question, should the United States be withdrawing all its support for the United Nations Relief Agency for Palestinian Refugees? Some of its workers have been found to have been involved in the October 7th attack on Israel.

You've probably heard that story the last few days, but the agency employs thousands of people and is helping ease a real humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people. A possible analogy, we'll discuss this later. There are no perfect analogies, but what if the NYPD was found to have some bad apples committing abuse? Would we suspend funding for the whole police department or prosecute those individuals and look to see what systemic changes are needed?

Different countries are answering the question about [unintelligible 00:05:07] refunding in different ways. Yet another question, can the United States and Qatar get Israel and Hamas to yes on a new ceasefire for hostages plan or even a longer-term peace plan? We keep hearing they're close. How can they close the deal? All these tough questions show it's been another eventful few days for the people who actually live in the Middle East and that the US [unintelligible 00:05:32].

With us Now, Fred Kaplan, the military and global affairs columnist for Slate, who writes their column called War Stories and is author of books, including The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War. Hi, Fred, welcome back to WNYC.

Fred Kaplan: Hi, always good to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take the attack on US troops in Jordan first. Can you explain why the US has military personnel in Jordan? A lot of listeners probably didn't realize we did.

Fred Kaplan: Well, we're talking about 200 or 300, really not very many. If you look at a map, it's on the northeastern corner of Jordan, which is very close to Iraq and Syria. This has been a favorite route for ISIS when ISIS was a big deal, it's not a big deal anymore, but it's still a deal, and other kinds of smuggling. It's mainly a deterrent operation. They don't get involved in a lot of combat operations. They have absolutely nothing to do with the war going on in Gaza right now, but yes, they're exposed just like anybody else in the region is at this point.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. The US supposedly withdrew from Iraq, ending the US war there back in 2011. Then ISIS surged and the US decided to keep troops after all or send more. Then most Americans thought the ISIS era had also basically ended with military victories against them. Certainly, Donald Trump is going around and saying, "I destroyed ISIS." I guess from what you said in your first answer, that assumption is wrong. We're still there fighting ISIS.

Fred Kaplan: We're not fighting ISIS, but the idea is preventing a resurgence of ISIS. By the way, it's not like we're there secretly. We're there with the approval and even desire of the host governments. Now, there's a lot of pressure in Iraq now for all the US troops to leave. There are a couple of thousand. You raised the question early on, should we even be in the Middle East at all?

Brian, you remember the one memorable line from The Godfather Part III is when Michael Corleone is wanting to go legitimate, but he keeps getting in-- and he says, "They keep pulling me back in. They keep pulling me back in." It's what the Middle East is. During the transition of the Biden administration, I was talking with a senior advisor who later became a senior official.

He's not there now, but he was, and I said, "What are the priorities for the foreign policy? What areas?" He said, "Well, number one, Asia Pacific, number two, Europe, number three, South America, and number four, the Middle East." [laughs] Every president in our lifetimes, practically, has wanted to get out of the Middle East but it is--

Brian Lehrer: On whose behalf do we have those troops there? One could argue that US interests are not actually at stake in Iraq or Syria anymore, or Jordan, except for troops that we continue to station there who are just protecting themselves, not any other Americans or American assets. Or would that be wrong as Washington sees it?

Fred Kaplan: Well, but then what happens when traffic gets choked off in the Red Sea and this affects 20% of US maritime traffic and prices start to go up? Or what happens when something like Al-Qaeda is allowed to percolate and then terrorist strikes happen in Paris or Berlin or New York? The guy who told me about Middle East being number four was in fact a Middle East expert.

Everybody wants to get out, but when we start to get out, bad things happen. Now, you could say the US should just get out of the world. If you take that position, yes, the Middle East is a good place to start getting out of, but if you want to remain a major power, it's just hard to do that.

