Benjamin Netanyahu fears the end of the war. He will be confronted with investigation committees and several questions about accountability and errors. For him, the issue is practically about life or death. The issue is more than just about Netanyahu clinging to office to avoid accountability.
True, the prime minister needs to sign off on any assassination operation targeting a major enemy and that may lead to security and political repercussions. But it is also true that the military and security establishment is the one making the list of targets and presenting it to the prime minister to make a choice.
In all likelihood, the latest assassinations in Beirut and Tehran probably reflected the Israeli security establishment’s desire to restore the deterrence power that was shaken to the core by the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation. Image has always been important for Israel. It believes that making enemies pay a hefty price for attacks they have carried out would discourage them from launching new attacks in the future.
Timing has exceptional importance during war. The two assassinations took place soon after Netanyahu stood for the fourth time before the US Congress where he was met with lengthy applause. He mentioned Iran 27 times during his speech and not once did he talk about a ceasefire.
Some would say that Netanyahu reached a conclusion from his visit that the US cannot abandon its defense of Israel despite Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ criticism. Some have said that Netanyahu waited until Hamas was weakened in Gaza before turning to the danger coming from Beirut and Tehran. They believe that the Israeli PM senses that neither Hezbollah nor Tehran want a full-scale war, so he has decided to take the war to them to embarrass them.
Netanyahu has acknowledged that the assassinations leave Iran and Hezbollah with no choice but to retaliate. He then followed this up with the official announcement of the killing of Mohammed al-Deif, the most senior commander in Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades. Perhaps he wanted the next phase of the war to take on the shape of a confrontation with Iran and its allies, rather than the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
He wanted the issue of Iran and its role in the region and its nuclear file to overshadow efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and a settlement and establishment of a Palestinian state. He may want to revive the possibility of an American-Iranian confrontation should the US take part in thwarting an Iranian attack on Israel, especially if Tehran’s allies sought to attack military bases in the region.
Some believe that Netanyahu may be pushing the region to the brink of a full-scale war to put an end to the possibility of an open-ended war of attrition and demand that Iran cease fire on all fronts without exception.
The Israeli military and security establishment is aware that Hezbollah’s rockets and drones can reach any location in Israel. The same can be said of Iran and its rockets and drones. In spite of this, Netanyahu chose to confront the two parties with the possibility of a full-scale war.
Hezbollah cannot refrain from retaliating to the assassination of its senior military commander Fuad Shukr in its stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Iran also cannot refrain from responding to the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
The Israeli establishment is acting as though it wants to shift the war from a confrontation with Yehya al-Sinwar and his agenda to a confrontation with the agenda of the Iranian supreme leader. This is why Netanyahu made it a point to declare on Saturday: “We are waging a multi-front war against Iran and its proxies. We will strike with force every one of its arms.” After ten months, Israel decided to view the Al-Aqsa Flood as if it were the beginning of a coordinated and open war of attrition that is worth stopping with the gamble of taking the region to the edge of a full-scale war.
Netanyahu’s behavior in recent days explains his behavior in the past ten months. A ceasefire was never an option for him even if it were accompanied by the release of hostages. He believed that dealing Hamas and Gaza powerful blows were strategic goals that were far more important than celebrating the return of hostages. Some believe that he is dreaming of dealing Hezbollah the same losses he dealt Hamas despite the differences in their capabilities and arena of confrontation. This also explains why the Biden administration has been incapable of extracting an Israeli position that would help lead to a ceasefire deal.
The Middle East is anxiously waiting for the retaliation. There is a growing fear that the response will be greater than what the region witnessed in April. Questions are also being asked about the limits of the new confrontation. What role will the pro-Iran Iraqi factions play? What about the Houthis and the Syrian front? Will Netanyahu respond to the Iranian strike by taking the battle to the Lebanese arena?
The Middle East has been living on a hot tin plate for decades. The new images are unprecedented and the summer of assassinations and exchanges of blows is growing hotter. What are the limits of Israel’s influence in the region? What are the limits of Iran’s? Can the US accept the change in the “rules of engagement” between Iran and Israel to prevent the region from slipping into a full-scale war?
It is the terrible Middle East where governments are at a loss, armies are confused, factions and American bases are on alert and warships never sleep.
