Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, the escalation across the Middle East, and now the invasion of Lebanon, the biggest question on the table has been how Iran would react. Surely it could not just watch on as Israel dealt shattering blows to two of its closest allies: Hamas, and now Hezbollah? Now we know. In response to Israel’s killing of Hezbollah’s senior leaders, Iran fired a barrage of missiles at Israel’s territory on October 1. Seeking to both stay Iran’s hand and reassure Israel, the United States stationed two aircraft carriers in the area around Iran and, in the last two weeks alone, doubled the number of strike aircraft deployed in the area. And while some of the missiles fell across Israel and the West Bank, most were intercepted by Israel’s defence systems, with support from American aircraft and warships.
But acts based on certain intentions often create unintended effects that run counter to those same intentions. That’s especially true in wartime, when fear, misperception, and hubris abound. So American muscle-flexing may have reduced the scale of Iran’s retaliation against Israel; but it may also embolden Prime Minister Netanyahu to strike back at Iran even harder, as he has already promised. Indeed – he may even use this opportunity and the backing provided by the Biden administration to precipitate the unravelling of the entire Iranian state.
That goal may not be achieved – or achievable – but it would be complacent to assume that it’s too outlandish for Netanyahu to pursue. Consider what Netanyahu said in a message – with a version containing Persian subtitles – to the Iranian people on September 30: “Every day, you see a regime that subjugates you make fiery speeches about defending Lebanon, defending Gaza. Yet every day, that regime plunges our region deeper into darkness and deeper into war… With every passing moment, the regime is bringing you – the noble Persian people – closer to the abyss… The vast majority of Iranians know their regime doesn’t care a whit about them. If it did care, if it cared about you, it would stop wasting billions of dollars on futile wars across the Middle East. It would start improving your lives.”
It is not fanciful to imagine that, in speaking to the Iranian people over the heads of their leaders, the Prime Minister had what’s come to be known as “regime change” in mind. And this desire has since been echoed by former prime minister Naftali Bennett, who called for Israel to act “now” against Iran’s nuclear programme, and said, “Israel has now its greatest opportunity in 50 years, to change the face of the Middle East.”
This remains a distant objective. But Netanyahu could try. He has long been convinced that biggest threat Israel faces is not Hamas, let alone the supine Palestinian Authority, reviled in the West Bank for being Israel’s enforcer. Instead, it is Iran, with the militant Shi’a movements it supports – the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon – acting as ancillaries. Many American foreign policy hawks also hold this view and have not been shy about expressing it, especially when it comes to destroying Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons. They believe that a world without the Islamic Republic would be a better one, not just for Israel but for the United States, especially because in their minds an Iranian nuclear weapon remains an impending threat.
It’s safe to assume that Iran’s leaders are aware of this. But that still does not tell us how they exactly will respond. On the one hand, the Iran’s leaders may conclude that a war with Israel is inevitable and that they might as well get ready to wage it now. On the other, they may act cautiously given the near-certainty that the United States will not just provide Israel political and military support but might go further by leaping into the fray on Israel’s side. They may decide to limit themselves to a few missile salvos like last night’s, declare a token victory, and leave it at that. But a word to optimistic readers: the current conflagration could equally worsen even if Iran makes the latter choice. Escalation can be averted only if Israel too decides that a show of force – even one that exceeds Iran’s in scale and lethality – is enough to convince Tehran that it will suffer worse consequences if it continues to use missiles and drones against Israel or rushes to Hezbollah’s rescue in Lebanon.
If, however, Netanyahu concludes that he must seize the moment and deal the Islamic Republic a death blow, the current confrontation will not merely get worse; it could spin out of control. Note the conditional: the only way we have of figuring out Netanyahu’s calculations is by putting ourselves in his shoes and imagining how we would behave in the circumstances he is facing. The problem with that approach is that we have no way of knowing whether our deductive logic, methodical though it may be, is an accurate reading of the Prime Minister’s reasoning. (The same can be said about efforts to divine Ayatollah Khamenei’s thinking during this crisis.)
Could the Biden administration act decisively and stave off escalation, something it certainly does not wish see? It could – by warning Iran that it will have hell to pay if it does not cease and desist, and accompanying that warning by telling Netanyahu that Israel will be on its own if it wages a full-scale war against Iran, lured by visions of regime change. Yet it is all but inconceivable that Biden, or any American president for that matter, will make that threat and then actually act on it if Israel fails to comply. Israel’s near-unconditional support from the United States during crises and wars has become and remains a near-axiom in American politics.
Shared by Democratic and Republican leaders alike, it’s arguably the only point of policy on which bipartisan agreement prevails. And the unanimity within the American political establishment on this imperative will ensure that there won’t be any robust opposition – especially not in an election year – should the Biden administration decide that the United States must stand by, and if necessary fight alongside, Israel. Iran understands this and has already warned that it will attack American bases in the region if the United States strikes Iran. Netanyahu meanwhile – the most Americanised prime minister Israel has ever had – possesses a keen understanding of US politics. He knows that if he goes for broke and decides to take on Iran, no holds barred, the Biden administration may warn and pressure him to show restraint but will not take the ultimate step of cutting off, or even curtailing significantly, the delivery of American arms to Israel.
We cannot know how this crisis will evolve. The ubiquitous punditry and predictions now on offer amount to noise. Yet two things are clear. First, the Middle East faces one of the most dangerous moments in its history. Second, the reverberations of any full-on confrontation between Israel and Iran will not remain confined, politically or economically, to the Middle East. My own bet – more of a fervent hope in truth – is that both antagonists understand this and will therefore step back from the brink. They could, however, do a great deal of damage to in the meantime – and not just to one another.
[See also: The fury of history]
Content from our partners
Related