Brian Lehrer: Right, yes. It gets into perennial debates about why remain a major power or what remaining a major power means, and in support of what, or who as a thought experiment. I guess you just kind of answered the question at least as it pertains to the shipping in the Red Sea, though one could say, "Well, go down around the Horn of Africa and it'll cost--"

Fred Kaplan: Which they're doing now, yes.

Brian Lehrer: I know, which will cost a little more because it's a longer shipping route. What do experts believe would happen as a thought experiment if the US just said, before this attack, let's say before October 7th, "Okay, we're done here. The Middle East has lots of wars going on, Arab versus Arab, Iranian versus Arab, Sunnis versus Shiites, Israelis and Palestinians versus each other. There is no US interest here in terms of direct military involvement. We're done"?

As a thought experiment, what might the range of consequences have been or not? Maybe there would be less reason for a group like ISIS to try to attack inside the United States. Of course, that hasn't been happening much anyway in recent years. If we weren't involved in the Middle East, even Al-Qaeda, not to defend September 11th in any way, but they said that was a response to the US continuing to keep troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War for a decade.

Fred Kaplan: Right. No, it's true. That is what they said. In the long run, this might end up happening. I remember about a year ago when China got in and sat down with Iran and Saudi Arabia and got them to restore diplomatic relations with each other. That was [unintelligible 00:12:10], but that wasn't trivial. There were a lot of commentators who said, "Oh, no. China is displacing the United States in the Middle East." My reaction was to say, "Fine. Let them discover the dark side of being a great power. Let them get involved in trying to solve the problems in the Middle East."

One problem, this is in the Middle East, in Europe, Asia, the fact is, at least for the foreseeable future, if the United States pulled out of these places, the countries there would not be able to get their act together. EU is pretty strong, but if Donald Trump said, "We're pulling out of NATO. If Russia attacks Poland, we're not going to do anything about it," it would take several years for Europe to erect a military command with sufficient forces to deter that kind of act. Same thing in Asia. Same thing in terms of diplomatic stuff in the Middle East.

They've gotten used to America coming in and solving things or trying to. They've let their own domestic and regional squabbles go on thinking that they'll be rescued in the end. Maybe they need to be slapped into-- say, "Your holiday from history is over. You have to deal with these problems yourself." Maybe that's good, but then what do you do for the next 5 or 10 years while they transition to this?

Brian Lehrer: I guess that argument is to let them deal with their own problems. It's a point where the isolationists on the right and the isolationists on the left meet. Those on the left say, "The US is getting over on the rest of the world being so dominant." The isolationists on the right say, "The rest of the world is getting over on us by having us do their work for them and take their risk for them."

Listeners, what do you want the US to do in response to the attack that killed three American service members and wounded dozens of others in Jordan over the weekend? What do you want direct US military involvement to be in the Middle East overall? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. Or you can ask a question, kind of an informational question of Fred Kaplan who writes the War Stories column for Slate. 212-433-WNYC, call or text. As to who staged the attack, Fred, I keep hearing them referred to as an umbrella group for Iranian proxy militias. Wouldn't the umbrella group for Iranian proxy militias be Iran?

Fred Kaplan: [chuckles] Yes. There's some very strange clichéd phrases going on now and, yes, that's one of them. I think it's not quite clear exactly who did it and so they come up with these-- It's like when your doctor tells you you have an endogenous problem. It's caused by something, they just don't know what. They will find out soon enough. They seem to be more sophisticated than people thought. Remember back 20 years ago when we developed the armed drone and we thought, "This will save us. This will be the new weapon, and we're the only ones who know how to do this"? Well, we're not the only ones who know how to do this anymore.

Brian Lehrer: Right, because this was a drone attack.

Fred Kaplan: This was a drone attack. Not only that, now it's unclear yet whether this was a deliberate tactic or whether it was just happenstance. The reason why it got through air defenses was that it was following quite closely a returning US surveillance drone, and therefore, the radar didn't detect this separate armed drone from-- Now, I'm a little puzzled by this because there are what are called IFF codes, Identification Friend or Foe codes, which are highly secretive. It allows the manners of air defense systems, for example, to know whether an airplane or drone coming in is one of ours or the enemy.

