Gaza to Iran: Can Frustrated Netanyahu’s Overdrive to Expand War in the Middle East be Controlled?

Sharing details of my analysis published in Journal of Indian Ocean Studies, of Society of Indian Ocean Studies, titled ‘Gaza to Iran: Can Frustrated Netanyahu’s Overdrive to Expand War in Middle-East be Controlled’. Available at Print Publication, India ISBN 0972-3080, Vol 32, No1, Jan-April 24. Some highlights:-
-The strategy of Netanyahu is motivated by revenge psychosis, his political survival by extention of war, and creating conditions for Greater Israel, so that Two state solution becomes impractical & dusted for ever.
-With current strategy, IDF might prevail in destroying Gaza with harsh punishment to all its occupants, the complete destruction of Hamas and its ideology is not possible. The excessive civilian casualties inflicted can give adequate reason for developing next generation of Hamas terrorists, even if the current one is defeated.
-Palestinians have been unfortunate not to have a good leader to fight for them after Arafat. The poor leadership of Abbas, whose term expired 12 years ago and with radicalised, brutal Hamas, the promise of peace and its legitimate rights looks bleak.
-The Iran-Israel rivalry is there to stay and a near nuclear Iran, aligned with China and Russia will be major distraction for US, much to the advantage of Russia and China, which may well be a turning point in long term decline of US and Israel.

Backdrop

The tensions in Middle-East rose sky high with shadow war between two arch rivals Israel and Iran turning into actual war, as the region witnessed an unprecedented missile and drones barrage attack on Israel by Iran, in retaliation to Israeli attack on [i]Irani Consulate in Damascus on 01 April 24, which killed thirteen people including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, of the Quds force, the overseas branch of Iran’s Republican Guards, in seventh month of Israel-Hamas war.

It resulted in bleeding Iran, under immense domestic and reputational pressure to retaliate, ignoring USA’s warning of lumping it as ‘strategic patience’. Iran retaliated with massive [ii]barrage of over 300 missiles and drone attack. Israeli claimed of successfully beating back Iran’s missile and drone attack, having destroyed 99 percent of them, albeit with some active and passive help from its allies including availability of timely warnings.

Israel too responded with a limited attack that reportedly caused some damage to radar of  Iranian air defence (S-300) unit, with no casualties, which was later dismissed by Iran as a failed internal triple drone strike neutralised by its potent air defence. With Israel officially not owning it up, It indicates that both sides tried to dial down further direct confrontational escalation. It also suits Iran to give it a pass to continue engaging Israel through its proxies, instead of getting directly involved. Israel too has to address Hamas and proxies at a higher priority, as domestic pressure for getting release of hostages and calls of accountability for poor prosecution  of war mount on Netanyahu, besides risk of losing allies unwilling for offensive on Iran, due to unfavourable geo-political situation.  

After over 200 days of brutal terror attack by Hamas on 07 October 23, the focus of war is back to Gaza, West Bank with active Hezbollah and other hostile non state actors surrounding Israel. The truce possibilities are deadlocked as Hamas insists on ceasefire and IDF to leave Gaza before releasing any hostages, uncertainties of number of hostages alive held by Hamas and Netanyahu’s insistence to continue the war till complete victory (Meaning of which he himself finds difficult to define in achievable terms), which has left Israel isolated under immense pressure of hostage crisis, unprecedented civilian casualties and dismal humanitarian situation in Gaza, shivering under rhetoric of impending offensive in Rafah.

Was Israeli Attack on Iranian Consulate an Avoidable Overdrive?

While Israel may claim that it did not attack the Consulate of Iran, but a building adjacent to it,  which allegedly housed some of the collaborators of October 7 attack, but a deeper analysis indicates that it was a deliberate planned strike to swing US support and aid in its favour by inviting a direct threat from Iran, which was avoidable in regional interest, but considered as essential trigger by Netanyahu for his political survival.

He was under pressure of increasing criticism for International Human Right violations in Gaza, dwindling support of its allies, and risk of continued US aid. Provoking a direct attack by Iran was certain to get him US support and aid back.  He knew that attacking Consulate, which is considered as sovereign part of any country, would be taken as direct attack on Iranian territory and Iran will have to respond, triggering USA’s involvement to save Israel and his plan has worked ending its isolation from USA.

His not claiming the attack on Iran gave leverage to Western countries led by USA to further sanction Iran for its strikes on Israel, join with Israeli forces in destruction of Iranian missiles and drones and later release the package, which provides [iii]$26.4 billion to aid Israel. It was unfortunate to see US and allies walked into this trap with clearly evident hypocrisy of not condemning Israeli attack on Consulate, but condemning response by Iran, unable to rein in Netanyahu trying to expand it into regional conflict, which doesn’t solve any of the problems of Middle-East, but gets entire world into energy and economic crisis.

Did Iran Choose the Right Options?

Post Israeli attack on Consulate, Iran had no choice but to strike Israel despite US warnings, under immense domestic pressure, specially due to killing of IRGC commanders, but neither Iran nor USA were keen for any direct US-Iran confrontations due to strategic and economic implications. Under the circumstances, the response of firing barrage of missiles, after an adequate warning to all concerned, symbolically at bases used for strike on Consulate, and not using its strongest arsenal, following it statements of no more actions indicated that it was a symbolic strike to drive the message to domestic population of Iran as well as Israel. Iran also indicated its potential to choke Persian Gulf for adversaries by seizing an Israeli linked cargo ship.

The outcome of the strike was accordingly played up by both sides with Israel lauding its air defence and Iran claiming to have targeted Israel directly for the first time. The unclaimed counterstrike by Israel on Iran too was also a calibrated response, as USA had made it clear that it was [iv]not willing to strike Iran but ready to defend Israel; hence, unilateral escalation to dangerous limit (like striking nuclear installations), without allies did not remain a viable option for Netanyahu too. Playing down of Israeli counterstrike by Iran was also a good strategic decision of keeping the escalation dynamics within limits, because Iran has the luxury of repeated proxy strikes on Israel, but Israel’s options in this domain of warfare against Iran are limited to covert attacks with no worthwhile proxies.  

Why United States cannot Avoid Supporting Israel?

The linkage between the USA and Israel is multifaceted and has strategic, historical, political, and diplomatic dimensions. Strategically  the USA views Israel as strongest ally and most trusted, permanent partner in the volatile region of Middle-East. Israel is strategically located at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe. Israel provides the USA the strongest foothold/pivot in the region along with intelligence support and military influence in an unstable region, where US footprints have been gradually shrinking. To ensure its domination of Middle-East, Israel is the best bet for USA and arming it for its self-defence is the best strategic option for USA to pursue its own strategic interest.

Historically, the USA played a significant role in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, being one of the first countries to recognize its independence and first country to have shifted its embassy to Jerusalem, de-facto recognising its possession with Israel. Politically, Pro-Israel lobbying groups in the USA, such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), have wielded considerable influence in shaping American policy towards Israel.

Militarily, In 2016, the U.S. and Israeli signed the third 10-year Memorandum of Understanding, covering the period from Oct 1, 2018 to Sept 30, 2028. The MOU provides a total of $38 billion in military aid over the 10 years, $33 billion in grants to buy military equipment and $5 billion for missile defence systems. It is in addition to the recently announced aid package of $24 billion. The commitment extends to the supply of advanced military equipment and critical ammunition like missiles for air defence systems.

The diplomatic support of USA (A P5 member in United Nations), is extremely important for Israel, which has vetoed all UN resolutions which implicated Israel of violating International Humanitarian Laws and breach of some of the UN resolutions. If it was any other country, which would have caused the casualties and destruction of the type inflicted in Gaza by Israel, by now it would have been sanctioned, isolated and perhaps got arrest warrants for its leaders. USA’s blind support has prevented global actions against it and is encouraging Israeli hardliners for more destruction.  

