International politics is always filled with the unpredictable. Events occur that regularly surprise even the most assiduous students in the field of international relations. This is precisely the reaction which many had to the large-scale release by the Russian Government of prisoners being held and/or sentenced to extensive terms in the Russian gulag. A similar response occurred when a remote-controlled time bomb exploded in an Iranian Government guest house that killed the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh. It was not the actions themselves that left many observers speechless, but rather the difficulty that many in the West were having determining the timing, the implications, and the consequences that these actions will have on the regional and global stage.
Answers to these questions eventually will become apparent, but there are some curious questions which are very difficult to understand at this time about each event. First, why did President Vladimir Putin decide to complete the prisoner exchange at this time? Second, why did Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu opt to explode the time-bomb against Haniyah at this time., when Israel had apparently planted it in the guest house in Teheran months ago?
President Putin certainly had numerous opportunities for years, if he had so desired, to accept and/or initiate a prisoner exchange. The grand scale on which it was done at this time raises a number of political questions.
Does this decision affect in any way how Putin is perceived in his own country and with respect to the stagnant war waging in Ukraine? While it cannot hurt him it might be seen as an effort to bolster his image in the mind of the Russian people. It also may be preparing the Russians for a possible dramatic internal shift within the Kremlin or vis-à-vis China.
Why would Putin complete this move during the Biden presidency and not wait for a possible Trump re-election? If nothing else the move suggests that Putin may not be so enamored with Trump as he once appeared to be. It might suggest that Putin sees a possible Harris election in November providing more positive opportunities for Russia than what he had previously believed might be forthcoming from a Trump second term. Perhaps Putin also senses the unpredictable nature of what might transpire under Trump.
Did Putin determine that the Russian spies who were imprisoned in the West were potentially too dangerous languishing in foreign incarceration? This is hard to determine, but Putin would always seek to protect any possible leaks that might yet emerge from the prisoners.
For Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu some of his unknown motivations appear to be extremely self-serving, political, and/or personal.
Did the bomb need to be exploded on this visit by Haniyeh if, according to reports, it had been planted in the guest house some time ago? Netanyahu wanted to reiterate to Iran that Israel could strike in numerous ways and with varied technologies should Iran seek to escalate its confrontation with Israel and the West. The fact that Netanyahu apparently did not notify the U.S. of his intentions does not increase his goodwill with the U.S.
Is Netanyahu just not committed to bring the hostages home without totally obliterating Hamas-regardless of the cost in human lives and does he truly believe that such a result will guarantee his reelection? If remaining in power is Netanyahu’s only goal, then undermining any and all peace negotiations is consistent with that strategy.
Did Netanyahu seek to escalate the confrontation with Hamas by creating a confrontation with Iran into which the U.S. inevitably would be drawn? Netanyahu has long sought to push the U.S. into joining Israel in a major effort to remove Iran’s nuclear capability. He believed, perhaps, this action could escalate to a point where it would force the U.S. to step in militarily not exclusively supporting Israel acting as its surrogate.
Is Netanyahu committed to remaining in power at all costs to the hostages, the possibility of a cease-fire, and a possible forthcoming election? Many Israeli observers and analysts are convinced that Netanyahu does not see his career continuing if he ends the Gaza War. He appears to be prepared even to force Israel into the status of a pariah state.
Does Netanyahu expect that after three killings in the month of July--Ismail Haniyeh in Teheran, Hezbollah’s senior military leader Fuad Shukr in Beirut, and Hamas’ military chief Mohammed Deif in Khan Yunis--there is a serious likelihood that Hamas’ leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, suddenly will be prepared to accept a ceasefire and hostage release? What is more likely is that Sinwar will harden his negotiating position or, at least, delay and postpone the resolution of the war and hostage release.
Comments