80 Years of Middle East Turmoil From Israel's Founding to the Gaza War and Beyond

I’ve never been particularly interested in war and politics.

Born in the late 80s, I grew up hearing bits and pieces about the conflicts in the Middle East from the news, but I never really dug into the background. The summer after high school, with time on my hands, I read a book on the five Arab-Israeli wars. Lacking historical context, all I remembered years later were five dates.

As an ordinary person enjoying a (very fortunate) peaceful life in East Asia, I’m more drawn to things that advance humanity, like technology. I’ve always felt that politics, while powerful, has a fleeting impact. Science, technology, and economics, however, ripple through centuries. You can’t neatly separate them, of course, but with limited energy, I chose to focus on the latter.

Recently, after hearing one too many reports about Middle East conflicts, I decided to fill this gap in my knowledge. It all started with a simple question:

When Israel and Iran—countries that don’t share a border—attack each other through the air, how do the neighboring countries whose airspace is violated react?

The short answer is they protest and condemn it, but they are either powerless to stop it or tacitly allow it because their own internal situations are far from stable. As long as the fighting doesn’t spill onto their own soil, they aren’t willing to draw a hard line.

From there, one question led to another. I started chatting with an AI, verifying what I learned, and eventually covered every major event in the Middle East since Israel’s founding. Now that I have a conceptual map of modern Middle Eastern history, I had the AI organize these study notes based on my understanding.

Of course, I don’t plan on becoming a Middle East expert; this is just a starting point. A deep dive into any one of these events would reveal countless complexities that contradict this framework. The calculus of national interests often forces countries and leaders to act against their stated positions—the complexity of history is undeniable. But for an outsider an ocean away, this framework is a useful starting point. It’s a huge leap from knowing nothing at all.

The Middle East, a strategic crossroads of continents, has been a global geopolitical flashpoint since World War II, especially after Israel’s founding in 1948. A tangled web of ethnic, religious, resource, and external power struggles has fueled constant conflict, making the path to peace exceptionally treacherous. These notes offer a chronological review of the region’s major conflicts, analyzing them from the perspectives of Israel, the United States, the Arab world, and Iran. We will also look at the dynamics during periods of relative peace, particularly the intricate relationships within the Arab world.

1. 1948 Arab-Israeli War (War of Independence)

Overview

On May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate for Palestine ended, Israel declared statehood. The next day, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia attacked to prevent the new state’s existence and aid Palestinian Arabs, sparking the war.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: For Israel, this was its “War of Independence”—a fight for its very survival. Facing a multinational invasion, Israel mobilized its entire population. With subtle international support (notably from the U.S. and USSR), it not only defended its territory but also expanded it, securing its existence as a nation.
U.S. Perspective: As an emerging superpower in the early Cold War, the U.S. recognized Israel on its first day. The decision was driven by domestic political support and the strategic goal of backing a pro-Western democracy to counter Soviet influence. At the same time, the U.S. tried to balance its relationships with Arab oil-producing nations.
Arab World’s Perspective: This war is what the Arab world calls the “Nakba,” or the Catastrophe. Arab nations saw Israel’s creation as a violation of Palestinian Arab rights and a threat to the entire Arab nation. However, their coalition was hampered by poor coordination and internal divisions, leading to a bitter defeat. This failure fueled widespread frustration and paved the way for radical nationalism and military coups. In the aftermath, Jordan took control of the West Bank, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip.
Iran’s Perspective: At the time, Iran’s pro-Western Pahlavi dynasty was focused on internal development and its border with the Soviet Union. It had little direct involvement in the conflict and remained relatively neutral, despite general sympathy for the Palestinian cause in the Islamic world.

The Aftermath

The war ended with armistices, not peace treaties, sowing the seeds of future conflict.

Israel’s Perspective: Israel focused on consolidating its new state and territory. It began absorbing waves of Jewish immigrants while building its economy and military, bracing for future conflicts.
U.S. Perspective: While backing Israel, the U.S. also recognized the strategic importance of Arab oil producers and tried to maintain a balance. As the Cold War deepened, America bolstered pro-Western regimes to counter Soviet influence in countries like Egypt and Syria.
Arab World’s Perspective: Humiliation from the defeat spread. An influx of Palestinian refugees created a long-term humanitarian and political crisis in neighboring countries. Secular nationalist movements, like Nasserism in Egypt and the Ba’ath Party in Syria, gained traction, championing pan-Arabism and military might to confront Israel. Tensions mounted between the region’s old monarchies and its new military-nationalist regimes.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran stuck to its pro-Western foreign policy and close ties with the U.S. The Shah focused on modernization and raising Iran’s regional profile but stayed out of the direct Arab-Israeli conflict, prioritizing domestic development and stability.