Discomfort of US

United States find its self in a difficult spot in context of supporting Israel to continue the war. It cannot leave Israel halfway in destruction of Hamas, with few fighting units intact, which can bounce back to strike Israel again. USA has therefore adopted a policy of continuing diplomatic, military, financial and moral support to Israel, at the same time making a statements to favour humanitarian aid for people of Gaza, backed with optics of release of funds for the same. It is felt that US has sufficient leverage to force Israel to accept ceasefire and follow the path of negotiation, but it seems convinced that Israel needs to be given more time to destroy remaining infrastructure and units of Hamas in Rafah. Its calls for protecting and aiding civilians in Gaza look mere optics to reduce its own collateral damages in its international relations and Presidential elections. Israel doesn’t seem to be taking its advice to save casualties seriously, as is evident from statistics, despite US advisories.

USA is also coming under tremendous pressure from its other allies and partners on losing moral ground in failing to check Israel to prevent mass casualties of women and children. President Joe Biden is also worried about the political cost of losing support of large segment of pro-Palestinian population in pre-election year.  USA’s role as a proponent of rule based order is under threat due to standing with Israel, accused of violating IHL in Gaza on daily basis with USA as an accomplice. The students protests in renowned US universities is the latest case in point.

Possibility of Further Expansion of War in Middle East

While USA, Iran and most regional and global stakeholders do not want further expansion of war in Middle East, but adequate triggers are available to spark escalation. The fact that various bases of USA in Middle East have been attacked over 160 times since 07 October 2023 indicates the volatility of the region. Iran may have downplayed Israeli strike on its soil, but its response through proxies continues, which has potential of becoming unbearable for Israel and its backer USA. Moreover, Netanyahu’s rhetoric of complete victory can still lead him to another miscalculation like Damascus.

The possibility of further expansion remains as the historical causes leading to Iran- Israel rivalry haven’t  disappeared. Israel and Iran have long history of hostility, dating back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which transformed Iran into an Islamic republic and severed diplomatic ties with Israel. The regional power struggle has been so intense that Iran’s Islamic government had called for the destruction of Israel, and its support for Palestinian groups aligning with this stance. Both countries vie for influence in the Middle East, supporting opposing factions/militant groups in conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya and currently the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meanwhile, Israel views Iran’s nuclear program with great threat, ( a view shared by USA), which it wants to destroy. As there is no change in this equation, re-occurrence of expansion of war is possible any time.

Fallout in Red Sea and Indian Ocean Continues

Various drone/missile attacks, offensive acts  by Houthis on all shipping vessels connected to Israel, till ceasefire is implemented in Gaza, continues to choke one of the busiest maritime trade route, which impacts global trade. Shipping companies have started taking longer routes around South Africa, increasing the cost of transhipment, which is impacting the cost of oil and other commodities being shipped through Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

The US led ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’ to build Red Sea coalition for joint protection of shipping may have been signed by 20 countries, but has proved to be a weak coalition, as none of the Red Sea countries except Bahrain is part of it. Few of US allies have agreed for token presence, without putting their ship under US. The counter argument against this US initiative is that instead of expanding war in Red Sea, if US pressurises Israel for ceasefire in Gaza, there will be no threat to Red Sea and no need for Red Sea coalition. 

Despite military might of USA, its struggling to contain well determined Houthis because terrorising shipping traffic requires much less efforts by Houthis, in comparison to US trying to obliterate Houthis, which is not possible by standoff strikes alone. It will need another involvement or war in Libya, which USA might not have appetite for. USA also has also failed to convince Israel for ceasefire, which can end this crisis too.

The Focus Goes Back on Israel Hamas War in Gaza

Over 34000 Palestinians killed, 75000 injured and counting, is well beyond Israeli justification to ‘right to self-defence’. The number of ladies, children, journalists, aid workers and UN staff  killed so far, is unprecedented in any modern war. With approximately 1.9 million Palestinians (about 90% of Gaza’s population) displaced and most dwelling units destroyed, on the pretext of eradicating Hamas terrorists is too serious human right violation for the world to be silent spectator.