It should have been detectable. It should have been distinctive. I don't know why it wasn't. Anyway, that's why it got through. Was it just an accident of timing, or had they figured out to [unintelligible 00:17:06] surveillance drones come in and out at a set time? Were they detecting this? Did they decide deliberately to go in after it so that it would be hidden? I don't know. Either way, it shows that there's more tactical cleverness going on from some of these militias, which we've often stereotyped as ragtag militias than we should feel comfortable with.

Brian Lehrer: They're much more sophisticated sometimes than we think they are in this country. Did Iran tell this militia to do this?

Fred Kaplan: Iran says they did not. This is what is making a response difficult. Iran has been playing this game for several years now even before October 7th. They have this network of proxies. Now, some of these proxies really are just kind of agents of Iran, and some of them have their own agendas. They turn to Iran for assistance, but they don't necessarily do what Iran wants them to do or don't do what Iran does not want them to do.

Iran has said they had nothing to do with this attack. They also said that Hamas was on its own when they did October 7th. Both of these claims might be true. At the same time, they did supply both of these groups with arms, with training. There are Republican Revolutionary Guard officers advising these groups out in Iraq and so forth. It's unclear whether they were ever in Gaza advising Hamas directly. Somebody built these tunnels. I don't think Hamas can do that by itself, the materials for it.

The question in terms of-- There were some people saying, "This is it. We need to go in and attack Iran directly." The problem with that, we have to recall certain facts. For example, Iran is three times larger than Iraq. Remember when we thought that Iraq would be a cakewalk? It's much more heavily armed. It's much more literate. While large segments of the Iranian population actually like the United States and hate their own government, the worst thing that you can do about that is to invade Iran.

There's memories of the US and Britain overthrowing the last democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. They have a Mosaddegh. His name is Mosaddegh. They have a complex about this. You start invading Iran, you're going to reactivate that [crosstalk].

Brain Lehrer: We're going to wind up with the Islamic revolution that they got in 1979, chanting Death to America. On what the smartest response is to the attack, and you mentioned some members of Congress who want to attack inside Iran, I'm going to play a clip from Morning Edition today of a Republican congressman who didn't quite say that, but I want you to hear what he did say. This is Republican Congressman Mike Waltz of Florida, who is arguing not quite to attack inside Iran but to attack Iranian assets of some kind directly, rather than just hit back at the proxy militias. Here's a few seconds of Congressman Waltz.

Congressman Mike Waltz: In that part of the world, they respect strength and they understand consequences, and as long as they believe there's not going to be serious consequences, then they're going to push further. I think the administration has to reverse course and hit back in a way that Iran cares about.

Brain Lehrer: Fred, I wonder if you have a take on the politics of this because I mentioned the right-wing isolationists. Here's a right-wing interventionist, Republican Congressman Waltz. There's a Steve Bannon camp that Donald Trump often articulates the views of that says, "What are we doing being the policemen of the world engaging in foreign adventurous wars?"

This is the anti-George W. Bush wing of the Republican Party, and they use that to argue against funding Ukraine. Maybe they're really just pro-Putin, but here's a test for that wing of the right-wing on how much they want the US to continue to get more involved militarily and show its strength or say, "No, we're going to spend our assets on Americans. That's the America first argument."

Fred Kaplan: Well, you're certainly right about the hypocrisy there. I think, though, that leaving aside his clichéd rhetoric, he's making a point. Iran said this morning, "Oh, this really needs to be solved by diplomacy." I'm thinking, "Oh, now you say that." I don't have access to intelligence that would allow me to get specific about this, but I think something that Iran values does have to be attacked. I think it can't be just something belonging to the militias. It can't just be destroying some outpost of a proxy militia.

Brain Lehrer: Why?

Fred Kaplan: At the same time, I think pressure for diplomacy really does have to be stepped up on all sides. Qatar is delicately negotiating with Hamas over a peace deal. President Biden declared Qatar a major non-NATO ally. The Fifth Fleet is in Qatar, and yet they are the leading ally of Hamas. Hamas leaders live in splendid houses in Qatar. They need to start pressuring these people and we need to start pressuring Qatar and we need to start pressuring Israel as well.

I understand the reluctance of Biden for various reasons to put a hold on arms supplies to Israel. However, several weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago, when the settlers in the West Bank, who are very different from the people who are living near the Gazan border and Israel [unintelligible 00:23:57], started going around and killing Palestinians in the West Bank, burning down their houses, their olive trees and so forth, Biden put a sanction on some of those settlers and put pressure on Netanyahu to do something about it and he did nothing about it.

There was a jamboree just yesterday in Jerusalem with the far, far-right members of Netanyahu's coalition calling for a reoccupation of Gaza. These people have to be sanctioned internally and externally. It creates an impression that this is what Israel really wants, when in fact these people are a very small minority of Israel. There has to be-- I don't know whether temporary, permanent, call it what you will, but the war has to stop.

A lot of these conflicts, for example, the one that happened yesterday against the US troops in Jordan, have nothing to do with what's going on in Gaza and Israel, but it's all merging. It's all smooshing into each other. They all intensify one another. Somebody wrote an article the other day, I'm sorry, I forget who, that the various battles of World War II that coalesced into World War II started out as local and regional conflicts. It really has to be brought to an end and very quickly.

Hezbollah is launching about a dozen missiles a day into Israel including into Tel Aviv. Even fairly moderate officers in Israel are saying, "We've got to go after Hezbollah to the north, as well as Hamas to the south." This thing is going to wind out of control, and so I think something-- You can't just have militias launching. The militias of Iran have fired 165 rockets or missiles or drones at US forces in the Middle East since October 7th. That cannot be allowed to continue, and yet whatever we do in response militarily has to be attached very powerfully and urgently to a diplomatic offensive, and not just by us, but also including getting Egypt, Saudi Arabia involved.

They've been doing nothing for decades, lending rhetorical support to the Palestinians, doing nothing to help them materially. The wall separating Gaza from Egypt, have you seen pictures of this? It's about 40 feet high with multiple layers of barbed wire. They want Palestinians to come into the Sinai even less than Israel wants Palestinians to come into Israel. Before October 7th, there were 15,000 Gazans entering Israel every day with work permits. They have to get involved in this thing and they have to step up, and it's a courageous act because their own people are actually more radical than they are. I'm talking about Saudis in particular.

They have to step up and start supplying some stability, which they've always shirked in places like Gaza and the surrounding areas. Everybody has to get involved and take some responsibility for what's about to unwind into a serious regional war.

Brain Lehrer: We're getting a lot of text messages with various points of view. One that kind of echoes part of what you were just saying, "Why doesn't Egypt get involved and clear its own backyard? It's their canal. No, why the US?" Another one writes, "The goal of the military for the United States is only to continue to perpetuate the military-industrial complex, hence blowback is a precondition and an expected response to the US," and goes on from there.

Another one, "Mr. Kaplan says US troops in Jordan, et cetera, are not fighting. Did he misspeak? American forces are in continual engagement, especially special operators. Please describe US troops' role in protecting oil fields in Syria that fund so-called friendlies." Another one, "The US has to behave and not escalate the situation." Another listener writes simply, "Bomb Iran." Another one writes-- Where did it go? "I noticed all three of the slain service members were Black. Perhaps we need to bring back compulsory military service for all Americans so risk of military deployments are more widely shared across all subsets of the US population."

