The week after Syrian rebel fighters took Damascus and Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu took the stand in a Jerusalem courtroom. He told the court that it was absurd that he should have to face trial for corruption while he was leading a war on seven fronts in a region in turmoil.
“A few days ago, a tectonic event happened here that hasn’t happened since the Sykes-Picot Agreement. A reality-changing event that has historic implications, not only for the state of Israel but for all of the superpowers,” he said.
Netanyahu was referring to the secret deal between France and Britain in 1916 to carve up the Ottoman Empire’s provinces in the Levant, which Lenin called “the agreement of the colonial thieves”. In case there was any doubt that the fall of Assad’s regime could see a new redrawing of the map of the Middle East, Israel took the opportunity to move its forces into a buffer zone separating the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights from Syria.
[ Why is Israel bombing Syria?Opens in new window ]
There was scarcely a tremble of displeasure from the United States or the European Union, just as there was none a few days later when Israel announced the expansion of settlements in the Golan Heights. Israel was able to act with the same impunity this year as it marched into southern Lebanon and bombed Beirut for weeks, at the same time as it was building new settlements on the West Bank.
Ukraine: Key events that shaped 2024 and will influence the conflict in 2025
2024 in radio: chaotic exodus of Doireann Garrihy, Jennifer Zamparelli and the 2 Johnnies hangs over 2FM
Shocking crimes, royal illness and Labour’s landslide: The eight big moments that defined 2024 for Britain
A year of devastating climate firsts, a dispiriting outcome to Cop29 and elections where climate was off the radar
But if the guardians of the “rules-based international order” could remain so unmoved by Israel’s campaign in Gaza for more than a year, why should they be troubled by its actions in Lebanon, the West Bank and Syria? As the people of Gaza have been killed, mutilated, starved and left defenceless against disease, the western powers have for the most part wrung their hands, rolled their eyes and carried on arming Israel and supporting it diplomatically.
By mid-December, Israel had killed more than 44,000 people in Gaza, 80 per cent of them in civilian homes and 70 per cent of them women and children.
Children between five and nine years old accounted for more of the dead than any other age group, according to a report published in November by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The 10-14 age group had the second-highest number of deaths, followed by the 0-4 age group.
Much of the Global South has watched events in Gaza with horror and outrage, both at Israel’s actions and at the western powers’ indifference or support for them. Poor countries which have long been sceptical when Europeans and Americans portray themselves as champions of democratic values and the rule of law see Gaza as the most grotesque emblem of western hypocrisy and double standards.
South Africa took a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, arguing that its mass killings in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis it created amounted to genocide against Palestinians. Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Egypt and Colombia are among those intervening in support of South Africa, while those opposed to the case include the US, Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Australia.
For a few months at the beginning of the year, Israel appeared to be getting bogged down in Gaza and the “axis of resistance” including Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran and the Houthis in Yemen was gaining in confidence. But a number of spectacular intelligence coups turned Israel’s fortunes and set in motion a succession of moves that expanded and reshaped the war.
A bomb in Tehran killed Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, on July 31st and at the end of September Israel assassinated Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah. A number of other senior Hizbullah figures were killed around the same time, partially decapitating the organisation as Israeli attacks in Lebanon depleted its forces.
The fall of Assad’s regime in Syria has cut off Iran’s supply line to Hizbullah, which Tehran always envisaged as its first line of defence against Israel. The victorious Syrian rebels were led by an Islamist group backed by Turkey, whose president Recep Tayyip Erdogan hopes to weaken and isolate the Kurds in Syria.
If Turkey is the biggest external beneficiary of the toppling of Assad, Iran is the greatest loser and its leadership has few good options as Israel considers if it now has a unique opportunity to neutralise Tehran as a military threat. The grimmest option is for Iran to accelerate the development of its nuclear weapons programme, although such a move could precipitate a pre-emptive strike from Israel.
China last year brokered a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia that saw the restoration of diplomatic relations and an intriguing option for Tehran is to seek better relations with the Arab states. Now that it has lost its only Arab ally in Syria and with its proxies such as Hizbullah and Hamas weakened, Iran is no longer as capable of destabilising the region and it may conclude that stability is in its interest.
The other big external loser from the fall of Assad is Russia, which offered sanctuary to the fleeing dictator and his family but has lost its only foothold in the Middle East. Russia remains in control of its airbase in Latakia and its Mediterranean naval base at Tartous but it has pulled its forces back from posts elsewhere in the country.
Russia’s setback in Syria comes as it faces new challenges in its war against Ukraine after the US approved the use by Kyiv of its long-range ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russia. But the conflict has become a war of attrition that has seen both sides suffer heavy casualties while neither has captured much territory.
