Opinion: Gaza ceasefire, the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy

CIA Director William J. Burns and British counterpart MI6 Chief Richard Moore have just met and are launching the latest effort to secure a peace agreement in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, and stop the emerging regional war.
This reflects the vital importance of intelligence for Israel as well as the close Anglo-American “special relationship,” which began with intelligence agencies in World War I. This unusual approach also reflects the difficulty of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
Strategic context is especially important. In 1973, decisive efforts of the Nixon administration were crucial to Israel’s successful defense against a combined Arab states’ attack. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger led efforts to ease tensions in the region.
This was followed by major peace agreements. President Jimmy Carter’s determination and discipline achieved the historic 1978 Camp David peace between Egypt and Israel.
In March 1991, following expulsion of Iraq’s army from Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush addressed Congress. He emphasized achieving lasting stable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Secretary of State James Baker demonstrated extraordinary energy in dedicated diplomacy. The Madrid conference of October 1991 led to the Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestinians, and a Palestinian state, confirmed at the start of the Clinton administration. This in turn facilitated the 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan.
Bush and Baker deserve enormous credit for the Allied defeat of Iraq, confirming America’s regional leadership and the establishment of a partially independent Palestine authority.
The Trump administration in 2020 brokered diplomatic recognition of Israel by the United Arab Emirates. White House adviser Jared Kushner served successfully as intermediary.
The 1956 Suez Crisis remains particularly important. President Dwight Eisenhower used economic leverage and astute diplomacy to end a secretly planned old-style colonial military invasion by Britain, France and Israel to recapture the Suez Canal, nationalized by Egypt’s new military regime, and seize the Sinai Peninsula.
As usual, Ike’s instincts were right; our alliance relationships survived. Harold Macmillan replaced Anthony Eden as Britain’s Prime Minister.
Macmillan acknowledged that the U.S. had succeeded Britain as the principal leader in the Mediterranean. The Soviet Union did exploit the situation to strengthen ties with Arab states, especially Syria.
In 1958, Eisenhower intervened directly in Lebanon with a sizable military force. Given the volatile nature of the region generally, and armed conflict creating destruction in Lebanon, many observers regarded the intervention with alarm.
American troops suffered only one soldier killed by hostile fire. Our forces were concentrated in Beirut’s city center, the port and the airport. The crisis did not escalate, and Eisenhower withdrew our forces.
This singularly brilliant, risky operation is ignored today. Our forces went into Lebanon in 1958 to occupy specific potentially vulnerable areas on a mission strictly limited in time as well as space.
Bush and Baker energized Mideast leadership, creating promising, basic stability.
Today, Iran, Russia and Turkey steadily expand influence in the region. The first is a militant adversary. The second was our principal enemy during the Cold War. The last is a NATO ally, though challenging.
Director Burns, like his father, has a distinguished public service career. He served in the State Department, perhaps in intelligence. He graduated from La Salle University and was the first alum to receive a prestigious Marshall Scholarship to England, completing a D.Phil. at Oxford, where he played on the men’s basketball team.
Our “special relationship” is alive and well.
Arthur I. Cyr is the author of “After the Cold War.” Contact [email protected]. Learn more on this topic from “A World Transformed,” by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft.