Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian meets with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, in Doha, Qatar, on Oct. 2, 2024.
Qatar suspends Hamas-Israel mediation efforts
The Gulf Arab emirate announced this weekend it would stop mediating efforts to broker a cease-fire and hostage release deal between Hamas and Israel until “the parties show their willingness and seriousness to end the brutal war.”
For months, talks have failed, despite efforts by the US, Qatar, and Egypt. Hamas demands a permanent cease-fire and complete withdrawal of Israeli troops in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages, while Israel, which has sworn to destroy Hamas, insists on only a temporary truce and the right to occupy the enclave indefinitely.
Relatedly, reports suggested the Qataris, under US pressure, have asked Hamas political leaders to leave the kingdom, where they have enjoyed a safe haven for more than a decade.
Qatar, a US ally, has long served as a channel for talks with Hamas and other groups listed as terror organizations by the West.
Whether Qatar’s gambit will revive productive talks remains to be seen, but with Benjamin Netanyahu now comfortably awaiting the return of his close ally Donald Trump to the White House, it may put more pressure on Hamas than on the Israelis.
While the group could relocate elsewhere, there are no viable options that would offer channels to the West as direct as Qatar’s. Meanwhile, Trump, who has promised to “end” the conflict, has reportedly spoken with Netanyahu at least three times since the election alone.
For a broader look at how Trump 2.0 might shake up US foreign policy, including on the Middle East, see our recent report here.
Ian Bremmer & Van Jones on instability & the US election
In a live conversation on Substack on Friday, Nov 1, Ian Bremmer and Van Jones talked all things US election and what could happen if either Harris or Trump get elected, including how the election results will impact the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.
The United States is the most polarized advanced democracy in the world. Political radicalization is public enemy number one for America's democratic institutions. Learning about this new normal will not only help us understand each other at home, but America’s evolving place in a G-Zero world.
Subscribe to both GZERO Media and Van Jones on Substack for more coverage of the US election. Subscribers get access to be the first to watch and comment on Substack livestream discussions, plus other exclusive community features. The conversation was part of the Substack Election Dialogues, a series bringing together influential political figures, writers, and commentators for live video conversations on some the most consequential questions of the political moment.
- US election campaigns head into the homestretch ›
- Ian Explains: Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election? ›
- The US election: Freedom on the ballot ›
- Foreign policy tests lurk within the US election ›
- Ian Bremmer on the US election & crisis of democracy ›
- Ian Bremmer's State of the World 2024 ›
- Ian Bremmer on the 2024 US election ahead - GZERO Media ›
- US Election 2024: Map the Vote! - GZERO Media ›
- 2024 US election: What to look out for - GZERO Media ›
Rescuers work at a site damaged in the aftermath of an Israeli strike in Sohmor, in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, October 30, 2024.
US pushes for cease-fire as Israel escalates fight against Hezbollah
Senior White House officials are traveling to Israel on Thursday as the Biden administration continues to push for an end to hostilities in the Middle East.
The US is reportedly proposing a 60-day cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group based in Lebanon. Washington hopes that a two-month period will lead to the resurrection of a UN resolution that ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war but was never fully enforced.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahureportedly discussed the prospect of a cease-fire with top officials on Tuesday, suggesting that he’s taking the idea seriously.
But major obstacles remain – namely that Israel is continuing to escalate the fight. On Wednesday, for example, Israel ordered the evacuation of an entire city in eastern Lebanon, a move that Beirut-based journalist Kim Ghattasdescribed as “insanity” and a “first since this war started.”
Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s new leader, Naim Kassem, on Wednesday said the militant group will only accept cease-fire terms it finds acceptable. “If the Israelis decide to stop the aggression, we say that we accept, but according to the conditions that we see as suitable,” Kassem said, implying his side will keep fighting Israel until it’s given favorable truce terms. “We will not beg for a cease-fire,” he added. Kassem, who officially replaced Hassan Nasrallah on Tuesday, has also offered mixed signals on whether Hezbollah will continue to condition a cease-fire agreement on an end to the war in Gaza.
We’ll be watching to see if there are any signs of progress after US officials meet with Netanyahu on Thursday.
After Israel's response to Iran, what's next?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. No, not US elections, that'll be next week. This week. Want to talk about the Middle East and the fact that the Israelis almost a month after Iran launched 180 ballistic missiles at Israel, though most of them didn't get through and no Israeli deaths on the ground, nonetheless, the Israelis expected to respond. And respond they finally have.
Military targets that they focused on. They did some damage, caused more damage to Iran than the Iranians did to Israel during their attack. That's clearly a message that the Israelis intended to send in terms of their ability to have dominance over both escalation and deterrence between the two. Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, on the back of that, said not to exaggerate or downplay the strikes, that the Iranians will respond, but also the Iranians said that they fully intercepted the Israeli attack. In other words, nothing big to see here. Crude oil down about 6% today. In other words, this is the end of this escalation cycle between Iran and Israel.
Now, I have been critical of the Biden administration's inability to have much of any impact on Israeli decision-making over the course of this war. This time is a little different, they did have some impact here. And in the early days after the Israelis were hit by Iran, and keep in mind the Iranians got that information that the strike was coming to the United States, the US, of course, immediately shared it with Israel and did everything they could to coordinate with allies in the region to defend Israel effectively, which helped to ensure that the Israelis didn't take casualties, significant casualties.
But also the Biden administration saying they really didn't want Israel to engage in strikes against nuclear targets in Iran, against oil targets in Iran. And they did a couple of things for Israel. First, they sent an additional THAAD missile defense system, which they got to Israel and set up within two weeks on the ground, which is incredible fast-tracking to help further defend Israel.
Secondly, they actually took sanctions, put sanctions on additional tankers that were shutting down their transponders and shipping oil illegally for Iranian export. Not everything. The Iranians have over a million barrels a day that they get out, but probably took about 200,000 barrels a day off the market. In other words, that's money that the Iranians no longer have access to that they were able to use for whatever they wanted, including paying for Iranian proxies that target Israel.
In response for that and American diplomacy, the Israelis ended up, I would argue, with a slightly more restrained strike against Iran. They did engage in hits against Iranian missile production facilities, as well as defense against their ... that helps to defend their nuclear, their research program and weapons program, such as it is, which means that Israel has made it very clear to Iran that if they want to do this again, that Iran is not going to be able to defend itself effectively. So the message has been very, very clearly sent.
Of course, it was also helpful for Israel that they were able to kill Sinwar, the Palestinian Hamas leader, in Rafah, in Gaza, over the past couple of weeks. I mean, the Israeli war cabinet is flying high from a military perspective right now. They didn't need to show great capacity against Iran, nor have they, given their recent successes against Hezbollah.
I think it's interesting how Iran is responding to all of this, that we're seeing Iranian leaders, not just on the president and foreign affairs side, who are more reformist in orientation, but also recently Ali Velayati, who's an advisor to the Supreme Leader, saying that the Iranians are very interested in engaging more with the West, specifically with Europe. In other words, with the Iranians seeing that they are clearly on the back foot vis-a-vis Israel, is there any way that they can more effectively engage with the West, normalized relations, maybe end up with more money for their economy that way?
Certainly, I expect that they are also thinking heavily about what else they can do in their nuclear program, either illicitly or maybe with Russian support. But for now, it looks like Israel's policies vis-a-vis Iran have played out successfully, in part because they are the strongest military game without question in town.
That's where we are right now. Those are the latest headlines, and for the next week we're going to be talking a lot about US elections. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a memorial ceremony of the Hamas Oct. 7 attack at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem on Oct. 27, 2024, where he was heckled by family members victims.
Calculated hit: Israel strikes Iranian military sites, avoids energy infrastructure
Iran and Israel appear to be standing down from further conflict after Israel struck military targets near Tehran but did not inflict damage on the country’s energy infrastructure. The Saturday morning attacks killed four soldiers and came in retaliation for Iran’s Oct. 1 ballistic missile assault on Israel, which was a response toIsrael taking out top Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon in September.
Responding in measured tone. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said the Israeli strikes must “neither be downplayed nor exaggerated.” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that Tehran was not looking for war with Israel but would respond “appropriately” and “defend the rights of our nation and country.”
Meanwhile, Iraq's government on Monday lodged a protest with the UN Security Council over Israel's use of Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.
Weekend at Bibi’s. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had both a good and bad weekend. The presiding judge of an International Criminal Court panel reviewing arrest warrant requests for Netanyahu, his defense minister, and senior Hamas leaders has been replaced due to medical reasons, which coulddelay proceedings. But Netanyahu was also heckled on Sunday by families of the victims of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks during a speech marking the tragedy in Jerusalem.