Both Moscow and Kyiv have said they are willing to talk about a ceasefire, although their demands and expectations remain far apart. European diplomats who a few months ago were still rejecting talk of compromise and negotiation as appeasement are now resigned to the prospect of a settlement that could see Russia hold the Ukrainian territory it has captured.
[ Kyiv and Moscow cite conditions after Trump calls for immediate Ukraine ceasefireOpens in new window ]
Their change of outlook is a consequence of Donald Trump’s victory in November’s presidential election after repeated promises to end the war in Ukraine. While Europeans fear that Trump will sacrifice Ukraine for the sake of his friendship with Vladimir Putin, insiders in Moscow expect him to seek something in return.
“The one thing you never want to happen is you never want Russia and China uniting,” Trump told Tucker Carlson in an interview before the election.
“We united them because of the oil. We united them. Biden united them. It’s a shame, the stupidity of what they’ve done. I’m going to have to un-unite them and I think I can do that too.”
Moscow’s relationship with Beijing has deepened since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 as China has become more important as a market for energy and as a supplier of goods no longer available from the West. Beijing has offered diplomatic support too and although it has not offered military aid, the US and the EU claim that Chinese companies are supplying Russia with dual-use goods essential for its war effort.
The relationship is sometimes an uncomfortable one, however, as China’s position as the stronger partner manifests itself in sometimes unsubtle ways. And although Moscow has welcomed the supply of Chinese goods, officials there have been taken aback by the speed with which China has moved to dominate parts of the market.
Putin is unlikely to abandon Xi Jinping for an uncertain future with such an unreliable suitor as Trump. And both China and Russia have an interest in building a multipolar global system to challenge American hegemony.
Beijing is bracing for a trade war with Trump, who has threatened to impose a blanket 60 per cent tariff on all Chinese imports. At a time when the Chinese economy is suffering from weak domestic demand, exports are providing much of the economic growth and such a tariff regime could be a serious blow.
China is ready with retaliatory measures, including the imposition of tariffs on politically sensitive US goods such as agricultural products. And Beijing has already announced restrictions on the export to the US of rare minerals needed for the production of semiconductors.
During the first Trump term, a trade war lasted 18 months until he and Xi struck a deal and China will hope for a similar outcome this time. Trump’s invitation to Xi to attend his inauguration was a friendly gesture, although the Chinese leader turned it down and the incoming president could try to strike an early deal.
Trump has complained about Taiwan “stealing” the American semiconductor industry and some in his circle have expressed scepticism about sending US forces to defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack. Beijing continues to sabre rattle but as the Communist Party leadership focuses on boosting the economy, invading Taiwan seems like a remote prospect.
[ Xi tells Biden that China is ready to work with Trump administrationOpens in new window ]
China got some good news towards the end of the year as South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol was impeached following his brief imposition of martial law. If the constitutional court confirms the impeachment, fresh elections must be called within 60 days.
Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, the favourite to succeed Yoon, wants more cordial relations with Beijing and rejects the idea that South Korea must choose between the US and China. And he has been critical of Yoon for deepening security ties with Japan and Nato, accusing the president of endangering stability on the peninsula.
Elsewhere in Asia, India’s Narendra Modi suffered an unexpected electoral blow this year that saw his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) fail to win a parliamentary majority, forcing it into a coalition. The result emboldened the opposition and India’s civil society and Modi has had to draw back from controversial legislation targeting Muslim charities and a bill to tighten government control over broadcasting and digital content.
In neighbouring Bangladesh, economist Muhammad Yunus, the country’s interim leader, has promised to hold a general election in late 2025 or early 2026. Yunus, a Nobel peace prize winner who pioneered microcredit financing, was appointed the country’s “chief adviser” after a rebellion led by students overthrew former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who fled to India.
As a cold wind blows across the Pacific from the US, China is hoping to improve its relations with Europe which have suffered since the start of the Ukraine war. Beijing has so far not retaliated against the EU’s imposition of higher tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, signalling its enthusiasm for a negotiated settlement to avoid a tariff war.
Trump views America’s alliances as little more than contracts for service, with the US providing security to Europe for what he believes to be too low a charge. Faced with such a capricious figure in the White House, the EU faces the challenge of developing a more independent foreign policy at a time when its two most powerful member-states, France and Germany, are in political turmoil.
Ursula von der Leyen returns to the Berlaymont as president of a new commission in which she will be an even more dominant figure than in the previous one. But as the US under Trump retreats from global leadership and the war in Gaza becomes an ever greater stain on the human conscience, her ardent Atlanticism and her strident support for Israel are more discordant than ever.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis