وطن نيوز
Tamir Hayman The annual Munich Security Conference is considered the most important international forum dealing with security issues. Every year, heads of state, ministers and opinion leaders meet to discuss issues related to national and international security. This year’s conference was characterized by a more conciliatory approach between Europe and the United States than the previous conference. The trend of increasing European investments in security has continued, as has the reconsideration of alliances in light of the threat posed by Russia and the dynamics of the Middle East. The discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict focused on criticism of Israel, in light of what was described as de facto annexation (changing land registration procedures in the West Bank). In addition, Saudi Arabia’s hostile approach towards the UAE and Israel has emerged, with suspiciously coordinated messages between Turkish, Qatari, and Saudi spokesmen. EU-US relations: a conciliatory US tone, and a similar European response Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, delivered a moving, polite and respectful speech to the hosts. This was a stark contrast to the speech given by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich conference last year. Vance addressed representatives of European countries, stressing the values of democracy and freedom of expression, calling on them to rely on themselves, while Rubio emphasized the American demand that European countries bear the burden of security. According to him, President Trump resolves conflicts around the world, thanks to which an agreement was reached on the release of Israeli hostages from Hamas, a change of government in Venezuela, and “peace with Iran.” However, he emphasized common values, common origin, and the price the liberal democratic world paid to achieve freedom. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), European leaders praised President Trump throughout the conference and offered little criticism of him. The harshest criticism came from California Governor Gavin Newsom (who demonstrated the charisma and elegance of an American president of the type familiar in Hollywood films). On the other hand, Ukrainian President Zelensky delivered a speech very sympathetic to the United States, and was careful to repeatedly thank President Trump, in addition to his sincere thanks to European countries. There is no doubt that Ukraine and its president were the champions of the conference. For example, the Ukraine Pavilion – a hotel converted into a living museum – was adjacent to the conference, commemorating Ukraine’s culture, cuisine, history and spirit. Zelensky was not the only one to praise the United States. The Danish prime minister, who is locked in a dispute with Trump over his claim to US sovereignty over Greenland, also struck a conciliatory tone, even noting that at the conclusion of the dispute: “We all came out stronger.” It was agreed to expand NATO’s presence in Greenland, and it is clear that the strategic island will remain under Danish sovereignty, so things have settled peacefully. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, also exchanged expressions of praise with the president, with their spokesman praising the president for his resolve, ending the war in the Gaza Strip, and his optimism for the future. Türkiye and Syria praised the president for his courage and confidence, and the tributes continued. During the conference, it became clear that the security awakening in Europe continues, with a clear realization that the continent cannot do without the United States. The idea of European power was raised again, and surprisingly, India also put forward the idea, as its Foreign Minister put forward the idea of forming an economic group that includes the two largest economic countries excluding the United States and China. The minister said: “If they want disagreement, let them continue, but the rest of the major countries will continue on their own.” Aspects of European independence discussed during the conference: The economic aspect: the search for alternative sources of financing and a different type of public-private partnership, focusing on the need to ease regulatory restrictions and enable a faster and more competitive economy, in line with the need for revolutionary technology and entrepreneurship. Diplomatic aspect: Europe adopts an independent and clear foreign policy, led by opposition to Russia – the “Eastern Front”; Combating terrorism and illegal immigration – “Southern Front”; Arctic competition over trade routes and new military capabilities – the “Northern Front”; and a confrontation with the United States as a major partner, but led by a volatile and unpredictable administration, which may be hostile to Europe at times – the “Western Front.” Military aspect: Investing 5 percent of GDP in defense will build large and powerful armies. Achieving this budget is a challenge, and the possibility of cooperation within the framework of a unified European army also represents a major challenge. However, it is clear that a new vision is needed, one that is consistent with the new capabilities and renewed reinforcement to come. Iran’s historic mistake in supporting Russia During the conference, the negative perception of Iran emerged, not only because of the violent suppression of popular protests there (which was mentioned only slightly), but mainly because of its support for Russia. However, it was noted that this support did not benefit the regime in Tehran. Russia does not help Iran during the largest crisis in its