Netanyahu's Pretext for Embarking on a New War Adventure | Politics

There is a firm conviction among the active parties in the Middle East that the head of the Israeli war government, Benjamin Netanyahu, is pushing the complex situation in the region towards further dangerous escalation, in order to achieve basic strategic goals, which are to strike Iran’s military capabilities, including its nuclear facilities, and to launch a military strike against Hezbollah, and to permanently remove it from the Lebanese border to a depth of no less than ten kilometers.

New adventure

Therefore, Netanyahu is dealing with the developments taking place on the ground as if they are now in his interest, and he is dealing with the fact that the internal circumstances have opened the way for him to move and make much broader decisions due to the state of war and emergency.

Externally, the electoral challenges in the United States are accelerating with Biden’s withdrawal and Kamala Harris’ candidacy. This framework appeared during his recent visit to Washington and his speech to Congress, where he focused mainly on the importance of launching a military strike against Iran.

In contrast, Netanyahu has come to realize that time is passing rapidly and is not open-ended, as evidenced by what former US President Donald Trump said: “I don’t want the war to be ongoing when I return to the White House.” That is, Netanyahu has only a few months to end the war.

It seemed that the head of the war government had other goals, which were related to his political future and ensuring a safe exit from Israeli political power; because he is well aware that Israeli public opinion still – despite all the crimes and assassinations – holds him responsible for the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation on October 7, and that this operation would not have happened had he not “turned a blind eye” to Hamas's development of its military infrastructure; to carry out the strike that shook the Israeli entity to its core.

So, Netanyahu began preparing for the new phase of the long war, during his visit to Washington and his cold meetings with the pillars of the American government. Hence, the “Majdal Shams” missile, which everyone evaded declaring responsibility for, gave Netanyahu a pretext to embark on a new war adventure, but its repercussions will now include the entire region.

Therefore, the political conflict between Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Galant occurred after the latter tried to manage the military response to the Majdal Shams missile, but Netanyahu confronted Galant by not making any decision and freezing everything until his return. With the implementation of the Israeli strikes, the scene became clearer, namely that Netanyahu became more concerned about his opponent’s relationship with the US administration.

The Israeli strikes exceeded the ceiling of the current battle, and exceeded the established rules of engagement, whether through the assassination of Fouad Shukr in the southern suburb of Beirut, or through the assassination of the head of the political bureau of the Hamas movement, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran, a few hours later inside one of the most important headquarters of the “Revolutionary Guards”, on the eve of the inauguration ceremony of the new Iranian president.

These two assassinations, with their implications for Netanyahu’s recklessness on the ground, were followed less than a day later by strikes that included factions stationed in Qusayr in Syria and Jurf al-Sakhar in Iraq. There is no doubt that Netanyahu aims to launch provocative strikes that neither Iran nor Hezbollah can overcome without a response in return.

Which means that he wants a reaction that will open the door for him and give him an excuse to go to the maximum level of provoking tension, in order to achieve his goals of rallying everyone behind him by striking Iran and Hezbollah.

Military alert

There are those who believe that Netanyahu, who is awaiting the responses to the targeting of the suburb and Tehran, is working to mobilize the home front. For example, he worked to transfer part of the agricultural products from northern cities to the interior cities, in addition to removing ammonium nitrate and highly flammable materials from the factories in the northern region.

Before that, Israeli warplanes had struck a distant target, the Yemeni port of Hodeidah. Israel confirmed that day that the operation was carried out by the Israeli Air Force without anyone’s assistance, meaning that Israel was now capable of striking a similar target in a distant region like Iran.

At the same time, it obtained large bombs that cause widespread destruction, in addition to smart and fragmentation weapons, which it seeks to use in Lebanon, as it used them in the Gaza Strip.

But what is striking is the state of American and British military alert in the Mediterranean waters off Lebanon and the Arabian Gulf. Although the military nature of these naval vessels is “defensive,” as they are equipped with missiles specialized in shooting down ballistic missiles directed toward Israel, everyone has become convinced that the Democratic administration is keen not to get involved in the quagmire of war in the region, even though it has become unable to curb Netanyahu’s impetuousness.

Hence, contacts, meetings and attempts are taking place in diplomatic corridors to pull everyone back from the brink of the abyss by going to serious negotiations that prevent an explosion. The visit of Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi to Tehran falls within this framework, despite the state of coldness and tension between the two sides, and the ongoing Jordanian accusations against Iran of destabilizing Jordan's security.

It appeared that Safadi, who returned home, was unable to make what could be considered a significant breach by making Iran go beyond its decision to respond to the assassination of the martyr Haniyeh. This was announced by Tehran during Safadi’s visit to the Iranian parliament session, by emphasizing the call of the political leadership for a “shocking response to Israel.” Despite this, there were flexible, albeit silent, signals from Tehran towards Washington, by keeping the communication channel open between them, either through Qatar or the Sultanate of Oman.

Policy of provocation and targeting

All these facts make the region live on Netanyahu's personal whims, whose actions, behaviors, and imaginary crimes that may be committed are unpredictable. But it is clear that the man seems ready to drag the entire region into a never-ending cycle of conflict, even if he drags all powers and countries with him, especially since if the military facts develop into counter-strikes and exchanges between Tehran and Tel Aviv, this will be in the skies of many Arab countries that will see themselves at the heart of the field conflict, which raises the possibility of the risks of the entire regional situation exploding.

Here, we cannot ignore what is being broadcast by media outlets close to the American Republicans, which talk about a possible wave of revolutions as a result of what is happening in the region.

But on the Hezbollah side, the party that separated the response to the assassination of the leader Shukr from the support front within its traditional bases, confirms that its response to the attack on the southern suburb of Beirut will be certain. This response will be sufficient to restore the rules of deterrence to their previous state; so that Netanyahu does not continue to pursue the policy of provocation and targeting without deterrence.

Hence, the party received messages from Washington through mediators from several countries to confirm a main constant, which is that the American administration was not aware of the Israeli strike that targeted the southern suburb of Beirut, and that Washington had nothing to do with what happened and was not interested in war, but the party believes that the Americans alone are capable of stopping Israel from going to war, if they wanted to.

The head of the war government, along with all the forces of the extreme Israeli right, may see that the circumstances are in favor of going towards the game of changing the existing regional equation, and Washington, which is experiencing the most delicate electoral entitlement, may see that nothing prevents re-changing the features of the region and the influence of the parties in it, as long as the political negotiations do not cause any breach and have not yet reached the desired results.