Is Israel's Netanyahu provoking a regional war in the Middle East?

As an all-out war in the Middle East seems to be drawing closer by the second, many are pointing to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as its catalyst. 

Within a matter of hours in late July, the Israeli leader had Hezbollah’s second-in-command, Fuad Shukr, assassinated in Beirut, and Hamas’s top political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, killed in Tehran.

The dual assassinations have steered all of Israel’s foes towards escalation - a treacherous scenario raising the spectre of a wider regional war - but have nonetheless secured Netanyahu political wins.

“With every successful assassination attempt by Israel, there is a political win for Netanyahu,” Merissa Khurma, the Middle East Program Director at the DC-based Wilson Center, told The New Arab.

“Prolonging the war also prolongs his staying in power and emboldens his right-wing government, as well as extremist voices across the region, both state and non-state actors,” she said.

The longer Netanyahu can delay a ceasefire deal and remain embroiled in the war in Gaza, the longer he can stave off early elections and the more time he has to pull off a war victory that could boost his domestic popularity, which he may have just done. 

Netanyahu’s ratings have improved in the aftermath of the assassinations. For the first time since the Hamas cross-border attack on 7 October - which most Israelis hold Netanyahu responsible for -  Israel’s Maariv newspaper on Friday polled Netanyahu’s Likud party as the largest in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) if elections were held today.

More respondents also chose Netanyahu (48%) over National Unity Party leader Benny Gantz (42%), who had been touted by supporters as Israel’s next prime minister. 

Meanwhile, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas have all promised retaliation, which Khurma said is “feeding Netanyahu’s right-wing agenda that the only way Israel will be secure is to eliminate these enemies”.

'Maximising escalation'

“Netanyahu didn’t need to assassinate Haniyeh in Tehran and he didn’t need to do it during [Iranian president Masoud] Pezeshkian’s inauguration,” Trita Parsi, the Executive Vice President of the DC-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The New Arab.

“He seems to have chosen a particularly audacious and humiliating way and time for this, precisely for the purpose of maximising escalation.”

Parsi said Israel’s escalatory move and the subsequent threat of Iranian retaliation has closed the window for US-Iran diplomacy following the presidential victory of Pezeshkian, who was emphasising negotiations with the West, and may quiet US pressure on Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza.

So, Netanyahu sees himself in a “win-win situation”, whether an all-out war erupts or not, Parsi said.

During Netanyahu’s visit to the US last month, Vice President Kamala Harris made clear she was losing patience with Israel’s military approach, raising questions about whether she would be more aggressive in dealing with Netanyahu if elected president on 5 November.

Parsi said that “after a tough conversation with Harris”, Netanyahu saw that “the era of Biden’s almost complete deference was coming to an end” and “saw an opportunity” to escalate when the White House was in disarray, following Biden’s drop-out from the presidential race.

Now, with Israel potentially facing retaliation by Iran and its allies, the “US immediately goes into supporting whatever Israel is doing,” Parsi said.

After the assassinations and risk of retaliatory attacks, the US began funnelling more military support and weapons into Israel. The State Department announced on Friday it would send an additional $3.5 billion to Israel to spend on US-made weapons and military equipment.

According to Israeli media, meanwhile, the Biden administration has lifted its restrictions on supplying Israel with certain weapons, like the heavier MK-84 bombs, which weigh one ton each.

'The war Netanyahu's been asking for'

The dual assassinations could trigger “the war that Netanyahu has been asking for over the past 20 years,” Parsi said. A military conflict with Iran - where Israel is backed by US firepower - could achieve several Israeli objectives, including degrading Iran’s nuclear program and conventional military power.

It could also weaken Tehran’s regional partners, like Hezbollah and Hamas, Parsi wrote in an April Foreign Policy piece. 

The war is motivated by Israel’s desire to achieve a regional balance where it has “significantly more favourability and leeway,” Parsi said. “Israel could essentially go back to bombing all of its neighbours with impunity, instead of having some of its manoeuvrability challenged by Iran and the various groups Tehran supports,” he added. “Israel cannot achieve [that balance] on its own, it needs the US.” 