2. 1956 Suez Crisis

Overview

In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. In response, the UK and France (the canal’s main shareholders) forged a secret alliance with Israel (which saw the move as a threat to its shipping). That October, the trio attacked Egypt, occupying the Canal Zone and the Sinai Peninsula.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel’s goals were to break Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran and crush the Palestinian “Fedayeen” guerillas in Gaza. Though militarily successful, Israel was forced to withdraw under intense U.S. and Soviet pressure, revealing that its military freedom was checked by the great powers.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. opposed the invasion, fearing it would destabilize pro-Western Arab states and give the Soviet Union a foothold in the Middle East. Using its economic and political leverage, the U.S., along with the USSR, forced the invaders to back down. This signaled the shift of power in the Middle East from Britain and France to the U.S.
Arab World’s Perspective: Nasser’s nationalization was hailed as a triumph of national sovereignty. His prestige skyrocketed across the Arab world, and pan-Arab nationalism reached its zenith. Despite the military setback, Egypt won a major political victory, cementing Nasser’s regional leadership. Many Arab nations grew more suspicious of the shadow of Western colonialism.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran maintained its pro-Western stance. The crisis had little direct impact, but the rising tide of nationalism across the region was felt at home.

The Aftermath

After the crisis, UN peacekeepers were deployed to the Sinai, and Israel secured passage through the Straits of Tiran.

Israel’s Perspective: The crisis showed Israel how fragile its military victories could be, leading it to lean more heavily on its relationship with the U.S. for its security. Israel continued to build its military and seek ways to break its diplomatic isolation.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. solidified its role as the dominant Western power in the Middle East, eclipsing Britain and France. It began to intervene more directly, using aid and alliances (like the Baghdad Pact) to cement its influence and counter growing Soviet influence in “progressive” Arab states like Egypt and Syria.
Arab World’s Perspective: Nasser’s pan-Arabism grew, and he courted Syria and Iraq to form a unified Arab federation. This worried conservative monarchies like Saudi Arabia, who preferred cooperation with the West, widening the rift within the Arab world. The Palestinian liberation movement began to chart a new course.
Iran’s Perspective: Under the Shah, Iran became a key pillar of U.S. strategy in the region. Using its oil revenues, Iran strengthened its military and sought to play a larger regional role to counterbalance Arab nationalism.

3. 1967 Six-Day War

Overview

In May 1967, Egypt ordered UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai and again blockaded the Straits of Tiran, escalating regional tensions. On June 5, Israel launched a preemptive strike on Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, destroying their air forces in hours. In a stunning six-day victory, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel framed this as a war of self-defense. Facing mounting military threats and a crippling blockade, it struck first. The victory gave Israel crucial strategic depth and boosted its international standing, but it also created the long-term challenge of governing large occupied territories and a hostile Palestinian population.
U.S. Perspective: While urging restraint before the war, the U.S. quickly backed Israel afterward. With the Cold War in full swing, the U.S. saw Israel as a vital check on Soviet expansion (the USSR was arming Egypt and Syria). U.S. policy tilted heavily toward Israel, though it still promoted peace to maintain stability. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, establishing the “land for peace” principle.
Arab World’s Perspective: The Six-Day War was a humiliating defeat. The loss of strategic territory shattered the credibility of pan-Arab nationalism and damaged Nasser’s leadership. Resistance groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) grew, arguing that Palestinians had to rely on their own strength, not on Arab states. Divisions in the Arab world deepened as some nations soured on direct confrontation with Israel.
Iran’s Perspective: The war reinforced Iran’s pro-Western stance. The Shah saw Israel as a potential partner to balance radical Arab nationalism. Iran’s economy benefited from surging oil revenues, which the Shah used to build a powerful military and establish Iran as a regional power.

The Aftermath

The Six-Day War redrew the map of the Middle East. Israel’s control over the occupied territories became the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel’s Perspective: Israel solidified its control over the new territories and began building Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights—a policy that would become a major obstacle to peace. Israel’s confidence, backed by military might, soared, but it also faced growing international condemnation for the occupation.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. became a more active mediator, sponsoring UN Resolution 242 and its “land for peace” formula, which would anchor future peace talks. America walked a fine line, providing military aid to Israel while trying to manage anti-U.S. sentiment in the Arab world to protect oil supplies.
Arab World’s Perspective: The dream of pan-Arabism lay in tatters. The PLO grew into the primary representative of the Palestinian people, setting up bases in Jordan and Lebanon. This led to conflicts with host governments, like Jordan’s “Black September” in 1970, when the king expelled PLO fighters. Arab states grew more divided on how to confront Israel and deal with the PLO.
Iran’s Perspective: As a key U.S. ally in the Gulf, Iran cemented its regional influence. The Shah used oil wealth to fund an ambitious military and modernization program. However, its pro-Western and quiet pro-Israel policies created distance with more radical Arab states.

4. 1973 Yom Kippur War

Overview

On October 6, 1973—Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism—Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack to reclaim territory lost in 1967. They made initial gains, but Israel, resupplied by a massive U.S. airlift, stabilized the fronts and counter-attacked. The war ended in a tense ceasefire.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Caught off guard by intelligence failures, Israel suffered heavy initial losses. The war shattered the nation’s myth of invincibility. However, with U.S. aid, its military proved resilient. The close call prompted a strategic shift, leading Israel to seek a peace agreement with Egypt.
U.S. Perspective: The war was a major Cold War proxy battle. The U.S. launched “Operation Nickel Grass,” a huge airlift of military hardware, to save Israel and protect its own strategic interests. Afterward, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” brokered a peace process between Egypt and Israel, sidelining the Soviets and stabilizing oil supplies. A retaliatory Arab oil embargo also forced the U.S. to prioritize its relationships with oil-producing nations.
Arab World’s Perspective: Though they didn’t reclaim all their territory, the early military successes restored a sense of dignity, erasing the shame of 1967. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat scored a major political victory, paving the way for peace talks. The oil embargo revealed the Arab world’s economic leverage. However, Egypt’s decision to pursue a separate peace with Israel led to years of isolation from other Arab states.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran remained neutral, but as a major oil exporter, it reaped massive profits from the ensuing oil crisis. This windfall further fueled the Shah’s military buildup and modernization drive, cementing Iran’s role, alongside Saudi Arabia, in America’s “Twin Pillar” strategy for the region.

The Aftermath

The Yom Kippur War led to a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process.

Israel’s Perspective: Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, its most powerful Arab adversary. This was a landmark diplomatic achievement that secured its western border. However, Israel held onto the West Bank and Golan Heights, leaving the Palestinian question unresolved.
U.S. Perspective: Kissinger’s diplomacy cemented America’s role as the indispensable mediator in the Middle East, shutting out the Soviets. The U.S. became the primary sponsor of the peace process and strengthened ties with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to protect oil supplies and promote stability.
Arab World’s Perspective: Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel got it expelled from the Arab League, marking the first major split in the Arab world’s stance on Israel. Hardline states like Syria and Libya rejected peace, while others grew open to negotiations. The PLO, feeling sidelined, began seeking its own political path.
Iran’s Perspective: The oil boom allowed the Shah to accelerate his ambitious military and modernization programs. Iran became a formidable regional power, but its secular, pro-Western policies fueled growing discontent among the country’s religious conservatives, setting the stage for the Islamic Revolution.

5. 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution

Overview

In 1979, the Islamic Revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, toppled Iran’s pro-Western monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. The event fundamentally reshaped Iran’s identity and policies, sending shockwaves across the Middle East and the world.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: A quiet regional partner transformed overnight into a hostile Islamic regime, creating a new and profound strategic threat. The Islamic Republic branded Israel the “Little Satan” and vowed its destruction, making Iran a primary security obsession for Israel.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. lost its most crucial ally in the Middle East, a devastating blow to its regional strategy. The subsequent hostage crisis humiliated America on the world stage. From then on, the U.S. treated Iran’s regime as a “rogue state,” targeting it with sanctions and a policy of containment.
Arab World’s Perspective: The revolution received a mixed reception in the Sunni-dominated Arab world. Some people were inspired by the overthrow of a secular monarch, but most rulers, especially in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, were terrified. They feared Iran’s Shiite character and its vow to “export the revolution” would incite their own populations. The revolution dramatically intensified the Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide.
Iran’s Perspective: The revolution turned Iran from a pro-Western nation into an anti-Western, anti-Israel Islamic state, fiercely independent and committed to “exporting its revolution.” Iran began to position itself as the leader of the Islamic world, challenging U.S. and Israeli power by supporting resistance groups across the region, especially in Lebanon and Palestine.

The Aftermath

The Iranian Revolution radically altered the Middle East’s balance of power.

Israel’s Perspective: Having lost Iran as a strategic buffer, Israel came to see the new regime as a long-term, ideological enemy. This view hardened as Iran began arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups. Israel’s focus shifted to Iran’s nuclear program, which it viewed as an existential threat.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. hit Iran with heavy sanctions and began courting new allies, like Saudi Arabia, to contain Iranian influence. It also boosted its military presence in the region to counter the threat from Tehran.
Arab World’s Perspective: Most Sunni Arab states, particularly the Gulf monarchies, grew deeply wary of Iran’s revolutionary Shiite government. This fear pushed them into a closer military and political embrace with the United States. The revolution sharpened the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites across the region.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran committed itself to spreading its revolutionary ideals. By backing non-state actors like Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, it built a network of influence to wage a long-term struggle against the U.S. and Israel. Iran also began developing a ballistic missile program.

6. 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War

Overview

In September 1980, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, hoping to take advantage of post-revolution chaos in Iran, invaded. The brutal war that followed lasted eight years, killed over a million people, and shattered both economies.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel was happy to see two of its main adversaries bleed each other dry. Though Iraq was a sworn enemy, Israel saw Iran’s new Islamic regime as the greater long-term threat. It adopted a complex and covert strategy to ensure the war dragged on, famously facilitating U.S. arms sales to Iran in the “Iran-Contra Affair.” The goal was to prevent either side from winning decisively, thereby weakening both.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. was officially neutral but, fearing the spread of Iran’s revolution, gradually tilted toward Iraq, providing it with intelligence and economic support. The primary U.S. goal was to prevent an Iranian victory.
Arab World’s Perspective: Most Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, were terrified of Iran’s revolution and backed Iraq with billions in aid. A few, like Syria and Libya, sided with Iran, exposing deep fissures in the Arab world. The war turned Iraq’s army into a regional powerhouse.
Iran’s Perspective: For Iran, the war was a “Sacred Defense” that united the country and consolidated the revolution. The Iranian people showed incredible resilience but paid a terrible price. The war solidified the regime’s power and anti-Western ideology but deepened its rift with most of the Arab world and the U.S.

The Aftermath

The war left Iraq with a powerful army and massive debt, while Iran focused on reconstruction and cementing its revolutionary ideals.

Israel’s Perspective: The immediate military threat from Iran was gone, but the growth of Iraq’s army and its support for Palestinian militants kept Israel on high alert. Israel also remained wary of Iran’s deepening ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
U.S. Perspective: The war boosted U.S. influence, positioning it as a key broker between Iran and Iraq. However, its support for Saddam Hussein’s regime would have fateful consequences.
Arab World’s Perspective: The war weakened both countries but left Iraq as a military giant, which unsettled its Gulf neighbors. The Arab world remained divided on how to handle post-war Iraq and counter Iran’s influence.
Iran’s Perspective: The war hardened the regime’s anti-American and anti-Israel ideology. Iran began rebuilding its military and expanding its regional influence through non-state actors. Relations with most Arab countries remained tense.

7. 1982 Lebanon War

Overview

In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, using an assassination attempt on its ambassador to the UK as a pretext. The stated goals were to destroy the PLO’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon and support a friendly Maronite Christian government. The invasion led to the siege of Beirut, the PLO’s expulsion from the country, and a years-long Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel aimed to end the PLO threat from Lebanon and install a friendly government. It succeeded in driving out the PLO but soon found itself bogged down in Lebanon’s brutal civil war. The long occupation faced fierce resistance, sparked intense controversy at home, and ended with a unilateral Israeli withdrawal in 2000.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. initially supported Israel’s right to self-defense but grew alarmed at the scale of the invasion. It sent Marines as part of a multinational peacekeeping force to oversee the PLO’s evacuation. However, American involvement ended in tragedy with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. The U.S. sought stability but failed to create a pro-American government.
Arab World’s Perspective: The Lebanon War exposed the Arab world’s impotence once again. Many nations condemned the invasion but failed to act. The PLO’s expulsion further weakened Arab support for the Palestinian cause. The war also allowed Syria to deepen its influence in Lebanon and fueled the rise of the country’s Shiite community.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran saw the war as a golden opportunity. With Syria’s help, it sent Revolutionary Guard trainers to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. They helped organize local Shiite militias resisting the Israeli occupation, a process that gave birth to Hezbollah. Hezbollah became Iran’s most successful proxy, a powerful anti-Israel vanguard that dramatically extended Iran’s reach.

The Aftermath

The war left Lebanon in a vortex of civil war and foreign intervention.

Israel’s Perspective: The PLO was gone, but Israel was stuck in the Lebanese quagmire, fighting a long and costly guerrilla war against Hezbollah. The experience profoundly changed Israeli society and politics, prompting a deep rethink of its military intervention policies. Israel finally withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. played a difficult role. Its military intervention failed to stop the fighting and led to American casualties, making Washington more cautious about future entanglements in the Middle East.
Arab World’s Perspective: The focus of the Palestinian struggle began to shift from the PLO to the new Shiite resistance in southern Lebanon. Arab states continued to offer rhetorical support but took little action. Syria’s influence in Lebanon grew stronger.
Iran’s Perspective: This was a major success for Iran’s strategy of exporting its revolution and building a proxy network. The rise of Hezbollah gave Iran a powerful ally on Israel’s border, a cornerstone of its regional strategy. Iran’s influence, channeled through non-state actors, began to grow.