Earlier in the day, a truck rammed into a group of retirees at a bus stop near an Israeli military base north of the capital, killing one and injuring over 30 in a suspected terror attack. The incident follows another attack three weeks ago in which six people were stabbed – two fatally – in the town of Hadera, increasing pressure on the government to ensure internal security as the war with Hamas drags on.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken boards a plane, en route to the Middle East, as he departs Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., October 21, 2024.
US pushes for Middle East cease-fire ahead of Election Day
With exactly two weeks before Election Day in the US, the Biden administration is pushing for cease-fires in Israel’s wars with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
US envoy Amos Hochstein visited Beirut on Monday as part of this effort. Hochstein said that both sides “simply committing” to UN resolution 1701, a peace agreement that followed the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, “is not enough” and called for a formula “that brings an end to this conflict once and for all.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken is en route to Israel, where he is expected to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog on Tuesday as part of a renewed push for a Gaza cease-fire.
While achieving a cease-fire on either front could potentially boost Kamala Harris’s campaign, the likelihood of this happening before Nov. 5 appears slim. The US and other international negotiators have pushed for a cease-fire for months, without luck.
Israeli airstrikes continued to pound Lebanon and Gaza over the weekend, and the region is still bracing for Israel’s response to Iran’s Oct. 1 missile attack.
We’ll be watching to see if the US can make any progress, but recent history suggests it will be an uphill battle.
A global leadership void and ongoing wars
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody, Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I am here in Tokyo, Japan. Just got back from Beijing. Being in this part of the world has me thinking a little bit about the state of our world and leadership, or should I say, the lack thereof. Those of you following me know I talk about a G-zero world, not a G-7, not a G-20, a place where we lack global leadership, and that has been so clear, thinking about the wars that continue, between Israel and Palestine, and now Lebanon, and more broadly in the Middle East, and between Russia and Ukraine, and increasingly NATO in Europe.
I think about the fact that all over the world, everyone wants these wars to be over. They're causing enormous amounts of suffering, displacement of human beings, massive war crimes, but they persist. It's worth thinking about what that means in terms of leadership because when we talk about the Middle East, and Israel-Palestine in particular, the United States is the most powerful ally of Israel, overwhelmingly in terms of its political and diplomatic support, its economic support, technological support, its military aid and training and intelligence. And yet, over the last year, the United States has had virtually no influence in the ability to contain, constrain, or end this war, irrespective of all the suffering.
You can complain about the United States on that with good reason, but then you look at Russia-Ukraine, and you see that over the last three years, China's been, by far, the most powerful friend and supporter of Russia, massive amounts of trade only expanding and dual-use technologies and diplomatic support. Yet, despite that, China has been unwilling to use any influence on Russia to try to bring the war to the end.
Now, to be clear, both the United States and China say all the right things. In Beijing, I was hearing from the leaders that they're friends with the Ukrainians and they maintain stable relations, and of course they want the war over, and they respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. And of course, the Americans support a two-state solution for the Palestinians and want to ensure that they get humanitarian aid and want to see a ceasefire happen, but I mean, the revealed preferences of both of these countries is their willingness to do anything about it is virtually zero. The Chinese don't care about the Ukrainians ultimately. That's what we're learning over the last few years. The Americans don't care about the Palestinians ultimately. That's what we've learned over the last year.
Absent leadership from the two most powerful countries in the world, where do you think we're going to get geopolitically? The answer is, to a much more dangerous place. That's the concern. I don't see that changing, particularly whether we have a Harris or a Trump presidency. I don't see that changing whether we have a Xi or a Xi presidency in China. It's not like they're making any real choices going forward. But look, maybe I'll be surprised. And certainly, it would be nice if no matter who wins, this was a topic of conversation between the Americans and the Chinese. That, "Hey, China. If you'd be willing to do a little bit more with Russia, we'd be willing to do a little bit more with Israel." I mean, frankly, at the end of the day, that's the kind of horse-trading I think we could really use diplomatically. Right now, that's a conversation that hasn't happened yet, but maybe it will.
That's it for me, and I'll talk to y'all real soon.
Canada accused of being an unreliable ally in the Middle East
Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly told the United Nations General Assembly on Monday that Ottawa supports the creation of a Palestinian state and will officially recognize such an entity “at the time most conducive to building a lasting peace and not necessarily as the last step of a negotiated process.”
For more than 70 years, Canada and the United States have been in lockstep on policy in the Middle East. But Canada has been indicating for some time that it is preparing to join countries like Spain, Norway, and Ireland in unilaterally recognizing Palestinian statehood.