With that array of responses, we're going to take a short break and continue with Fred Kaplan, take some of your phone calls, and talk about some of the aspects, in addition to the one we've just been describing, the attack in Jordan and the context for that. Fred wrote an article about how there is almost an Israel-Hamas peace plan on the table. The only obstacle is both sides haven't accepted it. Stay with us.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brain Lehrer: Brain Lehrer on WNYC as we continue with Slate's War Stories columnist, Fred Kaplan, on developments in the Middle East in recent days. I do want to get to this potential short-term ceasefire for hostages plan and longer-term peace plan for Israel and Hamas, for Israelis and Palestinians that are being talked about, at least by the United States and Qatar, but we're getting so many calls in response to the stretch of conversation about what to do in response to the attack that killed three US service members and injured dozens of others in Jordan.

I want to take some of those calls and respect the listeners. Angela in East Rockaway, you're on WNYC. Hi, Angela.

Angela: Hi. My opinion is that I feel that whatever response we have to these murders, it has to be a very slow, calculated, and deliberate decision. I don't think we should be influenced by Republican right-wing people saying, "Go after them. Go after them." I think that we really have to be very, very careful. As your guest said, it's really a perfect storm happening in the Middle East right now, and I think that the United States has to use caution and be very deliberate and very careful on whatever we do.

I do think it does require a response, but I hope that it's thoroughly investigated and we choose the best option. I think President Biden has a lot on his plate right now, and it's just getting worse. I think that we have to be very deliberate. I do trust the Biden administration to do the right thing.

Brian Lehrer: Angela, thank you very much. Janet in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Janet.

Janet: Hi. This is a broader, more general, philosophical, political question than one of the immediate situation. I've always wanted to ask Mr. Kaplan, what is his best opinion of why the conservatives, the so-called originalists, are so okay with every war we have fought since World War II when not a single one of them was ever declared by Congress, and the Constitution is very clear on that, it leaves no doubt Congress will have the power to declare war. Why are the Republicans, conservatives, originalists so okay with it with all the wars we've been in, including this one?

Brian Lehrer: Fred, you can answer that.

Fred Kaplan: [chuckles] Yes, right. Do you have another half hour or so? It's not just the Republicans. Look, in 1974, in the middle of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which the Constitution is actually very ambiguous about this. Article I gives the president immense powers to act internationally. Article II gives powers of the pass and control over military budget to Congress. War Powers Act said no. You want to put troops in some place? You have to come certify to us, we get to vote on it after 60 days.

At that time, Congress stepped in a couple of times and did it, but that was it. They haven't ever since because they don't want to take responsibility for it if things go down. Everybody remembers when Obama kept saying, "Red line, red line, red line," and then Syria crossed the red line using chemical weapons against its own people. What people don't remember is that Obama said, "Okay, here's why. Here's all the reasons why I should do something, but I don't want to act alone. I think Congress needs to come in with me." Congress did not.

It was a bit of a-- and I know that they genuinely lobbied Congress to come in on it. It wasn't just a shirking of their response. Congress has never wanted to take responsibility. They do want to yell at whichever president of whatever party is in office when things go down, but they do not want to take responsibility.

Brian Lehrer: But not take responsibility. It's true that right now it's both parties. We had a similar conversation last week when it wasn't the attack on the US base in Jordan yet, but it was the US getting directly militarily involved with the Houthis from Yemen over their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. I asked Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Navy veteran, Armed Services Committee member, "Don't you want to take a vote to authorize this or not before the US gets any deeper into a war with the Houthis?" [unintelligible 00:34:54], "Well, maybe eventually we have to do this, but the Biden administration is within its rights." It happens at both sides of the aisle.

Fred Kaplan: By the way, with the Houthis, they are well within their rights, legislation and international law going back to the 1700s about piracy.

Brian Lehrer: You mean the US is well within its rights? About piracy.

Fred Kaplan: About going after Houthis for obstructing traffic on the Red Sea. That's pretty unambiguous, I think.

Brian Lehrer: Edmund in Westchester, you're WNYC. Hi, Edmund.

Edmund: Hello.

Brian Lehrer: Edmund are you there?

