������Ƶ

A direct, large-scale military confrontation between Iran and Israel was always perceived as too dangerous because it risked consequences too devastating for either side to seriously contemplate, let alone initiate.

That was until Israeli authorities decided last week to strike first in what is their biggest military gamble since the nation’s founding fathers made the decision to declare independence.

An overnight Israeli operation, daring and successful beyond imagination, turned a decades-long war of words into an actual war between the two major military powers in the Middle East. And they have already demonstrated their ability, and desire, to inflict great damage on one another in what might become an open-ended war of attrition.

Unless common sense prevails among both leaderships, which appears a far-fetched hope, or, more likely, concerted international pressure can succeed in halting this deadly confrontation immediately, it might well spiral out of control.

To state the very obvious, no one outside Iran, and few inside the country, wants to see it armed with nuclear weapons, which would inevitably lead to a nuclear arms race. As a matter of fact, a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East must be a long-term objective.

But Israel’s decision to embark on a military operation of this scale, and the timing of it, raises questions and concerns about its true objectives. It is no secret that for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the self-proclaimed “Mr. Security,” there have for a long time been two main overarching objectives, to the point of obsession: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

He views them both as existential threats to the Jewish state and, equally, as his own ticket to political relevance and endurance.

There has been much discussion about, and will eventually be a formal investigation into, the ways in which Netanyahu’s destructive policies designed to prevent the possibility of a two-state solution to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians contributed to the events of Oct. 7, 2023, the most devastating Israeli security failure ever which led to the ongoing war in Gaza.

For him to now embark on what might prove to be the most consequential war in his country’s history, people need to be convinced beyond any shred of doubt that the decision was not tainted by any ulterior motive. Alas, the Israeli prime minister’s behavior throughout his political career, and most definitely during his present term in office, has failed to instill the necessary confidence that this is the case.

Moreover, entering into a conflict that by some estimates could result in hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties requires a united country. His government has not only divided the nation more than ever before, it has made unwarranted and acerbic criticisms of the very people now charged with carrying out the strikes against Iran, simply because they peacefully opposed the government’s attacks on the country’s democratic foundations, or called for an end to the war in Gaza and to bringing the hostages home.

In such a high-stakes confrontation with an enemy in possession of potentially devastating capabilities, there is a need for trust in the leadership directing it, but this is hardly the case here. Most Israelis support the war against Iran — but not Netanyahu and his government.

This is not that surprising, considering his legal woes, his desperation to remain in power, and his record of trying to deflect attention from his own domestic and foreign failures by pursuing a more aggressive stance, verbal or otherwise, on unresolved conflicts with Israel’s neighbors.

Most Israelis support the war against Iran — but not Netanyahu and his government. 

Yossi Mekelberg

There is a lingering concern that his decision to turn up the heat on Iran had as much to do with the ongoing crisis within his own coalition government, and the fact that he is in the early stages of the prosecution’s cross-examination in his corruption trial, as it had to do with the security threat emanating from Tehran.

In the event of a prolonged war with Iran, it is almost impossible to envisage that any member of the coalition would resign, and Netanyahu would have the perfect excuse to delay for weeks, if not months, his appearance in court.

He has claimed that the attacks on Iranian targets were justified based on new information, which he was not prepared to share, about the imminent successful conclusion of a secret Iranian program to finally obtain nuclear weapons. He stated that Tehran already had the capacity to build a number of bombs, a claim refuted by several American intelligence reports that concluded Iran is still a few years away from developing such weapons.

It is more likely that Israeli authorities feared the US might reach what they consider to be an unsatisfactory nuclear deal with Iran. It is also the case that Israeli decision-makers identified an opportune moment to strike, given that Iran’s “axis of resistance” has been substantially weakened, and the Trump administration, while it did not give a green light for Israel to proceed with a military operation, neither did it order them to hit the brakes. In fact Washington is still sending mixed signals about whether it is more interested in an immediate ceasefire, or would be happy to see Iranian negotiators return to the bargaining table with their country badly wounded and humiliated — a strategy that might backfire.

Israel, despite its impressive military performance until now, does not on its own have the capability to completely degrade Iran’s nuclear project, and it is too early to assess the extent of the damage inflicted so far.

Netanyahu gambled the US would be sucked into the conflict, either to finish the job, should the first stages of the war succeed in creating a “once in a lifetime” opportunity to put to bed the Iranian nuclear program once and for all or, if things went seriously wrong, that Washington would come to Israel’s rescue.

Increasingly, it seems as though Trump is inclined to order his military to finish the job; he has stated his desire to see a “real end” to the conflict and demanded “total surrender” from Iran, rather than a ceasefire.

Top Israeli officials, chief among them Netanyahu, have not hidden their yearning for a humiliating defeat of Iran on the battlefield that could lead to regime change. However, there is no evidence to suggest the regime in Tehran would not be able to weather such a storm, or that there are opposition forces ready and able to mount an effective challenge.

If anything, Iranian citizens who see their country under attack are more likely to rally round the flag. To the regime, meanwhile, the conflict provides a further excuse to take even harsher action against any signs of domestic discontent.

Moreover, regime change commonly suggests a desire among the external forces that attempt to initiate it to install an administration more favorable to them — yet past experiences do not provide much reassurance that this is what would happen; quite the reverse, in fact.

Netanyahu has taken the gamble of his life and in doing so he is also gambling with Israel’s long-term security, and possibly that of the wider region as well.

No one will benefit from a prolonged war that could entangle other regional powers. Diplomacy must step in quickly and play a central role in resolving the conflict or this will be a long and bloody summer.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg