Martin van Creveld: Perspectives on Middle Eastern Conflict and Geopolitics
While widely recognized for his contributions to military history, Martin van Creveld is also a prominent commentator on contemporary global politics. His analyses often challenge prevailing narratives, offering a pragmatic, and sometimes controversial, lens on the strategic realities of the Middle East.
Israeli Military Operations and Strategic Security
Van Creveld has provided nuanced critiques of Israel's military engagements. During the Second Intifada, he highlighted a fundamental dilemma for the Israeli army: the difficulty of fighting a significantly weaker opponent. He argued that such asymmetrical conflicts create a "lose-lose" scenario where victory can be perceived as criminal and failure as incompetence.
Conversely, van Creveld viewed the Second Lebanon War as a strategic victory. Despite acknowledging that ground operations were "clumsy, heavy-handed, and slow," he argued in a 2011 reassessment for the Infinity Journal that the campaign successfully defeated Hezbollah and restored a level of calm to the border not seen since the mid-1960s. He specifically criticized the Winograd Commission for overlooking these successes.
Regarding territorial security, van Creveld suggested in 2010 that Israel could afford to relinquish the West Bank. He contended that the territory does not protect against ballistic missiles from Iran or Syria and that, if demilitarized, it would serve as a natural land barrier. He maintained that terrorism could be managed through a combination of physical barriers and offensive campaigns to restore deterrence.
Analysis of Iraq and Iran
Van Creveld was a fierce critic of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, labeling it one of the most foolish wars in history. He compared the conflict to the Vietnam War and suggested that the Bush administration's leadership warranted impeachment and trial.
On the subject of Iran, van Creveld's views are multifaceted. He has argued that the world must accept a nuclear Iran, similar to the acceptance of nuclear capabilities in the Soviet Union and China. While he believes Iran is rational in seeking nuclear weapons, he has simultaneously claimed that the Israeli government has exaggerated both the threat posed by a nuclear Iran and Israel's own ability to stop it.
In a more provocative 2003 interview with Elsevier, he referenced the Samson Option—the strategy of using nuclear weapons as a last resort—stating that Israel possesses the capability to launch atomic warheads at targets in all directions, including European capitals, to ensure the world goes down with it before Israel is destroyed.
The Arab Spring and the Syrian Conflict
During the 2011 Arab Spring, van Creveld challenged the media's tendency to group the Libyan uprising with those in Tunisia and Egypt. He argued that Libya's pervasive tribalism and lack of a professional, non-tribal army made its situation fundamentally different from the more coherent nation-states of Tunisia and Egypt.
His stance on Syria has been rooted in political pragmatism. Van Creveld advocated for an alliance with the Assad regime, arguing that Bashar al-Assad was the "lesser devil" compared to the "caliphate of terror" (IS and Al Nusra). He maintained that only the Alawite soldiers of the regime were truly willing to fight these terrorists and that the West should have supported a negotiated solution that allowed Assad to remain in power to prevent total state collapse.
Reflecting on the 1982 Hama massacre, van Creveld described Hafez al-Assad's actions as a war crime, yet argued they were strategically necessary to prevent the regime's overthrow. He suggested that without such brutality, Syria might have devolved into a chaotic civil war similar to Beirut or Afghanistan, becoming a haven for international terrorists.
Key Facts
- Second Lebanon War: Viewed by van Creveld as a great victory that restored deterrence and border calm.
- Iraq War: Described as one of the most foolish wars in history, compared to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest.
- West Bank: Argued to be non-essential for security against ballistic missiles and potentially a natural barrier if demilitarized.
- Syria: Advocated for a pragmatic alliance with the Assad regime to combat IS and Al Nusra.
- Iran: Believes a nuclear Iran is a reality the world must live with, though the threat is often exaggerated.
| Subject | Van Creveld's Position | Primary Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Second Lebanon War | Strategic Success | Hezbollah defeated; border stability restored. |
| 2003 Iraq Invasion | Strategic Failure | Compared to Vietnam; called it "most foolish." |
| West Bank | Expendable | No defense against missiles; manageable via walls/offensives. |
| Assad Regime | Necessary Evil | Only force capable of preventing total regional dissolution. |
| Nuclear Iran | Inevitable/Manageable | Similar to Cold War nuclear dynamics. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did van Creveld consider the Second Lebanon War a victory?
He argued that the war "knocked the fight" out of Hezbollah, removed them from South Lebanon, and resulted in a period of border calm not seen since the mid-1960s, despite the clumsiness of ground operations.
What is van Creveld's view on the West Bank's role in Israel's security?
He believes the West Bank is not vital for security because it provides no protection against ballistic missiles from Iran or Syria and could be managed through a wall and offensive operations.
How did van Creveld view the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
He viewed it as an extreme strategic error, comparing it to the Roman loss in the Teutoburg Forest and the American experience in Vietnam.
Why did he advocate for supporting the Assad regime in Syria?
He believed the Assad regime was the only entity capable of holding the country together and fighting the "caliphate of terror," arguing that the alternative would be total state collapse and wider regional instability.
What did van Creveld mean by the Samson Option?
He referred to Israel's capability to use its nuclear arsenal to target global capitals, suggesting that Israel would take the world down with it before allowing itself to be destroyed.