In the West, Iran is often seen as an aggressor state, one whose actions challenge the West and perpetuate conflict. But who is the real escalating force in the Middle East? Associate Professor Christian Emery argues that Iran's latest attacks fall directly into Netanyahu’s trap, they indicate de-escalation is not on everyone's agenda, and that the gulf between Israeli and American interests is wider than ever.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged that Israel would ‘change the Middle East’ in response to the unparalleled horror that followed Hamas terrorists storming communities in southern Israel, he provided no elaboration on what he meant. Six months of carnage in Gaza and across the region have followed, and the first direct attack on Israel by another state since 1991 is one of several changes that Netanyahu surely didn’t anticipate.

___

The question now is whether both sides decide to return to their decades-long shadow war, or whether the fall-out from the third and deadliest war in Gaza is a permanent willingness to strike directly at each other’s territory.

___

However performative, Iran’s decision to launch an assortment of over 300 drone and missiles against Israeli targets represents a deeply worrying paradigm shift in how Iran and Israel manage their geopolitical conflict. For over four decades this conflict has been characterised by an overriding reluctance to avoid open military conflict. This is to say that it was underpinned by a high degree of mutual restraint, pursued using proxy forces, covert operations, cyber-attacks, and fiery rhetoric, in a manner that led to perpetual conflict but made conventional war highly unlikely. The question now is whether both sides decide to return to their decades-long shadow war, or whether the fall-out from the third and deadliest war in Gaza is a permanent willingness to strike directly at each other’s territory.

Most sensible observers see Iran’s missile and drone strikes as grand in scale but carefully calibrated to dampen escalation risks. It should also be remembered that it was Israel that changed the dynamics of the conflict by bombing an Iranian consular mission in Syria a few weeks ago. Iran had hoped that the international community would see Iran’s response as being provoked by this reckless action. It may even have hoped there would be some acknowledgement that it had carefully telegraphed its retaliation. It certainly calculated that Israel’s options for retaliation would be heavily circumscribed by US pressure and an international reaction that increasingly blamed the chain of events threatening to engulf the Middle East on Israel’s decision to pursue the wholesale destruction of Gaza with wanton disregard for civilian life, even to the point of inflicting famine, in pursuit of its security.

It wasn’t necessarily an unreasonable calculation. Just hours before Iran launched its first-ever direct attack against Israel, Israel was facing a barrage of condemnation for killing humanitarian workers; prominent Democrats in Washington were demanding Prime Minister Netanyahu’s resignation and there was even talk about a pause in the supply of weapons to Israel. In Washington, President Biden was warning of a sea-change in America’s policy of unconditional support to Israel if it didn’t protect civilians and aid workers in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu was also increasingly running out of road politically at home, with the ultranationalist fanatics he relies on to keep his fragile coalition together threatening to walk if he relented to US pressure to allow more aid into Gaza and rein in Jewish settlers pressing for the reestablishment of settlements removed nearly 20 years ago.