The Conversation: Netanyahu risks regional war in effort to remain in power
Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah military leader HezkFuad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran have raised again the specter of a regional war involving regional adversaries — one that could suck the U.S. in.
By targeting top leaders in foreign capitals, Israel has demonstrated willingness to risk an escalation of conflict into new fronts. It comes despite conflicting signals, at best, of Israeli Defense Force readiness for a full-scale war.
As a scholar of Lebanon and Israel, I have followed events with growing concern.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be betting Iran and Hezbollah rather engage in continued attrition against Israel than engage head-on. If so, it’s a risky strategy, as miscalculation could prove catastrophic.
Shukr was assassinated as part of tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah that have been continuing since Oct. 8, the day after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel, prompting the heavy and ongoing response in Gaza. In particular, it came in retaliation for the killing of 12 children on July 28 in the Golan Heights.
The killing was a bold and risky move, carried out despite repeated warnings not to target Lebanon’s capital.
Israel pushed the limits of the “rules of the game” in its post-Oct. 7 war of attrition with Hezbollah. Until now, the Lebanese capital was targeted only once — the Jan. 2 assassination of Hamas leader Saleh Arouri.
Back then, it was assumed Hezbollah would not escalate the conflict for the sake of the death of a Palestinian leader, important as he may have been. But there is little doubt it will respond to this new attack.
The assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran was done in the context of Israel’s declared commitment to kill all Hamas leaders involved in the Oct. 7 massacre, though it has not officially claimed responsibility, as is its usual practice.
Israel reportedly guaranteed Haniyeh’s host country of Qatar that it would not target Hamas leaders there. It also avoided targeting him during his recent visit to Turkey, potentially out of concern of further alienating Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Instead, it appears Israel waited for an opportunity at a different spot — one that would send a clear message not only to Hamas, but also to Iran, Israel’s main regional adversary and Hamas’ main sponsor.
That put Iran in an embarrassing position, as it openly violated Iranian sovereignty at the time when the regime was preparing to celebrate inauguration of a new president.
The attack demonstrates two things: Iran’s vulnerability and Israel’s capability. Taken either way, it exposes the Iranian regime’s weaknesses.
The last time Iran’s sovereignty was violated by Israel — during an April 1 attack on its embassy in Damascus — the response rained hundreds of missile and drone attacks on Israel.
The assassinations have presumably closed the door on chances of a cease-fire agreement in Gaza, coupled with release of Israeli hostages. They have also made the war of attrition between Israel and Hezbollah more volatile.
All parties, including Israel, seem aware full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest. But the region is, nonetheless, inching toward that possibility. Meanwhile, Israel is facing major internal challenges to its political system and the rule of law.
The war in Gaza has brought to the fore forces within Israeli society that are openly seeking to change its political system and challenge both the command structure and combat culture of the military. A recent mob attack, led by far-right Knesset members, on military police investigating charges of torture and sexual assault of Hamas prisoners in Israel is only one example of the fissures developing within the Jewish-Israeli society.
Netanyahu, who critics say is mainly motivated by his desire to remain in power, has built his career by capitalizing on internal cleavages. And his dependency on far-right members of his government, coupled with his exploitation of internal tensions, have exacerbated the divisions.
His decision to authorize the assassinations in Beirut and Iran should be understood in the context of his fight for his political survival.
The far-right have been openly calling for a more aggressive posture. Meanwhile, public opinion in Israel supports confronting Hezbollah in “full force,” without taking into account the fact would exact an enormous human and infrastructural toll on both Lebanon and Israel.
I fear that could lead us into a downward spiral proving difficult to control.
From The Conversation, an online repository of lay versions of academic research findings found at https://theconversation.com/us. Used with permission.
Comments