Over the past twelve months, incessant efforts have been made by the Biden Administration to hinder a regional war in Middle East, anticipating the damaging impact it could have on the worldwide economy or even possibly involve the US. Nonetheless, this policy is at risk of not succeeding, with Iran issuing a missile attack on Israel for the second time in the same year. The US played a crucial role in aiding Israel with the defence, causing US national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, to pledge harsh repercussions for Iran. He further stated that the US would work hand-in-hand with Israel to ensure these consequences are applied which potentially signifies impending US-Israeli military issues with Iran.
Earlier in the year, Israel agreed to tone down its revenge to a level Iran could discreetly agree to, ending the feud between the two. Currently, it is uncertain if the affair going on between Israel and Iran can be stopped from further escalating.
Israel strategically started another line of attack in its war against regional foes, initiating a ground invasion in Lebanon as a follow-up to the damaging attacks it had already launched on Hizbullah, a militant force supported by Iran. The Binyamin Netanyahu-led government seemingly believes it has the upper hand over its opposition. It could be planning a severe counterattack against Iran, hoping to inflict permanent harm on the Islamic republic whilst possibly crippling its feared nuclear scheme.
The implications of an Israeli counterattack would not have been lost on Iran. However, some individuals in Tehran may anticipate that they are falling into a trick by launching another missile attack on Israel. Yet, the failure to react to Israel’s attacks on Hizbullah – a response to the murder of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s head in July in Tehran – may also be seen as a significant risk by Iran.
The harsh reality of war suggests that a nation incapable of protecting its allies or responding to capital attacks appears weak. This perceived weakness can inadvertently invite more attacks and a reduction in influence and prestige.
Conceivably, even with its firm stance, the White House might still be advising Israel to measure its retaliation and not react too harshly, causing Iran to feel the need to raise the stakes. After the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Biden administration has no intention of being entangled in another Middle East conflict.
Amid active engagements in Gaza and Lebanon, Israel’s Netanyahu administration may have a strategic reason to avoid further escalation of the direct conflict with Iran at this moment. Despite this, if Israel chooses to adopt a more forceful direct action approach, their nonchalance towards the pleas of the Biden administration for tempering their response has been evident. The White House envisions that by fostering cooperation with Israel, it may gain more leverage concerning the intensity and characteristics of Israeli’s response.
For an extended duration, the US has implored Israel to refrain from assaulting Hizbullah. Once hostilities commenced last month, the Biden administration, in concordance with the UK, France and other nations, advocated for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon – a call that was once again disregarded.
Because of a contradiction embedded in the US policy, The Netanyahu administration continues to be dismissive towards the preferences of their primary ally and defence guarantor. Despite the Biden administration’s efforts to encourage Israel to practice caution in Gaza and Lebanon, they will invariably shield Israel from any fallout of escalation, highlighting the overarching responsibility to protect against threats from Iran and other regional adversaries.
Consequently, the Israeli government acknowledges that disregarding the Biden administration carries minimal repercussions, and may even generate certain advantages if it drives the US into enforcing its armed forces against Iran.
The possibility of the US rejecting support for Israel during an emergency, which has always been remote, becomes slimmer with the US presidential election just over a month away. Although Kamala Harris has toyed with the idea of a stricter approach towards Netanyahu on Gaza, she will also need to present a firm stance and express full backing for Israel during unsafe times. Moreover, she must avoid any appearance of leniency towards Iran, given the long-standing history of hostility between the two nations, originating from the 1979-81 hostage crisis.
Nevertheless, the existing precarious geopolitical landscape could portend negative outcomes for Harris. Donald Trump is keen on asserting that the world witnessed peace during in his tenure, blaming the ‘weakness’ of the Biden administration for instigating conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. This recent escalation aligns seamlessly with his narrative.
Historically, unanticipated events that influence the election trajectory with just weeks remaining before the vote, termed “October surprises”, happen during each presidential election in America. The developing situation between Israel and Iran might be this election’s “October surprise”, to the potential advantage of Trump.
– Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024