Kim Ghattas: "People want to understand"

m&k: We are talking about the end of April 2024 - a time when the Middle East is experiencing a period of enormous volatility. Did this period begin with the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 - or could trends that made an escalation likely be observed even before then?

Kim Ghattas: First of all, October 7 itself was as "unlikely" as it was unpredictable for me; I don't think anyone anticipated a Hamas attack of this magnitude. But as for the months before ... I remember a kind of "deceptive calm" in the region. And this "calm" usually means that something is brewing under the surface. I wrote an article in January 2023 in which I warned that the dynamic between Benjamin Netanyahu and right-wing conservative members of his government on the one hand; Iranian leader Ali Khamenei on the other - combined with the fact that both are fighting to retain power in their countries - could result in severe turmoil. In the same text, I noted that the deteriorating economic situation in Egypt and the increasing frequency of internal unrest in Syria could have consequences far beyond both countries. And parallel to all this, there have been more and more reports of a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, of a normalization of relations ... while this sounds positive at first, "peace agreements" in the Middle East always set my alarm bells ringing. Because you can be sure: For every treaty that is concluded between two former antagonists, there is a third party that tries to prevent it. But, again, October 7 and at least some of the knock-on effects were not on my radar.

"There was a kind of 'deceptive calm' in the region. This usually means that something is brewing beneath the surface."

 

The images from Israel shocked the international community - gruesome scenes, a terrorist operation that did not even spare women, children and the elderly.

Yes, it is difficult to even put into words what happened and what we saw. It was a nightmare scenario for Israel and the victims were mostly defenseless, unarmed civilians. Many young protesters who now support the Palestinian cause should bear this in mind - while of course being allowed to express their support for the Palestinian civilian population who have been through so much in the last 75 years and have suffered even more since October 7, 2023. I call for compassion for all innocent people who are suffering. By the way, the morning after, we in Lebanon were also wondering what would happen next. We know the patterns; we are always worried about being drawn into conflicts. Because we've experienced that several times before.

 

Can you give examples?

Do you remember when Hamas kidnapped the Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit in Gaza in 2006? Israel responded with a military intervention, which in turn led Hezbollah to kidnap three Israeli soldiers on the border with Lebanon "in solidarity with Hamas". This triggered a wave of Israeli attacks on Hezbollah positions in Lebanon; attacks in which, of course, not only members of the extremist organization were killed. After 34 days of fighting, we saw more than 1,200 dead, the destruction of civilian infrastructure and, unfortunately, no significant effect on Hezbollah's ability to act. Any spark can turn into a conflagration in the Middle East, and if you live there, you are constantly aware of this.

 

I would be very tempted to ask you for your forecast for the development of the current Israel-Iran conflict - but as soon as we distribute this issue, it could be that the "News Cycle" has already overtaken us.

Perhaps I should just say something general about the matter then: I'm really the last person to welcome the escalation we're seeing, but in terms of the "patterns of war" ... these conflicts, roughly speaking, always go in one of two directions: Either there is a massive escalation or the prospect of such an escalation suddenly seems so realistic that the actors involved take a step back from the brink. It is almost ironic that it sometimes takes such "peaks" for the parties involved to realize what is at stake. For them to realize that they need to return to the negotiating table. So, no prediction, but: either we will soon see the beginning of stabilization - or we will witness a catastrophe.

 

At the risk of sounding rather naive: I was surprised that Iran apparently "suddenly" took such an offensive position. The public's attention seemed to be focused more on the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip - and to some extent on clashes with Iranian-backed groups in Israel's neighboring countries.

Iran has long staged itself as the defender of Palestinian interests, albeit with limited use of its resources. Israel has stepped up attacks on enemy targets since last fall, and by bombing the Iranian consulate in Damascus - as well as killing the high-ranking Iranian dignitaries on the ground - has probably miscalculated quite a bit. How does such a miscalculation come about, you may ask? Well, Israel has been bombing Iranian "proxies", weapons depots or military production facilities in Syria and Lebanon for years; and nothing has ever happened to give pause to these actions. You have probably opened the newspaper from time to time and read something like "Israel flies attacks on Iranian depots in Syria". Then you thought: "Oh, here we go again" ... turned the page and forgot about it. But Iran hasn't forgotten anything, Iran has counted and decided to use its regional influence - and its rather simple, but not insignificant, arsenal of weapons.

"The events in the region are all too often sketched in very broad brushstrokes."

