You are here

Netanyahu’s dilemma: The path to an inevitable comprehensive war

Aug 11,2024 - Last updated at Aug 14,2024

In a dramatic appearance before the US Congress, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu positioned his nation as the West’s front line of defence against the so-called "Iranian axis" or the “Resistance Axis” in the Middle East. Despite receiving 81 rounds of applause during his speech, the substance of his trip to Washington fell flat. The stakes are undeniably high, and the decisions made in the coming hours could reshape not just the fate of Israel, but the entire Middle East, with far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the region. The Middle East has long been a tinderbox of geopolitical tensions and the current situation involving Israel, its neighbours, and broader regional powers threatens to ignite a conflict that could engulf multiple nations.

Meetings with US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris underscored the deepening rift between Israeli ambitions and American priorities. While Harris affirmed her support for Israel, she made it clear that the US would not stand idly by amid the growing human suffering in Gaza. President Biden, according to reports, applied intense pressure on Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza, a move intended to stabilise the situation before the end of Biden’s term. Even Donald Trump, once a reliable ally, urged Netanyahu to conclude the war in Gaza before his potential return to the White House.

Netanyahu returned to Israel empty-handed. Washington, embroiled in its own political turmoil and facing global challenges, is far from eager to engage in a new Middle Eastern conflict that could draw in Russia and China. Netanyahu, however, is acutely aware that failing to deliver a decisive military victory over Hamas could lead to the unraveling of Israel’s strategic position. The stakes are existential: Without a clear victory, Israel’s deterrence capability, the linchpin of its national security doctrine, will be severely compromised.

The internal situation in Israel is no less dire. The once stable democratic competition has devolved into open confrontation, as masked settlers, supported by the police, have clashed with military police officers. This alarming scenario signals that Israel is teetering on the brink of civil unrest. Netanyahu knows that retreating from Gaza without a definitive victory will not just be seen as a military failure, it will signal the beginning of a broader collapse of the Zionist project.

To stave off this collapse, Netanyahu has embarked on a dangerous course. In the aftermath of a massacre in Majdal Shams, he ordered strikes across the region, from Beirut’s southern suburbs to Tehran, targeting high-profile figures such as Hizbollah commander Fouad Shukr and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. These provocations are designed to elicit a response from Israel’s adversaries, thereby forcing the US to intervene in defence of its ally. The recent strikes, however, have not restored Israel’s deterrence; they have only deepened the strategic dilemma facing Netanyahu.

The question remains: Why has Netanyahu increased further strikes in recent days? Is he awaiting the inevitable responses from Iran and Hizbollah, knowing that these will justify a full-scale regional war? Or is he pulling Americans to another quagmire in the Middle East?

What is certain is that Iran and Hizbollah are now compelled to respond, not only to defend their strategic interests, but also to maintain their credibility. Netanyahu’s targeting of Haniyeh on Iranian soil was not just an affront to Hamas; it was a direct challenge to Iran. Likewise, the attack on Shukr in Beirut violates long-standing rules of engagement, pushing the region closer to the brink.

Hamas’s recent internal elections, which saw Yahya Sinwar reelected as the head of the political bureau, are a testament to the movement’s resilience. Despite ten months of relentless Israeli bombardment, Hamas’s organisational structures remain intact, and its leadership within Gaza is operational. Sinwar’s reelection from within Gaza sends a clear message: Hamas is not just surviving; it is capable of political and military coordination even under the most severe conditions.

Netanyahu’s predicament is stark. He cannot afford to heed American calls for a ceasefire, which would signal a return to the status quo, a status quo that Israel can no longer sustain. His hesitation to launch further strikes indicates that the recent operations have failed to restore Israel’s deterrent power, despite media claims to the contrary.

As Netanyahu stands at this crossroads, the only path he sees is towards a comprehensive war, a war that he believes is Israel’s last chance to reassert its dominance in the region. He is unlikely to squander this opportunity to rally both allies and adversaries into a confrontation that could reshape the Middle East. The so-called “resistance leaders”, aware of Netanyahu’s strategic desperation, are prepared for the escalation. The ambiguity in Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s recent speech suggests that Netanyahu may find himself ensnared in the very conflict he sought to provoke.

Regional silence in the face of this impending catastrophe is deafening whereby the international community appear to be in a state of paralysis, unable to formulate a coherent response to a conflict that could redefine the region’s future. The official Arab stance, which once sought peace through the 2002 Beirut Summit’s land-for-peace initiative, has been ignored by Israel so far. 

The stakes are high, and the decisions made in the coming days could determine the fate of not just Israel, but the entire Middle East. For Israel, the current crisis is existential. The outcome of this conflict could determine its long-term security and stability. Netanyahu’s aggressive stance and refusal to accept anything less than a decisive military victory stem from the understanding that Israel’s deterrent capability is at stake. Without a clear and unequivocal triumph over its adversaries, Israel risks losing its strategic advantage, which has been the cornerstone of its national defence since its inception.

Israel’s military dominance has historically served as a deterrent against hostile actions from neighbouring states and non-state actors. However, as the conflict with Hamas and other resistance movements intensifies, the failure to achieve a decisive victory could embolden Israel’s enemies, leading to increased attacks and further de-stabilisation. This could result in a shift in the balance of power in the region, with Israel potentially facing greater isolation and increased security threats.

The outcome of this conflict will not only shape the future of Israel but could also redefine the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, with significant implications for global security and stability. The urgency for diplomatic intervention has never been greater, as the world watches with bated breath to see which path will be taken.

up
68 users have voted.

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF