Why Israel must avoid an all-out war against Iran in its self-interest

On October 7 last year, Israel was rocked by a horrendous terror attack marshalled by Hamas, an offshoot of the  Muslim Brotherhood. Around 1500 people perished in the strike—an event that a shell-shocked nation has been unable to digest.

aBut honest contemporary historians in Israel, on deeper  reflection,  would have known that their country  had become the victim of its own flawed policy. It is well known that Hamas, formed by the late Sheikh Yassin in 1987, was the offspring of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, was quoted as saying by the Wall Street Journal in 2009.

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ.com (archive.org)

By backing Hamas, Israel, in hindsight succeeded in achieving only a shortsighted objective--of dethroning the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) then led by Yasser Arafat. Arafat’s death in murky circumstances in November 2004 opened the floodgates for Hamas to take over the Gaza strip, from where it directed terror fire inside southern Israel on that fateful day on October 7 last.

By indirectly empowering Hamas, Israel also successfully sent into comatose, the idea of a two-state solution, born out of the Oslo accords of 1993. Not only was Arafat gone, but before him—in fact three years after the Oslo accords were signed—a right-wing Israeli killed Yitzhak Rabin, a decorated Israeli soldier and former prime minister, Arafat’s co-signatory of the Oslo Accords. 

After Arafat and Rabin were out of the way, Hamas, PLO’s successor showed zero interest in two-state solution, ironically becoming the ally of the Israeli-right, which in any case had rejected the Oslo accords.  Consequently, the only formulation that allowed the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the three Abrahamic religions, to share the Holy Land had been thrown out of the window.

Fast forward to October 2023. Hamas’ terror attack has sharply exposed the new balance of power in the Levant. Unlike the past, US-backed Israel is now pitted against Iran, which is bound to be supported by Russia and China, in case Tel Aviv attempts regime change in Tehran.

Had he correctly read the tea leaves of the limits imposed by an emerging multipolar world, Netanyahu after the bloodbath of October 7, could have adopted a different course. Had he then gone for targeted assassinations of the masterminds of the October 7 strike, focused on getting back hostages kidnapped by Hamas in return for a prisoner swap, and manoeuvred the narrative towards a two-state state solution as the political template to end the conflict with the Palestinians, the world, by and large, would have backed him in that enterprise.

But instead of seizing the opportunity, Netanyahu went by the old script, assuming  that with the US on his side, he could behave with impunity in region and achieve the grandiose objective of dismantling the entire “axis of resistance” led by Iran.

Overestimating the salience of US power in a post-Covid world, succumbing to the pressure from the ultra-right within his ruling coalition, and hoping to solve his personal legal problems that threaten to put him in jail,  Netanyahu decided to choose collective punishment over surgical strikes in Gaza as his response to the terror attacks. The carpet bombing of Gaza that was followed by land attack, resulted in a horrendous civilian death toll. In turn, it has triggered  accusations against Israel of marshalling genocide, shifting the focus away from the atrocity committed against Israeli civilians by Hamas a year ago to exposing Tel Aviv to the charge of committing crimes against humanity in the Gaza strip.

Egged on by the ultra-right, Netanyahu appears to have opted for the complete dismemberment of the so-called axis of resistance. This is impossible. Led by Iran, this anti-Israel network comprises Syria, the Lebanese Hizbollah, Houthis of Yemen and the Hizbollah brigades of Iraq as well as Hamas. Except Hamas, which is Sunni, all others are Shia organisations, with very distinct ideological roots. In fact, the positioning of Hamas, with a Muslim Brotherhood lineage, as a core participant of the resistance only took place later, mainly due to the exertions of the late Qassem Suleimani—the Iranian general who famously led the Quds force against Israel. The Trump administration eventually assassinated Suleimani in January 2020 following  a drone strike in Baghdad

There is considerable clamour in Israel seeking direct attack on   Iran especially after Tehran launched two rocket strikes—the second, on October 1, comprising 180 ballistic missiles, many of which tore through Israeli missile shield consisting of the Iron Dome system and the Arrow missiles.

But Israel’s plans, beyond tokenism are unlikely to work, because new geopolitical realities have emerged that are not in Israel’s favour to achieve its mega-goals.

Any attack on Iran that threatens regime change in Iran, will quickly draw in Russia and China into a direct confrontation with the US-backed Israel, expanding the arena of conflict from regional to global.

There is clear cut geopolitical logic that explains why Russia and China in that order will be ready to risk everything to prevent regime change in Iran.

Moscow and Beijing’s strategic decision to prevent regime change in Iran at all costs goes back to October 2011. In the heat of the Arab Spring,  when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed, the Russians and Chinese took a pivotal decision to put regime changes in West Asia and North Africa to a halt. Specifically, their focus was on Syria and Iran.

Caption: Gaddafi’s death as depicted by German artist Gerd Mosbach (Courtesy Twitter)

Both countries realised that if the tide of regime changes consumed Syria by toppling the government of President Bashar Al Assad, Iran would be next in line. And if that happened, the Eurasian core pillared by Russia and China would then become exposed. Consequently, the leaderships of the two countries decided to establish Syria under Bashar Al Assad as its first defence line, with Iran as the second.

The shift in policy in Moscow and Beijing has been evident. Unlike Libya, where Russia and China abstained in the UN Security Council on a resolution to establish a no-fly zone in the Libyan airspace, the two vetoed a similar resolution that targeted Bashar. Besides,  the Russians have progressively  fortified the Bashar government by setting up a string of military bases and installations in that country. Located near Latakia on the Mediterranean coast, the Khmeimim Air Base, established in 2015 is Russia's primary airbase in Syria. Besides, the Tartus Naval base, expanded and upgraded in 2017 can accommodate 11 warships  including nuclear vessels. Russia has also set up  several other military installations and outposts to back up its operations in Syria.

Regarding Iran, the Russians and the Chinese have drawn Tehran into two major non-western global platforms—BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Besides China has pledged to spend $400 billion in Iran over the next 25 years, covering energy purchases and other investments in those pivotal states. On its part Iran has developed a robust nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, which can be converted into  nuclear weapons capability  fairly quickly. It has already demonstrated its advances in delivery systems by landing ballistic missiles inside Israel on October 1.

In other words, Israel would run into new realities of a multipolar world in case it seriously challenges the Iranian establishment as Tehran, which far from being isolated, has already become part of an emerging post-west world order. 

While an attempt at regime change in Iran threatens a third world war, which could go thermonuclear and endanger humanity, it is time that saner heads get together to re-visit  the two- state solution formula, guaranteed by old and new players that are part of the multipolar global system, including India and other BRICS partners.

Source