Despite pressures from within the Democratic caucus, that is not the position of the Biden administration. President Joe Biden has said he believes a Palestinian state should be realized through direct negotiations between the parties, not through unilateral recognition.
An early 20th-century Canadian cabinet minister, Sir Clifford Sifton, once said the main business of Canadian foreign policy is to remain friendly with the Americans while preserving the country’s self-respect.
That friendship has been tested in recent times.
Last December, Canada voted in favor of a cease-fire in Gaza that did not condemn, or even mention, Hamas. The US voted against the resolution.
For two decades, Canada has voted against UN resolutions that it felt unfairly sought to isolate Israel. Yet in May, it abstained on one that proposed to upgrade Palestine’s rights at the UN to a level short of full membership. Again, the US was one of only nine countries that voted against it.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has criticized his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to a future two-state solution – a frustration shared by the Biden administration. But Canada has gone a step further by saying that the peace process cannot indefinitely delay the creation of a Palestinian state.
Tensions were heightened in August when Joly announced new restrictions on the sale of defense equipment to Israel, suspending 30 export permits and blocking a deal to sell Quebec-made munitions to the US that were intended for Israel.
The move drew the ire of Netanyahu, who said it was unfortunate Joly took the steps she did as anti-Israel riots were taking place in Canadian cities.
It also attracted the attention of Sen. James Risch, the ranking member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “It is disappointing to see our allies make domestic political decisions intended to hamstring our shared ally, Israel,” he wrote on X.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group, and a former policy analyst at Canada’s Global Affairs department, said Risch’s comments reflect a “habitual disappointment” about Canadian foreign policy in Washington.
“By now, expectations are so low that it is hard to be disappointed by anything. People have come to the conclusion that Canadian foreign policy is about grandstanding and domestic politics, rather than national interests,” he said.
Risch was one of 23 bipartisan senators who wrote to Trudeau before the prime minister traveled to Washington for NATO’s summit in July saying they were “concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent (military spending) projection indicated it will not reach the 2 percent commitment this decade.”
At the summit, Canada’s ambassador in Washington, Kristen Hillman, said there remains “a strong recognition that Canada is a steadfast ally in all aspects.” But that rosy view was not reflected in the comments made by US policymakers. House Speaker Mike Johnson described Canada’s promise to get to 1.76% of GDP on defense spending by 2030 as “shameful.” “Talk about riding on American coattails,” he said.
Even Biden’s extremely discreet ambassador in Ottawa, David Cohen, referred to Canada as “the outlier” in the alliance.
Eurasia Group’s Thompson agreed with Risch’s assessment that domestic politics are at the root of a shift in foreign policy that moves away from traditional support for Israel and does not view security spending as a priority.
He said the debate in the ruling Liberal Party is similar to the one playing out in the Democratic Party in the US – but is at a more advanced stage because it has the blessing of the leader, Trudeau.
He noted the base of support for the Liberals has moved from ridings with large Jewish populations in Toronto and Montreal to ridings with large Muslim populations in the suburbs of both big cities. Trudeau has tried to walk a fine line between both communities, often failing to please either of them.
His Liberals are trailing the Conservatives by around 20 points in most polls, and the opposition party leader, Pierre Poilievre, is pushing for a general election.
The Liberals are relying on the support of the left-leaning New Democratic Party and separatist Bloc Québecois to keep them in power. Both of those parties are highly critical of Israel and strongly supportive of a Palestinian state.
A debate in the Canadian House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on the recognition of a Palestinian state last week reflected the realignment of foreign policy. The committee voted in favor of a short study, after which a recommendation to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state will likely be made to the government. The Liberals on the committee voted alongside the NDP and the Bloc, arguing that for a two-state solution, you need two states.
The Conservative foreign affairs critic, Michael Chong, said that unilateral recognition would break with the long-standing position of the successive Canadian governments and would isolate Canada from its allies, including the US.
“To veer from that path rewards violence and authoritarianism,” he said.
The committee vote has not yet drawn a response from Washington.
That does not surprise Derek Burney, a veteran Canadian diplomat who served as Ottawa’s ambassador in Washington from 1989 to 1993.
He said Canada’s view has become inconsequential to its allies. “I’ve never seen a time when we were more irrelevant than we are now. We are nowhere on the global scene. We are nowhere in Washington because we have nothing to contribute or to support what the Americans are trying to do,” he said.
“Nobody knows what we stand for, or stand against. We don’t count. It’s a sad fact of life.”