Will Netanyahu finally succeed in igniting a war in the Middle East?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly attempted to provoke Tehran, aiming to justify a war against Iran and its allies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and pro-Iranian armed groups in Iraq—by eliciting a response that could lead to broader conflict. Despite these efforts, Tehran has not retaliated in a way that provides Tel Aviv with a pretext for escalation.

Netanyahu has obstructed a three-part peace process initiated by US President Joe Biden on 31 May, aimed at achieving a ceasefire, followed by a political settlement, and ultimately, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state at peace with Israel.

Since Biden’s proposal, numerous negotiations have taken place across various levels and locations. However, the proposal now seems definitively discarded, evident from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s fruitless ninth visit to the region last week.

The threat of a wider war persists. What are the lessons we can learn from all this?

Eroding trust in Biden and Blinken’s diplomacy

Biden’s proposal, endorsed by the UN Security Council on 11 June, came after significant human costs were already incurred: over 36,000 deaths, 1.7 million displaced persons, and severe risks of famine and electricity shortages among Palestinians, according to UN figures from a report dated 31 May, available at UN OCHA.

Till then, Biden was repeating ad nauseum about Israel’s right to defend itself and his own “iron-clad” support to Israel.

We have stopped hearing about “iron-clad”, but we have not stopped hearing about Israel’s “right to defend itself”, the implication being that Tel Aviv can continue the genocidal war without imperiling Washington’s support and protection at UN and elsewhere, including the International Court of Justice.

Biden has often declared that a ceasefire was imminent. he claimed on 27 February and repeatedly after 31 May that a ceasefire was expected soon based on his proposal. On 22 July, he even announced an agreement between Israel and Hamas.

Therefore, we should stop taking seriously Biden’s public statements on a ceasefire in Gaza.

Blinken, too, has been stating publicly that a ceasefire was about to be agreed to. He added something more from time to time. He gave the impression that it was Hamas that was standing in the way of an agreement and that Israel had agreed to the Biden proposal.

Blinken has been resorting to what lawyers call “suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood.”

Let us look at what is happening right now.

The mediators—Qatar, Egypt, and the US—have been meeting in Cairo. The deal being discussed is a watered-down version of the original Biden proposal.

Israel has made it abundantly clear that it is prepared only for a temporary ceasefire for getting as many hostages as possible.

Israel will not agree to a permanent ceasefire after the remaining hostages have been released in the second phase. Nor will it agree to withdraw its military from populated areas.

Its military will be deployed at the border between Egypt and Gaza, called the Philadelphi Corridor by Israel and Salah Al Din by Egypt. Netanyahu, under pressure from Biden, has agreed to reduce the number of military personnel to be stationed there.

There is another fresh demand from Israel. Its military will be deployed on the Netzarim Corridor dividing Gaza into a northern half and a southern half. In short, Gazans from northern Gaza will not be free to go back unless permitted by Israeli military.

All these demands were not present in the original Biden proposal that Hamas had accepted before Israel on 1 August assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, who was in charge of the ceasefire talks. What is pertinent here is that even after its leader was killed, Hamas has continued to accept the Biden plan.

Blinken, meanwhile, has downplayed these changes, claiming Israel merely seeks ‘clarifications’ without altering the proposal. Obviously, Blinken believes that the international community has incurable amnesia.

Netanyahu has taken Biden for a ride

At times, Netanyahu through his aides says that he has accepted the Biden plan. Immediately follows a denial or ‘correction’ by himself or another spokesperson. Biden, patient to a fault, talks to Netanyahu, and then the White House says that something has been agreed to, only to be ‘corrected’ by Netanyahu’s office shortly thereafter.

This variation of the theatre of the absurd has been going on for months now and the Western media have largely chosen not to draw attention to it.

What might happen next?

By now it is reasonably clear that Netanyahu wants a full-scale war with Iran.

He has repeatedly provoked Hezbollah. The latest major provocation was the killing of top Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr on 30 July.

As of Monday, 26 August, hostilities have escalated, with Israel and Hezbollah actively exchanging attacks.

The killings of Haniyeh and Shukr occurred in a span of 12 hours.

Netanyahu was hoping that Iran would carry out a retaliatory strike, triggering a full-scale war that he can fight with America’s support.

Iran did not oblige. However, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “harsh punishment” for Israel.

The US response deserves analysis.

Washington did not say that Israel did anything wrong by carrying out that assassination. Biden chose his words carefully to show that he was not morally outraged. He said the killing did not ‘help ceasefire talks’.

Biden took the Ayatollah’s words seriously and ordered the Pentagon to send additional forces to the Middle East, including a guided missile submarine and a carrier strike group equipped with F-35 C fighter jets.

Washington messaged Teheran not to retaliate and the rest of the West followed suit. French President Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer counseled Iranian President Pezeshkian to abstain from any retaliatory action.

Publicly, Tehran has rejected the counsel from the West.

We do not know what Iran might do. The regime is under some pressure from the public to retaliate. It knows that any retaliation, however scaled down, might be exploited by Netanyahu to start a full-scale war that Iran can ill afford.

Tehran also knows that Netanyahu has not stopped provoking it.

Meanwhile, Israel’s economy is being damaged, and the public will find it difficult to live for long in a state of permanent alert.

Would Iran conclude that it is enough to frighten Israel?

Perhaps.

Should a war break out, we might be witnessing a regional apocalypse, not the beginning of a third world war. The contending forces are asymmetrical, with Israel enjoying superior air power and fire power.

But in an asymmetrical war, the weaker party can also win.

Example, Vietnam.

It is rather unlikely that the US will have boots on the ground. Israel will not have enough fighters to take on Iran and its allies, especially Hezbollah that can send about 150,000 missiles/drones that the US-funded Iron Dome might not be able to stop always.

Will Netanyahu bomb Iran’s nuclear sites?

He might.

Will toxic radiation spread?

It might.

We might note en passant that the Israeli military and intelligence chiefs are upset with Netanyahu’s policy. He reminds one of what the witches in Shakespeare’s play Macbeth said of the villain Macbeth:

“And as you all know, security is mortals’ chiefest enemy.”

Little did Macbeth know of the fate reserved for him when he killed King Duncan.

In contrast, Netanyahu understands that a lasting ceasefire will cost him his prime ministership and potentially lead to his imprisonment due to pending corruption charges.  Hence, he is seeking security. At what horrendous cost?