8. 1990-1991 Gulf War

Overview

In August 1990, Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. The UN demanded a withdrawal, and when Iraq refused, a U.S.-led international coalition launched Operation Desert Storm in January 1991, decisively ejecting the Iraqi army from Kuwait.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Though Iraq fired Scud missiles at its cities, Israel—at Washington’s urgent request—did not retaliate. This was to avoid fracturing the U.S.-led coalition, which crucially included several Arab states. The episode underscored the strength of the U.S.-Israel alliance and Israel’s strategic calculations.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. saw the invasion as a direct threat to its interests and the global oil supply. It assembled a vast coalition to uphold international law and restore regional stability. The war was a display of American military and diplomatic power in the new, post-Cold War world.
Arab World’s Perspective: The invasion shattered Arab unity. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria joined the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq. But Jordan, Yemen, and the PLO sided with Saddam, exposing deep divisions. The war left a massive U.S. military footprint in the region, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which angered Islamic radicals.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran remained officially neutral but was privately pleased to see its rival, Saddam Hussein, weakened. Iraq’s defeat and the subsequent UN sanctions greatly reduced the strategic pressure on Iran.

The Aftermath

After the war, Iraq was crippled by years of sanctions and weapons inspections. The U.S. military presence in the Middle East, especially in the Gulf, expanded dramatically.

Israel’s Perspective: With Iraq neutralized, a major threat was removed. The post-war political climate helped accelerate the peace process with the Palestinians, leading to the Oslo Accords and mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO.
U.S. Perspective: U.S. influence in the Middle East reached an all-time high. It sponsored a new round of peace talks, trying to use its post-war leverage to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the long-term stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil planted the seeds for future anti-American terrorism.
Arab World’s Perspective: The war deepened the rift between pro-Western conservative states and pan-Arab nationalists. Some governments forged closer ties with the U.S., but Iraq’s defeat and the enduring U.S. military presence fueled popular resentment and provided fertile ground for Islamic extremism.
Iran’s Perspective: With Iraq weakened, Iran’s international isolation began to ease, allowing it to assert more influence in the Persian Gulf. It continued to build up its military and deepen ties with proxies like Hezbollah, preparing for the next phase of its regional strategy.

9. Second Palestinian Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada, 2000-2005)

Overview

In 2000, a provocative visit by Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem ignited Palestinian fury, sparking a new uprising. The Second Intifada was far deadlier than the first, defined by a brutal cycle of Palestinian suicide bombings and massive Israeli military crackdowns.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel saw the intifada as a wave of terrorism threatening its citizens. It responded with overwhelming force, launching large-scale incursions into Palestinian cities and building a controversial separation barrier. The violence shattered the Israeli public’s faith in the peace process.
U.S. Perspective: The intifada coincided with the 9/11 attacks, which shifted America’s focus to a global war on terror. While the U.S. made attempts to mediate, its priority was now counter-terrorism, not Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The peace process ground to a halt.
Arab World’s Perspective: Arab nations sympathized with the Palestinians and condemned Israel’s actions, but their response was muted. Preoccupied with domestic issues and their own role in the war on terror, their ability to intervene was limited. Disappointment with the Palestinian Authority’s leadership grew, while support for armed groups like Hamas increased.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran staunchly backed the Palestinian resistance, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It saw the struggle as a key front in its fight against U.S. and Israeli power. Through funding and weapons, Iran significantly boosted its influence over the Palestinian cause.

The Aftermath

The Second Intifada left Israeli-Palestinian relations in ruins and the peace process dead.

Israel’s Perspective: The violence destroyed any remaining illusions about the Oslo process, leading Israel to adopt a security-first approach. It built the separation barrier and, in 2005, unilaterally withdrew its settlers and troops from Gaza, only to impose a tight blockade on the territory.
U.S. Perspective: After 9/11, the U.S. strategic focus was entirely on the war on terror. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was relegated to a lower priority. The U.S. paid lip service to a “two-state solution,” but with little real pressure or investment, the process stagnated.
Arab World’s Perspective: The Palestinian issue began to fade as a priority for many Arab governments, who were more concerned with domestic stability and the threat of extremism. A bitter power struggle erupted between the Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, leading to Hamas’s takeover of Gaza in 2007 and a geographic and political split of the Palestinian leadership.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran exploited the Palestinian divisions, strengthening its support for Hamas and other militant groups. This enhanced its role as a power broker on the Palestinian stage and allowed it to pose a more direct threat to Israel.

10. 2001 War in Afghanistan

Overview

After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan. The goal was to overthrow the Taliban regime, which had sheltered Al-Qaeda, and dismantle the terrorist network.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: As a key U.S. ally, Israel fully supported the war on terror, seeing it as part of the same fight against the extremist groups that targeted it.
U.S. Perspective: The 9/11 attacks were a national trauma that put counter-terrorism at the center of U.S. foreign policy. The invasion of Afghanistan kicked off the “Global War on Terror,” a long and costly campaign that would dramatically reshape U.S. priorities in the Middle East.
Arab World’s Perspective: Most Arab governments officially backed the U.S. campaign, but public opinion was divided, torn between condemning terrorism and fearing American military intervention. The Saudi government, embarrassed by Al-Qaeda’s origins, scrambled to distance itself from extremism.
Iran’s Perspective: As a long-time enemy of the Taliban, Iran initially welcomed the U.S. invasion and even provided some covert assistance. But as the U.S. military footprint in the region grew, Tehran grew wary, fearing it might be next on Washington’s list.

The Aftermath

The war quickly toppled the Taliban, but the U.S. and its allies soon found themselves mired in a long and difficult counter-insurgency campaign.

Israel’s Perspective: The war had little direct impact on Israel, though it worried that America’s focus on counter-terrorism might divert attention from the growing threat of Iran’s nuclear program.
U.S. Perspective: The Afghanistan war was the first chapter in the war on terror. It set the stage for a dramatic shift in U.S. military deployments and strategic thinking, leading directly to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and a new focus on combating non-state actors.
Arab World’s Perspective: The war amplified fears of extremism across the Arab world but also deepened mistrust of U.S. military intervention. Some regimes ramped up their counter-terrorism cooperation with the U.S., while others struggled to contain the spread of radical ideas at home.
Iran’s Perspective: The fall of the Taliban was an initial win for Iran, but the growing U.S. military presence on its borders made Tehran feel encircled. It responded by accelerating its own defense and nuclear programs.

11. 2003 Iraq War (Second Gulf War)

Overview

In March 2003, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq, bypassing the UN Security Council. The stated justification was that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and supported terrorism. The regime was quickly toppled, but no WMDs were found, and Iraq plunged into years of sectarian bloodshed and chaos.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel strongly supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, seeing him as a dangerous enemy who threatened it with WMDs and sponsored Palestinian militants. The war removed a major threat, but the ensuing chaos in Iraq and the rise of Iranian influence created new and complex challenges.
U.S. Perspective: The Bush administration saw the invasion as a key front in the war on terror, aiming to remove a hostile regime and spread democracy. The reality was a costly occupation, a bloody civil war, the birth of new and even more virulent extremist groups (like ISIS), and a severe blow to American power and prestige.
Arab World’s Perspective: The war was deeply divisive. Few mourned Saddam’s regime, but the unauthorized invasion and occupation of a major Arab state by a Western power ignited widespread anti-American rage. The war unleashed a wave of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites that destabilized the entire region. Some Arab governments feared a U.S. campaign to forcibly remake the region, while others quietly worried that the war would empower Iran.
Iran’s Perspective: For Iran, the war was a “strategic gift.” The U.S. had eliminated its mortal enemy, Saddam Hussein, relieving immense military pressure. Iran moved quickly to fill the power vacuum, using its deep ties to Iraq’s long-oppressed Shiite majority to build political influence and sponsor powerful militias. The war gave Iran unprecedented strategic depth and a dominant role in Iraq.

The Aftermath

The war shattered Iraq’s state and society, unleashing a brutal sectarian civil war and creating the conditions for the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS).

Israel’s Perspective: The conventional threat from Iraq was gone, but Israel became increasingly alarmed by Iran’s growing influence in Iraq and neighboring Syria. It saw this as a new and dangerous strategic threat, and began conducting regular airstrikes in Syria to degrade Iran’s military presence and stop weapons transfers to Hezbollah.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. found itself trapped in a costly and demoralizing nation-building quagmire. The war failed to create a stable democracy, instead fueling regional instability and ISIS. The drain on U.S. resources and credibility accelerated a strategic re-evaluation, leading to the “pivot to Asia.”
Arab World’s Perspective: The war tore the Arab world further apart. Sunni-Shiite tensions exploded, fueling a series of proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran in places like Syria and Yemen. Many Arab states watched with alarm as Iraq disintegrated and Iran’s influence grew.
Iran’s Perspective: The war was a strategic windfall. By backing pro-Iranian political forces and militias in Iraq, Iran successfully built a “Shiite Crescent”—a land bridge of influence stretching from Tehran to Beirut. This dramatically expanded its regional power and put it in a stronger position to challenge its adversaries.

12. 2010 “Arab Spring”

Overview

In late 2010, a popular uprising in Tunisia sparked a chain reaction of protests, revolts, and civil wars across the Arab world. The “Arab Spring” toppled long-standing dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen and plunged Syria into a brutal civil war.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel watched the “Arab Spring” with deep apprehension. The instability on its borders was a major threat. It feared that collapsing regimes in Egypt and Syria could be replaced by radical Islamists or create lawless vacuums for terrorist groups.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. initially supported the protestors’ calls for democracy but grew more cautious as the region descended into chaos. Its policy shifted toward prioritizing stability over democratic reform. America’s influence was challenged, and it began to reduce its regional footprint and “pivot to Asia.”
Arab World’s Perspective: The “Arab Spring” tore the region apart. Tunisia managed a fragile transition to democracy, but Libya, Yemen, and Syria collapsed into devastating civil wars. Monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain brutally crushed their own protests. The upheaval intensified sectarian conflicts, proxy wars between regional powers (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE), and the fragmentation of the Arab world.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran initially celebrated the uprisings as an “Islamic Awakening,” hoping to ride the wave of popular discontent. It threw its support behind its ally, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and strengthened its ties with the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq, using the regional chaos to expand its own influence.