 

I realize I seem to have a weakness that US talk show host Trevor Noah also talked about when you appeared on his show: European and American media often don't dig deep enough; don't look hard enough for the real causes of developments in the Middle East, do they?

Unfortunately, this is true. The events in the region are all too often sketched in very broad brushstrokes, events are portrayed in a highly simplified manner and entire countries are lumped together. Clichés and generalizations dominate the narrative. This is unfair to the Middle East, its rich cultural heritage and, not least, the people who live in the region. The vast majority of them want peace, dignity, justice, work and a future for their children. To mention these people in the same breath as extremists of all stripes ... it always affects me as an author, but also as a Lebanese woman.

 

Can you explain to yourself - and to us - the tendency towards excessive "simplification" in the Western media?

I don't deny that reporting on the Middle East is a complex, challenging task. Then again, reporting on any other region - including Europe and the US - that has a turbulent history and a mélange of cultures is hardly any different, is it? I think part of the simplistic narrative stems from the saying "If it bleeds, it leads": when a bomb explodes or a suicide bombing occurs in Iraq, Lebanon or Syria, the number of victims appears in the Western news, a few clicks are generated ... and then it's on to the next topic. But this is a disservice to the viewers and readers: most people want to be informed, want to learn, want to be intellectually challenged - there is no need to actively "dumb down" them. I regularly appear in schools with my book "Black Wave", and the young people I meet there are 16 or 17 years old. Not only do they understand the book, they also have hugely advanced thinking about what's happening in the Middle East and ask brilliant questions. I try not to use the same style as many geopolitical analysts. But I do research, sometimes for several years, and then I put my research into words that are as clear and accessible as possible. Believe me, this is guaranteed to reach the audience. And that should be our aim, because otherwise "dumbing down" quickly becomes a mixture of different, concrete dangers.

 

Which are?

The Middle East has long been characterized by conflict. But it is not a lost cause. What is going on there is not completely unsolvable, and the region is not "a place where people have been fighting for millennia and will continue to do so for millennia to come", as President Obama once said. If this narrative is not finally overcome, it will be impossible to devise sustainable political solutions - because there is an implicit belief that this would not help anyway. And there will also be major obstacles when it comes to finally finding a sustainable solution to the swelling migration flows towards Europe. Europe is ageing and needs immigration, but if we are afraid of migrants, how can we welcome them? The final step after the cliché and fear is dehumanization: "They are not human. They are not our equals." ... We can see in the Middle East what that leads to. That there are deaths when one side tries to deny the other their humanity. Let's not make the same mistake.

 

You mentioned your - excellent - bestseller "Black Wave", which attempts to explain the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also the Middle East, without generalizations and "en détail". You are curious and persistent: qualities that have to do with your entry into journalism?

I was born into the Lebanese civil war in 1977, so from my earliest childhood to my teenage years I only knew conflict and unrest. When the situation calmed down, I wanted to know: "How could it come to this, that my country has been self-destructing for fifteen years?" No one could give me a satisfactory answer, so I had to go in search of it myself. Of course, my career has evolved - I worked for the BBC, the Financial Times and The Atlantic for two decades - but the constant is still that I want to understand things and then explain them to others. After "Black Wave" I decided that books were probably best suited to my purposes, so I'm now writing a sequel of sorts.

 

Do you think people would understand the world better if they consumed more "long-form" journalism instead of posts on X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and Instagram?

I use a few of those channels too. (laughs) So I'm not in a position to tell people not to do that. But I think the balance matters - two-minute explainer videos on TikTok and live feeds about rapidly changing situations can sometimes be helpful, but there needs to be content that is in-depth. The recipients will be looking for it, so we have to produce it.

 

May I ask you a personal question? Given what you have chosen as a profession; as a critical writer, do you sometimes worry about your safety when you are traveling in your hometown of Beirut or the region?

I don't think about that so as not to be paralyzed. I am someone who calculates risks carefully - I avoid reporting on active combat operations, for example, unless the "war finds me". I was in Lebanon when Israel attacked in 2006, so I wrote about that. But I was also in Baghdad just before the American invasion in 2003. I thought about staying there, but then my parents called me; my mother was crying on the phone. They felt that they had just managed to get me through the Lebanese civil war, and now I was going to voluntarily expose myself to another war? "It's just not worth it," I said to myself. But please understand: That was, that is an individual decision. I have friends and colleagues who have made a different decision - and whom I greatly appreciate. Like me, they grew up in Lebanon and are still war reporters today ... as strange as it sounds, they may have become "addicted" to it. I wanted to avoid that at all costs.

 

"Addicted" to war? I'll have to ask you for an explanation.

I'm sure no one who hasn't experienced it for themselves can understand that. I don't want to seem cynical, but - when the civil war in Lebanon ended in 1990, I suffered ... you could say I had mild depression. In war, you are confronted with existential problems every day: Where do I get water, when will there be food, are we safe in our home right now? Then the fighting stops and all the thoughts that previously had no place break free. This is how it is for many of my colleagues who report on armed conflicts: In the center of the storm they feel alive, in everyday life they lack the "kick". I never wanted a life like that.

 

My question was also aimed at whether you are afraid of political persecution - after all, you criticize some very powerful people in your writings.

You can be killed for journalism or thrown in prison. Both have happened to people in my immediate circle. But: I always criticize all sides in a balanced way ...

 

... You described yourself as an "equal opportunity critic" on Trevor Noah's show ...

Yes, I accept that the people I write about may not be happy about my work. But no one will be able to say I don't back up my statements with facts; and no one will be able to say I don't target "the other party" as well. I don't consider myself an activist, not a polemicist.

"You can be killed for journalism or thrown in prison. Both have happened to people close to me."

 

In addition to your role as a Middle East expert, you worked for several years as a White House correspondent; accompanied Hillary Clinton on many trips as Secretary of State - and published the book "The Secretary". You have first-hand knowledge of diplomatic processes. Is global diplomacy still working - or is it irreversibly damaged?

It has to work. Should we just let the guns do the talking? Sure, we are seeing the emergence of a multipolar world order, but we are still on a planet where only the US can do certain things. The mitigation of the Iranian attack on Israel on April 13 - the fact that almost no missiles got through was not just due to the "Iron Dome", but to American warships in the region and the coordination of a defense strategy by American intelligence services. What does this have to do with diplomacy? Well, I don't believe in a world in which there will no longer be any superpowers. There will always be superpowers, there will always be countries with enormous military, economic and cultural influence. Countries that are able to help restore peace or destroy other nations at the snap of a finger. And the interests of these countries must be discussed and resolved diplomatically, because the alternative would be ... less than desirable. And if we could even get said superpowers to rally behind a common goal - as unlikely as that may seem at present - imagine how much good could be achieved! A diplomatic solution must be found for Ukraine, a diplomatic solution must be found for the tragedy in Gaza. What other solutions are there? Should the parties involved fight until one side is wiped out? Or, in a worst-case scenario, the whole world?

 

Am I right in assuming that you would regard an isolationist US government - after the elections in November, for example - as devastating for the Middle East?

"Devastating" is a strong term, but such a government would not be good. Who else is exerting pressure for a peaceful solution in our region? China? If the Chinese wanted to, they would have shown more initiative long ago. Of course, they don't have the same historical ties with Israel as the USA - they are not a major arms supplier - but if the Chinese were interested, they could do a lot more. They do want the situation to calm down so that world trade is not disrupted and oil prices do not rise, but they have no principles that would persuade them to act in the Middle East. And the Russians are a completely different issue anyway. Everyone complains about the United States, then a crisis starts and everyone says, "Hey, USA, when are you going to do something about it?" I agree with Michael Mandelbaum's book "The Frugal Superpower": I still much prefer a world in which the USA is powerful to a world in which it is weak.

 

And the United Nations? Is it in decline as an institution - or could it play a more important role again in the future?

The idea that the United Nations is in decline is based on the premise that it has achieved a great deal as an institution in the past: After all, only those who are strong can become weaker. How did this past strength, which many assume, manifest itself? There were clever negotiators, influential secretaries-general ... but did the UN concept work as it should? On the other hand, if we say that diplomacy is the only way out of the geopolitical problems of our time, perhaps we still need to try to restore the "power" of the United Nations in whatever form. I repeat myself, but say it again: more war cannot be the answer.

---

Kim Ghattas is a Lebanese journalist and author. Born in the turmoil of the Lebanese civil war, she developed a strong interest in political and social processes in the Middle East as a teenager - and later analyzed these processes for the "Financial Times" and "The Atlantic", among others. She also worked as a US correspondent for the BBC for several years, focusing primarily on global diplomacy. Today, she primarily writes books, such as her bestseller "Black Wave", which traces the deep rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.