Edmund: You've been talking a little bit about the military-industrial complex and [unintelligible 00:35:33] it as something that's bad. That's been, I guess, the traditional way of thinking about it, but kind of a little bit related to The Third Godfather, let's acknowledge then that we're going to continually be pulled into it, and let's perhaps acknowledge that we're pretty good at it. Is there a way of perhaps reframing it a little bit so that whatever the negatives are, we can manage them better and perhaps benefit more from the positives this time?

Brian Lehrer: Well, Edmund, let me ask you a follow-up question. First of all, the experience of the United States since 9/11 might raise a question as to whether we are really very good at it. Also, what about the military-industrial complex do you want to reframe as positive? I think, and Fred can get in on this if he wants, but the traditional negative is that it's sort of a self-perpetuating interest group. A lot of military contractors who want big bucks' contracts from the federal government, they push us toward more war. The military itself is bent toward more war, not less.

That may have actually changed in the last generation, but traditionally, that's what it is. We have to look at the military contractors and the Pentagon itself, the generals, as an interest group that might be blind to important realities when deciding what to do. Edmund, if you wanted to come back, I'm giving you one shot.

Edmund: Yes, that's exactly right. I think that the issues that we're always hedging, we're always in this in-between, this no man's land, of having to manage the politics, for lack of a better word, like what it means for democracy, but then also having to do some pretty ugly things at times or things that are not-- that are difficult. Let's just call it difficult. If there's a better way of acknowledging our position, acknowledging our role, then maybe we could be more clear in how we execute because the in-between just gets us in circles and otherwise has us do these half measures that keep us where we are.

Brian Lehrer: Edmund, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you very much. One more. Sunny in Bed-Stuy, you're on WNYC. Hi, Sunny.

Sunny: Hi. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Sunny: I'm calling because I'm just surprised that there isn't more of a conversation around why the US isn't pulling aid for-- that's supporting the genocide in Gaza right now. Both the attacks in Jordan and the Houthis have very clearly said that this is in retaliation for supporting a genocide in which 30,000 people have died, almost 400 people in the West Bank. I'm just also surprised that this reporter, this journalist, that you have is justifying all these wars and pretending like the US goes there and fixes things, and oh, what if we pull out and leave them to fix their own problems?

I think this conversation and these attacks and all the activity in the Red Sea is so centrally and so obviously in response to this genocide and to the US's full support and perpetuation of it and [inaudible 00:39:05] acknowledge that.

Brian Lehrer: That actually leads us to our next topic with Fred, and I'll acknowledge as I always do when people say genocide that people are very much on various sides of whether that word actually applies. Nonetheless, Fred, the numbers that the caller is citing are generally accepted and broadly accepted. Was this attack part of the Israel-Hamas war a way for Iran on behalf of Palestinians or this proxy group to punish the US for continuing to fund Israel with no consequences even while mouthing support for more restraint? The Houthis say that's why they're doing their attacks in the Red Sea.

Fred Kaplan: Well, as I said, actually the one in Jordan was they say in retaliation to an attack on some Revolutionary Guard officers in Iraq, which was separate from what's going on in Gaza. The Houthis say that they're just trying to block Israeli traffic through the Red Sea. I looked at the records of half of the ships that had been attacked as of a few weeks ago, 13 out of the 27, and they had nothing to do with Israel. Nothing to do with Israel.

Brian Lehrer: I've heard a larger framing of that, that the Houthis' point is, as long as Israel is committing this many killings in Gaza, whether we call it genocide or not, that they're not going to stand for business as usual in the Red Sea. They don't have to be Israeli ships.

Fred Kaplan: Well, some people should take a look at what the Houthis are doing in business as usual in Yemen. Look, the point is whether it's genuine or not, they say that it is, and as I said, that's one reason among many that there really has to be a ceasefire and an exchange of hostages and prisoners very, very quickly before this thing really spins out of control.

Brian Lehrer: Let me just say to frame this final stretch of the conversation that you wrote an article last week on Slate called There's a Real Plan for Ending the War in Gaza, but Israel and Hamas Actually Have To Take It. You wrote that last Monday, and so much has happened since then. I'll ask, is there still a real plan for ending the war in Gaza?

Fred Kaplan: Yes. I've read varying versions of it since then, but generally speaking, it involves a truce of-- I've read six weeks, I've read two months, I've read four months during which in a few stages hostages are freed, beginning with women then older men, and then men of combat age who Hamas regards as soldiers, whether they are or not, an exchange for a certain number, hundreds or thousands of prisoners.

The big hang-up now, what I read anyway, is that whether this ceasefire is a temporary thing, which is what Israel wants, or permanent, which is what Hamas wants. I think the Biden administration's hope in doing the first prisoner hostage exchange a month or so ago was that the temporary ceasefire would spill over into an extension, then another extension, then another extension, and that there would be time during this lapse in time some kind of diplomatic deal for a longer-term solution could happen.

The question, and this is where things get difficult on all sides, Netanyahu has a very slender hold on power in Israel. If three people left his government, his government would collapse, and there would have to be new elections, and he would certainly lose. His party would lose. There are at least a dozen people in the right wing of his coalition who have said that they will leave the government if Netanyahu takes any steps towards a ceasefire like this. Now, are they bluffing? They might be because these guys are not going to get into another government. If they leave--

Brian Lehrer: Well, in fact, I see a breaking news story. This is from the AP from just 10 minutes ago. It says, "Netanyahu speaking at an event in the West Bank denied reports of a possible ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza and repeated his vow to keep fighting until absolute victory over Hamas. 'We will not end this war without achieving all of our goals.'" Sometimes people say people deny reports of a deal until there's a deal.

Fred Kaplan: That's a pretty strong denial though. He's saying he's not going to take part in it. Even the other day, Chuck Schumer, who is as pro-Israel a senator as I can think of, said we have to start thinking about whether to link armed supplies to Israel to their human rights record and desire for peace. I think it's probably--

Brian Lehrer: How many Palestinians have to die in Gaza-

Fred Kaplan: That's a good question too.

Brian Lehrer: -before they do that? Does Biden ever feel like a Netanyahu patsy? Biden stands against the way they're doing the war. They're certainly not standing with Hamas in any way in the Biden administration, but they're standing against the way Israel is fighting the war. Biden has said bombing indiscriminately. They're trying to push for these hostage for ceasefire deals, which the hostage families want too. There are a lot of demonstrations in Israel that we don't hear about much in this country. I guess my final question, when does Biden come to feel like he's Netanyahu's patsy unless there are some consequences?

Fred Kaplan: Well, right after October 7th, I think he played a shrewd game. His first reaction was to hug Netanyahu. The two have not gotten along in many years. They've known each other for a long time. There was some bristling hostility, but still, he embraced Netanyahu. He just spoke nothing but favorably for Israel. What that was about, I think he had to embrace them before then leveraging them to do certain things.

I think you have to give him some credit. I think without Biden's pressure, there would not have been any humanitarian corridors. There would not have been that initial hostage for prisoners trade. I think the bombing would be much more severe than it's been. At some point, he played a clever game. I'm going to embrace Israel and then pressure them to do certain things. I think some people in Netanyahu's emergency war cabinet, especially Gantz, are keen to do that, but Netanyahu is not.

The tactic has not worked because you have a guy and Bibi Netanyahu who is just recalcitrant, whether for his own ideology or because he thinks that as long as the war goes on he remains in power because of the setting up of this emergency war cabinet. There are people around Biden who have fought this for a while, but I think he now has to realize this hasn't worked. We have to start putting on the pressure. I think this has to be done in conjunction with Qatar and Cairo putting the pressure on Hamas as well. It has to be both sides.

Brian Lehrer: We will see what happens next. Listeners, thank you for your many calls and texts with multiple points of view. We thank Fred Kaplan, the War Stories columnist for Slate. Fred, thanks a lot.

Fred Kaplan: Sure, anytime.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.