The danger facing the Middle East is not from wild or impulsive action, but from the considered decisions of men who believe they know what they are doing and how their opponents will respond. Their confidence is not reassuring when their judgment has previously fallen short.
On Friday, Iran was quick to play down the overnight strike by Israel, suggesting that it was unclear who was responsible and indicating that there would not be immediate retaliation. Israel had chosen to launch a limited attack on Isfahan, the home of a major nuclear site, without targeting the facility itself. The aim was apparently to send a message about what it could do, not to cause significant damage now. If this is the extent of its response to Iran’s weekend attack, it is far from the worst that many had predicted. The optimistic view is that both sides feel, or at least feel they can claim, that they have restored deterrence to some degree. A moment of respite is welcome. But relief would be premature.
From the moment that Hamas launched its horrific attack on 7 October, and Israel responded with its deadly assault on Gaza, the potential for a regional conflagration has been at the forefront of international concerns. Escalation is not a threat: it has already happened. Conflict has spread across four fronts, with surging violence in the West Bank, almost-daily exchanges of fire with Hezbollah along the Lebanese border that have displaced tens of thousands in southern Lebanon and Israel’s north, and the outright confrontation between Israel and Iran after years of shadow war. This shifting and volatile environment charges existing tensions and tactics with fresh danger.
According to US officials, Israel – which has a history of assassinating Iranian targets – did not realise that striking senior Revolutionary Guards commanders on diplomatic premises in Syria would provoke a strong Iranian reaction. If so, that was a remarkable miscalculation. The killings prompted Iran’s first direct attack on Israel, with Tehran eschewing its usual preference for proxies. Yet though the drone and missile barrage was huge and unprecedented, the notice Iran gave to the US prompted the interception support from the US, UK and others that ensured that damage was minimal.
Joe Biden’s message to Israel was to “take the win” and not respond. But while he and other western allies seek to restrain Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister is dependent on far-right coalition partners goading him to go further in Gaza and beyond. (One – Itamar Ben-Gvir, the minister of national security – wrote “Feeble!” on X in the hours after the attack on Isfahan.) There has long been pressure to tackle Iran’s nuclear programme sooner rather than later. Hardliners within the Iranian regime may also seek to up the ante.
De-escalation in the region “starts in Gaza”, as the UN secretary-general António Guterres observed on Thursday, yet far from planning its future post-conflict, Mr Netanyahu continues to threaten an assault on Rafah. The new US and EU sanctions on extremist settlers in the West Bank are a step forward, but much more must be done. Efforts to calm the crisis along the Lebanese border must be redoubled. Above all, Israel and Iran’s partners must press for restraint. The old rules have been overturned, and we are in a new age of uncertainty. The test is not what happens tomorrow, but in the coming months.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