The overwhelming global sympathy on 07 October 2023 was deservingly with Israel after the barbaric, brutal terror attack by Hamas on civilian Israelis and foreigners and most rational minds in the world condemned it and felt that a tough action by Israel to punish Hamas was morally justified. However, the act of Israel using it as an excuse for enforcing Greater Israel dream of Netanyahu by erasing Gaza, causing unprecedented humanitarian crisis is certainly “over the top“. Netanyahu’s definition of “Right to self-defence” is stretching beyond limits, which can be correctly read as “Right to remain in power at any cost”.

US has consistently shielded Israel in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), against global outcry for its actions causing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. US threatened use of veto to tone down [v]UNSC Resolution (2720 (2023) to dilute the global demand for “an urgent and sustainable cessation of hostilities”, leaving no ambiguity that US is fully backing Israel to continue operations in Gaza to target Hamas, which is clearly violating [vi]International Humanitarian Law on many counts. Double standards of USA were also evident when it unilaterally vetoed UNSC resolution rejecting Palestine’s request for UN membership on 18 April 2024, despite talking of two state solution globally. It is not only eroding the moral standing of US and Israel on rule based order, but also indicating the helplessness of UN system and global community to check such human catastrophe.  

In the meantime, Israel continues to prepare for offensive in Rafah under the shadow of willingness for truce on its terms, which faces a deadlock as mentioned above.  Netanyahu reiterates that Israel won’t stop until Hamas is eliminated and all hostages released, but his strategy seems unviable to achieve what he is  trying. Hamas on the other hand reiterates no release of hostages till permanent ceasefire is announced. In view of the above it is necessary to evaluate the aims and strategies of opposing sides and their outcome in seventh month of war.

Decoding Aim and Strategy of Hamas

The strategy of Hamas on 07 October was to pick up maximum hostages to be used as bargaining chip later, embarrass Israel and provoke it beyond limits (by crude display of brutality), force it to respond disproportionately causing heavy casualties to innocent Palestinians in Gaza, so as to put the Palestinian issue from back burner to forefront, besides invoking global criticism of Israel for human right violations, which seems to have been achieved.

Hamas also expected favourable reaction in their support from Arab countries, radical Islamic countries and organisations, and drive a wedge in relationship of some Arab countries and others getting closer to Israel. This has not been fully achieved as Arab countries have voiced in favour of Palestinians (not Hamas, in context of its brutal assault on civilians) and have not intervened beyond diplomatic and moral support. Only Houthi’s have responded by blocking Red Sea traffic in exchange of ceasefire and resumption of aid for Palestinians and to some extent Hezbollah and few proxies from Iraq have launched few standoff attacks, which is grossly below Hamas expectations.

Palestinians call 07 October brutality as an ongoing step in spiral of revenge actions against their decades long forced subjugation and by Israeli Security Forces, which they term as ‘Occupation Force’. The future aim of Hamas will be to preserve its residual force and combat power and avoid direct confrontation. Its future strategy seems to be to hold on to remaining hostages as long as possible (which is their only insurance against onslaught by IDF) bargain for ceasefire and complete withdrawal of IDF from Gaza. In the interim continue to  launch sporadic strikes to frustrate IDF, whenever possible and later continue with guerrilla war.

Netanyahu’s Aim, Strategy and Criticism

Looking at [vii]Oslo Accord, Israel, as a responsible country was giving an impression (at least diplomatically) that it believed in recognising PLO/Palestinian Authority despite being in full control of West Bank, air and maritime space of Gaza, six entry and exit points to it and inflow of essential service there, for few decades. It therefore villainise Hamas which did not recognise Israel, after helping its rise to checkmate PLO or PA in initial stages.

After 07 October 2023, as per Netanyahu, the Israeli’s stated war aim was to eradicate Hamas completely, ensure that its citizens are never again threatened by an attack from Gaza and ensure release of all the hostages. He thinks that it can be done by brute military force. He also aims to prolong his political carrier by continuing the war, avoiding people questioning his prior lapses, due to fog of war.

Netanyahu’s handling of war, use of disproportionately excessive force level and the scale of destruction caused in Gaza indicates that his undeclared strategy is to make Gaza unhabitable, force Palestinians out of Gaza, and enforce one state solution without declaring it as such. To minimise its own casualties, IDF has opted for mass destruction and pulverising targets/buildings alleged as hideouts by standoff attacks, reducing hand to hand fighting in built up area.

IDF’s excuse that Hamas is using people as human shield; hence, in such heavy population density of Palestinians it’s difficult to identify Hamas and selectively destroy it, therefore use of airpower, 2,000-pound bombs, (capable of killing/wounding people more than 1,000 feet away and resultant collateral damages) are necessary, doesn’t justify use of area weapons designed for mass casualties and killing of over 12000 children. Blaming Artificial Intelligence tools for civilian casualties is as absurd as blaming high tech fencing for conceding Hamas attack. Israeli strategy of weaponizing survival needs of Palestinians might add to new definition of state terrorism, if world community ever manages to define it.

A critical analysis reveals that Netanyahu’s response to 07/10 attack is guided by vengeance and revenge of loss of reputation, which he and Israel suffered, instead of a well thought strategy, expected from a professional military force. His selection of strategic aim was overambitious; hence none of them has been achieved in six months, despite heavy civilian casualties, unlike Israel successful conclusion of the war in six days in 1967 and 19 days in Yom Kippur War in past. No Hamas fighter has surrendered and the sporadic attacks by Hamas and PIJ in Israel are continuing. The only release of hostages secured so far has been through negotiations and not by any successful military rescue operation by IDF so far.

Israel under frustrated Netanyahu is not willing to accept a ceasefire with approximately 130 hostages in the captivity of Hamas (Some are presumed dead). Netanyahu is under tremendous domestic pressure spearheaded by relatives of hostages, more so after fratricide of three of Israeli hostages, and aid workers of World Central Kitchen highlighting uncontrolled firing by its soldiers. The resignation of IDF Intelligence Chief over security lapses may not be adequate to exonerate Netanyahu, whose resignation is being demanded by public.  Other than hardliners under Netanyahu, many Israelis feel that chances of getting hostages alive through negotiations are higher than by IDF terrorising Palestinians by indiscriminate firing and expecting them to generate pressure on Hamas to surrender and release prisoners. Netanyahu and IDF feel that ceasefire can disrupt eradication of Hamas and its infrastructure and handicap them with lost opportunity of enforcing One state (Greater Israel) making [viii]Two State solution absolutely impractical for future.

Hamas is an ideology, brewed out of subjugation of population confined into bounds of Gaza. With growing hatred towards Israel due to unprecedented casualties, the ideology is unlikely to die down. Moreover, many Hamas leaders are outside Gaza, away from striking distance of Israel, will survive the destruction of Gaza. While Israel may be able to comb Gaza, due to the large asymmetry of military assets in its favour, backed by USA, to reduce striking capability of Hamas, in the long term it will make itself and its people more insecure to terror attacks within and outside Israel, as the US Defence Secretary rightly warns Israel that failure to protect Palestinian civilians could lead to ‘strategic defeat’.

Post War Gaza

Israel’s stands alone in its post war plans for Gaza, which are at variance with US, its allies, UN and world community. It is planning to have a buffer zone or a security envelope along Gaza border, however its statements reveal that it has intention of permanent presence of IDF in Gaza, and looks at Gaza without Hamas as end state, notwithstanding the democratic will of Palestinians, which has seen a sharp rise in favour of Hamas.

Its closest ally USA is insisting on two state solution, which has laid down five principles for the future of Gaza, as its Vice President said “No forcible displacement of the Palestinian people, no reoccupation of Gaza, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory, and no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism”.

Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Abbas may be keen to takeover Gaza, but it has own drawbacks due to lack of credibility of PA leaders, who haven’t had elections after 2005 and do not represent the people of Gaza. USA seems to be propping up pro US leader in PA under Abbas to take control of Gaza from Hamas. The recent appointment of Prime Minister of PA may be a step in that direction. However, this option is marred with grave risk as people in Gaza are unlikely to accept it. Hamas has also indicated that it in case of permanent ceasefire and full withdrawal of IDF from Gaza, it can think of surrendering weapons and assuming role purely as political party. Governance under UN stabilisation Mission till elections are held, could be an option, only if Israel as well as Palestinians agree for it, which seems difficult.

Way Ahead

Netanyahu’s strategy to seek pure military solution to the crisis in Gaza is ill conceived and his frustration of neither being able to ensure security of its people, nor getting the hostages released is not going to take him too far, but caught in cross fire are over two million Palestinians and 130 hostages, who can never forget these days of living under terror. Hamas terror is brutal and barbaric, and must be punished with right strategy with people centric approach and conventional surgical COIN operations, without using area weapons like airstrikes and bombs to minimise collateral damage.

With current strategy, IDF might prevail in destroying Gaza with harsh punishment to all its occupants, the complete destruction of Hamas and its ideology is not possible. The excessive civilian casualties inflicted  can give adequate reason for developing next generation of Hamas terrorists, even if the current one is defeated. The massive destruction of Gaza caused by Israel will take a decade to remove the debris as per UN estimates; hence token aid may not bring life back in Gaza for long.

Palestinians have been unfortunate not to have a good leader to fight for them after Arafat. The poor leadership of Abbas, whose term expired 12 years ago and with radicalised, brutal Hamas, the promise of peace and its legitimate rights looks bleak, notwithstanding genuineness of their cause and optics of support by Arab world. The current war is heading towards long term insurgency with more Palestinian revenge seekers and insecure Israelis within and outside the country. The threat in Red Sea will impact global shipping and economy for few months at least. The Iran-Israel rivalry is there to stay and a near nuclear Iran, aligned with China and Russia will be major distraction for US, much to the advantage of Russia and China may well be a turning point in long term decline of US and Israel.

Major General (Dr) S B Asthana

(The views expressed are personal views of the author, who retains the copy right). The author can be reached at Facebook and LinkedIn as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on twitter, and personnel site https://asthanawrites.org/ email shashiasthana29@gmail.com LinkedIn Profile www.linkedin.com/in/shashi-asthana-4b3801a6

Youtube link

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl50YRTBrOCVIxDtHfhvQDQ?view_as=subscriber

Photo Courtesy- 8 AM.MEDIA

---

[i] Regan, Helan et al. (2024), “Iran vows revenge as it accuses Israel of deadly airstrike on Syria consulate in deepening Middle East crisis”, CNN World, 02 April,2024, [Online: Web] Accessed 15 April 2024, URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/middleeast/iran-response-israel-damascus-consulate-attack-intl-hnk/index.html.

[ii] Spender, Tom (2024), “What was in wave of Iranian attacks and how were they thwarted?”, BBC, 15 April 2024, [Online: Web] Accessed 15 April 2024, URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68811273.

[iii] Labosco, Katie et al. (2024), “Here’s what’s in the foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel”, CNN, 24 April,2024, [Online: Web] Accessed 25 April 2024, URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/17/politics/ukraine-israel-foreign-aid-bill/index.html.

[iv] Mason, Jeff (2024), “Biden tells Netanyahu US would not take part in Israeli counter strike against Iran”, Reuters, 15 April 2024, [Online: Web] Accessed 15 April 2024, URL: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-tells-netanyahu-us-would-not-take-part-offensive-response-against-iran-2024-04-14/.

[v] Security Council resolution 2720 (2023), “Security Council adopts key resolution on Gaza crisis; Russia, US abstain”, UN News, United Nations, 22 December,2023,  [Online: Web] Accessed 15 April 2024, URL: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1145022.

[vi] International Humanitarian Law (2011),  “Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols”, International Red Cross Committee, April 2011, [Online: Web] Accessed 15 April 2024, URL: https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf.

[vii] Department of State, United States of America (1993), “The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process”, Office of the Historian, 13 September 1993, [Online: Web] Accessed 20 April 2024, URL: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo.

[viii] Asthana, S B (2023), “Humanitarian crisis deepens as Israel and Hamas war expands to South Gaza”, The Sunday Guardian, 10 December, 2023, [Online: Web] Accessed 11 December 2023, URL: https://sundayguardianlive.com/investigation/humanitarian-crisis-deepens-as-israel-and-hamas-war-expands-to-south-gaza