However, Nimrod Goren, a Jerusalem-based Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute and the President of Mitvim, the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, said it is unlikely Netanyahu wants an all-out regional war.

“[Netanyahu] seems to believe he can benefit politically from the prolonging of a war situation in Gaza,” Goren told The New Arab. “But I don’t think having this regional flare-up [with Hezbollah and Iran] is in his interest.” 

Goren noted that the two assassinations reflect Netanyahu’s hope for increased deterrence against Iran - notably sending a message of Israel’s ability to operate in both Tehran and Beirut, adding that the attacks also provided the Israeli public with “some sense of achievement amid dire days”. 

Sabotaging Gaza ceasefire talks 

Netanyahu has foiled Gaza ceasefire talks at nearly every opportunity. The assassination of Haniyeh - a more moderate leader of the Palestinian group and who was playing a key role in the negotiations - could be the latest major setback to a deal.

“Netanyahu has deliberately been trying to sabotage the ceasefire talks from the very get-go,” Parsi said. “If people weren’t convinced before that he is against a ceasefire deal, then killing the negotiator [Haniyeh] on the other side of the table should really settle that argument,” he added.

Hamas named Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the 7 October attacks, as its new leader, who is expected to bring the group closer to Iran and is seen as more hardline than Haniyeh. 

Khurma, from the Wilson Center, said that Israel has undermined ceasefire talks and complicated the process moving forward by assassinating Haniyeh.

"With every successful assassination attempt by Israel, there is a political win for Netanyahu"

“It sends a message [to the region’s leadership and people] that Israel is not interested in the political process, rather, only war,” she said. 

Following a push from the US, Qatar, and Egypt to reach a deal on Gaza, Netanyahu’s office announced on Friday it would send negotiators to Cairo “to finalise the details of the implementation of the agreement framework”.

However, Hamas has hinted it would stay out of this round of talks, calling on mediators to present the agreement the group had already agreed to on 2 July, instead of pursuing further rounds of negotiations or new proposals that would grant Israel more time for aggression. The group added that the assassination of Haniyeh indicates Israel is not serious about pursuing a ceasefire agreement. 

Goren said that Netanyahu has continued to add additional conditions to a deal, which has stalled negotiations. “Netanyahu does not want to agree to an end to the war [in Gaza],” Goren stated. “For the majority of Israelis who support a deal, it’s concerning that Netanyahu is making decisions according to his political interests, not necessarily the national good,” he added.  

He noted that Netanyahu might be willing to agree to the first phase of the deal - a six-week humanitarian pause and some hostage releases - but in the case he decides to go for early elections, he may be willing to do more. However, Goren said that with the Knesset in recess until 27 October, there could not be any political move that would topple the government and induce early elections. 

US 'deference' to Israel 'very dangerous'

Meanwhile, Iran is stuck in a dangerous predicament: they have to respond stronger than their attack on Israel on 13 April to restore deterrence, but not so much as to give the Israelis a pretext to escalate further, Parsi said. 

“It’s a situation that could have been avoided had Biden shown willingness to pressure Israel,” Parsi stated. The lack of US efforts to rein in the Israelis has now left Iran on its own to establish deterrence against Netanyahu’s escalatory moves, which is “very tricky, very escalatory, and very dangerous”, he added. 

“I don’t think there’s ever been a [US] administration that has been this deferential to Netanyahu or an Israeli prime minister.”

Following Iran’s April attack on Israel, Biden said it would not take part in any retaliatory action against Tehran. But four months later after the escalatory assassinations, the US president is vowing to defend Israel against all Iranian threats. 

“Biden has given Netanyahu no reason to take him seriously,” Parsi said. “Biden’s refusal to pressure Israel has itself been escalatory, it has fuelled escalation in the region.” 

Hanna Davis is a freelance journalist reporting on politics, foreign policy, and humanitarian affairs.

Follow her on Twitter: @hannadavis341