Western observers relate recent assassinations to the Israeli Prime Minister's trip to America, where pro-Netanyahu commentators attempt to create the impression that he received permission to continue and escalate military actions. Meanwhile, American and European monitors insist that the Biden administration and its allies urged him to cease fire, as the world can no longer bear the violence of war, and the military is weary.
Of course, the day after the war brings many challenges, primarily managing the sector, aid, and contemplating reconstruction, all of which involve the assistance of Arabs, Europeans, and Americans. This situation has disturbed Netanyahu, who prefers to weaken Palestinian factions further through war and to deplete Hezbollah in Lebanon. He is also concerned about the Iranian nuclear threat and ways to address it.
Americans are trying to bring Iranians back to the negotiating table regarding the nuclear issue, but Netanyahu sees no hope in that. He received indirect support from Donald Trump, who told him: "I am coming back to the presidency, and I don’t want wars during my term, so you have the next few months to deal with all the matters you see threatening Israel!". Whether these reports or assessments are correct or likely is debatable.
What is significant is that upon his return, Netanyahu began implementing the agenda he had set, which got a unique opportunity due to the missile attack on the playground in Majdal Shams in the occupied Golan, resulting in casualties among the youth. The assassination of the military leader of Hezbollah, Fouad Shukr, was viewed as a response to the incident at the Majdal Shams playground. However, hours later, Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran, where he had come to congratulate Bidzhakian on his presidency.
There is a consensus among observers that this action goes against the "rules of engagement" and severely embarrasses Iran and its organizations spread throughout the region. Threatening statements are pouring in from Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, all promising harsh responses. It is clear that the Israeli Prime Minister is provoking these reactions, seeing it as beneficial to his government. Through escalation, he hopes to strike stronger blows against Hezbollah and other groups and, if needed, consider military actions regarding the nuclear issue.
However, it is not in Iran's interest to weaken Hezbollah, which is positioned on the Mediterranean front and would be useful in any negotiations concerning the nuclear issue. Additionally, Iran has established fronts in several countries and cannot afford to lose Iraq or Lebanon, even from an economic perspective. The Houthis appear promising in threatening Western interests at sea.
If a comprehensive war breaks out, Israel will engage with all its might, and once again, Americans say they will help, perhaps directly. Thus, all achievements become threatened with destruction. This is the reality that has been shaped in its current form since the early twenty-first century, following the invasion of Iraq, and it continues to grow at the expense of the disintegration of states and societies. A total war threatens this structure, at least in Lebanon and Syria. Therefore, Iran does not want a comprehensive war that threatens its strategic gains. However, its silence regarding the assassination of Haniyeh could cost it dearly in terms of prestige.
The situation in the region is extremely dangerous, and the war in Gaza is a significant testament to this. However, the players have increased, becoming regional and international. It is said that no one wants war, but many seem to enjoy living on the edge of the river or sea. Many believe that living on the edge of the abyss can bring numerous benefits. However, this stance carries responsibilities that militias might not be able to bear; can both countries (Israel and Iran) withstand the consequences?