We are witnessing significant changes as a result of the ongoing conflict between the two regional powers, Iran and Israel, which has been escalating since last October. We are in an advanced stage of the conflict, with both sides defending their positions and attempting to exploit the crisis to weaken the other.
In these confrontations, Israel has emerged as more powerful and aggressive on all fronts, seemingly indifferent to the potential risks. The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the chief negotiator for Hamas, in an act that violates even the norms between warring enemies, is an example of this, as it was carried out on Iranian soil on the first day of the new president’s term.
Israel also destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus and killed a commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) abroad, actions that also violate international law, though Israel insists the building was not under diplomatic immunity. This is in addition to the ongoing daily military operations in Gaza, resulting in unprecedented levels of killing and destruction.
Why does Israel present itself as more powerful, bold, and ruthless? Netanyahu explained in an interview with Time magazine that the primary and most important reason is the restoration of Israeli deterrence.
Israel has launched direct attacks on the heart of Iran, abandoning decades of the prevailing regional warfare strategy, which was limited to skirmishes with Tehran’s regional proxies. Simultaneously, its attacks on these proxies have become more violent; Israel has crippled Yemen’s Hodeidah port, almost the only one available to the Houthis, setting fire to dozens of oil tankers and destroying cargo cranes there.
Against Hezbollah, Israel has assassinated its most prominent leaders in operations demonstrating its technical and intelligence superiority, and it has also eliminated a full cadre of Hamas leaders in Beirut, Tehran, and Gaza itself.
The final point is Netanyahu’s ability to maintain his leadership despite heavy losses; the number of Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza now surpasses Israel’s losses in the 1967 War, the War of Attrition, and the 1973 War combined, yet he still enjoys overwhelming popular support in Israel.
Israel’s new policy is one of excessive force, limitless revenge, and reckless bravery that could ignite a wide regional war.
The logical explanation for these changes and behavior is the October 7 attack, which Israel viewed as an existential threat, and its current battles aim to restore its influence and image. In truth, the existential fear didn’t originate from that moment alone, but from years of successful Iranian encroachment that has now surrounded Israel – from the east with Iraq, from the north with Syria and Lebanon, from within with Hamas in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, and the Houthis in the far south. The large-scale October attack can be seen as a natural outcome of Hamas’s confidence in Iran’s growing power.
The current war will pause temporarily for a few years, but with the continued pressure from the Iranian encirclement, Israel’s options will become tougher – either direct war with the master in Tehran or making significant regional concessions to him, with the understanding that nuclear weapons are only usable in a total destructive war, or if Iranian forces reach the gates of Jerusalem, all of which are unrealistic scenarios.
Washington is pressing Bibi Netanyahu to accept ending the Gaza war, but he continues to stall, aiming to extend the conflict for a full year, marking the anniversary of the Hamas attack, which is just two months away. If Iran and Hezbollah launch their expected retaliatory attack on Israel, the crisis may accelerate towards a political solution rather than the opposite, because both Israel and Iran understand the dangers of escalation, which began like a slow tennis match and has grown as attacks are exchanged.
The war was initially contained regionally, but now Russia has entered the fray, providing Iran with defensive weapons this week to “protect” Iran against Israel’s superior air power, with a suggestion from Putin to execute a “restrained response” against Israel, “avoiding civilian casualties.” This effectively announces Russia’s involvement, just as it did in the Syrian war.
Russia has different objectives; it is neither with Iran nor against Israel. Russia seeks to expand crises in East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa to pressure Washington to halt the war in Ukraine. With these new developments – the American Iron Dome in Israel and Russian missiles in Iran – the balance of power returns, highlighting the need for a peaceful solution to avoid the risks of escalation and deadly errors in military operations that could lead to a full-scale regional war.