The Aftermath

The “Arab Spring” left a legacy of failed states, brutal civil wars, and humanitarian disasters. The chaos fueled the rise of extremist groups like ISIS and created massive refugee crises.

Israel’s Perspective: Facing a more volatile neighborhood, Israel became more pragmatic. In Syria, it focused on preventing Iran from establishing a permanent military base and arming Hezbollah. The shared threat of Iran also led to quiet but growing cooperation between Israel and several Gulf states.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. learned a hard lesson about the costs and complexities of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Its focus shifted back to counter-terrorism and stability. The Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia” signaled a broader U.S. strategic retreat from the region, pushing allies to take on more responsibility for their own security.
Arab World’s Perspective: The Arab Spring left the region more divided than ever. The Sunni-Shiite sectarian rivalry played out in brutal proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. Led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, a new bloc of assertive monarchies emerged, intervening in regional conflicts to counter Iranian influence. Traditional pan-Arab nationalism faded, replaced by more sectarian and tribal identities.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran skillfully exploited the regional chaos to deepen its influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Its intervention in Syria was decisive in saving the Assad regime, securing its crucial “Shiite Crescent.” The regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia intensified, reaching new heights of hostility.

13. The Rise of ISIS and Regional Conflicts (Syria, Yemen, Libya)

Overview

From the wreckage of the Iraq War and the Syrian Civil War, the “Islamic State” (ISIS) emerged. The extremist group seized vast territories, proclaimed a “caliphate,” and unleashed a campaign of horrific terrorism. This prompted a global military campaign to defeat it and fueled complex, multi-sided civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel viewed ISIS as a threat but was far more concerned with the growing power of Iran-backed forces, like Hezbollah and Shiite militias, in the Syrian civil war. It conducted frequent airstrikes in Syria to counter Iran’s military presence.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. identified ISIS as a major global threat and assembled an international coalition to destroy it. At the same time, it struggled to navigate the Syrian civil war, supporting moderate rebels while trying to contain Iranian expansion.
Arab World’s Perspective: ISIS was a direct threat to every Arab state. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt joined the military campaign against it. However, the civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya also became battlegrounds for the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, further deepening regional divisions. The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen against the Iran-backed Houthis is a prime example.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran moved aggressively to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria, supporting local governments and Shiite militias. This intervention was crucial in defeating ISIS on the ground, but it also allowed Iran to cement its influence along the “Shiite Crescent.” Iran continued to see the U.S. military presence as the main threat and used its proxy network to counter American and Israeli power.

The Aftermath

Though the ISIS “caliphate” was destroyed, its ideology endures. The civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya grind on, causing immense human suffering.

Israel’s Perspective: While contributing to the anti-ISIS fight, Israel’s primary focus remained on containing Iran’s military expansion, especially in Syria. The shared threat of Iran accelerated a historic realignment, bringing Israel and several Sunni Gulf states, like the UAE, closer together, culminating in the Abraham Accords.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. led the military campaign that crushed ISIS but also continued its strategic withdrawal from the Middle East, relying more on regional partners and a “light footprint” approach. The goal was to shift resources toward great-power competition with China and Russia.
Arab World’s Perspective: The fight against ISIS reshuffled regional alliances. An assertive new bloc, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, emerged. They adopted more aggressive foreign policies, normalized relations with Israel to counter Iran, and sought foreign investment. This, however, further eroded the traditional Arab consensus on the Palestinian issue.
Iran’s Perspective: Through its deep involvement in the region’s wars, Iran built a powerful “Axis of Resistance.” It greatly enhanced its strategic influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The “shadow war” between Iran and Israel escalated, playing out through cyberattacks, assassinations, and proxy skirmishes, becoming one of the region’s most dangerous flashpoints.

14. Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Gaza War (to the present)

Overview

Since the Second Intifada, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has festered. The peace process is nonexistent, Israeli settlements on the West Bank have expanded, and the Gaza Strip has endured a crippling blockade, punctuated by periodic, brutal wars between Israel and the ruling Hamas militant group. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a devastating attack on Israel, triggering a massive Israeli invasion of Gaza and a new, catastrophic chapter in the conflict.

