In ordering major attack on Iran, Netanyahu sheds his inhibitions

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo / Getty Images

Although the outcome of hostilities between Israel and Iran remains uncertain, the scale and audacity of Israel’s airstrikes have made one thing clear: Inhibitions that may have constrained Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the past no longer do so.

The Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites, and the targeted killing of at least a dozen senior military officials and scientists, represents the latest sign of Israel’s shift away from a decades-old policy favouring containment, restraint and short wars, according to Middle East analysts.

That change has been under way since October 7, 2023, when Israel failed to foresee thousands of Hamas fighters surging out of Gaza and inflicting the worst attack on the country in its history.

“The world needs to understand that in a post-October 7 environment, the Israelis have demonstrated over and over that their tolerance for existential risk is lower,” said Dana Stroul, a senior Pentagon official during the Biden Administration.

In the past 20 months, the Israel Defence Forces has occupied territory and carried out frequent airstrikes in neighbouring Lebanon and Syria, reflecting what Israeli military officials say is a new border security doctrine.

Netanyahu has vowed not to cease the military campaign in Gaza until he achieves total victory over Hamas, displaying a tolerance for prolonged conflict that runs against traditional Israeli strategic thinking.

And last week, Netanyahu ordered a unilateral strike against Iran that could derail nuclear talks between the Trump Administration and Iran.

Amid Israeli concerns that Iran is nearing a weapons capability, Israeli military officials said they struck because they believed Iran’s nuclear programme “had reached the point of no return.”

United States and Israeli intelligence officials have assessed that the Iranian leadership has not made the political decision to produce a nuclear weapon.

Aaron David Miller, who has advised seven US secretaries of state on the Middle East, said there has been a shift not only within the Israeli security establishment but also within the thinking of Israel’s long-serving Prime Minister, who once shied away from exercising force but now appears comfortable with leading Israel as a “regional hegemon”.

In 2020, for instance, Netanyahu declined to participate in a US operation to assassinate Major General Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s top military commander, US President Donald Trump has publicly claimed on several occasions.

“He was very risk-averse, very reluctant to use force,” said Miller, who dealt with Netanyahu over a long career at the State Department.

“He was always one step forward, two steps to the side, one step back. Now, he’s become risk-ready.”

Since Netanyahu launched the operation known as “Rising Lion” on Friday, he has shown little interest in seeing the Trump Administration and Iran return to the negotiating table.

Instead, he has spoken of overthrowing the Iranian regime and in a speech exhorted the Iranian people to rise up against their theocratic rulers.

Yesterday, Iran said it would cancel the next round of US nuclear talks, which had been scheduled for today NZT in Oman, after accusing the US of “complicity” and of helping co-ordinate the Israeli attack, which destroyed many of Iran’s air defences and missile launchers and decapitated its military leadership.

Iranian officials also warned Western countries that it would target the military bases and ships of any country that helps repel its attacks against Israel, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported. Such a step would represent a significant escalation and potentially draw Washington into the conflict.

After trading missile fire with Iran, Israeli military officials said they had significantly damaged Iranian nuclear sites at Natanz and Isfahan.

In an address, Netanyahu said Israeli forces would soon establish air superiority over Tehran and would “hit every target of the ayatollahs’ regime” in a protracted conflict.

The Israeli security establishment saw how it could impose its will during military activities in the year leading up to this week’s conflict with Iran.

After Israel’s external intelligence service, the Mossad, crippled the ranks of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Israeli air force killed its leader Hasan Nasrallah in September, Israel decided to keep its troops inside southern Lebanon.

Israel also moved to block the new Syrian Government, which took over in December, from establishing itself as a military power, launching hundreds of airstrikes on strategic stockpiles and demanding that Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa demilitarise an entire region running south of Damascus to the Israeli border.

Iran, whose network of proxy militant groups and allies stretched across Syria and Lebanon, was also revealed to be vulnerable when Israel launched an aerial attack against it in October.

These developments “changed the thinking in Israel in terms of its capability and taking risks”, said Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli military intelligence official who specialised in Iran and its regional allies.

“When you don’t have Syria, when Hamas is non-existent, and without Hezbollah, you can do almost whatever you want.”

But, Citrinowicz warned, Israel had not done enough long-term planning beyond the immediate use of force.

“So we expand [attacks] into [Iran’s] energy sector, so we fight a war of attrition that never ends,” he said. “And then what?”

Already, Israel’s conflict with Iran has stirred anxieties in the Gulf.

Unlike in the past, when Arab countries in the Gulf would not have been averse to Israel’s fighting their traditional Iranian adversary, they are now putting a premium on regional stability, in large part as a precondition for economic growth, and have become increasingly concerned that Israel’s actions may pose the main threat to that stability.

In recent months, Saudi Arabia had gone to great lengths to insulate itself from a potential Israel-Iran clash. The Saudi defence minister had told Iranian leaders during his landmark trip to Tehran in April that the kingdom would not help Israel, directly or indirectly, or allow its airspace to be used by Israel, said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi businessman with close ties to the monarchy.

“It was very important that the Iranians get that message, so they don’t think that the Gulf countries are ganging up with Israel against them,” Shihabi said.

Yesterday, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian by phone to express his condolences for the families of those killed “as a result of the Israeli aggressions”.

He “stressed that these attacks led to the disruption of the ongoing dialogue to resolve the crisis,” according to the Saudi Foreign Ministry.

Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group, said Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar were worried that Israel and Iran may be entangled in a prolonged conflict that results in Israel’s weakening Iran but not “finishing the job right”.

“My sense is those countries very strongly preferred diplomacy. But if there was to be conflict, they much prefer it to be decisive,” he said.

Miller said Netanyahu had demonstrated Israel’s military superiority and his willingness to use it - but his Arab neighbours wanted to see him turn that into lasting stability.

“The more Mr Netanyahu is on a course in which he’s not going to translate his escalation dominance into more stable arrangements or peace deals, the more wary they’ll become,” he said.