search
Jonathan Meta

From Escalation to Reorganization: Israel’s Path Forward

A handout photo released by his office on October 26, 2024, shows Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF commanders in the bunker below the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv. (Avi Ohayun/GPO)

In the early hours of October 26, Israel conducted a series of airstrikes against military targets in Iran, including missile production sites, air defense systems, and surface-to-surface missile launchers. The coordinated strikes, which lasted over three hours, took place in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam provinces, with reports also emerging of attacks in Syria and Iraq. Israel framed the operation as a response to ongoing Iranian aggression, while the US. closely informed of the plans, expressed support for the strikes but cautioned against further escalation.

Israel faced two main strategic options: escalate with large-scale military action, including potential strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or choose a coordinated, measured response. Escalation carried significant risks, such as regional isolation and the inability to manage a widespread Iranian counterattack without regional defense agreements. Instead, Israel opted for a coordinated response, targeting military sites to weaken Iran’s capabilities while avoiding a broader war. This choice allowed Israel to align with US interests, maintain international support, and address domestic pressures for de-escalation amid a prolonged conflict.

Escalation posed significant risks for Israel, including potential regional isolation and overwhelming military challenges. Without defense agreements with neighboring countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE, Israel would be left to defend against a large-scale Iranian retaliation primarily on its own soil. Striking Iran’s nuclear facilities could provoke a broader conflict, potentially drawing other regional players into war. Additionally, Israel’s military, already strained from over a year of conflict, faced logistical challenges in sustaining an extended campaign without strong international support, making escalation a high-risk option with uncertain outcomes.

Reorganization was the more viable choice for Israel given its current military, diplomatic, and domestic challenges. The military was strained from extended conflict, facing ammunition shortages and fatigue, making a large-scale escalation unsustainable. Diplomatically, aligning with US efforts to stabilize the region was crucial to avoid regional isolation, especially as Iran strengthened ties with neighboring countries. Domestically, there was significant pressure to end a costly war that had displaced thousands and caused economic strain. A coordinated response allowed Israel to manage these factors, maintain international support, and focus on targeted military objectives without escalating further.

While Israel made the decision on how and when to attack, two diplomatic forces entered into play.

Iran, for one, has taken advantage of recent diplomatic opportunities to strengthen its regional influence, engaging in a series of high-level meetings across the Middle East. The country’s foreign minister recently visited Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and other states, advocating for unity against Israel’s military actions. Iran also deepened military cooperation with key regional players, planning joint drills with Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea and enhancing ties with Oman and Lebanon. These efforts coincided with Iran’s participation in the BRICS summit, signaling a shift towards broader geopolitical alliances. By fostering closer relations with neighboring countries, Iran aims to build a coalition that can counterbalance Israel’s influence and potentially deter direct conflict, while reinforcing its role as a central regional power amid ongoing tensions.

On the other side, following Sinwar’s elimination, the US pursued diplomatic efforts aimed at stabilizing the region, engaging key players like Jordan, the UAE, and Lebanon. Secretary of State Antony Blinken pushed for a ceasefire in Gaza and emphasized humanitarian aid while stressing the need for a broader resolution, including the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon. The US viewed the opportunity as a potential path toward normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which could pave the way for larger regional stability efforts. This strategy also sought to reduce tensions with Iran while boosting diplomatic support for a Palestinian state.

It’s no surprise that the key players remain the same in ongoing diplomatic efforts, as all are navigating between two emerging power blocs: the Western powers and the Russia-China-Iran axis. Each country is listening to proposals and seeking out which side aligns best with its interests, adding complexity to regional diplomacy. The recent meeting between Abbas and Putin at the BRICS summit highlights this balancing act. Abbas discussed the Palestinian push for statehood and ongoing efforts to halt Israeli aggression, signaling a strategy to engage both Western and Eastern powers for broader international support.