Perspectives

Israel’s Perspective: Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization and frames its military actions in Gaza as self-defense, aimed at destroying the group’s military capabilities and protecting its citizens. It continues to maintain tight security control over the West Bank and support settlement growth as a strategic imperative.
U.S. Perspective: The U.S. remains a staunch supporter of Israel’s security but has also called for the protection of Palestinian civilians and nominally supports a “two-state solution.” However, its leverage is limited, and its strategic focus has shifted toward great-power competition and away from active Mideast peacemaking.
Arab World’s Perspective: Despite the Abraham Accords, which saw countries like the UAE and Bahrain normalize ties with Israel, the Palestinian cause remains a powerful issue on the “Arab street.” The war in Gaza has sparked widespread popular outrage, forcing Arab governments to walk a tightrope between condemning Israel and protecting their own national interests and newfound alliances.
Iran’s Perspective: Iran is a key patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and its support for the Palestinian “resistance” is a central pillar of its anti-U.S., anti-Israel foreign policy. Through its network of proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, Iran poses a multi-front threat to Israel and plays a pivotal role in regional conflicts.

The Aftermath

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in a downward spiral, with peace looking more distant than ever. The expansion of Israeli settlements continues, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached catastrophic levels.

Israel’s Perspective: Despite the new ties with some Arab states, the Palestinian issue remains Israel’s most intractable challenge. Israel is focused on maintaining its military edge against threats like Hamas and Hezbollah while weathering a storm of international criticism over its occupation and the war in Gaza.
U.S. Perspective: America’s strategic retreat from the region has weakened its ability to mediate. It continues to endorse a two-state solution, but with little real action. Washington is more focused on managing its Gulf alliances to counter the regional challenge from Iran.
Arab World’s Perspective: The Arab world is no longer united on Palestine. For some governments, shared economic interests and a common fear of Iran have made partnership with Israel a strategic priority. This was the driving force behind the Abraham Accords. Yet the Palestinian cause remains a deeply emotional issue for the public, and the war in Gaza can still ignite mass protests.
Iran’s Perspective: The “shadow war” between Iran and Israel is escalating across the region, fought with cyberattacks, assassinations, proxy strikes, and missile threats. Iran continues to strengthen its “Axis of Resistance,” using the Palestinian cause as a rallying cry in its quest for regional leadership and its long struggle against the U.S. and Israel.

Summary

A look back at the Middle East since 1948 reveals an epic of turmoil, confrontation, and relentless change.

Israel: From a desperate fight for survival to a regional military superpower, its security has always been the driving concern. Yet it remains burdened by the unending Palestinian conflict and regional isolation.
United States: From Cold War containment to the War on Terror and now to great-power competition, the U.S. has been the region’s most powerful external actor, its policies constantly shifting between securing oil, backing allies, and promoting stability.
The Arab World: After the dream of pan-Arabism rose and fell, it never managed to form a united front against Israel or external intervention. It remains fractured by sectarian divides, rivalries between monarchies and republics, and the competing interests of its leaders, making internal splits and proxy wars the norm.
Iran: From a pro-Western monarchy to a revolutionary anti-Western republic, Iran’s transformation has upended the region’s geopolitics. Through its proxy network, nuclear program, and challenge to American power, Iran has become a formidable force, locked in a cold war with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S.

Every conflict in the Middle East is more than a military clash; it’s a complex brew of politics, economics, and religion. Eras of war and peace bleed into one another. Old problems remain unsolved as new ones emerge. The struggle for oil, great-power meddling, nationalism, extremism, and the unresolved Palestinian question have all shaped the turbulent and challenging Middle East of today.

Postscript

Before you know the history, you might wonder why Israel would fight so many countries at once. Weren’t there less risky options? Even with a stronger military, isn’t it better to avoid a multi-front war?

This is a common misconception for people who live in stable, unified countries. In most of these conflicts, Israel wasn’t fighting whole nations, but specific factions within internally fractured states. To understand the Middle East, you can’t see its countries as monolithic blocs; they are deeply divided, with competing factions and agendas.

The Arab world itself is a web of contradictions: old grudges between regimes, the Sunni-Shiite schism, the clash between monarchies and nationalist movements. The creation of Israel, combined with superpower meddling, threw all these volatile elements into a blender. Some conflicts were aimed at Israel, but many others were between Middle Eastern states themselves or within them.

As these notes show, the focus of conflict within the Arab world has constantly shifted over the past 80 years, becoming too complex to easily summarize. Arch-enemies can find common ground, and the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend—this is the nature of politics. The shifting attitudes of some Arab states toward Israel show that for any government, a hostile nation-state is not the only threat, and often not even the biggest one. A nation’s goals are never singular; they are incredibly complex.

History, moreover, is rarely controlled by a single actor. Even a power as formidable as the United States has failed to maintain a consistent strategy in the Middle East. Unforeseen events have constantly forced it to shift priorities, and its immense investment of blood and treasure has not always produced the desired results.

So, why did I compile such a long set of notes?

Just one reason: to learn. To understand a little more, and to have something to look back on when I forget.

I have no value judgments about this history; I don’t have them for any history. There are only details—more details, and endless details. When you piece enough of them together, you get a story about what you want, what I want, and how we all fight to get it.