Netanyahu's Iran Conflict: A Strategy for Political Survival Amidst Regional Instability

Benjamin Netanyahu has spent the majority of his political career not only justifying a war with Iran as inevitable but also presenting it as unfinished business. For Netanyahu, as an Israeli Prime Minister, the start of the latest conflict with Iran is itself the beginning of a victory.

Therefore, it is not certain that every outcome of the war will benefit Israel. However, by showcasing the ongoing war, he seeks to justify all his actions. He needs to show that confronting Iran was necessary. By portraying Iran as a power that must eventually be fought, and by delaying, he seeks to prove that Iran is becoming more formidable and challenging.

Netanyahu does not necessarily seek a clear victory. He only needs to create a useful narrative. Israeli voters are heading to the polls this year. This war is not solely aimed at distracting those voters. It is also intended to further solidify an Israeli national security doctrine that marginalizes diplomacy in the coming days.

He wants Israelis to talk about Tehran rather than the events of October 7. He wants Israelis to discuss the enemy deemed capable of bringing existential crisis, rather than questioning his political accountability. He wants them not to question the failure to eliminate Hamas, which has survived continuous attacks and destruction for the last two and a half years, or the unresolved Gaza destruction. He wants the Israeli public not to debate the renewed conflict with Hezbollah and the Lebanese crisis, which shows no sign of ending.

The war with Iran will not erase those failures. It only pushes them into the background temporarily. It brings the political dialogue to the emotional and political state Netanyahu desires.

It supports his stance of showing himself as the only one capable of genuinely confronting Iran to create and then alleviate fear among the people. In that situation, he does not hesitate to promise to remove the challenges facing the Israeli people through the use of force.

For all these reasons, the Middle Eastern landscape becomes a victory for Netanyahu every day. If Iran succumbs to pressure from military might, Netanyahu will claim success through the use of force in a situation where diplomacy failed. Even if Iran is unwilling to yield but its military capability weakens, Netanyahu will have a major claim.

He can claim success in significantly reducing Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities in time. If the Iranian government remains in power but faces massive bloodshed, widespread siege, and internal turmoil, he will claim to have dealt with an incomprehensible enemy.

As confusion and bloodshed escalate in Iran, it will tragically not be seen in Jerusalem as a problem that could have been stopped. Instead, it will be presented as a problem that must be resolved, even if from afar. A more powerful Iranian regime is not fatal for Netanyahu either. He will connect that situation to a narrative that proves the necessity of further fighting and conflict.

Suppose Iran strategically prolongs the war, continuously launching missiles at Israel. Even in that scenario, Netanyahu will argue that Israelis must accept the necessity of hiding in bunkers and not attending school as a natural cost paid. And sadly, in the current conflict, there is no power left to tell Netanyahu, 'You are wrong.'

In 2010 and 2011, when Netanyahu was about to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel's security chiefs and high-level government advisors stopped him. According to them, the Israeli military, the 'IDF,' was not ready for such an attack. Furthermore, they argued that proceeding with the attack could jeopardize all achievements gained through covert operations up to that point.

Fifteen years later, there is no significant dissenting voice in the Israeli military or government. Netanyahu is surrounded by sycophants and those who ideologically agree with him. Meanwhile, in the United States, there is a President who is happy with the shock. The situation is now as Netanyahu desires: a joint Israeli-American military operation is underway under US leadership. Moreover, the operation began with the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The war initiated by Israel in June last year helped set the stage for the current situation. Israel's initial actions and intelligence and military successes further emboldened Trump. He was ready to join Israel in a powerful attack using 'bunker busters' on Iran's nuclear facilities. Eight months later, Trump is again drawn into the war. Netanyahu does not want to see Trump leave the war unfinished now.

Before starting the current war on February 28, Netanyahu met with the US President twice. In February, the Israeli Chief of Staff also secretly visited Washington. At Trump's private residence, 'Mar-a-Lago,' Netanyahu stated that Iran's ballistic missiles were a threat not only to Israel but also to US bases and allies in the Gulf region.

Protests occurred in Iran in January. Following that, it seems Netanyahu set the stage for war. He began emphasizing ballistic missiles and regime change, moving away from negotiations and dialogue concerning the nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the desire for a clear victory in Iran was growing. The idea of assassinating the Iranian leadership, installing a leader of their choice, and establishing a state that complies with their wishes dominated their thinking. However, the so-called Venezuela model is not a reliable approach for Iran. Iran is a much larger country. Its regime has deeply entrenched roots and is profoundly ideological.

The long-term consequences of the current war are not uniform for Israel. A major question has plagued Israel for decades: Is it possible to transform military dominance in the Middle East into sustainable and long-term security? Even if the current war brings Israel to a position where no one can challenge its military might, Israel will still be under greater political siege.

A dominant power not only defends itself but also centralizes the dissatisfaction and anger directed against it. The risk of such discontent is not limited to the Middle East. Most Americans do not support the current war. A large segment of the American public had dramatically turned against Israel even before the war began.

A Gallup poll conducted last month found that 41 percent of Americans sympathized more with Palestine than with Israel. Only 36 percent expressed sympathy for Israel. This is a significant change seen in recent years. There is also a major erosion in American support for Israel and military aid for the establishment of a Jewish state.

If the current war results in large civilian casualties in Iran or military and financial losses for the US, the Israel-US relationship is likely to deteriorate further. The environment of anger and accusation against Israel could transform into widespread conspiracy theories and 'anti-Semitic' narratives against the Jewish community and Israel's power.

Concerns have intensified as questions arise in American media suggesting Israel pushed the US into the war. Senior US officials have also hinted at Israel's desires in the Iran war.

There is another danger. In the long run, not only the Iranian people but also Israelis will suffer. Israeli leaders do not want to talk much about the consequences of the war. Israel's National Security Council has previously warned that terrorist elements linked to Tehran could target Israeli citizens abroad.

Security has been increased at Israeli embassies and places where Jews gather. The state can absorb such strategic shocks. However, ordinary citizens may become victims of various acts of retaliation and revenge at train stations, churches, airports, and restaurants even after the war. Such incidents have already started appearing following the attack in Gaza.

Despite all these problems, Netanyahu and the Israeli state apparatus are highly likely to claim success. This is actually the core issue right now. They are running a politics where declaring victory does not require permanent peace. It does not require a secure future for Israel. They need to continue attacks periodically to reduce the capability of their rivals, which analysts also refer to with the metaphor of 'mowing the grass.' No one in the Israeli establishment proposes an alternative strategic vision.

Even after demonstrating overwhelming force, Israel is once again choosing the path of military dominance for security. It is seeking support from momentary skirmishes for a sustainable regional order. Despite all these activities, there is no sign of a solution to the problem. The Middle East continues to burn.

(From The New York Times)