The US faces high geopolitical stakes in the Middle East as the November 5th election approaches. With one of the closest races in recent history, stabilizing the region could provide a diplomatic win for the Democrats, particularly for Kamala Harris. Achieving a ceasefire, advancing normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and laying groundwork for a Palestinian state would help demonstrate effective leadership on foreign policy. Additionally, calming tensions with Iran could reduce the risk of a broader conflict, aligning with US interests in maintaining regional stability and securing support from allies.

At the same time, Israel is facing important domestic and military pressures. Over a year of continuous military operations has taken a significant toll on the Israeli army’s readiness. Troops are facing fatigue from extended deployments, and equipment has suffered from overuse. There are concerns about ammunition shortages, which could limit the military’s ability to sustain further large-scale engagements. Winter is approaching, making southern Lebanon a hostile environment for ground operations, while in Gaza, Hamas has shifted to guerrilla tactics that become more challenging for Israeli forces during the colder months, further complicating military efforts and strategy.

Internal pressure is mounting in Israel to end the war, driven by economic strain and a society growing weary of prolonged conflict. The war has displaced over 60,000 people, and the government faces criticism over its handling of the 101 hostages still held in Gaza. The economic toll, including disruptions to businesses and increased defense spending, has further fueled public discontent. Many Israelis question the war’s objectives, especially as Western allies voice concerns over a lack of a clear exit strategy, intensifying calls for a resolution.

At a diplomatic level, Israel is facing a growing legitimacy crisis in the West, as international support for its military actions has significantly declined since October 7th, 2023. Initially, there was widespread sympathy for Israel’s response to Hamas’s attack. However, the continued military operations, rising civilian casualties in Gaza, and lack of a clear exit strategy have eroded that support. Western governments, including some close allies, now openly call for a ceasefire, impose arms embargoes, and express doubts about Israel’s war objectives. This shift in sentiment complicates Israel’s efforts to maintain diplomatic backing while pursuing its military goals.

On the other side, Iran may avoid direct conflict due to pressing economic priorities and the need to stabilize under President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration. The country faces mounting financial stress, with the economy reeling from conflict-related disruptions, inflation, and a depreciating currency. Public discontent has surged, driven by economic hardship and frustration with the government’s foreign policy, which prioritizes regional proxies over domestic needs. The administration’s focus remains on improving economic conditions and reducing tensions to facilitate potential relief from sanctions. This strategic hesitation reflects Iran’s broader effort to avoid further economic and social instability amid ongoing regional tensions.

Also, Iran’s ongoing nuclear ambitions significantly influence its military decisions. The pursuit of a nuclear program serves as a means for deterrence, aiming to enhance Iran’s strategic position against perceived threats, especially from Israel and Western powers. While Iranian leaders emphasize the program’s peaceful intent, military developments surrounding missile technology suggest an interest in maintaining leverage over adversaries. Current escalations with Israel may delay a direct military approach, as Iran seeks to advance its nuclear capabilities without provoking an all-out confrontation. The nuclear ambitions drive a careful balance between pursuing deterrence and avoiding actions that could trigger preemptive strikes.

In that manner, after the attack was carried out by Israel, the question now is what can happen in the future. If Netanyahu is a rational player, then there is only one possible scenario: the 14-day ceasefire proposed by Egypt (and supported by the United States) aligns with Netanyahu’s interests by offering a chance to claim victories on multiple fronts. It would allow him to consolidate gains from recent military actions against Iran’s allies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, framing these as successes that weakened Israel’s adversaries. The ceasefire could also facilitate the return of some hostages, addressing a major public concern and boosting his domestic standing. Additionally, it provides an opportunity to regain international legitimacy by aligning with calls for humanitarian pauses, thus improving relations with Western allies amid mounting criticism of Israel’s military operations.

The proposed 14-day ceasefire could provide significant diplomatic benefits for the US administration ahead of the November 5th election. Achieving a ceasefire would allow the Biden administration to showcase its diplomatic efforts in the Middle East as a success, helping to stabilize the region and address humanitarian concerns in Gaza. This outcome could resonate positively with American voters who are concerned about foreign policy and international stability. It would also enhance US credibility by demonstrating effective leadership in mediating complex conflicts, potentially improving the administration’s standing domestically and with key international allies. Additionally, a temporary pause in hostilities could support broader U. objectives, such as advancing normalization efforts between Israel and Saudi Arabia, while possibly laying the groundwork for renewed peace talks involving the Palestinians.

This, of course, brings one of the main themes that have to be taken into account to analyze the possible next step: the presidential elections of November 5th. If Kamala Harris wins, the US would likely renew efforts to stabilize the region through diplomatic initiatives, potentially advancing a two-state solution and deeper Arab-Israeli normalization. The administration would push for a more comprehensive peace process involving a Palestinian state, aiming to integrate regional players into a broad anti-Iran coalition. This approach could result in significant US-led regional stabilization.

Conversely, a Trump victory would prioritize normalization agreements without addressing the Palestinian issue directly. The US would likely offer Saudi Arabia military incentives and civil nuclear cooperation, focusing on bilateral deals, while sidelining Palestinian statehood efforts.

A 14-day ceasefire would provide the US administration with significant diplomatic benefits ahead of the November 5th election, especially in foreign policy, where Trump is currently viewed as stronger according to polls. By facilitating a ceasefire, Netanyahu could give Kamala Harris a crucial boost in her campaign, showcasing a successful democrat US-led diplomacy to stabilize the Middle East. This support would not only improve Harris’s standing but also position Netanyahu favorably in future negotiations with a potential Harris administration. This happens because today, Netanyahu believes he would have more influence under Harris than Trump, who has his own rigid vision for the region.

Israel’s decision to reorganize rather than escalate reflects a strategic effort to navigate the complexities of the regional and international landscape. Faced with military strain, diplomatic isolation risks, and domestic pressures, escalation was too risky. Instead, Israel opted for a coordinated response targeting military sites, aligning with US calls for stability while countering Iranian aggression. This approach allowed Israel to preserve its military readiness, address public demand for conflict resolution, and regain legitimacy in the West. The choice to reorganize shows a calculated effort to balance military objectives with diplomatic opportunities, adapting to shifting regional dynamics.

The real benefit of a potential 14-day ceasefire will become clear after the US election. If Harris wins, it could pave the way for a permanent ceasefire, the return of all the hostages, with US efforts focused on normalizing Israel-Saudi relations, establishing a Palestinian state, and creating a regional bloc against Iran. Conversely, a Trump victory would push for normalization with Saudi Arabia through military deals and civil nuclear cooperation, but without addressing Palestinian statehood. This outcome may return the region to the tensions that existed before October 7th, awaiting the next round of conflict.

The next week will hold significant implications for regional stability and Israel’s future security. Israel decided not to escalate, and now we’ll see if Iran will retaliate or not. If Israel closes the 14-day ceasefire deal on the next days, that retaliation will be improvable to say the least. Then, a sustained peace effort could lead to a new order in the Middle East -as the IDF called its operation that ended with the elimination of Nasrallah-, with stronger alliances against Iran and progress toward resolving the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

However, without addressing the core issues, tensions may resurface, leaving the region prone to further rounds of conflict. For Israel, the outcome will determine whether it can achieve long-term security and diplomatic legitimacy or remain locked in a cycle of military escalation and uncertainty.

About the Author
Jonathan moved to Israel in 2018 (and so became Yoni). He is passionate about Justice, Democracy, and Human Rights, which has been a driving force behind his career path. Jonathan is an international criminal lawyer and Managing Partner at Metaiuris Law Offices. He holds a J.D. from Buenos Aires University (2017) and an M.A in Diplomacy Studies from Tel Aviv University (2021). Also, he is the host of the Spanish speaking radio show of Kan, Israel's Public Broadcasting Corporation.
Related Topics
Related Posts