Israel-Gaza: How serious is the spread of conflict in the Middle East? How does the role of the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Yemen matter to the outcome?

The war in Gaza has sparked a series of other events in the Middle East

When US secretary of state Antony Blinken flew to Saudi Arabia for his fifth trip to the Middle East in the past four months, he had been hoping for a breakthrough on finally restoring diplomatic relations between the Gulf nation and Israel – and paving the way for peace in the Middle East.

The rift between the two nations had shown some signs of returning to normality last year, with one government official stating he believed normalisation with Israel “would bring significant benefits” to the region.

In October, Hamas militants launched an unprecedented attack on Israeli soil, killing more than 1,000 people and taking around 240 hostages, sparking retaliatory Israeli strikes which have decimated much of Gaza. Any chance of an imminent “normalisation” of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia instantly disappeared – while the conflict fuelled flash points springing up around the region.

People assess the damage caused by Israeli bombardment in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip as battles continue between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas movement. Picture: Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images

In the north of Israel, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and militant group, has repeatedly fired missiles over the border, increasing attacks in response to specific events in the war, such as this month’s killing of Sheikh Saleh al-Arouri, a Hamas leader in Beirut.

Meanwhile, the US and UK have launched attacks on assets held by Yemen-based militant group the Houthis, following a spate of attacks on international ships in the Red Sea. A drone attack was separately carried out on a US military base in Jordan, which killed three soldiers and which Washington has claimed has hallmarks of the Kataib Hezbollah militia. The Shia militant group is allied to Tehran, as are Hamas and Hezbollah, and seeks to reduce western influence in the Middle East.

On Wednesday, a US drone attack targeted a car in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killing three members of Kataib Hezbollah, including a high-ranking commander.

Mr Blinken’s visit, which was focused predominantly on helping to broker a now-stalled ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, included visits to Egypt and Qatar, as well as Saudi Arabia. This was expected to have focused economic investment and interest in Gaza as part of any agreement to normalise of relations with Israel, which it has never formally recognised as a state since its creation in 1948.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrives to board a plane bound for Cairo at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh. Picture: AFP via Getty Images

“The shortest route to Mideast peace is through Saudi Arabia,” says Haisam Hassanein, adjunct fellow at US think-tank The Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Washington should directly involve Riyadh in any talks regarding the future of Gaza. The kingdom has the regional clout and financial power to make things possible. Riyadh is heavily invested in countering extremism spread by the Iranian axis, which it sees as having hijacked the Palestinian question.”

When the Riyadh government issued a formal statement following Monday’s talks, its position was clear and sent a strong message in support of Palestine.

“The Kingdom has communicated its firm position to the US administration that there will be no diplomatic relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and that the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip stops and all Israeli occupation forces withdraw from the Gaza Strip,” said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, adding it wanted to achieve "a comprehensive and just peace for all”.

"Many people would say that this [Saudi Arabia’s potential involvement in Gaza] alarmed the Iranians, and at least part of the October 7 attacks were about thwarting this Saudi intervention in Gaza,” says Dr Wassim Naboulsi, international relations lecturer at the University of St Andrews. “The Iranians wanted to continue their monopoly over the decision and over the political life in Gaza and didn't want to see the Saudis sharing them.

"Of course, there are different opinions here and you cannot be sure. But it tells you how important this diplomatic trajectory before October 7 was important.”

Dr Naboulsi said the strong statement was a signal to Israel about its role in the future of Gaza.

"It tells you that the Saudis are interested in the Palestinian case and they are raising the discourse because they want to get some legitimacy from the Palestinians,” he said.

Israel has rejected Hamas proposals in response to a ceasefire plan drawn up between the US, Israel, Qatar and Egypt.

Under the Hamas plans, all hostages would be released in exchange for hundreds of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel, including senior militants, and would signal an end to the war. However, it would also effectively leave Hamas in power in Gaza and allow it to rebuild its military capabilities, which stands starkly against Israel’s expectations of what is has dubbed “life after Hamas”.

The Israeli side of the proposals was believed to have included a six-week ceasefire, although the full details have not been published.

Dr Naboulsi said he believed all sides involved in the various conflict hot-spots resulting from the Gaza conflict wanted to avoid further escalation.

“Clearly, none of the involved parties is willing to go into an open war or into more escalation,” he said. “Each one of them is playing a very calculated action and reaction, just to make sure that they can maintain their position of power. But at the same time, they don't want things to blow up.”

He said while attacks on American military in Iraq has been a common occurrence in recent years, the difference this time is its connection to the war in Gaza.

"One logic here is that these [militant groups] are proxies, mainly moved by the Iranians and once things stop in Gaza, they will stop the Houthis from continuing,” he said. “But there is another opinion that says yes, they are proxies, but they do have their own agency and they have been hit hard by the Americans in the last few days and key figures have been targeted.

"You cannot guarantee that they will retaliate for any reason. At least they want to maintain some kind of respect or legitimacy within the Arab population, but they would not have the capacity to go into an open war with the United States.”

Reports claimed earlier this week the US, along with the UK, France, Germany and Italy, is expected to announce proposals to calm the situation between Israel and Hezbollah in a bid to prevent an all-out war between the two sides.

"Hezbollah has said it considers its front with Israel to be a supporting front to lighten the burden on Gaza,” said Dr Naboulsi, adding any agreement needed to allow both sides to publicly claim a victory. “[Israel prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu was definitely ready to use the existential crisis in Israel after the October 7 attacks, to say that we Israelis are not feeling safe anymore, and we want to secure our northern front.”

Initially unquestionably backed by Western governments following the October 7 attacks, Israel is now becoming increasingly isolated as it faces a backlash over its unrelenting attacks on the civilian population in Gaza.

The dire humanitarian situation has led some world leaders to call for a ceasefire. South Africa took its displeasure one step further and lodged a request with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Israel was responsible for violations of the Genocide Convention in respect of its actions taken in Gaza – and requesting a complete cessation of military actions.

Once one of Israel’s most staunch allies – Washington has given unconditional aid totalling $158 billion [£125bn, not adjusted for inflation] since the Second World War, more than the US has given to any other nation – distance has grown between the US and Mr Netanyahu, chiefly over what should happen to Gaza after the war.

A January phone call saw US president Joe Biden and Mr Netanyahu clash again over the prospect of a two-state solution, although an official statement from the White House claimed the Israeli leader still saw a “possibility” of the resolution in some form.

Meanwhile, more general Western diplomacy has seen a concerted push in that direction, with UK government and US government politicians speaking out within hours of each other last week about the possibility of formally recognising Palestine as a state.

Even states which have fallen short of calling for a ceasefire have urged Israel to allow humanitarian aid safe passage to Gaza. However, this has become even more difficult following many countries’ controversial defunding of the United Nations’ Palestinian refugee aid arm, UNWRA, amid Israeli claims that up to 12 of its 13,000 staff members had been involved in the October 7 attacks.

More than half of Gaza’s two million-strong population are sheltering in Rafah, near the Egyptian border, where it is believed a ground assault is imminent.

Charity ActionAid has warned any intensification in attacks on Rafah, where it says people have been forced to resort to eating grass to survive, would have “utterly disastrous” consequences.

“People are now so desperate that they’re eating grass in a last attempt to stave off hunger,” says Riham Jafari, advocacy and communications coordinator at ActionAid Palestine. “Meanwhile infections and diseases are running rampant amid such overcrowded conditions. The only thing that will stop this situation spinning even further out of control is an immediate and permanent ceasefire – it's the only way to stop more lives being lost and to allow enough life-saving aid to enter the territory.”

Last month, the ICJ ruling stated Israel should comply with international law on genocide – although fell short of demanding a full ceasefire.

Dr Henry Lovat, senior lecturer in international law and politics at Glasgow University, said he believed international law would have little impact on how the Middle East situation unfolds, arguing the ICJ has no real enforcement powers of its own and is largely reliant on the UN Security Council for enforcement of its decisions.

"Within the UN institutional framework, ultimately only the Security Council has the power – formally at least – to require states to conduct themselves in a particular manner – that is, to produce so-called ‘binding’ resolutions,” said Dr Lovat.

"The General Assembly is an important forum for debate, and its resolutions may, of course, have normative, discursive, or social impact, but it doesn't have the capacity to bind states to legal obligations." He said the ICJ’s influence was more likely to come from a social or discursive impact – rather than a binding judgement that will be obeyed.

“That's where I suspect you'll see the major influence of the ICJ proceedings, at least in the near term – arising, if you like, principally from the fact of the case existing and seeming to ‘have legs’, rather than reflecting any particular decisions or elements,” he said.

He warned repeated international pressure on organisations such as ICJ to make sweeping demands, which it knows are unlikely to be followed, could be detrimental.

"You perhaps see that in the Ukraine versus Russia case, for example, again in respect of the Genocide Convention, where the ICJ ordered Russia to ‘immediately suspend … military operations’, without much prospect of compliance,” he said.

"These situations, where there isn't really even that minimal, realistic prospect of compliance, risk negatively affecting not just perceptions of the state in question, but also perceptions of the court, encouraging those who would dismiss the ICJ as ‘ineffective’ – for example, in part by setting unrealistic expectations.”

He pointed to the existence of a UN peacekeeping force deployed along the active conflict zone of the Israel-Lebanon border, alongside Security Council attempts to call for the disarmament of the Lebanese party and militant group, as well as efforts to impose international legal constraints on Iran's nuclear programme.

"The prospect of international law and UN institutions alone proving sufficient to maintain order generally, let alone in the Middle East, seems remote,” he said.