Will Netanyahu succeed in dragging Iran and the US into a regional war?

The assassinations of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut might have been strategically designed to allow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to claim victories and shift toward ending the war in Gaza. They may also indicate his intent to escalate the conflict and potentially draw the United States into a broader regional confrontation with Iran and Hezbollah, according to Paul Salem, vice president of the Middle East Institute (MEI).

Escalation seems more likely, says Nimrod Goren, Senior Fellow for Israeli Affairs at MEI. “Taking into account Netanyahu's actions and messages during these past few months, it is unlikely that reaching an agreement to release the hostages and establish a ceasefire is at the top of his agenda.”

Khaled Elgindy, director of the Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs Program at MEI, agrees, stating, "The recent developments should put to rest any notion that Netanyahu is interested in a ceasefire or avoiding a full-scale regional war. The question now is: How will Washington respond to this latest crisis?"

"The recent developments should put to rest any notion that Netanyahu is interested in a ceasefire or avoiding a full-scale regional war. The question now is: How will Washington respond to this latest crisis?"

"Washington will support Israel in repelling a potential Iranian attack," answered United States (US) President Joe Biden. However, Biden does not anticipate further escalation from Israel, and urges immediate action toward a hostage deal. Axios reported, quoting an American official, that Biden had warned Netanyahu during their conversation: "If you escalate again, you should not count on the US to bail you out."

Biden's call with Netanyahu was to discuss joint military preparations for a potential retaliatory response from Iran and Hezbollah and to express dissatisfaction with the direction Netanyahu had taken. According to US officials speaking to Axios, Biden felt “that Netanyahu kept him in the dark over his plans to carry out the assassinations, after leaving the impression last week that he was attentive to the president's request” to reach a hostage agreement and ceasefire in Gaza. The report adds: “The Biden administration has put a hostage and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas at the center of its entire post-war strategy in the Middle East. Biden is personally involved in the efforts to reach an agreement and sees it a core element of his legacy in his remaining six months in office.”

Opposing interpretations

The Emirates Policy Center suggests that several motives lie behind Haniyeh's assassination, primarily Netanyahu's interest in undermining ceasefire negotiations and prolonging the war. Some analyses indicate that Netanyahu's strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut and Tehran aim to provoke Iran, Hezbollah, and the rest of the “Axis of Resistance” into a wider regional war, thereby entangling Washington given its commitment to defending Israel. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed this after Shukr's assassination, stating that the US "will defend Israel if attacked by Hezbollah in response to the Israeli strike." This would serve Netanyahu personally by potentially extending his government's tenure. Politically, it could also prove beneficial by resolving the confrontation with Iran, possibly leading to Israel eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities with US assistance.

The outbreak of a regional war is not in the interest of the current US administration, especially in an election year. Therefore, it is expected to exert all possible efforts to prevent the conflict from spiraling out of control, especially since it has indirect communication channels with Tehran and leverage over Israel.

Others believe that "Netanyahu aimed to demonstrate toughness to the Israeli public and appear in a victorious image to conclude the Gaza war from a position of strength." According to the Emirates Policy Center, the outbreak of a regional war is not in the interest of the current US administration, especially in an election year. Therefore, it is expected to exert all possible efforts to prevent the conflict from spiraling out of control, especially since it has indirect communication channels with Tehran and leverage over Israel.

Israel is escalating its deterrence mechanism against Iran, sending a message that the next step could be full-scale war—a scenario both Tel Aviv and Washington believe Tehran does not want, says Qutaiba Idlbi, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Syria Program at the Atlantic Council, in an interview with Raseef22. He adds: "There are two interpretations in Washington for this escalation. The first is that Tel Aviv's escalation on all fronts is to justify not entering into a ceasefire agreement. The second, which I somewhat agree with, suggests that Netanyahu's government is practically preparing to conduct a special hostage exchange agreement, after returning to the Israeli public with claims of victory: 'We will sign the deal after defeating Hamas, having killed Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh, and the deputy of Hassan Nasrallah.'"

According to Idlbi, "Netanyahu is accumulating victories to present them to the Israeli public as though they are triumphs for the nation, so he could say: 'I have achieved the maximum possible, and now we are ready to accept a hostage exchange deal.'"

However, the wave of Israeli assassinations has brought a regional war closer than ever before. The dangerous spiral of escalation could draw the United States deeper into the regional crisis, dashing hopes for a ceasefire and a hostage exchange deal after months of careful negotiations. This makes the US administration's insistence that a ceasefire is still within reach seem hollow, according to another report by Axios, which is well-known for its intelligence leaks.

Irina Tsukerman, an American national security lawyer and expert on US strategic affairs, reports: "Israel has no interest in dragging Washington into war. It is the restrictions imposed on Israel that are contributing to the escalation, not the other way around. The Axis of Resistance is responsible for the spread of conflicts and clashes in the region due to American appeasement and punishment policies." In her view, Iran has been at war with Washington since 1979, when it took over the US embassy, and has been escalating ever since.

“Dialogue between Iran and the United States is the last thing that Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, wants at this stage. If anything, Netanyahu would expand the war to Lebanon in hopes that Iran will react strongly and enter the war directly. But since neither Hezbollah nor Iran wants a war with Israel at this stage, the next best scenario for Israel is to trap it in an untenable position.”

Despite this, Washington continues to follow a contradictory policy. It allows Israel "limited self-defense" while preventing it from striking Iran directly, even without US assistance, Tsukerman told Raseef22. Consequently, Iran interprets this policy as a green light to expand its military attacks throughout the region and infiltrate states from within.

The bear hug

Netanyahu does not prioritize the interests of the current US administration, according to Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. “In Netanyahu’s nearly 17 years in power, Bibi has both aided and undermined American interests in the region. I would not trust Netanyahu for a second to put US interests ahead of his own political survival needs—since he won’t even put Israel’s interests ahead of them.”

Nevertheless, he adds, Washington is forced to decide what to do about Iran. Iran, thanks to the appeasement policies of Biden and former President Barack Obama, has become a state on the nuclear threshold and “an imperial power in the Middle East, dominating the region and imposing conflicts with Israel that few Arab countries have any interest in.”

According to Elgindy at MEI, Washington was not informed in advance about Haniyeh's assassination: “which is a major embarrassment for the administration and is likely to further strain the already rocky relationship between Netanyahu and the Biden administration.”

“The fact that the Israelis would leave Washington in the dark on a major operation with such far-reaching implications for the entire region, despite the billions in military aid provided by the US and the virtually unconditional support the administration has provided throughout the war, raises serious questions about the nature of the special relationship as well as whether Netanyahu may be trying to force the hand of a weakened US president. Moreover, it also casts further doubt on the effectiveness of Biden’s ‘bear hug’ approach with Israel, which not only has failed to contain the war or prevent escalation but could ultimately draw the US into a broader conflict in the region, particularly with Iran.”

"There are two interpretations in Washington for this escalation. The first is that Tel Aviv's escalation on all fronts is to justify not entering into a ceasefire agreement. The second, which I somewhat agree with, suggests that Netanyahu's government is practically preparing to conduct a special hostage exchange agreement, after returning to the Israeli public with claims of victory.”

"But the events leading up to the current situation ultimately stem from Washington's deliberate failure in deterrence, despite being far stronger than Iran and its proxies combined," Tsukerman states. "Washington allowed Iran to spread throughout the region without sufficient military response to prevent it." This, according to the US lawyer, led to further Iranian attacks on regional countries, including Israel, and the entrenchment of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.

She also believes that "various American deals with Iran have fueled the current conflict. When Washington attempted to create a defense alliance between Israel and its neighbors, this policy contradicted its 'balanced' relationships with some regional countries. The end result is a chaotic political situation."

In this context, Mohamed Sahimi from the Quincy Institute points to “a second goal behind Tel Aviv’s assassination of Haniyeh. Beyond neutralizing him, Israel aims to exacerbate obstacles to any potential dialogue between the new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration and Washington.”

Sahimi explains, “Dialogue between Iran and the United States is the last thing that Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, wants at this stage. If anything, Netanyahu would expand the war to Lebanon in hopes that Iran will react strongly and enter the war directly. But since neither Hezbollah nor Iran wants a war with Israel at this stage, the next best scenario for Israel is to trap it in an untenable position.”

Haniyeh's assassination in Tehran, “particularly as a new administration took the oath of office, is that trap; if Iran does nothing, it will be mocked throughout the region, and hardliners will paralyze Pezeshkian’s negotiation programs with Washington before they begin.”

“If Iran does react strongly, it may force the United States to get directly involved in defense of Israel, at the time when the Pezeshkian administration is hoping to restart the negotiations with it. Either way, Israel would be temporarily a ‘winner.’”

Furthermore, the escalation of the war would cast a shadow over the US presidential elections. “If a wider war is started, the Biden administration will surely take Israel’s side. But this will create severe problems for Vice President Kamala Harris, who is trying to distinguish herself from Biden and his unconditional support for Israel.”

Idlbi asserts that "the prevailing view in Washington is that the recent events are a prelude to an upcoming agreement, so there is not much fear of a war breaking out as a result of this escalation. However, there is an American priority to contain the escalation within its existing parties—Hezbollah, Israel, and Hamas—without involving other actors." Thus, any talk of American intervention, in his view, would involve stopping the Houthis from getting involved in the current crisis in one way or another, while halting their attacks in the Red Sea, or preventing their attempts to carry out attacks in the northern Near East region.

Netanyahu’s political and legal situation stands as a personal obstacle to reaching a ceasefire agreement. At the end of the war, he faces trial in several corruption cases. At the very least, he also faces accountability for failing to anticipate Operation al-Aqsa Storm.

According to a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister's office, “Prime Minister Netanyahu told President Biden that he appreciates the American support, and as Prime Minister of Israel he acts solely according to the security needs of the State of Israel.” In response, a senior Israeli official disclosed to Axios that “Biden raised his voice and said he wants a deal reached within a week to two weeks." The official added, “Biden told Netanyahu that a hostage and ceasefire deal is the most important thing right now.”

Broadly speaking, Netanyahu’s political and legal situation stands as a personal obstacle to reaching a ceasefire agreement. At the end of the war, he faces trial in several corruption cases. At the very least, he faces accountability for failing to anticipate Operation al-Aqsa Storm. Despite the cowardice attributed to him, Netanyahu’s narrow, selfish interests, combined with his extremist government and the departure of somewhat rational figures from his war cabinet, all form strong motivations for Tel Aviv to move toward further escalation.

This escalation aims to drag the opposing parties into a response that could lead to an all-out war, subsequently dragging Washington into the conflict. Israel is looking to leverage Washington’s unlimited support for Israel, coupled with limited US pressure due to the internal American political landscape, where presidential candidates vie for the title of the foremost defender of Israel’s security as a precursor to winning the sovereignty of the White House.