The ongoing crisis in the Middle East has been depicted by John Sawers, former foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, ex-head of the British foreign affairs ministry, previous UK ambassador to the United Nations, and chief of MI6 until 2014, as a blend of grand strategic plans and petty political manoeuvres. This astute evaluation outlines the components that have directed Binyamin Netanyahu’s handling of the conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza.
The choice Netanyahu makes following the assassination of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief in Gaza, by Israeli forces recently is set to critically influence these components.
Netanyahu has utilised the petty political machinations to maintain his position as Prime Minister, by extending the Gaza conflict to deflect culpability for the horrendous atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, and to maintain the unity of his ultra-conservative government, whilst evading legal prosecutions. He might now proclaim a triumph over Hamas, initiating a ceasefire and the release of hostages.
However, Netanyahu’s approach and his inclination to escalate conflicts contradict this potential move. Ismail Haniyeh, the prime Hamas negotiator, was killed in Tehran shortly after Israel torpedoed a Gaza ceasefire agreement brokered by Joe Biden. Haniyeh had secured this deal with Qatari, Egyptian, and American diplomats, but Netanyahu dismissed it, favouring the continuation of Israel’s presence in the Philadelphi corridor. This decision led to the killing of Hizbullah’s military head, Fuad Shukr, followed by the execution of its political leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in Beirut.
Netanyahu’s approach of deliberately taking risks and escalating tensions acts as a distraction from his political manoeuvres.
Netanyahu’s steady tactic has been to taunt Iran into responding, enabling Israel to launch a counteroffensive, sufficient to involve the US in a regional conflict with the Islamic nation. This places the reluctant and strategically outmanoeuvred Biden administration in a more difficult position ahead of the Presidential elections, and augments Donald Trump’s argument that Biden is weak. This strategy was the driving force behind the September attacks on Hizbullah in Lebanon using pager bombs, and the ongoing ground conflict in Lebanon, with the aim to obliterate the Hizbullah threat and enable 63,000 northern Israelis to return to their homes.
According to Sawers, former U.S. President Trump was highly susceptible to manipulation by Israel, more than any other president in U.S. history. Trump took steps such as recognising Israel’s unlawful takeover of the Golan Heights and withdrawing the U.S. from the nuclear deal with Iran, actions which were clearly influenced by Netanyahu’s efforts to lobby the U.S. Congress, directly dismissive of the stance of his predecessor, Barack Obama. These actions paved the way for his proposed Palestine resolution to be guided by Israel.
In 2020, Netanyahu utilized the Abraham Accords, which formalised Israeli diplomatic relations with UAE, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco, as the foundation for his speech before the U.N. in September 2023, notably presenting a regional map featuring no representation of Palestine. In his address to the U.S. Congress held on July 26th in that year, he proposed the possibility of enlarging these accords to form a broader regional partnership with the U.S., presenting a united front against Iran.
Netanyahu’s primary convictions were candidly voiced in his recent address to the U.S. Congress. His vision is for Gaza to be demilitarised and deradicalised, mirroring the stipulations enforced on Germany post-World War II and remaining under firm Israeli control. He refrains from referencing a Palestinian state, something he has consistently opposed. His strategy revolves around achieving an absolute military triumph over Hamas and Hizbullah, after which a new strategic order for the Middle East can be established. This order, Netanyahu stated, would be predicated upon and aim towards vanquishing Iran and overthrowing its Islamic government. He interprets this as a potential victory of western civilisation over barbarism and an issue of pivotal importance for Israel’s allies, while subtly promoting Islamophobia and using popular right-wing rhetoric.
Despite the presence of boycotts and protests, Netanyahu’s speech before Congress was warmly received by Republican members with many standing ovations. He took the time to remind those present about the crucial role of Israel in maintaining American interests in the Middle East, emphasising that Israel’s actions often eliminated the need for American troop engagement.
In the face of mounting condemnations for the drastic imbalance between Israeli and Palestinian casualties and deaths, Netanyahu remains unfazed. His belief is anchored on the necessity of robust military supremacy and continuous governance over the West Bank and Gaza, as a means to protect Israel, and by extension, Judaism, against any existential threat. It mirrors the ideology of revisionist Zionism propagated by Vladimir Jabotinsky during the 1920s, and which was passed down to him by his father, an academic of Spanish Judaism. Jabotinsky staunchly opposed Zionism’s more socially democratic strands and became the primary ideological muse for Netanyahu’s Likud party and its far-right coalition partners. Jabotinsky’s promotion of the ‘Iron Wall’ concept, advocating for overwhelming military strength as the key to crushing Arab opposition, solidifies Netanyahu’s approach.
Netanyahu’s strategic calculation of risks and his penchant for confrontational amplification have served his political ambitions well on a lesser scale. By displaying Israel’s intelligence prowess against Hizbullah and Iran, he has successfully increased his public approval ratings, thereby delaying a forthcoming Israeli election and any consequential political repercussions. Now, he must strike a balance between the pressure from the US, Europe, and Israel for a ceasefire following Sinwar’s demise and his own inclination to inflame tensions with Iran – a crucial decision for Netanyahu’s political future.