Reducing the risks of war between the major powers 

President Biden is right to urge Tel Aviv not to retaliate against drone and missile attacks that struck Israel on April 14 ― attacks that were made in retaliation for the April 1 Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate building, in Damascus, Syria, that killed senior Iranian military commanders. Tit for tat measures will only escalate the conflict throughout the region as Teheran continues to support its “Axis of Resistance”of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis, while likewise threatening to develop nuclear weaponry. 

On a global strategic level, Iran’s attack reveals its burgeoning military capabilities — plus its confidence that it is increasingly backed by a new Eurasian Axis of Russia China, and North Korea — after Russia and China announced their “no limits partnership” just before President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022. 

To “stand up against this stronger alliance of authoritarian powers,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has urged NATO to work with other countries beyond its mandated geography, such as Japan and South Korea, given mutual Iran-North Korea-Russian-Chinese military assistance. While strengthening their ties to Iran, both Moscow and Beijing have consequently denounced NATO enlargement and stronger U.S.-NATO defense ties to Japan and South Korea — plus the new U.S.-UK-Australian (AUKUS) defense pact — as new forms of “encirclement.”     

The present danger is this: The longer the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas-Iran wars persist, the more the global system will polarize between states that are pro-U.S. and those that are pro-Russia and pro-China. And as these two alliances widen, so too will new/old conflicts explode into other regions — whether against U.S. global interests or against the interests of Russia and China. Much as the Israel-Hamas war has now brought Iran more directly into the fray, a number of ongoing conflicts, plus that between China and Taiwan, could soon bring the US, NATO, Russia and China into direct confrontation. 

Putting an end to the Israel-Hamas war as rapidly as possible is crucial. Not only has the war just sparked direct Israel-Iran conflict, it is becoming a symbolic recruiting tool for jihadists throughout the Arab/Islamic world in addition to the Houthis who are threatening shipping in the Red Sea. To prevent the war from widening even further, Washington needs to show Israel that a new version of the two-state solution, in the formation of a Palestinian confederation with new leadership in both the West Bank and Gaza, is in Israel’s interests.  

Such a Palestinian confederation would be backed by international and Arab Gulf State financial assistance that would help rebuild Gaza. With close ties to Israel, yet mediated by international peacekeeping forces acceptable to both sides, such a Palestinian confederation would help reduce Iranian leverage over its “Axis of Resistance” — and thereby help set the stage for a new Iran nuclear accord.  

Diplomacy, not military preemption, is the best path. 

It is likewise time for the U.S., in cooperation with interested powers, to seek a negotiated settlement between Kyiv and Moscow. This approach would build upon the proposed 15-point peace agreement of March 2023 in which a neutral Ukraine would not seek NATO membership and not permit foreign military bases on its territory, while NATO and the Europeans would nevertheless provide Ukraine with sufficient defense capabilities to prevent Russia from obtaining more territory and seizing Odessa, for example. In exchange, Russian occupation forces would withdraw from most of eastern Ukraine, with solutions for the Donbass and Crimea to be determined. 

While hawks have argued that Moscow wants to take all of Ukraine, it appears dubious that it could realistically hold onto even more Ukrainian territory without suffering significant resistance and huge human and economic costs (while selling itself as a vassal to Beijing). Once, and if, a settlement can be achieved, international monitors could oversee forces on both sides with the implementation of confidence building and security measures. And if trust can eventually be established, both sides could work through what I have called an international “Black Sea Peace and Sustainable Development Community” to foster the development of the entire region. 

And finally, the U.S. and its allies need to work to prevent confrontation between Beijing and Taipei. Such a conflict can be prevented by establishing joint development projects under a “South and East China Seas Peace and Sustainable Development Community” that helps coordinate the interests of all the ASEAN states and China in developing the vast resources of the region. International naval forces could protect Sea Lines of Communication from the Pacific to the Arabo-Persian Gulf. Working to resolve the China-Taiwan dispute through concerted diplomacy, which can in turn reduce tensions throughout Asia to work toward a North-South Korean reconciliation. 

These brief sketches point a feasible way toward resolving the ongoing conflicts that directly concern the major powers of the U.S., Russia and China. Evidently peace will not take place in 24 hours, as Donald Trump has claimed with respect to Russia and Ukraine. Nevertheless, in carefully collaborating with both allies and “rivals” alike, the U.S. could set the parameters for a more concerted relationship among the major and regional powers to better manage these and many other global challenges. 

Concerted diplomacy helped put an end to the Cold War. This time it must play a more effective role in establishing global peace.  

Hall Gardner is professor emeritus of the History and Politics Department of the American University of Paris. He is the author of “Toward an Alternative Transatlantic Strategy,” “World War Trump” and “Crimea, Global Rivalry and the Vengeance of History.”