Opinion | How Israel drives Middle East conflict for its own political gain, and the strategic benefit of the US

By Tom Fowdy

Israel has assassinated the leader of Hamas.

The political leader of the group Ismail Haniyeh, was killed while visiting Tehran, Iran. Just hours before, Israel also killed a senior Hezbollah commander, before then later killing the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (again). The killings have shattered any hopes that the Israel-Gaza war would be coming to an end soon, as Benjamin Netanyahu obviously sought to foil, and moreover, it is widely believed Israel will pursue war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran has raised the "red flag of vengeance" and the Ayatollah has ordered another strike against Israel, although based on the last showing we should not expect this to be a war in and of itself, but another barrage of rockets and drones like last time, which were largely thwarted by the United States, UK, and allied Arab countries.

Despite this, it is obvious the Middle East is on the brink, again. Benjamin Netanyahu has premised his entire political survival upon the elimination of threats to Israel in the form of Hamas and Hezbollah and has been prepared to go to any length to do so. Given unconditional backing from the United States and its allies, he has been given an effective free hand to wage a war of extreme brutality that has had untold humanitarian consequences. Seeing that peace effectively means the end of his career, Netanyahu is striving for "total victory" and therefore has a vested interest in escalation, as opposed to peace.

Because Israel does not face sufficient consequences for its actions, Netanyahu has identified he can call the bluff of his backers and change the status quo at will. Pandering to the most hardline Zionists in his governing coalition, he is aspiring to destroy the two-state solution completely, occupying the Gaza Strip while also accelerating the force of settlement building in the West Bank. On a larger scale, he also seeks political gain through antagonizing Iran. While, as noted, a direct conflict between Israel and Iran remains unlikely for a myriad of reasons, what we should note is that such confrontations escalate indirect, or proxy conflicts, between Israel and Iran's proxies, which subsequently allow him to market the narrative that Israel is existentially threatened. Therefore, enabling those who back it in the West.

The previous Israel-Iran crisis in April-May this year is an example of how this works. Israel deliberately and provocatively bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria and again assassinated the leader of the Iranian Guards Corps. This of course was an illegal and outrageous act contrary to all diplomatic conventions, a deed the enemies of the West would not be allowed to get away with. Iran subsequently responded by sending hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles toward Israel, and while the impact of the attack was minimal, it was nonetheless immediately presented with the narrative in the Western mainstream media that somehow Israel was the "victim" in this situation and Iran was, for its retaliation, the "aggressor."

Not only did this situation deflect criticism from Netanyahu's government, but also it led to an emboldening of NeoConservative voices in Washington D.C. which subsequently allowed aid for other conflicts, such as Ukraine, to be passed. House Speaker Michael Johnson suddenly transformed from a "MAGA" into a self-proclaimed "Reagan Republican" overnight. In the view of the Western foreign policy strategist, why would you stop Netanyahu in his tracks when his actions, as dangerous as they are, are advancing your other foreign policy objectives? Ever since that day, commentators have talked about a so-called "China-Iran-Russia" axis and also accused Beijing of backing Tehran.

Netanyahu's acts of war have broader ripples that shape the geopolitical environment they are striving to create. The United States, after all, does not want peace in the Middle East, it does not want powers such as China to promote normalization between Saudi Arabia and Iran, rather it wants division because American foreign policy strategy is to create and exploit division so that it can then present itself as the security guarantor and profit. The US has been attempting to hammer out a deal with Saudi Arabia that upgrades their relationship to a formal alliance and offers them technology in exchange for locking in anti-China commitments. When conflicts like this occur, it isn't a threat to regional peace and stability, it's music to Washington's ears. In light of such, Iran recognizes it is not in its strategic interest to engage in an outright war, but Israel deliberately provokes with the goal of trying to force its hand for precisely that. Restraint is required, but it seems Israel has already made its mind up about an outright war with Hezbollah at the very least.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | India's dramatic and unexpected U-turn on China Policy

Opinion | Life goes on in Hong Kong

Opinion | Another twist of fate in the saga of the 2024 US election

Opinion | Does J.D Vance mean anything for US foreign policy, not so much