If the elimination of the leader of Hezbollah on Friday, Hassan Nasrallahdid not provoke an immediate response from Iran, Israel’s limited ground incursion on Monday in Lebanon was enough to precipitate the attack on Tehran.
The Islamic Republic launched several hundred missiles on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on Tuesday, which the effective Israeli Iron Dome managed to repel almost in their entirety again.
In this way, Iran is definitely discovered. Because, by attacking Israel not in response to an offensive on its territory but in retaliation for Israeli operations in Lebanon, it shows that it hid behind its satellites and encouraged them to destabilize the Jewish country (since it also sponsored the Hamas massacre on October 7).
And it is precisely these proxies that Israel is trying to liquidate. In this new phase of the conflict, Tel Aviv opened a multiple front, attacking all three Iranian-backed militias simultaneously: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthis in Yemen.
The Israeli offensive already goes beyond the simple response to the bloody Hamas attack and is part of a broader strategy with new objectives: to definitively dominate Gaza, contain Lebanon and, ultimately, stop the nuclear program Iranian and even intervene in Syria.
Either way, The Jewish state seems destined to attack in self-defense. The very entry into Lebanon aims to expand its security perimeter, to eliminate the risk of a possible new 7-O posed by Hezbollah’s infrastructure at the border, and thus to allow civilians to return to the northern Israel.
This approach to neutralizing threats to the country’s security is what motivates the Israeli armed forces. We cannot say that Israel wants a regional war with Iran.which would cause a lot of damage even if its military capabilities are clearly superior to those of the Islamic Republic (and Iran is not interested in an escalation that it knows it would lose).
The disproportion of its operations seeks instead to install intense coercion which will serve to impose a strong deterrent against its enemies with the aim of delaying the next war.
But this approach inevitably meant an escalation that has brought the Middle East to the most critical moment in its recent history. Aspiring to redefine the regional order can generate unforeseen and uncontrollable dynamics.
Israel is not pursuing a full-scale conflict with Iran, but is apparently pushing the United States to discourage Tehran by threatening to disable its nuclear program, a goal that appears to be on the horizon. Benjamin Netanyahu.
But the opposite effect could also be obtained: Iran would rethink its defense policy. Until now, the Ayatollah regime has acted through the “axis of resistance”. But as it is quickly dismantled by Israel, Tehran can explore a new strategy of (nuclear) deterrence or direct intervention.
No one can doubt that the Islamic theocracy is the aggressor. But Netanyahu, whose military objectives converge not always clearly with national and personal political interests, is being reckless in his project to create a new balance of power in the Middle East. The ambitions to change the status quo geopolitics always carries risksbecause they can have undesirable consequences and have a limited duration.