history, while Iranian support for Russia has led to Iran’s separation from Europe. Many leaders have stressed the need to overthrow or replace the regime in Tehran peacefully. Even those who oppose war with Iran and support an agreement with it, especially civil society organizations and countries including India, acknowledge the regime’s problems, seek stability, and prefer a “different Iran.” In forums focused on potential US action against Iran, there was no clarity on the timing and purpose of the action, as well as the chances of reaching an agreement. Among other things, emphasis was placed on the issue of the “day after,” assuming a military strike was carried out to undermine the regime. Speakers agreed that the likelihood of an internal revolution leading to regime change and the emergence of democratic rule was small. In this context, the various scenarios touched on the rise of a military dictatorship, a non-revolutionary conservative bureaucratic government, or a secular populist regime with a new leadership. The most optimistic scenario was to portray Iran as a country like Türkiye – an ostensibly democratic masking a conservative, ideologically religious regime. Reza Pahlavi appeared in a sharp interview with Christiane Amanpour, in which he called for mass protests, which pushed many to the streets, but the demonstrations took place in Munich, not Tehran. According to him, his leadership is necessary for the masses in Iran, apparently, because of the chants in his name. He confirms that he is not seeking the support of the American government, and will not obtain it, according to a statement by Senator Lindsey Graham. In addition, Reza Pahlavi condemned the violence of demonstrators supporting him, who attack democratic opponents of the regime. These words reinforced the widespread understanding that the division among Iranian opposition factions makes it difficult to unite efforts against the regime. In the face of the claims of his opponents, who claim that he wants to restore the Iranian monarchy, Reza Pahlavi left the issue ambiguous: We will take power first, and then we will decide the type of regime based on the results of a popular referendum. Israel’s move away from integration in the Middle East and the cohesion of the Arabs are now in danger. According to what was said at the conference, Israel is seen as a strong country that seeks regional hegemony and prefers its security interests over others. Indeed, for the sake of these interests, it is prepared to undermine the security of other countries in the region. This Israeli approach, as it is seen, is unacceptable. Israel is said to overreact to any, even slight, suspicion of a potential threat. This monetary approach is led by Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Türkiye and Qatar. Saudi Arabia, to which the saying goes: “What is excluded in dreams is excluded,” sees Israel’s (perceived) regional hegemony as a threat, and links the current conflict between it and the UAE to its relations with Israel. Riyadh believes that Israel seeks to expand its influence throughout the Middle East, especially in the Red Sea by linking it to Somaliland, and in the Arabian Gulf by linking it to the Emirates. In this context, Saudi representatives expressed their strong opposition to Israel’s policy (while being careful, of course, to compliment President Trump and not oppose him). It is true that the Saudi confrontational approach enhances cohesion between the UAE and Israel, but it excludes the possibility of Israeli-Saudi normalization, and makes it difficult to implement projects aimed at promoting regional integration that includes Israel, especially the infrastructure corridor that will connect India to Europe via the Middle East (IMEC). The Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal, clarified this position, criticizing the Israeli military presence in Syria, because of the difficulty it causes in the stability of the new Syrian regime. He also criticized the Israeli policy, recently approved by the government, regarding the rights to register and sell land in the West Bank, a policy that expands the scope of registering rights in the name of the state. The war in Sudan received special attention at the conference. Masoud Boulos, President Trump’s special envoy for conflict resolution, confirmed that the war in Sudan is the most serious humanitarian crisis of the twenty-first century, during which serious crimes against humanity are being committed, especially in the field of violence against women (90 percent of women reported being raped, starting at the age of eight). Speakers from peacekeeping organizations said that measures must be taken against the UAE for its support of the “rapid reaction force” in Sudan. However, UAE representatives at the conference accused Saudi Arabia of cooperating with Iran and being behind the organized attack on it. American reaction to this development was limited. With the exception of Senator Graham’s call on the two sides – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – to stop their mutual attacks, he did not express any concern about the deterioration of relations between the two close allies of the United States in the Gulf. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict – not the focus of the conference. Israel’s change in its policy regarding land registration and sale rights in the West Bank did not receive widespread media attention in Israel, but the Munich conference considered this development an earthquake. The actual recognition of part of the West Bank lands as lands subject to Israeli law, despite the existence of Israeli law, is considered, from the European point of view, a change in policy that contradicts international law, which stipulates that the status of occupied and militarily controlled territories may not be changed. In this context, this change in Israeli policy refutes the long-standing Israeli legal claim that the situation in the West Bank is temporary. Critics believe that this is conclusive evidence of actual annexation, without an official announcement. The Palestinian leaders and activists attending the conference did not miss any opportunity, in every session in which the Palestinian issue was raised, to call on European countries to take action against Israel instead of just talking. The Palestinian message, which has been repeated and emerged, is that since Europe has recognized the State of Palestine (New York Declaration), it must act against Israel, which violates Palestinian sovereignty and Palestine’s right to exist. It appears that behind this is a Palestinian desire to exploit the tensions between the United States and Europe, and push European countries to adopt an independent policy, even if it conflicts with American policy. The reactions to this letter were a full recognition of the rights of Palestine, a condemnation of the Israeli government, and an apology for not making more efforts on behalf of the Palestinians. However, none of the speakers agreed with the Palestinian demand for sanctions on Israel, with most claiming that this would require a comprehensive European consensus, and that this was a complex political event. However, the Palestinians’ relief that the issue was receiving sympathy was impossible to ignore. All speakers, without exception, affirmed Europe’s commitment to the two-state solution. Some Palestinian speakers put forward a different approach to the two-state solution, seeing the ideal solution as an Israeli-Palestinian union – a single state, but not in the sense of an apartheid state, but rather as a federal state along the European model. This opinion was supported by high-level European officials, partners in the Peace Council and the Gaza Strip Administration Council. They believed that linking the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian state in the future might be done according to the federal model. What if that’s not possible? One of the most pessimistic predictions was made by a former Palestinian leader. In his opinion, a Palestinian state will not arise, and Israel will continue to rule, but due to Arab demographic superiority (a solid Arab majority will be formed between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea in the distant future, that is, after about twenty years), it will turn into an apartheid state. Such a state will not survive. As happened in South Africa, the world will isolate Israel and impose on it a political process that will lead to Arab majority rule in the Land of Israel. The Peace Council and Trump’s plan for the Gaza Strip – European confusion During the conference, several sessions were held that dealt with the Peace Council and the government in the Gaza Strip. Representatives of the Gaza Board of Directors were repeatedly criticized for their lack of detailed planning, political ineffectiveness, lack of Palestinian Authority involvement in the organization, and more. In the context of the Peace Council, President Trump was sharply criticized for creating an undemocratic body that was supposed to replace the United Nations. It is interesting to claim that he may intend to continue as Chairman of the Council even after the end of his term, as the Council’s founding charter states that he is the Chairman of the Board. The European confusion stems from the fact that Trump’s plan for the Gaza Strip also includes benefits for the Palestinians: the disarmament of Hamas, the reconstruction of the Strip, and Palestinian sovereignty with international support. There is agreement on these links. But the peace council also includes Netanyahu and President Trump himself, who, according to several speakers at the conference, oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, so the plan will not lead to a political solution, but rather to a temporary arrangement that will not last (among the most prominent critics was the Prime Minister of Spain). Forced to defend themselves and apologize in the face of criticism, Gaza Strip Council members tried to explain that this was just the beginning and demanded that peace be given a chance. They indicated their commitment to establishing a Palestinian state, as the final solution. The importance of maintaining security, including the security of Israeli citizens, was also touched upon. The bottom line: The bottom line for Israel is a series of opportunities and risks. The biggest opportunity is the economic potential of the Israeli defense industry. Israel’s image and experience create a wealth of opportunities. At the same time, the greatest risk is that Israel will be labeled as a state that undermines regional and global stability. Israel is moving away from regional normalization as a result of the changing approach of Saudi Arabia and the UAE towards it, as well as the stagnation surrounding the Palestinian issue. This may suggest a choice to wait and not take the initiative. However, this trend indicates the necessity of waiting for a solution made possible by the development of demographic changes in the conflict arena and international changes. As elections approach, Israel must adapt its policy to these opportunities and challenges. Top View/National Security Research Institute 3/3/2026
