Broadening the Conflict: Pressuring Iran to Resolve Israel’s Hostage Dilemma

Today, at Reichman University’s World Summit on Counterterrorism, I had the opportunity to hear the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Ambassador Roger Carstens speak. During his discussion on historic hostage negotiations and prisoner exchanges, he referenced a concept he termed “broadening the conflict.” This strategy involves bringing additional parties into negotiations, thereby adding complexity and creating more opportunities to apply pressure on the captors, ultimately generating greater diplomatic leverage.

This concept made me reflect on Israel’s impending response to Iran’s October 1 missile assault. Israel undoubtedly has the right and obligation to retaliate, but this must be done with strategic foresight rather than a rash impulse.

Although President Biden has rejected striking Iran’s nuclear sites, short of that option, Israel should demand that Iran secure the release of the remaining 101 hostages held by Hamas and threaten devastating strikes against them if they fail to do so. This approach would serve as Israel’s next best alternative, given that Iran orchestrated the October 7 massacre and thus bears equal responsibility with Hamas for the safety and well-being of the hostages.

It is essential to recognize what Israel has lost: global support and deterrence.

Global Support: Israel has seen a decline in international backing. A clear example is French President Macron’s recent call for a halt in arms deliveries to Israel, also seen by Germany and the UK.

Deterrence: Israel’s deterrent power against Iran has waned. Over the last seven months, Iran has launched more than 500 ballistic missiles and drones at Israel. Not counting the actions taken by the Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other small, ankle-biting terrorist factions.

Iran remains undeterred despite knowing that Israel has the capability to strike seemingly any target within its borders.

This was evidenced by Israel’s response to the April missile barrage, where they successfully targeted an air defense system at the Natanz Nuclear Facility, with one missile hitting their most sacred site—sending a clear message. Additionally, Israel demonstrated its capabilities by assassinating Ismail Haniyeh with a bomb placed in an IRGC guesthouse months prior to his arrival.

Despite these acts, Iran proceeded to launch another 200 missiles following these events, indicating that they are not deterred.

Israel should ‘broaden the conflict’ by demanding that Iran pressure Hamas into releasing the remaining 101 hostages and failure to do so will result in relentless precision strikes on Iran, similar to those that decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. These demands should be communicated through U.S. diplomatic channels to ensure broader support and convey the gravity of Israel’s response.

If Iran rejects this demand or fails to facilitate the release of the hostages from Hamas, the U.S. would have a stronger case to support Israel’s direct military action against Iran. Additionally, this approach could exploit the growing tensions between Iran and its proxies, whose relationships are already strained by the lack of overt Iranian support as Hamas and Hezbollah face their own existential crises. By intensifying this pressure, Israel has the potential to weaken the alignment between Iran and these groups.

This strategy could yield four significant outcomes: the return of the hostages, de-escalation of the regional conflict, unification of the Israeli public, and a demonstration to the world that Israel is not the warmongering bully it is made out to be.

While Iran is not yet deterred, they are certainly afraid. They know Israel has the capability to hit them hard. They know Israel has the intention to hit them hard. But they seem willing to absorb the impending blows as Israel edges closer to diplomatic isolation. Iran sees Israel’s demise as a slow death, drawn out over years, while Israel’s response is carried out as though its demise is imminent.

The next move belongs to Israel. It can escalate either responsibly or irresponsibly. Given the global context—both from its allies and enemies—Israel faces a challenging position. However, within this challenge lies an opportunity to bring the hostages home and de-escalate the region. It is crucial that this opportunity is not squandered.